KFC POSTS:



KFC, no disrespect taken and no disrespect back to you. Eventually, as you continue to read Holy Scripture and seek truth, you will see that it's really all about the Holy Eucharist for that's what Christ gave us, Himself. It's all going to boil down to the Holy Eucharist in the end days as well. You'll see.


In the meantime, KFC, read your quote again. Here it is with all the extra words omitted. Lula,....the Eucharist...This has to do with an offering made TO GOD.

KFC, the Eucharist IS the offering made TO GOD.

Now reread where I wrote this twice:

I said, "a clean oblation" is the Real Presence of our Lord's precious Body and BLood in the form of the consecrated Eucharistic Host offered to God by the Priest at the altar. The Sacrifice of the Holy Mass is the perpetual clean oblation and thus the fulfillment of Malachais' prophecy.

And again, I said, The Eucharistic Mass, celebrated in every place, is the sacrifice of the New Covenant in which the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ under the forms of bread and wine are offered to God by the ordained Priest. This Sacrifice of the Mass is offered to give honor and glory to God, to thank Him for His benefits, to make reparation for the sins of mankind, and to beg of Him the graces and blessings we need to live a holy life as He is Holy. The Mass represents and continues in our midst the one great Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross and it is offered to GOd for all the purposes for which He died.

THIS IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WILL OF GOD AS STATED IN 1COR 11: 23-26.


KFC POSTS:


Yes, I agree, Christ offered Himself as the Bread of life. We accept by eating It, so in this sense, that's not offering It back.


The Priest and the faithful offer the Lamb of God, the perfect Sacrifice to God, in accordance with 1Cor.11:23-26. This is what Jesus said to do at the Last Supper when He institued the Eucharistic Mass and the ministerial Priesthood of the New and everlasting Covenant.




Let's take it from top to bottom and tie the clean oblation, the priesthood and the sacrifice.

There's plenty of evidence in the NT that Christ established a priestly office. The Priest is chosen from among men, dedicated to God by consecration (Holy Orders) and sent to teach and sanctify men and to offer sacrifice to God. Christ most emphatically did this. He chose men and He consecrated them. He was the Eternal High Priest who mediates between His Father and mankind. He came into the world for that priestly mission. To those whom He had chosen He said, As the Father has sent Me, I also send you." i.e. you must continue in My Name My priestly mission. St.John 20:21. Then He consecrated them communicating to them His very own power...v.22..."He breathed on them, and said, "Receive thee the Holy Ghost."

Having chosen and consecrated them, He commanded them to teach men heavenly doctrine and to sanctify them. He said to them, "Go, teach all nations." As regards to sanctifying men, He said, "Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. In St.John 20:23, "Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them." St.James 5:14, "Is any man sick? Let him call in the priests of the Chruch, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him."

Finally, Christ ordered them to offer sacrifice to God. At the Last Supper, He said, "This is My Body which is given for you, this is My Blood which is shed for you, do this in commemmoration of Me and as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink this chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until He come." 1Cor.11:24-26.

As often as a lawfully ordained priest celebrates the Holy Mass, he offers this sacrifice. The same Victim is offered, Jesus Christ and by the priesthood of Christ in the celebrant. Only by a successive and perpetual priesthood by choice, consecration and divine commission can be done. And thus only is fulfilled the prophecy of Malachais 1:11 where he tells the Jews that the Messiah will abandon them and turn to the Gentiles predicting,

"For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, My Name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is a sacrifice, and there is offered to My Name a clean oblation; for My Name is great among the Gentiles saith the Lord of hosts."

The Sacrifice of the Cross took place not in every place, but on Calvary only. The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered in every place, in all countries, and among all nations, by the priests of the CC.

Yes, I'm really anxious to read both of them. I really appreciate and enjoy your work even though I pick at them from time to time.

First off all that you wrote concerning the CC priesthood and the Eucharist is foreign to scripture. Again, read Hebrews.



Now for this scripture. The key word is "commemmoration." It is a memorial everytime we partake. He never ordered them to offer a sacrifice to God. It goes against all other NT scriptures to say so. Jesus ONLY offered the sacrifice. Read Hebrews.

God said over and over....I don't want your sacrifice...I want you heart.

I think we beat this horse to death....time to move on.

LULAPILGRIM POSTS:

KFC POSTS:


KFC, if it is as you say that He never ordered them to offer a sacrifice to God, then what does the last section of V. 26 mean to you? Is it just to be ignored?


We are studying the apocolyptic end times here, the Sacrifice is going to figure in with that big time.

What is St. Paul teaching the Corinthians? Here is 1Cor. 11: 23-26, "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus Christ on the night that He was betrayed took bread, 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, "This is My Body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper saying, "This cup is the covenant in My Blood. Do this as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink this chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until He come."


What does v. 23-26 mean to you? How do "Bible Alone" Christians, DO what Christ tells His followers to DO when He says "Do this in commemoration of Me...you shall show the death of the Lord until He come?


I know what this meant to the Corinthians. These verses clearly bear witness to the early Christians faith in the Eucharistic mystery. Just as the Apostles and disciples who believed Christ's "hard" saying, the Corinthians believe that Christ meant what He said in His discourse with the Jews at the synagogue in Carpharnaum. "I am the Bread of Life...he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life."

St.Paul is writing around 57 AD,---27 years since the institution of the Holy Eucharist and the Last Supper. He was reminding the Corinthians of what they had been taught some years earlier.
They words "received" and "delivered" indicate this teaching is oral Tradition(from Christ to St.Paul and now down to the Corinthians in the early fledgling Church.

