Title of Catholic Priests

[TobyLue]

Originally Posted by mercygate Mark 10:17ff
A man ran up and knelt before [Jesus], and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, . . . You know the commandments: `Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’"

then giver posted

Jesus hadn’t died yet. Now all honor and glory belongs to our Lord and God Jesus.

Huh!!! Are you trying to say that anything that Jesus said before He died does not hold water? He had to die first? So, in that case Why are you quoting Matthew 23:8-12 and trying to make your point regarding the use of the word “father” since “Jesus hadn’t died yet" and he quoted that before he died……?

The tons of evidence that has been provided to you regarding the use of “father” trumps your silly self-interpretation of scripture which by the way is scripturally forbidden.

You said “I am no longer Catholic” and your profile says you are “Christian”. Please do not insult us since you apparently do not believe that Catholics are Christian as you went from being “Catholic” to “Christian”. Anyone that goes against the Church that Jesus Christ founded is protesting against that church and thus is rendered a “Protestant”. You can’t escape that fact.
And be careful since you seem to be protesting against Jesus Christ himself. Jesus founded one (1), Church which still exists today and He said, in Matthew 17 “,if he refuses to listen to the church treat him as a pagan…” And in Luke 10:16 “anyone who listens to you listens to me; anyone who rejects you rejects me and those who rejects me rejects the one who sent me”

I have said all I’m going to say on this subject.
Giver

True, cause you are in a corner and don’t have anything defense against the evidence given to you

 

[quasimodo]

This is a discussion which could be the poster child for the “literal” versus the “literalist” reading of scripture. We have to discover the original meaning and intention of this verse, not what we see in the 21st century English. We need to recognize that we are in the same boat as the Ethiopian Eunuch.

Scripture tells us that God ons the cattle on a thousand hills. Which cattle and which hills?
Honor your dad and Mother?
“Why do you call me Good?”, only the Father in heaven is good (Jesus is not good?)
Stephen is disobedient when he called the Jewish leaders “fathers”? Was he not under the influence of the Holy Spirit? Did the Holy Spirit not know what Jesus had commanded? or did it not count because Jesus was alive when he gave the instruction and had risen from the dead when Stephen called them fathers?

 

[Pax]

Giver:

Hello Pax, we meet again. I have posted this before, but I don’t believe you have read this post.

(Mark 9:38 – 40) “John said to Him, ‘Master, we saw a man who is not one of us casting out devils in your name; and because he was not one of us we tried to stop him’. But Jesus said, ‘you must not stop him: no one who works a miracle in my name is likely to speak evil of me. Anyone who is not against us is

(Acts 2:46) “They went as a body to the Temple every day but met in their houses for the breaking of bread; they shared their food gladly and generously they praised God.”

(1 Peter 2:9) “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a consecrated nation, a people set apart to sing the praises of God who called you out of the darkness into his wonderful light.”

Now if we are royal priest as Peter said and the early Christians went to their homes to receive the Eucharist, and Jesus said even if people were not part of the main group they were for Him, and Jesus said (John 6:53) “Jesus replied: ‘I tell you most solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man ad drink his blood, you will not have life in you,” So do you really believe Jesus would let some one who was with Him not have life in him? Also it just doesn’t make sense to say that a Spirit filled person could ask Jesus to change bread and wine into His Body and blood and He would refuse the request.

Giver,

You assume too much. I have read every post on this thread and let me assure you that I am willing to answer this issue. I did not go into any detailed response to you because the issue of the ministerial priesthood is off topic to the subject of this thread. Obviously, you would like a response so I will give you one. In the mean time please do us all a favor. Take the time to read this thread over again and attempt to carefully rebut all of the verses quoted you in response to the “call no man father” issue. Thus far you have failed to do so.

 

[Pax]

Giver,

None of the verses you quoted deny or refute a ministerial priesthood. Please note that both the Old and New Testaments share much in common. The OT covenants are a foreshadowing of the New Covenant. You quoted 1 Peter 2:9 which says, “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people,”

Please compare this verse to the following from the OT.

Exodus 19:5-6
Now therefore, if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my own possession among all peoples; for all the earth is mine, and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel."

