kjv4me2you
Member
sorry about the repeat.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mary mother of God
- Thread starter kjv4me2you
- Start date
sorry about the repeat.
Nada
#
Exactly.
kjv4me2you
Member
chlotilde
Madame Curie
What a charmer you are Bible Student...
Best answer on here, lol.While some may dislike we give answers using "some else's word". I don't understand when people throw out nothing but Bible verses like I am supposed to understand what they mean by throwing out all those verses, because, surprise surprise, I read those same verses. I have always felt like just saying, Amen.
Nada
#
What a charmer you are Bible Student...
While some may dislike we give answers using "some else's word". I don't understand when people throw out nothing but Bible verses like I am supposed to understand what they mean by throwing out all those verses, because, surprise surprise, I read those same verses. I have always felt like just saying, Amen.
kepha31
Active Member
Scripture is the PRIMARY source for Catholic doctrine, contrary to what you have been told, or have assumed. The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus saves us, (which makes your charge so foolish) that's why Jesus commissioned the Apostles: TO TEACH. To facilitate this command, succession is required, which you deny. In fact, you deny a Magisterium ever existed in the first place, contrary to the Bible and the witness of history. There are no "doctrines of men" that didn't originate from the Deposit of Faith, that's just another thoughtless flaming zinger you borrowed from other anti-Catholics.
Not so fast.
1541 The liturgy of the Church, however, sees in the priesthood of Aaron and the service of the Levites, as in the institution of the seventy elders,11 a prefiguring of the ordained ministry of the New Covenant. Thus in the Latin Rite the Church prays in the consecratory preface of the ordination of bishops:
You can get the whole thing on line. Click on 1541 above. The catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church's Magisterium. It is intended to serve "as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries". [CCC #15]
This catechism is conceived as an organic presentation of the Catholic faith in its entirety. It should be seen therefore as a unified whole. [CCC #18]
...A point of reference...a unified whole...The catechism is a means to an end, you think it is an end in itself...sad.
The catechism says the same thing, so your grounds for objecting to it are unfounded.:
1544 Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God and men."15 The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, "priest of God Most High," as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique "high priest after the order of Melchizedek";16 "holy, blameless, unstained,"17 "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,"18 that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.
1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ's priesthood: "Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers."19
Two participations in the one priesthood of Christ
1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father."20 The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood."21
1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, "each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ." While being "ordered one to another," they differ essentially.22 In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit--, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.
1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ's priesthood: "Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers."19
Two participations in the one priesthood of Christ
1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father."20 The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood."21
1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, "each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ." While being "ordered one to another," they differ essentially.22 In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit--, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.
Wow, one mediator, common priesthood...who knew?
Golly, thars scripture in them thar footnotes:
15 2 Tim 2:5.
16 Heb 5:10; cf. 6:20; Gen 14:18.
17 Heb 7:26.
18 Heb 10:14.
19 St. Thomas Aquinas, Hebr. 8,4.
20 Rev 1:6; cf. Rev 5:9-10; 1 Pet 2:5,9.
21 LG 10 § 1.
22 LG 10 § 2.
All Christians are priests YES
Jesus is our high Priest YES
no Scriptural support for a ministerial priesthood? I gave them previously.
Exodus 28:1 and 19:6 – shows the three offices of the Old Testament priesthood
(1). high priest – Aaron (Ex. 28:1);
(2). Ministerial priests – Aaron’s sons (Ex. 19:6; 28:1); and
(3). Universal priests – Israel (Ex. 19:6).
The New Testament priesthood also has three offices:
(1) High Priest – Jesus Christ (Heb. 3:1);
(2) Ministerial priests – the ordained bishops and priests
(Rom. 15:16; 1 Tim. 3:1,8; 5:17; Titus 1:7); and
(3) Universal priests - all the baptized (1 Pet. 2:5,9; Rev. 1:6).
Last edited:
kepha31
Active Member
John 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”27Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
With regard to John 19:26-27), we must first note that the composition of St. John's Gospel is quite unusual. It is told in the first person as the eyewitness account of one called the "beloved disciple" who is never named. It seems obvious from the context that this disciple is St. John , son of Zebedee. Some scholars have contested this but it seems clear to me, to the majority of modern scholars, and to the Catholic Tradition.