"Do this in commemoration of Me" in instituting the Eucharist, our Lord charged that It be re-offered until the end of time. St.Luke 22:19, thereby instititing the priesthood.

Jesus, at the Last Supper, OFFERED His Body and Blood under the forms of bread and wine TO GOD,and then gave His Body and Blood under the same form to the Apostles to receive, making them priests on the New Covenant (Testament) at that time. He ordered the Apostles and their appointed successors in the priesthood, to offer this sacrament when He said, "Do this in commemoration (remembrance) of Me."

The word "commemoration or remembrance" is charged with the meaning of a Hebrew word which was used to convey the essence of the feast of the Passover--commemoration of the exodus from Egypt. For the Israelites the Passover rite not only reminded them of a bygone event, they were conscious of making that event present, reviving it, in some way, generation after generation. So, when Our Lord commands His Apostles to "do this in commemoration of Me", it is not a matter of merely recalling His SUpper, but of renewing His own passover Sacrifice of Calvary, which already, at the Last Supper, was present in an anticipated way.

no of course not. Let's look at v26 closer ok?

"For as often as you eath this bread and drink this cup you do SHOW the Lord's death till he comes."

First off, there is no regimented time period. In other words whether we do this once a week, once a month or once a year. I like monthly myself. Many ex-Catholics that come to our church say it has more meaning in our church because we've taken the ritual out of it. By doing it every week it turned into more of a habit and ritual. We do it every 4-6 weeks. Some churches do it once a year.

The Lord's supper is an acted sermon (show), looking back on Christ's life and death and looking forwrd to his second coming.

Scripture is clear that this is a commeration or memorial for whaat he's done for us.

Remember Lula, the bread remains bread but REPRESENTS His body. It is an illustration such as "I am the door."

KFC, there is no logical parallel between the words, "This is My Body" and "I am the door." The image of a door can have of its very nature a symbolic sense. Christ is like a door since I have to go to Heaven through Him. But a wafer of bread is in no way like His Flesh. Of its very nature it can't symbolize the actual body of Christ.

And doesn't He exclude that by saying, The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world, and My flesh is meat indeed." That is it is actually to be eaten, not merely commemorated in some symbolic way whenever the congregation decides to do so.

He says "Do this in commemoration of Me...you shall show the death of the Lord until He come?

What does "until He come" on the end of that sentence mean to you? Protestantism started in 1517 with sect after sect starting up and fading out. WHo was following CHrist's command, "Do this in commemoration of Me" for 1500 years before Protestantism was formed? Who amongst the Protestant churches will still be here "until He come"? Christ guaranteed His Church will be "until He come", "I am with you always". How is this? By the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist that He gave His Church, that's how.

you know Lula, every time you get cornered out comes the Luther and Protestant talk.....and the Eucharist. Do you notice this? This is nothing but Roman CC pride coming out right now.

"Protestantism" would have been alot sooner but the CC kept killing off the ones that would go up against it. Luther was actually kidnapped so this wouldn't happen to him.

You're falling back into the denomination thing and Christ could care less about man made denominations.

When he said "I am with you always." who was he speaking to? It wasn't the CC.

Funny, KFC, that you're the one who is buying into the false Protestant talk of Luther, et al, who said Christ didn't really mean it when He said, This IS My Body....take and eat...this is the bread of life" and you say I'm the one that's in a corner. No way, I'm not the one in denial of our Lord's Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, you must look in the mirror for that one.





I firmly believe that you are making a grave error in denying the Real Presence of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist.
I am truly sorry if when I speak the truth concerning this that it seems as though I am prideful in doing so. I sincerely try, in charity, to make every allowance for those who mistake error for truth.




This is an absurd statement and harsh, too.




The only man-made denominations that I know of came into existence starting in 1517 and somehow, I don't think Christ is happy with all the error-filled doctrines coming out of those.

Christ prayed for unity. He wants all to belong to the one Church He established and endowed with His authority.


(If you agree, I'd like to call a time out and agree to dosagree on this point and get back to the discussion of the Book of Revelation).

The reason I said what I said is because .....you asked this:

KFC, if it is as you say that He never ordered them to offer a sacrifice to God, then what does the last section of V. 26 mean to you? Is it just to be ignored?

and I answered you with this:

no of course not. Let's look at v26 closer ok?"For as often as you eath this bread and drink this cup you do SHOW the Lord's death till he comes." First off, there is no regimented time period. In other words whether we do this once a week, once a month or once a year. I like monthly myself. Many ex-Catholics that come to our church say it has more meaning in our church because we've taken the ritual out of it. By doing it every week it turned into more of a habit and ritual. We do it every 4-6 weeks. Some churches do it once a year.The Lord's supper is an acted sermon (show), looking back on Christ's life and death and looking forwrd to his second coming.Scripture is clear that this is a commeration or memorial for whaat he's done for us.

and then you answered not with anything about the scripture but with this:

What does "until He come" on the end of that sentence mean to you? Protestantism started in 1517 with sect after sect starting up and fading out. WHo was following CHrist's command, "Do this in commemoration of Me" for 1500 years before Protestantism was formed? Who amongst the Protestant churches will still be here "until He come"? Christ guaranteed His Church will be "until He come", "I am with you always". How is this? By the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist that He gave His Church, that's how.

Funny, KFC, that you're the one who is buying into the false Protestant talk of Luther

why do you keep saying this? I am not that big into Luther at all. I've read very little about his theological belief. He still had much of the CC in him even when he left his beloved church. Some of what he said I've agreed with, some I haven't.

This is an absurd statement and harsh, too.

no it's not. It's historical fact. All you have to do is open up the history books.

