Priest and Pope evidence of corruption in the catholic church?

[I-can-see]

Hmmm, according to the bible, we are all kings and priest. Being believers.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father-- to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
King James Bible
And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

American King James Version
And has made us kings and priests to God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

American Standard Version
and he made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father; to him be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And hath made us a kingdom, and priests to God and his Father, to him be glory and empire for ever and ever. Amen. Rev 1:6

This does not change no matter the translation. So, why then does the catholic church set up priest and a pope if not for political control? The priest being the religious power, and the pope being the political. It seems like a clear way to control the people, since no priest is greater then another. By making placing themselves in a position of authority, using their titles, it seems like clear defiance of scripture. Again we are all kings and priest unto God, so why has the catholic church promoted the use of such titles if not to control the people of God, and exploit most peoples ignorance of scripture?

 

[Zaac]

Hmmm, according to the bible, we are all kings and priest. Being believers.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father-- to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
King James Bible
And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

American King James Version
And has made us kings and priests to God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

American Standard Version
and he made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father; to him be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And hath made us a kingdom, and priests to God and his Father, to him be glory and empire for ever and ever. Amen. Rev 1:6

This does not change no matter the translation. So, why then does the catholic church set up priest and a pope if not for political control? The priest being the religious power, and the pope being the political. It seems like a clear way to control the people, since no priest is greater then another. By making placing themselves in a position of authority, using their titles, it seems like clear defiance of scripture. Again we are all kings and priest unto God, so why has the catholic church promoted the use of such titles if not to control the people of God, and exploit most peoples ignorance of scripture?

I agree completely. But this is probably better suited for the Catholic forum.

 

[I-can-see]

I am not trying to die! o.o

 

[Zaac]

I am not trying to die! o.o

You are very smart. They would try to eat you up.

 

[OllieFranz]

I agree completely. But this is probably better suited for the Catholic forum.

The denominational/doctrinal congregation forums are for fellowshipping within those denominations, and if they choose to allow those from outside to participate, in order to learn their doctrinal uniqueness, the visitors should be respectful.

They are intended to be safe places for those who are young in the faith, or new to the denominations to be nurtured by interacting with those who are more grounded.

If you want to ask this thread to be moved, it should be to "Denomination Specific Theology" to which you should ask it to be moved. That is the forum to discuss the merits of these doctrinal differences.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Hmmm, according to the bible, we are all kings and priest. Being believers.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father-- to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
King James Bible
And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

American King James Version
And has made us kings and priests to God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

American Standard Version
and he made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father; to him be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And hath made us a kingdom, and priests to God and his Father, to him be glory and empire for ever and ever. Amen. Rev 1:6

This does not change no matter the translation. So, why then does the catholic church set up priest and a pope if not for political control? The priest being the religious power, and the pope being the political. It seems like a clear way to control the people, since no priest is greater then another. By making placing themselves in a position of authority, using their titles, it seems like clear defiance of scripture. Again we are all kings and priest unto God, so why has the catholic church promoted the use of such titles if not to control the people of God, and exploit most peoples ignorance of scripture?

There are different levels of priesthood. All Christians are "priests" yes, but it is clear in Scripture that there is a separation of laity and clergy. I point you to the entire Book of Acts. The presbyters (which is where the English word priest derives from, by the way) are mentioned clearly.

If we take your inane logical leap to its conclusion, then we have to reject any authority that ministers/elders/whatever you want to call them have. Every church or denomination has some sort of hierarchy, and it is clear there was a hierarchy in the early Church. By analyzing the Tradition of the Church, we find that this hierarchy mentioned in scripture is the hierarchy found in the apostolic churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox). There are bishops: the episcopacy. There are priests under the bishops: the presbyters. Then there is the laity: the rest of us.

 

[Bro_Sam]

Hmmm, according to the bible, we are all kings and priest. Being believers.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father-- to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
King James Bible
And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

American King James Version
And has made us kings and priests to God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

American Standard Version
and he made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father; to him be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And hath made us a kingdom, and priests to God and his Father, to him be glory and empire for ever and ever. Amen. Rev 1:6

This does not change no matter the translation. So, why then does the catholic church set up priest and a pope if not for political control? The priest being the religious power, and the pope being the political. It seems like a clear way to control the people, since no priest is greater then another. By making placing themselves in a position of authority, using their titles, it seems like clear defiance of scripture. Again we are all kings and priest unto God, so why has the catholic church promoted the use of such titles if not to control the people of God, and exploit most peoples ignorance of scripture?

