Did you know Jesus has already obtained redemption for believers?

Mike Gendron has asked: 

Did you know Jesus has already obtained redemption for believers?
Catholicism denies this by teaching: “The work of our redemption is carried on” every time the Eucharist is celebrated (CCC, 1405) God’s Word declares: “He [Jesus] entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12). “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace” (Eph. 1:7).

I think the key word in Hebrews 9:12 is eternal.  If something is eternal, it goes on and on forever.  The word eternal does not refer to something only in the past tense.  Eternal things exist outside of the boundaries of time and they continue without interruption.  The Eucharist is an eternal gift from God.  Those who receive the Eucharist step outside of time.  They are with Jesus at the Last Supper.  They are with Jesus at the foot of the Cross.  They are with Jesus at His resurrection.  They are with Jesus in Heaven at the marriage supper of the Lamb.  They are present with Jesus in all of these places and times simultaneously.  The gift of the Eucharist is mysterious, mystical, and miraculous.  

The Eucharist was never meant to be a one-time event.  Jesus commanded the breaking of the bread to continue when He said, “Do this in remembrance of Me.”  The Eucharistic meal, like the Passover meal of the Old Covenenant, is a memorial of redemption.  The Eucharist, however, is not just a memorial, it is also a real communion with Christ.  

Judge what I say:  Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?  1 Corinthians 10:15-16

Is the Body and Blood of Christ eternal?  Is our redemption through the Body and Blood of Christ?  I think the Bereans would, after a thorough search of Scripture, answer “yes” to both questions.  Therefore, everytime that we partake of the bread and the cup which St. Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 10, we participate in our eternal redemption. 

Why do Catholic priests continue to offer Jesus as a sacrificial victim when He said “It is finished”?

Protestant evangelist Mike Gendron has asked:

Why do Catholic priests continue to offer Jesus as a sacrificial victim when He said “It is finished” (John 19:30)?
God’s Word says: Jesus appeared once and offered Himself once to bear sins. His offering is not to be done again (Heb. 9:25-28). When Jesus “offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, [He] sat down at the right hand of God” (Heb. 10:12). Disregarding the infallible Word of God, Catholicism teaches: “the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice. The victim is one and the same. In this divine sacrifice, the same Christ who offered himself once… is contained and offered in an unbloody manner” (1367).

The simple Berean answer is that while Jesus’ death on the cross is finished, His priesthood according to Melchizedek is forever.  He will always be our Great High Priest who feeds us His body and blood through the bread and wine that we offer Him as an offering of thanksgiving for what He has done for us.  Catholic priests, together with all Catholics participating in the Mass, offer ordinary bread and wine on the altar as an offering of praise and thanksgiving (Todah in Hebrew, Eucharist in Greek).  We do this in obedience to Christ Who said, “Do this in memory of Me.”  It is a memorial sacrifice that was prefigured in the Passover meal.  As the Passover meal was eaten in remembrance of the Israelites delivery from slavery in Egypt, so too, we eat the Paschal meal in remembrance of our delivery from slavery to sin.  Catholics do not disregard the Word of God when we do this, but on the contrary, we fulfill the very Words of Jesus when He said, “Take, eat, this is My Body” (Matt 26:26) and also

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.  ”He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.  ”For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.  ”He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.  ”As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.  ”This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”   John 6:53-58

What Mike Gendron and others seem to misunderstand is that we are not nailing Jesus to the cross again.  We believe that the bread and wine that we offer become Holy on the altar and indeed become the very Body and Blood of the Risen Christ.  Jesus isn’t dying again; we are only calling to memory His death and resurrection.   Yet through this sacrament, we believe that Christ feeds us with His very own Body and Blood.  We believe this fulfills Jesus’ words in John chapter 6 as well as His words at the Last Supper.  We don’t place Christ on the altar to sacrifice Him again.  We place ordinary bread and wine on the altar and Christ, our Great High Priest, takes our ordinary gifts and turns them into something extraordinary!

Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?   Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.  Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar?   1 Corinthians 10:16-18   

Those who EAT the sacrifices are sharers in the altar!  In eating the sacrifice of bread and wine offered up to God on the altar, we share in the body and blood of Christ!  “Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship” (Heb 9:1), why do some people assume that there are no longer regulations of divine worship in the new convenant?  Why do some assume that an altar is no longer necessary when Malachi  prophesies about a grain offering?

