The Superpowers of the Priesthood

One of the seven Sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church is that of Holy Orders. Bishops perform this sacrament by laying hands on an ordinand, ordaining him to the priesthood, and bestowing powers and authority unique to that position. These include the authority to baptize, ridding the infant of original sin; the power to consecrate the Eucharist, turning the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus; and the responsibility to hear confessions, either absolving or refusing to absolve Catholics of their sins.

These unique spiritual powers and exclusive functions grant a priest serving even the smallest parish in the most remote corner of the world greater power and authority than any other man on earth. A president can rule a nation, a general can send an entire army into battle, a judge can sentence a man to death, but according to Catholic teaching, a priest has power over a person’s soul and can determine their eternal destiny. Unless a Catholic submits to the various functions that only a priest performs, they are destined for eternal torment from which there is no escape.

Sacerdotalism

A religious system in which a person seeking salvation must depend on a priest acting as mediator between themselves and God is called “sacerdotalism.” It is the “ism” upon which all of Catholicism is based. Within Roman Catholicism, a priest’s role in a person’s salvation is so central and necessary that no Catholic can enter Heaven without him. This is because the Catholic Church has declared every Catholic priest to be Christ’s representative on earth.

In the Church’s eyes, submitting to a priest means submitting to Christ, and failing to submit means rejecting Christ. This mediatorial role is said to remain intact, and the functions he performs are held to be still valid, even if he is secretly and regularly engaged in immoral and degenerate behavior.

Seeking Biblical Evidence

Anyone truly serious about living and dying according to biblical truth must be willing to ask whether this priestly role upon which they must rely for salvation actually exists, and whether Scripture supports the idea that the power to consecrate and to grant or withhold absolution has been given to a fellow sinner, even if and when he is a secretly depraved and unrepentant sinner wearing a Roman collar.

Given the central role a priest plays in a Catholic’s eternal destiny, it is at least fair to ask how and when these presumed men of God were given so much authority over another person’s soul. More narrowly, where in the Bible, and specifically the New Testament, is there evidence of a need for a mediator between God and man other than Jesus, especially when it comes to receiving God’s forgiveness?

According to Catholic doctrine, a priest’s authority to absolve the truly penitent and withhold absolution from those they deem impenitent began with the apostles and is conferred through apostolic succession. Apostolic succession is the Roman Catholic belief that bishops, including those who later become cardinals and popes, belong to an uninterrupted line of authority tracing back to the original apostles. Theoretically, this line of succession has continued through the centuries and is conferred when a bishop ordains a priest to the episcopacy by laying on of hands.

In the sacrament of Holy Orders, a bishop bestows upon a priest the authority to baptize infants, consecrate the elements, and absolve sinners who personally confess their sins to him. He fulfills all these functions and responsibilities, as the Catholic Church describes it, “in the person of Christ,” regardless of his own spiritual or moral state.

Only through active, ongoing participation in each of these sacraments throughout their lives can a Catholic hope for salvation. Even then, a Catholic must first endure suffering in Purgatory before they can enter the gates of Heaven. This being the case, access to what only a priest can provide by way of the sacraments is of eternal necessity. According to Catholicism, “whosoever” can “believeth in Him” all they want, but without a priest and his sacraments, they shall in fact perish and never have eternal life.

The Authority to Forgive or Retain

After the resurrection, the unique authority to grant or to withhold forgiveness was granted to the apostles by Jesus in John 20:23: “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they shall have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they shall have been retained.” Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom along with the authority and responsibility to “bind or loose,” both of which are entire topics in and of themselves. Only after the resurrection did Jesus give the other apostles the authority to forgive or to retain. This difference in timing supports the notion that these responsibilities differed greatly in purpose and scope.

Though both concerned church governance, each served two distinct purposes crucial to the establishment and continued health of the first-century church. While binding and loosing referred to who could enter the kingdom of God from the outside, forgiving or retaining gave the apostles responsibility for exercising church discipline among those who were already within the Christian community.

In Matthew 5:20, Jesus stated, “I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Those who claimed to follow Jesus needed to show a righteousness that far exceeded that of the Pharisees, whose strict adherence to Old Testament moral, civil, and ceremonial laws, along with many other laws they had added, was shallow and self-serving rather than genuine and heartfelt. Christian standards, by contrast, needed to reflect Christ’s character, the examples he set, and the words he spoke during his time on earth. These character standards included his personal purity and holiness, his provision for those in spiritual and material need, and the grace and mercy he showed not only to his disciples but even to his enemies.

When Jesus granted the apostles the authority to forgive or retain, he tasked them with establishing the Church’s ethical standards and upholding them while the Christian Church was being founded. They were to uphold them by practicing church discipline and recording them in writing for future generations.

With this charge, Jesus was not referring to sins for which Christians could receive forgiveness by confessing directly to God. Their responsibility to forgive or retain was intended for individuals within the church who had fallen into habitual and open sin, or doctrinal error that would negatively affect others in the church. They were granted the authority to decide when to publicly forgive those who had genuinely repented of sin and error, and when to publicly excommunicate those who continued in sin without repentance and remorse. As with Peter, they reached their decisions only after prayerfully relying on the Holy Spirit to reveal to them what had already been determined in Heaven concerning the wayward individual.

