Is The Roman Catholic Priesthood Biblical & Ancient? (Pacwa)

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 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 is 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's helped out tremendously with these debates especially with getting

Catholics to attend every year. Before I do I just want 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 and 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 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 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 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 your answer 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 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 then 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 4.

Noah when he gets off the ark in chapter 8 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 beings 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 St. Peter chapter 2 speaks of us as a temple of living stone 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 St.

Paul within each individual Christian. There's a communal and an individual indwelling of God but there's also this call in 1st

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're 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 1st

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 are also baptized into his priesthood.

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 community, because we have many

Eastern communities as well, Copts, Maronites, Melkite, 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 Communion. 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 St. Paul exercises priestly ministry and uses a verb form, 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 Bischof, becomes

Bishop in German, in English. And presbyteros, which becomes

Priester 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 priest, 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, I am a

Catholic priest. My teacher nearly pulled her hair out. You are not a

Kohen. Now a lot of you know people whose last name is Cohen or Kohen, that's the

Hebrew word for priest. It also shows up in Arabic, 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 commonly the name

Judas. You know, the 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're a

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.

Though 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 St. Paul and the other disciples will use that of themselves. And if they have that liturgical ministry, that's usually the way it's translated as ministry.

But it's a term, as you see, for instance, in Luke chapter 1, 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.

The Theo guy is 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 zikaneim, the elders of the

Old Testament who were the bearded ones. The zikaneim, elders, simply a word that there are different words there too that mean one person is older than another.

That's one where that's gadol or rav. Those words show up, to be sure, in Genesis and elsewhere.

But the word zikaneim 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 to 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. But 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 Fr. 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 -gerant 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.,

and etc. In classic pre -Vatican II theology, the priesthood is a highly exalted thing.

Note the words of James Cardinal Gibbons from 1876, "...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."

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 in 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. There is a structure to the church, and the

New Testament reveals that this structure involves two offices, that of elder and that of deacon.

One of the most relevant facts concerning the nature of the New Testament church in this evening's debate is the fact that the

Greek terms translated as elder, bishop, or overseer, specifically as we've already heard, presbyteros and episkopos, refer to the self -same office.

Elders are bishops, bishops are overseers, overseers are elders. The only two ecclesiastical offices the apostles recognize, establish, promulgate, and teach in the local church are those of elder and deacon.

Where do we see this? Well, let's note Paul's action. We record in Acts chapter 14, verses 21 through 23.

After they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith and saying, through many tribulations, we must enter the kingdom of God.

Listen to this. When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the

Lord in whom they had believed. They appointed elders for them in every church.

This was something the apostles did. Similarly, Paul wrote to Titus in Titus 1 .5.

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you.

And so, Paul is so concerned that the church be set in order, established aright, that in Acts and in writing to Titus, he emphasizes this establishment of the elders in those local churches.

These passages all teach that the apostles set in order the church by providing to her elders, those men who would lead and teach and give guidance to the local churches.

In 2 Timothy 2 .2, we read the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

There is little reason to question, in light of Paul's listing, the ability to teach is one of the qualifications of the elder, 1

Timothy 3 .2, that Paul has elders in mind when exhorting Timothy to entrust the things he had heard from Paul to faithful men.

The abiding presence of divine truth in the church is one of the greatest comforts to the saints.

Therefore, establishing the mechanism whereby that truth can be safeguarded is very much part of comforting, establishing, and encouraging the saints.

In Philippians 1 .1, we read Paul and Timothy bond servants of Christ Jesus to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, and then listen to this, including the overseers and deacons.

There is your two offices, and indeed, one of the most compelling biblical examples regarding elders, bishops being the same office is found in Acts 20.

Again, in verse 17, from Miletus, he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church.

And so, Paul, who was in Ephesus for many years, calls to himself the elders of the church, but then listen to what he says to them in Acts 20 .27

-30, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God, be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock among which the

Holy Spirit has made you overseers, elder, overseer, interchangeable in Paul's theology, to shepherd, and that's the term from which we get the pastoral role, to shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.

I know that after my departure, savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock, and from among your own selves men will arise speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after them.

All the primary terms come together in the description of the elders of the church.

Speaking to a body of elders of an organized local church, that was Ephesus, the apostle intertwines the key terms used throughout his letters, including overseer in the plural, showing that all the elders were overseers, and through the use of the term flock and the verb to shepherd, he relates the pastoral concept as well.

Now, the apostle Paul provided a list of qualifications for both elders and deacons in 1

Timothy 3 and Titus 1. We hardly need to note that no qualifications are offered for any other alleged ecclesiastical office.

Now historically, and this has already been mentioned, it was the gradual differentiation without biblical basis of the terms episkopos and presbyteros that led eventually to the creation of a monarchical episcopate of a single bishop and the eventual transformation of the presbyters into priests.

But such a differentiation is utterly unbiblical and without foundation in the inspired scriptures.

Now the New Testament does, as we've heard, make reference to priests. It acknowledges the existence of the old

Jewish priesthood and then the book of Hebrews teaches that the old priesthood with its many priests has passed away and that a single high priest to the people of God is now here and that is

Jesus Christ. The only other relevant references to the term priest are found in reference to the people of God who are said to be a royal priesthood both in 1

Peter 2 and a kingdom and priest to God in the revelation given to John. Of course, this use of priest is in fact directly contrary to the specialized mediatorial sacramental ordained priesthood of Rome, especially in its pre -Vatican

II form. The offerings offered by the only Christian priest in scripture are praise, thanksgiving, and our lives in service to Christ.

The fact that this is the biblical view of the people of God, men and women, without distinction a royal priesthood had to be de -emphasized and all but extinguished as it was during the

Middle Ages before the specialized sacramental priest as another Christ form of priesthood could develop.

Indeed, as Philip Schaaf, the church historian, so rightly noted, but these ministers are nowhere represented as priests in any other sense than Christians generally are priests with the privilege of a direct access to the throne of grace in the name of their one and eternal high priest in heaven.

Even in the pastoral epistles, which present the most advanced stage of ecclesiastical organization in the apostolic period, while the teaching, ruling, and pastoral functions of the presbyter bishops are fully discussed, nothing is said about a sacerdotal function.

The Apocalypse, which was written still later, emphatically teaches the universal priesthood and kingship of believers.

The apostles themselves never claim or exercise a special priesthood. The sacrifice which all

Christians are exhorted to offer is the sacrifice of their person and property to the Lord and the spiritual sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise."

We should note in passing that while there is plenty of sacrificial language in the Lord's words at the

Last Supper, as one would expect given the context, there is no contextual reason to believe the

Council of Trent's dogmatic assertion that by instructing the disciples to celebrate the Lord's Supper until he returned, that he was ordaining them as priests.

Such is a glowing example of eisegesis, the reading of a text out of its own context and reading into it as a result of concepts that have no basis whatsoever in the intentions of the original author.

So to summarize, the Bible presents two divinely appointed offices in the church that are established by apostolic authority.

Elders, bishops, overseers, one office, and deacons. There is no reference to establishment of or teaching on any office of priest or a concept of a sacramental mediatorial priesthood in the

New Testament. Indeed, as known as historian Richard Hansen has said, does the New Testament recognize any individual minister as a

Christian priest in virtue of his being a minister? The reader will not be surprised to find that this question must receive an answer, an emphatic negative.

There is no mention of Christian officials as priests in the New Testament, whatever. We have no ground for assuming that the large number of priests the

Jewish temple who we are told became Christians, officiated as or regarded as priests in any specifically

Christian sense. Despairing attempts have been made to read the existence of Christian priests into various parts of the

New Testament, but of official Christian priests we must honestly admit there is in the

New Testament not the faintest whisper end quote. Instead, the

New Testament says there is one high priest, Jesus Christ, who did away with sin through his one -time sacrifice and through that offering makes the people of God a kingdom and priest to his father.

No ordained ministers called priests are to be found in the sacred scripture. This leads us to our second point.

How ancient is the Catholic priesthood? Surely it is ancient in the sense that the concept of a

Christian priest can be found by the third century after Christ, but the real question is this.

Is the Catholic priesthood, as Trent claimed, the ancient faith of the church?

Has the church always, that's Trent's language, taught this doctrine? The answer again is a clear and compelling no.

The earliest generations of believers lived and died without once calling any man a priest, without once seeking the aid of an ordained individual who functioned as a priest.

This is not really a disputable point. Historians of every religious persuasion admit this to be the case.

We have already noted the words of Richard Hansen regarding the earliest generations of Christians. He writes, no

Christian priesthood is found in the New Testament. There is in fact no solid evidence that anyone thinks of Christian ministers as priests until about the year 200.

Attempts have been made to find evidence for a Christian priesthood in the second century. Likely candidates for the position of priest in the second century should be presbyters or bishops, but nobody called these priests at that time.

Joseph Martos in his book Doors of the Sacred wrote this, the earliest

Christian community contained a variety of ministries, but priesthood was not one of them.

The only priesthood that Jesus and his immediate followers apparently recognized the ministry of the Jewish temple priests.

Nevertheless, before the end of the first century, Christian writers likened Jesus' death on the cross to a priestly sacrifice.

