Protestant challenged me about Catholic Doctrine on Priesthood

[mdcpensive1]

I would disagree with this position. Here’s why.

There are three priesthoods mentioned in the NT, the Levitical priesthood, the priesthood of all believers and the most important is the everlasting priesthood of Christ. The Levitical priesthood was superseded by Christ’s because He offered the better sacrifice of Himself. The once for all perfect sacrifice that never has to be offered again.

There is no mention or example of a ministerial priesthood as defined by your position in NT scripture pertaining to Christian believers. The purpose of a priest is to offer sacrifices to mediate for another. This has been accomplished by Christ Himself. He alone is the mediator of the new covenant in His blood. We go directly through Him to the throne of grace boldly. Heb 4:14-16 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Korah’s rebellion was against the leadership of Moses and Aaron. It was not against the Levitical priesthood.

This is the NT model for church leadership Eph 4:11-13And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: And in 1 Tim 3:1-13 elders and deacons.

Could you please show in the NT scripture a ministerial priesthood other than Christ offering Himself or the priesthood of all believers offering themselves?

One of the things I would suggest to you in answering your question is that there are certain things that God does that He does not change or need to change. He shows us a way and continues in that way because it is the best way according to His own purposes. He does not have to change to become more effective.
The OT had a threefold priesthood as characterized in the way the family was structured. This was continued until the priesthood was changed with the family of Levi, which was only temporary. Christ re-established the older order of priesthood during his lifetime. (A comparison to this would be the laws of divorce in the OT and NT).
So why do we need a priesthood now? It is because as Christ is the high priest, we have to keep offering the continuing sacrifice of Christ on the cross. It is a Catholic priest that acts in the person of Christ that makes the offering for us and administers the sacraments of Christ. Paul shows us this in 1Cor 11. Christ’s sacrifice is never ending which is shown as Him being shown as a lamb standing wounded in the book of Revelation.
Israel had a threefold priesthood and that continued into the NT because of the need for sacrifice, but in our case, a continuing sacrifice that is unbloody.

 

[jericho777]

One of the things I would suggest to you in answering your question is that there are certain things that God does that He does not change or need to change. He shows us a way and continues in that way because it is the best way according to His own purposes. He does not have to change to become more effective.
The OT had a threefold priesthood as characterized in the way the family was structured. This was continued until the priesthood was changed with the family of Levi, which was only temporary. Christ re-established the older order of priesthood during his lifetime. (A comparison to this would be the laws of divorce in the OT and NT).
So why do we need a priesthood now? It is because as Christ is the high priest, we have to keep offering the continuing sacrifice of Christ on the cross. It is a Catholic priest that acts in the person of Christ that makes the offering for us and administers the sacraments of Christ. Paul shows us this in 1Cor 11. Christ’s sacrifice is never ending which is shown as Him being shown as a lamb standing wounded in the book of Revelation.
Israel had a threefold priesthood and that continued into the NT because of the need for sacrifice, but in our case, a continuing sacrifice that is unbloody.

Thanks for your response.

Hebrews says the priesthood was a change out of necessity because the former was inadequate. Christ’s is perfect, eternal and after the order of Melchisedek. It is the better priesthood with Him as high priest because the Levitical priesthood could not offer an everlasting sacrifice unlike Christ’s. The Levitical priesthood had to continually offer imperfect sacrifices and was unable to cleanse all sins forever. Christ changed that by offering Himself. He applied His blood to the mercy seat once for all then He sat down at the right hand of the Father to rest. Christ is the only who is qualified to offer this once for all sacrifice so how can someone who is inferior to Christ reoffer that perfect sacrifice? There is no call for this action in the pages of scripture.

You claim a ministerial priesthood in the NT yet how come the office of priest is not mentioned as a position in the church if it is a critical as you claim? There are many church offices mentioned in the NT yet no mention of priest. You contend the ministerial priesthood is not mentioned because there was no need to change it yet that position contradicts scripture. I would say communion is not reoffering as it is receiving the remembrance or memorial from God. Therefore there is no priest needed. How is it possible to reoffer that which was once for all offered?

