How the (Catholic) Church Built Western Civilization

Zenit News Agency ^ | September 26, 2005

[NYer]

If you can show me in Scripture where anyone other than the Levitical priesthood, or the order of Malki-Tzedek are priests, I am ready to read.

Gen. 14:18 - this is the first time that the word "priest" is used in Old Testament. Melchizedek is both a priest and a king and he offers a bread and wine sacrifice to God.

Psalm 76:2 - Melchizedek is the king of Salem. Salem is the future Jeru-salem where Jesus, the eternal priest and king, established his new Kingdom and the Eucharistic sacrifice which He offered under the appearance of bread and wine.

Psalm 110:4 - this is the prophecy that Jesus will be the eternal priest and king in the same manner as this mysterious priest Melchizedek. This prophecy requires us to look for an eternal bread and wine sacrifice in the future. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Catholic Church.

Malachi 1:11 - this is a prophecy of a pure offering that will be offered in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting. Thus, there will be only one sacrifice, but it will be offered in many places around the world. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Catholic Church in the Masses around the world, where the sacrifice of Christ which transcends time and space is offered for our salvation. If this prophecy is not fulfilled by the Catholic Church, then Malachi is a false prophet.

Exodus 12:14,17,24; cf. 24:8 - we see that the feast of the paschal lamb is a perpetual ordinance. It lasts forever. But it had not yet been fulfilled.

Exodus 29:38-39 – God commands the Israelites to “offer” (poieseis) the lambs upon the altar. The word “offer” is the same verb Jesus would use to institute the Eucharistic offering of Himself.

Lev. 19:22 – the priests of the old covenant would make atonement for sins with the guilt offering of an animal which had to be consumed. Jesus, the High Priest of the New Covenant, has atoned for our sins by His one sacrifice, and He also must be consumed.

Jer. 33:18 - God promises that His earthly kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever. This promise has been fulfilled by the priests of the Catholic Church, who sacramentally offer the sacrifice of Christ from the rising of the sun to its setting in every Mass around the world.

Zech. 9:15-16 - this is a prophecy that the sons of Zion, which is the site of the establishment of the Eucharistic sacrifice, shall drink blood like wine and be saved. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the priests of the Catholic Church.

2 Chron. 26:18 - only validly consecrated priests will be able to offer the sacrifice to God. The Catholic priests of the New Covenant trace their sacrificial priesthood to Christ.

[d-back]

So that means all your Catholic priest are Kohen [descendants of Aharon], right? Wrong, they merely participated in the murder of countless kohenim, descendants of Levi.

Now Safisoft is literally accusing "all" Catholic priests of participating in the murder of "countless" Jews. I don't know why I bothered to try to educate him on the historical realities of the Inquisition earlier today, since logical argumentation is obviously not what he's here for.

Somebody else can waste bandwidth on Safisoft if they want. I'm content to call him what he is--a Catholic basher, and not even a particularly artful one--and move on.

[annalex]

That is OK. Hysterical reactions like this are useful in showing the reader who is interested in history and who -- in myth-making.

[safisoft]

The Catholic priests of the New Covenant trace their sacrificial priesthood to Christ

Circular logic. Of course THEY trace that, where is another priesthood established? By whose authority other than what your circular logic requires?

Taking Malki-Tzedek as a type for King Messiah, where do you get that there are any other priests other than sons of Aharon? Just because you have an order of Malki-Tzedek does not mean you have Catholic priests operating within that order, nor can you show any reference to any priests other than descendants of Aharon. Study up. There is far more to Bible-study than repeating Catholic dogma.

This promise has been fulfilled by the priests of the Catholic Church, who sacramentally offer the sacrifice of Christ from the rising of the sun to its setting in every Mass around the world.

Apparently, you still haven't read Hebrews. I am pretty sure that the 'Catholic Bible' has that one. < grin >

For Messiah is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of G-d for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others. For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Messiah was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. Hebrews 9:24-28

You guys crack me up (when you aren't busy making excuses for the murderous past of the Catholic church). Have you ever considered picking up a Bible and studying it for the pure enjoyment of it? There is a lot more to it than you may think.

[safisoft]

Now Safisoft is literally accusing "all" Catholic priests of participating in the murder of "countless" Jews.

So sorry. I was not aware I was interacting with someone who does not know what kohenim are. Bible-literacy was assumed.

I did not accuse ALL Catholic priests of doing anything. If you will read my post I asked if ALL Catholic priests are Kohen (i.e. descendants of Aharon). In fact, they aren't. Oh, there may be a few out there, but that is not what you are arguing is it?

The fact is that the only real connection between Catholic priests and kohenim is that SOME Catholic priests have murdered kohenim.

[Natural Law]

That is an ignorant simile. The "Protestant" work ethic was an anti-Irish insult used by the British to rationalize and justify their superior political and economic position. It had nothing to do with the merits of the Catholic Church

[annalex]

You cannot enjoy the Bible unless you understand it, and you cannot understand it outside of the doctrine of the Catholic Church. For example, the scripture you cited indicates that there is only one sacrifice of Christ, and the Church teaches precisely that. The Eucharist is presenting to us the same, one and only, sacrifice.

You are welcome to visit the Mass, participate int he Liturgy of the Word, which will acquaint you with the bible, and observe the Liturgy of the Eucharist, even though you cannot receive it.

[safisoft]

Hysterical reactions like this are useful in showing the reader who is interested in history and who -- in myth-making.

