Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I thought we were looking at Church policy rather than individual differences in perspective.
Women Priests
- Thread starter wil
- Start date
Well that's factually inaccurate when He founded a Church, and handed the keys of heaven to Peter and the Apostles (cf the Gospels). Christ is the 'type' of the priesthood, as The Book of Hebrews states, but that does not mean the priesthood is abolished.
In the same way the Law is not abolished ... it's simply that when one loves God, the Law is seen not as a limitation, but as the real life.
+++
Many people take Jesus seriously, but misunderstand Him completely. Even His own disciples misunderstood Him, even the Twelve ... which is why He sent the Holy Spirit, to guarantee them and the integrity of the Gospel.
What should He have done ... not said anything to anybody? Or instituted the Church, but under the proviso that within it, anybody can believe anything they like?
The argument boils down to this ... without the Church, you would never have heard of Him, or His message ...
... and if the message is to be conveyed properly, it needs to be true to its origin ... and the reference for that is ... the Church.
And this is just the words ... there are the Gifts of Grace, the sacramental actions also necessary (as Jesus said, unmistakably) — more indeed than words — and these too need correct transmission.
The mistake modernity makes is to assume their opinion carries more weight than truth.
Thomas
One point that might be overlooked ...
The Church is not a mediator between anyone and Christ, the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ by, through, in and with man comes into communion with God. That's what Scripture says.
Thomas
The Church is not a mediator between anyone and Christ, the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ by, through, in and with man comes into communion with God. That's what Scripture says.
Thomas
help us out there Thomas with chapter and verse
Romans 7:4
"Therefore, my brethren, you also are become dead to the law, by the body of Christ; that you may belong to another, who is risen again from the dead, that we may bring forth fruit to God."
Romans 12:4
"For as in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office: So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another."
1 Corinthians 10:16
"The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?"
(Note: St Paul here refers to the Eucharist in both its species, already a common practice in the Church).
1 Corinthians 10:17
"For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread."
1 Corinthians 12:12-20
"For as the body is one, and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ. For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink. For the body also is not one member, but many. If the foot should say, because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear should say, because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? But now God hath set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased him. And if they all were one member, where would be the body? But now there are many members indeed, yet one body."
1 Corinthians 12:25
"That there might be no schism in the body; but the members might be mutually careful one for another."
1 Corinthians 12:27
"Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member."
Ephesians 4:4
"One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling."
Ephesians 4:12
"And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ"
(Note: St Paul here refers to the ecclesial structure ... already forming up in the Church).
Ephesians 4:16
"From whom the whole body, being compacted and fitly joined together, by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in charity."
Ephesians 5:30
"Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones."
Philippians 3:21
"Who will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of his glory, according to the operation whereby also he is able to subdue all things unto himself."
Colossians 1:18
"And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy"
Colossians 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church"
... something to be going on with.
Thomas
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Hello Thomas,
In the first verse, Jesus is identified as the head. In both instances, the church is identified with the body. However there is nothing to suggest that the body should be equated with an ecclesiastical organization. The term "church" can be reasonably construed to refer to the community of believers.
In light of the suggestion that Jesus meant to designate a select group of people to continue his ministry - a priestly class - we take note of these words:
At face value, the diversity of the functions listed militates againt the notion of a specific priestly class. Note that the term "priest" is not even used. There is also no reference to sacramentalists - people who officiate sacraments. Importantly, the emphasis is on function rather than on cult specialization, hierarchy, and special status.
It strikes me as quite remarkable that Paul - the man who wanted to establish the sufficiency and supremacy of Christ - is being cited to support the notion that the indwelling Christ is not enough and that Christians need to look to a special priestly class outside themselves instead of living out a New Life as the transformed community - i.e., a fellowship of persons who "were all baptized by one Spirit into one body." ~I Corinthians 12:13
Yes, the body is the church but "the church" is the community of the faithful, which includes those who don't spend any time in a church building.
