Help needed with "Torn Curtain" passage

[MariaG]

You have some great answers from people. Here is a simple one that may appeal to your friend.

If the curtain being torn meant that we no longer needed priests, as in there should not be any, why is the book of acts filled with rules and directions on how to choose the same priests we no longer need? Presbyter = Priest and the new Church was busily choosing new priests.

Clearly, the torn curtain does not mean no more priests.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

I responded to a thread pertaining to Mt 23:3 and the authority of the scribes and Pharisees using the “Torn Curtain” passage. It may also apply here.

Matthew 22:2 reads, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat;”

This verse establishes their authority which Jesus, at this time, is telling the people not to challenge. It would not have been sinful, during those days, to follow what the Pharisees were teaching. Rebellion against the law would have been sin. Even Jesus adhered to the law of Moses.

If one keeps reading Matthew 22 one finds that Jesus condemns the scribes and Pharisees’ application of the law of Moses.

Matthew 27:50-51 “Then Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split.”

At this moment the authority of the scribes, Pharisees, and all others of the Old Testament priestly class is officially ended.

Mt 28:18-20 “All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. Go therefore…”

Jesus, our Savior, has fulfilled his mission and achieved his victory for us.

Jn 20:23 “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Jesus bestows his authority upon his Church, the beginning of the New Testament.

God Bless!

 

[BibleReader]

stumbler:

Apparently some denominations see the torn Temple curtain (Mt 27:51) as a sign that prayers can/should be offered straight to God (no longer needing to go through a priest). And it’s a short hop, skip, and jump from there to claiming that the priesthood and church denominations are not important issues. It’s just Me and Jesus, right?

So what would be a scripturally valid way to interpret this event?

Hi, stumbler.

Here is the verse…

**51 **And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom.
This brief phrase is “pregnant with meaning,” as my friend Father Tom Dougherty of the Oblates of St. Francis used to say.

“Veil,” made of cloth, is undoubtedly an expression of the Clothing Type = “religious beliefs.” (So, in Genesis 3, when Adam and Eve don fig leaf clothing, that is an example of the Fig Tree Type, for “Judaism,” and Clothing Type for “religious beliefs.” We are being told, “At first God’s people will have Jewish religious beliefs.” But then God gives Adam and Eve “skins” = Clothing Type made of “sacrificed [animal] victims” = “religiuous beliefs of the Sacrificed One” = Christianity. We are being told, “But then God’s people will have Christian religious beliefs.” Get it?)

“Two” = Two Type = “the Church” (capital “C”). (When animals walk into Noah’s ark “two by two,” we are being told, “This is a picture of the people of the Church entering the Church.” When Christ comes across His future Apostles two by two, that means that they will be the administrators of His “Church.” Get it?)

So, when the “veil” is torn in “two” at the moment of Christ’s death, we are being told that suddenly the Jewish Temple has been turned into Christianity, with the “religious beliefs of the Church”! Get it? The important thing is not the tearing of the veil, but the “two-ness” of the pieces of the veil after the tear.

Probably, we are told “top to bottom” to let us know that Heaven (“top”) and Earth (“bottom”) would recognize the change from Jewish Temple to Church.

 

[Frank_T]

I must disagree with Bible Reader. His statement that the torn curtain signifies the replacing of Jewish beliefs with those of the Churcn can not be supported in scripture. In Romans, Paul speaks of being grafted on to the tree of the Jews. They are and continue to be the Root. We are grafted on to the Root. They will one day come to see Jesus as Messiah, but they are still the Chosen People of God. Their faith is still important. We must be careful of reading too much into a passage and making it say things it was no meant to say.
Peace and all Good, Frank T

 

[BibleReader]

Frank T:

I must disagree with Bible Reader. His statement that the torn curtain signifies the replacing of Jewish beliefs with those of the Churcn can not be supported in scripture. In Romans, Paul speaks of being grafted on to the tree of the Jews. They are and continue to be the Root. We are grafted on to the Root. They will one day come to see Jesus as Messiah, but they are still the Chosen People of God. Their faith is still important. We must be careful of reading too much into a passage and making it say things it was no meant to say.
Peace and all Good, Frank T

Nah, you’re wrong here, Frank. “Two” always, always, always somehow refers to “the Church” in Scripture.

