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:
“The article “THE” can be very misleading as there are thousands.”
Not really. There are only a handful that are both long and truly ancient. The others are fragments or “newer”.
I don't know. I'm not a member of the Roman Catholic Church. I've never even been to Italy.
You wrote:
“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)”
St. Paul had no wife (1 Corinthians 7:7-8).
“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.”
There is no evidence that that was Peter’s wife. Also, there was no evidence that Peter’s wife was still alive while Jesus walked the earth.
“In 1 Cor. 4:15 Paul writes, ‘I became your father in Christ Jesus.’ Oops!”
“For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel.” (KJB)
“Father” is specific, then to the one who had led them (”begotten” them) to Jesus Christ through the Gospel. There is no reference to a religious order or position, nor to any priesthood. And Paul’s sons in the faith would have been wrong to call him “Father” in the sense of priesthood. They would have been disobeying Christ to do so, and Paul would have known that.
St. Paul, as a father of the Catholic Church, would have been perfectly comfortable with the title "Father," as 1Co 4:15 demonstrates.
You’ve done an outstanding job, brother, but some people cannot enter a discussion with open minds. Remember Matt 7:6, “Never give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs. Otherwise, they will trample them with their feet and then turn around and attack you.”
“Not really. There are only a handful that are both long and truly ancient. The others are fragments or “newer”.”
So the article “THE” would still be incorrect. For thirty years, to those who say, “THE Greek,” I have been asking, “WHICH Greek is THE Greek?” (That is, that they happen to be referring to.) I know what I’m asking. My major in college was Manuscript Evidence. You can, any day of the world, purchase more than a dozen Greek NT editions, all of them having variations from the others.
As astute theologians, you of a formal denomination, may answer the question of:
Prior to 1500 what was the basis of or for your denomination’s history? Where or when did your denomination start?
Vatican documents have Pope Innocent III (1160 or 1161-July 16, 1216’s documents.
“St. Paul, as a father of the Catholic Church, would have been perfectly comfortable with the title “Father,” as 1Co 4:15 demonstrates.”
So, Paul would have been perfectly comfortable having men disobey the Saviour. Okay. Is that the general rule any “father of the Catholic Church”?
Tell us then, with out a 40 page treatise from Anselm or someone, what exactly was the Lord Jesus Christ speaking about when He instructed, “Call no man on earth your father.” You could do that in one sentance. It has to mean something, and can’t be dismissed by the question, “What do you call your daddy?” It has a context in the chapter where Christ spoke those words; it has to mean something.
Alright...by the numbers.
Is it required to be a member of the Catholic Church as defined by the Vatican (near Rome, Italy), Planet Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Universe, Creation, in order to be recognized for salvation? Your readers are waiting.
“Member?”
Do you realize that, as someone who has (presumably?) been baptized by the Trinitarian formula, YOU are part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, don’t you?
Before you go, let me answer your question. We should pray for the intercession of anyone who we think is in Heaven, and not necessarily for the intercession of canonized saints only.
In fact, modern canonization process requires that the man or woman be prayed to BEFORE he or she is canonized.
You must not have read post 41 before you wrote this...
Peter had a mother-in-law, but that was not HIS wife? WHAT???!
Your ref. to 1 Cor. ch. 7 indicates that Paul was not married. Which is true. I stated that Paul could have previously been married. Then you imply that Peter COULD HAVE BEEN prciously married, by stating that there is no evidence that he was married while Jesus was on earth.
So the same kind of thing could apply to Paul. He could have been a widower.
But then Paul states in the same book, chapter 9, that he had the power (authority) to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as the other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, AND AS CEPHAS. Cepahs is Peter.
So it looks like Peter was married, had a mother-in-law, and Peter was leading his wife about with him, as were the other apostles and the brethren of the Lord.
Paul had the power/right ot do the same thing, but elected not to.
You never answered my question. Were those Catholics for the 1500 years prior to Luther wrong?
Your logic fails.
“Your logic fails.”
My logic always fails with people who want a celibate priesthood on earth.
But I’m interested in those who are sitting back reading these, many of whom are truly getting the gist, that Peter had a “MOTHER-IN-LAW.” And then that Paul states that he had the same authority to do what CEPHAS did, lead about a sister, a wife.
Who is that?
...to do what CEPHAS did, lead about a sister, a wife.
How about you establish Cephas did that after Christ selected him as an apostle.
I must say that I admire your patience ...
It is rather clear that St. Paul speaks of his power of leadership in 1 Cor 5 that equally applies to a wife and a sister, so it cannot be a prooftext of anything regarding celibacy or marital status of anyone.
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.