Ordaining Priests & Bishops
THE DOCTRINE
Ordination or Holy Orders is one of the seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic
Church. Without ordination there would be no Church as such. The Church may say
the family is its basic unit but it holds that this unit needs to be formed with
the graces channelled by the priest.
Holy Orders can only be validly conferred by bishops. The idea is that Christ
gave the power to ordain and celebrate the sacraments only to the twelve
apostles who passed these powers on by laying hands on other men, called
bishops, to continue these powers. Thus the power was spread like a virus.
The power can only be validly transmitted from bishop to bishop by the laying on
of hands.
The bishop is thought to have the full priesthood and a priest only shares in
some of the priesthood. A deacon receives some of the sacrament of order, some
of the priesthood as well, though inconsistently Rome says deacons cannot say
Mass. So when a bishop makes a man a bishop, priest or deacon he is giving the
sacrament of Holy Orders.
THE HISTORY
These things comprise Roman Catholic teaching not Bible teaching. Considering
how the core of Catholicism is its teaching about the sacraments you would
expect the teaching to be clearly in the Bible but it is not. It is conspicuous
by its total absence.
The Bible never says that these offices can only be conferred by a bishop who
derives his powers from a line of bishops going back to the apostles. It never
says that ordination is a sacrament. It never says that the Church has the power
to decide what powers an ordination will give a priest. What if Jesus gave the
Church the power to forgive sins and only bishops have it? Bishops are
considered the successors of the apostles and it was to the latter that Jesus
supposedly gave the power to forgive sins. If only bishops really forgive then
the huge majority of Catholics are not forgiven at all for they go to the
priest.
ARE ALL PRIESTS?
The New Testament never called any elder or presbyter a priest. It says all
people are priests but never mentions a ministerial priesthood in the Church.
The Old Testament says that all the Israelites were priests but speaks of a
ministerial priesthood as well. The Bible never encourages any understanding
other than that all the Israelites were priests but some of them dedicated
themselves to priestly activities. They were active priests. An analogy would be
how in Catholicism priests who no longer practice are still considered to be
priests. So if there are priests and ministerial priests it does not imply that
ministerial priests are more priests than everybody else. It is a difference of
function not of rank.
1 Peter 2:5-9 teaches believers to get "built into a spiritual house, to be a
holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus
Christ - but you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own
people". It says all are priests and refers to the Old Testament book of Exodus
which says in 19:6: "You shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation"
as proof.
Now what about the Protestant notion that Jesus is the only ministerial priest
in these times?
The text we have just looked at is thought to contradict the notion that there
are no priests other than Jesus because it says all Christians are priests. But
it only speaks of priests metaphorically - people who offer good deeds in God's
honour.
Perhaps we should speak of all people being priests but as Jesus being the ONLY
active priest.
JESUS THE ONLY ACTIVE PRIEST
The Bible seems to support the Protestant teaching. In 1 Timothy 2 we read that
only one person, Jesus mediates salvation.
1 Timothy 2:5 says, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God
and men, the man Christ Jesus who gave his life as a ransom for all.” This is
said to prove that as a priest is a mediator/intercessor between two disputing
parties that there is only one priest: Jesus.
But is Jesus the kind of mediator that engages in diplomacy or is he the kind of
mediator who mediates by offering a sacrifice that settles the dispute? It is
both combined. Only Jesus offers sacrifice to God in the real sense. The text
calls Jesus the only priest.
Even if the rest of the text says that other people can help you by their
prayers it does not say they have the power to mediate between Jesus and you by
giving you sacraments.
What about Hebrews 7:22-25? This is supposed to allow for the thought that
people can be mediators and intercessors though not in exactly the same unique
way that Jesus is.
But the Bible says here that you can go straight to God through Jesus.
The text is, "This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant. The former
priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from
continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he
continues forever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw
near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them."
This text denies that any Christian can be a priest after death. Catholic
doctrine says that a priest is a a priest forever. Hebrews says that even if
Jesus himself were to pass away, there would no longer be anybody being saved by
his intercession.
