How do we know infallibility gets passed down?

[david ruiz]

Originally Posted by Luvtosew

Jesus has the Keys to his kingdom


Revelation 3:7-13

King James Version (KJV)


7And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

When he gave the keys to the disciples the keys signified "knowledge" of what is needed for one to enter the kingdom of Heaven.

The Rock is Jesus Christ and it is his Church.

Howdy Luv.Thanks Amen .Be prepared for the question that yes , Jesus has the keys in heaven, but who has them on earth (as was put to me). Hey, thread #246 has something about sewing ! PS on further thought ,you have already answered that next question .Thanks again

[inkaneer]

Originally Posted by david ruiz

Thanks.but quickly(I'm on break).The stretch ,the catch is Peter and or his successors. One thing is Peter ,another is a 2000 years of successors , most of whom were Italians, and some real bad ones .That is the thread , as to where indeed is infallibility promised. Shall I be like Tertullian ,and say you assume to all successors that which was meant for Peter only ? No one is saying Peter taught error .

Don't tell me you want to use the old impeccability ruse. Come on now. Are you telling me that it is impossible for the Holy Spirit to guide a sinner into teaching truth. Let's be serious here as well as practical. For 500 years now mainline protestants have been trying to find one case, just one measely little case, where a Pope taught error. They have found none, nada, zilch zero, big goose egg. Do you know the best that they can come up with? It is Pope Honorius. They claim that he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold. But that’s not at all what Honorius did. What Honorius did do was nothing. Any review of the records shows that when he was presented with an opportunity to make a formal definition he left the matter undefined. That hardly is teaching error because Honorius was not teaching anything.

As for the successors of Peter having the same infallibility to bind and loose as Peter did. Does it occur to you that it would be awfully short sighted, not to mention stupid, of this infinitely intelligent God to only have His church guided into truth for one generation? Furthermore how can protestants claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit if that guidance died with the apostles? And if Peter's successors were not infallible then how can anyone say that those writings contained in that book called the Bible are inspired by God. Those men who decided which writings were inspired were bishops of the Catholic Church so you better hope they got it right because if they didn't then you and a lot of other people are wasting your time. One more thing. Mt 16:18-19 has to be read as the NT fulfillment of Isaiah 22:22 in the OT. Peter occupises an office the symbol of which as in the OT, are the keys. Those keys belong to that office and not to the man. When Peter dies his successor will have the keys. And thus God's church is assured of teaching truth down through the centuries to the present day. Today Benedicxt XVI holds those keys.

[david ruiz]

Originally Posted by inkaneer

Don't tell me you want to use the old impeccability ruse. Come on now. Are you telling me that it is impossible for the Holy Spirit to guide a sinner into teaching truth. Let's be serious here as well as practical. For 500 years now mainline protestants have been trying to find one case, just one measely little case, where a Pope taught error. They have found none, nada, zilch zero, big goose egg. Do you know the best that they can come up with? It is Pope Honorius. They claim that he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold. But that’s not at all what Honorius did. What Honorius did do was nothing. Any review of the records shows that when he was presented with an opportunity to make a formal definition he left the matter undefined. That hardly is teaching error because Honorius was not teaching anything.

Yes ,there was a thread a year and a half ago where the question was posed to present any teaching errors and Honorius came up but it did not "stick". I don't recall contributing anything ,other than Pope Stephen (3-4th C ?) allowing/validating other church baptisms, based on his premise that baptism did not confer , impute the Spirit (not "effectual" - did not in itself regenerate the spirit, that baptism was only for remission of sins). But his decree was correct and still stands today ,though based on different theology, that CC would later decree (regeneration at baptism). I believe I also mentioned three relatively new doctrines: the Immaculate Conception -1854 ,infallibility 1870 ,and the Assumption 1950 as examples of contested error.....I understand what you are saying ,that even the worst of Popes introduced no doctrinal error. However, did they ( bad popes) introduce any new doctrine anyways ? Should there be any new doctrine 1000 years after Christ ascended ? I can see doctrine that deals with future/end times, but I thought most basic stuff was ironed out by third/ fourth century. It would be interesting to see the doctrinal decrees thru the ages ,you know, that are considered infallible and required belief for all.

As for the successors of Peter having the same infallibility to bind and loose as Peter did. Does it occur to you that it would be awfully short sighted, not to mention stupid, of this infinitely intelligent God to only have His church guided into truth for one generation? Furthermore how can protestants claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit if that guidance died with the apostles? And if Peter's successors were not infallible then how can anyone say that those writings contained in that book called the Bible are inspired by God. Those men who decided which writings were inspired were bishops of the Catholic Church so you better hope they got it right because if they didn't then you and a lot of other people are wasting your time.