How is the Church different from its roots, Judaism? We’re the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant. The “two-ness” of the curtain pieces almost certainly refers to the fact that it is suddenly “Church” time, not Jewish time, now that Christ died.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The posts already made seem to cover the new testament view fairly well, but the old testament perspective appears to be lacking.

The jewish people were offered the covenant to be a ‘nation of priests’. There was to be a parousia (presence) of God with the entire people. The pillar of fire, rainbow, and the cloud.

The sin of the people is what led to a ‘seperation’ between God and his people. (e.g. the golden calf / idolatry). The first effect was that God left the camp, and the consuming fire/death of many.
As I recall (please check this), Moses entreated God to continue to lead the people, and that is the context of the curtain being set up. The curtain is something of a compromise so that the just wrath of God need not destroy the people. So, an important aspect of the curtain is that it was an UNDESIRED modification of the original covenant.
( As an aside, the priestly linen garments were also to prevent God’s wrath! )

To remove the curtain, would in the OT sense have been a reversion to the covenant of all priests which is what God wanted, a destruction of an undesired modification of God’s covenant.

In the NT. the scriptures call all Christians priests. (Although this is not the same as ministerial priests). I have not studied the priesthood sufficiently to comment on the ministerial vs. general, vs. deacons, etc.

Also, I am not sure the quote from Origin is very worthy, since the Temple walls effectively were the outer curtain. I have the impression that the inner curtain was torn.

It does seem to echo the cry of blasphemy, where the garment of the high priest was torn in judgement – That the Son of God should die so miserably. The idea of judgement and delvierance are so intimately tied to the Temple.

God sat on his throne judging the nation from the temple, and people on the kidron valley side of the temple could look up at the temple door, asking for God’s mercy and justice.

Eusibius would later record the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD. In his rather gruesome narrative, the temple doors opened of their own accord as if someone was leaving (the doors were absolutely massive). Regardless of what one thinks of the account, it shows that many did not regard God as having abandoned the Jews in their temple based covenant until a later time.
The destruction of the temple really was the end of the Jewish way of life.

 

[SFH]

Whenever the High Priest heard a blasphemy, he was obligated under Old Testament tradition to rend his garment (e.g., Caiaphas rent his robe when Christ declared he was the Son of God). One view of the rent curtain in the Temple is that God rent the curtain at the blasphemy offered to His Only Begotten Son.

Another interpretation is that the rent curtain marked the end of Judaism centered around the Temple (i.e. God departed from the Temple as Judaism lapsed into apostasy) and the start of Christianity centered around Christ.

Yet another interpretation is that the rent curtain revealing the Holy of Holies was a symbol of the the pierced side of Christ revealing the true Holy of Holies – Heaven, which was now opened to man through the death of Christ on the cross.

 

[awalt]

1. It certainly does not mean we no longer need Priests. If so, Christ would not have created a sacrament to create them.
2. The curtain seperated the inner part of the temple from the outer - the inner being the area only high priests could go into , albeit infrequently. The tearing of the cloth was the completion of the perfect sacrifice, and it symbolilzed that all of us could now enter the inner room where God habitates, through the Eucharist.
3. Yes, Christ’s covenant signified the completion of the older OT convenants (there were in fact what, about 5 convenants from God to different people in the OT?) I believe however the OT covenant was actually fulfilled at the Resurrection, although I too get confused because there were different OT covenants.

That’s why we say in Mass “This is my blood of the **new **and everlasting covenant…” (Mark 14:24)

 

[Thal59]

Greetings all,

This is my first post on these forum boards. I am currently studying Jewish traditions from the time of the Maccabean revolt to the second Jewish rebellion of 135 AD. I am also studying the modern Hebrew language.

