The Priesthood

I had forgotten that I had said:

Wow!  What a gold mine!  I get to debunk another article.  ....

But I was reading that article again and I was reminded.

Anyway, the article which Russel is talking about is here.  I normally put the other person's words in blue and mine in black.  But Russell is already using blue for Catholics, so I'll leave his words in black, the Catholic segments in blue and I'll write my comments in Bold.

The Priesthood

“If any one saith, that there is not in the New Testament a visible and external priesthood; or that there is not any power of consecrating and offering the true body and blood of the Lord, and of forgiving and retaining sins; but only an office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, or, that those who do not preach are not priests at all; let him be anathema.” (The Catholic Church’s Council of Trent, Session 23, Canon 1)
While many of the world’s religions have an ordained priesthood, the concept of a Christian ministerial priesthood is not found in the New Testament,

Yes it is.

First, the Priesthood is here explicitly mentioned:
1 Timothy 4:14
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

Here it is explicit in the original Greek, which loses something in the translation to English:
hierourgeō
1) to minister in the manner of a priest, minister in priestly service
a) of those who defend the sanctity of the law by undergoing a violent death
b) of the preaching of the gospel
Romans 15:16
King James Version (KJV)
 16That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering  (hierourgeo) the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

 but is something that has evolved over time. There are a number of groups who claim to follow Jesus Christ that maintain a priesthood. For example, the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, and even some Protestant churches, like Anglican / Episcopalian, and some Lutheran churches. The Mormon Church also has a priesthood. Yet, none of these “priesthoods” are valid (according to the Bible), but we will focus on the most prominent: the Catholic priesthood.

One thing that should stand out in that last paragraph, is that all the ancient Christian faiths have a priesthood.  Why?  Because they inherited the Tradition from the Apostles.  Many centuries later, Protestants came along, separated from the Church and discarded the Traditions and began to reconstruct the faith of Jesus Christ in their own image.  One of the Traditions they discarded was the Tradition of Holy Orders, aka, the ministerial Priesthood.

The Catholic Church insists that we must have a distinct, ordained, “hierarchical” priesthood today. But, the truth is, the only types of Christian “priesthood” that we find within the pages of the New Testament are the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 2:17; 3:1), and the “universal priesthood” of all believers (1 Peter 2:5, 9; Revelation 1:6). While we are able to find Jewish and pagan priests mentioned in the New Testament, we don’t see any Christian “ministerial” priests to mediate between God and man (as we find in the Old Testament).

The Apostle Paul mentions the functions and offices of the New Testament church in chapters 3 and 5 of 1 Timothy, and Titus chapter 1. He also gives specific instructions for ministry, church order, gifts and service in 1 Corinthians chapters 11-14, and in Ephesians chapter 4… and yet, the ministerial office of “priest” is strangely absent. There is not a single mention of a “priesthood” in these contexts. If God had intended a Christianministerial priesthood for today, one would think that such a critical position should be evident in the New Testament. But it isn’t there.

Actually, it is, as I have shown above.  The problem is, that Protestants can't recognize the ministerial priesthood in the pages of Scripture, because they are reading Scripture with their presuppositions.  

We can see, for instance, the episode of the Apostles eating the corn on the Sabbath.

Matthew 12:
1At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat. 2But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. 3But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 4How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? 5Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
6But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. 7But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. 8For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Have you ever wondered why the Disciples are guiltless?  They worked on the Sabbath day and were guiltless because they were the equivalent of the Levites, the ministerial priests of the Old Testament.  The Levites were in the Temple, working on the Sabbath.  But there is one greater than the Temple and His ministerial priests are free to work on the Sabbath, because He is Lord of the Sabbath.

But, let’s look at some of the Catholic arguments for the priesthood:

OK.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, THERE WERE THREE TYPES OF PRIESTS: HIGH PRIESTS (LEVITICUS 21:10), MINISTERIAL PRIESTS (EXODUS 29:1), AND A “UNIVERSAL” PRIESTHOOD (EXODUS 19:6). THE BIBLE NEVER SAYS THAT THIS HAS CHANGED, SO THE “THREE-FOLD PRIESTHOOD” IS STILL HERE TODAY.

If I may add, the Bible also says that the Old Covenant is a shadow of the New.  Therefore, the New Covenant must be casting a shadow which includes three Priesthoods.

