/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Priests can't perform exorcisms because Jesus reserves that power for His ministers.

>>635748

>What are the objections?

>But there is widespread criticism of exorcism and concern that it has been used by a variety of religious practitioners to carry out abuse of children and other vulnerable people. Some victims have died in rituals linked to exorcism. More generally, there is a risk that people with illnesses such as epilepsy or schizophrenia could be misdiagnosed and miss out on medical treatment if their symptoms are ascribed to supernatural phenomena.

So does driving cars. Or eating regularly at Mickey D's. Or smoking in front of your children. Or or or.

I would like to have some resources on "muh dangerous neglection and abuse" claims. It is known that for example Anneliese Michel died during an extended number of exrocisms. That's one case. And if we can believe eye witnesses (they overall seem very credible), then this is what she chose after having had an apparition of the most holy Mother. I know of no other cases. But I know that there's regular abuse and violence carried out by people "exorcising" that have no authority to do so and are overwhelmed. That includes mostly protestants that think they are successors of the Apostles and are laughed at and jumped by the demonic perpetrators - if such cases are really severe.

>11 God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, 12 so that when the handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were brought to the sick, their diseases left them, and the evil spirits came out of them. 13 Then some itinerant Jewish exorcists tried to use the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul proclaims.” 14 Seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva were doing this. 15 But the evil spirit said to them in reply, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?” 16 Then the man with the evil spirit leaped on them, mastered them all, and so overpowered them that they fled out of the house naked and wounded. 17 When this became known to all residents of Ephesus, both Jews and Greeks, everyone was awestruck; and the name of the Lord Jesus was praised. 18 Also many of those who became believers confessed and disclosed their practices.

*Acts 19:11-18

This passage is a warning to everyone claiming to have inherent authority by just calling upon the name of Christ. It simply does not work that way as there is a hierarchy, a divinely instituted hierarchy, instituted through God Himself, that even demons and the devil himself have to obey. And if you happen to outpace yourself by claiming to have authority while in reality you don't, then bad things might happen to you in those rare cases that you really have to deal with full-blown demonic possessions and severe demonic oppression.

>>635752

Exorcists are priests appointed by bishops (the successors of the Apostles) especially for the task of professional exorcising.

>>635788

Jesus ordained no priests

>635802

t.(you)

>>635752

>>635802

Maybe not Jesus Christ directly, but the Holy Spirit has.

God has placed in the church the following: First apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then those with gifts of miracles, gifts of divine healing, gifts of revelation knowledge, gifts of leadership, and gifts of different kinds of tongues. Not everyone is an apostle or a prophet or a teacher. Not everyone performs miracles or has gifts of healing or speaks in tongues or interprets tongues. But you should all constantly boil over with passion in seeking the higher gifts. (1 Corinthians 12:28-31a)

>>635825

The only priest in Christianity is Jesus Christ because only He performs a priestly function, Hebrews 9:11-14

<But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

>>635841

so that time he breathed the Holy Spirit on His Apostles was just for fun?

>>635851

If Jesus was ordaining them as priests, does that not mean He gave the command "Do this in remembrance of me" to men who could not perform the miracle of transubstantiation?

>>635854

What?

>>635856

Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit on them after His resurrection.

The more the country lack faith in Jesus, the more it will be susceptible to bad entities.

>>635802

On the contrary on the night when he was delivered he took the chalice and said to his apostles "Take this and drink, this is my blood" and after that he said "Do this in remembrance on me". But to "do this" that is to offer sacrfice (for about Eucharist Paul writtes that it's "Participation in blood and body of Christ", participation in "table of the Lord", the "altar, whereof jews have no power to eat". For Malchy prophesied "For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts" which means that Eucharist is sacrfice) is to do function of the priest.

Morover, on the same night Christ cermonialy washed apostles' feet. But according to the Law it's sign of priestly consecration.

Morover, to Timothy Paul wirtes "A special grace has been entrusted to thee; prophecy awarded it, and the imposition of the presbyters’ hands went with it; do not let it suffer from neglect." But imposition of the hands to confer ministry is priestly function.

Finally, Paul names himself Priest: "God gave me grace to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service (hierourgeó) of the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an acceptable offering to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. "

>>635841

>Christ appeared as a high priest (archiereus)

But to be there a high priest there have to be other priests under him, in his priesthood, just as there was order of high priesthood of Aaron. And there are those who are hieruses (priests), who do hierourgeó (priestly service) in taxis (order, so not one person) of archiereus (archpriest)

>>635966

>But to "do this" that is to offer sacrfice

There is absolutely, positively nothing in the New Testament about the Lord's Supper being a sacrifice, in fact, it is contradicted, Hebrews 10:11-14

<And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

This passage is unequivocally incompatible with the sacrifice of the mass. It says that it is impossible for a repetitive sacrifice to take away sins, that Christ offered for all time one sacrifice, that He now rests, His priestly work being finished, and that His one offering has perfected for all time those who believe. I know you will object that the mass is the same sacrifice offered by Jesus, but that is not compatible with this text. It says that Jesus offered this sacrifice 'for all time'. That does not apply to the sacrifice, but to its being offered by Jesus, namely, that His offering up to the Father is sufficient for every era of history, requiring no further offerings thereof.