Most modern scholars who comment on this Gospel think that the unnamed first person narrator is done for a LITERARY purpose. That is, the reader is intended to project himself into that role so that he can experience what it was like to be in the presence of Jesus. As such, statements made to the "beloved disciple" by Jesus were intended by the author to be addressed to the reader. An example of this is where Jesus said that the beloved disciple might even tarry until he returns (John 21:22). This is telling the reader that Jesus could return at the very time that he is reading this Gospel.
So, when Jesus gives his mother Mary to the care of that Beloved Disciple, he is giving her to everyone who reads this Gospel as his or her mother.
This is sound biblical theology. It also conforms to the universal understanding of the Church down through the Centuries. It is only denied by those who do not want to reach this conclusion because of (insert opinion here)
With regard to John 19:26-27), we must first note that the composition of St. John's Gospel is quite unusual. It is told in the first person as the eyewitness account of one called the "beloved disciple" who is never named. It seems obvious from the context that this disciple is St. John , son of Zebedee. Some scholars have contested this but it seems clear to me, to the majority of modern scholars, and to the Catholic Tradition.
Most modern scholars who comment on this Gospel think that the unnamed first person narrator is done for a LITERARY purpose. That is, the reader is intended to project himself into that role so that he can experience what it was like to be in the presence of Jesus. As such, statements made to the "beloved disciple" by Jesus were intended by the author to be addressed to the reader. An example of this is where Jesus said that the beloved disciple might even tarry until he returns (John 21:22). This is telling the reader that Jesus could return at the very time that he is reading this Gospel.
So, when Jesus gives his mother Mary to the care of that Beloved Disciple, he is giving her to everyone who reads this Gospel as his or her mother.
This is sound biblical theology. It also conforms to the universal understanding of the Church down through the Centuries. It is only denied by those who do not want to reach this conclusion because of (insert opinion here)
katiemygirl
CHRISTIAN
Not true! Scripture is not the catholic church's PRIMARY SOURCE. Catholic tradition has always been elevated above the Scriptures. The catholic religion contradicts the Scriptures repeatedly and it adds to the word of God.
1 & 3 are truth.
2 is not!
The verses you cited do not show that there are 2 classes of priests, a ministerial and universal. ALL Christians are part of the ministerial priesthood, and ALL are part of the universal priesthood of Jesus Christ.
There is NOTHING in these verses which show a separation between what the RCC calls the ministerial and universal priesthood. There is only ONE priesthood, and YOU, ME, the apostles, elders, deacons, and ALL Christians have been chosen by Jesus Christ to be ministers and priests in ONE priesthood, not two. Peter was writing to ALL Christians in 1 Pet. 2:5,9, and not a separate class of Christians. We are all equal even though we have different roles in His church. Jesus preached repeatedly that no one is greater than another in His kingdom, which is the church. We are all equal. Paul reiterated that fact in Gal. 3:27.
Romans 15:16 is about Paul, who was chosen by Jesus to be a minister. He was given the priestly duty of bringing the gospel to the Gentiles.
YOU also have been chosen to be a priest, just as ALL Christians have been (1 Peter 2:5, 9). YOU have been given a priestly duty to preach the gospel to every nation (Matthew 28:18-20).
The apostle Paul was in a ministerial and universal priesthood just as YOU are. All Christians are ministers, and ALL have the priestly duty to preach the gospel, etc.
1 Tim. 3:1, 8
The office of elder/shepherd/overseer/presbyter/Bishop/Pastor (all mean the same thing) is a position that is aspired to. It is a man's choice to become an elder. He must desire it, and he must meet the qualifications. NOT ONE WORD here is said about a middle priesthood. Verse 8 speaks only about the qualification of deacons. Elders and deacons are offices within the church structure, held by men who desire the position.
1 Tim.5:17 Not a word is mentioned here about a separation between a ministerial priesthood and a universal priesthood. They are exactly the same thing. This verse simply says elders are worthy of double honor because of their teaching and preaching.
Titus 1:7 gives the qualification of elders. It says NOTHING about two separate priesthoods, a minisrerial and a universal.
