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

originally posted by: Ignatian
""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

As Disraeli pointed out, Jesus is the High Priest for the Church Age, that would make sense, because Jesus founded the Church on Himself, rather than Peter. As a body of believers, we are the Body of Christ, therefore He is the only High Priest over the body of priests that He established.

a reply to: Ignatian

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

The Arabian city Petros predates Jesus and Peter. I'm sure there were no end of people called Simon of Petros, for example. Also, as another poster has pointed out, this mythical "Rock" is insinuated throughout the Old Testament, and in Hebrew the personal name TZURI, ALSO SPELLED ZURI means "My Rock".

Oh, and let's not forget that Mithra was born from a rock, and Mithracism was very popular in the area at the time!

A personal name is a name for a person. Cephas=Rock=Saint Peter=Never used before Jesus=Truly Odd

It would be as if I told you I was changing your name to "Asparagus!"

In geography, the name for a city, Petros in Arabia, would be considered a placename. Naming a city for an inanimate object isn't too rare, ie; Boulder, Colorado.

Thank you for pointing out the other references to Rock, in other parts of the bible. Maybe you're onto something, maybe you should look into those connections a little closer. Maybe do a little comparing and contrasting to Saint Peter? Hmmm, maybe it's a little deeper than you think. Jesus is like that, after all.

....or you could just ask The Catholic Church. I'm Catholic...Ask Me Anything.

a reply to: windword

originally posted by: Ignatian
A personal name is a name for a person. Cephas=Rock=Saint Peter=Never used before Jesus=Truly Odd

It would be as if I told you I was changing your name to "Asparagus!"

In geography, the name for a city, Petros in Arabia, would be considered a placename. Naming a city for an inanimate object isn't too rare, ie; Boulder, Colorado.

Thank you for pointing out the other references to Rock, in other parts of the bible. Maybe you're onto something, maybe you should look into those connections a little closer. Maybe do a little comparing and contrasting to Saint Peter? Hmmm, maybe it's a little deeper than you think. Jesus is like that, after all.

....or you could just ask The Catholic Church. I'm Catholic...Ask Me Anything.

a reply to: windword

I am not Catholic, but since you are Catholic, I would like to ask you this....
Can your rosaries be any color or do you have to stick with one particular color?

( I know, silly question, but you invited to ask anything, even if you did say it to windword).

And this common thing about Mithras, why didn't the Romans, Greeks and Persians just say "Oh that Jesus, he's just Mithra". Why didn't they make that connection if the assumption was Jesus and Mithra were the same person? Seems odd there that they never mentioned it, ever.

Seems like people keep reaching for straws with this Mithras thing, seeing as how Mithras apparently killed a bull, which Jesus never did. Mithraism also was for men and secretive, meaning that no women were allowed to partake in Mithraism. That doesn't sound very accepting of women, which Christianity was and is.

Other things about the legend of Mithras

In one legend, Mithras, who was popular amongst members of the Roman military, was ordered by the Sun to sacrifice a white bull. He reluctantly obeyed, but at the moment when his knife entered the creature's body, a miracle took place. The bull turned into the moon, and Mithras' cloak became the night sky. Where the bull's blood fell flowers grew, and stalks of grain sprouted from its tail. Mithras himself ascended to the light, and spent the rest of eternity hanging out with the Sun.

That doesn't sound much like Jesus. That's probably why the Romans, Greeks and Persians never associated Mithras and Jesus, but then again, why would they? The two are not the same.

Zeitgeist really butchers a lot of history, too bad people don't research beyond Zeitgeist.

You're doubting me, challenging me, demanding proof of the priesthood as set up by Jesus Christ in His Church, The Catholic Church. For me, it's like trying to prove to you the sky is blue.

This apostolic tradition has been around for 2000 years....in reality, Not in theory, not to be settled on some message board. Reality. In the real world.

There are bishops, priests and deacons. Period. They've been around for 2000 years, and they exist today. Their existence is plain as day in the bible, for anyone with eyeballs and reading comprehension. These validly ordained clergy are in direct apostolic succession, all the way back to Saint Peter, and Jesus Himself. Read ANY of the Church Fathers, they're named, discussed, they're titles are engraved on their tombs. There's tons of it out there.

This tradition has existed for 2000 years, and will continue until Jesus returns. It's only been the last 500 years that ANYone even thought to question this reality. Schismatics from Christ's Church, The Deformers.

