Exodus 19:6 - The priesthood of all believers

[Angainor]

cardenio:

me:

Yes, it is like that, except there really isn’t such thing as an “emergency Lord’s Supper” so it is understood that only pastor should ever administer the sacrament.

Hmm, I’m confused again. Can you explain what you meant about the women on an island?

Only a pastor should ever administer the sacrament. In some rare circumstances (like a group of women stranded on an island) a woman could be called to the role of pastor.

Interesting note: A group of women stranded on an island calling one of their number into the role of pastor would not violate 1 Timothy 2:12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.

cardenio:

This is new. I’ve debated the “all sins are equal” with my MS Lutheran cousins several times. They seem to believe that all sins are equal, quite vehemently. But here, with “It is a grave sin to disrespect the Lord’s Supper,” you sound very Catholic.

You got me. I misspoke. Let me say instead, “It is extremely important to respect the Lord’s Supper.”

 

[Pug]

Angainor:

My mistake, but I hope you can see how I made my error. From the outside there appears to be a special group called “preists”

I do see why you might conclude that Catholics don’t hold with any sort of priesthood of all believers doctrine. The common and more specific priesthood are distinguished by a sacrament, and if you are familiar with Catholic theology, sacraments are fairly substantial things, so an outside observer might indeed not notice the priesthood of all believers.

Perhaps to know what the priesthood of all believers might be, one has to think about what constitutes a priest. For me, a lot of it is sacrifice. The ordained priest says the mass (which has the nature of a sacrifice, a whole other topic), but we laity are to participate *actively in the mass. * Have you heard the Catholic expression “offer it up”? Just so that you may know that this is not a recent thing, I will quote from the older Latin mass…“Pray brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may become acceptable to God…” Catholics offer up their lives and suffering and praise to God, united with Christ. There is a sort of pinnacle of this at mass, but it also is a throughout the day thing. Here are three scriptures that are relevant to how a Catholic views their priesthood, Rom 12:1 and 1peter 2:5 and Heb 13:15,16.

 

[Angainor]

RobNY:

Can you give me a link to the text of the consecration?

It’s in the bible. 1 Corinthians 11:23½-25 “The Lord Jesus…”

RobNY:

I have to say, I’m not quite sure what you mean by that quote, though. Certainly that passage [1 Corinthians 10:23] can’t be interpreted to mean that everything is permissible, as it is talking specifically about eating meat sacrificed to idols, and the issue of causing scandal to other Christians. And I don’t think you’re trying to say everything is permissible, in that we no longer have to follow the laws of Christ. No orthodox Lutheran would say that…

I may or may not be stepping outside Lutheran “orthodoxy” when I say this, I just don’t know (but I don’t think so).

Yes, I believe to a believer in Christ, everything is permissible. An important part of that is being a believer in Christ is more than just having faith Jesus exists. To believe in Christ means to believe in Jesus and all that the Word made flesh stands for. We are free. That statement should be more frightning than anything. Hand in hand with being free is we are responsible.

I hope I explained myself well.

RobNY:

As you said about the Lord’s Supper:

What’s so presumptuous about that? It isn’t something to be taken lightly. I think it is presumptuous not to be highly protective of the most Holy Sacrament the Lord gave to us. And what if their sacrament is invalid? How many people are being led horribly astray by this problem if that is so?

Just as I am free, so are other Christians free. “Why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience?” (1 Cor 10:29) By the same token, why should another’s freedom be judged by my conscience?

This is not moral relativism. As Christians we are free, but we all have the responsibility to align our consciences with God’s will.

I am to seek the good of others, so when I see my Christian brothers and sisters I can lovingly discuss with them where I think they are going wrong, my Chruch of like-minded Christians (like the LCMS) can even choose not to associate with them, but I cannot impose my will on them. We are all responsible for our own conscience.

RobNY:

Oh and, by the way, your screen name rocks! Go Tolkien! (Uh, right?)

Thanks! Yes it’s from Tolkien.

 

[Sherlock]

Angainor:

Only a pastor should ever administer the sacrament. In some rare circumstances (like a group of women stranded on an island) a woman could be called to the role of pastor…"

But if all can effect the consecration, what keeps Joe Shmoe wiccan from consecrating the bread and wine, and then using them in some occult ritual?

