Yes, if the charicature of the doctrine that you provide is the actual doctrine. It certainly isn’t what I was taught as a Lutheran, and less so now as an Anglican. The office of the ordained priesthood is a specific vocation, neither a replacement of, nor in competition with the priesthood of all believers. It is unique in its role and call within the Church. All of us are members of that royal priesthood, but not all of us are ordained to publicly preach the word or administer the sacraments.
If the priesthood of all believers rejects heirarchy, why have a leadership structure?
- Status
B
benhur
Guest
Hi V,
Well, they were heretical and excommunicated each on their “heresy”. They were not heretical or x’ed because they conflicted with each other.
True, at times one must disavow some to protect truth, but we must also beware if we disavow to protect the “succession”.
Yes, practice was improved but reliance on tradition, and doctrine itself did not change one iota, and in fact increased in dogmatizing.
Mulling over is good . It is also a tool for indeed keeping contemporary "products of times " past.
I would disagree that priesthood succession is of the oldest OT parts. Melchizedek, yes. as a priest (no succession in fact) Just as the leaders of the household were, as you suggest starting with Adam, priests. They had not intermediary to God, but were to walk with Him and to offer to Him, without go between. Again, no succession , except by faith and open to all, who answer the call. No respecter of persons or succession, until Abraham.
And all Israel coming out of Egypt was to be a priesthood (every household head was the "priest’ to slay and offer the lamb and spread it’s blood, as overseer /bishop of the household , until the sin as you suggest.
So my only question is why would you want to continue an OT succession/priest, that only came out of sin ? Just because you claim it to be after Melchizedek does not undo the actual practice and doctrine of a priesthood that is of “Levi” .
Hebrews does away with that kind of priesthood, and NT does not use the term “priest” (hiereus) for any offices or giftings save one: the royal priesthood that we all form , as promised to the initial fleeing israelites ,* before their sin.*.
We have presbyters /bishops, teachers, but not as intermediaries between us and the Father (yet we can all be intermediaries of sorts for one another ), but most certainly not sacrificially, which is the main thrust of CC priesthood. They can teach, and oversee, and heal with giftings, but sacrificial go between, no in the opinion of many.
Blessings
D
De_Maria
Guest
Thanks.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Hey Ben. Thanks for the continued discussion.
I don’t think any of this is dogma, it’s just a fun study of Jewish and extra-biblical literature
While every man was priest over his home, the lineage of the first-borns from creation may have been given a higher status. (I’ll skip the less-known) Adam to Seth to Enoch to Methuselah to Shem (who may have been Melchizedek) who passed his lineal blessing to Abraham.
So your “no succession in fact” statement may be better said as “no succession in opinion” as some Jews might disagree with you. And “The Patriarchs” is just as much their “turf” as it is ours.
It may be worth pointing out that the priesthood of Christianity may have also came out of sin. The Levitical Pharisees and Sadducees committed the sin of refusing Christ’s divinity. Just as the Patriarchal priesthood was remade into the Levitical Order, Levi’s priesthood was remade into the Apostles.
Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law.
I’m sure we agree that it’s very interesting that from its origins until the reformation, the system you disagree with was the system overwhelmingly used by Christians for the first 1500 years of Christianity. I’m sure you feel that the Spirit sure took its sweet time finally getting it “right”!
At any rate, the big issue here is your reference to an intermediary. As a Catholic, I wasn’t aware that I required someone as a go-between so that I may walk, talk and offer to God.
I think the biggest reason we have our episcopate is so we have an authoritative body to preserve the truth per Christ’s instruction and to administer the sacraments of God, like Reconciliation.
John 20:21 He (Jesus) said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.
22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
Emphasis mine
I think this is a “you say toe-mato (heresy), I say tah-mahto (conflict)” distinction.
As Apostolic Succession is preserved by God Himself, the point isn’t to protect an institution of power-hungry old men. It’s to protect the authoritative teaching body of God’s Church.
Sure. Just like we see in the last epistles, if an issue comes up that needs to be addressed, someone probably needs to write it down. Why? So it can be read by the faithful not at council and yet to be born.
As Christ’s truth never changes, this shouldn’t be a problem. Right?
Well, if you want to dig a little deeper, there may have always been a high-priest during the time of the Patriarchs - the first born heir of Adam.
