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

[francisdesales]

"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.

You mean the elders didn't speak for the community when they celebrated, worshiped and believed as one??? Vince, you are being too literal by looking for the word "priest", without looking at the meaning of "priest" or "elder". The job descriptions. Especially the Pastorals.

I don't see any sort of egalitarianism or democracy in the Pastorals or in the catholic epistles, admittedly, some of the later writings... The very term - "elders", "presbyteros" is an authoritative position that the community bound itself to and vice versus for their distinctive positions together. This requires the acceptance of the community, does it not? If the first Christians did NOT believe in any authority whatsoever, why do we see it develop as early as Acts 15, even earlier? Reading Acts is enough to see the development of authority within the community. Part of "authority" is to speak for the community in regards to such things as worship, doctrine, and daily practice of their religion.

regards

 

[francisdesales]

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?

As you may know, the letter was written from Rome to instruct some rebellious men to return the elders and bishops to their rightful place. Rather than cutting and pasting the entire thing, I'll point you to a link http://www.earlychristianwritings.com Look at Chapter 40-44, esp. 44, "THE ORDINANCES OF THE APOSTLES, THAT THERE MIGHT BE NO CONTENTION RESPECTING THE PRIESTLY OFFICE"

What exactly was the New Covenant sacrifice offered by SPECIFIC men, as Clement says (and claims Christ Himself established this, reading #44)?

According to Ignatius, it is Jesus Himself. Clement does not mention WHAT is the sacrifice offered, but it is quite apparent that he is talking about a priestly class that offers a new sacrifice by comparing It to the Levitical priesthood that it succeeded. Clement's focus is more on apostolic succession and maintaining the heirarchial order of things, esp. the sacrifice offered by these priests. Ignatius describes more specifically the offering Itself, Jesus Christ in the flesh - esp. since his opponents are Docetists, who deny Christ was incarnated OR IS present in the Eucharist. Justin speaks about what happens more specifically 50 years later, which he traces back to the Apostles..

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)?

Yes. the sacrifice of our Lord on the altar is a re-presentation of Calvary, in a bloodless fashion, as Trent examplained vs the Reformers. Ignatius is more clear on this matter than Clement of Rome, as Clement's letter addressed sedition, per sec.

 

[francisdesales]

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.

Impossible... Note the order in taking things up the chain..

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

After yourself, then, you go to "two or three". If all else fails, you don't gather another 3 or 4. You take it TO THE CHURCH, which can only mean an authoritative body, elders, bishops, etc. THEY have the power to expel this person for the sake of punishment and subsequent return to the flock (as 1 Cor 5 clearly points out). Otherwise, Jesus adds an unnecessary and redundant step, if the "Church" is any ol' Christian.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

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.

Glory, you are correct, we are a kingdom of priests. So were the Jews...

And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. Exodus 19:6

All Jews were priests, yet they had a ministrial priesthood. So did/does Christianity.

But now, priests are those called by God, not just from a particular tribe. And now, the sacrifice offered is perfect in every way.

Regards

 

[Vince]

"Vince, you are being too literal by looking for the word "priest""

You got that straight. The only Christian priests are the Christians themselves. There was no such thing as professional priests in Biblical Christianity.

 

[Vince]

Francisdesales, I was surprised when you quoted 1 Clement 44 with the following verse" THE ORDINANCES OF THE APOSTLES, THAT THERE MIGHT BE NO CONTENTION RESPECTING THE PRIESTLY OFFICE" because I knew that the word "priest" does not appear anywhere in the epistle. But I looked it up, and there is no such verse.

1 Clement 44 tells of disputes with the bishop's office, explaining that the Apostles had appointed bishops, and that churches and their leaders could now appoint new ones. But they were not allowed to expel a Godly bishop. He praises dead elders who had served God well. But nowhere in this chapter (or anywhere else in his epistle) does Clement refer to priests. Catholic priests didn't exist yet.

PS. Was Clement the ruler of the Church? "I do that which is ordered by the people" 1 Clement 54:2

 

[glorydaz]

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.

Glory, you are correct, we are a kingdom of priests. So were the Jews...

And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. Exodus 19:6

All Jews were priests, yet they had a ministrial priesthood. So did/does Christianity.

But now, priests are those called by God, not just from a particular tribe. And now, the sacrifice offered is perfect in every way.

Regards

Yes, the sacrifice is perfect.

But the priesthood has changed because of that. Israel failed to become a kingdom of priests...the priest's job was to be a go-between between man and God. The people couldn't come because they weren't righteous. The believer now has the job of the priest...we have been reconciled to God through Christ and have been given the "ministry" of reconciliation. We are the ambassadors for Christ to the world. We offer up living sacrifices, we keep the "lamps burning" as we're to be the light of the world, and we offer up incense (prayers). We no longer need a priest to do the priestly duties as we can go boldly before the throne. One of the priests primary duties was to teach...we have the spiritual gifts to do that as well, don't you think?