Reread the Hebrews scripture I provided from today's Mass. Hebrews 5:1-10. I didn't recite it all for you. Look it up. Seek Truth. ALL the verses. There's A contrast between these high priests and Jesus as high priest. If you seriously think these first ones mentioned are Jesus, who are then contrasted with Jesus....Well, that's just plain illogical and senseless. I don't know any better words to describe your incorrigible worldview.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

They don't need to be ANY color. I use my fingers, Like many of the imprisoned martyrs who eventually get their heads cut off.


a reply to: WarminIndy

a reply to: Ignatian

People are named after all kinds of things, all the time, including inanimate objects like stars, hills and flowers and even animals

The deeper I dig the more I uncover the various mythologies and mysteries that the Catholics used to piecemeal, forge and invent to their convoluted and incomplete dogma.

Perhaps you should take another look at Peter and Paul and Mithra, Who Rose From The Rock, similarities and allegiances.

Paul mistook the Jewish "Messiah" to mean the Hellenistic "Christ". This happened before anything was written down; it happened during Paul's conversations with people as he was working through what had happened. A messiah is a person who is a great leader who leads your people to freedom. The title was taken by Jews from Persian culture. A christ is a god-king who dies as an offering to some divine being as a sacrifice in return for prosperity, especially agricultural prosperity. Both are anointed with oil as a mystical, sexual rite

It was in Tarsus that the Mysteries of Mithras had originated, so it would have been unthinkable that Paul would have been unaware of the remarkable similarities we have already explored between Christian doctrines and the teachings of Mithraism. [Footnote:] Tarsus was the capital of Cilicia, where, according to Plutarch [46-125CE], the Mithraic Mysteries were being practiced as early as 67BCE

During the 1st century BC, a cult of Mithra, made much progress in Rome, after enduring persecution, when some Emperors adopted the religion... Mithra became very popular among the Roman legionaries and later even among the Emperors. The worship of Mithra was first recognized by Emperor Aurelian and he instituted the cult of "Sol Invictus" or the Invincible Sun. Emperor Diocletian also a worshipper of Mithra, the Sun God, burned much of the Christian scriptures in 307 A.D.
www.vexen.co.uk...

originally posted by: Ignatian
They don't need to be ANY color. I use my fingers, Like many of the imprisoned martyrs who eventually get their heads cut off.


a reply to: WarminIndy

I have heard that also my whole life, I remember my pastor telling us that when I was very young.

The one thing he constantly told us was "there will come a day when they will take your Bibles away, so have the word of God on your hearts".

I know we can't remember it word for word, but what we do know, understand and remember that.

I think that some Protestants have taken Sola Scriptura so literally that they believe Sola Scriptura is all they need, it doesn't matter if the Holy Spirit isn't interpreting it.

I am kind of like a middle roader, I think there are merits to both having a priest explain and a person seeking it themselves. You just don't know that every person will give you interpretation outside of what they want. But at the same time, an individual can make their own mistakes.

There should be accountability and I am sure the Catholic church has checks and balances now. That's the problem with some Protestants, they don't take personal accountability either. Sola Scriptura is what BelieverPriest endorses, I am not sure I can wholly agree with that. Like I said, there needs to be balance and accountability. But not all Protestants actually believe in Sola Scriptura either, they still rely on pastors to explain it to them.

Sola Scriptura also led to Jehova's Witnesses, The Way International, Jim Jones, The Mormons, Seventh Day Adventism, the list goes on, and none of them taking any accountability whatsover.

As the Bible says, there needs to be at least three witnesses, that includes, for me, scripture. I don't rely on one verse, but look for verses that correspond and agree, then if I understand something, I always make sure that it didn't come from me and talk about it with other people. I then begin to understand depths.

I think ultimately though, every one of us has an accountability before God to the verses we did learn and whether we lived by them or not. I am Protestant, but have trouble defending pure Sola Scriptura, but also relying on a flawed person who may be flawed at the moment they explain it to me.

That's a fine line to walk.

The Catholic Church has a system of checks and balances called The Magisterium. They are the teaching authority of the Church. They also define dogma, that is, the central truths of revelation that Catholics are obliged to believe.


a reply to: WarminIndy

I'm Catholic. I read and pray Sacred Scripture, and follow Tradition, instituted by Jesus Christ, and approved by the Magisterium of The Catholic Church, all inspired, to this day, by The Holy Spirit.