The apostolic teaching of the sacrament of the table is that it is a monument to the sacrifice of Christ, not a repetition of it, 1 Corinthians 11:26

<For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

>For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation

Romans 12:1, Hebrews 13:15-16

>Morover, on the same night Christ cermonialy washed apostles' feet. But according to the Law it's sign of priestly consecration

It is not. There is nothing about washing feet in the ordination of Aaronic priests, but then again, you don't believe they were Aaronic priests, do you? In the passage, the washing of their feet is symbolic of salvation (verses 8-11), and an example of humility (14-16).

>imposition of the hands to confer ministry is priestly function

It's merely ordination. The apostles ordained elders, not priests.

>Paul names himself Priest

As what you yourself quoted shows, Paul is using a metaphor referring to himself as offering gentiles to God through the gospel. There's nothing about turning bread into Jesus.

>But to be there a high priest there have to be other priests under him

There do not. The teaching of the apostle in this passage is that there are not. Jesus is High Priest of the order of Melchizedek, but He is the only member of that order which ever has been or ever will be. Hebrews says that Jesus' ministry is so perfect, that He requires no co-workers, He performs it all Himself. Furthermore, the author says that a priest of Melchizedek has neither beginning of days nor end of life, something true of God alone.

>>635986

>There is absolutely, positively nothing in the New Testament about the Lord's Supper being a sacrifice, in fact, it is contradicted,

About Eucharist Paul writtes that it's "Participation in blood and body of Christ", participation in "table of the Lord", the "altar, whereof jews have no power to eat". For Malchy prophesied "For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts" which means that Eucharist is sacrfice

> Hebrews 10:11-14

What then? do not we offer every day? We offer indeed, but making a remembrance of His death, and this remembrance is one and not many. How is it one, and not many? Inasmuch as that Sacrifice was once for all offered, and carried into the Holy of Holies. This is a figure of that sacrifice and this remembrance of that. For we always offer the same, not one sheep now and to-morrow another, but always the same thing: so that the sacrifice is one. And yet by this reasoning, since the offering is made in many places, are there many Christs? but Christ is one everywhere, being complete here and complete there also, one Body. As then while offered in many places, He is one body and not many bodies; so also He is one sacrifice. He is our High Priest, who offered the sacrifice that cleanses us. That we offer now also, which was then offered, which cannot be exhausted. This is done in remembrance of what was then done. For (saith He) “do this in remembrance of Me.” ( Luke xxii. 19 .) It is not another sacrifice, as the High Priest, but we offer always the same, or rather we perform a remembrance of a Sacrifice.

>This passage is unequivocally incompatible with the sacrifice of the mass.

This passage speaks about the sacrifice of the mass.

> It says that it is impossible for a repetitive sacrifice to take away sins, that Christ offered for all time one sacrifice, that He now rests, His priestly work being finished, and that His one offering has perfected for all time those who believe.

It says that mass is not repetitive sacrifice to take away sins, but the one and the same one sacrifice that Christ offered for all time, and that He is priest for ever and never stoped to be (Hebrews 7:21-28), even though he now sits he is still minister of sanctuary (8:2), His priestly work continues (Hebrews 7:24-25), and that His one offering, the mass, has perfected for all time those who believe.

>I know you will object that the mass is the same sacrifice offered by Jesus, but that is not compatible with this text. It says that Jesus offered this sacrifice 'for all time'. That does not apply to the sacrifice, but to its being offered by Jesus, namely, that His offering up to the Father is sufficient for every era of history, requiring no further offerings thereof.

I know you will object that the mass is not the same sacrifice offered by Jesus, but that is not compatible with this text. It says that Jesus offered this sacrifice 'for all time'. That does not only apply to the sacrifice, but to its being offered by Jesus, namely, that His offering up to the Father is sufficient for every era of history, meaning that it have to represented for us, ina all eras of history, requiring no further offerings thereof for mass is the very same sacrifice.

>The apostolic teaching of the sacrament of the table is that it is a monument to the sacrifice of Christ, not a repetition of it, 1 Corinthians 11:26

The apostolic teaching of the sacrament of the table is the sacrifice of Christ (i.e what I try to tell you since beging), not a repetition of it, 1 Corinthians 11:26-27,29

<For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

>>636013

>Romans 12:1, Hebrews 13:15-16

Malchy 1:7-14. Actual sacrfice. And since we can have only one, it prooves that it's the mass and cross is the same.

Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him….Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind…” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho).

>It is not. There is nothing about washing feet in the ordination of Aaronic priests

Exodus 30:21

>but then again, you don't believe they were Aaronic priests, do you?

