God does not take it kindly to those who usurp His Priesthood

[Tomyris]

You do realize that the priests do not re-sacrifice for atonement? At the moment of transubstantiation, Calvary itself becomes present to the faithful at that moment. The priest acts in person of Christ in transforming the bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ.

The priest does not perform a new sacrifice.

Almost all the remaining responses to my posts would take the thread in other directions, most of which have been hashed and rehashed. I respectfully decline to answer some of the other points made.

I recognize that current Catholic teaching is that it is not a re-sacrifice. I have not located who was teaching that it WAS a re-sacrifice, if anyone was, at the time of the Reformation. Calvin taught that it was, and I have not seen anything refuting him on this point at the time of the Reformation. Exactly what was happening in the teaching at this time is unclear to me. But today the Catholic Church explicitly denies re-sacrifice, which is a good thing.

If he is not sacrificing, why call him a priest? Priests, by the nature of their position, sacrifice. Otherwise they are not priests. To me the term is misleading at best.

I dispute transubstantiation, by the way, but that also would be off-thread. But “the point had to be made.” I like that line. I also reject the concept of “Alter Christi” if I understand it correctly. But that also is off thread.

I also appreciate the concept that in some way we are brought back to Calvary at the Eucharist.

 

[Tomyris]

And here the fundamental problem raises its head: sola scriptura. The Calvinist must demonstrate not only that this doctrine is correct but also that Calvin was doing something biblical when he founded his own denomination and is reliable when he propounded his new doctrines in, e.g., the Institues.

This matter is, of course, entirely different to the topic of the thread. But the point had to be made.

There are a number of factual errors here. I will touch on a few. One is that SS is not necessarily fundamental here, or even problematic. Secondly, the “Calvinist”: not all Reformed are Calvinist. Thirdly, Calvin did not found a denomination. Fourthly, his doctrines were not his. Perhaps you should read up in this area.

This matter is, of course, entirely different to the topic of the thread. But the point had to be made

 

[Patavium]

Tomyris,

In the words James Akin

Now that was the first insight I wanted to share with you that led me to conclude there is a New Testament priesthood. The second is something I discovered when pondering the different offices in the Catholic Church. In my Protestant congregation, we had elders and deacons. I knew that the Catholic Church had deacons, but I had never heard of a Catholic elder. “Why was that?” I wondered. The answer involves a little lesson in translation.

1. The origin of the word

In Greek, the word for elder is presbuteros. That word was transliterated into Latin as presbyter, which then in English became shortened to priest. That’s why you never hear about “Catholic elders.” It is because Catholic priests are Catholics elders. That’s what the word “priest” means; it is simply a shortened English form of presbuteros. You can check any dictionary you want to confirm this. So obviously we can say that there is some kind of priesthood today because there are elders today.

1. Examples from the Douay-Rheims

In fact, if you read some older Catholic translations of the Bible, they will use the word “priest,” entirely appropriately, where the Protestant Bible says “elder.” For example, this is the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, which is the Catholic equivalent of the King James Version.

In Titus 1:5, Paul tells Titus: “For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldst ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee.”

In James 5:14-15 we read: “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man; and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.”

This last passage leads us to the third insight I wanted to share with you tonight—the fact that the New Testament priesthood is a sacramental priesthood.

 

[Patavium]

As for sacrifices, there is more detail. First there are the sacrifices of the OT ministerial priesthood, and the sacrifices of the NT ministerial priesthood.

For the OT priesthood, the sacrifices the priests offered were the drink offerings, the grain offerings, and the animal offerings that were prescribed by the Law of Moses.

For the NT priesthood, the sacrifices the priests offered are: preaching the gospels so that gentiles are offered as a sacrifice to God (Romans 15:15-16.); and the Eucharist (Mark 14:23, Luke 22:19, and 1 Corinthians 11:24).

See more detail in ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIEST3.HTM

 

[Doxiemom]

So, if I have this right

no one besides an ordained catholic priest should engage in pastoral work, Gifts of the Spirit, or hold a Holy Communion service (non-rcc)

without risking the wrath of God?

 

[benjohnson]

Is it not problematic that the founder of the Protestant faith was not an Apostolic Successor to begin with?

Luther and Lutherans don’t consider him a founder of the church and would point to Christ.

Luther promulgating the Gospel did lead to the formation of the Evangelische Kirche complete with Bishops. The lack of apostolic succession is largely an American problem.

 

[Patavium]

So, if I have this right

no one besides an ordained catholic priest should engage in pastoral work, Gifts of the Spirit, or hold a Holy Communion service (non-rcc)

without risking the wrath of God?

The responsibilities of the Ministerial priesthood should not be engaged by those of the universal priesthood. Only Priests ordained as part of the chain of Apostolic succession may do this. Those that ORDAIN themselves or are ORDAINED by others not part of such chain of Apostolic succession are following the footsteps of Korah. We should pray for them, just as Moses prayed for those that followed the footsteps of Korah.

