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.
Like the man said...
Maccabees may be interesting reading about the warlike family that tries to straighten everyone up (including those renegade priests), but it is neither the OT (Jewish Scriptures) or the NT (Christian writers).
Have you ever heard of a CONTRACT? I did my job until the contract expired, and walked out of there! They threatened to sue me to force me to stay, because we had some "verbal" plans about improving the science lab, and because the students liked me. But "verbal" agreements are not contracts, and I had notified the school back in January that I would not return the following year, so there was nothing they could do.
When do you think some Protestant
I am a Baptist, not a product of the reformation, and do not consider myself a "Protestant". You are right saying that Protestantism did not begin until the 16th century, but we Southern Baptists trace our spiritual roots to the first century church. You can disagree with me as much as you want, just please, don't call me Protestant.
So, thanks again.
Yes, I would agree with you it has all of the hallmarks of a true cult. As you point out, instead of the emphasis being upon “He must increase and we must decrease”, they pound upon mandatory membership, revered relics (give me a break, Peter’s pelvis????), central collection of money, required celibacy (that would be enough to wake me up), prayer to dead people, and...
Smells like a power club to me.
Of course, it should be Christ, risen, reigning on high.
“There are no celibate priests, popes, or nuns in the New Testemant. That’s why I’m not a Catholic.”
Correct. There were no celibate priests even in the OT priesthood under the Mosaic Law.
The bishop is to be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3); Peter had a wife, and so did other of the apostles.
I have read that Pharisees were required to be married (I have not substantially confirmed that), and Paul was a Pharisee of the Pharisees. It is possible that Paul had previously had a wife. Perhaps she passed away; perhaps she deserted the Apostle -— the Holy Spirit elected not to inform us about that. But he did say in 1 Cor. ch. 9 that he had the power to lead about a sister, a wife, as other apostles.
Jesus Christ was celibate or have you bought in to the DaVinci Code?
One never could "buy" indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "[I]t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded."
“Jesus said, ‘Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.’ (Matthew 23:9)”
Someone is certainly going to come back to you that in that case, you can’t even call your own daddy your father. Of course, that comeback indicates that they don’t believe Christ’s words there had any meaning at all.
The context, obviously, is speaking of religious epithets, not familial ones.
I heard one idiot one time say that he would no longer call his “Mommy mother,” because the Bible says that “Jerusalem which is above is the mother of us all.” (Galatians).
We have no “fathers” in the religious context. One may remark that a man is his “father in the faith” meaning merely that the elder had led the younger to Christ. Paul called Timothy his “son” in the faith. but these are not references to religious position or level of authority, or priesthood.
You wrote:
“First, I need to explain that I was born in Europe, brought up Catholic, attended Catholic school through 12th grade, so I am not talking about hearsay but real life experiences.”
No, you’re not. My connections to Europe may be stronger than yours. I also have a PhD in Medieval History with a field in Church history. I too went to 12 years of Catholic school. I’m not impressed by your “experiences” in the least.
“I was 8 or 9 when my grandmother went on a pilgrimage to Rome. She visited the Vatican, saw Pope John XXIII in a general audience, and returned home with a certificate that she had purchased right there, at the Vatican.”
No indulgence was sold. No money has been attached to indulgences in ovber 450 years. What she bought was a commemorative certificate about the pilgrimage to the Vatican for a plenary indulgence!!! In other words, she bought a nicely printed piece of paper to remember where she was and what she participated in. She DID NOT BUY AN INDULGENCE NOR IS IT POSSIBLE TO DO SO.
ROFLOL!!! It amazes me how anti-Catholics always thump their chests insisting they know what they’re talking about and then they fall flat on their face!!! Lol!!!
“It stated that my father, and all of his family, did not have to spend time in purgatory for any sins commited up to the date the certificate had been issued. What do you call that?”
I call it not a sale of an indulgence. Again, no money - has been attached to indulgences in ovber 450 years. She bought something to remember her trip to the Vatican. She bought a nicely printed piece of paper, not an indulgence.
“I know I was young, but I’ll never forget my mom trying to find out how much had grandma paid for it. It certainly wasn’t free!”
Indulgences COST NO MONEY. Any Catholic can receive an indulgence and not pay a penny.
