Answering the question of the priesthood

[as-a-child]

I was wondering if someone could point me in the direction of biblical passages indicating the instution of the priesthood.

My wife, who is not catholic, has challenged me to find in black and white in the bible, where we get modern catholic priests.

She’s of the school of thought that the church immediatly slipped into apostasy after the diciples died. JUst to give you a hand in her train of thought.

Thanks for any help.

 

[twf]

So that is how she dimisses all the Church Fathers, eh? Well, first you challenge her. Ask her why her interepretation of Scripture is so superior to that of the Church Fathers who were trained by the Apostles themselves! Why was all of the Church allowed to be led astray, when Christ promised that the gates of Hades would never prevail against (Matthew 16)? Ask here how the Church, which is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15) could be led so far astray just after the apostles died (and even when they were alive!..for St. Clement of Rome’s letter to the Corinthians, Hermas, and the Didache were written in the late FIRST century, which would mean St. John, and maybe even a couple of the others, could still have been alive). Ask her how she knows that Scripture alone is our final authority, and if it is, how does she know, from Scripture (her only and final authority) which books should be considered Scripture.

We can point to references in the New Testament to the priesthood, but you nor she should expect to find concise explanations of all Catholic teaching in Sacred Scripture. Why? Because the Bible is not a catechism, it is a collection of holy inspired books written for various purposes at various times under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but not everything Christ has revealed to us has been written down in Scriptures. The Church has always taught, since the very beginning, that Divine Revelation is contained in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The two go hand in hand. Christianity has always had a priesthood since the very beginning, which Christ instituted and the apostles continued. This is a matter of history, and is the teaching of the early Church Fathers. In ancient times, the term priest was not used (this came in later, but still quite early) but the term ‘presbyteros’ or ‘elder’. They are mentioned throughout the New Testament. In the next post I’m going to post something that I hope will help you with showing her that Scripture alone is not our final authority. Then I’ll give you a link to a Scripturally-based defence (or defences, depending on what I find) of the Christian priesthood.

 

[twf]

I should also point out that the priesthood is closely tied in with the sacrafice of the Mass. Have you discussed this with her? We have priests because we have a sacrafice. She must first understand this. I highly recommend Dave Armstrong’s book A Biblical Defence of Catholicism, which can be ordered verly cheaply in .doc format (or in paperback, but then not quite as cheap). His site is ic.net/~erasmus/RAZINDEX.HTM.

I also recommend catholicoutlook.com/, which, from what I have read there, is another great apologetics site that may help you in various issues you discuss with your wife.

I haven’t found an article specifically priesthood yet, but will keep looking.

 

[twf]

The following was written for another message board originally, so ignore ‘yous’ and such.

This verse in no way states that everything we need is written in Sacred Scripture…only that God has provided everything we need by His divine power. You are reading your personal views into this verse.

Your position depends upon the doctrine that all of God’s divine revelation is contained in Scripture (sola scriptura), yet can you prove this crucial doctrine from Scripture? The Catholic Church completely agrees that Scripture is God-breathed, inspired, without error, the Word of God, etc…but we do not believe that all of Divine Revelation was written down (the apostles both preached and wrote).

Concerning ‘sola scriptura’, let’s consider several verses (these verses were all referenced on Catholic Answers---catholic.com):

“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25).

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).
Oral teachings are very important…can you demonstrate that this has changed after the end of apostolic era?

“Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (2 Tim. 1:13-14).

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess. 2:15, emphasis added)
Both oral and written teachings are important, the NT gives no indication that Christianity is a religion of the book (alone).

“You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:1-2).
If after the apostolic era, the Bible alone would suffice, why did Paul believe that the continuation of sound doctrine required special teachers entrusted with the deposit of faith?

 

[twf]

“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:20-21).

“‘Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete” (2 John 12).
The written word was not enough, John wanted to teach them more orally.

“…and came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene.” (Matt. 2:23, ASV).
It’s interesting that this prophecy can not be found in Scripture…Matthew must have been relying upon the oral teachings of the apostles that was passed down. Also on this note…obviously the prophets spoke for God, but do you think that all the words of every prophet God sent is recorded in the OT? Were the words that are not recorded unauthoritative?

“…but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Tim. 3:15, ASV).
The Church, not the Bible alone, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth…but how can it remain so if the church can not agree what truth is (on many issues)? Look how splintered Christendom becomes when apostolic succession is rejected. (I.e. Protestantism).