Nor do I see why, if all can administer the sacrament, that a pastor is needed at all. Couldn’t any Lutheran just stay at home, and as long as he or she was reverent about it, consecrate some bread and wine for their own use? Would there be anything wrong about such a scenario, and if so, why?

 

[Angainor]

Sherlock:

But if all can effect the consecration, what keeps Joe Shmoe wiccan from consecrating the bread and wine, and then using them in some occult ritual?

Really that is between Joe and God. I can’t be responsible for Joe’s actions. It is not up to me to define what is a valid sacrament. God knows. I’ll do my part by treating it with reverence.

Having said that, there may be a passage that might put your mind at ease:
When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.
1 Corinthians 11:20

Sherlock:

Nor do I see why, if all can administer the sacrament, that a pastor is needed at all. Couldn’t any Lutheran just stay at home, and as long as he or she was reverent about it, consecrate some bread and wine for their own use? Would there be anything wrong about such a scenario, and if so, why?

For one thing, one of the things the Lord’s Supper does is help Christians make a connection to the Christian community. It’s a public display of faith. Staying at home and haveing the meal alone doesn’t make much sense.

Also, of course, we want to take extra care that the meal is performed reverently. 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 has a lot to say about this, especially verse 34:
If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgement.

 

[Sherlock]

Angainor:

Really that is between Joe and God. I can’t be responsible for Joe’s actions. It is not up to me to define what is a valid sacrament. God knows. I’ll do my part by treating it with reverence.]

You’re missing my point. I am referring here to the desecration of sacred things, not whether or not the sacrament is valid: according to your understanding of the priesthood of all believers, it is valid. My point is, if your understanding is correct, desecration by those involved in occult practices could be very easily accomplished.

Angainor:

Having said that, there may be a passage that might put your mind at ease:
When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.
1 Corinthians 11:20.

My mind is at ease, not because of this verse (which is simply Paul stating that there are those who wrongfully regard the Lord’s Supper as merely a meal, as evidenced by their shameful actions) because I don’t believe the sacrament is valid without an ordained priest to confect the consecration. My question was thus directed at Lutherans who believe that all can confect the consecration: what gives them peace of mind that occultists won’t be consecrating the sacrament in order to defile and corrupt it? Do Lutherans not believe that such things are done, or are worth protecting the sacrament from? I’m curious.

Angainor:

For one thing, one of the things the Lord’s Supper does is help Christians make a connection to the Christian community. It’s a public display of faith. Staying at home and haveing the meal alone doesn’t make much sense.

But if for some reason (sickness, time crunch, etc.) do Lutherans consecrate the sacrament for themselves and their families (in a reverent manner, of course)? Is this commonly done? Also, at Lutheran services, why is the minister the one who consecrates the sacrament all the time (this is the norm, as some Lutheran aquaintances tell me)? Why not rotate the job among all of the attendees, thus emphasizing the Lutheran understanding of the universal priesthood?

To be honest, it seems to me that the Lutheran understanding of the “universal priesthood” is not practiced in the real world. The Lutheran services I have been to appear to have a hierarchy of roles very similar to Catholics. I have never seen lay people exercising their abilities to consecrate the sacrament, nor do my Lutheran aquaintances give me any reason to think that they regularly confect sacraments, even in cases when it would be reasonable to do so. It seems that the Lutheran understanding of the “universal priesthood” is invoked only to justify the abandonment of apostolic succession as a requirement for valid holy orders.

 

[Angainor]

Sherlock:

You’re missing my point. I am referring here to the desecration of sacred things, not whether or not the sacrament is valid: according to your understanding of the priesthood of all believers, it is valid. My point is, if your understanding is correct, desecration by those involved in occult practices could be very easily accomplished.

The short answer is that this is not my concern. Joe Shmoe wiccan is bringing judgement on himself as described in 1 Corinthians 11:34.

Sherlock:

at Lutheran services, why is the minister the one who consecrates the sacrament all the time (this is the norm, as some Lutheran aquaintances tell me)? Why not rotate the job among all of the attendees, thus emphasizing the Lutheran understanding of the universal priesthood? To be honest, it seems to me that the Lutheran understanding of the “universal priesthood” is not practiced in the real world. The Lutheran services I have been to appear to have a hierarchy of roles very similar to Catholics.

