Posted on 02/22/2010 10:34:43 AM PST by MarMema
“The problem is that there is a difference between apostolic consecration and apostolic succession of doctrine.”
There’s no difference between the two. The Apostolic succession, passed on from bishop to bishop mirrors the doctrine. There must be an unbroken chain, all the way back to Peter and the Apostles in order for confirmation to carry with it the authority in which Christ vested in the Apostles.
“The history of the church is replete with those that have received apostolic consecration but have been clearly heretical.”
Some, yes, but that does not detract from the fact that there have always been priests and bishops who have been faithful to the teachings from the very beginning. The reason we hear more about the heretics is because they were written about, as a greater concern to the unity of the church and their teachings.
“The axiom is that every church father is a heretic.”
Who are you quoting here? Where did you get this from?
“Councils have not only erred, but they are often been contradictory.”
Which councils? You’ll have to go in more detail here. What exactly did they promulgate which was contradictory?
The NT teaches the priesthood of the believer, who is to offer sacrifices of praise, thanksgiving and good deeds - which would include one’s earthly ministry.
None of us offered Jesus as a sacrificial lamb.
“27He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.” - Hebrews 7
“23Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” - Hebrews 9
No priest offers Jesus - he offered Himself, once for all. The elders didn’t offer a sacrifice for their people. The sacrifice was offered by Jesus, once for all.
We are ALL priests - I believe that is Catholic teaching as well. And no one comes between us and Jesus.
11And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
15And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,”
17then he adds,
“I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”
18Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin. — Hebrews 10
“No. Luther rejected the Apocrypha, as Jerome wanted to do, and for the same reason. There was no binding Church Council requiring otherwise.”
Ok. So why did Luther reject what Jerome did not? You say that Jerome wanted to, but he did include them in the Vulgate?
“The vast majority of the NT was accepted almost as soon as written. But as Protestants tend to point out, no one can make you accept something as scripture.”
And this is why Luther did what he did. He simply believed that some parts of the bible were less valid then others, and he used his own judgement to decide which ones to pick and choose.
Why should we be surprised that others would object and tear out Romans? Or Corinthians? Is this not the same spirit?
“Not to be overlooked is the leading of God’s spirit as He has preserved His word and caused the false books like the Apocrypha to be weeded out.”
Then why were they kept for 1500 years?
You wrote:
“The NT teaches the priesthood of the believer, who is to offer sacrifices of praise, thanksgiving and good deeds - which would include one’s earthly ministry.”
Both testaments had priesthoods of all believers. That’s why Israel was called a priestly nation even though it had a select priesthood. It remains the same among Christians today except now our priesthood comes through Christ rather than Aaron and the Levites.
“None of us offered Jesus as a sacrificial lamb.”
We do - through the Eucharist we re-present that same sacrifice in an unbloody way.
“We do - through the Eucharist we re-present that same sacrifice in an unbloody way.”
Then you contradict scripture.
“27He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.” - Hebrews 7
Of course,the point of the original post is that scripture is to be taken with a grain of salt and a ton of ‘sacred tradition’!
You know, if you want an answer, it would help if you replied to the post and not yourself.
Jerome was talked into it, with the caveat that the Apocrypha wasn’t good for doctrine - a distinction many held thru Luther.
And since scripture says it is ALL good for doctrine, that meant Jerome was redefining scripture to appease others.
But if someone wants to reject Romans, I cannot stop them. I can only ask why...
You wrote:
“Then you contradict scripture. “27He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.” - Hebrews 7”
Once again we see that anti-Catholics are grossly ignorant regarding scripture and its orthodox interpretation. Here are your errors:
1) Jesus’ sacrifice was once and for all - and that is the same sacrifice we re-present.
2) I already posted “re-present” or “re-presentation” so you are apparently as unskilled in reading as you are in Biblical exegesis. Don’t feel bad. That’s common among anti-Catholics. I do not know why so many can’t seem to read well, but it is common.
“Of course,the point of the original post is that scripture is to be taken with a grain of salt and a ton of ‘sacred tradition’!”
