When did the apostles become priests?

  • Thread starter Thread starter anthony022071
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you Laura.👍 I was curious about Anthony’s take on it.

VC

(p.s. I had edited my post above about heaven, it was a typo and not a lapse into OSAS! ;))
 
Verbum_Caro said:
Thank you Laura.👍 I was curious about Anthony’s take on it.

VC

(p.s. I had edited my post above about heaven, it was a typo and not a lapse into OSAS! ;))
Click to expand...
Ok. I already posted before I read your edited post. Thanks for clarifying your position for me. 🙂 Sorry, I cannot delete my post, since it has been too long since I posted it. 😩
 
Verbum_Caro said:
Anthony,

Can you please clarify? Doesn’t Jesus always remain in the flesh?

I don’t know. I meant mortal flesh. Paul said that flesh and blood cannot inherit eternal life.

What happens to priests who die (and go to Heaven) – do they remain priests? After all they are with Christ in Heaven.

I wouldn’t know about that.
Click to expand...
 
Verbum_Caro said:
Anthony,

Can you please clarify? Doesn’t Jesus always remain in the flesh? What happens to priests who die (and go to Heaven) – do they remain priests? After all they are with Christ in Heaven.

What are your thoughts?
VC
Click to expand...
From the Catechism:
1583 It is true that someone validly ordained can, for a just reason, be discharged from the obligations and functions linked to ordination, or can be forbidden to exercise them; but he cannot become a layman again in the strict sense,[75] because the character imprinted by ordination is for ever. The vocation and mission received on the day of his ordination mark him permanently.
Click to expand...
(Bold emphasis is mine.)
 
Anthony,

This part of your argument seems a bit tenuous. Ordination imprints an indelible mark on the soul of priest. They are a “priest forever,” even in Heaven. In Heaven they will be with Christ. Christ and His priests will all have bodies. So, it doesn’t seem at all a problem for Christ and a priest to exist at the same time in the same place in the same way.This plank of your argument, at least, doesn’t seem that convincing.

By the way, would you care to share the source of your ideas and opinions? Do you get them from the catechism? From your pastor? Form EWTN? Do you have formal training in theology? What are your sources? – in addition to scripture of course

Thanks!
VC
 
Verbum_Caro said:
Anthony,

This part of your argument seems a bit tenuous. Ordination imprints an indelible mark on the soul of priest. They are a “priest forever,” even in Heaven. In Heaven they will be with Christ. Christ and His priests will all have bodies. So, it doesn’t seem at all a problem for Christ and a priest to exist at the same time in the same place in the same way.This plank of your argument, at least, doesn’t seem that convincing.

I wasn’t making an argument,I just said that I don’t know.
Christ is the one who is a priest forever,but I don’t know about those who serve as priests in his stead. I don’t know if the Cathechism means that priests will be so in the next life. The word “permanently” may refer only to this life.

By the way, would you care to share the source of your ideas and opinions? Do you get them from the catechism? From your pastor? Form EWTN? Do you have formal training in theology? What are your sources? – in addition to scripture of course

In the case of my opinions about the apostles,I’m mainly going on my own logic,based upon what I know from scripture,and the fact that priests are anointed as such with the Holy Spirit,and that they must believe in what they are to preach and celebrate,and that the Cross and Resurrection had to have happened before there could be a Church or priests. As the pope wrote in his book Jesus of Nazareth: “For it is of the very essence of biblical faith to be about real historical events. It does not tell stories about suprahistorical truths,but is based on history,history that took place here on this earth. The factum historicum (historical fact) is not an interchangeable sybolic cipher for biblical faith,but the foundation on which it stands
”

Catholics ought to consider the chronology of the events upon which Cathoic doctrines are based,and to be able to distinguish between one thing and another,even where those things are related,such as the beginning of the priesthood and the point at which the apostles became priests. If Catholics get their chronology of events wrong,they will also get their doctrines wrong.
Click to expand...
 
taken from this site at:
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0404sbs.asp:D

CATHOLIC: The third line of evidence has to do with the Eucharist. At the Last Supper, Jesus told the apostles with him “Do this in memory of me.” When Jesus gave them this command, he was making them priests of the New Covenant.

OBJECTOR: That’s a strange idea. What makes you think that the phrase “Do this in memory of me” has anything to do with being a priest? Those words are addressed to every Christian and apply to our celebrations of communion in church. I just don’t see any connection between those words and the priesthood.