The Council of Jerusalem shows an authoritative church (in Acts 15) making a decision relevant to that time binding on all the faithful…can you demonstrate that this authority vanished with the death of the apostles? Why do you assume that Christianity’s sole authority became the Bible after the apostles died? How can you know this for sure?

There are other reasons to reject the doctrine of sola scriptura, especially for the Old Covenant. I highly recommend that you listen to ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolve.asp?rafile=iq_496.ra, which is an audio file where Tim Staples, a former Protestant, discusses the doctrine of sola scriptura. He makes some generalizations about Protestants, so I apologize for that, but it makes a good case anyway.

Please take a look at these articles as well:
catholic.com/library/What_Your_Authority.asp
catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp
catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp

God bless,

Tyler

 

[mrS4ntA]

as-a-child:

…
She’s of the school of thought that the church immediatly slipped into apostasy after the diciples died. JUst to give you a hand in her train of thought.

Thanks for any help.

Hi,

just like to point out the MAJOR flaw of that school of thought.

The Bible (and its Canon – the dogmatic list of which Books are Sacred Texts and which are not) was formulated in Council of Trent in the fifth century. Together with the Bible, the Council also formulated infallibly the dogma of the Trinity.

Now tell me, if one believes that the Church was corrupt then (4 centuries is a looong time, if you ask me), how can one put soo much faith in a document she produced then (i.e. the Bible)? Let alone following her Tradition (i.e. the belief in the Trinity in Unity)?

“To be steeped in history is to cease to be protestant.” – Cardinal Newman.

 

[twf]

Whistler, I remind you again that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15)…the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, tells us what traditions are apostolic in nature. I ask you again to listen to that audio file I linked to, and to look at a few of those articles. Also remember the verses I posted…Paul and Peter both knew that sound doctrine can not be maintained (completely) without Spirit-inspired guidance…

Here’s another verse to add to those above:
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come. (Jn. 16:13, ASV).
I agree that the Spirit leads us all…but we do not all hear Him clearly, as Protestantism proves (so many varying doctrinal views)…it is the Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, that is guided infallibly by the Spirit—this was true in the apostolic era, I again challenge you to demonstrate that this ceased to be after the apostles died. (Why, in the verses I used in the last post, did Paul see it necessary for certain men to be appointed that would ensure that sound doctrine was passed down? The Bible, by itself, is not enough to discern all sound doctrine. The Church Fathers also knew that apostolic succession was the true test of canonicity of a Christian community. Please, in addition to those referenced in the earlier post, see for some Biblical evidence for apostolic succession, or authority transferred through the laying on of hands:
scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html#apostolic-II and ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ262.HTM)

Consider also 2 Peter 1:15 (ASV)
“Yea, I will give diligence that at every time ye may be able after my decease to call these things to remembrance.”
Again we see that Peter’s letters are not enough by themselves (though they are wonderful inspired writings)…if sound doctrine is to be passed down, Spirit-guided leadership with apostolic sucession is required. This verse in no way states that everything we need is written in Sacred Scripture…only that God has provided everything we need by His divine power. You are reading your personal views into this verse.

Your position depends upon the doctrine that all of God’s divine revelation is contained in Scripture (sola scriptura), yet can you prove this crucial doctrine from Scripture? The Catholic Church completely agrees that Scripture is God-breathed, inspired, without error, the Word of God, etc…but we do not believe that all of Divine Revelation was written down (the apostles both preached and wrote).

Concerning ‘sola scriptura’, let’s consider several verses (these verses were all referenced on Catholic Answers---catholic.com):

“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25).

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).
Oral teachings are very important…can you demonstrate that this has changed after the end of apostolic era?

“Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (2 Tim. 1:13-14).

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess. 2:15, emphasis added)
Both oral and written teachings are important, the NT gives no indication that Christianity is a religion of the book (alone).

 

[twf]

“You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:1-2).
If after the apostolic era, the Bible alone would suffice, why did Paul believe that the continuation of sound doctrine required special teachers entrusted with the deposit of faith?

“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:20-21).

“‘Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete” (2 John 12).
The written word was not enough, John wanted to teach them more orally.

“…and came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene.” (Matt. 2:23, ASV).
It’s interesting that this prophecy can not be found in Scripture…Matthew must have been relying upon the oral teachings of the apostles that was passed down. Also on this note…obviously the prophets spoke for God, but do you think that all the words of every prophet God sent is recorded in the OT? Were the words that are not recorded unauthoritative?

