"All be one"

[submariner2]

Because the NT was written BEFORE breaks in koinia. The NT can’t be used to JUSTIFY DIVISION TODAY. There is no NT approbation (APPROVAL) for DIVISIONS TODAY.

jhl,

He did not say that. He said that variations in beliefs cannot be used to justify excommunication today since it did not do that in NT times. He did not use the term “divisions.”

JL: Some use ordain some use appointed. Choice, of the word used, is up to the translator. I have no problem with either. I posted from a Protestant Bible the KJV. Here is a Catholic version saying ordained.

[Acts14:22 And when they had ordained to them priests in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed. 23 And passing through Pisidia, they came into Pamphylia.] DRA

The KJV is a very poor translation. In fact it is a translation from a translation. The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible and newer bibles use the appropriate term of “appoint” rather than ordain. There was no ordination in the NT. Ordinations occured much later.
“Priests” is also inappropriate. There were no priests in the NT. A presbyter was not a priest in the 1st century. I dont think the KJV used the word priests or even ordinaion. You should check that. The translation you are using is probably a much older Catholic translation. You should use the newer translations for the correct terminology.

JL: That’s not what you said in your previous post. As far as why not? I would ask why not an atheist?

We invite those who want to share in Christs presence and not atheists or unbelievers.

Rob

 

[KathleenGee]

Catholicism draws on the Incarnation of Christ, His death and resurrection, and the Church coming forth as a seed in the Upper Room at Pentecost.

Catholicism is all about context.

Christianity was almost destroyed by the last Roman emperors. Through Constantine and his signing the Edict of Milan to allow Christianity secular legitimacy to exist and making Sunday a day of rest for his subjects, the Church was in a greater position to rebuild and develop more infrastructure.

This does not in any way invalidate or contradict ancient practices of the ordained. There was already around 100 AD episcopal councils where the bishop drew on his presbyters and priests in administrating the local churches.

The focus that is missing is seeing the Church and its growth and movements *directed by the Holy Spirit *in the ecclesia…this is where you will find greater awareness and continuity and authentic/legitimate structuring of the clergy.

It is not in the spirit of the Catholic Church to look at individual men as having it all…you are then depending on man too much and not enough on grace and mystery…

Afterall, the Church is first and foremost mystery…and that is the domain of the Holy Spirit. The early church fathers always submitted their studies to the Church and did not fracture or fragment this discipline of bringing all things for discernment…and, communication was slow in those days.

To become a Catholic, I think alot of people are focused too much on men/clerics who gave scandal in the past…and don’t want to inherit their wrong doing. But as I stated earlier, the Resurrected Christ is alive and well in every generation, and it is He Who makes all things new.

The Crucified, Resurrected Lord is our focus in the Church and always should be. When you study the Church in the spirit of the Lord, He guides you to see His movement, His direction…in spite of carnate men.

My grandmother went through her own ordeal when she was in a parish that ended up wrongly implementing some aspects of Vatican II…she told me she doesn’t come to listen to the priest or watch him, but keeps her eyes on God and the sacraments, and where she needs to improve…and her faith survived.

 

[submariner2]

this does not in any way invalidate or contradict ancient practices of the ordained. There was already around 100 AD episcopal councils where the bishop drew on his presbyters and priests in administrating the local churches.

Kathleen,

You are probably speaking of churches like the church of Ignatius, yet he mentions nothing about ordination of priests. He does mention presbyters which by the 3rd century were considered priests due to the view of Christ sacrificed in the eucharist. But there is no evidence they were considered priests in the time of Ignatius. Historians I have read say not. There was no magesterium or churchwide council however at this time. That was to come centuries later.

Rob

 

[Contarini]

Kathleen,

You are probably speaking of churches like the church of Ignatius, yet he mentions nothing about ordination of priests.

I am still not sure what “ordination” means to you and what is at stake in this.

It’s clear that presbyters were an office, and they served under the authority of the bishop. It is also clear that Ignatius thought that the bishop had authority from Christ and should be obeyed implicitly. In light of this, I find it rather hard to see just what point you think you’re making. One could almost say that the rest of Catholic history is a slow backing away from the extreme clericalism found in Ignatius.

He does mention presbyters which by the 3rd century were considered priests due to the view of Christ sacrificed in the eucharist. But there is no evidence they were considered priests in the time of Ignatius.

