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

a reply to: Ignatian

Oh wait, your bible doesn't have The Book of Baruch. Your bible is missing 7 books actually. Why are they missing? Because the Protestant Deformer, Martin Luther, deleted them.

Now why would he do that?

Actually that's not correct... That was what I thought as well until recently...

He didn't...

The Catholic church added those 7 books to the bibles...

Look it up smart guy... They were not deleted...

carm.org...

I don't need to respond, flyersfan has given you plenty of highly respected authority to ponder in his links. Have you read them?


a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
then I suppose your services are no longer needed here.

To use your own quote - this is a discussion form, so I will discuss whatever issue I see fit to discuss.

the bible speaks for itself, and it makes it clear that there is no such thing as a Pope or Apostolic succession.

The bible speaks for itself and it makes it clear that there IS the primacy of Peter and apostolic succession is found in ACTS. And yes, I have proven that via scripture quotes. You want to interpret scripture differently? Go ahead. But have the common curtesy to allow the majority of Christians to have a different interpretation than you do and to worship God as they believe is best.

The supposed 'question' was 'why do Catholics ordain priests'...
That has been answered in detail.

With charity brother, You-are-wrong. Maybe try looking at a source that's not Protestant.


a reply to: Akragon

Back on pg. 2, B.priest lost his temper, he mentions among other things, praying while gazing at a statue amd praying for dead people.

You could show biblically, the exact numerous verses, how anyone with a set of eyeballs and reading comprehension, could deduce where Catholic Tradition is based. It would be like talking to a wall though. You'd get a blank stare.

I wonder if he believes in The Trinity? That term isn't in the bible. If he does believe it, I wonder how? The words MUST be there in order for his eyeballs and reading comprehension to lead him.


a reply to: FlyersFan

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I do believe that was the original intent.

The last middle man to God, the last high priest was removed.....no more sacrifices, no more dogma.

That is the real message before Constantine and his mother.

Some one suggested before that Jesus also made us kings following that logic----we already are. Humanity is of royal blood. All of it. That was the Adamic version of creation that we consist of.


Also, read my signature. Thats the true christian credo.

originally posted by: Ignatian
With charity brother, You-are-wrong. Maybe try looking at a source that's not Protestant.


a reply to: Akragon

Sure thing...

The first Canon of the bible was established at "the council of Laodicea" after which there was another council that added the book of revelation... that was the canon of the bible that was "universally accepted" by the churches...

The books that are in the Catholic bible are considered deuterocanonical... the very word means "second canon"

Thus the books you're promoting come second to the official canon of the bible which we have today...

And while its true Luther did try to remove some books from the bible, the Catholic church seems to be trying to present the books that were not officially canon as official... which they are not according to the earliest church councils..

The deuterocanonical texts were included in the Septuagint, the 3rd century BC greek translation of the Old Testament. This was the apostle's scripture as well as Jesus' scripture. Its rather easy to see why The Catholic Church thought they belong in the canon.

The Church Council at Hippo in the 4th century and The Council of Carthage around the same time, endorsed what had become the general belief of the universal church. The Council of Trent confirmed this canon in the 1500's.

So, there's your facts. Again, check some sources that aren't Protestant.


Luther didn't TRY to omit scripture, he DID remove scripture. Why? Cuz these books supported the ideas of praying for the dead, and by extension purgatory. Luther denied these ancient teachings of the church, so he denied these books a place in Protestant canon. What a shame. It's beautiful stuff.

a reply to: Akragon

a reply to: Ignatian

Flyersfan gave me a bunch of links that I havent the time to read at the moment. Nothing was actually proven. Are you going to tell me that you have no support to back up your opinion.

I could have given a myriad of links in my OP, but instead, I quoted scripture to prove the obvious points.

I get the impression that you dont have any real information to make your case.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Discussion requires a little more than linking. For example, show me exactly where Im wrong in the scriptures. Why did Jesus tell His disciples to follow James if Peter was in charge?

Like I said, I will read the links, and Im sure they'll give me a list of rationalization on why Catholics ordain priests, but if the Catholic doctrine is so rooted in the Bible, then explain to me how the Church could be founded on Peter/Petros, when Christ stated that it was founded on the Petra. Petros is a small stone, petra is a large cornerstone. Peter is not the cornerstone...Jesus is the petra.

Jesus said, "You are the small stone, but on the cornerstone, I will establish my Church." The scriptures could not be any clearer.

a reply to: Ignatian

Back on pg. 2, B.priest lost his temper, he mentions among other things, praying while gazing at a statue amd praying for dead people.

Lol, I didnt lose my temper, I honestly pitty those who pray to the dead, bow to statues, and take the words of appointed men as the Word of God.

