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

I have, and you are wrong in your interpretation, its that simple. You don't even understand what the tense of a verb is/are/was, is.

The passage is present tense, for priests in the present. You insist it is past tense. One High Priest, from the past. It---does---not---say---that.

As I mentioned to FlyersFan, it's like talking to a wall. I mean no disrespect, seriously I don't.

"It depends on what your definition of "is" is!" Lmao!


a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

He offered His blood (as wine) and body (as bread).

Are you saying that Jesus was offering his body and blood as substitutes for bread and wine?
I don't know how you come to that conclusion.
Jesus sacrificed himself, but his blood and body were not offerings.
Jesus uses those things to make analogies with, that we are nourished in our future lives by that spiritual food that Jesus provided.

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?

Jesus did not have to fulfill Levitical law. When Jesus said he had come to fulfill the law, he meant that he was going to "fill it up", meaning to make it fuller, by emphasizing the spiritual principles behind the law.

a reply to: Ignatian

Nowhere in that text does it say it's referring to the OT high priests.

OK, so what religion do you suppose Hebrews is referring to having high priests?

You are making an implication that is simply not there. It is in the present tense.

When Hebrews was written there was still the temple in Jerusalem standing and as long as it physically existed, they carried on with the priestly practices.

Both these high priests are in the order of Melchizedek.

There is no such thing as an "Order of Melchizedek", the writer of Hebrews was using a metaphor.

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 was a very early letter, and was an actual letter addressed to real people, and it was addressed to those who were discouraged with persecution of Christians, and were considering going back to Judaism, and when that was still a viable option, that the temple was still there and operational.
What you are referring to with bishops is a pseudonymous writing, purporting to be by Paul, but was written long after Paul would have been dead, and reflects an evolution in an establishment of an institutional structure that did not exist in the early church as it existed in the time of the Apostles, with a paid clergy class (something that the real Paul condemned).

a reply to: Ignatian

Well, its agreed then, we are each talking to walls. You keep seeing your priest, I'll confess my own sins to God on my own behalf.

Like I said, Hebrews 4,5,&10 either teaches that Jesus fulfilled the Levitical Law to establish the universal King-priesthood, or it teaches that Jesus was a rejected sacrifice that failed in fulfilling the Law, in which case the entire NT is gibberish.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I'll confess my own sins to God on my own behalf.

According to the New Testament, we confess our sins to the congregation, and God forgives them, so in that way, we are, as a group, all priests, and not like you suggest, your own priest, which is just absurd since there is no model for such a thing.

and btw: not as Ignatian suggests, either.

a reply to: jmdewey60

The only sins confessed to a third party are sins that directly impact the third party. The OT priests had to confess their own sins to God, the same applies to us.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

. . . in which case the entire NT is gibberish.

I would suggest that "the universal King-priesthood" is gibberish, and not the New Testament.
You are just making this up and probably based on some old bad theology from the early Protestant era of the idea of the priesthood of all believers.
I don't think that either one is right. The church is not called a church for no reason, it literally means the congregation, and we all are a priesthood, as a unit, not as individuals.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

The only sins confessed to a third party are sins that directly impact the third party.

The church is not a "third party".
It has to be in the first person, plural.
Read the First Letter of John.
Our salvation rests in being in a group where we all share the presence of God and the unity between Jesus and God, and that being in us and in the midst of us, and us as individuals joined into that group.

originally posted by: Ignatian
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.

And YOU are not responding to the points I made which destroy your own premise.

Firstly these verses are talking about the "High Priest", the ARCHIEREUS.
This does NOT refer to the ordinary priests. That is the signficance of the ARCHI part of the word. It means the man "at the top".
There was only ever one "High Priest" at a time, just as, in mediaeval Europe, there was only ever one legal Emperor at a time.
The distinction between the High Priests and the other priests is clear enough in ch9 vv6-7, where it shows how the ordinary priests went into the outer tent, but only the one High Priest went into the inner tent.
In any case, it's a very well-known feature of Old Testament history and Jewish history, as I said before.
If you google "High Priest", you will find a list of them in chronological order- one at a time.

Secondly, the priests in Hebrews are NOT "Catholic priests".
The "priest" in Hebrews is an HIEREUS, which is the same thing as the Hebrew KOHEN. He is a sacrificing officer, understood to have special spiritual powers and special spiritual status.
But the man you call a "Catholic priest" is NOT an HIEREUS. He is NOT a KOHEN.
The "Catholic priest" appears in the New Testament as a PRESBUTEROS. That is, he is an "older man", with the function of giving advice to the younger members of the community.
Therefore all the references in Hebrews to the priesthood are completely irrelevant to a discussion of "Catholic priests".
They are two different things.
As I tried to explain to you before, confusion is being caused by the fact that the English word "priest" is being used for two completely different kinds of people.