In reference to the above view you cite the chapter and verse that appear in your Post # 65. In all of your cites, the term Church appears twice:
And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy ~Colossians 1:18
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church ~Colossians 1:24
The Epistle to the Colossians which has been attributed to Paul (authorship is in dispute. From the Wiki: "48 words appear in Colossians that appear nowhere else in the Pauline corpus, 33 of these occur nowhere else in the N.T.")In the first verse, Jesus is identified as the head. In both instances, the church is identified with the body. However there is nothing to suggest that the body should be equated with an ecclesiastical organization. The term "church" can be reasonably construed to refer to the community of believers.
In light of the suggestion that Jesus meant to designate a select group of people to continue his ministry - a priestly class - we take note of these words:
It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers. ~Ephesians 4:11
Are these functions the official job duties of the members of a formal institution? These functions could be performed by all believers, not just professionals. And they can be performed outside a church facility.
At face value, the diversity of the functions listed militates againt the notion of a specific priestly class. Note that the term "priest" is not even used. There is also no reference to sacramentalists - people who officiate sacraments. Importantly, the emphasis is on function rather than on cult specialization, hierarchy, and special status.
It strikes me as quite remarkable that Paul - the man who wanted to establish the sufficiency and supremacy of Christ - is being cited to support the notion that the indwelling Christ is not enough and that Christians need to look to a special priestly class outside themselves instead of living out a New Life as the transformed community - i.e., a fellowship of persons who "were all baptized by one Spirit into one body." ~I Corinthians 12:13
Yes, the body is the church but "the church" is the community of the faithful, which includes those who don't spend any time in a church building.
Indeed it can, but as St Paul states elsewhere, the body is made up of its members, and each member has its functioning according to the whole — I think 'organisation' is synonymous with the idea of body. For St Paul and for the Fathers, 'body' does not carry the same post-modern abstractions it does today.
Nor does St Paul conceive of the Church as a headless body ... or a body with its head in the clouds ...
It is also clearly evident that 'a community of believers' left to its own devices has the tendency to drift into error, and these underline more than a few of St Paul's and the Johannine (and other) epistles ...
There is no discussion of 'class' — now you are introducing something from your own opinion that is not there.
Indeed. An organised body.
Yes, and it is the community that decides who does what. In the early Church, the community decided who among the catechumen would be allowed into the Mysteries.
Not to me it doesn't, but then I'm not thinking of the artificial notion of 'class'. It's not a matter of class, but of vocation.
Well 'indwelling' as you present it is not a Scriptural nor a Christian notion, in the sense that it does not confer infallibility or even the inability to err ... man is always free. St Paul took the Corinthians to task on just that point, if you consider 1 Corinthians as a whole.
Your own prejudices shine out through this like a beacon ... nowhere does Scripture speak of 'special' or 'class' or 'outside' ... this is you, not me and not Scripture.
A priest is one of the people, being a priest does not make one 'holier than thou' and a priest hasn't got 'a more indwelling' spiirt than his neighbour ... you need to get over this stumbling block if you want to see the truth of the matter.
Believe it or not, it's not a matter of politics, which is what you're reducing it to.
Thomas
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
xc
I never said anything about holier than thou.The issue is specialization, which implies special training and special status, which is recognized by ordination. Jesus never called for the ordination of his followers!
As far as I can tell the Catholic notion of priesthood is not supported by the early church's own practices. The later notion of priesthood seems to have been annexed after the fact.
The special status I have been referring to is obvious from the episcopate and the ecclesiastical dignitaries who wear special religious garb. "The priest wears it that he may be thereby distinguished from other men as ... a mediator between the Almighty and His creatures."
The History and Use of Vestments in the Catholic Church.
My point is that if there is no need of a mediator, then there is no need of a priestly class that has heretofore been serving in that capacity.
No, I'm going with the notion of priesthood that appears in the Bible, which was a special class of people - a cult - who passed on their special status via family lineage. This is what Jesus was trying to get rid of.
The body is most certainly organized - with reference to the cosmic unity that is Christ. It is not historical or institutional; it is Divine.
I would say the leadings of the Holy Spirit might be more important.
The universal church Jesus had in mind does not have a priestly class. Again, it is not an artificial notion. It was a real problem that Jesus wanted to address to bring about a universal church.
