|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 5:27 pm
i know a lot of Protestants who will say that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is made less when we do things through priests rather than directly to God [in every sacrament, basically, but especially Reconciliation].
since i also need clarification on this, i thought i'd have you apologists flex your theology-muscles and practice with this whilst giving me answers [:
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:24 am
Why is it made less? How could men ever make Jesus' sacrifice less? *does not understand*
"But one whom you forgive anything, I forgive also; for indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I did it for your sakes in the presence of Christ..."
That is the priest's job, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:24 pm
Yes, but the question is why a mediator? Why is the priest even necessary? Why not just talk to Jesus and confess directly to God and not to a person standing in for Jesus?
The presence of a mediator makes it so that Christ's death on the cross in itself is not enough to absolve sins, but something extra must be done with another fallible human to achieve absolution.
Says the Protestant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:10 pm
Here is an interesting article that speaks of why the Church cannot ever ordain women.
As for why priests are needed, Christ himself instituted this practice. In Matthew 16: 18-19: Christ tells Peter: "I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock, I shall build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 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."
Here Christ institutes Peter as the leader of His Church. He makes it clear that Peter has been given the power to bind and loose things. What does this mean? This binding and loosing of things?
It is a metaphor to sins. One can chose to not forgive the sin, and thus that sin is bound to the person. They are unable to get rid of it, because it has not been forgiven. However, if the sin is forgiven, then the person is released from the sin, given a chance to try again. Why would a sin not be forgiven? If the person seeking forgiveness has an imperfect intent. They seek forgiveness, but in their heart, they seek to continue the sin; thus the sin is retained because the penitent has not actually sought forgiveness. God forgives all sins when the person truly and honestly seeks forgiveness; however, in this passage, He has given this power to forgive to Peter, the rock upon whom He built His Church. Peter, the first Pope, the first leader of Christ's Church. This is the basis for Reconciliation. This article describes this more deeply: Confession of Sin to a Priest
Now, for the Eucharist, the priest is acting in persona christi, meaning he is the symbol of Christ during the Eucharist. Christ is male, and so the priest is male.
All twelve of Christ's apostles are male, and so the Pope and its Bishops and clergy are male, following the original decision made by Christ.
Some may say that Christ was pressured into choosing only men because of the time period in which he lived, but this is erroneous. Christ is God. God has no qualms breaking the social norms of the era. Christ often did things that went against the culture of that time period. See the passages where he ate with tax collectors, talked with Samaritan women, cured the sick and lame on the Sabbath, threw the money-collectors out of the temple, and so forth. He could easily have picked women as His apostles, the ones that would teach the laity the gospel, but He did not. This has to do with the nuptial imagery - Christ and His bride, the Church, which is explained in the above article.
Also, this article speaks of the necessity of each position: Bishop, Priest, and Deacon and why the early Church fathers considered it essential in the structure of the Church.
I'm a little disorganized in my response, but hopefully, it helps you gain some insight in how to answer this question that Protestants love to pose.
One thing I enjoy pointing out is how, when told why priests should even exist - is why should pastors? Because Christ is the shepherd that teaches His flock, and He passed this responsibility on to His apostles. Even if a protestant tries to say that there is no need for a priest at all, then logically one can deduce from their own argument that one shouldn't need a pastor either, and yet Protestants have pastors.
I think most of the time, their qualm is with Reconciliation or the Eucharist and not with the actual priesthood itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:48 am
In response to the women part: The early Church did ordain women. It didn't last through the third century though, but it did happen. I have read primary documents and sources where this did happen, but it was phased out fairly early compared to Church history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
