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

Your obsession with petros/petra needs to be tempered a bit with some facts, my brother in Christ. I hope you read with an open mind. I did a little homework on your behalf.

Petros-Petra. In ANCIENT Greek they were synonyms that meant "small stone" and "large rock". That is found in some Ancient Greek poetry, but by the time of Mathews gospel, centuries later, the distinction was gone. The distinction in meaning is only found in Attic Greek, but the gospel was written in Koine Greek; a totally different dialect. In Koine Greek, they BOTH mean "Rock". If Jesus wanted to call Simon "little stone", or "pebble", he would have used the word lithos.

But, here's a lithos I'll drop in your shoe also. Jesus spoke Aramaic. 4 times in Galatians and 4 times in Corinthians, Simon is referred to as Cephas. This is the English transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha. And what does Kepha mean? ROCK (not little stone, or pebble)

I hope you pray and ponder on this fact. I know, It destroys your argument, but be humble my friend. We're here to garner the Truth. We must follow the truth wherever it leads us.

Peace be with you.


a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

a reply to: Ignatian

The concordances make a clear destinction between Petros (small, remote stone) and Petra (cornerstone, bedrock, cliffside). Now, perhaps what you say is true, that the distiction is more prevatlent in the Attic Greek. I can show you multiple instances where NT writers borrowed from Attic phrases to communicate what Koine could not. Its quite common. Furthermore, why would Jesus use two separate words to describe the same idea. Jesus was making a distinction between Himself (petra) and Peter (the first petros-brick to he laid).

ETA

To correct my ignorance, the Aramaic text does us Kepha in place of Petros and Petra in Matt 16, but a close look at other Aramaic verses will show a consistent distinction between Petros and Petra.

www.graceway.com...

We know that Jesus knew Aramaic. Perhaps He even spoke it as His language of choice, but the NT was written in Greek, which was the common gentile language at the time. Its likely that Jesus and His disciples were bi-lingual, or even tri-lingual. Being a native of Miami, I speak both spanish and english. In mixed cultures, it is common to have a multi-lingual populace.

The Aramaic texts are a translation of the original Greek NT. Just like the phonetically preserved Hebrew of the Masoretic oral tradition, the Greek text of the NT reflects a heptadic syllable metering that is not found in the Aramaic manuscripts. The Greek NT is the inspired text, not the Aramaic.

a reply to: Ignatian

The reason Jesus told him to go show himself to the priest was :

1. Required by law to be declared cleansed from leprosy

2. Only the Messiah could heal a Jewish leper, and thus Jesus was telling the man to go tell the temple priests that Messiah had come!

Leviticus 14 - Rituals On the Cleansing of a Leper

A. The sacrifice for a cleansed leper. 1. (1-9) The first seven days of the ritual. Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "This shall be the law of the leper for the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought to the priest. And the priest shall go out of the camp, and the priest shall examine him; and indeed, if the leprosy is healed in the leper, then the priest shall command to take for him who is to be cleansed two living and clean birds, cedar wood, scarlet, and hyssop. And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water. As for the living bird, he shall take it, the cedar wood and the scarlet and the hyssop, and dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water. And he shall sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed from the leprosy, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose in the open field. He who is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, shave off all his hair, and wash himself in water, that he may be clean. After that he shall come into the camp, and shall stay outside his tent seven days. But on the seventh day he shall shave all the hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows; all his hair he shall shave off. He shall wash his clothes and wash his body in water, and he shall be clean."

enduringword.com...

a reply to: UnifiedSerenity

Only the Messiah could heal a Jewish leper, and thus Jesus was telling the man to go tell the temple priests that Messiah had come!

I believe that is incorrect... Jesus also said "Tell no one of what he did" just before that if im not mistaken...

He did not want his arrival to be known by the priests.... they would not believe anyways

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: FlyersFan


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.

