The Great Debate VIII: Is The Roman Catholic Priesthood Biblical & Ancient? (White vs Pacwa)

The following presentation is a production of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Inc. and is protected by copyright laws of the United States and its international treaties. Copying or distribution of this production without the expressed written permission of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Inc. is prohibited.

Good evening. Welcome to the eighth annual Great Debate. My name is Chris Arnzen. I am the Long Island Station representative for WMCA and 970DJ and the founder and president of the Great Debate. The man on my right is a very dear friend of mine.

In the Gospel of Luke, chapter 6, verse 26, we read, Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you. That's woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you. Well, one thing that Dr. James White and I have in common is that verse strikes no fear in either one of our hearts because that will never happen in a million years.

But there's a little bit of a different reason for Dr. White. It's not because he's an idiot like me. Dr. White stands up for what he believes to be the sacred truth of scripture despite the enemies he may gain, no matter what religion they are.

In fact, there are Reformed Baptists who want him assassinated, even though he is an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. Dr. James White is director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a theologically reformed, evangelical Protestant Christian apologetics organization in Phoenix, Arizona, where he also serves as one of the elders at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

Dr. White was appointed scholar in residence in the College of Christian Studies at Grand Canyon University and was chosen as an adjunct professor with Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary's Arizona campus.

Dr. White has lectured in Greek, Hebrew, systematic theology, and Christology for Golden Gate and theology and church history at Grand Canyon. He is also professor of apologetics for Columbia Evangelical Seminary in Longview, Washington.

He is the author of almost 20 books, including The Roman Catholic Controversy, Mary, Another Redeemer, Dangerous Airwaves, Harold Camping Refuted and Christ's Church Defended, and The Forgotten Trinity.

And by the way, both evangelicals and Catholics in the audience may want to pick up this book, The Forgotten Trinity, at Dr. White's table because Father Mitch Pacwa actually endorsed this book. His endorsement is right on the back cover.

So obviously, since Father Pacwa enjoyed it, I'm sure both Catholics and evangelicals will enjoy the book and be blessed by it. He has also contributed to such publications as Table Talk and the CRI Journal.

He has engaged in more than 45 moderated public debates on a very wide range of subjects. Dr. White has also served as critical consultant for the New American Standard Bible Update. He is heard frequently as a guest on such national radio broadcasts as The Bible Answer Man with Hank Anagraff and Janet Partials America.

He has been married for more than 20 years to Kelly and has two children, Joshua and Summer. You can visit Dr. White's website for Alpha and Omega Ministries at www .aomin .org. Here he is, my dear friend, Dr. James White.

I'm going to introduce in a moment Arnold Pilsner of Americans United for the Pope who will introduce Father Pacwa to you. Arnold is a very dear friend and he has helped out tremendously with these debates, especially with getting Catholics to attend every year.

Before I do, I just wanted to say that I can say with all honesty and sincerity that of all the debates that we've been doing over the years, Father Pacwa has endeared himself to my heart more than any of the Catholic debaters.

He is a gracious and humble man as well as a brilliant man. Although Dr. White and I share a very rich Calvinistic Protestant heritage, Father Pacwa and I also have something very strong in common. We share in common a Polish heritage.

The only difference is that my ancestry is Norwegian and Polish. My ancestors were Vikings that raided their own villages. But anyway, Arnold, please come up and introduce.

Father Pacwa. Thank you, Chris. Our sincere thanks to you and your staff for all the work.

And dedication in organizing this great debate. Before I introduce Father Pacwa, Chris asked me to make the following announcement. Chris and I want to set up a name and address database for anyone in the audience who is interested in being informed about future debates.

We also want to let you know about additional talks given each year by the speakers following the debate. So we ask you to write on the back of your ticket, if you care to, your name, address, phone number, and also put on the back either Dr. White or Father Pacwa's name.

And at the break, those interested in obtaining a Catholic speaker's schedule, please hand me the ticket or bring it to the table. And if you're interested in Dr. White's schedule, please give the ticket to Chris or one of his associates.