Hebrews 8:5

King James Version (KJV)

 ⁵Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

We agree that there was a “high priesthood” and a “ministerial priesthood” in the Old Testament. But it is wrong to think that Exodus 19:6 proves that there was a “universal priesthood” in Old Testament times. Let’s look at the context:

Exodus 19:5 - Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

Exodus 19:6 - And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Yes, God promised Israel that they would be a “kingdom of priests” and a “holy nation.” But, this is a yet UNFULFILLED promise to the Jews. Notice that God’s promise to Israel was CONDITIONAL; that this would happen IF (and ONLY if) they would obey God’s voice and keep His covenant (Exodus 19:5). But they didn’t. Over and over, Israel had broken God’s covenant and disobeyed His commands (e.g., Jeremiah chapter 11, 13, 22, 34, etc.). This continued even until the very end of the Old Testament period, where even the “ministerial” priests had profaned the covenant (Malachi 2:8-10). Even to this day, Israel (as a nation) is disobedient and blinded to the truth (2 Corinthians 3:12-14; Romans 11:25, 31).

Therefore, Israel could not claim that it was a “kingdom of priests” and a “holy nation,” and thus, has not yet become that “universal priesthood.” This will not happen for the Jews, as a nation, until Jesus Christ returns, as Isaiah prophesied (Isaiah 61:6). So, since the “universal priesthood” never happened in the Old Testament, this “three-fold priesthood” concept didn’t exist then, and there is no reason to think that it must be a model for the church today.

One of the problems here, is that Protestants read Scripture differently than do Catholics.  Scripture says:

2 Timothy 2:15

King James Version (KJV)

 ¹⁵Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

In the OT, the Priest that offered the sacrifice was supposed to eat it:

Leviticus 6:26

King James Version (KJV)

 ²⁶The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.

Who eats the Passover lamb?

Exodus 12:5-11

King James Version (KJV)

 ⁵Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:
 ⁶And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.
 ⁷And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.
 ⁸And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.
 ⁹Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof.
 ¹⁰And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.
 ¹¹And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD's passover.

The Ordinary Priesthood of the Jewish nation.  Everyone.  It is priests who eat the sacrifice and all the Jews were expected to eat the Passover lamb.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – WE KNOW THAT THERE WERE PRIESTS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT BECAUSE THE ENGLISH WORD FOR “PRIEST” IS DERIVED FROM THE GREEK “PRESBUTEROS”, TRANSLATED AS “ELDER” IN MOST ENGLISH BIBLES. SO, “ELDER” ACTUALLY MEANS “PRIEST”.

While it is true that our modern word “priest” is derived from the Greek word “presbuteros”, it does not mean that the two words are the same. Derivatives are not definitions. The modern word “Presbyterian” is ALSO a derivative of “presbuteros”, but I don’t think any Catholic would try to say that the New Testament “elders” were Presbyterians. Anyway, the New Testament ALREADY has a Greek word for priest, “hiereus,” not “presbuteros,” and these two Greek words are never used interchangeably. So, this argument certainly does not prove that biblical “elders” were priests.

But it is strong evidence in that regard however.  Although presbyter means "elder", we see that St. Timothy was a presbyter:

1 Timothy 4:14

King James Version (KJV)

 ¹⁴Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

And yet he was a youth:

1 Timothy 4:12

King James Version (KJV)

 ¹²Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

So, presbyter didn't mean "old".  It therefore meant a special or dedicated type of priest distinguished from the ordinary priesthood of the believer.  That is why, today, presbyter means "priest".  Because it always meant "priest."

CATHOLIC CLAIM - “HIEREUS” REFERS TO THE PRIESTS OF THE OLD COVENANT. SO, A SEPARATE WORD, “PRESBUTEROS”, IS USED TO REFER TO THE PRIESTS OF THE NEW. THERE IS STILL A DISTINCTIVENESS AND UNIQUENESS TO THE NEW COVENANT PRIESTHOOD THAT WARRANTS THE USE OF A DIFFERENT WORD.

“Hiereus” does indeed refer to the priests of the Old Covenant, but not just to the Old Testament priests. It ALSO refers to the New Testament universal priesthood of believers (Revelation 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). Furthermore, asserting that “presbuteros” is the “new” term for priest is simply begging the question, i.e., just an assumption without proof. 

