Posted on 05/17/2014 4:31:22 PM PDT by Gamecock
Why should I answer every one of your absurd comments when I've already disembowed your post already? I consider it abuse of a corpse. It is unseemly.
Well at least we agree on that. The Son also says that his words are not his own, speaking only those things that his Father do desires. “God hath in these last days spoken unto us, by his Son, whom he hath APPOINTED heir of all things”.
What's your point, thou tedious heathen? Can't the Father appoint the Son heir of all things? And who else can He appoint but God Himself? Can a created being hold all these things? Obviously, the Son "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:" being "appointed" these things does nothing to further your claims. What you need to do is prove that Christ is not God, and you must turn all verbs "to be", in all their forms, into something else, in order to accomplish it. "I AM the Alpha and the Omega... Saith the Lord, which is, which was, which is to come, ALMIGHTY."
I’m oneness Pentecostal.
What Oneness Pentecostal church teaches the Jehovah's Witness doctrine of deity? Oneness cultists teach modalism, not that Christ is a created being. Are you a JW and just don't want to admit it? It's not like they're any less horrible than the legalists of the Oneness Pentecostals, who think that if they wear the right clothes and hate the world enough they'll get into heaven, while their fat bodies wiggle around on the floor, blabbering in demonic tongues, in the disgusting spirit of whatever demon is having their way with them at any given time.
Both of your statements are demonstrably false ...
Paul met Christ on the road to Damascus (Acts 9) ... and he clearly confirms that he received the gospel through direct revelation from Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11-12).
Greetings:
I don’t agree with your reading of Saint Augustine, and neither does he. In addition, as far back as Origen the notion of Purgatory as mentioned in his Commentary on 1 Corinthians Chapter 3. Around the same time Tertullian has a similar notion of Purgatory. Those, these 2 writers preceded Saint Augustine by 200 years. Saint Clement of Alexandria [In His work Stromata] and Saint Cyprian of Carthage [In his Letters, circa 253] also speak of a purging with Fire.
The Liturgical Practice of Prayers for the Dead in all of the ancient Liturgies of the Catholic Church [All Liturgies come from 3 major centers, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch] are connected to Purgatory. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Saint Gregory Nyssa, Saint Basil the Great Saint Ephraem of Syria, Saint Ephiphanius of Salamis “All” reflect this Liturgical practice in the East.
Prayers for the Dead are also found in the Roman Liturgy and theological writings of Saints Hillary, Jerome and Saint Ambrose, along with Saint Augustine all reflect a notion of a purging fire following Origen.
In summary, Saint Augustine was only more formally developing a theology of “purging fire” as hinted in 1 Corinthians 3:12-16 that was in place well before him
Mr Rogers:
The NT uses the word “Episkopos” in numerous places. The word literally means “Overseer or One who Oversees” It is used in Acts 20:28, and in Saints Paul’s Letters [Phil 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:1-2; Titus 1:7] and in Saints Peters 1 Epistle [2:29].
The word Presbyters which means older man is word describing priests. The Presbyters were the ones who celebrated the Eucharist, anointed the sick, heard confessions, all priestly functions. No early Church Father disputes that only presbyters and Bishops could do certain ministries. Saint Paul himself describes his ministry of Christ as a “priestly service of the Gospel” [cf. Romans 15:16].
Your reading of Acts 15 doesn’t make sense to me. Peter got up and said to them.... and later on James states “Peter[Symeon] has described.....then in verse 22 we finally read, the Apostles and presbyters in agreement with the whole Church......
Peters role in this council is fundamental to it being received by the entire Church.
And no, one does not have to go out of Scripture to see priests, one needs to read the early Church Fathers who new the Apostles and read their writings to get insight to what the NT text truly meant, not what somebody thinks they meant starting 1,600 years later from the fact.
I don't think too many are concerned with the 'Patristic' scholars...
It is known by most modern scholars who have compared the written ideas of the Patristic scholars along with the available evidence and concluded the Ignatian letters to be fakes...
You have a couple of sets of letters supposedly written by Ignatius which when compared are the same letters...One set of letters contains nothing Catholic...The other set of the same letters is weighted down with Catholic terms and phrases...
If Ignatius wrote both sets of letters, which do you suppose he wrote first??? The Catholic set and then when he rewrote the letters, he left everything Catholic out of the letters???
Or do you think Ignatius may have written the non Catholic letters initially and later someone came by and rewrote the letters and added everything Catholic???
And then we have the Isadorian Decretals, more fake documents your religion is based on...And the Donation of Constantine...More fake Catholic history...And the list goes on and on...
They were always received [the 7 that Eusebius cited] as authentic by the Catholic and Orthodox Church and only in the Post Reformation period did “Protestants question them”.
That's because the means to research these forgeries became more available and it was people who started 'inside' your religion who became Protestants had access to this material...
“The word Presbyters which means older man is word describing priests.”
No.
“Elders - Greek: Presbyters; see the word explained in the notes at Acts 14:23. These “elders,” or “Presbyters,” were also called “bishops” (compare the notes at 1 Timothy 3:1), for Paul immediately, in describing their qualifications, calls them bishops: - “ordain elders in every city - if any be blameless - for a bishop must be blameless,” etc. If the elders and bishops in the times of the apostles were of different ranks, this direction would be wholly unmeaningful. It would be the same as if the following direction were given to one who was authorized to appoint officers over an army: “Appoint captains over each company, who shall be of good character, and acquainted with military tactics, for a Brigadier General must be of good character, and acquainted with the rules of war.”
