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

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Peter was never bishop of Rome. Linus was. Eusebius tells us that Linus was the first bishop, or elder, of Rome was Linus and that he was installed by Peter and Paul.

Your order is correct, there were Bishops in Rome before Peter. It may be more appropriate to say Bishop in Rome than of...

The dates given are reflective of them coming together, united as one by Sts. Peter and Paul in much the same way as at Antioch.

At any rate it seems Antioch largely agrees with Eusebius' timeline.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. (Hebrews 8)

Is it bad that I heard Sean Connery's voice when reading that?

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

It does if you think Jesus died to pay your sin debt.

Soteriology - OrthodoxWiki

Salvation is the goal of Christianity, and the purpose of the Church. The theology of salvation is called soteriology. Orthodox Christianity strongly believes that God became man, so that man may become like God. This concept of theosis, rejects that salvation is a positive result to a legalistic dilemma, but is instead a healing process. Orthodoxy views our inclination to sin as a symptom of a malady that needs treatment, not just a transgression that requires retribution. One of the distinctive characteristics of Orthodox Christian thinking is that it sees the Gospel message not as law, but as relationship. It speaks of the mystery of the Holy Trinity in terms of the relationship of love that exists among them. To join in that love is the work that will lead to salvation.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Patriarch - OrthodoxWiki
"Patriarch

After the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea [325ad], the church['s administrative] structure [called a Pentarchy] was patterned after the administrative divisions of the Roman Empire wherein a metropolitan [another level of administration established in the 260's by council] or bishop of a metropolis came to be the ecclesiastical head of a civil capital of a province or a metropolis. Whereas, the bishop of the larger administrative district, diocese, came to be called an exarch.

In a few cases, a bishop came to preside over a number of dioceses, i.e., Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. [called see's]

At the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451, Constantinople was given jurisdiction over three dioceses for the reason that the city was "the residence of the emperor and senate". Additionally, Jerusalem was recognized at the Council of Chalcedon as one of the major sees.

In 692, the Quinisext Council formally recognized and ranked the sees of the Pentarchy in order of preeminence, at that time Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem." [Rome was ranked first at Constantinople's request. The Bishop of Rome {a Syrian at the time} turned down the offer calling it a novelty, only to give consent later.]

[] brackets are my notes.

Equals... seated on couches in council.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Mat 18:19 Christ speaking
"Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven."

Forgive me...

 

[kepha31]

The high priests did have authority to lead the Jews, but that authority did get revoked when the temple was destroyed. The big difference as my OP argues is that the Pope does not have authority from God to be the leader of all Christians. If I was RC, it would be bad for me to criticize him. As I am not, I am calling out an example of how errant he is, especially when he is more concerned with social/political issues than religious ones. It is more proof that the office is not instituted by God.

Did I say something about the Pope that was evil? I guess it is OK for him to call a President and millions of people stupid though.

Unfortunately, this Pope is not just a spiritual leader but has become a politician.
Saying the same things politicians do, like calling a group of people stupid.

The high priests did have authority to lead the Jews, but that authority did get revoked when the temple was destroyed. The big difference as my OP argues is that the Pope does not have authority from God to be the leader of all Christians. If I was RC, it would be bad for me to criticize him. As I am not, I am calling out an example of how errant he is, especially when he is more concerned with social/political issues than religious ones. It is more proof that the office is not instituted by God.

Did I say something about the Pope that was evil? I guess it is OK for him to call a President and millions of people stupid though.

The full context of what the Pope says is available on a number of reliable Catholic news sources. There is nothing sanctimonious about slandering the Pope with vicious lies.

https://zenit.org/

Catholic News Agency :: CNA

 

[scottSTANLEY]

And we don't.

Forgive me...

Then why do you believe Christ died?

 

[scottSTANLEY]

Soteriology - OrthodoxWiki

Salvation is the goal of Christianity, and the purpose of the Church. The theology of salvation is called soteriology. Orthodox Christianity strongly believes that God became man, so that man may become like God. This concept of theosis, rejects that salvation is a positive result to a legalistic dilemma, but is instead a healing process. Orthodoxy views our inclination to sin as a symptom of a malady that needs treatment, not just a transgression that requires retribution. One of the distinctive characteristics of Orthodox Christian thinking is that it sees the Gospel message not as law, but as relationship. It speaks of the mystery of the Holy Trinity in terms of the relationship of love that exists among them. To join in that love is the work that will lead to salvation.

Forgive me...

I could not agree more. Salvation is a healing process that only love can heal. I see the love of a Father and Son, not a trinity. To know that God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son empowers me to be free from guilt and shame, and free from anger,bitterness and resentment. Christ on Calvary points us to His Father, who then points us back to His Son, shedding light on the God of the OT.

 

[parousia70]

Your translation is lacking emphasis on what traditions the Church is to follow. Try this one.

ESV So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.​

So scripture does not say to follow ALL traditions of the religious leaders, but ones from us, the apostles.

So, for the folks like us who are generations removed form the apostles, this passage does not apply in your view?