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

 

[chestertonrules]

Francisdesales, I was surprised when you quoted 1 Clement 44 with the following verse" THE ORDINANCES OF THE APOSTLES, THAT THERE MIGHT BE NO CONTENTION RESPECTING THE PRIESTLY OFFICE" because I knew that the word "priest" does not appear anywhere in the epistle. But I looked it up, and there is no such verse.

1 Clement 44 tells of disputes with the bishop's office, explaining that the Apostles had appointed bishops, and that churches and their leaders could now appoint new ones. But they were not allowed to expel a Godly bishop. He praises dead elders who had served God well. But nowhere in this chapter (or anywhere else in his epistle) does Clement refer to priests. Catholic priests didn't exist yet.

PS. Was Clement the ruler of the Church? "I do that which is ordered by the people" 1 Clement 54:2

The point of Clement's letter is that authority is to be respected. The title of the overseers is irrelevant.

This is consistent with scripture. We find in Acts that the Christians in Antioch had a doctrinal dispute. They sent representatives to the Church leaders because they recognized the authority of the Church:


Acts 15
6 The apostles and the elders gathered to consider this problem.7 After a long debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God chose me from among you to preach the Good News to the nations. They heard the Good News from me, and they believed.8 God, who knows the thoughts of everyone, accepted them. He showed this to us by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us.9 To God, those people are not different from us. When they believed, he made their hearts pure.10 So now why are you testing God by putting a heavy load around the necks of the non-Jewish believers? It is a load that neither we nor our ancestors were able to carry.11 But we believe that we and they too will be saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus."

12 Then the whole group became quiet.


23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

 

[ronniechoate34]

:drool

 

[francisdesales]

Francisdesales, I was surprised when you quoted 1 Clement 44 with the following verse" THE ORDINANCES OF THE APOSTLES, THAT THERE MIGHT BE NO CONTENTION RESPECTING THE PRIESTLY OFFICE" because I knew that the word "priest" does not appear anywhere in the epistle. But I looked it up, and there is no such verse.

I quoted the chapter title verbatim from Clement, which your word search may not find... In addition, you are incorrect, the word "priest" appears several times in Clement of Rome's letter to the Corinthians. I suspect your word search engine doesn't work. The word shows up SEVEN TIMES, as priest, priests, and priestly.

1 Clement 44 tells of disputes with the bishop's office, explaining that the Apostles had appointed bishops, and that churches and their leaders could now appoint new ones. But they were not allowed to expel a Godly bishop. He praises dead elders who had served God well. But nowhere in this chapter (or anywhere else in his epistle) does Clement refer to priests. Catholic priests didn't exist yet.

Sorry, they did. Priests offer sacrifice and we see that there is a class of men who offer New Covenant sacrifices. Priests. You are looking too hard for a word, rather than reading the letter. The context makes it clear what Clement is speaking of.

PS. Was Clement the ruler of the Church? "I do that which is ordered by the people" 1 Clement 54:2

Obama could say the same thing... But who has the power in the Executive Branch of the US government?

 

[francisdesales]

"Vince, you are being too literal by looking for the word "priest""

You got that straight. The only Christian priests are the Christians themselves. There was no such thing as professional priests in Biblical Christianity.

Again, you are incorrect, merely stating it means nothing. The most ancient writings we have outside Scriptures speak of a Sacrifice offered by only a certain group of people. THESE men are called "priests", that is what a priest does - offer sacrifice for the sake of the community. We see this even in the NT in the use of the word "presbyteros", elders. Not everyone is an elder.

All Christians are priests, but all Jews were a priestly people, as well, according to Moses. And yet, we see a priestly class of people...

 

[francisdesales]

But the priesthood has changed because of that. Israel failed to become a kingdom of priests...

Moses said they WERE, not that they were "trying to become" a priestly people. They were priestly because they were set apart, holy via this separation. Thus, the requirement of not marrying pagans. Being set apart from the profane. And still, God HIMSELF establishes the Levitical class. Hebrews merely says that now, the Levitical class is ended, the order of Melchizedek begins. Jesus is the Priest. Catholic priests participate in that priesthood, just as we can participate in other things Christ did, being part of the Body.

the priest's job was to be a go-between between man and God. The people couldn't come because they weren't righteous.

A priest now is not a "go between". remember, the priest says "THIS IS MY BODY". Christ is SACRAMENTALLY PRESENT IN THE EUCHARIST!

have been reconciled to God through Christ and have been given the "ministry" of reconciliation.