Thank you. It is now my privilege to introduce to you Father Mitch Pacwa of the Society of Jesus. Father Pacwa entered the Jesuits in 1968 and was ordained a Catholic priest in 1976. He studied at the University of Detroit and the Jesuit School of Theology at Loyola University, graduating summa cum laude and magna cum laude, respectively.

He then continued his studies to receive his doctorate in Old Testament with a New Testament minor from Vanderbilt University in 1984. For over 35 years, he has been teaching scripture and the Catholic faith to Catholic radio and television, as well as various in various universities, parishes, and conferences around the world.

Over the years, he has led over 1 ,000 pilgrims to Jerusalem, visiting the Holy Land 44 times. Father Pacwa speaks 12 languages, which allows him to travel the globe teaching the scriptures and educating Catholics about their faith.

Father Pacwa is currently hosting three television shows on a worldwide Catholic television network called the Eternal Word Television Network, better known to audiences as EWTN. When he is not filming at EWTN, he is traveling around the globe teaching Catholics both scripture and sacred tradition.

In August of 2001, Father Pacwa founded Ignatius Productions, which produces video and audio tapes of Father Pacwa teaching at holy places and shrines around the world. Father Pacwa has just completed a series of tapes with the aid of a Muslim convert to aid all Christians to better understand Islam and how to evangelize them.

It has proven to be a very valuable aid in converting Muslims. So at this time, it is my distinct honor and privilege.

To present to you Father Mitch Pacwa. One thing that you folks might want to do now, or while.

You're watching the debate, is write down any questions that you may have on your ticket. Because what we're going to do this year when we take questions, we're going to have our moderator read the questions that you hand in that way.

And please, if you want Arnold Pilsner to receive the ticket from Americans United for the Pope, if you're Roman Catholic, right at the top, Catholic. And this way we'll know that Arnold is to receive the ticket after Pastor Shishko finishes reading the questions.

I'd like to introduce you to our moderator now. He's also a very dear friend of mine. And both Catholics and Protestants alike commented that last year when he was moderating the debate that he did a phenomenal job moderating.

Everybody was very pleased with that. Pastor Bill Shishko is the pastor of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Franklin Square,.

New York. And it's my pleasure to introduce him to you now. Pastor Bill Shishko. And now we're going to just bow for a moment of silent prayer. Amen. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

And now I'm turning over the podium to our moderator Bill Shishko. Let me go over the rules for tonight. The rules are for the benefit of everyone, particularly for you, so that there's fairness in the entire debate.

First, there will be a strict observance of the time limits, and I will give you the format in just a moment. Now the reason why that's important is that if you interrupt the speaker that you particularly support by your applause, all you're going to do is take away that speaker's time to speak.

This is not a State of the Union address where the president has carte blanche to speak for as long as he wants. So there will be an opportunity at the end to give the applause I know that you'll want to give to each speaker.

Number two, I'm going to ask that there be decorum in the debate as there was last year. This is not a baseball game. This is a debate. And so boos and hisses and any shouts of liar or loud breathing to try to indicate that you don't like what was said are out of order.

And even though I didn't bring my gavel tonight, last year with Patrick Madrid, the poor man nearly had a heart attack when I used the gavel. So I'm dispensing with that, but I will call order if there is a break in the decorum.

Number three, if you have a cell phone or a beeper, either turn it off or turn it on vibrate. I don't want to hear one cell phone tonight. That's not appropriate for the speakers and it's disruptive of the assembly.

So please turn them off or put them on vibrator mode. As Chris mentioned, we are not going to have questions and answers from the audience. I am convinced that you don't know how to ask questions. We have budding Rush Limbaugh's out who love to use the microphone to make their premier performances and that's not what we're here for.

So use your ticket and write questions out that you have in the course of the debate. Now a question is an inquiry. You are asking for something. You are asking for clarification of a point that is made or you're asking for added information for a point that was made or you're asking a question related to the topic.