That the same rank is denoted also by the terms Presbyter and Bishop here, is further apparent because the qualifications which Paul states as requisite for the “bishop” are not those which pertain to a prelate or a diocesan bishop, but to one who was a pastor of a church, or an evangelist. It is clear, from Titus 1:7, that those whom Titus was to appoint were “bishops,” and yet it is absurd to suppose that the apostle meant prelatical bishops, for no one can believe that such bishops were to be appointed in “every city” of the island. According to all modern notions of Episcopacy, one such bishop would have been enough for such an island as Crete, and indeed it has been not infrequently maintained that Titus himself was in fact the Bishop of that Diocese. But if these were not prelates who were to be ordained by Titus, then it is clear that the term “bishop” in the New Testament is given to the Presbyters or elders; that is, to all ministers of the gospel. That usage should never have been departed from.
In every city - Crete was anciently celebrated for the number of its cities. In one passage Homer ascribes to the island 100 cities (Iliad ii. 649), in another, 90 cities (Odyssey xix. 174). It may be presumed that many of these cities were towns of not very considerable size, and yet it would seem probable that each one was large enough to have a church, and to maintain the gospel. Paul, doubtless, expected that Titus would travel over the whole island, and endeavor to introduce the gospel in every important place.”
Also discussed here:
“The office of a bishop - The Greek here is a single word - episkopes - The word episkope- “Episcope” - whence the word “Episcopal” is derived - occurs but four times in the New Testament. It is translated “visitation” in Luke 19:44, and in 1 Peter 2:12; “bishoprick,” Acts. Acts 1:20; and in this place “office of a bishop.” The verb from which it is derived (episkopeo), occurs but twice, In Hebrews 12:15, it is rendered “looking diligently,” and in 1 Peter 5:2, “taking the oversight.” The noun rendered bishop occurs in Acts 20:28; Philemon 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 2:25. The verb means, properly, to look upon, behold; to inspect, to look after, see to, take care of; and the noun denotes the office of overseeing, inspecting, or looking to. It is used to denote the care of the sick, Xeno. Oec. 15,9; compare “Passow;” and is of so general a character that it may denote any office of overseeing, or attending to. There is nothing in the word itself which would limit it to any class or grade of the ministry, and it is, in fact, applied to nearly all the officers of the church in the New Testament, and, indeed, to Christians who did not sustain “any” office. Thus it is applied:
(a)to believers in general, directing them to “look diligently, lest anyone should fail of the grace of God,” Hebrews 12:15;
(b)to the elders of the church at Ephesus, “over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers,” Acts 20:28;
(c)to the elders or presbyters of the church in 1 Peter 5:2, “Feed the flock of God, taking the oversight thereof;
(d)to the officers of the church in Philippi, mentioned in connection with deacons as the only officers of the church there, “to the saints at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons,” Philemon 1:1;
(e)to Judas, the apostate. Acts 1:20; and,
(f)to the great Head of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Peter 2:25, “the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.”
From this use of the term it follows:
(1) That the word is never used to designate the “uniqueness” of the apostolic office, or so as to have any special applicability to the apostles. Indeed, the term “bishop” is “never” applied to any of them in the New Testament; nor is the word in any of its forms ever used with reference to them, except in the single case of “Judas,” Acts 1:20.
(2) it is never employed in the New Testament to designate an order of men superior to presbyters, regarded as having any other functions than presbyters, or being in any sense “successors” to the apostles. It is so used now by the advocates of prelacy; but this is a use wholly unknown to the New Testament...
(3) it is used in the New Testament to denote ministers of the gospel who had the care or oversight of the churches, without any regard to grade or rank.
(4) it has now, as used by Episcopalians, a sense which is wholly unauthorized by the New Testament, and which, indeed, is entirely at variance with the usage there. To apply the term to a pretended superior order of clergy, as designating their special office, is wholly to depart from the use of the word as it occurs in the Bible.
(5) as it is never used in the Scriptures with reference to “prelates,” it “should” be used with reference to the pastors, or other officers of the church; and to be a “pastor,” or “overseer” of the flock of Christ, should be regarded as being a scriptural bishop.”
Significantly, there IS a word in Greek for “Priest”, and it is used often in the New Testament...but it is never used to describe a Christian office. It is contrasted with our great High Priest in the book of Hebrews, and all of us are to be priests offering sacrifices of praise, good deeds, etc - but the word for priest is NEVER used to describe an office in the Christian church.
“Your reading of Acts 15 doesn’t make sense to me. Peter got up and said to them.... and later on James states...”
Please read Acts 15. There is a point where Peter speaks. It does NOT end the discussion. Instead, Barnabas and Paul continue to speak and answer questions. At the end, James summarizes and says what is to be done. It is all there. It is not hidden:
6 So the apostles and elders met together to resolve this issue. 7 At the meeting, after a long discussion, Peter stood and addressed them as follows: “Brothers, you all know that God chose me from among you some time ago to preach to the Gentiles so that they could hear the Good News and believe. 8 God knows people’s hearts, and he confirmed that he accepts Gentiles by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he cleansed their hearts through faith. 10 So why are you now challenging God by burdening the Gentile believers with a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors were able to bear? 11 We believe that we are all saved the same way, by the undeserved grace of the Lord Jesus.”