Again ,I explained where infallibility lies earlier and that the Lord has indeed kept His promises. I am not suggesting it was to Peter and none after. The infallibility I described yes was for the apostles ,and successors ,as well as the whole body of Peter's time ,and all successors ,down to today.

One more thing. Mt 16:18-19 has to be read as the NT fulfillment of Isaiah 22:22 in the OT.

Has to be ? I like study ,and not sure ,but could not this also be prophetic of Christ ? Indeed Revelations specifically recalls this to Christ , the opening and shutting of doors, here on earth. Does government rest on Peter or the pope ? It did for awhile to successors ,that is civil gov., and indeed with a glorious throne.

Those keys belong to that office and not to the man

.I would not deny that Peter had keys ,and indeed he opened doors(well the Lord in Him) .I would also not deny so did all the other apostles . And disciples .And all the Body. I can not separate Peter from his office any more than anyone from his place in the body , nor from his giftings .I sure would hope an apostle a teacher/ prophet, of yesterday ,tomorrow etc. would have keys/authority. As Luvtosew pointed out , keys can be at least knowledge, illumined mysteries of the kingdom. What else was Peter learning for three years ?

When Peter dies his successor will have the keys And thus God's church is assured of teaching truth down through the centuries to the present day.

Agreed, if keys is knowledge, that the entire body is privy to, this unction from the Holy One.

[david ruiz]

Originally Posted by inkaneer

Don't tell me you want to use the old impeccability ruse. Come on now. Are you telling me that it is impossible for the Holy Spirit to guide a sinner into teaching truth. Let's be serious here as well as practical. For 500 years now mainline protestants have been trying to find one case, just one measely little case, where a Pope taught error. They have found none, nada, zilch zero, big goose egg. Do you know the best that they can come up with? It is Pope Honorius. They claim that he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold. But that’s not at all what Honorius did. What Honorius did do was nothing. Any review of the records shows that when he was presented with an opportunity to make a formal definition he left the matter undefined. That hardly is teaching error because Honorius was not teaching anything.

Yes ,there was a thread a year and a half ago where the question was posed to present any teaching errors and Honorius came up but it did not "stick". I don't recall contributing anything ,other than Pope Stephen (3-4th C ?) allowing/validating other church baptisms, based on his premise that baptism did not confer , impute the Spirit (not "effectual" - did not in itself regenerate the spirit, that baptism was only for remission of sins). But his decree was correct and still stands today ,though based on different theology, that CC would later decree (regeneration at baptism). I believe I also mentioned three relatively new doctrines: the Immaculate Conception -1854 ,infallibility 1870 ,and the Assumption 1950 as examples of contested error.....I understand what you are saying ,that even the worst of Popes introduced no doctrinal error. However, did they ( bad popes) introduce any new doctrine anyways ? Should there be any new doctrine 1000 years after Christ ascended ? I can see doctrine that deals with future/end times, but I thought most basic stuff was ironed out by third/ fourth century. It would be interesting to see the doctrinal decrees thru the ages ,you know, that are considered infallible and required belief for all.

As for the successors of Peter having the same infallibility to bind and loose as Peter did. Does it occur to you that it would be awfully short sighted, not to mention stupid, of this infinitely intelligent God to only have His church guided into truth for one generation? Furthermore how can protestants claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit if that guidance died with the apostles? And if Peter's successors were not infallible then how can anyone say that those writings contained in that book called the Bible are inspired by God. Those men who decided which writings were inspired were bishops of the Catholic Church so you better hope they got it right because if they didn't then you and a lot of other people are wasting your time.

Again ,I explained where infallibility lies earlier and that the Lord has indeed kept His promises. I am not suggesting it was to Peter and none after. The infallibility I described yes was for the apostles ,and successors ,as well as the whole body of Peter's time ,and all successors ,down to today.

One more thing. Mt 16:18-19 has to be read as the NT fulfillment of Isaiah 22:22 in the OT.

Has to be ? I like study ,and not sure ,but could not this also be prophetic of Christ ? Indeed Revelations specifically recalls this to Christ , the opening and shutting of doors, here on earth. Does government rest on Peter or the pope ? It did for awhile to successors ,that is civil gov., and indeed with a glorious throne.

