I have a copy of the Book of the Apocalypse in Latin and I'm following along with that.

Based on the early Church writers, Catholic commentary agrees that this number 7 is symbolic and that the Book is in fact addressed to the entire Church. They state that what the Lord says to His servant is addressed to the whole Church, "uni Ecclesiae septiforme" , a single Church of which these 7 are a symbol.

It makes sense that it was given to the whole Church considering the background of the times, the creul injustices in which the Apocalypse was written. St.John is alerting Christians to the grave dangers (heresies) which threaten faith, while consoling and encouraging those who are suffering tribulation due to the fierce and long drawn out persecution mounted by Domitian who forced emperor-worship. He's also striving to keep alive their hope in the ultimate victory of Christ and all who stay true to him.

The great struggle between good and evil has involved Christians in every age of history and will continue to do so until the end of time. Sacred Scripture is ancient, yet new, because it's been teaching generation after generation all through the ages. We can take a lesson from St. John in these first chapters by helping others to see that although the enemy seems to have the upper hand, his victory is temporary, Christ, the Lamb of God, will ultimately triumph over His enemies. He's saying bad times are here and worse times are coming, but there is hope and trust in the Lord. Be not afraid.

The Douay Rheims version has v. 4 slightly different, "....Grace be unto you and peace from Him that is, and that was, and that is to come.."

It is waaay cool, KFC, that St.John defines God as the BLessed Trinity---God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
Here, God is defined as He "who is and who was and who is to come" which as you say is also found in Jewish literature as an explanation of the name Yahweh, "I AM WHO I AM".

A further explanation of this verse teaches that God is He who existed in the past (eternal), He who is, (active in the world since its creation; God is the Lord of all history; nothing falls outside His providence and that at all times He's acting to effect salvation; He is the just Father whose word is true), and He who is to come, (speaks of His saving presence that will never cease and His creative power and unbounded love will lead Him to restore all things and create a new world).

The Book of the Apocalypse echoes the Book of Daniel which teaches that God lives for ever and ever 4:34. He is also called the "living God", an expression often met in the OT, which underlines the essential difference between Yahweh (the living God) and idols, "the work of men's hands. they have mouths, but do not speak,eyes but do not see." Ps. 115:4-5.

Yes, 1:4 as well as 4:5 indirectly refer to the Holy Spirit. In later chapters it teaches that it is the HS that is speaking to the churches. And at the end, the voice of the Spirit joins with that of the Bride to make entreaty for the coming of Christ. This reminds us of St.Paul's teaching in Rom. 8:26, about how the HS prays by interceding for us with sighs too deep for words.

The "seven spirits" stand for God's power and omniscience and intervention in the events of history. With the Blessed trinity in mind, there is also symbolism found in the OT, Is.11:2, that's used to show that God the Father, acts through His Spirit, and that this Spirit has been communicated to Christ and by Him to mankind.

Catholics say that when St. John wishes grace and peace for the seven spirits of God it is the same as saying "from the Holy Spirit", who is sent to the Chruch after the death and Resurrection of Christ. Patristic tradition has interpretated the seven spirits as meaning the septiform Spirit with his seven gifts as described in Isaias 11: 1-2 in St.Jerome's Latin translation, the Vulgate. When a Catholic is confirmed, that Confirmation is a Sacrament by which we receive the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. They are wisdom, fortitutide, understanding, knowledge, the fear of the Lord, Counsel, and Piety. That's waay cool, too, KFC.

KFC POSTS:

These are the verses from the Douay Rheims on which you make your comments.

Apoc. 1:5-6, “And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth, who hath loved us, and washed us from our sins, in his own blood. 6 And hath made us a kingdom, and priests to God and his Father, to him be glory and empire for ever and ever. Amen.”

V. 5---Christ is ‘the faithful witness’ of the fulfillment of God’s OT promises of a Savior, who in fact brought about salvation. That’s why later on in the Book, St.John calls Jesus Christ, “the Amen” 3:4. This is like saying that through what Christ did God has ratified and kept His word.

The "first begotten of the dead” is seen in the Resurrection of Jesus. He is the “first begotten of the dead” in that the Resurrection constituted a victory over death in which all who abide in Him share Col. 1:18. Another way to say this is Jesus won the victory over death and just as Jesus was raised from the dead, so will we all who abide in Him be raised from the dead on the last day of Judgment. Jesus died so that we who die in His friendship might have life and have it abundantly.

Christ is also ‘the Prince of the kings of the earth’ because He is Lord of the world and this will be clearly seen when He comes in all glory and power at the end of the world to judge the living and the dead.

KFC WRITES:


Again, here is the verse from which you make your commentary. V. 6---”And hath made us a kingdom, and priests to God and his Father, to him be glory and empire for ever and ever. Amen.”

