Can you remit sins , John 20:19-23 ????

[glorydaz]

The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much....is isn't man that forgives sin but the prayers for the man that lead him to repent...then God does the healing and the forgiving. The sinner must be converted...repent of his sins, then God forgives him. Man's part is praying and preaching the Word so the sinner can repent and the Lord can forgive. Man neither heals nor forgives...he is merely the instrument God uses to bring about healing and repentance.

Prayers lead men to repent and prayers to God by OTHERS lead to forgiveness - from this passage. Apparently, it was already a practice in the church to call upon "elders", presbyters, to pray that someone's sins be forgiven.

Regards

Yes, just as Jesus prayed..."Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."
We pray the same thing for those for whom the Lord has given us a burden.
We share the Gospel and we pray they'll be convicted of their sins and seek God's forgiveness.

We are a kingdom of priests...we point the way to the open prison door so all may enter into the presence of God. They no longer need a priest to enter into the holy of holies for them....the veil has been rent and all now have access to God through the blood of Jesus Christ.

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

 

[Vince]

The word "deacon" refers to a menial servant. In the New testament, deacons (usually translated "ministers" or "servants" in the KJV) performed menial tasks, taught the Word of God to the saints, taught the Word of God to the lost, and carried out assignments given to them by the leaders.

Although we are not to go by the authority of men, early Christian writers described a church (which often met at many different locations) as being led by a bishop, with elders under him, and with the deacons assisting them.

 

[glorydaz]

The word "deacon" refers to a menial servant. In the New testament, deacons (usually translated "ministers" or "servants" in the KJV) performed menial tasks, taught the Word of God to the saints, taught the Word of God to the lost, and carried out assignments given to them by the leaders.

Although we are not to go by the authority of men, early Christian writers described a church (which often met at many different locations) as being led by a bishop, with elders under him, and with the deacons assisting them.

I'm pretty sure elders and bishops are the same, although some groups may have one man in higher authority. (I don't see that in the Word, however). It's the same Greek word, and from my experience in New Testament asssemblies I see elders (bishops) serving as peace makers, prayer warriors, teachers, decision makers and leading by example. It's the natural order of things where proven godly men are looked up to as examples...never lording it over, but willingly offering their wisdom and maturity in the Lord where needed by the others in the assembly.

 

[mondar]

chestertonrules,
If I might ask, where in your quotes does Clement, Ignatius, or Hegesippus say that there are priests? I see that they mentioned Bishops. I do want to mention that these Fathers wrote in Greek. The word they used relates to elders....
(see Titus 1:5 -7 where both the term bishop/overseer and the term elder is used of the same person). I would like to see a demonstration that Clement understood the term Bishop to be a priest. Could you be reading later history back into Clement by assuming that the term Bishop and Priest are the same thing?

Oh, and if I can ask a favor, please dont say insulting things like I am clearly ignorant or stupid or something like that. I am a pretty sensitive fellow. But I would like to see your reasons why you equate the terms bishop and priest.

I believe that Clement might have used the word deacon for priest.

Because you believe it, I am to assume it to be true? Sources please?

The point is that the Bishops, who were appointed by the apostles, had unique authority. This unique authority came from the apostles who got it from Jesus.

Again, sources please.

Ignorance is not necessarily an insult. It is a statement of my opinion based on your post. You might be extremely intelligent, but my guess is that you haven't spent much time studying the early Church.

I'm sorry if I offended you, but your post bothered me.

Best Regards

You are confused here. The person you originally called "ignorant" was not me. So there is no reason for me to take offense. The post you were bothered by was another person. However, If you wish to discuss things with me, I would appreciate you having some self control and restraining any insulting language. I will make the same effort to have respect for you as I write.

I responded because you were making claims about Clement of Rome and other ECFs that seemed to me to be historically anachronistic.

By the way, I would not call myself a scholar on the ECFs. I have only a few of the ECF writings. My observations is that they were not Roman Catholic. They were obviously not Baptists either. It seems to me the ECFs were something like going into a theological book store today. You will get all sorts of writers with different reasons for writing and saying all sorts of things. Some will be contradictory, some with different perspectives. While I recognize they were not protestants, my objection is that neither were they Roman Catholics. Just as in the book store there will be variety, so in the ECFs there was variety. I dont think a Bishop in Ignatius is the same thing as a Bishop in Clement. Clement wrote for a plurality. They may have had more like a plurality of elders in Rome. In the east, I think the monarchical Bishopric came about very quickly. What Roman Catholics do, however, is to read what they believed the term Bishop meant in the Middle Ages back into the terminology used by the ECFs. This is why you see the word "priest" in the word bishop. It is a historical anachronism.