“For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations,” says the LORD of hosts.  Malachi 1:11

 Catholic priests are not Levitical priests who offer bloody sin sacrifices outside the Temple, but are priests according to the order of Melchizedek who offer bread and wine.  There is no place in Scripture that states there is no longer a priesthood.  Hebrews 7:12 alludes to the fact that the priesthood has been changed in the New Covenant, and Hebrews 9:1 seems to indicate that there are new regulations for Divine Worship in the New Covenant.  Our Great high Priest modeled those new regulations for us when He broke bread, gave it to His disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my Body.”  We know from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians that bread and wine were blessed at an altar and were considered to be a sharing in the body and blood of Christ.  Yet sadly, many people have allowed themselves to be decieved into thinking that this Divine Worship of the New Covenant is a dead ritual that is contrary to Scripture.  While Jesus’ death on the Cross is finished, His priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek and our worship according to Malachi 1:11 is perpetual. 

 

Do you really believe Catholic priests have the power to call the Lord Jesus down from heaven every day?

This is number five on Gendron’s list of “hard questions.” His question is based on an out-of-print book called Faith of Millions. Gendron wrote:

According to Roman Catholic priest John O’Brien in his book Faith of Millions, “The priest … reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man… Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.”

My short answer to this question is: NO, we do not believe Catholic priests have the power to command Jesus. However, we do believe Christ entrusted the apostles and their successors with His authority and charged them to “feed His sheep.” He commanded them to “DO this in memory of Me” and priests are following His command when they celebrate the memorial feast of the Eucharist.

What Gendron fails to realize is that not everything written by Catholic clergy or theologians is the official teaching of the Catholic church. There is no such wording in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which may be why Gendron did not directly quote from the CCC on this point). The words of the Mass clearly show that the Catholic priest and the congregation ASK God to make the gifts on the altar holy by the power of His Spirit, NOT the power of the priest. Offering gifts on the altar to God is a very biblical concept that God Himself ordained and commanded His people in the Old Testament to do. The word “command” is used in the sentence but only in reference to following the command of Christ. This is what it sounds like at the Catholic Mass:

From age to age you gather a people to yourself, so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name. And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. We ASK you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the body and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this Eucharist.

Gendron then brings up the Catechism of the Catholic Church which IS the official teaching of the Catholic Church. It is interesting, however, that he directly quotes from a book that contains unofficial teaching but paraphrases from the CCC.

Over 200,000 times each day, priests throughout the world believe they re-present Jesus on their altars as an offering for sins of the living and the dead (CCC, 1371-1374). Again Catholics ignore God’s Word which declares that Jesus “having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time for salvation not to bear sin” (Hebrews 9:28). The Bible also tells us how and when Jesus will appear. He will return the same way he left, immediately after the tribulation with power and great glory (Mat. 24:27-30; Acts 1:11). By the authority of God’s Word we must conclude that the Eucharist is a false Christ.

Gendron again shows that he does not understand Catholic doctrine. The words of the Eucharistic prayer from the Mass clearly indicate that Catholics believe Jesus bore our sin only once and has reconciled us to the Father :

Father, calling to mind the death your Son ENDURED for our salvation, his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and LIVING sacrifice. Look with favor on your Church’s offering, and see the Victim whose death has RECONCILED us to yourself.

We are not asking Jesus to bear our sins again, but rather offering a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving to the Father for saving us from our sins. Over 200,000 times each day (from the rising of the sun to its setting), Catholic priests throughout the world (in every place) are offering the Bread of Life (a pure grain offering) as an offering of thanksgiving and praise. This fulfills a prophecy in Malachi:

“For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations,” says the LORD of hosts. Malachi 1:11

My hard question for good Protestants is how does your church fulfill Malachi 1:11? Gendron says by the authority of God’s Word we must conclude that the Eucharist is false, yet, he fails to give Scriptural reference that would lead one to that conclusion. He lists Matthew 24:27-30 and Acts 1:11 but neither of these passages speak against the Eucharist. They speak of Jesus walking around on earth in human flesh. When Paul speaks of partaking of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11, he speaks of the bread and cup as if they really are the body and blood of Christ.

