Posted on 06/13/2010 12:16:24 PM PDT by markomalley
Much appreciate your pings. Not able to wade into this thread at present.
You seem to be doing a great job.
God be with you.
God is proclaiming a new, clean sacrifice, again among the Gentiles, and clearly universal (in every place). Thus, the Sacrifice of the Cross cannot be intended, since it was in one place only. The Mass fulfills the prophecy.
WHICH ALSO NEED PRIESTS To OFFER!
St. Paul Calls Himself a Priest & Uses “Sacerdotal” Thought Categories (More Biblical Evidence for a New Covenant Priesthood & Sacrifice of the Mass)
tp://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/12/st-paul-calls-himself-priest-uses.html
A painting inside the chapel of St. Benedict’s Monastery in Corte, Carmen, Cebu, Philippines. [ source ]
The future universality of the priesthood is clearly indicated in the Old Testament:
Isaiah 66:18, 21 (RSV) For I know their works and their thoughts, and I am coming to gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and shall see my glory, . . . And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the LORD. (cf. 56:3-8)
Zephaniah 3:9-10 Yea, at that time I will change the speech of the peoples to a pure speech, that all of them may call on the name of the LORD and serve him with one accord. [10] From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia my suppliants, the daughter of my dispersed ones, shall bring my offering.
Malachi 1:11 For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. (cf. Jer 33:14-22)
St. Paul also casually assumes that priests are still operative under the New Christian Covenant, by referring to the table of the Lord (or altar) and contrasting it with the table of demons, in a eucharistic context:
1 Corinthians 10:14-21 Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols. [15] I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. [16] The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? [17] Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. [18] Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? [19] What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? [20] No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. [21] You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. (cf. 9:13)
He is in the same priestly thought-world in another utterance of his:
Romans 15:15-17 But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God [16] to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. [17] In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God.
“Offering”? Offering of what? “Priestly service”? The word for “priestly service” is hierourgeo: Strong’s word #2418. It is defined by Strong (my hardcover copy from Riverside Book and Bible House) as “to be a temple-worker, i.e., officiate as a priest (fig.): — minister.” The online version (linked above) has “to minister in the manner of a priest, minister in priestly service.” It also notes (from Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon) historical etymological definitions of “to be busied with sacred things; to be perform sacred rites” (from Philo), and “used esp. of persons sacrificing” (from Josephus). Compare Baptist Greek scholar A. T. Robertson for the basic definition: “to work in sacred things, to minister as a priest.”
Marvin Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament states (for Rom 15:16):
Ministering (ierourgounta). Only here in the New Testament. Lit., ministering as a priest.
Offering up (prosfora). Lit., the bringing to, i.e., to the altar. Compare doeth service, John xvi. 2.
Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (abridged one-volume edition, p. 354) defines it as “’to perform sacred or sacrificial ministry.’ In Josephus and Philo it always means “to offer sacrifice” and often has no object. (hierourgia means “sacrifice” and hierourgema the “act of sacrifice.”)”
A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd., 1953, Dom Bernard Orchard, General Editor), provides further helpful analysis:
The essential point in every explanation is to realize that the sacrificial terms used here are metaphorical, and that therefore this verse cannot be quoted against the existence of a specially consecrated priesthood in the Church when Paul wrote . . . The difficulties lie in the analysis of the metaphors. . . . To bring the Gentile world as a worthy sacrifice to the altar of God is probably all that Paul meant to say. For the same idea cf. Is. 66:19 f.
The Eerdmans Bible Commentary (Protestant, p. 1044) concurs:
Paul describes his divine commission in terms of the priesthood: a minister (Gk. leitourgos; lit. a ‘priest’; cf. Heb. 8:2), in the priestly service (Gk. hierourgon) and offering (Gk. prosphora) are three sacerdotal terms.