And by the middle of the third century, those who presided over Eucharistic worship were beginning to be perceived as priestly ministers.

And quote, that is not what the council of Trent said. He also said among all these named ministries, however, there was no specifically priestly ministry, no priesthood in the later

Catholic sense. There were no specific Christians who were called priests, but Christ himself was regarded as the high priest, the new religion and the spiritual sense.

All believers were part of a priestly people called to honor God by praise and self -sacrifice.

Now we might want to mention the fact that even in the early church, it was recognized that the presbyter and the episkopos, the bishop and the elder were the same office.

Writing almost 400 years after Christ, Jerome said this, a presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop.

And before dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the people,

I am of Paul, I am of Apollos and I of Cephas, churches were governed by a common council of presbyters.

Afterwards, when everyone thought that those whom he had baptized were his own and not Christ, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen out of the presbyters should be placed over the rest and to whom all care of the church should belong, that the seeds of schism might be plucked up.

Therefore, as we have shown, among the ancients, presbyters were the same as bishops, but by degrees that the plans of dissension might be rooted up, all responsibility was transferred to one person.

Therefore, as the presbyters know that it is by the custom of the church that they are to be subject to him who is placed over them, so let the bishops know that they are above presbyters rather by custom than by divine appointment."

So, 400 years after the birth of Christ, we still have the recognition on the part of Jerome that the biblical evidence is very, very clear.

Those two words do not refer to two separate offices, and hence the concept of a priesthood growing out of one of those two simply is not a biblical concept whatsoever.

One other quotation I'd like to offer to you from Richard Nelson regarding this issue of the priesthood, the

New Testament gives us no hint that the earliest church turned to priestly paradigms from the Old Testament as it sought to conceptualize its evolving ministry.

The association of the title priest with the Christian clergy except in a few metaphorical senses in 1

Clement 40 verse 5 of the Didache was slow in taking place. It originally applied to the bishops more often than the presbyters and seems to have correlated with the development of sacrificial models for the

Eucharist. It was not until Cyprian, who died in 258, that presbyters were termed priests in a sustained way, a development that correlated with their acquiring the function of presiding over the

Eucharist independent of the bishop. And so why, if we have clear biblical teaching concerning these offices, did this concept of priesthood develop?

Well, I think that Philip Schaaf was exactly right when he made these comments. The idea and institution of a special priesthood, distinct from the body of the people with the accompanying notion of sacrifice and altar, passed imperceptibly from Jewish and heathen reminiscences and analogies into the

Christian church, whether we regard the change as an apostasy from a higher position attained, or as a reaction of old ideas never fully abandoned, the change is undeniable and can be traced to the second century.

The church could not long occupy the ideal height of the apostolic age, and as the Pentecostal illumination passed away with the death of the apostles, the old reminiscences began to reassert themselves.

Why are we here this evening? I think all of us recognize the importance of the subject tonight.

I think all of you, especially those of you who have attended more than one debate, you've already heard two previous debate subjects that are fundamental to our subject this evening.

Interestingly enough, both subjects that I have debated Father Pacwa on before, sola scriptura, or if we allow the scripture to define the church, if we believe that God has spoken authoritatively in his word, and clearly in his word, and sufficiently in his word, so that his church as his obedient bride listens to his word and obeys, then we will only accept in the church those offices that the

Holy Spirit, through the apostles in his word, has established. Now, we don't agree on sola scriptura.

And also, you may hear that the subject of the Eucharist and the Mass is relevant this evening as well because the two are intertwined in regards to the priesthood.

We have debated both of those issues in the past, and those tapes are available for you to listen to.

But it is extremely important that we recognize that tonight we sort of apply what we've seen in previous debates.

Is the word of God sufficient to tell us how the church should function and what the offices of the church should be?

And especially when you hear those words that I quoted from O 'Brien concerning the authority and power of the

Roman Catholic priest and the privileges that have been given to him, can such an office have come into existence without the clear and compelling testimony of God -inspired scripture?

And can that office then be made something that we must accept and believe?

I submit to you that the biblical evidence is clear and that the fact that those first generations of Christians lived and died without ever once calling a man a priest or seeking the functions of a priest, mediatorially, proves otherwise.

You see, the book of Hebrews tells us, Jesus Christ took away sin.

There is no more sacrifice for sin. Therefore, that's why men and women, all believers in Christ, are priests because we offer our lives not for sin, but out of thanksgiving for what he has done for us.

Thank you very much. Father Pacwa has given what is commonly called an affirmative speech, seeking to present the position that the

Catholic priesthood is both biblical and ancient. And Dr. White has given what is commonly called a negative, in which he is seeking to show that the

Catholic priesthood is neither biblical nor ancient. We come now to two periods of rebuttals, the first being eight minutes and the second being four minutes.

And just to help those of you who are taking notes, it's helpful in a debate if you use what debaters call a flow sheet, in which rather than just write your notes down, you make the points that Father Pacwa will make and then

Dr. White will make, distill them and put them down, and then see how each is dealt with throughout the debate.

And that will give you a helpful idea as to how thoroughly one is dealing with the other. So Father Pacwa with an eight -minute rebuttal followed by Dr.

White, and then immediately after that, without any further introduction, two four -minute rebuttals in that order.

We disagree, but we know how to share. He lets me use his timer.

I absolutely agree with Dr. White that it must be biblical.

And I do believe that this Catholic understanding of the priesthood is precisely that.

Not contradictory, but something that flows fully from it. He was also correct in bringing up that understanding the

Catholic priesthood definitely does go back to our understanding of the

Eucharist, because the action of Jesus Christ on the cross is itself something that is inherently sacrificial.

Christ sacrificed himself. But at the

Eucharist, the breaking of the bread, as Luke calls it, or the

Lord's Supper, as many communities call it, Christ is commanding his disciples to perform a sacrificial act.

When he says the words, do this in remembrance of me, he's using technical terminology from the

Old Testament. Some animal sacrifices and most non -animal sacrifices are commanded in the

Old Testament by the Hebrew word asa, do. A lot of times you use the zabach, which also means to slaughter as in the

Arabic cognate, zabach. And yet you can't slaughter some sacrifices, like grain sacrifice and bread sacrifice.

And so the command was to do them. And there are a number of occasions in Leviticus and Exodus and Numbers where you do sacrifices.

So this imperative can refer to that. And secondly, the word in remembrance has also a sacrificial notion apart from one use in the

Book of Wisdom, where it simply means recalling the past. The Greek word for remembrance is used throughout the

Greek Old Testament to refer to a class of sacrifices. Remember, the

Bible has a variety of classes of sacrifice. And the memorial sacrifice is one especially mentioned in some of the

Psalms and liturgical notes. The l 'chazkir in Hebrew is translated as an amnesis in Greek.

And so, yes, I do believe it's biblical to see the apostolic action of offering the

Eucharist as a priestly action and also the command that Jesus Christ gave on the night of his resurrection.

Whosoever sins you retain, they are retained. Whosoever sins you lose or you absolve, they are absolved.

It speaks to them as a plural, the apostles. The ten who are in the room.

And that the forgiveness of sins is, again, is something I think all Christians would agree, possible only because of Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

So that the forgiveness of sins and Christ's command to the apostles, and they're passing this on to their disciples, their converts, is something that is a priestly action because it's

Jesus Christ's action of forgiveness and Jesus Christ's action of dying on the cross and rising again that is represented in the

Eucharist. But yes, I believe it's biblical and that it is a priest.

These are inherently priestly activities. And we see in Hebrews chapter 13, a text

Dr. White mentioned, verse 9, do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings.

God forbid that we should do that. None of us want, neither Dr. White nor I, want to be led away by any false teachings contrary to that of Christ.

For it is well that the heart be strengthened by grace, not by foods which have not benefited their adherents.

In verse 10, we have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.

Those who serve the tent were the Levitical priests. They had no right to eat at the

Christian altar. And that this term altar refers to that place of sacrifice, not a podium, not just a table, but an altar of sacrifice at which priests exercise their priestly ministry, that ministry of Jesus Christ offering himself.

And again, I'm delighted that Dr. White did not bring in sometimes a notion that people mistakenly attribute to us, that we are crucifying

Jesus again and again. We are not crucifying Jesus again and again at the sacrifice of the mass.

It is that one sacrifice once and for all, which is represented because the one who is sacrificed is

God and man, and therefore has freedom from our limits of time.

So what is for him an eternal moment is made present there.

And that's why it's a sacrificial moment, makes it present right there on the altar, so that we too can enter into that union with him.

And as far as the early church, we do see

St. Clement of Rome, whom we consider a successor to St. Peter, who says in chapter 40 of his letter to the

Corinthians, who had kicked their bishops and elders out, that he, that is

God, has enjoined offerings and service, liturgia, by the way, to be performed, and that not thoughtlessly or regularly, but at the appointed times and hours, where and by whom he desires these things to be done, himself has fixed by his own supreme will.

In order that all things being piously done according to his good pleasure may be acceptable to him.

Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times are accepted and blessed.