The point is that you have failed. Again.
“Jerome was talked into it”
By who?
Who told Jerome that the Apocrypha was ‘bad doctrine’? The Pope? His bishop?
Have you never read the illustration of the wheat and the weeds of Matthew chapter 13?
The wheat and weeds were to be left to grow together until the harvest when the harvesters, the angels, would begin to separate one from the other.
If the doctrine proposed were valid, the Church should rejoice when some believer anywhere seeks to come to God by what He has provided, yet the doctrine advocates believers not come to God through faith in Christ, in what He has provided in Scripture as the Word of God.
Whenever the doctrines being advocated seek to remove a believer from fellowship with God through faith in Christ, then the doctrine is false.
The repetitive obfuscation of His Word by those who seek to add their authority to simple faith in Him manifests the object of their hearts and desire.
From Post 85:
“None of us offered Jesus as a sacrificial lamb.”
We do - through the Eucharist we re-present that same sacrifice in an unbloody way.
Therefor, you claim you offer Jesus in an unbloody way as a re-presentation.
However, one of my points was that Jesus offered Himself. No man offers Jesus as a sacrifice - not then, not now.
And I posted again the scripture:
“27He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.” - Hebrews 7”
Jesus offered himself, once for all. You do not offer him, nor does any priest.
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”
Cardinal Cajetan, Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament
Miscommunication: The English word "priest" seems to be generally thought to derive from the Greek word for elder - πρεσβυτερος - presbuteros (not entirely sure of my Greek spelling but too lazy to look it up.)
The Greek word that I think you may be looking for is ἱερους - hierous, from which we get the "hier-" in hierarchy.
You wrote:
“Therefor, you claim you offer Jesus in an unbloody way as a re-presentation.”
We offer a re-presentation of the same sacrifice of Christ in an unbloody way.
“However, one of my points was that Jesus offered Himself.”
Yep, and that happens now too - priests are only priests in Christ in that their priesthood comes through Him.
“No man offers Jesus as a sacrifice - not then, not now.”
Jesus was a man . . . and God. When a priest offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass he does it within the priesthood of Christ.
“And I posted again the scripture:“27He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.” - Hebrews 7””
Right, and I properly interpreted that verse since you clearly misunderstood it.
“Jesus offered himself, once for all. You do not offer him, nor does any priest.”
Yep - in union with Christ.
Of course, this is all Christian theology so I wouldn’t expect you to know any of it. http://www.opusangelorum.org/crusade/priestamongus.html
As usual, your post speaks volumes, but not about what you think it does.
The relationship between the Mass and the self-offering of Christ is another topic.
Sometimes I think the questions are all phrased so as to guarantee communication breakdown at the earliest possible opportunity. But then I also think debating about religion is a waste of time. The adversarial premises of a debate tend to preclude the kind of openness to new ideas which would be requisite for either side really understanding the other side's contentions.
I should mention that in one of our vainly repetitious prayers,"The Divine Mercy Chaplet," we explicitly say, "..., I/we offer you the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of your dearly beloved Son, ... in atonement for my/our sins and for those of the whole world." I mention this only to try to establish that the atoning death of Christ is a big part of our piety, both in formal worship (the Mass) and in popular devotions.
Now to your assertion:
I hope I have managed a little tiny bit to say that we do not think we are repeating or stretching out or prolonging the Sacrifice of Christ.
Now I'd like to sketch some pictures about our thinking about the Holy Ghost. I don't talk about this much, so bear with me.
Some here get especially cranked up because of our "alter Christus" thinking. We speak of each of the baptized and the priest at the Mass being "another Christ." But if you read the complete text of a Mass, you will find that the priest is not going, "W00t! I'm another Christ!" Instead his personal prayers are very much long the lines of "I know I'm not worthy to do this."
And the "out loud" prayers of the Mass deny it's magical nature. We don't command God to zap the bread and wine, we beg Him. Before the actual prayer of consecration there's a formal "sure hope it works," in which we express the hope that God will accept what we are doing, for His glory and for the good of the Church and for our own benefit.