And I will be going through these, so if that doesn't fit the criteria, don't expect that your question will be asked. If you want the question directed to one particular speaker, note that on the card.

Those will be picked up at the break. So if you don't have your questions written out by the break, then you won't have the opportunity to have them offered. Here's the format for tonight. Father Mitchell Pacwa will begin with a 25-minute opening statement and that will be followed by Dr. James White with a 25-minute statement.

After that, there will be two periods of rebuttals in which there were answers to what was given. Those rebuttals will be eight minutes each by both speakers and then four minutes each by both speakers.

By then, we'll all need some kind of a break, at least to use the restroom, so there will be a 20-minute break. And we'll time it because we want to get you out on time, so note it yourself. I'll let you know when you're to come back, but there will be a 20-minute break at which time your questions are to come to me.

Then there will be two periods of cross-examination, one for 10 minutes and one for five minutes. That will be in which both Father Pacwa and Dr. White will ask questions of one another and that will conclude with two closing 10-minute statements.

There will be a five-minute break at the end of the debate and if you need to leave, you're free to leave then. But after that five-minute break, we will then field your questions until 11 o 'clock p .m.

At 11 o 'clock, things are done. These men may want to stay around with what energy they have and answer your questions, but we will be done here at 11 o 'clock. I would ask one thing. I don't know how well it's going to be honored, but we'll try it.

After these men have spoken at length in the first portion, they really need a break to charge their batteries and there really is no place that they can get away here. So if you would please let them have a few minutes during the 20-minute break.

They also have bodily needs that they may need to satisfy as you do and they also just need the opportunity to gather their thoughts. I will now turn things over for the constructive speeches, first of all, to Father Mitchell Pacwa.

And the topic tonight, how biblical and ancient is the Catholic priesthood? Thank you all very much.

The Priesthood in Scripture and the Old Covenant

Appreciate being able to be here and especially to talk about something that has been a focus of my life since I was eight years old. Until I was eight, I wanted to be a cowboy. Since then, I've wanted to be a priest and I've been very surprised at how much more wonderful I thought it was, it is, than even I could imagine as a young man and young boy.

The priesthood is something constitutive of the human being. Priesthood is something that goes back to our most ancient ancestors. Already, the sons of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, are offering sacrifice in Genesis chapter four.

Noah, when he gets off the ark in chapter eight, offers a sacrifice. Again, showing that this is basic to the human race as a whole. We continue to see frequently that Abram, and then later on, when his name is changed to Abraham, offers sacrifice.

He builds altars in various parts of the holy land, the land of promise, and offers sacrifice in those places to God. Melchizedek, the priest of God most high, offers bread and wine. Isaac, Jacob, all offer sacrifices on altars that they made.

This is something that goes to the very basic element of the human being's need to worship God and to offer him sacrifice. And in the beginning of the religion of Israel, when they left Egypt and came into the Sinai desert, some of the most lengthy explanations are given on how to make the temple the tent place of offering sacrifice and keeping the ark of the covenant, as well as the establishment of the priesthood, the Levitical priesthood.

The tribe of Levi had been chosen for their fidelity to God after the worship of the golden calf. And from within the tribe of Levi, Aaron and his sons become the priests, and associated with them are the other members of the tribe of Levi.

This goes to the very roots of Israel. Within the New Testament, the new Adam, Jesus Christ, also demonstrates the essential constitutive element of priesthood. The letter to the Hebrews in chapters 5 through 10 describe Jesus Christ as our one true high priest, who is not only the priest, but also the victim offered, because he offers himself as that sacrifice for God once and for all.

Something which he is able to do precisely because he is not only one of us, he's not only the new Adam, but Jesus Christ is also God the Son. And because of that eternal, infinite, divine nature, his sacrifice and his priesthood are able to be eternal and infinite, so that the sins we commit are not going to be more powerful than his sacrifice on the cross.