Thus, Paul has called himself a priest — using two different terms. We get the word liturgy from litourgos (Strong’s word #3011; cf. 3008, 3009, and 3010). Strong’s online, for word #3008 (litourgeo) applies it to, among other things, “priests and Levites who were busied with the sacred rites in the tabernacle or the temple.” The author of Hebrews applies one of these terms to priests in the Old Covenant sense in Hebrews 9:21; 10:11 and to Jesus as high priest in 8:2.
Given the central motif in the New Testament of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb, it stands to reason that the Sacrifice of the Mass would be associated with the Eucharist, as the central rite of Christian worship.
St. Paul also casually assumes the continued existence of altars among Christians (1 Cor 10:14-21), and altars are mentioned in the New Testament in other places (apart from the many mentions of altars in heaven), as well:
Hebrews 13:9-12 Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings; for it is well that the heart be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited their adherents. [10] We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. [11] For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. [12] So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.
Therefore, if the cross is overthrown by an altar (as John Calvin argues in his Institutes: IV, 18:3: “the cross of Christ is overthrown the moment an altar is erected”), then the New Testament is against the cross. Far more plausible is a state of affairs whereby Calvin has grossly misunderstood New Testament teaching; otherwise, Christianity (all Christianity: not just Catholicism) and the Bible alike are a mess of abominations and contradictions.
The Sacrifice of the Mass is hearkening back and making present (by God’s power alone, not “magic”) one supreme, sublime sacrifice, as the Mass does. We agree that Jesus performed His sacrifice once, forever and also that the sacrifice is eternally present, because it was an act of God, Who is outside of time, as well as an act of man. That’s why Jesus appears even in heaven as a slain lamb.
We are not talking about sola scripture.. we are talking about the priesthood which was none existence in the New Testament church. So the new Testament church was not the Roman Catholic church. There was no apostolic succession , no pope and no priesthood
Once again, God chose greek to have as the NT language because it is a precise language.. and because of that precision we know there was no role of the priesthood in the NT church
The greek was very explicit..
The catholic church has redefined it to meet their needs..But God knows the difference between an elder and a priest because He was the one to outline the roles in the OT, and the one to choose the specific roles for the NT church
the greek word for elder is different than the greek words for priest.. archiereus which translates into "High Priest" and hiereus which translates one that OFFERS SACRIFICES.
The role of the priesthood in scripture was to offer sacrifices.. That is what a priest does in scripture.. God set aside one tribe to be priests, they were not granted any land as God was their inheritance .
The greek have a couple words for priest
hiereus
1) a priest, one who offers sacrifices and in general in busied with sacred rites
a) referring to priests of Gentiles or the Jews,
2) metaph. of Christians, because, purified by the blood of Christ and brought into close intercourse with God, they devote their life to him alone and to Christ
and archiereus
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) chief priest, high priest
2) the high priests, these comprise in addition to one holding the high priestly office, both those who had previously discharged it and although disposed, continued to have great power in the State, as well as the members of the families from which high priest were created, provided that they had much influence in public affairs.
3) Used of Christ because by undergoing a bloody death he offered himself as an expiatory sacrifice to God, and has entered into the heavenly sanctuary where he continually intercedes on our behalf.
Neither role is given in scripture for the new church ..
Christ fulfilled the role of Priest on the cross.. there is no more sacrifice for sin
He is now our High Priest..
The word for elder is presbyteros here is the GREEK definition
1) elder, of age,
a) the elder of two people
b) advanced in life, an elder, a senior
1) forefathers
2) a term of rank or office
a) among the Jews
1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)
2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice
b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably
c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God
Now the Holy Spirit knows the difference in the greek words.. there is no priesthood provided for in the NT church.
There was no priests in the new church.it was about 300 AD before the first priesthood appeared..
The laying on of hands was a jewish tradition which was expanded to the ordination of elders and deacons..not one word about the priesthood.. The priesthood was an INHERITED role not an ordination one
You wrote “The first and most obvious (i.e., verbatim) is Romans 15:16”
to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.”
