I have to admit that I haven't read Hebrews in a while but I promise I will go through it soon. In the meantime, though, I have to admit that I find your post somewhat offensive on two levels:

1) You insinuate that I, and I assume all Catholic laity, rely solely on the Magisterium to interpret Sacred Scripture for us, that we are incapable of our own thought. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the last month or so, I have fielded questions from a number of people one this board and have done my own research to find the answers. I have not relied on anyone else for the answers I have provided. I read the Bible and if I don't understand something, I do my own research; and

2) You also imply that all members of the Magisterium are either too stupid to correctly interpret Sacred Scripture or they are actively trying to deceive the laity. Our Pastor has advanced degrees in both Philosophy and Theology. He teaches university level classes in both. He also happens to be a very Christ-centered individual who has dedicated his life to Jesus. To categorize him as you have is unconscionable.

The reviews I have come accross of Boettner's work a typically like [URL=http://www.catholic.com/library/The_Anti_Catholic_Bible.asp]]]this one[/URL]. They point out that the book Roman Catholicism is not a scholarly work for many reasons including lack of references for some of his claims and for using heresay as verified data.

WayneM wrote:
Hebrews makes it clear the O.T. Jewish priesthood is done away with by the coming of Christ. The word priest is used in Hebrews to refer to the O.T. priesthood and the present priesthood of Christ. There is simply no warrant in the N.T. for the RC priesthood. If there was, you would see the word "priest" used (Greek would be hiereus). But the NT uses the word elder or presbyter. These are not priests as in the O.T. offering sacrifices.

pres⋅by⋅ter  /ˈprɛzbɪtər, ˈprɛs-/ [prez-bi-ter, pres-]
–noun
1. (in the early Christian church) an office bearer who exercised teaching, priestly, and administrative functions.
2. (in hierarchical churches) a priest.
3. an elder in a Presbyterian church.

Tony Lopez-Cisneros wrote:
LORAINE BOETTNER Is NOT A "Her" But A "Him" !

Tony Lopez-Cisneros wrote:
MR. BOETTNER, As MYSELF & BILLIONS Of OTHERS WORLD-WIDE; Are NOT ANTI-CATHOLIC: BUT ANTI-SATANIC-VATICAN & ANTI-ROMAN-"CATHOLIC"-CULTIC !

Tony Lopez-Cisneros wrote:
*AS THE WORD "CATHOLIC" HISTORICALLY MEANS UNIVERSAL, GENERAL & TOTAL: AND DOES NOT MEAN ROMAN, VATICAN, PAPAL, POPE, PRIESTLY, ETC !

WayneM wrote:
The writers of the N.T. had two separate words for elder and priest. They do not mean the same thing. The Greek word for elder is "presbuteros". The N.T. never says "presbuteros" when it means priest. The N.T. Greek word for priest is "hiereus". This Greek word describes the functions of a priest which includes offering sacrifice.

In the Catholic Church, we also use the word "Pastor" but it tends to be reserved for Priests who are attached to a Parish.

I don't think that you understand the relationship between the laity and Priests in the Catholic Church. The Priest is a servant - he serves the people just as Jesus told the Apostles to. He is not viewed as an infallibe interpreter of Spiritual Truth although he is expected to know more about Sacred Scripture than the average Catholic does - just as you would expect your Pastor to know more than you do. In the case of our own Pastor, he has advanced degrees in Philosophy and Theology - which he teaches at the Seminary - so from strictly an academic perspective, he *definately* knows more than I can ever hope to know about Sacred Scripture.

The term "Altus Christus" is not meant as a pretentious title. It is meant to indicate that a Priest (any Christian, really) is to live his life as Christ-like as possible. Again, this fits with the Priest's role as a servant and teacher of the people. If a Priest behaved in a non-Christ-like manner, he would be more likely to lead people away from God than to Him.

WayneM wrote:
Bert,
I will read through as much as possible of those links. The Anglican or C. of E. has been unbiblical for centuries in many respects. I would not look to that church for guidance. There are many other denominations who do not use the term "father".

WayneM wrote:
In the meantime, I have one question for you.
What did Jesus mean when He said call no man Father?

Check out [URL=http://bible.cc/matthew/23-10.htm]]]this page[/URL]. You can see that it is translated as teacher, leader, master, guide, instructor or director depending on the version of the Bible. Regardless, that's not the point. Have a look at [URL=http://www.catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp]]]this link[/URL] for an explanation of the use of the title "Father".

1) Acts 8:35-36 says nothing about people *having* to request Baptism. OTOH, Acts 16:15, Acts16:31-33 and 1 Cor 1:16 all have “and their entire household” being Baptized. That included children and infants.

2) Jesus told the Apostles to Baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” in Matt 28:19.

3) If by “in the place of God” you mean that the Pope has the authority to bind things in Heaven and on earth, then you are correct. Jesus gave Peter that authority in Matt 16:17-19.

The NT used the term “Presbyter” many times which means, among other things, “Priest”.

