Sacramental Preisthood?

[Afterburned6387]

So, just to start things off, let me just say I’m not a Catholic, in fact, I’m Baptist, if that gives you any clues on where I’m coming from. I’ve done some research into Catholicism, but as there seem to be as many disagreements about what things mean between y’all as between us baptists, I wanted to hear from some real live catholics.

The question is this, What Scriptural Evidence is there for a Sacramental Priesthood existing after the time of Christ?

If Leviticus is supposed to be the “Theological Center” of the old testament, and covers them in detail, and Romans is supposed to be the “Theological Center” of the new testament, but priests are seemingly absent, it seems natural to be skeptical about a Priesthood existing now.

Or, to state it another way, if a “priesthood” cannot be found, is there any evidence of a group of people (clergy) that in some way have a different relationship with God than the rest of us?

The whole episcopate/laity thing is really confusing for me.

Once again, however, in your responses, PLEASE provide SCRIPTURAL evidence for everything you’re saying

 

[davidv]

So, just to start things off, let me just say I’m not a Catholic, in fact, I’m Baptist, if that gives you any clues on where I’m coming from. I’ve done some research into Catholicism, but as there seem to be as many disagreements about what things mean between y’all as between us baptists, I wanted to hear from some real live catholics.

The question is this, What Scriptural Evidence is there for a Sacramental Priesthood existing after the time of Christ?

If Leviticus is supposed to be the “Theological Center” of the old testament, and covers them in detail, and Romans is supposed to be the “Theological Center” of the new testament, but priests are seemingly absent, it seems natural to be skeptical about a Priesthood existing now.

Or, to state it another way, if a “priesthood” cannot be found, is there any evidence of a group of people (clergy) that in some way have a different relationship with God than the rest of us?

The whole episcopate/laity thing is really confusing for me.

Once again, however, in your responses, PLEASE provide SCRIPTURAL evidence for everything you’re saying

Why must we limited to “SCRIPTURAL” evidence?

 

[DJim]

So, just to start things off, let me just say I’m not a Catholic, in fact, I’m Baptist, if that gives you any clues on where I’m coming from. I’ve done some research into Catholicism, but as there seem to be as many disagreements about what things mean between y’all as between us baptists, I wanted to hear from some real live catholics.

The question is this, What Scriptural Evidence is there for a Sacramental Priesthood existing after the time of Christ?

If Leviticus is supposed to be the “Theological Center” of the old testament, and covers them in detail, and Romans is supposed to be the “Theological Center” of the new testament, but priests are seemingly absent, it seems natural to be skeptical about a Priesthood existing now.

Or, to state it another way, if a “priesthood” cannot be found, is there any evidence of a group of people (clergy) that in some way have a different relationship with God than the rest of us?

The whole episcopate/laity thing is really confusing for me.

Once again, however, in your responses, PLEASE provide SCRIPTURAL evidence for everything you’re saying

Hi–let’s start things off clearly, then–where is the Scriptural evidence that Romans is the “theological center” of the New Testament?

If anything, I thought the Gospels would be, since they record the words and deeds of Jesus…

DJim

 

[Windmill]

Hey after,

You might like this article. It answered some of my questions when I was exploring this issue.

 

[Afterburned6387]

1. First, the ideas of theological centers are colloquialisms, Leviticus and Romans seem to be good summaries, brief overviews of the faith, if you will
2. As for why scripture, well, Scripture should be the foundation of our faith, as it is God Breathed (2 Tim 3:16), and as a “wayward” protestant, Sola Scriptura is still a big deal for me
3. Thank you for the article, but it only brings up more questions, like, if this is the case, and I accept there are positions in the church per 1 Timothy 3

In 1 Timothy 3:4-5, in describing the requirements for a Bishop, it says this:

He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)

Indicating he should be married with kids. I think more importantly, it indicates that we should know who would make a good bishop by how he conducts his family. I take serious issue with trusting an unmarried man to lead my church. It is by his family that I might test his leadership ability

My question is this, why is it then that the Catholic Church requires its priests to remain unmarried? a burden Paul himself admits few can bear, and probably the biggest reason behind the latest Priest Abuse scandals.

