THE AMAZING GIFT OF THE PRIESTHOOD

Dr. McInerny asked me to write an essay on the priesthood for this special issue of Dossier. After reflecting on the matter for a few days, it occurred to me that I have written many columns in the Homiletic & Pastoral Review on this topic. Going back over the index I found more than a dozen short editorials that are very much to the point. I have selected five of them and decided to present them to you in this issue. These short reflections offer a good summary of my views on the priesthood and cover a period of about fifteen years.

Why Are Catholic Priests Called “Priests”?

For many years I have been intrigued by the different titles given to their clergy by the various religious bodies. Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and perhaps a few others, give the title of “priest” to their clergy. Most Protestants refer to their clergy as “Minister” or “Reverend” or “Pastor” or simply “Mr.” The basic reason for the difference in titles is the difference in theology.

By definition a priest is one who offers sacrifice. The Catholic Church teaches that the Mass is a sacrifice; it is, in a mystical sense, a re-presentation of the identical sacrifice that Jesus made of himself on the altar of the Cross on Calvary almost 2000 years ago. So because the Catholic priest, in celebrating the Eucharist (= Mass, Liturgy) acts in the person of Christ, and in a mysterious way offers once again the unique sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, he is called a “priest.” The Latin word for this is sacerdos (sacra + dans), i.e., one who gives or brings holy things to the People of God.

Jesus Christ is our eternal priest according to the order of Melchisedek. As St. Thomas Aquinas says, the proper task of the priest consists in being a mediator between God and men (S. Th. III, 22, 1). And St. Paul instructs us in 1 Tim. 2:5 that Jesus is the one Mediator between God and men. Because Jesus is both God and man by reason of the Hypostatic Union, he is able to reconcile God and man in his own Person. That is what he did by his death on the Cross.

The Catholic faith teaches that the priest is another Christ, an alter Christus; he takes on this sublime dignity by receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders. The most essential function of the sacerdotal or priestly office is sacrifice. For we read in Hebrews 8:3, “Every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices.”

It is for this reason, therefore, that the Catholic Church (and others also) calls its clergy “priests.” Most Protestants avoid the title because they do not believe that what they call “the Lord’s Supper” is a sacrifice.

In the broadest sense, a sacrifice is the surrender of one good for something else that is better. Thus athletes make many personal sacrifices in order to excel. In the liturgical sense, a sacrifice is an external religious act in which some sensible gift is offered to God by an ordained servant of God in recognition of his absolute majesty and in atonement for sins. Theologians identify four elements here: 1) a visible sacrificial gift, 2) a sacrificing priest, 3) the purpose of the sacrifice (e.g., glorifying God), and 4) an act of sacrifice which removes the gift from man’s dominion to God’s, and represents the interior sacrificial disposition.

The four elements are verified in Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross. In that unique case, however, the victim and the priest are the same. At Mass in a mystical way the priest re-presents that same sacrifice to the Father, for he says “This is my body....”

I offer this very brief summary of the Church’s teaching on sacrifice, Calvary and the Mass because so many, many Catholics, poorly instructed, simply do not understand what is going on when they attend the Sunday Liturgy. That may also explain why they do not understand the difference between “priest” and “minister.” The Catholic priest is also a minister, but he is first and foremost a priest because he has been empowered by Christ to offer the sacrifice of the Mass for the salvation of all.

The Faith of the Priest

There are some strange things being done in the administration of the Sacraments, and especially in offering Mass. A subscriber who put her eight children through her parish school eventually came to the conclusion that she could no longer attend Mass in her own parish because she doubted the validity of the Masses being offered there.

A Mass can be invalid for a number of reasons (we presuppose that the priest has been validly ordained): 1) because of a defect in the matter, for example, using sweet rolls instead of bread made only from wheat flour and water; 2) because of a defect in the form, for example, changing the words “This is my body” or “This is the cup of my blood” into something else; 3) because the priest positively excludes the intention to do what the Church does in offering Mass.

Donatism was a heresy in the 4th and 5th centuries, especially in North Africa, which caused great harm to the Church. The Donatists believed that the validity of the Sacraments depends on the sanctity or worthiness of the minister; if he was in the state of mortal sin for any reason, then all Sacraments administered by him, including Baptism, were said to be invalid. This opinion was condemned by various Popes and Synods, and it was vigorously opposed by St. Augustine. The Donatists were in error because the principal agent in the Sacraments is Christ himself who operates through the priest as the instrumental cause; by reason of his ordination the priest has the “priestly character” indelibly imprinted on his soul, like the character imprinted by Baptism. By the will of God Christ works through the validly ordained priest, even if he is a sinner. If that were not so, then the faithful would never know for sure whether or not they had really received a Sacrament.

