I totally disagree with the article you sent on the New Testament priesthood.(1) It seems that the author does not understand that Christ has done away with the old covenant and has created a new one...of grace and faith, not of ritual.

Rubbish. Jesus instituted his own rituals in place of the rituals of the Jews: Baptism (John 3:5, 22, & 26), Confirmation (John 20:22; Acts 8:17-19, 9:17), Eucharist (Matthew 26; Mark 14; Luke 22; John 6; 1Cor 11), Holy Orders (Bishops- Luke 6:13; Priests- Luke 10:1; Deacons- Acts 6:2-6), Penance (John 20:23; 1John 1:9; James 5:16), Matrimony (Matthew 19:3-12; Hebrews 13:4), and Anointing of the Sick (Mark 6:13, James 5:14). The claims that the Christian religion is one of "grace and faith" is a typical protestant gnostic distortion. In its spirit, faith is separated from works, ethics is separated from religion, and the spiritual side of man is separated from the body. This is is pure BLASPHEMY and is directly contradicted by the scriptures as I prove above. It was right and just that the Council of Trent put anyone proclaiming these views in the 16th Century under an anathema.

1) 1 Peter 2:5,9 teaches that all believers in Christ are priests. All followers of Christ are to preach the forgiveness of sins available through Christ's final sacrifice (see Mark 16:15, Hebrews 7:27).

The doctrine of the "priesthood of all believers" was both a JEWISH OT doctrine (Exodus 19:6) and a CATHOLIC doctrine as well. St Peter is quoting Exodus 19:6 in this verse. There is nothing new or revolutionary about Christianity in this regard. It just carried on the legacy of Judaism which also had a MINISTERIAL priesthood separate and distinct from that of the ordinary believer.

As to Mark 16:15, let's quote the sentence in full and see what it ACTUALLY says:

Jesus did NOT give the power to preach the Gospel to "all followers" in this verse but to the ELEVEN remaining APOSTLES. It always helps to actually READ the Bible instead of merely quoting it out of context.

This is irrelevant to the matter under discussion. In no way does this authorize "all followers" to an equal share of ministry. Neither does it undermine the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist since the author of Hebrews later maintains that:

This is a clear statement that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, and the table it is offered at is an altar. The Eucharist is the ONLY eating ritual which Christians reserved to their members alone.

2) 1 Timothy 2:7, 3:1,8 teach that churches are to be led by preachers, teachers, elders, and deacons.

Let's see what the Bible ACTUALLY says:

1Tim 3:8 Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for gain;

We see here the 3 fold ministry of the Historic Catholic Church in all of its glory. St Paul says that he is an apostle who preaches and teaches. This remains the primary duty of the historical office of Bishop in the Catholic Church for they are the successors to the office of the Apostles. The next type of minister is the "bishop" or "overseer" which in this context is the equivalent to an "elder" or - in modern Catholic terminology - a priest. He is a local minister where as the Apostle at this time is an itinerant evangelist. The modern terminology would not become the standard until the late 1st Century but all of the reality of the 3-fold ministry was already there by a different name. More on this later.) Finally we have the deacon who is the lowest level of ministry but who still-

None of this challenges the Catholic understanding of ministry. In fact it supports it!!

3) Roman Catholic priests are not found in the Bible:

Neither are protestant ministers. Those terms did not exist in the 1st Century. On a more serious note, ALL references to the "elders" of the Church (and some references to the "bishops") are references to the Christian ministerial priesthood. The very etymology of the word "priest" in english comes from the greek word "presbyter" which means "elder." The notion of the ordained Christian ministry being a priestly ministry is supported by St. Paul himself when he contrasts the Eucharist to the "altar of demons" in 1Cor 10:21-

St Paul doesn't say that we Christians have NO sacrifice, but instead that we cannot partake of both the sacrifices to idols and the Eucharist. The implication is that the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. (See my piece on the Eucharist and Passover elsewhere on this web site).

St Paul himself describes his own ministry as a priesthood:

If St Paul considers himself to be a priest, anyone who DENIES that "Christian" ministry is a priestly ministry has rebuked and disowned St. Paul!

a) The priesthood of the Bible was an old testament covenant, and was only for a specific Jewish people, the Levites.

The LEVITICAL priesthood belonged to the OT, but Jesus was a MELCHISEDEK type priest. These are 2 different types of priesthood. It is the latter that Christian ministers participate in. As St Paul said:

No one quarrels with the notion that Jesus was a priest. What did Jesus himself say about his ordained ministers?

Literally in the greek, what Jesus says was "As the Father APOSTLED me, so I LIKEWISE SEND you." This is why the chief disciples of Jesus are called Apostles: they have been sent by Christ in the same way that he was sent by the Father. If Jesus was sent as a priest to intercede for the nations before God, so are his ordained ministers and the Bible supports this..

b) Priests do not have the power to forgive sin (1 John 1:9).

Let us actually see what Scripture says here:

To whom are the sins to be confessed? If we go to John's gospel we have the answer from Jesus himself:

Who does he say this to? The ELEVEN Apostles.