 

[MJCamp]

Answer I found: priest is a modern word

The English word “priest” is derived from the Greek wordpresbuteros,which is commonly rendered into Bible English as “elder” or “presbyter.” The ministry of Catholic priests is that of the presbyters mentioned in the New Testament (Acts 15:6, 23). The Bible says little about the duties of presbyters, but it does reveal they functioned in a priestly capacity.They were ordained by the laying on of hands (1 Tm 4:14, 5:22), they preached and taught the flock (1 Tm 5:17), and they administered sacraments (Jas 5:13-15). These are the essential functions of the priestly office, so wherever the various forms ofpresbuterosappear–except, of course, in instances which pertain to the Jewish elders (Mt 21:23, Acts 4:23)–the word may rightly be translated as “priest” instead of “elder” or "presbyter."Episcoposarises from two words,epi(over) andskopeo*(to see), and it means literally “an overseer”: We translate it as “bishop.” The King James Version renders the office of overseer, episkopen,as “bishopric” (Acts 1:20). The role of theepiscoposis not clearly defined in the New Testament, but by the beginning of the second century it had obtained a fixed meaning. There is early evidence of this refinement in ecclesiastical nomenclature in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 107), who wrote at length of the authority of bishops as distinct from presbyters and deacons (Epistle to the Magnesians6:1, 13:1-2;Epistle to the Trallians2:1-3;Epistle to the Smyrnaeans8:1-2).The New Testament tendency to useepiscoposandpresbuterosinterchangeably is similar to the contemporary Protestant use of the term “minister” to denote various offices, both ordained and unordained (senior minister, music minister, youth minister). Similarly, the termdiakonosis rendered both as “deacon” and as “minister” in the Bible, yet in Protestant churches the office of deacon is clearly distinguished from and subordinate to the office of minister.In Acts 20:17-38 the same men are calledpresbyteroi*(v. 17) andepiscopoi(v. 28).Presbuteroiis used in a technical sense to identify their office of ordained leadership.Episcopoiis used in a non-technical sense to describe the type of ministry they exercised. This is how the Revised Standard Version renders the verses: "And from Miletus he [Paul] . . . called for theelders [presbuteroi]of the church. And when they came to him, he said to them . . . ‘Take heed to yourselves and all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians [episcopoi], to feed the church of the Lord.’"In other passages it’s clear that although men calledpresbuteroiruled over individual congregations (parishes), the apostles ordained certain men, giving them authority over multiple congregations (dioceses), each with its own presbyters. These were endowed with the power to ordain additional presbyters as needed to shepherd the flock and carry on the work of the gospel. Titus and Timothy were two of those earlyepiscopoi*and clearly were above the office ofpresbuteros. They had the authority to select, ordain, and govern other presbyters, as is evidenced by Paul’s instructions: “This is why I left you in Crete . . . that you might appoint elders in every town as I directed you” (Ti 1:5; cf. 1 Tm 5:17-22).

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well, in today’s postmodern context, material from the early Church will sound startling in its polemical tone. The Fathers had no qualms describing the beliefs of their theological opponents as “heresies”. Methinks we should be honest, too, when the situation calls for it. Many Protestant doctrines are, after all, false.

We’re not Church Fathers, so we shouldn’t be throwing around the H-word. Its okay to discuss our beliefs against theirs, but we shouldn’t be so easy to condemn. For one thing, a heretic is one who is inside the Church and teach false doctrine within the Church. These people who are outside the Church cannot be heretics. There is a clear delineation between their faith and ours.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Answer I found: priest is a modern word