Obviously, the Jews were a priestly people in the Old Covenant just as Christians are a priestly people in the New Covenant.The declaration that we are a “priestly people” does not negate the ministerial priesthood. After God makes the declaration in Exodus concerning the people as a kingdom of priests, he then tells Moses the following:

Exodus 19:22-25
And also let the priests who come near to the Lord consecrate themselves, lest the Lord break out upon them." And Moses said to the Lord, "The people cannot come up to Mount Sinai; for thou thyself didst charge us, saying, ‘Set bounds about the mountain, and consecrate it.’"And the Lord said to him, “Go down, and come up bringing Aaron with you; but do not let the priests and the people break through to come up to the Lord, lest he break out against them.” So Moses went down to the people and told them.

Exodus 28:1-3
"THEN BRING near to you Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, from among the people of Israel, to serve me as priests–Aaron and Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty. And you shall speak to all who have ability, whom I have endowed with an able mind, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him for my priesthood.

Exodus 28:41
And you shall put them upon Aaron your brother, and upon his sons with him, and shall anoint them and ordain them and consecrate them, that they may serve me as priests.

Likewise in the New Covenant we have deacons, presbyters/priests, and bishops. This is the ministerial priesthood of the New Covenant and it is in no way negated by your contentions.

In the OT we read about Korah’s rebellion in Numbers 16:1-33. It says in part: "NOW KORAH the son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men; and they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men; and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, “You have gone too far! **For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?” ** When Moses heard it, he fell on his face;
…
…
Moses responds to Korah with this]

And would you seek the priesthood also? Therefore it is against the Lord that you and all your company have gathered together; what is Aaron that you murmur against him?"

Later in the narrative we read that God destroys Korah and his followers that attempted to usurp the ministerial priesthood. Likewise there is a warning in the NT in the book of Jude.
In Jude 1:11-13 it says, " Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error, and perish in Korah’s rebellion."

The only conclusion that can be drawn from the book of Jude concerning Korah’s rebellion is that there are those that would attempt to usurp the ministerial priesthood of the New Covenant just as Korah did in the Old Covenant. Any denial of the proper place of the ministerial priesthood in the New Covenant is synonymous with Korah’s rebellion.

I hope this helps.

 

[Giver]

Pax:

Giver,

None of the verses you quoted deny or refute a ministerial priesthood. Please note that both the Old and New Testaments share much in common. The OT covenants are a foreshadowing of the New Covenant. You quoted 1 Peter 2:9 which says, “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people,”

Please compare this verse to the following from the OT.

Exodus 19:5-6
Now therefore, if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my own possession among all peoples; for all the earth is mine, and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel."

Obviously, the Jews were a priestly people in the Old Covenant just as Christians are a priestly people in the New Covenant.The declaration that we are a “priestly people” does not negate the ministerial priesthood. After God makes the declaration in Exodus concerning the people as a kingdom of priests, he then tells Moses the following:

Exodus 19:22-25
And also let the priests who come near to the Lord consecrate themselves, lest the Lord break out upon them." And Moses said to the Lord, "The people cannot come up to Mount Sinai; for thou thyself didst charge us, saying, ‘Set bounds about the mountain, and consecrate it.’"And the Lord said to him, “Go down, and come up bringing Aaron with you; but do not let the priests and the people break through to come up to the Lord, lest he break out against them.” So Moses went down to the people and told them.

Exodus 28:1-3
"THEN BRING near to you Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, from among the people of Israel, to serve me as priests–Aaron and Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty. And you shall speak to all who have ability, whom I have endowed with an able mind, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him for my priesthood.

Exodus 28:41
And you shall put them upon Aaron your brother, and upon his sons with him, and shall anoint them and ordain them and consecrate them, that they may serve me as priests.

Likewise in the New Covenant we have deacons, presbyters/priests, and bishops. This is the ministerial priesthood of the New Covenant and it is in no way negated by your contentions.

In the OT we read about Korah’s rebellion in Numbers 16:1-33. It says in part: "NOW KORAH the son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men; and they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men; and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, “You have gone too far! **For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?” ** When Moses heard it, he fell on his face;
…
…
Moses responds to Korah with this]

And would you seek the priesthood also? Therefore it is against the Lord that you and all your company have gathered together; what is Aaron that you murmur against him?"

Later in the narrative we read that God destroys Korah and his followers that attempted to usurp the ministerial priesthood. Likewise there is a warning in the NT in the book of Jude.
In Jude 1:11-13 it says, " Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error, and perish in Korah’s rebellion."

