All Church Age believers are priests, so why do Catholics ordaine their own priests?

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

We are made clean with His blood (wine) and constitute His body (bread).

You are mixing metaphors and ending up with something that doesn't make sense.

You and I might agree on this one. I did not see that response, so I will respond now.

We are made clean by the Word. Those in heaven have made their garments clean, but that's their garments. The wine is represented as the new covenant, but even baptism with repentance made people clean.

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Ephesians 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

If it were left up to some people, they'd be pouring wine on lepers.

Water, blood..both gushed forth from His side. Both are important. The water and blood came from the Word and they both bear witness in heaven.

1 John 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

So it appears without the Spirit, there is no witness for the water or the blood.

Catholics also have liturgy for communion, that some Protestants have but not always the same. But one thing is certain, communion is reverenced, even if people are not right with God, they still have access. Except in some churches, you can't partake with them. For instance, I am not Catholic so I can't take communion in some Catholic churches, but Catholics are allowed to take communion in some Protestant churches, while some Protestant churches don't allow anyone to take it unless they are right with God. I don't know how they judge that, because at some points none of us are ever fully right with God.

The point is, communion is a remembrance and you can take it as often as you want. Jesus said "as oft as ye do it, do it in remembrance of me". So there was no actual set time or designated weeks or days, just as often as you do it. If you take it once a year, then do it in remembrance. Which I think Catholics do indeed take it in remembrance, even if some Catholics don't go to mass for years.

Water, blood and Spirit, without all three, then what's the point?

a reply to: Akragon

The Catholic church added those 7 books to the bibles...

Correct, Origen was using the 27 NT books we have today in the 2nd century AD.

The Catholic and protestant New Testament is the same. Luther only deleted from The Old Testament.


a reply to: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Ignatian
The Catholic and protestant New Testament is the same. Luther only deleted from The Old Testament.


a reply to: NOTurTypical

The 1611 King James had the Apocrypha, but Thomas Nelson removed it.
My brother has a copy of the 1611.

You know, Paul actually preached from Enoch, so I think Enoch should be included. The Book of Jasher, I don't know if there is still a copy of that.

This current Book of Enoch, is it actually the one Paul referenced or is the one today a new one?

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
but you didnt prove the scriptural connection. Ive already debunked most of what you call scriptural support.

Yes I have. And no you haven't.

As for Catholics thinking they can't be forgiven without going to a priest ... that's absurd. Every night before bed, Catholics are told to examine their conscience (see where they sinned that day) and make an act of contrition (a prayer asking God to forgive their sins). Also - King David confessed his sins through Gods chosen prophet ... and if Catholics wish to confess their sins to God via God's chosen shepherd for their church, that's fine.

You might want to stop saying 'Catholics believe .... ' ... because you keep getting it wrong.

The 'question' of this thread was 'why do Catholics ordain priests' ... has been answered. Catholics, Orthodox, Episcopalians, and Anglicans have priests. Lutherans ordain ministers. Its' perfectly scriptural. They are shepherds of the flocks God has given them. SO WHAT?? If someone doesn't like it ... then don't be a Catholic, or Orthodox, or Episcopalian or Anglican or Lutheran, etc. Go interpret scripture whatever way you like and leave the rest of Christianity - the vast majority of Christianity - to interpret scripture as they wish. The fixation that some fundamentalists have with somehow trying to prove the Catholic church wrong is really wonky. If they spent as much time on prayer as they did on reading trumped up anti-Catholic garbage, they'd probably actually end up being holy people instead of just wallowing in misplaced bitterness.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Ignatian
The Catholic and protestant New Testament is the same. Luther only deleted from The Old Testament.


a reply to: NOTurTypical

The 1611 King James had the Apocrypha, but Thomas Nelson removed it.
My brother has a copy of the 1611.

You know, Paul actually preached from Enoch, so I think Enoch should be included. The Book of Jasher, I don't know if there is still a copy of that.

