Posted on 12/08/2012 2:24:39 PM PST by NYer
So far; you are batting a 1,000
That council nor any of your Catholic councils was infallible about anything...They couldn't possibly have been since they don't even understand nor believe the scriptures...
In fact, it's pure ignorance of the bible...You need a human body to receive just deserts???
The righteous, they will be transformed into a glorified state, freed from suffering and pain, and enabled to do many of the amazing things Jesus could do with his glorified body (cf. 1 Cor. 15:35–44, 1 John 3:2).
Huh??? What need would you have of walking thru walls and healing people in Heaven??? Why are there 12 gates in Heaven if no one need to use them???
Your 'saints' are all dead.
Saints Intercede for us.
Once you understand this it really does not matter how it’s worded since God knows our hearts
From Scripturecatholic.com...
1 Tim 2:3 - because this subordinate mediation is good and acceptable to God our Savior. Because God is our Father and we are His children, God invites sus to participate in Christ’s role as mediator.
1 Tim. 2:5 - therefore, although Jesus Christ is the sole mediator between God and man, there are many intercessors (subordinate mediators).
1 Cor. 3:9 - God invites us to participate in Christ’s work because we are God’s “fellow workers” and one family in the body of Christ. God wants His children to participate. The phrase used to describe “fellow workers” is “sunergoi,” which literally means synergists, or cooperators with God in salvific matters. Does God need fellow workers? Of course not, but this shows how much He, as Father, loves His children. God wants us to work with Him.
Mark 16:20 - this is another example of how the Lord “worked with them” (”sunergountos”). God cooperates with us. Out of His eternal love, He invites our participation.
Rom. 8:28 - God “works for good with” (the Greek is “sunergei eis agathon”) those who love Him. We work as subordinate mediators.
2 Cor. 6:1 - “working together” (the Greek is “sunergountes”) with him, don’t accept His grace in vain. God allows us to participate in His work, not because He needs our help, but because He loves us and wants to exalt us in His Son. It is like the father who lets his child join him in carrying the groceries in the house. The father does not need help, but he invites the child to assist to raise up the child in dignity and love.
Heb. 12:1 - the “cloud of witnesses” (nephos marturon) that we are surrounded by is a great amphitheatre of witnesses to the earthly race, and they actively participate and cheer us (the runners) on, in our race to salvation.
1 Peter 2:5 - we are a holy priesthood, instructed to offer spiritual sacrifices to God. We are therefore subordinate priests to the Head Priest, but we are still priests who participate in Christ’s work of redemption.
Don’t bother us with facts.
Do you not know we can call a legion of church father’s writings to overwhelm you?
—Catholic_true_believer(and, besides that - you’re wrong.)
As will all on that “narrow road”.
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.
Sorry, Dude; but your RCC 'saints' are dead as a doornail.
What? A Pope mutilated another Pope after desecrating his grave? And what is this I hear about a female Pope by the name of Joan. Must be the same legend.
This whole thread is rather ‘Boring’...but it reminds me of a conversation a few years ago when I was living in Northern Ireland...
I was attending a parish church, Church of Ireland, and there was strong definition amongst them there that they were not Catholic. I was entertaining a number of them in my home one Sunday afternoon, and in conversation one lady said, ‘We are not Catholic’ (I think I said something to stir that comment, but don’t remember what it was I said’. I replied, but you say it every Sunday, that you are ‘one holy catholic church’. The conversation was abruptly changed.
What kind of perversion is this??? Here's what God actually says to you...
1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
And here's more perversion from your religion...
1 Tim. 2:5 - therefore, although Jesus Christ is the sole mediator between God and man, there are many intercessors (subordinate mediators).
Here's what God really says...
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Jesus NEVER speaks of a mediator between man and Jesus...It's a lie...Do you guys even know what mediator means???
I have finally figured it out! I’m convinced you post those kindergarten pictures when you realize you haven’t a clue what the answer is or you have been proven in error!
I will leave you to your particular RC interpretations. Time to install W/8 (i hope).
You corrected NOTHING, but merely attempted more moving of the goal posts when faced with the fact that in contrast to the broad use of presbuteros, hiereus (priest) and archiereus (high priest) is ONLY used for priests (collectively over 150 times) and is NEVER used for NT pastors, except spiritually as part of the general priesthood of all believers. And which i had prior established as did RnMomof7 in response to you here. And as shown here
Your attempt to postulate that presbuteros women in 1Tim. 5:2 ("Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity." (1 Timothy 5:1-2) was a pastors wife is desperate, while the point remains that while presbuteros can and usually does mean a church pastor, the distinctive word for priest is never distinctively used for any or all of them.
Jewish elders as a body existed before the priesthood, most likely as heads of household or clans, and being an elder did not necessarily make one a Levitical priest, (Ex. 3:16,18, 18:12; 19:7; 24:1; Num. 11:6; Dt. 21:2; 22:5-7; 31:9,28; 32:7; Josh. 23:2; 2Chron. 5:4; Lam. 1:9; cf. Mt. 21:13; 26:47) or a high priest, offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins, (Heb. 5:1)
From the the web site of International Standard Version:
No Greek lexicons or other scholarly sources suggest that "presbyteros" means "priest" instead of "elder". The Greek word is equivalent to the Hebrew ZAQEN, which means "elder", and not priest. You can see the ZAQENIM described in Exodus 18:21-22 using some of the same equivalent Hebrew terms as Paul uses in the GK of 1&2 Timothy and Titus. Note that the ZAQENIM are NOT priests (i.e., from the tribe of Levi) but are rather men of distinctive maturity that qualifies them for ministerial roles among the people.
