Posted on 12/08/2012 2:24:39 PM PST by NYer
Good Question!
Are THESE guys saved??
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
It DOES?
Acts 15
Ouch.
Let me know if you get an answer.
“The English word "priest" is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, which is commonly rendered into Bible English as "elder" or "presbyter." The ministry of Catholic priests is that of the presbyters mentioned in the New Testament (Acts 15:6, 23). The Bible says little about the duties of presbyters, but it does reveal they functioned in a priestly capacity.
Commonly rendered? No kidding!! I wonder if that has anything to do with that is the correct translation? Hooda thunk! But then it rapidly transitions into this diatribe about “well they do the same things as our priests” Then we go on to the second paragraph and we read this.
“the word may rightly be translated as "priest" instead of "elder" or "presbyter."
What? NO IT CAN”T. There is a word for Priest in the New Testament and it isn’t presbuteros. What’s the matter with people? NOT ONCE does that page say that presbuteros is or can be translated priest. The RCC doesn’t care what the correct translation is. Even though it’s not the correct interpretation (by there own admission) they are just going to call them priests because they want to. That’s the honesty and integrity you want pin your eternal hopes on?
People, this is your eternal future in either heaven or hell we are talking about. This isn’t some game of play church where we can just say anything we want about what scripture says.
If you are serious about longing for heave stay as far away from the deceit of the RCC as possible. And you apologists for the Catholic Church would be wise to “search the scriptures daily to see if these things be true”.
I’m a bit slow at times so you’ll have to explain further.
It does set them apart in function, because the functions are priestly: annointing, for example (James 5:14) has no other significance but as a sacrament; πρεσβυτεροι are shown to be sacramentally ordained, therefore also separate formally (Titus 1:5) and through the ordainment receiving a particular grace (1 Timothy 4:14), and have privileges (1 Timothy 5:19), whether similar to OT elders or not. I am adressing the only substantive point in your recent post that I could see.
when they are different in meaning
Here you need to widen your horizon beyond English. Of course, English "priest" can also mean a voodoo shaman, or a Hebrew "ιερευς", but specifically "πρεσβυτερος" in the Titus and the Timothys has been shown to refer to functionally distinct nascent from of church service and so has taken on the new meaning of Catholic (or generally Christian) priest. The etymology of "priest" is clearly "πρεσβυτερος", but in English "priest" has more meanings than "πρεσβυτερος" has in Greek. And, I hasten to add, the New Testament "πρεσβυτερος" has meanings other than "priest" outside of the Titus and the Timothys, and that other meaning should be translated as "elder" or something similar, -- no one has argued otherwise.
It is usually a good idea to understand the linguistic argument before wading into it. Especially, understand that unless you are translating between two closely related languages, e.g. from Italian to Spanish, you will not have a 1-1 correspondence of most words, and 1-1 correspondence between "priest" and "πρεσβυτερος" has not been alleged. It only is such in Titus and Timothys, where the topic of apostolic succession is covered by St. Paul, and new use of the word "πρεσβυτερος" is introduced.
Probably not, at least judging by their works. Are you under an impression that every dead Catholic is saved, or every pope is a saint?
Did God really say?
Neither I or catholic.com make a dictionary argument. If you did not get the essence of the argument so far, you probably won't ever get it, but out of charity here it is again: In the Timothys and the Titus the word "πρεσβυτερος", commonly translated as "elder" or something similar, is used to denote functionally and formally the new type of service, that of a Catholic priest, rather than some amorphous "elder"; it should be translated as "priest" in these contexts, as Douay does.
If you are really interested in this, please re-read my larger posts on this topic and see Daniel's responses; I cannot repeat the same thing to several posters making the same ignorant statements, and Daniel at least makes a coherent argument.
If you did not get the essence of the argument so far, you probably won't ever get it but the words in scripture have meaning. A “priest” in scripture has a specific meaning and duty as does “presbuteros”. 1 Peter 2:5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood (hierateuma), offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
hierateuma
Short Definition: the act or office of priesthood
Definition: the act or office of priesthood.
You see, it’s we who are a holy priesthood. The Catholics are trying to convince us that priest can be used where “presbuteros” is used in scripture.
(πρεσβυτερος) presbýteros – properly, a mature man having seasoned judgment (experience); an elder
The Catholic Church using the term “priest” is counter to scripture and therefore error.
For real? Your own popes, your vicars of Christ, not even saved?
How'd they get to be popes in the first place?
And what good is that authority structure if the leadership is that corrupt and immoral that you can't even be sure they're saved?
It's laugh that Catholics criticize Protestantism for loose morals because it lacks a hierarchical structure when the RCC proves that having it does NOTHING towards insuring fidelity to doctrine, or integrity in leadership.