The only conclusion that can be drawn from the book of Jude concerning Korah’s rebellion is that there are those that would attempt to usurp the ministerial priesthood of the New Covenant just as Korah did in the Old Covenant. Any denial of the proper place of the ministerial priesthood in the New Covenant is synonymous with Korah’s rebellion.

I hope this helps.

(Matthew 9:16-17) “No one puts apiece of unshrunken cloth on to an old cloak, because the patch pulls away from the cloak and the tear gets worse. Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; if they do, the skins burst, the wine runs out, and the skins are lost. No; they put new wine into fresh skins and both are preserved.”

Pax, this is what happened to the Church. There were just too many that liked the old ways better.

All you gave was the churches excuses for doing what it does. You didn’t address my response. I quoted Scripture and then asked you a question, which you didn’t answer.
Giver

 

[MrS]

Giver:

Pax, this is what happened to the Church. There were just too many that liked the old ways better.

All you gave was the churches excuses for doing what it does. You didn’t address my response. I quoted Scripture and then asked you a question, which you didn’t answer.
Giver

In a way you are right… Pax gave the Church’s reasons for doing what it does… But you seem unable to realize that it is the Church, the Catholic Church alone, which has the God-given authority to speak for Christ.

And the “reasons” PAX gave are Scriptural…

Re: Title of Catholic Priests = Father
And the support for this is all Scriptural, along with the admonition not to call others Father with the same meaning. Current denominations (primarily Baptists), are taught to reject the True Church, and hence reject any reference to the authority we have, and they don’t.

Your persistence to seek the Truth is good… you will make a wonderful Catholic.

 

[Giver]

MrS:

In a way you are right… Pax gave the Church’s reasons for doing what it does… But you seem unable to realize that it is the Church, the Catholic Church alone, which has the God-given authority to speak for Christ.

And the “reasons” PAX gave are Scriptural…

Re: Title of Catholic Priests = Father
And the support for this is all Scriptural, along with the admonition not to call others Father with the same meaning. Current denominations (primarily Baptists), are taught to reject the True Church, and hence reject any reference to the authority we have, and they don’t.

Your persistence to seek the Truth is good… you will make a wonderful Catholic.

Ok! So you believe the Catholic Church alone is the one true Church. I ‘m not here to argue that. What I’m saying is that the Catholic Church, or none of the protestant churches that I know of are living the Word of God.
Giver

 

[MrS]

Giver:

Ok! So you believe the Catholic Church alone is the one true Church. I ‘m not here to argue that. What I’m saying is that the Catholic Church, or none of the protestant churches that I know of are living the Word of God.
Giver

again, I agree with you…in so far that all “churches” or “communities” or “denominations” have members who are not living the Word of God. Amen

But the “Church”, the bride of Christ is not guilty of that. The Church is perfect… it is the people in it that are sinful.

Jesus told us that would happen… wheat and shaft would grow together, and be separated at the end. So I am not suprised that you, and I, see that.

But Jesus did not leave us orphans. Who is the “parent” he put in charge until His return? Certainly not any of the Protestant churches that were ALL founded by men, and built on that man’s theology.

 

[mercygate]

(Matthew 9:16-17) “No one puts apiece of unshrunken cloth on to an old cloak, because the patch pulls away from the cloak and the tear gets worse. Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; if they do, the skins burst, the wine runs out, and the skins are lost. No; they put new wine into fresh skins and both are preserved.”

Pax, this is what happened to the Church. There were just too many that liked the old ways better.

All you gave was the churches excuses for doing what it does. You didn’t address my response. I quoted Scripture and then asked you a question, which you didn’t answer.
Giver

What did I miss? Pax quoted Scripture at length and demonstrated the principle elucidated in Hebrews that elements of the Old Covenant are foreshadowings of their fulfillment in the New.

Is your “unanswered” question the following:

So do you really believe Jesus would let some one who was with Him not have life in him? Also it just doesn’t make sense to say that a Spirit filled person could ask Jesus to change bread and wine into His Body and blood and He would refuse the request.

Pax’s post addressed the distinction between the priesthood of all and the ministerial priesthood. As for “making sense,” that is another thread, but it DOES make sense that there be a ministerial priesthood. And it does NOT make sense that someone who believes himself to be spirit-filled can, without being set apart by the community, confect the Sacrament. The Body of Christ confects the Sacrament, not just “me and Jesus” according to my own individual lights. The historic position has always been that sacraments are celebrated with"the mind of Christ" in His Body, not outside of it, not outside the Apostolic commission; ministers must be “sent.”