Aquinas wrote some (goes without saying) very fine personal prayers before and after the Mass. And while the one for after the Mass assumes that "it worked" (you know I am being loose to the point of flippancy) it begs that the communicant's (my) participation be for grace and not for judgment, and is abjectly grateful.
So what's going on? It has to do (In MY thought) both with what I have said elsewhere about the flesh/spirit dichotomy of Paul and about "prolepsis."
My, myself, Mad Dawg am dying. This is literally true. I have about 19 more years if a tree doesn't fall on me. In Christ, I have already died, and my life is now His life. But in time, this is a "coming true" reality. As Paul describes so well in Romans, the dying flesh still wars with the Spirit which is coming to birth in me.
Yet sometimes, it is almost as though that whole struggle were resolved. And I stand (at the proper places, e.g. the Lord's Prayer) in Mass, not because Mad Dawg is such a splendid fellow, but because I "know" that "in Christ" I am made new, and the new me "deserves" to stand in the presence of the Lord.
With me so far? I'm not asking for agreement, just for a sense that you don't have to be entirely mad to think this way.
Similarly, the prescribed "private" prayers for the priest at Mass embody the difference between the eschatological priest, as living fully "in Christ" -- or, again as Paul says, Christ living in him -- and the priest whose acid reflux and bad temper are troubling him as he makes his way through the Holy Mass.
In my flippancy, I call it "kiting checks." Right not, on the ground, in "real life" I am a jerk -- a sinful jerk. But I am promised that in the Love of Christ I will die and be reborn -- or have died and have been reborn, it gets a little confusing, this whole time thing -- and so I must, as they say "come from" not the jerk I know myself to be, but the saint God seems to want to turn me into.
I gave a talk this weekend about conversion. How could I DARE? Well, I could dare because I trust that God's love is stronger than my jerkitude, and in no other way could I dare.
I explicitly besought the prayers of my friends. I explicitly asked God to shut my mouth to error and falsehood and to let only Truth pass my lips. And then I began to talk, trusting not me, but Him. He lives in me. He says so! He has grafted me into his body. Only because I believe that could I dare to ask my diocese to ordain me (there's a rule for former Episcopalians which makes it possible - but they rejected me anyway. I think it's my breath.)
The point of all these wasted bits and bytes is that, yes, we KNOW that Christ offered Himself once for all. WE believe that we are thoroughly grafted into Him, and grafted into that offering. Through the Holy Spirit, that offering "back then" is also "right now." It's right now in many ways, of which an important one is the Mass.
We take very seriously the idea that we are "in Christ," grafted into Him. So it is not we who offer Him now. It is that, having been given the astounding grace of being grafter into Him, we are given the amazing privilege of sharing in His eternal self-offering.
William Tyndale’s response to Thomas More, on why he used ‘elder’ instead of ‘priest’:
Why he useth this word elder, and not priest.
Another thing which he rebuketh is, that I interpret this Greek word presbyteros by this word senior. Of a truth senior is no very good English, though senior and junior be used in the universities; but there came no better in my mind at that time. Howbeit, I spied my fault since, long ere M. More told it me, and have mended it in all the works which I since made, and call it an elder. And in that he maketh heresy of it, to call presbyteros an elder, he condemneth their own old Latin text of heresy, which only they use yet daily in the church, and have used, I suppose, this fourteen hundred years: for that text doth call it an elder likewise. In the 1 Pet. v. thus standeth it in the Latin text: Seniores ergo qui in vobis sunt obsecro consenior, pascite qui in vobis est gregem Christi: “ The elders that are among you, I beseech, which am an elder also, that ye feed the flock of Christ, which is among you.” There is presbyteros called an elder. And in that he saith, “ Feed Christ’s flock,” he meaneth even the ministers that were chosen to teach the people, and to inform them in God’s word, and no lay persons. And in the second epistle of John saith 2 John. the text, Senior electee domince et filiis ejus: “ The elder unto the elect lady and to her children.” And in the third 3 John, epistle of John, Senior Gaio dilecto: “ The elder unto the beloved Gaius.” In these two epistles presbyteros is called an elder. And in Acts, chap, xx., the text saith: “ Paul sent Actsxx. for majores natu ecclesice, the elders in birth of the congregation or church, and said unto them, Take heed unto yourselves, and unto the whole flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you episcopos ad regendum ecclesiam ; Dei,” bishops, or overseers, to govern the church of God. There is presbyteros called an elder in birth; which same immediately is called a bishop or overseer, to declare what persons are meant. Hereof ye see that I have no more erred than their own text, which they have used since the scripture was first in the Latin tongue, and that their own I text understandeth by presbyteros nothing save an elder. And they were called elders, because of their age, gravity and sadness, as thou may est see by the text; and bishops, church’why or overseers, by the reason of their offices. And all that were called elders (or priests, if they so will) were called bishops also, though they have divided the names now : which thing thou mayest evidently see by the first chapter of Titus, Thus i. and Acts xx., and other places more.
