The office of the priest

[Secundulus]

The clergy guides the laity at all times. They do not want them to sin nor cause others to sin. Nor cause harm to anyone.
A vote is a powerful tool, with it someone is elected to power and with that laws can be made or undone.
To instruct someone not to vote for someone because they support certain issues is a moral obligation of a clergyman in any denomination, they have the duty to do so, IMO.
Their job is to pastor the faithful to live a moral life in all areas of their lives.

I agree.

Forgive me...

I agree also. The clergy, whatever their denomination, is supposed to be leading. For an example, see the letters of Paul. If they are not leading then they ought not to be clergy to begin with.

 

[sunlover1]

The clergy guides the laity at all times. They do not want them to sin nor cause others to sin. Nor cause harm to anyone.

I dont see this laity/clergy distinction in the body.
I see it more as a maturity level. (IMO)

Paul, the Apostle, in his letter to the Ephesians,
wrote down how the body would function.
Those who are to do the equipping,
those who are being equipped
(and who will in turn be equipping others)
But as we all know, even while WE are being
equpped, we are also involved in the equipping
of others.

He begins by reminding them of their calling:
Eph 4:
Therefore I, a prisoner for serving the Lord,
beg you to lead a life worthy of your calling,
for you have been called by God.

How?:
2 Always be humble and gentle.
Be patient with each other,
making allowance for each other’s faults because of your love.
3 Make every effort to keep yourselves united in the Spirit,
binding yourselves together with peace.
WHY?:
4For there is one body and one Spirit,
just as you have been called to one glorious hope for the future.
5 There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 and one God and Father,
who is over all and in all and living through all.

7 However, he has given each one of us a special gift
through the generosity of Christ.
8 That is why the Scriptures say,
“When he ascended to the heights,
he led a crowd of captives
and gave gifts to his people.”
9 Notice that it says “he ascended.” This clearly means that Christ also descended to our lowly world. 10 And the same one who descended is the one who ascended higher than all the heavens, so that he might fill the entire universe with himself.​

11 Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church:
the apostles,
the prophets,
the evangelists,
and the pastors and teachers.​

12 Their responsibility is
to equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ.
13 This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and
knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord,
measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ.
14 Then we will no longer be immature like children.
We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching.
We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so
clever they sound like the truth.
15Instead, we will speak the truth in love,
growing in every way more and more like Christ,
who is the head of his body, the church. ​

16 He makes the whole body fit together perfectly.
As each part does its own special work,
it helps the other parts grow,
so that the whole body is healthy and growing and full of love.
​

We meet at church for this 'equipping', as we are ALL
able ministers of the gospel and each member of the
body has a special purpose and role.

IMO
sunlover

Their job is to pastor the faithful to live a moral life in all areas of their lives.

At my church, this is something that we learn by
'example'. The 'equippers' are bright shining examples,
causing those who see that light in them, to desire
that same level maturity in Christ as we study
and grow in truth and love.
Naturally, the only way any of this could be possible
(the shining like lights of the universe) is through
the infilling of the Holy Spirit and the trust that
comes from speaking out the truth, in love.


Sorry my post is so messy, hope it blesses you.

 

[Albion]

Not precisely, sir. The Nazarene minister who posted here as "WesleyJohn" was quite clear on the fact that they see themselves as successors of John Wesley, presbyter of the Church of England, to minister word and sacrament to and with their people.

The origins of Methodism as a separate denomination rather than a movement within the church date back to the latitudinarian Bishop of London's refusal to ordain men to serve as priests in America, which lay evangelists from the Methodist Societies were evangelizing in the mid 1700s. Only two priests from the Methodist Societies were prepared to serve in America, and it was, for legal reasons, included in the See of London.

After prayer and study, Wesley convinced himself that when a bishop refuses to do his duty to the church, it falls on a presbyter to act in his stead. He therefore laid hands on those two priests and set them aside as "general superintendents" to give oversight to what the Methodists (then still a movement within the Church of England) were doing in America. One of them, Francis Asbury, used the title "Bishop" in recognition that he was providing episkopé.