Most Catholics seem to know that mortal sin on the soul of the priest does not render the Sacraments he administers invalid. But it may come as a surprise to many Catholics that the validity of the Sacraments, let us say the Mass, also does not depend essentially on the faith of the priest who offers the Mass. Thus, Masses offered by heretical priests, by schismatics, by Catholic priests who are plagued by doubts or who have false ideas about the Real Presence or transubstantiation, can be and probably usually are valid Masses. They must of course use the correct words of consecration, use wheat bread and wine made from grapes, and have the intention of doing what the Church does in offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Latin: intentio faciendi quod facit ecclesia). The priest does not have to agree with what the Church does, or understand it perfectly, or have it explicitly in mind while he is offering Mass. If in some general or vague way he intends to do what the Church does in the Mass (and in the other Sacraments also), then the Mass is certainly valid.

The Church’s teaching on the validity of the Sacraments is very important today, since there is so much confusion among Catholics about Catholic doctrine, coming mainly from faulty catechetics, distortions in the media, and the errors of dissenting theologians. Our people should know that, just because a priest preaches heresy from the pulpit or ad libs at Mass (provided that he uses the correct form of consecration and valid matter), it does not necessarily mean that the Mass is invalid. It would be invalid if he did not have the intention of doing what the Church does, that is, if he positively excluded that. Such a supposition should not be made if he basically follows the rites of the Church. If, however, he should ridicule the Mass and use invalid matter, or make up his own formula of consecration, that would be a clear sign that the Mass is invalid.

Priests are weak human instruments of Christ. Let us thank him and marvel at his wisdom that he did not make his Sacraments wholly dependent on the holiness and faith of his ministers.

Priests, Prayer and Preaching

One of the main tasks of the priest is preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He is ordained not only to administer the Sacraments, but also to proclaim the Good News of Salvation.

Training for the priesthood normally includes four years of college, often with a major in philosophy, although there has been a decline recently and regrettably in the study of philosophy. This is followed by four years’ study of theology, which includes dogma, moral theology, canon law, liturgy, history of the Church, Homiletics, Fathers of the Church, and so forth. When a candidate has successfully completed this course he is recommended to the bishop for ordination and finally ordained a priest of Jesus Christ “according to the line of Melchisedek.”

Everything that the priest is— his personal experiences, his studies, the books he has read— literally everything goes into his preaching. The more he knows and the better prepared he is, the better a preacher he will make. And his preaching is extremely important, especially now that there is so much emphasis on the liturgy of the Word. The point I want to make here is that the key to effective preaching is the personal prayer of the priest. Of course, he must be well trained in theology, he must study Holy Scripture, he must know the rudiments of public speaking, and he must diligently prepare each homily as if it were the only one he would ever give. These are the necessary presuppositions in the preacher of the Gospel. But one essential element is still lacking. That is prayer.

We must not forget that the priest enters the pulpit not to give expression to his own opinions on this or that, but to speak the Word of God. God uses him as an instrument to bring his saving Word to sinners and saints alike.

Preaching well is difficult. It takes a lot of work—and a lot of prayer. The preacher may not dispense with study and preparation, but if he leaves it there and does not go to the Lord in prayer for help and inspiration his words will not make much of an impression on his listeners. By personal prayer and intimate conversation with the Lord the priest comes to a relish and understanding of the Faith that cannot be acquired from books and summer institutes.

The Church, in her wisdom, is very concerned that her priests be men of prayer. During their seminary days priests are taught to spend a period each day in mental prayer; they make annual retreats; they are urged to pray the rosary daily and they are introduced to the Liturgy of the Hours. According to the new Code of Canon Law, priests have a duty to strive for holiness.

“Clerics have a special obligation to seek holiness in their lives, because they are consecrated to God by a new title through the reception of orders, and are stewards of the mysteries of God in the service of His people” (c. 276, #1).

This spiritual program is directly related to the priest’s preaching. It is difficult to preach the Good News convincingly. To preach in a way that touches the hearers’ hearts, the priest must be thoroughly convinced himself of the truth and urgency of what he is saying. In other words, he must have something important to say and he must say it with conviction and enthusiasm. Where will he get that? Primarily from prayer.