The proof is in the Tradition which is followed, universally, by the ancient Christian religions.

We also believe that the fact that “hiereus” is used to describe priests from both Testaments is further evidence that the priesthood has changed from a “ministerial” form (Old Testament) to a “universal” form (New Testament).

You are simply wrong.  The Old Testament is a shadow of the New and designed according to the same heavenly plan.  Therefore, the Old and New Testaments have three types of priests.  Protestants have dispensed with the ministerial priesthood in contradiction of Scripture.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – YOU MAY ASK, WHY DON’T WE SEE THE WORD “PRIEST” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT? THE CHRISTIANS OF THE FIRST CENTURY WOULD AVOID USING “PRIEST” IN NAMING THE MINISTERIAL OFFICES OF THE CHURCH, BECAUSE IT WAS ALSO THE SAME TERM BEING USED BY MANY JEWISH AND PAGAN PRIESTS. SO, TO AVOID CONFUSION, EARLY CHRISTIANS USED LANGUAGE TO DISTINGUISH THEIR PRIESTS FROM THE OTHERS.

I've never heard any Catholic make this claim.  

There were plenty pagan priests in the time of the Old Testament. But it seems that neither the Lord nor the Jews had any problem calling their own ministers “priests” at that time. They didn’t seem to be concerned about any confusion that might arise between the names of the two groups. Furthermore, the term “elder” was kept over from the Old Testament. The New Testament word used for the Jewish elder (“presbuteros”) is exactly the same word used for the Christian elder. If confusing terms were an issue, why didn’t the early Christians avoid the term “elder” altogether? So, this Catholic argument is just too weak to be credible.

I think you made that up.  I've never heard any Catholic make that claim.

The simple reason why priest and presbyter are interchangeable is because they mean the same thing.  Ruler or Leader of the Church.  The Priest is the Pastor of the local Church.

Now, most pagan religions did not speak Hebrew.  I repeat, they did not speak Hebrew.  Therefore, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to confuse the Jewish word, "kohen" for "witch doctor".  

However, because the Jewish High Priest and the Levitical Priests were members of the Sanhedrin and were also called "elders", the term "elder" became synonymous with "priest".

CATHOLIC CLAIM – THE VERY REASON THAT ENGLISH SPEAKERS REFER TO THE ORDAINED MINISTRY WITH A WORD (PRIEST) THAT IS DERIVED FROM “PRESBUTEROS” IS BECAUSE THESE MINISTERS SERVE THE SAME FUNCTION AS BIBLICAL ELDERS DID.

But one could argue that many of today’s Protestant pastors / ministers ALSO serve the same function as the New Testament “elders” did, because they also preach the gospel and administer communion, baptism, etc. So this claim proves nothing.

In other words, Protestant Pastors function as priests but do not call themselves priests.  Therefore, in proving the necessity of the priesthood, they deny it.

You're contradicting yourself.

Another thing… if Catholic priests (especially those of the Latin rite) are supposed to be the same as New Testament “elders,” then why are they not allowed (required?) to be the “husband of [but] one wife” (Titus 1:6)? We know that there are exceptions in the Catholic Church, but Paul is speaking of the NORM for elders, here. And the norm is to be married. (We are not debating the virtues of celibacy, but our point is simply that, according to Titus, the great majority of Roman Catholic priests cannot be biblical elders). So, it can’t be said that priests and elders are one and the same.

Sure it can.  Your simple denial does not prove anything.

First, the custom in the Roman rite of the Catholic Church is to have a celibate priesthood.  The Eastern rite of the Catholic Church still permits married priests.

Second, the custom in the Roman rite is a discipline only.  The Pope or the Magisterium united with the Pope can decide at anytime to rescind the discipline.

Third, but they probably won't, because Jesus wasn't married and because St. Paul said:

1 Corinthians 7:8

King James Version (KJV)

 ⁸I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

And again:

1 Corinthians 7:32

King James Version (KJV)

 ³²But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

Therefore, it is very unlikely that the Catholic Church will ever rescind that discipline.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – IN ROMANS 15:15-16, PAUL CALLS HIMSELF A PRIEST WHEN HE REFERS TO HIS MINISTRY AS A “PRIESTLY SERVICE” (GREEK, “HIEROURGOUNTA”).

First of all, Paul never uses the word “priest” to describe his own office, but considers himself an “apostle.”