There is one priesthoid, in which ALL Christians belong to. Each of us has a different role to play. Some are elders. Some are deacons. Some work in soup kitchens. Some visit the sick, while others visit those in prison. There is only ONE priesthood.
The catholic church has created two classes of priests where the New Testament church has only one.
Study the word of God if you want truth. Read the verses you cited, in their context for yourself. The RCC has cited verses, but didn't quote them. It's obvious why they don't, and it's not due to space. They see a word such as priest in a verse, and then claim the verse supports their position. That only works with people who are too lazy to study the Scriptures for themselves. It doesn't word with those who truly seek truth. Those people search the Scriptures daily to see if what is being said is true.
Last edited:
katiemygirl
CHRISTIAN
If it's not in the Bible, it is the doctrine of men.
Please QUOTE the verses which say apostolic succession was to continue throughout all time. Why wasn't the apostle James replaced after he'd been killed with the sword? Where do we read about his successor?
Magisterium? Where's that in the NT?
The RCC heirarchy consists of Pope, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, and priests. Please QUOTE verses in Scripture which support this doctrine.
As I have already pointed out, elder/shepherd/pastor/bishop/presbyter, overseer all mean exactly the same thing.
In the New Testament church, a plurality of elders were appointed by the apostles to oversee each local congregation. Deacons were chosen to serve the church. There was never just one bishop or pastor over a congregation or over a group of congregations. And there certainly was no Pope.
The role of the elders was to shepherd the flock, to protect them from false teachers, to nurture them in the word of God, and to uphold the doctrine of Jesus Christ and His apostles. Their role did NOT include making new doctrine EVER. Members of the Lord's church were to submit to the authority of the elders insofar as the word of God was concerned.
Not once did Jesus speak well about the traditions of men. Neither did Paul as he said in Colossians 2:8
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, AND NOT AFTER CHRIST.”
Traditions can never be an alternative or of equal value to what God has spoken and written down for all generations to live by.
katiemygirl
CHRISTIAN
Cop Out! Even you can't explain it.
Well that's too bad because I really was hoping you could tell me why the catholic church keeps offering Jesus as a sacrifice everytime they have mass. Apparently they didn't get the memo that Jesus died ONCE FOR ALL. Seems like the catholics are killingJesus over and over again.
kepha31
Active Member
That is a dogmatic statement that cannot be found in the Bible. We know that human cloning is immoral, so is it a "doctrine of men" too? Again, there are no "doctrines of men" in the Catholic Church, that's just a handy catch phrase in anti-Catholic circles. You keep repeating "doctrines of men" but don't give an example.
James, the first bishop of Jerusalem, was succeeded by Symeon.
St. Symeon is mentioned in Acts 13:1 More on Symeon here.
Back to succession. God is the source of this mission and authority.
He passes it to Jesus ("the Father has sent me... all authority has been given to me")
Jesus passes it on - along with "all authority" to act "in my name" - to the Apostles ("as the Father has sent me, [i.e., in the same way and with the same authority] so I send you," "go and make disciples")
The Apostles pass the mission and authority on to men like St. Timothy and St. Titus ("with all authority" Tit 2:15)
The second apostolic generation is expected to entrust the mission to the next generation, ad infinitum...
It is this last point that we must now unpack and develop a bit further. The first generation of Apostles takes care to not only pass along the message, but also creates new pastors with apostolic authority to continue transmitting the message:
"And when they [Ss. Paul and Barnabus] had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed." (Acts 14:23)
"This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you." (Tit. 1:5)
"...and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim. 2:2)
Note once again the appearance of the word "entrust" in this last passage. St. Paul expects that St. Timothy will "guard what has been entrusted" to him, and then later "entrust" that same mission and authority "to faithful men."
There can be no other reason why St. Paul would leave his two spiritual "sons" (Ss. Titus and Timothy) explicit instructions about the qualifications for overseers, elders, bishops, etc. (c.f. 1 Tim 3:1-7, Tit. 1:5-9), than that he expects them to confer apostolic authority on new men who meet those requirements.