The English word “priest” is derived from the Greek wordpresbuteros,which is commonly rendered into Bible English as “elder” or “presbyter.” The ministry of Catholic priests is that of the presbyters mentioned in the New Testament (Acts 15:6, 23). The Bible says little about the duties of presbyters, but it does reveal they functioned in a priestly capacity.They were ordained by the laying on of hands (1 Tm 4:14, 5:22), they preached and taught the flock (1 Tm 5:17), and they administered sacraments (Jas 5:13-15). These are the essential functions of the priestly office, so wherever the various forms ofpresbuterosappear–except, of course, in instances which pertain to the Jewish elders (Mt 21:23, Acts 4:23)–the word may rightly be translated as “priest” instead of “elder” or "presbyter."Episcoposarises from two words,epi(over) andskopeo*(to see), and it means literally “an overseer”: We translate it as “bishop.” The King James Version renders the office of overseer, episkopen,as “bishopric” (Acts 1:20). The role of theepiscoposis not clearly defined in the New Testament, but by the beginning of the second century it had obtained a fixed meaning. There is early evidence of this refinement in ecclesiastical nomenclature in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 107), who wrote at length of the authority of bishops as distinct from presbyters and deacons (Epistle to the Magnesians6:1, 13:1-2;Epistle to the Trallians2:1-3;Epistle to the Smyrnaeans8:1-2).The New Testament tendency to useepiscoposandpresbuterosinterchangeably is similar to the contemporary Protestant use of the term “minister” to denote various offices, both ordained and unordained (senior minister, music minister, youth minister). Similarly, the termdiakonosis rendered both as “deacon” and as “minister” in the Bible, yet in Protestant churches the office of deacon is clearly distinguished from and subordinate to the office of minister.In Acts 20:17-38 the same men are calledpresbyteroi*(v. 17) andepiscopoi(v. 28).Presbuteroiis used in a technical sense to identify their office of ordained leadership.Episcopoiis used in a non-technical sense to describe the type of ministry they exercised. This is how the Revised Standard Version renders the verses: "And from Miletus he [Paul] . . . called for theelders [presbuteroi]of the church. And when they came to him, he said to them . . . ‘Take heed to yourselves and all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians [episcopoi], to feed the church of the Lord.’"In other passages it’s clear that although men calledpresbuteroiruled over individual congregations (parishes), the apostles ordained certain men, giving them authority over multiple congregations (dioceses), each with its own presbyters. These were endowed with the power to ordain additional presbyters as needed to shepherd the flock and carry on the work of the gospel. Titus and Timothy were two of those earlyepiscopoi*and clearly were above the office ofpresbuteros. They had the authority to select, ordain, and govern other presbyters, as is evidenced by Paul’s instructions: “This is why I left you in Crete . . . that you might appoint elders in every town as I directed you” (Ti 1:5; cf. 1 Tm 5:17-22).

From the Orthodox perspective and our record of history, presbyters are not synonymous with priests. A presbyter today has priestly duties, but the one who ordinarily exercises the priesthood in the Church is the bishop. Also, St. Peter writes that all baptized are members of the Royal Priesthood.

 

[jericho777]

Answer I found: priest is a modern word

The English word “priest” is derived from the Greek wordpresbuteros,which is commonly rendered into Bible English as “elder” or “presbyter.” The ministry of Catholic priests is that of the presbyters mentioned in the New Testament (Acts 15:6, 23). The Bible says little about the duties of presbyters, but it does reveal they functioned in a priestly capacity.They were ordained by the laying on of hands (1 Tm 4:14, 5:22), they preached and taught the flock (1 Tm 5:17), and they administered sacraments (Jas 5:13-15). These are the essential functions of the priestly office, so wherever the various forms ofpresbuterosappear–except, of course, in instances which pertain to the Jewish elders (Mt 21:23, Acts 4:23)–the word may rightly be translated as “priest” instead of “elder” or "presbyter."Episcoposarises from two words,epi(over) andskopeo*(to see), and it means literally “an overseer”: We translate it as “bishop.” The King James Version renders the office of overseer, episkopen,as “bishopric” (Acts 1:20). The role of theepiscoposis not clearly defined in the New Testament, but by the beginning of the second century it had obtained a fixed meaning. There is early evidence of this refinement in ecclesiastical nomenclature in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 107), who wrote at length of the authority of bishops as distinct from presbyters and deacons (Epistle to the Magnesians6:1, 13:1-2;Epistle to the Trallians2:1-3;Epistle to the Smyrnaeans8:1-2).The New Testament tendency to useepiscoposandpresbuterosinterchangeably is similar to the contemporary Protestant use of the term “minister” to denote various offices, both ordained and unordained (senior minister, music minister, youth minister). Similarly, the termdiakonosis rendered both as “deacon” and as “minister” in the Bible, yet in Protestant churches the office of deacon is clearly distinguished from and subordinate to the office of minister.In Acts 20:17-38 the same men are calledpresbyteroi*(v. 17) andepiscopoi(v. 28).Presbuteroiis used in a technical sense to identify their office of ordained leadership.Episcopoiis used in a non-technical sense to describe the type of ministry they exercised. This is how the Revised Standard Version renders the verses: "And from Miletus he [Paul] . . . called for theelders [presbuteroi]of the church. And when they came to him, he said to them . . . ‘Take heed to yourselves and all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians [episcopoi], to feed the church of the Lord.’"In other passages it’s clear that although men calledpresbuteroiruled over individual congregations (parishes), the apostles ordained certain men, giving them authority over multiple congregations (dioceses), each with its own presbyters. These were endowed with the power to ordain additional presbyters as needed to shepherd the flock and carry on the work of the gospel. Titus and Timothy were two of those earlyepiscopoi*and clearly were above the office ofpresbuteros. They had the authority to select, ordain, and govern other presbyters, as is evidenced by Paul’s instructions: “This is why I left you in Crete . . . that you might appoint elders in every town as I directed you” (Ti 1:5; cf. 1 Tm 5:17-22).

