Tu Es Sacerdos In Aeternum

[amarkich]

A protestant's discussion with me. He is red. I am blue. Any help--I am not sure if I know what he's asking... and if I did, I probably don't know how to answer this anyway... seems like they always pick the most obscure areas to discuss...

[color=red]Since the topic of late is Eucharist, could you give me the Catholic perspective on the following Bible verses: Heb 5:6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek. Psalms 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

So, the Bible relates that Yahushua is a priest in the Order of Melchizedek (Melchizedek translates from Hebrew: King of Righteousness) How is this order viewed from the Catholic perspective and how does Melchizedek's bread and wine relate to the "Passover meal" last supper?[/color]

[color=blue]I wrote a response, but it got deleted. Basically, what you quoted: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchizedek (Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek) is something used not only for Christ but for all those whom Christ (and later, the Church) ordain as Priests of God (Sacerdos Dei). Melchizedek is a figure of the new Priest, as he offered bread and wine, which the Priests of our time also do, but in a new and better way, by transforming them into the Body and Blood of Christ. The New Covenant is superior to the Old, just as Christ is the "new Adam", and superior to him, so also is the new Priesthood, established by Christ Himself, superior to the priesthood of the Jews. (Also, Christ being the "new Adam" of the New Covenant, Mary is the "new Eve", also superior to the first Eve, therefore, She, too, consequently, is free from sin, as Eve was originally). In any event, I wrote more in my last post, but that is the basic connection. I could find an article that goes more in-depth and explains the prefigurement of the Old Testament compared to the New in a better manner, but I will leave it at this for now. This subject is not exactly something that is necessary for everyone. I don't think it is discussed much outside of theology courses (how Melchizedek prefigures the new Priesthood, of which Christ is High Priest). Christ ordained more men to continue to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass so that it would continue after He ascended into Heaven. (The Priest who offers Mass acts: in persona Christi [in the person of Christ], as a mediator between the people of God and Christ.) For more information about the narture of the Sacrifice of the Mass: [url="http://scribblinscratch.blogspot.com/"]http://scribblinscratch.blogspot.com/[/url] (read the entry on the left side: "For Mr. Phipps"). God bless.

Matthew [/color]

[color=red]But the question I think I was asking was: How does the Order, I emphasize Order, of Melchizedek figure into the Catholic understanding of Eucharist?

How does the Order of Melchizedek relate to Mary's sinfulness or lack thereof? How does the Order of Melchizedek relate to the superiority of the Brit Chadasha over the Tanach?[/color]

Thanks.

[CatholicCrusader]

That is from me...

[cmotherofpirl]

You make sense, but he doesn't ,unless he is setitng you up.

[cmotherofpirl]

Sorry I am holding a cat.
He sounds like he has something up his sleeve and going to pounce on you with some tidbit.

[cmotherofpirl]

Check this out:
[url="http://www.worldlightfellowship.org/theorder.htm"]http://www.worldlightfellowship.org/theorder.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.ruidoso.net/melchizedek/order_of_melchizedek.htm"]http://www.ruidoso.net/melchizedek/order_of_melchizedek.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.ica.org.au/1priest.html"]http://www.ica.org.au/1priest.html[/url]

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Aug 4 2004, 06:47 PM'] Check this out:
[url="http://www.worldlightfellowship.org/theorder.htm"]http://www.worldlightfellowship.org/theorder.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.ruidoso.net/melchizedek/order_of_melchizedek.htm"]http://www.ruidoso.net/melchizedek/order_of_melchizedek.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.ica.org.au/1priest.html"]http://www.ica.org.au/1priest.html[/url] [/quote]
cmom, did you go to these links? the first two are New-Agey, and the third one is anti-catholic.

just a heads up

[CatholicCrusader]

Yes, I was just about to say that... the very first line of the third one says it is not Catholic.