The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and thought all its parts are many, they form one body. 1 Corinthians 12:12
Some people are called into the pastorial office, so that is why we have pastors. Your more specific question is why only pastors consecrate the sacrament.

1. Entrusting trained professionals with the responsibility of administering the sacrament is an effective way of ensuring it is treated with respect and reverence.
2. If it looks similar to the Catholic way of doing things, that is, of course, no accident. When Lutherans and Catholics parted ways, we didn’t throw stuff out just because the Pope does it that way. We saw that having trained professionals adminiser the sacraments was wise so we kept it. I suppose it is similar to the way early Jewish Christians kept many Jewish customs. We don’t find it important to emphasize the universal priesthood by rotating the responsibilities. We find the concern for keeping the sacrament respectful more important.

My brother’s church does rotate responsibilities. I would rather cut off my right foot than tell Lutherans they must rotate responsibilities or tell my brother’s church they must have a dedicated pastor do it.
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgement on disputable matters. One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
Romans 14:1-4

 

[nordskoven]

Where were you when I posted about priestesses? Women cannot be priests because Adam was in charge as steward of life and Adam blew it with the “Sin of Adam” and the Second Adam, Christ, made perfect atonement. A priest acts as an Alter Christus, unique to males, and only some elect males at that. It is not an honor, or mark of nobility as it has become in Europe, but an office of servitude and opprobrium, sin-guilt.

Woman was given her own separate authority from Adam’s, that of crushing Lucifer’s ugly head, her and her seed. It would be an insult for woman to be desecrated by the priesthood by atoning for the “Sin of Adam” because it’s not her problem. Man was and is steward, protector of all life even to giving his life. Woman is steward of truth and regeneration in instructing and raising up children in the faith.

These specific authorities to the First Man and Woman are intertwined but flowing from two different incidents. Adam was created, put in charge of life on Earth, then Woman was created, is tempted by Lucifer and she eats and…sin and death do not come into the world. Nothing happened because she was not in charge, Adam was.

Adam eats and the “Sin of Adam” brings sin and death into the world because he was in charge, had real power and authority to betray as corporate leader. Adam blamed the Woman, God didn’t and gave Woman the mandate, her and her seed, to crush Lucifer and his minions, in Genesis 3:15.

Everybody, man, woman and child, can now wield a type of divinely granted authority. Christ acted under both authorities, High Priest according to the Order of Melchizedek, as Second Adam atoning for the “Sin of Adam,” and as Seed of the Woman conquering the Father of Lies and Murder and his minions. All can resist the devil, it is something we all join in doing as the adopted seed of the Woman, fulfilled in the Blessed Virgin.

The Blessed Mother is no cannibal offering up her Son in child sacrifice. Woman cannot atone for the “Sin of Adam” as priestess. It’s insulting, and would blame her for the “Sin of Adam” as Adam tried. God gave her a job, her and her seed, warring on Lucifer and his seed. Let Woman & Seed conquer Satan and his minions by upholding truth and life. All have divinely granted authority, making us one with Christ in a royal priesthood ruled by the priest-king of New Jerusalem, Jesus Christ.

 

[blackfish152]

The Blessed Mother is no cannibal offering up her Son in child sacrifice

what the heck is this supposed to show?

1. Are those who do offer christ- cannibals?
2. Did Mary not offer Christ to the Father through reception of the sacrament of the Eucharist in those post resurection Masses

 

[RobNY]

"’…Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."

Exodus 19:5-6

The Israelites did not live up to their end of the covenant, so a kingdom of priests never materialized among them.

But if God wished for a kingdom of priests, why does Catholicism have its priestly class system instead of something more like the Lutheran concept of the priesthood of all believers?

Ok Angainor, back to this. I had wanted to address this, but couldn’t until I read up more on this.

From Revelation 1:5-6:

5 …To him who loves us and has freed us 5 from our sins by his blood,
6 who has made us into a kingdom, priests for his God and Father, to him be glory and power forever (and ever). Amen.

Where you see a contradiction between God calling certain people to share in His priesthood and the way the Christian people form a royal priesthood, there is none. Priesthood is what we’re going to have to explore.