I showed you Holy Scripture, you showed me fringe, minority interpretation. I follow the herd, the other 1.2 Billion Catholics, a little under 20% of the earth's human population, lead by 5,104 Bishops and 412,236 Catholic Priests.

Also, this Magisterium is not just one man. They take YEARS to come to their decisions, they pray, they discern, they vote, they pray again, but eventually The Holy Spirit decides. Their pronouncements are rare. Very rare.

Jesus wants us to read scripture, and personally interpret it for our lives. It's one way He speaks to us. Catholics believe when we read scripture, we are praying. A concept known as "lectio divina."

(Sorry, these last 2 paragraphs belonged in my response to warminindy)

a reply to: windword

originally posted by: Ignatian
I'm Catholic. I read and pray Sacred Scripture, and follow Tradition, instituted by Jesus Christ, and approved by the Magisterium of The Catholic Church, all inspired, to this day, by The Holy Spirit.

I showed you Holy Scripture, you showed me fringe, minority interpretation. I follow the herd, the other 1.2 Billion Catholics, a little under 20% of the earth's human population, lead by 5,104 Bishops and 412,236 Catholic Priests.

Also, this Magisterium is not just one man. They take YEARS to come to their decisions, they pray, they discern, they vote, they pray again, but eventually The Holy Spirit decides. Their pronouncements are rare. Very rare.

Jesus wants us to read scripture, and personally interpret it for our lives. It's one way He speaks to us. Catholics believe when we read scripture, we are praying. A concept known as "lectio divina."

(Sorry, these last 2 paragraphs belonged in my response to warminindy)

a reply to: windword

Thank you.

For the record, I always said that if I had to absolutely make a choice if I were in a place that had only two churches, and those churches were Catholic or Baptist, I would go to the Catholic church.

Sorry Baptists, that's how it is with me.

I grew up in an independent church, that only when I was grown did I hear the word Pentecostal, so what I see of the current and modern Pentecostal churches, they aren't like the one I grew up in. But at the same time, I was of the very small minority in my community that weren't Catholic and as children it led to the many times of misunderstandings. But we are grown now and get along.

Our school was so majority Catholic that we had to eat fish on Fridays, I didn't care, at least we got lunch. Another town close to ours was all Catholic and in the middle of their school days, they had Catechism class. Seems odd to say that for a public school, but that's how it was there. At least our kids went Wednesday night.

Because it was rural, our school had once been the parish school until the state took over. But the little tiny road that separated the school from the church just made it seem the school was still part of it. The priest was always coming over talking to the kids. I remember one time when he talked to me, knowing I was not Catholic, I said to him "My mom and dad said I can't call you Father". He patted my head and said it was ok. He was a nice man.

But there was a nun that still taught at the school and she was one of those very old ladies who always had to discipline, she got angry with me because I refused to help raise money for the CYO, she was of that very old generation, so when the whole episode blew up, the priest actually came to class to defend me, told her that I did not have to raise money for something I was not able to partake in. I still remember him today, he was that kind of person. I don't know his name, but I hope that wherever he went that he did well.

The biggest problem though we had was when they had weddings there, we would come to school on Mondays and the schoolyard was littered with beer cans, but we were a very high alcoholic community. They told us to clean it up, and I said no, I was not at the reception and didn't drink so why should I clean up after them. LOL. They could not make me do it, but some kids figured that since their relatives were there, then they decided to clean them up.

Kids sometimes get the bad jobs.

a reply to: Ignatian

It may not be popular, but it isn't fringe. Mithraism was a very real and popular religion that was in competition with Christianity, so much so, that Christianity had to be altered to accommodate the forced conversion of the pagan masses. Then, all they could do was declared that the mystery religions that pre-dated Christianity were planted by the devil!

According to Martin A. Larson, in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), Mithraism and Christianity derived from the same sources, originally from the savior cult of Osiris: a rarely discussed view among Mithraic and Christian scholars but which accounts for the similarities without assuming a Christian derivation from Mithraism. He also believes that the Essenes were Jewish Pythagoreans, whose members not only gave birth to Christianity as Essenes, but were directly influenced by Zoroastrian doctrine as Pythagoreans. Mithraism, an established but exclusive sect devoted to social justice, was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being disposed of in name.