And then he goes on in the next chapter to describe how the apostles preached the gospel from Jesus Christ, and then from them come the bishops and the presbyters, overseers and presbyters, that they were the ones who had been set out to do these offerings.

So we read the letter of Clement, as well as Hebrews, as referring to the ministry of the bishops and overseers.

And yes, there is a commonality. Both of them have a pastoral ministry, a teaching ministry, and they both share the same priestly ministry.

But we believe that not one of those contradicts the others, but rather they're all part and parcel of them standing in the place of Christ, as another

Christ, so that we who live in the world today can hear that gospel and receive the person of Christ sacramentally, as well as spiritually.

I think it's very important to emphasize that Father Pacwa said the priesthood is constitutive of human beings.

I would like to assert that in the New Covenant, all are priests.

The priesthood of believers is the fulfillment of that shadow of the old.

The Council of Trent said the old was transformed into the new priesthood, but there is no evidence of that in the

New Testament at all. We offer ourselves in service.

We do not make an offering concerning sin. For what reason? Because, as the scriptures say,

Christ, by his sacrifice, has taken away sin. If we still have an offering that is related to sin, as the

Mass is, then how has Christ taken away sin? The mediation of priests has ended with the removal by God of the veil that made the mediatorial priesthood necessary in the first place.

This is a going back to something that the New Covenant shows us has been fulfilled.

Now, we had a discussion, I think it's very important, of the term Kohen, the meaning of priest, and that the idea, the reason that you don't see this term appearing in the early churches, well, you couldn't.

You couldn't use that term because it was already being used of the Jewish priesthood that still existed prior to the destruction of the

Temple in Jerusalem in AD 70. However, I would point out to you, the Book of Hebrews clearly violates that very thing by identifying

Jesus, who was not a Levitical priest, as not just a Kohen, but as the chief priest, the high priest of the people of God.

Hebrews clearly violates this alleged impossibility, and not only that, I would point out to you, the majority of the

New Testament was not written to Palestinian Jews, especially 1

Timothy, Titus, letters that are going to be going outside clearly and were written outside of and had destinations outside of anything that would be relevant to Palestinian Judaism.

There would have been no problem with using Hierus, the priest, in those situations, and yet, as we see, that doesn't happen.

Instead, we have Paul saying in Philippians chapter 3, we are the true circumcision.

Something that, again, I would imagine would not be accepted by Father Pacwa's Hebrew professor as well.

Now, we are told, do this in remembrance of me provides a biblical foundation for the concept of a priesthood.

Specifically, that the imperative form of poieo, to do, from asah in the

Hebrew, that this was used as sacrifices. Well, I think Father Pacwa would also admit that that is a very common verb, not only used in sacrificial context, but outside of that.

But I have no problem with that. Jesus is talking about his sacrifice. But does it mean that by saying, do this in remembrance of me, that we are to understand that to mean that Jesus was actually ordaining the apostles as priests so they could then work the miracle of transubstantiation so as to then present the body of Christ, which has yet to be nailed to the cross at the time of this alleged ordination, in the sacrifice of the mass.

That's a lot to read into the word to do. Not only that, anomnesis, remembrance, yes, that does have sacrificial overtones.

And that term is used only of the Lord's Supper and one other time in the book of Hebrews, where in chapter 10, we read of an anomnesis, and that is the nature of the old sacrifices because they were repetitive, because they did not in and of themselves perfect anyone, the repetitive nature of the sacrifices were a reminder of sin year by year.

I would point out to you, and this came up in the debate on the subject of the mass, if you can go to mass over and over and over again and not be perfected, then

I submit to you that cannot be a representation of the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ, because according to Hebrews chapter 10, that sacrifice perfects those for whom it is made.

And so it is this repetitive nature of the offering of these sacrifices that demonstrates that the sin issue has not yet been dealt with.

But you see, we don't have an anomnesis of sin, we have an anomnesis, a remembrance of the sin bearer who took our sins and took them away, as far as the

East is from the West. Now we've been told that, well, the binding and the loosing, this is also indicative of a priestly function.

But isn't it interesting that in the context of binding and loosing, that is always in the context of the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

And it just struck me as I was listening to that, one of the passages that was raised in Father Pacwa's initial presentation is a very important passage.

Romans 15, 16, listen to what it says. To be a minister of Christ Jesus to the

Gentiles, ministering as a priest, what? A sacrifice?

No, the gospel of God. So that my offering of the

Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified, or set apart, made holy by the

Holy Spirit. Now that is very clearly sacrificial language, but what is the context? We use this kind of language because we can present a finished sacrifice, not some new sacrifice.

The gospel is of a finished work, not of a work that is ongoing. And so it's interesting to me right here in this passage where you have the most ministerial language.

Paul has no problem, he's writing to the Romans, there wouldn't be a problem about Kohen and things like that. You would think that this would be the one place where we would encounter a discussion of priests if it was in fact the

Apostle's intention to establish such an office, but such does not appear. Now we heard

Clement of Rome speaks of offerings, but if you'll read all of section 40, and there are

Roman Catholic historians who agree with this very clearly, if you read all of section 40, and by the way, that was not a letter written by one individual.

That was a letter written by the presbyters, plural, at Rome, the name never appears in the letter, the church at Corinth.

Up until 140 AD, the church at Rome was led by a plurality of elders, not by one single man.

And it is that group of elders that writes to the church at Corinth, and if you'll read section 40, you will see that if there was ever any thought of an early

Christian priesthood, this is where it should have appeared, because he draws from the three orders of priests in the

Old Testament, and it would have been so easy for him to say, elders, or bishops, and episkopoi, and presbyteroi, and hieroi, priests, but he doesn't do so.

He only has two offices in the Christian church. There was his opportunity, but he didn't use it.

Why? Because the office had not yet developed. It wasn't there.

And so we see again, if we go to the New Testament text itself, do we find a basis for an entire office when we have no qualifications given to us by the

Holy Spirit, no means of selecting these people? We have means of determining who's a good deacon, but not a means of someone who is to be an alter

Christus, another Christ? No, my friends, the New Testament does not know of that concept of priesthood.

Thank you. I find it interesting that the letter of Clement to the

Corinthians doesn't know anything of the distinction of office of the elders and the episkoposi, or the bishop, especially since in chapter 44, he says, our apostles also knew through our

Lord Jesus Christ, and that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate.

For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions that when we should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.

So he's aware that, yes, the elders of Rome do write and address it, but he also is well aware that there are elders in the church of Corinth and also the office of the episkoposi, of the bishop.

So he does know those quite well, and also says that they go back to the apostles, who he also says get it back from Jesus Christ.

Now that's the tradition that he had, that they didn't just make this up, but they also see it as something fulfilling scripture.

And in fact, this Catholic teaching as well as Protestant teaching, that there is a priesthood of all believers, had not been forgotten in the

Catholic church, hopefully of the great, as at least two letters I know of on it.

And this is something that is part of the Catholic teaching. And I was taught that before the

Vatican Council, that by virtue of my baptism, I shared in the priesthood of Christ, and all of my participation in the mass as a layman was also a priestly action of praise and worship and offering prayers, as well as sharing in the sacrifice to the priest.

But what I'm also saying is that just as in ancient Israel, where there was a general priesthood through the whole nation of Israel, where they were kingdom of priests, the holy nation, there also was that threefold distinction of high priests, priests, and Levites.

And that that same understanding was used in the early church for understanding these three roles.

And to separate oneself from those gifts, those sacramental gifts, which the early apostles and Clement believe go back to Jesus Christ, as well as the apostles, is to cut yourself off from a source of grace.

And that's what we don't want. It's not to have power, but rather for us priests to offer ourselves in service, for the sanctification of our own lives to be sure, which we need, and also of others.

But the Eucharist is not only about the forgiveness of sins. I know that my sins are forgiven.

When I confess my sins to Christ, and I do so through my brother priests,

I believe my sins are forgiven. However, I also know that there are still effects of my sins, memories, temptations, and different proclivities to commit the same sins that don't go away because of my human weakness, not because of Christ.

And what I need in the Eucharist is continued healing of the effects of those sins.

I'm not asking to forgive them again. They're done. But I also need union with Jesus.

And that's what I seek, whether it be in a spiritual kind of union by prayer, or in the sacramental union by which

I receive his body and blood. In case anyone thinks it's unfair that I have this little computer, and Father Pacwa has a big computer.

He'll tell you in 1999, I tried to introduce him to digital little things like that.

I tried, didn't I? You did. My superior said no. Well, there you go. Another problem in having a superior.

There you go. Oh, you've got a wife. I'm not going to touch that on the 10 -foot pole.

Father Pacwa just mentioned from section 44 of the letter of Clement, again, the traditional reading.

I just simply give to you the words of Richard Hanson, again, a very well -known church historian.

His work on the Council of Nicaea, I think, is unparalleled. He discusses the exact same section and makes these words.

He, the writer of the Epistle, only knows of two ministries in the Christian church, that of episkopos presbyter, bishop and presbyter being regarded as identical as in Acts 20, 28,

Hermas, the Didache, and the pastoral epistles in the New Testament, and of deacon. Two cannot correspond to three.

He's referring there to the three levels of the Jewish priesthood that was raised in Clement's epistle.