If it does apply today, maybe you could cite one or two of these "spoken word traditions of the apostles" that you believe we are to be following?

Jesus clarifies this when he taught that following all the traditions that the religious leaders taught was not what he intends.

Matthew 15:2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” 3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.​

Right... Traditions of the Old Covenant Jewish Elders does not = Traditions of the New Covenant Apostles.
Hopefully we can agree on that!

The Old Covenant and it's traditions were waxing old and about to vanish in the first century (Hebrews 8:13) For the Christ Had come and the shadow was to be done away with.​

Lastly, I know you want to defend the Papacy

I defend the Following, which you have yet to refute:

The Church of scripture is one united ecclesial body (Eph 4:3-4; Eph 4:13-16; Jn 17:21; Mt 16:18) without schismatic divisions (1 Cor 12:25; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; Jude 1:19; Gal 5:20; 3 John 1:9-10), with one teaching for all the churches (Acts 15:22-23,25,28/Acts 16:4-5; 1 Tim 1:3; 1 Cor 1:10; Eph 4:5; Jude 1:3), and one bishopric authorized of and by the apostles (Titus 1:5) by the laying on of hands in ordination (Heb 6:2; 2 Tim 1:6; 1 Tim 4:14; Titus 1:5), sharing ministers back and forth among all churches (1 Cor 16:3; Rom 16:1,3,9,21,23; Phil 2:19,25; Titus 3:12), receiving one another in fellowship and in greeting (Rom 15:5-7; Rom 16:16; Col 4:10,12,14; 3 John 1:9-10), where excommunication removes individuals from this one body (Matt 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:1-2,4-5), and which existed from St. Peter and the apostles unto today (Matt 16:18-19; Eph 3:21).

Protestantism, in Contrast, is an endless schism of divisions with multiple different teachings and authority structures, with no effective means of excommunication and no traceable Apostolic Lineage.

Given these two polar opposite church structures, I'm going to side with the Church of Scripture, every time.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Then why do you believe Christ died?

To trample down death, by death.
To deliver our souls from the depths of hades.
To grant the world great mercy.

Selections from ancient hymography.

Forgive me...

 

[David Kent]

Your order is correct, there were Bishops in Rome before Peter. It may be more appropriate to say Bishop in Rome than of...

The dates given are reflective of them coming together, united as one by Sts. Peter and Paul in much the same way as at Antioch.

At any rate it seems Antioch largely agrees with Eusebius' timeline.

Forgive me...

There is no scriptural evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. Paul was in Rome and mentioned a number of people that supported him while he was there but never mentioned Peter.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Hi,
They are forgiven. The peril is to allow the doctrines they teach to permeate your understanding. Babylon is divided into three parts: Paganism / Catholicism / Protestantism All three base there beliefs on God needing a human sacrifice in order to forgive the sinner. God is love (1 John 4:8, 16) and love does not keep a record of sin (1 Corinthians 13:5). The cross bears this out.

Whew! I am so glad that at least one major branch of Christianity (Eastern Orthodoxy) is not included in Babylon.

 

[Monk Brendan]

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."

Yet, when I spoke about the high priest as a type--not only of Christ, but of the apostles and beyond, you said to me:

Do you still offer animal sacrifices? Do you still go to the temple in Jerusalem? Do you still abide to the High Priests?

As I said, it was a type of Jesus and of the priesthood to come, not only bishops and priests, but the priesthood of all believers (which I thought you understood, or I would have explained it then.)

I said, in response to your statement about authority:

Was not the High Priesthood carried on, male to male in direct descendancy? If Aaron can pass on his role, why can't the Bishop of Rome? Please show me Book, Chapter and Verse where God has forbidden this.

By this I was merely challenging you to THINK!

Your have not refuted a single argument in my last post. You have not even responded to the bulk of it. Instead you expect me to prove a negative. I could ask you to show me where in scripture that I don't have to bring my pastor presents. Oh, just because scripture doesn't forbid something, you think it true. Weak, weak argument.

And there is NO rule that says that I have to refute or respond to your posts, or any portion I choose. You haven't refuted or responded to all of my posts.

You bring your pastor gifts? I thought that had been undone by the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. And yet you carry on with it. Why? Isn't that also a part of the imperfect LAW?

My comments about the OT priests was related to the institution God gave to descendants of Aaron. We are in agreement on all I have stated about them. You tried to transfer authority in an office given to specific people in the old covenant to a different set of people in the new covenant. I answered your test and proved you wrong. Now you cop out with a comment that it is my argument that I started that you are using. Not true. I take you failure to defend your argument as an acknowledgement that it was without basis.

So power is a gift of the Holy Spirit and authority is from God.

Is the Holy Spirit only to give gifts to the Old Testament? I seem to remember many examples of the Holy Spirit being given to the faithful. I'll use this as an example:
“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts 2:38
So if the Holy Spirit is available to Peter and the Apostles, then they have the power and authority to give the Holy Spirit, Then their followers the faithful throughout the ages, have that same power, and some of them have been ORDAINED of God to serve at His altar, in the sacraments of the Church.