First, we need to look at Leviticus, 7:11-21. Here we have regulations set down by God for offering sacrifice. Only in the peace offering can the giver of the victim partake of the sacrificial meal. Usually only members of the priestly family can eat sacrificial offerings.

Leviticus 22:10-13

10 "Neither a lay person nor a priest’s tenant or hired servant may eat of any sacred offering. 11 But a slave whom a priest acquires by purchase or who is born in his house may eat of his food. 12 A priest’s daughter who is married to a layman may not eat of the sacred contributions. 13 But if a priest’s daughter is widowed or divorced and, having no children, returns to her father’s house, she may then eat of her father’s food as in her youth. No layman, however, may eat of it.

Now, when it came to be that a man of the priestly clan was disqualified from the exercise of the priesthood (offering sacrifices), he could still partake in the sacrificial offering.

Leviticus 21: 21-23

21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any such defect may draw near to offer up the oblations of the LORD; on account of his defect he may not draw near to offer up the food of his God. 22 He may, however, partake of the food of his God: of what is most sacred as well as of what is sacred. 23 Only, he may not approach the veil nor go up to the altar on account of his defect; he shall not profane these things that are sacred to me, for it is I, the LORD, who make them sacred."

This is a distinction between the priestly ministry and the dignity of the priestly clan. Thus in Christ’s Church, priests are set aside to carry out sacred functions (especially the Eucharist, or as Lutherans term it, the Lord’s Supper). Priests also are official preachers of the Church. Everyone else, all the members, form a priestly people because they are called to unite themselves to Christ’s sacrifice by partaking of the Body of the Lord.

Hence, 1 Peter 2:9

95 But you are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may announce the praises” of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

With 1 Cor 11:26

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

In the Old Testament, priests were called from among Aaron’s descendants who were a priestly clan within God’s people. NT priests are chosen from among baptized people, who are children of God, brothers of Jesus, and members of God’s family. The members of God’s Church form a race of priests. The ministerial priesthood is a special calling.

 

[RobNY]

1 John 2:20
20But you have the anointing that comes from the holy one, 11 and you all have knowledge.

Anointing, in the Old Testament, was done to priests and kings as a sign that God set them apart for a sacred function. Not only priests, but objects for the worship of God were anointed:

Lev 8:10-12

10Taking the anointing oil, Moses anointed and consecrated the Dwelling, with all that was in it. 11Then he sprinkled some of this oil seven times on the altar, and anointed the altar, with all its appurtenances, and the laver, with its base, thus consecrating them. 12He also poured some of the anointing oil on Aaron’s head, thus consecrating him.

Or when Samuel anoints Saul: 1 Samuel 10:1

1 Then, from a flask he had with him, Samuel poured oil on Saul’s head; he also kissed him, saying: "The LORD anoints you commander over his heritage. You are to govern the LORD’S people Israel, and to save them from the grasp of their enemies round about. "This will be the sign for you that the LORD has anointed you commander over his heritage:

Obviously, Jesus is the Christ, or the Messiah, “Anointed.” Jesus was to be priest and king of a kingdom that will have no end (cf. Hebrews 7:24, Luke 1:33). Hence, in Confirmation, the person is anointed with chrism, when a man is ordained a priest, the bishop anoints his hands, and obviously, in the Anointing of the Sick (cf. Mark 6:13, James 5:14).

Paul says in 1 Cor 1:21-22

21 12 But the one who gives us security with you in Christ and who anointed us is God;22 he has also put his seal upon us and given the Spirit in our hearts as a first installment.

Hence, through the anointing of the priests hands, and the laying on of the hands (cf. 2 Tim 1:6) the priest is set aside to serve God.

 

[RobNY]

On the issue of women and the priesthood.

Let it be noted:

1. Christ called no women to the ministerial priesthood.
2. If Christ had wanted to, He undoubtedly could have. Mark 3:13 states that he selected the apostles “as He desired,” or “those whom He wanted.” It wasn’t merely cultural. You can criticize God for that one, if you wish. In any case, a model among women, who is noted as “blessed among women” and someone who “found favor in the sight of God,” would certainly have been a prime candidate. Mary, however, was never chosen.
3. The Old Testament allowed no women priests. Even the ideal priesthood of all believers did not contain women priests. The levitical priesthood contained sons of Aaron’s line. The priesthood of Melchecidek was that of a man (Melchecidek) and of Christ (a man also).

