 |
The
Bible and Roman Catholicism |
"For there is one
God, and one mediator also between God and
men, the man Christ Jesus."
(1 Timothy 2:5)
|
|
                   |
Why Does the Catholic Church Persist in a Priesthood when Jesus ushered in an entirely new order? It
is my contention that the Roman Catholic Church derives its model for
its priests not from the New Testament, but from the Old Testament. To
demonstrate that, it is necessary that we first examine the basis for
the Old Testament priesthoood in the nation of Israel.
The Old Testament
Priesthood
From the moment Yahweh set up His theocracy with "the house of Jacob and the sons of Israel" (Ex. 19:1-3), He intended His chosen nation (Ex. 19:4-5) to be a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Ex. 19:6). I take this to mean that God desired the sons of Israel to be a holy magnet that would draw people from the nations of the world around also to worship Israel's God. Israel was, from its inception, designed to be God's global missionary task force. In order for them to do this, they would have to obey God's voice and keep His covenant (Ex. 19:5). Yahweh's offer of the covenant was described in Ex. 19:1-25; the terms of the covenant in Ex. 20:1-23:33; and the ratification of the covenant in Ex. 24:1-18. Next, Yahweh revealed the symbolism of this covenant (Ex. 25:1-31:17). This included a description of Yahweh's residence among the sons of Israel (Ex. 25:1-27:21); provision for the priesthood (Ex. 28:1-29:46); additional items for the residence (Ex. 30:1-38); God's provision of skilled workmen (Ex. 31:1-11); followed by His warning to observe the Sabbath (Ex. 31:12-17). Following Israel's initial violation of the Covenant (Ex. 32:1-33:16), Yahweh renewed the Covenant (Ex. 34:1-35). Next, the people of Israel manufactured and prepared the symbols of the Covenant (Ex. 35:1-39:43). In Ex. 40:1-38, the people assembled the residence, and Yahweh filled it with His glory. In order for the people of Israel to approach Yahweh in worship, all kinds of precautions had to be taken. These included atonement through a series of prescribed offerings (Lev. 1:1-7:38). Aaron and his sons were consecrated to the priestly ministry (Lev. 8:1-10:20). God gave Israel instructions to atone and cleanse for physical defilement (Lev. 11:1-15:35). Following this, He gave them provisions to atone for national defilement (Lev. 16:1-17:16). The rest of Leviticus contains laws for maintaining holiness (Lev. 18:1-27:34). These included provision for holiness through civil and social regulations (Lev. 18:1-20:27); Yahweh is now living among the people. He is holy, therefore the people must be holy for Him to live among them. Their moral and bodily defilement must be cleansed and atoned for. Their physical defilement results, of course, from their moral defilement. To atone is to cover over, pacify, or make propitiation. It is related to the mercy seat (atonement seat) in Exodus 25, 27, and Leviticus 16. The noun, sometimes translated "ransom" is used in Exodus 21:30 ff. and in Ex. 30:12 (ransom or redemption or atonement money for the firstborn). The Israeli priesthood was instituted to assist the people of Israel in approaching God. God instituted the Israeli priesthood in Exodus 28:1. God told Moses, “Then bring near to yourself Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, from among the sons of Israel, to minister as priest to Me--Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons” (Ex. 28:1). The words "to minister as priest to Me" translate the Hebrew verb kahan (3547), which appears 23X in 23 verses in the Hebrew Bible. God then prescribed that Aaron, the first High Priest of Israel, was to be clothed with garments of beauty and glory (Ex. 28:1-2). His exceptional attire included the following items: a breastpiece, ephod, robe, tunic, turban, and sash (Ex. 28:2-39). The attire for Aaron's sons was more plain, but obviously distinguished them from the common people. Their attire consisted of tunics, sashes, and caps, again, "for glory and for beauty" (Ex. 28:40). Both Aaron and his sons were to wear linen breeches to cover their bare flesh (Ex. 28:42). Aaron and his sons were to wear their appropriate garments when they entered the tent of meeting, or when they approached the altar to minister in the holy place, "so that they would not incur guilt and die" (Ex. 28:43). This was an eternal statute for Aaron and his descendants (Ex. 28:44). It is rather apparent to me that the regalia worn by