Papal primacy

[pocohombre]

The NT is prefigured in the OT. So I ask you, did the OT Jews need a priest to enter the holy of holies? Sure they did. Why? Because that was God’s design. So was it God’s design that all people have authority? Did Jesus give authority to all his disciples or just a few? If they were all priests as you claim why didn’t everyone get the keys or the power to bind and loose? Why were there only twelve apostles? Why did the apostles say that it was not right for them “to wait on tables” and so they created deacons to tend to the material needs of the church. If everyone is a priest as you want to claim then why are there the divisions we see in scripture. Your model of christianity of everyone being a priest just does not fit the picture presented in scripture.

You rightly say the NT is prefigured in the OT. The whole idea of a priest is to be a go between us and God, because of sin. The priest is holy, that is set apart for the function or intercession, to offer up sacrifice, prayer and thanksgiving on our behalf, he being our representative. It is “one who can draw near”. Just from this can’t you see why some feel that priesthood is fullfilled in Christ, and given to us, the old priesthood of the law being dissolved (but not some pre-law forms). The idea we need a representative for prayer and thanksgivings, to “draw near” should be foreign to us. Never the less, the OT had priests. At first the head of every household was the priest (think Job, Abraham Isaac etc). Then in Exodus 19:4 we read the real counterpart to St.Peter’s statement, the prefiguring in the OT, " To the children of Israel…If ye obey and keep covenant ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests,and a holy nation". But because of their sin in Sinai, this did not materialize and in fact the people pretty much asked Moses to be intercessor because of fear. So God in His mercy appointed the task not to all twelve tribes as originally intended but to one, Aaron and the Levites. So priests had a few phases in OT, and we haven’t even talked about Melchizadek and Christ being of the tribe of Judah (not Levi). So, where do we stand in all of this? It is my contention that the CC likens the priesthood to the Mosaic priesthood and only lip service to pre-mosaic priesthood. That is they re-established a special class in the priesthood as set apart, holy, who can “draw near”, while still believing we all are a “royal priesthood”. This is contradictory to OT. I don’t think you can cite an example where the two types of priests coexist in OT. That is, only for a very short time were they were a “nation of priests”. All too quickly that ceased and it was then priests were only a select few (Aaron/levites). Further evidence for this is given where St.Paul says we can boldly go into His presence, “he has not given us a spirit of fear”.( Remember the Israelites and their fear of God at the mountain, saying to Moses, “you go for us” ?) Hebrews 10:19, “having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter the holiest by the blood of Jesus”. He is speaking of entering the holy of holies of the old temple, something only the high priest could do, once a year. Furthermore, we are told that the veil separating the holiest place in the temple was torn in two when our Lord was put to death. It was torn in two, by the Blood, so we can “draw near”. For we are like the Exodus Israelite per St.Peter’s statement ,a royal priesthood, a holy nation… I understand you draw on the need for the sacrifice of the Mass needing a priest .St. Peter only mentions the royal priesthood offering spiritual sacrifices and sacrifices of praise.That is why I don’t think they had priests in early church. They did not view Mass as offering up sacrifice in OT sense but offering up praise and thanksgiving. So much so that the remembrance was called “thanksgiving” or eucharist.

 

[pocohombre]

You recall incorrectly.
The Passover Lamb had to be sacrificed in the Temple, and then brought home for the feast.

 

[pocohombre]

Poco,

The NT was written by Catholics for Catholics in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church collected her books and canonized them into what we call the bible. The Catholic Church is the only official interpreter of her own book.

yes, thank you.A bit “parochial” though, even according to Vat.2 standards on the matter.

 

[Abu]

pocohombre #201
I don’t think they had priests in early church. They did not view Mass as offering up sacrifice in OT sense but offering up praise and thanksgiving.

False imaginings, ad nauseam.

With Christ’s teaching on His Body to eat and His Blood to drink, He made sure that this was not misunderstood by:

1. Reemphasizing His teaching and refusing to change it even when many left Him
2. By questioning, ensuring that His Apostles, with Peter the basis of His Church, understood and assented to His teaching – so clear as to His meaning – that the doubters left Him

The command of Christ is crystal clear at the Last Supper, and St Paul himself attested to the realty of the Sacrifice in 1 Cor: 23-34:
“For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
“Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup unworthily will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor: 26,27).

The priesthood was initiated by Christ the High Priest when He commanded: “Do this in memory of Me.” (Lk 22:19).

 

[po18guy]

The priesthood was initiated by Christ the High Priest when He commanded: “Do this in memory of Me.” (Lk 22:19).