The ability to “change biscuits into Jesus” was granted by Jesus in Mark 14:22-24 and reiterated in 1 Cor 11:23-29.

WayneM wrote:
Bert,
This is a blasphemous glorification of man. There is no authority in Scripture for such a practice. The Bible teaches that Christ's Vicar on earth is the Holy Spirit. (John 14:26)

WayneM wrote:
What do you say about Jesus' words "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9
Isn't this practice of calling the Pope "Holy Father" and calling mortal men "Father" going against what Jesus said in this verse? Be honest Bert; what do you say about this?

John UK wrote:
#1 Maybe not, but it is still without the baby's permission, and certainly without the requirement of repentance. "Repent and be baptised."

John UK wrote:
#2 An agreement! Well, almost!

John UK wrote:
#3 Now then, Original sin dealt with by sprinkling water? Hardly, Bert. Besides, it is not only original sin which takes us to hell, but our actual sins, which are a multitude. Indeed the natural man sins continually from birth, every second of every day. For "without faith it is impossible to please God."

John UK wrote:
#4 So the truth is that your church usurps God's sovereign authority, making the pope and his minions higher than God, claims the power of eternal life or death. No wonder Catholics are fearful of excommunication. I'll stick with Jesus.

Michael Hranek wrote:
Bert
Still avoiding answering the question:
"How can the Roman Catholic Church (or any other church for that matter) have any kind of real genuine faith in God if they are NOT right on who God is?"

Michael Hranek wrote:
Now about intercessory prayer.
Hmmm? For one it would depend to who the one interceeding was praying to the Father through the Son in agreement with the Spirit and obedience to the Word of God. Yes!

Michael Hranek wrote:
Praying to Allah and his bossom buddies would certainly qualify as an abomination.

John UK wrote:
#1 So you don't baptise babies, then?

John UK wrote:
#2 In the local Baptist church, any of the bishops would baptise, upon a convincing testimony of genuine repentance, and faith in Christ alone.
If God used my words to bring someone to Christ, I may baptise them myself, if they truly desired it.

John UK wrote:
#3 Why baptise someone on the verge of death? You really do believe in baptism as efficacious, don't you? You wouldn't bring God's word to them, so that maybe God might do a work in their heart, but you would be prepared to sprinkle water on them, claiming some sort of spiritual event by your own hand. Oh Bert, that is just soooo bad, man!

Well, since we don't forcibly Baptize anyone, I can't really answer your question. But, let me ask you: In your Church, who has the authority to Baptize? In the Catholic Church, depending on the circumstances, anyone can Baptize. For example, if I come across a bad accident on the highway and find someone on the verge of death, I can Baptize that person. The Catholic Church also accepts the Baptisms of many Protestant religions as well. It is also not imperative that infants be Baptized. I can think of no reason not to, but if I wanted to, I could have had my boys Baptized much later. Also, I am in the process of adopting a girl who is 12. Once the adoption is completed (soon), we will have her Baptized. The fact that she is 12 is irrelevant.

Hi Wayne,

"Holy Father" is not God's name, it is one of His titles. It is used also by the Popes of the Coptic and Catholic Churches. The Pope is not adored nor is his hand kissed. It is his ring that is kissed. The lying on the floor is to show the Priest's devotion to Jesus not the Pope. And, Altus Christus is a title that is applied to *all* Christians. We are all called to be "another Christ" to all we meet.

I had an entire post written but it disappeared when I tried to post it. I guess God didn't like what I said

To your post about Matt 16, The only interpretation that makes sense to me is that Jesus was speaking to all His Disciples initially (v13) and then to Peter alone (v17). In v18, Jesus first addresses Peter and then all of the Disciples present to tell them that He will build His Church on "this rock" (in my mind's eye, I see Him pointing at Peter). Any other interpretation I have come across seems contrived.

The papacy grew out of necessity as the Church grew. As long as there were only a few hundred or thousand Catholics, an informal office would suffice. Beyond that, the office had to be formalized. Just a standard infrastructure issue.

I only asked that to try and figure out what people's objection is to praying to Saints. Some comments sounded like the author objected to asking for intercessory prayers and others sounded like they objected to praying to dead people. In order to answer the question about praying to Saints effectively, I need to know which one is correct or if both of them are.

Hi John,

Jesus told us to Baptise in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The fact that He gave us that authority says that He gave us some control (in the name of). If you look through the Bible, you will find quite a few places where Jesus gave "god like" power to people. Peter raised people from the dead and all of the Apostles healed people. So, why do you find it difficult to accept that Jesus gave us some authority to call the Holy Trinity on specific occasionslike Baptism and the Mass?

Caell,

You also have to bear in mind the time frame. Torture was used for almost everything during the Middle Ages. In England, apparently there was a law that required every settlement to have at least one dunking chair that brought its victims to the verge of drowning before bringing them up again. It was used in cases of violating certain laws. In some places, a confession was not admissible in court unless it was obtained through torture.

To everyone asking about praying to Saints,