Again, read that whole section, and you will see very clearly that that is not the indication given to us even in this early epistle.

Now, it is interesting Richard Hanson also made this comment that I think is relevant to our discussion this evening. It is appropriate at this point to pause and ask why the doctrine of a

Christian priesthood, which is absent from the beginnings of the Christian ministry, should have emerged in the third century.

Perhaps it is significant that the epistle to the Hebrews, after Tertullian, who refers to it only once or twice and tends to think that it was written by Barnabas, is totally unused in the

Western church until the middle of the fourth century. It does not seem to have been very influential in the

Eastern church during the third century. Clement of Alexandria and Origen, their references to it, make it clear that its

Pauline authorship was not securely established. This must have tended to reduce its influence, end quote.

Think about that for just a moment. What is in essence being suggested is that if that God -breathed scripture had been known, that it would have had a counteracting effect upon the evolutionary development of the concept of a

Christian priesthood. Well, why might that be? It might be because if anywhere in all of scripture that we should read about priests,

Christian priests, it would be in this epistle. And yet I submit to you that if in fact there were priests offering a representation of the one sacrifice in masses, and this is known to the writer of the

Hebrews, a majority of the arguments that he made for the supremacy of Christ's priesthood against that of the

Old Covenant would thereby be disproven. And if you make the writer to the

Hebrews contradictory to himself, if you have a view that makes his apologetic defense fall flat on its face, then

I submit to you it's your position that is not biblical. The writer to the

Hebrews argues against the plurality of old priests and their repetitious sacrifices, and if he was defending a system where you had a plurality of priests and a repetitious sacrifice, even if you say it's a representation, that's not a very good apologetic defense, is it?

I want you to consider well this evening these words and consider with us, even during this break, how important it is that we follow the scriptural paradigm.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take a collection right now.

First of all, we're going to be collecting your tickets, and please, if you haven't done so already, put your name, address, phone number, and email address on there, because if you want to keep being notified about these debates, that's the only way that we know that you'd like to go.

And please, if you are Roman Catholic and you would like Arnold Pilsner to have these cards later on so that he can contact you about Roman Catholic events, please write

Catholic on your ticket, and if you're not asking a question, you can give those tickets to Arnold Pilsner right now at Father Pacwa's booth over there, where I'm pointing.

We're also going to take a financial collection. Now, I know that you found a bulletin up there, an easel that has a couple of speaking engagements that he is going to be speaking at this weekend, and also there are flyers on various tables, the

Alpha and Omega ministry table, Calvary Press, and out in the lobby that has James White's full itinerary while he is here until June 9th.

So you can pick those up as well if you'd like to see either of these men speak after tonight.

Thank you very much. I'm turning the podium once again over to Pastor Bill Shishko. First, I want to commend both

Father Pacwa and Dr. White for the grace with which they are conducting themselves in the debate.

This has been a wonderful example. And I also commend you, because your decorum is excellent.

Now, it's going to really be tested, though, during this time of cross -examination. I want to remind you that Father Pacwa and Dr.

White are cross -examining one another. You're not doing it, and you're not contributing in it. Use your notes and take notes on what's done.

There will be two times of cross -examination. Each man will sit at his seat. Father Pacwa will cross -examine

Dr. White for 10 minutes, and then Dr. White will cross -examine Father Pacwa for 10 minutes.

And then following that, we'll have the same format in the same order with five -minute speeches.

And then following that, there will be the time of closing statements. Dr. White, an interesting point you brought up is that, especially in the pastoral epistles, 1 and 2

Timothy and Titus, we see that the functions of the episkopos and the presbyteros, the presbyter and the bishop or overseer, are the same.

And I have no doubt, no problem with that. But why would you draw that they're equivalent?

Since we always see in the pastorals that episkopos is singular and presbyteroi is plural.

Well, because I presented a couple of passages, and if I was unclear in the presentation of them,

I apologize. But I pointed out that Paul himself uses the term interchangeably.

Well, I guess you could say it's Luke that uses it interchangeably since he's writing Acts. In Acts 20, because in verse 17, he's sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church.

And then when he addressed them, he says, be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, which is plural there.

And so he uses elders, overseers. He even then uses poimenes, the shepherds, the pastoral function.

And so he simply uses them in an interchangeable fashion, not only there, but I'm thinking off the top of my head,

I think in 1 Timothy 4 as well, also in a very just interchangeable fashion. And so I think

Richard Hansen is correct when he says this is not only interchangeable in the

New Testament, but in the earliest documents outside the New Testament as well. But except, again, there is some distinction being made by this singular episkopos and plural presbyter.

Because it also shows up later on in the letters to, excuse me, the letters by St.

Ignatius of Antioch, that there you have each city has its own episkopos, but there is a group of presbyters, so that there's a continuity there in that usage.

And perhaps what we see is a development that's going on from the earliest days to this point. Well, there's no question that Ignatius is the first representative of a monarchical episcopate.

There's no question about that. But I think if you look at J. N. D. Kelly, Richard Hansen, even, I forget the first two letters of Kelly, who's the

Roman Catholic historian, they would all affirm that there were two models that existed at the time.

And I think that that model in the New Testament is what Jerome was talking about when Jerome himself said that it was only after the time of the

New Testament that a distinction was made between presbyters and episkopoi, and that it was by custom, not by scriptural mandate.

I think Jerome was correct at that point. Because, again, that would be something that we might distinguish or be in dispute on, because even

St. Jerome, who was himself a priest and who wanted to be a bishop and moved out of town when he didn't get it, certainly saw that there was that distinction.

Another issue is, well, you mentioned in the text of Romans, chapter 15, verse 16, that St.

Paul is exercising that priestly ministry of preaching the gospel. And, again, no doubt of that.

A key element of the priestly ministry is the proclamation of the gospel, and we wouldn't have

Mass without it. We just can't. It's not valid. But would you see that as precluding the celebration of the sacrament?

There's nothing in the text that I can see that would say the priestly ministry is just preaching the gospel and has nothing to do with the sacrificial element of the

Eucharist. Again, assuming that, I know you don't accept the sacrificial notion. That is the problem, is that I can't just assume that.

I think it's incumbent upon you to demonstrate that that is a necessary element of the text, especially in light of the lack of any use of that term, especially in the pastoral epistles that discuss the very function of the church.

But in reference to Romans 15, 16, the object of what he is offering or ministering as a priest, as you can see, is the

Euangelion to Theu, the gospel of God. And so that is what he is ministering.

And as a result, the Gentiles, and how did he consider himself as the apostle to the Gentiles, that he saw his ministry as an offering to God.

And I think all of us can see our ministries as an offering to God, but I don't see anywhere in that anything close to what we read in O 'Brien's

Faith of Millions and the giving of a mediatorial priesthood in that way.

The, another role of an interesting text, you mentioned, we both mentioned, where the text in Revelation, where there's this kingdom of priests.

And yet, in the same book, especially in chapter five, but elsewhere too, the elders, the 24 elders who are the presbyteroi, are, would you see, and obviously

I do, them exercising a priestly ministry in offering of the incense, perhaps along the model of the 24 ranks of Levites?

Well, first of all, they're, I believe they're to be heavenly creatures. And certainly the whole picture that is taking place is a picture of worship that draws heavily from all the

Old Testament paradigms, including Isaiah six and everything like that. So, there is no question that those 24 elders and the four living creatures and the seven spirits of God and everything else fall into a category of worshiping

God in that way. And if you wanted to say in a priestly fashion, that's fine. The distinction that I make,

I think is a distinction that is necessary in light of the canonicity of the book of Hebrews. And that is,

I do not see anything there that these have anything to do with atonement or propitiation.

And I think we both know that atonement and propitiation in regards to the Eucharist is essential, constitutive, to use your term, of the

Roman Catholic concept. All right. But just to keep that, the first point without, before we get to Hebrews, the offering of incense in the

Old Testament is a priestly task. That was not something that the lay people could do.

As a matter of fact, even to mix the incense for the altar was something that was punishable by death, yet alone to offer it.

And so, in that sense, we see that the presbyters of Revelation seem to me to be acting in a very sacerdotal way, in heaven and not in reference to sin.

Right. In heaven and in reference to offering, precisely, offering of our prayers.

The prayers of the saints are the incense that they offer. So that, but there's, my point would be to see that the term presbyter is associated in the

New Testament in yet another, not the only, and maybe not, and certainly not what

I consider the key, but it is an important priestly function. Well, presbyters are, so that the connection of that term with priestly functions is going on in Revelation.

Well, interestingly enough, though, that use of presbyter is obviously distinguished very clearly from that of the presbyters of the church on earth that are placed in that position so as to teach and lead the people of God.

The term elder, as you pointed out, is used in a number of different ways in the Old Testament. And so,

I don't think that you could really make a real strong argument, especially since, again, as I understand it, from your position, well, from the

Council of Trent's position, this is a position upon which the anathema of the church is used, hence it's very important.

The concept of a sacrificial, mediatorial priesthood in the church, if the basis of that is the picture of elders in heaven who are not doing anything in regards to offering for sin,

I just, I don't see the connections. Yeah, the only connection would be that priestly function is associated with the presbyteral language, and that that's something that's already established by the end of the first century.

