The Apostle John's student

[repentant]

There is no record of any schism that would seperate the modern day Catholic Church from this "universal" church that Ignatius speaks of.

Papal infaliabilty/supremecy? I would say filoque, but the Creed was not written yet at this time.

These come to mind..

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Papal infaliabilty/supremecy? I would say filoque, but the Creed was not written yet at this time.

These come to mind..

The Filioque would not show a schism of a nature that would separate the modern Catholic Church from the same church that Ignatius of Antioch writes about. I do not see your reasoning here???

Or are you saying this Filioque in regards to the creed gives some credence to the infallibility of the Pope or the Supremacy of the Pope???

I guess I need you to be wordier.

 

[Rightglory]

Trento,

If it lies with the Bishops Then you must deal with the Robber Council where the majority of bishops, against the approval of the Pope, denied the humanity of Christ. If there is no suprimacy of the Pope, then this Council was valid. If this Council was valid, then Jesus was not fully man. If Jesus was not fully man, then He could not have suffered and died for your sins. So the denial of the primacy of the Pope leads to the denial of the reality of the Cross.

You seem confused by your own terminology. You use supremacy and primacy in this paragraph. Which do you want? No one is denying primacy. That is what all this confirms. I see no edicts, no universal pronouncements here either.
Why would one need to deal with a Council that was rejected? Many synods were overturned by the faithful. This council was no exception. Pope Leo I simply requested several other bishops along with both emporers, (east and west) to summon another council. This was eventually done and held at Chalcedon in 451. The Council took action on, including the statement from Leo and along with others were approved by the Council. Hardly an edict of the Pope. The findings were sent to him for his approval. One was the change of order from the other heirarchies of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. Leo did not approve this one canon, but guess what, it went into effect anyway. Hardly an universal edict of jurisdiction. It was the Council that has the authority. It was put into effect in both the east and west by the Emporers, not the Pope. The very fact that a council is even called speaks against any kind of universal jurisdiction.
By the way, no council is valid until it has been approved by the faithful over time. At each succeeding Council the Canons, as was in this case were read and either approved or declared null. Check your history a little better. The Pope never decreed anything, never overrode a Council. The most he can do is to request, submit proposals and approve as an equal bishop along with all the rest present.
The denial of an earthly supreme universal ruler (a Pope) affirms that Christ is that Supreme Ruler even here on this earth.
The Church was most fortunate to have such a faithful bishop at this time.
Might note that those who ended on the opposite side, the Monophysites, became the Non-chalcedonians or Coptics. A group that differs from Orthodoxy only on this one issue and might soon be rejoined back into the One True Church.

 

[Trento]

Trento,
You seem confused by your own terminology. You use supremacy and primacy in this paragraph. Which do you want? No one is denying primacy. That is what all this confirms. I see no edicts, no universal pronouncements here either.
Why would one need to deal with a Council that was rejected? Many synods were overturned by the faithful. This council was no exception. Pope Leo I simply requested several other bishops along with both emporers, (east and west) to summon another council. This was eventually done and held at Chalcedon in 451. The Council took action on, including the statement from Leo and along with others were approved by the Council. Hardly an edict of the Pope. The findings were sent to him for his approval. One was the change of order from the other heirarchies of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. Leo did not approve this one canon, but guess what, it went into effect anyway. Hardly an universal edict of jurisdiction. It was the Council that has the authority. It was put into effect in both the east and west by the Emporers, not the Pope. The very fact that a council is even called speaks against any kind of universal jurisdiction.
By the way, no council is valid until it has been approved by the faithful over time. At each succeeding Council the Canons, as was in this case were read and either approved or declared null. Check your history a little better. The Pope never decreed anything, never overrode a Council. The most he can do is to request, submit proposals and approve as an equal bishop along with all the rest present.
The denial of an earthly supreme universal ruler (a Pope) affirms that Christ is that Supreme Ruler even here on this earth.
The Church was most fortunate to have such a faithful bishop at this time.
Might note that those who ended on the opposite side, the Monophysites, became the Non-chalcedonians or Coptics. A group that differs from Orthodoxy only on this one issue and might soon be rejoined back into the One True Church.

The SAME Council of Chalcedon fully recognized the Petrine authority of Rome, saying things like …

"For if 'where two or three are gathered together in His name' He has said that 'there He is in the midst of them," must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him ...Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will." ---Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451. ​

...and …

"You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith." ---Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98​

…and …

"You have often extended your Apostolic radiance even to the church of Constantinople." --Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98. ​

…and …

"Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children." --Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98.​

These are bishops (and Eastern ones at that) speaking to the Bishop of Rome.

Indeed, if one knows the history, they also know that the very calling of the Council of Chalcedon came about in response to a whole slew of appeals by Eastern bishops who were deposed from their sees at the so-called “Robber Council of Ephesus” (A.D. 449) by Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria, a Monophysite heretic. Chief among these was Bishop St. Flavian of Constantinople, who writes to Pope Leo and says ….