On the standard only-bishops-may-ordain praxis, this did not transmit valid apostolic succession. But it seems in a very real way to echo exactly what happened with Paul and Timothy. I'd pray long and hard before explicitly and definitively denying Methodist, Wesleyan, and Nazarene ministers the accolade of presbyterios. Your opinion, of course, may well differ.

Excellent discussion, Poly!

Further clouding the issue is this--Wesley may well have been validly consecrated a bishop himself, but since it was not authorized by the state church it had to be kept private by him.

 

[MamaZ]

That's not a belief even for the Catholics, Mama. It's a Law of the Church, not God's doing but the church hierarchy's -- and they can change it if they see fit. Benedict XVI could announce it's no longer binding tomorrow if he so chose. It was originally adopted to keep married priests from leaving their pastorates to their sons, who may not have been good priests. (Biblical analogy: Eli's sons in I Samuel.) It's kept for the same reason that "preacher's kid" is a running joke in Protestant circles -- it's really difficult for a clergyman to balance the demands of his church family and his own marital family. But there are tons of married Catholic priests -- in the Eastern Rites, married clergymen who convert... And Orthodox and Anglican priests are normally married unless they're under monastic vows (common in Orthodoxy, rare but existent in Anglicanism).

Okay this helps. But is it not true that in some area's that one cannot be a preist if they are married? I understand that this is a law of the church but here we read in scripture that this is something that should not be happening? This forebidding of marriage according to the Apostle Paul?

 

[Albion]

Okay this helps. But is it not true that in some area's that one cannot be a preist if they are married? I understand that this is a law of the church but here we read in scripture that this is something that should not be happening? This forebidding of marriage according to the Apostle Paul?

I think the difference--and the way this is usually explained--is that Paul is speaking in a general sense about marriage as it applies to everyone, about its place in society, etc. In the case of priests and celibacy, the Roman Catholic Church obviously does not forbid marriage to its priests (since it has many who are married) but it does require those men seeking to become priests in one particular rite to take a vow of celibacy if they want to become priests there. It is, in other words, a self-imposed discipline with no implications intended or understood about the institution of marriage itself.

If those men do not want to remain celibate, no one is forcing them to do that. They merely remain laymen or seek ordination in another rite of the Roman Church. They also take other vows concerning obedience and financial frugality which no one complains about. It's all a matter of a lifestyle that this church decided, rightly or wrongly, to make its standard. There are also health and fitness standards for clergy. And unlike the issue of women clergy, the RCC never (as has already been explained) has said that this (clerical celibacy) is anything but the church's own regulation. It's not IOW considered something decided by Scripture or Tradition.

 

[MamaZ]

I think the difference--and the way this is usually explained--is that Paul is speaking in a general sense about marriage as it applies to everyone, about its place in society, etc. In the case of priests and celibacy, the Roman Catholic Church obviously does not forbid marriage to its priests (since it has many who are married) but it does require those men seeking to become priests in one particular rite to take a vow of celibacy if they want to become priests there. It is, in other words, a self-imposed discipline with no implications intended or understood about the institution of marriage itself.

If those men do not want to remain celibate, no one is forcing them to do that. They merely remain laymen or seek ordination in another rite of the Roman Church. They also take other vows concerning obedience and financial frugality which no one complains about. It's all a matter of a lifestyle that this church decided, rightly or wrongly, to make its standard. There are also health and fitness standards for clergy. And unlike the issue of women clergy, the RCC never (as has already been explained) has said that this (clerical celibacy) is anything but the church's own regulation. It's not IOW considered something decided by Scripture or Tradition.

Thank you. I started a different thread so not to derail this one.

 

[Codger]

The Old Covenant is just loaded with symbols, types, and shadows of what was to come under the reign of the Messiah in the New Covenant, which was yet to come before Jesus' day in Israel. The Levitical Priesthood was a shadow of the New Testament people of God - who are referred to in the NT as a nation of Priests and Kings.