This is all well and good but you are denying the actual meaning of the words used in context. Elders are leaders in the generic sense and are not confined only to the church. The actual word for “priest” does not appear in the NT as it relates to church ministerial offerings. Presbuteros by definition cannot be construed to mean priest in either the NT or OT because they do not offer sacrifices. Only those who are priests can offer sacrifices. Christ clearly established two priesthoods in the NT and defined their roles, His after the order of Melchisadek and the priesthood of all believers.

The Greek word for priest, one who offers sacrifices is Hiereus (Strong’s 2407). This word appears 11 times in the NT. Seven out of the 11 times it refers to Christ/Melchizadek. In the other four times of use it is not related to the NT church. Hierateuma is the priesthood of all believers in the NT as used in 1Peter 2:5 “You also, as living stones, are built up into a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.”

 

[RollTide1987]

We’re not Church Fathers, so we shouldn’t be throwing around the H-word. Its okay to discuss our beliefs against theirs, but we shouldn’t be so easy to condemn. For one thing, a heretic is one who is inside the Church and teach false doctrine within the Church. These people who are outside the Church cannot be heretics. There is a clear delineation between their faith and ours.

Protestants are Catholics in rebellion with the Church. You cannot leave Christ’s Church and call it something else as Protestants claim to have done. They believe what we believe, that Christ is the only son of God and that he was crucified, died, buried, and rose up again on the third day. That is the core tenant of Christianity right there. They believe it and so are therefore Christian. There is only one Church and they reject pretty important, dogmatic teachings of said Church. That makes them all heretics.

 

[MJCamp]

The Protestant interpretation of Hebrews 7 is contradicted by 1 Peter 2:5-9. Peter says: "like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ . . . But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people . . ."When Peter declares all Christians to be priests, he does not contradict Christ as our “one mediator between God and men,” which is the definition of a priest (1 Tm 2:5). The Catholic Church affirms and harmonizes both texts and both concepts.There are two keys to understanding Hebrews 7.Context: The inspired author is showing the superiority of Christ’s priesthood in contrast with the Old Covenant priesthood. He never denies the existence of a New Covenant priesthood.Distinction: Christians do not usurp or diminish the unique priesthood of Christ when they are made to be priests. Unlike Old Covenant priests, they participate in the one priesthood of Christ. So intimate is the union of the baptized with Christ that St. Paul describes it as a body (cf. Rom 12:5,1 Cor 12:12-27) with Christ as its head (cf. Eph 1:22-23). What can be attributed to a hand in the body does not somehow take away from the head. It is Christ who empowers all Christians to participate in his priesthood. Indeed, it is “Christ [and his priesthood] living in them” (cf. Gal 2:20).First Peter 2 indicates that all Christians are priests—but it does not mention the existence of a ministerial priesthood. Indeed, the ordained ministers of the New Covenant are called apostles (cf. Eph. 4:11), presbyters (cf. Jas 5:14), bishops (cf. 1 Tm 3:1), and deacons (cf. 1 Tm 3:8ff), but never priests (Gk.*hiereus). So how do Catholics demonstrate the existence of a ministerial priesthood distinct from the universal priesthood?First of all, a careful reading of 1 Peter 2, verses 5 and 9 reveals a reference to Exodus 19:6: “. . . and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” This text from Exodus indicates a universal priesthood in the Old Testament. And yet, in Exodus 19:22, we read, "And also let the priests who come near to the Lord consecrate themselves . . . " In other words, a universal priesthood in the Old Covenant did not exclude the possibility of a distinct ministerial priesthood as well. It would be natural then to expect the same in the New Covenant. And indeed, that is precisely what we discover.