Mithra performed miracles of raising the dead, healing the sick, making the blind see, the lame walk, and casting out devils. As a Peter, son of the petra (rock), he carried the “keys” to the kingdom of heaven, as St. Peter is said to have the keys to the gates of Heaven (H. Smith 129). Before returning to heaven, Mithra had his Last Supper with his twelve disciples, who represented the twelve signs of the zodiac. In memory, his worshipers partook of a sacramental meal of bread marked with a cross (Hooke 89, Cumont 160). This was one of seven Mithraic sacraments, the models for the Christian seven sacraments (James 250). It was called mized and in Latin missa and in English mass.

Mithra's cave-temple on the Vatican Hill was seized by Christians in 376 A.D. (J. Smith 146). Christian bishops in Rome pre-empted even the Mithraic high priest's title of Pater Patrum, which became Papa, or Pope (H. Smith 252). Mithraism entered into many doctrines of Manichean Christianity and continued to influence its old rival for over a thousand years (Cumont, Oriental 154)). The Mithraic festival of Epiphany, marking the arrival of sun-priests or Magi at the Savior's birthplace, was adopted by the Christian church only as late as 813 A.D. (Brewster 55).

It is fairly probable that Christianity emphasized common features that attracted Mithra followers, perhaps the crucifix appealed to those Mithra followers who had crosses already branded on their foreheads. In art, the halo was a well-known depiction of Mithra, a true sun god, but which also depicts Christ in a similar way. However, differences such as star gazing were persecuted as heresy, although zodiac beliefs were too common by then to be removed. Trypho wrote that “Justin Martyr declared that in a certain cave near Bethlehem…Mary brought forth the Christ…those who presided over the mysteries of Mithras were stirred up by the devil to say that in a place called among them a cave, they were initiated by them” (LXXVIII). Tertullian demonized Mithraism as a perverted truth planted by the devil.

en.wikipedia.org...

The truth is out there!

Im a fairly recent convert/revert, only the last couple years. I've always had a passing curiosity about the time Jesus spent in His first 30 years, before His public ministry began. Other than His presence in the temple, when His parents lost track of Him for 3 days, there is zero mention of his young, earthly life.

I'm now so infatuated with His last 3 years, and getting to know who this Jesus really is, that the curiosity is now tempered. I'll most likely spend the rest of my life, metaphorically speaking, as a little baby, learning to crawl in my new faith. It's so rich, so deep, so edifying, I doubt the first 30 years will be bothered with.

What you have to say is interesting. I'll research this more, as it deals with Catholicisms roots, by the sound of it.

A clue, is John the Baptist. He was doing things drastically different than the Jew of the day. I have heard his background is with the Essenes, and it's obvious that Jesus knew him before his ministry began. They probably hung out together, and had similar experiences. The baptizing with water thing, that John was doing, Jesus latched onto...and of course enriched that teaching to include The Spirit.

I'll give this a glance, and get back to you, if I have anything worthwhile to ad. Thanks for the info.




a reply to: windword

a reply to: Ignatian

Okay! Thanks. I was expecting to be met with rebuke.

Pursuing the richness of the history of the Christian mysteries is a worthy life long pursuit.

a reply to: Ignatian

Hebrews 4:14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. 16 Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Hebrews 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God, in order to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins; 2 he can deal gently with the ignorant and misguided, since he himself also is beset with weakness; 3 and because of it he is obligated to offer sacrifices for sins, as for the people, so also for himself. 4 And no one takes the honor to himself, but receives it when he is called by God, even as Aaron was. 5 So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”; 6 just as He says also in another passage, “YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.” 7 In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety. 8 Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. 9 And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation, 10 being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

For the full context of the subject matter in Hebrews 5, you have to begin reading in Hebrews 4. In Hebrews 4, you read that Jesus is our High Priest. Then, Hebrews 5 explains that a High Priest must be able to identify with sinners to represent them. Jesus became our High Priest by becoming sin on the cross for us. As God, He mediates on our behalf, as Man, He shared our weakness in flesh, and on the cross, He was judged for our sins. The fact that Jesus overcame the cross is proof that He is the only qualified High Priest.

The High Priests of the OT were of the Levitical priesthood. That order was fulfilled with the Law, and replaced with the universal priesthood of Melchizedek. Hebrews 5 does not speak of the ordaining of priests in this age, as we are already preists. AGAIN, WE ARE ALREADY PRIESTS. Instead, Hebrews 5 defines what it means to be a priest by looking retrospectively at the Levitical Order...hence, Hebrews 5:4&5. The passage is describing Christ as our High Priest, not a fabricated catholic order. As alway, the Catholic doctrine twists the scriptures to glorify man over Christ, just as it glorifies Peter over Christ.