The Mishna [Tractate Middos}describes the process for becoming a priest, who served in the Temple of God. There were only two requirements - the candidate had to be able to trace his ancestry to Aaron - the first high priest, and he must be free of any blemish or physical imperfection. The Temple records would prove his ancestry and he may have to show that he had no blemishes or imperfections on his physical body.

When people appear before God on that final Judgment day they only have to show (from the book of life) that they are related (as children) to the only true high priest - Jesus the Messiah. And he is coming for whom? A bride without spot or blemish: no spiritual belmishes. Do you see the parallel between the literal of the Old Testament and the Spiritual of the New Testament? This pattern is all through the Bible starting in the Garden of Eden.

The candidate for the Priesthood in the Old Covenant had to appear before the Grand Sanhedrin in the Temple and the High Priest, who would either approve or disapprove their qualification. Note that it didn't matter how much money they had or if they had a PHD in religion, or anything else in life. You didn't earn your position of being a Priest in the Temple by any works or level of personal accomplishment. The same requirement is needed for the NT believer - have a kinship with Jesus and be unspotted or unblemished by sin and the world. It’s simple.

If the candidate for the Priesthood could prove his relationship to the First high priest (Aaron) and had no blemishes - his name was recorded in the book of the Priesthood, which is parallel with the "Book of Life" that the Bible talks about in the NT. They also gave the newly appointed Priest a white robe, which was the priestly vestment worn in the Temple - it was the mark of the Priesthood. However if you could not pass the two requirements, you were rejected and clothed with a black robe and a black veil and led out of the chamber of Hewn Stones in the Temple where the Sanhedrin met and off of the Temple grounds. Again another shadow of the Judgment seat of God in that final day.

There were 24 different turns of Priests with 24 priests in each turn. Each turn would serve for a week and rotate with the turns overlapping on the Sabbath. The outgoing turn would conduct the morning sacrifice and the incoming turn of 24 Priests would begin their week by conducting the evening sacrifice. The Priest hood was symbolic of the Saints of today and each turn had a leader and so there were 24 leaders [or elders] in charge of the Priesthood with the High Priest over all. The 24 elders are symbolic of the authority of the believers on the earth as it is symbolized in the book of Revelation. Jesus the true high priest was, of course, over all those who came under the New Covenant. This is just a copy of Heaven where the real 24 elders are in charge. The Temple is just a miniscule copy of what is really in heaven - not the other way around.

Next, if you look at the duties of the ancient Priests in the Temple you will also see a parallel between the literal rituals of back then and the spiritual of Today. For example: the Priests were required to keep clean. The first thing that they did in the morning was to take a full bath. Then before they began the morning sacrifice they had to rewash their hands and feet. Symbolic of staying free from sin. They administered the daily sacrifices and since Jesus was symbolic of the daily sacrifice - the New Testament priest does the same by telling the Gospel story every day as it is eternal. And so on. There are a lot of parallels between the two and I hope to write this up one day.

Larry

 

[Rebekah30]

I dont see this laity/clergy distinction in the body.
I see it more as a maturity level. (IMO)

Paul, the Apostle, in his letter to the Ephesians,
wrote down how the body would function.
Those who are to do the equipping,
those who are being equipped
(and who will in turn be equipping others)
But as we all know, even while WE are being
equpped, we are also involved in the equipping
of others.

He begins by reminding them of their calling:
Eph 4:
Therefore I, a prisoner for serving the Lord,
beg you to lead a life worthy of your calling,
for you have been called by God.

How?:
2 Always be humble and gentle.
Be patient with each other,
making allowance for each other’s faults because of your love.
3 Make every effort to keep yourselves united in the Spirit,
binding yourselves together with peace.
WHY?:
4For there is one body and one Spirit,
just as you have been called to one glorious hope for the future.
5 There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 and one God and Father,
who is over all and in all and living through all.

