In Defense of the Priesthood and The Mass

Transcript (paraphrased)

It’s Tuesday my dudes, you know what that means? It’s time for another original win Podcast. Here are some opening questions. Are we priests merely because we are Christians? Yes, we are. Do Christians have but one high priest, the Lord Jesus Christ? Yes, we do. Is there a special ministerial priesthood, with their own powers to offer the sacrifice of the mass? Yes, there are. While our separated protestant brethren would agree with my answers to the first questions, they would disagree with my last answer. But it doesn’t matter what I would say, it matters what scripture testifies to, and here I’ll provide the scripture to show that the existence of the ministerial priestly office — that is the office of the Catholic priesthood — and the sacrifice of the mass which the priests are needed for — are indeed biblical.

Before I begin this podcast, I want to offer up a definition of what a priest exactly is according to Biblical and Catholic theology. But first, where do we get the term “priest” from in English? Well, it comes from the Latin word for the Greek word presbyter, a term meaning elder. There are two mainstream theories on the origin of the word. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, there are two theories, one that it has its origin from the old English where it was borrowed from its Saxon, Old High German, and Frisian sources the vulgar Latin prester, which came from the late Latin presbyter. There is an additional theory that the Old German was borrowing from the Latin praepositus, meaning “person placed in charge”, which was a translation from the Greek hiereus.[1]

If you read your Bible, we don’t use the English word priest for presbyters, but instead we just use the term ‘presbyter’. This was one of the three offices of the New Testament, alongside deacon (Diakonos in Greek, meaning servant)[2], and Bishop (episkopos in Greek, or overseers).[3] Instead, in our English Bibles, we opt to use the word priest as a translation for the Greek ‘hieros’, which means

“holy,” i.e. inviolably sacred because acceptable for God’s service[4]

We use this term for gentile priests of the true God like Melchizedek (see Hebrews 5:6)[5] and the pagan priests of Zeus (see Acts 14:13)[6] and Jewish priests (Luke 10:31).[7] Yet, why don’t we see this word in reference to the presbyter. Instead we use Presbyteros, which means elder. Before I get to that answer, let’s look at the Old Testament origin of the word priest.

In the Old Testament Hebrew, the word priests or kohanim in the plural, kohen in the singular, has a wide use. In the Old Testament priests were selected from the Jewish tribe of Levi, and only from them (see Exodus 28:1–3). Although the word does have a more extensive use. In the 4th book of Kings — that’s the second book of kings for my protestant listeners), the pagan god Baal had priests.

According to the 2nd book of Kings (that’s the 2nd book of Samuel for my confused protestant listeners) chapter 8 verse 18 we read that King David’s own sons were called kohen, despite not being Levites. This is because the title was applied to ministers in ancient Israel as an honorific. In 1 Paralipomenon 18:17 (that’s 1st Chronicles to my protestant views), those same sons of David are called chief officials. Not to mention, David, nor his offspring, sits on the throne as king while becoming a priest of God in the temple in simultaneity. Whereas, in the Book of Zecharias, chapter 6, verses 11–14, there is a prophecy concerning Jesus the Messiah. Joshua, while wearing both priestly robes and a crown, is foretold by God that the upcoming messiah will unify the office of king and priest,

build the temple of the LORD; He will be clothed in splendor and will sit on His throne and rule. There will also be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two of them.

The two of them being the two offices. Melchizedek, the priestly-King of Salem was also a priest as well as a king in this sense. In Genesis 14:18–20

Melchiz′edek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” And Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

The bread and wine offered by Melchizedek, are two signs foretelling the offering of the Mass. The title is more than an honorific since Melchizedek is offering blessings to Abraham and his descendants. Jesus can be said to be a priest in the order of Melchizedek. We read in the Hebrews 7:14–21

For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchiz′edek, who has become a priest, not according to a legal requirement concerning bodily descent but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him, “Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchiz′edek.” On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God. And it was not without an oath. Those who formerly became priests took their office without an oath, but this one was addressed with an oath, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘Thou art a priest for ever.’” This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant.

Jesus lives forever, elected to the office for having the power of an indestructible life, in much the same way Melchizedek is elected to his office forever, without a basis of a lineage.

But returning to the topic, what is it that the priests from the Levites, the priests of Ba’al and the priestly-king Melchizedek do that earn them the title? They all offered up something in sacrifice in a religious ceremony. The Latin word we used when translating the Old Testament from Hebrew was sacerdotes, which means “those who make holy gifts”.