I’ve read and re-read your post and am not sure of your meaning of the word “Priest”. If, when you say, “We are called to be Priests to God”, you are using the radically individualistic understanding of Martin Luther’s “Priesthood of All Believers” to interpret V. 6, then I must disagree with your interpretation. Individual Christians are no more Priests than every Israelite was a Priest.


Re: verses 5 & 6, Christ,the Lord not only freed us from our sins, He also gave the new chosen people, baptized by the anointing of the Holy Spirit, a share in His kingship and priesthood. What does this mean? That the baptized are consecrated into a priestly kingdom of God that through faith, hope and charity, may offer all good works and proclaim the good news of Him who has called them out of darkness and into His marvelous Light of life everlasting. Only Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

From Pentecost in 33AD on down through the ages, the Church has always recognized the baptized faithful have a share in Christ’s priesthood. They offer the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass with the Priest, while simultaneously upholding the separate priesthood called by Christ.

Some commentary taken from the writings of Bishop Frederick Justus Knecht concerning fulfilling and completing the Old Covenant with the New Covenant in the Blood of Jesus Christ.
The Old Covenant (OC) was made through Moses, the New Covenant through Jesus Christ. The OC was made with only one nation; the New C. with all mankind. The OC was made to last for a limited time; the New C. will last until the end of time. The OC was sealed with the blood of animal victims; the NC with the Blood of God made man (“This chalice is the New Testament in My Blood; do this ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.” 1Cor.11:25) . In the Old Testament severe laws were made but the power of observing them was not given. The New Testament has not only its own holy laws, but abundant grace is given by which to observe them and that’s why the NC is called the Covenant of Grace.

Through Moses God instituted the Old Law and so Moses is called the Mediator of the Old Law. Jesus Christ instituted the New Law and He is the one Mediator. Jesus was our advocate with His Father on the Cross and is eternally so in Heaven. Moses was the law giver of his people and announced the word of God to them. Jesus Christ is the Supreme Lawgiver and not only announced God’s word, but is the Eternal Word made flesh. Moses was the leader of his people to the promised land, and Jesus is our leader on our journey to life everlasting.

The OT priesthood was set up by the first-born son who had been set apart for the service of God. The tribe of Levi was chosen for priestly office and service of the Tabernacle. The priestly office was hereditary in Aaron’s family. The first-born was always to be High Priest and the other male descendants were all Priests. All the other Levites were to assist.

God ordained sacrifices to be the center of divine worship under the OC. He commanded Moses to prescribe what sacrifices were to be offered, the manner of offering them, and the times when they were to be offered. Some of these sacrifices were bloody and others were unbloody (called meat-offerings). The one who offered the bloody sacrifices laid his hand of the head of the victim while the Priest killed it and poured its blood on the altar. Every morning and every evening a 1-year old lamb was offered as a holocaust. What was sacrificed was given to God, and had to be wholly consumed in His honor. By these sacrifices the men were taught that they were absolutely dependent upon God and owed Him worship and thanksgiving.

The chief significance of the Old Testament sacrifices is in their being types of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the true Lamb of God. The bloody sacrifices were typical of His bloody Sacrifice on the Cross. The unbloody sacrifice was typical of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the meat-offerings of Holy Communion. All the sacrifices of the OC found their fulfillment or completion in the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross which blotted out all sin and won grace for all men that they might have life everlasting.

Jesus was truly man when He took upon Himself the sins of the whole world and died on the Cross. His death had infinite efficacy because Jesus Christ is also true God and so able to make infinite satisfaction to the Divine Justice. The Sacrifice of Christ is the true holocaust because He shed all His Blood and was consumed by the fire of infinite love for all mankind. It was a sin-offering because it took away the sins of the world and canceled the debt of man. It was the greatest of peace-offerings because it reconciled heaven to earth and brought peace to the world. Since the Lord offered Himself as a Sacrifice, the typical sacrifices of the OC have lost all efficacy, being abolished now count for nothing, confer no grace, and save no one. Worse, they bring a curse upon those who obstinately cling to them. St. Paul warned the Jews, “for as many as are of the works of the law, are under a curse. For it is written: 'Cursed is everyone that abideth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” Gal. 3:10. In his Epistle to the Hebrews 7:18-19, St.Paul further declares: “there is indeed an abrogation of the former commandment, becasue of the weakness and unprifitableness thereof. For the law brought nothing to perfection, but a bringing in of a better hope by which we draw nigh to God.”
In 8:13, he said, “Now, in saying a new, He (Christ) made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old , is near its end.”

The confession of sins required for sin-offerings is completed perfectly with the Holy Sacrament of Penance, without recourse to which no sinner dare partake of the meat-offering of Holy Communion.

The tribe of Levi had become less infected with idolatry and on account of its faithfulness, God chose it for His special service. The High Priest was the spiritual head, the visible representative of God and the mediator between God and the people. He had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies once a year, and later on of anointing kings.