7 However, he has given each one of us a special gift
through the generosity of Christ.
8 That is why the Scriptures say,
“When he ascended to the heights,
he led a crowd of captives
and gave gifts to his people.”
9 Notice that it says “he ascended.” This clearly means that Christ also descended to our lowly world. 10 And the same one who descended is the one who ascended higher than all the heavens, so that he might fill the entire universe with himself.​

11 Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church:
the apostles,
the prophets,
the evangelists,
and the pastors and teachers.​

12 Their responsibility is
to equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ.
13 This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and
knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord,
measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ.
14 Then we will no longer be immature like children.
We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching.
We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so
clever they sound like the truth.
15Instead, we will speak the truth in love,
growing in every way more and more like Christ,
who is the head of his body, the church. ​

16 He makes the whole body fit together perfectly.
As each part does its own special work,
it helps the other parts grow,
so that the whole body is healthy and growing and full of love.
​

We meet at church for this 'equipping', as we are ALL
able ministers of the gospel and each member of the
body has a special purpose and role.

IMO
sunlover



At my church, this is something that we learn by
'example'. The 'equippers' are bright shining examples,
causing those who see that light in them, to desire
that same level maturity in Christ as we study
and grow in truth and love.
Naturally, the only way any of this could be possible
(the shining like lights of the universe) is through
the infilling of the Holy Spirit and the trust that
comes from speaking out the truth, in love.


Sorry my post is so messy, hope it blesses you.

It is not messy at all.

Your post is a blessing sunlover!
My pastor was a blessing also today when I talked to him about a few things.
We are going to talk again in a few day, he is a great.

 

[Albion]

The Old Covenant is just loaded with symbols, types, and shadows of what was to come under the reign of the Messiah in the New Covenant, which was yet to come before Jesus' day in Israel. The Levitical Priesthood was a shadow of the New Testament people of God - who are referred to in the NT as a nation of Priests and Kings.

The Mishna [Tractate Middos}describes the process for becoming a priest, who served in the Temple of God. There were only two requirements - the candidate had to be able to trace his ancestry to Aaron - the first high priest, and he must be free of any blemish or physical imperfection. The Temple records would prove his ancestry and he may have to show that he had no blemishes or imperfections on his physical body.

When people appear before God on that final Judgment day they only have to show (from the book of life) that they are related (as children) to the only true high priest - Jesus the Messiah.

But this kind of answer completely avoids the question. Yes, there was a priesthood in the Old Testament. Christ is called the high priest. His coming was fortold in many ways. BUT HE FOUNDED HIS OWN CHURCH. We are no longer talking about the Hebrew religion; we are concerned about Christ's church. AND IT HAS CLERGY as any one at all familiar with the New Testament can attest. Presbyters, Bishops, Deacons, are all discussed in the New Testament, with their duties, and right down to their qualifications.

These are the clergy of the Christian Churches from the beginning of the Apostolic Age. Some of today's denominations use different terminology; some assign different duties to their clergy; some have their own ways of choosing them. Two things are certain, however. We have them and they not the Jewish clergy. That Church has no more significance for us who are Christians. It accomplished its purpose when Christ founded his own church and gave it his commission and his instructions.

 

[MamaZ]

Then before they began the morning sacrifice they had to rewash their hands and feet. Symbolic of staying free from sin.

This is so neat.. Explains the washing of the feet with Jesus and His disciples.

 

[MamaZ]

The old covenant is the shadow of what the new covenant is all about..

 

[Rebekah30]

The old covenant is the shadow of what the new covenant is all about..

And the O.C. was based in the natural (physical) and the N.C. is spiritual...

 

[Codger]

But this kind of answer completely avoids the question. Yes, there was a priesthood in the Old Testament. Christ is called the high priest. His coming was fortold in many ways. BUT HE FOUNDED HIS OWN CHURCH. We are no longer talking about the Hebrew religion; we are concerned about Christ's church. AND IT HAS CLERGY as any one at all familiar with the New Testament can attest. Presbyters, Bishops, Deacons, are all discussed in the New Testament, with their duties, and right down to their qualifications.