The praying priest will be a good preacher. He might not be a Winston Churchill or a Ronald Reagan or a Fr. George Rutler, but he will touch the hearts of the faithful. St. John Vianney, the famous Cure of Ars, was no Demosthenes or Bourdalou but, in his humble sincerity, he was still a powerful preacher. His sanctity gave a power to his words that cannot be substituted for by study and rhetorical skill.

Agent of Christ

One day as I was walking up the side aisle of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York a woman stopped me and said, “Thank you for being a priest.” Then she walked on without another word. That brief encounter made a deep impression on me. It brought home to me vividly how important the priesthood is to the Church and the world. In fact, without the priesthood there would be no Church.

Ordinary Catholic laymen become priests through the laying on of the hands of the bishop and receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders. One becomes a priest through the power of Jesus Christ operating through the normal channels of his Church. Orders produce an ontological or real change in the one ordained. Once consecrated he is no longer a lay person and he is no longer exactly like non-priests. He has received a charism that consecrates him to continuing Christ’s prophetic and sacramental ministry.

Jesus is a priest by nature; he was born a priest and he died a priest. For, from the first moment of his conception he offered himself to the Father as a propitiation for our sins and he is our only Mediator with the Father (1 Tim. 2:5). When he instituted orders at the Last Supper he provided that the work of his Incarnation should be continued in history by his apostles and their successors—the bishops and priests installed by them to carry on his mission. So the priest is configured to Christ in a unique way to proclaim the word and to administer the Sacraments, not for his own profit and glory, but for the good of the whole flock of Christ.

The priest of Jesus Christ makes Him, in a certain way, visible and tangible in this passing world. Through the sacramental words of consecration and forgiveness, which only he can utter efficaciously, the grace of Jesus is planted in time and space in a tangible way. St. Paul says he is an ambassador for Christ; in his preaching he is his messenger; in providing for the people Gospel and Sacrament he is also an agent of Christ.

Even if a priest is unworthy of his calling, his sacramental acts are valid and communicate grace; this occurs, not because of him, but in spite of him and in virtue of the grace of Christ in the Church.

The holy priest is one who has identified himself with Christ according to the measure of the grace granted to him. The Church expects her priests to be holy. To be effective, to be convincing, to be agents of conversion, the priest must integrate his priesthood with his personal life. This is not just a counsel; it is a duty that flows from the nature of the priesthood of Jesus Christ. So even if the priest is not a vowed religious, he must still follow the evangelical counsels in the way proper to diocesan priests. We see a striking example of this in the life of the Cure of Ars who is now the patron of priests.

Priesthood is not just a 9 to 5 job; it is not just a function that some men perform for the good of the Church. It is a total way of life. Since he is commissioned to continue the salvific work of Jesus in word and sacrament, the sacrifice of his sexual love in celibacy is not just a practical arrangement. His renunciation of wife and children is basically a clear sign to the world that God has planted in him something that transcends all earthly values, namely, his own divine life as the life of the new and eternal kingdom. The woman who greeted me in St. Patrick’s Cathedral was probably not thinking along these lines, but it was implied in the reverent gratitude she showed for the precious gift I carry with me wherever I go—the priesthood of Jesus Christ.

The Amazing Gift of the Priesthood

As year is added to year, it is my guess that most priests become more deeply aware of the unfathomable treasure they posses in the amazing grace of the priesthood. Simply stated, the Catholic priest is another Christ. Through his ordination he has been granted the amazing gift of being a channel of divine grace for the eternal salvation of those he come into contact with—both in his official ministry and in his personal life.

We priests all know this, through our study of theology, in a theoretical or abstract way. By prayer, service, sacrifice and perseverance in spite of all obstacles we gradually come to savor it more profoundly in our inner consciousness as we grow older. No doubt, the whole process is guided by the outpouring of divine grace—especially the grace that comes to us through our intimate association with God’s Word and his Seven Sacraments.

Because of his close association with Jesus Christ, with his Word and his Sacraments, there should be no such thing as an “identity crisis” for the Catholic priest. Recently while reading an article on this subject by Fr. Cormac P. Burke, an Irish priest now working in Rome, I came across the following: “A priest then should not only be convinced of his priestly usefulness, he should be convinced it is unique—because our Lord has made it unique. He should not only be aware of his identity, he should be proud of it, and indeed amazed at it. For his real identity is nothing less in fact than amazing” (emphasis added).

