Understanding Catholicism/ Dialogue with other (purification, beliefs, hell, doctrine)

[sojourner]

"We who are many are one Body in Christ, and individually members one of another," Romans 12:5.
"We're members of His Body," Ephesians 5:30.
"Even as the body's one and has many members, yet all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also's Christ. For also in one Spirit we were all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and were all given to drink one Spirit. For the body's not one member but many," 1 Corinthians 12:12-14.

"Those then who received his word were baptized, and there were added on that day about three thousand soulls. And they continued steadfastly in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in the breaking of bread and the prayers...and day by day, continuing steadfastly with one accord...breaking bread from house to house...and the Lord added together day by day those who were being saved," Acts 2:42, 46-47.
Tho breakin bread and serving wine aren't really a "theology." They're a practice.

None of these passages indicates the practice of "everybody is called to a representative ministry." Catholics use these passages, too, but understand them to indicate that the ministry is of the whole Church.

It's not! It's an act of the whole Church, carried out representatively by the priest.
My little point's that, per the NT, this act can be carried out by any priest, viz: any believer into the Lord Jesus

But the act was originally carried out by a presbyter -- not a "priest."

It would be both unwieldy and antithetical to have every member of the congregation present take turns at breaking the bread.
To the contrary: t'woodn't. Since the Lord's Table's done weekly at least

What I meant was, have every member physically share in breaking the bread at one time. That's the only way you can circumvent the aspect of "representative ministry." The Church has always had a presbyter break the bread on its behalf, which is not the same thing as a priest breaking the bread.

[writer]

None of these passages indicates the practice of "everybody is called to a representative ministry."
Breaking bread and passing out wine aren't "a ministry"

Catholics use these passages, too, but understand them to indicate that the ministry is of the whole Church.
i use them to show that all believers r members and that any member may and can break bread and pass out wine for the Lord's Supper

But the act was originally carried out by a presbyter -- not a "priest."
The Church has always had a presbyter break the bread on its behalf, which is not the same thing as a priest breaking the bread.
To the contrary, as Ac 2 indicates: Biblically one needn't be elder or an elder to break bread and serve wine for the Lord's Supper.
And since all elders among believers in the NT are believers,
all presbyters (elders) are NT priests

What I meant was, have every member physically share in breaking the bread at one time.
i suppose if it's a home meetin or small group. Thanks

[sojourner]

Breaking bread and passing out wine aren't "a ministry"

OH?!? What is it, then, if not ministry??? (there's more to it than just breaking bread and distributing wine...)

i use them to show that all believers r members and that any member may and can break bread and pass out wine for the Lord's Supper

But that's not what those passages concern themselves with...

as Ac 2 indicates:

First of all, I'm not sure that the bread-breaking described in 46-47 is with regard to the Eucharist. Secondly, Acts does not specifically tell us that presbyters didn't break the bread on behalf of the Church, and I'm not sure we can imply that they didn't by this passage.

i suppose if it's a home meetin or small group.

Your perspective is different than that of the early Church. To the early Christians (as well as to Catholics today), there was only one Eucharist. That one Eucharist was celebrated (simultaneously) in several locations by several groups of the one Body. It was the unity of the Eucharist that made real the unity of the Church. Therefore, if anything, it makes more sense that the presbyters, who were in charge of the individual congregations, should break the "one loaf" on behalf of everyone.

The individual house churches didn't see themselves as independent. They thought of themselves as part of the whole. They didn't celebrate their own little Eucharist. What they celebrated was the one Eucharist, along with every other congregation.

[writer]

Your perspective is different than that of the early Church.
To the contrary: the earliest church (Pentecost) day by day broke bread from house to house in Acts 2:46.
Apparently reference to 3 sentences earlier (2:42) where it's listed with teachin and fellowhip o' apostles and the prayers. Indicatin more than merely a common meal. Tho that's wonderful too

it makes more sense that the presbyters, who were in charge of the individual congregations, should break the "one loaf" on behalf of everyone.
To the contrary: 3,000 jus received the Lord on Pentecost (2:41), and apparently another 5,000 or 2,000 shortly thereafter (4:4). To say nothin of those added daily (2:47). Nor, as u point out, are these independent congregations or house churches. There was only the one church in Jerusalem.
One city, one church.
Rv 2-3; Ac 14:23; Titus 1:5; etc.
Nor is there such a formality, legalism, or impracticallity in the NT that only presbyters break the bread at the Lord's Supper.
Nor is such legalism or egoism or performance mentality part of the apostles' practice and pattern in the NT.
Nor would there be as many elders as homes of the thousands of new saints.
Merci