The Catholic Church says the doctrine that you have full access to Jesus is not
saying you can dispense with priests. It says it is not an either/or
proposition. It sees the Catholic as going directly to God with the priests
because the priests are in fact appointed by God to be his representatives. The
Church says that even the Bible speaks of go-betweens such as apostles and
prophets. The rationale is that the priests participate in the priesthood of
Jesus and are not diminishing or usurping his priesthood. But they are for there
is no evidence in the New Testament that Jesus set some men apart as priests as
they are set apart in Catholicism.
The Greek word, "presbyteros" is used of those who the Church says are priests
in the New Testament. This word has a range of meanings and could refer to
priest. But there is no reason to think that it does in the New Testament. The
Roman Church says it is happy to read that the ministers of the Church had a
priestly function. So if they were not called priests they were still priests.
The Church claims that they mediate grace and forgiveness to the people so they
are priests. That too is only the Church's interpretation.
Paul writes "of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to
the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God" (Romans 15:15-16).
This refers to priestly service as in offering service to God. It is not
anything like a Catholic priest.
The Church says that James speaks of the elders being needed to anoint the sick.
But the text might not mean that only elders have the authority but that they
took on the job. It could just have been the way things were done. And the text
says that the prayer of faith made by the elders can win the forgiveness of sins
for the sick person. This is different from Catholic priests who forgive sins
themselves instead of merely asking God and hoping for the best.
The Church says that in John, Jesus said the apostles could declare the sins of
people forgiven. "If you forgive the sins of any they are forgiven." But even
Catholicism admits that nobody can forgive sins as if they were God. A better
understanding is that the apostles will only forgive those who they
clairvoyantly see have been forgiven by God.
And as for the Mass, there is nothing in the Bible that tells the apostles to do
anything other than just think of Jesus whenever they eat bread or drink wine.
The Church of Rome argues that only priests and bishops have the power to give
you the body and blood of Jesus in the Mass so Jesus' commands that we must eat
his body and drink his blood presuppose a Church. Not a word of the New
Testament mentions anybody needing power to do it. In fact if Jesus did tell the
Jews to eat his body and drink his blood Catholic style that would rule out the
need for the Church for he implied to them that they could have his body and
blood there and then and there was no Church or priests then! The real purpose
of the Mass is to bolster up Church power and influence and thus it is a
dreadful lie.
There is no evidence of anything like a Catholic priesthood in the Bible.
LAYING ON OF HANDS
The Catholic Church claims that if a genuinely consecrated bishop lays hands on
a male with his consent he makes him a priest. Acts 13:3 is then turned to in
desperation to prove this doctrine. Bizarrely the Church says Jesus ordained the
apostles as priests at the last supper when he told them to offer his body and
blood and did not use the laying on of hands!
If you read Acts 13:3 you see no indication that the laying on of hands here was
an ordination. The Holy Spirit asked for Paul and Barnabas to be set apart for
his mission and this was done by the laying on of hands. They went then directed
by the Holy Spirit on a missionary journey. At most this was just a blessing for
the journey. The text doesn’t tell us if the hands were essential or if they
conferred sacramental powers or were more than just an indication of approval
and a blessing in preparation for sending these men on a mission. 2 Timothy 1:6
has Timothy asked by Paul to rekindle the grace within that he got through Paul
laying hands on him. This text or context doesn’t indicate that Timothy was a
bishop or ordained. Nor does Paul say that the grace happened because it was a
sacrament. Grace can be transmitted by prayer and laying hands is a prayer. And
Timothy needs to rekindle the grace even though Paul praised him as exemplary
just a few verses earlier. A sacrament’s grace will stay with you as long as you
are holy according to the Church.
FINALLY
Considering the harm done by the priesthood system, clericalism, authoritarianism and lives wasted you would expect it to have better support from the New Testament if Jesus really wanted the Church to have priests. The priesthood is just another Catholic invention.