I found that only about 1/2 of the bible translations use the word priest in that verse
Even your own Douy Rheims does not use it
Douay-Rheims Bible
That I should be the minister of Christ Jesus among the Gentiles
sanctifying the gospel of God, that the oblation of the Gentiles may be made acceptable and sanctified in the Holy Ghost.
So I suspect we are looking at different early sources..
But no matter the sourse the verse is clear that this is not about the “eucharist” .
.BUT the preaching of the GOSPEL in a faithful manner.. no mass or consecration noted here . Note he did not use the word “priest” as a NOUN he was not calling himself a priest but used it as an adjective to describe his service..
No where in the NT is the last Supper called a sacrifice my friend.
We are told to offer OURSELVES as a living sacrifice ..
That is very different than calling communion a sacrifice..
I offer my self as a sacrifice , I do not need a priest to offer me on his altar ..
That is why Peter noted that the saved are ALL priests because we offer ourselves and our mediator is Christ
Once more there is no role of priest listed for the New Church because the priesthood was a type of Christ fulfilled at the cross where He offered the FINAL sacrifice for sin and fulfilled the type
Not an answer just church teaching
And once again we do not agree. We are not at odds over the etymology of the term priest and agree that it is derived from the Greek presbuteros, not hiereus . We doi have further reason to agree that 1 Peter 2 indicated that all Christians are priests—just not ministerial priests.
The ministerial priests of the New Covenant are called apostles (cf. Eph. 4:11), elders (Jas. 5:14), bishops (1 Tim. 3:1), and deacons (1 Tim. 3:8ff). The German word priester also has its origin from the Greek word for “elder.” So there is etymological reason to say that the elder in the Christian Church was considered to be a priest.
This is where we begin to differ. It is the function of the apostle, bishop, and elder, which is clearly revealed to be of a priestly nature. (A deacon is ordained, but he is not a ministerial priest.) Paul refers specifically to his ministry as an apostle. He refers to his ministry as a “priestly service”: “Because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service [Greek: hierourgounta] of the gospel of God” (Rom. 15:15–16). 1 Peter 2:5–9 is a reference to Exodus 19:6: “and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” This text indicates a universal priesthood in the Old Covenant. Yet in that same chapter, verse 22, we read: “And also let the priests who come near to the Lord consecrate themselves.” There was a universal priesthood in existence in the Old Covenant, but this did not exclude the possibility of a distinct ministerial priesthood as well. Catholics contend it is the same in the New Covenant..
AMEN!
And there sure isn't any "alter Christus" ("another Christ") whom we've been told by Father Kenneth Baker, is "another Christ...in his professional as well as personal life."
I think the right answer is:
Not a refutation, just Protestant heresy.Maybe what you typed makes you feel better or certifies you in your opinion. But unless discussion is not discussion, it's pointless because, surprise surprise, we don't find "church teaching" a proof that an argument is invalid.
Consequently we have to address the actual content of the argument, while sweeping characterizations like your relieve one of the burden of thought.
It is a matter of independently verifiable fact that the NT uses priestly language about Jesus and about believers. In spite of the witness of the NT your side says that Jesus has ended all priesthood, while we say he fulfills (and this ends) the priesthood of the OT. Your side says everyone has the same spiritual gifts and the same roles in the Church, despite the clear witness of Paul that while there is one Spirit there is a diversity of gifts and roles.
Your side contradicts Scripture. That may be Church teaching, but it's just as true as if it weren't church teaching.
If the witness of Scripture and Sacred Tradition contradicted my arguments as much as it does yours, I'd be tempted to try to find some word to dismiss it with.
I think it is funny that protestants that hold scripture as the final authority in all matters are told THEY CONTRADICT the scriptures by people that have spend 1900 years making up their own non scriptural doctrine.
You have a priesthood by tradition NOT scripture, you have apostolic succession by tradition,not scripture you have a pope, not by scripture but by tradition, you have a priesthood by your tradition not by scripture, you have statures and a queen of heaven..not by scripture but by your tradition..
