Understanding Catholicism/ Dialogue with other

[sojourner]

To the contrary: as many as receive Christ, to them He gives authority to become children of God, as many as believe into His name

Mkay. Catholics believe in Jesus just as you and I do. What's the debate?

God said tell His good news to all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
So i need no excuse to be concerned.

The good news does not include disparaging the worship practices of others. Jesus said, "Whoever is not against us, is for us."

To the contrary: whether it's right or wrong, you judge. I was pointing out how certain things claimed to be Biblical, or godly, aren't

But this is opinion -- not fact.

Then i'd have to call your comments the same.

I haven't condemned you by virtue of a misconception or preconceived notion. As far as I'm concerned, you are free and right to believe and practice and follow as you feel called to do. Just don't expect others to believe and practice and follow as you feel called to do, because we might not feel called in the same way.

 

[writer]

Mkay. Catholics believe in Jesus just as you and I do. What's the debate?
I've met some who don't, which isn't a debate

The good news does not include disparaging the worship practices of others.
What worship practice is that? Dividing the Body? Not letting others serve the bread and wine except only a clerical class?

Jesus said, "Whoever is not against us, is for us."
A debate's a debate. I'm not "against" u Mr Sojourner. No need to play the victim

But this is opinion -- not fact.
Is that your opinion?

I haven't condemned you by virtue of a misconception or preconceived notion.
Likewise, Mr Sojourner

Just don't expect others to believe and practice and follow as you feel called to do, because we might not feel called in the same way.
That's called freedom of religion. Another item missing from much of Roman Catholicism's (and even earlier's) historical past

 

[sojourner]

I've met some who don't, which isn't a debate

You've met some Catholics who don't believe in Jesus? How odd!

What worship practice is that? Dividing the Body? Not letting others serve the bread and wine except only a clerical class?

The Catholics haven't served to divide the Body -- they've served to unite the Body. In fact, most Catholic parishes I've attended use lay people to serve the bread and wine (and most of them served communion under both kinds). I don't know what you're talking about here.

Jesus said, "Whoever is not against us, is for us."
A debate's a debate. I'm not "against" u Mr Sojourner. No need to play the victim

I'm not saying you're "against" me. I'm saying that you appear to be against those who do not share similar practices as you.

Is that your opinion?

No. Your interpretation of scripture is your opinion of what it says. That's all you can claim.

That's called freedom of religion. Another item missing from much of Roman Catholicism's (and even earlier's) historical past

What's "freedom of religion?" Expecting others to believe and practice and follow as you feel called to?
Last time I took notice, the RC's do not expect me to believe and practice and follow as they do -- they expect me to believe and practice and follow as I feel called to.

Your understanding of the Roman Catholic faith appears to be misinformed and underdeveloped.

 

[writer]

You've met some Catholics who don't believe in Jesus? How odd!
Mebbe i should say "into" Jesus. Just like I've met many "Protestants," or "Christians" who are perhaps raised in a religion with never their own personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus yet. Perhaps all they've "met" is a "Eucharist;" and're told that's Jesus

The Catholics haven't served to divide the Body -- they've served to unite the Body.
The Body of Christ is neither a Roman division, nor limited to a Roman division

In fact, most Catholic parishes I've attended use lay people to serve the bread and wine (and most of them served communion under both kinds). I don't know what you're talking about here.
You mean some don't give out the wine? Does anybody get to drink the Lord's blood?
Who?
In any case, thanks for your helping me to try to specify: I meant to be talking about not only drinking the wine, but breaking the bread.
Thanks

I'm not saying you're "against" me. I'm saying that you appear to be against those who do not share similar practices as you.
Does that mean u share similar practices as me? In any case, I'm not talking about practices, which shouldn't divide. But teachings that R: such as to be in oneness with Christ or His church one must, or must have ever, submit(ted) to a Christian "king" in Rome

Your interpretation of scripture is your opinion of what it says. That's all you can claim.
To the contrary: i claim Scripture's true and is the apostles' teaching

What's "freedom of religion?" Expecting others to believe and practice and follow as you feel called to?
I'd say u have the freedom to believe that. But i was referring specifically to the First Amendment of the US Constitution

Last time I took notice, the RC's do not expect me to believe and practice and follow as they do -- they expect me to believe and practice and follow as I feel called to.
Praise the Lord

Your understanding of the Roman Catholic faith appears to be misinformed and underdeveloped.
In what ways?
Thanks

 

[sojourner]

Mebbe i should say "into" Jesus. Just like I've met many "Protestants," or "Christians" who are perhaps raised in a religion with never their own personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus yet. Perhaps all they've "met" is a "Eucharist;" and're told that's Jesus

I've met Jesus in the Eucharist -- every time I participate. It's profound. Why diminish that experience, or dismiss it as inconsequential? Many, many, many RC, Orthodox, Anglican, etc. Christians experience a profound meeting of Christ in the Eucharist. Why are you perceiving that as either a bad, or a less-than-desireable thing?