I don’t think any of this is dogma, it’s just a fun study of Jewish and extra-biblical literature
While every man was priest over his home, the lineage of the first-borns from creation may have been given a higher status. (I’ll skip the less-known) Adam to Seth to Enoch to Methuselah to Shem (who may have been Melchizedek) who passed his lineal blessing to Abraham.
So your “no succession in fact” statement may be better said as “no succession in opinion” as some Jews might disagree with you. And “The Patriarchs” is just as much their “turf” as it is ours.
From the beginning to the present, God has ordained its existence. Not my rules.
It may be worth pointing out that the priesthood of Christianity may have also came out of sin. The Levitical Pharisees and Sadducees committed the sin of refusing Christ’s divinity. Just as the Patriarchal priesthood was remade into the Levitical Order, Levi’s priesthood was remade into the Apostles.
Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law.
That may be because “hiereus” (priest) was commonly associated with “hieron” (temple). As most would associate “temple” with the one in Jerusalem, it was prudent to avoid its usage. “Presbyteroi” didn’t share the connotation. Moreover, its from “presbyteroi” that we get the English word “priest”.
I’m sure we agree that it’s very interesting that from its origins until the reformation, the system you disagree with was the system overwhelmingly used by Christians for the first 1500 years of Christianity. I’m sure you feel that the Spirit sure took its sweet time finally getting it “right”!
At any rate, the big issue here is your reference to an intermediary. As a Catholic, I wasn’t aware that I required someone as a go-between so that I may walk, talk and offer to God.
I think the biggest reason we have our episcopate is so we have an authoritative body to preserve the truth per Christ’s instruction and to administer the sacraments of God, like Reconciliation.
John 20:21 He (Jesus) said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.
22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
Emphasis mine
B
benhur
Guest
Hi V,At any rate, the big issue here is your reference to an intermediary. As a Catholic, I wasn’t aware that I required someone as a go-between so that I may walk, talk and offer to God.
My immediate response (and therefore subject to change), is that at least implicitly you are doomed without the intermediary CC priest. Without the CC priest no valid baptism, no valid confirmation, no valid confessional, no validly eating the Body , and no valid extreme unction…How then is that priesthood not an intermediary, even after the order of Levi ?
Blessings
T
Tomyris
Guest
I don’t think so, but you would think so from some Catholics. Here, for example, from their catechism:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Hey Ben,
Respectfully, your understanding about some of the sacraments may be a bit skewed. Some may be administered by laity if the situation is extreme. However, you are completely, 100% right that the sacraments are meant to be administered by Bishops and their priests under regular conditions.
Without a visible, authoritative priesthood there is zero doctrinal authority in the Church. When it doesn’t exist, you get exactly what you see in much of Protestantism - conflicting, self “ordained” preachers setting up shop on all over town, all claiming to have the correct interpretation of scripture as allegedly given them by the Holy Spirit despite theologically conflicting with another protestant church right across the street from them that makes an identical claim of correctness.
Pre-Reformation, there were a handful on conflicting groups in Christendom. After? Thousands. Another one probably started while I was typing this. Seriously.
However, one of the few reliable sources of unity for these ever-conflicting parties is their doctrinal attitude toward the ancient Church. Go figure.
Something from the mouth of Christ Himself that many evangelicals struggle with:
John 20:21 He said therefore to [the disciples] again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
Ergo, the priesthood administers the sacrament reconciliation as spoken from God’s own mouth. Any scripture cited in contra to this passage still doesn’t dismiss its reality. Any systematic theology must synthesize all scripture, not just the parts written by St. Paul.
Another good one for you to consider: What came first? The New Testament Church or the New Testament?
Thanks for your time.
I agree. Lots of awesome Catholics out there. Lots of bad ones too.
I guess it’s like anything else involving people.
B
benhur
Guest
Hi T,
One must take into account all the CC says about these “others”. It is a quagmire . Your CC quotes are nice, a positive direction, even ecumeical.Howvere they are dampened by other possible quotes that would yield others as “second class” or imperfect (which I don’t mind, and like when folks stick to their guns so to speak). Others will then say if you knowingly reject the CC your are doomed. Then of course is the dialogue of what is “knowingly”.
