Sacramental Preisthood?

[DJim]

Yes, Mosaic succession does sound familiar. I actually had a line in my last post that read something to the effect of:

“I would accept Ordination, but I still say there are certain abilities that ended at the apostles”

Since ordination through the laying on of hands by the apostles is found in the NT, I wouldn’t expect you to deny it. However, Scripture never says “there are certain abilities that ended at the apostles,” so I’m not sure why you wish to make an argument merely based upon your “tradition”? Can you not prove this statement from Scripture itself???

Or, if Scripture is silent on this issue, why would you doubt the continued existence of genuine apostolic ministry in the Church?

The next problem then we have is with the Apostle Paul. He was not sent with the original twelve, but he was divinely given the apostleship. Is there anything that says this is the only time God has gone outside the normal succession?

The Gospels make it clear that when Jesus called the Twelve, it was a two-step process–first, He called them as the Twelve, then he designated them apostles. Now, in terms of Paul and others designated apostles, it’s really just a simple matter of one of the Twelve laying hands upon them to “ordain” them authoritatively and in succession. Not so difficult.

Next, I would also state, Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest, as was John Knox, John Calvin was a monk, Zwingli was a Priest, Farel was a Priest. What made the Reformation such a great Historical Event was that it was those inside the Catholic church that instituted reforms. As such, is not possible, or even likely that Paul’s warning of those that would go out from them, but weren’t of them applies more to the unreformed Catholic Church than the reformers?(1 John 2:19)

Why on earth would you think so?–this is completely dependent upon point of view, since I could easily describe the Protestant Reformers as “unreformed Catholics”–another way to say “heretics.”

Furthermore, doesn’t this provide an Apostolic Succession for the Protestants? The Catholic Church is already beginning to accept the Apostolic Succession of the Anglicans, so why do they reject that of the reformers?

Cite for me evidence of Catholic acceptance of Anglican Orders–or let me save you the trouble, since there is none. Holy Orders requires an ongoing valid Sacramental episcopacy and priesthood according to proper Sacramental form and intent–something lost to the Protestant world looong ago.

I still think Apostolic Succession is a little silly, but to satisfy the RCC’s requirements, isn’t this sufficient?

I still think the Incarnation is a little silly, but God didn’t ask my permission before becoming flesh, so I guess I’ll have to live with it…

DJim

 

[DJim]

You have not addressed anything significantly regarding the “semikhah” as the basis and model for apostolic succession. From a Jewish perspective, the evidence is abundant that Jesus intentionally built His Church upon Peter and the Twelve and fully intended them to pass down their living authority in the Church for all time, just as the pre-Christian people of the Covenant–Israel–had experienced.

As has been said before, Romanism’s strongest ally is Catholicism, yet Catholicism’s biggest weakness is Romanism.

Ain’t no such thing as “Romanism” so I don’t know what you could possibly be speaking of…

And it would take an entirely separate thread to show all the times the Roman Church has proven in deed that it truly is NOT the catholic church, After all, how could the Ecumenical Council of Trent be Ecumenical if the Eastern Orthodox Church wasn’t even invited? The RCC has always seemed a bit arrogant to me.

There is no such thing as the “Roman Church”–are you speaking of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that subsists in the Roman Catholic Church?

Arrogant? How many Catholic bishops were invited by the Protestant Reformers to their decision-making gatherings? Please tell.

After the Pornocracy, Indulgence Fiasco, etc. wouldn’t it make sense again for God to go outside the norms of his own succession to continue his church? after his people had so badly abused his gift?

Why do you call the governance of the Protestant Reformation a “pornocracy”? In any case, it is obvious to any Bible-believing Christian that God’s “normal” plan includes dealing with human weakness and sin within His Church.

Judas. Peter. Thomas. Paul. Barnabas.

All weak men with faults.

So, you were saying?

In any case, you have in pre-Christian history two often-intertwining realities of a sacrificial priesthood and an authority based upon Mosaic succession, and you have in immediate post-biblical history a hierarchical Church that contains both a sacrificial priesthood and an authority based upon apostolic succession (just read Ignatius and Polycarp and Clement).

So, tell me again why you are having trouble with the concept of a Sacramental priesthood? Jesus is the origin–Scripture calls Him “priest,” “apostle”, “temple,” “lamb”, and “Passover”–and He tells the Twelve “as the Father has sent me so I send you”. The Twelve are sent “in Persona Christi” and then tell their followers, in keeping with the fact that Jesus sent them exactly as the Father sent Him, “as the Messiah has sent me so I send you”–apostolic succession originating with Jesus.