But what is the Biblical evidence that shows calling these offices of bishop and presbyter “priests” is legitimate? The first thing we must remember is that both those offices offer up the sacrifice of Holy Mass. The Mass can be considered a sacrifice for a few reasons. First off, when Jesus offers himself up at the last supper, he says the following in Matthew 26:28

for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Compare this to what Moses does in the Book of Exodus (chapter 24:8) with the blood of the sacrifices.

“Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”

Note here, Moses calls the sacrificial blood made by the Levites the blood of his covenant, in like manner, Jesus makes his blood the blood of the covenant, meaning it too is sacrificial. Jesus instructs us to offer his blood and to “do this in remembrance of me”. Now, remembrance does not mean do this purely as a symbolic gesture. The Passover sacrifice was done as a day of memorial in the Book of Exodus, chapter 12 verse 14, and yet it was also a real sacrifice, not just a gesture done to jog the memory.

The second reason is that Old Testament prophecy tells us that the sacrificial system will continually be made for unto eternity. In Jeremiah 33:16–18 we read the following prophecy of the Messiah,

In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord our righteousness. For thus saith the Lord; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually

How is it that the offering and sacrifices continue when the temple is destroyed? Well, this is the answer our protestant friend over at Got Questions answer,

It is incorrect to think that animal sacrifices took away sins in the Old Testament, and it is incorrect to think they will do so in the millennial kingdom. Animal sacrifices served as object lessons for the sinner, that sin was and is a horrible offense against God, and that the result of sin is death. Romans 3:20 says, “Because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.” Most premillennial scholars agree that the purpose of animal sacrifice during the millennial kingdom is memorial in nature. As the Lord’s Supper is a reminder of the death of Christ to the Church today, animal sacrifices will be a reminder during the millennial kingdom. To those born during the millennial kingdom, animal sacrifices will again be an object lesson. During that future time, righteousness and holiness will prevail, but those with earthly bodies will still have a sin nature, and there will be a need to teach about how offensive sin is to a holy and righteous God.[8]

This response fails for multiple reasons. The first of which is in teaching animal sacrifices did not take away sins in the Old Testament. That’s false, Hebrews 9:22 reminds us,

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

This passage would make no sense if the sacrificial system of the Old Testament didn’t forgive sins. While it is true the law never justified anyone, this is because the law never took away original sin, the sin we inherit from Adam. It only took away actual sin, sins we commit against God ourselves. We read in 2 Corinthians 5:17, “Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. Nothing in the Old Law makes us a new creation”.

But the problems don’t stop there. The next problem is that the temple from which animals were sacrificed is not going to be built a 3rd time. The temple that Christ speaks of is his own body. He tells us as much in John 2:18–21

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he spoke of the temple of his body.

Thirdly, there is no point in having 2 memorials. Christ’s death on the cross is also the eternal symbol for the heinousness of sin, as well as our redemption. Both are captured by the offering up of his body in the mass which we do in memory, in addition to its sacrificial nature.

The Catholic answer is much simpler. The mass is the sacrifice which God continues forever. It fulfills the promise God makes for the eternal sacrifices. Jesus himself seems to foretell the sacrifice of his cross will continue forever, outside his sacrifice of the cross.

Our fathers worshiped on this mountain; and you say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.” Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ); when he comes, he will show us all things.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.” (John 4:20–26)

Here is an exchange between himself and a Samaritan woman. The Samaritans like the woman would sacrifice Mount Gerizim, whereas the Jews like Jesus made sacrifice in the temple in Jerusalem. This isn’t worship in the broad sense of prayer, but in the narrower sense of making sacrifices and offerings, since of course, Jews could already offer border worship of gratitude prayers on mount Gerizim, and Samaritans could offer do likewise in Jerusalem. Jesus is saying that sacrifices will not be restricted to Mount Gerizim or Jerusalem. On the Catholic view, this is because the sacrifice of the Mass can be offered everywhere, whereas the protestant answer involves the idea all people will come to worship God. The problem is that the worship must be taken in a narrow sense, but because the context is about sacrifices, that reading does not hold.

The last piece of evidence is that Isaiah prophecies that some of the gentiles that come to faith will be made priests and Levites. In Isaiah 66:18–21 we read,

“For I know their works and their thoughts, and I am coming to gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and shall see my glory, and I will set a sign among them. And from them I will send survivors to the nations, to Tarshish, Put, and Lud, who draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands afar off, that have not heard my fame or seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the nations. And they shall bring all your brethren from all the nations as an offering to the Lord, upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the Lord, just as the Israelites bring their cereal offering in a clean vessel to the house of the Lord. And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the Lord.