The Body of Christ is neither a Roman division, nor limited to a Roman division

Neither they nor I have claimed that it is. But I say that it is part of the Body of Christ.

You mean some don't give out the wine? Does anybody get to drink the Lord's blood?
Who?
In any case, thanks for your helping me to try to specify: I meant to be talking about not only drinking the wine, but breaking the bread.

In many Catholic Churches since (can't remember when right now), the Eucharist was taken in only one kind -- bread. The celebrant drank the wine. For at least the last 25 years (that's the extent of my knowledge), most parishes take the Eucharist in both kinds -- bread and wine. The priest (presbyter) breaks the bread, not instead of the people, but on behalf of the people -- as their representative. That's one of the special ministries to which he is called. Therefore, the whole congregation is actually breaking the bread, not just some "special individual."

Does that mean u share similar practices as me? In any case, I'm not talking about practices, which shouldn't divide. But teachings that R: such as to be in oneness with Christ or His church one must, or must have ever, submit(ted) to a Christian "king" in Rome

Ah. I see. I assume that most Christians' worship practices are at the very least recognizable, if not similar. As far as I'm aware (and an RC can correct me here) Catholic Christians do not submit to the Pope, as one submits to a king. Catholic Chnristians submit themselves to Christ, who is King. All the Pope does is act in a representative ministry -- a human being who is the "vicar of Christ" -- not a replacement for Christ. The rub here is that there is debate over who really has authority to act in Christ's Name. You and I do not find it necessary to be a member of the Roman Church to be part of the Church. And most Catholics are OK with that.

To the contrary: i claim Scripture's true and is the apostles' teaching

So do they. What's the problem?

I'd say u have the freedom to believe that. But i was referring specifically to the First Amendment of the US Constitution

Catholics don't have a problem here. But I perceive that you do. Is that true?

In what ways?

Without going into detail, your examples and arguments present a picture that your perceptions of how they do things and how they see things are not consistent with what's really going on in the RC Church.

 

[writer]

I've met Jesus in the Eucharist -- every time I participate. It's profound. Why diminish that experience, or dismiss it as inconsequential?
Please: why accuse me of that?

Why are you perceiving that as either a bad, or a less-than-desireable thing?
What, if anything, makes u say i am, Sojourner?

Neither they nor I have claimed that it is. But I say that it is part of the Body of Christ.
I believe i said this previously: the Body of Christ's not made up of its. It's made up of people

In many Catholic Churches since (can't remember when right now), the Eucharist was taken in only one kind -- bread.
Why not wine? Too much trouble?

The celebrant drank the wine. For at least the last 25 years (that's the extent of my knowledge), most parishes take the Eucharist in both kinds -- bread and wine.
In the NT Table, to eat bread and drink wine is part of the meeting (1 Cor 10-11)

The priest (presbyter)...
The Greek Biblical word "presbyter" never is "priest." Rather it's translated, and it is, "elder." Or I suppose one could directly transliterate into English "presbyter." The Greek word for "priest" is a different, separate, and unrelated word

...breaks the bread, not instead of the people, but on behalf of the people -- as their representative.
Can people break bread too?
Is that too much trouble, or too difficult also?

That's one of the special ministries to which he is called.
I comprehend that. In Catholicism, Protestantism, and so-called Orthodoxy also.
But in the NT, no special class of persons breaks the Lord's Table bread except Christians.

Therefore, the whole congregation is actually breaking the bread, not just some "special individual."
In the NT, any believer of the whole congregation, in the Lord, can actually break the bread, not just some special individual or "priest"

Catholic Christians do not submit to the Pope, as one submits to a king.
Glad to hear it. In other times actual kings submitted to him politically

Catholic Chnristians submit themselves to Christ, who is King.
Wonderful

All the Pope does is act in a representative ministry -- a human being who is the "vicar of Christ" -- not a replacement for Christ.
Perhaps i can look up the word "vicar." But in the NT, the representative of Christ is His Body.