How would you deal with 1 Clement, chap. 40, which speaks of the high priest, priests, and Levites, in the context of a conflict in which the Corinthians had cast out their presbyters? Would you argue (based on the reference to Jerusalem in 41:1) that he’s speaking literally of the Jewish priesthood and that his application to Christian church government is simply the general principle, “Don’t disrupt what God has established”? But even so, you clearly have (at the end of the first century, probably before the time of Ignatius) a strong affirmation of the divine origin of the Christian ministry. And it seems far more likely to me that he is making a comparison between specific offices, implying that there are Christian counterparts to the high priest, the priests, and the Levites.

There was no magesterium or churchwide council however at this time.

More was done through letters, certainly. But Clement’s correspondence with the Corinthians, Ignatius’ letters, and the late-second-century “Quartodeciman controversy” (which specifically witnesses to the authority of Rome) all indicate that the Church saw itself as united and regarded mutual consultation as important, with the leaders of the Roman church playing a particularly important rule.

Edwin

 

[Cavaradossi]

I am still not sure what “ordination” means to you and what is at stake in this.

It’s clear that presbyters were an office, and they served under the authority of the bishop. It is also clear that Ignatius thought that the bishop had authority from Christ and should be obeyed implicitly. In light of this, I find it rather hard to see just what point you think you’re making. One could almost say that the rest of Catholic history is a slow backing away from the extreme clericalism found in Ignatius.

How would you deal with 1 Clement, chap. 40, which speaks of the high priest, priests, and Levites, in the context of a conflict in which the Corinthians had cast out their presbyters? Would you argue (based on the reference to Jerusalem in 41:1) that he’s speaking literally of the Jewish priesthood and that his application to Christian church government is simply the general principle, “Don’t disrupt what God has established”? But even so, you clearly have (at the end of the first century, probably before the time of Ignatius) a strong affirmation of the divine origin of the Christian ministry. And it seems far more likely to me that he is making a comparison between specific offices, implying that there are Christian counterparts to the high priest, the priests, and the Levites.

More was done through letters, certainly. But Clement’s correspondence with the Corinthians, Ignatius’ letters, and the late-second-century “Quartodeciman controversy” (which specifically witnesses to the authority of Rome) all indicate that the Church saw itself as united and regarded mutual consultation as important, with the leaders of the Roman church playing a particularly important rule.

Edwin

What do you see in the quartodeciman controversy which shows the authority of Rome? Polycrates’ response to Victor’s attempt to change their Easter date always gave me the opposite impression, that he believed that the first and foremost authority was what was passed down from the Apostles.

 

[Contarini]

What do you see in the quartodeciman controversy which shows the authority of Rome? Polycrates’ response to Victor’s attempt to change their Easter date always gave me the opposite impression, that he believed that the first and foremost authority was what was passed down from the Apostles.

The assumption behind the entire controversy seems to be that it was Victor’s job to “cut off” churches that had fallen away from the faith. Of course, the parallel assumption is obviously that if he made a bad call he could be challenged.

I recognize that some folks think this was just talking about Asian congregations in Rome, but I’m not convinced.

Edwin

 

[submariner2]

I am still not sure what “ordination” means to you and what is at stake in this.

It’s clear that presbyters were an office, and they served under the authority of the bishop. It is also clear that Ignatius thought that the bishop had authority from Christ and should be obeyed implicitly. In light of this, I find it rather hard to see just what point you think you’re making. One could almost say that the rest of Catholic history is a slow backing away from the extreme clericalism found in Ignatius.

Ed,

Only correct history is at stake. Ordination is a special christian rite separating some into clergy as separate from laity who handle the sacraments. I am not against ordination. My own church ordains. But my argument is that the ordination of my pastors are no less valid than any other church and are successors of the apostles no less than any other church. I am not disputing the proper ordination of your priests or your churches claim to succession from the apostles.

No doubt Ignatius was a powerful person yet he was elected and not ordained by anyone as far as we know. Neither were the presbyters ordained priests as far as we know. Such things did not exist at that time as far as we know.
He had the authority of his position and expected to be obeyed in matters of his church.
This is the conclusion of todays scholars both Catholic and protestant.