While I realize that Gendron is a former Catholic, I suspect that he doesn’t really understand what the Eucharist is. The word Eucharist is a Greek word which means thanksgiving; the Hebrew word is Todah. An old Rabbinic teaching says: “In the coming Messianic age all sacrifices will cease, but the thank offering [todah] will never cease.” [Taken from the Pesiqta as quoted in Hartmut Gese, Essays On Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1981), 133] The Eucharist/Todah is a “thank offering” to give thanks to God for delivering us from the slavery of sin.

“When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ’s Passover, and it is made present: the sacrifice Christ offered once and for all on the cross remains ever present.” (CCC 1364)

The Eucharist parallels the Jewish Passover meal which God commanded the Israelites to celebrate their deliverance from slavery in Egypt. This goes to back to the words of the Mass that I listed above where the priest says, “… at whose command we celebrate this Eucharist.” Catholic priests are not commanding Jesus to come down from heaven, but rather following His command to “DO this in memory of Me.” The Mass is a memorial celebration much like the Passover meal. Just as the slain lamb is eaten at the Passover meal, so the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world is eaten. His flesh is REAL food and His blood is REAL drink. His words, not mine…

I have a few recommendations on this subject:

1. Read the words of the Mass to see if the priest is commanding Jesus. Also, note that the Eucharist is offered as a memorial sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise.
2. Read the official teaching on the Eucharist from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. A good place to start is the section titled “The Sacramental Sacrifice: Thanksgiving, Memorial, Presence.” CCC 1356-1381
3. Read this article that explains that explains the Todah sacrifice—From Jewish Passover to Christian Eucharist:The Story of the Todah.
4. Read this blog entry from Shellie at ProfoundGratitude.com about the book Faith of Millions that Gendron quoted. In the comment section, I thought Fred had an excellent point about the language that Father O’Brien chose in this book. Fred also quotes another passage from the book where Father O’Brien clearly makes the point that the power of the words of consecration derive their power from the will of the Father and the work of the Holy Spirit NOT from the power of the priest.

Grace To You Unless You Are Catholic

The Catholic Church calls Protestants “separated brethren.” John MacArthur calls Catholicism a “false and deceptive form of Christianity.”¹ And that’s one of the more charitable things he’s said about Catholics.

Clearly, we have a spirit of ecumenism flowing in one direction only.

In this series of posts, I’ll be discussing Roman Catholicism: A Grace Community Church Distinctive, available from both Grace to You and Dr. MacArthur’s church’s website, Grace Community Church.

John MacArthur’s bio lists that he is a pastor-teacher, popular author and conference speaker as well as president of Grace to You which produces radio broadcasts. The church he pastors is apparently non-denominational. His writings abound with Reformed and dispensational theology.

In Roman Catholicism, Dr. MacArthur writes that Catholicism is false and antithetical to the gospel.

…it is the spiritual duty of all true Christians to oppose Roman Catholic doctrine with biblical truth and to call all Catholics to true salvation….

[True Christians] cannot allow the gospel to be obscured, and they cannot make friends with false religion, lest they become partakers in their evil deeds (2 John 11).

While MacArthur believes Catholicism to have “many errors,” Roman Catholicism gives special attention to two errors as noted by MacArthur: the denial of sola Scriptura and the denial of the biblical teaching on justification.

The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura

In the words of reformer Martin Luther, the doctrine of sola Scriptura means that “what is asserted without the Scriptures or proven revelation may be held as an opinion, but need not be believed.” Roman Catholicism flatly rejects this principle, adding a host of traditions and Church teachings and declaring them binding on all true believers—with the threat of eternal damnation to those who hold contradictory opinions.

To ease into the discussion, today let’s just unpack the bolded statement a bit.

The Church does not, emphatically does not, threaten anyone with eternal damnation. In all likelihood, Dr. MacArthur is laboring under misconceptions regarding the Church’s use of the terms “anathema” and “excommunication.” Neither is a one-way ticket to hell.