All very Scriptural…

DJim

 

[DJim]

please read the thread, the discussion is over whether the Ordained (which every form of Christendom accepts exists) have special abilities we don’t, like being able to Transubstantiate, Bless water, Give Penance, etc…

Well, then your argument is with Scripture and St. Paul, who clearly tells us that those in the Church have different gifts, but the same Spirit, and he tells us that “not all” manifest the same gifts and abilities.

Further, if all have the same abilities, why does James exhort believers to “summon the presbyters” when someone is sick (James 5)??? What’s so special about the presbyters?

DJim

 

[Pax]

Okay, here is some exclusivity of ability that is clearly written in scripture.

Acts 8:13-24
Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed. Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, saying, “Give me also this power, that any one on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” But Peter said to him, “Your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.” And Simon answered, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.”

As you can readily see from this passage not everyone is given the power that is associated with the laying on of hands. The power itself is transmitted from one person to another. That is from one who is ordained to another who is ordained accordingly. We also see this in Paul speaking to Timothy. Paul says:

1 Tim 4:4
Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance **when the council of elders laid their hands **upon you.

Timothy became a bishop and he ordained others. Paul even gives Timothy some serious instructions about all of this when he says:

1Tim 5:22
Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands,

We also read this from the book of James:

James 5:14-15
Is any among you sick? Let him call for the presbyters of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

Please note that James says to call for the presbyters and not the lay members of the Christian community. It is they who are to pray for the sick man and to annoint him with oil so that by the prayer of faith the sick man will be saved and his sins forgiven.

This is not to suggest that the rest of us shouldn’t pray for the sick. Instead it clearly demonstrates the special powers of the ministerial priesthood.

Afterburned,

I don’t mean to nag, but you haven’t answered this. By the way, I appreciate your posts…you are courteous and charitable…this helps. May the Lord’s blessings be upon you.

 

[Windmill]

This has been an interesting thread to read. I’m glad to see that issues can be talked about without personal name-calling.

I understand that this thread is about scriptural evidence for a ministerial priesthood, but to put this into perspective, 75% of the Christians on this planet adhere to a version of Christianity that teaches a sacramental priesthood and the Real, substantial presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Up until the Reformation (500 years ago), this was standard Christian doctrine. Denial of the ministerial priesthood is a relatively recent idea. So, while there may not be an explicit NT citation that says, “This is a priest, and this is what he does, and here are the theological proofs for this”, the overwhelming testimony of history speaks to a sacramental priesthood.

If there was no intention of having this office, then there would have been some outcry from someone, somewhere. Early Christians were hyperconservative with doctrine. Something this big couldn’t just “pop up”.

I guess I could summarize my post by saying, “The burden of proof seems to be on the Protestants to prove that the priesthood is un-biblical and* un*-Christian and *un-*historical.” Not the other way around.

 

[Afterburned6387]

Ok, well, before this goes further, can someone tell me exactly what the Catholic Faith teaches that Priests are capable of doing that the average member of the “Laity” isnt?

This should give some better perspective, as I think the main argument against the priesthood from the Protestants is more of a “Death of a thousand cuts,” or, showing that each element of the Priesthood can be performed by those outside of it.

I want to be clear on this, because if the notion of the Priesthood is that those men have special training in the ministerial profession, but that their abilities aren’t exclusive to the Priesthood (As Old Testament Rites were exclusive to the Aaronic Priesthood), then I find no problem with that. It is much the same as what Baptists believe. The reason the Pastor baptizes and not me is because he went to school to know how to do it well, not because I am unable.

 

[Pax]

The typical Christian cannot ordain.

The typical Christian cannot say mass because they have not been ordained and therefore cannot confect the Eucharist.

The typical Christian cannot administer the sacrament of the sick discussed in James 5:14-15.

The typical Christian cannot forgive or retain sins as part of the right of penance/confession.

The typical Christian cannot preside at a Catholic wedding.

The typical Catholic Christian cannot administer the sacrament of Confirmation.​

Although it is not typical, the typical Christian can administer the sacrament of Baptism.

Marriage is a sacrament between a man and woman…the priest simply presides and is the primary witness of Christ and His Church.

The typical Christian can do anything else that a priest might do.

I hope this helps.

 

[fellowChristian]

What the Catholic Church teaches in regards to the priesthood.

ARTICLE 6
THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt3.htm

ARTICLE 9
“I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH”

Paragraph 4. Christ’s Faithful—Hierarchy, Laity, Consecrated Life

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p4.htm

And what the Church teaches over all.
usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.htm

 

[Afterburned6387]

Ok, well, this post, of itself is not meant to argue any particular point, but to point out where a hole might be in these, as far as Protestants are concerned.