The rub here is that there is debate over who really has authority to act in Christ's Name.
"All authority's been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I've commanded you. And behold, I'm with you all the days until the consummation of the age," Mt 28:18-20

So do they. What's the problem?
I thot u implied there was one when u wrote: "That's all you can claim," 83, para 4

Catholics don't have a problem here. But I perceive that you do. Is that true?
No. I have no problem with the First Amendment. Your perception's mistaken

Without going into detail, your examples and arguments present a picture that your perceptions of how they do things and how they see things are not consistent with what's really going on in the RC Church.
Sorry. My "in what ways?" meant going into some detail.
Thanks

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

I comprehend that. In Catholicism, Protestantism, and so-called Orthodoxy also.
But in the NT, no special class of persons breaks the Lord's Table bread except Christians.

Not true. The priesthood is and always has been the only group of individuals capable of that feat.

 

[writer]

Not true. The priesthood is and always has been the only group of individuals capable of that feat.
The New Testament's priesthood of Christians is of all Christians. Not a formal class. As Peter and John write (1 P 2; Rv 1). Any and all Christians, in Christ, are capable of breaking bread. That, too, is one of the smallest examples of what it means to be a priest (Greek: hiereus) in God's New Testament economy.
Not surprisingly, religion: Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and parts of Protestantism are different. In keeping with a fallen, religious, ceremonial, outward, and hierarchical mentality and nature.
The gentleman's statement above is an example of what i tried to convey to Mr S concerning "lording," "Nicolait-ing," it over others: to restrict such service, or hog it to a special class as if they were magic. Such a teaching's a degraded teaching. Thanks

 

[sojourner]

The argument here is the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Writer seems to refute that statement, which was why I offered evidence of many Christians meeting Christ in the Eucharist. If Christ is not really present in the Eucharist, how could many Christians meet Christ there?

Writer appears to reject the authority of the Church to act on Christ's behalf, as the RC's, Orthodox, Anglicans, and others have done throughout Christian history. Writer appears to reject certain groups (of people) as being part of the Church. Writer rejects the practice of certain members of the Church being called by the Church to certain duties of ministry.
None of these practices stands in opposition to scriptural tenet, however.

The term "priesthood" refers to the person who mediates the effects of the sacrifice to the people. In catholicism, the term "priest" is a misnomer, in that regard. Catholicism affirms the priesthood of all believers -- that is, that each believer needs no mediator in order to receive the effects of Christ's one sacrifice. In this regard, catholics use the tem "priest" to denote the person who is called to a representative ministry on their behalf. That's why the priest administers communion, baptism, etc. -- on behalf of the people -- the Body of Christ. It's not on the priest's authority -- it's on the Church's authority. Again, there's nothing Biblically antithetical about this practice.

 

[James the Persian]

The Greek Biblical word "presbyter" never is "priest." Rather it's translated, and it is, "elder." Or I suppose one could directly transliterate into English "presbyter." The Greek word for "priest" is a different, separate, and unrelated word

Here you are arguing back from translation to what is translated and therefore your argument is entirely invalid. The English word priest comes from prester which comes from presbyter and is entirely Christian in origin. The Greek word for a priest is still presbyter and I ought to know seeing as I used to worship in a Greek church. The Greek word for a pagan priest is not and never has been used by the Church. What has happened is that the English word priest has subsequently been used as a translation not only for Christian elders but also for pagan priests. Arguing against the term priest, then is purely nonsensical so long as you accept the term presbyter.

James

 

[writer]

90 Here you are arguing back from translation to what is translated and therefore your argument is entirely invalid.
To the contrary, as i mentioned: the original NT Greek word "presbyter" is different from the original NT Greek word "hiereus" in the original and NT Greek. "Presbyter" is "presbyter" and "hiereus" is "hiereus." They're two separate words

The English word priest comes from prester which comes from presbyter and is entirely Christian in origin.
The original NT was written in Greek, not in English

The Greek word for a priest is still presbyter and I ought to know seeing as I used to worship in a Greek church.
The NT Greek word for "priest" is "hiereus." It's not "presbyter," and never has been, in the NT

The Greek word for a pagan priest is not and never has been used by the Church.
What Greek word's that?

What has happened is that the English word priest has subsequently been used as a translation not only for Christian elders but also for pagan priests.
Not only Christian elders ("presbyters" Gk) should be "hiereus" (priests); but all NT believers are, can be, should be, and will be priests and holy priesthood: 1 P 2; Rv 1; Mt 28:19; Jn 20:21-23.
By this i don't mean a religious, ceremonial, hierarchical, nicolaitan, superstitious, clergy, false, or formal priesthood. But rather God's NT priesthood, as recorded and described in the apostles' writings: the NT.
Our English "priest" is an inaccurate hence incorrect translation of the NT Greek word "presbyter"

Arguing against the term priest, then is purely nonsensical so long as you accept the term presbyter.
To the contrary: the English word "priest" is, and always has been, an inaccurate hence incorrect translation of the NT Greek word "presbyter." Thanks

 

[sojourner]

To the contrary: the English word "priest" is, and always has been, an inaccurate hence incorrect translation of the NT Greek word "presbyter."