“It’s been almost 14 years since I last visited Spain, but last time I was there, the framed certificate was still hunging there, in an honored place in the living room.”
And it still isn’t an indulgence that was sold. Again, no money has been attached to indulgences in over 450 years.
mandatory membership
No one is required to be a Catholic.
central collection of money
Any collection is central.
required celibacy
Celibacy is not required of anyone. The vow is voluntary.
...prayer to dead people...
They're not dead.
So many falsehoods, but then again, you regard the Ten Commandments as some kind of a joke.
Authorized?
LOL
You wrote:
“Have you ever heard of a CONTRACT?”
Yes, and I would break one in a heartbeat if I thought my conscience was being violated...or if I thought statues were watching me.
“I am a Baptist, not a product of the reformation, and do not consider myself a “Protestant”.”
You’re one anyway. The Baptist sect was started in about 1600 and is MOST DEFINITELY a product of the Protestant Revolution, albeit a later development.
“You are right saying that Protestantism did not begin until the 16th century, but we Southern Baptists trace our spiritual roots to the first century church.”
Some do, some don’t. Fantasy Protestant histories created out of thin air don’t hold up to scrutiny even on the part of other Protestants. Read the Protestant historian James McGoldrick’s Baptist Successionism and you’ll know this to be irrefutable.
“You can disagree with me as much as you want, just please, don’t call me Protestant.”
Sorry, you’re a Protestant. If you can’t stand the word, then don’t belong to the sect.
“Was St. Paul married?”
It is more than possible that Paul was at one time married, and he stated that he had the power (e.g. authority) to lead about a sister, a wife . . . (1 Cor. ch. 9)
Peter had a mother-in-law. Imagine not having the benefit of a wife, but having to put up with a mother-in-law !! And Paul identifies Cephas (Peter) in 1 Cor. ch. 9 as one who led about a sister, a wife.
How about you prove Peter was still married when he became an Apostle.
Oh, wait. You can't.
How about you point to a scripture that specifies which books should be included in the Bible and which should not. Who decided which books were inspire and which were not?
“the Greek mss.”
The article “THE” can be very misleading as there are thousands.
Good thing you’ve never asked anyone to pray for you. Not ever.
Right?
In 1 Cor. 4:15 Paul writes, “I became your father in Christ Jesus.” Oops!
Is it required to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church in order to be recognized for salvation? That is, is it one of the required sacraments in order for a man to be saved?
We’ll go at these one at a time so you cannot hide behind the many words.
You wrote:
“Several people have correctly pointed out that 2 Timothy 3:16 says that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. What does the word “all” mean to you?”
You can avoid it all you like, but I asked for verses about Matthew and got NONE IN RETURN. The simple fact is that Matthew’s gospel is nowhere mentioned by name in the Bible No where at all. Period.
“If you use a Catholic Bible and you’re looking at the table of contents, what comes after Malachi and before Mark in your Bible?”
Not Matthew. You claim to be a former Catholic and you don’t know that there are two books of Maccabees AFTER Malachi? This is an example of why I can’t take you guys seriously when you assume you know the Bible or the Catholic Church. Besides, I didn’t ask you if Matthew was in Catholic Bibles. I asked you if there was a verse that showed it, specifically Matthew, was inspired. Where is it?
“The Catholic Church doesn’t dispute the inclusion of Matthew in the canon of Scripture. Look in your Bible—what does Matthew 23:9 say in your Bible?”
It doesn’t say, “This book is inspired.” How DO YOU KNOW IT IS? Can you answer the question or not?
“As for Hebrews, let’s go back to your Bible’s table of contents again. What comes after Philemon and before James in your Bible?”
Is your table of contents inspired? If not, then how do you KNOW you have all the inspired books or that you don’t have books that aren’t inspired? How do you know? Show me a verse.
“You see, then, that the Catholic Church doesn’t dispute the inclusion of Hebrews in the canon of Scripture either.”
So you’re putting yourself under the authority and direction of the Catholic Church? Do you see the problem yet? Is this getting through?
“For the record, I do not consider myself to be a religious person. I am a born-again follower of Jesus Christ. He is the One I bow to. No mere man is worthy of (or entitled to) our worship.”
You’re a Protestant. You can say what you are or aren’t but the reality is you’re a Protestant.
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.