Posted on 06/15/2009 1:42:58 PM PDT by NYer
As a Baptist Sunday School and Bible study teacher, one of the questions that used to nag at me incessantly was this: Why, after such painstaking deliberation in dictating an institutional religion that pleased Him in the Old Testament and that was designed to lead the people to recognize the Messiah when He came, would God then introduce a system in the New Testament Church that was so completely unlike the one He established in the Old? There are innumerable examples of how ridiculous this complete “change” would be, but take the priesthood, for instance.
Priests were the officiators of worship whose main duties, those that set them apart from the “priesthood of the people” (Exodus 19:6), were to maintain the tabernacle sanctuary, offer sacrifices, and facilitate the peoples’ confession of sins through them. God Himself established this formal priesthood, stipulating everything about it in the Law of the Torah. The priests must be descendants of Aaron, the first priest selected by God Himself; their bodies must have no defect in them, because their persons and bodies were an offering to God (like the animals they would sacrifice on the altar); they must be dedicated in a special seven-day ceremony that involved bathing, oils, and sacrifices.
They were clad in special garments. They wore a “coat” woven from a single piece of linen without seam that symbolized spiritual integrity, wholeness and righteousness. The headpiece, called a miter, was made by God’s direction to look like a flower in bloom to illustrate the wearers’ spiritual health and bloom. The girdle, specified by God, was a belt worn around the waist to show that theirs was an office of service to the people.
While in active service to God in the tabernacle, and later at the temple, the priests were to have no marital relations with their spouses. This celibacy illustrated the inherent purity which the priest must embody. Along with offering sacrifices, they were to be the teachers of the people. This was not to prevent the people from learning, praying, or studying the Law on their own; it was simply to protect the people from error. They were also the office of authoritative judgment for the people, a way of justice for them.
This priesthood was so sacred that even the priests’ possible, probable and, later, actual, infidelity to God would not negate it. The people were instructed to officially hear and obey them due to the sanctity of their office, as it was a function of God’s grace rather than the priests’ merit. The priesthood was to be a perpetual institution (Exodus 40:15), as were the sacrifices they would offer Him.
”If this is true, where is the priesthood in the New Testament, after Christ?” I asked myself as a Baptist. It cannot simply be that members of the body of Christ were now “The Priesthood” as I had been taught through 1Peter 2:9 and the Book of Hebrews; not if the Old Testament is to be our example as the Scriptures so clearly say (Matthew 13:52). In the Old Testament, the people were also said to be a priesthood, though still not of the official, institutional office (Exodus 19:6), and St. Peter uses the same wording when he speaks of the “priesthood of the believer.” If the Old Testament is our example, there must also be a formal New Testament office of the priesthood in addition to the priesthood of the believer. The “fulfillment” of the Old Testament in Christ cannot, and would not, negate the perpetual and institutional nature of the office of the priesthood. He Himself said He came to fulfill it, that is to give it its proper orientation and meaning, not abolish it (Matthew 5:17-18).
This was one of the questions that bothered me the more I learned about the Old Testament example, especially after experiencing the epidemic rebellion, disunity, and church-splitting of the sole “priesthood of the believer” propounded in Protestant churches. Although the Scriptures are full of how consecrated and special they are to God, there is little respect for pastors’ authority or office in denominational churches anymore. A sign of the times, of course, but also a sign of a fundamental structural error (and appropriately of the exact nature of the original error) that is now making itself evident; for the perpetual, institutional priesthood was carried forth in obedience in and through the Catholic Church.
Everything about the Old Testament example, including the priesthood of the believer, is both fulfilled and perpetuated in Her, through Christ’s eternal sacrifice, just as the Scriptures teach. The sacrifices Catholic priests make are the single sacrifice pleasing to God: His only Son. This is the Sacrifice pictured and eternally being offered in the heavenly temple revealed to St. John in the Book of Revelation, the Sacrifice initiated and perpetuated by Christ Himself in the words “do this in remembrance of me,” this being the very thing Jesus was about to do — sacrifice Himself. Who obeys this command to the letter, offering and consuming the Blood of the new covenant and the Body which is broken for us, but the priesthood of the Catholic Church? Who officiates at this true and perpetual Sacrifice but the priesthood of the Catholic Church? Who maintains the sanctuary, offers the Sacrifice, and facilitates the peoples’ confession of sin? Who carries forth the descendants and celibacy of Christ’s priesthood with the consecration and the garments? Who administers the official and error-free, authoritative Teaching of Christ? Who but the priesthood of the Catholic Church?
The formal priesthood was to be an eternal sign of God’s wish and order that there be an institutional system in service to His precious people. As Catholics, we can rejoice and rest in the provision, Scriptural nature, and orthodoxy of our beloved formal priesthood. Let us confidently pray for vocations, while striving to meet our own obligation to holiness as part of the priesthood of the believer.
You wrote:
“You can serve the Catholic Church if you want to. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord (Joshua 24:15).”
Denying Christ’s Body is not a way to serve the Lord.
