What actually defines an apostle:

[Cally]

1 Corinthians--9:2 If to others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

Paul's wording is very interesting here and makes it clear what an apostle really is: someone who brings the Gospel to a new place and starts a church where none was before.

The church in Corinth did not exist before Paul--he built it from the ground up, and that's why the Corinthians were the proof of the fact that he was an apostle as I defined above.

So Paul says "If to others I am not an apostle . . ." referring to all the others to whom he ministered but didn't start from the beginning, so to whom, then, are those who inherited "apostolic succession" actually apostles?

1 Corinthians--
12:28 God has set some in the assembly: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracle workers, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, and various kinds of languages.
12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all miracle workers?
12:30 Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with various languages? Do all interpret?
12:31 But earnestly desire the best gifts. Moreover, I show a most excellent way to you.

What I highlighted also makes it clear that anyone can be an apostle, and historically, we know that this is true from real missionaries who build churches from the ground.

[papist1]

1 Corinthians--9:2 If to others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

Paul's wording is very interesting here and makes it clear what an apostle really is: someone who brings the Gospel to a new place and starts a church where none was before.

The church in Corinth did not exist before Paul--he built it from the ground up, and that's why the Corinthians were the proof of the fact that he was an apostle as I defined above.

So Paul says "If to others I am not an apostle . . ." referring to all the others to whom he ministered but didn't start from the beginning, so to whom, then, are those who inherited "apostolic succession" actually apostles?

1 Corinthians--
12:28 God has set some in the assembly: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracle workers, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, and various kinds of languages.
12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all miracle workers?
12:30 Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with various languages? Do all interpret?
12:31 But earnestly desire the best gifts. Moreover, I show a most excellent way to you.

What I highlighted also makes it clear that anyone can be an apostle, and historically, we know that this is true from real missionaries who build churches from the ground.

thats hilarious.

You all of a sudden have enlightened the whole world and God has chosen to hide this secret from everyone for almost 2000 years.

wow your sooooo deep mr star trek.

The fact that you have contradicted pretty much everyone that ever taught on the subject in the first 19 centuries is amazing, don't you think? what, did everyone get it wrong in all of Christianity, including the disciples of the apostles?

lol

peace, papist

[Cally]

Funny, I thought you were interested in real debating. I would have thought that might include a real response besides simply declaring the infallibility of the Catholic church.

Likewise, you are being very deep.

[JamesTheLeast]

How did Jesus define the difference between the people, the disciples, and his apostles in the parable of the sower?  For they were apostles during Jesus ministry, even before they had brought his teachings unto new people, Jew or Gentile. 

The difference is not in what they do, for James died by the sword before ever having a ministry of his own, and yet is still an apostle.  So it is not by thier works, nor thier preaching that defined them although it may have defined those that followed.

[Cally]

How did Jesus define the difference between the people, the disciples, and his apostles in the parable of the sower?  For they were apostles during Jesus ministry, even before they had brought his teachings unto new people, Jew or Gentile. 

The difference is not in what they do, for James died by the sword before ever having a ministry of his own, and yet is still an apostle.  So it is not by thier works, nor thier preaching that defined them although it may have defined those that followed.

What's this about the parable of the sower?

When the disciples were first called "apostles" there was no way to NOT be the first ones to preach Jesus' ministry. And James worked with the other Apostles. Paul was converted after many churches were already established by the twelve apostles, and so converting and raising one on his own was the "seal of his apostleship"--it was proof that he was an apostle.

By the way, (papist), this hasn't been a secret at all, to many people. Many have "earnestly desired the greater gifts" from God and received them without man's permission.

[papist1]

Funny, I thought you were interested in real debating. I would have thought that might include a real response besides simply declaring the infallibility of the Catholic church.

Likewise, you are being very deep.

This habit by persons who interpret scripture according to their predetermined ideas is flawed at its root.  Are all apostles? no

The verse you decided to highlight is a pretext in order to try to somehow say that anyone can be an apostle.

If you are an apostle, then please, go and forgive the sins of others, and also, go and do not forgive the sins of others.

you see, you or I do not have that power. We can forgive a person for sinning against us, but we cannot personally forgive the sin in their soul. Apostles and presbyters can.