In a context other than the officers of the church, yes. Right. And perhaps then also, you know, that opens up that possibility is the point

I would be making. That you can see that if they see elders in that kind of context, they're already showing that they've changed some of the language from Judaism's language to something that they themselves are developing.

That would, that of course, the problem I have with that is that that would require not only a certain dating and relationship with the

New Testament documents, as if there's some development going on, but my main concern is that I don't see how well it opens up a possibility is equal to the anathema.

There's a possibility in anathema, seems to me, beyond different sides of things. Yeah, the anathema would be something different because it is specifically related to the priestly function as offering sacrifice.

All right. Okay. Why do you think,

Father Pacwa, when Paul wrote the pastoral epistles in which he addressed the officers of the church, their qualifications, things like that, is it your assertion that he did not mention the office of priest or the priesthood because of, even though he's writing outside of Palestine, there was something about using the term

Kohen? I really didn't follow what you meant by that. Okay. One of the issues

I was thinking about in terms of the use of Kohen and Komer is that it's something which

Saint Paul, as himself formerly a Pharisee and himself a

Jew, would find a great deal of difficulty in using because both terms would just go against his own grain.

And he's, again, it would just be a normal Jewish reaction that you can't call someone who's not born a

Kohen a Kohen, with one exception, of course, which I'll get to.

And then you don't like to use the word Komer because it's such an insulting term.

And it's used to insult those who worship Baal or the other deities in Zephaniah and in Kings.

So he himself is going to have that reaction against using terminology he was raised in a certain context to understand.

And he can't, I don't think it's difficult, it's easy for him to, especially with his Pharisee background, to use it.

So evidently you don't believe that Paul wrote Hebrews, right? I suspect he didn't.

The style of the Greek is itself so different. And like the Eastern Fathers, who knew

Greek better than the Western Fathers, I suspect that it's not Paul. But Paul certainly,

I even suspect perhaps Luke. The writer to the Hebrews, however, did not seemingly have the compunction against using that term that you're referring to there.

Now, please accept this next question in the spirit in which it is offered. If presbyters became overtime priests, and we are told the presbyters are to be husbands of one wife in Titus 1, 5 through 6, well, where's

Mrs. Pakla? My wife's right over there. My mom died.

That's the last Mrs. Pakla we had. The point being, of course, not to introduce the discussion of what you would call a discipline of celibacy.

But if this development of presbyter into priest is to be valid, wouldn't all of the qualifications and functions that are found in Titus 1 and 1

Timothy 3 likewise then have to be transferred into the priesthood? And there are a number of things that the elders are to do that don't necessarily fit within what

I would understand the priestly requirements to do. Certainly in the Roman Rite of the

Catholic Church, we don't have married clergy very often. In the

Eastern Rites, they do. So that's fairly normal. In terms of the marriage as a requirement, this is something that is not said as necessary.

It's something that behooves you to be the husband of one wife. And in the early church, that was understood as meaning if your wife dies and you're a presbyter, you may not remarry.

And also, as time did develop, if you were married when you became a presbyter, then you and your wife had to cease marital relations.

And that was especially true, more strongly true, if you were a bishop. If you became a bishop, then you had to cease marital relations.

And that was an expectation of the laity as well. Well, doesn't it follow, though, in that situation that we have a clear example where in the

New Testament, the qualifications of the presbyter are being in essence contradicted and countermanded?

I mean, what you just said, which I wasn't going to address, what you just said in regards to ceasing marital relations, that almost makes it sound like there's something wrong with that when it's something that God ordained.

And it seems to me that the presbyter, if this is the New Testament basis, either that or you're saying, no, we've gone way past what the

New Testament gives. If you're saying that, then I think that makes my point. Here's the sense that I have.

And in terms of, in one sense, I need to address the Mrs. Pacwa kind of concept. Because there is another,

I don't consider myself to be a bachelor in any way at all. That's not my approach.

But the sense that I have is that because I sacramentally represent

Christ as an altar Christos, and I accept that as part of my role, I see myself wedded to the same bride as Christ, namely the church.

And that my sense of loving the church as my spouse is very much part of my life.

And I want to love the church with that kind of devotion of a husband to a spouse.

In case people didn't hear, when you applause, you are wasting the time of the speakers.

I just want to make sure that people understood what was said before. The term altar

Christos means what? Another Christ. I just want to make sure everyone understands that. Now the book of Hebrews speaks more of priests and priesthood than any other

New Testament book outside the historical references in the Gospels. Yet the only Christian priest in Hebrews is

Christ. Would it not have been a glaring error of argumentation on the part of the author, and hence easily refuted, if in fact the counsel of Trent was right and the

Christian church at that particular point in time had priests in her midst who repetitiously offered a sacrifice that does not perfect anyone for whom it is made?

First of all, one of the things about the use of priest in the letter to the

Hebrews is that it comes from the use in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 verse 4, which are the only two places that I could find, there might be others

I don't know of, but the only two places I could find where a non -Israelite is called a

Kohen, namely Melchizedek. So that atah Kohen aldi ubrat melchizedek, you know in Psalm 110 and also in Genesis 14, he is called a

Kohen, El Elyon. And so this use of priest for someone outside of Israel is the one person, and then

Christ's priesthood seen in that light, all of the Melchizedek as a superior priesthood to the

Levitical priesthood, is precisely the point. Now in terms of understanding, you know, what we're doing,

I would definitely admit that what the Catholic Church believes it's doing is saying something based on what we believe that the

New Testament means. And then we're drawing some more lines between the dots, just as all

Christians who are Orthodox, Protestant, Catholic, or the Eastern churches, have to draw different lines in between the dots about the

Blessed Trinity. And that's part of the point of the book that you did. You see very clearly that what is meant in the

New Testament is the Blessed Trinity. And that this is something that, yeah, the word,

Jehovah's Witnesses are right, the word is not there, but that doesn't mean it's unbiblical by any means.

The only way to understand the biblical doctrine is with the Trinity concept. Similarly, we believe that the priesthood of Christ, and then us taking that, those actions of celebrating the

Eucharist, and of hearing confessions, and the other sacraments as well, are taking

Christ's priestly activities in this very sacramental way, and representing them today.

And that's where we are definitely, we are drawing dots between our actions and Christ's priestly action.

Are you drawing a parallel between the clarity and perspicuity of the biblical evidence concerning the doctrine of the

Trinity, and the concept of the priesthood as you've enunciated this evening?

As a matter of fact, given the way that all the churches until the 16th century have seen that clarity, yes, because there's nobody who denies that whether it be the

Armenians, the Siromalabar down in southern India, the Jacobites over in China, or the

European and Mediterranean communities, they all, we all see the same connection.

So, the biblical evidence is as clear and strong to you that even though the term doesn't appear and isn't used, and even though the first generations of Christians don't use this language, it's as clear to you that the

New Testament presents a mediatory sacramental priesthood as that the New Testament teaches the

Trinity. Yes, absolutely. And it'd be something that just like the

Trinity, I would also consider my life not as worthwhile as changing my faith.

So, that just as I would lay down my life for the Trinity, similarly with the sacraments and the church.

I lost the last question, so I lost my train of thought.

Dr. White, in most

Protestant communions, as a matter of fact, all Christian communions must believe that we are washed in the blood of the

Lamb, Jesus Christ. He's the Lamb of God and salvation depends on being cleansed by His blood,

His saving blood. That would be the language of scripture that would be across the board for all denominations, correct?

Yes. Now, how is it that that belief does not contradict the singularity of the sacrifice of Jesus?

Well, the repetition of mass does. A number of reasons. A, due to the belief of the union of God's elect people with Jesus Christ so that they, as Paul can say,

I have been crucified with Christ, it's no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. In life as I live in flesh,

I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. So, there is a union of the elect with God, with Jesus Christ, and that results in both

His death being our death and His resurrection being our resurrection. Secondly, is the belief that the atoning work of Jesus Christ is specifically able to perfect all those for whom it is made.

As you know, I am a Reformed theologian. I believe that the death of Christ perfects those for whom it is made.

It is not a theoretical atonement, it is an actual atonement due to the union of the elect with Christ.

And therefore, my argument, as you may recall, of course, this has been January of 1991, right before the

Gulf War began. We've had two wars since then. When we discussed the issue of the mass and debate, my primary argumentation was that according to Hebrews chapter 10, verses 10 through 14, that one offering of Christ takes away sin and perfects for all time those for whom it is made.

And so, when I look at the mass and I ask, and I can't ask you a question in cross -examination, but I ask you, can you go to mass repeatedly and yet commit a mortal sin and be lost?

Can you have to spend time in purgatory? That is not perfection. So, you can approach the mass 10 ,000 times in your life and die imperfect.

That, to me, is the fundamental issue. And I recognize that's an explicitly

Reformed response to that. It's not what you're probably used to hearing as far as objections are concerned, but that's what mine has been consistently.

Yeah, no, no, it is what I've heard. Because, you know, within the church, including the

Reformed church, there's a kind of perfection that you have by faith, and also that you believe that you have, and yet also a perfection that is not seen because of the simile justificato, you're justified and still a sinner.