[athanasius]

writer is incorrect about the priesthood and elders


"And the prophet of the Lord God said; Thus Saith the Lord to the Isrealites, go and exult yourself a priest and Pope named Athanasius. He will be a God to you and he will teach you all truth and know that I am with him and you. and also know that Writer is absolutley wrong."(2 Smurfett 5:17-19)

"And I saw one like the Son of Man coming down from the clouds. And behold he spoke to me saying these wise words; 'know then my people that I am coming for you and will lead you always, but stay away from the false teachings of writer for he is head of the nicolatians and his bloood is mixed with that of the great beast. Be not decieved, god is not mocked. Ye I say to you unless you stay away from writer amd his teachings you shall not inherit the kingdom of God"(2 Rev 3:14-21)

"If your hand causes you to follow writer cut it off, for it is better for you to enter heaven with one hand then hell with a hand that followed writer"(1 nintendo 6:3-4)

All of these quotations from our Lord should be enought to clear things up.

[sojourner]

To the contrary: 3,000 jus received the Lord on Pentecost (2:41), and apparently another 5,000 or 2,000 shortly thereafter (4:4). To say nothin of those added daily (2:47). Nor, as u point out, are these independent congregations or house churches. There was only the one church in Jerusalem.
One city, one church.

Where do you think these 10,000 people worshiped? There was no Superdome in Jerusalem. They worshiped in homes and in synagogues. They saw themselves as one Church, because that is what the Church is -- one -- even though they worshiped in several groups in several places. That's why it was so important that the Eucharist be comprised of one loaf. That's why Paul said that, "We, who are many, are one Body, because we all share one bread, one cup."

And, of course these groups had leaders that were responsible for them -- presbyters. And it would have naturally followed that the minister who represented them would represent their action in the breaking of the one loaf. It's neither legalism nor egoism. The office of presbyter is a humble office. The driving force behind the representative ministry of the presbyter wasn't legalistic, it was spiritual. It's not that the presbyter was seen as the "only one who could," but was seen as the "one who we've chosen to act on our behalf."

[writer]

106 homes
thas tru

synagogues.
thas apparently inaccurate since a) Luke doesn't use such a term for the saints' meetings in Acts; b) Judaism the Jewish religious establishment cast out the Lord and His saints in the Gospels and Acts and following history; and c) that was so even though James and many Jewish believers in Jerusalem and Israel may have regarded themselves as another synagogue (Jm 2:2) and part of Judaism

And, of course these groups had leaders that were responsible for them -- presbyters.
Leading ones in the various homes in the church in Jerusalem surely included some designated ones and elders and the apostles, but neither necessarily, nor probably all so, since the church appears to have utilized many (100s, 1000s) of the saints' homes

And it would have naturally followed that the minister who represented them would represent their action in the breaking of the one loaf.
i find your statement's error to be that it superimposes today's, a later, or the religion of that day (Judaism)'s clerical system or religiosity on the record of the churches in Acts.
God seeks human contact. Direct. Worship in spirit and in reality. This is the spontaneous and direct opposite of mediatorial or representative worship. Which is the speciality and characteristic of fallen, sinful, human religion. Whatever it's form, name, or guise.
To suggest that only the leader(s) can break bread for the Supper meeting is both unnecessary and abject, and pure Nicolaitanism, mediatorialism, superficiality, and religiosity. Which things the Lord dislikes (Rv 2:6, 15; cf 1 Cor 14:24, 26, 31; Eph 4:16).
Nor is breaking the bread of the Lord's Table so technical, or difficult, or formal, or religious, or specialized, or compicated, that any young believer in Christ couldn't do is too

representative ministry...act on our behalf
Any believer in the Lord, in a given situation, can and may "represent" the rest, and break bread and serve the wine for them, in the NT pattern and church.
Thanks

[sojourner]

thas apparently inaccurate since a) Luke doesn't use such a term for the saints' meetings in Acts;

But Jesus and his followers did worship in the Temple and in synagogues. We have Biblical record of that. The eraly Church conseidered herself to be a Jewish sect. The early believers went to synagogue and then met together afterward -- until the Jews later cordially invited them not to come back.