 

[Giver]

MrS:

again, I agree with you…in so far that all “churches” or “communities” or “denominations” have members who are not living the Word of God. Amen

But the “Church”, the bride of Christ is not guilty of that. The Church is perfect… it is the people in it that are sinful.

Jesus told us that would happen… wheat and shaft would grow together, and be separated at the end. So I am not suprised that you, and I, see that.

But Jesus did not leave us orphans. Who is the “parent” he put in charge until His return? Certainly not any of the Protestant churches that were ALL founded by men, and built on that man’s theology.

I don’t know where to draw the line, all the people are the Church and the people made some bad decisions over the years, and all the people are responsible. The Holy Spirit is given to all Christians, but it seams that the spirit given to the hierarchy is the only spirit that matters.
kGiver

 

[MrS]

Giver:

I don’t know where to draw the line, all the people are the Church and the people made some bad decisions over the years, and all the people are responsible. The Holy Spirit is given to all Christians, but it seams that the spirit given to the hierarchy is the only spirit that matters.
kGiver

agreed… we receive the Holy Spirit through valid Baptism. It is strengthen by Confirmation, and by holy reception of the sacraments.

It is the baptism that makes us members of the Body of Christ… but it is the Catholic Church which will offer the fullness of Truth… the whole deposit of faith if you will.

The “spirit” given to the hierarchy is often stronger (witness JPII and the Doctors of the Church, Early Fathers, etc)

But it is the Holy Spirit who protects the Church from apostasy and from declaring un-Truth. Infallibility (that “negative” protection that prevents heresy from being “donctrinized”) is only found in the Catholic Church.

Hence we call the Pope Holy Father… even when we have a pope who is a scoundral.

So, personally, I draw the line at the boundaries of the Catholic Church. Those outside have many holy and wonderful qualities… but they don’t have Jesus’ gift of the Eucharist (because they don’t and can’t have the Ministerial Priesthood).

 

[josephdavid]

Giver:

I don’t know where to draw the line, all the people are the Church and the people made some bad decisions over the years, and all the people are responsible. The Holy Spirit is given to all Christians, but it seams that the spirit given to the hierarchy is the only spirit that matters.
kGiver

The Holy Spirit given to all people and the Church is what matters.

The Holy Spirit is God (the Trinity) and it is God’s Church. Again the Holy Sprit does not make mistakes.

 

[Giver]

MrS:

agreed… we receive the Holy Spirit through valid Baptism. It is strengthen by Confirmation, and by holy reception of the sacraments.

It is the baptism that makes us members of the Body of Christ… but it is the Catholic Church which will offer the fullness of Truth… the whole deposit of faith if you will.

The “spirit” given to the hierarchy is often stronger (witness JPII and the Doctors of the Church, Early Fathers, etc)

But it is the Holy Spirit who protects the Church from apostasy and from declaring un-Truth. Infallibility (that “negative” protection that prevents heresy from being “donctrinized”) is only found in the Catholic Church.

Hence we call the Pope Holy Father… even when we have a pope who is a scoundral.

So, personally, I draw the line at the boundaries of the Catholic Church. Those outside have many holy and wonderful qualities… but they don’t have Jesus’ gift of the Eucharist (because they don’t and can’t have the Ministerial Priesthood).

You are a Catholic and have been taught that and I am sure you believe everything you wrote. For the first forty some years of my life I would have agreed with you heart and soul.

I know now that the Church has made many errors in their teachings over the last centuries. The forum, does not allow me, to share how I know, but I am still trying to share some of the errors in my post.
Giver

 

[johnq]

Giver:

For the first forty some years of my life I would have agreed with you heart and soul.

I know now that the Church has made many errors in their teachings over the last centuries.

Giver :tiphat:

I was wondering what Catholic books, by Catholic authors, did you read during, before and after your discovery?

During your discernment process, did objectively look at both sides? Did you dive deeper into Catholic teachings or did you go by memory?

Thanks

 

[MrS]

Giver:

You are a Catholic and have been taught that and I am sure you believe everything you wrote. For the first forty some years of my life I would have agreed with you heart and soul.