So that you still have an actual kind of imperfection.

And yet Christ gives you this perfection that covers it over, is the normal kind of...

In the imitation of his perfect righteousness. Right, yeah. But the person may not actually live that righteousness fully and perfectly in this life, though they'd be considered as righteous.

The only way that I can stand before God is clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and I think that is what the writer of Hebrews is saying when he says, by this will, which is the will of God the

Father for Jesus Christ, quoting from the Psalms, by this will we have been sanctified.

Paraphrastic construction, with an emphasis on the fact that's a continuing state. We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Emphasis upon the temporal adverb. It's interesting to me, and I'm not sure if you're aware of this, the

Vulgate mistranslates this. It uses offerance, a plural, I'm sorry, a present rather than the accurately reflecting the

Greek, which I find very interesting and may have had some impact upon the development of Eucharistic theology in the

Middle Ages as well. Perhaps, though the participle is often taken as a state of...

Could have been taken. That also indicates past. But look at the Douay Rheims, it's talking about, it even says he is offering in the

Douay Rheims, which is amazing. And that would be where the mistake comes in, but the Latin would be different.

The thing that I guess, since each

Christian has to appropriate that being washed in the blood of the Lamb, that's not a recrucifixion of Christ for that to happen.

And that's once for all, and yet each Christian must appropriate that. Well, when you say each Christian must appropriate that,

I would understand that as the work of the Holy Spirit of God in applying that.

Appropriate sounds like something I do to gain something, and I view it more as the Holy Spirit applying what has already been accomplished in Christ.

Okay, I have five minutes. The Council of Trent said, quote, that this was instituted by the same

Lord our Savior, and that to the apostles and their successors in the priesthood was given the power of consecrating, offering, and administering his body and blood, as also forgiving and retaining sins, as shown by the sacred scriptures, and has always been taught by the tradition of the

Catholic Church. You would agree with that? But Jesuit scholar Avery Dulles said, nowhere in the

New Testament are the ministers of the New Covenant called priests. Now, how do you reconcile these two statements?

Okay, simply, I also am a

Jesuit like Cardinal Dulles, and I said the same thing. They don't use the word priests, so I admitted that at the outset, and then gave, said this is a perplexing issue, and we have to try to understand it from the

Judeo -Christian background, and that's why I went into the explanation of the different terms.

So that, yeah, I admit they don't use that word. However, when you see that the term elder is used, and it's chosen, as I mentioned already, in Revelation, where a group of angelic beings, or heavenly beings of some kind, their nature isn't defined, but they exercise a priestly function of offering the incense of our prayers for us, and also we see that elders throughout the

Old Testament have roles closely associated with the sacrificial actions on, for instance, at the offering of the covenant -making sacrifice meal, like Christ's apostles are present at that sacrificing meal, and also some of the other sacrifices where the elders were present.

But the elders were not ever functioning as priests, were they? Well, see, this is one of the things. They partake in the meal.

But they don't offer the sacrifice. But they, while Moses offers, actually does the killing, and in one sense, the early church is using for, looking for a set of terms different from the

Jewish priestly terms that they would have such difficulty using, and they come to a set of terms that mean office, refer to office within Israel, and an office that gets associated with a wide variety of sacrificial meals and covenant renewals, and that it's precisely at the first Eucharist, at the

Last Supper, which is the beginning of the new covenant, this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant, using the same terminology of that sacrificial meal that the elders are invited to made it seem an appropriate text, a term for the early church to use.

To your knowledge, who is the earliest in the early church to utilize, for example, the passage from Revelation as being relevant to the concept of a

Christian priesthood? That I don't know who's the first to use that. I just haven't done a study of it in terms of its...

Do you know what the earliest appearance assumption of terminology like alter Christus would be?

No, that I don't know. Okay, so would you agree, but say it in,

Joseph Martos said, the earliest Christian community contained a variety of ministries, but priesthood was not one of them.

Among all these named ministries, however, there was no specifically priestly ministry, no priesthood in the later

Catholic sense. There were no specific Christians who were called priests. Now, you might agree with the last line, but I can't believe you could agree with what came previously, because it sounds to me like what you're saying is the presbyters were functioning as the priesthood, and he's saying, no, they were not.

Would you disagree with him? I would disagree with that. And the reason for being that in their role as presbyters, and especially in associating with the

Episcopacy that we see certainly by the time of Ignatius of Antioch, more clearly spelled out, how we don't see the

New Testament spelling out the distinction of the roles of episkopos and presbyter.

But, you know, they're talking about they share that, though there is a distinction, one episkopos in the pastoral letters, and many presbyterian even, the use of this presbyterate community or council.

And what we see develop in someone like Ignatius, and as time goes on, that they are all exercising the priestly function in the offering of the

Eucharist, and Clement's use of sacrificial language, the offering language, as well as Hebrews mentioning that we have a table, excuse me, an altar, that kind of language is what helps me to see this as a priestly role that they have, even though they can't use traditional

Jewish terminology of priesthood. This brings us to the two 10 -minute closing statements by the speaker, first by Father Shonkwood, and then by Dr.

Dwight. Then we'll have a very, very brief break, and we will go right into the question time.

Again, we should be done, we will be done at 11 o 'clock. Certainly, the issue is not just one of words.

Now, we had to deal with words. Words are very important, they communicate various concepts, and Jesus Christ is himself called the

Word, by whom and for whom everything exists.

And so words are something that we must understand, engage in, and discuss.

And I've appreciated the kind of discussion that we've had tonight. But it also helps to make clear that behind it, behind both positions, is not just a different sense of specific words, it's a whole sense of the economy of salvation on both sides, and how we understand the perfection.

We both believe that only Jesus Christ can perfect us. I firmly believe that,

I absolutely would affirm that, and would die for it. And so does,

I'm sure, Dr. Dwight, he has no difficulty. The problem that we have throughout our debates, a problem that goes back to the 16th century, is a problem of how do we understand the way that human beings appropriate, make their own, the action of God's grace.

We Catholics believe, again, hopefully with our lives, that salvation is not something we accomplish by our own deeds, on our own actions.

It is not something we can earn. The salvation that Jesus Christ has won for us is a free gift from God, because, as Pope John Paul quotes more often than any other passage of scripture,

God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that all who believe in Him might have eternal life.

And so this is something that we believe, and share in common. However, that means of understanding the appropriation, is it going to be the way that the churches, even in many ways, independently of each other, in Ethiopia, at one southern extreme,

India, at a southeastern extreme, China, Armenia, Russia, and all of Western Europe.

Do we understand that this traditional way of seeing

God, who let Jesus Christ take on human flesh in order to redeem us, and engage us in that process of a relationship of redemption, and accepted the fact, as a matter of fact, so cherish the fact that we have bodies, that He used sacraments which our bodies can perceive in order to redeem our souls, the way

He took on a human body as God Almighty, and truly became incarnate in order to redeem human souls, and eventually human bodies in the resurrection of the dead.

For that is our goal, that full union with Christ. And in that,

He left us something, not just as a one -time event that's just a prayer, namely the

Eucharist. It's not just something that we hold on to as a form of devotion, and all that really counts is the act of faith

I make. But rather, He gave us that sacrament, that outward sign, as a sacrificial sign.

It has to us Catholics, no meaning outside of its own

Eucharistic and sacrificial terminology, because it is so absolutely as rooted in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as is baptism.

We are baptized into His death in order to rise with Him, as Paul tells us in Romans 6.

And it's because of the sacrament of baptism being a way for us to enter into the death and resurrection of Jesus, by which we're saved, that Saint Peter can say in 1

Peter 3, that baptism now saves us. And so also, do

I believe that receiving the body of Christ and the blood of Christ, receiving the person of Christ, is a sacrificial event?

And this event requires ministers? Somebody has to say those words.

And somebody says them, not because He has chosen Himself to simply do it, because we don't appoint ourselves as priests.

But rather, somebody does this sacrificial event and celebrates this sacrificial event for the sake of the community, not for Himself, so that He might bring

Christ to other people. And that's the most important thing, is bringing Christ to others.

For the forgiveness of sins, absolutely, venial sins, those sins that are not the sins that lead toward death that 1

John chapter 5 mentions, those have to be dealt with in another kind of sacrificial event, namely the sacrament of confession.

But in that sacrament of the Eucharist, we can find the forgiveness of sins that we've committed since the last time we've been to Mass, because as anybody who lives with me knows,

I commit sins even after I've confessed doing the same sin. That one sin surely is forgiven.

But I keep doing more. And I keep needing deeper reconciliation with Christ, and with the people around me.

And I come to Him. And I not only come to Him myself, I bring Him to others.

That's my role as an alter Christos. Not that I have a greater holiness by virtue of celebrating the

Mass by my own ability, but rather, it's a grace from God that I desire to share, and hope

I share to my dying day. But we also know that Christians of the other communities do believe in a type of spiritual communion.

I have no doubt of that. And I recognize and I thank God for it. That seeking to be washed in the blood of the

Lamb, I think is very much an act of spiritual holy communion with Christ. You do want union.