Therefore the NT equivalent of the ZAQENIM cannot be the Levitical priests. The Greek "presbyteros" (literally, the comparative of the Greek word for "old" and therefore translated as "one who is older") thus describes the character qualities of the "episkopos". The term "elder" would therefore appear to describe the character, while the term "overseer" (for that is the literal rendering of "episkopos") connotes the job description.
To sum up, far from obfuscating the meaning of "presbyteros", our rendering of "elder" most closely associates the original Greek term with its OT counterpart, the ZAQENIM. ...we would also question the fundamental assumption that you bring up in your last observation, i.e., that "the church has always had priests among its ordained clergy". We can find no documentation of that claim. (http://isvbible.com/catacombs/elders.htm)
And unlike hiereus and presbuteros or episkopeō, the latter two titles can be used interchangeably without distinction, as one denotes the position (senior) and the other the function (overseer). Titus was to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbuteros] in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop [episkopos] must be blameless...” (Titus 1:5-7) Paul also "sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church," (Acts 20:17) who are said to be episkopos in v. 28. Elders are also who were ordained in Acts 14:23, and bishops along with deacons are the only two classes of clergy whom Paul addresses in writing to the church in Phil. 1:1.
Note that the argument is not that you cannot call a presbyter a priest, as you can because he does engage in priestly functions, but so do all believers (below), and the contrast is between the priesthood of all believers and formally entitling what the Holy Spirit calls presbuteros and episkopos, as constituting, along with the apostles, the pastors (poimēn=shepherds: Eph. 4:11) over the church.
Making hiereus the formal title for priests (which the DRB inconsistently does, [Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5] versus presbyters — not priests — in the official Roman Catholic Bible for America) is another case of Rome "helping" the Holy Spirit out by doing what He did not do.
Your real argument is that hiereus is justified by functional equivalency under the premise of Eucharistic theology (sacrifice), which use is that of merely using Scripture to support theology, rather than being consistent with it.
Not only did the Holy Spirit not see fit to once use the distinctive word for priest distinctivly for any pastor or to denote them as a distinctive class, that of a separate class of sacerdotal priests, but as regards using it due to functional equivalence (that of the Eucharist being a sacrifice, which taking part in the Lord's supper is to example, but not as an expiatory offering for sin), all believers engage in offering both gifts and sacrifices in response to being forgiven of sins. (1Pt. 2:5; Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9)
In addition, the idea of presbuteros being a separate sacerdotal class called priests was not that of the NT church., but a latter development.
As Catholic writer Greg Dues in “Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide” states,
"Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."
"When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist."
Yet it is understood that “the Latin word presbyter has no lingual or morphological relationship with the Latin word sacerdos, but only an inherited semantical relationship.” As a result of this change, “presbyter soon lost its primitive meaning of "ancient" and was applied only to the minister of worship and of the sacrifice. “(http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=744379.0;wap2z http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm)
Likewise Raymond Brown (Sulpician Father and a prominent Biblical scholar): "So far as i know, it was only ca. 200 that the term “priest” started to be applied to the bishop and only still later was it applied to the presbyter. This observation explains why some Protestant churches which insist on using New Testament language alone refuse to call their ministers priests. When in the post-New Testament period the language of priesthood did begin to be applied to the bishops and presbyters, it brought with it a certain Old Testament background of sacrificing Levitical priesthood. The introduction of that language was logically tied in to the development of the language for the eucharist as a sacrifice. (...I think there were sacrificial aspects in the early understanding of the eucharist, but I have no indication that the eucharist was called a sacrifice before the beginning of the second century.) When the eucharist began to be thought of as a sacrifice, the person assigned to preside at the eucharist (bishop and later presbyter) would soon be called a priest, since priests were involved with sacrifice." — Raymond Brown, Q 95 Questions and Answers on the Bible, p. 125, with Imprimatur.
Furthermore, nowhere do we find any in examples or instructions in the epistles that the pastors are engaging in transubstantiation. All we have is one solitary manifest description of the Lord's supper, in which the apostle simply reiterates the Lord's words at its institution, which neither delegates this to pastors or explains this as literal versus figurative, the latter being what the evidence warrants. But which is another thread.
I think you could bank on that.
I rest my case! ROFL
Your cut and past polemic is Wrong Again, nor are your mere assertions arguments. The English word "priest" is NOT properly derived from the Greek word presbuteros (senior/elder), except by functional equivalence by making them to conform to Rome's idea of a uniquely separate class of sacerdotal priests as a consequence of her own developing Eucharistic theology.
Go find even one instance in which presbuteros are called hiereus in the NT, which is the distinct word for priests, and read carefully post http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2966953/posts?page=4756#4756 below.
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.