the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church and the regalia worn by the priests of the Roman Catholic Church is not based at all upon the New Testament Scriptures, but rather upon the Old Testament Scriptures. In fact, there are no New Testament Scriptures that authorize a priesthood such as is observed by the church headquartered in the Vatican. Nor is there any New Testament Scripture that authorizes a "high priest" (a.k.a. Pope) in the Roman Catholic Church. (Note that one of the titles of the pope is Pontifex Maximus, which means, "The Greatest Priest" or, in Israeli terms, "The High Priest.") The Old Covenant has been superseded by the New Covenant, under which there is only one priest, the High Priest Jesus, who is High Priest not after the order of Aaron, but of the King-Priest, Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18; Psalm 110:4; Heb. 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:1-28). Roman Catholicism would assert that its priests are ministering on the basis of the New Covenant. But that is not really true. Why do Catholic priests wear differentiating garb patterned after the priesthood based on the Old Covenant? Why do they offer incense, which is nowhere prescribed under the universal priesthood of the New Covenant (1 Pet. 2:9)? And why do they offer repeated sacrifices in the Mass, when Jesus offered up Himself as the perfect sacrifice, "once for all" (Heb. 7:27)? Roman Catholic Attempts to
Justify a Priesthood
How does Rome attempt to justify the existence of priests in the Catholic Church? One tactic the Vatican uses is to attempt to equate the office of priest with the office of elder. For example, in the Catholic Encyclopedia we read concerning the Priest, This word [i.e. priest]
(etymologically "elder",
from presbyteros, presbyter) has
taken the meaning of "sacerdos", from which no substantive has been
formed in various
modern languages(English, French, German).
But this stretches the bounds of credulity. The English word "priest" has an etymological association with the Greek word presbyteros, presbyter? Let us not change languages mid-stream! The Greek word for "priest" is hiereús (2409), and the Greek word for elder is presbúteros (4245). There is no etymological connection whatever between the two words. The truth is that the Vatican Church has forced a priestly function on the office of the New Testament elder where none exists in Scripture. Yet another reason why Roman Catholicism requires priests is that, in their view, some official person is needed to change ordinary wine and bread into the blood and body of Christ. Catholics call this "consecration." Note the following quotation from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject of Consecration: When we speak
of consecration without any special qualification, we
ordinarily understand it as the act by which, in the
celebration
of Holy Mass,
the bread and wine are changed into
the body and blood
of Christ. It is called transubstantiation, for in
the Sacrament of
the Eucharist the substance of bread and wine do
not remain, but the
entire substance of bread is changed into the body
of Christ, and the
entire substance of wine is changed
into His blood, the species or
outward semblance
of bread and wine alone remaining.
This change is
produced in virtue of the words: This is my
body and This is my blood,
or This is the chalice of my blood,
pronounced by the priest assuming
the person of Christ and using the
same ceremonies that Christ used at
the Last Supper.
Two points are worth noting here. First, in order to justify the whole idea of consecration, the writer of the article proves his point (in the preliminary section on Consecration) by referring, not to the New Testament, but to the Old Testament. He justifies Roman Catholic practice by referring to the consecration of Aaron and his sons as priests as found in Exodus 29:1-46 as follows: Later on we read of
the consecration of
the priests — Aaron and his
sons (Exodus 29:1-46) — who had been
previously elected (Exodus 28:1-43). Here we
have the act of consecration consisting of
purifying, investing,
and anointing (Leviticus 8:1-36) as a preparation for
their offering public sacrifice. The placing
of the meat in their hands
(Exodus 29:1-46) was considered an essential part of
the ceremony of consecration, whence the
expression filling the
hand has been considered identical
with consecrating. As to the oil
used in this consecration, we find the particulars
in Exodus 30:23-24; 37:29.