When speaking of ordained priests, St. Paul uses that contentious word again, "επιθεσεως των χειρων του πρεσβυτεριου" -- "imposition of the hands of the priesthood" (1 Timothy 4:14)
Like I said, "πρεσβυτερος" is used intermixed with "ιερευς", but I pointed out several uses where it can only refer to sacramental priesthood.
Mom, you are, presumably former Catholic and taught catechism -- you tell me.
So how about this born-again true blood Protestant dying and cursing God -- is he saved, according to your newfound Protestant faith?
But, to them it doesn't matter because "they" get to control words and their meanings. So what that there WAS no priestly office in the first century church making propitiatory offerings? So what that there was no mention in the Apostle's writings designating the offices within a church's structure that mentioned "priests"? So what that the Lord's Supper wasn't even considered an expiatory sacrifice until hundreds of years after all the Apostles had died? That the office as well as the functions exclusive to it developed over the course of centuries makes no difference to those who claim sole right to say what can and must be believed by "Christians" - even if it changes (though they can somehow claim they teach only what has "always and everywhere" been believed.
According to this mindset, the Apostles WERE the first Catholic priests and anyone who disagrees has an hateful and "anti-Catholic" bias. Never mind that the Apostles were the first missionaries and traveling evangelists and never stuck around any local church long enough to become their "priest", if the magesterium has decided the word means what they say it means then all the text of Scripture gets retrofitted to line up with their teaching. That way, no one can possibly have a successful argument against them. It constantly surprises them how slow others are to getting this! Once we get it through our heads that the Roman Church is superior to even Holy Scripture, it will all make perfect sense, don't you see!
On the other hand, those who believe that the Apostles were divinely inspired to write and teach what they did hold to what Scripture actually says and not what power-hungry religionists want it to mean.
Just don't wanna deal with the SINs of the popes; do you...
Well; I wouldn't either, so we're together on this one.
And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD? Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say.
And he said, O my Lord, send, I pray thee, by the hand [of him whom] thou wilt send.
And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses, and he said, [Is] not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart. And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do. And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, [even] he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God. – Exodus 4:10-16
As a man, Christ’s lineage was Judah, not Aaron. More importantly, Christ is God. He is divine.
Melchizedek was not a mortal priest either and his priesthood preceded the Levitical priesthood.
The priesthood of Christ is unchangeable and endless.
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For [it is] evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
And inasmuch as not without an oath [he was made priest]: (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this [man], because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, [who is] holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, [maketh] the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. – Hebrews 7:11-28
I'll take a stab at the trick question.
First of all, if the person in question was a genuinely born again believer in Jesus Christ, he has the indwelling Holy Spirit who will never leave or forsake him. If he was sent to hell for "cursing" God, the Holy Spirit would go with him there - not possible. Secondly, by "cursing" God at his death bed, are you saying he is rejecting his faith or is he in so much pain that it only sounds like he is cursing God due to excruciating agony? If he is rejecting his faith - and he really means it - then I would question if his faith was genuine to begin with. The Holy Spirit is within a believer, so especially in times of dire stress, he is a strong presence there, so a person who is under extreme duress probably would not curse God. And, if he slips up in this instant, after a lifetime of faith, I believe the grace of God is so strong that, yes, he would still be saved. You see, there is NOTHING that can separate us from God's love which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38,39)
So, in your hypothetical example, the answer is relative to what only God is able to see - a man's heart. Now, this is unlike the example Metmom gave about the numerous Popes who were not at all hypothetical - they actually DID those things and probably far worse than we'll ever know about. Yet they were elected by supposedly Godly men for a position that is supposedly ordained by God, Himself, so that there is an "unbroken line of succession from St. Peter". The question must be how do you rectify the actual? We can argue hypotheticals all night.
So he may have thought that he was "once saved, always saved," but actually wasn't?
The Holy Spirit is within a believer, so especially in times of dire stress, he is a strong presence there, so a person who is under extreme duress probably would not curse God. And, if he slips up in this instant, after a lifetime of faith, I believe the grace of God is so strong that, yes, he would still be saved. You see, there is NOTHING that can separate us from God's love which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38,39)
God always loves us. But sometimes, we don't love Him. Like when we sin.
So, in your hypothetical example, the answer is relative to what only God is able to see - a man's heart.
So how does this support "eternal security?"
Now, this is unlike the example Metmom gave about the numerous Popes who were not at all hypothetical - they actually DID those things and probably far worse than we'll ever know about. Yet they were elected by supposedly Godly men for a position that is supposedly ordained by God, Himself, so that there is an "unbroken line of succession from St. Peter". The question must be how do you rectify the actual? We can argue hypotheticals all night.
Who picked Judas to be an Apostle?
Catholics don't claim that popes are impeccable.
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.