These are the clergy of the Christian Churches from the beginning of the Apostolic Age. Some of today's denominations use different terminology; some assign different duties to their clergy; some have their own ways of choosing them. Two things are certain, however. We have them and they not the Jewish clergy. That Church has no more significance for us who are Christians. It accomplished its purpose when Christ founded his own church and gave it his commission and his instructions.

No, I am saying that God gives us information about the Spiritual New Covenant Priesthood through the literal Old Covenant. In the New Covenant all those in Christ are Priests. It's like in the military where they tell you that everyone is first a soldier. If your encampment is attacked, everyone drops their MOS duties and takes up a weapon and fights for survival.

In the Church everyone is a Priest and leadership is like the army Mos (Military occupational Specialty). You are first and foremost a Christian/Priest. But each one also has and is a gift to the Church. The problem with todays Church is it follows the pattern of the world and has set up a pyramidal heirarchy of authority. God's leadership is based on servanthood and is the exact opposite of our present Church Government. And so the leadership in most places lords it over the "Laity'. There is no such thing as laity. A simple test of the exclusiveness of leadership is easily discovered. Special days, special seating, assigned parking. These are simple things but often point to a much bigger problem that is more difficult to discern.

Is there a heirarchy in heaven? Yes there is, but it is set up by God and it is true and is totally different than down here. Mostly they are reversed from what appears down here. Great evangelists down here are often the lowest in heaven. People who are insignificant down here are seated on thrones with Christ in heaven. Our judgment is very shallow and superficial. God judges us according to out motives, faithfulness, and they are seldom what they appear to us here.

Larry

 

[Secundulus]

No, I am saying that God gives us information about the Spiritual New Covenant Priesthood through the literal Old Covenant. In the New Covenant all those in Christ are Priests. It's like in the military where they tell you that everyone is first a soldier. If your encampment is attacked, everyone drops their MOS duties and takes up a weapon and fights for survival.

In the Church everyone is a Priest and leadership is like the army Mos (Military occupational Specialty). You are first and foremost a Christian/Priest. But each one also has and is a gift to the Church. The problem with todays Church is it follows the pattern of the world and has set up a pyramidal heirarchy of authority. God's leadership is based on servanthood and is the exact opposite of our present Church Government. And so the leadership in most places lords it over the "Laity'. There is no such thing as laity. A simple test of the exclusiveness of leadership is easily discovered. Special days, special seating, assigned parking. These are simple things but often point to a much bigger problem that is more difficult to discern.

Is there a heirarchy in heaven? Yes there is, but it is set up by God and it is true and is totally different than down here. Mostly they are reversed from what appears down here. Great evangelists down here are often the lowest in heaven. People who are insignificant down here are seated on thrones with Christ in heaven. Our judgment is very shallow and superficial. God judges us according to out motives, faithfulness, and they are seldom what they appear to us here.

Larry

What you have described is a system where everyone is a General and nobody is a Soldier. That Army is destined to eternal argument as to which General is in Charge and will lose the battle and be overrun while sitting in their tents arguing about who is in charge.

Seems to be a pretty accurate description of modern Christianity.

Lest somebody tell me I'm wrong. 50,000,000 dead children in America alone cry out to our ineffectiveness.

 

[MamaZ]

And the O.C. was based in the natural (physical) and the N.C. is spiritual...

That is why in the Spiritual we have only one High Priest. It is Christ who forever intercedes on our behalf..

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


IMHO.....


Pastor/elder/presbyter all deal with the teaching office in the church.

Bishop has to do with overseeing, supervision and perhaps administration in the church.

Priest is one who offers sacrifices on an altar.


When I was active in and a student of The Catholic Church, I was told that the minister of the RCC is called a "priest" because only he can officiate at the Mass and the Mass is a "bloodless sacrifice upon the Altar." Ergo, "priest."


Now, IN EUROPE but infrequently in America (I don't know about elsewhere), some Protestants CONTINUED the moniker of "priest" even though they no longer understood his office in the RCC sense (they also continued to refer to the worship table as an "altar" even though they no longer believe anyone is Sacrificed there) - monikers survived the change in view for some Protestants (I think we are primarily speaking of Lutherans and Anglicans).