The celibate Catholic priest is a visible witness to the transcendence of God, to the fact that Catholics really believe in personal survival after death and eternal reward or punishment. He is a witness to transcendence both in what he is and what he does. Writing about the priest, some years ago Cardinal Joseph Hoeffner of Cologne, Germany, said that our people “want a servant of Christ who is a witness and dispenser of a life other than that of this earth.” “The priest in the modern world,” he added, “is an extraordinary challenge because he does not announce himself but our Lord Jesus Christ, judge and savior of humanity.”

The priest is an alter Christus, another Christ. Msgr. Josemaria Escriva put it this way: “What is the identity of the priest? It is the identity of Christ himself.” The priest is “set apart,” not to be distant, but to be totally dedicated to the Lord’s work (Vat. II, Decrees on Priests, #3). Msgr. Escriva also wisely said that the priest is not more a Christian than the layperson, but he is more a priest.

In the same vein, Pope John Paul II summarized the meaning of the priesthood in his 1979 Holy Thursday Letter to Priests: “In practical terms, the only priest who will always prove necessary to people is the priest who is conscious of the full meaning of his priesthood: the priest who believes profoundly, who professes his faith with courage, who prays fervently, who teaches with deep conviction, who serves, who puts into practice in his own life the program of the beatitudes, who knows how to love disinterestedly, who is close to everyone, and especially to those who are most in need” (#7).

Priests who strive to live their priesthood in that way will never have an identity crisis, but they will be continually amazed at their gift of the priesthood.

Thanks for the clarification Livius, and I think you're right that it is an important one.

Yet may I ask where we are told that the Spirit empowers us in this way? The NT lists numerous gifts and activities of the Holy Spirit, but I'm not aware of any reference to acting persona Christi in his sacrifice.

Through the best of intentions, Catholicism has allowed itself to accumulate traditions and trappings that are not grounded in the word of God (as most human institutions will... thus the need to constantly correct and rebuke one another when necessary). The difficulty is that these create stumbling blocks for those seeking after Truth.

By having a 'priesthood' as the repository of knowledge and authority, we create a laity who are children beneath their father. Yet we are clearly told that we are to have only one head and one Father. Christ speaking to his Disciples and others says, "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi', for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father', for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." (Matthew 23:8-9)

Honor and glory should not be given to men, but to God to whom it belongs.

Yes, I think the timelessness (or rather 'outside' of time) of God is a concept that is often not understood. I think it is most clearly demonstrated in the nature of prophesy.

The same prophesy can refer to events past, present and future. Furthermore it points to the nature of prophesy itself. It is not a guessing game or parlor trick by God, but rather extends naturally from His nature as being transcendant over time. He created and is Master of all things... including time.

Christ's sacrifice thus was the culminating act in the defeat of Satan and sin, both 2000 years ago and forevermore.

Let us look then at Rev 5:6 and 13:8, which you cite.

Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes whch are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. (Rev 5:6)

All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast- all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. (Rev 13:8)

Mark, you state that "And if we look at Rev 13:8, we, in fact, can see that the ongoing sacrifice from the foundation of the world is brought, by the power of the Holy Spirit, down from Heaven onto the altar... the priest, acting in persona Christi, offers the body of Christ, made present in the appearance of bread and wine, to the Father." With all due respect, I can not see how you draw that from Rev. 13:8, which is a passage relating the blashemies and authority of the beast.

You mention Hebrews, so please allow me to bring forth several pertinant passages from there.

Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people (Heb 9:28)

Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you (God) did not desire, nor were you pleased with them (Heb 10:8)

Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest (Jesus the Christ) had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. (Heb 10:11-12)

Christ died once for our sins. He does not need to die again, either in person or in persona Christi.

I do not question your love of God, or your service and years of dedication to Him. I do say clearly though that we need to look carefully at what we do and where it comes from. Our worldly culture and traditions need to be removed where they create stumbling blocks to people seeking after God. This is especially true within our church cultures, not just within Catholicism, but within all groups that take the name of Christ.

Livius, My apologies for including you in this reply if it is unwelcome. I just noticed that the post was directed at both of us, and felt it only courteous to include you in the rejoinder. It is always good to hear from you however.