Fr. Mitch Pacwa teaches that several Hebrew verbs were used regarding the sacrifices. Some meant to “slaughter” while others meant to “sacrifice”, such as grain offerings, which obviously could not be slaughtered. The Hebrew verb that Christ used at the last supper was to “sacrifice” - thus, “Sacrifice this in remembrance of Me”

Martin Luther denied that the Eucharist was a sacrifice, while believing in Christ’s true presence. Jean Calvin believed that the Eucharist was a sacrifice, while denying the true presence. And, over that difference, the two reformers split permanently. See what happens when you open the Pandora’s box of private interpretation of scripture?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

One has to be careful when asserting that because Christ was obviously speaking to apostles much was only for them. It is like only the priests in succession of apostles should pray the “Our Father”. Cherry pickin is problematic.

You are again mis-remembering. Christ was speaking to many followers when He taught the prayer. It was a part of the sermon on the mount in Matthew, and in Luke, it is just “one of His disciples” who asks for the instructions.

Yes, find writings quite universal a century after the church started. Certainly as you progress in time things go from catholic to Catholic.

Nope. They were as they are now, always. And some of the ECF that I’m referring to were written before the NT was even finished, let alone promulgated.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You rightly say the NT is prefigured in the OT.

Poco-

Perhaps the following will help. In the OT, the structure of the priesthood looked like this:

1. 
   *]Aaron, high priest
   *]Levites, ministerial priests
   *]Israel, a nation of priests
   
   We see a similar structure in the NT.
   
   1. Jesus, Our Eternal High Priest
   
   “Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.” (Hebrews 4:14)
   
   2. Bishops, Priests & Deacons - The Ministerial Priesthood
   
   “But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given me from God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” (Romans 15:15-16)
   
   3. The Universal Priesthood of All Believers
   
   “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” (1 Peter 2:9)
   
   Jesus established the Ministerial Priesthood of the New Testament, and this priesthood has Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.
   
   Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).
   
   Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).
   
   Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).
   
   In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This non-technical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or non-ordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)
   
   Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos (“servant” or “minister”; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle.
   
   Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a “fellow elder,” [1 Pet. 5:1] even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.
   
   The term for bishop, episcopos (“overseer”), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.
   
   Although the terms “bishop,” “priest,” and “deacon” were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Certainly as you progress in time things go from catholic to Catholic.

Of course they do. Is this a problem? Not according to at least one Protestant scholar who is honest about this history: the renowned Church historian, J. N. D. Kelly. Kelly dates the usage of the name “Catholic” after the death of the Apostle John, but he acknowledges that the original Church founded by Jesus called itself the “Catholic Church”.

“As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general’ … As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic Church is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations. . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1978], 190f).

So, yeah…the Christians began calling themselves the “Catholic Church” by the end of the first century or thereabout, and that visible Church, founded by Jesus upon Peter the rock, still exists to this day.

 

[pocohombre]

Yes, in the OT as well as the NT the whole family commemorated the Passover but not everyone presided. Same too in the Mass we all commemorate Jesus but we all do not preside either. Not all of jesus’ disciples were present in that upper room at the time of the institution of the Eucharist. Just the apostles and one of them left. And at that Last Supper not everyone presided but only Jesus

 

[Randy_Carson]

No where does St. Peter indicate this is not for the individual, especially when he then goes on to encourage to live holy lives (just as priest was supposed to, but now by the regeneration of our spirits and by the power of the Bishop of our souls-vs 25). Please don’t confuse this “priest” with what later changed from “elder” or presbyter.This verse has nothing to with elders ,or presbyters or presidents of a gathering. They had nothing to do with "interceding’ ,or going into "holy’ places for us. Elders come out of this nation of priests, not for sacrifice but for order/administration/guiding.

Peter didn’t HAVE to write everything, Poco. The church to whom he was writing would have EXPERIENCED and WITNESSED the ministerial priesthood in action for decades before Peter ever put pen to paper.

James wrote that if someone was sick, they should call for an elder (Priest) to pray over him for healing. Obviously, there was no need to call for someone outside the home if EVERYONE was a priest as you keep suggesting.

 

[pocohombre]

Peter didn’t HAVE to write everything, Poco. The church to whom he was writing would have EXPERIENCED and WITNESSED the ministerial priesthood in action for decades before Peter ever put pen to paper.

James wrote that if someone was sick, they should call for an elder (Priest) to pray over him for healing. Obviously, there was no need to call for someone outside the home if EVERYONE was a priest as you keep suggesting.

So because elders can pray for your healing we are not all priests ? Does it not say pray for one another also ? Does not Paul say examine yourself before the Body, and many are sickly for not doing so ? He does not say go to a priest to examine yourself. Does it not say from this nation of priests, some have the gift of healing ? Does it not say the fervent prayer of a righteous one availeth much. He does not say the fervent prayer of a priest availeth much, though it may ? Are we all equally mature, righteous in Christ ? Does not the stronger help the weaker in the Body? But good point. Don’t see it as much as a priestly role (but close) but as pastoral,or shepherding. And certainly priests can minister one to another.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So because elders can pray for your healing we are not all priests ?