Those keys belong to that office and not to the man

.I would not deny that Peter had keys ,and indeed he opened doors(well the Lord in Him) .I would also not deny so did all the other apostles . And disciples .And all the Body. I can not separate Peter from his office any more than anyone from his place in the body , nor from his giftings .I sure would hope an apostle a teacher/ prophet, of yesterday ,tomorrow etc. would have keys/authority. As Luvtosew pointed out , keys can be at least knowledge, illumined mysteries of the kingdom. What else was Peter learning for three years ?

When Peter dies his successor will have the keys And thus God's church is assured of teaching truth down through the centuries to the present day.

Agreed, if keys is knowledge, that the entire body is privy to, this unction from the Holy One.

[david ruiz]

lll

[mackbrislawn]

highrigger1;9219282 =mackbrislawn;9218235]Hi,

I consider them inspired.

What I was wondering was why should one consider them inspired since they were not written by whom they said they were, and after all the apostles were dead.

History of the church

Yes, Eusebius' history of the church, but I was hoping you could direct me to the portions where he disusses how the ancients knew full well part of the Pauline corpus was forged, as was 1 and 2 Peter, yet accepted them into the canon anyway.

Some churches may have had local synods if that term applies but nothing churchwide, hence Trent.

.

Yes, local councils which were influential. Nothing churchwide was called for until the Reformation when the question of the canon was brought up by the Reformation

But hardly an "informal consensus."

I think the bible we have is fine and adequate to tell us what the apostles taught. We do not need fabricated dogma to take its place.

The intent of my question was this: do you think the early church, in particular the post-apostolic church of the 1st and 2nd century, had the power to write inspired scripture? I ask this because as we have determined 1 and 2 Peter and the deutero-Pauline letters were written by unknown authors, sometime after 70 AD when all the apostles were dead. Yet there are those who still accept them as inspired.

Peter emphasized that we are a nation of priests. Thats all of us without distinction.

This answer isn't to the point of my question. I was hoping you would explain the definite distinction 1Peter 5 makes between elders and everyone else. It is extremely clear. You had said everyone was the same, but 1Peter 5 indicates differently. Peter indicates that there are those who shepherd and those who are shepherded. The author (who we had previously believed to be Peter) refers to himself as a fellow elder. And elder among other elders. This makes a clear separation between elders and non-elders. Qute a difference in function and status. Those who can lord over and those lorded over. A shepherd/flock distinction.

Now, I did not say they were priests, or clergy. Don't impute that to me. This distinction in Peter may not be a "clergy/laity" distinction, but it is a distinction, which you do not seem to want to admit.

No. Later in history the christians saw a need for a ordained and separate clergy and simply defined the presbyters and deacons as such. It was about the same time when they invented the idea of sacrificing Christ in the eucharist that they realized they needed priests for that purpose. They were copying the habits of the pagans who had distinct priests in their religion.

So, the deacons and presbyters did evolve into priests. We have seen they were already separate from the rest of the flock, so it wasn't much of a step into clergy/laity separation.

And here is that word 'ordained' again. Hmm...this seems to imply that they stopped 'appointing' the elders and overseers, and now started 'ordaining' them. What a difference! Or is it a disctinction without a difference?

This is all in the history books.

I suppose it is, if you read the right history books. And I have read some of the right history books that show that the Trinity is a pagan borrowing. They also show that various pagan gods had sons that came down to earth, even ones that died! From the right history books we learn that the Jews borrowed a lot from paganism also. ???

Mack

[inkaneer]