And I appreciate that, because I know in the Christians, I work with and live with, who are not

Catholic, that they also have this tremendous love of Christ that I share with them. And the only thing that I can say though, is that in addition to that spiritual experience,

Christ left us that sacrifice of the Mass. And the experience of Christ's cross being present in the confessional.

And anointing of the sick, that James says the presbyters are to do. That these gifts are all part of the economy of the salvation

Christ gives us. And I would urge none of you to hold yourself short from it.

Because in it, you don't lose any of the good that Christ is already working within you in your communities.

But rather, it brings a completion about. Because it is so much in consonance with the way

Christ gave us this gift, as we Catholics, Orthodox, and other groups believe.

And do I believe that Jesus ordained the apostles as priests? Gave them a ministry that is sacramental and priestly?

Yes, I do. Just as I believe that by His Word, the very universe came into existence.

And that nothing came into existence without His Word. So also do

I believe that His Holy Word had the power to transform bread and wine into the substance of His body and blood, without which we cannot have eternal life, as He teaches us in John 6.

And that His Word is also able to be a command that transforms apostles, cowardly men, scared men, braggarts, into His priests.

And yes, Judas was one too. Not all priests are good. But that kind of judgment,

I'll leave for a moment. Thank you. Those of you who know me, know that there's one thing that, well

I'll admit, really gets my dander up. Not sure if that works. And I know that it was not purposeful on the part of Father Pacwa this evening, but I must confess that the discussion that we had concerning the biblical evidence for the doctrine of the

Trinity being parallel and equal to the evidence for the idea of a priesthood in the

New Testament. A priesthood that we have heard defended on the basis of heavenly creatures.

We could defend almost anything out of the book of Revelation if we wanted to start drawing parallels there. What's the parallel to the multi -headed creatures and things like that?

We could come up with any office if we wanted to. There is nothing in the

New Testament concerning this office. We've had to turn presbyters into priests later on, and yet to say that the biblical evidence is equal for these two things,

I truly, no offense sir, but I find that offensive to my God. The Bible is so clear on the deity of Christ, the deity and personality of the

Holy Spirit, the relationship of the three divine persons, that to say that the evidence is equal for the idea of a priesthood that Roman Catholic historians and theologians admit developed later as a process of evolution,

I simply cannot even begin to accept such a supposition, and I would challenge it and ask you, does this not demonstrate that there is another authority active in the use of the text of Scripture here?

And I think this comes out. It has been mentioned, well there's only one episkopos there in those letters, but then you've got many presbyteroi.

The problem is, just think for a moment, if you're talking about the qualification of an elder, are you going to use a single or a plural?

You're talking about the individual, the husband of one wife, not given to wine, not given to being argumentative.

Why would you use a plural there? There's a simple reason why there's a distinction between the plural and the singular.

The simple fact of the matter is, there is no biblical distinction between those two words.

They are used interchangeably. Without that particular aspect, without that distinction, the entirety of the presentation this evening, from a biblical perspective, collapses.

Because we don't have the use, we did have the assertion, well the New Testament writers just couldn't use that term priest.

I see absolutely no reason to accept that. Not only is that derived from a modern usage and not an ancient usage, a teacher of Hebrew today does not provide us with an insight into the understanding of 1st century

Judaism. But despite that, the very epistles in books that use the terms of elder and bishop and things like that, are not written in Hebrew.

They are not written in the context of 1st century Judaism, and they are not written to 1st century

Jews. They are written outside of Palestine. There is simply no reason to accept this assumption that, well, this is why the term doesn't appear.

No, the term doesn't appear, because no one had come up with the concept. There was only one priest for the

Christians, and that was Jesus Christ. He had done away with sin by the sacrifice of himself, and that was it.

We don't need to go back to the old way. We now have the holy priesthood in the sense of all of us, men and women, who are priests.

And what do we offer? We offer sacrifice of praise and our lives and our bodies in service to Christ.

Never anything in reference to sin. It is true.

It was just said that the real issue here is the economy of salvation. It was said that only

Jesus Christ can perfect us. And again, it was exactly right when it was said what we differ on is how

He does so. The means that He uses. It was said this goes back to the 16th century.

I submit to you it goes back long before that, because the difference is between God perfectly saving

His people to His own glory and honor, and all of religious systems that say that God wants to save, tries to save, makes a theoretical salvation available, but He is thwarted in His stated desire by the almighty will of the creature.

And that, my friends, goes back to Romans chapter 9, not the 16th century. The discussion in the 16th century brought that back to light, but that's not how far back it goes.

Ludwig Ott said in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, the reason for the uncertainty of the state of grace lies in just this, that without a supernatural revelation, no one can know for certain whether they have fulfilled all the conditions which are necessary for achieving justification.

Fulfilling conditions which are necessary for achieving justification. What are some of those conditions?

Well, we just heard a discussion of, well, you need to be forgiven of your sins, and then there's, you need the sacramental forgiveness, and the sacrament of penance and confession.

And by the way, those are all, the whole sacramental system. Again, Roman Catholic historians will admit that that was something that developed over time.

It was not something that was present from the very beginning, though it has been assumed in a number of the statements this evening that it has been present from the very start.

It was not. Look at the documents for yourself without reading them from the modern perspective, looking back, oh, this sounds like something we believe now, and that sounds like something we believe now.

Read it from back then, and discover that many of those things did not exist at that time.

But we're told, well, there's these sacramental things we must do, and there's the mass, and there's confession, and there's things like that.

You know, I sort of prefer Romans 5 .1. Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our

Lord Jesus Christ. It's something that I have. It's something that I have only through Christ, and it's something that I have only by faith and His grace, and nothing that anyone who calls themselves an alter

Christus, another Christ, can do is going to do anything to bring me peace with God.

This is vitally important because we are talking about the gospel of Jesus Christ this evening.

Is it something that is mediated by a special class of mediatorial priests who embrace this term alter

Christus? I do not need an alter Christus.

The one I have is more than sufficient in and of himself. And you must understand, if you're a

Roman Catholic this evening, please understand when I hear that phrase, even putting the best understanding

I can possibly have upon it, you must understand that that touches the very heart of this issue.

Is it Christ alone? Or solus Christus, Christ alone?

Or is there all this mediation? Remember the very first debate, this is the 8th, the very first debate, remember what it was on?

It was on Mary with Gerry Matitix. And one of the issues that we addressed at that point in time was this concept of Mary as a mediatrix.

Not one who is equal with Christ, but one who participates in his mediatorial work.

And the statement of Popes that not one bit of grace by God's decree comes to man but through Mary.

And Roman Catholics need to understand that touches the very heart of the issue of the

Gospel. Because you see, from our perspective, to even for a moment entertain such a concept is to take from Jesus Christ the very thing that the

Gospel says it's all about, and that is to the praise of his glorious grace.

That's why we cannot accept such terminology. It is not biblical, it is not ancient, and it strikes at the very

Gospel itself. Blessed is the man whose sin the

Lord will not take into account. That blessing is not mediated through a sacramental mediatorial priesthood.

That blessing is directly mine, and as you may recall as the Gospel writers account, when

Christ died upon the cross that veil which stood between the holy presence of God and sinful man was torn from the top to the bottom.

God opened the way directly into his presence through Jesus Christ in him alone.

I do not need any other mediators. Thank you very much.

For the sake of time, because we only have 14 minutes left, I've condensed the questions and both of the men have consented to deal with them, and I've clustered them.

First to Father Pacwa, and then we'll let Dr. White respond. And let me cluster these,

Father Pacwa, you can answer them as you like. I am a Protestant not under the authority of Rome's priests.

Is there salvation for me? If yes, then why is the Roman priesthood necessary? Must I confess to a

Roman Catholic priest in order to have forgiveness of sin? Must I be under the authority of a priest in order to have salvation?

And if a Christian knowingly rejects the Roman Catholic idea of a priest, is it possible for them to receive reconciliation to God?

That is salvation not purgatory. You can answer from there. One of the things that the

Catholic Church definitely accepts is that a person also must follow their conscience to the best of their ability to form it and to obey that conscience.

And one of the things that we also know is that,

A, in conscience, non -Catholic Christians have certainly accepted Christ as their

Lord and Savior. That's the meaning of being a Christian.

And so, according to the lights that a person has, then it's something that is possible to receive and reconciliation is something that's possible to receive because a person is coming to Christ as the

Redeemer. Now, if you are a

Catholic, you only must confess sins to a priest if you've committed mortal sin.

We distinguish mortal sin in terms of something that's grave matter, like murder, and something that you do knowing that it's grave matter, and that you freely choose to do.

So, you can't commit a mortal sin by accident. And if a

Catholic has not committed a mortal sin, then they too are not under a moral obligation to go to confession.

Should they? I do, whether I'm in state of mortal sin or not, because it's something that I find as a great gift in order to be able to have my sins forgiven, including the lesser sins that are not deadly.

And, let's see, must I be under the authority of a priest in order to have salvation?

Well, A, of course, you have to be under the authority of Jesus Christ, the one true high priest.

That, again, everybody would agree on. And then in terms of a priest, when you say to be under the authority of, that's a funny way to talk to me.

