The Bible Is A Catholic Book

[His student]

His student said: ↑

doing away with the unbiblical priesthood all together

Christian priests are presbyters.

Some are and some aren't.

I specifically said the "unbiblical" priesthood - not presbyters that are biblical such as elders or, if you prefer, bishops,

Most certainly i didn't refer to the priesthood of all believers as taught to us by Peter (or, as some prefer, the first pope).

"......you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.................But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy." 1 Peter 2:5,10

 

[Not David]

His student said: ↑

doing away with the unbiblical priesthood all together

Some are and some aren't.

I specifically said the "unbiblical" priesthood - not presbyters that are biblical such as elders or, if you prefer, bishops,

Most certainly i didn't refer to the priesthood of all believers as taught to us by Peter (or, as some prefer, the first pope).

"......you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.................But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy." 1 Peter 2:5,10

Priests administer the sacraments and spiritual advice, Scriptures say not all can have that role.

 

[His student]

Priests administer the sacraments and spiritual advice, Scriptures say not all can have that role.

Which scriptures are those?

There is the scripture which tells those who are sick to call for the elders to pray for them and anoint them with oil.

But I doubt you refer to that scripture since neither praying for the sick nor anointing with oil are sacraments or spiritual advice.

Besides that - laying hands on those in need of healing is a function of and a sign that will follow all believers. Also all believers are told to pray for one another.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Which scriptures are those?

There is the scripture which tells those who are sick to call for the elders to pray for them and anoint them with oil.

But I doubt you refer to that scripture since neither praying for the sick nor anointing with oil are sacraments or spiritual advice.

Besides that - laying hands on those in need of healing is a function of and a sign that will follow all believers. Also all believers are told to pray for one another.

Holy Unction--anointing with oil for the sick--actually is considered a Sacrament by both Catholics and Orthodox.

While it's not regarded as a Sacrament proper for Lutherans, it is what we would call a sacramental. This is because of the way that we define what is an explicit Sacrament. In Lutheranism there are certain criteria that something must meet in order to be called a Sacrament:

1) It must have been instituted by Jesus Christ.
2) For the whole Church
3) And must consist of a material element.

Only two or three things meet these criteria: Baptism, the Eucharist, and Absolution.

As such Holy Unction is sacramental, but not a Sacrament.

As far as it pertains to good order within the Church, fundamentally the question we should ask isn't "Who may" administer the Sacraments, but rather "who should" administer the Sacraments. The Church's answer to that question since the earliest days of the Church is that those who are called and ordained as ministers of Christ's Church (i.e. bishops and presbyters) are afforded the exercising of the Keys as given to the Church by Jesus Christ, as the Lord says,

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 16:19

While Jesus spoke to St. Peter personally, we understand that this is the giving of the Keys not uniquely to Peter only, but as the common possession of the Apostles and, thus, of the whole Church. However it is the Apostles themselves who chose to ordain bishops and presbyters for the pastoring and ministering of the Church, and so the exercising of the Keys is not anarchy, or some chaotic free-for-all; but a well-ordered thing in order that as God's people we might benefit fully and entirely. For the building up of the body, and our edification in Christ. As St. Paul has taught, that God is not a God of disorder, but of order. And His charisms are manifold, not all are pastors, not all are evangelists, not all are called to preach; but each has received their own gifts, their own charisms, for the unity of the Church and the edification of the Body of Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[packermann]

God can also deliver a gold coin in the mouth of a fish, which has no appreciation for the thing which it carries and delivers.

Amen, which is why God chose the Catholic Church to reveal to us His truth. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that the Catholic Church could not be the vehicle of God's revelation because of all the corruption in the Church in its past (and present) but then point out that God can deliver a gold coin from the mouth of a fish so it is no big deal that He used the Church.

We have this treasure in an earthen vessel (2Cor 4:7). I admit the eartheness of vessel in the Catholic Church. But it does not negate the fact that God preserved His treasure through this earthen vessel. But why would God stop there? Why would He preserve His written Word
all these centuries through the Church and yet be unwilling or unable to preserve the message of the gospel through all those centuries before the Reformation?

At least the Mormon Church is consistent. Mormons believe that since the Catholic Church corrupted the gospel message in the "Dark Ages" that we should not trust the Catholic Church in preserving anything, including the Bible. They believe that God had to start over and reveal His truth through their "prophet", Joseph Smith.

