Did God institute High Priests, Baptism, Eucharist, Papacy?

kepha31 said:

If you can't be bothered to check what the Pope actually says in full context with the sources I gave you, then I can't be bothered doing your research for you. The media has an agenda against the Catholic Church, this is obvious when you compare their misleading headlines with what the Pope actually says, which you won't do because you prefer your preconceptions over the facts. It's called prejudice.

Click to expand...

This is the oldest cop-out in the world. "I'm not going to do your research."

However, what the Left leaning press has to say about the Pope is not always germain, either.

Don't just read two or three web sites, and say you have your mind made up. The whole exercise for all of us is to think, learn, exchange ideas on a Christian level, as in loving your neighbor.

Monk Brendan said:

This is the oldest cop-out in the world. "I'm not going to do your research."

However, what the Left leaning press has to say about the Pope is not always germain, either.

Don't just read two or three web sites, and say you have your mind made up. The whole exercise for all of us is to think, learn, exchange ideas on a Christian level, as in loving your neighbor.

Click to expand...

I could post multiple links with a brief explaining paragraph for each link filling several pages of links that provides the full context of what the pope said over the past five years, including encyclicals and apostolic letters, that AnticipateHisComing won't read anyway, and compare that with misleading media headlines that he mistakes for truth.

What would be the point of me sitting the computer for hours composing a list when AHC hasn't bothered with 2???

OrthodoxyUSA said:

A list proves nothing about a claim of authority over other sees... especially when some of your dates are wrong. Starting with the very first one. St. Peter was in Antioch from 38-42ad.

Click to expand...

I can see that you and I am going to have problems, and I don't want to.

However, I also believe that the Catholic Encyclopedia has the dates wrong too. Peter was first Bishop of Rome--not called Pope, that title had not been invented yet. He was Pope from 43 A.D. and that lasted until his death, by crucifixion in a head down position in 67 A.D. We know he was in Rome, because that is where he died.

OrthodoxyUSA said:

Vicar of Christ was not a title given by The Church. The original title was Vicar of the Emperor of Rome, who considered "himself" to be The Head of The Church. It was an act of rebellion against the Emperor for the Pope to consider his own office as Vicar of Christ. The Papacy did not fully embrace the phrase until after Rome Empire had fallen.

Click to expand...

"Vicar of Christ" is kind of a put down. As Christ has never left us, there would be no place for a vicar. However, vicar also is another word for substitute, then he could be called "Anti", as one who comes after. And that would make him Anti-Christ, which I am sure you will agree with me is NOT a fitting title for the Bishop of Rome.

As a Melkite Christian, I have a good grasp of Church history (not because they teach things like that, but because I like Church History) The Pope has that title because he is the "Little Father" to the city of Rome. It is a term of affection. But I am sure you know that there is another Pope. His full title is, "His Most Divine Beatitude the Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, Libya, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, all the land of Egypt, and all Africa, Father of Fathers, Shepherd of Shepherds, Prelate of Prelates, thirteenth of the Apostles, and Judge of the Œcumene".

There is still a third Pope, the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria, Pope Tawadros II.

The reason for the multiplicity of Popes is that Alexandria was Roman from the time Octavian Caesar beat Cleopatra and Mark Antony at the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE. Octavian became first emperor of Rome and took the title `Augustus’. Alexandria now became a simple province of the Roman Empire under the rule of Augustus Caesar.

Just as in Rome, Latin was the language of Alexandria, and the faithful began calling their Bishop "little father" or Pope.

The Coptic Orthodox Church belongs to the Oriental Orthodox family of Churches, which has been a distinct Christian body since the schism following the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, when it took a different position over Christology from that of the rest of the Christian Church.

parousia70 said:

Scripture teaches that there is one bishopric authorized of and by the apostles (Titus 1:5) by the laying on of hands in ordination (Hebrews 6:2; 2 Timothy 1:6; 1 Timothy 4:14), which existed from St. Peter and the apostles unto today (Matt 16:18-19; Eph 3:21).

What unwritten, Orally transmitted teaching of the Apostles can you cite that is in conflict with what the RCC teaches?

Click to expand...

Well for a start, you cannot prove that orally transmitted teaching originated with the Apostles. 4
Secondly Popes have had hands laid on them in ordination then declared to be Antipopes. Some have been atheists, Leo X I think it was, said "This myth of Christianity has been very profitable to us."
Several times you have had two popes excommunication each other and once three.
They have instituted wars, Crusades, many against Christians, They backed dictators like Mussolini and Hitler. They have been murderers, adulterers, etc.
The Pope gained power through forged documents like the Donation of Constantine and the decretals of Peter.