Also, if we do not forgive someone for sinning against us, God will not forgive us, yet the apostles have the power to declare someone not forgiven, something we do not have.

peace, papist

[Cally]

God commanded all of us to pray for sinners. How is that different from the authority to forgive sins?

How else would you explain the meaning of Paul saying to Corinth "you are the seal of my apostleship" as distinguished from the other churches?

I would not listen to someone who nullifies the word of God, period. That's exactly what the Pharisees did--they trusted in human traditions without question to perpetuate their existence, and that's how they nullified the word of God.

[desertknight]

God commanded all of us to pray for sinners. How is that different from the authority to forgive sins?

We certainly should all pray for sinners, and if we have sinned, we should ask for the forgiveness of our brothers, but if you ask me for forgiveness, I can give it for myself, but I can not give it for God.  I can give you my personal forgiveness, but I cannot absolve your sins.  Christ specifically gave that power to His Apostles, and they in turn gave it to their successors, by breathing the Holy Spirit on them and telling them so.  He did not give it to you or me.  Even Paul, chosen by Christ Himself, was ordained by the other Apostles by the imposition of hands.  If my kid steals some candy and comes to me in tears for forgiveness, I certainly will forgive him as my son, but I will tell him he needs to ask the store owner for forgiveness and make amends and he needs to ask God through the sacrament of confession as instituted by Christ.

[Cally]

If all Christians cannot intercede for all men in the way that (say) Moses did when he begged God to forgive Israel, then what is the point of commanding all Christians to pray for unbelievers?

An unbeliever is totally under God's wrath, and he is doing nothing to bring good things to himself (that is, praying for himself), then I am stepping in between and saying "God, forgive this man anyway."

And God listens! That's why he told all of us to do it. In that case, of course, that entails also bringing him to repentance before God, because (and do notice this): there is no scriptural account of anyone who dies in debauchery or other sin, unrepentant, being forgiven BY GOD just because some man arbitrarily decided he should be! It always entails repentance.

So in the end you can see, there's really absolutely no difference between an "ordinary" Christian's (or "righteous man's") appeal to mercy for others' behalf to God, and someone "special." We all have authority, and we're all commanded to use it.

This alone clearly accounts for God's statement "I give you authority to forgive sins" to the apostles. Yes, an Apostle can decide not to intercede anyway the same way we can choose not to pray for those who need mercy and yet are not pursuing it--yet God has commanded all people to do it.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Hi Cally,

I had brought up this point before, and what I discovered is that they do not believe that apostolic successors are actually apostles.

They only believe that they are successors, and bishops.

[Tantor]

In order to be an apostle you have to have been personally selected by Jesus Christ to be a disciple.  The original 12 met this criteria and so did Paul.

As to whether the term apostle applied to their successors... I doubt it.

Notice that none were 'voted' in.

[Cally]

In order to be an apostle you have to have been personally selected by Jesus Christ to be a disciple.  The original 12 met this criteria and so did Paul.

As to whether the term apostle applied to their successors... I doubt it.

Notice that none were 'voted' in.

One of them (Judas) was replaced just by casting lots to get the number back up to twelve after Jesus wasn't around. And the two leading "candidates" were determined by the other eleven, right? (Of course, they cast lots to get God's go-ahead).

[Tantor]

That was their choice.. which still doesn't make it right... the Apostles made a lot of mistakes.. and made them often.

What made them special was the mutual accountability and respect they held each other to.

And their eventual downfall was ultimately one apostles desire for power over the others...

[desertknight]

So in the end you can see, there's really absolutely no difference between an "ordinary" Christian's (or "righteous man's") appeal to mercy for others' behalf to God, and someone "special." We all have authority, and we're all commanded to use it.

Well, we don't however, just as we are not Bishops, Presbyters or Deacons without having proper authority.  If that were the case then you are saying that Christ's actions were just "for show" or had no actual power behind them.  I'm not trying to be insulting.  It may be from your last post, that I am just not understanding what your getting at.  A priest does not absolve any one's unrepentant sin, ever.  To do so would be an invalid confession.   When I go to confession, I must be truly repentant for absolution to be valid.  I confess to God all of my serious sins, the priest is there as Christ's representative through Apostolic Succession, but I still ask God, primarily, for forgiveness.  The priest through the power granted him by Christ, absolves me from my sins.  As for "praying for the unbeliever", I may just be unclear as to what your argument is.  We should always pray for unbelievers to receive the Grace that is necessary to begin to know Christ.  You may have to elaborate to your objections for me.