The only man-made denominations that I know of came into existence starting in 1517 and somehow, I don't think Christ is happy with all the error-filled doctrines coming out of those.

no, the first one started in 323 with Constantine. The RCC is the first man made denomination. Christ's church is PEOPLE. It's not denomination. Those that follow him are the church which is His body. When John was writing to the 7 churches they were not the CC. They were house churches in each one of those cities mentioned. The church at Ephesus, the church at Laodicia, etc. Rome was tormenting them. Later Rome joined them. There's enough error coming out all over the place. That I agree with. But it's not limited to just the Protestant denomination.

I firmly believe that you are making a grave error in denying the Real Presence of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. I am truly sorry if when I speak the truth concerning this that it seems as though I am prideful in doing so. I sincerely try, in charity, to make every allowance for those who mistake error for truth.

I understand Lula your motivation. I understand your sincerity. I don't doubt that. I do understand you believe it's truth. I don't. I believe it's RCC truth. We seem to agree on many things but when it comes to the authority of the RCC we have to part ways on that. Just as you believe I'm being influenced by Luther, I believe you're being influenced by a powerful organization that got you from the cradle. I was there. I totally understand where you're coming from.

Remember I'm not a denominationalist. When he comes back, he comes for the church......which is people. Remember church is ecclesia which is "called out ones." Called out from what?

In this and in other threads, it has been shown that Sacred Scripture reveals that the Old Testament is completed in the New....that at the time of Christ's Death on the Cross, the Old Covenant was perfected in the New Covenant...that biblical Judaism, its rituals and laws of the OC were abolished, and now stand for nothing, confer no grace, and save no one. Worse, they bring a curse upon those who obstinately cling to them Gal. 3:10.

Through Sacred Scripture we can see how God reveals salvation history:

---that the OT priesthood through Moses was the foretype of the Catholic priesthood through Christ.
---that God ordered the High Priests and Priests of the Old Testament Covenant to offer sacrifice TO Him in the Temple.....that being abolished with Christ's Death on the Cross.....is now the New Testament Covenant of His Blood.
---that during the Last Supper, Christ ordered His Apostles, who were the first budding-forth of the new chosen people, the New Israel, the Catholic Church, to offer sacrifice TO God.

For Scripture that shows that Christ ordered them to offer sacrifice TO God, I quoted: At the Last Supper, He said, "This is My Body which is given for you, this is My Blood which is shed for you, do this in commemmoration of Me and as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink this chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until He come." 1Cor.11:24-26.

When I asked you if the last section of v. 26 was to be ignored you answered by explaining your own private interpretation of what the word "show" means. You said, "The Lord's supper is an acted sermon (show), looking back on Christ's life and death and looking forwrd to his second coming."

When I asked the question, I was also referring to "until He come". In reply #31, I pressed you for an answer.....I asked, What does "until He come" on the end of that sentence mean to you? And then I asked, Who was following Christ's command, "Do this in commemoration of Me....you shall show the death of the Lord until He come" for 1500 years before Protestantism was formed as a result of Martin Luther's apostasy from the CC.

It was, in fact, the Catholic Church who has been "showing His death until He come" and has been doing so from the day of Pentecost. How were they, the fledgling early Catholic Church, doing this? By believing that Christ meant what He said when He said, "This is My Body, take this and eat" and by following His command at the Last Supper to do this in commemoration of Him...until He come. The day after saying this, He allowed Himself to be sacrificed. By the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist at the sacrifice of the Holy Mass that Christ gave His Church, that's how.

And it is only the CC who will show His death until He come in Judgment at the end of the world. Here, for over 2,000 years in continuum, we have God in what appears to be a small piece of bread or sip of wine. He is with us always. Every conceivable regime, including Protestantism, has tried to make Catholics stop believing it. Yet, they believe: I believe and more strongly every time I defend the truth of Christ..and there is only one truth, KFC, only one truth. Furthermore, it is this truth and the CC who is going to be severely persecuted for defending and keeping this truth. The Sacrifice of the Altar in every Mass, in every place, when the priest offers to God the clean oblation is something the Antichrist and his minions won't tolerate.

LULAPILGRIM POSTS:

KFC, even though you aren't Lutheran or a member of the Lutheran Church, or any denomination for that matter, you are "big into Luther". You are a staunch follower of most everything he said and invented as Protestant doctrine that has been passed on from the 16th century to the next through the centuries as Protestant Oral Tradition (POT). You are indeed "big into Luther" whenever you apply his Protestant oral tradition to deny Catholic teaching such as you have here in the Sacraments of the Holy Eucharist, the ministerial priesthood, and others.

Protestant oral tradition is a manufactured body of teaching of Luther whose essentials consist of what the Reformers denied (all the Catholic Sacraments for starters). POT denies what all of Christendom believed for 15 centuries: the divine institution of a visible Church founded on St.Peter and his successors, who, acting on his official capacity as head of the Chruch, is guaranteed not to mislead us in matters of faith and morals, with a separate, sacrificing priesthood and seven sacraments, through which flows the sancfifying grace which enables us to share in the life of God, and eventually enter Heaven.

The repudiation of these truths is what makes you "big into Luther" as this is his list of denials that he too hoped Catholics would be brought to believe.


You believe in "Faith alone" and the "Bible-alone" as your rule of faith and in claiming those, your claim is "big into Luther"--- for Sola Scriptura (Bible-Alone) and Sola Fides (Faith alone) are both imparted by Luther. They are his doctrines, the two twin pillars of Protestantism. Whenever you say the well-meaning 'the church is all believers' 'the church is people', you are "big into Luther" for in saying so, you are reciting his teaching which has been handed through POT.


Christ said, "And if he will not hear them, tell the Church. And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican" St.Matt. 18:17.

