Includes Biblical Arguments for the Catholic Priesthood
This discussion and dispute began with a meme that I put up. It stated (numbers added):
Protestantism:
[1] Where everyone is a priest except priests,
[2] Where everyone can bind and loose except bishops,
[3] Where you can command angels but not ask their help,
[4] Where you can talk to the devil but not to saints,
[5] Where everyone gets a crown except the Virgin Mary,
[6] Where everyone can interpret Scripture except the Church,
[7] Where every Church is a Church except the Church.
That caused a firestorm of controversy on one of my Facebook threads. The general tenor of the many Protestant critics who showed up was that I was either grossly ignorant of Protestantism, or deliberately dishonest. I contended that much of the furor, in my opinion, was based on a mistaken view of the sort of “literature” this was: proverbial, which allows of many exceptions. I replied to the most vociferous critic, Steve Gregg, a zealous preacher who emerged from the Jesus Movement of the early 70s, in my article, “Various Protestant Errors (Vs. Steve Gregg)” and made the following observation:
Now, posting a meme doesn’t necessarily mean that one agrees with every particular of it. And this is clearly a proverbial-type of meme, that would allow many exceptions (just as passages in the Book of Proverbs do). Moreover, with Protestantism one has to generalize, since there are so many divisions, but these observations are either broadly true or true of some and sometimes many Protestants, or else I wouldn’t have posted it. There can always be partial exceptions in an individual as well. . . .
It’s important to realize that the meme doesn’t necessarily have to mean that all Protestants believe all these things. . . . It’s implying (at least in my opinion and interpretation) that these beliefs can be or are found among Protestants.
To use an analogy, I could put up a meme about “The Democratic Party” and list seven things that some or many Democrats believe (free abortion and widespread illegal immigration and opposition to fossil fuels would be three examples). It wouldn’t follow that every Democrat believes all seven things; as Democrats (the men and women on the street; not just the politicians) are quite diverse as a group, just as Protestants are. But the generalizations would hold. Democrats are absolutely overwhelmingly in favor of legal abortion, etc. The fact that some aren’t doesn’t negate the legitimacy of the generalization. And the same applies to this meme. . . .
All of the points in the meme have been believed by Protestants; often, by many, and sometimes by very many.
Gregg soon imploded and launched an avalanche of personal attacks, after misinterpreting remarks I made about the behavior of the Protestants other than him in the thread (he took them all personally), as can be seen at the end of that article. With his departure, no other Protestant (of the many critics who chimed in) was willing to reply to my response-paper, save for one person whose demeanor had been cordial all along (h e wishes to remain anonymous). This is my reply to his comments in the original thread. His words will be in blue. Cited words from my reply-paper will be in green. I use RSV for Bible citations.
1. Recognizing special ministry roles (ones of authoritative leadership and otherwise) is not synonymous with “gap-bridging between God and man” priesthood. The sacramental “gatekeeping access to God” role Protestantism saw in Catholic “priesthood” is not parallel to those roles we see affirmed in the NT.
I agree; hence I wrote, “the universal priesthood of believers . . . is scriptural, and we also believe it. But we differ in thinking that there is an additional specific class of clergy called priests, . . . In other words, there are two senses of ‘priest’ in the Bible.” Thus, I was not arguing for equation, but rather, differentiation of two groups of people.
All the examples provided fail to establish NT priesthood. They establish ministerial roles (in general and various kinds), certainly, but not a “gatekeeping access to God” role typically referenced specifically as “priests.” It isn’t there. Bishops, overseers, shepherds, many terms are used for authoritative caretaking roles, but not priesthood. Jesus is the high priest, and we merely are kept in perpetual remembrance of his high priesthood.
I wrote: “The priesthood as we know it today is not a strong motif in the New Testament. But this can be explained in terms of development of doctrine: in the early days of Christianity some things were understood only in a very basic or skeletal sense.”