The question still stands though, is there a priesthood with a fundamentally different relationship towards God, not just a leadership position in a church. A relationship that would allow them alone to do things like baptize, ordain, Transubstantiate, or bless water?

 

[mlldrl]

I take serious issue with trusting an unmarried man to lead my church.

So you don’t trust Saint Paul? He was a bishop after all.

My question is this, why is it then that the Catholic Church requires its priests to remain unmarried? a burden Paul himself admits few can bear,

But what about those who CAN bear it?

and probably the biggest reason behind the latest Priest Abuse scandals.

Plenty of evidence to say otherwise. The biggest reason for it is called concupiscence. But this is another topic. I suggest you search the board…there’s been lots written on this subject already

M

 

[Afterburned6387]

Saint Paul was not a local church leader, he was a mentor figure, please do not just throw arrows at me, try and engage in dialogue and prove your points, I am really sick and tired of all you catholics on your high horses, please just discuss the issue, cite papal bulls, or council decrees, Aim to convince me, not just to “stick it to the protestant” please!

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

So, just to start things off, let me just say I’m not a Catholic, in fact, I’m Baptist, if that gives you any clues on where I’m coming from. I’ve done some research into Catholicism, but as there seem to be as many disagreements about what things mean between y’all as between us baptists, I wanted to hear from some real live catholics.

The question is this, What Scriptural Evidence is there for a Sacramental Priesthood existing after the time of Christ?

…

Once again, however, in your responses, PLEASE provide SCRIPTURAL evidence for everything you’re saying

First, let me start by addressing a big problem you have - you’re limiting yourself to the Scriptures as if everything we ever needed to know was there. Not only that it’s not scriptural (you have to admit that it’s simply an assumption) but it’s also not true and it was not believed to be true until the Sola Scriptura doctrine was invented about only 500 years ago. This took place after the invention of printing press, which for the first time in history allowed this doctrine to be practiced (in theory of course). If all God left us is the Bible (and he didn’t give us an authoritative Church [which later gave us the Bible]) then Sola scriptura is clearly God’s will. If that’s the case, why would an omnipotent God he make it impossible for his will to be practiced for about 1500 year (when coincidently authoritative church was undeniably necessary)?! This some food for thought.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Now, if you look at the Early Church Father the evidence that the Protestant believes don’t match with the early believes is very clear.

Ignatius of Antioch
“Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Magnesians 2 [A.D. 110]).

“Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest” (ibid., 6:1).

“Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit” (ibid., 13:1–2).

“Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore—and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They must therefore guard against blame as against fire” (Letter to the Trallians 2:1–3 [A.D. 110]).

“In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him” (ibid., 3:1–2).

“He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clear conscience” (ibid., 7:2).

“I cried out while I was in your midst, I spoke with a loud voice, the voice of God: ‘Give heed to the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons.’ Some suspect me of saying this because I had previous knowledge of the division certain persons had caused; but he for whom I am in chains is my witness that I had no knowledge of this from any man. It was the Spirit who kept preaching these words, ‘Do nothing without the bishop, keep your body as the temple of God, love unity, flee from divisions, be imitators of Jesus Christ, as he was imitator of the Father’” (Letter to the Philadelphians 7:1–2 [A.D. 110]).

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Clement of Alexandria
“A multitude of other pieces of advice to particular persons is written in the holy books: some for presbyters, some for bishops and deacons; and others for widows, of whom we shall have opportunity to speak elsewhere” (The Instructor of Children 3:12:97:2 [A.D. 191]).

“Even here in the Church the gradations of bishops, presbyters, and deacons happen to be imitations, in my opinion, of the angelic glory and of that arrangement which, the scriptures say, awaits those who have followed in the footsteps of the apostles and who have lived in complete righteousness according to the gospel” (Miscellanies 6:13:107:2 [A.D. 208]).