.

 

[sunlover1]

It's like in the military where they tell you that everyone is first a soldier. If your encampment is attacked, everyone drops their MOS duties and takes up a weapon and fights for survival.

Amen.

But each one also has and is a gift to the Church. The problem with todays Church is it follows the pattern of the world and has set up a pyramidal heirarchy of authority. God's leadership is based on servanthood and is the exact opposite of our present Church Government. And so the leadership in most places lords it over the "Laity'. There is no such thing as laity.

Thank you Larry.
Your posts are most enjoyable.

What you have described is a system where everyone is a General and nobody is a Soldier. That Army is destined to eternal argument as to which General is in Charge and will lose the battle and be overrun while sitting in their tents arguing about who is in charge.

No no no, I see it just the opposite.
If anything, wouldnt they argue over who 'gets to' serve who?
What he described is each one being a true servant of God's people,
filled with the Spirit, and manifesting the fruit of that in their life and ministry, shining like lights in the universe.

Seems to be a pretty accurate description of modern Christianity.

Exactly. Modern Christianity is not an example to emulate.

Lest somebody tell me I'm wrong. 50,000,000 dead children in America alone cry out to our ineffectiveness.

We arent finished yet.
It's time for the church to arise! Maybe time to stop fighting
over such foolish things as which denomination is 'more right"
or which tribe is worshipping God "correctly" I say if they're
fighting over it, it cancels out the heart of the matter anyhow.
(forgive me Secundulus, if I've said anything that's offensive to
you. I cannot remember what your faith icon says. Which btw,
is a great thing imo. because it means that you don't promote
division)
And pick up their swords and fight the real enemy.
Time for the church to stop chasing after men and
start waiting on the voice of God rather. Stop exalting
men and to drop to it's knees, thankful for the incredible
mercy that He's shown to His people. ANd then to take
that UNdeserved mercy and extend it to HIS children.

 

[Polycarp1]

.


IMHO.....


Pastor/elder/presbyter all deal with the teaching office in the church.

Bishop has to do with overseeing, supervision and perhaps administration in the church.

Priest is one who offers sacrifices on an altar.


When I was active in and a student of The Catholic Church, I was told that the minister of the RCC is called a "priest" because only he can officiate at the Mass and the Mass is a "bloodless sacrifice upon the Altar." Ergo, "priest."


Now, IN EUROPE but infrequently in America (I don't know about elsewhere), some Protestants CONTINUED the moniker of "priest" even though they no longer understood his office in the RCC sense (they also continued to refer to the worship table as an "altar" even though they no longer believe anyone is Sacrificed there) - monikers survived the change in view for some Protestants (I think we are primarily speaking of Lutherans and Anglicans).




.

That may be what you were told, but it does not accord with either the etymology of the terms nor how Anglican priests, Methodist elders, etc., see their sacramental roles. (I will not speak for the Orthodox but I strongly suspect they would concur.)

(BTW, friendly constructive criticism: "moniker" is in my experience a slight pejorative for "title given to", as in "Lawyer Evans worked for the Mob, who called him by the moniker of 'Fixer'." I may be wrong on this, but it's the sense I've always gotten from the term.)

 

[Polycarp1]

Sunlover has made some really valuable points on the Priesthood of All Believers.

To me this does not malign the value of ordained clergy -- a church needs everything it can get, to most effectively do the Lord's work as He gives it to them. Teaching, presiding at worship, and financial administration and practical one-on-one evangelism are all roles -- that we may have people set apart for some of those roles fits with I Cor. 12.

 

[Secundulus]

It's time for the church to arise! Maybe time to stop fighting
over such foolish things as which denomination is 'more right"
or which tribe is worshipping God "correctly" I say if they're
fighting over it, it cancels out the heart of the matter anyhow. . . .
And pick up their swords and fight the real enemy.

I agree with this entirely. The question is, in military terms, what is to be our rally point today?