So the hardliners and their catechism quotes can still be found, amongst the softer, less sectarian ones that you quoted.
I have said before that I wish they (CC) would put all their quotes dealing with these "other’ brethren together, in a comprehensive way, to be more transparent of the inner conflicting drives in the CC on this matter.
Blessings
B
benhur
Guest
Hi V,
Yes , thank you , and knew of the allowance of some sacraments being administered “flexibly” under extreme conditions.
Then one must ask by what doctrinal authority does the P and O churches exist, even flourish , as Tomyris’s catechism quote suggest.?
Well, the post suggests by the authority "leased " from the CC, though imperfectly. So there is doctrinal authority enough to fill up almost half of Christendom ! And do we need more doctrine than what was already properly laid ? Of course not. So onward with spreading that already laid Gospel.
Yes sad to see any division. Yet we are still operating under grace , and God can still speak from even from a “stubborn mule”.
yes ,as Luther suggests we are all our own popes ?
There must be millions of ways to get saved, to be baptized . Millions of views on “remembrance” and the Eucharist. Millions of views on the priesthood and the papacy. Millions of ways to confess sin.Millions of views on the millennial reign etc etc,. Certainly not two or three variations.
Well, yes and no. Reformers had a few different views of interpreting some father writings, just as they do writ, and any early traditions.
For sure they are united in one thing, they are not Roman Catholic, and they do not believe in the succession of a pope after Peter.
I did not know we struggle with sin retention, or a bad conscience ? Did not know we were then lacking in any joy and thanksgiving that comes from such a cleansing. Are we still dead in our sins ?
We must have missed the tradition or father writings that show the apostles held confessions, or even any bishops or presbyters. When did Saturday afternoon start being set aside for that ?
Is it a wrong interpretation that that the preaching of the gospel itself contains access to that most sacred “Confessional” ?
Well Writ was before both. At least that is what they called it at the beginning (no new or old testament at first). Of course the Testator comes first , then His Writ. Strawman to “bible only” meaning.
Blessings V
T
Tomyris
Guest
That’s true. It is very difficult to make out exactly what Catholic teaching actually is sometimes, between statements such as the above and Unum Sanctum. And it seems everyone from popes to lay Catholics are always saying stuff that is different from the previous thing you read. And there is so much more than you could every read or study.
That weighs into this debate: what good is such an authoritative priesthood if you cannot clearly understand what they are saying? Many Catholics are confused. And then, from my own experience with the Catholic Church, there seems to be a determination NOT to teach the faith, but to teach anything else but the faith. I listened to a priest give a homily once that was literally a list of the places in the sanctuary where the bishop had walked to on his visit: ‘he stood here, and then he went over by that pillar, and then he came down to the front. Then he went…’ THAT was the homily. People are being shortchanged.
T
Tomyris
Guest
This is a caricature. We have ruling elders, pastors, and denominational statements of faith, not self “ordained” preachers, etc. And there are many agreements with other Christians.
By the way, you and the Orthodox make the identical claim of correctness, no?
W
Wannano
Guest
I am personally at the point where I really would like to know if I am a “brother in Christ” or simply a “heretic.” I may be strange, but it would be easier to just “write off” the CC if I am a heretic than if I am truly considered a “brother in Christ.”
Maybe that makes no sense to anyone but me!
B
benhur
Guest
Hi T.,
Thank you . I would just add that all churches have their good , bad and ugly. For me generally speaking mainline denominations, including CC , have their fairer share of "dry’’ teachers. That is they may be seminary trained, may have their “BA” degree, but have not experienced the big BA , as in born again, filled with the Holy Ghost.
But yes have been to a few very dry CC mass homilies. But I have also been to a few where I say to myself , pretty good , he sounds protestant (or born again). …lol
Blessings
B
benhur
Guest
Hi W,
No I get it. I would rather be treated hot or cold, that is genuinely maybe. I like for others to stick to their guns and not patronize me with tickling fluff.
Yet I am not above not needing all grace and love from all.
Blessings
PS … I suppose i and other do the same thing towards CC…do we at times patronize , add fluff for congeniality sake.
M
mattp0625
Guest
There is quite a bit to unpack here.
