Do Catholics Have a priesthood?

[quadrophenic_9]

Ummm, do they? I've been told they claim priesthood authority through Peter who I assume must have gotten it directly from Christ. Is that how it is? I was reading another thread and the question just hit me. I never really hear anything about it if they do.

 

[gmelrod]

The Catholic Church cites Peter as the firsy pope and source of all priestly powers from Christ.

"Thou art Simon the son of Jonah; thou shalt be called Cephas" (Jn 1:42)

Cephas is a transliteration of Kepha the Aramaic word for rock which through the greek Petros we get the name Peter.

Later Jeasus spoke to Peter and said
"Whatever thou shalt bind on earth sall be bound in heaven; what ever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Mt 16;19)

From the the Catholic Church takes its authority for the forgiveness of sins and the formation of disciplinary rules.

To Peter Jesus promised "I will give to thee [singular] the keys to the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 16:19) In the bible as in today keys were a symbol of authority (ie the keys to the city)

From Peter the line of Popes has moved unbroken to this day. The Popes ordained all bishops who ordained all priests. Thus in Catholic teaching the authority convayed to Peter by Jesus was passed on to his succesors and all the priests that followed.

 

[quadrophenic_9]

How is it passed on between people? Who holds it and what authority/responsibility does it give them?

 

[James the Persian]

Your reference to Peter is true of the Roman Catholics, but not the rest of us that this forum covers. The rest of us agree with the Fathers that the primacy of Rome was not due to some special inheritance from Peter (in any case there are two other Patriarchates with equally good and prior claims to Petrine succession) but rather due to the political and cultural importance of the city of Rome and the honour aforded her by the martyrdoms of both Peter and Paul in the city. In any case, Peter was never Pope of Rome (even according to Church Fathers) and only ordained their third Pope, the first two being ordained by Paul.

The truly Catholic position, the one that everyone in the Church would have recognised as such before we were separated, is that valid priesthood is passed on by Apostolic succession, not Petrine succession (though Peter is viewed as the type of the Apostles). Until just now I'd always thought that Rome still believed that. Whilst I knew that they claim universal jurisdiction for the Pope of Rome, I had no idea that they claimed all priestly authority comes through him. I hope this isn't true.

As for the claim that the Pope ordained all bishops, that's pure nonsense. For a start the canons are clear that all bishops must be ordained by three others (not one) and secondly, the Church was historically divided into five patriarchates and it was uncanonical for any Patriarch (including the Pope) to ordain clergy in across those boundaries.

James

 

[quadrophenic_9]

That's a very long political answer to what I thought was a simple question. Maybe I bit off more than I can chew. But the other part of my question is what does the priesthood bring in terms of responsibility or authority? What sets them apart from those in the church that do not have the priesthood?

 

[Runlikethewind]

The truly Catholic position, the one that everyone in the Church would have recognised as such before we were separated, is that valid priesthood is passed on by Apostolic succession, not Petrine succession (though Peter is viewed as the type of the Apostles). Until just now I'd always thought that Rome still believed that. Whilst I knew that they claim universal jurisdiction for the Pope of Rome, I had no idea that they claimed all priestly authority comes through him. I hope this isn't true.

That is how I have always understood it, in terms of apostolic succession. The apostles where, in a way, the first bishops and they passed their ministry onto their successor who passed it onto the next guy. The actual office of priesthood came later I believe. The bishops, who are seen as getting their authority from apostolic succession, ordain priest.

The Catholic Church cites Peter as the firsy pope and source of all priestly powers from Christ.

From Peter the line of Popes has moved unbroken to this day. The Popes ordained all bishops who ordained all priests. Thus in Catholic teaching the authority convayed to Peter by Jesus was passed on to his succesors and all the priests that followed.

I think this is slightly in accurate. I think James is closer to the truth on this point. Perhaps in modern times apostolic succession is passed down through the office of the pope but it is apostolic succession and not papal authority that is the source of priestly power. At least that is how I have understood it.

 

[Runlikethewind]

That's a very long political answer to what I thought was a simple question. Maybe I bit off more than I can chew. But the other part of my question is what does the priesthood bring in terms of responsibility or authority? What sets them apart from those in the church that do not have the priesthood?

As far as I know the only thing that sets a priest apart from the rest of the faithful is the authority to administer the sacraments. So a priest can hear confessions, preside over the sacrifice of the Mass and holy Eucharist, anoint the sick, etc. Only a priest can do these things.

 

[Bishka]

As far as I know the only thing that sets a priest apart from the rest of the faithful is the authority to administer the sacraments. So a priest can hear confessions, preside over the sacrifice of the Mass and holy Eucharist, anoint the sick, etc. Only a priest can do these things.

I am not sure how much you understand about LDS hierarchy, but I suppose it would be similar to how the bishop (pastor) in the ward (congregation/diocese) is the only allowed to preside over his ward, hear confession and issue temple recommends.

 

[gmelrod]

I think this is slightly in accurate. I think James is closer to the truth on this point. Perhaps in modern times apostolic succession is passed down through the office of the pope but it is apostolic succession and not papal authority that is the source of priestly power. At least that is how I have understood it.

After looking back over my post I realized the error. The part about the Pope being the source of all apostolic succession was only ment to refer to modern bishops and priests. I also forgot about the other Orthodox Churches. For that I can only claim a lack of education and the lateness of the hour at which I posted. James is accurate in his clasification. The source I was using for the argument delt more with Papal authority then apostalic succession but it was the closest I had. Thank you all for bringing me closer to the truth.

