All Church Age believers are priests, so why do Catholics ordaine their own priests?

Those who rest their faith in Jesus Christ during the Church Age are in union with Christ. We (the Church) died to our sins and are reborn with Jesus' death and resurrection. We are made clean with His blood (wine) and constitute His body (bread). Just as Eve was the flesh of Adam's flesh and bone of his bone, the Bride of Christ (Church) is His Body. His righteousness is credited to us upon faith, and His nature is created in us.

Following this same principle of spiritual union, Jesus has also made us Kings and Priests (Rev 1:6) after Himself...after the order of Melkizedek. This means that all Church Age believers represent themselves before God as individual priests.

In the OT, the priest was responsible for making a blood sacrifice to atone for sins after taking the confession of sins. In this Age, Jesus is our permanent sacrifice, and confession (homologomen) is still commanded per 1 John 1:9. However, the fact remains that with the universal priesthood of the Church, now confession (homologomen) can remain private, between the believer-priest and the Father.

With this in mind, how can the Roman Catholic political powerhouse justify the ordination of "catholic priests", when all believers are priests. The sick irony in the term "catholic priesthood" is that it literally means "universal priesthood", yet the Catholic-political complex insists on limiting this universal priesthood to whom they see fit. There is something fundamentaly wrong here...is there not?

Catholics, how do you justify your confessions to "ordained priests".

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Following this logic... He also made us Kings....

Thus the body of believers revelation speaks of can do as they wish, being rulers over themselves...

and of course, IF Christians are priests, the world is doomed...

Good thing revelation is bunk eh...

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

They follow thier own invented Christ, so they need thier own priests.

Anyone who follows the Light is in communion whith Jesus Christ and have no need for a human intermediary.

a reply to: Akragon

In this age, believers are kings in training and priests who represent themselves before God. In the next age, we will be Kings under Christ, and Priests representing the unresurrected survivors of the Tribulation before God.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest Why do you care ?

a reply to: zazzafrazz

In another thread, a member raised the issue, so rather than derailing the thread, I started a new one.

Call no man father...........

Ive often heard Catholics quote Matt 16:18-19 to justify their position.

Matt 16:18 “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

The Catholic interpretation is that Jesus founded the Church on Peter, stating that Peter is the rock. Yet, the Greek text of the NT betrays the Catholic doctrine. Peter was "petros", which means small stone, but Jesus established His Church on the "petra", which means large stone. We know that Jesus was the cornerstone, and a cornerstone is the foundation of a building. Therefore, it makes more sense that Jesus is the petra-stone on which the Church was founded, and Peter the petros, was the first brick to be layed on the cornerstone. This is fiting, since Peter was the first to realize that Jesus is Christ.

Then in verse 19, the Catholic doctrine teaches that what Peter forgave on earth was forgiven in heaven, and what he bond on earth was bound in heaven....But that isnt what the text says. Peter was the first brick of the Church. He was given the task of spreading the Gospel to the world. What does the Gospel say about believers versus non-believers?

John 3:18 “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Since Peter was charged with carrying the Gospel, all who accepted it on earth were already unbound (justified) in heaven, and those who rejected it on earth were already bound (judged) in heaven.

Matthew 16:19 has nothing to do with establishing a line of Popes or Catholic priests.

ETA:

Infact, John 20:21 ("...as the Father sent me, I also send you"), confirms what I just stated. It is only Jesus who removes sin as the Lamb of God. Jesus sent the Disciples with the message, so they had the authority to state who was forgiven and who was not, based on who accepted or rejected the Gospel. John 20:23 "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have ALL READY been forgiven, if you retain the sins of any, they have ALL READY been retained."

Again those who believe have been justified already from eternaty past, and those who disbelieve have been judged already from eternaty past.

I've noticed you are anti Catholic.

As a suggestion, would it be more fruitful for your spiritual development and understandings of Christ if you focus on Why you are anti Catholic?
Ask yourself that question.
And then ask yourself; Will it change your spiritual life whether catholicism exists or not?
And finally ask yourself; Why am I trying to change/control peoples beliefs ?