From Catholic.com:

[The Greek word anathema] literally means to be suspended, placed on high, or set aside. In the Bible the term is sometimes used in the positive sense of being to [sic] something which is dedicated to God. … In other instances anathema is used in sense of being cursed or cut off.

When the Catholic Church uses the term, such as at the Council of Trent and in its official documents, it is in the sense of excommunication or being cut off from the life-giving unity of the Church.

Anathema is the ceremonial form of excommunication. It was a canonical penalty and actually is no longer in use. It applied solely to Catholics who are under the legitimate authority of Rome. Excommunication is a biblical concept. (Gal. 1:9, see also 1 Cor. 16:22 and 1 Cor. 5:1-7, 13)

The Church, in her wisdom and with her God-given authority, uses excommunication to remind the sinner that his sin is grievous, mortal, and the sinner must repent or face dire eternal consequences. Anathema is cutting the sinner off from the Church to bring about repentance; anathema is not condemning such a one to hell. The Church exists to reconcile and bring grace through the Sacraments to the sinner who comes home.

And can I just admit that the irony of MacArthur writing the above in bold is striking to me?

In his sermon transcript, The Pope and the Papacy², he details a meeting with big name Protestants during which the state of Catholic and Anglicans’ salvation was discussed.

What was at stake? I’ll tell you what was at stake. What was at stake is whether or not we evangelize Roman Catholics, that’s what’s at stake. One billion of them in the world. Are they a mission field? Or are they our co-laborers for Christ? That changes everything..everything. On the other side, one of the leading evangelicals said, “I think it’s so wonderful that we can now see Catholics as Christians because that means millions and millions of people are Christians.”

As if somehow by them deciding they were Christians they became Christians. I was absolutely incredulous, almost fell off my chair. It was like what a monumental meeting this is, we just redeemed millions of people without leaving the room. But that is what is at stake in this.

In this same article, MacArthur derides his Protestant brethren who believe Pope John Paul II is in Heaven and gives his answer to the question:

And the world was watching the death of Pope John Paul II in an unrivaled spectacle of worship given to a man. And the question came up, is the Pope in heaven? And you hear all these people say, “Yes, yes, yes.” People have asked me, “Is the Pope in heaven?” And my answer is, “Is the Pope Catholic?” Isn’t that the answer? I think he is, I think the Pope is Catholic. Does he believe Catholic theology? Yes. He is the guardian of Catholic theology. Do you get to heaven by works, by Mary, by Penance, by Baptism, by confession, by Rosary? No. This is another gospel.

…

We should grieve for that man because he gained the whole world and lost his soul.

I ask you, dear reader, who is consigning — not threatening but already consigning — people to eternal condemnation for holding contradicting opinions?

---

 

¹ MacArthur, John. “Doctrinal Distinctives: Roman Catholicism.” Copyright 2002, Grace to You. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

² MacArthur, John. “The Pope and the Papacy.” Copyright 2007, Grace to You. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

Noble Bereans and Angry Thessalonians

I know many modern-day ”noble Bereans.”  They have given serious thought to the apostolic teachings of the Catholic Church, and searched the Scriptures to see if these teachings (and Church) are  true.  Acceptance of these teachings and those who teach them comes with great persecution.  Despite the fact that these modern-day Bereans searched the Scriptures looking for truth, they are charged with NOT searching the scriptures at all.  They are even charged with rejecting Christ, a ludicrous charge in my opinion. 

In Acts 17, both Bereans and Thessalonians believed in the authority of Scripture.  The difference between the two was that the Thessalonians rejected apostolic teachings.  There are more than a few modern-day Thessalonians lined up to speak out against today’s noble Bereans who have chosen to accept the words of Christ through His apostles and their successors.  Most of us who have submitted ourselves to the apostolic teachings of the Catholic Church have experienced this Thessalonian persecution.  Our decision to follow Christ and His Church has severed friendships and sometimes even family ties.  