An example of this took place in the Church at Corinth when it became known to Paul that the church had been guilty of complicity by failing to deal with a man who was having an illicit relationship with his stepmother. Paul took the church to task for not confronting the individual, thus allowing him to continue participating as though his lifestyle was acceptable. Instead, they were to expel him from the church, thereby “handing him over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord,” as Paul described it.

Paul’s admonition to take such action, which they did, and his depiction of this event in the New Testament reveal the steps he took to fulfill his duty as an apostle: establishing and maintaining biblical standards and doing so in writing so future generations would know how to handle similar situations.

Some Questions

By giving the apostles this responsibility and authority to forgive and retain sins at the outset of the Church’s founding, did Jesus intend to create a situation in which an earthly intermediary would be required whenever forgiveness was needed? Was Jesus establishing a new sacrament that required at least monthly participation to receive and maintain their own salvation? Did the apostles hear confessions, provide absolutions, and assign penances? If so, did they lay hands on their successors, passing these same responsibilities and authority on to the next generation? Finally, where is evidence in the New Testament of a priesthood being established to serve in this central role without which there can be no salvation?

The Rise of the Catholic Priesthood

Beginning with the last question, where is the New Testament evidence of celibate men having this divine authority and unique functions as priests?

Old Testament priests were a separate class of men from the tribe of Levi, responsible for spiritual leadership, performing religious rituals, and maintaining the tabernacle and later the temple. Their main function was to carry out the various sacrifices God required on the people’s behalf. Daily sacrifices were necessary to atone for sins; without them, there was no forgiveness. Most Levitical priests assisted a smaller group of Aaronic priests (descendants of Aaron) who performed the sacrifices.

During the Old Testament, Levitical priests’ duties were necessary and provided what God’s people needed for forgiveness. However, the New Testament clearly reveals that, with Jesus’ once-and-for-all sacrifice, animal sacrifices are no longer necessary, and the responsibilities and functions of the Old Testament priesthood have ended. Therefore, the priesthood’s role and office have ceased.

This is why neither the historical book of Acts nor the epistles mention any Levitical type of priesthood connected with the establishment of the Christian Church. Instead, the New Testament lists leadership using three Greek terms, each with a slightly different emphasis: presbuteros (elder), episkopos (overseer), and poimēn (pastor/shepherd). Nowhere does the word for priest, hiereus, appear as an office in reference to church leadership.

Presbyters, or teaching elders, were not called priests until the late second and early third centuries, when various other deviations from the New Testament began to take shape. During this period, for instance, the theologian Tertullian of Carthage laid the foundation for what would later be affirmed as the doctrine of Purgatory, for which there is no biblical evidence, yet it eventually became official Church dogma at the Council of Lyons in 1274.

At this same time, theologians began formulating the doctrine of transubstantiation, which, after centuries of acceptance, the Council of Trent eventually affirmed in 1543. This second-century teaching on the Eucharist went far beyond the apostolic era’s understanding of Christ’s spiritual presence in the sacrament, holding instead that the consecration of the bread and wine effected a real transformation of those elements into the actual body and blood of Jesus.

Then, men such as Origen (185-254) and Cyprian (200-258) went further, describing the sacrament as a “eucharistic sacrifice.” This new understanding of the Eucharist as a reoffering of Christ’s sacrifice led to the belief that it needed to be performed to atone for everyday sins. This was one of the central reasons why weekly Mass became mandatory, and participation in the Eucharist necessary. It was, and still is, required so that the sins of all those in attendance will be forgiven through the reoffering of Christ’s actual body and blood as a sacrifice of atonement.

This view of the Eucharist as an actual sacrifice essentially turned the Christian Church into a New Testament form of Judaism in which daily and weekly sacrifices were necessary; only instead of sacrificing animals, it was the reoffering of the body and blood of Jesus as an unbloody sacrifice that atoned for sins.

It is no surprise, then, that this new teaching on the nature of the Eucharist required a New Testament priesthood similar to the Old Testament priesthood to consecrate the elements and transform them into the actual body and blood of Jesus. Thus, the Roman Catholic form of sacerdotalism and the central role a priest plays in a believer’s salvation were established and remain so today. Lost in this new belief regarding the Eucharist was the biblical truth that Jesus’ once-and-for-all sacrifice was sufficient to pay for the sins of all who would trust in him for salvation. Just as there is absolutely no need to reoffer his sacrifice, so there is no need for a priest pretending to turn the elements into the body and blood of Jesus.

One can believe in a mystical presence of Christ within the sacrament, as Anglicans, Lutherans, and Presbyterians do, without buying into the false notion that the bread and wine actually become Christ’s body and blood that needs to be reoffered daily and weekly.