"All these things happened to them as types"

> In the passage, the washing of their feet is symbolic of salvation (verses 8-11), and an example of humility (14-16).

And not only that but also its liturgical act.

>It's merely ordination. The apostles ordained elders, not priests.

Priest comes from German, Priester, based on ecclesiastical Latin presbyter. Priest and presbyter is the same thing. And since presbyters offer sacrifice they can be called priest even more.

>As what you yourself quoted shows, Paul is using a metaphor referring to himself as offering gentiles to God through the gospel.

Paul is saying that he does priestly function. Priestly function is to offer sacrifice and guard and teach his flock. But one cannot do priestly preaching without being able to offering sacrifice, for he would be a merely preacher.

>There's nothing about turning bread into Jesus.

For it was not concern of the letter. One to Corinthians was. And here he spoke that those not discerning eucharist are not discerning the body of the Lord. And that Lord took bread and said that This IS his body. And Eucharist is participation in this very body.

>There do not. The teaching of the apostle in this passage is that there are not. Jesus is High Priest of the order of Melchizedek, but He is the only member of that order which ever has been or ever will be. Hebrews says that Jesus' ministry is so perfect, that He requires no co-workers, He performs it all Himself.

Onethe contrary, the teaching of the apostle in this passage is that there aret. Jesus is High Priest (that means that there are preist under him, participating in his person) of the order (that means that there have to be other members, for the very word order speaks about plurality) of Melchizedek, but He is the only member of that order as much as all priests of that order are priest through, with, and in him. Hebrews says that Jesus' ministry is so perfect, that He requires no co-workers, He performs it all Himself and yet he created order of priests for he wished that his sacrifice was not once but once for all.

>Furthermore, the author says that a priest of Melchizedek has neither beginning of days nor end of life, something true of God alone.

He has no beginning nor end of days as far as we don't know them for Holy Spirit did not revealed this.

If you are suggesting that Christ is Melchizedek then you are in serious error for Hebrews is clear that his is not: The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a

priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. Morover, Melchizedek was made "like' unto the Son of God". And Melchizedek "without mother" and his "descent is not counted from" Abraham. But about Christ we read: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." And "Mary the mother of Jesus".

And now gtfo to your own thread for this is not the thread about priesthood.

>>636013

>About Eucharist Paul writtes that it's "Participation in blood and body of Christ", participation in "table of the Lord", the "altar, whereof jews have no power to eat". For Malchy prophesied "For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts" which means that Eucharist is sacrfice

All these times when you have no argument I'm gonna go ahead and ignore it, since it's a waste of space anyway

>For we always offer the same, not one sheep now and to-morrow another, but always the same thing: so that the sacrifice is one

It does not matter how many victims are sacrificed, but how many times it is offered, as the chapter begins

<Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins?

>>636014

>Exodus 30:21

Starting from verse 18

<“You shall also make a basin of bronze, with its stand of bronze, for washing. You shall put it between the tent of meeting and the altar, and you shall put water in it, with which Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet. When they go into the tent of meeting, or when they come near the altar to minister, to burn a food offering to the Lord, they shall wash with water, so that they may not die. They shall wash their hands and their feet, so that they may not die. It shall be a statute forever to them, even to him and to his offspring throughout their generations.”

It says that they shall do both hands and feet (not just feet), and that it is part of the sacrifice, not of their ordination.

>Priest comes from German, Priester, based on ecclesiastical Latin presbyter

Which comes from Koine Greek presbyteros. In the 1st century, when the New Testament was written and the apostles used the term, it meant elder. The word for priest was hiereus. But when a Christian priesthood evolved centuries later as part of the millennium long degeneration of the Church, they continued to use the old terms for their novel offices. As a result, presbyteros changed to mean priest, and was loaned to Latin to German, and finally to English. Considering the actual etymological history, the English word priest does not prove the apostles ordained priests, it proves the opposite.

>Priestly function is to offer sacrifice

I don't think Paul was practicing human sacrifice on Gentiles.

>For it was not concern of the letter

You're the one saying he's talking about being a priest and offering sacrifices, guy.

>And that Lord took bread and said that This IS his body

And when Paul gives his interpretation of that, he says the bread is a symbol of His death.

>that means that there are preist under him

No it doesn't.

>He is the only member of that order

Precisely.

>He has no beginning nor end of days as far as we don't know them

No, really, the Son of God has neither beginning of days nor end of life.

>If you are suggesting that Christ is Melchizedek

Hebrews tells me I have to believe that. If you were to come across Melchizedek, and fail to give Him the worship of latria, you would sin gravely.

is this another

>accept Scripture, but reject the Church that delivered it

situation again?

>>636057

No this is another round of that. The argument we have every week.

"With my text illegible, my argument long and indecipherable, my information incorrect, and my 1+1 as a 3, I rode out to wage war against the Catholics." -Random Anonymous. /christian/, circa 2018