How would you deal with 1 Clement, chap. 40, which speaks of the high priest, priests, and Levites, in the context of a conflict in which the Corinthians had cast out their presbyters? Would you argue (based on the reference to Jerusalem in 41:1) that he’s speaking literally of the Jewish priesthood and that his application to Christian church government is simply the general principle, “Don’t disrupt what God has established”? But even so, you clearly have (at the end of the first century, probably before the time of Ignatius) a strong affirmation of the divine origin of the Christian ministry. And it seems far more likely to me that he is making a comparison between specific offices, implying that there are Christian counterparts to the high priest, the priests, and the Levites.

He is obviously comparing to the Jewish Levitical Priests and applying that in some way to the church or to Christ himself. He does not mention christian priests or ordination. But notice what had happened in the Corinthian church that the Roman church was concerned about. The presbyters of the Corinthian church had been displaced by the congregation. (There was no bishop of the Corinthian church)

More was done through letters, certainly. But Clement’s correspondence with the Corinthians, Ignatius’ letters, and the late-second-century “Quartodeciman controversy” (which specifically witnesses to the authority of Rome) all indicate that the Church saw itself as united and regarded mutual consultation as important, with the leaders of the Roman church playing a particularly important rule.

There is no doubt about that at all. But there is no evidence he was addressing a bishop, neither is there evidence Clement (if that was his name) was a bishop either. In fact probably not in both cases.

Rob

 

[Contarini]

Ed,

Only correct history is at stake. Ordination is a special christian rite

What are its distinctive characteristics?

separating some into clergy as separate from laity who handle the sacraments.

OK, this is the only specific characteristic of ordination you’ve given so far. It seems to me that Clement and Ignatius clearly distinguish between clergy (deacons, presbyters, and/or bishops) and other Christians, both in terms of authority and in terms of “handling the sacraments.”

Would you deny this? Your case seems to rest on the fact that there’s no clear description of a specific ritual called “ordination.” But we have references to laying on of hands commissioning people for ministry, and we know that there were offices in the Church and that by the time of Ignatius at the very latest these offices had special roles in handling the sacraments (I see this in Clement’s analogy with the priesthood as well).

So I’m really having trouble understanding the nature of your case. Are you denying that laying on of hands was used to set apart presbyters and bishops? That seems highly unlikely–we know that this was a way people were commissioned for ministry, and it seems far more likely that it was used when people were made presbyters or bishops than that it wasn’t. Or are you saying that they weren’t set apart from laity? Clearly they had authority, and clearly that authority had to do with the sacraments.

Which bits of all of this are you denying?

But my argument is that the ordination of my pastors are no less valid than any other church and are successors of the apostles no less than any other church.

In what does this succession consist?

No doubt Ignatius was a powerful person yet he was elected and not ordained by anyone as far as we know.

Where do we have a record of his being elected? I’ve read the Ignatian epistles several times and can’t think of it, but perhaps I"m forgetting something. Or is it found in some other early Christian text?

I certainly think it likely that he was elected–early Christian bishops were generally elected, and so for that matter, with some differences, were medieval bishops when proper canonical procedures were followed. Popes are elected.

But I think it probable that somebody laid hands on him for the same reason I think it probable he was elected. I can’t see more evidence for one than for the other.

You are treating election and ordination as if they are mutually exclusive, which makes no sense at all.

He is obviously comparing to the Jewish Levitical Priests and applying that in some way to the church or to Christ himself. He does not mention christian priests or ordination.

Petitio principii. This passage seems to me to be referring to Christian clergy. I agree that it’s not entirely clear. But the best you can say is that it’s applying “in some way to the church or to Christ himself.” He seems to me to be making a much more specific link with the clergy of the Church, who are appointed in the same way that OT clergy were, according to him. Even if he isn’t affirming a threefold ministry for Christian clergy (which I think he may possibly be), he is certainly making some kind of link between Christian clergy and OT priests/Levites.

There is no doubt about that at all. But there is no evidence he was addressing a bishop, neither is there evidence Clement (if that was his name) was a bishop either. In fact probably not in both cases.

It seems likely (though it’s not beyond doubt) that in his own day he wouldn’t have held the exclusive title of “bishop.” Hermas (which is of course a highly disputed source) says that someone called “Clement” was the presbyter in Rome in charge of correspondence with other churches. It makes sense that this office would eventually develop into a monarchical episcopate. But of course this is speculative.