The rest of Protestantism wants their cake and eat it, too. They want most of the Bible but not all of it. They say that the Catholic Church corrupted the gospel but then preserved the Bible (but not all of it). They say that God worked through the Church to preserve some truths (the Bible canon (but not all of it), the Trinity, the deity of Christ) but did not work through the Church on others (ALL of the Bible, justification by faith and obedience to God, honoring God's mother, all the sacraments, etc.). In other words, they believe that God had picked some things that were worthy to preserve the first fifteen centuries of the Church in spite of its corruption, but not others.

 

[packermann]

That honor, however, was never the same thing as authority.

Can a child honor his mother and father and yet refuse to obey them? Can a citizen honor his president and yet refuse to see him as his authority? We call a judge "Your honor" and we recognize him as having authority over us. It is never explained how a pope being honored by the bishops does not mean being recognized as being over them in authority. Does it mean that they honor his birthday? Does it mean that they call him once a week to wish him well? Does it mean that they genuflect when they see him? Please give specifics how they honored him without seeing him as having authority over them.

 

[prodromos]

Can a child honor his mother and father and yet refuse to obey them? Can a citizen honor his president and yet refuse to see him as his authority? We call a judge "Your honor" and we recognize him as having authority over us. It is never explained how a pope being honored by the bishops does not mean being recognized as being over them in authority. Does it mean that they honor his birthday? Does it mean that they call him once a week to wish him well? Does it mean that they genuflect when they see him? Please give specifics how they honored him without seeing him as having authority over them.

I honor my eldest brother, but he has no authority over me.

 

[packermann]

I honor my eldest brother, but he has no authority over me.

Why do you not honor your youngest brother if honor has nothing to do about authority?

The eldest usually does have authority over the other siblings. The eldest babysits the others when the parents are not home. In my family, the eldest was left in charge of liquidating my parent's estate when the last one passed away.

 

[Not David]

Why do you not honor your youngest brother if honor has nothing to do about authority?

The eldest usually does have authority over the other siblings. The eldest babysits the others when the parents are not home. In my family, the eldest was left in charge of liquidating my parent's estate when the last one passed away.

It might be like that until you are 18. I don't have the obligation to do anything my eldest brother tells me.

 

[prodromos]

Why do you not honor your youngest brother if honor has nothing to do about authority?.

I do honor my younger siblings, but my older brother is held in greater esteem.
Anyway, you asked, I answered, but you seem to have completely entrenched yourself in this erroneous view and won't accept any response that differs.
You go have a nice day.

 

[BobRyan]

The Church is Israel, and the Council of Jerusalem does not talk about the Scriptures canon but other councils do.

Romans 2
. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Romans 9
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

 

[BobRyan]

True, it is God's Word. It originated by God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. But God compiled and preserved the Bible through the Catholic Church.

IF that were the case you'd think they would be more tolerant of using that text "sola scriptura" to test doctrine.

 

[JM]

I have no problem with saying the Bible is Catholic.

 

[Not David]

Romans 2
. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Romans 9
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

What are you trying to say?

 

[Not David]

I have no problem with saying the Bible is Catholic.

View attachment 263151

What happened to your "trovador" avatar?

 

[JM]

What happened to your "trovador" avatar?

I like to change it up. I'm using a pic of me adjusting my gloves for Lodge.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Can a child honor his mother and father and yet refuse to obey them? Can a citizen honor his president and yet refuse to see him as his authority? We call a judge "Your honor" and we recognize him as having authority over us. It is never explained how a pope being honored by the bishops does not mean being recognized as being over them in authority. Does it mean that they honor his birthday? Does it mean that they call him once a week to wish him well? Does it mean that they genuflect when they see him? Please give specifics how they honored him without seeing him as having authority over them.

I can honor my friends, that doesn't mean they the authority over me; just as I don't have any authority over them.
I can honor my girlfriend, that doesn't mean she is the authority over me; just as I don't have any authority over her.
I can honor lots of people, in different ways, that doesn't translate to their being an authority over me, or I over them.

Honor =/= authority.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why do you not honor your youngest brother if honor has nothing to do about authority?

Personally, I do honor my younger brother. But he doesn't have any authority over me. Just as I have no authority over him. We're both grown adults.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[packermann]

It might be like that until you are 18. I don't have the obligation to do anything my eldest brother tells me.

Of course not! But you honor your eldest because he once had authority over you. It was because there was at one time this authority over you that you honor him. But even so, I think it is more that you respect him. If I should ever say to my elder sister that I honored her, I think she would think I was weird.

 

[packermann]

IF that were the case you'd think they would be more tolerant of using that text "sola scriptura" to test doctrine.

Sola Scrptura has caused thousand of splits within Protestantism, each believing in sola scripture and each thinking that everyone but them are wrong in their interpretations of scripture.

Why should the Catholic Church be tolerant of a method that has been proven not to work?