Unwittingly, this article proves my point: Roman Catholicism does not get its justification for a priest from the New Testament, but from the Old Testament. But as Christians living after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, we no longer live under the Old Covenant. We live under the New Covenant. Roman Catholicism, with its OT priesthood, is pushing its adherents back into the Old Covenant. Why would we want go to there? Roman Catholicism's Flawed
Understanding of the Eucharist / Communion / Lord's Table
The other point I wish to make here is that even Catholics do not take Jesus' words, "Take, eat; this is My body," (Matt. 26:26) and His words, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins" (Matt. 26:27-28) literally. When Catholics eat the bread, it does not taste like human flesh. And when Catholics drink the wine, it does not taste like human blood. There is more to consider on this subject elsewhere, but let me say this. Whatever Jesus meant by His words, it cannot mean anything different to us than it meant to the disciples who were present at the Last Supper (Matt. 26: 26-30; Luke 22:14-23). And they cannot possibly have partaken in any literal or quasi-literal sense whatever of Jesus' flesh and blood, for He had not died yet. They obviously took His words symbolically, and so should we. But back to Roman Catholicism. Catholics believe that, in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, "the entire substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the entire substance of wine is changed into the blood of Christ." How does that happen? How does ordinary bread and wine get changed into the body and blood of Christ? Well, it can't happen on it's own. It can only happen if a priest mediates between God and man. When he pronounces the right words and waves the censer of incense (which comes from the Old Testament, not the New), it all magically happens. Of course, adherents have to take that by faith, not sight, because nothing changes to the eyes, and nothing changes to the palate. Nevertheless, Catholics call the Sacrament of the Eucharist an "unbloody" sacrifice of Jesus. Moreover, they affirm that the Eucharist is "truly propitiatory'" meaning that it forgives sins. Here is what they affirm in paragraph 1367 of the Catechism: The sacrifice of
Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice:
"The victim is one and the
same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then
offered himself on the cross; only the
manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice
which is celebrated in the Mass, the same
Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the
cross is contained and is offered in an
unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190
[Footnote 190 documents these statements as
follows: Council of Trent (1562) Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio, c.
2: DS 1743; cf. Heb 9:14,27.] (All
emphases were in the original text.)
Though the Catholic Church maintains that "the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice," I maintain that is disingenuous. Whether the church admits it or not, if the bread and the wine are truly the body and blood of Christ, then every time the Eucharist is observed, Christ is being re-sacrificed. That defies the clear statement of Scripture, which is that Christ died for sins once for all when He offered up Himself (Heb. 7:27; 9:12, 28). "By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. 10:10). We do not need to understand the Lord's Table, or Communion, or the Eucharist, whatever one wishes to call it, as a re-sacrificing of Christ again and again and again. That view is blasphemy against the one final and all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ. Only faith in Jesus and His sacrifice on the cross of Calvary provides for forgiveness of sins. Partaking, however sincerely, of the Eucharist provides no forgiveness of sins. There is no statement of Scripture that it does. In summary, the priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church is illegitimate for the following reasons: (1) There is no evidence whatever in Scripture that New Testament elders / overseers had a priestly function. So a priest in the church is not warranted. (2) There is no evidence in Scripture that observance of the Eucharist or Lord's Table or Communion is expiatory (i.e. that it forgives sins). So there is no need for a priest to administer the ceremony. In fact there is no stipulation that an elder / overseer is required to administer it. There is no reason a lay person could not officiate at the Lord's Table. So a priest is not required for the observance of the Eucharist. (3) The understanding that the bread actually becomes the body of Christ (and is thus repeatedly sacrificed) and that the wine actually becomes the blood of Christ (and is thus repeatedly sacrificed) is an inaccurate interpretation of Jesus' words. Jesus Himself said the ceremony was memorial in nature (Luke 22:19). So we don't need a priest to say the magic words or wave the magic censer to make ordinary bread and ordinary wine become Christ. Christ died once for all. His sole sacrifice is all that is needed. (4) Jesus Christ is the one and only mediator we need to usher us into the very presence of God (1 Tim. 2:5). We don't need a priest to mediate between us and God. There is no evidence whatever in Scripture that confession must be made to a priest in a confessional booth (1 John 1:9). (5) Both in form and in function, Roman Catholic priests are based upon the Old Testament priesthood. The OT priesthood was based on the Old Covenant. Jesus the Messiah, through His death and resurrection, ratified the New Covenant (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 8:7-8, 13; 9:15; 12:24. We don't need Old Covenant priests. (6) Whatever legitimate priesthood exists in the NT is a priesthood to which each and every Christian belongs. There is no call in the NT for a professional priesthood. Each and every believer is a priest to offer up spiritual sacrifices (1 Pet. 2:5) and to proclaim God's excellencies to others to bring them to God (1 Pet. 2:9). Return to The Bible and
Roman Catholicism
See also Comparative Theology: Items Evaluating Roman Catholicism |
|||||