Regarding the temple veil, first of all one must consider that to the Jewish tradition of the day, there were 16 different ways to tear a veil or rend a garment, but one never tore from top to bottom. The second temple veil, which is the one that tore, not the first veil, was actually a multi-layered raiment that was a full 8 feet thick! (Not the billowing sheet you might see in the movies.) So it was impossible to tear by mere mortal hands alone. The tearing of this veil, by divine powers, indicated an expression by God of blasphemy having been committed by the Jewish heirarchy. (Just as the Pharisee tore his garment at the trial of Jesus.)

While much of what has been said above is true, the important thing to remember is to consider the “layout” of the temple. The large upright structure of the temple was called the Hechal. (Pronounced Hek-al-sh.) The second veil seperated the two sanctuaries which are called the tabernacle and the holy of holies. In the tabernacle was the altar, lavers, basins, table and loaves of proposition, bread and wine for the todah sacrifice, lampstands, incense censures, etc. In the holy of holies was nothing but the ark of the old covenant. The high priest alone could enter into the holy of holies and stand in the presence of God. The other priests were forbidden to enter. The “priestly people” could not enter either sanctuary; their presence was symbolized by the 12 loaves of proposition, or shewbread, one loaf for each of the 12 tribes.

To make a long story short, tear the second veil and the most immediate result is that the two sanctuaries become one! God is present in the same space as the priests and the altar. While we do not have animal sacrifices, or any need for lavers and basins, we do have an altar, bread and wine, candles, incense, and of course the priest who officiates at the altar.

When Jesus becomes really present in the bread and wine, we have the culmination of the tearing of the veil; God (Jesus) present at the altar in the bread and wine, in the presence of the priests and the congregation - all together in one sanctuary, the church.

I hope this helps.

Thal59

 

[searchin4truth]

Br. Rich SFO:

What was posted by jeffreedy789 has a better choice of words than my response. God does not break Covenants, we do. It was the Jewish leaders who broke the covenant by killing Christ, as they had done the other times when Covenants were broken.

True but what a guy said earlier is true that the structure of the church encourage us not prohibit us from walking deeper with God. I mean the Bible speaks about how we have direct access to God but it also talk about how we should pray for one other and read the Scriptures, fellowship with each other, and so on. Because we are human, prone to error and to being easily deceived. The fact that we can go directly to God and that we can go through a priest is two sides of the same coin. We are told in the scriptures to go to those who are more spiritually mature then us. A Christian especially a baby Christian finds it hard at times to know if they are hearing from God or to talk to him. I have been active Christian for basically by whole life but I find it hard to pray to God by myself at times. But if I wip out a pray or inquire the help of a Saint or Mary to pray on my behalf I find it easier. I mean the Saints are fully in the very presence of God, and the priest is most likely more intuned with God’s will then I am and has more faith. Also his role is to help me and guide me in my spiritualy journey. His like the big brother I who clarifies thing to me. The preist also has more experience hearing from God in all likeliness. He has set himself apart unto God for hte specific tastk of being a sheperd for the Lord’s people. I feel I have more confidence in his ability then mine own and know that God uses authority to inforce or give you measages. They inspire you to draw closer to God by guiding you to God especially when it might be hard to get there by yourself.

 

[petra]

Thal59:

Regarding the temple veil, first of all one must consider that to the Jewish tradition of the day, there were 16 different ways to tear a veil or rend a garment, but one never tore from top to bottom. The second temple veil, which is the one that tore, not the first veil, was actually a multi-layered raiment that was a full 8 feet thick! (Not the billowing sheet you might see in the movies.) So it was impossible to tear by mere mortal hands alone. The tearing of this veil, by divine powers, indicated an expression by God of blasphemy having been committed by the Jewish heirarchy. (Just as the Pharisee tore his garment at the trial of Jesus.)