For centuries the Pope held much of Italy, known as the Papal States.Then in 1870 several amazing events took place. The Pope had been kept in power by French forces, Prussia invaded France, France withdrew her troops, to defend her Country. Victor Emmanuel became king of all Italy, and the pope was confined to the Vatican Palace, where he refused to come out and sulked until 1926 when his friend Mussolini gave him the Vatican State.
Also in 1870 the Pope was declared infallible, amidst a thunderstorm at midday, when it was dark as night and the declaration had to be read by candlelight.
At the same time H Grattan Guinness was on a two year preaching tour in Paris when the Prussians made a ring of fire around Paris, He left for Spain and arrived a the republican Govt had driven a road through a hill which turned out to have been the Inquisition killing fields. Layers of Ash and bones, some with nails through them. He started to write the history of Rome in a Poem form with the words, "Tell me thou murderess foul, What mean these bones." You can get it on Google Books, The City of the Seven Hills

OrthodoxyUSA said:

Do you know the "mechanics" of theosis?

Forgive me...

Click to expand...

I just started a new thread, The Mechanics of Salvation. Thanks for your patience.

Monk Brendan said:

"Vicar of Christ" is kind of a put down. As Christ has never left us, there would be no place for a vicar. However, vicar also is another word for substitute, then he could be called "Anti", as one who comes after. And that would make him Anti-Christ, which I am sure you will agree with me is NOT a fitting title for the Bishop of Rome.

Click to expand...

The reformers thought it was and so do I.

AnticipateHisComing said:

Four questions, four answers; then is there something common to all four?

1) Did God institute the office of High Priests? Yes, so clear from scripture.
Exodus 28:1 “Have Aaron your brother brought to you from among the Israelites, along with his sons Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, so they may serve me as priests. 2 Make sacred garments for your brother Aaron to give him dignity and honor. 43 “This is to be a lasting ordinance for Aaron and his descendants."

2) Did God institute the sacrament of Baptism? Yes, so clear from scripture.
Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

3) Did God institute the sacrament of the Lord's Supper? Yes, so clear from scripture.
Luke 22:19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

1 Corinthians 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

4) Did God institute the office of the Papacy? Not clear from scripture, debated so much.
I don't wish to get into that red herring of Peter was the first Pope. I just want people to acknowledge that the scriptural support for the Papacy as a lasting office is not even close to the scripture support for other important offices and sacraments. Further, scripture records the practice of the High Priests, baptisms and the Lord's Supper succeeding in time. There is no scripture recording Peter giving his "key" to another. Further when Jesus gave a key to Peter, he also gave them to the other apostles and said there would be 12 thrones in heaven; I think there have been more than 12 Popes. As for the argument that the Church has a shepherd, we know that the one Shepherd is the Son of God.

Why would God leave it up to one contentious text to institute something as important as giving one in the office both infallibility and supreme authority over the Church? If God could write out the 10 commandments, Jesus could have been a lot clearer in instituting the Papacy if that was what he wanted to exist.

Click to expand...

The Lord's high priests, I believe, are those who do his will. The Lord uses baptism as a symbolic representation of what awaits us, I believe. Yes, the Lord told us to remember him via the Eucharist, if memory serves. As for the papacy, viewing the Catholic Church as United Methodist, I have no quarrel with the Catholics for having a symbolic leader. I do wonder why they don't allow a woman to assume that position.

Was Leo the Great the First Pope?

The term ‘pope’ is from the Greek word ‘pappas’ which means ‘Father.’ In the first three centuries it was used of any bishop, and eventually the term was used for the Bishop of Alexandria, and finally by the sixth century it was used exclusively for the Bishop of Rome. Therefore it is an open question who was the first ‘pope’ as such.

The critics of the Catholic Church aren’t really worried about when the term ‘pope’ was first used. What they mean when they say that Leo the Great (440-461) was the first pope is that this is when the papacy began to assume worldly power. This is, therefore, simply a problem in definition of terms. By ‘pope’ the Evangelical means what I thought of as ‘pope’ after my Evangelical childhood. By ‘pope’ they mean ‘corrupt earthly ruler’. In that respect Leo the Great might be termed the ‘first pope’ because he was the one, (in the face of the disintegrating Roman Empire) who stepped up and got involved in temporal power without apology.