And his giving himself in death is not going to be weaker than our own death. He'll be stronger than death and stronger than sin in offering himself up. Now, this is something that most Christians, I think, will accept.

There should be little disagreement on that. If you believe in the scriptures, we accept these elements of the faith. The controversy comes in another area, namely human priesthood. In Exodus chapter 19, verse 6, Moses calls the elders, the Zikanim in Hebrew, and he is told by God to tell them that all Israel is to be a kingdom of priests, a holy nation.

And in one sense, we cannot separate that from the initial call given to Abram in Genesis chapter 12, because the Lord promises that all nations will be blessed through Abram. And blessing is one of the elements of the role of a priest.

And so the whole nation that springs from the loins of Abram, his seed is to become a holy nation and a kingdom of priests. And in one sense, all of them share in priesthood. And we see exactly the same thing inside the Christian church, because it is Christian belief that all of us are called to be priests.

As a matter of fact, the first epistle of Saint Peter, chapter 2, speaks of us as a temple of living stones and as a priestly nation. We are a temple in which God dwells. We all form living stones. And within that whole church, God chooses to dwell.

And he also chooses to dwell, of course, as we know from Saint Paul, within each individual Christian. So it's a communal and an individual indwelling of God. But there's also this call in 1 Peter 2 to offer spiritual sacrifices.

And in this way, everybody is called to live out a Christian priesthood. And again, I doubt that there would be many Bible-believing Christians, Catholic or not Catholic, who would have any dispute with that call.

It's a command in Scripture. It's repeated as a principle three times in the book of Revelation, that we are called to be a kingdom of priests. And that this call for a priesthood to be shared amongst all Christians is something that seems modeled on ancient Israel.

God is taking that priestly element of the human being and is awakening that to the true worship of the true God. Just as he had called all Israel, so also does he call all of the church of Christ, his whole body.

And in one sense, I think that these places where we are told that we are priestly people, in 1 Peter 2 and three occasions in Revelation, are also important elements of making sense out of St. Paul's experience at his conversion, when Jesus Christ appeared to him on the way to Damascus and said, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?

Now Saul had not taken part in the crucifixion of Jesus in any direct way, but he had taken part in the martyrdom of Stephen and then many other men and women in Jerusalem. And he was making his way to arrest people who were Christians in Damascus.

And Christ takes what was being done to those Christians as being done to himself. He radically identifies himself with his church. So much so that St. Paul is going to develop this theology of the church as the body of Christ.

What you do to his church, you do to Jesus. And this is going to be a key theological basis for understanding why it is that all the Christian church shares in the priesthood of Jesus Christ. When we are baptized into Jesus, we're also baptized into his priesthood.

So that by virtue of baptism, all Christians share in that priesthood of Christ. And St. Paul even gives us some instruction in Romans chapter 12, verse 1, on how it is we are to live out that priesthood, make a spiritual offering of yourself.

Because just as our one true high priest offers himself on the cross, we too must follow Jesus, pick up our cross, and follow him daily, as he says in the Gospel of Luke. We must offer our whole self as a spiritual sacrifice, as St. Paul tells us in Romans.

And this is some of the ways, and there are many more, are evangelizing and so many other forms of service and ministry that all of us are called to do. But the sacrificial element is what specifically makes us priest.

Now we still have one more issue. Why is it that in the Catholic Church, whether it's Latin form or the Eastern communities, because we have many Eastern communities as well, Copts, Maronites, Melkites, Byzantines of different kinds, Chaldeans, we all share a priesthood.

And equally, we share that belief in the priesthood, and we certainly recognize the authentic priesthood of the Eastern Orthodox Communions, that the Greeks, Russians, and all the other Orthodox communities also have a priesthood that goes back to the Apostles, which we recognize as valid and authentic priesthood.

This is in general the area where Christians dispute, especially since the Reformation. This was not a problem within the early part of the Church, the first 1400 years, 1500 years, but in the time of the Reformation, an understanding of how to approach Scripture led to a change in that perspective.