By the way if any of you are interested the book I was using was Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on "Romanisn" by "Bible Christians" by Karl Keating, an excellent work of apologetics that has the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur. Well writen and reaserched work on some of the most criticised Roman Catholic doctrine.

 

[Bishka]

This is quad posting through becky, I have another related question but I don't have time now, I want to post it later on this thread though. Those were good informative answers thank you.

 

[quadrophenic_9]

Ok so I was reading another thread the other day which lead me to a line of reasoning. This is why I asked the question about the priesthood. I was reading a thread and the subject had gotten to infant baptism. In the LDS faith infants are not baptized because we belive that they are not accountable for their sins when they are young because they do not yet understand right and wrong. They are covered by the atonement of Christ for a time while they are tought right and wrong by their parents. Then that thought brought me to thinking about Christ's baptism.

When John the Baptist baptized Christ, he baptized him by immersion correct? Meaning his whole self went under the water for a time before he was brought up. If Christ gave Peter his priesthood, and Peter was the first pope why does the Catholic Church baptize by sprinkling? Where did the practice start and why is it used today?

It makes sense to me that John the baptist must have had the same priesthood that Christ and Peter had.

 

[Runlikethewind]

Ok so I was reading another thread the other day which lead me to a line of reasoning. This is why I asked the question about the priesthood. I was reading a thread and the subject had gotten to infant baptism. In the LDS faith infants are not baptized because we belive that they are not accountable for their sins when they are young because they do not yet understand right and wrong. They are covered by the atonement of Christ for a time while they are tought right and wrong by their parents. Then that thought brought me to thinking about Christ's baptism........It makes sense to me that John the baptist must have had the same priesthood that Christ and Peter had.

We do not believe that John held the priesthood of Christ since he came before Christ and we see the baptisms that he did as being different from the baptisms initiated by Christ. We believe that Christ was the High Priest and that He passed his priesthood onto his apostles and on to us today through apostolic succession. John was not a part of that chain we consider him the last of the Old Testament prophets not a New Testament priest.

Matt 11: 11 I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Matt 3: 11 I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

So the baptism of John was for repentance and the forgiveness of sin which does not make sense to do for infants because they have no actual sin. But even after baptism people still sin (I know I do) and so there has to be something else going on there. The idea of original sin was developed primarily by St Augustine of Hippo. We believe that the baptism of Christ with the Holy Spirit wipes away the stain of original sin bringing us into grace but that the effects remain. Everyone is born with the stain of original sin so it makes sense to baptize babies not for actual sins but for original sin.

When John the Baptist baptized Christ, he baptized him by immersion correct? Meaning his whole self went under the water for a time before he was brought up. If Christ gave Peter his priesthood, and Peter was the first pope why does the Catholic Church baptize by sprinkling? Where did the practice start and why is it used today?

The Church recognizes three forms of baptism, immersion, infusion, and aspersion. I may be wrong about this but I think aspersion refers to when there is a large crowd being baptized and the priest would walk around and sprinkle holy water on the crowd while infusion would refer to the common Catholic baptism of pouring water over someone’s head. Immersion is valid and you can find it done in some Catholic churches today. We also recognize that is was the primary method in the early Church but we also recognize that for practical reasons immersion was impossible. In the case of one who is sick for example sprinkling water would be much easier than dragging their bed down to the river or something. Also many of the early martyrs are said to have been baptized in prison where no source of immersion would be likely (Paul baptized his jailer in Acts 16). The practices of infusion and aspersion make it easier and more practical to baptize, the important thing is that water is used. Infusion and aspersion became more common than immersion in around the thirteenth century I believe. It was really just a matter of practice, people just started doing it that way probably because it was easier and it was seen as being valid.

Hope that helps!

 

[athanasius]

Ok so I was reading another thread the other day which lead me to a line of reasoning. This is why I asked the question about the priesthood. I was reading a thread and the subject had gotten to infant baptism. In the LDS faith infants are not baptized because we belive that they are not accountable for their sins when they are young because they do not yet understand right and wrong. They are covered by the atonement of Christ for a time while they are tought right and wrong by their parents. Then that thought brought me to thinking about Christ's baptism.

When John the Baptist baptized Christ, he baptized him by immersion correct? Meaning his whole self went under the water for a time before he was brought up. If Christ gave Peter his priesthood, and Peter was the first pope why does the Catholic Church baptize by sprinkling? Where did the practice start and why is it used today?

It makes sense to me that John the baptist must have had the same priesthood that Christ and Peter had.

Our bother brother “runlikethewind” already answered this beautifully but I will stick my two cents in too. Baptism for a catholic can be done by either Immersion or Pouring. It is not nor ever has been the Catholic churches practice to use aspersion or sprinkling. In the scriptures and sacred Tradition Baptism is seen as done by Immersion(as in the case with Jesus), and by Pouring as Paul teaches (Titus 3:5-7).(Both of these are shown in the Sacred apostolic Tradition as evidenced by the Didache Ad 70 or better known as the teaching of the twelve apostles). The mode(Pouring, Immersion) is not so important to us as the proper Formula(Trinitarian) and intention(to do as the Church intends) and Matter(real water) are. These three things make a Sacramental baptism valid to a Catholic. In cases of emergency any one can baptize as long as these three conditions are met. Priesthood to a Catholic takes on a whole different meaning in the new covenant and the Church run by the Successors of Peter(the Popes) and the apostles(the bishops) have the Power to bind and Loose(Matt 16:13-19, 18: 15-19) practices on how baptisms can be done. According to the church one does not need to be priest to baptize. A deacon or a priest are the “ordinary” ministers of the sacrament, but anyone can baptize in emergency as I already stated. I hope that helps. You ask a very good question. God bless you.