 

[mondar]

[
Regards

Francis, First, let me say that I am aware that the many Early Church Fathers taught the "real presence" in the Eucharist. Of course we will disagree on what the scriptures taught as I deny the real presence. But that is not what I want to talk about. What I do want to say is that the ECFs did not necessarily think of the "real presence" as transubstantiation. That doctrine came closer to the middle ages. If you disagree maybe you can provide a quote from a Church Father from before Nicea where he equates the "real presence" with transubstantiation. The fact that the ECFs were not necessarily thinking in terms of transubstantiation is important because while transubstantiation demands a priesthood, I dont see that the "real presence" would make it necessary to have a priesthood.

I agree that the word transubstantiation didn't exist. This word was created in the middle ages in an attempt to describe what is admittedly a mystery beyond human comprehension.


However, I think these two quotes from Justin Martyr and St. Cyril describe what later came to be called transubstantiation:

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165). [/quote]

I do see the real presence here, but not transubstantiation. What are you looking at that makes you think that transubstantiation exists in Justin Martyr's thinking? Is it the word "transmitation?" In that word Justin is merely talking about bread and wine being changed by our bodies into our own physical flesh and blood.

"and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished," This is not talking about anything spiritual at all, but the fact that the Eucharistic elements also feed the body. The bread and wine also becomes body cells by what he terms "transmutation."

"Having learned these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine."" Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).

chestertonrules, I do not have Cyril. I had to look him up. I just looked him up in fact and read the Catechetical Lecture XXII. I read it at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310122.htm

While I look at this... maybe you can explain this minor thing. Why in your post do you have the quote listed as XXII:8 and in the URL above it is XXII:9? Do you know why that happened?

I am going to need some time read what Cyril is saying in the entire context of his Catechetical Lecture XXII. I hope you agree that we should read 1-9 as one context, and not separate any of the statements out and read them alone.

What I am wondering is how 9 goes along with 3

3. Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to you His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that you by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are distributed through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we become partakers of the divine nature 2 Peter 1:4 .

The danger here is reading 21st century issues back into Cyril. Just as I should not read a symbolic concept of the Eucharist into 3, should you read transubstantiation back into 9? Should we not try to read 1-9 as one context?

I will be honest and admit I do not see how 1-9 fits together yet, I need time. But let us both be honest about reading Cyril, lets go to original sources, do some work together, and then we each can go where we believe the evidence leads (together or in our different directions).

 

[chestertonrules]

What I am wondering is how 9 goes along with 3
. Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to you His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that you by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are distributed through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we become partakers of the divine nature 2 Peter 1:4 .

The danger here is reading 21st century issues back into Cyril. Just as I should not read a symbolic concept of the Eucharist into 3, should you read transubstantiation back into 9? Should we not try to read 1-9 as one context?

I will be honest and admit I do not see how 1-9 fits together yet, I need time. But let us both be honest about reading Cyril, lets go to original sources, do some work together, and then we each can go where we believe the evidence leads (together or in our different directions).

I agree completely!

I haven't quite got the hang of this site with regards to posting an organized quote, so I apologize if that caused some confusion. I also have noticed that diferrent translations of the ECFs occasionally are organized into different chapters and/or subgroups.

For clarification, let's keep this definition in mind:

1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord's command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: "He took bread. . . ." "He took the cup filled with wine. . . ." The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,154 fruit of the "work of human hands," but above all as "fruit of the earth" and "of the vine" - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who "brought out bread and wine," a prefiguring of her own offering.155

1376 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."206

 

[mondar]

What I am wondering is how 9 goes along with 3
. Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to you His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that you by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are distributed through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we become partakers of the divine nature 2 Peter 1:4 .

The danger here is reading 21st century issues back into Cyril. Just as I should not read a symbolic concept of the Eucharist into 3, should you read transubstantiation back into 9? Should we not try to read 1-9 as one context?