Furthermore we have James 5:

Sure looks like the ELDERS of the Church DO forgive sins, doesn't it? And confession? Obviously you have to confess a sin to have it forgiven. Put it together.

c) Paul says in his letters that celibacy is an option. To make this a standard is completely unbiblical, and puts too much pressure on those who may not have the gift to be that way

Really? Let's see what St Paul REALLY says:

St Paul says nothing about celibacy being "optional." He says that he wants every unmarried person to STAY unmarried like him. It is almost as if he were COUNSELLING people that it is better to be unmarried than married and that marriage is a concession made to WEAK brethren, not to those who are strong in the Lord. Where did St Paul get this idea?

So I guess JESUS was the one who INSISTED on such single minded devotion. It is true that not all Christians are called to celibacy but only those who in Jesus' words are willing to "make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:12)

(I am sure you have read the reports of intense sexual sin thought the RC priesthood).

And I am sure you have heard of the disgraceful conduct of Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker and Billy Hargis to name but a few prots. What is that supposed to prove? That all prot ministers are lechers? I don't think so. Most ministers in ALL religious groups are godly men who live up to the standards of their calling by the grace of God. There are only a handful of priests among thousands who have been involved in such things. You should never judge the many based on the sins of the few.

Celibate priests were originally found in Egyptian cults as well as ancient Buddhism.

Jesus and St Paul were celibate. The Bible calls them both priests. Are you now accusing my Lord and Savior of being an Egyptian or a Buddhist? What about St. Paul? This is nothing but the lowest form of slander and I rebuke this person in the name of Christ for arguing this way.

Here is an excerpt from Loraine Boettner's classic reference book Roman Catholicism. Here is a section from Chapter 3, The Priesthood (pp. 47).

Lorraine Boettner's book is pure trash. It is filled with lies, innuendoes, unsubstantiated rumors, and outright slander. The quote given demonstrates the poor caliber of Boettner's work. I have already substantially refuted what he said above. No further comment is necessary except to say that I wish that serious controversialists would put Boettner's book in the trash where it belongs.

(An enlightening article that appeared in the Chicago Lutheran Theological Seminary Record, July, 1952, somewhat abbreviated has this to say about the priesthood:

All of this is irrelevant. As we have shown, no one ever claimed that the NT ordained minister was a Jewish Aaronic priest. We have no idea as to whether any of the Apostles would have qualified as Jewish priests. Jesus would certainly not have qualified, yet we all agree that he was a priest. Jesus never called himself a priest and if it were not for Hebrews, none of the rest NT would have referered to him as a priest either. Jesus was a different kind of priest "according to the order of Melchisedech." This type of priest is chosen directly by God independent of Jewish criteria. Like Melchisadech, this type of priest offers "bread and wine" as his only sacrificial offering (Genesis 14:18). The notion of Christian priesthood is inherent in the idea of Christian ministry itself because the Christian minister represents Christ to his congregation and to the world. Since Christ was a priest, his ministers in like fashion minister in a priestly way to their congregations. As such the Christian minister mediates in a special way between God and man bringing the Gospel and its benefits to the world. It is this which is the essence of Christian priesthood, not merely some ritual actions.

There is not anywhere in the NT the shadow of an allusion to a Christian priest in the ordinary sense of the word, that is, a man qualified as over against others not qualified for the special function of offering sacrifices, making priestly intercessions, or performing any other act which only a priest can perform.

We have already shown above that this is a lie. Nothing more needs to be said.

The epistle to the Hebrews attributed both priesthood and High priesthood to Christ and to Him alone.

This is a lie. Jesus is NEVER referred to having both "priesthood and high priesthood." He is always referred to in Hebrews only as "high priest" (except in Hebrews 10:21 where he is referred to as "a great priest over the house of God" which is a title reserved for only the high priest. Hebrews never says anywhere that there is no Christian priesthood UNDER the high priesthood of Jesus. In fact it implies that there is such a priesthood in Hebrews 13:10 when speaking of the Eucharist.

The argument of the epistle not only indicates that a Christian priesthood was unknown to the writer, but that such a priesthood is unallowable. It is to Jesus only that Christians look to a priest. He has performed perfectly and permanently the function of a priest for all believers. His priesthood, being perfect and eternal, renders a continuous human priesthood both needless and anachronistic."

I reiterate, Jesus is called HIGH PRIEST in Hebrews and is never depicted as having replaced all of the functions of the OT priesthood by his death on the cross. OT priests performed other rituals besides sacrifices for sin. They taught the people and were spiritual advisors (Judges 17:10). They heard confessions of sins (Numbers 5:5-10, Leviticus 5:5-6). They blessed the people at the festivals (Numbers 6:23-27) and performed other duties in upholding the religion of YHWH which had nothing to do with sacrifices. Even prot ministers assume a "priestly" role before their congregations. While practice varies from prot cult to prot cult, there is usually some type of ordination and a separation of powers reserved to the ordained. To deny that this is "priestly" is pure hypocrisy. The historic Christian CATHOLIC Church has always seen her ministers as priests from the very beginning and the scriptures support this. It is only extra-biblical scruples and the frank importation of pagan Gnostic ideas that led the prot Deformers to deny the priestly nature of Christian ministry. I pray that they will eschew their error and confess that they have sinned against the Holy Spirit.