Is 'Priest' biblical?

Am I understanding transubstantiation(not sure how to spell it), correctly?

There are these duly licensed priests who take unleavened bread and wine, say some words in Latin, not usually their native tongue--some also speak these words in Greek; and some how these elements transform into blood and flesh--not ordinary flesh and blood, but that of Jesus, the Christ. Even more amazing, the faithful must partake of this communion as frequently as possible to maintain their salvation.

Would this qualify as a cunningly devised fable?

What think ye?

Selah,

Bro. James

RE: the "pedo-verts" have been covered-up a long time. They are a fruit of the celebacy dogma which is contrary to the scripture as well. Testosterone is a powerful substance--especially as a temptation of Satan.

 

Priest system itself causes a lot of problem. Even pastors encounter a lot of problem as well.

Many people are sitting on the Seat inside the church where Jesus Christ should sit.

 

Matt Black,

As usual the Catholics are the worst offenders.

I dont believe...I could be wrong...that the clergy in the Orthodox, Anglican, Methodist and Lutheran communities are anywhere near as problematic as the cultic Catholic "priests".

Catholics believe that their "intercessor" or "go between" connecting them with God...

Has the power to say magic words and turn a cracker into God.

Has the power to come to a person on deaths door and say magic words and "absolve" them of their sins and get them into heaven.

Has the power to make a magic invisible cross shape with their hand and cause blessings to come on to people.

Has the ability to say magic words while filling a room with incense and caused blessings to come upon those present.

etc etc.

Maybe some folks with those other groups you mentioned can post and share if their clergies are exactly like the Catholics. I've sure never encounted anything even close to the error of Catholics in this regard.

Mike

 

Claudia,

Of course you are correct about that.

The difference however is that the Catholic Church engaged in a decade after decade after decade long "hush hush" coverup by quietly shuffling pedophiles from parish to parish, literally and knowingly dooming more little kids to molestation, in order to protect the "Holy" reputation of "Holy Mother Church".

Mike

 

"A priest is a representative to God on behalf of man. Jesus is the High Priest of our faith and the only priest we should concretely label as such. In my opinion.

SpyHunter "

i completely agree.

 

Lutherans do not have priests as the office is associated with the sacrificial system and since we aren't making any sacrifices we just call ourselves Pastors or when are being pious undershepherds.

Contrary to how the media portrayed it, it was not a hush job; they were caught between a rock and a hard place, it is always a tough thing when you believe in forgiveness and the seal of the confessional while trying to work with somebody struggling with sin.

 

You're spelling it correctly but that's where it ends. No man has the power to consecrate anything; only God does. The fact of the matter is that the Church - and indeed the majority of Christians throughout the ages - right from the earliest times (so no, not a 'cunningly devised fable')has recognised that there are certain individuals deriving their authority from Jesus Himself who are set apart and authorised on behalf of the People to ask God to do this. The words of this 'asking' vary from denomination to denomination; in the Catholic Church they are: "Let your Spirit come upon these gifts [of bread and wine] and make them holy so that they may become the Body and Blood of your Son our Lord Jesus Christ"; the Anglicans say "Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ" (italics mine - it is the Spirit, not the man Who effects the Real Presence). Nor is it necessary to 'partake of this communion as frequently as possible to maintain their salvation', but on the other hand who would want to miss out on this special way of meeting intimately with the Lord and Saviour??!!

 

The Mass is transubstantiation--without a priest you have no Mass. I do not see how they can be mutually exclusive.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

They are not mutually exclusive, however, you can have mass with out a priest. Lutherans called it mass for a long time and according to the confessions Mass is still an acceptable term. What you cannot have with out a priest is the Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

Yes, you can have a valid Eucharist without a Catholic priest; it just wouldn't be a valid Catholic Eucharist, complete with transubstantiation, from a Catholic POV.

To my mind of course there is no such distinction: the Eucharist is the Eucharist, regardless of the denomination; it is the intention and authority which is important.

 

How do you have Mass without a sacrifice? There is something blatantly incongruent about this--mass without a sacrifice.

There be some who say a mass in anything but Latin is no mass at all.

Thank the Lord His children do not have to go through a man to have access to God. Jesus is high priest and all those born again offer spiritual sacrifices--in temples not made with hands.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

The explanation is lengthy so I am not going to post it here but you are free to read it by following the link, you will need Acrobat to read it.

Apology to the Augsburg Confession - click on link to MASS

 

Not for the last 40 years or so.

 

Well Im sorry if I posted 5 posts in a row, Ive seen other people do that here so I didnt think it was such a big deal.

Like over on the SDA thread Bob does that alot and nobody seems to mind.

But anyway, sorry if I have offended anybody.

Honestly though it seems to me in my case you all are searching for things to be offended at. Probably because I have said some thing that you dont particularly like.

Claudia

 

I don't think people are offended, more amused. I was planning on copy and pasting one of your runs of posts into my word processor and doing a word count for kicks, but it slipped my mind. I'm sure it was up over two thousand words. How can you expect people to respond to that? I'm pretty sure most of your posts are copied and pasted from somewhere else, which is why you can post such a massive amount so quickly. However, responding to these would take us a couple hours of writing and editing--and what's the incentive when we aren't even responding to you, but to the web site that you copied from?

I think you'd find discussions here more profitable if you limited yourself to single posts of 500 words or less.

 

Cohanim ( Priests) existed when there were Sacrifices. Jesus completed and finished the Sacrifice Once for All at the Cross.
Only the religions who do not believe the completion of the Sacrifice at the time when Jesus Christ declared " It is finished" may have the Priests and the Sacrifices.

This distinguishes between the right religion and the wrong religions.

Heb 10:17-18

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin .

 

Was Paul wrong?

Acts 20:
17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders( Presbyterous) of the church


28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers(Episkopous) , to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.


Why does Paul call the Presbyterous the Episkopous ? Was it because Paul didn't learn from you?

Read Titus 1:5-9 where you find Paul start to mention Elders(Presbyterous) and then change the title to Episkope(Episkopon) again.in verse 7.

You are confused between OT times and NT times.