Now, the Universal priests (you and I and the laity)

We do have SACRIFICES to offer to God. Spiritual Sacrifice that is.

We can offer praise, good deeds, and our sharing with others.

see what James Akin (ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIEST3.HTM) says

A. The Universal Priesthoods

1. New Testament: Spiritual sacrifices

Of course every priesthood has sacrifices to offer. As 1 Peter 2:5 states, we in the universal priesthood have spiritual sacrifices we give to God. Romans 12:1 says we offer our bodies. Philippians 4:18 says we offer our donations. And Hebrews 13:15-16 state that we offer our praise, our good deeds, and our sharing with others.

1. Old Testament: Spiritual sacrifices too (Hos 14:2)

These were the same things offered by ordinary Jews as members of the Old Testament universal priesthood. They could pray to God; they could offer him praises; they could offer donations and good deeds; and they could offer their bodies in his service. In all of those things they were like us, offering up their own spiritual sacrifices to God. In fact, one of the references I cited, Hebrews 13:15-16, which says we offer the sacrifice of praise, the fruit of our lips, is a reference to the Hosea 14:2, in which the Israelites are urged to promise to offer him the sacrifice of their lips in praise.

 

[Tomyris]

As for sacrifices, there is more detail. First there are the sacrifices of the OT ministerial priesthood, and the sacrifices of the NT ministerial priesthood.

For the OT priesthood, the sacrifices the priests offered were the drink offerings, the grain offerings, and the animal offerings that were prescribed by the Law of Moses.

For the NT priesthood, the sacrifices the priests offered are: preaching the gospels so that gentiles are offered as a sacrifice to God (Romans 15:15-16.); and the Eucharist (Mark 14:23, Luke 22:19, and 1 Corinthians 11:24).

See more detail in ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIEST3.HTM

Apparently I did not make it clear that we do not consider our pastors and elders to be some sort of neo-Levitical priests. They are not “usurping His Priesthood” and I am finding this accusation increasingly absurd. You are confused about the difference between hierus and presbyter. One means “priest” and the other “elder”. You are reading into NT texts meanings without warrant. This line of argument is silly and I am leaving this thread.

 

[Patavium]

Apparently I did not make it clear that we do not consider our pastors and elders to be some sort of neo-Levitical priests. They are not “usurping His Priesthood” and I am finding this accusation increasingly absurd. You are confused about the difference between hierus and presbyter. One means “priest” and the other “elder”. You are reading into NT texts meanings without warrant. This line of argument is silly and I am leaving this thread.

So your pastors and elders are not prebysters? Who ordained your pastors and elders? Did the Apostles ordained them? Did the successors of the Apostles ordained them? Did they decided to simply become Pastor on their own without consulting the successors of the Apostles?

You did not answer Pablope’s posts where he pointed where in scripture both OT and NT the laying of hands happened to ordain new priests.

Why do YOU reject Apostolic Succession but not the Early Church?

 

[Patavium]

Protestants and “Bible only” Christians reject Ministerial priesthood because New Testament applies the title priest (Greek hiereus) only to Christ and to all believers. However Christianity in New Testament times was still a movement within Judaism (Acts 22:19 and 26:11). The first followers of Jesus both attended Jewish temple (Acts 2:46) and broke bread in their homes (Acts 2:46 and 20:7). Peter and John went to temple to pray (Acts 3:1) and so did Paul and others in Acts 21:26 to give offering and to announce the days of purification after performing ritual. While Catholics believe that Christ instituted Ministerial priesthood in the Last Supper, to Christians in the New Testament times the title priest meant Levitical priest of Judaism. Only after destruction of Jerusalem temple (c. 70 AD) and after Christianity broke away from Judaism, both happened after New Testament times the title priest was applied to bishops and presbyters. The earliest reference to three-level of priesthood (High priest, priests and Levites) among Christians was recorded in the 1 Clement (written c. 96 AD).

vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/the-early-christians-and-the-ministerial-priesthood/

Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his peculiar are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound only by the laws that pertain to laymen.

1 Clement Chapter 40 circa 90 AD

“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery (priests) as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
St. Ignatius’ Epistle to the Smyrnaeans circa 110 AD

 

[pablope]

Apparently I did not make it clear that we do not consider our pastors and elders to be some sort of neo-Levitical priests. They are not “usurping His Priesthood” and I am finding this accusation increasingly absurd. You are confused about the difference between hierus and presbyter. One means “priest” and the other “elder”. You are reading into NT texts meanings without warrant. This line of argument is silly and I am leaving this thread.