I never said anything about fallibility.
It is the premise of what Jesus did to replace the old covenant with the new. He abolished the old priesthood.
What you say here makes the Sacrament of Holy Orders totally useless.
I never said anything about holier than thou.The issue is specialization, which implies special training and special status, which is recognized by ordination. Jesus never called for the ordination of his followers!
As far as I can tell the Catholic notion of priesthood is not supported by the early church's own practices. The later notion of priesthood seems to have been annexed after the fact.
The special status I have been referring to is obvious from the episcopate and the ecclesiastical dignitaries who wear special religious garb. "The priest wears it that he may be thereby distinguished from other men as ... a mediator between the Almighty and His creatures."
The History and Use of Vestments in the Catholic Church.
My point is that if there is no need of a mediator, then there is no need of a priestly class that has heretofore been serving in that capacity.
Paul was a marketer. He was out selling this knew thought and then while away writing letters trying to shore up the weaknesses.
I see all this body of Christ as analogies he was trying to lay to get the group to work as one.
I surely don't see the church or him saying the church is the mystical body of Christ...a metaphor yes, mystical no.
I see all this body of Christ as analogies he was trying to lay to get the group to work as one.
I surely don't see the church or him saying the church is the mystical body of Christ...a metaphor yes, mystical no.
"Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17).
I think you're looking at it the wrong way.
The Son was not here to 'get rid of' that which was instituted by the Father, as the Levitical priesthood was and is. The Son was here to illuminate by grace those very institutions which had become ossified and occluded.
"Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God ... / ... After these things Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea: and there he abode with them, and baptized." (John 3:5, 22)
This is what in potentia Baptism does, and one cannot baptise oneself... So not here to 'do away with' a priesthood, but to actualise it, which He did through the Apostles, and their successors, by the Hebrew custom of the laying on of hands.
+++
Well I disagree — the Incarnation is an event in time and space, Jesus Christ is man in time and space, and God beyond time and space, but that does not detract from the man, or His mission ... or the Church he founded.
Do not fall into the trap of assuming two churches ... a physical church and a spiritual church ... it is one Body, one Church.
The Holy Spirit leads to the Unity that is the Church ... The Holy Spirit reveals the Son, and the Son reveals the Father ... the Spirit of God is not the voice of dissent. The Spirit perfects, it does not do away with.
You keep making these statements as if they were a matter of fact. They are not — unless you can cite 'chapter and verse' and support that argument.
The word 'catholic' means 'universal' ...
But your whole argument assumes such. Or that God makes no provision for those who drift into error — what you cannot argue is that by following one's own conscience one is therefore right. Part of that conscience is the acknowledgement that we have to conform ourselves to God, not the other way round, and again conscience is the acknowledgement that the obligation is upon us to seek the truth, not to decide what's true according to our temperament.
I think Scripture shows that He did not abolish anything His Father had set in place. The Covenant with Israel still stands.
No it doesn't. I understand what the sacrament means ... you, I think, believe that a sacrament makes someone more important than his neighbour? Special? A member of an elite class?
Oh Netti-Netti ...
Jesus picked twelve from the world for special training and special status ...
He then picked three from among the twelve for further special training and special status ... He then picked one from the three for further special training and special status.
What d'you think the descent of the Holy Spirit on the twelve was?
Thomas
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
To my knowledge the Epistles attributed to Paul are the only ones that specifically use the term "the body of Christ." It appears in Romans and Corinthians. Jesus himself apparently did not use those terms. I'll take Jesus' words over Paul's, thank you.
The notion of body of Christ is an adaptation of much older atonement doctrine. Perhaps Paul was repacking an old concept in the hope of making Christianity understandable/palatable to people who still identified with these old notions. The "building up" the church may have meant trying to make more converts.
My impression is that in one fell swoop it seem the catholic church combined Paul's third generation Christianity along with the logic of pagan sacrifice rituals in which the sacrificed animals were eaten. The Jewish tradition also included rituals that involved eating the burnt offering in or near the temple.
