lula posts:

kfc replies:

Ha,ha, ha, ha! Spoken like a true PROTEST-ant!

Catholics have Christ as the Head of the Church. Christ is the Invisible Head of the Church. 

No, no, no...the CC does not replace Christ with the Pope. Christ gave the Apostolic Chruch His own authority to preach, teach, forgive sins, and baptize in His name....not to replace Him. 

That's where we differ. I say it's Scriptural and what I've been talking about ....According to Scripture, Christ is the Invisible Head of His Chruch and He appointed St.Peter as His visible head of His Chruch. Scripture teaches the Chruch is the Body of Christ to which powers were delegated and upon which obligations were imposed by Christ that only a unified, visible spiritual body could exercise and fulfill.

Christ's New Covenant Church came from and displaced the Jewish Church which foreshadowed it. It's a visible theocracry, "The "kingdom of GOd" as CHrist called it in StMatt. 21:43. It took the place of the Jewish theocracy, the visible kingdom of God in the Old Dispensation. (Covenant). Leauki, the Jewish Chruch is the one visible Body of Isreal with God as it's Head. The Jewish Chruch was confined to a particular location. Whereas the Chruch of the New Dispensation being universal is open to all peoples of every nation and is therefore not confined to a particluar geographical location.

Isaias 2:2  prophecied the kingdom of the Messias, His Church would be visible, as is a mountain when it tops the surrounding mountains.And Christ used this imagery when He described the visibility of His Chruch as a "city on a mountain that cannot be hid." St.Matt. 5:14.

Christ also called His Chruch a "Sheepfold" which He the Good Shepherd left in the care of His earthly visible shepherd, St.Peter saying, "Feed My lambs...Feed My sheep." It would be rather difficult to keep and to feed the sheep of Christ with Divine truth if His "sheepfold" were invisible.

trouble with post 47

LULA POSTS: 24

I've always maintained it's all about Christ. And my comments here and throughout  are consistent with that.

It is about Christ...Christ Who established a Church...the one Church that all the sects that were established after 33AD, including those of Protestantism, reject and rail against ..... 

It is about Christ....Christ Who by giving St.Peter the keys to the kingdom appointed him as His first head (and therefore his legitimate successors, now called the Pope)....

It is about Christ...Christ Who gave St.Peter and the Apostles (and therefore their legitimate successors, now called Bishops) the power to bind and loose on earth, to teach, govern and sanctify His Church.

I am planning to write a separate article on the Catholic Priesthood in which I will defend my statement.  Your (false) charge of blasphemy shows you don't understand Scripture especially those passages that describe the Holy Eucharist.  Connect the OT with the NT. Understand there were 2 functions of the OT priesthood which ALmighty God established....same as the NT but a more perfect priesthood which Christ established. Read and study about the priesthood of Melchisedech and the prophecy of Malachais 1:11. Then put those together with St.Luke 22:14-20. 

lula posts:

kfc posts:

Ay..yi...yi 

St. Matt. 16:18-19  "And I say to thee: that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom. And whatsoever thou shalt  bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

Read...read...read  again the two passages in which the word "keys" appears. Christ has two different keys..the keys to the Kingdom and the keys to Hell and Death.  

 In Rev. 1:17-18, Christ told St.John that He has the keys to Hell and Death. Christ didn't give them to anyone. The words "And I have the keys" indicates that He still has them.   

While in St.Matt. 16, Christ speaking to St.Peter said I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom.  

The short answer is they aren't the same keys. Pope Benedict is holding the keys to the Kingdom (the Church) that CHrist originally gave to St.Peter.

Haha, the Catholic Church couldn't even keep the number of Pope's to one some of the time.

This is ridiculous.  The Pope has the keys?  Puh-leeze! 

Christ was addressing Peter in this instance (all of them as well as the church in Chap 18) as representative of the 12 telling him that whatever you shall bind (that is forbid) on earth shall be bound in heaven and that whatever you shall loose (that is permist) on earth shall be loosed in heaven.  He told Peter and the 12 and by extension ALL OTHER BELIEVERS that they had the authority to declare what is divinely forbidden or permitted on earth. 