If you intend to go on to expound Hebrews, I strongly recommend that you get a good commentary, improve your knowledge of New Testament Greek, and improve your knowledge of Old Testament history.

And I would suggest to you, that rather than equivocate like a Pharisee, you simply read the text that is before your very eyes.

The passages speak of more than one priest. And it is in the present tense. You can't get around that.

High priests, more than one, and in the present, compared with Jesus. Who else would they be referring?

"Never ride a principle to death...not even this one". (Absolute Relativism)






a reply to: DISRAELI

originally posted by: Ignatian
High priests, more than one, and in the present... You can't get around that.

They speak of more than one, because there was a whole sequence of them. One at a time.
List of High Priests of Israel
In the present tense partly because the writer is describing what the Law of Moses prescribes, and partly because the Temple was still in being at the time of writing.

"Never ride a principle to death...not even this one".

What I am trying to do,with limited immediate success, is to overcome a wilful state of ignorance by patient repetition of explanations.
Let's try again;
1) The epistle to Hebrews, when it says "priest", is talking about the officer called HIEREUS.
2) The "Catholic priest" is not a HIEREUS.
3) Therefore nothing in Hebrews is talking about "Catholic priests".
I don't see that I can make it any simpler, though I do try to "temper the wind to the shorn lamb".

a reply to: Ignatian

High priests, more than one, and in the present, compared with Jesus. Who else would they be referring?

Hebrews 5:4
And no one can become a high priest simply because he wants such an honor. He must be called by God for this work, just as Aaron was.
(New Living Translation)

This explains what the writer of Hebrews was referring to in chapter 5, when it mentions Aaron, who was the original High Priest, in the Mosaic Law system. It isn't "the Levites" as a class of priests, but is a single person who is the chief priest and who has specific duties that the other priests do not, like entering into the Most Holy Place of the tabernacle on the Day of Atonement.

The Catholic Priesthood is a much deeper concept than you are giving it. We consider holy orders, the ordination of priests a sacrament for a reason.

The Highest of priests is Jesus. We would both agree. But, keep in mind, Jesus' priesthood is not rooted in the OT...at all. I say again, it is NOT rooted in the Old Testament.

Since the levitical priesthood served the Mosaic Law, a NEW priesthood (Heb 7:12) would not come into being without a change in the law itself. Therefore Jesus was not associated with the OT priesthood, cuz he was descended from the tribe of Judah, which had never exercised the priesthood (Heb 7:13-14). That verse completely nullifies your premise.

So everything you just wrote about the succession of priests one by one...is pointless. It doesn't apply.

The law changed alright. Jesus is the eternal priesthood. The New Covenant. A new sheriff in town. His posse, the first priests, were his 12 apostles. By laying on of hands, it continues to this day. Apostolic succession, present ONLY in the Catholic Church.

Ah, the great equivocator tries again, playing the name game. Priest/elder/presbyter/soldier/spy. Whatever. Paul uses 2 of the these words to describe himself in the same verse. Want me to show it to you? Which one is he, equivocator? According to your rationale, he's obviously bipolar or An excellent equivocator. Ya ever think maybe it doesn't matter?

Who picked the 12th apostle, after Judas whacked himself? Did Jesus?

Bishops...Priests...Deacons; All exist in reality, today, in the real world. Thousands of them. Direct successors to the apostles.

You can lead a horse to water, yadda yadda yadda, You know the rest, I've had a long day.


a reply to: DISRAELI

a reply to: Ignatian

So everything you just wrote about the succession of priests one by one...is pointless. It doesn't apply.

It applies in figuring out what High Priests the writer of Hebrews was talking about.
You seem to be skipping that question and continuing on with your assumption that it means a whole group of priests after the order of Jesus who inexplicably were being called "high" in the verse.

That IS who the author is referring. These and numerous other bible verses refer to the earliest priests in Christianity.

Keep in mind also, this book is directed at Jewish Christians., who were having a tendency to stray from their core Christian beliefs. The writer spoke to these Jews, using OT, Jewish words and traditions.

Other books such as Acts will direct teaching towards pagan and Gentile converts, regarding this "new" priesthood, instituted by Christ. Using Jewish history and tradition with those folks would have fallen on deaf ears.

Christ dies, then takes off. He would need priests to spread the Gospel first and foremost, and to administer His new Church, His bride. It's only common sense. Without valid teachers, overseers, bishops amd deacons, there would have been chaos in the new, emerging Church. Without these presbyters, we would have ended up Protestant, with 30,000+ denominations.

Like here, and with the Pharisees, common sense seams to dissolve into equivocation. Even when miracles were occurring before their very eyes, the Messiah in their midst!! Noses up, hearts crusted over. The seed that is God's word, could never take root. Blind. Stuck in THE LAW!