OK ... why stop there? Don't like Paul, so he's just a marketer, and that's him disposed of? ...
What about John? OK, but a bit wishy-washy I suppose, and way too bloomin mystical for you by a long shot ... so he's some proto-hippy off in a world of his own, so we can take what he says with a pinch of salt, too ...
Matthew's just a disgruntled old Jew, Mark's a hysteric, hardly draws breath all the way through ('and then ... and then ...' count 'em!), Luke's all third-hand platitudes, and under Paul's thumb anyway ...
Jesus is cool, when He says cool things, but a bit hardline at times, obviously suffering from some kind of bipolar disorder, love one minute, armageddon the next ... like a good cop/bad cop rolled into one ... one day they'll trace it all back to some chemical inbalance ...
... anyway, He probably never said half the stuff He's supposed to, well maybe the cool bits ... but the rest is all made up, I mean we've got no proof, have we, so what the heck?
===
Sorry Wil ... but d'you see why I might find this kind of approach shallow, barren and offensive?
Do yourself a favour: Take it or leave it, but don't delude yourself or others by some post-modern rationalisation founded on what you deem to be credible or otherwise ... either step up, or walk away, but don't resort to sophistry to explain away those bits you find embarrassing or onerous.
If everybody followed your example then 'truth' itself would be a mere abstraction worthy only of some clever Wildean quip.
You ask for chapter and verse and you got it, and the depth of your counter-argument is: Yeah, well, Paul is a salesman ...
I find myself looking a 1:7:6 right in the eye ...
Thomas
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Are you saying it was ordination?
Namaste Thomas,
Paul wasn't?? It seems to me he was. No don't worry about those pesky food rules or circumcision, come join the club. Traveling all over starting churches. I'm no anti-Pauline guy...I'm getting ready to reread him now, trying to rearrange his books/letters in the order he wrote them rather than the cannonized version...I hear one can see a change in his tenor, in the flavor of his ideas as time went on.
Don't get you knickers in a bunch, I appreciated your providing the notes, however my bad, I was expecting something from Jesus, not from Paul. ie when I decide to buy a new computer or tool, I look at the specs, not just the marketing brochure. And frankly yes, I consider Paul to be a marketer, a church grower. Join the board of any church or sit down and discuss biblical nuance with doctors of theology and the veil is torn, the curtain is lifted...and yes it appears he didn't say all that...
But darned if that waters down my belief, I's strivng to be a Christian!!
And the mystical is something I appreciate, but the church, that's a business, I believe if Jesus comes back literally he'll be over turnin tables for quite a while.
Paul wasn't?? It seems to me he was. No don't worry about those pesky food rules or circumcision, come join the club. Traveling all over starting churches. I'm no anti-Pauline guy...I'm getting ready to reread him now, trying to rearrange his books/letters in the order he wrote them rather than the cannonized version...I hear one can see a change in his tenor, in the flavor of his ideas as time went on.
Don't get you knickers in a bunch, I appreciated your providing the notes, however my bad, I was expecting something from Jesus, not from Paul. ie when I decide to buy a new computer or tool, I look at the specs, not just the marketing brochure. And frankly yes, I consider Paul to be a marketer, a church grower. Join the board of any church or sit down and discuss biblical nuance with doctors of theology and the veil is torn, the curtain is lifted...and yes it appears he didn't say all that...
But darned if that waters down my belief, I's strivng to be a Christian!!
And the mystical is something I appreciate, but the church, that's a business, I believe if Jesus comes back literally he'll be over turnin tables for quite a while.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Actually, if you check 2 Thess 2, Paul describes what Netti-Netti and you are discussing, calling it the 'apostasy' and 'the man of lawlessness.'
Paul's calling it the apostasy shows that this will occur within the Church, or body of Christ. It also says that it that "The Lord Jesus will destroy him with the breath of His mouth and will bring him to nothing with the brightness of His coming." I would say that this is one instance where something is done away with via the Spirit, rather than perfected.
I know, that's my point. You pick and choose what you like, what you don't like, and then works out why you're justified in not liking stuff, or interpreting it according to your own presupposition.