The Priests had the right and the duty of entering the Sanctuary to keep the 7 branched candlestick lights burning, as well as for the sacred fire of the burnt offerings, to bless the people and pray for them and instruct them in the Law. The Levites were the assistants to the Priest. They weren’t allowed to enter the Sanctuary, but had to guard the Tabernacle, and later on the Temple. They assisted with the sacrifices, sacred canticles, the instruction of the people and purified the sacred vessels.
The Priests were to be holy (Lev.21:8). Their purity of life was signified by their white tunic and purity of intention by their white turbin or tiara. The High Priest was to be the most holy. The inscription on the gold plate on his mitre meant that he belonged entirely to God and that his thoughts were to be constantly fixed on Him. The breast-plate on which were inscribed the names of the 12 tribes, implied that he was to bear the people lovingly in his heart and to be careful for their welfare. The bells on his upper tunic which sounded at each step he took, reminded him that, by word and deed, he had to be a witness to the true faith.

The priesthood of the OC is a type of the priesthood of the New Covenant. As there was a graduation in the former, so is there in the latter. The graduation in the Church is twofold. One of order--- Bishops or High Priests, Priests and Deacons or Ministers and one of jurisdiction (meaning authority of ruling the Church)--Pope, Patriarchs, Archbishops, or Metropolitians, Bishops and Priests. As in the OT, there was only one High Priest, so with the CC, the Pope, the Bishop of bishops, who is the visible representative of our invisible Eternal High Priest, Jesus Christ.


The Christian priesthood is far higher (more perfect) than the Israelite priesthood. The latter was propagated by natural descent, the former is perpetuated by a spiritual descent, i.e. by means of Holy Orders, which is one of the 7 Sacraments instituted by Christ. The Jewish priests could only offer up typical sacrifices, Christian priests offer up the true Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world. The former partook of earthly meat-offerings, the latter receive the priceless Flesh and Blood of the Divine Savior. The Jewish priests prayed for the people and Christian priests pray for them and give them their blessing daily in the holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Priests are the “ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of God.” 1Cor. 4:1.

KFC WRITES:



This is great commentary on Verse 7 up until your explanation of "they also which pierced him". The Prophet Zacharais was speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple and not of the Second Coming of Jesus. There are some commonalities though as they are both God's judgment on unfaithful people.

The entire verse 7, “Behold, he cometh with the clouds, and every eye will see him, and they also that pierced him. All the tribes of the earth shall bewail themselves because of him. Even so. Amen.”

As you point out we also see the passage “and they also that pierced him” in the Old Testament prophecy of Zacharais 12:10. St.John 19:37 also quotes Zacharais, “They shall look on him whom they pierced.”

KFC, note that other translations of Zacharias 12:10-11; 13:1 are different from this one you cited especially between the meanings of the word “bitterness” and “mourn”.

“And I will pour out upon the house of David, and upon THE INHABITANTS OF JERUSALEM, the spirit of grace, and of prayers, and of prayers: (a) that they shall look upon me WHOM THEY HAVE PIERCED; and they shall MOURN for him as one MOURNETH for an only son , and they shall grieve over him as the manner is to grieve for the death of the firstborn. 11 IN THAT DAY there shall be a great lamentation in Jerusalem ( like the lamentation of Adadremmon in the plain of Mageddon.”

Reference (a) goes to St. John 19:37 who quotes from Zacharias prophecy. Reference ( goes to 2Par 35:22. “Josais would not return, but prepared to fight against him and harkened not the words of Nechao from the mouth of God, ( but went to to in the field of Mageddo.”

I’m mentioning this because, even though there are many similarities, i.e. the signs, the persecution of the Church, tyrannical leaders, false prophets, etc., we must be careful not to mix or confuse the event in which they occurred and assign the timing all to the Second Coming on “last day”. No one knows for certain whether St.John wrote Revelation in 68 or 95 AD. Either way, it's for sure that he wanted the reader to understand that his visions concerned the events of his times as well as the events of the future. He said, “what is and what is to take place hereafter.” 1:19.

Revelation 1:7 can also easily be understood as St.John reaffirming his visions as the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy in St.Matt.24:3-28 concerning Daniel’s last week which occurred within his generation.
Both Zach 12:10-11 and Jesus’ quoting Daniel in St.Matt 24 prophesize the destruction of Jerusalem in August, 70 AD. The early Church understood the timing of “that day” in Zacharias’ prophecy as Zacharias himself understood it--- as being fulfilled during the fall of Jerusalem to Rome which is the equivalent of Daniel’s last week. What St. John writes about here in the Book of the Apocalypse has already been fulfilled and not Christ’s Second Coming.

Regarding the destruction of Jerusalem, both Amos and Jeremias speak about what happened as far as the sun going out at noon and the day darkening and of the great upheaval of nature on ‘that day’ when the Emperor Vespasian subdued “the inhabitants of Jerusalem” and laid waste with sword and fire to their lands and property. When ‘the inhabitants of Jerusalem” were defeated, they realized that it was the punishment and judgment of God upon them. They were of the wicked and so ‘they mourned”. Dan. 12. Again , this understanding of the lament over Jerusalem is substantiated in St. Matthew 24: 37-39.