Also, Jesus, intercedes on behalf of us as the Son of God. Since the priest acts in the person of Christ (“This is my body that is for you.” 1 Cor 11:23), it is also important that he can accurately represent Christ as a male, and as a son.

Furthermore, priests preach in the stead of Christ, and as we’ve dicussed, women would not be able to preach in Church.

Judges 17:10

10 “Stay with me,” Micah said to him. “Be father and priest to me, and I will give you ten silver shekels a year, a set of garments, and your food.”

Judges 18:19

19 They said to him, “Be still: put your hand over your mouth. Come with us and be our father and priest. Is it better for you to be priest for the family of one man or to be priest for a tribe and a clan in Israel?”

Fatherhood and priesthood are connected intimately here. In any case,
Heb 5:4

4 No one takes this honor upon himself but only when called by God, just as Aaron was.

No women were called as priests.

The priesthood is associated with fatherhood… which women cannot fulfill. The priesthood is associated with the Son’s sonship… which women cannot fulfill. The priesthood has never had women consecrated into it in the Bible, which no one can deny. And the tradition of the Church for two thousand years has been likewise, to bar women from the priesthood.

This is why I’ve come to the conclusion, along with Christianity and Judiasm’s conclusion for thousands of years, that women aren’t called to the priesthood.

 

[vern_humphrey]

"’…Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."

Exodus 19:5-6

The Israelites did not live up to their end of the covenant, so a kingdom of priests never materialized among them.

But if God wished for a kingdom of priests, why does Catholicism have its priestly class system instead of something more like the Lutheran concept of the priesthood of all believers?

In fact, as others have pointed out, the Catholic Church does have a priesthood of believers.

Why do you keep making up things about the Catholic Church?

I will pray for you.

 

[RobNY]

Furthermore, to extend the idea of the maleness of a priest:

Ephesians 5:24-31

23 For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. 24 As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her 26 to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, 27that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28So (also) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, 30because we are members of his body.

Christ is the New Adam in Romans 5:12-14. In Genesis 2:18 Adam is made “a suitable partner.” The Church is the Bride of Christ. Therefore, a male priest perfectly corresponds to Christ’s role, which the priest carries out.

 

[Angainor]

RobNY:

Furthermore, to extend the idea of the maleness of a priest:

Ephesians 5:24-31Christ is the New Adam in Romans 5:12-14. In Genesis 2:18 Adam is made “a suitable partner.” The Church is the Bride of Christ. Therefore, a male priest perfectly corresponds to Christ’s role, which the priest carries out.

So where does that leave the unusual circumstance where a group of women are stranded on an island with no husbands to be subordinate to?

 

[RobNY]

Angainor:

So where does that leave the unusual circumstance where a group of women are stranded on an island with no husbands to be subordinate to?

Oh, hi Angainor! Good to see you again.

Well, if women can’t be priests, women can’t be priests. If women can’t be priests, then even were they stranded on a desert island, they still wouldn’t be able to be priests. My objections to women becoming priests, of course, remain above.

What does it have to do? Let me present my idea a little bit more formally.

1. Lutherans claim that by baptism all believers gain the power/authority that a priest has in the Catholic faith (the Lutheran interpretation of the priesthood of all believers).
2. Women are baptized.
3. Therefore, according to Lutheran belief, women should be able to be a part of the ministerial priesthood.
4. However, women cannot be a part of the ministerial priesthood.
5. Therefore, the Lutheran version of the priesthood of all believers is incorrect.

Why does 5 follow? It’s known as reductio ad absurdum(alternate name: proof by contradiction), if you reach a nonsensical, absurd conclusion from a set of premises, then the premise must be incorrect.

Therefore, I conclude that #1, that the idea all believers who are baptized gain the power/authority of the ministerial priesthood to be false: it is an incorrect interpretation.

Now, since we know that all believers do gain the same thing by baptism, this invalidates the entire argument. Baptism doesn’t do one thing to one person, and another thing to another person, it does the same thing to all people who receive it. If women don’t inherently gain the power of the ministerial priesthood, then neither does anyone else, because baptism has the same effect on all of us.

God bless,
Rob