Hippolytus
"When a deacon is to be ordained, he is chosen after the fashion of those things said above, the bishop alone in like manner imposing his hands upon him as we have prescribed. In the ordaining of a deacon, this is the reason why the bishop alone is to impose his hands upon him: he is not ordained to the priesthood, but to serve the bishop and to fulfill the bishop’s command. He has no part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful. . . .

"On a presbyter, however, let the presbyters impose their hands because of the common and like Spirit of the clergy. Even so, the presbyter has only the power to receive [the Spirit], and not the power to give [the Spirit]. That is why a presbyter does not ordain the clergy; for at the ordaining of a presbyter, he but seals while the bishop ordains.

“Over a deacon, then, let the bishop speak thus: ‘O God, who have created all things and have set them in order through your Word; Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom you sent to minister to your will and to make clear to us your desires, grant the Holy Spirit of grace and care and diligence to this your servant, whom you have chosen to serve the Church and to offer in your holy places the gifts which are offered to you by your chosen high priests, so that he may serve with a pure heart and without blame, and that, ever giving praise to you, he may be accounted by your good will as worthy of this high office: through your Son Jesus Christ, through whom be glory and honor to you, to the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit, in your holy Church, both now and through the ages of ages. Amen’” (The Apostolic Tradition 9 [A.D. 215]).
"When a deacon is to be ordained, he is chosen after the fashion of those things said above, the bishop alone in like manner imposing his hands upon him as we have prescribed. In the ordaining of a deacon, this is the reason why the bishop alone is to impose his hands upon him: he is not ordained to the priesthood, but to serve the bishop and to fulfill the bishop’s command. He has no part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful. . . .

"On a presbyter, however, let the presbyters impose their hands because of the common and like Spirit of the clergy. Even so, the presbyter has only the power to receive [the Spirit], and not the power to give [the Spirit]. That is why a presbyter does not ordain the clergy; for at the ordaining of a presbyter, he but seals while the bishop ordains.

“Over a deacon, then, let the bishop speak thus: ‘O God, who have created all things and have set them in order through your Word; Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom you sent to minister to your will and to make clear to us your desires, grant the Holy Spirit of grace and care and diligence to this your servant, whom you have chosen to serve the Church and to offer in your holy places the gifts which are offered to you by your chosen high priests, so that he may serve with a pure heart and without blame, and that, ever giving praise to you, he may be accounted by your good will as worthy of this high office: through your Son Jesus Christ, through whom be glory and honor to you, to the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit, in your holy Church, both now and through the ages of ages. Amen’” (The Apostolic Tradition 9 [A.D. 215]).

Council of Nicaea I
"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters , whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. Let all such practices be utterly done away, and let the deacons remain within their own bounds, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and the inferiors of the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters, and let either the bishop or the presbyter administer to them" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

 

[DJim]

The Apostles, as well as Scripture, were God-breathed.

Which is partly the point of the priesthood.

Can you clarify your question a bit, though–do you specifically wish to focus on priesthood, or perhaps the Sacrament of Holy Orders in general, or Apostolic succession?

Knowing that will help determine what Scriptural framework to suggest to you…

DJim

 

[Afterburned6387]

Specifically, that the relationship between say, me and God, is any different than between say, a Priest and God.

As for the objection to Sola Scriptura, the term may have been invented 500 years ago, but remember, the Catholic Church was not only the primary religious authority, but the primary political authority as well. At many points in history, people obeyed the Catholic church not due to Apostolic Succession, but under pain of Death.

If we assume that Papal Authority as it exists now began in 850AD, and we know that the Waldensians and Albingenses, heretics as they were, were beginning to use scripture as the basis of a religion itself, about 1100AD, we are left with only a 300 year gap in the 2000 year history of the church where Scripture was not the ultimate authority. The reformation in 1500 was not only a religious reformation (that had been going on for some 400 years at that point) but that event was also a political reformation.