By What Authority - A Challenge to Protestant Pastors
Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine "office." An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it's not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.
Eph. 2:20 - the Christian faith is built upon the foundation of the apostles. The word "foundation" proves that it does not die with apostles, but carries on through succession.
Mattew 28:16 Meanwhile the eleven disciples set out for Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had arranged to meet them...
Clearly, Jesus is addressing the Eleven who hold a special office, not individual believers.
19 Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
How did the Eleven reach "all nations" without successors? It's a big planet. Did they "make disciples of all nations" using jet planes and helicopters? By the time of the death of the last Apostle, did they literally preach to all nations??? Were they disobedient to Jesus' command? Denial of apostolic succession is absurd.
The testimony of the early Church is deafening in its unanimous (yes, unanimous) assertion of apostolic succession. Far from being discussed by only a few, scattered writers, the belief that the apostles handed on their authority to others was one of the most frequently and vociferously defended doctrines in the first centuries of Christianity. The overwhelming evidence is there for anyone who wants to see it.
God has ALWAYS had a Magisterium. In the Old Testament times we had the Chair of Moses that Jesus mentions in Matt 23:2. For the New Covenant a new chair of authority was put into place --- just as was done with the previous four covenants in Old Testament times. This new chair was and is the Chair of Peter (Matt 16, Isa 22:21-23). It was the Magisterium that canonized the books of the Bible, and no amount of revisionism can change that fact.
There aren't any for cardinal, and I am still waiting for a verse that says all practices and doctrines must be explicitly found in the Bible. That is a corrupt man made tradition of men.
Cardinal is not in the Bible, nor does the Church claim the cardinalate to be a biblical, sacramental office. The title of cardinal designates a highly ranked papal assistant and adviser directly appointed by the Pope in a consistory. According to Canon Law, “The cardinals of the Holy Roman Church constitute the senate of the Roman Pontiff and aid him as his chief counselors and collaborators in the government of the Church” (CIC 230).
As a body the cardinals are referred to as the Sacred College of Cardinals, and it is to them (representing the people and clergy of Rome) that the duty falls to elected a new pope (a new Bishop of Rome) upon the death or resignation of the old one.
1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:7 - Christ's Church has bishops ("episkopoi") who are direct successors of the apostles. The bishops can trace the authority conferred upon them back to the apostles.
1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14 - Christ's Church also has elders or priests ("presbyteroi") who serve the bishops.
1 Tim. 3:8 - Christ's Church also has deacons ("diakonoi"). Thus, Jesus Christ's Church has a hierarchy of authority - bishops, priests and deacons, who can all trace their lineage back to Peter and the apostles.
They have different functions, and don't mean the same thing. Your spiritual ancestors abolished the New Testament Priesthood contrary to the Bible and you are stuck defending a corrupt tradition of men.
That's 3 topics. I don't respond to cluster bombs.
It is impossible for the Church to invent new doctrines.
This is anti-Catholic myth making. Jesus condemned the traditions the Jews made up. They were giving all to the Temple at the expense of their parents. Read the context instead of pounding the tradition drum.
Traditions Jesus Followed (Protestant site)
So Paul is teaching against deceitful Catholics? You keep saying there were no Catholics. Make up your mind.
First of all, one might also loosely define Tradition as the authoritative and authentic Christian History of theological doctrines and devotional practices. (you alter this loose definition to suit your agenda) Christianity, like Judaism before it, is fundamentally grounded in history, in the earth-shattering historical events in the life of Jesus Christ (the Incarnation, Miracles, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, etc.). Eyewitnesses (Lk 1:1-2, Acts 1:1-3, 2 Pet 1:16-18) communicated these true stories to the first Christians, who in turn passed them on to other Christians (under the guidance of the Church's authority) down through the ages. Therefore, Christian tradition, defined as authentic Church history, is unavoidable.
Many Protestants read the accounts of Jesus' conflicts with the Pharisees and get the idea that He was utterly opposed to all tradition whatsoever. This is not true. A close reading of passages such as Matthew 15:3-9 and Mark 7: 8-13 will reveal that He only condemned corrupt traditions of men, not tradition per se. He uses qualifying phrases like "your tradition," "commandments of men," "tradition of men," as opposed to "the commandment of God." St. Paul draws precisely the same contrast in Colossians 2:8: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."