And when he layeth Timothy unto my charge, how he was young, then he weeneth that he hath won his gilden spurs. But I would pray him to shew me where he readeth ‘ that Paul calleth him presbyteros, priest or elder. I durst not then call him episcopus properly: for those overseers, Bishops which we now call bishops after the Greek word, were alway biding in one place, to govern the congregation there.
Now was Timothy an apostle. And Paul also writeth that he came shortly again. Well, will he say, it cometh yet all to one ; for if it becometh the lower minister to be of a sad and discreet age, much more it becometh the higher. It is truth. But two things are without law, God and necessity. If God, to shew his power, shall shed out his grace more upon youth than upon age at a time, who shall let him? Women be no meet vessels to rule or to preach, for both God are forbidden them ; yet hath God endowed them with his spirited Spirit at sundry times, and shewed his power and goodness upon them, an” wrought wondertul things by them, because He would not have them despised. We read that women have judged all Israel, and have been great prophetesses, and have done mighty deeds. Yea, and if stories be true, women have preached since the opening of the new testament. Do not our women now christen and minister the sacrament of baptism in time of need? Might they not, by as good reason, preach also, if necessity required? If a woman were driven into some island, where Christ was never preached, might she there not preach him, if she had the gift thereto? Might she not also baptize? And why might she not, by the same reason, minister the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, and teach them how to choose officers and ministers? O poor women, how despise ye them! The viler the better welcome unto you. An whore had ye lever than an honest wife. If only shaven and anointed may do these things, then Christ did them not, nor any of his apostles, nor any man in long time after : for they used no such ceremonies.
Notwithstanding, though God be under no law, and necessity lawless ; yet be we under a law, and ought to prefer the men before the women, and age before youth, as nigh as we can. For it is against the law of nature that young men should rule the elder, and as uncomely as that women should rule the men, but when need requireth. And therefore, if Paul had had other shift, and a man of age as meet for the room, he would not have put Timothy in the office ; he should no doubt have been kept back until a fuller age, and have learned in the meantime in silence. And whatsoever thou be that readest this, I exhort thee in our Lord,
that thou read both the epistles of Paul to Timothy ; that me cause thou mayest see how diligently (as a mother careth for her TTM,thyng child, if it be in peril) Paul writeth unto Timothy, to instruct him, to teach him, to exhort, to courage him, to stir him up “to be wise, sober, diligent, circumspect, sad, humble and meek, saying : “ These I write that thou mayest know how to to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church” or congregation. Avoid lusts of youth, beware of ungodly fables and old wives’ tales ; and avoid the company of men of corrupt minds, which waste their brains about wrangling questions. “ Let no man despise thine youth.” As who shall say, ‘ Youth is a despised thing of itself; whereunto men give none obedience naturally or reverence 2. See, therefore, that thy virtue exceed, to recompense thy lack of age ; and that thou so behave thyself that no fault be found with thee.’ And again, “ Rebuke not an elder sharply, but exhort him as thy father, and young men as thy brethren, and the elder women as thy mothers, and the young women as thy sisters;” and such like in every chapter. “ Admit none accusation against an elder, under less than two witnesses.” And Paul chargeth him “ in the sight of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, and of his elect angels, to do nothing rashly,” or of affection. And shortly, whereunto youth is most prone and ready to fall, thereof warneth he him with all diligence, even almost or altogether half a dozen times of some one thing. And finally, as a man would teach a child that had never before gone to school, so tenderly and so carefully doth Paul teach him. It is another thing to teach the people, and to teach the preacher. Here Paul teacheth the preacher, young Timothy. preacher