While much of what has been said above is true, the important thing to remember is to consider the “layout” of the temple. The large upright structure of the temple was called the Hechal. (Pronounced Hek-al-sh.) The second veil seperated the two sanctuaries which are called the tabernacle and the holy of holies. In the tabernacle was the altar, lavers, basins, table and loaves of proposition, bread and wine for the todah sacrifice, lampstands, incense censures, etc. In the holy of holies was nothing but the ark of the old covenant. The high priest alone could enter into the holy of holies and stand in the presence of God. The other priests were forbidden to enter. The “priestly people” could not enter either sanctuary; their presence was symbolized by the 12 loaves of proposition, or shewbread, one loaf for each of the 12 tribes.

To make a long story short, tear the second veil and the most immediate result is that the two sanctuaries become one! God is present in the same space as the priests and the altar. While we do not have animal sacrifices, or any need for lavers and basins, we do have an altar, bread and wine, candles, incense, and of course the priest who officiates at the altar.

When Jesus becomes really present in the bread and wine, we have the culmination of the tearing of the veil; God (Jesus) present at the altar in the bread and wine, in the presence of the priests and the congregation - all together in one sanctuary, the church.

Thank you for the wonderful description.

The Jewish temple provides interesting parallels to the human makeup. We are body, soul, and spirit. The body, like the outer court, is visible to all. It is the public presentation. The soul (consisting of our personality, intellect, emotions, and will), like the tabernacle, is visible to a few–to those that know us. The human spirit, like the Holy of Holies, is the dwelling place of God in a Christian and is visible only to the individual and to God.

Someone in an earlier post asked where God went when the veil was rent. His plan was to no longer dwell in an earthly temple, but to dwell in human temples. This became possible at the Pentacost and every Christian since then is the temple of the Holy Spirit. This has tremendous implications for our access to God. Hebrews 4:14-16, “Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and may find grace to help in time of need.”

I agree that the sacraments are beneficial because they join the tangible with the non-tangible and help our faith. But the sacraments are tutors, not gates. We have full access to God, as a Christian. Jesus is our priest and He is completely sufficient to hear our confession.

 

[Thal59]

Hello Petra,

I appreciate your point of view, but you seemed to miss a point here and there. First of all, in the OT, we had three kinds of priests. We had the high priest (Aaron etc.) the Levitical priesthood (the ministerial priests,) and the priestly people. When Jesus “fulfilled” the OT, He raised each to a more perfect form. Jesus,himself, became the high priest, and we became a better priestly people as we are not under the rule of the law, as Paul says, but under the rule of grace.

But what I tried to show in the temple explaination was that the ministerial priesthood was also brought to a higher level in that whereas before the priest could not entire into the presence of God, now, after the tearing of the veil, the priest does indeed minister in the presence of God as God is now present at the altar, not seculded in the Holy of Holies at the ark. Also, the priest offers up the body and blood of Christ, not the inferior flesh of animals.

Look at a portion of your quote from Hebrews…

Let us therefore draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and may find grace to help in time of need."<<

The “mercy seat” or throne of grace is no longer the ark but the altar, where one receives grace via the consecrated bread and wine, the Eucharist. The sacraments are not tutors, as you have implied, but are indeed gates - gates which channel grace to those who believe (have faith) in the Lord’s death, resurrection, and establishment of His new covenant in his flesh and blood.

“By grace you are saved through faith” Petra. If you do not have faith in the Lord’s words “This is my body, this is my blood…” then you do not receive grace from them.

Thal59

 

[petra]

Hi Thal,

Thanks for your response. I realize there were three types of Jewish priests and what their roles were. But if we, individually, are the temple of God now, why are external “graces” mandated? What could be more intimate and complete than Him dwelling inside of us and communing with us? Grace dwells within us 24/7. Many Catholics talk of the Eucharist as being the most intimate form of fellowship with God. But the Eucharist can only be received at a maximum of twice per day without special permission. That’s an average of once every 12 hours. How is that better than the intimate contact we have with the Lord every second of the day in the Holy of Holies of the temple of our body?