The people brought out from the nations are going to be taken for priests and Levites, if these where mere Jews in exile, God would have said “some of them will be priests and Levites” rather than “some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites”. Scripture is clearest here that the ministers of the New Covenant can be considered priests, those who make offerings. It is at this point where I will offer some objections made by protestants to the Catholic position.

Objection 1 — All Christians are priests, and therefore, there is no special priesthood. We are told in 1 Peter 2:5, “and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ”.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the existence of a universal priesthood of all believers does not rule out a ministerial priesthood. In Exodus 19:6 we read “and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel”. Does Israel having a universal priesthood negate the Levites having a ministerial priesthood?

No, a priest is one who offers something up to God. Such a thing can include sacrifice, since the Psalms do tell us “Let my prayer be counted as incense before thee, and the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice!” (Psalm 141:2). Now, such prayers did not earn forgiveness of sins, that required blood, but they were sacrifices in that they were offered up to God.

Objection 2 — Jesus died as a sacrifice once and for all. We read in Hebrews 10:10, “And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all”. If the Mass is a true sacrifice, it would mean that Jesus is being re-sacrificed. Since that is false, we must conclude the Mass is not a sacrifice.

The first issue with this sort of objection is that the mass is not a re-sacrifice, it is a re-presentation. According to the Council of Trent,

He, therefore, our God and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once on the altar of the cross unto God the Father, by means of his death, there to operate an eternal redemption; nevertheless, because that His priesthood was not to be extinguished by His death, in the last supper, on the night in which He was betrayed, — that He might leave, to His own beloved Spouse the Church, a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be represented, and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit[9]

The idea of a re-sacrificing of Christ implies that the when Christ when initially on the cross, it was not sufficient to atone for our sins. Rather, when Christ offers up the Last Supper, the first Mass, he was not offering up a fresh sacrifice, different from the one he was about to undergo. Rather, it is the same sacrifice on the cross re-presented over various times and places, and even before the fact in the case of the first supper. Remember, God is not limited by the flow of time, nor by spatial dimension, if God wanted to provide the same event over multiple times and places, he is within his power. Think of an author having their main character sending an object back in time, since they are outside their creation, they have the power to do so without contradiction. The question is, does God, the author of time do this?

Here are two good reasons to believe he does. The first is Luke 22:19, Jesus tells us,

And he took 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.”

Notice, Jesus says “this IS my body which IS given for you”, not “this WILL BE my body which WILL BE given for you”. Notice the tense of the verb “is”, it’s in the present tense, if our Lord meant this sentence to symbolize an event that was going to happen, he would use the future tense “WILL BE”. Instead, he opts for the present tense. This makes more sense on the Catholic view, because the Last Supper is just presenting to the apostles what is happening the next night before it is set to take place. To quotes Doctor Who, we are dealing with “A big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff”. But, remember, even God is able to unite people across space and time to his resurrection through baptism,

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3–4).

The second reason to believe in the re-presentation of Christ in the Mass is the fact he is the Pascal lamb. Saint Paul reminds us,

Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed — 1 Cor. 5:7

Christ depicts the Last Supper as a Pascal meal

So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the passover for us, that we may eat it.” — Luke 22:8

Jesus is even killed on the Preparation day of the Passover

Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, “Here is your King!” — John 19:14

Now, the sacrifice of the Passover lamb involved two parts, the first part was the slaughter of the sacrifice. The second part is eating the lamb. Now, maybe it’s time I pause here to explain was the Pascal/Passover lamb is. The Passover was instituted as a commemoration (that is in memory) of God freeing the Jews from the hands of the Egyptians. Exodus 12:1–10 gives us a fairly short explanation of the holiday,

The Lord said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, “This month shall be for you the beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year for you. Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month they shall take every man a lamb according to their fathers’ houses, a lamb for a household; and if the household is too small for a lamb, then a man and his neighbor next to his house shall take according to the number of persons; according to what each can eat you shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old; you shall take it from the sheep or from the goats; and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs in the evening. Then they shall take some of the blood, and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat them. They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. Do not eat any of it raw or boiled with water, but roasted, its head with its legs and its inner parts. And you shall let none of it remain until the morning, anything that remains until the morning you shall burn. In this manner you shall eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord’s Passover.

There are two parts to this singular sacrifice, the first part we read in verse 5 is the collective killing of the lamb on the fourteenth, on the fifteenth , we have the second part which is the consumption of the lamb.

If Jesus is our Pascal lamb, and the cross is the killing of the lamb, then the consumption of the Eucharist would be the second part of that same sacrifice. And of course, there are verses where Christ himself testifies to grace found in the sacrifice of the Mass as a requisite for salvation,

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day — John 6:53–54

In summary, the priests do not make Christ a sacrifice, rather they offer up the sacrificial lamb to us as a representation, avoiding the objection we are re-crucifying Christ.