Resolving what comes across as a negative obsession in your life is a path to peace.(we all have them, I'm not immune, none of us are)

I understand we all have our beefs with something, you don't have to forgive it to resolve it, but you may find a a greater and stronger connection to Christs teaching if you turn your head just a little in the direction on healing a hatred.
Focusing on what you love about Jesus rather than focus on what comes across as a bitterness about someone else's interpretation or faith, or control network over that faith.

Just a thought.

Up to you to think on, get angry on, reject or ignore.
I do however wish you the best and some peace of mind in your future.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I thought James was the first leader of the first church.

Whatever else we can say about the historicity of Acts' account of the conference, we can confirm that the tradition available to Luke clearly placed James as the undisputed leader of the Jerusalem church.

Paul's account of the same confirms James pre-eminence. For in describing the "pillars" of Jerusalem, he placed James' name first, ahead of Peter and John:

Galatians 2:9
and when James and Cephas [a] and John, who were acknowledged pillars...

The manner in which the decision was made was not one of consensus, but one in which James made a ruling:
Acts 15:19-20
[James speaking] "Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood."

SOURCE

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Your observation is correct, I am anti-catholic, but not because I was bred this way. Until recently I knew nothing about the catholic faith other than the Pope and the huge cathederals. As I began to learn about the Catholic traditions, the more I began to realize that it has very little to do with the bible.

Most Christians acknowledge that we are to hold the Bible as the Word of God. By doing that very thing myself, Im just in utter shock at what the catholic church feeds its followers.

What really bothers my is how Christ made us all priests, yet the Catholic church insists on forcing a false priesthood onto its followers. Its slavery in my eyes.

I have more respect for Islam. Atleast the muslims that I know actually follow what their holy book says.

The bible is an instruction book for our spiritual life. If the catholic traditions are true, then they must harmonize with the bible, but an objective look at the catholic claims prove that not to be the case.

Again, I made this thread to address specific points directed at me by a specific member. We will see how this develops.

a reply to: windword

Yes, but Peter was the first to confess that Jesus is Christ.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: windword

Yes, but Peter was the first to confess that Jesus is Christ.

Maybe, however:

Our first evidence comes from The Gospel of Thomas. The only complete copy of the gospel is dated around fourth century CE. It is in Coptic, an ancient Egyptian language, and was among various gnostic writings found in Nag Hammadi in 1945. Three fragments of the gospels in Greek, known as Papyrus Oxyrynchus 1, 654 and 655, are also extant and have been dated to no later than 200 CE. Thus the original gospel must have been around by the mid second century. Some scholars date it to around 70-90 CE, or almost contemporaneous with the canonical gospels.

What is of interest to us is logion 12 of the gospel:

Thomas 12
The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?" Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are, you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

a reply to: windword

You are correct. James had the authority. I said that Peter was charged with carrying the gospel, but in actuality that was true for all the disciples, including James. So if I mis-spoke, I stand corrected. But, Peter was the first brick to be layed on the cornerstone as he was the first to confess the faith, but that does not give him more authority.

In actuality, the point you raised pokes another hole in the Catholic doctrine, as they see Peter as the first Pope, who would be above all apostles.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
It's partly a translation issue.
The New Testament word PRESBUTEROS means literally "an older man". In other words, an "elder".
So the error consists of treating this office as equivalent to the "priests" of the Old Testament.
(And it matters, for those who were asking,because anyone who is pro-Christ is going to be concerned about diversions away from Christ)

James is listed first because they were in his jurisdiction, Jerusalem. He is given respectful precedence while in Jerusalem. BUT...who spoke last? Who had the final word? Keep reading . This is freshman theology.

Thomas' gospel is not in the canon. There's a reason for that. MANY writings were rejected from canon, rejected by The Catholic Church. The Catholic Church compiled the bible.