The Vicar of Christ is the Pope, that is, the bishop who stands in the place of St. Peter among the Apostles and has been given certain powers and responsibilities that the other Apostles did not have. This is different from the priesthood.

You’re still not understanding what I’m saying, though. The one Sacrifice of Christ was an event in time but at the same time an eternal event, because the Church, the Body of Christ, extends this event through modern, current time towards the future, when Christ shall be all in all, and also takes into itself all the past preparation for the event. It’s not a matter of “re-slaying” Christ. This is the same Sacrifice.

No, that’s fine - your posts are interesting, learned, respectful of the opposing view, and precisely the sort of thing I think should be here. I’m honored to be included.

I think you have identified one of the stumbling blocks, which is the concept of eternity. People tend to think of it as being something that stretches out before them, but actually, eternity makes a present moment out of everything.

We move through time, that is, towards the future. A person who ceases to move towards the future has died, in a sense, because he has ceased to move through time. I once heard Julián Marías, a fine Spanish philosopher virtually unknown here, tell a story about visiting someone in the hospital. The man had been in the hospital several times, and had finally decided that this was it, he was going to die, and Marías said that suddenly, visits dropped off, everything changed, and essentially, this man had moved himself outside of the flow of time. So for us, human beings living now and even living in Christ, futurity is important, and in fact when we cease to think and live towards the future, we are either dead or very nearly so and regarded that way by our fellow pilgrims through time. We are fixed at that point. But what is the goal?

In terms of eternity, that point exists forever, and our death at that moment seals our will as it is at that time. But on a cosmic scale, the entire history of our civilization is named from the Year of Our Lord (one of the reason atheists wish to change it to “Common Era”), because that was the defining event, the change to another modality, if you will, that defined the form and goal of human history. At the same time, because from the point of view of eternity there is, in a sense, no movement, that moment exists forever, and so does the moment of the Sacrifice of Christ.

It was the culminating event, but it is still going on, and the Church - empowered by Christ Himself to do this - is not reproducing an isolated event but participating in the one event, the one sacrifice. It is doing this through its ordained ministry, that is, the priests, who derive this capacity through the bishop, since the bishops (Apostles) were commissioned by Christ; and it also does it through the existence of the Church (both visible and invisble) on earth as the Body of Christ.

From a plain reading, we see that these passages refer to the destruction of the temple and the Second Coming of Christ.

From a plain reading???

21: For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be.

You don't think 6 million Jews alone, dying in prison camps in Europe was worse than the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.???

30: then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory;

All the tribes of the earth will see Jesus coming on the clouds??? I haven't read yet of the church Father's account of this...Surely you have some copies you could post...

31: and he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. (RSV)

And Jesus sent out his angels with a very big horn and in 70 A.D. it got blown, and then the angels gathered Jesus' 'elect' from one end of heaven to another???

I thought you guys were the 'elect'...What were you doing in heaven...And now you are on earth???

It pretty clear to any one that can read that Matthew 24 is not a reference to anything in 70 A.D...

So explain, how did you come to the conclusion that Matt. 24 happened in 70 A.D.???

Thank you so much for your extraordinary response. Would that all on this forum express their ideas as eloquently as you have.

One thing that I neglected to do in my previous post was to discuss the issue of context. I agree with you that a consideration of the context of a particular verse (or, as in the cases of the verses I cited, phrases within a particular verse). An examination of the context surrounding an expression can dramatically alter the meaning of that expression. An amusing example, oft cited, is Psalm 14:1:

There is no God.

Of course when we look at the actual verse, we see it says (in context):

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good.

Although a 'cute' example, we can see that the context of the expression 'there is no God' is dramatically modified when examined in context. But this is not always the case. For example, I John 1:5:

God is light

It is clear from examining the context,

This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness at all.

that the meaning of the phrase 'God is light' is not, in any way, modified by looking at the rest of the verse, nor is it modified by looking at surrounding verses.

The latter is the case here.

Rev 5:6 says, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain,. Although the meaning of the verse or its context is not focused on the phrase, looking at the entire verse, And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth;

BTW, for what it's worth, the Greek for the phrase is ἀρνίον ἑστηκὸς ὡς ἐσφαγμένον (lamb standing as it had been slain). No discussion of "looking as if it."

The point is that the overall meaning of the verse does not alter the meaning of that phrase.

Likewise in Rev 13:8. Yes, I fully understand what the verse, as a whole, says. But the verse, as a whole, does not alter the meaning of the phrase τοῦ ἀρνίου τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. In fact, if anything, it amplifies it.