12 Everyone listened quietly as Barnabas and Paul told about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.
13 When they had finished, James stood and said, “Brothers, listen to me. 14 Peter has told you about the time God first visited the Gentiles to take from them a people for himself. 15 And this conversion of Gentiles is exactly what the prophets predicted. As it is written:
16 ‘Afterward I will return
and restore the fallen house of David.
I will rebuild its ruins
and restore it,
17 so that the rest of humanity might seek the Lord,
including the Gentiles—
all those I have called to be mine.
The Lord has spoken—
18 he who made these things known so long ago.’
19 “And so my judgment is that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from eating food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from eating the meat of strangled animals, and from consuming blood. 21 For these laws of Moses have been preached in Jewish synagogues in every city on every Sabbath for many generations.”
22 Then the apostles and elders together with the whole church in Jerusalem chose delegates, and they sent them to Antioch of Syria with Paul and Barnabas to report on this decision. The men chosen were two of the church leaders—Judas (also called Barsabbas) and Silas. 23 This is the letter they took with them:
“This letter is from the apostles and elders, your brothers in Jerusalem. It is written to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. Greetings!
24 “We understand that some men from here have troubled you and upset you with their teaching, but we did not send them! 25 So we decided, having come to complete agreement, to send you official representatives, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We are sending Judas and Silas to confirm what we have decided concerning your question.
While Peter is respected, his voice is not the one that finishes the discussion, nor does he determine the outcome. The letter sent is sent from “the apostles and elders, your brothers in Jerusalem”, not signed by Pope Peter.
Thus I conclude the obvious: Peter was respected, but he was NOT the “Vicar of Christ”, ruling in the place of Jesus here on earth. During my military career, I was in numerous meetings involving Generals and Colonels. When the General says, “This is what I believe”, the Colonels do not continue discussing and then issue their own direction.
Iscool:
I agree, most fundamentalist protestants in the United States are not too concerned with either the Church Fathers are legitimate Patristic Scholars.
Mr Rogers:
The Apostles were Apostles, so by that the very term, they were Leaders in terms of function and what they did, even if the word Bishop was never specifically attached to them. They functioned as Bishops in that they laid hands on those to they ordained for ministry. That in practice and function is an act of a Bishop. I will not go into all the NT places were the act of “laying of hands” was done by Apostles because it is numerous.
Yes, I am aware that Presbyters and Bishop were used interchangeably at times which is because a Bishop is in fact a Presbyter, and does all of the ministries that a Presbyter does. However, there were some things a only a Bishop [overseer] could do. Saint Paul communicated that to Timothy and Titus in his letters that only they could appoint presbyters, giving them an exclusive ministry that other presbyters did not have.
And again, the presbyters is describing priests, just not in the writers that you read. Protestantism has to shoot down the Ministerial priesthood because Luther and Calvin were never Bishops, one was a Catholic Priest and one a Catholic Deacon, so they read back into the scriptures apart from what every Church Father starting with Clement in the late 1st century, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Ireneaus in the 2nd, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage in the 3rd, Ambrose, Hillary, Basil the Great, Augustine, etc, in the 4th century, the Canons of Nicea 325, Constantinopile 381, Ephesus in 431 and Chalcedon in 451 had read from those same scriptures.
Again, I will not stand with Luther and Calvin and their protégés on this question. I will stand with the constant witness of orthodox Apostolic tradition and the Catholic Church on this question which of course is the same understanding that the Eastern Orthodox have.
“And again, the presbyters is describing priests, just not in the writers that you read.”
No. This is simply not an accurate statement. Had the New Testament writers WANTED priests, they had the Greek word for priests to use. Instead, they used a different word for discussing an office in the Christian church - and they NEVER used the word for priest to describe a Christian office held by men.
The reason is obvious. “Priests” became needed to offer a blood sacrifice - which Catholic theology strayed to describe the Eucharist.
“Canon I. If any one saith, that there is not in the New Testament a visible and external priesthood; or, that there is not any power of consecrating and offering the true body and blood of the Lord, and of forgiving and retaining sins, but only an office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel; or, that those who do not preach are not priests at all: let him be anathema.”
But scripture is clear: the sacrifice of Jesus was once and for all time, not a repeated event:
” The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
26 For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 27 He 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. 28 For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever...
...For 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. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for 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.”
There is no need for a human priest offering a sacrifice, for Jesus did so once for all, not to be repeated.
And thus it is not surprising that no human priests served in the Christian church, except in the sense of a universal priesthood offering sacrifices of praise & good deeds.
Meanwhile, Titus says:
“This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”
That did not give Titus some exclusive church position, but merely sets him to do a job.
Timothy says:
“The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
Qualifications for Deacons
8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. 9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. 11 Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 13 For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus...
...11 Command and teach these things. 12 Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. 13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. 14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you. 15 Practice these things, immerse yourself in them, so that all may see your progress. 16 Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers...
...17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” 19 Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. 21 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality. 22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure.”
That is no basis for making a second office out of one - Elders. Elders oversee. That is what they do.
“For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city...For a bishop must be blameless”
No distinction. The KJV inserts bishop, not because that is the correct translation, but because King James required the translators to do so, saying, “No Bishop, No King”. That was part of the price of getting an “Authorized Version”, and part of the reason why Tyndale’s translation nearly 100 years earlier was more accurate.
“Bishops” and “Priests” were sinful errors brought in by the heathen, and part of the warnings both Paul and Peter gave about what would follow, if they did not adhere to the word of God.
“I will stand with the constant witness of orthodox Apostolic tradition and the Catholic Church on this question”
And you may do so. I prefer to adhere to the teachings of the Apostles revealed in God’s Word instead of clinging to traditions invented after a large influx of heathens.