Zacharais’ prophecy focuses primarily on Daniel’s 70th week. Zacharias uses “that day” throughout his prophecy....and he is prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem and the ruination of the Temple that no stone will be left one upon another.
During Daniel’s 70 th week, the Old Covenant was annulled and a New C, a strong everlasting one of peace was established. Then he broke his second staff, Union, annulling Judah and Israel. Judah was the believing remnant of the holy bloodline of Israel. Israel was the unbelieving majority. Zacharais now turns to the New Jerusalem created when the two staffs were broken. “The Lord will put a shield around His new chosen People." As Eusebius recorded, not a single Christian died when Jerusalem fell.



You are describing what we call the Olivet Discourse in St.Matt.24:1-14.

The disciples ask Him for a sign of His coming at the end of the world and when that will be. They ask Christ these questions after He pointed out the temple buildings and said, “You see all these things,...I say to you, there will not be left here a stone upon another stone that will not be thrown down.” Christ answers the disciple’s questions by first predicting in detail the Great Tribulation, that is, the signs of nature, the apostasy, and the persecution of that will precede the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

Christ speaks of “this generation” which refers firstly to the chosen people alive at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. Since the event and what happened at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem is symbolic of the end of the world, the Lord was speaking not only of the generation then living, but of the generation of those believers to come. He told them the parable of the fig tree because He wanted them the interval before His coming, and to show them (and us generations later) that He word would assuredly come true. As sure as the coming of Spring, is the Second Advent of the Son of God. To that the Christian response is Come, Even so. Amen.

BUT WHEN WILL CHRIST COME AGAIN? Christ tells them, “And this Gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the world as a witness to all nations, and then the end will come.”
The sign of His return to earth will be a Cross in the sky.

The sign of His return to earth will be a Cross in the sky.

Where is your reference for this?

Individual Christians are no more Priests than every Israelite was a Priest.

that's not what Peter says:

"You also as lively stones are built up a spiritual house a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. ........1 Peter 2:5 and check out v9 also. It says:

"But you are a chosen generation a royal priesthood, a holy nation a peculiar people.......

The church possesses blessings similar to those Israel had, though it has not become the "new Israel."

Check out Exodus 19:6 for further study here.

while simultaneously upholding the separate priesthood called by Christ.

show me your biblical reference on this as well. You will not find the title "priest" given to any individual in the NT at all...other than Christ.

.

which is one of the 7 Sacraments instituted by Christ

where is your reference on this as well? Don't give me the keys given to Peter either. That's not correct.

Priests are the “ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of God.” 1Cor. 4:1

the word is "servant" and denotes subordination (originally an under-rower in a ship). It's not what you're thinking Lula. The word "minister" here is "hyperetes" in the Greek which literally means under rower.

This is great commentary on Verse 7 up until your explanation of "they also which pierced him". The Prophet Zacharais was speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple and not of the Second Coming of Jesus. There are some commonalities though as they are both God's judgment on unfaithful people.

no this is not right. Read all of Zech. You are doing what alot of Preterists do. You are picking out a portion and pointing it to 70AD. Remember ALL of Israel is going to turn to Christ. That did not happen in 70 AD. Instead the Jews were scattered.

Read v8-9 of Zech 12 which is just a verse or two above what I quoted. it says: "On that day the Lord will protect the inhabitants of Jerusualem." And on that day I will seek to destroy all those nations that come against Jerusalem. "

NOW that's the context. As far as I know the Jews LOST in 70 AD. Now Lula, this is future, this has not happened yet.

Reference ( goes to 2Par 35:22

what is this?

No one knows for certain whether St.John wrote Revelation in 68 or 95 AD.

you're being influenced by the Preterist View here. Keep in mind the CC has a Preterist view. I don't.

Both Zach 12:10-11 and Jesus’ quoting Daniel in St.Matt 24 prophesize the destruction of Jerusalem in August, 70 AD. The early Church understood the timing of “that day” in Zacharias’ prophecy as Zacharias himself understood it--- as being fulfilled during the fall of Jerusalem to Rome which is the equivalent of Daniel’s last week. What St. John writes about here in the Book of the Apocalypse has already been fulfilled and not Christ’s Second Coming.

again, this is where the dating of the letter comes into play. Zech as I've already described is talking 2nd Coming. ALL the OT prophets NEVER saw the church age. NEVER. They saw the first coming (suffering servant) and the second coming (the conquering King) but never counted on these last 2,000 years. Matt 24 does have both 70AD and 2nd coming in view...yes...but go back to Rev 1:7 again. Notice this:

Behold he comes with the clouds and EVERY EYE shall see him and they also which pierced him and ALL kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him.

This is not talking about 70AD. This has NOT happened yet. Did the Romans mourn over the destruction of Jerusalem? I think NOT.

