Does the bible give a priest the power to act in Persona Christi?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DeusExMachina
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks Church Militant - I know I am working against some of what I have been taught.

Followed my heart this AM, spoke to our priest, and am receiving communion this weekend - and the journey begins!
 
Thanks Church Militant - I know I am working against some of what I have been taught.

Followed my heart this AM, spoke to our priest, and am receiving communion this weekend - and the journey begins!
I would say the journey has been going on for some time! Keep to the straight and narrow path.

You will be in my prayers.

I hope you can attend the Easter Vigil Mass. It is my favorite of the year.
 
This is a question I am working on. No doubt the apostles were given authority and abilities - but I don’t find where those are to be passed on.
Umm… sure you do! ‘Apostolic Succession’ is explicitly Scriptural – we find it in Acts 1! There, Peter instructs the other apostles that they must find an apostolic successor for Judas. They all pray, “Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry”…!
I don’t see priests able to heal the sick, or things of that nature. So people would know He could forgive sin, showed them something they could see by healing and allowing someone to walk.
That was a problem for Jesus, too, remember? The people railed at Him when He suggested that He could forgive sins! Even when He did heal people, folks still disbelieved that He could forgive sins! (Remember, too: healings weren’t meant to impress people – they were meant to bring them to faith in Christ. Not in His apostles, but Christ. If you’re looking for a healing in order to trust a man, you’re misunderstanding miracles and putting your faith in them, rather than in Christ.)
 
OK - don’t know if I can go thru with communion. In all my reading I have found that if one does not agree with papal infallibility, the church says - let them be anathema.

History has proven papal infallibility is not correct, in at least one place I know, Pope Boniface VIII Unam Sanctam, so I don’t agree to it. Roadblock for me.
 
OK - don’t know if I can go thru with communion. In all my reading I have found that if one does not agree with papal infallibility, the church says - let them be anathema.

History has proven papal infallibility is not correct, in at least one place I know, Pope Boniface VIII Unam Sanctam, so I don’t agree to it. Roadblock for me.
If History has proved anything, it is that Unam Sanctam was correct. 😉

But you have to separate in your mind, the issues of Papal infallibility and Papal Authority. They are two different concepts.

It is very good that you are uncovering these “road blocks.” You should resolve them in your mind.
 
OK - don’t know if I can go thru with communion. In all my reading I have found that if one does not agree with papal infallibility, the church says - let them be anathema.
No, it doesn’t. As 1ke wrote to you, in the thread that you started on the topic, ‘anathema’ is an ecclesiastical penalty that today would be expressed as ‘excommunication’. The anathemae were penalties that were leveled against people who lived at a particular time in the Church – having been Catholic and left the teachings of the Church, the penalty applied to them (and them only).
History has proven papal infallibility is not correct, in at least one place I know, Pope Boniface VIII Unam Sanctam, so I don’t agree to it. Roadblock for me.
When you read a papal Bull or a magisterial document, you must read it in the context in which it was written – they’re never written in a void! Unam Sanctam was written in the context of an ongoing dispute between Boniface and King Philip. Therefore, what Boniface was expressing was that the pope was not subordinate to secular leaders in matters of governance of clergy. That’s not incorrect. To look at the last sentence of that Bull and ignore not only the context, but the text of the entire Bull, is to invite misunderstandings of what it says. 🤷
 
OK - don’t know if I can go thru with communion. In all my reading I have found that if one does not agree with papal infallibility, the church says - let them be anathema.

History has proven papal infallibility is not correct, in at least one place I know, Pope Boniface VIII Unam Sanctam, so I don’t agree to it. Roadblock for me.
What seems to be the problem?
 
This is another fundamentalist argument that’s been bothering me lately and I was wondering if any of you could help me make sense of it.itgoes something like " the RCC gives the priest the power to become Jesus and forgive sins." They say similar ridiculous things regarding communion. Can anyone explain this to me?
Your fundamentalist friend should read his KJV more closely. We find that the Apostle Paul himself forgave the sins of others acting in persona Christi or “in the person of Christ” – just as the Catholic Church teaches concerning the sacrament of reconciliation.

2 Corinthians 2:10
To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; (KJV)

And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ. (Douay Rheims)
 
OK - don’t know if I can go thru with communion. In all my reading I have found that if one does not agree with papal infallibility, the church says - let them be anathema.

