Question to all Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter jbrdu08
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jbrdu08

Guest
I have posted one other post about mormon confusion, and have come across something that has become quite profound at least to me. In hebrews chapters 5-7 paul talks about the priesthood of melchisedec or melchizedek I don’t know which is the correct spelling. Now this man was quite obviously important. Christ himself was of the this order of melchisedec and now where is it? If christ held this order it must be of much importance and yet in my reading of many religions (i’m of no particular religion, just learning.) no other religion has this order, but the mormons? What happened to this order with the catholics? Was paul of this order? and if so why did he not pass it on if it was essential to eternal salvation? Should I go to a professional theologian? I want to know i have an unquenched thurst for catholic doctrines and truths.
 
The term ‘Order of Melkizedek’ have a special meaning. First one has to understand what it means to be a priest, who is Melkizedek, then what it means to be of the Order of Melkizedek.

This is how I understand it. Melkizedek is presented as having no father nor mother. Yet he is a man. How is it so? When the account was written, hebrews were comparing the priesthood of Melkizedek with the priesthood of the Levites.

Levites where people who were priest simply because they were of the tribe of Levi. In other words. One could not be a priest unless he is from the tribe of Levi. So it was important who your mother or father was because you were to be traced back to your patriarchs.

But the priesthood of Melkizedek was different. It was the primordial priesthood. Or what you may call the natural priesthood before people are fallen into sin.

From Eden, Man is called to be a priest. That is someone who offer sacrifice for his brethren and family. The tree of knowledge was meant to be a sacrifice; the only tree which was not to be eaten.

After the fall of Adam, humanity went worse until it was destroyed by the flood and Noah was spared. Noah was the new family chief of mankind. This means he was also a priest-king for mankind. As a priest he was to offfer prayer on behalf of all his family (wife and chidreen meaning the whole humanity).
But at his death who was to replace him in this activity??? His first born son. God has organized mankind in unity from the beginning. We are all united from the fact that we have an original first parent. And we were not going to be divided after his death. No. The first son always was called to replace his father unless he was found not worthy to do so in which case his little brother was considered. This is how God meant it which is why we grow up learning that we have to obey our parents and our elder brothers.

So here, the priesthood does not depend on your parent, but on the order of your birth. This is whether you are first or not in the family. Every first born boy is meant to be a priest for his father’s family. To offer sacrifice and prayers on behalf of his little brethren.

So this lead to who is Melkizedek. Melkizedek is actually a title not a name. It means ‘king of righteousness’. So this person was a first born of the whole humanity after the flood. He was meant to rule and teach to his brethren the ways of righteousness. His name was not mentioned, may be because it was obvious who it was at that time?! Most Jewish and Catholic theologians believe that it was Shem, the first born of Noah.

Naturally, if humanity had remained in God’s grace after the flood, Noah was to rule it because he was the father. So as the father of the new human family he is the ruler (King, and every father is king over his house), and the priest (offer prayer and sacrifice for his family - job for every father). And after death his first born son was to replace him, and so on, and no body would have complained because this is the family way, this is the way of love, the way of God.

It is in this sens that Jewish are chosen people of God. Because they are from the first born of humanity. They are in the order of the first born. So as first born, they are naturally responsible for all humanity. And God stayed close to them and their fathers in a particular way because of this fact. God is always close to all humanity, but the expected semites (shemites, particualarly hebrews…jews) to set an excellent example of the rest of humanity because humanity naturally look up to them. Early human society new them and recognized them as first borns.

Jesus is of the order of Melkizek because not only he is the first born of Mary, a jew, but because he is the first born of God himself.

Catholics are in the order of Melkizedek because their priests are partakers in the priesthood of Jesus. But also, I see this order in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

Peter was the first born of the Church by his confession of faith. Therefore, he was put in charge of his brothers to confirm them in the faith. Catholic Church is the new people of God, a new society, governed by the Pope who is no other but a successor of Peter. All Popes are bishops in the line of Peter.

The Pope and the bishops with him and all catholics are basically what humanity would have looked like if humanity had not sinned after the flood. As Christians we are all priests. The Church is a society of people who are a royal priesthood. This is just what I was saying. Everyone is supposed to be a priest-king from the nuclear family to the highest hierarchial member of humanity. So fathers are priest-kings in their families. But for many families we have a bishop, and then a patriarch, and then a Pope.

God bless
 
Thank you again, I still have more questions. In the bible there are numerous instances of anointing and the laying on of hands to confer the priesthood. what happend to this practice. I agree heartily with your importance on the family with the father being the patriarch and it makes sense to have a bishop and then eventually a pope. It seems to be the same with many religions.
 
Thank you again, I still have more questions. In the bible there are numerous instances of anointing and the laying on of hands to confer the priesthood. what happend to this practice. I agree heartily with your importance on the family with the father being the patriarch and it makes sense to have a bishop and then eventually a pope. It seems to be the same with many religions.
jb,

Catholics do have anointing and laying on of hands.

Do you think lying is a sin?
 