[Cally]

So in the end you can see, there's really absolutely no difference between an "ordinary" Christian's (or "righteous man's") appeal to mercy for others' behalf to God, and someone "special." We all have authority, and we're all commanded to use it.

Well, we don't however, just as we are not Bishops, Presbyters or Deacons without having proper authority.  If that were the case then you are saying that Christ's actions were just "for show" or had no actual power behind them.  I'm not trying to be insulting.  It may be from your last post, that I am just not understanding what your getting at.  A priest does not absolve any one's unrepentant sin, ever.  To do so would be an invalid confession.   When I go to confession, I must be truly repentant for absolution to be valid.  I confess to God all of my serious sins, the priest is there as Christ's representative through Apostolic Succession, but I still ask God, primarily, for forgiveness.  The priest through the power granted him by Christ, absolves me from my sins.  As for "praying for the unbeliever", I may just be unclear as to what your argument is.  We should always pray for unbelievers to receive the Grace that is necessary to begin to know Christ.  You may have to elaborate to your objections for me.

It is clear that there are to be bishops (or overseers) and deacons--the latter is not defined specifically in the Bible.

If you're saying that we also NEED to make a confession to someone else, else we can't receive forgiveness from God, that is not biblical according to 1 John. The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector clearly demonstrates (and the entire point of the parable) that all a man has to do is humble himself before God without ritual--like the Pharisee did--and just say "have mercy on me, a sinner!" and he walked out justified, no other action required.

Everything else I said covers my use of scripture.

[desertknight]

It's funny how two people can read the same thing, and come away with two different meanings.  The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector tells us that in order to be forgiven, we must be truly contrite, not just "going through the motions".  How we can do this, our Lord provided for within His visible Church and His anointed ministers.  I think you are missing what the sacrament of penance is.  Yes, one can confess directly to God -- but refusing to confess in the presence of a priest implies that one can also be one's own spiritual physician. Christ clearly, and Biblically, intended His Apostles and those they anointed into ministry, to fulfill that role. The sacrament, by its very nature, confers graces that help us to live a Christian life. Moreover, it was instituted by Christ as the proper form for the forgiveness of our sins. Therefore, we should not only be willing to receive the sacrament, but we should embrace it as a gift from a loving God.

Luke 18:11  "The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, 'O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity--greedy, dishonest, adulterous--or even like this tax collector."

There is no "speaking prayers to oneself" in the confessional.  The purpose of the pastoral care provided is to act as the representative of Christ in guiding the penitent back to the God.  Had the Pharisee had the benefit of the sacrament, he would have been stopped cold, by any priest, and reminded of the humble and contrite heart that is necessary to receive God's forgiveness.  That is it's purpose.  

[Jimmy]

It's funny how two people can read the same thing, and come away with two different meanings.  The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector tells us that in order to be forgiven, we must be truly contrite, not just "going through the motions".  How we can do this, our Lord provided for within His visible Church and His anointed ministers.  I think you are missing what the sacrament of penance is.  Yes, one can confess directly to God -- but refusing to confess in the presence of a priest implies that one can also be one's own spiritual physician. Christ clearly, and Biblically, intended His Apostles and those they anointed into ministry, to fulfill that role. The sacrament, by its very nature, confers graces that help us to live a Christian life. Moreover, it was instituted by Christ as the proper form for the forgiveness of our sins. Therefore, we should not only be willing to receive the sacrament, but we should embrace it as a gift from a loving God.

Luke 18:11  "The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, 'O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity--greedy, dishonest, adulterous--or even like this tax collector."

There is no "speaking prayers to oneself" in the confessional.  The purpose of the pastoral care provided is to act as the representative of Christ in guiding the penitent back to the God.  Had the Pharisee had the benefit of the sacrament, he would have been stopped cold, by any priest, and reminded of the humble and contrite heart that is necessary to receive God's forgiveness.  That is it's purpose.  

Confessional???  Sacrament of penance???

The NT never speaks of a confessional!!

The NT never talks about penance!!

As a matter of fact, the NT never talks about a sacrament!!

And certainly none of those in relation to an apostle.