"Husbands love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered himself up for it" Eph. 5:25.

Given your definition of "Church", replace the word "people" here and see that it becomes non-sense.

When Catholics say "the Church", we mean the visible society of the validly baptized faithful, united together in one body by the profession of the same Christian faith, one Spirit, one Lord, one Baptism; by the participation of the same Sacrifice, and by the same 7 Sacraments, under the authority of the Pontiff, the Bishop of Rome, and the bishops in communion with him. Christ is the cornerstone, the people are the Body of Christ with Christ as the Head, the Good Shepherd.

When John says that, he is basically saying God, Jesus, etc., grant you grace and peace. It isn't in anyway saying "Oh, and God says Hi", or "The following is a message from God". Even if it did, every other prophet of every other religion said they were speaking for God, too.

So... there's no indication that the author is the "trinity" and the line you seem to think says so doesn't say anything of the sort. If I say "God's peace be with you" it isn't proof, or even an assertion, that my message is from God.

John is being told to "write" these things down by Christ himself. So he's in fact saying the following is a message from God quite clearly. He's told that more than once. I suppose you can say he really wasn't told if you choose to. But John was very credible. Polycarp was a disciple of John in the first century. Go, if you choose and see what Polycarp or some of the other first century writers had to say about John.

There are some amazing things in this book that are now or were even then very far fetched to be saying in John's Day. It's pretty interesting especially in one instance (we'll get to later) where he sees the same thing as Daniel but in reverse. Daniel was looking forward to his propecy and it had already happened by the time John wrote this book so he's now looking back at it.



There is very good indication as I stated. John mentions all three here. We know that all these churches did exist in John's Day. So that's not an issue and he was writing to these churches.

While I can't prove that scripture is indeed the very word of God (which I believe by faith based on evidence) I can show how dates, places, events and even people did live and occur during this time which is what we would expect from a book written by God.

No, what you're seeing I believe is the fact that Luther opened his book and read it during a time when it was taboo. He figured out that the "just shall live by faith" outside of works and it was directly in contrast to what the CC was teaching. When you see that I have the ways of Luther it's only because I too open my book and read it. You need the CC to interpret it for you and Luther was saying that was not so. He was right.

That's the whole reason for the veil of the temple being torn. We have direct access to Jesus, no longer did we have to go thru a priest to get to God. Jesus was now our forever High Priest. He even pointed out at the last supper that the HS would not be our guide. Remember the HS did NOT indwell the believer in the OT. Not until Pentecost did this happen (Acts 2).



Your first quote has to do with church discipline. When a fellow believer is in error the local body (church congregation) has steps to be taken to bring this brother/sister in line.

The second one is pretty self explanatory. Husbands are to lead their wives and nurture them in the things of Christ and live with them faithfully for life as Christ did the church (his people).

I see no contradiction here at all. Church is "ecclesia" They are called out of the world...in the same way Israel was "called out" to be different, a peculiar people to the nations of the OT.

KFC POSTS:


Christ is the founder of the Holy Catholic Church. On the feast of Pentecost, the 50th day after the Pasch, He sent the Holy Spirit down upon the Apostles, His mother Mary, and some of His disciples. Transformed into courageous and enlightened men, they began to preach the doctrine of Christ to all the world.

The Founder of Christianity would not leave His Revelation to these men without the means of insuring permanency. He organized a society which after His Death would function as a court of appeal and decide controversies about the meaning of His doctrine. The society He founded is the Church, placing St.Peter at its head and promising to protect her until the end of time. He selected certain men to be its officers, commissioning them to teach and govern in His name.

The official body commissioned by Christ to teach in His name still exists. Sure, the CC of the present day is not in all respects the same as the Chruch of Apostolic times. But the difference is the difference between the acorn and the oak tree. It is historically proven, that in no instance has the line been interrupted. The teachings and institutions familiar to Catholics today show the logical outgrowth of the teachings and institutions of the first centuries. Development has taken place without question, and it has been enormous, almost incredible. It has affected teaching, liturgy, and discipline (these are all tradition with a small 't'). The Church's doctrines have never changed. They are today the developed form of the Jesus' teachings communicated by the APostles to the Christians of the first century. The CC today is in essence doctrinally identical with the Church founded by Jesus Christ in the first century.

From the first through the third centuries, the early Church was under severe persecution, in conflict with paganism, and battling heresies. At the end of the first century, the Chruch held a primacy over all the other churches-a primacy which ever grew and developed as the ages ran on.

After the missions of St.Paul had brought in many Gentile converts, some of the Jewish Christians insisted thtt circumcision was necessary for salvation and a clamor arose. To settle it, the Apostles held the first CC Council in Jerusalem about 51 AD. They issued a decree denying the necessity of circumcision and ruling only that the Gentiles should abstain from "things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled and from fornication." The decree was then sent to the Church in Syria and Cilicia.

Christ's commission to the Apostles led to the hierarchial organization of the Church which was developed in three ways--the episcopate, the priesthood and the diaconate. With them, led to the founding of a number of churches each one was ruled by a bishop, and served by assistant clergy and each of which was consciously part of one great whole. This is in line with the activities of St.Paul as revealed in his Epistles and with the description given by Pope St. Clement. St.John gathered disciples around him ordained bishops and presbyters (priests), founded new churches, and visited the neighboring districts as the occasion required, always keeping Ephesus as his headquarters.

St. Clement I (76-88), sometimes called Clement of Rome is the first of the early writers called, "Apostolic Fathers". He was the 4th Pope to follow St.Peter. In his letter to the Chruch at Corinth, still preserved and unquestionably authentic, he reproaches the Corinthians for having allowed a schism to exist in their Chruch and urges them to submit to the divinely established hierarchy to settle their dispute.