It's not an alternative. That's where you have been deceived.
1) 1 Corinthians 11:2: ". . . keep the ordinances, as I delivered {them} to you." (RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB, NKJV, NASB all translate KJV "ordinances" as "tradition{s}").
2) 2 Thessalonians 2:15: ". . . hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
3) 2 Thessalonians 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
Note that St. Paul draws no qualitative distinction between written and oral tradition. There exists no dichotomy in the Apostle's mind which regards oral Christian tradition as bad and undesirable. Rather, this false belief is, ironically, itself an unbiblical "tradition of men."
Last edited:
First, realize that you're your own self-made bishop. Unfortunately, you don't get to do that. And you alone bear the responsibility of assuming that office. If Jesus didn't have apostles, I could support your position. But unfortunately for you, Jesus did have apostles. If Jesus was a one man show, you would be correct and scripture interpretation would be up to the individual. But he wasn't. Jesus conformed to and used the Jewish teaching method. You don't use that method that he took the time to use. Why did Jesus wait until 30? He was a scripture genius at 12 in the temple. Why didn't he start then? You have to be 30 to be a teacher with authority. That can be seen in the NT where it states he was 30 when he began teaching and that he taught as one having authority and not as the scribes. The scribes taught another teacher with authority's interpretation of scripture, not their own.Cop Out! Even you can't explain it.
Well that's too bad because I really was hoping you could tell me why the catholic church keeps offering Jesus as a sacrifice everytime they have mass. Apparently they didn't get the memo that Jesus died ONCE FOR ALL. Seems like the catholics are killingJesus over and over again.
Jesus had talmidim like all Jewish teachers with authority had. Jesus had 12 talmidim. ONLY they were trained in his doctrine. ONLY they were sent forth on their own, unsupervised to teach his doctrine. They were known as the apostles.
Once again using the Jewish teaching method, Jesus gets everything from the Father, Jesus hands off to the apostles and the apostles hand off to their successors. You don't get to change the teaching method used by Jesus just because you think you can read and properly interpret the scriptures. The interpretation of scripture always is the prerogative of the teacher with authority. Jesus stated his yoke was easy and his burden light. What is the yoke? It is a Jewish teacher with authority's interpretation of scripture. Jesus used the Jewish method but you don't?
Now as far as the Mass, it's simple. When you enter the Catholic or Orthodox Church, you enter the eternal now. Jesus is NOT sacrificed over and over. There was one sacrifice, however, it is ALWAYS present in the eternal now smack in the Father's face. It's always going on in the eternal now. Everything is always going on in the eternal now at the same time. The Mass or Divine Liturgy makes present or ties into that one ever present sacrifice in the eternal now in the present time frame/right now for all generations to come. You get to be present at Calvary whenever "You do this in memory of me."
The concept of the eternal now is hard to grasp but one Jewish guy did:
“The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once.”
Albert Einstein
Correct. Cardinals make the election of the pope universal as it is the prerogative of the clergy of Rome to elect their bishop who is also the pope. If there were no cardinals from all over the world, the election of the pope would not be by the universal church, it would be limited to the clergy of the diocese of Rome
chlotilde
Madame Curie
kjv4me2you said: ↑
THISTHREAD IS ABOUT MARY THE MOTHER OF JESUS BEING THE MOTHER OF GOD. PERHAPS WE SHOULD RETURN TO DISCUSSING IT.
Okay, I'm game, because I don't think anyone ever did answer you WHY do Catholics believe XYZ about Mary? I'll give you my answer, in my own personal words even!, lol. But give me some time here. I'll try to get back to you soon! I have a few other more important things I am dealing with.
THISTHREAD IS ABOUT MARY THE MOTHER OF JESUS BEING THE MOTHER OF GOD. PERHAPS WE SHOULD RETURN TO DISCUSSING IT.