[Cally]

The reason it says that the Pharisee spoke the prayer to himself was because he was exalting himself and therefore, God wasn't listening at all. That should make enough sense. The Pharisee wasn't really making a "confession" at all, however--but just praying about how great he was. I agree, he could have used a good teacher.

Many others, however, are like that tax collector and know how to say a prayer in humility to God--moreover, the fact that Jesus chose a tax collector for that parable reinforces that the "average Joe sinner" can do so on his own.

I agree that the central point was "whoever exalts himself will be humbled, but whoever humbles himself will be exalted." But I was pointing out that he spoke straight to God and succeeded in being shown mercy from God without confessing to a man.

[desertknight]

Confessional???  Sacrament of penance???

The NT never speaks of a confessional!!

The NT never talks about penance!!

As a matter of fact, the NT never talks about a sacrament!!

And certainly none of those in relation to an apostle.

Oh? 

John 20:21-23  "Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

That is the sacrement of confession.

[desertknight]

But I was pointing out that he spoke straight to God and succeeded in being shown mercy from God without confessing to a man.

And they still can.  The Church does not teach that your sins cannot be forgiven outside of the sacrament, they teach that they should be confessed within the sacrament.  The Church, as pastoral shepherds, can also require that the faithful avail themselves of the sacrament at least once a year, just as one receives a physical checkup from a doctor on a regular basis.  Many sins, just as with a physical illness, require real pastoral care, not just continually, even if with true contrition, crying out to God for forgiveness.  Certainly God does provide forgiveness for all, but think of the multitude of serious sins that people face.  Drug addiction, serial adultery, same-sex attraction, abortion...these things are better dealt with spiritually, with the help of those who Christ intended to represent Him and His Church.  Many of my confessions have also included creative reparation, like reconnecting with disavowed family members, ("whoever has hatred in his heart for his brother..."), a real problem, sadly, in my dysfunctional family.  With some, a priest may recommend counselling, as well as ministering to those asking for forgiveness and receiving absolution.  Thank God for His Church and our good priests for giving us the pastoral care and the assurance of absolution, of truly starting again in God's good Grace, to set things right.

[Jimmy]

Confessional???  Sacrament of penance???

The NT never speaks of a confessional!!

The NT never talks about penance!!

As a matter of fact, the NT never talks about a sacrament!!

And certainly none of those in relation to an apostle.

Oh? 

John 20:21-23  "Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

That is the sacrement of confession.

I understand what the RC (and Orthodox?) church has cobbled together to call sacraments.  But even in the passage you quoted nothing is said about sacraments.  Nothing is even said about confession.

You would do yourself a favor by looking at some non-RCC explanation for that text.

[desertknight]

So your objection is that because the label "sacrament" is not found in the Bible, that it somehow makes it invalid?  That's your objection?  The word "sacrament" simply means something that is holy, found throughout the Bible, or specific to Christianity, "An outward sign of something sacred. In Christianity, a sacrament is commonly defined as having been instituted by Jesus and consisting of a visible sign of invisible grace."  And you can remove the question mark behind "Orthodox" in your post.  All the Eastern Orthodox churches have the same belief we Catholics do regarding this issue.  If you have a link to a non-Catholic/Orthodox interpretation of John 20:21-23, please post it for all to see.  I would be interested.  

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

This is just an internet site, but I generally agree with it:

http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/a01catholics/john20v23.html

[desertknight]

The Roman Catholic Church uses this passage to justify its teaching that the key of purgatory lies in the hand of the priest. In this unseen region of suffering he is said to open and shut, bind and loose. It is also held to lie within the priest's power to lessen the duration and severity of the suffering.

That site gets much basic Catholic theology wrong.  John 20:21-23, which the Church basis the sacrament of confession on, has nothing to do with purgatory as such.  Purgatory is just the final purification of the soul before entering the Kingdom of Heaven.  There is no permanent place other than heaven or hell and no one in purgatory is there because they have committed a mortal sin and no priest holds any power in "releasing" anyone from purgatory.  If you are guilty of a mortal or "deadly" sin, and have remained unrepentant of it until death, we can never say for certain, but hell is as close as we can guess, as to where you will go.  No purgatory, no heaven.   Only mortal sins need be confessed during the sacrament of penance and those have nothing to do with purgatory.  There is nothing that can lesson your "time" in purgatory as such, in any event.  It does not exist "in time."  You will still find some texts that use that as an analogy, just as we still instinctively point up when referring to heaven.   The Catholic Church also believes in, and teaches the truth of, the "royal priesthood of believers", but that does not negate that Christ anointed Apostles to be His ministers in acting in His name, and they in turn, with the full authority of our Lord, anointed others, to carry this on.   I know you and I have debated this before, so we can debate it again, or let others read our comments on this in other threads.  I think those threads are still active.