This current Book of Enoch, is it actually the one Paul referenced or is the one today a new one?

I think you mean Jude.

originally posted by: Ignatian
The Catholic and protestant New Testament is the same. Luther only deleted from The Old Testament.


a reply to: NOTurTypical

I never mentioned Luther.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Ignatian
The Catholic and protestant New Testament is the same. Luther only deleted from The Old Testament.


a reply to: NOTurTypical

The 1611 King James had the Apocrypha, but Thomas Nelson removed it.
My brother has a copy of the 1611.

You know, Paul actually preached from Enoch, so I think Enoch should be included. The Book of Jasher, I don't know if there is still a copy of that.

This current Book of Enoch, is it actually the one Paul referenced or is the one today a new one?

I think you mean Jude.

The Book of Enoch....this is what Paul said "Enoch, the seventh of Adam prophesied these things saying he saw the Lord's return with ten thousands of His saints".

Well, those words are not found at all in the Christian Bible pre-Paul. Enoch was found in a short passage in Genesis and hasn't been mentioned again until Paul mentions that verse. So where is the book of Enoch?

If Enoch said that in the OT then it should be there, but those words are found nowhere else in the Bible, so Paul was referencing a book not found in the Christian Bible, why not?

a reply to: WarminIndy

The Book of Enoch....this is what Paul said "Enoch, the seventh of Adam prophesied these things saying he saw the Lord's return with ten thousands of His saints".

That's in Jude. Chapter 1, verse 14.

So where is the book of Enoch?

It's not inspired. It does have value, it's great for Hebrew literature and has historical value.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: WarminIndy

The Book of Enoch....this is what Paul said "Enoch, the seventh of Adam prophesied these things saying he saw the Lord's return with ten thousands of His saints".

That's in Jude. Chapter 1, verse 14.

So where is the book of Enoch?

It's not inspired. It does have value, it's great for Hebrew literature and has historical value.

Paul quotes it in Jude, yes. But for purposes of Bible exposition, where in the rest of the Bible does it say that very thing?

Unless it has it in the book where Enoch said it, then how do we know Enoch said it?

Please don't be dense. Paul DIRECTLY quotes a verse that isn't in the Bible, so where is it at?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Paul quotes it in Jude, yes.

Paul didn't write Jude, Jude wrote Jude. Jude (Judas) is the half-brother of Jesus.


"Jude (alternatively Judas or Judah) was one of the four brothers of Jesus (Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55) according to the New Testament. He is traditionally identified as the author of the Epistle of Jude, a short epistle which is reckoned among the seven general epistles of the New Testament — placed after Paul's epistles and before the Book of Revelation — and considered canonical by Christians."

Jude - Wiki

Please don't be dense. Paul DIRECTLY quotes a verse that isn't in the Bible, so where is it at?

I'm not "being dense", you don't know what you're talking about. Paul didn't write Jude, and secondly Jude just simply quotes a prophecy Enoch made in his book, the "Book of Enoch". It's good for historical value of the Jews, but it's not inspired. It's like the Book of Jasher. Great Hebrew novels, but not inspired scripture.

That's why.

a reply to: WarminIndy

The 1611 King James had the Apocrypha, but Thomas Nelson removed it.
My brother has a copy of the 1611.

Right, but the Apocrypha was not in the original Christian canon for the Bible.

You know, Paul actually preached from Enoch, so I think Enoch should be included.

I looks like it could be a quote of 1 Enoch 1:9. That is one verse and Jude uses it to describe people who deserved to be judged and has nothing to do with a "return", but is in the past tense.

This current Book of Enoch, is it actually the one Paul referenced or is the one today a new one?

That is not really clear but could have been just a part of popular culture when Jude was written, rather than an endorsement of extra-canonical books.
Like I was saying, it is just a reference to the idea of judgment, and that there is always people infiltrating the assembly of saints who don't really belong, indicated by the way they talk about God.

a reply to: jmdewey60

JmDewey

Which original Christian canon?