Eyeballs + reading comprehension = understood context

a reply to: Ignatian

Hebrews 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God, in order to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins; 2 he can deal gently with the ignorant and misguided, since he himself also is beset with weakness; 3 and because of it he is obligated to offer sacrifices for sins, as for the people, so also for himself.

And again, the word of God discredits the modern Ordained Priesthoods of man. A Levitical Priest of the Law made sacrifices on both the citizen's and his own behalf, yet we are taught that Jesus fulfilled the Law and that His sacrifice is sufficient for eternity. So, if Hebrews 5 is sanctioning the ordination of High Priests for the Church Age, then it is in effect saying that Jesus' sacrifice was not sufficient, and that the Law was never fulfilled. This wrinkle is easily ironed out by understanding that Hebrews 5 is defining a Priest's responsibility by looking RETROSPECTIVELY to the Levitical Order.

Jesus is our only High Priest.

Nowhere in that text does it say it's referring to the OT high priests. You are making an implication that is simply not there. It is in the present tense. It "IS"talking about high priests, how they are chosen, in the present time of the writer. Then, in verse 5, ("so to Christ"), it compares these modern priests, who are called by God, like Aaron, but chosen by men....it compares them to Christ, the highest of priests. Both these high priests are in the order of Melchizedek.

And sure enough, at that time, when this text was written, There WERE already bishops, priests and deacons in the young Church, and they've existed all the way up to the present time. They exist, you just refuse to acknowledge their existence.

Hebrews is going to be fun with you. It only gets clearer as this book progresses in describing the Catholic Priesthood.

So, Mr Priest, Im curious, in your priesthood, how exactly, do you yourself offer up the bread and wine as sacrifice, according to the order of Melchizedek? I can show you how validly ordained priests in The Catholic Church do this, if you're curious.

We'll keep on going in Hebrews. Follow along and learn. Follow the Truth, wherever it leads you. Be humble though friend. It all starts with humility.

The king is wearing clothes, and the sky is blue. And Catholic priests exist.



a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

a reply to: Ignatian

So, Mr Priest, Im curious, in your priesthood, how exactly, do you yourself offer up the bread and wine as sacrifice, according to the order of Melchizedek? I can show you how validly ordained priests in The Catholic Church do this, if you're curious.

My last post addressed this issue. Hebrews 4 & 5 could only be referencing the OT Levitical Order since they offered up sacrifices, which WAS an OT Legal practice. But, when Jesus was crucified, the fulfillment of the Law was completed with His permanent sacrifice. So, in effect, you and the Catholic church are saying that Jesus' sacrifice was insufficient and that the Law was not fulfilled. What sacrifice does your "priest" offer? He shouldnt be offering any, since Christ is our permanent sacrifice, Hebrews 10 clearly states. He offered His blood (as wine) and body (as bread). The priesthood that Christ ordained me and the rest of the Church into, is founded on those permanent offerings.

So which is it? Did Christ fulfill the Levitical Law (which included the Levitical Priesthood), to make way for a higher Law and a superior universal priesthood? Or did Jesus fail, and we are eternally bound to the words of selfrighteous men in fancy hats?

How can you deny what the bible clearly states? Wake up, be free.

You didn't respond to the point I made that completely destroys your premise. The high priest in these verses are their modern priests, Appointed by men, but called by God. They are then compared to Christ.

Nowhere does it say they are talking about the one high priest from the OT. You're making an implication that is simply not there. I get what you are trying to say. But you are reading into scripture, something that is not there. You shouldn't do that.

We'll go further into Hebrews later. I'm giving you a heads up though, so you have some homework.

And no, Jesus' sacrifice, his suffering, was NOT complete on the cross. What complete's it? Read your scripture. Or, if you ask, I'll tell you.



a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

a reply to: Ignatian

You didn't respond to the point I made that completely destroys your premise.

What point(s) did I fail to address?

Jesus fulfilled the Law with His death, resurrection, and ascension.

Im sorry, but you are wrong about Hebrews 4&5. If you dont see that, then only God can open your eyes. I really cant make myself any clearer. Perhaps it would benefit you to go back and re-read my last two posts on Hebrews 4,5,&10.