The Catholic Church is extremely Jewish. A priest told me that one time, and I see it in your example. But it seems that the Church has kept Jesus still a bit removed from the Christian. This is especially the case if the sacraments are gates. What that really Christ’s intent–to leave an ecclesiastical layer of imperfect humans between us and Him? What is the motivation to retain a hint of the barrier that existed under the Law?

During one of my confessions awhile back, I confessed a deep resentment that I had toward another person. I was struggling to forgive the person and was having a very difficult time because of hurt this person had inflicted upon me. It was making me bitter and unhappy. The priest said it was no big deal and implied that I had brought an unnecessary issue to him. He said that if the hurt had not occurred, I never would have found the Catholic Church (which is probably true). But he entirely dismissed my struggle.

That is what makes the passage in Hebrews 4 so remarkable. Jesus is the high priest, he can perfectly sympathize with our weaknesses and can correctly determine what is overly scrupulous and what is spiritually harmful to us. We can draw near to him, offer a confession, and receive help, mercy, and forgiveness. We are told to hold fast to that confession. So I am. I can’t let go of it.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi Thal,

Welcome.
In your posts, you mentioned the name of the inner temple (Hechal) which I am familiar with as Naos (Gk), Could you tell me which language the name you gave was in? Is that Hebrew or Aramaic?

Also, the thickness of the inner temple curtain and tearing practices was something I am not familiar with. Could you cite a reference as to where someone might learn more about that? I’m not a Hebrew expert (I often make the mistakes like writing Jewish, where I mean the more general Hebrew…) and would like to learn more to reduce my ignorance.

 

[Thal59]

Hello Petra and Huiou Theou,

Petra, please be patient and I will post something for you later today. (By the way Petra, you have spoken about confessing to a priest, but your approach to “direct connection with God” sounds Protestant. Is there anything you could share with me about yourself? If you want, I am always open to personal chat via email.)

Huiou Theou, the structure of the veil was given to me by Br. Bob Fishman, a Jewish convert to Catholicism… you may have seen him on EWTN hosting a series called “The Jewish Roots of Catholicism/Christianity.”

As far as I know “Hechal” is Hebrew. I have an uncle who is in his eighties and a retired Carmelite priest. When he studied for the priesthood back in the 1940s, one had to learn Greek, Hebrew, and Latin; an educational requirement no longer in effect since Vatican II.

I remember him telling me once when I was a teenager, (I’m 45 now) that no one should attempt to read scripture who has not had at least 2-3 years college study in Jewish traditions. I didn’t really agree with him at the time, but now I do as many expressions in Scripture are more easily understandable if one understands the Jewish traditions and language idioms of the first century.

As far as what you can do to learn such things, I have to confess you’ll have to look around on your own. I have not found an exhaustive source of such knowledge one can easily tap. I would recommend the book “The Jews in the Time of Jesus, an introduction.” by Stephen M. Wylen who is a rabbi at Temple Beth-Tikvah in Wayne, New Jersey. It is an excellent start and I have never highlighted as many passages in a book as I have with his book. (You will, however, not agree with his opinions of Jesus because he, as a Jew, will not acknowledge His divine nature, and he also tries to look at Jesus with the objective eye of an historian.) But his material referring to Judaism from the time of maccabees to the Jewish uprising of 135 AD is excellent.

Thal59

 

[masterjedi747]

jeffreedy789:

the torn curtain is a good question. what does it mean?

That we no longer have to hide ourselves form God. He has now come down to reveal Himself to us in person, and has walked among us. We have seen Him, and seen His face. There is no longer any need for Him to be hidden from us in the temple, maintaining a distant relationship with His people, only for the priests to see. The curtain in teh temple was torn, exposing the Holy-of-Holies to the other courts of the temple. God is no longer confined to that one small area – His Church is universal, and thus no longer bound to one geographical location.
I learned all about that one in school. Of course there are always going to be deeper meanings, but you get the point.