This political aspect of the reformation is often thrown in my face by Catholics like it was us Protestants who wanted to rule the world, but the fact is, it was a Political Reform cause by Political Problems of an Autocrat who claimed divine authority (another Caesar perhaps?)

Also, I expect people to reason with quotations, not just fling them at me en masse. Show me where, point out where specific points are made or supported. Debate with the God Given Logic you have.

 

[DJim]

We could cut to the chase on all of what you just posted by focusing on the fact that the hierarchy of the Christian Church–with ordained bishops, priests, and deacons–is historically clear not only in Scripture but in the immediate “post-Scriptural” period of the Apostolic Fathers. Say about 110 AD.

Ever read the letters of Ignatius of Antioch?

DJim

PS–I will go to Scripture first when I reply again, but am curious of your knowledge of Ignatius…

 

[Jerry-Jet]

In 2 Corinthians 2:10 St. Paul forgives the Incestuous Corinthian “In the Person of Christ”–In personal Christi".

We can’t do that because we aren’t priests just like laymen after Christ who were in the Corinthian Church could not fortgive that person "In the Person: of Christ.

Jesus breathed on the disciples and gave them the power to forgive and retain sin.

We don’t have that power.

And since it is in scripture that Paul forgave the Incestuous Corinthian after retaining his sin in the 1st book of Ciorinthians we know that not only did the disicples have this power but that they had transfered this power to Paul.

So see there is biblical proof that they had power to forgive and retain sin that we don’t have!

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

1. First, the ideas of theological centers are colloquialisms, Leviticus and Romans seem to be good summaries, brief overviews of the faith, if you will

What suggests that Romans include all we need to know?

1. As for why scripture, well, Scripture should be the foundation of our faith, as it is God Breathed (2 Tim 3:16), and as a “wayward” protestant, Sola Scriptura is still a big deal for me

2 Timothy 3:16 says this (according to different translations):

[NIV] All Scripture is God-breathed and is **useful **for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

[NASB] All Scripture is inspired by God and **profitable **for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

[KJV] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is **profitable **for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

It is one of the greatest protestant misconceptions that this quote supports the Sola Scriptura doctrine. If you read it carefully you’ll see that it doesn’t. The verse says that “all scriptures are inspired and profitable for teaching etc.” but not that "“all scriptures are inspired and sufficient for teaching etc.”. There is a huge difference between the two. To illustrate let me use this example.

Let’s say you’re studying university and during one lecture the professor says that you should pay attention and take notes because this lecture will be profitable for your examination. So you sit there and take notes as he says so. When you’ll be revising for your exam are you going to simply look at your lecture notes and study from that? No, hopefully not. You will go to your textbooks and other books and study but use your notes to help you. The lecture notes are certainly **useful ** and **profitable **for your studies but in no way **sufficient **(at least in our uni ).

In 1 Timothy 3:4-5, in describing the requirements for a Bishop, it says this:

He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)

Indicating he should be married with kids. I think more importantly, it indicates that we should know who would make a good bishop by how he conducts his family. I take serious issue with trusting an unmarried man to lead my church. It is by his family that I might test his leadership ability

Not really. Take a closer look at the passage. It describes what kind of person a Bishop should be. It says he should be faithful to his wife, exercise self-control, not be a heavy-drinker etc. Now, does it actually says that he must marry? No it doesn’t - it lives on the assumption that most bishops will marry. So when he says that he must manage his family…well he doesn’t say that he MUST have a family likewise he is not saying that an Elder must drink when he says he must not be a heavy drinker. It’s a check list and if something doesn’t apply to you then you are fine.

Now, you might have personal preferences in trusting unmarried man, but that’s something you must deal with. Not all men are called to married life and many of them are as trustworthy as married man. In fact I will even say that they are better leaders because they are able to dedicate their whole life to God instead of to his wife and children and material things connected to that.

To be continued…

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

My question is this, why is it then that the Catholic Church requires its priests to remain unmarried? a burden Paul himself admits few can bear, and probably the biggest reason behind the latest Priest Abuse scandals.