Edwin

 

[KathleenGee]

The Roman Church returned to the old date of Easter that coincides with the constellations…the Ram passing to represent Christ the Lamb…

 

[Contarini]

The Roman Church returned to the old date of Easter that coincides with the constellations…the Ram passing to represent Christ the Lamb…

That was not, as far as I know, a reason given at the time. But I’m open to correction if you have a citation!

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi there,

I am in a very slow process of putting a course on liturgy together…my source is Pope Benedict…‘Spirit of the Liturgy’ when he was a cardinal…

I will reread and put together the answer…very interesting and I wondered this myself about the Easter date…

God bless!

 

[KathleenGee]

About the ordination of priesthood…remember, first 300 years, inspite of the Church’s adequate foundation by 100 AD, the Church is a living sacrament, not something static or a church building that came down from the sky…

Christ is working through ‘treasures in clay’…and afterall, we must all walk in mystery, in darkness, and the more authentic our walk, the more dark it is, the more self doubt we have about ourselves – more than institutions or other people or scandal or misinformation…

It is then we can see the small candle of Christ the Light leading us in the darkness.

 

[KathleenGee]

Trying to tie the two together…the consecrated priesthood…and now using why we Catholics celebrate a particular time for Easter…and subsequently showing the fruit of the consecrated priesthood and proper worship of the liturgy…vs a totally different culture of worship found in Sola Scriptura, more specifically – non-denominational Scriptural reflections, praise, and song in Sunday services…

I am drawing here on ‘Spirit of the Liturgy’ by Cardinal Ratzinger, on the Chapter of ‘Sacred Time’.

Christians initially worshipped on Saturday with the other orthodox Jews in synagogues; it was after 40 years that there was a malediction placed on the synagogue refusing entry to the Nazarene Jews who were followers of Christ. Out of protest, they ended the 40 Day Fast, and began worship on Sunday, the day of the Lord’s resurrection.

The Gentile Christians in other parts of the world essentially began their worship of Christ late Saturday night, and ending in dawn in honor of the Lord’s resurrection on Sunday.

This 8th day also symbolized Christ’s power of not only breaking the power of sin and death, but in fulfilling and restoring all creation back to Him, including time and space, making it sacred.

We as Catholics see the Transfiguration of Our Lord with His select apostles as now the beginning of His divine mission prior to the week of the Passover…to His Passion…where no lamb is recorded as being eaten at the Last Supper…for Our Lord was now the sacred meal…to His death, resurrection…and Glorious Ascension into heaven.

What is noted is that it is not only the fulfillment of the Passover in Christ, but also the Day of Atonement…where prior only the high priest was allowed to enter into the sacred Holy of Holies in the ancient Temple…but now Christ descending into the gates of hell to release the just into heaven, and through Him the gates of heaven opening…for all saved by Christ from the power of sin.

We worship Christ, the sacrificial Lamb, Who stands wounded, but glorious at the High Altar of Heaven…Who is the only perfect and perpetual sacrifice prophesized by Melchizedek.

Baptism is the birth into the New Day, Resurrection Sunday, and it is the greatest feast day in the Church, that is celebrated every week…transcending Christmas and Easter. It is new time opened up with the resurrection.

 

[KathleenGee]

Now drawing further on ‘Spirit of the Liturgy’…and why the Church selects a certain time for Easter…

As St John says in his gospel, ‘the hour of Jesus’ has many meanings and it is quite complicated on this post.

Jesus did not want to die on just any date but He wanted to die on a date that had significance for history, for mankind and the world. It had to be interwoven into a very particular historical and cosmic hour.

Christ’s death coincides with the Passover in Exodus 12. St. John and the Epistle of the Hebrews shows His death incorporates other feasts, especially the Day of Atonement, but its proper date is the Passover. The Lord takes it from replacement to reality.

How His death takes on universal significance is that the ancient nomads the first Passover was performed by them.

From Abel to Apocalypse, the sacrificial lamb is a type of Redeemer, a symbol of self-oblation. And monotheism was developed, not in the cities, but in the countryside…where as well Our Lord began His ministry among the marginalized and returning exiles. It is in the wilderness where one must put his entire confidence in God.

It has been recently pointed out that the Passover coincides with the constellation of Aries the Ram, – the lamb…Recall Abraham who was about to sacrifice his son Isaac, but his arm withheld by the angel. Then he was directed to look over at a bush where a ram was stuck in a bush. Abraham was directed instead to take the Ram and sacrifice it.