I will be honest and admit I do not see how 1-9 fits together yet, I need time. But let us both be honest about reading Cyril, lets go to original sources, do some work together, and then we each can go where we believe the evidence leads (together or in our different directions).

I agree completely!

I haven't quite got the hang of this site with regards to posting an organized quote, so I apologize if that caused some confusion. I also have noticed that diferrent translations of the ECFs occasionally are organized into different chapters and/or subgroups.

For clarification, let's keep this definition in mind:

1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord's command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: "He took bread. . . ." "He took the cup filled with wine. . . ." The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,154 fruit of the "work of human hands," but above all as "fruit of the earth" and "of the vine" - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who "brought out bread and wine," a prefiguring of her own offering.155

1376 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."206

I am not sure why you post this? It looks like something from the Roman Catholic Catechism? You do realize that I am protestant? I am trying not to broaden out the discussion to positions I hold on the Eucharist (Lords Supper). I fear that we would wonder all over the landscape of discussion at that point and loose focus on the OP. Again, I am confused why you quote something that looks like a Roman Catholic Catechism?

 

[francisdesales]

Yes, I see your point as far as the church community is concerned, a public confession is important. But that is asking forgiveness of the brethern as opposed to being forgiven by God.

The priest represents the community as a whole (I think public confession fell away about 700 AD and became private with a priest), but he also "represents" God. Please recall Catholicism is based upon an important concept - sacramentalism. This means that God comes to us and brings His grace to us in a visible form. The priest is the "hands" and "mouth" of God when the priest says "I absolve you of your sins". Not him personally, but as God's "mouth". When the priest holds the bread during consecration, he says "This is MY Body", not "this is Christ's Body". Again, the priest is the visible, sacramental form of Jesus. He participates in Christ's Priesthood in a unique way.

It's been said that if Catholic confession didn't exist, someone would have to invent it. If you ever have been VERBALLY forgiven by your wife, you'll appreciate the difference (rather than just "knowing" your wife forgives you because she loves you...) HEARING you are forgiven, Glory, is a wonderful feeling after Confession.

I don't believe the binding and loosing has to do with someone's sin

I'm speaking of John 20, Glory, Matthew is speaking about something else than confession of sins... Remember this was said AFTER the resurrection when Christ's work redeemed mankind already.

And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. : If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." John 20:22-23

Man has been given a power to do something, have they not?

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Francisdesales, I am glad to see your acknowledgment that no early Christan writer referred to the Catholic priesthood. But I was surprised by your statement that I learned that by researching the internet. I didn't.

I said the opposite!!! I said these writers understood a New Covenant priesthood where a "priest" would be a visible representative, a participant, in the ONE Priest, Jesus Christ, offering HIS Immaculate and pure Body to the Father, as He is on all Catholic altars for some 2000 years now. Clement especially points out this, if you took the time to read it. He is quite well versed in OT Scriptures and doesn't see the "Jewish priesthood" as "over", but as fulfilled in the New Covenant priesthood of Jesus, which Catholic presbyters shared in a unique manner.

There is no one day nor place where the Catholic priesthood began.

During the Last Supper of Jesus, He commissioned the Apostles to do "THIS" in memory of Jesus. THIS refers to offering Christ's sacrifice to the Father WITH the community in time so WE TODAY can be there at the Paschal Mystery and partake in it, just as Jews did during the Passover, believing they were actually there at original Passover. Remember, the first Christians were Jews, so their paradigm comes from their background.

Different pagan priesthoods were blended into Christianity in different places and different times, introducing different pagan rites that were "Christianized." Magical gestures to invoke the powers of the gods became the Sign of the Cross. Christians were taught that the Sacrifice of Christ was not "finished," but must be re-offered by priests on pagan altars.

Basically, I see this as trying to change the subject because you haven't read Ignatius or Clement of Rome. So you go to the "fallback" positon, you know, where Catholicism is pagan, without any sort of evidence, just hearsay and blah blah.

 

[francisdesales]

Francis, First, let me say that I am aware that the many Early Church Fathers taught the "real presence" in the Eucharist. Of course we will disagree on what the scriptures taught as I deny the real presence. But that is not what I want to talk about. What I do want to say is that the ECFs did not necessarily think of the "real presence" as transubstantiation.

I understand you don't want to go into detail on that, we've known each other for awhile and I understand your position. We all have free will to hold to what we believe without coercion.