First let me point one thing: only priests in the Latin Rite are required to be unmarried. In the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church priests may not marry but married man may become priests. There are also some exceptions to the rule in the Latin Rite - be these are, as I said, rare exceptions.

One of the main reason is the the fact that a person who is dedicated to Christ should be freed of the burdens that are connected to married life. With all that such vacation takes, it is very difficult to dedicate your life fully to God and have a family. Having a family means caring for your wife and the children (probably more than what is normal in our society), making sure you have enough money to feed the hungry necks etc. There is just too many distractions for someone who should work as a Shepard of his flock. If I’m not mistaken this is one of the reasons why the Orthodox followed the Latin example and now their bishops must be single.

As for the abuse scandals, this is simply a misconception. Such scandals happen to ministers in many non-catholic faith who are most often married - they just don’t get that much attention because they aren’t catholic. I’m sure you noticed that the Church gets simply too much attention by secular media and they are waiting for every opportunity to criticize or ridicule it.

The question still stands though, is there a priesthood with a fundamentally different relationship towards God, not just a leadership position in a church. A relationship that would allow them alone to do things like baptize, ordain, Transubstantiate, or bless water?

Yes, they become tools of God in his mission to the salvation of the mankind. Ordination is one of the seven sacraments and it permanently marks the person’s soul. One must be validly ordained to be able to provide the Church with the Eucharist, hear confessions etc. But baptism in theory be done by anyone - meaning even a layperson (even a non-catholic) provided he uses the correct trinitarian formula.

In Christ,
~G

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Specifically, that the relationship between say, me and God, is any different than between say, a Priest and God.

Well, I would say that (generally speaking) there is no difference other than in how the God is using as a person and his child. Some people are called to priesthood, some are called to single life, some are called to married life and some are called to religious life. God has plans with us and it is up to us to respond to him.

As for the objection to Sola Scriptura, the term may have been invented 500 years ago, but remember, the Catholic Church was not only the primary religious authority, but the primary political authority as well. At many points in history, people obeyed the Catholic church not due to Apostolic Succession, but under pain of Death.

It is true that they the Church had much more power than it has now, but let’s suppose it held as much power as it does now. Where would people turn? MOST people could not read and those who could couldn’t own a Bible because they were about as expensive as a Ferrari. There could be no Sola Scriptura and people had to submit to the teaching authority of the Church or well, decrease their chances of being save to almost minimum. So my concern is, if Sola Scriptura is correct then it is God’s will and he simply didn’t let people to follow his will until the invention of the printing technology. This is however not the only issue with this doctrine.

If we assume that Papal Authority as it exists now began in 850AD, and we know that the Waldensians and Albingenses, heretics as they were, were beginning to use scripture as the basis of a religion itself, about 1100AD, we are left with only a 300 year gap in the 2000 year history of the church where Scripture was not the ultimate authority. The reformation in 1500 was not only a religious reformation (that had been going on for some 400 years at that point) but that event was also a political reformation.

The heretical groups you mentioned mere heretical disobedient groups with their own distorted ideas rather then Sola Scriptura followers. Did they preach Sola Scriptura? I don’t believe so. And what about their followers? Were they people who came to follow them through study of their bibles or through ‘brainwashing’?

I don’t deny that people weren’t able to twist the scripture (the few who could) that was so protected by the Church but that’s it. If they gained any followers it was more because of brainwashing, charisma and other similar methods but not careful study of the scripture, which they would proclaim to be self-sufficient. I see that this only points the the necessity of the authority of the Church and impossibility of Sola Scriptura from the time Jesus established the Church until the invention of the printing press.

This political aspect of the reformation is often thrown in my face by Catholics like it was us Protestants who wanted to rule the world, but the fact is, it was a Political Reform cause by Political Problems of an Autocrat who claimed divine authority (another Caesar perhaps?)