“I don’t reject Jesus’ work. I reject the Catholic Church’s work, which has very little to do with Jesus’ work.”
The Church IS Christ’s work.
“You seem to be more interested in trying to discredit the portions of God’s word that contrast with your positions than in taking the Lord’s message to heart.”
I never discredited scripture? Why are you making up things like that? I asked YOU, that’s YOU, questions about how you knew that Matthew was inspired. YOU utterly failed to present any scriptural proof that said Matthew’s gospel was written by Matthew, or inspired. That was the point, and your utter failure showed it to be an excellent one.
“That is your prerogative, but I think it’s one you will ultimately regret.”
How can I regret something I’ve never done? I already point this out to you, but I’ll say it again and then I’ll demand proof from you: I asked YOU, that’s YOU, questions about how you knew that Matthew was inspired. YOU utterly failed to present any scriptural proof that said Matthew’s gospel was written by Matthew, or inspired. That was the point, and your utter failure showed it to be an excellent one.
Now, post even the slightest bit of proof that I ever once anywhere, anytime EVER discredited scripture. Can you do that? I don’t see how since I never did it. All I did was ask you questions and you utterly failed to answer them. That was the point.
You failed to provide one verse that proved ANYTHING about Matthew’s gospel. It is from the Church that we know about Matthew’s gospel and it is from the Church that YOU got the gospel. That’s the point. And you utterly failed to show any evidence otherwise.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Sorry, I don’t follow. Which Catholics, and wrong about what? Also, I have a question. When did someone decree that priests must be celibate? Wasn’t it only a couple centuries ago?
Where is purgatory mentioned in the Bible?
I hear you boss.
That's why we need a Roman Emperor to tell us what to do? Not buying it. While we're on that subject, which pope was it who decided to institute the celibate priesthood? Because it hasn't been around for the entire history of the Church, right?
Also, when was it decreed that Mary didn't die, but was "Assumed" (I guess that's the word; whatever the root of "Assumption Day" is) into heaven?
No. Not what I said.
While we're on that subject, which pope was it who decided to institute the celibate priesthood? Because it hasn't been around for the entire history of the Church, right? Also, when was it decreed that Mary didn't die, but was "Assumed" (I guess that's the word; whatever the root of "Assumption Day" is) into heaven?
The standpoint of the Roman Church was different. Thus Pope Siricius declared in 385 that priestly marriage had been allowed in the Old Testament because the priests could only be taken from the tribe of Levi; but that with the abandonment of that limitation this permission had lost its force, and that “obscoen cupiditates” (i.e., marriage) hindered the proper performance of spiritual functions. Succeeding popes adhered to this view (cf. decretals of Innocent I., 404, 405, and Leo I., 456, 458), and the rest of the Western Church came to it (Synods of Carthage, 390, 401). Candidates for the higher orders were accordingly required to take a vow of celibacy, and from the fifth century those for the subdiaconate also.
The Church had varying opines until the Council of Trent in 1548 and at that time celibacy became the rule.
Fair enough.
<<<”I reject the Catholic Church’s work, which has very little to do with Jesus’ work.”>>>
Sorry to hear that. The Church teaches and does the following. I believe Christ would think they are from him and that the Church does His Work!
Are you then against the:
Corporal Works of Mercy
* To feed the hungry;
* To give drink to the thirsty;
* To clothe the naked;
* To harbour the harbourless;
* To visit the sick;
* To ransom the captive;
* To bury the dead.
Spiritual Works of Mercy:
* To instruct the ignorant;
* To counsel the doubtful;
* To admonish sinners;
* To bear wrongs patiently;
* To forgive offences willingly;
* To comfort the afflicted;
* To pray for the living and the dead.
So, it’s a secret? Or you don’t know which Roman Emperor decided that Mary never died?
Can you tell me when somebody decided that Mary never died?
From the 5th Century: The Feast of the Assumption of Mary was celebrated in Syria.
The same testimony is clear also in the Western Church (Gregory, Tours, 538-594).
847 by Leo IV
1950
Pope Pius XII, declared infallibly, ex cathedra: “Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul to heavenly glory.”
Got it.
There is no dogmatic teaching regarding whether she was alive or dead when she was assumed. Your confusing two different events.
You wrote:
“So, it’s a secret? Or you don’t know which Roman Emperor decided that Mary never died?”
Did any Roman EMPEROR ever make such a “decision”? No pope ever has.
So, did she die, or not?
You wrote:
“So, hundreds of years after she walked the earth, somebody said she never died. And Pius, the Nazis’ favorite Pope, had the final word.”
Who EXACTLY said she never died? Also, how could Pope Pius XII be a fovorite of the Nazis if Hitler at one time ordered him kidnapped or assassinated? Is that what you would do with your favorite people? Well, maybe YOU would.
I think she probably died, but I was not there; the Church makes no teaching on that aspect of her passing. Again, the Assumption has nothing to do with her being alive or dead at the time of the event.
Now Vladimir...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.