It seems to me that the number of modern-day Bereans who are accepting the word of the apostles with eagerness is increasing.  I could be biased in this opinion, of course.  However, I don’t think Catholics are the only ones noticing this increased activity in the Tiber.  The increase in reconciliations to the Church that holds the keys to the Kingdom is of great concern to many Reformed Protestants.  They seem to be grasping at straws in trying to find the cause for what they are calling “a growing apostasy.”  In the July-November 2006 Proclaiming the Gospel  newsletter, Mike Gendron blames the “emerging church movement” and guys like Brian McLaren.  I suppose he could be right, although I have my strong suspicions that it is the work of the Holy Spirit that is drawing so many people into unity with the Catholic Church.  I can assure Gendron that the “emerging church movement” had nothing to do with my swimming across the Tiber.  Opening my ears to what the Church really taught and searching the Gospels (the very words of Christ) are what changed my heart.  I have not rejected Christ but rather embraced Him more fully. 

Thankfully for me, my reconciliation to Rome was not newsworthy.  Some in my family were “horrified,” but my decision was not broadcast to the world and scrutinized publically.  Such is not the case with Dr. Francis Beckwith.  I don’t think I can recall a reconciliation story that has been made so public.  I honestly had never heard of Dr. Beckwith before last week.  But thanks to James White, a popular Reformed apologist, many people know who Beckwith is now.  White was the first to broadcast Beckwith’s decision, like an angry Thessalonian bent on agitating the anti-catholic crowds.  As with the story of the Bereans and Thessalonians in Acts 17, the noble Bereans are not discouraged by the angry Thessalonians.

Introducing Sophia Thornton

I am so happy to announce a new team member here at Answering the Berean Call.  Sophia is a former lifelong Protestant but upon hearing the call of the Lord, she found the fulfillment of her faith in the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Sophia was reconciled to the Church in 2007.  Although a very new Catholic, I believe she has much to offer, and look forward to her contributions to this blog.  Sophia may be reached at: 

Did Jesus ordain a priesthood for the New Covenant? part 2

Could it be possible that God ordained the priesthood of Melchizedek to minister to the royal priesthood in the New Covenant?  Jesus is not a Levite and yet He is our Great High Priest in the order of Melchizedek; this would seem to indicate an end to the Levitical priesthood.  But doesn’t it also indicate a beginning of the Melchizedek priesthood?  We know very little about Melchizedek, but what we do know is profound.

• Melchizedek was a priest of God Most High 
• He was King of Salem (Salem means peace)
• Melchizedek means “my King is righteous”
• He brought out bread and wine
• He blessed Abram                                                (Abram was to be the rock of a nation)
• Melchizedek’s priesthood is forever                 (which would indicate it is still operating today)

The Similarities of Melchizedek and Jesus 

Jesus is a Priest of God, a true mediator between God and man.  He is also called the Prince of Peace.  Like Melchizedek, Jesus brought bread and wine.  He told us that His flesh is true food and His blood is true drink.  He said that we have no life in us unless we eat this Bread and drink from this Cup. (John 6)  Many of His disciples didn’t understand what He was saying, but at the Last Supper it became a bit clearer when He broke bread, gave it to them, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” (Matthew 26)  It is interesting that some of the same people who would scoff at Bill Clinton’s twisting of the meaning of the word ”is” would twist the meaning of ”is” in this passage.  

Abraham and Peter Both Blessed by Priests in the Order of Melchizedek

Jesus blessed many people but worth noting is His blessing of Peter.  There are some similarities between Abraham and Peter.  The most obvious is that God changed the name of both of these men.  Abram became Abraham; Simon became Peter. 

When Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter (which means rock) and said, “upon this rock I will build My church,” (Matt 16:18) it was a reference to the metaphor of Abraham being a rock upon which Israel was built.  “Look to the rock from which you were hewn…Look to Abraham your father…” (Isaiah 51:1-2)

Along with the name changes came changes in vocation.  Abraham was to become chief and father of multitudes.  This vocation of Abraham didn’t take away from the supremity or Fatherhood of God.  Peter was to become a chief and a father of the church.  I am fully aware that my last sentence sends chills up a Protestant spine but I can prove this from Scripture.  First, realize that calling Abraham “Father Abraham” doesn’t diminish the fact that God is the Father of us all.  So neither does calling Peter, a “Father of the church” diminish the the ultimate Fatherhood of our God. 