I would agree that the actual attempt to "name" the "process" would not come until later when some in the Church wondered on the "mechanics". But to say that the Christians of the second century did not believe that Jesus was THERE in the BREAD, (the Medicine of Immortality is a piece of bread? No, JESUS is the medicine, in the bread!) is a misperception. I will agree that many things we now understand and know about our faith developed only with time, usually due to serious disagreement or discussion that forced the Church to DEFINE "what do you REALLY believe about this"?

I dont see that the "real presence" would make it necessary to have a priesthood.

Perhaps not, but they DID understand the Real Presence in the Eucharist as a SACRIFICE, (Clement esp.)and thus, priests of 100 AD were priests of the New Covenant, offering the New Covenant sacrifice to the Father with the Body of Christ (us) present and taking part in it. It is the Eucharist as a SACRIFICE that necessitated priests, since that is what they do. They do it in memory of Christ. They offer Him in union with the rest of the Body in time to the Father.

Regards

 

[glorydaz]

The priest represents the community as a whole (I think public confession fell away about 700 AD and became private with a priest), but he also "represents" God. Please recall Catholicism is based upon an important concept - sacramentalism. This means that God comes to us and brings His grace to us in a visible form. The priest is the "hands" and "mouth" of God when the priest says "I absolve you of your sins". Not him personally, but as God's "mouth". When the priest holds the bread during consecration, he says "This is MY Body", not "this is Christ's Body". Again, the priest is the visible, sacramental form of Jesus. He participates in Christ's Priesthood in a unique way.

Yes, I had forgotten that...thank you for explaining it so well.

It's been said that if Catholic confession didn't exist, someone would have to invent it. If you ever have been VERBALLY forgiven by your wife, you'll appreciate the difference (rather than just "knowing" your wife forgives you because she loves you...) HEARING you are forgiven, Glory, is a wonderful feeling after Confession.

Yes, I can agree with this as well.

I'm speaking of John 20, Glory, Matthew is speaking about something else than confession of sins... Remember this was said AFTER the resurrection when Christ's work redeemed mankind already.

And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. : If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." John 20:22-23

Man has been given a power to do something, have they not?

Yes, we have. Our power is having the ability to come directly before the throne of God.

It appears we aren't as far apart as I'd thought, friend.
I just see every believer as a priest, so when we confess our sins one to another, or anoint with oil for healing, or baptize our brother we're doing all under the authority of our High Priest, Jesus Christ.

 

[chestertonrules]

[

I am not sure why you post this? It looks like something from the Roman Catholic Catechism? You do realize that I am protestant? I am trying not to broaden out the discussion to positions I hold on the Eucharist (Lords Supper). I fear that we would wonder all over the landscape of discussion at that point and loose focus on the OP. Again, I am confused why you quote something that looks like a Roman Catholic Catechism?

You posted this:

I do want to say is that the ECFs did not necessarily think of the "real presence" as transubstantiation. That doctrine came closer to the middle ages.

Based on your statement and the subsequent reference to Cyril, it seemed to me that you didn't understand what the doctrine of transubstantiation actually is, so I posted it for clarification.

 

[mondar]

I do want to say is that the ECFs did not necessarily think of the "real presence" as transubstantiation. That doctrine came closer to the middle ages.

Based on your statement and the subsequent reference to Cyril, it seemed to me that you didn't understand what the doctrine of transubstantiation actually is, so I posted it for clarification.

Talk to me here about this again please. I think I understand the RCC doctrine of transubstantiation. I am not perfect and can misunderstand things, but I am still not seeing my mistake here.
Are you equating the "real presence" with transubstantiation? There are certain protestant groups that believe in the "real presence." Take for instance the Lutheran doctrine of "consubstantiation." I also think certain reformed groups have some sort of a view of the "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist. I am not totally aware of the reformed who view communion in this way. Nevertheless, I dont see how I am misunderstanding either transubstantiation or "real presence" when I say that they are not the same.

I suspect this also affects how we look at Church Fathers. Would it be true that it is enough for you to see words about the real presence in the elements to assume transubstantiation. While I would see only the real presence in the words of the quotes you mentioned.

In the quotes, I did not see how you got transubstantiation out of the quote from Clement at all. I did admit that I am not sure how to look at the words of Cyril. I did not see the unity between section 9 and section 3 (as I saw them numbered). I know I am no expert on the Church Fathers, so I might need some time to work on Cyril.