And yes, I do believe in the Trinity as it is revealed in the NT: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Dont insult my intelligence. You have yet to reconcile the catholic doctrine with the Word of God....because it cannot be done.

a reply to: tadaman

I guess some people just dont fear secure without a middle man, yet the Pharisees and Sadduccees are a great example of what happens when the middle men have too much power. Im sure that doesnt happen in the Catholic Church though.

originally posted by: Ignatian
The first 2 chapters of Baruch describes how early Jewish exiles repented of their sins. They repented to God, and to the priests in Jerusalem.

Oh wait, your bible doesn't have The Book of Baruch. Your bible is missing 7 books actually. Why are they missing? Because the Protestant Deformer, Martin Luther, deleted them.

Now why would he do that?




a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Yes, our bible is missing 7 books which Jesus never found important enough to quote from, and that the Jews generally rejected. The Apocrypha was put in the LXX by its translators. It has no biblical value.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
Flyersfan gave me a bunch of links that I havent the time to read at the moment. Nothing was actually proven..

Dude ... you can't say 'nothing was actually proven'. The proof is at the links AND I gave scripture quotes. At least have the courtesy to read the information that answers the 'question' that you asked, instead of just proselytizing.

ETA

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
I honestly pitty those who ....

And the vast majority of Christians pity you for your religious interpretations, but they are nice enough to let you worship as you see fit and to leave you alone. Which brings us back to what Jesus told Christians to do .. take the log out of their own eye before they attempt to take the speck out of someone else's.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: tadaman

I guess some people just dont fear secure without a middle man, yet the Pharisees and Sadduccees are a great example of what happens when the middle men have too much power. Im sure that doesnt happen in the Catholic Church though.

But your pastors, deacons, bishops, elders and even prayer warriors are middle men. Same concept and idea. I'm Protestant, but I need to remind you that we do have the middle man.

If you have a prayer warrior in your church that sets up the prayer hotlines, same idea. And yes, your pastor is indeed supposed to sacrifice daily for you, that's why he is called pastor. And if you need help or need to confess, you still go to an elder.

In fact, right now you are setting yourself up as a middle man, but saying that you are a priest, even if it is only by belief. But Protestant churches ordain their priests, we call them pastors.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
Already discussed these. And I already showed that Peter was in charge of all the apostles, while James was just in charge of the church in Jerusalem. It's right there in scripture (quotes already given).

If you want to have a different interpretation than the majority of Christians, that's fine and dandy. No problem. Enjoy it. But leave the rest of Christianity in peace.

a reply to: FlyersFan

You proved why the Catholic church feels that it has the authority to ordain priests, Ill give you that, but you didnt prove the scriptural connection. Ive already debunked most of what you call scriptural support.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Its true, we do have elders, decons, pastors, etc, but we still represent ourselves before God. I confess my own sins directly to God. We dont need a third party to absolve us of our sins.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: WarminIndy

Its true, we do have elders, decons, pastors, etc, but we still represent ourselves before God. I confess my own sins directly to God. We dont need a third party to absolve us of our sins.

You still confess to an elder, who then prays with you, right?

You still call a prayer warrior when something tragic happens, right?

You might do that at home, which many Catholics also pray at home, but the idea of a mediator, there is just one, and I think FlyersFan has already indicated that she also believes in one mediator. Maybe some Catholics believe Mary is also a mediator, but Moses also was a mediator to the Israelites.

We can be mediators, any time we ask someone else for prayer, that is what we are doing. So you confess your sins to God, and yet the Bible says to confess your faults one to another that you might be healed. You still have to confess to someone, even if it is a brother or sister in the church.

James 5:16King James Version (KJV) James 5: 16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

We can't get out of needing mediators on earth, James says we should if we want to be healed. Confess your faults one to another.

The early church did it

And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds.

What it means to be a kingdom of priests, we no longer have to go to the temple to confess and a priest sacrifices a cow for us, we can do that at home, but the early church still confessed one to another their faults and deeds. So there is need for it. Besides, God knows you did something anyway.

A mediator is someone who stands before God, or stand in the gap, as you have heard preachers preach. Even when you pray for your children (I am assuming you have them), that is mediation. And if your parents prayed for you, they are also mediators.

When you pray for me, you are mediating for me. If FlyersFan prays for you, she is mediating for you. But we should be mediating for each other, that's why we must confess. Otherwise you wouldn't want the pastor ringing your doorbell to inform you that he knows what you did, because some pastors can do that.

But the Catholics prefer to have their mediators actually close to God. I'm not so sure many Protestants are close to God, I may be wrong, but it seems to be a pretty close tie, there is good and bad in both Catholic and Protestant churches. But if you and I want to be like the early church and you and I want to follow what James suggests, then you and I are mediators for each other, that's what a kingdom of priests means. But I don't need you to sacrifice a cow, just your time. That's not unreasonable, is it?

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

We are made clean with His blood (wine) and constitute His body (bread).

You are mixing metaphors and ending up with something that doesn't make sense.