Minimizing the suffering, the "mild torture", etc. at the hands of the Catholic Church reveals who is interested in history, and who, like the mullahs, is only interested in defending the indefensible.

[Natural Law]

"good that you agree with your church's extra biblical traditions"

If you look only to the Bible as your source of divine inspiration you will be both myopic and often mislead.

[safisoft]

You cannot enjoy the Bible unless you understand it, and you cannot understand it outside of the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

3,000 years of Jewish Sages would smirk at that one. They have at least a 1,000 year head start you.

You are welcome to visit the Mass

No thanks. I stick with people who live like the Master lived and honor the things He honored.

[annalex]

I think I explained what the Holy Inquisition was with sufficient clarity and objectivity on this thread, without minimizing or maximizing anything.

[safisoft]

I think I explained what the Holy Inquisition was with sufficient clarity and objectivity on this thread, without minimizing or maximizing anything.

Oh, you did alright. Holy Inquisition indeed.

A coalition between Mecca and Rome would be quite formidable. Maybe you will see that some day.

[annalex]

Indeed we should consult, without necessarily following, the Jews for their understanding of the Old Testament, albeit Christian typology of the Old Testament would not be accessible to them. However, Hebrews, that you quoted, is New Testament.

[safisoft]

However, Hebrews, that you quoted, is New Testament

In my Bible classes I like to tell my students that Jews can understand themselves without the church, but the church (in its broadest sense) cannot understand itself without the Jews. 1/3 of the 'New Testament' is a quote or direct allusion to the TaNaKh. The Bible of Peter and Paul was the TaNaKh.

It is a very poor exegete who starts with the 'new' to understand the 'old'. It is a very poor historian who attempts to understand history through the glasses of the present, and in defense of a person or an institution.

Having read your home page, I can see quite well that if society develops as you desire, people like yourself will hunt down people like me. See you later, Mr. Aristocrat, sir.

[Ciexyz]

I remember from my research in college that the Church promoted the study of foreign languages so that the gospel could be spread to other cultures. Even in the Middle Ages, church authorities in the universities responded to requests from students to teach non-Western languages such as Arabic, for just this reason. (I remember researching this topic for a paper in one of my grad-level courses.)

[safisoft]

Indeed we should consult, without necessarily following, the Jews for their understanding of the Old Testament, albeit Christian typology of the Old Testament would not be accessible to them.

The Sages of Israel know far more about Messiah than you can imagine. The Talmud and Midrash Rabbah (and Zohar) have a depth of understanding of Messiah that would shock the average Christian. Where do you think you got some of it?

[conservonator]

The keys given to Peter are an example of looking to the Bible to prove an existing belief.

No, the keys are an ancient symbol of authority and have nothing to do with a Berean like quest for verification of beliefs in Scripture. This is particularly evident since at at the time of the "keying" there was only OT Scripture.

[mike182d]

From Answers.com:

"Baptist successionism is the theory that there exists an unbroken chain of churches that have held the beliefs (though not always the name) of the current Baptist churches since the time of Christ. This theory is most commonly associated with Landmark Baptists, though not exclusively. Some Primitive Baptists, Regular Baptists and United Baptists hold a similar view. This view is distasteful to Catholics and Protestants who trace their origins through the Catholic Church. Much of the evidence that supports this theory has been lost or never existed. It is also impossible to disprove because it only requires the existence of at least one single church (could be as small as two or three people) during any particular point in history to be true. Adding to the problem is the fact that many of the groups that held the beliefs that Baptists now hold suffered great persecution by governments, as well as Catholics and Protestants alike. If these churches existed, as Landmark Baptists claim, the historical records required to prove the theory many never have existed."

So, there is a "hypothetical" Church with alleged ties to the first Christians with no concerete evidence for it and then there is the Catholic Church with an overabundance of historical data and writings proving their connection to the original 12 Apostles, to whom Christ bestowed the Church.

Unless you want to wear a tin-foil hat to Church, you would probably be safer to believe the latter, don't you think?

[mike182d]

I think the answer is pretty clear.

When Paul calls for unity within the Church, being of one mind and body, what do you suppose he's referring to?

[mike182d]

Wow. Your history gets wilder and wilder. You need to get out more. You think Luther invented the ideas of Reformation? Truth be told, the excesses of the Papacy from 1200 to 1500 had a greater effect.

You're confusing the sins of men who failed to live the teachings of the Catholic Church and doctrines of the Catholic Church. Martin Luther's goal of reforming the corruption within the Church was not a new idea, as St. Francis of Assisi and St. Ignatius of Loyola later became advocates of. No Catholic should have a problem with the fact that there were some terrible sinners in the Church and that they needed to mend their ways. But that wasn't the end of Martin Luther's mission. He argued against Church doctrine, not just sins of men within the Church. When he argued against doctrine, he presupposed his own authority to supercede that of every Church council before him. He went against 1500 years of Christian theology originating from the very first Christians and that was the Church's problem. If Martin Luther hadn't been in theological heresy, he might have become a Saint within the Church for his attempts to rectify the sinner within, but such was not Luther's sole intent.

Seriously, study the history of Christianity and you will find that, apart from officially denounced heretics, no one believed in the theology taught by Martin Luther prior to his reformation.

In the words of St. Augustine in the 5th Century: "I would not believe in the Truth of the Gospels if it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church."

Right there, from one of Christianity's most brilliant theologians, is a clear rebuttal to Martin Luther's sola scriptura and there are plenty more against him. The fact of the matter is that Christianity prior to Martin Luther most definitely was not in line with Protestant theology.