The rest of what you've written is clearly being seen with Preterist's eyes.

LULA POSTS:



Arguing from the talking points of Protestant Oral Tradition that have been handed down from the Luther and the other Protestant Forefathers, you keep insisting that we are all priests KFC, pointing out 1StPeter 2:5/9 and telling me to study Exodus 19:6.

Well, I've already done that, KFC when I did my research to post reply #4. Here, St.Peter is repeating only what God said to Moses. "If... you will...keep my covenant, you shall be to me a priestly kingdom , and a holy nation Exodus 19:5-6.

If these words mean that each of us is a priest, they had to mean the same thing when GOd addressed the same words to the Jews in the OT. Was every Jew a priest?

What happened to OT when they acted like priests? When Moses' sister Miriam and his brother Aaron questioned his right to speak for God, Miriam was struck by leprosy. The Levite Core and his followers challenged Moses and Aaron demanding the same priestly privelieges as the sons of Aaron. COre's followers were destroyed. NUm. 16:35-38 and COre, Dathan and Abiron perished when the earth broke under their feet. King Saul went to the altar once, offering sacrifice, performing functions of a priest, God was so angry at this that He took away his kingship out of the house of Saul and transferred it to the house of David. 1Kgs.13:9-14.

"And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation." Exodus 19:6. "You shall be holy unto me, becasue I the Lord am holy and I have separated you from other people, that you should be mine." Lev.20:26. All Israel had been called "a priestly kingdom", becasue they alone, in the ancient world, preserved the knowledge and worship of the true GOd, but they were not all priests. A separate priesthood ministered the altar.

"Thou and thy sons look ye to the priesthood: and all things that pertain to the service of the altar, and that are within the veil, shall be executed by the priests. If any stranger, shall approach, he shall be slain Num 18:7-8; 16:39-40; 17:1-10. He chose Aaron, out of all men living, to offer sacrifice to God, incense, and a good savor, for a memorial to make reconciliation for his people." Eccu. 45:20.


KFC POSTS:



As I said before, the Chruch has always recognized a universal priesthood of the laity as we offer and participate in the Holy Mass. This has been traced back to the Church Fathers, St.Justin Martyr(100-165),Irenaeus (120-202), and Origen (185-253). This however, by no means, excludes the special priesthood but rather presupposes its existence. That's what I meant when I wrote "while simlutaneously upholding the separate priesthood called by Christ."

Priests are called, chosen out, separated from the laity. PS.64:5, "Blessed is he whom Thou hast chosen and taken to thee." "Paul, called to be an apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God." Rom 1:1. "Show [which] of these two thou hast chosen to take the place of this ministry and apostleship". Acts 1:24-25.

The priest, the "ambassodar for Christ", 2Cor 5:20, is the authorized teacher. "That you may have knowledge to discern between holy and unholy... and may teach the children of Israel all my ordinances which the Lord has spoken to them by the hand of Moses. Lev.10:10-11. And he gave (Aaron) power in his commandments, in the covenants of his judgments, that he should teach Jacob his testimonies, and give light to Isreal in his law." Eccu. 45:21.

As was Isreal, those united through Baptism to the Church, who accept her authority, and adhere to her teaching, are called a "holy priesthood, holy nation, kingly priesthood, a purchased people" Ex.19:6, 1StPeter 2:5/9 BUT, we are not all priests with priestly powers any more than Core was. Only priests could offer sacrifice under the Old Covenant, only priests can offer the Sacrifice of the New Covenant.

Furthermore, Holy Scripture discloses that the institution of the New Covenant priests are not from one family as was the Aaronic priesthood. This priesthood is a lasting priesthood, one "without father, without mother, without genealogy." Heb.7:3. They are now called "according to the order of Melchisedech", not "according to the order of Aaron" Heb. 7:11 because "the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law." Heb. 7:12. The priesthood was not abolished it was "translated" and this too was the understanding of all the early Chruch Fathers.

Protestant doctrine denies a divine calling to the priesthood and instead claims the the 'minister' is only a man chosen by the congregation all of whom are priests themselves. St.Paul says otherwise, "Neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was." Heb. 5:4. If everyone is a priest, of what honor does St.Paul speak?



KFC POSTS:


The priesthood of the New COvenant is one "without father, without mother, without genealogy." Heb.7:3; a lasting personal priesthood,called "according to the order of Melchisedech", not "according to the order of Aaron" Heb. 7:11. "The priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law." Heb. 7:12.

In the New Covenant in the Blood of Jesus, the priestly character is imparted by the Holy Ghost in the divinely instituted Sacrament of Orders. Christ founded a visible, perpetual priesthood becasue the Sacrifice was to be perpetual. At the Last Supper, they were ordained by a special rite and given special offices. To them was given the power of consecrating the Body and BLood of Christ. "Do this for a commemoration of me." StLuke 22:19. The imposition of the hands which St. Paul says was only given to a few chosen men is rite in which distinguishes ministerial priests from the rest of the faithful. To them alone, belong the office of ruling the Chruch, of dispensing the Sacraments and of offering the Holy Sacrifice. St.Mark 1:17; StJohn 15:16; Acts 6:6; 13:2-3; 14:22; 1Tim4:14; 2Tim1:6; Acts 20:28; 1Cor.4:1; Heb5:1.