 The Link Between Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22

When Jesus gave the keys to Peter in Matthew 16 He was referencing Isaiah 22, even the NASB translation links the two passages, proving that Catholics are not the only ones who see the link.  

 When Jesus said, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven,” it was a reference to Isaiah 22.  Proper understanding of Matthew 16:18-19 requires knowledge of Isaiah 22.  The keeper of the keys is an office of authority.  Isaiah 22 says this about the person who holds this office:

• he is a steward (v. 15)
• he is in charge of the royal household (v. 15)
• he holds an office (v.19)
• his authority will be entrusted to someone else (v.21 )
• he will become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah (v. 21, Papa, Pope?)
• the key to the House of David will be upon this new guy’s shoulders (v.22, sounds very familiar to Matthew 16:19)
• whatever he opens no one will shut (v. 22, again sounds like the binding power given to Peter in Matthew 16:19)
• God will drive him like a peg in a firm place (v. 23, a rock upon whom the church is built?)
• he will become a throne of glory to his father’s house (v.23, even though he will be called a father as in v. 21)

I can’t help but wonder about v. 25: 

 ”In that day,” declares the LORD of hosts, “the peg driven in a firm place will give way; it will even break off and fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken.”

I’ve never heard Catholic commentary on this verse.  I have just been wondering to myself if this is not prophetic words about those who break away from that peg (that office of authority, the Pope?).  If indeed, the chair of Peter is that peg, then it seems that those who break away from that chair of unity, place themselves at risk of being cut off.

The Twelve Apostles and Their Successors are Priests Forever in the Order of Melchizedek

 I believe that Jesus ordained Peter to be the keeper of the keys and charged him with feeding His (Jesus’) sheep.  Jesus placed Peter in charge of the royal household, the Church.  If the Judas’ office was not to remain empty, how much more so the office of Peter?  Peter and the Apostles were ordained by Christ to be part of the ministerial priesthood in the New Covenant.  They are not Levitical priests who offer up animal sacrifices.  They are priests forever in the order of Melchiziedek who feed us the Bread from Heaven and offer us the Cup of the New and Everlasting Covenant.  Only Christ is the True Priest; they are only His ministers.  As ministerial priests of Christ, they have the authority to teach.  As it is written, “For the lips of a priest should preserve knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.”  Malachi 2:7

Did Jesus ordain a priesthood for the New Covenant? part 1

Most Christians would agree that Jesus is the Great High Priest in the order of Melchizedek.  However, there is great disagreement about the ministerial priesthood.  Those who have made a career of speaking out against the Catholic Church claim that there is no ministerial priesthood—that it all ended when Jesus died on the Cross and the Holy of Holies in the Temple was torn open.  They use 1 Peter 2:9 to proof text their theory that the priesthood of the Catholic Church is not a valid priesthood.  Their thought is that because every believer has a share in the royal priesthood, then there is no need for a ministerial priesthood.  What they fail to mention is that God’s people in the Old Covenant were also called a royal priesthood (if they obeyed God’s voice and kept His covenant). 

“Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.  Exodus 19:5-6 

Yet, no one would dare say that the Levitical priesthood was not valid in the Old Covenant.  The Levitical priesthood was certainly ordained by God in the Old Covenant to minister to all those who were a part of the royal priesthood.  If God calling all of His people a “kingdom of priests” in the Old Covenant did not eliminate the ministerial priesthood, then why are people insistent that Peter’s reference to the words of the Old Covenant nullifies a ministerial priesthood?  

to be continued…

Did you know that Jesus put an end to the ordained priesthood?

Gendron asks this “hard question” with much certainty.  I’m searching the Scriptures, and yet I do not see where Jesus put an end to the ordained priesthood.  Jesus is our Great High Priest in the Order of Melchizedek.  I see no Scripture passage that says there are no other priests under our High Priest in this priesthood.  He instituted a new priesthood for the New Covenant when He ordained the Twelve Apostles.  These apostles ordained others, following the command to “let another take his office.”

Gendron quotes Matthew 27:51 to proof text his idea, but there is no mention of the priesthood in this verse.  This was not the first time that the Temple had been destroyed.  Temple destruction never meant an end to the priesthood before, why would it now? 