History has proven papal infallibility is not correct, in at least one place I know, Pope Boniface VIII Unam Sanctam, so I don’t agree to it. Roadblock for me.
Can Non-Catholics Be Saved?
by Mark P. Shea
catholicity.com/commentary/shea/00059.html

Excerpt:

if one is a Christian at all, one is, as Lumen Gentium says, in some kind of union with the Church, the Body of Christ. This is why the Church teaches and has always taught that “outside the Church, there is no salvation.” For the Church is the company of the saved. To talk about salvation “outside the Church” is like talking about swimming outside the water. It is the logical consequence of Jesus’ statement, “He who is not with me is against me” (Mt 12:30).

It therefore follows that to be subject to the gospel to any degree is to be in union, to that degree, with the office of Peter, since the office of Peter was created by Christ for one purpose only: to help bring people into subjection to Christ. It is therefore impossible to accept Christ without accepting the authority of Peter’s office to some degree or other. If you say to Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” you are submitting to the judgment of Peter, who said it first (Mt 16:16). If you declare that salvation is by grace through Christ, you are again subjecting yourself to Peter, who was the first to say that by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:11). If you teach that Jesus is the second Person of the Blessed Trinity, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, you are simply agreeing with what the Church in council and in union with the office of Peter has always taught. If you acknowledge the canonicity of the New Testament books, you are likewise submitting to the judgment of the Petrine office, which made that call in the fourth century and ratified it in the 16th. In short, it is not possible to be a Christian at all without already submitting (whether you realize it or not and whether you like it or not) to Peter in precisely the sense that Unam Sanctam speaks of.

One With Peter?

Naturally, it will be noted that such union with the Roman pontiff is, for Protestants and Orthodox, imperfect. Just so. But the point nonetheless holds that such union is real. And the reason it is real is precisely because the pope is not the principle of unity, but merely the sign of unity. The principle of unity is the Spirit of Christ Himself. It is He who binds together the apostolic Church with those who appear (like the exorcist in Mark) to be “outside” the Church yet who are, in a real but imperfect way, in communion with her. That’s because it is simply not possible for there to be more than one body. This is true, not because the power-hungry Roman pontiff must have absolute control over all Christians, but because Christ cannot ultimately be divided. What Paul said in Ephesians remains just as true today:

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all (Eph 4:4–6).

So it is simply impossible for there to be, in any ultimate sense, more than one body. And since that body is, by Christ’s solemn word, founded on Peter the Rock, it is not possible to belong to it without, in some way, being subject to the office of the one who was given the charge to “feed my sheep” (Jn 21:15).​
 
This is another fundamentalist argument that’s been bothering me lately and I was wondering if any of you could help me make sense of it.itgoes something like " the RCC gives the priest the power to become Jesus and forgive sins." They say similar ridiculous things regarding communion. Can anyone explain this to me?
I put in bold the difficulty of this thread.

The main problem is the OP description of the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders.
Some RCC official did not institute this sacrament so that a priest could have “the power to become Jesus and forgive sins.”

The visible Roman Catholic Church on planet earth consists of human members of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 12: 12-31; especially 1 Corinthians 12: 27; John 21: 15-17.
I also like the promise of the Advocate Holy Spirit, chapter 14, Gospel of John.) It is the Head of the Mystical Body, not a human RCC member, Who because of His Divinity, instituted the actual Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders. In addition, this Sacrament does not make Jesus clones (the power to become Jesus).

Note about the word “communion.” I am not sure which definition or which context is being used.
 
In the framework of the bible fundamentalist, the Scripture is the final authority. Therefore if someting is not explicity found there, or they don’t interpret it that way, it is not accurate.

Scripture shows that Paul acts in persona Christi (not “becoming” Christ, but acting in His authority). The scriptures clearly show that Jesus’ authority is given to the Apostles, and they pass this to their successors and those who are ordained to their apostolate.

But although these things are recorded in Scripture, the authority comes from Christ, not from the pages of the book.
The Bible is justified by our beliefs, our beliefs do not have to be justified by the Bible. The Church and our Beliefs would exist even without the New Testament.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
RCC gives the priest the power to become Jesus and forgive sins." They say similar ridiculous things regarding communion.
We are Christ’s body, yes? Well, Christ gave an organ of His body the power to absolve sins…

The Priest doesn’t become Christ in every sense, but rather Christ operates through the Priest (and the Church in general). Evidence of Christ doing this is abound, that is, of God using natural means to His ultimate ends.The first example in my head is Christ using clay and spit to cure the blind man (He didn’t have to use any elements, but did).