What are some of the issues? One issue is that we do not see the Greek word hieros, meaning priest, used of the Apostles. There is one text where Saint Paul exercises priestly ministry and uses a verb form, saying that he uses a verb form of being a priest, and that's in Romans chapter 15, verse 16.

But otherwise, they don't use it. Now, it is used of Jesus Christ, that he is called our high priest, archihieros, archihieros, excuse me. And this is something that we say, well, why is it used of Jesus, who has that priesthood of the order of Melchizedek?

And why isn't it used of the Apostles? Instead, what we see are a different set of terms. One term is episkopos, which becomes in English, to the German, bishop. Episkopos becomes bishop, becomes bishop in German, in English.

And presbyteros, which becomes priest in German, and then from German to English, priest. So we actually derive the word priest that we use from the word presbyteros. But in general, the word presbyteros in Greek is not the word used for priests, it's the word meaning elder.

And then of course, there's a third rank, the diakonos, or deacon. Now, why is it they use these terms? And frankly, one of the insights I received into this problem, because it is a serious problem, for the early Christian church, came when I was studying modern Hebrew.

One time I made a mistake, we were going through, as students, I was a graduate student at Vanderbilt, but there are undergrads there, and they were describing what their majors were, what they do. And so then I said, oh, ani kohen katali, I am a Catholic priest.

My teacher nearly pulled her hair out. Atalo kohen, you are not a kohen. Now, a lot of you know people whose last name is Cohen, or kohen, right? That's the Hebrew word for priest, it also shows up in Arabic, kohen, kohen.

And this is the term for priest, and I may not use that of myself, and still say that I'm using good Hebrew, as my teacher correctly corrected me. Because to be a kohen is not merely the description of a job of offering sacrifice, it's also being part of a clan.

As you see, it's a last name for families. You can only be born a kohen. If I had Jewish ancestry, I actually would not have Jewish ancestry if I were a kohen. If I were a kohen, I would have Levitical ancestry.

Jewish is from the tribe of Judah. If I had Levitical ancestry, perhaps I could be a kohen, but I'd have to be born that. My father would have to be a kohen. I cannot ever become one. I can wish it, I can desire it, but it would mean nothing because you must be born a kohen.

And so this term is something that would not be possible for Christians to use in the early church when they were still living in Palestine, when they still lived in Jerusalem. They could never apply that to themselves because most of them were from Galilee and were not from priestly families.

As you see commonly, the name Judas and other names are referring to members, probably the tribe of Judah, perhaps some stragglers from another tribe or converts from the Gentiles. While there's another word in Hebrew, and my teacher told me to say this, you're not a kohen, you are a komer.

You are komer katoli. Now komer is a word that appears in the Old Testament about three or four times. It's not very common. And usually it is translated in English as idolatrous priests. So the word idolatrous is not there, but it's a way to indicate foreign priests, pagan priests.

It's a term never used for Jewish priests, but only for those who worship the other gods. Now I knew enough classical Hebrew to know I don't like being called a komer because I'm not that kind of priest.

I'm a priest of Jesus Christ and he is not a pagan god. And so I don't like that, but there is no other acceptable word in Hebrew. And the early church had to cope with this same problem of language. They used some terms, especially the terms for liturgia, liturgy, as we will call it in English, and liturgos, which are terms frequently used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, to refer to the action of priests.

So Saint Paul and the other disciples will use that of themselves. And that they have that liturgical ministry, and that's usually the way it's translated as ministry. But it's a term, as you see, for instance, in Luke chapter one, referring to the priestly ministry of Zacharias to offer the incense at the temple.

Now the early church uses this term presbyteros, presbyter, elder, and we have to keep something in mind about the nuance of this word. Why would they choose this word? On one hand, there are three good words for older people, but the one that they chose, presbyter, or elder, doesn't have the same nuance of the other two, like palaios, which means not only old, but sort of old in the way that Chris told my joke about the three old guys sort of losing their faculties a little bit.