However, seeing the pope as merely a temporal ruler and disapproving is to be too simplistic. Catholics understand the pope’s power to be spiritual. While certain popes did assume temporal power, they often did so reluctantly, and did not always wield that power in a corrupt way. Whether popes should have assumed worldly wealth and power is arguable, but at the heart of their ministry, like the Lord they served, they should have known that their kingdom was not of this world. Their rule was to be hierarchical and monarchical in the sense that they were serving the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. It was not first and foremost to be hierarchical and monarchical in the worldly sense.

The Protestant idea that the papacy was a fifth century invention relies on a false understanding of the papacy itself. After the establishment of the church at Constantine’s conversion the church hierarchy did indeed become more influential in the kingdoms of this world, but that is not the essence of the papacy. The essence of the papacy lies in Jesus’ ordination of Peter as his royal steward, and his commission to assume the role of Good Shepherd in Christ’s absence. The idea, therefore, that Leo the Great was the first ‘pope’ is a red herring based on a misunderstanding of the pope’s true role.

THE EARLY PAPACY

dreadnought said:

The Lord's high priests, I believe, are those who do his will. The Lord uses baptism as a symbolic representation of what awaits us, I believe. Yes, the Lord told us to remember him via the Eucharist, if memory serves. As for the papacy, viewing the Catholic Church as United Methodist, I have no quarrel with the Catholics for having a symbolic leader. I do wonder why they don't allow a woman to assume that position.

Click to expand...

For the same reason Jesus had no women, including His mother, at the Passover/seder.

kepha31 said:

For the same reason Jesus had no women, including His mother, at the Passover/seder.

Click to expand...

And what reason is that?

dreadnought said:

And what reason is that?

Click to expand...

Gen. 3:15; Luke 1:26-55; John 19:26; Rev. 12:1- Mary is God’s greatest creation, was the closest person to Jesus, and yet Jesus did not choose her to become a priest. God chose only men to be priests to reflect the complimentarity of the sexes. Just as the man (the royal priest) gives natural life to the woman in the marital covenant, the ministerial priest gives supernatural life in the New Covenant sacraments.

Judges 17:10; 18:19 – fatherhood and priesthood are synonymous terms. Micah says, “Stay with me, and be to me a father and a priest.” Fathers/priests give life, and mothers receive and nurture life. This reflects God our Father who gives the life of grace through the Priesthood of His Divine Son, and Mother Church who receives the life of grace and nourishes her children. In summary, women cannot be priests because women cannot be fathers.

Mark 16:9; Luke 7: 37-50; John 8:3-11 – Jesus allowed women to uniquely join in His mission, exalting them above cultural norms. His decision not to ordain women had nothing to do with culture. The Gospel writers are also clear that women participated in Jesus’ ministry and, unlike men, never betrayed Jesus. Women have always been held with the highest regard in the Church (e.g., the Church’s greatest saint and model of faith is a woman; the Church’s constant teaching on the dignity of motherhood; the Church’s understanding of humanity as being the Bride united to Christ, etc.).

Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19 – because the priest acts in persona Christi in the offering to the Father, the priest cannot be a woman.

Mark 3:13 – Jesus selected the apostles “as He desired,” according to His will, and not according to the demands of His culture. Because Jesus acted according to His will which was perfectly united to that of the Father, one cannot criticize Jesus’ selection of men to be His priests without criticizing God.

John 20:22 – Jesus only breathed on the male apostles, the first bishops, giving them the authority to forgive and retain sins. In fact, the male priesthood of Christianity was a distinction from the priestesses of paganism that existed during these times. A female priesthood would be a reversion to non-Christian practices. The sacred tradition of a male priesthood has existed uncompromised in the Church for 2,000 years.

Rom. 16:1-2 – while many Protestants point to this verse denounce the Church’s tradition of a male priesthood, deaconesses, like Phoebe, were helpers to the priests (for example, preparing women for naked baptism so as to prevent scandal). But these helpers were never ordained.

Luke 2:36-37 – prophetesses, like Anna, were women who consecrated themselves to religious life, but were not ordained.

Isaiah 3:12 – Isaiah complains that the priests of ancient Israel were having their authority usurped by women, and this was at the height of Israel’s covenant apostasy.

THE PRIESTHOOD - FATHERS, CELIBACY & WOMEN'S ORDINATION - Scripture Catholic

David Kent said:

Well for a start, you cannot prove that orally transmitted teaching originated with the Apostles.

Click to expand...

Yes, and it's easily done, with Scripture and history.

Secondly Popes have had hands laid on them in ordination then declared to be Antipopes. Some have been atheists, Leo X I think it was, said "This myth of Christianity has been very profitable to us."