[Aloysius]

i think CMOM was tryin to show you what this guy might have up his sleeve.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Aug 4 2004, 06:31 PM']But the question I think I was asking was:  How does the Order, I emphasize Order, of Melchizedek figure into the Catholic understanding of Eucharist?[/quote]
by the "order" of Melchizedek it is meant that he is not of the priesthood of Aaron. the article on Melchizedek at NewAdvent explains the significance of this (i have taken the liberty of highlighting particular passages):

[quote][url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10156b.htm"][b]Melchisedech[/b][/url]

[Gr. [i]Melchisedek[/i], from the Hebrew meaning "King of righteousness (Gesenius)] was King of Salem (Gen. xiv, 18-20) who, on Abraham's return with the booty taken from the four kings, "bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God, blessed him", and received from him "the tithes of all" (v. 20). Josephus, with many others, identifies Salem with Jerusalem, and adds that Melchisedech "supplied Abram's army in a hospitable manner, and gave them provisions in abundance. . .and when Abram gave him the tenth part of his prey, he accepted the gift" (Ant., I, x, 2). Cheyne says "it is a plausible conjecture that he is a purely fictitious personage" (Encyc. Bib., s.v.), which "plausible conjecture" Kaufmann, however, rightly condemns (Jew. Encyc., s.v.). The Rabbins identified Melchisedech with Sem, son of Noe, rather for polemic than historic reasons, since they wished to set themselves against what is said of him as a type of Christ "without father, without mother, without genealogy" (Heb., vii, 3). In the Epistle to the Hebrews the typical character of Melchisedech and its Messianic import are fully explained. Christ is "a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech" (Heb., vii, 6; Ps., cix, 4); "a high priest forever", etc (Heb., vi, 20), i.e. order or manner (Gesenius), not after the manner of Aaron. The Apostle develops his teaching in Heb., vii: Melchisedech was a type by reason

[b]--of his twofold dignity as priest and king,
--by reason of his name, "king of justice",
--by reason of the city over which he ruled, "King of Salem, that is, king of peace" (v. 2), and also
--because he "without father without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened unto the Son of God, continueth a priest forever." (v. 3).[/b]

The silence of Scripture about the facts of Melchisedech's birth and death was part of the divine plan to make him [b]prefigure more strikingly the mysteries of Christ's generation, the eternity of His priesthood.[/b] Abraham, patriarch and father of nations, paid tithes to Melchisedech and received his blessing. This was all the more remarkable since [b]the priest-king was a stranger, to whom he was not bound to pay tithes, as were the children of Israel to the priests of the Aaronic line.[/b] [b]Abraham, therefore, and Levi "in the loins of his father" (Heb. vii, 9), by acknowledging his superiority as a type of Christ (for personally he was not greater than Abraham), thereby confessed the excellence of Christ's priesthood.[/b] Neither can it be fairly objected that Christ was in the loins of Abraham as Levi was, and paid tithes to Melchisedech; for, though descended from Abraham, he had no human father, but was conceived by the Holy Ghost. In the history of Melchisedech St. Paul says nothing about the bread and wine which the "priest of the most High" offered, and on account of which his name is placed in the Canon of the Mass. The scope of the Apostle accounts for this; for [b]he wishes to show that the priesthood of Christ was in dignity and duration superior to that of Aaron[/b], and therefore, since it is not what Melchisedech offered, but rather the other circumstances of his priesthood which belonged to the theme, they alone are mentioned.[/quote]

how does this figure into the Catholic understanding of Eucharist? well, here is my understanding. Melchizedek "contueth a priest forever." in his only recorded act as priest he is giving bread and wine to the Father (Abraham, the "father of all nations"). thus, we have in this action as priest a prefigurement of the Catholic ministerial priesthood, in which the Church continually offers bread and wine (as a sacrifice) to the Father (God). so, this figures into our understanding of the Eucharist in that it attests to the perpetual nature of the sacrifice of the Mass, the forever giving of bread and wine (body and blood) to the Father in Heaven.

[quote]How does the Order of Melchizedek relate to Mary's sinfulness or lack thereof?[/quote]
i think this question shows that he misunderstood why you mentioned Mary in your response to him. you mention Mary as sinless and the New Eve just to give examples of other prefigurements in catholic theology, but it appears he thought you were trying to make some direct connection between the Order of Melchizedek and Mary's sinfulness. so, you may want to just clear that up real quick.