Not all churches today have the same canon, and yet the Orthodox, Coptic and Ethiopian churches are just as old as the Roman rite from the Vatican and yet never were part of the Vatican.

The Roman Catholic church isn't the only Christian church from antiquity. I think you assume it is.

I must confess to the offended parties that I did initially start this thread with judgement and frustration in my heart. To those who I have offended with my bluntness, I apologize.

With that said, my theological position remains unchanged. All believers in Christ are made priests in Christ, and it is our responsibility to confess our sins directly to God the Father as they occur. Sins that involve other people should also be confessed to the parties involved for the maintanence of personal relationships.

I still believe that these issues, how ever controversial they may be, do need to be brought to light. An honest and objective reading of the text will reveal that there is no divinely ordained Papal or Apostolic succession, there is no Catholic Priesthood as difined by the Roman Catholic Church, and Jesus establish His body on earth, not a specific denomination.

We must recognise our universal priesthood in Christ and free ourselves from the chains of denominationalism that man has created to hinder Christ's Church.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: WarminIndy

Paul quotes it in Jude, yes.

Paul didn't write Jude, Jude wrote Jude. Jude (Judas) is the half-brother of Jesus.


"Jude (alternatively Judas or Judah) was one of the four brothers of Jesus (Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55) according to the New Testament. He is traditionally identified as the author of the Epistle of Jude, a short epistle which is reckoned among the seven general epistles of the New Testament — placed after Paul's epistles and before the Book of Revelation — and considered canonical by Christians."

Jude - Wiki

Please don't be dense. Paul DIRECTLY quotes a verse that isn't in the Bible, so where is it at?

I'm not "being dense", you don't know what you're talking about. Paul didn't write Jude, and secondly Jude just simply quotes a prophecy Enoch made in his book, the "Book of Enoch". It's good for historical value of the Jews, but it's not inspired. It's like the Book of Jasher. Great Hebrew novels, but not inspired scripture.

That's why.

Tell us, if it has not value, then why is it preserved in the book?

ALL scripture as Paul says, is useful and ALL scripture is divinely inspired. So it has merit enough for a NT preacher to preach it. You might not accept it but you can't say it is not important, when you say the rest of the Bible is important.

Tell us, what parts of the Bible should we rip out to accommodate your acceptable view?

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
An honest and objective reading of the text will reveal that there is no divinely ordained Papal or Apostolic succession, there is no Catholic Priesthood as difined by the Roman Catholic Church, and Jesus establish His body on earth, not a specific denomination. .

And yet the majority of Christians will disagree with you and say .... to use your words ... An honest and objective reading of the text will reveal that Jesus established His church on Peter, the primacy of Peter is well established, and Acts proves apostolic succession .... there is a Priesthood as defined by the Catholic Church in scripture as well.

If you want to interpret scripture otherwise .... fine.
Go your way in peace.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Which original Christian canon?

Back in the Fourth Century, which was understood by Jerome as being (besides the books of the New Testament) the Hebrew books of the Old Testament.
The Apocrypha, not being in Hebrew then, was not included at that time.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Tell us, what parts of the Bible should we rip out to accommodate your acceptable view?

Not exactly sure what that means. I gave you the reasons why The Book of Enoch isn't in the canon of scripture, if you don't like that don't attack me for it, I'm not the Holy Spirit which decided which books were inspired or not. Ask God when you get to heaven.


My personal conjecture is that the Jews never included it with the prophets is because Enoch was a gentile. But it's just my guess.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: WarminIndy

Which original Christian canon?

Back in the Fourth Century, which was understood by Jerome as being (besides the books of the New Testament) the Hebrew books of the Old Testament.
The Apocrypha, not being in Hebrew then, was not included at that time.

I remember reading someplace that the first person to tout the same 27 NT books we have today was Origen in the late 2nd century.