 

[Vince]

"The priest represents the community as a whole"

There is no such teaching in Scripture. Also, the teaching that the Catholic priesthood began at the Last Supper is not taught in Scripture.

 

[mondar]

I dont see that the "real presence" would make it necessary to have a priesthood.

Perhaps not, but they DID understand the Real Presence in the Eucharist as a SACRIFICE, (Clement esp.)and thus, priests of 100 AD were priests of the New Covenant, offering the New Covenant sacrifice to the Father with the Body of Christ (us) present and taking part in it. It is the Eucharist as a SACRIFICE that necessitated priests, since that is what they do. They do it in memory of Christ. They offer Him in union with the rest of the Body in time to the Father.

Regards

Francisdesales: You might want to elaborate more by what you are saying. By "Clement" I assume you mean Clement of Rome. Can you point me to where Clement saw the Eucharist as a re-sacrifice (or sacrifice)? Can you direct me to whatever passage in Clement you are referring to?

Also, you might want to elaborate on "They do it in memory of Christ." Do you mean you think they did both (as a re-sacrifice and a memorial)?

 

[chestertonrules]

I do want to say is that the ECFs did not necessarily think of the "real presence" as transubstantiation. That doctrine came closer to the middle ages.

Based on your statement and the subsequent reference to Cyril, it seemed to me that you didn't understand what the doctrine of transubstantiation actually is, so I posted it for clarification.

Talk to me here about this again please. I think I understand the RCC doctrine of transubstantiation. I am not perfect and can misunderstand things, but I am still not seeing my mistake here.
Are you equating the "real presence" with transubstantiation? There are certain protestant groups that believe in the "real presence." Take for instance the Lutheran doctrine of "consubstantiation." I also think certain reformed groups have some sort of a view of the "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist. I am not totally aware of the reformed who view communion in this way. Nevertheless, I dont see how I am misunderstanding either transubstantiation or "real presence" when I say that they are not the same.

I suspect this also affects how we look at Church Fathers. Would it be true that it is enough for you to see words about the real presence in the elements to assume transubstantiation. While I would see only the real presence in the words of the quotes you mentioned.

In the quotes, I did not see how you got transubstantiation out of the quote from Clement at all. I did admit that I am not sure how to look at the words of Cyril. I did not see the unity between section 9 and section 3 (as I saw them numbered). I know I am no expert on the Church Fathers, so I might need some time to work on Cyril.

Transubstantiation is one attempt to explain what it means for the real presence of Christ to be present in the bread and wine.

My point was that symbollism is part of this mystery, so ECF quotes that comment on the symbollic and spirtual aspects of the Lord's Supper don't contradict transubstantiation or other understandings of the real presence.

 

[Vince]

I've been wondering why nobody has quoted Matthew 18:18 "Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Going back to verse 1, Jesus is talking to the disciples. The authority to bind and loose is given to disciples, not to priests.

 

[chestertonrules]

I've been wondering why nobody has quoted Matthew 18:18 "Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Going back to verse 1, Jesus is talking to the disciples. The authority to bind and loose is given to disciples, not to priests.

The apostles were the first priests.

"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

 

[glorydaz]

I've been wondering why nobody has quoted Matthew 18:18 "Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Going back to verse 1, Jesus is talking to the disciples. The authority to bind and loose is given to disciples, not to priests.

The apostles were the first priests.

"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

Bishops are elders...not priests.

All believers are priests.
We are a kingdom of priests.

In the OT, there were priests that were born into Aaron's family... now we are priests because we are born into God's family. They were priests by natural birth... we are priests by spiritual birth... by being born again.

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

 

[francisdesales]

Yes, we have. Our power is having the ability to come directly before the throne of God.

Indeed, as my signature line says!

It appears we aren't as far apart as I'd thought, friend.

Yes, I am happy about that, and that is why I am here, to let people know our beliefs so they can see that we aren't that far apart on many issues.

I just see every believer as a priest, so when we confess our sins one to another, or anoint with oil for healing, or baptize our brother we're doing all under the authority of our High Priest, Jesus Christ.

Yes, whenever we do such things, it is always through Christ's power. We just believe that all have been given gifts, and authority for the sake of love and unity is one of those gifts given to certain men.

Brother in Christ