We should not be surprised that the noun “priest” (Gk.hiereus) was not used as a title for New Covenant ministers: This same term was used by the more numerous Jewish and even pagan priests of the first century (cf. Lk 1:8-9, Acts 14:13). Using different titles for New Covenant priests would be one way of distinguishing them. However, the verb form ofhiereusis used for New Testament ministers. It is found when Paul speaks specifically of his ministry as an apostle, referring to it as a “priestly service”: ". . . because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service (Gk.hierourgounta) of the gospel of God…" (Rom 15:15b-16a).Here we see a central clue to the priestly nature of New Covenant ministers that becomes more and more telling as we traverse Scripture. New Covenant ministers reveal their essence as priests by their priestly functions. We do not find this priestly function ascribed to deacons, but we do in the cases of apostles, bishops, and “elders.” In this brief analysis, we will only consider apostles and "elders."In Scripture, we see our Lord definitively choosing and sending apostles to act as priests, or “mediators between God and men.” For example, after the Resurrection, our Lord appears to the apostles and says to them: “‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’” (Jn 20:21-23).Here, Jesus communicated the power to forgive and retain sins—just as he himself had done—to the apostles. This is apriestlyministry (see also Lv 19:21-22).

 

[christian2112]

I don’t think St. Peter, the rock of the church and first pope, had any trouble keeping up a marriage. St. Paul said it was preferable, but as clearly indicated by the verse the OP mentioned, he did not want it to be a forced ideal for all priests.

 

[jericho777]

The Protestant interpretation of Hebrews 7 is contradicted by 1 Peter 2:5-9. Peter says: "like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ . . . But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people . . ."When Peter declares all Christians to be priests, he does not contradict Christ as our “one mediator between God and men,” which is the definition of a priest (1 Tm 2:5). The Catholic Church affirms and harmonizes both texts and both concepts.There are two keys to understanding Hebrews 7.Context: The inspired author is showing the superiority of Christ’s priesthood in contrast with the Old Covenant priesthood. He never denies the existence of a New Covenant priesthood.Distinction: Christians do not usurp or diminish the unique priesthood of Christ when they are made to be priests. Unlike Old Covenant priests, they participate in the one priesthood of Christ. So intimate is the union of the baptized with Christ that St. Paul describes it as a body (cf. Rom 12:5,1 Cor 12:12-27) with Christ as its head (cf. Eph 1:22-23). What can be attributed to a hand in the body does not somehow take away from the head. It is Christ who empowers all Christians to participate in his priesthood. Indeed, it is “Christ [and his priesthood] living in them” (cf. Gal 2:20).First Peter 2 indicates that all Christians are priests—but it does not mention the existence of a ministerial priesthood. Indeed, the ordained ministers of the New Covenant are called apostles (cf. Eph. 4:11), presbyters (cf. Jas 5:14), bishops (cf. 1 Tm 3:1), and deacons (cf. 1 Tm 3:8ff), but never priests (Gk.*hiereus). So how do Catholics demonstrate the existence of a ministerial priesthood distinct from the universal priesthood?First of all, a careful reading of 1 Peter 2, verses 5 and 9 reveals a reference to Exodus 19:6: “. . . and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” This text from Exodus indicates a universal priesthood in the Old Testament. And yet, in Exodus 19:22, we read, "And also let the priests who come near to the Lord consecrate themselves . . . " In other words, a universal priesthood in the Old Covenant did not exclude the possibility of a distinct ministerial priesthood as well. It would be natural then to expect the same in the New Covenant. And indeed, that is precisely what we discover.