"When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. ...Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference ...but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. ...Further to issue an authoritative instruction ...so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound. (Bishop Flavian of Constantinople to Pope Leo, 449).​

Likewise, Theodoret of Cyrus, who was also deposed by the “Robber Council,” appeals to the Pope …

"If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives." (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)​

..and …

"Hasten to your Apostolic See in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the Church. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many priviledges. I have been condemned without trial. But I await the sentence of your Apostolic See. I beseech and implore Your Holiness to succor me in my appeal to your fair and righteous tribunal. Bid me hasten to you and prove to you that my teaching follows in the footsteps of the Apostles." (Theodoret to Pope Leo, Ep. 113). ​

Likewise, St. Eusebius of Doryleum appeals to the Pope …

"The Apostolic throne has been wont from the beginning to defend those who are suffering injustice. I entreat Your Blessedness, give me back the dignity of my episcopate and communion with yourself, by letters from you to my lowliness bestowing on me my rank and communion." (Eusebius of Doryleum to Pope Leo) ​

And, funny enough, just prior to the “Robber Council,” the heretic Eutyches (the instigator of the Monophysite heresy) also appeals to Rome …

"I take refuge, therefore, with you, the defender of religion and abhorrer of such factions. ...I beseech you not to be prejudiced against me by their insidious designs about me, but to pronounce the sentence which shall seem to you right upon the Faith." (Eutyches to Pope Leo, Ep. 21. ) ​

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness" --Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3.

So, while the assembly may have permitted Dioscorus, out of respect for his office, to sit in the place of primacy at the start of the Council, he was, by no means, granted that honor by the end of it. Rather, by Pope Leo’s own authority (that is, the authority of Peter), Dioscorus was deposed

 

[repentant]

The Filioque would not show a schism of a nature that would separate the modern Catholic Church from the same church that Ignatius of Antioch writes about. I do not see your reasoning here???

Or are you saying this Filioque in regards to the creed gives some credence to the infallibility of the Pope or the Supremacy of the Pope???

I guess I need you to be wordier.

How could it not show a schism, when there was a schism? Ignatius was an Antiochian Bishop, and Antioch at this point is not RC, it is Orthodox.

The filioque being added to the Creed by the Roman Pope against former Canons stating that the Creed could not be changed unless by another Council..has alot to do with what supremecy the Pope thinks he has...Ignatius would not have gone along with this..

 

[JacktheCatholic]

How could it not show a schism, when there was a schism? Ignatius was an Antiochian Bishop, and Antioch at this point is not RC, it is Orthodox.

The filioque being added to the Creed by the Roman Pope against former Canons stating that the Creed could not be changed unless by another Council..has alot to do with what supremecy the Pope thinks he has...Ignatius would not have gone along with this..

Here we have a disagreement which was already stated at the beginning of the thread. It is the part about Ignatius of Antioch being Catholic. It has been shown where the word Catholic came from and that it is the same Universal church that Ingnatius references in one of his letters.

Also, I am not so concerned about a schism but rather a schism that shows no succession to Peter who is the perverbial "Prime Minister" of the church. This is direct from Isais in regards to the House of David of which Jesus is the Sonof and King. This relates back to Jesus giving the Keys to Peter alone and this reference by Jesus to the Keys is something that the early church fathers would have immediately known to be a reference to Isais 22 where in a new Prime minister was given the Keys to the kingdom. This reference by Jesus lays the frame work for what the Keys and Peters office represent and the early church fathers new this. To them it was a an elementary conclusion since they knew how the Keys worked and so they never had any immediate heresy in regards to this principle of the Keys. The Keys gave the office of Peter the power to change anything a minister did in law or practice. this is why the Pope has to be in 100% agreement in matters of Faith and morals when speaking authoritativly.

Also in regards to the Supremacy and infalibility of the office of Pope it should be clearly understood that the person in this office can be a falible and sinful person but in matters of the church that Jesus is building (and yes it is Jesus' church and not churches) this position is only allowed the power to maintain the teachings of Christ and not change them and because of this protection and guidance by the Spirit of Truth the Pope can never be falible when communicating in full authority of his office because it is by divine intervention. The Supremacy, yet again, is from the role of that of a Prime Minister over other Ministers that the office of Peter holds and was established by Jesus.

Please refer to Isais 22 and what the Keys represent there.

 

[Rick Otto]

Jesus made no individual priests, much less Pontiffs. The only priesthood is of the whole Christian community. Since there ARE no priests in the NT, there could be no ordination of priests. The idea of a priestly caste seperate from the laity is foreign to the NT.
Theory regarding the passing on of powers thu ordination doesn't overcome the obstacle of the NT showing no laying of hands on bishops either as successors or as helpers in administering sacraments.

1Peter2:5: 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.

Paul made a point of saying his work was not authorized by the church in Jerusalem, or The Twelve, or anyone but God(Gal1:1-20), lending even less credibility to the idea of anyone but Jesus being or representing, the head of His body, the church.

Ignatius of Antioch is the 1st to make a clear distinction between bishop & elders, and as not existing yet in Rome. He rallys people to their bishop as a sign of church unity, not church authority, in 6 of his seven letters. Only when he writes to Rome does he omit any reference to a bishop. Given his urgency about the office, he wouldn't have done that if there were a Roman bishop. He doesn't refer to Peter or Paul in his letter to Rome, either. Surely he would've reffered to Peter as bishop, if he thought Peter held the office.
Ignatius' passion for the office was sparked by resistance to it, being unable to impose his authority in Antioch. Ignatius wrote his letters while traveling toward Rome to be executed. From the text of the letters themselves, it has been established that he had been arrested for civil unrest in the divided Christian community of Antioch, and was pleading for support from other bishops for help in reconciliation, which worked.
Ignatius is used to support the idea of an apostolic succession, but he contrasted himself with them, saying he did not have their powers (Trallians 3:3) & Romans (4:3).
It is oness of the community the bishop symbolizes, not hierarchical authority.