“…but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Tim. 3:15, ASV).
The Church, not the Bible alone, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth…but how can it remain so if the church can not agree what truth is (on many issues)? Look how splintered Christendom becomes when apostolic succession is rejected. (I.e. Protestantism).

The Council of Jerusalem shows an authoritative church (in Acts 15) making a decision relevant to that time binding on all the faithful…can you demonstrate that this authority vanished with the death of the apostles? Why do you assume that Christianity’s sole authority became the Bible after the apostles died? How can you know this for sure?

There are other reasons to reject the doctrine of sola scriptura, especially for the Old Covenant. I highly recommend that you listen to ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolve.asp?rafile=iq_496.ra, which is an audio file where Tim Staples, a former Protestant, discusses the doctrine of sola scriptura. He makes some generalizations about Protestants, so I apologize for that, but it makes a good case anyway.

Please take a look at these articles as well:
catholic.com/library/What_Your_Authority.asp
catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp
catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp

God bless,

Tyler

 

[twf]

Whistler, I remind you again that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15)…the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, tells us what traditions are apostolic in nature. I ask you again to listen to that audio file I linked to, and to look at a few of those articles. Also remember the verses I posted…Paul and Peter both knew that sound doctrine can not be maintained (completely) without Spirit-inspired guidance…

Here’s another verse to add to those above:
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come. (Jn. 16:13, ASV).
I agree that the Spirit leads us all…but we do not all hear Him clearly, as Protestantism proves (so many varying doctrinal views)…it is the Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, that is guided infallibly by the Spirit—this was true in the apostolic era, I again challenge you to demonstrate that this ceased to be after the apostles died. (Why, in the verses I used in the last post, did Paul see it necessary for certain men to be appointed that would ensure that sound doctrine was passed down? The Bible, by itself, is not enough to discern all sound doctrine. The Church Fathers also knew that apostolic succession was the true test of canonicity of a Christian community. Please, in addition to those referenced in the earlier post, see for some Biblical evidence for apostolic succession, or authority transferred through the laying on of hands:
scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html#apostolic-II and ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ262.HTM)

Consider also 2 Peter 1:15 (ASV)
“Yea, I will give diligence that at every time ye may be able after my decease to call these things to remembrance.”
Again we see that Peter’s letters are not enough by themselves (though they are wonderful inspired writings)…if sound doctrine is to be passed down, Spirit-guided leadership with apostolic sucession is required.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

mrS4ntA:

The Bible (and its Canon – the dogmatic list of which Books are Sacred Texts and which are not) was formulated in Council of Trent in the fifth century. Together with the Bible, the Council also formulated infallibly the dogma of the Trinity.

Huh? Um?

 

[mrS4ntA]

Br. Rich SFO:

Huh? Um?

uh? ya?

 

[mrS4ntA]

correction:

The Canon of Scripture was first formally listed at the Local council of Hippo and Carthage in the late 4th century. Finally being nailed shut by Trent in the Fifteenth century.

The Trinity was first defined by a Council at Nicea in 325 and several other Councils over the next fre hundred years.

courtesy of Br Rich.

 

[as-a-child]

Wow:thumbsup: Thanks for all the info.

I haven’t gone through all of it yet but will very soon. My wife and i have sadly look over a lot of our theological differences, and i know the authority of the priesthood is a strange starting point. Started with the idea of confession and just went from there.

But i’ve seen the rift growing in the last 6 months and i was just moved, as they say, to finally stand my ground and show her why i beleive what i do.

SO yeah basically she has dissmissed all early church fathers. But i do know of the didache and that may be something to bring up in later discussions.
And i did try to explain about the sacrifice of the mass being offered by the priest. But the idea of who and what the eucharist is, is still a foreign concept to her. She still sees it as only symbolic.

Just on another note, she comes from a converted home (catholic to baptist to pentacostal to cavalry to baptist to her parents own church) So consequently, theologically, she is all over the map.

So, a heavy burden indeed but not an impossible one. Nothing is impossible for God

Again thanks for so much info. An keep it coming. Who knows who else it could help.

It’s a rough road to go down but i will walk that last mile in his shoes, you know.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

As twf pointed out, presbyters are mentioned many times. It’s right there in Scripture so I do not know how your wife could think priests are an error of some sort. It’s right there in Scripture.

PS: Feel free to show this post to your wife.