When challenged on this teaching, Roman Catholic clergy immediately appeal to the early Church Fathers who first developed and wrote in support of this sacrificial view. And since the writings of the Church Fathers are beyond what most Catholics would endeavor to study or comprehend, Catholic clergy simply expect the faithful to take their word for it that everything the Church Fathers believed and taught was true.

Roman Catholic clergy never encourage Catholics to try to understand the Bible on their own, or to rely solely on it for truth, since, in their minds, the actual truth is found in what was written during the centuries that followed the apostles’ writings. However, the teachings of the early Church Fathers do not take precedence over divinely inspired Scripture, which does not support the view that the Eucharist is a reoffering of the actual body and blood of Jesus.

The Eucharist is indeed a sacrament in which Christ is spiritually present and therefore spiritually strengthening, but it is not a reoffering of his actual body and blood as a sacrifice of atonement. As our dying Savior declared from the cross, “It is finished,” his sacrificial atonement is complete and need not be offered up again and again.

Unfortunately, it is this deeply held belief in transubstantiation, in the need for a sacrificial reoffering, and in the absolute necessity of a priest to consecrate the elements that keeps Catholics devoted to the Catholic Church despite the moral decadence that was and likely still is rampant among this priestly class of celibate men. Despite the lack of evidence for the existence of such an office within the New Testament, Catholics continue to rely on the priesthood for salvation rather than on Christ himself.

Who Is a Priest?

This does not mean priests no longer exist within the Christian Church; they do. In 1 Peter 2:5, Peter wrote, “You also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” In verse 9, Peter restates this truth concerning the priesthood of all believers: “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.”

In Romans 12:1, Paul wrote, “Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.” Taken together, these verses clearly reveal that, within the New Testament economy, the priesthood is no longer limited to a particular tribe of men. Rather, every believer is now a priest called to offer themselves as “living sacrifices.”

As members of the body of Christ, we are all called to serve as priests by sacrificing and offering our lives in service to Christ, by learning and proclaiming the truth to a lost world, and by interceding in prayer for those in spiritual or earthly need.

As for the Sacrament of Reconciliation itself, since there is no such thing as a Levitical type of New Testament priesthood, there is no need to confess one’s private sins to a fellow sinner wearing a collar and claiming the right to hear them. The man on the other side of the screen has no right to demand a fellow sinner’s confession, nor does he possess the power or authority to grant or deny absolution.

Unless a priest is capable of looking into a person’s heart to determine the truthfulness of their confession, unless he is able to detect the presence of true sorrow and remorse, and unless he can determine one’s genuine intention to turn away from that sin, he has no business declaring a sinner absolved of their sins. In fact, each time a priest tells an insincere confessor their sins are forgiven, he is misrepresenting God and telling the participant a lie. Only God can perceive true remorse and repentance, so only God can forgive.

The entire belief system built around the Sacrament of Reconciliation is a total fabrication based on a lack of understanding of the responsibilities and powers originally granted to the apostles during the initial establishment of the Christian Church. It was never intended as a sacrament in which every Christian must participate on a regular basis in order to receive God’s forgiveness and eventually enter heaven.

The Sacrament of Reconciliation is merely one of many false doctrines and practices introduced centuries after the Church’s founding by purported apostolic successors; it was never practiced in the apostolic church, even among those originally given the authority to forgive or retain.

Adding to the Gospel

Like the Judaizers of the first century who sought to add the ritual of circumcision to the gospel of grace as a requirement for church membership, which the apostles rejected, Catholicism has gradually added rituals while claiming them to be necessary for salvation. Such requirements only obscure the true gospel, creating much doubt and confusion while robbing people of assurance of eternal life through faith in Christ and his work alone. That being the case, this false sacrament

should be viewed and outright rejected as an extra-biblical (outside the Bible) doctrine and totally unwarranted practice, not the least bit necessary for salvation.

The truth is, those who rely on their own righteousness, their own works, and faithful performance of religious rituals are outside of Christ and have no forgiveness of sin, regardless of whether they have confessed to a priest and been absolved.

But for those who reject the false notion that salvation comes through personal merit and religious observances, and instead trust fully in Christ’s work alone, no priest, inside or outside a confessional box, is ever needed. For those who have placed their faith solely in the work of Christ, all that is required is genuine remorse and a belief in what the apostle John wrote in 1 John 1:9: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

Summation

Although the priesthood played a central and necessary role under the Old Testament sacrificial system, the sacerdotalism upon which the Roman Catholic Church is built is neither biblical nor necessary, despite the Catholic Church’s claim that it is.

Sacerdotalism has done nothing but create a group of men who have neither the calling nor the power to perform the functions the Church portrays as necessary for salvation. Unfortunately, all it has done has been to create a protected class of men who enter the priesthood often for reasons that are far from spiritual in nature, resulting in the worst types of behind-the-scenes, scandalous behavior, the spoiling of youth for hundreds of thousands, and the destruction of their lives. As the apostle Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.” No priest is needed for the reoffering of Jesus, nor for the forgiveness of our sins to take place. The only priest needed is Jesus, our great high priest, who makes us all priests through faith in his obedient life, his once-and-for-all sacrificial death, and his victorious resurrection.