We should not be surprised that the noun “priest” (Gk.hiereus) was not used as a title for New Covenant ministers: This same term was used by the more numerous Jewish and even pagan priests of the first century (cf. Lk 1:8-9, Acts 14:13). Using different titles for New Covenant priests would be one way of distinguishing them. However, the verb form ofhiereusis used for New Testament ministers. It is found when Paul speaks specifically of his ministry as an apostle, referring to it as a “priestly service”: ". . . because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service (Gk.hierourgounta) of the gospel of God…" (Rom 15:15b-16a).Here we see a central clue to the priestly nature of New Covenant ministers that becomes more and more telling as we traverse Scripture. New Covenant ministers reveal their essence as priests by their priestly functions. We do not find this priestly function ascribed to deacons, but we do in the cases of apostles, bishops, and “elders.” In this brief analysis, we will only consider apostles and "elders."In Scripture, we see our Lord definitively choosing and sending apostles to act as priests, or “mediators between God and men.” For example, after the Resurrection, our Lord appears to the apostles and says to them: “‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’” (Jn 20:21-23).Here, Jesus communicated the power to forgive and retain sins—just as he himself had done—to the apostles. This is apriestlyministry (see also Lv 19:21-22).

Protestants/Born again Christians see no contradiction between Hebrews 7 and 1 Peter 2:5-9. They recognize there are two different priesthoods and two different types of sacrifices being offered. Christ offering Himself once for all and the believers offering themselves as living sacrifices. Good I’m glad we agree. That is what I have been saying all along.

Well frankly I would be surprised because scripture correctly calls those who offer sacrifices to pagan deities priests and not ministers. Acts 14:13 The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them. It‘s funny scripture outlines and defines the two different priesthoods and the offerings they respectively present. Now you are confusing ministers with priests. They are not the same as defined in scripture. In your examples from scripture there are no sacrifices being offered so why would you call them priests? Please show me examples of them offering an actual sacrifice as in Acts 14:13.

 

[MJCamp]

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.”

People often have messed up notions of what a sacrament is, so to try to clear the air I wish to begin by offering the historic definition of what a sacrament is—the definition that has been used all through Christian history, from Catholic giants such as Augustine and Aquinas to Protestant giants such as Luther and Calvin. The bottom line is this: Sacraments are outward, physical means that communicate God’s grace to us. Contrary to the hysterical claims of some, sacraments are not magic; they do not bend God to human will. They are the Biblical ways that God himself has appointed for us to reach out and humbly receive his grace.2. The sacrament of holy anointingHere in James 5 we have the priests of the church—that is, the presbyters or “elders” of the church—distributing the sacrament of holy anointing. The priests come in, anoint the sick person with oil, and pray over him so that he might be raised up and forgiven any sins he has committed.When I discovered this passage in the book of James as a Protestant, I was disturbed because I recognized that my Protestant church was simply out of synch with the Bible on this point. It was in disobedience to Scripture and had made void God’s word by its human tradition of ignoring this sacrament and pretending that baptism and communion are the only two sacraments.3. The sacrament of reconciliationa. John 20:21-23The reference to the sacrament of holy anointing forgiving a person’s sins also leads us to another sacrament the priests of the Church administer. In John 20:21-23, Jesus tells his ministers, “Receive the Holy Spirit. . . . Whoever’s sins you forgive, they are forgiven; whoever’s sins you retain, they are retained.”

 

[jericho777]

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.”

People often have messed up notions of what a sacrament is, so to try to clear the air I wish to begin by offering the historic definition of what a sacrament is—the definition that has been used all through Christian history, from Catholic giants such as Augustine and Aquinas to Protestant giants such as Luther and Calvin. The bottom line is this: Sacraments are outward, physical means that communicate God’s grace to us. Contrary to the hysterical claims of some, sacraments are not magic; they do not bend God to human will. They are the Biblical ways that God himself has appointed for us to reach out and humbly receive his grace.2. The sacrament of holy anointingHere in James 5 we have the priests of the church—that is, the presbyters or “elders” of the church—distributing the sacrament of holy anointing. The priests come in, anoint the sick person with oil, and pray over him so that he might be raised up and forgiven any sins he has committed.When I discovered this passage in the book of James as a Protestant, I was disturbed because I recognized that my Protestant church was simply out of synch with the Bible on this point. It was in disobedience to Scripture and had made void God’s word by its human tradition of ignoring this sacrament and pretending that baptism and communion are the only two sacraments.3. The sacrament of reconciliationa. John 20:21-23The reference to the sacrament of holy anointing forgiving a person’s sins also leads us to another sacrament the priests of the Church administer. In John 20:21-23, Jesus tells his ministers, “Receive the Holy Spirit. . . . Whoever’s sins you forgive, they are forgiven; whoever’s sins you retain, they are retained.”

