Was the original Catholic Church created by power hungry zealots?

[Root of Jesse]

What chapter and verse is that? Thanks.

Chapter 8 vs 3-4.

 

[prodromos]

Succession is not the issue. It was the consolidation of ecclesial authority. The apostles established a Presbyterian structure, not an episcopal structure.

They are both synonyms for "elder".

 

[W2L]

Chapter 8 vs 3-4.

Thank you. I read it 3 times to be sure but i dont see how that scripture says the prayers of the faithful were received by the saints who are alive in heaven. It says nothing of saints being in heaven at all. It says the prayers of the saints were in heaven but not the saints themselves. And it doesn't say a saint received anything. Im confused.

 

[redleghunter]

You certainly have clergy. It's the same thing. Our priests are no different than we are, other than they've had hands laid on them and they're given authority to bind and loose as Christ gave the apostles.

Christ is the True High Priest.
Got another one?

The Catholic priesthood is a distinct class which presides over the sacrifice of the mass.

 

[redleghunter]

This still sounds like you're saying that the Eucharist has pagan origins. I don't believe you believe that, mind you. We replaced pagan centers of worship with Christian centers of worship. But, as Christ sanctified the waters when he was baptized, the Church sanctifies pagans and sometimes makes their practices sacred. Not a blanket statement, though.

No what was said was how the Eucharist or Holy Communion became the sacrifice of the mass.

 

[redleghunter]

Not so. Polycarp was taught by John, Polycarp taught Iraneaus. They were the authority of their regions regarding Church matters, and ultimately looked to Rome. Clement was consulted by the Corinthians, we have his letters instructing them in the matter they asked about. That's not second century.

That’s also not evidence for a priesthood.

 

[redleghunter]

No, the apostles did not. The apostle and his successor after him, was the local authority. The priests derived their authority from the bishop. It wasn't a body of elected elders, it was passed on by laying of hands. The episcopal structure was based on geographical areas. A bishop was over a larger area, priests stood in their stead in local churches.

What you describe cannot be found in the NT. That was the point. It was a later development.

 

[SolomonVII]

Word for word, action for action, the Bible records Jesus, the High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, offering his Body and Blood as a ritual sacrifice to the disciples.
Word for word, action for action, this is exactly what is being remembered at the Mass.
The Mass centres on Jesus presenting himself as sacrifice. It is a mystical reenactment of Golgotha, the highest form of remembrance even.
The later development is rejecting the priesthood in order to justify the Reformation rejection of the sacraments.
A Mass without a priest is a Mass without Jesus.

 

[W2L]

A Mass without a priest is a Mass without Jesus.

So Jesus is only present when a priest is?

 

[mark kennedy]

The New Testament only covers the first generation of the Church. Mary was evident, especially in John's writing-both Revelation and later, his Gospel. Mary was there the entirety of Jesus' ministry-she got it started even when he didn't think it was time, and she was there at the foot of the cross. And all the time between, implicitly. God gave John a glimpse of his mother in the Revelation vision, as the queen of heaven. This alone signifies her importance to the Church, though she had no authority in the Church.

Her reaction to Jesus starting his ministry was to try to get him to come home (Matthew 12:47-49). Your interpretation of Revelation 12 completely igbores the context of Revelation 11 that clearly says this is 3 1\2 years into the Tribulation, the sounding of the trumpets, the ministry of the two prophets, the abomination that causes desolation, the repentance and flight of Israel from the Antichrist. Your allegorizing a text that is clearly and obviously describing Israel.

 

[mark kennedy]

Christians ALWAYS did. Christ is the royal priest (forever according to the order of Melchizidek), the apostles, their successors, and appointees serve in His name.

Yet none occupy any office of priest save Christ alone. Melchezidek may well be an OT Christophany, otherwise how is he without beginning of years or end of life (Hebrews 7:3)?

 

[mark kennedy]

Prove that it is an analogy. Many disciples walked away, because they knew what he was telling them. And he used the words to gnaw, and chew. But Jesus didn't say it was a misunderstanding, did he?