Be careful. Nothing will get you an infraction here faster than daring to question or criticize the Catholic Church in any way.

 

[Bro_Sam]

I point you to the entire Book of Acts.

And I would point you to the book of Hebrews, which states that God has done away with the priestly system and the need for priests.

If we take your inane logical leap to its conclusion...

Can't the Catholics here go even one post without name calling?

 

[Dark_Lite]

And I would point you to the book of Hebrews, which states that God has done away with the priestly system and the need for priests.

So did Acts just randomly become invalidated by the time the events in Hebrews happened?

Can't the Catholics here go even one post without name calling?

I dunno, can they? It's a debate. Attack the views, not the person.

 

[Bro_Sam]

So did Acts just randomly become invalidated by the time the events in Hebrews happened?

Where does Acts say that the church had priests?

I dunno, can they?

Apparently not.

It's a debate. Attack the views, not the person.

...says the person who just attacked the person.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Where does Acts say that the church had priests?

The word presbyter is generally translated as elders in modern translations. After the death of the apostles and as Christianity began to spread, the eldership began to be split between priests and bishops. In the Catholic and Orthodox understanding, the bishop is still the only one with authority over a church. He is the "elder." The priests are delegates for the bishop. It can be really viewed as a matter of practicality. At first, individual churches had bishops (elders), but as the Church grew this was not feasible.

...says the person who just attacked the person.

His conclusion is inane in my eyes. That is not attacking him, it is attacking his argument. Anyway, this is not relevant.

 

[Bro_Sam]

The word presbyter is generally translated as elders in modern translations. After the death of the apostles and as Christianity began to spread, the eldership began to be split between priests and bishops. In the Catholic and Orthodox understanding, the bishop is still the only one with authority over a church. He is the "elder." The priests are delegates for the bishop. It can be really viewed as a matter of practicality. At first, individual churches had bishops (elders), but as the Church grew this was not feasible.

That's swell. Now, back to my question: where in the book of Acts do we see priests in the church?

His conclusion is inane in my eyes.

Hmm. I guess they really can't go a whole post without attacking someone.

 

[Dark_Lite]

That's swell. Now, back to my question: where in the book of Acts do we see priests in the church?

You have your answer. Take it or leave it. Elder = presbyter = bishop. Priests = delegation of bishop's authority. It is the Tradition of the Church. Historic Christianity did not understand Scripture in the sense of Sola Scriptura. Tradition played a much larger role than most Protestants give it today.

 

[Bro_Sam]

You have your answer. Take it or leave it. Elder = presbyter = bishop. Priests = delegation of bishop's authority. It is the Tradition of the Church. Historic Christianity did not understand Scripture in the sense of Sola Scriptura. Tradition played a much larger role than most Protestants give it today.

In other words, priests do not actually appear in the book of Acts.

 

[Dark_Lite]

In other words, priests do not actually appear in the book of Acts.

If that's the way you want to rationalize it, then be my guest.

 

[Bro_Sam]

If that's the way you want to rationalize it, then be my guest.

It isn't a rationalization.

You're the one who claims that priests are found in the book of Acts and even you can't say where priests are found in the book of Acts.

 

[Dark_Lite]

It isn't a rationalization.

You're the one who claims that priests are found in the book of Acts and even you can't say where priests are found in the book of Acts.

I said:

I point you to the entire Book of Acts. The presbyters (which is where the English word priest derives from, by the way) are mentioned clearly.

I then explained what the word presbyter means in the context of Acts, due to your question. You can't understand the Bible fully without historical context, both within the Tradition of the Church, and from a complete outside context. I have given you that context. That is the answer from the position of the apostolic Churches.

 

[Bro_Sam]

I said:


I then explained what the word presbyter means in the context of Acts, due to your question. You can't understand the Bible fully without historical context, both within the Tradition of the Church, and from a complete outside context. I have given you that context. That is the answer from the position of the apostolic Churches.

And when I asked you for a specific verse that mentions priests, you couldn't come up with one.

 

[Dark_Lite]

And when I asked you for a specific verse that mentions priests, you couldn't come up with one.

Well when you purposely frame a question inside a small box that cannot consider the fullness of a situation, then I suppose any answer you get will be lacking.

 

[Bro_Sam]

Well when you purposely frame a question inside a small box that cannot consider the fullness of a situation, then I suppose any answer you get will be lacking.

"Lacking" is one thing. Your answer is non-existent.