 

[Trento]

Jesus made no individual priests, much less Pontiffs. The only priesthood is of the whole Christian community. Since there ARE no priests in the NT, there could be no ordination of priests. The idea of a priestly caste seperate from the laity is foreign to the NT.

Philip Schaff Protestant Patristic and Christian history scholar-- In his multi Volumn History of the Chrtistian Church writes---


The ministerial office was instituted by the Lord before his ascension, and solemnly inaugurated on the first Christian Pentecost by the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, to be the regular organ of the kingly power of Christ on earth in founding, maintaining, and extending the church. It appears in the New Testament under different names, descriptive of its various functions:—the "ministry of the word," "of the Spirit," "of righteousness," "of reconciliation." It includes the preaching of the gospel, the administration of the sacraments, and church discipline or the power of the keys, the power to open and shut the gates of the kingdom of heaven, in other words, to declare to the penitent the forgiveness of sins, and to the unworthy excommunication in the name and by the authority of Christ.
The apostles were called, indeed, immediately by Christ to the work of founding the church; but so soon as a community of believers arose, the congregation took an active part also in all religious affairs. The persons thus inwardly and outwardly designated by the voice of Christ and his church, were solemnly set apart and inducted into their Priestly functions by the symbolical act of ordination; that is, by prayer and the laying on of the hands of the apostles or their representatives, conferring or authoritatively confirming and sealing the appropriate spiritual gifts.

The English term "priest" is simply a contraction of the Greek word "presbuteros", which appears 67 times in the New Testament. Presbuteroshad the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (Acts 14:23; 20:17; 1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; James. 5:14–15), these the same responsibilities that Catholic Priests have preformed down through the centuries, to this very Day. It should also be noted that In The Greek text of the New Testament, there is also clear link between the word "presbuteros" (some time translated 'elders') and the Jewish priesthood (e.g. Mt. 21:23; 26:47). ​

We should remember that simply because most English editions of the New Testament, translate the Greek word "presbuteros" as "Elder" or "presbyter", does not negate the fact that it is the origin of the word Priest. Nor does it change the fact, that the Catholic Priesthood, can be clearly traced out in the sacred texts New Testament. ​

"And when they had ordained to them presbyters (Greek "presbuteros") in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed." [Acts 14:23] ​

​

We can see the fusion of the two concepts in Romans 15:15-16. In the New International Version of this passage, we read:

"I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty [literally, "the priestly work"] of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit."​

Paul tells us that because he has been given a calling as a professional minister of Christ, he has a priestly work of preaching the gospel so that the Gentiles may be an offering -- a sacrifice to God. This is not something only he has. Every elder in every church has that same "priestly work" of preaching the gospel. So Paul here conceives of the office of the New Testament minister as a priestly office. Notice that the hearers of the gospel in this passage are not depicted as priests, but as the sacrifice to God. Paul draws a distinction between himself and his work of preaching the gospel, and his readers and their duty of hearing it. It is the minister, not the congregation, who is here pictured as priest.


A second passage revealing the fusion of the offices of Old Testament elder and Old Testament priest is Revelation 5:8, where we read:

"And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints."​

Here we have the twenty-four heavenly elders (presbyteroi) depicted as offering incense to God in bowls, just as the Old Testament priests did with their own gold incense bowls (Num. 7:84-86).


It is especially important to note that this was a function only priests could perform, as indicated a few chapters later, in Numbers 16, which records the story of Korah's rebellion. This story concerns precisely the issue which is before us today: Whether the fact that all believers are priests means that there is no ministerial priesthood. Korah said it does mean that, and he gathered a rebellion against Moses and Aaron to usurp the priesthood from them. Numbers 16 says:

"Now Korah . . . and Dathan and Abiram . . . took men; and they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men; and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said . . . 'You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?' When Moses heard it, he fell on his face; and he said . . . 'In the morning the LORD will show who is his, and who is holy . . . Do this: take censers . . . put fire in them and put incense upon them before the LORD tomorrow, and the man whom the LORD chooses shall be the holy one. You have gone too far, sons of Levi! . . . s it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel . . . would you seek the priesthood also? Therefore it is against the LORD that you and all your company have gathered together; what is Aaron that you murmur against him?'" (Num. 16:1-11).​

After this you can guess what happened. The men loaded up their censers and tried to offer incense before the Lord, but God caused the earth to open its mouth and swallow up Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, then he caused fire to come out of the Tabernacle and swallow up the two hundred and fifty men offering incense, showing that they were not to be priests, not the ones to offer incense, even though God had said that in one sense the whole congregation were priests.
Thus, in the Old Testament God was willing to kill people that are not priests who offer incense to him. So when we see the elders (presbyteroi) doing so in his heavenly temple, we must infer that they are priests. A fusion of the office of elder and priest has taken place.