It wasn't a nisunderstandoing, he told them they wanted him to be king because they ate and there bellies were filled. He said you must believe in me and they turned and followed him no more. Pretty cut and dried.

 

[redleghunter]

Since we actually know very little about the daily practices in the pagan temples (we know they had annual events) the above claim is hardly justified.

We have enough from the reign of Theodosius:

Paganism and Rome

 

[redleghunter]

They are both synonyms for "elder".

Apparently not as by the 3rd century the elders disappeared from the ecclesiastical design.

 

[redleghunter]

Word for word, action for action, the Bible records Jesus, the High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, offering his Body and Blood as a ritual sacrifice to the disciples.
Word for word, action for action, this is exactly what is being remembered at the Mass.
The Mass centres on Jesus presenting himself as sacrifice. It is a mystical reenactment of Golgotha, the highest form of remembrance even.
The later development is rejecting the priesthood in order to justify the Reformation rejection of the sacraments.
A Mass without a priest is a Mass without Jesus.

1 Peter 2: NASB

4And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, 5you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

6For this is contained in Scripture:
“BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”

7This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve,
“THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,”

8and,
“A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE”;
for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.

9But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.

 

[prodromos]

We have enough from the reign of Theodosius:

Paganism and Rome

Next to nothing.

 

[prodromos]

Apparently not as by the 3rd century the elders disappeared from the ecclesiastical design.

Episcopos = elder

 

[redleghunter]

Since we actually know very little about the daily practices in the pagan temples (we know they had annual events) the above claim is hardly justified.

Next to nothing.

You did not see the quote from Ambrose?

Having read the petition, Ambrose wrote to refute each point that had been made.

"And why should I say anything of the Senones, whose entrance into the inmost Capitol the remnant of the Romans could not have prevented, had not a goose by its frightened cackling betrayed them? See what sort of protectors the Roman temples have. Where was Jupiter at that time? Was he speaking in the goose? But why should I deny that their sacred rites fought for the Romans? For Hannibal also worshipped the same gods. Let them choose then which they will. If these sacred rites conquered in the Romans, then they were overcome in the Carthaginians; if they triumphed in the Carthaginians, they certainly did not benefit the Romans. Let, then, that invidious complaint of the Roman people come to an end. Rome has given no such charge. She speaks with other words. 'Why do you daily stain me with the useless blood of the harmless herd? Trophies of victory depend not on the entrails of the flocks, but on the strength of those who fight....Was there then no Altar of Victory? I mourn over my downfall, my old age is tinged with that shameful bloodshed. I do not blush to be converted with the whole world in my old age.'"

 

[SolomonVII]

1 Peter 2: NASB

4And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, 5you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

6For this is contained in Scripture:
“BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”

7This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve,
“THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,”

8and,
“A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE”;
for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.

9But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.

Quoting Catholic text to a Catholic is actually an argument for the Catholic position.

 

[redleghunter]

Episcopos = elder

Let’s look:

Christ is the head of the church and its supreme authority (Ephesians 1:22; 4:15; Colossians 1:18

Titus 1:
5The reason I left you in Crete was that you would set in order what was unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. 6An elder must be blameless, the husband of one wife, having children who are believers and are not open to accusation of indiscretion or insubordination.

7As God’s steward, an overseer must be above reproach—not self-absorbed, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not greedy for money. 8Instead, he must be hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it was taught, so that by sound teaching he will be able to encourage others and refute those who contradict this message. (Titus 1:5-9)

The New Testament refers a number of times to elders who served in the role of church leadership (Acts 14:23, 15:2, 20:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14)

In Philippians 1:1, Paul greets the bishops and deacons but does not mention the elders, presumably because the elders are the same as the bishops. Likewise, 1 Timothy 3:2, 8 gives the qualifications of bishops and deacons but not of elders. Titus 1:5-7 seems also to tie these two terms together.

There was a plurality of bishops/overseers.