Should we listen to priests and respect them? Yes. However, they are not bishops with the authority of apostolic succession. They do not make authoritative statements with the backing of the whole church. They do not issue official clarifications on doctrine. Rather, they have the backing of the church as ordained by the bishops. They are not always theologians, either. It’s important to distinguish what they are and what they are not.
More importantly, to a large extent, it appears the lens of a Protestant context is being used to filter information about what it means to be Catholic.
Is it good to compare notes? Sure. However, if you want to understand Catholicism, you have to look at what the Church says is the mechanism to find the deposit of faith. The Church indicates its deposit faith, sourced from divine revelation via the bible and from apostolic tradition, is contextually summarized in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
To that end, it doesn’t really matter what I say or someone else says about it. Equating this to the “hard liners” with catechisms as though they were Protestant fundamentalists with different interpretations does not tell the story. Why? We are a church that believes in an authoritative magisterium whereas Protestantism rejects such an authoritative magisterium.
The result? A lot of non Catholics compare differing beliefs of different denominations to find out what is closest to their own view. This involves comparing a lot of different notes to shoot for the closest thing to truth, though no one authoritatively claims to have the absolute Christian truth on all matters. (Although, it is worth noting that both Luther and Calvin used language that strongly suggested they were authoritative themselves.)
The Catholic Church does not operate that way. If one professes something different than the deposit of faith put forth by the Church, the person is not professing something that is Catholic. Nor does anyone have the authority to put forth something different.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Hey Ben,
I think the majority of the debate, especially among protestants, is what was “already properly” laid out. I’m heard Baptists and Church of Christ Christians both reference 1 Peter 3:21 in support of their views on Baptism’s role in salvation, despite holding contrary views.
The “ugly truth” is that the overwhelming majority of Christians fell within one of just three communions at the end of the 15th century (RC, EO & OO). For the most part, these three communions still contain more than 2/3 of Christendom today.
A Baptist preacher in the town I grew up in would say as a point of pride that he was ordained and went to seminary at the same place Matthew the Disciple was.
As I grew up Baptist, I’ll fully concede that the main part of the Baptist service was the sermon. It had to be entertaining and engaging, or we didn’t feel that the “spirit” was upon us as strongly that day.
As a Catholic, the main part of the service is where we celebrate Christ’s sacrifice for us. The homily (what a protestant may call a sermon) was secondary to that.
You don’t have to be an eloquent speaker to be a representative of God. Moses is a fine example.
I think we would agree that “flourishing” is an exceptionally poor standard for the truthfulness of the claim in its own merit. At some point, The Golden Calf, Gnosticism, Arianism and others have flourished. They ultimately failed the “test of history”, but some endured for quite some time.
Moral issues do eventually arise that the saints of the first century had little to no commentary on, at least in a specific way. The environment, weapons of mass destruction, capitalism v. socialism are just a few examples.
I think the majority of the debate, especially among protestants, is what was “already properly” laid out. I’m heard Baptists and Church of Christ Christians both reference 1 Peter 3:21 in support of their views on Baptism’s role in salvation, despite holding contrary views.
Pre-reformation, Christianity on the whole held the attitude that if you disagreed with the Holy Church, you were wrong. The Holy Church was the vehicle and defender of God’s Truth. You were just one fallible person. The notion that God would reveal truth to you and not his Church was probably laughable.
The “ugly truth” is that the overwhelming majority of Christians fell within one of just three communions at the end of the 15th century (RC, EO & OO). For the most part, these three communions still contain more than 2/3 of Christendom today.
I told you it was difficult for protestants to handle. It flies so hard against their beliefs that “dismissal” is about all they’ve got.
Off the top of my head, Origen wrote about it about 245AD. And it’s not limited to Saturday. You can often set up other times if your priest is cool with it.
Not at all. That access leads to Christ’s Church. His Church provides the sacrament of penance for the sins you commit after your baptism.
To say the Jews didn’t have collections of holy writings is incorrect. However, you see less emphasis on canonicity because both the ancient Jewish priesthoods and the Christian Church (until the 16th century) were never “Bibliocentric” churches. God ordained his holy institutions, not a collection of writings. This is even more jaw-droppingly obvious when you consider Pre-Enlightenment literacy in western society. “Bible based” simply couldn’t work. The average guy just couldn’t read it for most of human history.