I agree there was a lot of corruption in the Church at that time and that Satan planned his attacks on the true Church (an obvious target, isn’t it?) very carefully. But these are not reasons to leave the Church.

Also, I expect people to reason with quotations, not just fling them at me en masse. Show me where, point out where specific points are made or supported. Debate with the God Given Logic you have.

What do you want to know in specific. Right now I’m simply trying to use mere logic.

 

[CollegeKid]

Specifically, that the relationship between say, me and God, is any different than between say, a Priest and God.

Well, I’m not sure what you mean by the relationship being different, but if you mean a higher degree of communion between a priest and God and yourself and God, the Church simply does not teach this. Its true that the teaching regarding ordination to the priesthood is that it leaves “an indelible mark on the soul” of the man which configures him to Christ in a special way, but this is for the function that he serves in the Church- to teach, govern and administer the sacraments. It doesn’t mean that a priest necessarily is closer to God than you or anybody else.

As for the objection to Sola Scriptura, the term may have been invented 500 years ago, but remember, the Catholic Church was not only the primary religious authority, but the primary political authority as well. At many points in history, people obeyed the Catholic church not due to Apostolic Succession, but under pain of Death.

I’m not going to argue that at times the Church has exercised a stern degree of control through civil authorities, but your allusion to this as evidence that sola scriptura was there but simply “couldn’t grab the spotlight,” if you will, is an argument from silence. Yes, it may have some basis in reality (who knows), but just asserting that it might have been isn’t strong enough evidence to make one accept that going by scripture alone is better than trusting the teachings of the Church.

If we assume that Papal Authority as it exists now began in 850 AD

We’re not assuming this. Papal primacy, though it has undergone development, received support from Popes and councils prior to AD 850.

and we know that the Waldensians and Albingenses, heretics as they were, were beginning to use scripture as the basis of a religion itself, about 1100AD, we are left with only a 300 year gap in the 2000 year history of the church where Scripture was not the ultimate authority.

No, we have a 300 year space where we had Waldensians and Albigenses, and the Church existed before them. Do you honestly think that up until 1100 AD, the Church just handed out Bibles to people? It didn’t. For one thing, widespread literacy didn’t exist yet nor did widespread printing. There were monks copying the texts of Sacred Scripture in monasteries. That’s why the Church has convened councils since the beginning, why it produced documents from those councils defining the faith in creeds, the articles of which weren’t always explicitly found in Scripture.

 

[mlldrl]

Saint Paul was not a local church leader, he was a mentor figure

St. Paul was a bishop. As an apostle that was his office. (Acts 1:20) Only bishops can confer other bishops.

I am really sick and tired of all you catholics on your high horses, please just discuss the issue, cite papal bulls, or council decrees, Aim to convince me, not just to “stick it to the protestant” please!

Sorry you feel that way. I’m not trying to ‘stick it’ to anyone.

M

 

[Afterburned6387]

Please people, once again, I thank you for posting, I’ve read them, and many posts are interesting, but once again, to the Topic!

Scriptural Evidence for a Sacramental Preisthood

I did not start this thread to discuss “Apostolic Succession”

I did not start this thread to discuss “Sola Scripura” or “Tradition” as a basis

I did not start this thread for any other reason than to uncover a SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR THE PREISTHOOD!

stop bloviating and start PROVING (sorry, I’ll admit I’ve been a bad example)

If you really wanna knock my socks off, use scripture, then cite church fathers using that scripture to support a sacramental preisthood, please, I wanna see it!

The most convincing proofs you can give me are:

A. Systematic Theologies, i.e. one scripture leads to another, groups of passages indicate a concept

B. Tradition as an extention of scripture, show me the foundation., and then where it goes

Remember, I’m a baptist, we have traditions too, like not drinking. What is the scriptural foundation for that? in romans we are told not to conduct ourselves in ways that may tempt our brothers, but in the same token we dont (or we shouldnt) look down on, or condemn those who drink responsibly

If there isn’t a scriptural foundation for the preisthood, thats awful disconcerting…