Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"As for the 'universal priesthood', on which Protestantism relies in its denial of the special priesthood, it may be said that Catholics also believe in a universal priesthood; this, however, by no means excludes a special priesthood but rather presupposes its existence, since the two are related as the general and the particular, the abstract and the concrete, the figurative and the real. The ordinary Christian cannot be a priest in the strict sense, for he can offer, not a real sacrifice, but only the figurative sacrifice of prayer. For this reason the historical dogmatic development did not and could not follow the course it would have followed if in the primitive Church two opposing trains of thought (i.e. the universal versus the special priesthood) had contended for supremacy until one was vanquished. The history of dogma attests, on the contrary, that both ideas advanced harmoniously through the centuries, and have never disappeared from the Catholic mind. As a matter of fact the profound and beautiful idea of the universal priesthood may be traced from Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho 116), Irenæus, (Against Heresies IV.8.3.), and Origen ("De orat.", xxviii, 9; "In Levit.", hom. ix, 1), to Augustine (City of God XX.10) and Leo the Great (Sermo, iv, 1), and thence to St. Thomas (Summa, III, Q. lxxxii, a. 1) and the Roman Catechism. And yet all these writers recognized, along with the Sacrifice of the Mass, the special priesthood in the Church. The origin of the universal priesthood extends back, as is known, to St. Peter, who declares the faithful, in their character of Christians, 'a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices', and 'a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood' (1 Peter 2:5, 9). But the very text shows that the Apostle meant only a figurative priesthood, since the 'spiritual sacrifices' signify prayer and the term 'royal' (regale, basileion) could have had but a metaphorical sense for the Christians. The Gnostics, Montanists, and Catharists, who, in their attacks on the special priesthood, had misapplied the metaphor, were just as illogical as the Reformers, since the two ideas, real and figurative priesthood, are quite compatible. It is clear from the foregoing that the Catholic clergy alone are entitled to the designation 'priest', since they alone have a true and real sacrifice to offer, the Holy Mass." - from New Advent, Priesthood
Meerkat, in 1 Peter 2:5 and 9 Peter does write that we are a royal priesthood. The Greek word for priesthood is ἱεράτευμα - herateuma.
If you wish, google 'doctrine of the royal priesthood of the believer' for information on the teaching.
Who is that ‘we’ though?
He is speaking to elders, being an elder himself
I think that a huge part in understanding Scripture is that there has always been a speaking through the Scriptures to different types of people and that is dependent on time and season
I just don’t think that Peter was speaking to every individual as being called a priest
Mat 23:37**O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Mat 23:38**Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
Mat 23:39**For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
"As for the 'universal priesthood', on which Protestantism relies in its denial of the special priesthood, it may be said that Catholics also believe in a universal priesthood; this, however, by no means excludes a special priesthood but rather presupposes its existence, since the two are related as the general and the particular, the abstract and the concrete, the figurative and the real. The ordinary Christian cannot be a priest in the strict sense, for he can offer, not a real sacrifice, but only the figurative sacrifice of prayer. For this reason the historical dogmatic development did not and could not follow the course it would have followed if in the primitive Church two opposing trains of thought (i.e. the universal versus the special priesthood) had contended for supremacy until one was vanquished. The history of dogma attests, on the contrary, that both ideas advanced harmoniously through the centuries, and have never disappeared from the Catholic mind. As a matter of fact the profound and beautiful idea of the universal priesthood may be traced from Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho 116), Irenæus, (Against Heresies IV.8.3.), and Origen ("De orat.", xxviii, 9; "In Levit.", hom. ix, 1), to Augustine (City of God XX.10) and Leo the Great (Sermo, iv, 1), and thence to St. Thomas (Summa, III, Q. lxxxii, a. 1) and the Roman Catechism. And yet all these writers recognized, along with the Sacrifice of the Mass, the special priesthood in the Church. The origin of the universal priesthood extends back, as is known, to St. Peter, who declares the faithful, in their character of Christians, 'a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices', and 'a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood' (1 Peter 2:5, 9). But the very text shows that the Apostle meant only a figurative priesthood, since the 'spiritual sacrifices' signify prayer and the term 'royal' (regale, basileion) could have had but a metaphorical sense for the Christians. The Gnostics, Montanists, and Catharists, who, in their attacks on the special priesthood, had misapplied the metaphor, were just as illogical as the Reformers, since the two ideas, real and figurative priesthood, are quite compatible. It is clear from the foregoing that the Catholic clergy alone are entitled to the designation 'priest', since they alone have a true and real sacrifice to offer, the Holy Mass." - from New Advent, Priesthood
I've always wondered about this. Where do you find in Scripture the idea that the apostles were priests? Where is Timothy ordained as a priest? Where did Paul command him to celebrate the Mass? Where is any of the idea of a special priesthood?
I've always wondered about this. Where do you find in Scripture the idea that the apostles were priests? Where is Timothy ordained as a priest? Where did Paul command him to celebrate the Mass? Where is any of the idea of a special priesthood?
Since Christianity is the fulfillment of the Hebrew religion, the existence of a Priesthood has always been assumed and needed no exposition or explanation. The Old Testament provided enough of that.
Rather, the burden is on those who reject the Priesthood to explain where in Scripture or Tradition it has been abolished.
Since Christianity is the fulfillment of the Hebrew religion, the existence of a Priesthood has always been assumed and needed no exposition or explanation. The Old Testament provided enough of that.
Rather, the burden is on those who reject the Priesthood to explain where in Scripture or Tradition it has been abolished.
Weird. We see Paul commanding Titus and Timothy to appoint elders. No mention of appointing priests.
Weird. We see Paul commanding Titus and Timothy to appoint elders. No mention of appointing priests.
Priests are not appointed. They are called and ordained.
Just as a side note, the early Christians in all likelihood did not fully understand how the Christian Priesthood would or ought to work. They were accustomed to a hereditary system. It had to develop over time as it became more clearly understood.
That said no, I don't call myself a priest. He was making a point in his letter. He wasn't giving us all a title.
I agree with you.
Christians don’t go around calling themselves priests. We don’t need to. We don’t use the title. But I believe Peter was making a very important point, and I’m sure you know this.
I believe you would agree that under the old law, the high priest was needed to mediate between God and man. When Jesus died on the cross, He did away with the Levitical priesthood. He is our high priest and mediator now. We have no need of an earthly, priestly class.
I don’t mean to insult anyone’s intelligence here, but I don’t think a lot of people understand this. There is no need for a separate priestly class of people. Jesus is the only mediator we need. We offer up spiritual sacrifices (prayer, praise, submitting to the will of Gods, etc.) to God through our mediator Jesus.
This is not to say we don’t need elders, ministers, teachers, etc. But we do not need a separate priestly class. They are not mediators. There is only one mediator, and that is Jesus.
Priests are not appointed. They are called and ordained.
Just as a side note, the early Christians in all likelihood did not fully understand how the Christian Priesthood would or ought to work. They were accustomed to a hereditary system. It had to develop over time as it became more clearly understood.
Weird how they're not even mentioned in the epistles. Nor are they mentioned in Acts, as Paul is traveling on his missionary journey. He is never said to perform a Mass.
Weird. We see Paul commanding Titus and Timothy to appoint elders. No mention of appointing priests.
Exactly! And why didn’t they? Because a priestly class separate from the people was not necessary. Jesus is our mediator. He alone stands between us and God.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