Priests "are ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that [they] may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins" Heb.5:1. Through the priesthood we Catholics receive the 7 Sacraments which give us sanctifying grace which we must have to live and become holy.

In 1517, the Protestant Forefathers revolted against the Church and ditched the 7 Sacraments, the ministerial priesthood being one. They say "priest" means "elder" and this is true. It did, when the priesthood of the New Covenant was just beginning. Both Catholic and Protestant scholars agree that the language of the NT was the common Greek spoken everywhere throughout the Roman EMpire. and even our early Chruch titles, such as "bishops", "presbyter" "deacon" etc. were all well known official names used in that era.

The Oxford Dictionary say under elder, that title was borrowed and attached to those whom we call priest. The Hebrew word for priest, kohen or cohen, whose root meaning "bridge, guardian, remains curiously relevant today, but would have confused the early Christian, converts from Judaism. So it was rejected by the Apostles in favor of presbyter becasue they wished to make a distinction between the Chruch and a Jewish sect. "Elder" is Greek for "presbyter" and the English translation of "presbyter" is priest.

I don't even know where to start Lula. You drown me in words as if to say that by your many words you are correct in your theology when in fact you are going all over the place. I'll hit just a few points here because otherwise it'll take me way too long.



If this is your scripture reference to PROVE that God still calls Priests to function in the same manner as the OT you have to misquote scripture to do so.

First...You quote Psalm 64:5???? It says: "They encourage themselves in an evil matter they commune of laying snares privily; they say, who shall see them?"

Are you sure of this? Maybe God is speaking here again?

Also Paul was called to be an Apostle. Correct. This is not the same as a Priest. The same with Acts 1:24-25...Matthias was chosen by lots to take Judas' place. Again, nothing to do with Priestly duties. There were ONLY 12 Apostles or 13 if you count Paul...and I do.



no, the man of God or minister as you mention are called of God as we all are. We are all called to be Priests for God as I've stated...as John stated, as Peter stated etc. But we all have different roles for the edification of the church.

"Now there are diversities of gifts but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord."1 Cor 12:4-5.

"And he gave some apostles, and some prophets and some evangelists and some pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ." Eph 4:11.



No, This scripture you used here has nothing to do with priestly duties. This is Paul saying that he was speaking on Christ's behalf as we are ALL to do.



Ok, you're taking this all out of context. Heb 5:1 and onward is showing the superiority of the Priesthood of Christ to the OT priesthood. This has nothiing to do with a priesthood of the modern day church...which is not NT doctrine.

This whole section is speaking of Christ being superior in his qualifications than that of the High Priests of the OT.

The qualifications for HP are stated in 5:1-10. Aaron serving as the model:

1. Had to be a man (v1)
2. had to be compassionate (v2)
3. had to be chosen by God (v4-6)
4. had to learn through suffering (v7-8)

So no Lula, you have to take scriptures out of context to make them fit. I'm thinking your are defending the CC stance for having priests. This is not a doctrine of the early church. Actually it's the exact opposite. We are all to be in equal standing before God. That's why the veil of the temple was torn from the Holy of Holies at the crucifixion of Christ. No more priests needed to stand in for us as of old. We now have direct access and are considered the priesthood of believers.

"Having therefore brothers boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. By a new and living way which he has consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say his flesh. And having a high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water Heb 10:19."

Having a good working order of the OT is helpful here. It was the priests who would sprinkle the people with blood from the sacrifices. Only they could draw near to God. Only they could enter the Holy of Holies. That was all symbolic of a better way. That was all a shadow of what was to come..the true body which was Christ's. Our High Priest is now Christ. He is the great High Priest. None more is needed now. He is not standing in the temple as the OT Priests had to do. He atoned for our sins, sprinkled us permanently and has sat down at the right hand of God. This is what Hebrews is all about. You picked the wrong book if you're trying to prove that we still are to have "priests" as in the OT. Hebrews is a great book to read on this.

That's your HW Lula.

LULAPILGRIM POSTS:


I will briefly outline my understanding of what is covered in StMatt 24 because Jesus' discourse in the Garden of Olives with His disciples ties in very closely to many of the passages in the Book of Revelation (the Apocalypse) particularly the ones having to do with the coming of the new age (the eschaton) in its fullness and the events which precede it.

Christ prophesied 3 events to His disciples---the destruction of Jerusalem by the Emperor Titus in 70AD, the end of the world and His Second Coming. It's very easy to confuse the signs and times of these given that the destruction of Jerusalem itself symbolizes the end of the world.