Secondly, in NONE of his epistles does he call any leader in the church a “priest,” when he had ample opportunity to do so.

Thirdly, this “priestly service” is simply describing the work of spreading the gospel, which ALL Christians are commissioned to do.

That isn't true.  Again, because you have discarded the Traditions, you don't recognize a priestly service when you see it.  Here is St. Paul describing his priestly service:

1 Corinthians 10:16

King James Version (KJV)

 ¹⁶The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

That is the Sacrifice of the Mass which you call "communion" and which you claim even your "Pastors" also "administer".  If that is true, then they are offering up the Christian Passover:

1 Corinthians 5:7

King James Version (KJV)

 ⁷Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT IF WE DON’T HAVE ANY PRIESTS TODAY, HOW CAN WE OBTAIN THE SACRAMENTS, OR PRESENT SACRIFICES TO THE LORD, LIKE THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS?

Ok, first, just because there are no ministerial priests, this doesn’t mean that there are no church leaders to minister to the people.

You're contradicting yourself again.  Christ's priests are the ministers to the people.  You are rejecting the priesthood and at the same time proving its necessity.

Furthermore, without getting into the concept of “sacraments,” and any role they might play, the point still remains that ministerial priests are NOT found in the New Testament, regardless of whether someone believes they should be there.

Let me put it this way.  Ministerial priests are found in the New Testament, regardless of whether someone believes they should not be there.

And finally, the only sacrifices that need to be offered today are spiritual sacrifices (1 Peter 2:5), our praise(Hebrews 13:15), our bodies (Romans 12:1), our finances (Philippians 4:18), etc. Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, see our two-part article on the Eucharist, elsewhere on this blog.

I sure will.  Thanks for the invite.

Note that the author of the book of Hebrews takes great pains to distinguish the difference between the Old Covenant (types and shadows) and the New (and better) Covenant. The main function of a ministerial priest of the Old Testament was to offer sacrifices (repeatedly) to God in order to atone for sin. But Hebrews 10:10-12, 18 tells us that the price has now been paid, and there is “NO MORE offering [sacrifice] for sin.” Therefore, no more atoning sacrifices are needed. Jesus Christ has paid the full penalty on the cross of Calvary. We now have a perfect atonement to embrace, once for all (Hebrews 9:12, 28; 10:10). No ministerial priests are needed now to offer sacrifice to God. Their “job” is cancelled out. This was demonstrated by God’s tearing of the veil in the temple (Matthew 27:51). It means all believers now have direct access to God without “ministerial” priests. Jesus Christ is the FULFILLMENT of the Old Testament type of priesthood and its sacrifices.

The problem with that summary is that you show that you don't understand the nature of Old Testament Sacrifice.  Especially of the Sacrifice known as the Passover.

Yes, the Old Testament is a shadow of the more perfect New Testament.  That just proves that the New Testament cast a shadow which included a ministerial priesthood.

And the other sacrifices all disappeared.  Leaving only the perfect Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  Did you notice that the Passover sacrifice required that the lamb be eaten.  Perhaps now you will understand why Jesus said:

John 6:53

King James Version (KJV)

 ⁵³Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Yeah, we need Priests to administer the Sacrifice.

CONCLUSION

We are not saying that there are no leaders in the church today, just that there are no “ordained / ministerial” priests. As important as the priesthood is to Catholics, it is hard to ignore the fact that this priesthood is never mentioned in Paul’s writings. To emphasize the point once more, it is not as though it is absent from only a tiny letter in the Bible, like Philemon or 3 John, but it is absent from the WHOLE New Testament. This is too much of a glaring omission to ignore.

There is a reason why Scripture says:

2 Thessalonians 2:15

King James Version (KJV)

 ¹⁵Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Jesus didn't write a word of Scripture.  He passed down Traditions.  Amongst those, is the ministerial priesthood.  If you held the Traditions, you could recognize the priesthood described in the New Testament.  Since you don't, you can't. 

The life, the very core, of a priestly system is the sacrifice. The sacrifice is the whole focus of the priesthood.

The Holy Eucharist is described as the SOURCE AND SUMMIT of our faith.

 If you remove the core of any such system, you take away the life and purpose of that system. If there is no more sacrifice, there is no more system. Its purpose has been served. This is the Achilles’ heel of the Catholic priesthood. Not only is the priesthood NOT in the New Testament, but it also contradicts the New Testament, since Hebrews tells us that there is NO MORE SACRIFICE for sin (Hebrews 10:18).