Babble on.



a reply to: jmdewey60

a reply to: Ignatian

That IS who the author is referring. These and numerous other bible verses refer to the earliest priests in Christianity.

You are missing the whole point of the letter, which is the inferiority of the old temple cult system, compared to the superiority of having a system centered on Jesus and his ministry for us, actually going right up to heaven to represent us before God.

Why would the author be pointing out the inferiority of earthly priests if that was what was being put in place as "the new thing"?

originally posted by: Ignatian
Since the levitical priesthood served the Mosaic Law, a NEW priesthood (Heb 7:12) would not come into being without a change in the law itself. Therefore Jesus was not associated with the OT priesthood, cuz he was descended from the tribe of Judah, which had never exercised the priesthood (Heb 7:13-14). That verse completely nullifies your premise.

No, it doesn't. You are now agreeing with my premise.
I came back into this thread because you said the priests being described in this passage were "Catholic priests".
I said they were not Catholic priests; they were the Old Testament priesthood.
You now agree that they were the Old Testament priesthood. I have never denied that Jesus was being contrasted with them, because that is the whole point of the passage.
Now that you have abandoned the indefensible premise that the priests of ch5 are "validly ordained Catholic priests", my job is really done.

Ah, the great equivocator tries again, playing the name game. Priest/elder/presbyter/soldier/spy. Whatever. Paul uses 2 of the these words to describe himself in the same verse. Want me to show it to you? Which one is he, equivocator? According to your rationale, he's obviously bipolar or An excellent equivocator.

It is the English word "priest" that is equivocating, being used to cover two different Greek words at the same time.
That is why this discussion really needs to be about the Greek, which is less ambiguous.
I have just checked a Greek concordance of the New Testament.
HIEREUS; this word, translated "priest", is never used of ANY Christian, apart from the two references in Revelation. There the priesthood belongs to all believers as a body, which does not help your case.
Otherwise the word HIEREUS is used only for the Jewish priesthood and for Christ himself (apart from one Acts reference to a priest of Zeus).

Paul NEVER calls himself a HIEREUS. In fact, as far as I can see, he never calls himself a PRESBUTEROS either. The closest he gets is Philemon v9, where he calls himself an "old man".
His normal self-description is "Apostle" and/or "servant of Christ".
So I think your slightly hysterical challenge is a bluff.
You cannot show me any place where Paul uses both HIEREUS and PRESBUTEROS to describe himself. They are two different things.
No Christian minister has ever been a priest, in the sense HIEREUS.
No Christian minister has ever been anything more than a PRESBUTEROS- an older man who gives advice.
So show me something in the Greek, young man (or woman?), or admit that you don't know what you are talking about.

Lectio divina is awesome. If given the time required, this form of prayer, is deeply enriching. Thank you all for engaging with me in this prayer/discussion. We all grow spiritually, hopefully.

I was wrong. Your discussion and my chewing on these verses, has shown me this. The actual individuals referenced in that verse are not Catholic Priests. But, here's where it is edifying for me. They ARE Catholic priests lol. When I read those verses, they describe Catholic priests almost exactly.

I stand by everything else I said however. What these verses show me is the immensely deep theological foundation for the priesthood. Jesus as High Priest is not modeled after the OT high priests, but Catholic priests do have their foundation ideologically, from Melchizedek, and every attribute a Catholic priest should have is mentioned in those Hebrews passages. (As well as other scripture)

Every Catholic priest will tell you they were called to the priesthood by God. A seminary will not just allow someone to join. That's not how it works. They are then "appointed", that is ordained, by a Bishop...a man.

Again, thank you for correcting me, it has enriched my understanding of the fascinating, deep foundations of the Catholic priesthood.

You guys are good!




a reply to: DISRAELI

a reply to: DISRAELI

Which is why I asked the OP what are his duties as priest, because those Hebrew priests had specific duties that they were obligated and required to perform.

The Kohanim priests were to burn incense on the ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies, the most inner sanctum of the temple. But high priests were voted on yearly, so many were rotated. Caiaphus was high priest the year Jesus was crucified, just like Zechariah was the high priest the year his son John was promised.

But the duties, that's why I asked the OP and he merely indicated prayer.

a reply to: Ignatian

But what do you say about Mormons who believe they are priests after the order of Melchizedeck?

Melchizedeck means Melki (king) Tzedek (righteousness). It is a compound word, a title and not a name. BUT Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedeck, but Catholic priests aren't taking tithes from Jews, but I am sure that I could convince my friend to give a sheep or leg of lamb to her husband's priest....

Really though, Melki Tzedeck was King of Salem, and it was said he had no mother or father, so how does that relate to Catholic priests who do have mothers and fathers?

Just asking is all, knowing the story of Melki and Abe.