Originally Posted by david ruiz

Yes ,there was a thread a year and a half ago where the question was posed to present any teaching errors and Honorius came up but it did not "stick". I don't recall contributing anything ,other than Pope Stephen (3-4th C ?) allowing/validating other church baptisms, based on his premise that baptism did not confer , impute the Spirit (not "effectual" - did not in itself regenerate the spirit, that baptism was only for remission of sins). But his decree was correct and still stands today ,though based on different theology, that CC would later decree (regeneration at baptism). I believe I also mentioned three relatively new doctrines: the Immaculate Conception -1854 ,infallibility 1870 ,and the Assumption 1950 as examples of contested error.....I understand what you are saying ,that even the worst of Popes introduced no doctrinal error. However, did they ( bad popes) introduce any new doctrine anyways ? Should there be any new doctrine 1000 years after Christ ascended ? I can see doctrine that deals with future/end times, but I thought most basic stuff was ironed out by third/ fourth century. It would be interesting to see the doctrinal decrees thru the ages ,you know, that are considered infallible and required belief for all.
Again ,I explained where infallibility lies earlier and that the Lord has indeed kept His promises. I am not suggesting it was to Peter and none after. The infallibility I described yes was for the apostles ,and successors ,as well as the whole body of Peter's time ,and all successors ,down to today.Has to be ? I like study ,and not sure ,but could not this also be prophetic of Christ ? Indeed Revelations specifically recalls this to Christ , the opening and shutting of doors, here on earth. Does government rest on Peter or the pope ? It did for awhile to successors ,that is civil gov., and indeed with a glorious throne. .I would not deny that Peter had keys ,and indeed he opened doors(well the Lord in Him) .I would also not deny so did all the other apostles . And disciples .And all the Body. I can not separate Peter from his office any more than anyone from his place in the body , nor from his giftings .I sure would hope an apostle a teacher/ prophet, of yesterday ,tomorrow etc. would have keys/authority. As Luvtosew pointed out , keys can be at least knowledge, illumined mysteries of the kingdom. What else was Peter learning for three years ? Agreed, if keys is knowledge, that the entire body is privy to, this unction from the Holy One.

There are no new doctrines. The ones you cite, Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibility and Assumption are not new. The doctrines previously lacked formal definition which is what happened in 1854, 1870 and 1950. Now if you want to call those new doctrines then what about the Trinity? I suppose that is a new doctrine in your eyes also. Most doctrines in the church still lack formal definition to this day. A good exampl,e is the canon of scripture. It was set at 73 books in 400 AD. The canon was never formally defined until 1547 at Trent. However, the canon was not new in 1547 AD it was the same one as in 400 AD. The infallibility was promised to Peter alone in Mt 16:18-19 and then to the college of Apostles, including Peter, in Mt 18:18. This "group infallibility", if you will is the basis for the infallible decrees of General councils. But the General councils do not possess this with out Peter's successor's approval.
As for the keys just read the OT account in Isaiah 22:22. The parallel of the OT chief steward and Peter in Mt 16:18-19 is as plain as the nose on your face. The rest of your post rambles. Like I could care less what Luvtosew points out. He is as wrong as you are and if you are following him then it is a case of the blind leading the blind.

[Luvtosew]

Originally Posted by inkaneer

There are no new doctrines. The ones you cite, Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibility and Assumption are not new. The doctrines previously lacked formal definition which is what happened in 1854, 1870 and 1950. Now if you want to call those new doctrines then what about the Trinity? I suppose that is a new doctrine in your eyes also. Most doctrines in the church still lack formal definition to this day. A good exampl,e is the canon of scripture. It was set at 73 books in 400 AD. The canon was never formally defined until 1547 at Trent. However, the canon was not new in 1547 AD it was the same one as in 400 AD. The infallibility was promised to Peter alone in Mt 16:18-19 and then to the college of Apostles, including Peter, in Mt 18:18. This "group infallibility", if you will is the basis for the infallible decrees of General councils. But the General councils do not possess this with out Peter's successor's approval.
As for the keys just read the OT account in Isaiah 22:22. The parallel of the OT chief steward and Peter in Mt 16:18-19 is as plain as the nose on your face. The rest of your post rambles. Like I could care less what Luvtosew points out. He is as wrong as you are and if you are following him then it is a case of the blind leading the blind.

Well if you read Rev you will see Jesus has the keys to HIS kingdom, and ISS is talking about our Lord, not some future man, the Bible is about JESUS and the keys signify knowlege that was given to the 11 disciples to spread the word of the Lord. Now I could careless who the fIrst Pope is or was, but the Jesus is the Rock and his Church is the body of all Christians.

PS I''m a female and not blind, don't even wear glasses.

[jinc1019]

Originally Posted by inkaneer

The infallibility was promised to Peter alone in Mt 16:18-19 and then to the college of Apostles, including Peter, in Mt 18:18. This "group infallibility", if you will is the basis for the infallible decrees of General councils. But the General councils do not possess this with out Peter's successor's approval.

Where does it say in the Bible that the "group infallibility" you refer to is dependent on Peter agreeing? It doesn't say it anywhere, and it says it nowhere in Mathew 18, the chapter the promise made to the apostles to have infallibility is in. The Catholic Church teaches that this piece (the requirement that Peter agrees) doesn't come from the Bible but from tradition, but the Eastern Orthodox Church, which has been around just as long as the Roman Catholic Church (actually longer) says their traditions say there is no such thing as papal infallibility. In fact, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church were together for 1000 years and the Eastern Orthodox belief on the matter remained untouched for that entire period....Catholics will point to early Church Fathers to suggest that infallibility was always the belief amongst all in the Church, but those passages don't show a belief to infallibility, only authority and a sense of honorific primacy. Catholics on this forum who support papal infallibility refuse to explain how all of this is possible. You keep saying the bishops have infallibility from Mathew 18 but only when Peter agrees, yet you are unable to show where this qualification is spelled out in the Bible or in Early Church writings.