In Scholastic theology, we say that God is the primary cause, and that the Priest is the secondary or instrumental cause. God uses the Priest to heal like I use a knife to cut.

Protestants also believe this, because according to their foundational theology, God is the primary author of the Scriptures, but that St. Paul, St. John, etc. are the secondary causes. So, Protestants can’t deny the principle in itself. We Catholics just refuse to arbitrarily limited and simplify God’s complexity.

But the Protestant will respond, saying that we can make the Priest do anything that Christ can do with this principle. What proof do you have that Jesus gave this specific power to the Priest?

We respond by saying Jesus gave His Apostles the power to forgive sins, because of multiple passages, including John 20 I believe.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
i do not mean to be splitting hairs, but the bishop gives the priest the power to act in Persona Christi. it is true that Jesus created the office of the bishop and gave them the authority to act in His name for the salvation of souls, but the bishops (the Twelve and their successors) decided that they needed assistants and established the various levels of participation in Holy Orders. Jesus had departed this world before the lower levels of Orders were established.
 
i do not mean to be splitting hairs, but the bishop gives the priest the power to act in Persona Christi. it is true that Jesus created the office of the bishop and gave them the authority to act in His name for the salvation of souls, but the bishops (the Twelve and their successors) decided that they needed assistants and established the various levels of participation in Holy Orders. Jesus had departed this world before the lower levels of Orders were established.
This is only one theory. There are various understandings of the origin of bishops/presybters/elders in the early church. Terms were interchangeable, and it is not clear whether all were “bishops” or deacons at first, only to add a lesser degree later.
 
i do not mean to be splitting hairs, but the bishop gives the priest the power to act in Persona Christi. it is true that Jesus created the office of the bishop and gave them the authority to act in His name for the salvation of souls, but the bishops (the Twelve and their successors) decided that they needed assistants and established the various levels of participation in Holy Orders. Jesus had departed this world before the lower levels of Orders were established.
The Bishop cannot give this power. It only comes from being united with Christ in the priesthood of Melchizedek. What the Bishop does is pass on the authority that was given in Jesus name.

It is a Sacrament like Confirmation. Only the Holy Spirit can give the power to be sealed in Himself. The Bishop or his designee confer the sacrament through the authority given them by Christ.

Yes, the Apostles decided they needed assistants, and it was not until the Church started exploding after Pentecost that these orders were established.
 
This is only one theory. There are various understandings of the origin of bishops/presybters/elders in the early church. Terms were interchangeable, and it is not clear whether all were “bishops” or deacons at first, only to add a lesser degree later.
It is clear to us because we have received the Sacred Tradition, so we know what was passed down to us from the Apostles.

Yes, the roles and responsibiliites of those given authority by Christ developed over time.
 
The Bishop cannot give this power. It only comes from being united with Christ in the priesthood of Melchizedek. What the Bishop does is pass on the authority that was given in Jesus name.

It is a Sacrament like Confirmation. Only the Holy Spirit can give the power to be sealed in Himself. The Bishop or his designee confer the sacrament through the authority given them by Christ.

Yes, the Apostles decided they needed assistants, and it was not until the Church started exploding after Pentecost that these orders were established.
Isnt that an LDS term?
 
We are Christ’s body, yes? Well, Christ gave an organ of His body the power to absolve sins…

The Priest doesn’t become Christ in every sense, but rather Christ operates through the Priest (and the Church in general). Evidence of Christ doing this is abound, that is, of God using natural means to His ultimate ends.The first example in my head is Christ using clay and spit to cure the blind man (He didn’t have to use any elements, but did).

In Scholastic theology, we say that God is the primary cause, and that the Priest is the secondary or instrumental cause. God uses the Priest to heal like I use a knife to cut.

Protestants also believe this, because according to their foundational theology, God is the primary author of the Scriptures, but that St. Paul, St. John, etc. are the secondary causes. So, Protestants can’t deny the principle in itself. We Catholics just refuse to arbitrarily limited and simplify God’s complexity.

But the Protestant will respond, saying that we can make the Priest do anything that Christ can do with this principle. What proof do you have that Jesus gave this specific power to the Priest?

We respond by saying Jesus gave His Apostles the power to forgive sins, because of multiple passages, including John 20 I believe.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
Thanks
 
Isnt that an LDS term?
What term? Whichever word to which you are referring, I cannot say, since I am not that famiilar with LDS. Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchizedech, and all those joined to HIm in priesthood are as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top