In my mind, not talk to me, but to me, it comes across as odd language. I don't see myself as under the authority of a priest, even though I have my superiors as my authorities.

But it's not the same thing as this. Do I need the priest's ministry?

Yes. Yes. And it's best, is it possible to, say, be baptized a

Christian, right, and go to death and go right to heaven?

Of course it is. You don't have to be baptized by a priest. We know that. A lady lay

Catholic can ordain or can baptize in a state of emergency.

But do you need the authority that Jesus Christ gave his priests? Look, as far as I'm concerned, if Jesus Christ gives a gift, why would somebody say no to it?

It's not a matter of, do I got to do this just to make it? The issue is, what has

Christ given us? He's given us the authority to loose sins and to bind sins, something

I can only do if I hear confessions. And also, he gives me the authority by telling me to do this in remembrance of him, to say, this is my body, this is my blood.

Why would you turn away from a gift that Christ offers you? So that's the key to me, not the authority.

And must I be under the authority of the Roman Catholic sacraments to receive spiritual healing and growth?

Again, it sounds in so many ways to me as if it's running away from the authority of a dictatorial priesthood trying to run your life.

That's not the way I experience Catholicism. I have plenty of priests over me, but I don't find it in that way.

Do you need the sacraments? Yes, because these are signs of Jesus Christ giving himself to us.

Is it authority that's the key issue? When a wife loves her husband, he's in charge of the family, he's the head of the family, right?

But if she is always saying, I have to be under the authority of my husband, and she's always thinking about authority, what kind of love relationship is that?

I don't look at the sacraments as some sort of authority under whose thumb I must rest.

I look at these as the way that Jesus Christ touches me and comes to me, heals me, transforms me, gives me himself, primarily.

And that's what I look for. So it's a funny business to me to talk about it. I'm a

Protestant not under the authority of Rome's priest, the Pope. Is there salvation for you?

I've already kind of answered that, right? So yeah, I mean, you're following your conscience. And if your conscience is saying, the

Pope is trying to run my life, I oftentimes hear people even say, the Pope wants to be in everybody's bedroom.

You flatter yourselves. He has no interest in what's going on in your bedroom. What he wants is

God in your bedroom. That's the key. So that God has the authority over the marriage bed, and over the birth of children, because it's

God who gives life. God is the one who touches what goes on inside the womb of a woman long after the man is gone.

And that's the interest that the Pope has, to teach that, allow God to give life when he chooses to give life, and not to stop it.

But, you know, the issue is not to be under Rome's authority under this stuff. And I guarantee, as far as I know, you're following your conscience to the best of your ability.

You want to serve God and obey him. I know you want to obey the scriptures. I know that.

And I trust that God, our Lord, will have mercy on you, just as I trust that he has mercy on me.

And why is it necessary to have the Roman Catholic priesthood? Because we believe Jesus Christ gave it to us.

Dr. White, your response. Well, I will attempt to be very brief in regards to what was just said concerning salvation.

The Council of Florence views the 17th Ecumenical Council said it firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the

Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart into everlasting fire, which prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock, and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the

Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgivings, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the

Catholic Church, Denzinger 714. The only authority that the New Testament gives to the

Church is found within her officers within the Church itself. We have seen this evening that there are two offices and priest is not one of them.

The only other comment I would make is in regards to the assertion, well, yes, you can be saved without the

Catholic priesthood, and yet earlier, Father Pacwa did make the assertion that in light of John chapter 6, if you do not eat of his body and drink of his blood, you have no life within yourself.

If the only people who can work the miracle of transubstantiation, if that's what the text is referring to, which obviously

I don't believe it is, but if that is what the text is referring to, then outside of the Roman Catholic priesthood, you could not have life in yourself without that sacramental ability.

And so I don't see the modern inclusivism of the Roman Catholic system and its historical exclusivism fitting together very well even in this particular concept.

Father Pacwa, the question is, and this is for both, we'll begin with you, Paul said in 1

Timothy 2 .5 that there was only one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Does the Catholic priest function as a mediator? If so, is this contradictory to 1

Timothy 2 .5? No, I do not believe that it's contradictory. Yes, there is one mediator, and it is

Jesus Christ. But I share in that ministry of mediation insofar as I've been joined to Christ, just as the church is his body, and that Christians, in that sense, mediate

Christ. And each Christian has to be, in one sense, an alter Christus, another

Christ, so that it's no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me, a text that's also key for my own faith in Galatians 2.

And Dr. White and I share that. But I only mediate as a priest because of union with Christ and obedience to Christ and doing what

Christ asks me to do. Otherwise, my mediation would be nothing. So I see my mediation as a sacrament, a sign, of the one mediator,

Jesus Christ. Dr. White, your response? The mediation that is spoken of in 1 Timothy 2 .5

-6 is sacrificial mediation. And the mediator, the reason there is only heist, one mediator, just as there is heist, one

God, that is unique, there's only one unique God, there's only one unique mediator, is because of the fact that he and he alone was able to give himself as the antelutron, the ransom in behalf of his people.

His action of mediation cannot be joined into by anyone else, the simple fact of its uniqueness and the uniqueness of the person who engages in it.

Dr. White, question for you. In order for a prophet to be considered a true prophet, his prophecy would have to be fulfilled.

How, other than the mass and the institution of a ministerial priesthood, would the perpetual sacrifice referred to in Malachi 1 .11

be fulfilled? Malachi 1 .11, for from rising of the sun even to its setting, my name is great among the nations, and everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name and a pure offering.

Well, that is obviously fulfilled in a much greater way in the biblical New Testament teaching concerning the priesthood of all believers.

That is, when we live our lives as that sacrifice in service to Christ, then wherever Christ's people are, then that sacrifice is being offered.

I think it is a restriction of this passage and its fulfillment to limit it to a mediatorial sacramental priesthood when they are undergoing a particular type of rite.

Instead, it is fulfilled in its fullness when we as believers live out the life of Jesus Christ within us.

Father Packboy, your response? Um, I was trying to read this.

Sorry, I missed some of what he was saying because I was trying to pay attention to this. So, I'm sorry,

I don't have a response. Father Packboy, since you don't have a response to that, then there's a question for you.

Where does it say to call in the New Testament, where does it call to say anyone father in the

Bible but Jesus only? Oh, that's a good question. Thanks. You have in Matthew 23 that it says, call no man father, right?

And this is in the context of a criticism of Pharisees, right? However, in 1

Corinthians chapter 4 verse 16, Paul says, you have 10 ,000 pedagogues but only one father.

It is I who begot you by my preaching of the gospel. So, Paul insists on a fatherly relationship with his community, does he not?

And then, in 1 John chapter 2, John calls a couple groups of Christian men fathers.

So that we see that going on. Then, a number of times in the book of Acts, Stephen, and then later on,

Paul addressed the Sanhedrin as fathers and brothers.

So, actually, we have a number of places in the New Testament where various characters call other people, both inside and outside the church, fathers.

And in a dissertation that was done at Vanderbilt, soon after I had gone, the issue of calling father that Jesus addresses in relationship to the

Pharisees is that different schools of Pharisees were called the houses.

So, the house of Hillel, the house of Shammai, the two most famous, the house of Gamaliel.

And that these rabbis were called fathers because they'd started their own sects of competing groups of rabbis.

And it's calling yourself the father of a rabbinic -like sect, instead of having divisions away from the church

Christ founded, that seems to be at issue. Dr. White? I'm very thankful for this opportunity because, as Father Paquin knows,

I believe it was in 1997 when we debated the first time here, you made it a part of the condition of being here that the term father be used.

And I would like to take this opportunity of at least explaining why I am uncomfortable with the term, though I have chosen to use it simply so that these debates would take place.

In describing the priestly office, I think it was Gibbons who wrote, to sum up in a few brief sentences the titles of a

Catholic priest, he is a king, reigning not over unwilling subjects, but over the hearts and affections of his people. He is a shepherd because he leads his flock in delicious pastures of the sacraments and shelters them from the wolves that lie in wait for their souls.

He is a father, why? Because he breaks the bread of life to his spiritual children who he has begotten in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

My objection to the utilization of the term is because the meaning that is attached to it.

The meaning that is attached to it is not the meaning of some of the passages that were just looked at.

If a person begot me through the gospel unto faith in Christ Jesus, then

I would not have a problem using that term and saying, you are my father in the faith, you begot me in the faith in that way.

But to turn that into a title and then make it be used by people who,

A, were not begotten by you in the first place even if they are a part of your spiritual communion.

But I hope people understand, when you're coming from my perspective and you do not believe that Rome possesses the gospel in the first place, it is very,

I think you need to understand how very difficult it is to say, you must use a term of me.

The term means that I am your father through the gospel in Christ Jesus, and yet I do not believe that that is the case at all.

I don't ask someone to call me reverend for that very reason because you may not revere what I revere.

I think that is the real issue that needs to be brought to the fore here, is the meaning of the term as it is applied to the

Roman Catholic priesthood. And on that paternal note, we need to end the debate this evening.

It's 11 o 'clock. Our thanks to you. Our thanks to Chris Arnzen for organizing this.