I think you should do more investigation outside of your norm…“elder” or “elders”…in the old parlance…the “elders” were appointed by the Apostles…were the “priests”…as we know them today.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIEST3.HTM

Insight #2: The word “priest”

Now that was the first insight I wanted to share with you that led me to conclude there is a New Testament priesthood. The second is something I discovered when pondering the different offices in the Catholic Church. In my Protestant congregation, we had elders and deacons. I knew that the Catholic Church had deacons, but I had never heard of a Catholic elder. “Why was that?” I wondered. The answer involves a little lesson in translation.

1. The origin of the word

In Greek, the word for elder is presbuteros. That word was transliterated into Latin as presbyter, which then in English became shortened to priest. That’s why you never hear about “Catholic elders.” It is because Catholic priests are Catholics elders. That’s what the word “priest” means; it is simply a shortened English form of presbuteros. You can check any dictionary you want to confirm this. So obviously we can say that there is some kind of priesthood today because there are elders today.

In fact, if you read some older Catholic translations of the Bible, they will use the word “priest,” entirely appropriately, where the Protestant Bible says “elder.” For example, this is the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, which is the Catholic equivalent of the King James Version.

In Titus 1:5, Paul tells Titus: “For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldst ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee.”

In James 5:14-15 we read: “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man; and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.”

 

[JonNC]

I am still dying to know how you know they are “Validly” ordained. Who said that?

Also, who are the Apostolic Successors today, if any, in the Lutheran Church? Can they trace an unbroken line of succession back to the first Apostles? Or did they just magically appear around the 16th century?

Even more importantly, are you aware that Luther, the founder of Protestantism, who was a priest, does not qualify as an Apostolic Successor since both Orthodox and Catholic agree that only Bishops are Apostolic Successors?

Is it not problematic that the founder of the Protestant faith was not an Apostolic Successor to begin with?

Read the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.
bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

Jon

 

[JonNC]

So who exactly decided that the Lutheran claim was valid? I mean I understand what they are saying. But why accept it?

Both Catholics and Orthodox reject such a position. What makes you think that Lutheran’s then have a valid position?
**
Also, where does this leave the Lutheran Church considering they reject those who are valid Apostolic Successors according to Lutheran standards themselves in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches?**

Who said we reject them? The confessions state that the churches wanted to maintain succession, but the bishops refused, except those in Scandinavia. When there are no bishops to ordain, presbyter ordination is valid, as was the case with the Cistercians.

It is also the case that some (not all) Orthodox consider Catholic orders invalid. Others say they do not know.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

When there are no bishops to ordain, presbyter ordination is valid, as was the case with the Cistercians.

But this was allowed with the Cistercians because one with authority allowed the exception. There are times when it is impossible for the Bishop to preside over Confirmations, for instance, a sacrament that can only be given by a bishop, with exceptions. There was one year that the Bishop in my diocese was involved in a car accident. So he gave permission for the priests to preside in his place and administer the sacrament and by so doing transferred his own authority to them for that one instance only. In the case of Luther, it seems that authority was assumed rather than transferred. What am I not seeing?

 

[JonNC]

But this was allowed with the Cistercians because one with authority allowed the exception. There are times when it is impossible for the Bishop to preside over Confirmations, for instance, a sacrament that can only be given by a bishop, with exceptions. There was one year that the Bishop in my diocese was involved in a car accident. So he gave permission for the priests to preside in his place and administer the sacrament and by so doing transferred his own authority to them for that one instance only. In the case of Luther, it seems that authority was assumed rather than transferred. What am I not seeing?

Steve,
Are you saying here that it is not the laying on the hands by a Bishop in succession, but only the authorization of the Bishop of Rome that confers validity?
If this is the case, and I’m not saying it is or isn’t because I honestly don’t know, then, if reconciliation were to happen, the pope could merely say, all those Lutheran ordinations are now valid?

As for Luther, he didn’t claim for himself any authority to ordain, but instead looked to the history of the Church, and divine law, and the historic practice of presbyter ordination.

And don’t forget I’m a Lutheran who beleives we should do all we can to maintain AS where it is in place, and reclaim it where it is not. I think it that important!

Jon

 

[Patavium]

And don’t forget I’m a Lutheran who beleives we should do all we can to maintain AS where it is in place, and reclaim it where it is not. I think it that important!

Jon

Jon,

. I am one of those Catholic still waiting for the Lutheran Churches to seek communion with Rome.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

. I am one of those Catholic still waiting for the Lutheran Churches to seek communion with Rome.

Lots of us are seeking, and praying for the day that unity happens.

Jon

 

[JustaServant]

Hey Jon, when did you become a “forum Master”?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I like it personally. Is it my study bible nope. But there ist somethingst abouts it.

:thumbsup:

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Jon,

. I am one of those Catholic still waiting for the Lutheran Churches to seek communion with Rome.