You state, With all due respect, I can not see how you draw that from Rev. 13:8, which is a passage relating the blashemies and authority of the beast.

And you are correct in pointing that out. But can you not see that, within the context you cite, that the 'nugget' of truth that the lamb had been sacrificed from the foundation of the world?

Without that understanding, the verses you cite in Hebrews are very valid in making your point. However, if you are able to see the sacrifice from the foundation of the word, they take on a new, vivid meaning.

Let me ask you, without that understanding, how does one explain what Paul is saying in Col 1:24? How can he, Paul, make "complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions"?

Just some things to consider as you continue your walk with Christ.

It’s not a matter of “re-slaying” Christ. This is the same Sacrifice.

If this were the case, then it would matter if the priest offering the Sacraments was in fellowship or not, which is denied in the article.

IMHO, the article nicely articulates many dogmas within the RCC denomination of His Church which are in conflict with other fundamentals within Scripture.

The RCC offers many outstanding doctrines for the edification of believers through faith in Christ. It also has become encapsulated in worldly thinking placing a counterfeit hierarchy before the individual believer's belief in God through faith in Christ.

Many of the notions and concepts presented are more complicated than the article expresses, but at least it does touch upon some of the language which easily leads a student to identify those problems from a careful study of Scripture while in fellowship with God allowing Him to further sanctify the believer.

Studies of language and etymology are helpful in discerning the meaning of Scripture, so that in our thinking, while in fellowship with Him, He is free to sanctify our human spirit, then our mind, then our heart and our soul, equipping us to perform good works through faith in Him.

Some care is necessary to discern between the Priest,the High Priest, and the present Royal Priesthood of each and every believer in this Church Age. The topics within provide outstanding opportunity to further study Scripture to better understand the roles of each person in the Godhead as they are revealed to us in His Word and as He reveals Himself through the Holy Spirit personally to each and every believer independent of a Catholic denominational priest.

Some of the topics discerned by some believers in this forum have probably focused more upon how familiar spirits and false doctrines are as easily brought into our midst by those advocating many of the RCC dogmas. If such doctrines were simply used to help each believer advance in their relationship with God through faith in Christ, then they might be very beneficial. When they are used to build a worldly bureaucracy, insistant upon their authority, while condoning their sinful behavior in the administration of their duties, then not only do they deny the mind of Christ, they seny the Holy Spirit and attempt to counterfeit a false system of worship. This doesn't mean all those believers who are Catholics are out of fellowship with Christ.

The article was written for Catholics, so the author assumed that the readers would be “in fellowship,” as you put it. If you are referring to whether the priest was in good standing or not, this was decided by the Church as “ex opere operanto,” meaning that the work (the celebration of the Eucharist by someone who said the right words and had the intention of doing so in union with the Church, even though he was a sinner and his life was bad) was valid.

As for Catholic doctrine, it has nothing to do with a “worldly bureaucracy.” Are you saying Protestants don’t have a “worldly bureaucracy”? Are you saying Calvin didn’t urge a theocracy, which his Puritan followers tried to carry out, both in England and the New World?

The Catholic Church has never been theocratic and has always regarded itself as separate from the governing power of a nation. At times, unfortunately, the interests of the secular powers and those of the Church have seemed to coincide; but it never lasts for long, because the secular power always wants to take over the Church, and usually punishes the Church severely when it finds out it cannot do so. It did so successfully after Henry VIII, and is still trying to do so in China, where the government wants to appoint bishops. The very thing that focuses the hatred of governments and powers on the Church is not that that the Church wants to take them over - but that it regards itself and its kingdom as separate from them, and no earthly ruler can tolerate this.

Please re-read my earlier post.

We are talking about the One Sacrifice. We are talking about the Apostles, commissioned by Jesus to play a specific role in extending this Sacrifice throughout earthly time, and we are talking about the fact that we all, visible and invisible Church alike, participate in this sacrifice because we are the Body of Christ - but the priest is appointed to enact this is the most intimate way on behalf of us all, and this has nothing to do with bureaucracy.

Well--Well--Well ---- according to your Catholic Catechism, every Catholic is Christ and should therefore be qualified to say Mass and offer those unbloody mystical sacrifices, not just your priests, right???

Only according to a neophyte like yourself.

Here are a few more gems from Scripture that have obviously sailed over and/or through your grape.