I did not say that, did I?

We are all part of the universal priesthood. James specifies that we call a member of the ministerial priesthood.

I explained all this in my post. Did you read it?

 

[po18guy]

So because elders can pray for your healing we are not all priests ? Does it not say pray for one another also ? Does not Paul say examine yourself before the Body, and many are sickly for not doing so ? He does not say go to a priest to examine yourself.

You appear to be confusing the private and personal examination of conscience with the Sacrament of Anointing. Only the “Elders” can do that. Why only the elders if we are all priests?

I did not say that, did I? We are all part of the universal priesthood. James specifies that we call a member of the ministerial priesthood. I explained all this in my post. Did you read it?

For the sake of dialog, let’s forget about the Catholic Church. The term “Catholic” has become a distraction.

Rather, let us look at the structure of the only other Church on earth that lays rightful claim to origins in the Apostles: the Orthodox. Look at their hierarchy - except for the office of Peter, they are formed exactly like the Catholic. Why does no one pound relentlessly on the Orthodox for their “unneeded” Priests, Metropolitans and Patriarchs?

Why, indeed.

 

[pocohombre]

I agree.

Take note in the Gospels how Christ uses ONLY the Penteteuch when dealing with the Sadducees. Using pocohombre’s line of reason, that means that Jesus didn’t believe in any scripture other than the books of Moses.

bible.org/seriespage/sadducees Thanks, you made me read up on it and yes Jesus only quoted the 5 first books when dealing with Sadducees. Not sure what you are trying to say. Are you inferring that tradition could be used also ? Jesus did use the other books of Hebrew old testament, though not all, during his ministry. He certainly did not use tradition in a positive manner. If anything Jesus was like Augustine and Luther in final authority of scriptures that church/Judaism and individuals rest on.

 

[pocohombre]

The clarity and directness of Christ – “This IS My Body”

Some would say it was clearly spiritual, symbolic. To say He meant clearly transubstantiation, and that it was all to obvious to the apostles is not true. Most would say they did not fully understand totally when the words were spoken. Look at Peter’s words or answer. He mentions nothing of transubstantiation, not consubstantiation or really anything on the matter. I know one thing, At the Last Supper Jesus referred to the so called consecrated wine (His Blood in the chalice) as fruit of the vine.

Jn 6:55: For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. And many walked no more with Him. (Jn 6:66). Did he say “you misunderstood Me”? No, He let them go – take note.

Take note also these departing disciples did not believe “from the beginning”, even before the "eating"command. He wanted them to go under those circumstances of not believing from the beginning. Just as the apostles did believe, way before the command.

Then, to make absolutely certain there was no mistaking what He was saying, Jesus said to the Twelve, “What about you, do you want to go away too?” To which Simon Peter replied, “Lord, who shall we go to? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe” (John 6:59-68).

As I said ,the apostles say nothing about what Jesus meant by eating. Augustine comments on this scripture saying Peter (apostles) “ate” with their faithful proclamation-hence “leave your teeth and bellies behind”. This was a spiritual eating, to which Christ was satisfied, and did not expound further.

As only the Apostles could confer the priesthood established by Christ, no other men can be real priests without that sacrament through the Apostles

. Must have been a lot of ordaining for they broke bread in many homes everyday at the beginning. You have expressed it well, though i must humbly disagree. Take a hundred from the Body and serve them communion, and I dare say one could not tell what their view is on the Eucharist by their subsequent actions.

 

[pocohombre]

Precisely because there is no priesthood (Holy Orders) to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Holy Eucharist); no sacraments of Penance (Reconciliation), Confirmation, and the Anointing of the Sick (Extreme Unction).

Wow, it seems like we are missing a lot. It seems the individual soul outside of CC is really starved, but that is not the case. How do you explain this ? The worst that is said about us is our disunity. But most attribute this to lack of heirarchy or that we should be under pope for unity, not lack of priests and sacraments. But as far as individual spirituality and health of outsiders, we do not differ from you one bit. How can you explain a holy, on fire brother who only relies on two sacraments and not seven, and that by an unordained “priest” ? It seems we both have our good, bad and ugly as representatives of our doctrines. Apparently there may be something universal, catholic, binding both our "good’.

 

[pocohombre]

Martin Luther denied that the Eucharist was a sacrifice, while believing in Christ’s true presence. Jean Calvin believed that the Eucharist was a sacrifice, while denying the true presence. And, over that difference, the two reformers split permanently. See what happens when you open the Pandora’s box of private interpretation of scripture?

See post above - can you tell from outside (of mass) observations of a brother what his doctrine is on eucharist ?