Peter did fail at least twice as recorded in scripture. You have incompletely argued how your church defends the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. The Church I agree will survive till the last day.

I never said that ANY pope was infallible. I said:

The Pope is inerrant, when, speaking from the See of Peter, and in communion with the other Bishops of the Church, he makes a statement to teach or define a matter of faith or morals.

I went on to explain that otherwise, he can make mistakes like any other man. He is, after all, an old man from Argentina

Now authority. The first apostles had authority to write scripture. The canon is closed. That authority no longer exists. The other authority they were given was to command things in heaven. What this means is debated, but I will again repeat what scripture says. This was limited to twelve.

And where did Paul get the authority to write Scripture?

Are you of the opinion that once John had died the Holy Spirit went back to heaven and hasn't been back since then? I think you know better than to say that.

If your Pope would only act the same as you wish me to act. While I have thought about the idea in the OP for a while, what prompted me to put it down was your Pope yet again meddling in politics, promoting climate change policies and insulting those with a different view, calling them stupid men, using scripture at it.

Ah!, Here is the true reason for your RANT on the Pope. You don't like his politics! Guess what? I don't like all of his politics, either.

 

[David Kent]

So, for the folks like us who are generations removed form the apostles, this passage does not apply in your view?

If it does apply today, maybe you could cite one or two of these "spoken word traditions of the apostles" that you believe we are to be following?

Right... Traditions of the Old Covenant Jewish Elders does not = Traditions of the New Covenant Apostles.
Hopefully we can agree on that!

The Old Covenant and it's traditions were waxing old and about to vanish in the first century (Hebrews 8:13) For the Christ Had come and the shadow was to be done away with.​

I defend the Following, which you have yet to refute:

The Church of scripture is one united ecclesial body (Eph 4:3-4; Eph 4:13-16; Jn 17:21; Mt 16:18) without schismatic divisions (1 Cor 12:25; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; Jude 1:19; Gal 5:20; 3 John 1:9-10), with one teaching for all the churches (Acts 15:22-23,25,28/Acts 16:4-5; 1 Tim 1:3; 1 Cor 1:10; Eph 4:5; Jude 1:3), and one bishopric authorized of and by the apostles (Titus 1:5) by the laying on of hands in ordination (Heb 6:2; 2 Tim 1:6; 1 Tim 4:14; Titus 1:5), sharing ministers back and forth among all churches (1 Cor 16:3; Rom 16:1,3,9,21,23; Phil 2:19,25; Titus 3:12), receiving one another in fellowship and in greeting (Rom 15:5-7; Rom 16:16; Col 4:10,12,14; 3 John 1:9-10), where excommunication removes individuals from this one body (Matt 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:1-2,4-5), and which existed from St. Peter and the apostles unto today (Matt 16:18-19; Eph 3:21).

Protestantism, in Contrast, is an endless schism of divisions with multiple different teachings and authority structures, with no effective means of excommunication and no traceable Apostolic Lineage.

Given these two polar opposite church structures, I'm going to side with the Church of Scripture, every time.

Apostolic lineage comes through teaching and not through so called Apostolic succession, The RCC does not teach the same as the apostles taught, far from it.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

There is no scriptural evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. Paul was in Rome and mentioned a number of people that supported him while he was there but never mentioned Peter.

True enough that you could not prove it via scripture. But Antioch does teach that he went there.

Forgive me...

 

[Monk Brendan]

There is no scriptural evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. Paul was in Rome and mentioned a number of people that supported him while he was there but never mentioned Peter.

Do you base all your religious decisions on the Bible? What about the color of car you drive, or the type of computer you use?

Just because Scripture does not say a certain thing doesn't necessarily make it false.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Apostolic lineage comes through teaching and not through so called Apostolic succession...

The Orthodox might very well agree in theory, however the Praxis must accompany the teaching. And what about the laying on of hands and annointing with oil? Wouldnt one need to be able to teach the liturgy?

Forgive me...

 

[Monk Brendan]

Apostolic lineage comes through teaching and not through so called Apostolic succession, The RCC does not teach the same as the apostles taught, far from it.

Are you a Roman Catholic theologian? Have you written ANY of the Canon of the Catholic Church? Have you even read it?

But, like many of the members of the CF, you think it is cool to insult the Catholics and disrespect them. ANY Christian that has received any training in the Bible in any of the European languages, especially German and English should get down on your knees EVERY TIME they open the Bible, and thank God for His provision of the Catholic Church, and the thousands of monks who, century after century wrote, BY HAND, every page of every Bible. If it hadn't been for them, Martin Luther would NOT have had a Bible to read. He would have remained an unknown coppersmith in Germany.

 

[David Kent]

True enough that you could not prove it via scripture. But Antioch does teach that he went there.

Forgive me...

I am not saying he did not go to Rome, I just said you could not prove it from scripture. But if you believe that Babylon refers to Rome, 1 Peter 5:13 I would tend to agree with you.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Is it bad that I heard Sean Connery's voice when reading that?

Better than hearing it (deep breathe) with the voice of James Earl Jones, true?