That said, I did offer arguments for the priesthood, particularly as presiding over the Mass (“Jesus entrusts to His disciples a remembrance of the central aspect of the liturgy or Mass (consecration of the bread and wine) at the Last Supper [(Lk. 22:19: ‘Do this in remembrance of me’]; Paul may also have presided over a Eucharist in Acts 20:11.” [“Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten”], even though that wasn’t the primary purpose of what I argued in my book (which was the differentiation of “priesthood of all believers” from priests in the Catholic sense). I addressed the “binding and loosing” aspect, which ties into confession and absolution (your “gatekeeping access to God” description), in replying to #2 in the meme. If you want “gatekeeping” you see that in this passage:
John 20:23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.
That’s “gatekeeping,” because, note that it’s talking about forgiving the sins of others in a general sense; that is, even if they have nothing to do with the person offering the forgiveness, or penance (“retained”). We see the Apostle Paul doing the same thing with regard to a serious sinner in the Corinthian congregation:
1 Corinthians 5:1-5 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. [2] And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. [3] For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment [4] in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, [5] you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
This is an example of Paul “binding” (Mt 18:18) or “retaining” sins; i.e., imposing a penance for them. That’s the priestly function in the more specific Catholic sense. Then later he relaxes the punishment, which is the “loosing” function or forgiveness, and is actually an explicit example of what we call an indulgence (the relaxing or removal of temporal punishment for sin):
2 Corinthians 2:6-8, 10 For such a one this punishment [penance!] by the majority is enough; [7] so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. [8] So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. . . . [10] Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ,
Note particularly verse 10: “Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive.” Paul is forgiving those who did him no (personal) wrong, and that’s because he is functioning as a priest and gatekeeper. He can formally pronounce either forgiveness or penance as a representative of God, and he did both. Paul casually assumes that priests are still operative under the new Christian covenant, by referring to the table of the Lord (or altar) and contrasting it with the table of demons, in a eucharistic context:
1 Corinthians 10:14-21 Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols. [15] I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. [16] The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? [17] Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. [18] Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? [19] What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? [20] No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. [21] You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. (cf. 9:13)
Paul is in this same priestly thought-world in another of his statements:
Romans 15:15-17 But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God [16] to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. [17] In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God.
He’s “offering” a “priestly service” to the Gentiles. The Greek word is hierourgeo. Strong’s Concordance defines it as “to be a temple-worker, i.e., officiate as a priest (fig.): — minister.” This classic (non-Catholic) reference work states: “to minister in the manner of a priest, minister in priestly service.” It also notes (from Joseph Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon) historical etymological definitions of “to be busied with sacred things; to be perform sacred rites” (from Philo), and “used esp. of persons sacrificing” (from Josephus).
Baptist Greek scholar A. T. Robertson, in his famous work, Word Pictures of the New Testament (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1930; six volumes; under Romans 15:16; vol. 4, 520), provides the basic definition: “to work in sacred things, to minister as a priest.” Likewise, Marvin Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament (four volumes; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887; reprinted: Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946; vol. III, 174) states, for the same passage:
Ministering (ierourgounta). Only here in the New Testament. Lit., ministering as a priest.
Offering up (prosfora). Lit., the bringing to, i.e., to the altar. Compare doeth service, John xvi. 2.
Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines it as:
‘to perform sacred or sacrificial ministry.’ In Josephus and Philo it always means “to offer sacrifice” and often has no object. (hierourgia means “sacrifice” and hierourgema the “act of sacrifice.”)
None of these reference works are Catholic; thus, no charge of bias based on Catholic affiliation can be made against them. The bottom line is that Paul has called himself a priest – using two different terms.
We get the word liturgy from litourgos (Strong’s word #3011; cf. #3008, 3009, and 3010). Strong’s (word #3008: litourgeo) applies it to, among other things, “priests and Levites who were busied with the sacred rites in the tabernacle or the temple.”
Paul also casually assumes the continued existence of altars among Christians (1 Cor 10:14-21), and altars are mentioned in the New Testament in other places (apart from the many mentions of altars in heaven), as well:
Hebrews 13:9-12 Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings; for it is well that the heart be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited their adherents. [10] We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. [11] For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. [12] So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.