[david ruiz]

Originally Posted by inkaneer

There are no new doctrines.

Then why do we need infallibility if there are no new doctrines ? Is not a doctrine something described /set forth,formulated/taught ?

The ones you cite, Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibility and Assumption are not new.

That a doctrine is new or not has nothing to do with with it being declared infallible, ex-cathedra, and something to be believed by the faithful.

The doctrines previously lacked formal definition which is what happened in 1854, 1870 and 1950

.This is too slippery .They did not lack definition ,nor dialogue ,nor form .That is my whole point -the formalizing is much ,much more .The doctrines I mentioned were NOT widely accepted in the beginning ,and contested strongly from many Catholics .Have you forgotten the Dominicans and Augistinians ( I think those are the two ) at each others throats for centuries on a few Mary issues? The argument was not how to best describe what we have believed from the apostles , rather all those who are against these things (Catholics) are wrong (un-illumined) and the other side ( Catholics) is right ,so let us unite under the decision (which is now finally ,uninfallibly illumined by the Holy Spirit to the pope).

Most doctrines in the church still lack formal definition to this day.

.Which means there is no right or wrong ,and is undetermined , to the body uninfallibly ,like ,who is the "12th apostle. One is free to teach differently on that issue and still be "catholic".

[Abu]

jinc1019 #264
the Eastern Orthodox Church, which has been around just as long as the Roman Catholic Church (actually longer) says their traditions say there is no such thing as papal infallibility.
Catholics will point to early Church Fathers to suggest that infallibility was always the belief amongst all in the Church, but those passages don't show a belief to infallibility, only authority and a sense of honorific primacy. Catholics on this forum who support papal infallibility refuse to explain how all of this is possible. You keep saying the bishops have infallibility from Mathew 18 but only when Peter agrees, yet you are unable to show where this qualification is spelled out in the Bible or in Early Church writings.

Such trashing of history betrays colossal ignorance, but no real Catholic will wallow in such.

The title “Catholic” (from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”) was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in A.D. 107 in his letter to the Smyrneans, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” [The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday 1975, p 217].

The writing of the Gospels testifies to the fact of Christian communities that would need a written record of Christ’s teachings before the Apostles died.

Note that the early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. In about 80 A.D., the Church at Corinth deposed its lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called to settle the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth than was Rome. Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on a matter of schism in the Church of Corinth. Of the same generation as Saints Peter and Paul and when St John the Apostle was probably still living in Ephesus, Pope Clement wrote as one commanding to the Church of Corinth in Greece: “If any disobey what He (Christ) says through us, let them know that they will be involved in no small offence and danger, but we shall be innocent of this sin.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1) [This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].
.
Those who know nothing of history can now learn from history. The Primacy of The Vicar of Christ has never been disputed in Christ's Church, from the beginning.

St. Irenaeus
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

Eusebius of Caesarea
"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

[onemangang]

Originally Posted by highrigger1

oneman,

I think none of those quotes had anything to do with christian priests or ordination in the NT. Pick the best one and I will go into it in more detail.

Sorry it took a few days but, I have a hectic schedule. I may be away for a few more days but look forward o your replies!

1 Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night 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, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

Yes Jewish priests are mentioned in the NT as well as nation of priests and priesthood of all believers but not christian clergy priests.

What about the Apostle Paul in Romans 15 (ESV)

What about the Apostle Paul in Romans 15:15 But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, (W)because of the grace given me by God 16 to be (X)a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles (Y)in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that (Z)the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. 17 In Christ Jesus, then, I have (AA)reason to be proud of (AB)my work for God.

That may be correct. Presbyters were called priests in the third century but the term presbyter in the NT was not a clergy type priest. Presbyter is Greek for Elder and an Elder comes from the Jewish tradition of an older wiser leader of a gathering not religously distinct from the others. No layman/clergy difference.

OK, so as I pointed out in an earlier post, the ministerial priesthood is connected to the Sacrifice of the Mass. No Sacrifice = No ministerial Priesthood

Yes that happened in the third century when the theory of the sacrifice of Christ in the eucharist was introduced. Such dogma not taught in the NT or by the early ECFs.