All of which were rebels against the magisterium, which, like Rome, thought of themselves above that which was written .
I deny everything you said.
I see. So like Rome, since you say it then it is True. Well then, explain how a holy man in the desert who ate insects, and an itinerant Jewish Prophet, both of whom were rejected by those who sat in the seat of Moses, and whom the former reproved in accordance with Scripture, were not rebels, as were the prophets and apostles which did likewise, against the magisterium which thought of themselves above that which was written? (Mk. 7:2-16)
And that Rome likewise thinks of herself above that which was written, under the premise that an assuredly (though conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith. (Jn. 14:16; 16:13; Mt. 16:18)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
I am waiting.
Unless the sole basis is because "you say so." Which by all appearances it is, and yet you were whining about "propoganda" earlier in the thread.
Typing out a bunch of words does not a substantive argument make. So keep waiting, because I don't see any point in responding to empty assertions with anything but the same. If you say "yip yip yip" the answer you can reasonably expect is "nop nop nop."
And I will adhere to the Church Fathers understanding of the Sacred Scriptures, who actually culturally Roman and Greek, neither of which you and any of your Protestant forbearers were or any of these WASP scripture scholars that you cite are now.
They clearly understood the word presbyter to mean priest in terms of function, even if the word was not used. Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp all mention Bishops, Priests and Deacons, a 3-tiered ministry and all of them speak of the Eucharist in some fashion. All of them were immediate disciples of Apostles. All of the commentaries you cite are post Reformation Protestants 1,600 years after the fact trying to fit in Protestant Ecclesiology and Protestant “non-sacramental theology” retroactively.
So Bishops and Priests were brought in by Heathens, can you prove that are is that an opinion of Mr. Rogers.
The Eucharist is not a “blood sacrifice” it is a re-presentation of the once for all paschal mystery of Christ made present thru the celebration of the Eucharist [called Divine Mystery in the Greek Church, Sacrament in the West], in an unbloody manner. Nothing bloody about it.
“They clearly understood the word presbyter to mean priest in terms of function, even if the word was not used.”
Sorry, but that is simply NOT what the word means. There is a Greek word for priest, and it was not used for any christian office - and Hebrews makes it excruciatingly clear WHY...
“The Eucharist is not a “blood sacrifice” it is a re-presentation of the once for all paschal mystery of Christ made present thru the celebration of the Eucharist [called Divine Mystery in the Greek Church, Sacrament in the West], in an unbloody manner. Nothing bloody about it.”
Do you believe in the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation?
“That the consequence of Transubstantiation, as a conversion of the total substance, is the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, is the express doctrine of the Church (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii). Thus were condemned as contrary to faith the antiquated view of Durandus, that only the substantial form (forma substantialis) of the bread underwent conversion, while the primary matter (materia prima) remained, and, especially, Luther’s doctrine of Consubstantiation, i.e. the coexistence of the substance of the bread with the true Body of Christ. Thus, too, the theory of Impanation advocated by Osiander and certain Berengarians, and according to which a hypostatic union is supposed to take place between the substance of the bread and the God-man (impanatio = Deus panis factus), is authoritatively rejected. So the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation sets up a mighty bulwark around the dogma of the Real Presence and constitutes in itself a distinct doctrinal article, which is not involved in that of the Real Presence, though the doctrine of the Real Presence is necessarily contained in that of Transubstantiation. It was for this very reason that Pius VI, in his dogmatic Bull “Auctorem fidei” (1794) against the Jansenistic pseudo Synod of Pistoia (1786), protested most vigorously against suppressing this “scholastic question”, as the synod had advised pastors to do...
...Regarding tradition, the earliest witnesses, as Tertullian and Cyprian, could hardly have given any particular consideration to the genetic relation of the natural elements of bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ, or to the manner in which the former were converted into the latter; for even Augustine was deprived of a clear conception of Transubstantiation, so long as he was held in the bonds of Platonism. On the other hand, complete clearness on the subject had been attained by writers as early as Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria in the East, and by Ambrose and the later Latin writers in the West. Eventually the West became the classic home of scientific perfection in the difficult doctrine of Transubstantiation.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3
“The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation (CCC, 1376).”
http://carm.org/transubstantiation
” There is an important Greek word which is used to describe both the death and the sacrifice of Christ: ephapax, which means ‘once-for-all’. In Romans 6:9-10, Paul clearly states that Christ can never die again because his death was ‘once-for-all’. The author of Hebrews insists that Christ cannot be sacrificed daily, that his body is offered ‘once-for-all’ and that because this once-for-all sacrifice has brought complete forgiveness of sin there is no longer any requirement for an offering or sacrifice for sin.33 All that the animal sacrifices and human priesthood signified in the Old Testament, Christ has fulfilled. Consequently, God has abolished the priesthood and all sacrifices.
This presents the Roman Catholic Church with a dilemma. Scripture teaches that Christ’s body and his sacrifice were offered once. Rome teaches that his body and sacrifice are offered over and over again in transubstantiation and the repetition of each mass. The Church attempts to get around this problem by claiming that the sacrifice of the mass is not a different sacrifice from that of Calvary but the same sacrifice perpetuated through time. Because God is beyond time the sacrifice of the cross is always present with him, and therefore the sacrifice of the mass is the same sacrifice as that of Calvary. This logic is a semantic smoke-screen: the sacrifice of the cross was an historic space-time event which occurred once and can never be repeated. The application of the Lord’s sacrifice goes on through time in terms of the Holy Spirit bringing men to receive the benefits of his finished work, and the commemoration of his sacrifice goes on through time, but the sacrifice itself cannot be perpetuated. Indeed, the principal theme of the book of Hebrews is that there are no more sacrifices for sin of any kind whatsoever...