[Jimmy]

So your objection is that because the label "sacrament" is not found in the Bible, that it somehow makes it invalid?  That's your objection?  The word "sacrament" simply means something that is holy, found throughout the Bible, or specific to Christianity, "An outward sign of something sacred. In Christianity, a sacrament is commonly defined as having been instituted by Jesus and consisting of a visible sign of invisible grace."  And you can remove the question mark behind "Orthodox" in your post.  All the Eastern Orthodox churches have the same belief we Catholics do regarding this issue.  If you have a link to a non-Catholic/Orthodox interpretation of John 20:21-23, please post it for all to see.  I would be interested.  

So according to the RCC, there are seven things that are holy?  Interesting.  I don't find that any of those seven things are ever called holy in the Bible.  But perhaps I just missed it. People are called holy, places are called holy, the law and the commandments are called holy.  Jesus is called the Holy One.  There is of course the Holy Spirit, but none of those things that RCC talks about as "sacraments" are ever called "holy".  Do you find that interesting also?

And there are any number of non-RCC commentaries that are readily available on the internet.  You should have no trouble finding them.

[desertknight]

Well, to start with, there are more than seven things that the Church consideres "holy".  There is "Holy Bible", the "Holy Catholic Church", "Holy Matrimony"...come on, get with it!  Lots of good, holy things out there.  I do find it somewhat interesting that you don't think that Baptism into the faith, or the Lord's Supper is "holy", but I just chalk it up to people not really understanding what the word "holy" means. 

[Jimmy]

Well, to start with, there are more than seven things that the Church consideres "holy".  There is "Holy Bible", the "Holy Catholic Church", "Holy Matrimony"...come on, get with it!  Lots of good, holy things out there.  I do find it somewhat interesting that you don't think that Baptism into the faith, or the Lord's Supper is "holy", but I just chalk it up to people not really understanding what the word "holy" means. 

I know what the word "holy" means and I checked every occurance of that word in the NT.  I even know the Greek word "hagios" that is translated into the English "holy".   Guess what, as I indicated above, in the NT people are called holy, places are called holy, the law and the commandments are called holy.  Jesus is called the Holy One.  There is of course the Holy Spirit, but none of those things that RCC talks about as "sacraments" are ever called "holy".  It never says anything about holy baptism, holy Lord's supper, holy confession, holy marriage or any of that.  Come on, get with it! Read your Bible sometime and forget all of that other stuff they have been teaching you that is not from the Bible.

[desertknight]

The Lord's Supper is not "holy"?  If it is not specifically called "holy" in the Bible, we are not allowed to use that word?  And , tell us, where are you getting that admonition from God...from?  Please site your biblical source for this.  Does not Baptism come from God?  Are not things that come from God, that convey His Grace, not "holy"?  I'm interested in you explaining how our Lord said, "This is my Body", and you have decided that, that, is not "holy", well, it's not even that, it is that somehow, you have decided that no one else is allowed to call this special gift from God, "holy".    

Ha!  I guess we Catholics are not the only one's who didn't get the memo.

...intended for a husband and wife to enjoy within the bonds of holy matrimony.

http://www.fbfi.org/content/view/35/22/

A Christian marriage is a service in which a man and woman as believers pledge themselves to each other and are united by God in Holy Matrimony.

http://www.clife.org/?pg=chapel

6.WE BELIEVE...and practice two ordinances—(1) Water Baptism by Immersion after repenting of one's sins and receiving Christ's gift of salvation, and (2) Holy Communion (the Lord's Supper) as a symbolic remembrance of Christ's suffering and death for our salvation.

http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Statement_of_Fundamental_Truths/sft_short.cfm

[Jimmy]

You do talk in circles don't you?

[desertknight]

Is that all you got?  I couldn't be more "on point".   