Theory regarding the passing on of powers thu ordination doesn't overcome the obstacle of the NT showing no laying of hands on bishops either as successors or as helpers in administering sacraments.

Ignatius of Antioch is the 1st to make a clear distinction between bishop & elders, and as not existing yet in Rome. He rallys people to their bishop as a sign of church unity, not church authority, in 6 of his seven letters. Only when he writes to Rome does he omit any reference to a bishop. Given his urgency about the office, he wouldn't have done that if there were a Roman bishop. He doesn't refer to Peter or Paul in his letter to Rome, either. Surely he would've reffered to Peter as bishop, if he thought Peter held the office.
Ignatius' passion for the office was sparked by resistance to it, being unable to impose his authority in Antioch. Ignatius wrote his letters while traveling toward Rome to be executed. From the text of the letters themselves, it has been established that he had been arrested for civil unrest in the divided Christian community of Antioch, and was pleading for support from other bishops for help in reconciliation, which worked.
Ignatius is used to support the idea of an apostolic succession, but he contrasted himself with them, saying he did not have their powers (Trallians 3:3) & Romans (4:3).
It is oness of the community the bishop symbolizes, not hierarchical authority.

The Theology of the Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius the whole system of Catholic doctrine may be discovered in outline. Among the many Catholic doctrines to be found in the letters are the following: the Church was Divinely established as a visible society, the salvation of souls is its end, and those who separate themselves from it cut themselves off from God , the hierarchy of the Church was instituted by Christ (lntrod. to Philad.; Ephes., c. vi); the threefold character of the hierarchy (Magn., c. vi); the order of the episcopacy superior by Divine authority to that of the priesthood (Magn., c. vi, c. xiii; Smyrn., c. viii; Trall., c. iii); the unity of the Church (Trall., c. vi; Philad., c. iii; Magn., c. xiii); the holiness of the Church (Smyrn., Ephes., Magn., Trall., and Rom.); the catholicity of the Church (Smyrn., c. viii); the infallibility of the Church, (Philad., c. iii; Ephes., cc. xvi, xvii); the doctrine of the Eucharist (Smyrn., c. viii), which word we find for the first time applied to the Blessed Sacrament, just as in Smyrn., viii, we meet for the first time the phrase "Catholic Church", used to designate all Christians the Incarnation (Ephes., c. xviii); the supernatural virtue of virginity, already much esteemed and made the subject of a vow (Polyc., c. v); the religious character of matrimony (Polyc., c. v); the value of united prayer (Ephes., c. xiii); the primacy of the See of Rome (Rom., introd.). He, moreover, denounces in principle the Protestant doctrine of private judgment in matters of religion (Philad. c. iii), The heresy against which he chiefly inveighs is Docetism. Neither do the Judaizing heresies escape his vigorous condemnation.

 

[Rick Otto]

The OT Isrealites were clearly under the Levitical Priesthood for the sacrificial sytem then in place.
Jesus ended the Levitical order, plainly replacing it with the priesthood of all belivers after the order of Melchezidek.
So this statement is in error:
"This story concerns precisely the issue which is before us today: Whether the fact that all believers are priests means that there is no ministerial priesthood."

It means that we are all to be ministering.
The blurring of terms here is obvious.

"So when we see the elders (presbyteroi) doing so in his heavenly temple, we must infer that they are priests."

We "must" only if we are trying to monopolize consecrating authority to an artificialy exclusive caste.
Ignatius himself admits he does not have the powers of The Twelve. Their role in Revelations is confined to themselves, so granting them to others is an arbitrary, subjective, and private interpretation.

 

[Rightglory]

Trento,
All of these quotes from the Council of Chalcedon, do nothing to support Supremacy or universal jurisdiction. The Council had decided and was sending to the Pope, via his own legate, for his approval. Every bishop had the right of approval or disapproval. He is after all, one of the five patriarchs at the time and has primacy besides.

These are bishops (and Eastern ones at that) speaking to the Bishop of Rome

and, yes, you had a local council deposing a Bishop. What is the normal process, expecially when several in the east did the deed. He appealed to Rome, hopefully, and impartial participant, which it turned out. But the Council put into effect even the canon that Pope Leo disagreed with. Hardly acquiesence to a Universal Pope.

Rather, by Pope Leo’s own authority (that is, the authority of Peter), Dioscorus was deposed

He was deposed by the Council not Pope Leo. Leo sent a letter, explaining his view and reasonings but the practice of the Church also is that no one can be deposed by a single other bishop. One cannot be consecrated either except by at least three other bishops. Not quite universal jurisdiction like Rome has today. Nothing even remotely like it existed for the first 1000 years.
All I see is primacy, first among equals at work here. No universal pronouncement. The Church acted within each See on its own and when those disagreed there, the appeal would go to bishops outside of each See. Rome having primacy could propose, could suggest initially, could attempt to call regional synods, and also whole Councils. But so, did other bishops throughout this time period. That is the right of any bishop. This is still the right of any bishop, except in the RCC because that primacy was destroyed and replaced by Supremacy, universal jurisdiction.
The Archbishop of NY in the RCC is powerless to act on his own within his Archdiocese. Yet, the bishops within the autocephelous Orthodox Churches can act totally independent administratively. Ecclesiastically, they cannot change anything without mutual consent of all. The Heirarch of Constantinople cannot dictate anything ecclesasically until or unless the other bishops agree with it. He can speak, can act, can do a lot of things, but he is governed by the others. So it is here in all of these example. Primacy is given Rome, but he cannot act alone, he cannot force, he cannot dictate doctrine, or administrative decrees either. It has always been this way in the Church from the beginning. It is that way, because of the understanding of the theological understanding of what constitutes the Church. Who is Head. Who is Christ's representative here on earth. Only the bishop of each congregation is the highest ecclesiastical officer in the Church here on earth. As the Church grew, especially in local areas, these were divided into dioceses and priests became the subhead of the bishops for each congregation. But the bishops authority has never been diminished. It is why we are called catholic, Each congregation is a whole, complete Body of Christ and has the seat of Peter present, namely the bishop. The Church does not see herself as molinitarian, but trinitarian.