In John 20:23 after His resurrection Christ said "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."

In giving instruction for church discipline to all his people, Jesus said that if a sinning believer refuses to turn from his sin after being counselled privately and even after being rebuked by the entire congration, the church not only is permitted but obligated to treat the unrepentant member "as a Gentile and a tax gatherer" (Matt 18:15-17).  He then said to the church as a whole what He earlier had said to Peter and to the other apostles, "Truly I say to you whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  (18:18). 

In other words, a body of believers has the right to tell an unrepentant brother that he is out of line with God's word and has no right to fellowship with God's people.  That's the meaning behind  binding and loosing Lula.  It's not some divine authority just to the RCC and it's Pope.  That's utterly ridiculous. 

 The church is people.  It's NOT denomination. 

The way I see it the Catholic Church provides a service. It provides the same service a synagogue provides. It provides a community, subject matter experts, weddings, coming-of-age ceremonies, and charity. Like Jewish and other Christian organisations it owns hospitals, kindergardens, schools and universities.

And that's it. There is no mysticism here and no authority over anyone who doesn't accept such authority.

The Catholic Church can try to claim authority over other people but if such a claim is successful depends entirely on its reputation. There are Jewish movements like Chabad whom many Jews respect. Similarly people respect the Catholic Church and its expertise.

But in recent years the Catholic Church has lost much of that respect and the claim that G-d wants people to listen to what many perceive to be a bunch of pedophiles and a leader who protects them is not as convincing as some might think it ought to be.

No man knows what G-d really wants. We can only know from scripture.

lula posts:

KFC posts:

Not ridiculous. It's true. True, KFC, because history itself confirms and affirms the unbroken chain of Apostolic Succession from St.Peter, the first Bishop of Rome to Pope Benedict XVI, the 265th Bishop of Rome.  Furthermore, all of the bishops in union with the Pope are the duly appointed successors of the Apostles.

In St.Matt. 16:18-19, it was Christ's will to entrust a specific authority to St.Peter alone. The power of the keys designates authority to teach, rule and govern the Kingdom, the House of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd confirmed His mandate to St.Peter of the primacy of His Chruch when He said to him and to him alone, "Feed My sheep." St.John 21:14-17; 10:11.

The Church or the kingdom of God corresponds to the universal Messianic kingdom so often prophecied in the OT. The OT gives us a glimpse as to the significance of the keys....a symbol of supreme power in the kingdom of David.  

By giving the keys to St.Peter, Christ willed to make St.Peter His first Vicar, visible head and strong rock foundation of His kingdom. Christ willed to make St.Peter a participator on earth of His own Supreme task which He obtained in His own Chruch by His proper right as Messias.

St.Luke 22:32 offers a parallel to St. Matt. 16:18.  The Pope is the Apostle for whom Christ said He would pray that his faith fail him not. Who was that but St.Peter, the first Pope? In both texts, the firmness on which the Church will stand is derived from Christ.

St.John 21:18 records Christ's prophecy of St.Peter's martrydom. St.Peter will suffer in the likeness of the Good Shepherd "who gives his life for his sheep."

There is no doubt whatsoever that CHrist conferred the primacy of His Chruch on St.Peter.

There is also no doubt whatsoever that in order that the mission entrusted to the Apostles St.Matt. 28:16-20 might be continued after their death, the Apostles ordained other men to complete the work they had begun urging them to tend the whole flock in which the Holy SPirit had appointed them to shepherd the Church of GOd. Acts. 20:28.

Read the writings of the early Church Fathers, contemporaries of the Apostles.

St.Irenaeus, "in order that the full gospel might always be preserved in the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors." The "Apostolic preaching" was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."   

KFC POSTS:

So, this is your interpretation of what "to bind and loose" means? That Christ gave His authority to bind and loose not only to St.Peter and the other Apostles but also to "ALL OTHER BELIEVERS"???  Well, this sure helps explain why Protestantism fractured into a multiplicity of sects with different doctrines all claiming to be true.  

Your interpretation of St.Matt. 18:18 is flat out wrong. Scripture is clear that Christ entrusted this power to bind and loose only St.Peter and the Apostles. No member of the laity has this power. Period.   