Okay, I'm game, because I don't think anyone ever did answer you WHY do Catholics believe XYZ about Mary? I'll give you my answer, in my own personal words even!, lol. But give me some time here. I'll try to get back to you soon! I have a few other more important things I am dealing with.
katiemygirl
CHRISTIAN
Either you misunderstand the New Testament church structure or you have intentionally twisted what I wrote. I am not an elder/bishop/pastor, nor have I ever claimed to be. If a MAN (women do not qualify) is an elder in a congregation, it is because he desired the office. In the NT church, a plurality of elders were appointed by the apostles to oversee the congregation if they met certain qualifications. One of those qualifications was that the men had to be MARRIED. (RCC priests are not married). Once the apostles died off, and elders needed to be replaced, a congregation would have appointed new elders, again, based on qualifications laid down by the Holy Spirit in the word of God. Paul's letters were being circulated to all the congregations in the first century, so they were well aware of the qualifications of elders.
Every member of each congregation was a priest, including the elders and deacons. Elders had authority over the congregation insomuch as the word of God allowed. They were not to go beyond what was written, teaching their own doctrine.
As far as apostolic succession goes, nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of apostolic succession. We have been given one example, and that was Matthias replacing Judas, a godly man for an ungodly one. Notice that Matthias had to have certain qualifications, one being that he had been with Jesus from the beginning and was an eye witness to all that happened. No one today meets these qualifications. The concept of apostolic succession is not found in the Bible. What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right. The RCC does not do this.
If you're calling the mass "a sacrifice," then you are killing Jesus over and over again, regardless of what time frame you put it in. All Jesus ever asked us to do is to remember Him by taking the bread and wine. He didn't ask us to repeat the sacrifice over and over, which is what the RCC does when it claims to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. What began as a simple memorial to Jesus, the catholic church has turned into a pagan ritual.
For centuries, catholics didn't take the wine. Only the "priest" did. I pray that has changed, considering that taking bread and wine are direct commands from Jesus to remember Him, and His sacrifice for us.
Who did the RCC think they were to deprive their followers from sharing the wine? This is an example of what Jesus was talking about when He said,
Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God. Matthew 15:9
Last edited:
If you interpret scripture, as you do, then you are a teacher with authority/bishop/elder.
Paul was not married so what's your point?
Catholic priests of the Roman/Latin rite are not married by choice. If you want to be a married priest then you become an Eastern rite priest in communion with Rome.
Apostolic succession is in the bible. You just don't want to see it. Once again, using the same Jewish teaching method, Father hands teaching off to Son, Jesus hands teaching off to Apostles and the Apostles hand off teaching to their successors. You have to ask yourself why would the Apostles abandon the teaching method that Jesus used? That's all they knew.
It's a sacrifice in the eternal now. It is not repeated over and over. It's a vehicle for each individual to tie into the eternal now. Jesus did say that WHENEVER you do this, do it in memory of me. Which meant that it should be repeated. Do you think he would leave out future generations?
Now as far as your pagan ritual concept, Jesus was the biggest pagan of them all. Where do you ever see a Jew in the bible telling anyone to drink blood, whether you think it is literal or symbolic? And remember, Jews don't eat symbols/emblems of sacrifice. Yes, Jesus came for Jews and those pagan Gentiles and used methods familiar to both..
katiemygirl
CHRISTIAN
I guess Jesus was ant-catholic because He came up with the catch phrase "doctrine of men."
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:9)
Really? Worship of Mary, Mary co-mediator coredeemer, assumption of Mary, purgatory, can't eat meat on Friday, priests cannot marry, special garments for priests, Popes, extreme unction, canonization of saints...ALL invented teachings of RCC. Need more?
I have no interest in reading or responding to catholic website cut and pastes. If you can't think on your own, then I won't bother to respond. You won't even be courteous enough to quote Scripture. Instead, you cite dozens of verses, expecting me to look them up. Sadly, you won't even read them for yourself. You're happy letting someone else pull the strings while you sit back and just accept everything you are told.
Last edited:
katiemygirl
CHRISTIAN
We do not live under Old Testament Jewish laws. Jesus gave His teachings to His apostles, and His apostles and other inspired men gave us the teachings of Jesus in the confines of the New Testament. The RCC has created new doctrines, exchanging the teachings of Jesus and His apostles for their own invented doctrines.
Last edited: