Upon this Rock.... Enter the lists

[MagdalenaRita]

Again, these are TEMPORARY and SINGLE fasts, not commands to be observed on specific holy days, like Ash Wednesday and Good Friday during Lent.

Remember Scripture says these things happened to them as an example to us.

Day of Atonement Jewish people were instructed to deny themselves. Those who would not deny themselves would be cut off from the people. It was to be a lasting ordinance for generations to come and still is.

The Catholic church is the only Church that God has preserved through time since He gave it to us. The fasting and denying yourself (abstaining) needs to be for all those who would come to her until Christ’s return, in other words for generations to come.

Jesus was using the Greek word to mean to take sinners to the “local assembly” of believers.

That is proven false just by the extreme amount of examples of people trying to go to the local assembly of believers just for more division and confusion to happen.

Which goes back to what Paul went on to say what disqualifies a body from being that “church” is “forbidding men from marrying” and “abstaining from certain foods.”

I’m sorry but as told to you earlier the Catholic Church does not forbid marriage. It is a holy sacrament. Nor does it teach that meat is evil. People fast and abstain from something good to deny themselves for a short time in love of God as He gave His Son for us.

I’m sorry but you are grasping at straws by taking Bible verses out of context and again in all charity, misunderstanding what they mean.

Nor am I trying to, and like I said, this is the real source of division between Catholics and non-Catholics.

Yes there is division but it extremely apparent you are trying to get as many Catholics as you can to accept what you believe and leave the Church.
Kind of like the rebels trying to get Nehemiah to stop re-building the wall. He knew they were causing mischief though and refused to go. Nehemiah 6. Hopefully Catholics here refuse to follow your misunderstandings.

And I appreciate the prayer suggestion, but I will pray the way our Lord commanded, “Our Father,”

Some protestants do not believe a Christian should pray the Our Father. That it was just for the people of that day. Of course, not the Catholic church, we pray it every day at Mass and more.

There are some protestants who would have no problem calling God the Most High and Glorious God.

Jesus is our High priest, which in the OT was the ONLY one who could petition before God in the Holy of Holies.

Yes, exactly, the same as Catholic priests who are annointed by God and the only ones who can stand in the place of Christ and petition God in the Holy of Holies - the tabernacle in the sanctuary of the Catholic church.

 

[jericho777]

I did a little research into the word rock in the bible OT and NT and found it interesting. There is a lot of symbolic usage and typology of the word referring directly and indirectly to YHWH/Yeshua. There are about 60-80 of these type of verses all point to YHWH/Yeshua as the Rock and basis of our physical and Spiritual existence. We are built and set upon Christ.

In the Matthew 16 text it appears in light of all the established usage of the word Rock from the whole body of scripture it is referring to Peters’ declaration that Jesus is indeed the Christ the Rock of our Salvation. These were people who would had a firsthand knowledge of the typology and meaning of the Rock on which the body of Christ would be built on as a few chapters before in Matt 7:24-25 when Jesus was telling them about the man who built his house upon the rock. Besides it doesn’t read right to imply it was Peter.

Deuteronomy 32:4 New King James Version (NKJV)
4 He is the Rock, His work is perfect;
For all His ways are justice,
A God of truth and without injustice;
Righteous and upright is He.

Deuteronomy 32:15 New King James Version (NKJV)
15 “But Jeshurun grew fat and kicked;
You grew fat, you grew thick,
You are obese!
Then he forsook God who made him,
And scornfully esteemed the Rock of his salvation.

Deuteronomy 32:18 New King James Version (NKJV)
18 Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful,
And have forgotten the God who fathered you.

2 Samuel 22:47 New King James Version (NKJV)
47 “The LORD lives!
Blessed be my Rock!
Let God be exalted,
The Rock of my salvation!

Isaiah 8:14 New King James Version (NKJV)
14 He will be as a [a]sanctuary,
But a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense
To both the houses of Israel,
As a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Matt 7:24-25 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.

Luke 6:46-49 “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say? 47 Whoever comes to Me, and hears My sayings and does them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently against that house, and could not shake it, for it was [j]founded on the rock. 49 But he who heard and did nothing is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream beat vehemently; and immediately it [k]fell. And the ruin of that house was great.”

Ehp 2:19-22 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

 

[jmgi1957]

I have also encountered those who claim Jesus was pointing his finger at himself when he said “upon this rock”. Of course Scripture says nothing of the sort, so its just an assumption.

 

[jmgi1957]

Jesus added new names at the start of his activity, and Simon was then called kefas meaning pebble.

Cephas is Aramaic for “rock”, not pebble.

 

[jmgi1957]

If you believe Peter started the Church of Christ in chapter 16 it doesn’t fit since the Church started at Pentecost.

And you see some “big” difference here?

 

[Mishakel]

The important point is Peter didn’t start anything or do anything in chapter 16. Catholicism’s entire claim of authority comes from the idea that Peter was given special power and privilege in chapter 16. Christ told all the disciples in chapter 18: Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. He’s not singling out Peter. All the disciples would receive this authority on the day of Pentecost through the Holy Spirit. All the disciples would determine doctrine which is what binding and loosening refers to. Peter was but one of the disciples who started the church which is founded on Christ as the chief cornerstone.

So yes, with all due respect, I see a big difference in the claim made by Catholicism vs what scripture says.

 

[JimG]

The Church didn’t use Matthew 16 as the basis of Peter’s authority, because the Church was established before the gospel of Matthew was written. After Pentecost, the Church began preaching the gospel, and Peter was the chief apostle, as directed by Christ. Eventually the gospels were completed, and approved by the Church, as well as the rest of the new testament. Jesus never commanded anyone to write anything. He gave the apostles the authority to preach what he had taught them. Their authority comes from him, not Matthew’s writings.

 

[jmgi1957]

The important point is Peter didn’t start anything or do anything in chapter 16. Catholicism’s entire claim of authority comes from the idea that Peter was given special power and privilege in chapter 16.

Jesus is the first one to speak of “the church” in the NT, and it occurs in Matt.16:18. The burden of proof is on you to show why Jesus was not establishing Peter as chief shepherd of the Church. Explain:

1. The purpose of Jesus changing Simon’s name in John 1:42?
2. Why Jesus only gave the “key’s to the kingdom of heaven” to Peter ALONE?
3. Why Jesus ONLY told Peter in John 21, “feed/tend my sheep?”

I understand that Peter and the other disciples were given authority to “bind and loose”, but it is the power of the “keys” that ONLY Peter received.

 

[Mishakel]

The purpose of Jesus changing Simon’s name in John 1:42?

What was the purpose of calling James and John the Sons of Thunder?

Why Jesus only gave the “key’s to the kingdom of heaven” to Peter ALONE?

The keys to Heaven given come from the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The power of binding and lessening concerning doctrine are indeed the keys which all the disciples were given.So Peter didn’t receive anything different from the others.

Do you think Peter himself was given the actual key to Heaven and that through only Peter one might attain salvation? Christ himself said he was the door and gate to Heaven. It’s through Christ we attain Heaven and not Peter. We don’t go through Peter to get to Christ. Peter was a very important disciple but he himself is not the church nor the gate to Heaven.

Why Jesus ONLY told Peter in John 21, “feed/tend my sheep?”

Christ publicly restored Peter in front of the the other disciples. Christ asks Peter 3 times if Peter loves him. This wasn’t by accident. Peter denied Christ 3 times and this had to sting Peter’s heart. What was Peter’s response? He correctly said Christ knows all things and leaned on Christ’s own knowledge instead of simply on Peter’s words.

Who is the good shepherd? It’s Christ. Jesus the shepherd is telling Peter to feed and tend my sheep by spreading the doctrine of Christianity. Jesus goes as far as tells Peter what awaits him in the form of death for choosing to follow Christ.

What is Peter’s first response when Christ says follow me? He turns around and sees John and says, hey Jesus, what about John? What’s he going to do? There is a hint of rebuke from Jesus for Peter inquiring the divine will about another man.

All humans are sheep unto God. All Christians are are to spread the message of Christ. Peter and the other 11 disciples certainly held an office unique as they all given thrones in Heaven to judge the 12 tribes of Israel. Peter gave the qualifications in order to become one of the 12 disciples in Acts.

“Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection”

This should categorically end the discussion of apostolic succession. Who was alive in the 2nd century and so on that qualify? Obviously nobody.

 

[jmgi1957]

What was the purpose of calling James and John the Sons of Thunder?

Why don’t you answer my original question, and then answer your follow-up question also while you’re at it?

The keys to Heaven given come from the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The power of binding and lessening concerning doctrine are indeed the keys which all the disciples were given.So Peter didn’t receive anything different from the others.

I don’t see anything about the “keys” being given to anyone in the account of Pentecost? Matt. 16:19 says, “I will give YOU (Peter) the keys to the kingdom of heaven”, so Peter did receive something different than the others, just as Eliakim in Isaiah 22:20-22 received the “keys.” It’s a symbol of absolute authority.

Do you think Peter himself was given the actual key to Heaven and that through only Peter one might attain salvation? Christ himself said he was the door and gate to Heaven. It’s through Christ we attain Heaven and not Peter. We don’t go through Peter to get to Christ. Peter was a very important disciple but he himself is not the church nor the gate to Heaven.

Does the Catholic Church teach that you must go through Peter alone to attain salvation? I never indicated that Peter alone is how we get to Christ, I’m just quoting what Scripture reports that Jesus said to Peter. The “keys” represent authority according to Biblical tradition, and it is THIS that you must deal with.

Why Jesus ONLY told Peter in John 21, “feed/tend my sheep?”

This is all true about Peter, but you still have to account for Peter ALONE being given the “keys”, which you have not done other than to claim the “keys” and “binding and loosing” being the exact same and applying them BOTH to ALL the disciples, which is twisting Scripture.

This should categorically end the discussion of apostolic succession. Who was alive in the 2nd century and so on that qualify? Obviously nobody.

Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

 

[Mishakel]

Jesus renamed Simon to Peter probably because he saw the potential in Peter nobody else did. Instead of being an inconsistent fisherman he was to be a Rock of faith and be a fisher of men. The keys to the kingdom of heaven are indeed the powers the disciples received from the Holy Spirit which included deciding doctrine. Peter indeed received authority by receiving the keys along with the other disciples. The keys are the authority of declaring doctrine to reach the kingdom of heaven.

You believe the keys to the kingdom of heaven is Christ saying Peter has authority over the disciples? Didn’t Paul rebuke Peter concerning practices and teaching? Where do you get that in the verse? Show me where it says that. Show me anywhere in scripture where Peter is looked upon by all the other disciples as the ruling head of the church of believers in Christ. It’s simply not there and you say that I twist scripture?

Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

This has nothing to do with apostolic succession. The men that came after the disciples don’t hold the same authority as the 12. We are to pass on the testament of Christ and the people we teach are to pass it on. That’s what every Christian should do. That doesn’t grant us the same authority as the 12.

 

[jmgi1957]

The keys to the kingdom of heaven are indeed the powers the disciples received from the Holy Spirit which included deciding doctrine.

Why do you continue to include the disciples in “the power of the keys” when Peter ALONE was given the “keys” in Matt. 16:19. If the others received the “keys” also, where does Scripture indicate it? It is only the power to bind and loose which the others had with Peter, not the “keys”. The bottom line is that you are basing your position on the assumption that the “power of the keys” and the authority to “bind and loose” are identical, which is the easy way of dismissing Peter as being established as a “peg in a sure spot” in Christ’s church.

This has nothing to do with apostolic succession. The men that came after the disciples don’t hold the same authority as the 12.

The letter to the Hebrews states, “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith.

Also in Hebrews, “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account."

Paul to Timothy, “Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you.”

There will certainly not be another “Twelve” as they were uniquely chosen by Jesus to be his intimate group of disciples who would first hear the Gospel Truth, and then take the Gospel message to “the ends of the earth”. Scripture clearly shows that the authority the Apostles received from Jesus himself, had to be conferred on other successors, so that the surety of pure doctrine would be passed on to all those who would become believers.

 

[Mishakel]

Scripture clearly shows that the authority the Apostles received from Jesus himself, had to be conferred on other successors, so that the surety of pure doctrine would be passed on to all those who would become believers.

Then surely there must be some divine revelation after the 1st century. I’d like examples of those

 

[jmgi1957]

Then surely there must be some divine revelation after the 1st century. I’d like examples of those

We don’t even need to consult divine revelation after the 1st century, the NT Scriptures alone prove Apostolic Succession. I already quoted Timothy for you, but you blew that off as not applicable, oh well. There is much more in Paul’s letters, especially Timothy and Titus which show successive authority transmitted to other teachers. As for proof of Apostolic Succession after the 1st century;

Irenaeus (Bishop, ca. 125-202)
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their “successors” down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” ( Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).

“t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (ibid., 4:26:2).

“The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere” (ibid., 4:33:8).

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Day of Atonement Jewish people were instructed to deny themselves. Those who would not deny themselves would be cut off from the people. It was to be a lasting ordinance for generations to come and still is.

Yes, the JEWISH PEOPLE (ie: Israel), not the church. The church is not Israel.

That is proven false just by the extreme amount of examples of people trying to go to the local assembly of believers just for more division and confusion to happen.

That has nothing to do with the meaning of the term, or how it’s used in Scripture (see Revelation 2 & 3, which were LOCAL “assemblies” - ie: “churches.”)

I’m sorry but as told to you earlier the Catholic Church does not forbid marriage.

Yet, Latin Rite priests are not allowed to marry.

Yes there is division but it extremely apparent you are trying to get as many Catholics as you can to accept what you believe and leave the Church.

No, I am not. I am merely explaining why Protestants don’t agree with “forbidding priests” to marry, or commanding people to “abstain” from certain foods during certain times of the year. Please do not put words in my mouth I am “not” saying. Thank you.

Some protestants do not believe a Christian should pray the Our Father.

Then they are not basing this “belief” on Scripture. Jesus commanded otherwise.

Catholic priests who are annointed by God and the only ones who can stand in the place of Christ and petition God in the Holy of Holies

If the NT priesthood mirrors the Levitical priesthood, they would have to be Jewish, from the tribe of Levi, and physical descendants of the sons of Aaron. Do you know any?

 

[SaberBob]

Let’s look at how ministers or royal officials actually functioned in the ancient world. A king delegates power to his officials, to make authoritative decisions, or “,loose and bind” as the common idiom. However, ONLY the vizier was given “the keys” showing the vizier’s OVERALL authority over the other officials. THIS is context the apostles and any 1st century middle eastern reader/listener would have understood and this is also the context of Is 22; Eliakim ALONE gets the keys, Jesus is obviously alluding to Peter = Eliakim, hence Peter ALONE gets the keys of authority. To claim Matthew 18 even implies the other apostles also get the keys is a blatant confesdional special-pleading.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Yes, the JEWISH PEOPLE (ie: Israel),. The church is not Israel.

Israel was God’s people in the OT, the Church, the congregation of all those who profess the faith of Christ, partake of the same Sacraments, and are governed by their lawful pastors under one visible Head is His people now.

"from the beginning of his ministry, the Lord Jesus instituted the Twelve as “the seeds of the new Israel and the beginning of the sacred hierarchy.” CCC 877 "

We have to remember that the Scriptures tell us, especially in 1 Corinthians, that what happened to Israel happened as an example to us, whom the end of the ages has come.

So just as the leaders of the Jewish faith led the people in the OT, Christ has instituted a Church with a hierarchy to lead His people in our NT times.

As said in Romans the authorities that exist are from God.

That has nothing to do with the meaning of the term, or how it’s used in Scripture (see Revelation 2 & 3, which were LOCAL “assemblies” - ie: “churches.”)

As Catholic history explains to us these were churches or “diocese” under the Bishop of Rome. He was addressing the Churches of Asia Minor because that is where St. John had evangelized prior to St. Paul. For Example, Smyna was where St. John ordained his disciple Polycarp as bishop.

So, you can see it wasn’t individual people outside of the Catholic church. There were bishops to turn to.

Then they are not basing this “belief” on Scripture. Jesus commanded otherwise.

How do you know that your are understanding or your belief of Scripture in just this one particular instance is correct? Those who believe the Our Father, and actually they hold the whole sermon on the mount is only for the Jewish people at that time, they use a lot of Scripture to back up their claim and they would say you are not basing your beliefs on Scripture and you are wrong.

If the NT priesthood mirrors the Levitical priesthood, they would have to be Jewish, from the tribe of Levi, and physical descendants of the sons of Aaron. Do you know any?

Again, Scripture and the Church as led by the Holy Spirit, explains in the book of Hebrews that there is a change in priesthood. God gave us a new priesthood after the order of Melchisedech with a new law. Christ, who our Catholic priests stand in place of, is of the tribe of Judah.
The former priesthood of Aaron brought nothing to perfection, but Christ by his suffering and His one sacrifice, has satisfied for the sins of all mankind. That one sacrifice of the new law remains and is continued by His ministers, the priests of the new law. The bishops and priests speak and act as Christ’s instruments. The manner being different but not the sacrifice. The Victim offered is the same, body and blood of Christ, after a spiritual and unbloody manner.

So to answer your question, no, but I do know priests who’ve been ordained in Christ and He is from the tribe of Judah.

The Journey Home, with Marcus Grodi - The Coming Home Network

 

[steve-b]

It’s no more ridiculous than asking: Was Jesus Catholic? Jesus was born Jewish, died Jewish, and was Jewish when he had his conversation with Peter, who was also Jewish.

For some history

In the beginning of the Church, that Jesus established on Peter as leader and all those in perfect union with Peter HERE and each other, the Church then was 100% Jewish.

AND to further the point​

Jesus gave this order,

Matt 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And preach as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons…

IOW, Jesus is giving the Jewish people, the first people of the covenant, first right of refusal.

SO​

What name is THIS Church, HIS Church, called, that He and only He, established ?

Acts 9:31​

says, as a description, the church throughout all = ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς , Greek translation

Translated from the Greek study bible

ἐκκλησία,= ekklésia = church ,
καθ’, = kata = according to ,
ὅλης, = holos = whole / all / universal ,
τῆς, = ho = the ,
= the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church in English

Historically speaking, what Church Father used Catholic Church as the name for the Church in writing, and when did he do that?

St Ignatius, was ordained by the apostles, as Bishop of Antioch in ~69 a.d. Ignatius knew the apostles, and was a direct disciple of St John the apostle. Ignatius then was a bishop for at least 38 yrs before he wrote his letters to the Church in 6 locations. If Ignatius was not arrested for his faith and condemned to die in the coliseum, to be eaten by the lions, in ~107 a.d., maybe he wouldn’t have written a single letter. But we have his letters showing us what he would have been teaching during his time as bishop. And we can safely say, what he wrote is what he learned from John the apostle,.

He calls the Church the Catholic Church Epistle to the Smyrnæans, see ch 8.

So we know, what the name of the Church was called in the 1st century. And we know that schismatics won’t go to heaven Epistle to the Philadelphians see ch 3.

As an observation, we don’t see any arguments over the name Catholic Church. No one saying …Hugh? What’s that? Or where’s THAT Church. His letters (to 6 locations) Rome being one of the locations, there is no later push back, by any Church, on anything said to contradict what Ignatius wrote. We see the hierarchy listed, of bishop, priest, and deacon.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

So just as the leaders of the Jewish faith led the people in the OT, Christ has instituted a Church with a hierarchy to lead His people in our NT times.

Yes. That was my point. The church is not Israel. God expected the same obedience & worship to Him, but they are still two different institutions, since we are not commanded to observe the OT laws & ceremonial rituals, which Jesus fulfilled, which were imposed solely on Israel, not church. Even the 10 Commandments were solely imposed on Israel according to Deuteronomy 5.

As Catholic history explains to us these were churches or “diocese” under the Bishop of Rome. it wasn’t individual people outside of the Catholic church.

That wasn’t my point. Again, my point is that when the NT refers to the “church” or “churchES” (plural), it refers to in one of two ways: 1) a body of believers in Christ who God calls out from the world; 2) a local gathering of believers in Christ who share that same faith. I didn’t say anything that those 7 churches were somehow “outside the church.” I was simply explaining how the term is defined in Scripture.

How do you know that your are understanding or your belief of Scripture in just this one particular instance is correct?

For one, that is the only “formula” Jesus, and the NT, commanded them to pray, and the church is commanded to pray. And, those who Jesus commanded “how” to pray later became the church.

in the book of Hebrews that there is a change in priesthood. God gave us a new priesthood after the order of Melchisedech

This is talking about how Jesus, who was from the tribe of Judah could be High Priest even though He was not from the Levitical priesthood, because He was from the “order” of Melchizedek, which was far more superior to the Levitical priesthood. The writer of Hebrews acknowledges the former priesthood was still active (which is how we know it was written before A.D. 70, because the Temple was not destroyed yet, which is where sacrifices were held). But it doesn’t say God “gave us a new priesthood.” The “royal priesthood” Peter talks about pertains to ALL believers in Christ, who can now stand in the presence of the God-Man, Who stands as High Priest in the presence of the Father in the Heavenly Holy of Holies. This occurred when the Temple curtain tore in two after Christ died & said “It is finished!”

So to answer your question, no, but I do know priests who’ve been ordained in Christ and He is from the tribe of Judah.

See above. Again, this is just from a Protestant perspective. Not challenging anything.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

St Ignatius, was ordained by the apostles, as Bishop of Antioch in ~69 a.d. Ignatius knew the apostles,

St. Ignatius was also the first “bishop” to divide the NT model of church polity from “elder-bishop” which was the same NT office (same as a pastor), to the pastor-elder being the leader of a local church & the “bishop” as an “overseer” of the churches in a particular city or region. Prior to this, pastor-elder-bishops were leaders in their individual local churches in their cities & regions, and we see a multiplicity of these pastor-elder-bishops in these local churches as seen in the NT, as opposed to a single “bishop” overseeing an entire city or region.