Replies

I have to disagree with your claim that the Catholic Church was handed the reins by the apostles. Catholic doctrine flies in the face of the detailed scriptures regarding the qualifications of a preacher/teacher. The bible never speaks of an organized priesthood.

First, it is never alleged that the Apostles created the Catholic Church or "handed the reins" to a seperate entity. Rather, the Catholic Church was the Apostles - appointed by Christ Himself, and continued with their successive appointments.

I think it would do you well to read the book of Acts and pay close attention to how the Church functions. Who told Peter to appoint another Apostle to replace Judas? It certainly wasn't Jesus as He had long since ascended into heaven and Peter certainly wasn't appealing to the Bible. So, where does Peter get the authority to name another Apostle, whereas Christ had been the only one capable of doing so prior? Secondly, did not this new appointment - Matthias - come into possession of all the powers of an Apostle? The powers and the authority of the Apostles could be passed on to others as Acts clearly demonstrates and was passed on as the 2000 year history of the Church demonstrates. Think about it: the Apostles didn't die all at once. If someone claimed to be an appointed successor of an Apostle, and it was not "kosher" with the existing Apostles or the Christian community, don't you think they would have said something prior to the 16th Century? And yet, no one questioned Apostolic succession for 1500 years. What did Martin Luther know that the first 1500 years of Christians didn't?

The bible never speaks of an organized priesthood.

Of course the Bible speaks of a priesthood, its all over the Old Testament. In fact, for Paul to consider Christ a "High Priest," it would necessitate the existance of a priesthood. If there isn't a priesthood, what exactly is Christ the High Priest of? That's like saying there's a Speaker of the House without a House of Representatives. Doesn't make much sense. Once again, the first 1500 years of Christians didn't have a problem with it. What did Martin Luther know that they didn't? (Keep in mind the current "priesthood" is not the same as the Jewish "priesthood." It is not the Catholic priest that makes a sacrifice on behalf of himself or the people, but rather a man acting in persona Christi, or in the person of Christ with Christ working through Him, to make accessible to those present today the grace of His sole, eternal sacrifice 2000 years ago).

In fact given what Christ had to say to the priesthood of the time, calling them snakes, one would logically assume that this type of organization of priests leads to corruption.

Show me where Christ criticizes the office of the priesthood. He only challenges individual priests for being hypocritical and not living up to the holiness of their position. If you can show me where in the Bible Christ removes the priesthood, as an office, I'm all ears.

Given the sexual assult of homosexual/predator priests on altar boys I can't see why the Catholic Church would feel it's so much better to have child molesters in charge of their flocks rather than those awful married fathers.

This is what we typically call "ignorance." First of all, lack of sex has nothing to do with pedophilia - there is absolutely no corrolation. If so, why would Christ and St. Paul say that it is better to be celibate if it was inherently evil? Secondly, your judging the whole of a group of people by a deviant 3% (6% tops). This is no more justified than calling all blondes "dumb" or all black "criminals."

This is just one example of where the Catholic Church went off the tracks regarding their doctrine verses scripture.

Find one Bible verse that contradicts a Catholic dogma or doctrine. You will not find it. The best Protestants can say is that "its not explicitely in the Bible" but there is no Catholic dogma or doctrine that contradicts scripture.

However, there are plenty of Protestant beliefs that clearly contradict the written Word of God. At the very least, its a case of the pot calling the kettle "black."

If you can show me where in the Bible Christ removes the priesthood, as an office, I'm all ears.

That is the problem, you are trying to see through the holes in your head that were made for hearing.

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. In the TaNaKh (Old Testament to you) there are two priesthood's dedicated to G-d. Only two. Descendants of Aharon [Aaron], and Malki-Tzedik. Scripture is quite clear that anyone trying to operate as a priest must be in one of these two orders, and when I say 'order' of Malki-Tzedek, it is an order of one, since we have no geneology or descendants for him. 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.

If you have a "New Testament" page over to the book of Hebrews and you will see that there is no "order of Rome" listed. Only two: descendants of Aharon, and Malki-Tzedek.

Now, go clean our your ears and use them for hearing and heeding. And put salve in your eyes, they are for seeing.

There is no Old Testament priesthood set up for the Christian Church, that is your first error. Priesthood was given to the Jews as an example of the Holiness of God.

Christians are specifically told how to set up their individual congregations. The members were to choose men from among themselves, no priests. The set up of the Christian church was and is totally different from Judaism. To set up a priesthood is flim flam and an arrogance that flies in the face of the very instructions of the apostles it claims to garner authority from. Apostles well knew the corruption of organized religion led by priests and made sure they followed the new Church's doctrine of being the servant rather than the priest. When Jesus ran the money changers out of the Temple He indicated to thinking people that a new church/worship system was needed and indeed He himself was that new system.

Even more than than the arrogance of ignoring the apostles instruction on how to set up the new church, is the arrogance of tossing aside the very instruction of Christ himself regarding how we are to pray. Because of the agony of Christ on the cross we can go right into the throne room and petition God himself. We don't need any other go betweens or convoluted routes.

There is a big difference between binding and loosing and outright rejection and rebellion against instruction.