[Jimmy]

Is that all you got?  I couldn't be more "on point".   

I do believe that you have forgotten just what point you thought you were on.  You went from apostle to confessional to sacraments to simply holy to well-maybe-it-isn't-really-called-holy-in-the-Bible to we-just-call-it-that-because-we-think-it-is. And I guess you think that gets you back what an apostle is.

But then there aren't any confessionals in the NT, nor are there any "sacraments" given in the NT but somehow that is supposed to "actually define an apostle".

I think I will just repeat it back to you.  Is that all you got?  But I do understand: you are trying to establish the basis for popes and bishops and priests within the RCC heirarchy.  It isn't working but you didn't really think it would at this forum did you?  There are a lot of things that we probably agree on.  In some things there might be some minor differences.  But in the case of the functional organization of the RCC there is no way to bring that one in line with the Bible.

[desertknight]

I know what the word "holy" means and I checked every occurance of that word in the NT.  I even know the Greek word "hagios" that is translated into the English "holy".   Guess what, as I indicated above, in the NT people are called holy, places are called holy, the law and the commandments are called holy.  Jesus is called the Holy One.  There is of course the Holy Spirit, but none of those things that RCC talks about as "sacraments" are ever called "holy".  It never says anything about holy baptism, holy Lord's supper, holy confession, holy marriage or any of that.  Come on, get with it! Read your Bible sometime and forget all of that other stuff they have been teaching you that is not from the Bible.

I guess when it becomes inconvenient for you, you tend to forget your own words.  I have been nice and answered point by point, your arguments.  Funny how when I answered this charge above with complete satisfaction you suddenly dropped the subject and accused me of "wondering".  Now what's that again about Catholics using the word "holy" outside of when the Bible does?  You mean, like when I demonstrated that everyone from the Baptist to the Assemblies of God do as well.  The word "sacrament"  Just means "a holy act"  or in Christianity, "any of certain rites instituted by Jesus and believed to be means of grace."  Now we Catholics call the Lord's Supper, "Holy Communion", which you say is wrong.  Well, if so, then Lutherans, Anglicans, Assemblies of God, Presbyterians, etc., are all right there with us and wrong as well.  Now, your church may call Baptism and the Lord's Supper both "Ordinances".  I have just one challenge for you.  Please site your reference in Scripture where they are referred to as "Ordinances".  Let me guess, if it's called an "ordinance", then that's OK, but if called "sacrament", well, that's just wrong. You object that we use a "confessional" and you can't find that in the Bible.  I assume that when someone in your church goes to the pastor's office to confess some terrible sin they have committed, in private, that you have raised the objection to your congregation that no ministers in the Bible had offices with a desk, so your church shouldn't have one either, right?  Or is it just we Catholics who the rule applies to, and in your research of Scripture, you have found that an office, with a desk, is just fine to talk to your pastor in and pray together in, but anything called a "confessional" is out.  Really, is that your argument?  Because it is you, Sir, who brings up "confessionals", not me, so don't come back with anything about my "wondering".  This is your topic!  I mean is your argument seriously based on the idea that because there is a quite and private place for a person to confess their sins to the pastor of their church that it is somehow, wrong?  You've got to be kidding, right?

[Jimmy]

I know what the word "holy" means and I checked every occurance of that word in the NT.  I even know the Greek word "hagios" that is translated into the English "holy".   Guess what, as I indicated above, in the NT people are called holy, places are called holy, the law and the commandments are called holy.  Jesus is called the Holy One.  There is of course the Holy Spirit, but none of those things that RCC talks about as "sacraments" are ever called "holy".  It never says anything about holy baptism, holy Lord's supper, holy confession, holy marriage or any of that.  Come on, get with it! Read your Bible sometime and forget all of that other stuff they have been teaching you that is not from the Bible.