Isn't that what I said???

 

[writer]

i believe so. 91 was addressin dear James Persian

89 Writer rejects the practice of certain members of the Church being called by the Church to certain duties of ministry.
To the contrary, writer points out that in the NT and the NT church (which's the only church in terms of the NT): breaking bread for thanks to the Lord in His commemorative NT Table meetings is not a formal duty of ministry.
Thank you S

 

[sojourner]

i believe so. 91 was addressin dear James Persian

89 Writer rejects the practice of certain members of the Church being called by the Church to certain duties of ministry.
To the contrary, writer points out that in the NT and the NT church (which's the only church in terms of the NT): breaking bread for thanks to the Lord in His commemorative NT Table meetings is not a formal duty of ministry.
Thank you S

Of course it is! We are commanded to do it -- it is the impetus and the focus for our gathering -- by it we are identified as followers. That certainly seems like a formal duty of the Church's ministry to me...as opposed to being "just something we happen to do."

 

[writer]

We are commanded to do it
thas my point: "we" includes all Christians. Not a formal class nor select hierarchy

opposed to being "just something we happen to do."
i think i make my point in my para above. Gracias

 

[sojourner]

We are commanded to do it
thas my point: "we" includes all Christians. Not a formal class nor select hierarchy

opposed to being "just something we happen to do."
i think i make my point in my para above. Gracias

And didn't I point out that the celebrant acts on behalf of the ecclesia? It's not just an act of the priest -- it's an act of ministry of the whole people of God. Since it would be physically impossible for all the people to break the loaf, the people appoint a representative to break it on their behalf. That representative is known as the celebrant, or priest. Whether "formal" or not, the priest represents the whole people in the breaking of the bread. That's part of the ministry to which that person is called.

 

[writer]

the celebrant acts on behalf of the ecclesia?
what "celebrant" woodnt?

it would be physically impossible for all the people to break the loaf,
Not over time

the people appoint a representative to break it on their behalf.
my point: generally no need to appoint for such a small thing

That representative is known as the celebrant, or priest.
All believers can, should, will b, 'n r priests 'n celebrants; anytime they want in their Lord.

Whether "formal" or not, the priest represents the whole people in the breaking of the bread. That's part of the ministry to which that person is called.
All believers can 'n r so called. In the NT.
's my only point

 

[James the Persian]

90 Here you are arguing back from translation to what is translated and therefore your argument is entirely invalid.
To the contrary, as i mentioned: the original NT Greek word "presbyter" is different from the original NT Greek word "hiereus" in the original and NT Greek. "Presbyter" is "presbyter" and "hiereus" is "hiereus." They're two separate words

Do you even know what etymology is? The origin of the word priest is presbyteros, not hieros, therefore priest is a correct translation of presbyteros and not of hieros, as I stated in the part you quoted below (I've emboldened it so you can see what I said).

The English word priest comes from prester which comes from presbyter and is entirely Christian in origin.
The original NT was written in Greek, not in English

Yes, and Koine is still used for worship in the Greek Church. What word do you suppose the Greeks use to describe their priests? I'll tell you, it's presbyteros.

The Greek word for a priest is still presbyter and I ought to know seeing as I used to worship in a Greek church.
The NT Greek word for "priest" is "hiereus." It's not "presbyter," and never has been, in the NT

And you are continuing to argue back from translation to translated. Just because the modern word priest is used to translate two different Greek words does not mean that you can assume it is more correctly used for the concept wih which you disagree. That is not, and never was, what calling a priest 'priest' was meant to convey. It is you, and not the Church, that is confusing two different concepts.

The Greek word for a pagan priest is not and never has been used by the Church.
What Greek word's that?

You know perfectly well (although your transliteration of it is bizarre). Please cease trying to paint me as an ignoramus. It's quite apparent that you have little to no understanding of etymology or the development of languages. That you would even attempt to base a theological argument on a linguistic one is ample evidence of this and the fact that you are attempting to lecture me on Koine I find rather ironic given that I used the language in worship for 3 years. How often have you used it?

