www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Melchizedek Priesthood?

Catholic and Orthodox Christians believe that "a valid Melchizedek Priesthood" must consecrate the Communion elements, whereas Evangelical Christians do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and they state that the Lord's Supper is just a ceremony of remembrance.

Please show me the Biblical support for:

1) The existence of a Melchizedek Priesthood and that Priesthood having members other than Christ.

2) The criteria for 'valid' succession of this Priesthood.

and

3) the necessity of the Communion elements being consecrated by a Melchezedek Priest.

Sincerely,

BradM

Dear BradM

You may want to find a subforum titled "when did presbyters become priests?" or words to that effect. I think that Ghazar and others touched on some of these issues in their posts.

In Christ.

Thanks Andrew. I found the forum at this link:

When did Presbyters become Priests? https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=001631

After I study the posts I'll ask more questions if I have them.

Peace and God's blessings,

BradM

The trap you are falling into is this�

Let us imagine that I am a man who maintains some complicated piece of equipment. I did not create the equipment but I maintain it (oil and clean and replace parts) and I know more about it than anyone. Now let us imagine that I write a book on the subject, a manual.

One day in my old age, a young man comes to me and he has been trying to maintain another machine just like the one I worked for years. And he asks me a question - but before I can answer - he begins to read some pages from the manual that I wrote - but he is misunderstanding what I wrote. He is taking some line out of context or assuming that what I mean (in my book) is the same exact think as what he thinks I mean (even if he has misunderstood). Perhaps it is even further compounded that he is from England and I am from the deep South (America) and we use several words differently. I say �yak� and �chat� or talk on forever� and he says �rabbit� to mean the same thing. Now �rabbit to me is a small furry creature but to �rabbit� to someone from London means to �yak on�.

So I try to explain things to him (I try to explain what I wrote in the book and why) but he is not getting it. He is not getting it because he just does not have the same years of experience on the machine - that I have. Now he has a choice.

A) He can admit he does not know and he may be wrong - in view of the fact that it is I (me) who wrote the book and I am the authority on what it says and means.

B) He can go out and start a school where he teaches others how to maintain the machine - by teaching them what he is interpreting from my book (and much of what he is interpreting is wrong).

Which is the authority? The book - or the living person who wrote it?

The life of Christ within the apostles is the authority of the book.

While I know what you mean by a �Melchizedek Priesthood � - its importants what it is and its line) only comes into context when the primary priesthood (apostolic) of the Christian is understood.

The time in which the Melchezedek priesthood mattered - has past - or rather been fulfilled within the apostolic priesthood.

Your energy to understand these things is admirable. I am not correcting you - I am offering you guidance to hit your mark better. One has to peel away misunderstanding upon misunderstanding to get back to the clear stream.

May I recomend to you the book "Abandonment to Divine Providence" by Cussade - understanding the role of Providence and what providence is - is essential to understanding the Old and New testaments. Without understanding the central role of Providence in the testaments - one is like a man who has come to watch a play but leaves to go get refreshments every time the central actor takes the stage. He will come up with an idea of what the play was about - but it will not be the same idea that the author intended.

Cheers.
-ray

Dear Brad,

Some excellent points are made by RayK. We need to look not just at particulars, but the entire context of the priesthood.

I also recommend that you focus in on Hebrews, chapters 6-8, as well as all of the back references in these passages to the Old Testament.

In Christ.

Brad;

In my view, there are two ways of looking at this priesthood of Melchizedek. The first is that it is the royal priesthood of the One, Christ.

The second is that each Christian is invited into this royal priesthood through baptism. The old Levitical priesthood has been abolished and has been replaced by the new one. The old one was open only to the Levitical lineage, the new one is available to all. The old was provisional and was destined to die; the new is eternal and is not destroyed by death.

The sacramental priesthood (that yielded by ordination) merges these two. The priest acts as representative of the One Royal Priest and for all of the royal priests. The sacrifice is not that of the human priest but is that of Christ. The recipient and benefactor of the sacrifice is not the human priest alone, but of all of the faithful, the body of Christ, which is this royal priest.

This is not accomplished by man. It is accomplished for man.

The confusion arises because of the inappropriate assignment of honor given to the ordained priesthood. These men act not on their behalf, but despite themselves who are nothing more than special representatives of all of the faithful. The offering is sufficient to God because it does not come from man but from God Himself for the sake of mankind.

The ordained priest is a passive conduit, not an active participant and can do nothing on his own.

John

Thanks everyone, I will post an answer for your review to the question #3 in the 1st post.

Addressing the topic of the Melchizedek Priesthood question number 3) "the necessity of the Communion elements being consecrated by a Melchizedek Priest."

I asked a Catholic priest to please show me which Bible verses describe why "only an ordained priest or bishop can consecrate the bread and wine and are there Bible verses that support this or is this mostly addressed by Holy Tradition?"

He told me:

"Scripture describes the Last Supper where Jesus reclines at table with the apostles. In the Gospel according to Luke (22:19-20): Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME. And he did the same with the cup..." Those who were commanded to do what Jesus did were the apostles, and this was their ordination as priests. Jesus did not utter these or similar words to any others, and we understand that the power to celebrate Mass is given to priests as successors of the apostles.

The Church has understood the words of Jesus in this way, and that is Tradition."

What do you all think of this answer?

Yours in Jesus and Mary,

BradM

Dear Brad;

Now I understand what you are looking for. You are looking for a Catholic Apologetic. You need more than your singular quotation. This is something that is more fundamental and more thoroughly biblical. I refer you to:

http://www.catholic.com/library/institution_of_the_mass.asp

I think this is as succinct an answer you can get. As you can see, it is more involved than most non-liturgical Christians will follow.

John

Originally posted by BradM:
IN REMEMBERANCE OF ME

I think a better translation of your CAP'ed words here would be "do this in memorial of me" - meaning a ceremony or ritual done repeatedly.

On the other hand, since the new testament was not compiled until - maybe seventy years after the crucifixion and resurrection - none of the apostle had it to refer to - so it was not used as a source or how-to manual by Christians. It - testifies (hence the name) to some (and not all) historical facts and common sense would tell anyone that it was never intended to be either a how-to manual or the sole source of Chritian understanding. Naturally, it may be the best book - but it is still only a book.

The complete traditions and 'rituals' and Chritian way of life are handed down to us through those who lived it and were appointed to 'pass it on'. An uninterrupted line and sucession. Any of the catholic churches (Orthodox, Byzantine, Roman, Armenian, Coptic, etcc) having the seven sacrements can be traced historically throug even secular records - right back to day one (the apostles). It is thier guidance we follow. Without this living tradition (the continuation of the living life of Christ in his appointed people) the bible becomes disjoined letters that people can argue any which way they want to.

I think if God had sent Jesus - and Jesus died and resurrected - and only left us a book! I would be very disapponted in God. To me that would be like a cruel joke "Here - I am leaving - take this book, figue it out - and I will get back to ya."

This is how I see it.

Dear John and RayK,

I really liked your answers and found them to be excellent as well as "good food for thought" for anyone considering ordination!

In Christ.

Dear Andrew,

That counts me out, then!

I sometimes regret not having gone into the seminary . . .

But then again when I look at such extremely well educated and erudite graduates as yourself, I know that the Church is in great hands without me!

Alex