And the other one is the Greek word that from which you get gerontology. It also has a sense of weakness in old age, while elder does not. The word presbyter, or presbyteros, does not have that sense of elder as someone who is simply older and is losing some of their strength and abilities, or even their mental faculties.

Rather, it's a sign of dignity and the supremacy of somebody because they are an elder. It's translating in the old, when it is in the Old Testament, it's frequently translating the zikanim, the elders of the Old Testament, who were the bearded ones.

The zikanim, elders, simply a word that there are different words there, too, that mean one person is older than another. That's one word, that's gadol, or rav. Those words show up, to be sure, in Genesis and elsewhere.

But the word zikanim, as elders, doesn't just mean someone who happens to be older, but someone who's bearded, and someone who has a status within the community. And so what we see is that the term elder, or presbyter, is a term that can mean that you are older in age, but usually with an honorific sense.

And it can have that sense in classical Greek, just meaning people who are older than others, it can have that meaning. But it also indicates, both in the biblical context, because, again, the Bible is translated into Greek in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, and there, as well as in the New Testament, it refers to an office.

And even outside of the biblical usage, in the ancient Greek usage, it also referred to offices, including the elders who were a group of priests worshipping one of the Egyptian gods, or a group of people who were leading Jewish converts to worshipping God the Most High.

They also were called elders. And in a number of very interesting places in the Old Testament, the elders of Israel, and they're usually always called the elders of Israel, have very important roles at key sacrifices.

For instance, when Moses tells the people to sacrifice the Passover lamb, he goes to the elders in Exodus chapter 12. When he has a sacrificial meal with his priest father-in-law Jethro, the elders join him in Exodus 17.

When he has the sacred meal at which the covenant with God is ratified on the mountain, he calls the elders to join him. Not the whole people, but a group of elders go up to the mountain and share that sacrificial meal after ratifying the covenant, after Moses had said that this is the covenant, the blood of the covenant.

It's a shed for you. And he sprinkled it on the people. Then he took the elders up, and they had the sacrificial meal, and they got to see God. And a number of other situations that we may, if we have time to go into, we can.

So that this term elder not only means an office of respect within the community, but also an office which is associated with crucial sacrifices. And so the early church, I think, used this term. They chose this term as one more acceptable.

Since Cohen was impossible, Comer was unacceptable. And they choose something from their own tradition, as they also did, by the way, with Bishop, a term that's used in Qumran as the Mivakir. The Mivakir, which is the Episcopal or Bishop, was the head of the priests at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls are written.

A community that certainly would be familiar with some of them, especially John the Baptist, probably John the Apostle and some of the early disciples. So this kind of language is something that they can say, all right, we can adapt this and see within this general priesthood that all of us have a kind of hierarchy in which there are priests who exercise this priestly ministry in a liturgical way, in a distinct way, in a way which helps draw together the priesthood of all the believers into the liturgical worship of Jesus Christ, most especially at the Eucharist.

Where they offer his body and blood. Thank you. Well, good evening and welcome. I'm awful glad to see all of you here this evening. We have a very important subject to debate. And of course, I recognize that Father Mitch is going to be rather passionate about this particular subject.

I recognize that going in, and I think that will make it a much more interesting debate for all of us because we recognize how important it truly is. I'd like to begin with a quote that I've used a number of times because I think it expresses to us the pietistic and historical view of the Roman Catholic priesthood.

This comes from O 'Brien in his book, The Faith of Millions. When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from his throne, and places him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man.

It is a power greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of seraphim and cherubim. Indeed, it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven and renders him present on our altar as the eternal victim for the sins of man, not once but a thousand times.

The priest speaks and lo, Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command. Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vice-gerent of Christ on earth?

He continues the essential ministry of Christ. He teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ. He pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ. He offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary.

No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of alter Christus, for the priest is and should be another Christ.". We see in such words the centrality of the concept of the priesthood to historic Roman Catholic theology.