From where I stand, everybody has their own pet peeve with this and that ... everybody's got their pet reason why that bit of Scripture does not apply to them ...
Yes, exactly ... if that's how you see Paul, then that speaks volumes ...
No, you've just made your mind up he's a travelling salesman ... what's wrong with that?
Frankly Wil ... apart from impressing your friends ... I wouldn't waste your time ...
So sorry ... my bad ... I didn't realise you're running some kind of quality control on Scripture — sorry Paul and Christian doctrine's not up to your standard.
Is that how you choose your religion ... a kind of Dell-type custom-build according to your requirements? I rather think you do.
Do you see how facile your arguments sound? Like you understand the inner workings of religion to even approach making a discerning judgement?
Sorry if this sounds tough Wil ... you need to get over yourself. I think a reality check is in order.
Do you really think that? Really? I don't think so.
I think you're striving to make Christianity into something that suits you.
As I've said before ... I take your comments, and I take other comments, and I look at them, and what underlies them is the idea of the 'Jesus of my own invention' ...
You'll have to forgive me ... yet it seem implicit and even explicit in Scripture that Jesus was saying I'n not here to make the world to suit you ... I'm here to show you the mark you're gonna have to step up to if you want to be with Me ...
... and here we are finding clever, pharisaical arguments to rationalise it all away, and justify ourselves in the process ...
I've just run out of patience with all this self-importance and self-validation crap ... it's what brought Adam down, and it's what's been bringing us down ever since ... and here we add 'the Church' to the list of things to blame for why I am like I am.
Thomas
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
My sense is that when Jesus got angry it was because he cared about the issues, not because he was psycho. So there is no obvious inconsistency here.
As for Paul's descriptions of the Second Coming, those are third generation Christianity. Authorship of Paul's Epistles has been debated. I'm not sure why one would want to assume that these writings are Jesus' teachings without at least recognizing the controversies and ambiguities.
Namaste Thomas,
Interesting thoughts. I don't read the bible to impress anyone, I do it for my own good. I do strive to be a Christian, and while you find it funny how I pick and choose, I find it funny how you pick and choose. Each of us puts different weight on what Jesus taught. I lean toward love your enemy others lean toward condeming folks to hell.
I don't blame the church for anything in my life. I don't jump on and off my knees, wave my hands around and spit out canned responses.
I'm currently reading Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism by the heathen Spong and so looking forward to a church retreat on the book! As far as I've gotten, I'd recommend it to every Christian. Of course many won't touch it with a ten foot pole, but it should be a book discussion here and amongst churches around the world.
I love the fact that you state emphatically that the reason no women priests is because it is biblicly sound and if the powers that be change their mind after two thousand years it'll be because it is biblicly sound. Seems when we disgree we are either Catholic bashing or stupid, and you say my reasoning is pharsical.
Interesting thoughts. I don't read the bible to impress anyone, I do it for my own good. I do strive to be a Christian, and while you find it funny how I pick and choose, I find it funny how you pick and choose. Each of us puts different weight on what Jesus taught. I lean toward love your enemy others lean toward condeming folks to hell.
I don't blame the church for anything in my life. I don't jump on and off my knees, wave my hands around and spit out canned responses.
I'm currently reading Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism by the heathen Spong and so looking forward to a church retreat on the book! As far as I've gotten, I'd recommend it to every Christian. Of course many won't touch it with a ten foot pole, but it should be a book discussion here and amongst churches around the world.
I love the fact that you state emphatically that the reason no women priests is because it is biblicly sound and if the powers that be change their mind after two thousand years it'll be because it is biblicly sound. Seems when we disgree we are either Catholic bashing or stupid, and you say my reasoning is pharsical.
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Respectfully Thomas, I think you're looking at it the wrong way. Here is a relevant part regarding the fulfillment of the Law you omitted.
Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
~Matthew 5:19
Jesus was referring to the Commandments, not to the New Covenant. You seem to think that Jesus' endorsement of the Commandments indicates his affirmation of the Old Covenant!The New Covenant was intended to replace the Old:
"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." ~Hebrews 8:7