Exactly.  It's called his revealed will for our lives.  He has told us all we need to know in this present sinful age and trusting Him involves us acknowledging that there are some things we are not meant to know. 

and then to the elders to the church.  Like I said believers.  It was NOt ONLY to Peter and the Apostles. 

You may want to go over and read Acts 15 very carefully.  Notice how many times it says "apostles and elders" in tandem?  Five times in one chapter to be exact and for good reason.  The Apostles were transferring their authority to the elders of the churches.  They were included in the decision making at the first council. It wasn't just Apostles.  Then go over to Chap 20 and see how Paul called all the elders together and wept over them giving them instruction.  They were now taking the leadership positions from the Apostles.  This was a transferring of authority and pastoring.  These elders had the same authority to "bind and loose" as you're saying ONLY Peter and the Apostles had.  Peter does something similar in his epistle calling himself an elder along with those he was instructing.  He didn't put himself above them at all. 

because you say so?  It's not my interpretation.  It's obvious by the general reading of the scriptures.  The problem is you have the RCC dictating to you what they say according to their agenda choosing some scripture over others to make their case.  Happens all the time. 

and you totally ignored John 20:19-23 which I mentioned.  Here we see Christ breathed on the disciples assembled out of fear in a closed room.  This was a definition of the binding and loosing he said earlier in Matthew 18.  This most likely included more than just the 10 Apostles (minus Judas and Thomas) but those mentioned in Acts 1:23 as well which would make it about 120. 

That's how scripture interprets scripture.  You choose instead to take and choose scripture that backs up what the RCC tells you (ignoring others) because you are getting your information from RCC commentaries NOT the scripture itself. 

What you describe is but one small part of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was established, authorized, and guaranteed by CHrist to teach us all of His doctrine, give us sanctifying grace through the 7 Sacraments, and to keep us united  in charity (love) with God and with each other and make us holy and by these things lead us to Heaven. This is accomplished with the Catholic sacerdotal priesthood. The priesthood the Messias instituted and a new, unbloody Sacrifice in place of the Aaronic priesthood and its Mosaic sacrifices.   

I disagree.

I'd say, especially after Moses, we can and do know what Almighty God really wants. It's called His revealed sacerdotal (priestly) religion.

It was through the 12 sons of Jacob, grandson of Abraham, whose name God changed to Israel, that the Isrealites came into being. Judaism, the first organic, priestly sacrificial Divinely revealed religion, stemmed from Moses and Aaron. With the coming of the Messias, Jesus, whom Moses had commanded to be heard (Deut. 18:15-19), came the New Covenant, which Jeremias said would supercede the Jewish convenant. 31:31.

The Judaism of the Old Testament fulfilled it's Divine mission and ceased to function as the one religion of ALmighty God in 70AD, when it ceased to have a priesthood, altar, and sacrifices. Just as the Catholic religion would cease to be if it ceased to have her priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech and the Sacrifice of the Mass. We know that will never happen becasue CHrist promised to be with His Church, the one, holy catholic and Apostolic Church, until the end of the world and the gates of Hell will not prevail against her.

You claim that we can only know what God really wants from Scripture! Which Scripture, Leauki? Does it include the 27 Books in the New Testament?  

The idea that the Bible is the only way to know about what God really wants is of 16th century Martin Luther origin. And he was no more right than you are here repeating what he taught.

Anyway, the Holy Bible is the inspired source for the elucidation of faith and Catholics hold that the Church and the BIble to be the true Christian rule of faith. The Church is historically first, the Bible second...it is the Catholic Church that selected the Divinely inspired writings within its covers.

Not exactly. May I remind you of St.John 21:25, "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

lula posts:

kfc posts:

KFC,

My statement was very specific and it is correct. You wrote, "and then to the elders ..."

Just to clarify, Christ entrusted His power to bind and loose only to St.Peter and the other Apostles...and they in turn entrusted the power to bind and loose to the "elders".

You say,

The part of your statement that is highlighted is wrong.  The power and authority to bind and loose was given only to St.Peter and the Apostles and from them to the "elders" (priests). This is Apostolic Succession.