The priest stands alter Christus in the place of Christ. It is through the priest that Christ is made present to the people, through the priest that the miracle of transubstantiation takes place, through the priest that forgiveness and absolution is granted sacramentally, etc. etc.

In classic pre-Vatican II theology, the priesthood is a highly exalted thing. Note the words of James Cardinal Gibbons from 1876, quote, the apostles were clothed with the powers of Jesus Christ. The priest as the successor of the apostles is clothed with their power.

This fact reveals to us the eminent dignity of the priestly character. The exalted dignity of the priest is derived not from the personal merits for which he may be conspicuous, but from the sublime functions which he is charged to perform.

To the carnal eye the priest looks like other men, but to the eye of faith he is exalted above the angels because he exercises powers not given even to angels, end quote. It should be remembered, of course, that even if after Vatican II more biblically oriented language has been used, including the recognition of the priesthood of all believers in Christ, the view of the priesthood that prevailed for centuries remains at the heart of Eucharistic and sacramental theology piety and practice.

Now our debate this evening in the thesis has two elements, and as the judges this evening you must keep the topic in mind throughout. First is the Roman Catholic priesthood biblical? Does the Bible positively present us with the concept of a sacramental, mediatorial priesthood as part and parcel of Christ's will for his church as expressed in the inspired scriptures?

And also does the Bible present positive truths that are contradictory to the Roman concept of the priesthood itself? And secondly, how ancient is this concept? Specifically, and I think most importantly, is this a belief that has always been held by the church?

Did the earliest generations of Christians have priests? Did they understand that there was a sacramental, mediatorial priesthood that was established by Christ and his apostles? Or do we need to look elsewhere for the origins of this concept of priesthood?

Remember the Roman Catholic Church has dogmatically claimed in the 23rd session of the Council of Trent, quote, since therefore in the New Testament the Catholic Church has received from the institution of Christ the holy visible sacrifice of the Eucharist, it must also be confessed that there is in that church a new visible and external priesthood into which the old has been translated.

That this was instituted by the same Lord our Savior and that the apostles and their successors in the priesthood was given the power of consecrating, offering, and administering his body and blood so also of forgiving and retaining sins is shown by the sacred scriptures, and listen to this, and has always been taught by the tradition of the Catholic Church, end quote.

It further stated in the same session, quote, since from the testimony of scripture, apostolic tradition, and the unanimous agreement of the fathers, it is clear that grace is confirmed by sacred ordination which is performed by words and outward signs, no one ought to doubt that order is truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of holy church, end quote.

And the canons attached to this session, we find the anathema pronounced in these words, quote, canon one, if anyone says that there is not in the New Testament a visible and external priesthood or that there is no power of consecrating and offering the true body and blood of the Lord and of forgiving and retaining sins but only the office and bare ministry of preaching the gospel or that those who do not preach are not priests at all, let him be anathema, end quote.

Now in the previous session of the Council of Trent wherein the sacrifice of the mass was addressed, it was taught that Christ ordained the apostles as priests at the last supper. Indeed in this session we read, quote, canon two, if anyone says that by those words do this for commemoration of me, Christ did not institute the apostles priests or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer his own body and blood, let him be anathema, end quote.

If we find that these statements are not true, then we find that the Roman Catholic Church has erred in a matter of faith and morals and an allegedly infallible pronouncement by an ecumenical council which would not only end the debate this evening but would end all such debates for it would disprove the central claim of Roman Catholic authority.

So the issues this evening are weighty indeed. And so we have two points to establish this evening. Is the Roman Catholic priesthood biblical and is it historical? How ancient is it? Let's begin with God's word.

The Bible clearly teaches that God is a God of order. His church is ordered by divine wisdom as well. It is not every man for himself. There is an order to Christ's church. As the writer to the Hebrews said in Hebrews 13, 17, obey your leaders and submit to them for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account.

Let them do this with joy and not with grief for this would be unprofitable for you. Obviously, one must have a means of knowing who your leaders are to fulfill this command. They must know they are to guard over your souls as well.