St. Matthew 24:
V. 1-3 concerns the disciples' questions. Jesus prophesies the destruction of the Temple and it makes such an impression on His Disciples that they want to know when it will happen. They see the end of the Temple and the end of the world as coinciding. (These things aren’t really made clear to them until the Holy Spirit descends upon them at Pentecost St.John 14:26).

V. 4-14 concerns Our Lord telling them what happens between then, 33AD, and the end of the world. The Gospel is going to be preached to every one, although our Lord doesn’t say that all will accept it. The Church will experience all kinds of tribulations which aren't signs of the end of the world rather just the normal context of Christian life. They are to faithfully accomplish their duties and ordinary activities but with awareness that the end, for which the disciples must be ready by watching and praying, will entail the final judgment by which the everlasting destiny of all will be determined.

V. 15-22 concerns the signs of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. V.15, the “desolating sacrilege” or “desolating abomination” Jesus refers to the prophecy of Daniel where he foretold that the Syrian king, Antiochus IV, would occupy the temple and erect images of false gods on the altar of holocausts. This came to pass; the idol was set up on the altar, a sign of abomination (idolatry) and desolation. Although the desecration had taken place before Daniel was written, it is presented there as a future event, and St.Matthew sees that our Lord’s prophecy fulfilled in the desecration of the Temple by the Romans. The remark, “let the reader understand” tells the reader to pay heed and realize the meaning of Daniel’s prophecy. Jesus tells them a new abomination will occur ruining the Temple to make way for idolatrous worship---as happened in 70 AD, when the Roman armies destroyed and profaned the Temple and later under Hadrian, who ordered the erection of a statue of Jupiter on the ruins. Of this St. John Chrysostom wrote “Having spoken of the ills that were to overtake the city, and of the trials of the Apostles, and having said that they should remain unsubdued and should conquer the whole world, he mentions again the Jews calamities showing that when the one (the Church) should be glorious, having taught the whole world, the other (Israel) should suffer calamity.”

Among the signs that preceded the destruction of Jerusalem were wars, civil wars, plagues, pestilences, and earthquakes which swallowed up whole towns. Acts tells of the false prophets that appeared in Jerusalem and the great persecution under Nero. Sts.Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom. For an entire year a comet in the form of a sword was seen over Jerusalem. The Great Tribulation started when Nero needed a scapegoat for the fire that ravaged Rome. The state-sponsored fierce and sustained persecution of the Church continued for about 3 years until Nero’s attention was diverted by the Jewish Roman War. During that time the Christians in Jerusalem (they were also considered the “inhabitants of Jerusalem” ) mindful of our Lord’s warnings, fled to the mountains to escape the Romans. That Nero’s attention was diverted is what it means by “the days are shortened for the sake and salvation of the elect”. The Christians would not have survived had it not been for the merciful hand of God.
Flavious Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote that 1,100,000 people died during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The ruins of the city and the Temple were cleared away and the ground leveled. Not a stone was left one on top the other, just as Our Lord said. The destruction of Jerusalem was the end of biblical Judaism. Their exclusive power to share God with the nations is gone forever. Is. 2:2-5, 56.

Jesus judged Jerusalem with the Roman army and He predicted it in StLuke 19:42-44. This was evidence to the entire world that Jesus had fulfilled Daniel’s Son of man prophecy in Heaven! Even though Christ was victor in Heaven , as long as the Temple remained, Christianity was seen as a mere sect within Judaism. If the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross superseded the Old Covenant Temple rites, people naturally wondered why the Old Covenant animal sacrifices continued in Jerusalem. Hebrews tells about this confusion in the very early Church. With the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple, the animal sacrifices had been eliminated, and now the Church was free to grow unencumbered by Old Covenant Judaism and the confusion it caused.

(As an aside, just as Daniel predicted, Nero declared war in Feb. of 67 AD, and Jerusalem’s Temple fell in August of 70AD before the Roman army of Titus. If we count the months, we see that the Jewish -Roman War lasted 42 months, precisely 3 and a half years. Jerusalem was to “be given into his hand for a time, two times, and half a time.” )

V. 23-29 Interweaving His prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus begins to speak of signs which will precede the end of the world (perhaps because they will be similar to those which preceded the destruction of Jerusalem). Christians will experience suffering, persecution, false teachers and prophets, and false messiahs will seduce others into apostasy. The exact fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem is a pledge that what He foretold about the end of the world and His Second Coming will be equally fulfilled.

V. 30-31 Concerns the Second Coming of Christ and of the Last Judgment. Even nature will tremble and the laws of nature will be upset and then the Cross in the heavens shall be seen. The sign of the Cross is “the sign of the Son of man in heaven” alluded to in V. 30. I first saw this reference as a Douay Rheims footnote. Here’s the full verse.
“then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds with power and great glory;"
“The sign of the Son of man” has been traditionally interpreted as the Cross in glory or the Cross of fire, which will shine like the sun. St. Chrysostom writes, “this sign will appear in the heavens when the Lord comes to judge. The Cross is the instrument of our Lord’s Passion will be a sign of condemnation for those who have despised it, and of joy for those who have borne a share of it.”