I did a video on this topic a long time ago. Peter / Kefa is not the stone which the church is founded upon, but his declaration that Jesus is the messiah is that foundation.

The church is founded upon the truth that the Messiah has come, and we who believe follow in his way. The imagery of the rock is throughout the bible, and that is covered in this video if you care to look at it.

(John 1:42)
"You are Simon the son of John; You will be called Cephas" (which is translated Peter)

Cephas: in Aramaic = The Rock

How can it be any clearer?

Petros(rock) nor Cephas(rock)was EVER associated with a personal name before Christianity. Significant fact

Do you spend ALL your time trying to discredit Catholicism? Is this the raison d'être for protestants? Well, I suppose that's why you're called protestants. Like lawyers, searching and searching the fine print for loopholes, its such a frivolous way to justify a minority viewpoint.

Like a fringe politician, instead of touting your own merits, instead, you obsess about discrediting your self-proclaimed opponent.

This is all you have? Your eternal salvation hinges on the translation of one word? It would be funny, if it wasn't so sad. I'll pray for you.






a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

a reply to: UnifiedSerenity

Actually, which prophet told Naaman, a gentile, to go jump in the Jordan River seven times and he'd be healed?

originally posted by: Ignatian
(John 1:42)
"You are Simon the son of John; You will be called Cephas" (which is translated Peter)

Cephas: in Aramaic = The Rock

How can it be any clearer?

Petros(rock) nor Cephas(rock)was EVER associated with a personal name before Christianity. Significant fact

Do you spend ALL your time trying to discredit Catholicism? Is this the raison d'être for protestants? Well, I suppose that's why you're called protestants. Like lawyers, searching and searching the fine print for loopholes, its such a frivolous way to justify a minority viewpoint.

Like a fringe politician, instead of touting your own merits, instead, you obsess about discrediting your self-proclaimed opponent.

This is all you have? Your eternal salvation hinges on the translation of one word? It would be funny, if it wasn't so sad. I'll pray for you.






a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I'm not Catholic and never have I had raison d'être as a Protestant to discredit Catholics. Only SOME Protestants are like that.

And if the guy wants to get technical, Peter then turns around and says of Jesus that Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone that the builders rejected. So it really doesn't matter so much if Peter is a big stone, little stone, pebble or even a smooth stone to skip across water, Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone so it is Jesus we put our faith in.

Peter was a little stone in comparison to Jesus. He might have been a big stone among the disciples, but he's still small in comparison to Jesus.

But perhaps it could be because of Peter's original hard heart was stony that Jesus had to pull out him and give him a new heart of flesh? Peter seemed to be a guy that would have been very hard to live with and get along, but Jesus knew how to speak to Peter.

So, I can see that Peter had that kind of personality that made him stone like. Big stone, little stone, Peter still realized and confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God and that upon that testimony, made Peter eligible to be called a stone.

That's the way I see it.

a reply to: Ignatian

How can it be any clearer?

By understanding that the Aramaic manuscripts are riddled with inconsistencies. The Greek text will give you an accurate and more comprehensive picture.

I spend my time studying God's word. That will inevitably expose the contratictions of denominational thinking, and Catholicism once proclaimed to be a totalitarian denomination, so excuse me for mistrusting the organization that has murdered more christians than the Islamic State can possibly dream of. The protestant reformation was no more righteous. They simply denominationalized the group of Christians that woke up from the Catholic political system.

Christ founded His Body, which He called His Church on Himself.
Christ is the foundation, not Peter. Peter being the first to realize who and what Jesus is, was the first brick to be layed on the Church foundation. Peter was subordinate to James, he was not a "Pope".

My eternal salvation rests on the work of Christ on the cross, not on the whims of an elected official. If you were truely my brother, you would know that.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: UnifiedSerenity

Actually, which prophet told Naaman, a gentile, to go jump in the Jordan River seven times and he'd be healed?