In 105 AD, St. Ignatius while traveling to Antioch gave the Chruch her name, Catholic, meaning universal.

Careful examination of the earliest Christian literature shows the Chruch existed from the beginning and possessed the essential features which developed as time went on. Not every church has a complete organization, but the hierarchy was there in embryo and gradually it unfolded with the fullness of time. After the death of the first bishops appointed by the Apostles, the clergy chose successors from among themselves in the presence of the people and with their consent.

In the beginning the spread of CHristianity was due to the conversion of individuals drawn from various nations in the East. Acts 2:9-10. The Chruch was formed by various Gentile peoples, the first nation which officially adopted the Christian religion, namely Catholicism, was that of the Romans in 313 AD. This happened after the Edict of the Emperor Constantine when he granted tolerance to Christians and put an end to the pagan persecutions. By the time of Constantine, Christ's Church had already been in existence for nearly 3 centuries. I think Christ was guiding her as He promised to be with her for all days to the end of the world.

Yes, and to get to the nitty gritty Lula. I believe before the edict of Constantine there was NO Roman Catholic Church. Only after. That's the beginning of the RCC.

I believe as do many others that Rome hijacked Christianity and so many died trying to get it out of the hands of the Romans before Luther finally managed to do what he did and only did so by the grace of God. There were many, many before Luther who tried to do what Luther was successful at doing. But I believe that those that went before Luther helped paved the way as well.

According to the early Apostolic Fathers and first Century writers Peter was not a Pope and I think he'd be very upset to be called as such. Where exactly do you get he was a Pope anyhow?

The Apostles were very careful NOT to elevate their positions within the body. I've shown you John. Christ had already taught them many lessons concerning these things. Peter himself addressed himself as a fellow elder to the others. So if he was a Pope he was addressing the other Popes...and he was not. 1 Peter 5:1-3 he says:

"The elders which are among you I exhort who AM ALSO AN ELDER and a witness of the sufferings of Christ and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed. Feed the flock of God which is among you taking the oversight, not by constraint but willingly, not for filthy lucre but a ready mind. Neither as being lords over God's heritage but being ensamples to the flock."

KFC POSTS:


Could you furnish the Scripture on this?

KFC POSTS:


What? Before Constantine there was no Roman Catholic Church? Rome hijacked Christianity? All this tells me, KFC, is that you are easy prey for purveyors of fanciful, anti-Catholic tales.
That the Catholic Church has existed for over 2,000 years despite constant opposition from the world is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. The Church, especially considering her human members, some have been unwise and corrupt, would have collapsed early on. Yet, she is vigorous, old yet new, ever renewing, and that is testimony to the protection of the Holy Spirit. My reply # 40 is a fairly simple outline showing the Church existed from Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended upon all those who were in the Upper Room. It is they who received revelation and abundant grace from the Holy Spirit and it is they who obeyed Christ’s command to go out and teach the world. It is they who made the Catholic Church and taught, by word of mouth, the one true faith and worship. And, finally, it is the Catholic Church and the CC alone who perpetually commemorates the doctrine of Christ’s Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist from the time of St.John 6 through today and will until the end of the world.


Concerning Luther------Of the things which ailed the Church at the time, Luther remedied not a single one. Regrettably, what Luther was successful at doing is not reforming, but deforming and one of the most egregious errors of Protestantism is denying Christ’s revealed truth of St.John 6 as well as His revealed truth of the other 6 Sacraments. Of the ministerial clerics? Luther said abolish the priesthood. Protestants do not accept authority in religious matters. Luther gave them permission to be their own authority. Every Protestant is his own Pope. Private interpretation of Sacred Scripture is praised as the principal benefit of the Protestant Revolution. In what way has it been a benefit? Thousands of Protestant groups---offshoots from the original Protestant Revolt in 1517 and with that are hundreds of thousands of different biblical interpretations. I don’t think this is the unity that Christ prayed for. As has been shown, the Protestant private interpretation of most Biblical texts will align itself to the system bequeathed to them by Martin Luther or his system as modified by some other reformer. While I am not impugning their sincerity, “born again”, “onced saved, always saved,” Christians have come to realize they are sinners, but they have not yet come to realize that sin is the one thing which threatens their salvation, and the more serious the sin, the more serious the threat. In my opinion, Christianity as refashioned by the Protestant Revolution and defended by modernist Fundamentalists is unrecognizable from what is revealed in Sacred Scripture.

Jesus established the Catholic Church and Scripture reveals that to us. He set her up as our guide and provided her with everything we need that points us to Jesus. The CC guides us just as the pillar of fire guided the Israelites when they escaped bondage. The CC is 100% trustworthy because she teaches as Jesus taught. This is why Sacred Scripture calls the Catholic Church the “pillar and foundation of truth.”

KFC POSTS:

St. Peter's preeminent position among the Apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ, when He told Simon that his name would therefore be Peter, and in those days being given a new name wasn’t a meaningless gesture. Given a new name meant their status was changed. Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel, Eliacim to Joakim, and Daniel, Ananias, Misael, and Azarias to Baltassar, Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago.

Our Lord, Himself, made St. Peter primate and he certainly acted in that capacity in the Infant Church. The Book of the Acts of he Apostles shows that St.Peter always appears in that position of primacy which Christ assigned to him. He takes charge of the election of Matthias to fill the vacancy caused by the suicide of Judas; he receives into the Church the first converts from both the Jews and the heathens; he works the first miracle; he inflicts the first ecclesiastical punishment; he excommunicates the first heretic, Simon Magus; he makes the first Apostolic visitation of the Churches,; he pronounces the first dogmatic decision.
His position was so indisputable that when St.Paul was about to begin his mission to the heathens, he thought it necessary to obtain recognition from St. Peter.