CATHOLIC: You’re not alone. But consider first to whom these words were addressed. Jesus did not say they apply to every Christian. If that is true, it could be so only by an extension of the original situation. A more historically responsible interpretation sees the fact that it was just the apostles at that Last Supper.

OBJECTOR: Even if I agree with you on that score, that doesn’t mean that Jesus is making the apostles priests. All these words mean is that we should remember Jesus when we have communion.

CATHOLIC: If that’s what the words really meant, your conclusion would be true that “Do this in memory of me” has nothing to do with being a priest. But they mean a lot more. As I noted, they were first spoken to the apostles. I don’t have time to go into detail here, but let me at least say this: “Do this in memory of me” was a command from Jesus for the apostles to do exactly what he did that night. They were to repeat this action in perpetuity. It is also clear that his actions were priestly because he was offering the bread and wine just like Melchizedek did (cf. Gen. 14:17–20). As you know, Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is a priest in the line of Melchizedek. In a higher sense, Jesus was acting as a priest at the Last Supper by giving the apostles his body and blood. Therefore, his command to his apostles involves them performing priestly actions. They could perform such actions only if he were making them priests to stand in his place and to give the people of God his body and blood.

OBJECTOR: Well, I must say, I have never heard this interpretation before, but it seems like a stretch to me to see all that in the account of the Last Supper. It just doesn’t fit with the rest of the New Testament.

CATHOLIC: Remember that we all read the Bible through the eyes of our communities of faith. I can understand why such an interpretation will seem strange to you if you have little or no experience with a priestly ministry in your church. Perhaps my last line of evidence will help you to get thinking in that direction. But first, let me sum up the first three. What we see in the Old Testament is a three-fold priesthood. There is the common or universal priesthood of all Israelites at the bottom (cf. Ex. 19:6), a ministerial priesthood above them (cf. Ex. 19:22, 24; Lev. 1:5), and a high priest at the top (cf. Num. 35: 25). We thus should expect to find a similar three-fold priesthood under the New Covenant, and we do. There is the common or universal priesthood of all Christians (cf. 1 Pet. 2:5, 9), a ministerial priesthood above them (cf. Rom. 15:16), and a high priest at the top (cf. Heb. 3:1). Rather than varying from the biblical model of priesthood, the Catholic understanding copies it exactly. It is the two-fold model that departs from what we see in the Bible.

OBJECTOR: You said you have a fourth line of evidence. What could that possibly be?

CATHOLIC: You believe, I am sure, that the whole purpose of the eternal Word (Logos) becoming flesh was to reconcile us to God. Now, in order to have a ministry of reconciliation, Christ had to be a priest as well as a prophet and king. In fact, his act of reconciling death highlighted his priestly office more than anything else. Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 5:18–23 that the same God “who through Christ reconciled us to himself” is also the one who “gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18). “The message of reconciliation” in verse 19 is that God does not hold men’s transgressions against them. That is the ministry of the priests in the Catholic Church: They are to be agents of reconciliation by carrying Christ the Reconciler to others. That ultimately is why God chooses some men from among his people to be his priests. Priests reconcile people to God.
 
allhers said:
Another source, from the Vatican itself no less.
CHAPTER THREE

THE APOSTOLICITY OF THE EUCHARIST
AND OF THE CHURCH

vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html
Click to expand...
The pope did not say that Jesus made the apostles into priests at the Last Supper.

< “Did the Apostles who took part in the Last Supper understand the meaning of the words spoken by Christ? Perhaps not. Those words would only be fully clear at the end of the Triduum sacrum, the time from Thursday evening to Sunday morning.” >
 
anthony022071 said:
The pope did not say that Jesus made the apostles into priests at the Last Supper.