The issue is Jewish Leper. No Jew had been healed of leprosy after the completion of the Mosaic law.

In answering your question, it was Elisha healing a non-Jew. If you are interested in this issue of messianic miracles this site will help:

4 Messianic Miracles


Here is a excerpt:

Vs. 40: The healing of a Jewish leper was one of the four Messianic miracles. These were miracles that the Jews believed that only the Messiah could perform. Babylonian Nedarim 64b says a leper was considered dead and the Babylonian Sanhedrin said the restoring of the dead to life was the greatest of miracles. From that logic this event was considered only to be done by the Messiah.

From the time of the Mosaic Law was completed, there was no record of any Jewish person who had been cleansed of leprosy. Miriam, Moshe's sister, had her leprosy cleansed before the completion of the Law of Moshe. Naaman, who was a Gentile and a Syrian general, had his leprosy cleansed, but he was not a Jew. Leprosy was the one disease that the Rabbis could not cure miraculously through prayer. They could pray and heal other diseases. There was absolutely no cure for leprosy whatsoever. The Jews called leprosy "the finger of God," or "the stroke," indicating that they believed and regarded the disease to be a direct punishment from God and incurable, except by divine power which had first permitted it.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Ignatian

How can it be any clearer?

By understanding that the Aramaic manuscripts are riddled with inconsistencies. The Greek text will give you an accurate and more comprehensive picture.

I spend my time studying God's word. That will inevitably expose the contratictions of denominational thinking, and Catholicism once proclaimed to be a totalitarian denomination, so excuse me for mistrusting the organization that has murdered more christians than the Islamic State can possibly dream of. The protestant reformation was no more righteous. They simply denominationalized the group of Christians that woke up from the Catholic political system.

Christ founded His Body, which He called His Church on Himself.
Christ is the foundation, not Peter. Peter being the first to realize who and what Jesus is, was the first brick to be layed on the Church foundation. Peter was subordinate to James, he was not a "Pope".

My eternal salvation rests on the work of Christ on the cross, not on the whims of an elected official. If you were truely my brother, you would know that.

And we have to forgive, because the Catholics today aren't the ones who expelled my Sephardi ancestors nor are they the ones who killed my Huguenot ancestors. Catholics had the same problem historically that all churches have had, SOME men with evil intent did bad things. That is all.

Even John Calvin was guilty of doing bad things.

The Catholics have also done very good things, they have created hospitals and institutions of higher learning, they also have fraternal organizations that Protestants don't seem to want to have, like the Knights of Columbus or the Ancient Order of Hibernians. They have done good things also, don't forget that.

People are people and people are going to do what people do. If you choose to create your own traditions to explain your world view and belief system, then it is OK to do that, no one is stopping you.

But you shouldn't use Protestantism to vaunt an attack against people today who are not responsible for the Renaissance, the Inquisition or anything else. John Calvin is just as guilty of killing people to advance his own idea of Protestantism. Accept the good, reject the bad and in the end, Jesus is going to be the one separating the sheep from the goats, not us.

Martin Luther was guilty of anti-Semitism to the point that people were burning down synagogues, but were all Catholics doing that?

Like I said, I am not Catholic, but I will not sit and denounce Catholics as though they themselves are responsible for the evils of the world, they do good things and we should remember that.

I want you to take a look at this picture, she is Catholic and he is Huguenot. This painting was made just before the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, which was King Charles' doing, he ordered the troops to do it. But not all Catholics agreed to it. In fact, when it happened, other Catholics in other countries did try to help the Huguenots. But let's not burden today's Catholics with this, they simply aren't guilty.



To place the blame on the Catholic Church denies the atrocities of Protestants, John Calvin being guilty himself. It was not the Catholic Church that introduced slavery into the United States, it was the Church of England.

Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I are two of the most infamous mass murderers of Catholics, just ask yourself why the Irish Holocaust was so pervasive since the Church of England. 70,000 Irish Catholics systematically murdered, and then Oliver Cromwell, a very Protestant leader, expelled more than that and had not on Catholics killed and expelled, but also Roma, Irish, Scots and very poor people killed. So don't place this solely on Catholics.

It was the Puritan church that executed so-called witches in Salem, Massachusetts. It was Protestants that gave small pox to Native Americans and Hawaiians. It was Protestants who spread syphilis into the Pacific Islander groups.

Don't throw stones, you live in a glass house. I am Protestant, but must I remind you that the Catholic Church isn't solely at fault?

originally posted by: UnifiedSerenity

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: UnifiedSerenity

Actually, which prophet told Naaman, a gentile, to go jump in the Jordan River seven times and he'd be healed?

The issue is Jewish Leper. No Jew had been healed of leprosy after the completion of the Mosaic law.

In answering your question, it was Elisha healing a non-Jew. If you are interested in this issue of messianic miracles this site will help:

4 Messianic Miracles


Here is a excerpt:

Vs. 40: The healing of a Jewish leper was one of the four Messianic miracles. These were miracles that the Jews believed that only the Messiah could perform. Babylonian Nedarim 64b says a leper was considered dead and the Babylonian Sanhedrin said the restoring of the dead to life was the greatest of miracles. From that logic this event was considered only to be done by the Messiah.

From the time of the Mosaic Law was completed, there was no record of any Jewish person who had been cleansed of leprosy. Miriam, Moshe's sister, had her leprosy cleansed before the completion of the Law of Moshe. Naaman, who was a Gentile and a Syrian general, had his leprosy cleansed, but he was not a Jew. Leprosy was the one disease that the Rabbis could not cure miraculously through prayer. They could pray and heal other diseases. There was absolutely no cure for leprosy whatsoever. The Jews called leprosy "the finger of God," or "the stroke," indicating that they believed and regarded the disease to be a direct punishment from God and incurable, except by divine power which had first permitted it.

And Jesus said "There were many poor widows in Elijah's day, but he didn't visit every one of them".

Elisha simply could not tell Naaman to report to the priests to prove being cured. But leprosy, no matter who had it, were not allowed inside the city gates, and I can understand that.

Remember the story of the four lepers outside the gate and the city had been sieged, so they said "Let's go to the camp of the Syrians, the least they will do is kill us" so they got up and went and miraculously, God had made the noises and frightened the Syrians away. At the same time, within the walls, Elijah told the king, "because of your disbelief, tomorrow there will be bread but you'll not eat it".

Those people were so hungry they were eating their own children. That's a very terrible situation to end up in. Who brought the bread back? The four lepers.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
Peter was subordinate to James, he was not a "Pope".

INCORRECT. You've been shown this scriptural information before. But for some reason, you are cherry picking scripture and ignoring it.

Again - James was in charge of the Church in Jerusalem, but Peter was in charge of the the apostles and the church as a whole. Scripture is VERY clear on this. Read the link. Read the scripture quotes.

The Primacy of Peter

Peter and the Papacy

Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).

50 Testament Proofs Peter In Charge of Apostles and Church
Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7) and Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22). Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17) and he is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48). Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29; 1 Cor 9:5) .... the list goes on and on.

5. Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one (only?) example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he ("Cephas") is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (e.g., 1:18-19; 2:7-8).

6. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).

7. Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).

8. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his "faith may not fail" (Lk 22:32).

9. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to "strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32).

In modern terms it would be something like -
Peter would be President of the USA.
James would be Governor of New York state.

a reply to: WarminIndy

My point is that denominationalism, whether Catholic or Protestant has kept christians blind. Catholics are not the only sect that would have us confessing to priests.

We know where the Catholic doctrine took us..genocide, we know what the Protestant revolution did, it burned falsely accused witches and introduced religion into the government.

Is it too much to ask people to look at the bible from a fresh perspective? Why do we have to pretend that religion hasnt hurt us before?....because its politically incorrect?