... Scripture does speak of a eucharistic sacrifice. The word ‘eucharist’ literally means ‘thanksgiving’ and the New Testament frequently enjoins believers to offer this kind of sacrifice of praise: ‘Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of the lips that give thanks to His name’ (Heb. 13:15). This is the true eucharistic sacrifice. Scripture also speaks of other sacrifices the believer is to offer to God — our goods to meet the needs of others, and ourselves in total surrender to God (Heb. 13:16; Rom. 12:1). These are all true sacrifices in the New Testament but they have nothing to do with the expiation of sin.
If, as we have seen, there is no more sacrifice for sin — what is the meaning of the Lord’s Supper? The Supper was established by the Lord Jesus as a memorial of thanksgiving and praise for his atoning sacrifice by which believers were to commune with him spiritually and also to proclaim his death until he comes again. The bread and wine, as Augustine points out, were given as figures or visible symbols of his body and blood and therefore are figurative expressions of his self-sacrifice. They are visible reminders to his people of what he has done on their behalf. When the Lord says, ‘This is my body’, he is speaking figuratively and not literally. In fact, in Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:16,18, Christ refers to the wine after consecration as the ‘fruit of the vine’, indicating that it was still wine. Twice, in 1 Corinthians 11:23-27, Paul refers to the consecrated bread as ‘bread’.”
http://www.the-highway.com/eucharist_Webster.html
Yes I believe in the Doctrine of the Eucharist. The term transubstantiation is a philosophical explanation to a philosophical question regarding the Eucharist. It does not have to the only way to understand it but when the question was raised during the scholastic period, a scholastic formulation relying on the metaphysics of Aristotle was used to answer the question.
Again elder=presbyteros is just and older man. In the early Church elders-presbyteros [presbyter is a Latin word] and their duties overlapped with Bishops[Episcopi=overseers]. The words episcopi and presbyteros are two different words and at times are used interchangeably since an overseer was by definition also a presbyter. The roles were distinct and the roles of the overseer[episcopi] equals Bishops role and the presbyters took on the roles of priests who were not Bishops and the roles of Bishops and presbyters were not that of the Deacons.
I don’t want to have to quote every Church Father who clearly understood the NT passages that you quote to indicate a 3 tiered ministry of Bishop/Presbyter{priest}/Deacon. The post would take for days. Lets just look at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. The Council was called to answer Arius’s interpretation of Proverbs 8:22-31, which everyone in the early Church saw as a prefigurement of Christ. The problem was that you can’t from the text clearly define how Christ is from the Father and [of Course Consubstantial is the Latin Term that would be used as the equivalent of homoousia] and because of that Council, the Nicene Creed was defined.
Now some questions
1) Do you agree with the Council of agree with Arius interpretation of Proverbs 8:22-31 because a simple reading of that text does not allow for a clear dogmatic statement of how Wisdom [Christ] comes from the Father since the text makes statements like from of old I was poured forth, before the earth, when there was no depths, I was brought forth.... Nothing in the text clearly states that Wisdom [the pre-Incarnate Christ] was as the Council would define, Eternally begotten from the Father....
2) Lets assume you think the COuncil of Nicea correctly interpreted Proverbs 8:22-31 and made the correct Doctrinal statement regarding Christ, the same council in Canons 3, 4,5,6,7,8, 9, 15, and 18 speak of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons.
Canon 18 is of particular interest as it states that it has come to our attention of the Holy and great council that in some locales and cities, Deacons give the Eucharist to presbyters, although neither the canon nor custom [Tradition] permits those who do not offer SACRIFICE [emphasis mine] to give the Body of Christ to those who do offer sacrifice. This, too, has become known: that some deacons are now receiving the Eucharist before the Bishop. All of this is to be discontinued, and the Deacons are to keep within their own proper bounds, knowing that they are the servants of the Bishop and that they rank less than presbyters. They are to receive the Eucharist, in accord with their rank, after the presbyters, either a Bishop or Presbyter giving it too them.
Now This Council was written in Greek [Canons] and the Creed was also written in Greek. How did these guys not get the Protestant understanding of the NT epistles and not define them the way you Baptist do today. I mean really??????????????????
As for some early Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, which mention overseer and presbyters, Saint John Chrysostom in his Homilies on 2nd Timothy [393AD] speaks of priests offering the sacrifice of the Eucharist [oblation] just as the Apostles [Peter and Paul did]
In his commentary/homilies on the Letter to Philippians [398AD] , Saint John Crysostom writes, in his greeting to the Philipians, Paul addresses himself. To the co-bishops and deacons..What does this mean? Where there plural Bishops of one city? Certainly not! It is the presbyters that Paul calls by this title; for these titles were then interchangeable, and the bishop is even called a deacon. that is why when writing to Timothy, Paul says..fullfill your diaconate although Timothy was then a Bishop. that he was in fact a Bishop is clear when Paul says to Him “Lay Hands on no man lightly and again “which was given you with the laying of hands of the presbyter and presbyters would not have ordained a bishop.