In the letter of Pope St.Clement that I mentioned earlier, he references St.Peter as a pillar of the Church, the bishop of Rome. Also, at the end of the first century, the Church of Rome held the primacy over all the other churches--a primacy which ever grew and developed as the ages ran on. St. Ignatius was bishop of the See of Antioch. He wrote a letter in which he clearly indicates that St.Peter was primate of the See of Rome. Other early Church writers and Fathers such as Abercius, St.Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, Terullian were witnesses to the primacy of St.Peter.

St.Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, 258 AD, attributes the Popes as an effective primacy as the successors of St. Peter. He refers to the See of Rome as “the principal Church where episcopal unity had its rise.” His writings concern the early Church torn by schism and he writes the cause of it is the forgetfulness of the firm constitution given to the Church by Christ which is founded on Peter. It is only when he speaks of the Bishop of Rome that St.Cyprian employs the word “primacy”.

So, Scripture reveals that Christ established a visible society ruled by a single head. He said His Church would be "the light of the world". That society was to endure until the end of time, therefore the headship must endure until the end of time. The divinely established doctrines of the Church cannot be changed, otherwise the Church would cease to be Christ’s Church. Christ promised to be with her until the end and give her strength to resist her foes (the gates of Hell) until the End of Time. The contest between good and evil was to go on long after the Apostolic Age and therefore a permanent feature of the Church's life.

Christ prayed for St.Peter and He told him to Feed His sheep. The primacy was certainly the means by which the Church was to endure inherited by his legitimately elected successors in the Roman See. If a visible authority was needed in Christ’s own lifetime, it surely was necessary when the Church grows with the passage of time.

KFC POSTS:



To begin, in many NT texts, the Greek terms “presbyteros” and “episcopos” mean the same to designate pastors of the local churches Acts 11:30; 20:28. From the 2nd century on, the terminology became fixed: “episopoi” (bishops) have the fullness of the Sacrament of Orders and are responsible for the local churches. “Presbyteroi” elders, later designated as priests, carry out the priestly ministry as co-workers of the bishops.

Acts 14 tell us that Sts. Paul and Barnabas ordained priests in the various churches of Asia Minor to which St.Peter is now writing this letter. KFC, you quoted verses 1-3, however, we can get the fuller context by reading further to V. 5 and then the rest of the chapter.

From Douay Rheims, 1StPeter 5:1-5, “The ancients (senior priests, called bishops) that are among you, I beseech, who am myself also an ancient, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ: as also a partaker of that glory which is to be revealed in time to come: 2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it, not by constraint, but willingly, according to God: not for filthy lucre’s sake, but voluntarily: 3 Neither as lording it over the clergy but being made a pattern of the flock from the heart. 4 And when the prince of the pastors shall appear, you shall receive a never fading crown of glory. 5 In like manner, ye young men, be subject to the ancients and do you all insinuate humility one to another, for God resisteth the proud, but to the humble He giveth grace.”

Note in V.1, that St.Peter addresses the bishops (of which he writes he is one) that are among other (priests). In V.5, note there is a distinction between the ancient (bishops) and the younger (priests.) St.Peter is telling the “younger” priests to be subject to the bishops, “ye young men, be subject to the ancients”.


KFC, I agree that St.Peter addresses the elders of the churches as though they share his authority, for indeed they do. The Church's authority is a line that leads straight back through the bishops to the Apostles and finally to Jesus. We know from the Gospels that authority (St.Matt. 10:40) was delegated first by the Father to the Son, then by the Son to the Twelve Apostles, and then from the Twelve to their chosen successors (Acts tells us the full picture). Christ gave St. Peter alone a special powers and authority. To St.Peter alone the promise was made (1) “and I say to THEE: that THOU art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church”. (2) and the gates of Hell will not prevail (3) And I will give to THEE the keys of the kingdom of heaven (4) 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 in heaven. St.Matt.16:18-19.

Four things are first promised to St.Peter singly, the fourth of which is afterward promised to the Apostles together, the power of binding and loosing. St. Matt. 18:18. KFC, once you understand this, then there should be no confusion that the elders to whom St.Peter was addressing were “all popes”.
We can see clearly that they have all been given authority. It’s just that St.Peter has been given the highest authority by Christ Himself.


In chapter 5, we see that St. Peter was acting as the one in authority because he was the one addressing the others. Although he refers to himself as one of them, he also distinguishes himself as “a witness of the sufferings of Christ and a partaker of the glory of God that is to be revealed”.
V2. “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it..”--- here Peter is doing exactly what Christ told him to do after the Resurrection. Christ told Peter his duties and as head of the Church, Peter is telling the priests of their duties and how to carry them out being mindful that they should display true priestly and pastoral ministry.
V4. He tells them if they approach their duties in this way they will have no reason to fear the Judgment. That if they imitate the Good Shepherd, Jesus, in taking care of their flock, they will gain an unfading crown of glory in Heaven. Christ gave St.Peter His teachings and the teaching is being handed on through St.Peter to others in the ministry of Christ.
V.5-11 The Apostle concludes his exhortation with a call to humility and watchfulness and this actually sums up the entire meaning of Chapter 5.