You are totally off our original topic. You were trying to tell me that there was no change between the OT and NT priesthood. Please show me some scripture to back that up. You were also trying to claim that elders were defacto priests offering sacrifices.

 

[MJCamp]

Protestants/Born again Christians see no contradiction between Hebrews 7 and 1 Peter 2:5-9. They recognize there are two different priesthoods and two different types of sacrifices being offered. Christ offering Himself once for all and the believers offering themselves as living sacrifices. Good I’m glad we agree. That is what I have been saying all along.

Well frankly I would be surprised because scripture correctly calls those who offer sacrifices to pagan deities priests and not ministers. Acts 14:13 The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them. It‘s funny scripture outlines and defines the two different priesthoods and the offerings they respectively present. Now you are confusing ministers with priests. They are not the same as defined in scripture. In your examples from scripture there are no sacrifices being offered so why would you call them priests? Please show me examples of them offering an actual sacrifice as in Acts 14:13.

Post#21 has already answered this question. Jesus has established the Eucharist. This is the new covenant. No need to sacrifice animals. Jesus is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to His table.

 

[mdcpensive1]

Thanks for your response.

You claim a ministerial priesthood in the NT yet how come the office of priest is not mentioned as a position in the church if it is a critical as you claim? There are many church offices mentioned in the NT yet no mention of priest. You contend the ministerial priesthood is not mentioned because there was no need to change it yet that position contradicts scripture. I would say communion is not reoffering as it is receiving the remembrance or memorial from God. Therefore there is no priest needed. How is it possible to reoffer that which was once for all offered?

I don’t think all the details of the method of the offering of the Eucharist had to be spelled out in scripture to satisfy those protestants 15 centuries later. Many protestants now hold that view.
My position and that of the Catholic Church does not contradict scripture. There is a three-fold priesthood now as was in the past, but it now derives from our one High Priest Jesus Christ. We now partake in that priesthood.

Your reference to the Eucharist being just a remembrance is an English understanding and not a Hebrew understanding. This is a translational problem from what is a Hebrew context issue. To understand this one has to know that the Mass which has the celebration of the Eucharist came from the Hebrew Passover. This was extremely important to the Jews of the time and was one of the feasts that required them to travel to Jerusalem each year. During a Passover, the youngest one asks questions as to the meaning of the Passover. This is because the family is to put themselves into the feelings and situation of the original Passover to experience it similar to their ancestors. This “remembrance” is a putting themselves into the real event so they can experience it each time of Passover.
It is the same with the Eucharist and the Mass. Each time we celebrate this event we experience the death and resurrection of Jesus as He is re-presented as the unbloody sacrifice. Calvary comes down to the altar. The priest stands in the place of Christ as the one offering the sacrifice which is the ministerial priesthood in the New Covenant. Here, we can offer ourselves with Christ to the Father as part of that sacrifice.
I hope this helps in your understanding of why we have the Eucharist and the Mass.

 

[jericho777]

I don’t think all the details of the method of the offering of the Eucharist had to be spelled out in scripture to satisfy those protestants 15 centuries later. Many protestants now hold that view.
My position and that of the Catholic Church does not contradict scripture. There is a three-fold priesthood now as was in the past, but it now derives from our one High Priest Jesus Christ. We now partake in that priesthood.

Your reference to the Eucharist being just a remembrance is an English understanding and not a Hebrew understanding. This is a translational problem from what is a Hebrew context issue. To understand this one has to know that the Mass which has the celebration of the Eucharist came from the Hebrew Passover. This was extremely important to the Jews of the time and was one of the feasts that required them to travel to Jerusalem each year. During a Passover, the youngest one asks questions as to the meaning of the Passover. This is because the family is to put themselves into the feelings and situation of the original Passover to experience it similar to their ancestors. This “remembrance” is a putting themselves into the real event so they can experience it each time of Passover.
It is the same with the Eucharist and the Mass. Each time we celebrate this event we experience the death and resurrection of Jesus as He is re-presented as the unbloody sacrifice. Calvary comes down to the altar. The priest stands in the place of Christ as the one offering the sacrifice which is the ministerial priesthood in the New Covenant. Here, we can offer ourselves with Christ to the Father as part of that sacrifice.
I hope this helps in your understanding of why we have the Eucharist and the Mass.