As for your views or the views of the Protestant scriptural commentary you cite regarding the Letter to the Hebrews, Saint John Chrysostom also gave a Homily/commentary on the Letter to the Hebrews [403AD] and he addresses the notion of Christ once for all sacrifice [Hebrews 9:28 is quoted] and how the Eucharistic sacrifice is not a different one, it is one in the same.
In summary, as I stated before, I could find bundles of more quotes from the Patristic period that is consistent with the Catholic Church’s understanding of Bishop[Episcopi]; Presbyter/Elder[Priest] and Deacon but the Canons from Nicea and Chrystostem’s Commentaries/Homilies will suffice and are consistent with my understanding of it because my understanding of it is the understanding of the constant witness of the Apostolic Church.
**Why should I answer every one of your absurd comments when I’ve already disembowed your post already?**
So these comments (questions) are absurd?.....
Again,...did Jesus Christ inherit his name?
In the scriptures, neither Jesus Christ, nor the apostles ever used the phrase ‘God the Son’, only the ‘Son of God’. True or false?
The Almighty God is IN Jesus Christ without measure. That’s what he, and his apostles and prophets declare. True or False?
So, in John 17:1-3, when Jesus Christ calls the Father ‘the only true God’ is he speaking the truth?
When the Christ said that the Father is in him doing the works (Jn 14:10), was he telling the truth?
When Paul said in 1 Cor. 8:6: “But to us there is but one God, the Father, OF whom are all things, and we in him;(semi-colon) and one Lord Jesus Christ, BY whom are all things, and we by him.”, was he telling the truth?
Why would one person of God need to be redeemed by another person of God?
The I AM spoke out of the burning bush (that was protected from being consumed by the I AM). The Son that spoke the Words of the I AM that dwells in him, was preserved from corruption, by the I AM. “God who at sundry times and in divers manners (like the burning bush) spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets.”
**”I AM the Alpha and the Omega... Saith the Lord, which is, which was, which is to come, ALMIGHTY.”**
.........Because.......the I AM, the ALMIGHTY, is in him, and no one, including you, can take the I AM, the ALMIGHTY out. The Son sez the Father’s in him. That’s what makes the Son the everlasting Father. Or you could just black out half the book of John, especially chapter 14, and hang onto your man-made three separate and distinct, co-equal persons, Godhead description.
After your hateful description (lumping all Oneness Pentecostals into your heavily biased stereotype), I will ask myself a question: Will GPH’s refusal to answer the above questions be regarded as a concession? Yes, I believe so.
“Lets just look at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.”
Yes. Let’s look after heresy had already corrupted the Church - not beyond all recognition, and not so much that many souls didn’t still belong to Christ, but enough so that many false doctrines were developing. After all, who knew better - the Apostles, or those who followed 250 years later?
You see, we have the written record of the Apostles. We know what they taught - they did so openly, and IN WRITING. And they did so, Peter indicated, because “there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction”.
You write, “Now This Council was written in Greek [Canons] and the Creed was also written in Greek. How did these guys not get the Protestant understanding of the NT epistles and not define them the way you Baptist do today. I mean really??????????????????”
It is pretty simple - look at who was doing the deciding, and what their self-interest was. You might as well ask me how Supreme Court Justices could ever pervert the plain meaning of the US Constitution!
The so-called ‘Church Fathers’ tended to be all over the place, and often used words inconsistent with the theology later read into them:
” The Didache seems to refer to the eucharist as the believer’s sacrifice, reflecting the idea of self-giving to the Lord through an offering of praise and thanksgiving for the finished work of Jesus Christ. There is no mention of its being a propitiatory sacrifice. Roman apologists have often appealed to Clement of Rome as a support for their sacrificial interpretation of the eucharist but this is done as a result of a mistranslation. Keating, for example, gives a translation of 1 Clement 44 where Clement mentions those ‘from the episcopate who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices’.22 The problem with this translation is that Clement does not use the word ‘sacrifices’ in his original letter but the word ‘gifts’. So the appeal to Clement of Rome is an empty one.
Justin Martyr believed the eucharist was a spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving which commemorated the death of Christ by a Church which now counted Gentiles among its members.23 Irenaeus also referred to Malachi’s prophecy and characterized the eucharist as a thank-offering to God. He maintained that the real sacrifice intended within it was the prayers of true believers, which came from pure hearts wholly yielded to God and undefiled by sin.24 Similarly, Tertullian argued that the true sacrifices offered to God were not of a carnal, physical kind, but the spiritual sacrifice of a broken and a contrite heart before God.25 Origen and Clement of Alexandria stressed this same theme: that the real meaning of the eucharistic sacrifice was as a memorial or commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ which demanded the self-surrender of the soul to God. It was a sacrifice because it involved the prayers and praise of God’s people; the self-surrender of themselves to God from broken and contrite hearts; and the giving of material offerings to the poor. There is absolutely no mention of the eucharist as the literal and renewed sacrifice of Christ as a propitiatory sin-offering.