This was no marginal importance for fixing the date of Easter. Essentially, this link the death and resurrection of Christ was linked to the Jewish calendar.

This link of the Jewish calendar and relating the New Testament to the Old with the newness of Christianity led to the Easter controversy.

The Council of Nicea settled this dispute. Asia Minor conformed to the Jewish calendar, Christian Easter on 14 Nisan, date of Jewish Passover.

On the other hand there was the other custom, especially Rome, regarding Sunday, the day of the Resurrection, the determining factor: Christian Easter should, therefore, be celebrated on the Sunday after the first full moon of spring.

Through the Council of Nicea, the solar and lunar calendars were interconnected, and the two great cosmic forms of ordering time were linked to each other in associations with history of Israel and the life of Jesus…

 

[KathleenGee]

Now returning to the image of the Ram or Lamb…

The next controversy came between Rome and Alexandria about how late Easter could be. According to Alexandrian tradition, it was April 25.

Pope Leo the Great (440-461) criticized this very late date by pointing out that, according to the Bible, Easter should fall in the first month, and the first month did not mean April but the time when the sun ( who also represents Christ) is passing through the first part of the Zodiac – the time of Aries-- the Ram.

Subsequently, the constellation in the heavens seemed to speak, in advance and for all time, of the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world…the One Who sums up in Himself all the sacrifices of the innocent and gives them their meaning.

The mysterious story of the ram, caught up in the thicket and taking the place of Isaac as the sacrifice decreed by God himself, was now seen as precursor to Christ.

The fork in the tree in which the ram was hanging was seen as a replica of the sign of Aries, which in turn was the celetial foreshadowing of the crucified Christ.

We should also say that the Jewish tradition gave the date March 25 to Abraham’s sacrifice. And March 25 is the day of creation, the day the Lord said, ‘Let there be light’.

March 25 has been considered from early on as Christ’s death as well as the date of His conception…the Church celebrating March 25 as the date of the Incarnation.

We may see a reflection of these connections in the first epistle of St. Peter, which describes Christ as the lamb “without blemish” demanded by Exodus 12:5 and “destined before the foundation of the world” (1 Peter 1:20).

The mysterious words in Revelation 138 about the “Lamb slain from the beginning of the world” (translated from German) could also perhaps be interpreted in the same way – through other translations as possible that tone down the paradox.

Cardinal Ratzinger goes on to say how we see Christianity symbolized in the sun, and the moon with its alternating phases, is frequently seen as feminine, but even more so, transitional.

So Easter…combines the solar time of Christianity with the moon…

The Sunday after the first full moon of spring comes to the date of Easter, symbolism of sun and moon together.

Transitoriness is taken up into what is never taken away. Death becomes resurrection and passes into eternal life.

 

[jlhargus]

He did not say that. He said that variations in beliefs cannot be used to justify excommunication today since it did not do that in NT times. He did not use the term “divisions.”

JL: Frist I apologize as I did incorrectly read the paragraph. However He does say major BREAKS are detectable in the second century. And the NT can’t be used to justify THOSE breaks then or today. That’s his opinion. I don’t see him saying the Church has no authority to do so.

The NT does tell us to avoid people who do not follow the traditions received. Paul says those who teach a different gospel are anathema. Perhaps Fr Brown believes those passages are not historically part of the NT but additions. I don’t, It would still be the Word of God in Divine Tradition.

The KJV is a very poor translation. In fact it is a translation from a translation. The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible and newer bibles use the appropriate term of “appoint” rather than ordain. There was no ordination in the NT. Ordinations occured much later.

JL: No ordination in the NT is opinion. I have several bibles some loose translations some more literal. I have never owned a NJB. I remember, years ago, looking thru one. My opinion it was ok but not literal enough for scriptural study. The KJV may be archaic but is no worse or better than many translations. It is more literal than some modern translation.

The KJV was not a translation from another translation. KJV, NT, was translated from Greek. OT from Hebrew, the Duetoros from Greek and Latin. They did compare with other translations. The DR was translated from a translation of the Latin Vugate. It is no better or worse a translation than others. No translation is perfect.

According to Strong’s Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries. apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs/ref/?stgh=greek&stnm=5500

[Acts14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.] KJV.