Now if you all want that ..it is a free country..but please do not try to sell us on “we were the one true church that Christ founded”... cause Christ never taught any of that stuff .
You are a non scriptural church without any scriptural authority
I look forward, but not very hopefully, to your arguments. I can’t recall your ever making an actual argument.
I find it funny that when Catholics show how what they teach is derived from the Bible, one Protestant answer is yours, to wit: You all don’t use the Bible, therefore your many uses of the Bible are wrong, therefore you are unBiblical, because you rely on unBiblical arguments.
I wonder if you see the incoherence and circularity of that argument.
Of course, when reason fails, about all that’s left is repeating the accusation. “When you have the law, argue the law. When you have the facts, argue the facts. When you have neither, pound the table.”
I have never been persuaded by table-pounding, but don’t let that stop you. It must make up in aerobic benefits what it lacks in reason.
Then you should have no problem answering the questions I posed in post #115.
As I sais mark..1) the word priestly is not found in all translations including THE CATHOLIC ONE.. 2) paul did not say he was ministering AS A PRIEST , but in a priestly MANNER ..and what service was he doing?? MINISTERING THE GOSPEL not a re-sacrifice of Christ.
Read it in context mark.. and I have said over and over..the roles in the new church are clearly laid out in the scripture and there IS NO PRIESTHOOD..outlined.
I am consecrated.. as is every believer .
Now if you want to look at the passover as a type..lets see how that goes
At the beginning of the Passover 3 pieces of matzo are placed in a bag called the unity or 1 bag..
Then the center piece is removed..
The Passover was a remembrance of the Exodus but it was also prophecy .
Think about the fact that the jews do not believe in the Trinity , yet God showed then the trinity in the passover..3 in unity ...one ..
Then Jesus removes the center one that would represent the Son
That piece is broken in half, one half is placed in a white linen cloth and hidden from site.. (like jesus in the tomb)
The other half was then broken into pieces and shared with the guest to eat..
It was at this time jesus said “take and eat , this is MY body”
He was talking about the matzo representing the 2nd person of the trinity that would soon be broken for them and their salvation
There were 4 cups of wine at the Passover
The 1st was called the cup of joy,which they shared at the beginning of the ceremony , the 2nd cup was called the “cup of redemption “
Jesus picked up that cup of redemption and said “this is my blood”
Jesus was revealing the prophetic meaning of the passover meal..a remembrance of God delivering the jews from Egypt , and a type of the salvation and redemption of men by Christ.
The Passover was a remembrance of the Exodus but it was also prophecy .
Think about the fact that the jews do not believe in the Trinity , yet God showed then the trinity in the passover..3 in unity ...one ..
Then Jesus removes the center one that would represent the Son
That piece is broken in half, one half is placed in a white linen cloth and hidden from site.. (like jesus in the tomb)
The other half was then broken into pieces and shared with the guest to eat..
It was at this time jesus said “take and eat , this is MY body”
He was talking about the matzo representing the 2nd person of the trinity that would soon be broken for them and their salvation
There were 4 cups of wine at the Passover
The 1st was called the cup of joy,which they shared at the beginning of the ceremony , the 2nd cup was called the “cup of redemption “
Jesus picked up that cup of redemption and said “this is my blood”
Jesus was revealing the prophetic meaning of the passover meal..a remembrance of God delivering the jews from Egypt , and a type of the salvation and redemption of men by Christ.
Rom 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
So now a priest is a minister as well...You guys certainly are good at distorting the scriptures to justify your religion...
* Phil 2:17 Even if I am to be poured as a libation upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all.
Php 2:17 Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all.
* Rom 12:1 I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.
Rom 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
* 1 Pet 2:5 and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
All you have to do is see the word sacrifice and automatically it proves Jesus DID have a priesthood in the church...
And the scriptural distortions are unbelievable...
Apparently you haven't noticed that these are spiritual sacrifices, not physical...Any you haven't noticed the sacrifices are performed by ALL, not just 'ministers'...
But then don't let a little scripture ruin your warped theology...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.