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: WarminIndy

My point is that denominationalism, whether Catholic or Protestant has kept christians blind. Catholics are not the only sect that would have us confessing to priests.

We know where the Catholic doctrine took us..genocide, we know what the Protestant revolution did, it burned falsely accused witches and introduced religion into the government.

Is it too much to ask people to look at the bible from a fresh perspective? Why do we have to pretend that religion hasnt hurt us before?....because its politically incorrect?

When you read the Bible, are you looking for something? Or are you looking for what God has for you today?

If you are reading it with an agenda to find fault with other people, then you are not right. Look for what you are doing wrong, then adjust the way you think accordingly with what the Bible says. If it is your standard for life, then that is your standard for life. God speaks to individual hearts.

If you were the only human being on the planet, who then would the Bible apply to?

This morning's First Reading at Holy Mass:
Hebrews 1:5-10

"Every HIGH priest has been taken out of mankind and is APPOINTED to act for men in their relations with God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins; and so he can sympathize with those who are ignorant....."

These are validly ordained Catholic priests.

To understand these verses, all it takes are "eyeballs and reading comprehension."




a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: Ignatian
Hebrews 5;1-10

"Every HIGH priest has been taken out of mankind and is APPOINTED to act for men in their relations with God..."
These are validly ordained Catholic priests.

There are several reasons why that last statement is untrue.

Firstly, this passage is not talking about ordinary priests, but about HIGH priests.
There was only ever one High Priest at a time.
The passage then goes on to identify Christ as a High Priest. Since there can only be one at a time, there can be no others in the present age.

Secondly, the passage is talking about the priesthood of the Old Testament and drawing an analogy from it.
Whatever else the KOHANNIM of the Old Testament might have been, they were not "validly ordained Catholic priests".

Thirdly, the passage is using the Greek word HIEREUS (in this verse, ARCHIEREUS), which is the legitimate equivalent of the Hebrew KOHEN.
BUT- the church officer mentioned in the New Testament as intermediate between a bishop and a deacon is NOT an HIEREUS, but a PRESBYTEROS.
These are two different Greek words for two different offices.
The KOHEN or HIEREUS is a sacrificing official, with special spiritual powers and status.
There is no reason in the New Testament to think that the PRESBYTEROS is anything of the kind.
There is no reason to think that the KOHEN or HIEREUS has any place in the church at all except in the person of Christ.

Much confusion is being caused, as I tried to explain in an earlier post, by the practice of using the one English word "priest" to cover two completely different things.

""EVERY" high priest. " To me, this implies more than one. And in an ever increasing population of Christians, Obviously, more than one would be needed to minister to the flock in any given locality. This is only common sense. People, incorrigbly, want to see someone with no clothes on. The king IS wearing clothes. Look, right there.

The one high priest you speak of is Old Law. Jesus is the new sheriff in town.


a reply to: DISRAELI

originally posted by: Ignatian
""EVERY" high priest. " To me, this implies more than one.

Yes, there was a whole series of them. But they came one at a time.
This is a very well-known point in the history of the Old Testament and the history of the Jewish people.
The High Priest is the one man at the top, and in the New Testament that is Christ.

a reply to: WarminIndy

When I study my bible, I never really know what Im looking for, I find it best to leave the revealing in God's hands. Lately on the Christian threads on ATS, Ive seen a lot of misconceptions and outright lies about our universal priesthood. In the subject of our priesthood, the Catholic church is infact wrong and guilty of teaching lies. If you think bringing that issue to light is wrong, then so be it. I dont answer to you.

I already apologized for my bluntness, thats as far as Ill go. I am a priest as are you, and it is my right to teach what I know to be true, it is also my right to point out logical fallacies that can easily be resolved with a literal interpretation of the scriptures.

Should we address the misconceptions about the preisthood that Jesus made available to us, or should we avoid the elephant in the room?