[quote]How does the Order of Melchizedek relate to the superiority of the Brit Chadasha over the Tanach?[/quote]
i have no idea what he is talking about here.

i hope this helps........pax christi,
phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

David Armstrong, in A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, has this to say on the subject:

[quote]The theme of the Epistle to the Hebrews is Christ as our High Priest. As such, the "priestly" verses are very numerous (for example, 2:17, 3:1, 4:14-16, 5:1-10, 6:20, 7:1-28, 8:1-6, 9:11-15, 24-28, 10:19-22). The teaching here acquires much more meaning within Catholic Eucharistic theology, whereas, in evangelical, non-sacramental Protestant interpretation, it is necessarily "spiritualized" away. For nearly all Protestants, Jesus Christ is a Priest only insofar as He dies sacrificially as the "Lamb" and does away with the Old Testament notion of animal sacrifice. This is not false but it is a partial truth. Generally speaking, for the Catholic, there is much more of a sense of the ever-present Sacrifice of Calvary, due to the nature of the Mass, rather than considering the Cross a past even alone.
    In light of the repeated references in Hebrews to Melchizedek as the prototype of Christ's priesthood (5:6,10, 6:20, 7:1-3,17,20), it follows that this priesthood is perpetual (for ever), not one time only. For no one would say, for example, that Christ is King (present tense) if in fact He were only King for a short while in the past. This (Catholic) interpretation is borne out by explicit evidence in Hebrews 7:24-25:

He holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

    If Jesus perpetually intercedes for us, why should He not also permanently present Himself as Sacrifice to His Father? The connecting word, consequently, appears to affirm this scenario. The very notion, fundamental to all strains of Christian theology, that the Cross and the Blood are efficacious here and now for the redemption of sinners, presupposes a dimension of "presentness" to the Atonement.
    Granting that premise, it only remains to deny that God could, would, or should truly and actually re-present this one Sacrifice in the Mass. God certainly can do this, since He is omnipotent. He wills to do this because Jesus commanded the observance of the Lord's Supper (Luke 22:19). Lastly, one can convincingly contend that He should do this in order to graphically "bring home" to Christians His Passion, Crucifixion, and Resurrection, and to impart grace in a real and profound way in Communion. The One Propitiatory Atonement of Calvary is a past event, but the appropriation of its spiritual benefits to Christians is an ongoing process, in which the Mass plays a central role.
    The Sacrifice of the Mass, like the Real Presence in the Eucharist, is an extension of the Incarnation. Accordingly, there is no rational a priori objection (under monotheistic premises) to the concept of God transcending time and space in order to present Himself to His disciples. Nor is there any denying that the Sacrifice of Calvary is always present to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, God the Son. How then, can anyone deny that God could make the Cross sacramentally present to us as well?[/quote]

his analysis, as usual, is quite helpful.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

these articles are also helpful:

--[url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0357.html"]A Priest of God Most High[/url]
--[url="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004_03_28_socrates58_archive.html#108078142219032685"]A Comparative Exegesis of Hebrews 8 / Sacrifice of the Mass: Dave Armstrong vs. James White[/url]
--[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/ntpriest.htm"]The Office of New Testament Priest[/url]

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 4 2004, 11:25 PM'] i think CMOM was tryin to show you what this guy might have up his sleeve. [/quote]
Yep.
I think he is going to try to link the Church to some of these groups, remember they claim to be 4000 years old.

[phatcatholic]

amarkich..............did you get the answers you were looking for?

keep us updated on this convo

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Cure of Ars]

I could be wrong but I think there could be confusion about the word “order”.

The word order in the Hebrew used in Ps 110 is used more as in “manner” instead of a formal group like the Franciscan order.



[quote]Lexicon Results for dibrah (Strong's 01700)

1) cause, manner, reason
[/quote]

[url="http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1091762080-4789.html"]http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/wor...62080-4789.html[/url]


What I'm guess he is asking if Catholic priest are in the order of Melchizedek like the priests in the OT were of the line of Aaron. But this is not the case because order is used as in manner not a formal group.

Edited August 6, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[phatcatholic]

i just noticed this post.................good call, cure