The Amplified Bible uses both appointed and ordained. biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts14:23&version=AMP

[1Tm5:17 **Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. 18 For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. 19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. 20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. 21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. 22 Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.] Timothy is to be careful in choosing elders, whom he APPOINTS or ORDAINS, by laying on of hands.

Acts6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. 4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. 5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: 6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.]

[1Tm4:11 These things command and teach. 12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. 13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. 14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, **with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. 15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. 16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.]

[2Tm1:6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou **stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. 7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.]

 

[jlhargus]

“Priests” is also inappropriate. There were no priests in the NT. A presbyter was not a priest in the 1st century. I dont think the KJV used the word priests or even ordinaion. You should check that. The translation you are using is probably a much older Catholic translation. You should use the newer translations for the correct terminology. We invite those who want to share in Christs presence and not atheists or unbelievers.

JL: Priest isn’t inappropriate for an English translation. Presbyters or elders the English term priest is a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros.

Paul seems to think he acts as a priest [Rm15:16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.]

“Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.”

Other MODERN translations biblegateway.com/verse/en/Romans%2015:16
Strong’s Greek definition for # 2418 apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs/ref/?stgh=greek&stnm=2418

Look at what Presbyter or elders did in the NT.

[Jn20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.]

Jesus breathed on the apostles and gives the power, thru the Holy Spirit, to reconcile (forgive) OR retain sins to the apostles as Jesus did, Mt9:2-8. That’s a priestly ministry, [Lv19:22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.]
The apostles act in place (person) of Christ our High Priest. [2Cor5:18 And all things are of GOD, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, AND hath GIVEN TO US the ministry of reconciliation; 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath COMMITTED UNTO US the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then WE ARE AMBASSADORS FOR CHRIST, as though God did beseech you BY US: we pray you IN CHRIST’S STEAD, be ye reconciled to God.]

Jms5:13 Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms. 14 Is any sick among you? let him CALL FOR THE ELDERS of the church; and LET THEM PRAY over him, ANOINTING him with oil in the name of the Lord: 15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed SINS, they shall be FORGIVEN him.

[Isa 56:3 Neither let the son of the stranger that hath joined himself to the LORD speak saying The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people neither let the eunuch say Behold I am a dry tree 4 **For thus saith the LORD unto the EUNUCHS that keep my sabbaths and choose the things that please me and take hold of my covenant 5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off 6 Also the sons of the STRANGER that join themselves to the LORD to serve him and to love the name of the LORD to be his servants every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it and taketh hold of my covenant 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain and make them joyful in my house of prayer THEIR burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine ALTAR for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people] Isaiah 56 is fullfuled in the sacrifice of the mass. An altar is a table of sacrifice without a priest an altar is just a table.

[Malicaih1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.]
That Pure offering (sacrifice) is the body and blood of Jesus the Eucharist. The once for all sacrifice of the cross made sacramentally present, thru the Holy Spirit, on our ALTAR of sacrifice.

NT priest are in the order of Melchizedek, it is an unbloody sacrifice.

[1Cor4:1 Let a man so account of US, as of the MINISTERS of Christ, and STEWARDS OF THE MYSTERIES of God.]

 

[KathleenGee]

In Church history, at the beginning the Apostles appointed their successors…bishops and disciples…and the work was done primarily by the bishop and deacon, the former whose work was teaching the Word of God and serving the community.

In the first 300 years, the early Christians saw ‘priests’ in the light of Judaism or paganism and did not want Christian authority to reflect these other models.

But as the faith grew into the countrysides, the bishop could not possibly be accountable for serving so many faithful. Thus the role of the priest was defined…what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, with the authority given it by Christ through Peter and the apostles…and their successors.

Bishops and presbyters had families and worked.

Persecutions greatly affected the life of the Church, and she was almost annilhilated by Rome’s last two emperors, until Constantine claimed victory, and made Christianity legal, and made Sunday a day of rest for all subjects. He rebuilt many churches, designed high altars and prominent pulpit to give authority to the Church in architectural form while he himself was still a pagan. During this Constantian period, the priesthood was further defined.

By the end of the 300’s, there was great stress that the priests embrace celibacy as a way of life in lieu of the sacred calling to provide us the Eucharist and sacraments as well as teach us to become holy, our main vocation in this life.