Thank you again, I still have more questions. In the bible there are numerous instances of anointing and the laying on of hands to confer the priesthood. what happend to this practice. I agree heartily with your importance on the family with the father being the patriarch and it makes sense to have a bishop and then eventually a pope. It seems to be the same with many religions.
Rite of Ordination of a Priest

explained
 
Thank you again, I still have more questions. In the bible there are numerous instances of anointing and the laying on of hands to confer the priesthood. what happend to this practice. I agree heartily with your importance on the family with the father being the patriarch and it makes sense to have a bishop and then eventually a pope. It seems to be the same with many religions.
Catholics continue to do this, the Priesthood is conferred with the laying on of hands by Bishops and the Episcopate is conferred by other Bishops by the laying on of hands.
Annointing with oil is certainly a part of Catholic practice.

God Bless
Scylla
 
Nebula, I study religions I am not apart of one or the other. I tend to agree with christianity, so I think lying is a bad thing. So yes it would be a sin. And rebecca, thanks for clarifying the annointing, but what about the melchisedec priesthood?
 
Nebula, I study religions I am not apart of one or the other. I tend to agree with christianity, so I think lying is a bad thing. So yes it would be a sin. And rebecca, thanks for clarifying the annointing, but what about the melchisedec priesthood?
that was explained…maybe you didn’t get it?

Catholics believe Melchezidek, the person described in the Bible, was Jesus.

Jesus is our High Priest, the one and only in His Church. Maybe the part you missed, because Mormons do not understand and usually have not been exposed to our belief of the “common priesthood”. By virtue of our baptism we all share in the priesthood of Jesus Christ (Melchezidek priesthood).
 
Thank you again, I still have more questions. In the bible there are numerous instances of anointing and the laying on of hands to confer the priesthood. what happend to this practice. I agree heartily with your importance on the family with the father being the patriarch and it makes sense to have a bishop and then eventually a pope. It seems to be the same with many religions.
Other Christian denominations may claim it, but it is only the Catholic Church (and Orthodox) who have the unbroken line of apostolic succession with the laying on of hands.
 
To learn about Melchizedek, turn to Genesis chapter 14. Melchizedek was the king of Salem. The footnote annotation in my Bible says that Salem is traditionally associated with Jerusalem.
 
First, he was king of Salem, which becomes Jerusalem. Salem is a form of the word for peace. He was the “King of Peace.” That is not the important part.

Here is the key: he offered bread and wine, not a burnt offering, to God. He was monotheistic, but unlike the others in the area, he did not offer animals but bread and wine. This is unique in the OT.

Jesus offered bread and wine.
 
that was explained…maybe you didn’t get it?

Catholics believe Melchezidek, the person described in the Bible, was Jesus.

Jesus is our High Priest, the one and only in His Church. Maybe the part you missed, because Mormons do not understand and usually have not been exposed to our belief of the “common priesthood”. By virtue of our baptism we all share in the priesthood of Jesus Christ (Melchezidek priesthood).
Correction. Melchizedek was the king of Salem in the book of Genesis. He was also a priest of the God the Most High (Gen 14:18-20). This predates the priesthood of the Levites. Jesus is not Melchizedek. God the Most High existed before time.
We do indeed share in the common priesthood with Jesus Christ as the head.
 
The Mormons have no “corner” on Melchisedech. The King of Salem has no mother and no father, having no beginning nor end is a priest forever. His office of high priest can only refer to our Lord and High Priest, Jesus. Melchisedech (Melchizedek) of Genesis 14:18 and his sacrifice of bread and wine is mentioned in the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) in the Catholic Mass, but I believe I told you that before.
 
… The King of Salem has no mother and no father, having no beginning nor end is a priest forever. His office of high priest can only refer to our Lord and High Priest, Jesus. Melchisedech (Melchizedek) of Genesis 14:18 and his sacrifice of bread and wine is mentioned in the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) in the Catholic Mass, but I believe I told you that before.
So Jesus is Melchizedek according to catholicism? And has no Father or Mother? Don’t mean to be offensive, just confused.
 
So Jesus is Melchizedek according to catholicism? And has no Father or Mother? Don’t mean to be offensive, just confused.
No Jesus is not Melchizedek–the “shadowy” King of Salem (Jerusalem?) and eternal High Priest of God. Jesus is our High Priest–a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek and Melchizedek’s pure unbloody sacrifice of bread and wine prefigures Jesus’ Sacrifice. This eternal priesthood certainly doesn’t even sound like it could apply to the 18 year old Mormon boys, now does it?
 
No Jesus is not Melchizedek–the “shadowy” King of Salem (Jerusalem?) and eternal High Priest of God. Jesus is our High Priest–a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek and Melchizedek’s pure unbloody sacrifice of bread and wine prefigures Jesus’ Sacrifice. This eternal priesthood certainly doesn’t even sound like it could apply to the 18 year old Mormon boys, now does it?
Ah so then who is Melchizedek again? or is Melchezidek just a priesthood title according to Catholicism?
 
In Genesis 14:18-20 A Melchizedek King appears and gives bread and wine to Abram and then blesses him. No Melchizedek Priesthood is established. In Exodus 4:15-16, God established the Priesthood in the tribe of Levi.
A kingdom has one King. These is no Melchizedek Priesthood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top