I know now that the Church has made many errors in their teachings over the last centuries. The forum, does not allow me, to share how I know, but I am still trying to share some of the errors in my post.
Giver

taught?

I went to a catholic grade school… an all-male catholic high school, and on to Catholic college.

And I too left the church… for 25 years.

But it was questions like yours (from dear Baptist friends) that brought me home. I knew their objections were not right… but I had to know why…

Here I am today, 15 years later… still learning and loving it!

I will pray that that grace I was given will be shared with you.

 

[Giver]

johnq:

Giver :tiphat:

I was wondering what Catholic books, by Catholic authors, did you read during, before and after your discovery?

During your discernment process, did objectively look at both sides? Did you dive deeper into Catholic teachings or did you go by memory?

Thanks

Ask me in a private message.
Giver

 

[Pax]

Giver:

(Matthew 9:16-17) “No one puts apiece of unshrunken cloth on to an old cloak, because the patch pulls away from the cloak and the tear gets worse. Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; if they do, the skins burst, the wine runs out, and the skins are lost. No; they put new wine into fresh skins and both are preserved.”

Pax, this is what happened to the Church. There were just too many that liked the old ways better.

All you gave was the churches excuses for doing what it does. You didn’t address my response. I quoted Scripture and then asked you a question, which you didn’t answer.
Giver

Robert,

I did not give the church’s excuses for doing what it does. I gave you scripture from both the Old and New Testaments concerning the ministerial priesthood and the declaration concerning “priestly people.” This is a direct response to your post. Admittedly, I did not give a completely explicit answer to your question which I will do now.

You said,

Giver:

I think man, not God, instituted ministerial priesthood. There was Eucharist before man ordained men to be priest.

(Mark 9:38 – 40) “John said to Him, ‘Master, we saw a man who is not one of us casting out devils in your name; and because he was not one of us we tried to stop him’. But Jesus said, ‘you must not stop him: no one who works a miracle in my name is likely to speak evil of me. Anyone who is not against us is

(Acts 2:46) “They went as a body to the Temple every day but met in their houses for the breaking of bread; they shared their food gladly and generously they praised God.”

(1 Peter 2:9) “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a consecrated nation, a people set apart to sing the praises of God who called you out of the darkness into his wonderful light.”

Now if we are royal priest as Peter said and the early Christians went to their homes to receive the Eucharist, and Jesus said even if people were not part of the main group they were for Him, and Jesus said (John 6:53) “Jesus replied: ‘I tell you most solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man ad drink his blood, you will not have life in you,” So do you really believe Jesus would let some one who was with Him not have life in him? Also it just doesn’t make sense to say that a Spirit filled person could ask Jesus to change bread and wine into His Body and blood and He would refuse the request.
Giver

I’ll answer the question you posed. Yes, I do believe that Jesus would let someone who was with Him not have life in him. Judas is my example. Jesus does, however, provide the Eucharist to the flock through consecration by a priest. Your contention that “any” Christian can confect the Eucharist and that a priest is unneccessary is in no way established by the verses of scripture that you quoted. Moreover, it was “never” the historical practice or teaching of the early Christians or any Christians that followed them. Your belief is unique and is not even accepted by Protestants. Most Protestants do not believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus. Those that do (i.e. Anglicans and Lutherans) believe that an ordained priest is required for consecration just as the Catholics do.

Your claim has no biblical, historical, or logical basis.

 

[Pax]

Giver:

You are a Catholic and have been taught that and I am sure you believe everything you wrote. For the first forty some years of my life I would have agreed with you heart and soul.

I know now that the Church has made many errors in their teachings over the last centuries. The forum, does not allow me, to share how I know, but I am still trying to share some of the errors in my post.
Giver

Robert,

You claim to know that the Church has made many errors in its teachings over the last centuries. Apparently, you put “call no man father”[Matt 23:9] high on your list of errors. You have been shown on this thread why you are wrong about this but you refuse to concede the point. Your view cannot be correct on this because of the numerous times that the apostles used the term “father” in the NT. Moreover, the context in which they used the term totally denies your claim. The quotes already given to you should have been enough, but I will try to supply you with a little more information on this topic because not even the obvious has satisfied you.