Eusebius also explicitly states that the fulfilment of the prophecy of Malachi of a pure and bloodless sacrifice was to be found in the prayers and thanksgiving of true Christians throughout the world from contrite hearts.26
But the most influential advocate for this point of view was, once again, Augustine.27 He was unequivocal in his belief that the Lord’s Supper was a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, a commemoration of Christ’s passion. The eucharist is simply a sacramental way of remembering Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice. The sacrament is called a sacrifice only because it is identified with Calvary as a memorial or commemoration of that unique sacrifice.28 It was not Christ who was offered in this memorial but the Church, who offered herself to God through Christ as a living sacrifice from a broken and a contrite heart. He, too, saw this as the fulfilment of the prophecy of Malachi.29”
http://www.the-highway.com/eucharist_Webster.html
And concluding the same analysis:
” Jesus himself teaches us that the Church is to observe the Supper ‘in remembrance of me’. The word remembrance is the Greek word which literally means a memorial. The Supper is no altar of sacrifice, but a table of remembrance, a place of spiritual communion with the Saviour by his Spirit. To teach that Christ has instituted a means whereby his sacrifice can be perpetuated through time is to contradict the plain teaching of Scripture.
This becomes yet clearer from the identification of the Lord’s Supper with the Passover memorial of the Old Testament. The Lord’s Supper was first celebrated at the time of the Jewish Passover and Jesus specifically identifies it as an equivalent when he says: ‘I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer’ (Luke 22:15). What exactly was the Passover? It was an annual feast established by God in which the Jews would remember the night in which the angel of death ‘passed over’ those families which had applied the blood of the lamb to their door-posts (Exod. 12:1-13). ‘Now this day will be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it as a permanent ordinance’ (Exod. 12:14). This was a ‘memorial’ to a specific act of God in redeeming his people from bondage and death. The ‘memorial’ served to bring to remembrance an important event. It did not repeat the event but kept it vivid in the memory through a physical representation.
Just as God instituted a memorial of remembrance of redemption in the Old Testament, he has done the same in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 5:7 states, ‘For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.’ His death is an accomplished fact. Now we are called, not to a sacrifice, but to a feast: ‘Let us therefore celebrate the feast . . . with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth’ (1 Cor. 5:8). When Christ states that the bread is to be eaten and the wine drunk in remembrance of him, he is employing the same language as that of the Old Testament memorial in reference to the Passover. The Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice, it is the commemoration of a sacrifice.
The Roman Catholic teaching of the eucharist contradicts Scripture and it cannot be validated by the unanimous consent of the Fathers. To teach men to put trust in the eucharist as a sacrificial event is to undermine the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is to deny the sufficiency of his once-for-all sacrifice on the cross of Calvary. To suggest in any way that men must rely upon anything but Christ and his cross as God’s means for dealing with sin is to lead men to a false trust and a false gospel.”
The truth is there is no consistent witness of the ‘church fathers’. But suppose, for the sake of argument, there WAS a consensus. Would that consensus overrule the “God-breathed” words of the Apostles? What would you trust more - the actual words of the US Constitution, or 200 years of rulings from the Supreme Court?
I’m not interested in what church father said this, or which one said that. I simply do not care! If it conflicts with the God-breathed, divinely inspired scripture, it is wrong...and that is why the Catholic Church opposed vernacular translations for commoners. It simply could not afford to have lay people notice the difference between their teachings and the scripture.
Verse? There is not one verse, but what i am referring to is what ought to be common knowledge to those who are familiar with Scripture, while it is you who suppose a simply denial refutes what every gospel and the book of Acts reveals.
But since you seem to ignorant, or playing so, watch and learn.
Enter the Jewish magisterium:
Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (Matthew 23:2-3)
Whom were over Israel, and "unto them were committed the oracles of God" (Rm. 3:2)
But whom the Lord reproved by Scripture as being supreme (as He also did to the devil: Mt. 4):
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. (Mark 7:9,13 )
And whom He defied:
And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other. (Mark 3:2-5)
And whom the magisterium rejected as having no authority as an itinerant preacher:
We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is. (John 9:29)
And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me. And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed. And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things. (Mark 11:27-33)
Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, (Matthew 20:18)
And which magisterium the prophets of reproved:
Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: (Matthew 23:34)
And the apostles also rebelled against:
But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. (Acts 4:19-20)
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29)
Thus it is clear that the apostles and prophets and the Lord Jesus Christ were rebels against the magisterium, who presumed of themselves above that which was written, and thus were reproved by what was written.
But which you must and did deny, and which is to be expected, since it applies to the presumption of elitist Rome as well.
“I’m oneness Pentecostal.”
Zuriel, who ever you are, what kind of a corruption of what the Word of God teaches, is that?
Well of course they are, and they basically indicate that you do not even understand anything about what Christianity has taught for 2000 years. For example: Again,...did Jesus Christ inherit his name?
What name are you even referring to? Why don't you tell us what was or was not inherited, rather than trolling me about it? Do you even know what we teach about Jesus Christ? Do we teach that Jesus Christ is truly man and truly God? True or false? Do we teach that Christ in the mediator between God and man? True or false? Do we teach that Christ is the eternal Word, the Son of God, the Alpha and the Omega? True or false? Now, after you educate yourself over the basics of our teaching, you will have the answers to your stupid questions. I am not obligated to humor your stupidities. Go out and educate yourself about what we teach before you dare oppose it!
Why would one person of God need to be redeemed by another person of God?
What are you hallucinating? Where does it say that the Father is "redeeming" the Son? That is nowhere in any of the verses you have molested.
The Son sez the Father’s in him. That’s what makes the Son the everlasting Father.
Think logically for a moment: Christ does not just say the Father is in Him, He declares that He is in the Father, and we are in Him, and He is in us! And yet, none of us are being worshipped or declaring ourselves Almighty. The fallacy of your argument is that you only take one thing Christ said, and ignore the rest. What Christ is speaking of is His union with God, and our union in Him as the body of Christ and the adopted sons of the Father. It is not a statement of our divinity, nor does it negate His divinity, which is centered within Himself. Hence the scripture says "All things were made by Him; and without Him was there anything made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men." Christ is the uncreated creator, whether you like it or not.