 

[Rightglory]

Otto,

Jesus made no individual priests, much less Pontiffs. The only priesthood is of the whole Christian community. Since there ARE no priests in the NT, there could be no ordination of priests. The idea of a priestly caste seperate from the laity is foreign to the NT.

He made presbyters. Paul spends a lot of time explaining who they should be, and what functions they performed in the Church. They were the same as OT priests. The NT word was bishop or elder or prebyters, all were used interchangeably.
Man was created to be prophet, priest, and king over the universe with God. That is a created function of every human being. Christ saved (redeemed) mankind just so those offices could be carried out by man again.
But even in corporate worship, the priest acts for both God and the corporate group of believers or participants.
Protestants have totally destroyed this concept of the corporate function of a priest because of the extreme emphasis on the "priesthood of all believers'. Believers cannot act alone but only as a Body when in assembly as that Body. A Priest fulfils that function.
But the most protestants will say that any minister does that role as well. Hardly, the main definition and function of a minister for a protestant is that He represents ONLY God. He is the presenter of the Truth as the sermon becomes paramount in protestant worship. It is not worship as understood by Paul. It is a liturgical function, a work of the people along with the Priest. He represents the people before the Alter to God. Only during the consecration is the Priest performing for God, for the People. Ministers and protestant worship is a far cry from OT worship which is carried over into the NT Church.
As far as laying on of hands, it is present in the NT. Timothy recieved his authority by the laying on of hands. Timothy was sent to do the same at another church. That authority by laying on of hands is the Tradition as established by the Apostles. The early Church had no difficulty with this matter, thus no letters included any exhortation to abide by this practice. No one was ignoring or abusing the practice. Thus protestants have a very difficult time showing it in Scripture and using only scripture as a stand-a-lone guide for faith and practice.

1Peter2:5: 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.

Yes, but this does not address the priesthood, the corporate respresentative of both God and man in a corporate worship community. In fact, it is placed in a secondary status, as Ye also, can be priest as individuals.

Paul made a point of saying his work was not authorized by the church in Jerusalem, or The Twelve, or anyone but God(Gal1:1-20), lending even less credibility to the idea of anyone but Jesus being or representing, the head of His body, the church.

Cannot disagree with you on that one.

Ignatius of Antioch is the 1st to make a clear distinction between bishop & elders, and as not existing yet in Rome.

Just an historical note. Clement the I was the third bishop at Rome who died about 101AD. Ignatius died in or around 107 AD. It is on his way to Rome to his execution that he wrote to the Churches enroute.
The rest of the paragraph I agree with.

 

[Rick Otto]

Show me where & how Jesus made presbyters, please.
In what sense were the NT presbyters like the OT priests? Not re; animal sacrifices, not re: tithes, certainly not celebate in either case,...

Please show me where Timothy was ordained as a priest with a laying on of hands by apostles. I can't find it.

"Man was created to be prophet, priest, and king over the universe with God.'
I have problems w/"over the universe" part. Over himself & other humans I could swallow.

Believers cannot act alone? Give that some context, because in terms of other humans, I often act alone.
Unless you mean alone without The Holy Spirit?

I am unfamiliar with the notion that a Prot minister represents anybody any more than we all are to be "ambassadors for Christ".

I am also ignorant of how OT worship is, or even should be "carried over" into the NT church. I was under the impression that the Levitical order was fulfilled & ended by Jesus (the torn veil) allowing us ALL direct access and eliminating the possibility & need for ritual consecration & a monoply of exactly that by a seperated caste of males only.

For such an important activity as passing on authority, you would think there'd be more of it. Jesus didn't ritualize it, we don't see Paul or Barnabus doing it.
If I'm not mistaken, the passage re: Timothy does not explicitly state that it was apostles laying hands, rather the congregation. If I remember correctly, his "hands on" ritual had to do with his teaching gift, not consecration of the Euchrist, or of any marriages, and Paul himself preferred not to baptize.

I find using scripture as a stand-alone guide for faith & practice is an excellent way to avoid accumulating props, costumes, and rituals that are foreign to scriptural principles.
I can't understand how 1Peter2:5 DOESN'T address the priesthood. Rather it eliminates a seperate priesthood caste as a possibility. It explicitly elucidates that we all have consecrating power as believers. I don't see a demotion to secondary status, rather a promotion, eliminating the seperating vale.