Here, we see St. Peter addressing them in a very humble way. False pride, as you know, is a great evil force in the world. God, Himself, has said that “he resists the proud and gives His grace to the humble”. In this instance, St. Peter was a man who humbled himself in this situation. That may be one of the reasons why God who has absolute sovereignty over His Church chose him and delegated this particular authority to him as head of His Church.
Furthermore, we can’t accuse St. Peter, even though he was head and had the authority, of “lording over the people”. He exhorted the other bishops against being domineering and to be a good example to the flock for the good of the flock.

oops....no I can't because I said it wrong. I meant to say the HS WOULD BE our guide. I mistakenly put in the word "not." Sorry about that.



nope, I've studied many many history books over the years.



I know you don't want to hear this...but Luther was right on. If not for Luther you and I would not be having this discussion. You would not be reading your bible. Because of Luther and the other reformers we now have access to scripture which is what Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and all the biblical writers wanted. They wanted us to read the scriptures. The RCC said no. They took it away.

As far as priests....I read this today in a history of the Church dictionary.

"The term priest either alone or in combination with "high" or "chief" occurs 700 times in the OT and over 80 times in the NT. Etymologically the English term "priest" is a contraction of "presbuteros," which itself is rendered regularly in English as "elder." "Priest" renders hiereaus which never refers to a Christian minister in the entire NT though in the gospels and Acts it usually refers to Jewish priests.

In the NT the idea of Christ as the culmination of the HP finds expression in the Book of Hebrews.......Here Christ is a HP and through His sacrifice He is able to reconcile man to God, which was the purpose symbolized by the older Jewish sacrifices of sheep and goats.

In the Christian church the "priesthood" did not emerge as a function until well after the apostolic period. Apart from a questionable reference in Ignatius the term does not appear to have been applied to Christian ministers until c200. Perhaps by the early fifth century, the priest had accrued the authority to administer the sacraments, and thus the way opened for the doctrine of the priesthood which would reach full flower in the medieval period. The reformers in general REJECTED the concept of the priesthood because it had bome to be seen in connection with the Mass."



where's all your scripture backing this up? There isn't any. Christ said quite plainly his Kingdom was NO part of this world. He did not come to set up a denomination. His church are born again believers REGARDLESS of man made theology.

I just heard recently that the CC is now rejecting their doctrine of purgatory? Well for many hundreds of years this was used as a scare tactic and now they are quietly getting rid of this belief? Truth never changes.

This is NOT true. I've already shown you this way back. You just don't buy it because the CC is telling you different.

Yes, he was A leader. He possessed a natural gift of leadership. I agree. He gave the first sermon. He is notable also as the first apostle through whom the first Gentile convert was admitted into the church. Yep. But we do see after that that it was Paul NOT Peter who ministered to the Gentiles. Peter's ministry focus was on the Jews, not the Gentiles.

But did you know that Paul "rebuked" Peter (Gal 2:11). Also it's quite clear that Peter's missionary work was eclipsed by that of the Apostle Paul. Acts contains no details of Peter's activities after the Council of Jerusalem, so it is impossible to be certain what those activities were, and much must be left to conjecture (or RCC tradition).

Also it's quite clear by reading the events of this first council (Acts 15) that James, NOT Peter was the head of it. Peter had to abide by James's verdict after hearing from all those present who wished to speak.

But I've already told you this. You'd rather skip this info.

Tradition associates the death of Peter with Rome and this is usually dated at approximately 68 AD. The further claim of the RCC that Peter founded the church at Rome and was for 25 years its bishop is without support in the earliest testimony.

Think about it. Peter died in 68 under Nero. Paul, Peter, Luke, John, James & Jude wrote the entire NT. Not once was it mentioned that Peter was the first leader or even considered higher than any of the other Apostles. Surely something would have been written about this. Nothing was to give us any indication that Peter even started the RCC in scripture. In fact I can show you in ACTS and Romans where it names the founders of the church at Rome (not RCC) and Peter's name is NOT mentioned as one that was instrumental. Check out the letter to the Romans Chap 16 and see all the names.....Peter's name is missing. Surely if he was the founder, he would have been mentioned? The letter was directed at the church in Rome.



Pope: "latin for papa from Gr. papas "father." The supreme head of the RCC. Formerly denoting all Christian bishops the title in the West has from the NINTH century been appropriated exclusively by the bishop of Rome.

Bishop: From the Latin biscopus, the word is often given as a translation of episkopos in the NT. "overseer." Within the NT it seems to have denoted a function of the ministry and to be an alternative for presbyter (Acts 20:17, Phil 1:1, 1 Tim 3; Titus 1:7. Christ himself was regarded as the Bishop (1 Peter 2:25).

Among the early church fathers only Ignatius speaks of monarchical episcopacy and with him the emphasis is on unity around the bishop in perilous times not on the divine institution of the office.

The division of Eastern & Western Christendom, the close association of church and state, and the rise to power in the West of the see of Rome had an important effect upon the development of episcopacy.

At the time of the Reformation, Protestants wished to reform or to aboslish the office of bishop since its medieval accretions alarmed them. The Calvinist churches equated the office of bishop with that of pastor or minister.

So just because Clement called Peter a bishop (overseer) of Rome doesn't mean he meant Pope. Show me anywhere that Peter was called Pope by anyone in the first century. You can't. It's impossible. This term evolved over time by the RCC as they determined to conquer the laity. It was NEVER meant to be like that.

First off there were NO priests ordained in the NT. None. Read Acts 14 again.

"And when they had ordained them elders in every church......."

Notice elders is plural and church is singular. Why did they need more than ONE in each church?



This is true. The term "presbyter" was shortened to "priest" during the Middle Ages while the presbyter-bishop assumed a superior position. So again priests came about later not anywhere in NT scripture.

So basically it started out with the Apostles ordaining "elders" in all the churches as overseers to feed the flock of God with the word of God. Timothy was one that Paul entrusted as overseer. You mentioned Acts 14, same thing. It was only later on that it was distorted to be a much higher elevated position. This again, is where the RCC stepped up and used this power to conquer the laity.