Not only Acts 15 but the entire Book of Acts is an actual history of the early Catholic Church.

So, OK, I checked out Acts 15 in the KJV and guess what I discovered? The translators of the KJV changed the "priest" into an "elder".

First, we know from the earlier chapters of Acts as well as 1Tim. 4:14; 2Tim.1:6 that the Apostles had ordained other good men into the priesthood by the imposition of hands (now called the Sacrament of Holy Orders). To be called to the priesthood, the separate, sacrificing priesthood of the NT, pledged to sacred service on the altar is of the highest honor. And this priesthood is an ongoing reality, as can be seen by the tense of the verbs in the texts of St.Paul. In Heb.5:1/4, "For every high priest (who is) taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins:....Neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was."

These "elders" that you speak of were priests who had already been ordained into the priesthood of the New Covenant. Greek was the common language and the early church titles were "bishop" or "Overseer", "presbyter'" (priest) and "deacon".  The entry "priest" in dictionaries will give the word "presbyter".

Agree. The Council of Jerusalem took place in 49 or 50AD. It was the first meeting for the hierarchial rulers of the early Chruch consisting of St.Peter, the other Apostles, and priests to decide whether baptized Gentiles are obliged or not to be circumcized and to keep the Old Law. The Council of Jerusalem is seen as the Catholic Church's first General Council, a prototype of the series of Councils that would follow.  

Now v. 22 brings in the whole Chruch...It is the hierarchy together with the whole Chruch who designate the people who are to publish the Council's decree, but it is only the Hierarchy, St.Peter, the other apostles, and priests, who formulate and promulgate it throughout the entire Church.

Says who?

Did Jesus at least mention priests or is all of the above made up?

Really? What about Melchizedek's religion in Salem and Jethro's religion?

Were they not organic, priestly and reveleaed? I thought they were.

Didn't Jeremiah live at the time of the destruction of the first Temple? His prophecy was already fullfilled when the second Temple was built. G-d sent a Messiah and the Jews were returned to the land of Israel. (We are still waiting for Jesus to achieve the same feat. If he is a Messiah too, or worse THE Messiah, that should happen any day now.)

Either way, Jeremiah speaks of a new covenant with Israel, not with the Romans. Only by assuming the title of "Israel" and claiming it for themselves did the Church manage to pretend that it is the partner in that "new" covenant.

It never ceased to function. Even in Jeremiah's time when the first Temple was destroyed, the Jewish religion survived until the second Temple was built. And this time it will survive until the third Temple is built.

But it is quite remarkable that you claim that Judaism ceased to function when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, the same Romans who later claimed to be the "new Israel" and the new partners in the covenant.

Everything is done by force with you Romans, isn't it? You actually think that you can kill people and steal their covenant with G-d. It's amazing.

Don't worry. At the current rate Catholicism will eventually run out of priests.

Incidentally, as I told you before, we still have our priesthoood.

You case your entire theology on your ability to ignore facts. That can't be good.

And now suddenly, the order of Melchisedek matters again. Above you claimed that Melchitsedeq wasn't a real priest when you denied the divinity of his religion. And now there is an order of priests based on him?

So was Melchitsedek's religion divine or not?

All your arguments sound as if you have learned them from pre-approved sources. And they contradict each other.

I don't think so. But then you claim that the Avesta is not scripture and you base the Catholic claim to speak for G-d on that claim. So what's the point?

and where pray tell did you get that from?  the word elder comes from the Greek Lula.  It is the word "presbuteros" which means "an old man, an elder". 

In Hebrew 11:2 the "elders" are the forefathers in Israel; so in Matt 15:2, Mark 7:3,5.  The feminine of the adjective is used of "elder" women in the churches, 1 Tim 5:2, not in respect of position but in seniority of age; of rank or positions of responsibility,

1. among Gentiles as in Gen 50:7, Num 22:7

2.  in the Jewish nation, firstly, those who were the heads or leaders of the tribes and families, as of the seventy who assisted Moses, Num 11:16, Deut 27:1 and those assembled by Solomon; secondly members of the Sanhedrin consisting of the chief priests, "elders" and scribes, learned in Jewish law, e.g. Matt 16:21, 26:47

3.  In Christian churches those who being raised up and qualified by the work of the Holy Spirit, were appointed to have the spirital care of and to exercise oversight over the churches.  To thse the term "bishops" "episkopoi" or "overseers" is applied Acts 20:17,28, Titus 1:5,7. 