The typical Christian cannot ordain.

Well, typical attacks on Apostolic Succession, or the circularity caused by the rest of the arguments might kill this one (i.e. ordination is important because it conveys ability, if there is no ability, ordination is no longer important, and therefore, not exclusive)

The typical Christian cannot say mass because they have not been ordained and therefore cannot confect the Eucharist.

Attacks on Transubstantiation would do it here. That said, I actually participated in a Lord’s Supper this evening at my church, and Transubstantiation becomes much harder to deny when you are holding in your hands that which is supposed to symbolize the body and blood. You start to ask yourself, how far does that symbolism go? (That said, it was presided over by an Ordained Southern Baptist minister, so in a sense, this one event tonight experientially seemed to both affirm Transubstantiation, yet lessen the argument for the Priesthood as the Church understands it, i.e. Apostolic Succession)

The typical Christian cannot administer the sacrament of the sick discussed in James 5:14-15.

I’m really not sure how to interpret that passage of scripture, at the same time it seems to be about someone physically sick, but seems to make more sense as someone sick with sin.

The typical Christian cannot forgive or retain sins as part of the right of penance/confession.

Attacks on the necessity of the sacrament of penance would do it here.

The typical Christian cannot preside at a Catholic wedding.

How exactly marriage works seems to be defined by cultural norms throughout scripture, Probably an attack on the ritual of marriage would do here, but at the same time I agree that a witness on behalf of whatever religious body is presiding should be there

The typical Catholic Christian cannot administer the sacrament of Confirmation.

I still don’t get what exactly “confirmation” is. I know in some churches its like a church school people go through when they’re 13…essentially a Christian bar-mitzvah, though I don’t think thats what Catholics mean by “Confirmation”

I hope this helps.

It has, thank you.

 

[DJim]

Afterburned–

“Attacks” actually do little or nothing except make people feel defensive.

Why not show from Scripture–as I’ve asked above–where Scripture tells us that apostolic authority is supposed to cease with the death of the last apostle, or some such…

Give some Scriptural evidence for the “attack” on Apostolic Succession, and then we’ll have a starting place.

I mean, anything in Scripture that points to the cessation of Apostolic Succession should prove a nice launchpad for your argument.

…Got anything??? At all???

DJim

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Afterburned6387:

Ok, well, this post, of itself is not meant to argue any particular point, but to point out where a hole might be in these, as far as Protestants are concerned.

But you haven’t pointed out where a hole might be. You have merely posted opinion without any support.

Afterburned6387:

Well, typical attacks on Apostolic Succession, or the circularity caused by the rest of the arguments might kill this one (i.e. ordination is important because it conveys ability, if there is no ability, ordination is no longer important, and therefore, not exclusive)

And you believe this because you believe this? That is circularity.

Afterburned6387:

Attacks on Transubstantiation would do it here. That said, I actually participated in a Lord’s Supper this evening at my church, and Transubstantiation becomes much harder to deny when you are holding in your hands that which is supposed to symbolize the body and blood. You start to ask yourself, how far does that symbolism go? (That said, it was presided over by an Ordained Southern Baptist minister, so in a sense, this one event tonight experientially seemed to both affirm Transubstantiation, yet lessen the argument for the Priesthood as the Church understands it, i.e. Apostolic Succession)

This is anecdotal ‘evidence’ which is no evidence at all. It is also another example of believing something because you believe it. Circularity.

Afterburned6387:

I’m really not sure how to interpret that passage of scripture, at the same time it seems to be about someone physically sick, but seems to make more sense as someone sick with sin.

‘Seems’? What is the methodology you use to interpret Scripture? And with what authority do you interpret Scripture?

Afterburned6387:

Attacks on the necessity of the sacrament of penance would do it here.

Not following you. How? Can you specify please? Thank you.

Afterburned6387:

How exactly marriage works seems to be defined by cultural norms throughout scripture, Probably an attack on the ritual of marriage would do here, but at the same time I agree that a witness on behalf of whatever religious body is presiding should be there

An attack would do on what basis? Can you specify please? Thank you.

Afterburned6387:

I still don’t get what exactly “confirmation” is. I know in some churches its like a church school people go through when they’re 13…essentially a Christian bar-mitzvah, though I don’t think thats what Catholics mean by “Confirmation”

I imagine, then, that you might be interested in finding out before commenting on it. Right?

 

[DJim]

Afterburned–

This thread seems to be a bit neglected as of late.

Are you planning to actually offer replies some of the great points raised above?

For my part, I’m looking for a reply to my question regarding Scriptural evidence for the end of apostolic authority.

Please provide. Thanks,

DJim