If you're going to take scripture and make it fit what the RCC decrees then why don't you take the following as criteria as well? It's very plain.

"A bishop (Pope according to RCC theology) then must be blameless, the HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; NOT given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre but patient, not a brawler not covetous. On that rules well his own house, HAVING CHILDREN in subjection with all gravity; for if a man knows not how to rule HIS OWN HOUSE, how shall he take care of the church of God?" 1 Tim 3:1.

So the RCC is trying to say and take scripture and make it fit by twisting it or re-writing it by changing the definitions but then ignore other parts that are mainly and plainly seen.

puh-leeeeese!! That is a stretch. Now since we've already covered Peter and the rock a million times in different directions let me try a diff approach for a million and one.

Going back to this Matt 16. What was the question? "WHO DO YOU SAY THAT I AM?

The focus was on Christ...NOT PETER. Christ didn't ask "WHO DO YOU SAY PETER IS?

When Peter shouted out the correct answer Christ went on to praise Peter for he had received this insight through divine revelation and NOT human influences.

He then goes on to explain that the church would be built on the confession of Peter.....NOT PETER HIMSELF. We know all that confess Christ live forever. Christ is ALWAYS the rock...not Peter. "Upon this rock" is NOT PETER. It's CHRIST.

KFC POSTS:

The Lord began it with the Twelve who represented the future of the People of God. In fidelity to the mandate received from the Lord, initially the Twelve, after his Ascension, completed their number with the election of Matthias to replace Judas (cf. Acts 1:15-26), and later they associate others progressively to the functions entrusted to them to continue their ministry.

St. Paul, despite the fact he was called by the Lord as an apostle, is concerned to transmit what he has received (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:23; 15:3-4) and in the distribution of the missionary tasks is associated with the apostles, together with others, for example, Barnabas (cf. Galatians 2:9).

Just as at the beginning of being chosen an Apostle by Jesus, there is likewise a call and sending by the HS and an invitation to others takes place. With the strength and grace of the HS, the one who is already constituted in the apostolic ministry lays on hands. This is the path by which the ministry will continue and later, by the second generation is called episcopal ministry, "episcopé."

The word bishop means in Italian "vescovo" and in the Greek "epíscopos." This word makes reference to one who has a vision from on high, who sees with the heart. In his first letter, St. Peter himself calls the Lord Jesus guardian and shepherd of souls; the successors of the apostles were later called "bishops," "epíscopoi." They were entrusted with the function of the "episcopé." This specific function of the bishop is carried out progressively with respect to the beginnings until it assumes the form, already clearly attested by Ignatius of Antioch, at the beginning of the second century when the function of bishop, priest and deacon was set. It is a development led by the Spirit of God, which assists the Church in the discernment of the apostolic succession.

The succession in the episcopal function that has been entrusted to us by the Lord. The link between the College of Bishops and the original Apostles is understood and seen in historical continuity. Associated to the Twelve is first Matthias, and then Paul, and afterward Barnabas and later others, up to the second and third generation of the ministry of the bishop. Therefore, continuity is expressed in this historical chain.

The guarantee of the continuity of the succession is found in the perseverance in the ecclesial community, in the apostolic College, gathered by Christ around Him who promised to be with His Chruch until the end of time.

The Church Fathers wrote about Apostolic succession. Irenaeus of Lyon writes about the succession: "the Tradition of the Apostles has been manifested to the universal world in the whole Church, and we can enumerate those who have been constituted bishops and successors of the Apostles up to us. (The apostles) wanted those whom they left as their successors to be 'perfect and irreproachable' in everything (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6-7), to entrust the Magisterium to them in their place: If they act correctly it will be followed by great usefulness, but if they fall, it would be the greatest calamity" ("Adversus Haereses," III, 3, 1: PG 7,848).

Then, Irenaeus, when presenting this network of the apostolic succession as the greatest guarantee of perseverance in the Lord's word, concentrates on that Church, among "the most ancient and known by all, the Church founded and constituted in Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul," underlining the Tradition of the faith proclaimed, which comes to us through the apostles and through the successions of the bishops.

In this way, for Irenaeus and for the universal Church, the episcopal succession of the Church of Rome becomes the sign, criterion and guarantee of the uninterrupted transmission of the apostolic faith: "It is necessary that every Church be in harmony with this Church, whose foundation is the most guaranteed -- I refer to all the faithful of any place, because in her all those who are found in all places have kept the apostolic Tradition" ("Adversus Haereses," III, 3, 2: PG 7,848).

The apostolic succession, verified in virtue of communion with that of the Church of Rome, is therefore the criterion of permanence of each one of the Churches in the Tradition of the common apostolic faith, which through this channel has been able to come to us from the origins: "By this order and succession the Tradition has come to us that was initiated by the Apostles. And this shows fully that the one and only vivifying faith that comes from the Apostles has been kept and transmitted in the Church until today".

What the apostles represent in the relationship between the Lord Jesus and the early Church is represented analogously by the ministerial succession in the relationship between the early Church and the present-day Church. It is not a mere material concatenation; rather, it is the historical instrument of which the Spirit makes use to make present the Lord Jesus, head of his people, through whom they are ordained by the ministry through the imposition of hands and the prayer of the bishops.

The Church is part of salvation history. Through the Apostolic succession, Christ comes to us. He speaks to us in the word of the Apostles and their successors. He acts in the sacraments through their hands. And also today, as at the beginning, Christ himself is the true Shepherd and guardian of our souls, whom we follow with great confidence, gratitude and joy.