I wish I could take credit for the second line of argument, but I’d like to thank the blog Shameless Popery, their article will be linked in the transcript.[10]

Objection 3 — The mass is works based salvation.

This is false, the mass is a gift and extension of Christ’s death on the cross. It is bestowed upon us by grace.

Objection 4 — Isn’t the Mass cannibalism?

This is also false, cannibalism involves the consumption of dead flesh, which is separated from the body, or part of a dead one. Christ’s flesh lives on in us, fully alive, remember, “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him”. — John 6:56

Objection 5 — Only Jesus is our high priest

This is true, just as there is one high priest in the Old Covenant, and the Priesthood of Israel, there is the Levites. Also, just as there is Christ as our high priest, and the priesthood of all believers, there is the priesthood of the Presbyters and Bishops.

Objection 6 — The true sacrifices God wants are contriteness of heart and prayer. Hence, ministerial priests are not needed.

If we understand “true” to mean “only”, this is wrong, there must always be a visible and invisible sacrifice. If we understand “true” to mean the “purpose”, then yes. The issue with the former line of reasoning is that none of the scriptures offered provide evidence that prayer and contriteness of heart are offered without the visible sacrifice. Take Psalm 51:15–19

O Lord, open thou my lips, and my mouth shall show forth thy praise. For thou hast no delight in sacrifice; were I to give a burnt offering, thou wouldst not be pleased. The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. Do good to Zion in thy good pleasure; rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, then wilt thou delight in right sacrifices, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings; then bulls will be offered on thy altar.

Notice here, what God is objecting to is sacrifices made without a change of heart, which is agreed upon, but no where is it implied the sheading of blood is not necessary under the law, only that it requires a contrite heart. Some will point to Psalm 50:14, which say,

Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and pay your vows to the Most High;

But this is not the sole translation, the RSVCE itself also provides the following translation,

make thanksgiving your sacrifice to God

This reading gives a more figurative use of the term sacrifice. But even granting the initial translation, God himself says in verse 8,

I do not reprove you for your sacrifices; your burnt offerings are continually before me.

The issue is in sacrifice given without thanksgiving. Again, it does not say sacrifices with blood suffice to forgive sin. Lastly, there is Hebrews 17:15, which speaks of sacrifice of praise to God. But the issue here, is that these are offered alongside Christ who is said to be, in verses 11–12, a sacrifice offered outside the gate. The sacrifices of prayer are indeed offered up, but they are offered up in a sense which is analogized to burnt offerings, not given the same meaning. While we do need to offer up our prayers, Hebrews 9:22 reminds us we needed Christ to offer up his blood as well. We need ministerial priests to re-present to us what Christ has offered to us, and we as members of the church need to offer up the sacrifice of a contrite heart.

In objection to Hebrews 9:22, some might offer up Hosea 14:2, which reads in Hebrew,

Take with you words and return to the Lord; say to him, “Take away all iniquity; accept that which is good and we will render the fruit [bulls in Masoretic/Hebrew text] of our lips.

There are two responses. The first is offer up a Septuagint translation,

Take with you words, and turn to the Lord your God: speak to him, that ye may not receive the reward of unrighteousness, but that ye may receive good things: and we will render in return the fruit of our lips.[11]

Another explanation is that the verse speaks about the national or collective sins of the nation of Israel as a whole. In the first verse of chapter 14 we read, “Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled because of your iniquity”.

Personally, I prefer the Septuagint reading because Hebrews 13:15 borrows from the Septuagint text. [12] Sorry, if I don’t find agreement with my Jewish audience, but to be fair, this is a podcast directed for my protestant audience. Take care.

[1] https://www.etymonline.com/word/priest

[2] https://biblehub.com/str/greek/1249.htm

[3] https://biblehub.com/str/greek/1985.htm

[4] https://biblehub.com/greek/2413.htm

[5] https://biblehub.com/text/hebrews/5-6.htm

[6] https://biblehub.com/text/acts/14-13.htm

[7] https://biblehub.com/text/luke/10-31.htm

[8] https://www.gotquestions.org/millennial-sacrifices.html

[9] Chapter 1, Session XXII, The Sacrifice of the Mass, Council of Trent <http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm>

[10] http://shamelesspopery.com/if-christs-sacrifice-is-once-for-all-does-the-mass-re-sacrifice-him/

[11] https://biblehub.com/sep/hosea/14.htm

[12] John Gill, Exposition of the Bible, Hebrews 13:15 <https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/hebrews-13-15.html>