Paul was speaking of HIS ministry and those with him traveling the world, not the ordinary Corinthian. Who acted on that ministry in 2 Cor 2, just a few short chapters before? Paul is the one who returns the man back to the community, the community without Paul did not...

We are the ambassadors for Christ to the world. We offer up living sacrifices, we keep the "lamps burning" as we're to be the light of the world, and we offer up incense (prayers).

The jews were priests in the exact same way, being a light to the Gentile world during the OT times. We are priests in the same way, but again, we retain a ministrial priesthood, the order of Melchizedek, Jesus Himself.

We no longer need a priest to do the priestly duties as we can go boldly before the throne.

You mean Jews couldn't pray to God by themselves in the OT? They had to ask priests to pray for them? I think you misunderstand the role of a ministrial priesthood. It is meant for liturgical worship, when the commnity comes together to worship and pray to God as a body.

One of the priests primary duties was to teach...we have the spiritual gifts to do that as well, don't you think?

I'm thinking Jews taught their children in the homes and in the synagogue. Thus, jesus did so without any training, nor, he a Levite. Yes, the Levitical priesthood differs that what we have today. But just the same, we continue to have a priesthood that is set apart from the "nation of priests". And of course, the actual teaching authority does not belong to us, but to the Magesterium, a body of priests and overseers. We teach with authority only when we teach what God teaches through the priests. The same in Jesus' day. he taught with authority because the people recognized His teachings were in compliance with what came before - and was better.


Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Acts 15: 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

Some continue to disturb the sheep...

 

[Vince]

"The title of the overseers is irrelevant."

No, it is very relevant. And the word "priest" is not used.

Yes, the message that Christians needed to obey Jewish Law was sent without the authority of the Apostles. "Priests" are not mentioned in the story. Likewise, people who teach us to use statues, pray to dead sinners, make the Sign of the Cross, and obey the Pope do so without the authority of the Apostles.

I did not use a word search to find out that the word "priest" does not appear in the epistle of Clement the Corinthians. I looked it up in the epistle itself. Nowhere does Clement refer to professional Christian priests. They did not exist yet.

 

[glorydaz]

I don't want to argue, but I will say we now have the priesthood of the believers...we're given gifts of the Holy Spirit ... we each have Christ dwelling in us and can all come equally before the throne of God.

But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) 11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 7But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. 8For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 11But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

 

[chestertonrules]

"The title of the overseers is irrelevant."

No, it is very relevant. And the word "priest" is not used.

Yes, the message that Christians needed to obey Jewish Law was sent without the authority of the Apostles. "Priests" are not mentioned in the story. Likewise, people who teach us to use statues, pray to dead sinners, make the Sign of the Cross, and obey the Pope do so without the authority of the Apostles.

I did not use a word search to find out that the word "priest" does not appear in the epistle of Clement the Corinthians. I looked it up in the epistle itself. Nowhere does Clement refer to professional Christian priests. They did not exist yet.

What do you call the person in a leadership role who answers to a Bishop?

 

[Vince]

What do you call the person in a leadership role who answers to a Bishop?

An elder.

In the New Testament, the PATTERN, but not the command, was that there was one church in a city, led by a bishop. The church met in many separate locations. The bishop was assisted by elders. The Greek word "bishop" means "overseer." In secular Greek, it is used for the supervisor of a construction crew, and for a building inspector. The only place where the Bible actually describes a bishop says that he is the steward of the house of God. A steward was a paid employee, who ran the household for the owner.

The idea that a bishop is the spiritual ruler of a geographical area, with more than one church under him came later. It is unscriptural, and early Christian writings (which have no authority over us) confirm that the early church followed the Biblical pattern, not the later one.

 

[Vince]

Wait a minute! Now I get it. Francisdesales wrote "I quoted the chapter title verbatim from Clement,"

Clement didn't write the chapter titles, where you found the word "priest." The chapter titles were added later (and someone did a very bad job of it). Clement himself did not refer to priests in his epistle.

 

[chestertonrules]

Wait a minute! Now I get it. Francisdesales wrote "I quoted the chapter title verbatim from Clement,"

Clement didn't write the chapter titles, where you found the word "priest." The chapter titles were added later (and someone did a very bad job of it). Clement himself did not refer to priests in his epistle.

What did Clement call those chosen by God to lead the Church?

 

[Vince]

What did Clement call those chosen by God to lead the Church?

The highest rank he gave was bishop. He made no reference to popes, cardinals, or archbishops, as they had not been invented yet.

Both Clement and Ignatius used "bishop" in the Biblical sense, as a person in charge of one church.