No. Invented in the 3rd century.

Yes. A nation of priests, but not clergy type priests. There were none in the nt or among the early ECFs.

Ignatius of Antioch A disciple of St. John the Apostle
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 - 110 AD)

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 - 110 AD)

Justin Martyr A disciple of Polycarp who was disciple of St. John the Apostle.
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 -151 AD)

[onemangang]

Originally Posted by highrigger1

Neither 1 Clement or Didache mentions clergy type priests. In fact the Didache says the bishop is elected by the congregation and a prophet handles the eucharist ceremony.

Once again the ministerial priesthood is contingent on the Mass being a true sacrifice. If the Sacrifice is true and substantial, than the ministerial priesthood is validated. So, one must disprove the substantial real presence of Christ in the Mass/Divine Liturgy!

ST. CLEMENT OF ROME (c. 80 A.D.)
Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have OFFERED ITS SACRIFICES [or offered the gifts, referring to the Eucharist]. (Letter to Corinthians 44:4)

In Regards to the Didache
The Third Part speaks first of teachers or doctors (didaskaloi) in general. These are to be received if they teach the above doctrine; and if they add the justice and knowledge of the Lord they are to be received as the Lord. Every Apostle is to be received as the Lord, and he may stay one day or two, but if he stay three, he is a false prophet. On leaving he shall take nothing with him but bread. If he ask for money, he is a false prophet. Similarly with the order of prophets: to judge them when they speak in the spirit is the unpardonable sin; but they must be known by their morals. If they seek gain, they are to be rejected. All travellers who come in the name of the Lord are to be received, but only for two or three days; and they must exercise their trade, if they have one, or at least must not be idle. Anyone who will not work is a Christemporos — one who makes a gain out of the name of Christ. Teachers and prophets are worthy of their food. Firstfruits are to be given to the prophets, "for they are your High Priests; but if you have not a prophet, give the firstfruits to the poor". The breaking of bread and Thanksgiving [Eucharist] is on Sunday, "after you have confessed your transgressions, that your Sacrifice may be pure", and those who are at discord must agree, for this is the clean oblation prophesied by Malachias, i, 11, 14. "Ordain therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons, worthy of the Lord . . . for they also minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers". Notice that it is for the sacrifice that bishops and deacons are to be ordained. The last chapter (xvi) exhorts to watching and tells the signs of the end of the world.

Conclusion: No clergy type priests in the nt or mentioned by the early ECFs until around the beginning of the 3rd century.
Peace, JohnR

I think I have shown otherwise

Peace be with you !

[david ruiz]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Abu

.

Note that the early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. In about 80 A.D., the Church at Corinth deposed its lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called to settle the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth than was Rome. Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on a matter of schism

Clement was the natural representative of St. Paul, and even of his companion, the “apostle of the circumcision;” and naturally he wrote the Epistle (surmised only by indexing from other sources) in the name of the local church, when brethren looked to them for advice. St. John, no doubt, was still surviving at Patmos or in Ephesus; but the Philippians, whose intercourse with Rome is attested by the visit of Epaphroditus, looked naturally to the surviving friends of their great founder; nor was the aged apostle in the East equally accessible. All roads pointed towards the Imperial City. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.i.html

Pope Clement wrote as one commanding to the Church of Corinth in Greece:

The writings themselves contain no statement as to their author. The first, and by far the longer of them, simply purports to have been written in the name of the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth.The entire absence of the spirit of Diotrephes (3 John 9), and the close accordance of the Epistle, in humility and meekness, with that of St. Peter (1 Pet. v. 1–5), are noteworthy features http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.i.html.

“If any disobey what He (Christ) says through us, let them know that they will be involved in no small offence and danger, but we shall be innocent of this sin.”

Did not Christ say there is authority when two or more are gathered in his name ? Could this not apply from one congregation to another ? Would any other congregation written any differently ? That is , were not most of the Corinth church wrong on the matter and indeed in need for correction ? This would have been a perfect time to humbly suggest the Petrine chair and it's authority, but none is made. If I were a Catholic advocate I would propose it shows Petrine authority ,but it can easily be shown to be otherwise also.That is, Abu ,you could not have said it any better ,and rebuttals have been given for all to plainly read and come away with there own conclusions ?
.

[david ruiz]

[quote=Abu;9226839].

The Primacy of The Vicar of Christ has never been disputed in Christ's Church, from the beginning.

This primacy has been contested every time it was asserted, down to today.