Therefore, if it is true that – as John Calvin argues in his Institutes: IV, 18:3 –: “the cross of Christ is overthrown the moment an altar is erected”, then the New Testament is against the cross. It’s much more likely that Calvin has misunderstood the passages above.
Priests dispense sacraments (1 Cor 4:1; Jas 5:14), including baptism (Mt 28:19; Acts 2:38, 41). A universal priesthood of “offering” (sacrifice) extending to “every place” in New Testament times is prophesied in Isaiah 66:18, 21 and Malachi 1:11.
“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!
***
2. If binding & loosing refers to excommunication and reconciliation, we see Paul prompting the Corinthian church to do so as a community rather than tasking a priest/pastor/elder to do so. This binding & loosing would be church-communal rather than limited to a few in authority.
Here you appear to be referring to the passages I brought up, above. What you overlook is the fact that Paul himself was functioning as the priest in that instance, and merely encouraging the assembly to follow-up on his instructions. Paul started the ball rolling, so to speak. Accordingly, he writes with “high” priestly, commanding authority: “Let him who has done this be removed from among you. . . . I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus . . . you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved . . .” (1 Cor 5:2-3, 5).
Paul directed the whole thing: not the Corinthians themselves. He was the priest. He was doing “gatekeeping” — as you described it. Likewise, he led and guided the relaxation of the penance or indulgence, too (which directly contradicts your argument). He commands them and tells them what to do: “this punishment by the majority is enough; so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him . . . I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. . . . Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive” (2 Cor 2:6-8, 10).
Mark 1:34 says, “He [Jesus] did not allow the demons to speak, because they knew Him” (NKJV). In Mark 5:8, He commands, “Come out of the man, unclean spirit!” This is why believers can take authority in Jesus’ name over demonic activity.
Genesis 19:15, 18-21 When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Arise, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be consumed in the punishment of the city.”. . . And Lot said to them, “Oh, no, my lords; behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life; but I cannot flee to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me, and I die. Behold, yonder city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there — is it not a little one? — and my life will be saved!” He said to him, “Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken.
5. Weak and dodgy. Referring to Protestants saying Mary isn’t “the queen of heaven” — but ignoring the idea of all saints attaining crowns of victory & glory — is begging there to be a point. Even saying Rev 12 = Mary is just bad exegesis someone only engages in if they’re believing what someone else has told them is there.
6. No, sola scriptura does not make the individual’s interpretive role absolute. Rather, it makes interdependent communal interpretation that much more crucial, as scripture still means what it means even if we misinterpret it. We remain accountable to scripture itself, not to our interpretation of it.
The individual (like Luther, who invented this!) can judge the institutional (Catholic / Orthodox) Church. That’s exactly what Luther did in 1521 at the Diet of Worms. He knew better than the entire unbroken 1500-year tradition of the Catholic Church.
*
[T]he Jerusalem Council . . . was led by Peter and the bishop of Jerusalem, James, attended by Paul, and consisted of “apostles and elders.” It made a decree that was agreed with by the Holy Spirit (i.e., an infallible or even inspired one) — Acts 15:28 — , which was proclaimed by Paul far and wide as binding on Christians (Acts 16:4).*That’s undeniably an institutional Church, and one that produced infallible binding decrees in council: all of which is contrary to the beliefs of most Protestants. Sola Scriptura denies that councils can be infallible, but the Jerusalem Council was. You deny that the Church was an organization. Yet here it was. BIG discussion — and if you hang around, we can get into that in far more depth — , but that is my short, nutshell answer for now.
Steve Gregg — to whom I was replying there — chose not to stick around, choosing the path of emptyheaded and misdirected insults, so we couldn’t get into “far more depth” — beyond a “nutshell answer.” Maybe you will. I think this is a good dialogue and that we could have many more. What denomination do you attend, by the way? Are you a pastor or theological professor?
As to the basic question here, see my articles and dialogues:
*
*
*
*
*
*
***
*
Photo credit: cover of my 2003 book, Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic (see book and purchase information).
Summary: I reply to and interact with one Protestant who didn’t like a meme I put up which generalized about certain errors in Protestantism. I defend my position in depth.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In