Let's divide the word rightly.  Here is the verse which he referenced:

Hebrews 10:18

King James Version (KJV)

 ¹⁸Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

A remission of what?  Sin.  

Is all sin remitted?  Scripture says:

1 John 1:8

King James Version (KJV)

 ⁸If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

So then, there is still an offering for sin.  And if we read a bit further:

Hebrews 10:20

King James Version (KJV)

 ²⁰By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;


What Russell doesn't realize is the Sacramental language which is here depicted.  Let's read 19 and 20 together:

Hebrews 10:19-20

King James Version (KJV)

 ¹⁹Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
 ²⁰By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

Folks, St. Paul is talking about the Holy Eucharist.  He does it again in Heb 10:29.


Heb 10:22 is a description of Baptism.

According to its Catechism, the Catholic Church makes some very special claims about its priests. For example, they are supposedly able to absolve (forgive) a man’s sins (CCC #1495); they have “a ‘sacred power’ which is none other than that of Christ” (CCC #1551); they “possess the authority to act in the power and place of the Person of Christ, Himself” (CCC #1548); and the priest “divinizes” and he “is divinized” (CCC #1589), i.e., he makes divine and is made divine…

Once again, we see the Catholic Church making some extraordinary claims about itself, and then it asserts that these claims have (at least some) biblical support. But upon examination, these claims are found to be just that… mere claims, and not truth; they are deceptive claims that actually deny biblical truth.

There's only one way to find out.  Let us see whether you have read those paragraphs correctly and how they stand up to Scripture:

1495 Only priests who have received the faculty of absolving from the authority of the Church can forgive sins in the name of Christ.

Scripture says:

John 20:23

King James Version (KJV)

 ²³Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Right on the money.

1551 This priesthood is ministerial. "That office . . . which the Lord committed to the pastors of his people, is in the strict sense of the term a service." It is entirely related to Christ and to men. It depends entirely on Christ and on his unique priesthood; it has been instituted for the good of men and the communion of the Church. The sacrament of Holy Orders communicates a "sacred power" which is none other than that of Christ. The exercise of this authority must therefore be measured against the model of Christ, who by love made himself the least and the servant of all. "The Lord said clearly that concern for his flock was proof of love for him."

Scripture says:

Mark 10:41-45

King James Version (KJV)

 ⁴¹And when the ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John.

 ⁴²But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.

 ⁴³But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:

 ⁴⁴And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.

 ⁴⁵For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Right on the money, again.

1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis:

It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi).Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:20

King James Version (KJV)

 ²⁰Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Still on the money.

1589 Before the grandeur of the priestly grace and office, the holy doctors felt an urgent call to conversion in order to conform their whole lives to him whose sacrament had made them ministers. Thus St. Gregory of Nazianzus, as a very young priest, exclaimed:

We must begin by purifying ourselves before purifying others; we must be instructed to be able to instruct, become light to illuminate, draw close to God to bring him close to others, be sanctified to sanctify, lead by the hand and counsel prudently. I know whose ministers we are, where we find ourselves and to where we strive. I know God's greatness and man's weakness, but also his potential. [Who then is the priest? He is] the defender of truth, who stands with angels, gives glory with archangels, causes sacrifices to rise to the altar on high, shares Christ's priesthood, refashions creation, restores it in God's image, recreates it for the world on high and, even greater, is divinized and divinizes. And the holy Cure of Ars: "The priest continues the work of redemption on earth. . . . If we really understood the priest on earth, we would die not of fright but of love. . . . The Priesthood is the love of the heart of Jesus."

Scripture says:

Galatians 4:19

King James Version (KJV)

 ¹⁹My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,

If he can form Christ in us, that sounds like divining and divinizing to me.

2 Peter 1:4

King James Version (KJV)

 ⁴Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Yep.  I'd say, right on the money, again.

So, this creates some serious implications for the Catholic faithful, and should be disturbing to those Catholics who would take an honest look at the evidence presented. We have to ask ourselves: Are we going to believe the Catholic hierarchy, or are we going to believe God’s infallible Scripture?

We believe both.  Whom we don't believe are Protestants.  What we don't believe are Protestant changes to the Word of God.

Sincerely,

De Maria