What has happened is that the English word priest has subsequently been used as a translation not only for Christian elders but also for pagan priests.
Not only Christian elders ("presbyters" Gk) should be "hiereus" (priests); but all NT believers are, can be, should be, and will be priests and holy priesthood: 1 P 2; Rv 1; Mt 28:19; Jn 20:21-23.
By this i don't mean a religious, ceremonial, hierarchical, nicolaitan, superstitious, clergy, false, or formal priesthood. But rather God's NT priesthood, as recorded and described in the apostles' writings: the NT.
Our English "priest" is an inaccurate hence incorrect translation of the NT Greek word "presbyter"

And here you continue to confuse to separate concepts which the Church does not and never has. Would you please get it into your head that English often translates multiple Greek words into English using a single English one? That is a fault in translation caused by the poverty of English in the respective vocabulary but does not reflect the actual teachings or beliefs of the Church. Speak to a Greek priest in their own language and this issue you have evaporates, which vindicates my point.

Arguing against the term priest, then is purely nonsensical so long as you accept the term presbyter.
To the contrary: the English word "priest" is, and always has been, an inaccurate hence incorrect translation of the NT Greek word "presbyter." Thanks

To the contrary, priest is a perfectly good translation of presbyter, in fact being a direct lingusitic descendant of that word. It has subsequently (English being a comparatively young language) and erroneously been applied to hieros and hence is a poor term to use for a pagan priest. May I suggest that you first acquaint yourself with the facts of the development of your own language before lecturing others on it and, even more amazingly, lecturing them on languages with which you are clearly far from familiar?

James

 

[sojourner]

the celebrant acts on behalf of the ecclesia?
what "celebrant" woodnt?

Therefore, it's not the celebrant's act, but an act of the Church. That's the point. You seem to conceptualize the breaking of the bread as the act of a single person. It's not! It's an act of the whole Church, carried out representatively by the priest.

it would be physically impossible for all the people to break the loaf,
Not over time

But the breaking of the bread takes place at a specific time. It would be both unwieldy and antithetical to have every member of the congregation present take turns at breaking the bread. In fact, an act like that would symbolize a multiple sacrifice, which we do not believe is Biblically accurate.

the people appoint a representative to break it on their behalf.
my point: generally no need to appoint for such a small thing

What about the members who could not be present? Who's going to break the bread for them? They're part of the Body, whether they're physically there, or not, aren't they? The priest isn't "special," or even particularly hierarchical, in the sense that you're putting forth here. The priest is a servant of the people, and he breaks the bread as a representative act of all the people. So, in essence, everyone is breaking the bread, whether they're present or not.

That representative is known as the celebrant, or priest.
All believers can, should, will b, 'n r priests 'n celebrants; anytime they want in their Lord.

That's just not the way the Body has historically organized itself, whether you agree with it, or not.

Whether "formal" or not, the priest represents the whole people in the breaking of the bread. That's part of the ministry to which that person is called.
All believers can 'n r so called. In the NT.

Can you provide a scriptural reference that defines this theology?

 

[writer]

98 What word do you suppose the Greeks use to describe their priests? I'll tell you, it's presbyteros.
If u refer to Greek Orthodoxy, i don't dispute that.
However i'm speakin o' the word the apostles used in Greek in the NT: "hieros."
Never "presbyteros" az: "priest"

"That I might be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, a laboring priest [hierourgeo] of the good news of God, in order that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, having been sanctified in the Holy Spirit," Paul to the Romans 15:16.

"For since the priesthood [hierosune] is transferred, of necessity there comes into being a transfer of law also," Hebrews 7:12, Paul i believe.

"You yourselves also as living stones are being built up as a spiritual house into a holy priesthood [hierateuma] to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ," Peter in 1 P 2:5.

"You were slain and have purchased for God by Your blood men out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and've made them a kingdom and priests [hiereus] to our God; and they'll reign on the earth," John's revelation to the 7 churches, Rev 5:9-10.


The origin of the word priest is presbyteros, not hieros, therefore priest is a correct translation of presbyteros and not of hieros,
Regardless if or that English "priest" is derived from Greek "presbyteros":
"Presbyteros" in the NT, and the Greek of and at the time of the NT, means "elder."
It did not mean, and duzn't mean, "priest" in the Greek in the NT.
The Greek word for "priest" in the NT was (and is) "hieros."
Regardless of the source and derivation of the English word "priest"."
"Priest" in English is an inaccurate translation for the NT's "presbyteros"


99 You seem to conceptualize the breaking of the bread as the act of a single person.
96 "it would be physically impossible for all the people to break the loaf"

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

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

That's just not the way the Body has historically organized itself, whether you agree with it, or not.
To the contrary: members in the Body have both practiced sharing;
'n some're still doin so today

Can you provide a scriptural reference that defines this theology?
Gladly. Thank you for asking.
"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.
Thanks