I guess when it becomes inconvenient for you, you tend to forget your own words.  I have been nice and answered point by point, your arguments.  Funny how when I answered this charge above with complete satisfaction you suddenly dropped the subject and accused me of "wondering".  Now what's that again about Catholics using the word "holy" outside of when the Bible does?  You mean, like when I demonstrated that everyone from the Baptist to the Assemblies of God do as well.  The word "sacrament"  Just means "a holy act"  or in Christianity, "any of certain rites instituted by Jesus and believed to be means of grace."  Now we Catholics call the Lord's Supper, "Holy Communion", which you say is wrong.  Well, if so, then Lutherans, Anglicans, Assemblies of God, Presbyterians, etc., are all right there with us and wrong as well.  Now, your church may call Baptism and the Lord's Supper both "Ordinances".  I have just one challenge for you.  Please site your reference in Scripture where they are referred to as "Ordinances".  Let me guess, if it's called an "ordinance", then that's OK, but if called "sacrament", well, that's just wrong. You object that we use a "confessional" and you can't find that in the Bible.  I assume that when someone in your church goes to the pastor's office to confess some terrible sin they have committed, in private, that you have raised the objection to your congregation that no ministers in the Bible had offices with a desk, so your church shouldn't have one either, right?  Or is it just we Catholics who the rule applies to, and in your research of Scripture, you have found that an office, with a desk, is just fine to talk to your pastor in and pray together in, but anything called a "confessional" is out.  Really, is that your argument?  Because it is you, Sir, who brings up "confessionals", not me, so don't come back with anything about my "wondering".  This is your topic!  I mean is your argument seriously based on the idea that because there is a quite and private place for a person to confess their sins to the pastor of their church that it is somehow, wrong?  You've got to be kidding, right?

Neither I nor my church talks about baptism and communion being ordinances.  You have not seen me use such a phrase.  As to who brought up confessionals, please refer to your earlier post:

It's funny how two people can read the same thing, and come away with two different meanings.  The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector tells us that in order to be forgiven, we must be truly contrite, not just "going through the motions".  How we can do this, our Lord provided for within His visible Church and His anointed ministers.  I think you are missing what the sacrament of penance is.  Yes, one can confess directly to God -- but refusing to confess in the presence of a priest implies that one can also be one's own spiritual physician. Christ clearly, and Biblically, intended His Apostles and those they anointed into ministry, to fulfill that role. The sacrament, by its very nature, confers graces that help us to live a Christian life. Moreover, it was instituted by Christ as the proper form for the forgiveness of our sins. Therefore, we should not only be willing to receive the sacrament, but we should embrace it as a gift from a loving God.

Luke 18:11  "The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, 'O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity--greedy, dishonest, adulterous--or even like this tax collector."

There is no "speaking prayers to oneself" in the confessional.  The purpose of the pastoral care provided is to act as the representative of Christ in guiding the penitent back to the God.  Had the Pharisee had the benefit of the sacrament, he would have been stopped cold, by any priest, and reminded of the humble and contrite heart that is necessary to receive God's forgiveness.  That is it's purpose. 

James talks about confessing our sins to one another (James 5:16) , but he doesn't say anything about a priest in a confessional.  No man here on earth serves as a rrepresentative of Christ.  There is me, the Holy Spirit who lives within me, and my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  I am subject to the elders of my congregation, but they do not serve as representatives.

[desertknight]

Neither I nor my church talks about baptism and communion being ordinances.  You have not seen me use such a phrase.  As to who brought up confessionals, please refer to your earlier post:

Really?  Hummm, then why when I looked up information on the Lord's Supper, did I find this article, from a distinguished graduate of a Church of Christ approved divinity school, an elder, a lecturer at the Church of Christ college of Pepperdine, and the director of a ministry promoting the Churches of Christ.  He is a contributing writer to The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement.

"Christian churches and churches of Christ have long believed that two ordinances of Christ must be given the highest priority: baptism and the Lord's Supper."

"An Ordinance of Unity"

"Koinonia is a Greek word that means "communion, fellowship, sharing in common.

[Jimmy]

Neither I nor my church talks about baptism and communion being ordinances.  You have not seen me use such a phrase.  As to who brought up confessionals, please refer to your earlier post:

Really?  Hummm, then why when I looked up information on the Lord's Supper, did I find this article, from a distinguished graduate of a Church of Christ approved divinity school, an elder, a lecturer at the Church of Christ college of Pepperdine, and the director of a ministry promoting the Churches of Christ.  He is a contributing writer to The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement.

"Christian churches and churches of Christ have long believed that two ordinances of Christ must be given the highest priority: baptism and the Lord's Supper."

"An Ordinance of Unity"

"Koinonia is a Greek word that means "communion, fellowship, sharing in common.