Click to expand...

Please provide scholarly documentation for that lie. I've seen it before and its refuted with full context.

Several times you have had two popes excommunication each other and once three.
They have instituted wars, Crusades, many against Christians, They backed dictators like Mussolini and Hitler. They have been murderers, adulterers, etc.
The Pope gained power through forged documents like the Donation of Constantine and the decretals of Peter.

Click to expand...

More lies. Of course, it's never occurred to you that satan would attack the papacy due to it's threat to him. The Bible says the Church is infallaible and indefectable. Nowhere in the Bible is the Bible used as weapon against the Church , so to go against the Church the way you do is to go against the Bible. You do it because it is a man made tradition.

For centuries the Pope held much of Italy, known as the Papal States.Then in 1870 several amazing events took place. The Pope had been kept in power by French forces, Prussia invaded France, France withdrew her troops, to defend her Country. Victor Emmanuel became king of all Italy, and the pope was confined to the Vatican Palace, where he refused to come out and sulked until 1926 when his friend Mussolini gave him the Vatican State.

Click to expand...

That is just plain absurd.

Also in 1870 the Pope was declared infallible, amidst a thunderstorm at midday, when it was dark as night and the declaration had to be read by candlelight.

Click to expand...

What's really sad is you believe this crap.

At the same time H Grattan Guinness was on a two year preaching tour in Paris when the Prussians made a ring of fire around Paris, He left for Spain and arrived a the republican Govt had driven a road through a hill which turned out to have been the Inquisition killing fields. Layers of Ash and bones, some with nails through them. He started to write the history of Rome in a Poem form with the words, "Tell me thou murderess foul, What mean these bones." You can get it on Google Books, The City of the Seven Hills

Click to expand...

Sooner or later, any discussion of apologetics with Fundamentalists will address the Inquisition. To non-Catholics it is a scandal; to Catholics, an embarrassment; to both, a confusion. It is a handy stick for Catholic-bashing, simply because most Catholics seem at a loss for a sensible reply. This tract will set the record straight. The Inquisition | Catholic Answers

Vatican City has no power over other nations; it certainly does not reign over them. In fact, the Vatican’s very existence has been threatened in the past two centuries by Italian nationalism. No mention of that, eh Kent?

Let's even things up a bit, shall we?

THE PROTESTANT INQUISITION "Reformation" Intolerance and Persecution (well documented by non-Catholic historians)

It's all a pointless school yard "my daddy can beat up your daddy" discussion.

parousia70 said in post #135:

The Hebrew/Biblical understanding of Jerusalem is that she is the "Chief of the nations" (Jeremiah 31:7; Ez 5:5), the Queen city of the earth (Lam 1:1/Rev 18:7).

Click to expand...

Regarding Jeremiah 31:7, note it can be an exhortation to the people in powerful ("chief") Gentile nations to sing, shout and pray for the nation of Jacob/Israel, not that Jacob/Israel actually ruled over them, as the figurative Babylon of Revelation chapters 17-18 rules over them (Revelation 17:18).

Regarding Ezekiel 5:5, note it says only that Jerusalem has been set "in the midst" of the nations, not that it reigns over them.

Regarding Lamentations 1:1, note it says "tributary" Jerusalem only "was" "great" "among" the nations, not that it reigns over the nations (Revelation 17:18). And Lamentations 1:1 referred back to when Jerusalem, before its destruction in 586 BC, was only a "princess" "among" "provinces", not a queen over the earth (Revelation 18:7, Revelation 17:18).

parousia70 said in post #135:

She, by Divine right and covenant, was appointed as the head of all nations (Deut 26:19; Deut 15:6; Deut 28:1,10-13), and the gentile kings recognized God's dwelling was at Jerusalem with the Hebrews (1 Ki 10:24; Luke 11:31; Ezra 1:2; Dan 2:47, 3:28-29, 4:1-3, 4:17, 4:34-37; Ezra 1; Ezra 4-7; Ezra 7:15,23).

Click to expand...

Regarding Deuteronomy 26:19, note that it, like Deuteronomy 28:1,10-13, referred not to Jerusalem but to the people of Israel. And it can mean they were "high" above all nations in God's eyes (Deuteronomy 32:10), not that they ever actually ruled over the kings of the earth (Revelation 17:18).

Regarding Deuteronomy 15:6, note it referred not to Jerusalem, but to the people of Israel, who reigned over "many" nations only around the time of David (1 Chronicles 18:11).