If you’re actually in the Church, you just ask your priest. I don’t find most Catholics to be “confused”. I often find that they don’t like the lesson.
I wish it was a caricature. We even have a few churches setting up in strip-malls in my town.
A Baptist preacher in the town I grew up in would say as a point of pride that he was ordained and went to seminary at the same place Matthew the Disciple was.
Every claimant within the Great Protestant Clamor does the same, for the most part.
So your primary measure for a Christian leader is whether they have the gift of Charisma?
As I grew up Baptist, I’ll fully concede that the main part of the Baptist service was the sermon. It had to be entertaining and engaging, or we didn’t feel that the “spirit” was upon us as strongly that day.
As a Catholic, the main part of the service is where we celebrate Christ’s sacrifice for us. The homily (what a protestant may call a sermon) was secondary to that.
You don’t have to be an eloquent speaker to be a representative of God. Moses is a fine example.
B
benhur
Guest
Hi V,I told you it was difficult for protestants to handle. It flies so hard against their beliefs that “dismissal” is about all they’ve got.
Lol but it is the other way around . The CC had (has?) a hard time accepting that indeed the Spirit is at work in these “other” churches, and is not diminishing. Her opinion that it is not in fullness of the Spirit is just that, an opinion, a conviction, of which you know to be respected, yet there be many to go around.
As far as dismal, not sure that parishioners exiting a CC service look any more luminous or joyful than those exiting any other church.
Blessings
B
benhur
Guest
Hi V,
Agree but that goes both ways, the merit of simply flourishing, or enduring or longevity. Right ?
As we find in Job, " years should teach wisdom but do not always, youth can speak , for it is God who giveth understanding (to whom He will ?)
Blessings
M
mdgspencer
Guest
The priesthood of all believers speaks of a spiritual aspect of the lives of the faithful. The hierarchy concerns a different part of Catholic life, the structure of the Church.
If the priesthood of all believers negated the structure of the Church, Christ would have never appointed twelve apostles, nor would there be church leaders well accepted by the Bible, as was Titus, for example, in charge of the Church in Crete–who was appointed by Saint Paul to this position, who wrote to Titus as head of the Church in Crete in the Epistle to Titus.
If the priesthood of all believers negated the structure of the Church, Christ would have never appointed twelve apostles, nor would there be church leaders well accepted by the Bible, as was Titus, for example, in charge of the Church in Crete–who was appointed by Saint Paul to this position, who wrote to Titus as head of the Church in Crete in the Epistle to Titus.
B
benhur
Guest
Hi V,
Yes, understand. But also remember you can only disagree with her to the point to that which she dogmatizes, declares. So beginning of fourth century you had a page or two of “dogma”, as encapsulated in the Apostles Creed and of which we would all fit in today as one.
There was plenty of room to have differing notions and not be laughed at, within the church. Yet by the time of Trent you have pages and pages of division, showing how we can not fit in together, anymore Not sure any one was laughing, in Germany or Rome
Clement of Rome: “The Lord of all things, brethren, is in need of naught; neither requireth he anything of any one, except to confess unto him. For the elect, David saith, I will confess unto the Lord, and that shall please him more than a young calf that putteth forth horns and hoofs.” (First Clement, 52)
John Chrysostom: “We do not request you to go to confess your sins to any of your fellowmen, but only to God…You need no witnesses of your confession. Secretly acknowledge your sins and let God alone hear you.” (De Paenitentia 4:901)
Origen talks of voluntary confession, to anyone whom one might to choose, to "unload, and be healed of any burning spiritual issue., He also talks of confessing to ministers for spiritual guidance., and public confession. Did not see anything for “forgiveness of sins” ,as in one being in Christ stead. Nothing about mortal or venial sins, or forgiveness for them after baptism, to my knowledge. Origen seems to be more in line with Writ “confess your faults one to another” ,and for healing.
Again, that is not, in my opinion , the gospel commission. Forgiveness of sins rests in and thru Christ. The CC suggests the church as intermediary between a sinner, or sin, and Christ’s Blood forgiveness, not as a proclamation of His forgiveness thru faith in His healing Word, but as an actual, effectual mediator to that specific forgiveness…very OT.
Blessings
- Status