V. 32-35 concerns the timing of the destruction of Jerusalem and how that the event of the destruction of Jerusalem is itself a symbolic of the end of the world.
V. 36-41 concerns the timing of the Second Coming of Christ and of the Last Judgment which remains a mystery. Why? To ensure that the disciples then and us now stay on the alert.
V. 42-51 concerns being vigilant and the faithful servant.

LULAPILGRIM POSTS:The sign of His return to earth will be a Cross in the sky. KFC POSTS:Where is your reference for this?

so your answer is.................

The sign of the Cross is “the sign of the Son of man in heaven” alluded to in V. 30. I first saw this reference as a Douay Rheims footnote. Here’s the full verse. “then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds with power and great glory;"

your key word here is "alluded." This is CC dogma, not scriptural....just to set the record straight.

some think the sign is lightening of v27 just before your v30, others the Shekinah or glory of Christ like what was seen in the OT Tabernacle. Others (like me) leave it unspecified. At any rate, Christ will come visibly.

Remember, I don't go outside of what's written. We can allude, we can assume, we can believe all we want ...anything we want. But it's safest to stay as close as we can to what we is written to really know what's what.

KFC POSTS: I don't even know where to start Lula. You drown me in words as if to say that by your many words you are correct in your theology ..



Ha, what do you expect, KFC, coming from you who gives me whole chapters to read for homework!!

LULAPILGRIM POSTS: The sign of the Cross is “the sign of the Son of man in heaven” alluded to in V. 30. I first saw this reference as a Douay Rheims footnote. Here’s the full verse. “then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds with power and great glory;"


KFC POSTS: your key word here is "alluded." This is CC dogma, not scriptural....just to set the record straight.


Actually,KFC, it's not Catholic Church dogma. As I explained, it's a footnote of Saint Chrysostom's biblical interpretion that "the sign of the Son of man in heaven" is the Cross in Glory that will appear in the heavens when the Lord comes to judge.



KFC POSTS: "....Christ will come visibly."


Now, KFC, that Christ will come visibly...This IS Catholic dogma.


KFC POSTS: Remember, I don't go outside of what's written. We can allude, we can assume, we can believe all we want ...anything we want. But it's safest to stay as close as we can to what we is written to really know what's what.

Oh really, KFC, you don't go outside of what's written to interpret the Word? What about on another site when you said in a discussion regarding the fallen Roman Empire that based on Daniel's prophecy, the Antichrist would find his new home in the European Union?

I agree 100% that it's safest to stay as close to what is written to know what's what. And that's why, instead of my own private interpretation, I rely on the Church's interpretation of Holy Scripture as much as possible.

Ha, what do you expect, KFC, coming from you who gives me whole chapters to read for homework

hey.....I gave you the HW AFTER your long post.....lol.

Now, KFC, that Christ will come visibly...This IS Catholic dogma.

well if so, it's Catholic dogma that's biblical. I can buy that...read Acts Chap 1. It even says so by an angel besides Christ said so many times himself.

What about on another site when you said in a discussion regarding the fallen Roman Empire that based on Daniel's prophecy, the Antichrist would find his new home in the European Union?

it's all right there in Daniel. If you read Daniel very carefully, after he states a truth he goes on to interpret it pretty well. We will probably get more into that later as we keep going thru Revelation...so stay tuned.

I agree 100% that it's safest to stay as close to what is written to know what's what. And that's why, instead of my own private interpretation, I rely on the Church's interpretation of Holy Scripture as much as possible

try going a step further Lula and use the bible to interpret itself. Like the cross in the sky interpretation or the "live body" that we talked about a long time ago....it's from men. The bible itself doesn't give us exactly what this sign is. My husband thinks it's Christ himself. He is the sign. In other words when he comes back, that's it.

Remember diff groups make up...or just believe a certain truth for whatever reason that cannot be substantiated outside of what they believe..that's why it's safe to stay as close to what is written inside the scripture as we can.

There's nothing wrong with making an application but there is only one interpretation. Christ has a sign in mind...maybe it's him, maybe it's the cross as you say...maybe it's his Shekinah glory, maybe it's all three...but we can't be dogmatic about it because it doesn't say so.

LULAPILGRIM POSTS:


We were discussing the "priesthood of all believers" and I pointed to these particular Scriptural verses which show that just like the Apostles were specially chosen and from them on down , their successors known as presbyters, (priests) and deacons, etc, are especially called or chosen and set apart from the rest of the church body of the faithful as ministerial priests.

I should have remembered that the Douay Rheims' numbering of the Psalms is slightly different from the King James Version. It seems to be one number off. DR is 64:5 and the KJV would be 65:4.