The context in which Jesus tells the apostles to call no man “father,” do not be called a “teacher”, and do not be called “master” is our key to understanding what Jesus means. The context begins with Matthew 22:15 and runs all the way through Chapter 23 verse 39. The narrative begins with the words, “Then the Pharisees went and took counsel how to entangle him in his talk.” The Herodians, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and a lawyer took turns at asking Jesus trick questions in an effort to trap him. Needless to say, none of their subterfuge was effective. Jesus recognized their “malice” and refers to these individuals as “hypocrites, blind guides, and whitewashed tombs” and said “that inside they are full of extortion and rapacity.” Jesus said many other negative things about these men that showed that their real interest was self centered and that they were filled with pride and always sought out personal honor and the best places in the synagogues.

In saying “do not be called rabbi/teacher”, “call no man father”, and “do not be called master”, Jesus is merely teaching the apostles to practice humility and not to be hypocritical in the fashion of the Pharisees and others. Moreover, at that time in Judaism there were, within the aforementioned Jewish religious sects, various “houses” of religious thought. The leaders of these houses were commonly referred to as the “father” of that house or group. Jesus is also instructing the apostles not to set themselves apart in this fashion. They are not to follow such leadership nor are they to set up their “own” houses of spiritual thought for there is but one house and one Father. This point was explained very well by “Father” Mitch Pacwa on ETWN.

 

[Giver]

Pax:

Robert,

I did not give the church’s excuses for doing what it does. I gave you scripture from both the Old and New Testaments concerning the ministerial priesthood and the declaration concerning “priestly people.” This is a direct response to your post. Admittedly, I did not give a completely explicit answer to your question which I will do now.

You said,

I’ll answer the question you posed. Yes, I do believe that Jesus would let someone who was with Him not have life in him. Judas is my example. Jesus does, however, provide the Eucharist to the flock through consecration by a priest. Your contention that “any” Christian can confect the Eucharist and that a priest is unneccessary is in no way established by the verses of scripture that you quoted. Moreover, it was “never” the historical practice or teaching of the early Christians or any Christians that followed them. Your belief is unique and is not even accepted by Protestants. Most Protestants do not believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus. Those that do (i.e. Anglicans and Lutherans) believe that an ordained priest is required for consecration just as the Catholics do.

Your claim has no biblical, historical, or logical basis.

Pax, that was a sad post. First Judas was never baptized with the Holy Spirit. You saying that you proved your position with Scripture is so shallow that I’m sure even you don’t believe it. Most of your Scripture proof was Old Law and you should know anything old just gets older and dead. Jesus came to complete the law and He made all Christians priest. Justifying a ministerial priesthood using Jude when he never mentioned New Testament Priest now that is weak.

Saying that it was never the historical practice or teaching of the early Christians to receive the Eucharist without a ministerial priest present is just totally wrong.

Here is Scripture to prove I’m right.

(Acts 2:46) “They went as a body to the Temple every day but met in their houses for the breaking of bread; they shared their food gladly and generously.”

Read this again and tell me my lord and my God would refuse me life.

Now if we are royal priest as Peter said and the early Christians went to their homes to receive the Eucharist, and Jesus said even if people were not part of the main group they were for Him, and Jesus said (John 6:53) “Jesus replied: ‘I tell you most solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man ad drink his blood, you will not have life in you,” So do you really believe Jesus would let some one who was with Him not have life in him? Also it just doesn’t make sense to say that a Spirit filled person could ask Jesus to change bread and wine into His Body and blood and He would refuse the request.

How dare you call me a Judas? Because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t give you a right to call him or her a traitor.
Giver

 

[Pax]

Your quote from Acts says nothing about who presided at these early Christian services. Merely because the services were held in the homes of Christians proves nothing. The early Christians were not allowed to conduct the mass and Eucharist in the synagogues. Do some research and get the facts. The verse you quoted merely states “where” they practiced their worship.

You are ignoring both the New and Old Testaments concerning the ministerial priesthood. Please look up all the references in the NT concerning deacons, presbyter/priest, and bishops. You are simply in personal denial and have offered nothing of substance. I have been through all of this with you on other threads and in personal messages and you have never refuted any of it. You prefer to “pretend” to be your own priest confecting the Eucharist yourself which is a usurpation of the ministerial priesthood which is condemned in the Old and New Testaments with the references to Korah’s rebellion. The scriptural facts concerning the ministerial priesthood and the distinction of the same from the declaration of “a priestly people” is undeniable.