RG, you have a very agreeable way of disagreeing. I appreciate that. God love ya, bro.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I find using scripture as a stand-alone guide for faith & practice is an excellent way to avoid accumulating props, costumes, and rituals that are foreign to scriptural principles.

Where does the Bible say scripture alone?
When Jesus spoke of the seat of Moses where does the Bible speak of it anywhere else?

Seems to me that have Sola Scriptura would be like the USA making the Constitution and then giving a copy to everyone saying "We do not need judges. Simply read your copy and live the law the way you see it" (got that from Scott Hahn).

Obviously that would not work. The Bible is the same way. If we treated the Constitution of the US the same as many treat the Bible we would have anarchy. That is also why we have tens of thousands of denominations in the protestant churches today. Maybe that is why the Bible never says Sola Scriptura in any form but instead advises to keep written and oral tradition. Jesus used oral tradition when speaking of the seat of Moses. After all why would you consider the Bible as a manual for "running a church heirarchy"? There is much to back the heirarchy if you know the traditions as well. Besides the early writings confirm it.

That is why we look at writings like Ignatius of Antioch. These are the people schooled by the Apostles and entrusted by the Apostles.

 

[Rightglory]

Otto,

Show me where & how Jesus made presbyters, please.

He gave all authorty which was given Him by the Father to the disciples: John 20:22-23, John 16:12-15, Matt 28:18-20, Matt 16:19, 18:18.
And having that authority the Apostles appointed bishops, presbyters, and deacons to govern each church that they established. Then we know from recorded history this is precisely what happened. Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5, I Tim 3:1, I Tim 5:17-22, Acts 15:13-22, I Pet 2:25.
The OT Priests were the Temple representatives of the People to God and of God to the People. Bishops have that exact same role, authority. The functions of each is totally different. The Christian era Priest is not a continuation of the old because he represents the New Covenant.

Please show me where Timothy was ordained as a priest with a laying on of hands by apostles. I can't find it.

I Tim 5:22, II Tim 1:6,

"Man was created to be prophet, priest, and king over the universe with God.'
I have problems w/"over the universe" part. Over himself & other humans I could swallow.

Gen 1:26-31. there is much more to it than just this, but it takes a treatise to explain it.

Believers cannot act alone? Give that some context, because in terms of other humans, I often act alone.
Unless you mean alone without The Holy Spirit?

Its all in my original statement. Corporate means corporate, not individual.
Believers cannot act alone but only as a Body when in assembly as that Body. A Priest fulfils that function.

I am unfamiliar with the notion that a Prot minister represents anybody any more than we all are to be "ambassadors for Christ".

Then why do you have churches, why do you have ministers if he has no function and you can operate totally of yourself. Defeats the whole meaning of Church, assembly, called out. Unity in the Body. We are just as much saved as a Body as we are individually. We as individuals can only be saved If IN Christ, In Christ means in His Church of which He is Head. I can understand your understanding. Protestants for the most part are becoming more private and individualistic in faith and practice.

I am also ignorant of how OT worship is, or even should be "carried over" into the NT church. I was under the impression that the Levitical order was fulfilled & ended by Jesus (the torn veil) allowing us ALL direct access and eliminating the possibility & need for ritual consecration & a monoply of exactly that by a seperated caste of males only.

Difference of practices versus functions. Same thing as explained above. Again, you have eliminated the Body and the function of bishops, presbyters, laity, deacons, all four are necessary in any church governance.

For such an important activity as passing on authority, you would think there'd be more of it. Jesus didn't ritualize it, we don't see Paul or Barnabus doing it.
If I'm not mistaken, the passage re: Timothy does not explicitly state that it was apostles laying hands, rather the congregation. If I remember correctly, his "hands on" ritual had to do with his teaching gift, not consecration of the Euchrist, or of any marriages, and Paul himself preferred not to baptize.

Again, the largest reason you won't find much detail in scripture is because it was not abused, no one was doing it incorrectly, no correction was needed, thus nothing was written much outlining the precise practice. However, from extra-biblical accounts and recorded history it is repleat with examples, details and understandings.

I find using scripture as a stand-alone guide for faith & practice is an excellent way to avoid accumulating props, costumes, and rituals that are foreign to scriptural principles.

All that really means is that your reserve the right and privelege to interpret only a part of the Gospel, the written portion to suit your particular whims and understandings. How could you ever have anythng to dispute. You are the interpretator of your own faith. It is what you say it will be. Any other is incorrect, inspite of the fact that they use the same method and the same source. Amazing how many different faiths and understandings one can derive from the Bible.
Does the Bible say it is the source of all Truth? Does the Bible give the individual the right to interpret scripture? Do you believe in the Bible?

I can't understand how 1Peter2:5 DOESN'T address the priesthood. Rather it eliminates a seperate priesthood caste as a possibility. It explicitly elucidates that we all have consecrating power as believers. I don't see a demotion to secondary status, rather a promotion, eliminating the seperating vale.

that is because you now have direct access to Christ since He is the priest and sacrifice. But this ONLY applies to you as a individual. If this were the ONLY way, then we do not need churches, we do not need to have a Body of Christ. We can remain as rogue individualist and be separated from one another, rather than many as one IN Christ.