 

[trailblazer]

Dear Stumbler: I see the torn curtain as the elimination of that which seperated man/woman from God being eliminated by the death of Jesus. Jesus is now the Holy of Holies that only a Saduccee/priest was rarely allowed access to. We now have full access to Jesus so to speak…no more seperation.

 

[Thal59]

Hello, Petra

(My initial response is too long, so I will post it in two parts.)

Part 1.

I am going to try to go through this quickly as I am sure the forum doesn’t want exhaustive replies. The problem we have here is that we are trying to cover too many questions and subjects at one time. It would be best to keep long responses between us via email. I am always willing to chat in an on-going manner with forum members, but I rarely am taken up on the offer. Oh well, here goes…

I realize there were three types of Jewish priests and what their roles were. <<

I assumed you did, the point I wanted to make was, if two of the three priestly roles – High priest, and priestly people were “fulfilled” or brought to a higher level, then why not the ministerial priesthood as well. Most people who claim the tearing of the veil negated the ministerial priesthood have to do a lot of “personal philosophying” to get to that conclusion. Nowhere does the Bible state that the ministerial priesthood was abolished. But I will speak more about this at the end of the post.

Grace dwells within us 24/7. <<

Not necessarily so. Grace can be lost. Look at the following… 1 Cor 15:10 Paul states that the grace he has received has not been fruitless; implying that one can fail to make one’s grace profitable if one doesn’t try. (When Paul was in prison and being abused by the devil, he called out three times to the Lord for relief and the Lord finally told him…”My grace is sufficient for thee.” Paul had all the grace necessary to withstand the devil’s abuses, but even he didn’t know it. Having grace will not necessarily cause one to succeed automatically, it can be used profitably, or it can be wasted.) 2 Cor 6:1 Paul infers that the grace of God can be given in vain. Gal 2:21 Paul infers that grace can be cast away if one chooses. Gal 5:4 The Galatians have returned to the Jewish observances and Paul tells them they have “…fallen away from grace.” Heb 12:15 How can anyone be wanting in grace if grace and God are with them 24/7?

Many Catholics talk of the Eucharist as being the most intimate form of fellowship with God. But the Eucharist can only be received at a maximum of twice per day without special permission. That’s an average of once every 12 hours. How is that better than the intimate contact we have with the Lord every second of the day in the Holy of Holies of the temple of our body?<<

As I mentioned above, grace can be lost. If grace is lost or diminished via sin, then our “inner” communion with the Lord is also diminished. In the Eucharist, we are joined to Jesus both physically and spiritually; His body and blood, soul and divinity to our body and blood, soul and mortality. It is by this way, the channel of grace through the Blessed Eucharist, that we restore or regain sufficient grace so that our bodies can be a proper temple fit for the Lord’s presence.

The Catholic Church is extremely Jewish. <<

The Catholic Church is the fulfillment of Judaism. Jewish converts to Catholicism often consider themselves as “fulfilled Jews,” or “Messianic Jews.” The OT and the NT are one testament. The old covenants and the new one are a continuation of the same relationship God has with man. Jesus was a Jew, as were the apostles and the first converts. The Church Jesus established upon the rock Peter is a fulfilled Judaism, but is also a continuation of the original Jewish faith. Jesus did not “eliminate” Judaism with Christianity, He perfected it. If a church claims to be Christian, but is devoid of Jewish roots, it is not the church Jesus established through the apostles.

 

[Thal59]

Part 2.

What that really Christ’s intent–to leave an ecclesiastical layer of imperfect humans between us and Him?<<

The priesthood is not “between” us and Him. The ministerial priesthood is composed of men like us. They are a part of us. But God has always been a God of ritual and ceremony. The Catholic priesthood keeps the rituals and sacraments of the new covenant as the Jewish priesthood kept the old covenant rituals. If there is no ministerial priesthood, the abrogation of which, again, is not stated in scripture, then there is no need for the office of Bishops, presbyters, and deacons. Yet, the NT mentions these offices often.