The Holy of Holies wasn’t torn open to put an end to the ministerial priesthood, but because God became more accessible to the all.  Now the laity could come face to face with God and be in communion with Him.  Not only can we enter the Holy of Holies but the Holy of Holies enters us through the Bread of Life. 

Gendron again uses a Scripture verse that does not make the point he would like it to make when he refers to to Romans 3:23-26.  I agree with that we can now come directly to God.  Each of us can walk into a church and sit before the presence of the Lord (Alleluia!) in the Tabernacle.  Each of us can receive Him at the Lord’s Table.  This was not possible before His death and Resurrection.  Still, this passage makes no mention of the end to the ministerial priesthood.    

Should we assume that God put an end to the priesthood?  I see nothing in Scripture that says there was or ever would be an end to the priesthood.  Scripture says, ”The lips of a priest should preserve knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.”  Malachi 2:7   Forget about sacrifices…what about seeking instruction?  In the Old Covenant people were to seek instruction from priests and elders.  Did this really change with the New Covenant?  Jesus is not a Levitical priest, but a priest in the order of Melchizedek–a priest that offers bread and wine.  So the question is did He ordain others to be priests in the order of Melchizedek to offer bread and wine?  This certainly would fulfill Malachi 1:11. 

“For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations,” says the LORD of hosts.

Did you know those who distort the Gospel are condemned?

This is Gendron’s next “hard question.”  Yes, I think we all believe this.  The BIG question is WHO exactly is distorting the Gospel?

 According to Gendron:

Catholics need to be warned that their clergy is under divine condemnation for adding works and sacraments to God’s Gospel (CCC, 1129).

Can you tell me which of the seven sacraments the Church added? 

• Baptism? 
• Eucharist?
• Confirmation?
• Reconciliation?
• Annointing of the Sick?
• Matrimony?
• Holy Orders?

I established in another post that Baptism was commanded by Jesus and tied to salvation by Him.  Is it not a distortion of the Gospel to say that baptism is NOT necessary or salvific in nature?

The Eucharist was also commanded by Jesus and tied to salvation.  This is not something that the Church added but rather something the Church has passed down from Jesus and the Apostles.  The Catholic Church has always held to Jesus’ words “This is My Body.”  Isn’t it a distortion of the Gospel to say that Jesus really meant “this represents my body?” Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.”  How can one say the Eucharist isn’t necessary for salvation?  Jesus said, “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.”  How can one say that His flesh isn’t really a true food, bread?  Or that His blood isn’t really a true drink, wine?  How can one rightly say that Jesus was merely speaking symbolically without distorting the words of Jesus? 

Confirmation is a sacrament that can be seen in the book of Acts.  The apostles laid hands on people who had already been baptized so that they would receive the Holy Spirit.  (Acts 8:14-17)  This seemed important to the apostles in Jerusalem (those who held church authority) so shouldn’t it be imporant to the Church today as well?  Seems like it was important to Jesus as well because it was Jesus who sent Ananias to Saul to lay hands on Saul so that he would be filled with the Holy Spirit.  (Acts 9:15-18) 

Jesus gave the apostles His authority to forgive sins. The Catholic Church didn’t make this up, but again this has been passed down to us from the apostles, and is documented quite clearly in John 20:23: “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”  

I do not think the church teaches that Annointing of the Sick, Matrimony, or Holy Orders are required for salvation so I will not get into those from a salvation point of view.  Yet all three of these sacraments were ordained by Jesus.  The church has not added them but rather is passing on what Jesus taught the apostles. 

In conclusion, the Catholic Church has not added works to the Gospel of Christ.  The Sacraments were instituted by Jesus and the Catholic Church is providing these sacraments in obedience to Jesus’ command to Peter: “tend My lambs” and ”Shepherd My sheep.”  The Catholic Church proclaims the Gospel daily in the Mass; can the same be said of most non-catholic evangelical churches?  In my experience many Gospel passages are never preached in Sunday sermons.  The Catholic Church holds fast to what Jesus says in the Gospels regarding the sacraments.  Those who claim that obedience to Jesus’ commandments are not necessary for salvation are distorting the Gospel of Christ place their souls in grave danger.