 

[Rick Otto]

I'm hard pressed for time but I'm realy enthused about the scripture references. Even if I'm gnna be wrong about anything, I want it to be scripture., but I looked at the first reference:


19: Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
20: And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
21: Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22: And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
24: But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

RG,
I sincerely belive you err to see a formal ordination, or appointment, or bestowal of specicaly officed individuals, bro. i'm lookin' at 'mere' disciples & even one of The 12 missin'.
I agree He was giving them power to remit &/or retain sins, but it sounds a little to sweeping a statemant when I 'hear' ya say the phrase "all authority" .

The authority thing is obsessed about by Rome, IMHO.

BUT, I am still jazzed about looking at everything the scriptures have to say about it so, I could be convinced by an preponderance of circumstantial evidence.

Yo ActionJack!
Cool post handle, dude.

"Where does the Bible say scripture alone?"

Bruthaman, it ain't that it says that, it's that it shows it bein' done that way(by the Bereans, at least), the phrase "it is written" is so cliche' even Jesus uses it on Satan. I'm down with truth affirming, community building tradition(s), but there is a lot of tensions in tradition AND scriptures that remain unresolved for many of us.

 

[Rick Otto]

It is actualy exactly what we are living under on the international level of order. Our planet is IN a state of anarchy in the temporal sense, but you & I both know God is in control, right? Considering all the problems we are experiencing, I wonder just how much worse off we'd realy be if we all sincerely tried to live by our consciences instead of by the threat of negative legal consequences. I think the law of conscience sets a higher standard, and regards eternal consequences better.

 

[Rick Otto]

12: I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13: Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14: He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15: All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
16: A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

>>> Sola Scriptura doesn't mean we can't recieve truth from outside scripture, it is the way we measure those extrascriptural truths.
........................................................................................................................................................
Matt 28:16: Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17: And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
18: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Again, no laying on of hands, no explicit transfer of the "all authority" mentioned, just a statement of His own as preface to His command to teach & baptize. He doesn't take this opportunity to articulate consecration of the Eucharist as a privilege & duty of any particular ordained authority.
............................................................................................................................................................
Matt 16:19: And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The keys of the kingdom are the truths of the gospel that set us free from the prison of sin, not symbols of authority, but weapons of freedom.

John Gill explains the part about "binding & loosing better than me (apologies):

And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.


This also is not to be understood of binding, or loosing men's sins, by laying on, or taking off censures, and excommunications; but only of doctrines, or declarations of what is lawful and unlawful, free, or prohibited to be received, or practised; in which sense the words, (rtwmw rwoa) , "bound and loosed", are used in the Talmudic writings, times without number, for that which is forbidden and declared to be unlawful, and for that which is free of use, and pronounced to be so: in multitudes of places we read of one Rabbi (rowa) , "binding", and of another (rytm) , "loosing"; thousands, and ten thousands of instances of this kind might be produced; a whole volume of extracts on this head might be compiled. Dr. Lightfoot has transcribed a great many, sufficient to satisfy any man, and give him the true sense of these phrases; and after him to mention any other is needless; yet give me leave to produce one, as it is short, and full, and explains these phrases, and points at the persons that had this power, explaining (Ecclesiastes 12:11) and that clause in it, "masters of the assemblies".

``these (say they F20) are the disciples of the wise men, who sit in different collections, and study in the law; these pronounce things or persons defiled, and these pronounce things or persons clean, (Nyrytm Nllhw Nyrowa) (wllh) , "these bind, and these loose"; these reject, or pronounce persons or things profane, and these declare them right.''​

And a little after,

``get thyself an heart to hear the words of them that pronounce unclean, and the words of them that pronounce clean; the words of them (Nyrowa) , that "bind", and the words of them (Nyrytm) , that "loose"; the words of them that reject, and the words of them that declare it right''​

But Christ gave a greater power of binding and loosing, to his disciples, than these men had, and which they used to better purpose. The sense of the words is this, that Peter, and so the rest of the apostles, should be empowered with authority from Him, and so directed by His Holy Spirit, that whatever they bound, that is, declared to be forbidden, and unlawful, should be so: and that whatever they loosed, that is, declared to be lawful, and free of use, should be so; and accordingly they bound some things which before were loosed, and loosed some things which before were bound; for instance, they bound, that is, prohibited, or declared unlawful, the use of circumcision, which before, and until the death of Christ, was enjoined the natural seed of Abraham; but that, and all ceremonies, being abolished by the death of Christ, they declared it to be nothing, and of no avail, yea, hurtful and pernicious; that whoever was circumcised, Christ profited him nothing, and that he was a debtor to do the whole law: they affirmed, that the believing Gentiles were not to be troubled with it; that it was a yoke not fit to be put upon their necks, which they, and their fathers, were not able to bear, (Galatians 5:1,3,6) (Acts 15:10,19) . They bound, or forbid the observance of days, months, times, and years; the keeping holy days, new moons, and sabbaths, which had been used in the Jewish church for ages past; such as the first day of the new year, and of every month, the day of atonement, the feasts of the passover, pentecost, and tabernacles, the jubilee year, the sabbatical year, and seventh day sabbath, (Galatians 4:9,10) (Colossians 2:16,17) . They loosed, or declared lawful and free, both civil and religious conversation between Jews and Gentiles; whereas, before, the Jews had no dealings with the Gentiles, nor would not enter into their houses, nor keep company with them, would have no conversation with them; neither eat, nor drink with them; but now it was determined and declared, that no man should be called common, or unclean; and that in Christ Jesus, and in his church, there is no distinction of Jew and Gentile, (Acts 10:28) (11:2,3,18) (Galatians 3:28) . They also loosed, or pronounced lawful, the eating of any sort of food, without distinction, even that which was before counted common and unclean, being persuaded by the Lord Jesus Christ, by the words he said, (Matthew 15:11) . They asserted, that there is nothing unclean of itself; and that the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; or that true religion does not lie in the observance of those things; that every creature of God is good, and fit for food, and nothing to be refused, or abstained from, on a religious account, provided it be received with thanksgiving, (Romans 14:14,17) (1 Timothy 4:4) . And these things now being by them bound or loosed, pronounced unlawful or lawful, are confirmed as such by the authority of God, and are so to be considered by us.