Regarding 1 Kings 10:24, note that it, like Luke 11:31, refers only to Solomon's wisdom, not to Jerusalem actually reigning over the kings of the earth.

Regarding Ezra 1:2, note it refers to an ancient king of Persia, not to Jerusalem, ruling over the kings of the earth.

Regarding Daniel 2:47, note that it, like Daniel 3:28-29, Daniel 4:1-3, Daniel 4:17 and Daniel 4:34-37 refers to God as the supreme ruler, not Jerusalem.

Regarding Ezra 7:15,23, note that it, like Psalms 22:28 and 1 Chronicles 29:11-12, doesn't say or mean Jerusalem (rather than God Himself) ever reigned over the kings of the earth (Revelation 17:18).

parousia70 said in post #135:

Yet, Jerusalem was also famous for becoming The Harlot City -- an unfaithful spouse to her King (Isa 1:21; Jer 3:6-10; Ez 16:37-39).

Click to expand...

Note that passages like Ezekiel 16 calling Jerusalem a "harlot" don't require Jerusalem alone must be the entirety of what the symbolic harlot "Babylon" in Revelation chapters 17-18 represents, just as, for example, Nahum 3:4 doesn't require Nineveh alone (Nahum 1:1) is the entirety of Revelation's "Babylon". Also, Isaiah 23:15-16 doesn't require Tyre alone is the entirety of Revelation's "Babylon". And Ezekiel 23:4-8,44 doesn't require Samaria alone is the entirety of Revelation's "Babylon". And Jeremiah 3:6-7 and Hosea 4:15 don't require the northern kingdom of Israel alone is the entirety of Revelation's "Babylon". And Ezekiel 20:30 and Ezekiel 43:7 don't require the house of Israel alone is the entirety of Revelation's "Babylon". And Hosea 5:3 and Hosea 6:10 don't require Ephraim alone is the entirety of Revelation's "Babylon". Instead, the corrupt aspects of all these, and of all other cities and nations throughout the earth and throughout history, can be included as only parts of what Revelation's "Babylon" represents.

Ezekiel 16:46 shows that the corrupt aspects of the harlot "sisters" Samaria, Jerusalem and Sodom all arose from one, other mother, who would be the symbolic (and worldwide) "Babylon" in Revelation chapters 17-18, the "mother" of harlots (Revelation 17:5).

AnticipateHisComing said:

And you claim the Pope is not left or political.

Click to expand...

I don't know how you squeeze politics out of such a simple meme. Putting the teachings of Christ above the teachings of capitalism is setting priorities. Why don't you clearly site the Pope's alleged left or right politics as formally expressed in his encyclicals instead of making things up. Google "papal encyclicals". Then, google "Catholic social justice" , that is the "politics" the Pope follows.

t

AnticipateHisComing said:

Looks like more than 12. Did Jesus only see the present and not the future when he said this?

Matthew 19:28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 22:30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Click to expand...

they are successors not new thrones...successor of st.peter..

twelve thrones are for twelve apostles

The twelve Apostles were hand-picked by Jesus to carry on His mission. The Apostles (meaning "one who is sent") were the first bishops of the Catholic Church. They were given authority and power by Jesus, including the power to heal and to forgive sins. Peter, the chief apostle, was given special authority, including the keys to the kingdom of Heaven (see Mt. 16:19). Christ built His Church on St. Peter (see Mt. 16:18), the first pope, and promised that it would withstand the gates of Hell. The Pope today can be traced directly back to St. Peter and the other Bishops of the Catholic Church descend directly from the other Apostles. In fact, one of the four marks of the Church is its Apostolicity. Scripture tells us that in the heavenly New Jerusalem "The wall of the city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb [that is, Christ]." (Rv. 21:14)
Before receiving the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, we see in Scripture that the Apostles displayed various characteristics, including doubt, fear, weakness, and imperceptiveness. One apostle, Judas, betrayed Christ and all but one abandoned Him during His agony. After receiving the Holy Spirit, however (excepting Judas who had died & did not receive the Holy Spirit), they became 'fearless leaders' of the Church, all but one shedding their blood for Christ.
Not included with the twelve apostles is St. Paul (formerly called Saul), who is often referred to as "the Apostle" due to his great apostolic works. As the Baltimore Catechism explains, "St. Paul was an Apostle, but as he was not called till after the Ascension of Our Lord he is not numbered among the twelve. He is called the Apostle of the Gentles; that is, of all those who were not of the Jewish religion or members of the Church of the Old Law."