< “Did the Apostles who took part in the Last Supper understand the meaning of the words spoken by Christ? Perhaps not. Those words would only be fully clear at the end of the Triduum sacrum, the time from Thursday evening to Sunday morning.” >
Click to expand...
I was only two weeks old when I was Baptized and didn’t understand it then either, but it still happened.😃
If you read what I said above in Chapter 3 you will see that he did indeed say that!
 
allhers said:
If you read what I said above in Chapter 3 you will see that he did indeed say that!
Click to expand...
Chapter 3 doesn’t say anything about the apostles being made priests at the Last Supper.
As I said in the first post,the priesthood,or the Sacrament of Holy Orders,was instituted at the Last Supper on account of Christ being the High Priest after the order of Melchezedek,who brought out bread and wine to Abram.
But the apostles did not become priests until Resurrection Day,when Christ ordained them with the Holy Spirit.
 
anthony, perhaps you missed this in Chapter 3:


31. If the Eucharist is the centre and summit of the Church’s life, it is likewise the centre and summit of priestly ministry. For this reason, with a heart filled with gratitude to our Lord Jesus Christ, I repeat that the Eucharist “is the principal and central raison d’ĂȘtre of the sacrament of priesthood, which effectively came into being at the moment of the institution of the Eucharist”.
 
allhers said:
anthony, perhaps you missed this in Chapter 3:


31. If the Eucharist is the centre and summit of the Church’s life, it is likewise the centre and summit of priestly ministry. For this reason, with a heart filled with gratitude to our Lord Jesus Christ, I repeat that the Eucharist “is the principal and central raison d’ĂȘtre of the sacrament of priesthood, which effectively came into being at the moment of the institution of the Eucharist”.
Click to expand...
Yes,the sacrament of the priesthood was instituted at the Last Supper – but that is not to say that the apostles became priests at that time. Christ was the priest at the Last Supper – that is what is meant by the institution of the priesthood at the Eucharist. As I said in the first post,there is a difference between the institution of the sacrament of Holy Orders and the apostles becoming priests. It’s like the difference between a bishop founding a seminary and priests coming out of the seminary.
 
Ok then, let me ask you this, why does this matter to you?
I mean really, why do you care, (I’m just wondering really.)đŸ€·
I could probably keep investing time in this, but I’d like you to answer that question first. Thank you.
 
allhers said:
Ok then, let me ask you this, why does this matter to you?
I mean really, why do you care, (I’m just wondering really.)đŸ€·
I could probably keep investing time in this, but I’d like you to answer that question first. Thank you.
Click to expand...
It’s just an annoyance to me that people conflate the Sacrament of Holy Orders with the apostles becoming priests,when it is obvious that the apostles were not yet ordained with the Spirit,they were not yet believers in the Resurrection,the Resurrection had not happened yet,and so they did not have the Christian gospel to preach.
As I’ve said before,Catholics ought to get their chronology of events right and to be able to distinguish between one thing and another.
 
anthony022071 said:
I know that. As I keep repeating,the institution of the priesthood at the Eucharist has to do with Christ being high priest after the order of Melchezedek,not the apostles becoming priests at that time.
Click to expand...
As you know, Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is a priest in the line of Melchizedek. In a higher sense, Jesus was acting as a priest at the Last Supper by giving the apostles his body and blood. Therefore, his command to his apostles
(DO THIS), involves them performing priestly actions. They could perform such actions only if he were making them priests to stand in his place and to give the people of God his body and blood.
 
allhers said:
As you know, Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is a priest in the line of Melchizedek. In a higher sense, Jesus was acting as a priest at the Last Supper by giving the apostles his body and blood. Therefore, his command to his apostles
(DO THIS), involves them performing priestly actions. They could perform such actions only if he were making them priests to stand in his place and to give the people of God his body and blood.
Click to expand...
They could perform such actions only after he had died and had risen.
As I’ve said before,the command “Do this in memory of me”
refers to a time in the future when Jesus would no longer be with the apostles in the flesh.
But while he was with them,there was no need for the apostles to celebrate the Eucharist in memory of him,and hence no need for priests other than him. His body and blood had yet to be sacrificed,so the apostles could not celebrate the Eucharist as priests until that sacrifice had been made.
 
anthony022071 said:
They could perform such actions only after he had died and had risen.
As I’ve said before,the command “Do this in memory of me”
refers to a time in the future when Jesus would no longer be with the apostles in the flesh.
But while he was with them,there was no need for the apostles to celebrate the Eucharist in memory of him,and hence no need for priests other than him. His body and blood had yet to be sacrificed,so the apostles could not celebrate the Eucharist as priests until that sacrifice had been made.
Click to expand...
They didn’t celebrate Mass while the Bridegroom was still with them. However, they were ordained as Priest then. We disagree on what Jesus meant by DO THIS as I’ve already stated above, twice. That is why Jesus told them to wait

I believe that Jesus Himself ordained St. Paul also.👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top