>>Truth is it's own authority, and The Holy Spirit is in each believer, giving them that amount of authority(truth) they are meant to handle. We strive against our own flesh to keep from holding that truth unrighteously.

 

[Rightglory]

Otto,

BUT, I am still jazzed about looking at everything the scriptures have to say about it so, I could be convinced by an preponderance of circumstantial evidence.

First, the Bible is not ALL Truth. It is but a partial recording of that ALL Truth. The Bible also is not a systematic theological treatise. It ONLY, for the NT, contains exhortations of things that were not being done properly, thus you have some information about only what was incorrect. The Gospels are historical witness records but also not a detailed explanation. That is why the Bible cannot be excised from the whole. Holy Tradition is the Gospel once given, as set up in practice and understanding.
So, if you are looking for a preponderance of anything, you will be looking for a very long time.

Bruthaman, it ain't that it says that, it's that it shows it bein' done that way(by the Bereans, at least),

Sola Scriptura is not being Berean. What the phrase means is that when Paul was teaching/preaching he admonished his hearers to confirm it from scripture, which is the OT.
Now, it does not mean that the Bereans first attempted to interpret it for themselves, then to see if Paul was right. It is accepting what Paul states because it is collaborated in the OT. Any practicitioner of Sola Scriptura is far from being a Berean. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

but there is a lot of tensions in tradition AND scriptures that remain unresolved for many of us.

If you mean traditions and if they go against scripture yes. But Tradition is not tradition. Holy Tradition is the faith and practice of the Apostles. what tradition might you have in mind that conflicts with scripture.
I can show you where a lot of protestant groups make tradition from what is actually Tradition.

 

[Rightglory]

Otto,

>>> Sola Scriptura doesn't mean we can't recieve truth from outside scripture, it is the way we measure those extrascriptural truths.

But that is where the error of sola scriptura lies. you have extracted it and isolated it from the whole. The Bible is first and foremost Holy Tradition.
It is not extra to it, but a integral part of it. You cannot understand the Bible as an isolated book. That is why protestants are all over the map trying to determine some semblance of consistancy. They never will because they have set the Bible against Tradition and have denied the validity of Tradition.
The Bible, as to the NT, was written long after the beginning of the Church. The Gospel was already in practice and had been taught in all locations, exept Rome, respective of Romans. Those written to individuals are reminders, some correction or exhorting, but nothing new from what was originally taught. Most of the practices of the Early Church have not ever been questioned by the faithful. That is also why not many of them are defined or explained in scripture because it was not necessary.

Again, no laying on of hands, no explicit transfer of the "all authority" mentioned, just a statement of His own as preface to His command to teach & baptize. He doesn't take this opportunity to articulate consecration of the Eucharist as a privilege & duty of any particular ordained authority.

That is because, once again, the early Church never doubted the power and authority of the Apostles to convey the Truth as they received it. The practice and the explanation of the faith, of salvation, was not disputed on these two issues is not only relevant in the history that was recorded in the Bible but also in subsequent history for centuries.

The keys of the kingdom are the truths of the gospel that set us free from the prison of sin, not symbols of authority, but weapons of freedom.
John Gill explains the part about "binding & loosing better than me (apologies):
And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.
This also is not to be understood of binding, or loosing men's sins, by laying on, or taking off censures,

he may have some relevance for you, but for me he is worthless. Why would I believe a person, 2000 years away from the actual facts, the actual teachings and practices, who is using only the Bible as a source and denies the historical relevance to the contrary. I will take a person who was inspired by the Holy Spirit, who received ALL TRUTH and taught it to the first century Church and witnesses, students of the Apostles themselves, record more than what was given in scripture alone. Furthermore, beliefs and practices that have not changed from the beginning.
Can you say that for all of Luthers teachings and practices? For the most part, none of the reformers lasted beyond their own life times and in some cases their own students disagreed with them and started whole new and different churches based on their particular understandings. And, so on, so on, until today, it has evolved into a personal gospel, each with the right to interpret an extract, called the Bible, to suit their own understandings.
In this case with Gill, much of what he states is precisely the power and authority that the Church possesses as a Body. The bishop possesses as the highest governing entity in the Church, who shares equal authority with every other bishop.

 

[Rick Otto]

I sense enough disdain to discourage any rebuttal, of which i have plenty.
Dare I say even contempt. I am not worthy.