What is the motivation to retain a hint of the barrier that existed under the Law?<<

The barrier is lifted. Both the priestly people and the ministerial priest can approach the altar and receive grace through the Eucharist whereas before, neither could stand in the presence of God who was secluded in the Holy of Holies. Oddly enough, Petra, the only semblance of such a barrier exists in the Protestant world of Sola Scriptura where they are mentally locked into the “written” word just as the Sadducees accepted the “Torah alone.”

During one of my confessions… but he entirely dismissed my struggle.<<

The priest isn’t perfect. Many people, even St. Faustina, had to search for a good confessor. But just as you may have been disappointed by one priest’s apparent lack of interest, you might just as easily find one who is a Godsend to you the rest of your life. My advice is to stick with it and do your best not to judge the priest. (Deut 17:8-13)

That is what makes the passage in Hebrews 4 so remarkable. Jesus is the high priest, he can perfectly sympathize with our weaknesses and can correctly determine what is overly scrupulous and what is spiritually harmful to us. We can draw near to him, offer a confession, and receive help, mercy, and forgiveness. We are told to hold fast to that confession. So I am. I can’t let go of it.<<

Don’t let go of it. Just remember that when you confess your sins in the presence of the priest, Jesus is the one who is hearing, absolving, forgiving, through the person of His minister. “Where two or more are gathered in my name, there too will the spirit be.”

Petra, if you got sick you would avail yourself of the abilities of a doctor. If your car broke down, you would accept the help of a trained mechanic. The priest ministers to both you and the Lord. He does not come between us and the Lord. If you have a spiritual ailment, why are you so reluctant to accept the help of one of God’s trained ministers? But getting back to the question of the ministerial priesthood being abolished, again, it does not say that in scripture – but if it were true, certainly Peter or Paul would have said so. The English word priest comes from the Greek Presbyter. The Jewish priests were called Kohan or Kohen in Hebrew.

I have found that at virtually the same time that Christianity made its way to Rome something interesting happened. The newly converted Roman Christians created a Latinized variation of the word presbyter. That word is praepositos. It means “Priest.” From this Latin word we get the Old English preost which later became priest. The question here, Petra, is why would the early Christians in Rome create this Latin version of presbyter for priest when the Latin already had a word for priest; sacerdos? The reason was to separate a Christian Roman priest (praepositos) from a pagan Roman priest (sacerdos.)

If the ministerial priesthood were abolished, certainly Peter or Paul, who evangelized in Rome, would have pointed this out. Time to sign off for now, Petra.

Thal59

 

[petra]

Thal59:

Petra, please be patient and I will post something for you later today. (By the way Petra, you have spoken about confessing to a priest, but your approach to “direct connection with God” sounds Protestant. Is there anything you could share with me about yourself? If you want, I am always open to personal chat via email.)

No problem!

I became a Catholic 3 years ago without a full understanding of what the Church teaches. (I didn’t go through an RCIA program). Since then, I have learned things about the Church over which I have theological disagreements. I don’t know where I fit currently or whether I will remain a Catholic. I see value in the sacraments as tools and resources for our growth, but I don’t see support in scripture that Christ intended to retain barriers between Himself and Christians. Why does the Church insist we still need mediators to approach Him–in light of His perfect and complete atonement, which satisfied the Father perfecty!

My views are not sola scriptura. I see great value in tradition as used to provide insight into the meaning of Scriptures. But I don’t see evidence that Church tradition is infallible, so I hold a view the recognizes the primacy of Scripture over tradition. I also appreciate that an informed knowledge of Jewish and Church history is extremely important in interpreting Scripture accurately.

Anyway, I’m interested in the truth. I’m seeing truth on both sides of the Protestant/Catholic fence and am trying to be as honest as possible in my pursuit of it. Catholics say I sound like a Protestant, and Protestants say I sound like a Catholic. I don’t really care what labels people wish to apply. I just know I’m a Christian.