Scripture says there is only a twofold priesthood now not three. Christ is the only one eligible to be a high priest in the order of Melchizedek and no one else. The bible also says the ministerial priesthood has been done away with by Christ because they are not needed. No one else can or has to reoffer that sacrifice. The bible declares Christ once for all offered that perfect sacrifice.

There is no question Passover and Judaism is the foundation Christianity. However no priest is necessary because no sacrifice is being reoffered only received. Following the fact Passover is the basis for the mass then families should celebrate their own mass and Eucharist at home because it is a continuation the Jewish Passover.

 

[MJCamp]

Without ministerial priesthood there is no universal priesthood. Without ministerial sacraments our faith withers

As an Apostle, St. Paul understood his role in priestly terms. He spoke of his calling as “the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit” (Rom 15:15-16).

Those are carefully crafted phrases, precise in their terms, each rich in evocative power. And what they evoke is priesthood. By grace, Paul had become a “minister.” In Greek the word is leitourgon, from which we get the English word “liturgy.” In St. Paul’s culture, this referred to a ritual role, a priestly role.

Thus, he goes on to say specifically that his work is a “priestly service”; and he further specifies that it is sacrificial. He speaks of the “offering of the Gentiles,” and prays that it may be “sanctified.”

He spoke of his apostolate as a “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor 5:18). In the Old Covenant, that role had been fulfilled by the priests, who brought about the forgiveness of sins through the expiating sacrifices of the Temple. Now, Paul can describe himself as a “steward of
God’s mysteries” (1 Cor 4:1), employing the common Greek term for the Church’s sacraments: mysteria.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Protestants are Catholics in rebellion with the Church. You cannot leave Christ’s Church and call it something else as Protestants claim to have done. They believe what we believe, that Christ is the only son of God and that he was crucified, died, buried, and rose up again on the third day. That is the core tenant of Christianity right there. They believe it and so are therefore Christian. There is only one Church and they reject pretty important, dogmatic teachings of said Church. That makes them all heretics.

Protestants are non-Catholics. I mean, c’mon. You guys don’t want to give Communion to Catholics who support gay marriage and abortion, yet Protestants who are not in communion with Rome in any which way, you insist they are Catholics? They are not Catholics. Whatever they teach are not Catholic because they are not Catholic.

 

[neophyte]

I would disagree with this position. Here’s why…

Could you please show in the NT scripture a ministerial priesthood other than Christ offering Himself or the priesthood of all believers offering themselves?

Moses said that Korah’s sin was the attempt to usurp the priesthood: Mose’s own authority. The Korah participated in the common priesthood of all observant Jews, and so that degree of priesthood wasn’t something that Korah was capable of usurping.

Jude said that there were those in the Church who were commiting the sin of Korah. It’s not possible that he was saying that they were usurping the common priesthood of all believers, because all believers share in that degree of priesthood and so cannot usurp it. The sin of Korah and his followers was in attempting to usurp a degree of authority that they did not have, and which was not common to all believers. You might want to read the story closely; the cry of the Protestant Deformation was virtually identical to what Korah said…

The fact that Jude said that some in the Church were commiting the sin of Korah is a positive affirmation that there was a ministerial priesthood in the Church, distinct from the common priesthood of all believers, which had authority equivalent to that of Moses. There is no other rational conclusion.

 

[mdcpensive1]

Scripture says there is only a twofold priesthood now not three. Christ is the only one eligible to be a high priest in the order of Melchizedek and no one else. The bible also says the ministerial priesthood has been done away with by Christ because they are not needed. No one else can or has to reoffer that sacrifice. The bible declares Christ once for all offered that perfect sacrifice.

There is no question Passover and Judaism is the foundation Christianity. However no priest is necessary because no sacrifice is being reoffered only received. Following the fact Passover is the basis for the mass then families should celebrate their own mass and Eucharist at home because it is a continuation the Jewish Passover.

Thanks for your reply. St. Paul talks about the unbloody sacrifice. If Christ was the bloody sacrifice then what is the unbloody one St. Paul talks about ??? If there is an unbloody sacrifice still going on and being offered then a priest is needed which is why the Catholic Church has priests that share in the one highpriesthood of Christ. That is why the priests say “this is my body” when offering the sacrifice. They are standing in or sharing in the priesthood of Christ. This then also confirms the prophesy of Malichi in chapter one.