 

[pocohombre]

You are again mis-remembering. Christ was speaking to many followers when He taught the prayer. It was a part of the sermon on the mount in Matthew, and in Luke, it is just “one of His disciples” who asks for the instructions.

Thank you .I am sure there is something he told only apostles that applies to us directly also.

Nope. They were as they are now, always. And some of the ECF that I’m referring to were written before the NT was even finished, let alone promulgated.

Understand. We both have staked our positions.Thank you.

 

[pocohombre]

]Perhaps the following will help. In the OT, the structure of the priesthood looked like this:

1. 
   *]Aaron, high priest
   *]Levites, ministerial priests
   *]Israel, a nation of priests

1. 
   Well, the way you state it makes it sound that all three were simultaneous. This is highly incorrect as I have sated in other posts here. The third,“nation of priests” I think only lasted what, a month before they sinned in Sinai ? The Israelites abdicated for fear (and sin) their promise of priesthood. Then #1 and #2 were instituted.
   

   We see a similar structure in the NT.

   Not really except in CC view.
   

   1. Jesus, Our Eternal High Priest

   Yes, but not after Aaron who was under the law. Christ is after Melchizadek ( before the law), from the tribe of Judah (not Aaron /Levi). Because of this high priest, #2 is fulfilled and abolished and #3 is re-instituted (1Peter). We all have access to the holy of holies, the tabernacle veil torn in two, no more fear, no more sin like at Sinai. He has given us a spirit of boldness to enter in, unlike Sinai.
   B
   

   ]2. Bishops, Priests & Deacons - The Ministerial Priesth
   [ood**

   This is not part of OT priesthood. This is part of having “elders”, rulers.They are not called priests(heirus) in the NT but presbyters.You are kind of mixing apples and oranges.
   

   But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given me from God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit."

   My bible does not have “priest” in it. Paul calls himself a minister, an apostle but never priest (heirus).
   

   B]3. The Universal Priesthood of All Believers

   “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” (1 Peter 2:9) Yes, amen, to offer spiritual sacrifices (vs 5), sacrifices of praise, as living “stones” (same Greek word for stone/rock given to Peter).
   

   Jesus established the Ministerial Priesthood of the New Testament, and this priesthood has Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.

   No, Jesus established elders, presbyters/bishops, as well as prophets, apostles, teachers, healers. We have everything the Body needs, but no need for OT Mosaic sacrificing priests. None of the church offices or giftings, callings have anything to do with heirus-priest. Yet every individual in the Body, the church (nation) is a heirus-priest, as in pre-law Exodus 9;6, “ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, an holy nation”. Christ’s office is pre-law as is ours, as high priest and priests respectively. That is why NT does not use Mosaic law word for priest for any NT office…Thank you for rest of your comments that I agree on except where you put in priest for presbyter, though you understand it not to mean heirus/priest but elder.

 

[Abu]

pocohombre #215
Some would say it was clearly spiritual, symbolic. To say He meant clearly transubstantiation, and that it was all to obvious to the apostles is not true. Most would say they did not fully understand totally when the words were spoken. Look at Peter’s words or answer. He mentions nothing of transubstantiation, not consubstantiation or really anything on the matter.

The “some would say” are those rejecting the precise words of Our Lord and placing themselves above St Paul who taught the truth:
“For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
“Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup unworthily will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor: 26,27).

The fact that some scoff at “transubstantiation” shows clearly that thay do not believe St Paul either who explained: The Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:16), and “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

The development of doctrine in Christ’s Church, shows the clearer understanding that Christ enabled when He proclaimed:
“I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)

At the Last Supper Jesus referred to the so called consecrated wine (His Blood in the chalice) as fruit of the vine.

Jesus referred to Himself only – “I shall not drink…” The rejection of Jesus by substituting “so called consecrated wine” is demolished by Jesus Himself: “For **this is My blood **of the new covenant , which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Mt 26:28).

#216
It seems the individual soul outside of CC is really starved, but that is not the case. How do you explain this ? The worst that is said about us is our disunity.

The fact of no priesthood (Holy Orders) to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Holy Eucharist); no sacraments of Penance (Reconciliation), Confirmation, and the Anointing of the Sick (Extreme Unction) displays the incompleteness that befalls those who reject Christ’s institution, His Church, with His Magisterium and infallibility in dogma and doctrine.

That is why Catholics were able to build Western Civilization – through the faith and teaching of Christ’s Church – on faith and reason. The Protestant Revolt, over 14 centuries after Christ, followed by the so-called “Enlightenment”, began the process of disintegration both from faith and from reason, and the state of the world today exemplifies that disorder.

The results are evident in the promotion of divorce, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, homosexual/lesbian pretensions to “marriage”, to name a few, and the national promotion of all of these in many countries.