And when he affirmeth that I say, how that the oiling and oning nor shaving is no part of the priesthood, that improveth he not, nor can do. And therefore I say it yet. And when he hath priesthood. insearched the uttermost that he can, this is all that he can lay against me, that of an hundred there be not ten that have the properties which Paul requireth to be in them. Wherefore, if oiling and shaving be no part of their priesthood, then evermore of a thousand nine hundred at the least should be no priests at all. And “ Quoth your friend” would confirm it with an oath, and swear deeply, that it would follow, and that it must needs so be: which argument yet, if there were no other shift, I would solve after an Oxford fashion, with Concedo consequentiam et consequens*. And I say moreover, that their anointing is but a ceremony borrowed of the Jews, though they have somewhat altered the manner; and their shaving borrowed of the heathen priests; and that they be no more of their priesthood, than the oil, salt, spittle, taper and chrisom-cloth, of the substance of baptism. Which things, no doubt, because they be of their conjuring, they would have preached of necessity unto the salvation of the child, except necessity had driven them unto the contrary. And seeing thatthe oil is not of necessity, let M. More tell me what more virtue is in the oil of confirmation, inasmuch as the bishop sacreth the one as well as the other; yea, and let him tell the reason why there should be more virtue in the oil wherewith the bishop anointeth his priests. Let him tell you from whence the oil cometh, how it is made, and why he selleth it to the curates wherewith they anoint the sick, or whether this be of less virtue than the other.
And finally, why used not the apostles this Greek word hiereus, or the interpreter this Latin word sacerdos, but alway this word presbyteros and senior, by which was at that time nothing signified but an elder? And it was no doubt , taken of the custom of the Hebrews, where the officers were ever elderly men, as nature requireth: as it appeareth in the old Testament, and also in the new. “ The scribes, Pharisees, and the elders of the people,” saith the text; which were the officers and rulers, so called by the reason of their age.
I doubt I fully understand your post. However, I would like to offer 2 points:
1 - I am being neither anti-Catholic nor contrary to scripture to disagree, and claim it was and is, in God’s eyes, a once for all sacrifice, not an eternally ongoing one. That is, after all, a plain reading of the text of Hebrews. I realize Catholics, interpreting in conjunction with if not thru tradition, view it differently. On most of these threads, I consider it a success if I can successfully argue that Protestants are not malicious in our interpretations, but are sincerely trying to obey God.
2 - If you sincerely believe - and I trust you do - that this is a re-presentation of an eternally present sacrifice, then that is between you and God. If it helps you focus on the sacrifice Jesus made for us, and how by being united in death with him you will be united in resurrection as well - then that is between you and God.
I have no doubt the pro & against side of the meat offered to idol debate both felt very passionately about an issue we now would not think twice about. And what did Paul say?
13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. 16 So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.
20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. 21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. 22The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. - Romans 14
I obviously disagree quite strongly, but figure at some point it becomes something to bring up, state my case, and let any readers decide - for they too will stand before God someday, and give account, so let it be a good one.
After all, I’m a 25+ year military veteran who ‘starts’ his life as a Christian on the day I let another kid beat me up because I thought God wanted everyone to be pacifists. Trying to stand my ground while getting punched in the jaw, my heart was right if my mind (and jaw) were not. We are allowed to change our minds, or to keep them, and I think the God who knows our hearts will judge our hearts and not just our minds.
I agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.