"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness: But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." 1 Corinthians 1:23-24

"And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come." 1 Corinthians 11:25-27

"I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum. Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him. And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him." John 6:48-67

It's intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that had you been around for this, you and many of your "enlightened" brethren around here would have been those beating feet.

Every denomination and even Scripture itself might be interpreted in a worldly fashion by those out of fellowship with God through faith in Christ.

Even if an article is written for Catholics, doesn’t imply a Catholic believer is always in fellowship with Him. On the contrary, as with every believer, every ambassador of that royal family must receive forgiveness of sins from God Himself, which is possible by 1st John 1:9, and whose sins were already atoned for by the perfect Sacrifice performed once on the Cross and complete ore ever more.

I would hope the article was written for more than simply a few Catholics, as the topics should be applicable to all believers in Christ if indeed true doctrine.

I agree with you that true Bible doctrine has nothing to do with the world, but then again in every religion creeps those of worldly thinking either leaving behind the mind of Christ, or those focused on the world never understanding the mind of Christ.

I’ve found it helpful to discern between worldly and earthly. Worldly associated with the KOSMOS or an ordering of things as opposed to CHAOS or disorder of things. The Worldly mind is focused upon order and while our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus and the Father loved that order, they didn’t love order performed independent of Him or His will. There exists, however, a worldly system, a method of creatures to make order out of disorder independent of Him, which is many times confused with the object of focus of our Lord and God, Christ Jesus.

Earthly, on the other hand, mind help to discern between things of the body and soul, and in the domain of man, but frequently more associated with the flesh or body, and in other syntax associated as the dual of things of the kingdom of heaven.

I don’t quite understand your meaning when you state the Catholic Church has never been theocratic. Most Catholics I know consider Christ to be the head of the body and that is about as theocratic as one can get,..is it not? Not being argumentative, I just don’t think I understand your meaning with this choice of words.

I understand the Communion to also emphasize the faith if each believer in breaking the body, and drinking the wine as a remembrance of the New Covenant through Him. These very personal actions are also physical actions, involving our soul in our thinking, while also allowing a significant spiritual Communion with Him. I also understand many interpretations of Transubstantiation, which I don;t fully understand in context with the rest of Scripture, although I understand the denomination of the RCC believes and promotes such doctrine. In my sanctification, the Lord has me progressing along perhaps along slower lines of development, or perhaps more fundamental lines of thinking.

As long as the priest is appointed by God the Holy SPirit, not by any man, then I agree with the doctrine advocated.

Do you teach your children to believe the following?

"The Catholic faith teaches that the priest is another Christ, an alter Christus..."
"Simply stated, the Catholic priest is another Christ..."
"The priest is an alter Christus, another Christ."
"Msgr. Josemaria Escriva put it this way: 'What is the identity of the priest? It is the identity of Christ himself.'..."
"Orders produce an ontological or real change in the one ordained. Once consecrated he is no longer a lay person and he is no longer exactly like non-priests."

He died once, acting it out over and over has no benefit. The benefit is in the blood shed on Calvary

The term Vicar of Christ means to stand in His place. (vicar (from the Latin vicarius) is anyone acting "in the person of" or agent for a superior . ...) He is not the vicar of Peter, and BTW Peter never claimed for himself the Catholic church gives him.

You have said the priest acts as Christ at the mass.

The priest, through his ordination, becomes a participant, in persona Christi, in that one sacrifice, which is that same sacrifice still offered in the Mass.

Sounds all the same to me. During the mass He stands in as Christ.

Here a Christ, there a Christ every where a christ, christ

I have not said they all as individual Christ's, but that they claim His title and power .

From a plain reading???

Yes, from a plain reading. Go back and read the ENTIRE chapter, which is why I posted it. Just as in the Old Testament, prophecies contain a part to be filled immediately, and a part to be filled at Christ's coming (in the case of Mt. 24, His Second Coming).

You don't think 6 million Jews alone, dying in prison camps in Europe was worse than the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.???

No, I don't.

So explain, how did you come to the conclusion that Matt. 24 happened in 70 A.D.???

Some, not all.

You completely missed the point of my post. The point of that post was to do one thing: Prove that from a very basic reading that those two verses taken in the context they were used earlier in the thread is simply wrong. Be they referring to 70 AD or at the end of time, the context they were used earlier in the thread is a misreading to try to prooftext something.

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.