The duty of "elders" is described by the Greek verb "episkopeo."

The word priest is "hiereus" "one who offers sacrifice and has the charge of things pertaining thereto" is used of

a.  of a priest of the pagan god Zeus, Acts 14:13 (which is really where the Roman RCC gets some of their theology)

b.  of Jewish priests, Matt 8:4, 12:4,5, Luke 1:5 where allusion is made to the 24 courses of priests appointed for service in the Temple.

c.  of believers (IMAGINE THAT) Rev 1:6, 5:10, 20:6

All believers, from Jews and Gentiles are consituted a kingdom of priests, a "holy priesthood." 1 Peter 2:5 and "royal" v9. 

The NT knows NOTHING of a sacerdotal class in contrast to the laity; all believers are commanded to offer the sacrifices mentioned in Rom 12:1, Phil 2:17, 4:18, Heb 13:15,16, 1 Peter 2:5. 

another word for Priest is "archiereus" which designates "the high priests" of the Levitical order, frequently called "chief priests" in the NT and I won't get into that. 

So no, you're wrong.  Priest is not meant in Acts 15, but elder which is the correct translation.  Go to the original language Lula, not what the RCC is telling you. 

So maybe it was the RCC who substituted priest?   Oh yeah!  That makes sense. 

Hey, KFC, this neatly addresses my question to Lula:

"Did Jesus at least mention priests or is all of the above made up?"

So, did Jesus mention priests and a special role for them or was it Jesus (rather than Judaism) that did away with the priests?

(As I said before, Rabbinic Judaism still has priests.)

the short answer is no.  There were to be NO priests (like the OT) under the new covenant.  It was Jesus (not Judaism) that did away with the priests. His tearing the veil in two from top to bottom was what did it.   Actually Judaism is trying to reinstate the priesthood and they are making rapid progression from what I heard today.  I heard they have a Priest with the right credentials in Jerusalem (a butcher) by the name of Cohen who they are looking at to be the next High Priest. 

The long answer is: 

Jesus is our High Priest.  He came in the order of Melchizedek.  The definition of High Priest has two meanings only.

1.  The only OT priest qualified to carry out the priesthood's full mediatorial function

2.  Jesus who serves as the only and eternal high preist of the new covenant. 

Th functions of the OT priesthood are outlined in Deut 33.  Priests came from the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron to:

1.  Guard God's covenant

2.  teaching God's precepts and Law

3.  offer incense and sacrifice on God's altar.

The priests spoke to men on God's behalf.  In presenting sacrifices and offerings the priests spoke to God for men.  Their role was mediatorial. 

Hebrews presents Jesus as the High Priest of the new covenant which was ratified by his death.  Christ fulfills the mediatorial role given to the OT high priest.  He communicates God's will to us for under the new covenant God puts his laws in our minds and writes them on our hearts.  Christ guarantees salvation and the forgiveness of all sins to those who come to God thru him because he always lives to intercede for them.  Hebrews 7:26-28 sums up the significance of Christ's high Priesthood.

When Christ said "it is finished" on the cross the word is one in the Greek.  It's "tetelestai" which means completed.  There is NO adding to it.  It's a done deal. 

It's sort of like adding more letters to the word love.  When you do so, it's no longer love.  It's the same to those (including the priestly work of the RCC) who try to add more to Christ's finished work on the cross.  By doing so, they don't accept what has been already completed for them. 

The only priesthood mentioned in the NT is what I wrote above.  It's the priesthood of believers.  The OT system with its sacrifices and priesthood is set aside in Christ. 

Peter says that we are "being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood offering spiritual sacrifices accepted to God thru Jesus."  1 Peter 2:5.  Under the New Covenant we are to minister to each other and thus stimulate spiritual growth.  We are also to pray for one another, representing each other before God.