Mr Rogers:
No Church Father taught on the Eucharist in a manner like you Baptist believe. Period! So now the Council of Nicea is heretical by your accounts. Good griefAll good grief. I done dealing with you.
The translation of sacrifice in Clements Letter is an accurate one. It is more the translation you are using, most likely from Schaff is the one riddled with anti Catholic polemics.
The differences in terminology of the Eucharist in now way means that there was not an understanding of the Eucharist consistent with both Catholic and Orthodox understanding. You can cite this internet theologian guy White you keep citing all you want. Jaraslov Pelikan, one of the most esteemed Patristic Scholars of the 20th century, in his work the Development of Doctrine Volume 1 states that while there was no clear yet formula to define the Eucharist, the language used was extremely realistic and Christ presence in the Eucharist was a special one.
Pelikan [The Christian Tradition, A history of the Development of Doctrine Volume 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600AD); pp. 167-171]writes “In some early early writers that presupposition was expressed in striklingly realistic language. Ignatius calls the Eucharist the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, asserting the reality of CHrist presence in the Eucharist against the Docetists, who regarded his flesh as phantasm both in the incarnation and Eucharist. Ignatius combined realism of his Eucharistic doctrine with a symbolic implication when he equated the “bread of God” with the “flesh of Christ” but went on to equate “his blood” with “incorruptible love”..
Theologians did not yet adequate concepts within to formulate a doctrine of real presence that evidently was already believed by the Church even though it was not yet taught by explicit instruction or confessed by creeds...
As Irenaus’s referenced the Eucharist as “not common bread” indicates, however that this doctrine of the real presence believed by the Church and affirmed by the Liturgy was closely tied to the idea of the Eucharist as a sacrifice.
Many of the passages we have already cited concerning recollection and the real presence spoke also of sacrifice, as when in several ambiguous passages Justin contrasted the sacrifice of Judaism with the sacrifice offered up in the “remembrance effected by the solid and liquid food” of the Christian Eucharist.
One of the most ample and least ambiguous statements on the sacrificial interpretation of the Eucharist in any ante-Nicene theologian was that of Cyprian, who is also one of the earliest authorities on the sacerdotal interpretation of Christian ministry. In the course of a discussion on Liturgical problems, Cyprian laid the down the axiom: “If Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, is himself the chief priest of God the Father, and has himself offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father, and has commanded this to be done in commemoration of himself, certainly that priest truly discharges the office of Christ who imitates that which Christ did; and he then offers a true and full sacrifice in the Church of God to the Father, when he proceeds to offer it according to what he sees Christ himself to have offered.” This was based on the belief that “the passion of the Lord is the sacrifice that we offer.” The sacrifice of CHrist on Calvary was a complete offering; the sacrifice of the Eucharist did not add anything to it, nor did it “repeat” it, as though there was more than the one sacrifice. But as the sacrifice of Melchizedek the priest “prefigured the sacrament of the sacrifice of the Lord”, so the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church was performed “in commemoration” of the sacrifice of Good Friday and in “celebration with a legitimate consecration. In other Liturgical discussions, Cyprian made it clear that it was appropriate to speak of the Eucharist as a sacrifice; but also stressed the sacrifice of a broken spirit was also a sacrifice to God equally precious and glorious.
Another prominent theme of Eucharistic doctrine was the belief that participation in the Lord’s Supper would prepare the communicant for immortality. Perhaps the most familiar statement of this theme came from the words of Ignatius, describing the Eucharist as the medicine of immortality, the antidote to death, and everlasting life in Jesus Christ. The much debated words of Justin about “transmutation” taking place in the Eucharist may be a reference either to the change effected in the elements by their consecration or to the transformation of the human body through the gift of immortality, or both. Irenaeus explicitly drew a parallel between these two transformations when he declared that the bodies that had received the Eucharist were no longer corruptible, just as the bread that had received the consecration was no longer common....
Liturgical evidence suggests and understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, whose relation to the Old Testament was one of archetype to type, and whose relation to the sacrifice of Calvary was one of re-presentation just as the bread of the Eucharist re-presented the body of Christ....In its doctrine as in its liturgy, it recalled One who was present in its celebration, and in its corporate experience it was united to that sacrifice by which the promise of eternal life became real.
As for what the Apostles taught, no, you only know what “You think they taught” or what your local Baptist Pastor thinks they taught. That is what you know. As for this Webster fellow you cite, I don’t know who he is but he is not theologian, just another internet theologian who I think was a rich business guy who started putting money into fundamentalist Baptist groups. He is no more of a theologian than I am, in fact, I did do 30 hours of course work from a Catholic Seminary as a layperson which is the program that my Diocese requires for men who become permanent Deacons [no, I am not a Catholic Deacon].
I will put Pelikan, who as a An Emeritus Professor of Church History at Yale against this Webster fellow anytime, anyplace, anywhere.
And again, so now the Council of Nicea is heretical, is that it Mr. Rogers. You dodged the question. So do agree with Arius interpretation of Proverbs 8:22-31 because every heresy that ever started in the early Church was due to somebody thinking they understood scripture better than the rest of the Church. It seems, you seem to think you understand it better than the Fathers that I cited [Chrystostem in particular] regarding Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon, and his commentaries on those Epistles where those words were used.
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.