God seeks human contact. Direct. Worship in spirit and in reality. This is the spontaneous and direct opposite of mediatorial or representative worship.

I disagree. The Acts quotation from Chapter 2 deals with the liturgical worship of the early Church, albeit in a truncated fashion. This was the worship that informed the later worship, of which we do have detailed record.

Nor is breaking the bread of the Lord's Table so technical, or difficult, or formal, or religious, or specialized, or compicated, that any young believer in Christ couldn't do is too

Nobody said it had to be. "Complicated/simple" isn't the issue here. "Sacramental" is the issue. It's sacramental because it represents the presence of Christ with us -- not because it has to be some technical thing.

Any believer in the Lord, in a given situation, can and may "represent" the rest, and break bread and serve the wine for them, in the NT pattern and church.

And every member does represent the rest! But certain ministries have always been set aside for those who are set aside for special ministry. That's my stand.

[writer]

Jesus and his followers did worship in the Temple and in synagogues.
To the contrary concerning our Lord (and most of His followers): He IS, and we ARE the Temple (Jn 2:19; 1 Tim 3:15; Eph 2:20-22), His Body; He thus replaces the Old Testament type; He left the OT temple and told His disciples so (Mt 23:37-24:2), and He visited there a few times, and synagogues, just to preach the gospel.
Like Paul did later.
As for any mistake on Peter and John's and a few others' part in visiting, or thinking to continue visiting, there in Acts: the Lord turned it by causing them to preach the gospel also (Acts 3). With the result of their persecution by the religious ones and authorities (Ac 4).
Perhaps (hopefully) that was the only time they wasted their time there. Later, James the brother of Jesus, suffered even more from his confusion of old covenant with new; and other Jewish saints in Jerusalem did too. So much so that even Paul succumbed to their folly in Ac 21. And would've completed a Jewish vow there had Jesus His God not sovereignly interrupted that whole thing. Which again, marvellously, turned into an opportunity to witness boldly for the resurrected Nazarene (Ac 21-22).

We have Biblical record of that.
above, in blue

The eraly Church conseidered herself to be a Jewish sect.
Some, as James a prime example, apparently did.
But Paul and those who received his ministry of the new covenant, and the Gentile believers generally, were very clear of exactly the opposite. So that mostly-speaking, your sentence above's inaccurate.
Philip 3:1-11; Gal 6:15; 4:1-5:12; 3:28 "there cannot be Jew nor Greek; 2:14; 1:1-24; Rm 2:28-29; etc

The early believers went to synagogue
Paul?
Yes, in cities. Deliberately to preach. Not to join himself to their service.

the Jews later cordially invited them not to come back.
cf Ac 4:1-31

The Acts quotation from Chapter 2 deals with the liturgical worship of the early Church,
What, may i ask u, do u mean by "liturgical"?

"Sacramental" is the issue. It's sacramental because it represents...
So your word "sacramental" means "sign, representation"?
That's what "symbol" means. So "sacramental" and "symbol" mean the same thing, apparently, as u use them

not because it has to be some technical thing.
Thas my littl' point. Any believer may and can in the Lord breaking the bread and serving wine at and for the Lord's Table

And every member does represent the rest!
Okay. Becuz they're believes. For instance, i wouldn't have an unbeliever either break, or receive, the bread or wine. But, for instance, when the Lord gave the loaf and wine the night b4 His death, representation wasn't (and still isn't) the issue. Rather obedience and the symbol was. The symbols are the illustration. Not the person breaking or serving

But certain ministries have always been set aside for those who are set aside for special ministry. That's my stand.
i believe i comprehend that dear brother. My only point was that breaking bread and serving the wine for the Supper in the NT are not a "special ministry."
Thanks