How soon so many folks forget, we were ALL Catholics until the Protestant Deformation/Reformation. None of this was questioned until the 1500s. Funny how they still scramble for a technicality. Come home. Come home to The Catholic Church.

Like another poster stated, Spend more time with Christ, and less time in bashing His Church.

a reply to: windword

I'll reply when you answer all the questions i've posed to you in other threads. Your answers would expose your apostasy, so you wont.

Ever heard of "the telephone game"? You are just one more in the circle, unfortunately, the message transferred to you was seriously flawed.

What is your authority? Who "made up" the ideas you espouse? Jesus started my church. Who started yours?


a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

It may be a good idea to go into more detail on the language point.
The New Testament has two different words for different institutions.
There is PRESBUTEROS, which means "elder", as I said in the earlier post.
Then there is HIEREUS, which is the equivalent of the Hebrew KOHEN, or sacrificing priests. HIEREUS is the word used to describe the Old Testament priests in Hebrews ch8 v4 and to call Christ the "High Priest" in Hebrews ch8 v1 etc..
It is also the word used when Revelation says that God has made "us" (that is, the whole body of believers) "a kingdom and priests"- Revelation ch1 v6, ch5 v10.

The problem is that the English word "priest" confuses the issue by being used for two different things.
On the one hand, it is derived from PRESBUTEROS, which makes it a natural word to use for the church leaders who are descended from the PRESBUTEROI.
On the other hand, it is ALSO used, at the same time, as a word for the Old Testament KOHEN and the similar sacrificing officials in other cultures.
This usage encourages the false impression that the New Testament PRESBUTEROS is a sacrificing "priest" in the Old Testament sense. It is not true. The KOHEN is an HIEREUS, not a PRESBUTEROS.
As long as you treat your PRESBUTEROS as an "elder", that is all well and good and in accordance with the New Testament.
But once you begin attibuting him with a special spiritual status and special spiritual powers, you are treating him as a KOHEN, which is not legitimate and finds no justification in the New Testament.

Strictly speaking, the logical remedy would be to drop the use of the word "priest" for the KOHEN and the similar officers in Greece and Rome and other cultures.
However, that's not practical politics, because that usage is too much engrained in the language. Nowadays, it would be easier to do it the other way round and protest against "priest" as a translation of PRESBUTEROS.
Certainly something needs to be done to break the inaccurate and misleading association between the translations of KOHEN and PRESBUTEROS.

I'm inclined to think, though, that this translation flaw is the result rather than the cause of the mental association between the two institutions. I'm not sure, but I think the Vulgate still has two different Latin words for them.
It looks as though the identification of PRESBUTEROS with KOHEN arose from the natural self-promoting instincts of the PRESBUTEROI, and then imposed itself on common language.

a reply to: Akragon

Following this logic... He also made us Kings....

Will be kings, (somehow). But the Bible calls believers on Earth now saints of the Most High.

At any one moment, somewhere on earth a Catholic Holy Mass is taking place.

And how appropriate today :-) Today's gospel reading today at Mass(mission), is from The Gospel of Mark 1:40-45

A couple things jumped out at me, (Thank you Holy Ghost)

(Off topic, but...). "A leper came to Jesus and pleaded on his knees"----""So, why do those whacky Catholics pray while kneeling? SO unbiblical!!..... NOT!""

(ON topic, after Jesus heals him)

".....go and show yourself to the priest, and make the offering for your healing prescribed by Moses as evidence of your recovery"

Jesus JUST healed the man! What else was necessary? That man needed nothing else, God incarnate had just touched him and healed him, yet the man was ordered by Jesus to go and "do" one more thing. (Other than, to not talk about it). Hmmm, why was that?

Now, Im not implying Jesus told him to go see a Catholic priest. lol. Cast your net into deeper water. And harden not your heart. A seed won't survive on crusted, rocky ground.

Why did Jesus tell him to go see a priest?






a reply to: BELIEVERpriest