Does the bible prohibit a woman from being a "pastor"?

Hey Kidron,

No the Bible does NOT prohibit a woman from being a pastor. I'm talking about pastor, not other roles of leadership taught in the NT.
Ephesians 4:11-12 says; And it was He(Jesus) who gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, [sup]12 [/sup]to equip the saints for the work of ministry, to build up the body of Christ.
As Jesus gave no instructions for this office and as Paul didn't wither, then there is NOTHING in the NT that prohibits women from being a pastor.

answered by a staff member of Catholic Answers

Stan,the reason that women are not to be ordained is because they are not men. Sounds politically incorrect, doesn’t it? But the fact is that God created men to be men and women to be women. When God chose to incarnate, he did not just choose to become a human being; he chose to become a man. Just as he chose to incarnate into a specific time, place, people, family, and woman, so he chose to become a specific human being, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5). Thus, those human beings who serve as priests in the person of Christ are men and not women.
This shocking particularity of God is not limited to choosing men to become priests. To demonstrate this to proponents of women’s ordination, you might turn the question around and ask them what it is about men that makes them unfit to bear children. Surely a man is just as physically strong as a woman and psychologically and emotionally capable of the demands of giving birth. Surely he is not inferior to a woman. Isn’t it unfair to men that only women can have babies?
This line of logic descends into absurdity, because women having children is a natural fact of life, something easily seen and understood. To shake one’s fist at the heavens and demand equal rights for men to give birth is to rail against the natural order. At that point you can establish that men being priests is a supernatural fact of life, and to object to it is to object to the supernatural order. The fact that the supernatural order cannot be seen and is not as easily understood as the natural order does not mean that the supernatural order does not exist.

neophyte said:

answered by a staff member of Catholic Answers

Stan,the reason that women are not to be ordained is because they are not men. Sounds politically incorrect, doesn’t it? But the fact is that God created men to be men and women to be women. When God chose to incarnate, he did not just choose to become a human being; he chose to become a man. Just as he chose to incarnate into a specific time, place, people, family, and woman, so he chose to become a specific human being, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5). Thus, those human beings who serve as priests in the person of Christ are men and not women.
This shocking particularity of God is not limited to choosing men to become priests. To demonstrate this to proponents of women’s ordination, you might turn the question around and ask them what it is about men that makes them unfit to bear children. Surely a man is just as physically strong as a woman and psychologically and emotionally capable of the demands of giving birth. Surely he is not inferior to a woman. Isn’t it unfair to men that only women can have babies?
This line of logic descends into absurdity, because women having children is a natural fact of life, something easily seen and understood. To shake one’s fist at the heavens and demand equal rights for men to give birth is to rail against the natural order. At that point you can establish that men being priests is a supernatural fact of life, and to object to it is to object to the supernatural order. The fact that the supernatural order cannot be seen and is not as easily understood as the natural order does not mean that the supernatural order does not exist.

Click to expand...

Like I said, no scripture exists that supports your assertion. The one scripture you do quote though,1 Tim 2:5, does indicate the the confessional mediator process that RC priests function in, is not supported by the Bible.

Hi Kidron,

Rachael Maddow would love your theology

Click to expand...

I've just read a little on Wikipedia about her and I want to assure you I had no idea before that, who she is. Also, I would like to assert that my openness to women obeying what God calls them to do, is based on my desire to see as many people as possible actually doing the Father's will.

But we are to '... consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is]; but exhorting [one another]:
and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. Hebrews 10


To take the responsibility of directing another person's life under God, is not expected in the New Covenant era:

Hebrews 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother,
saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.


Mark 3:33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.


1 Peter 1:13 - 17 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; as obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: but as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judges according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning [here] in fear:

Stan said:

Like I said, no scripture exists that supports your assertion. The one scripture you do quote though,1 Tim 2:5, does indicate the the confessional mediator process that RC priests function in, is not supported by the Bible.

Click to expand...

Stan,be careful now, have you read Lev 19:20-22, that verse is found in the Bible, isn't it ?

Now let's move on the NT here we see where Jesus also, besides dying on the Cross for our sins, actually verbally forgives sins,

, Jesus being the High Priest. We see Jesus forgives the paralyzed man in { Luke 6: 18-26 ] the woman taken in adultery [ John 8:1-11 ] the sinful woman [ Luke 7:39-50 ] and the good thief [ Luke 23:39-43 ]

Stan,then look into your Bible, we see Jesus passing on His power and authority to forgive sins to men [ John 20:23 ] back it up with [ Luke 10:16 ]

And of course Jesus wants His Apostles to pass on and give this power to other qualified "ordained men " ,[ Matt. 28: 18-20 ]

Jesus left His power in the Church [ His Church ] when He said : " Whose sins YOU shall forgive , they are forgiven " ------

" For what I have pardoned .... I have done it in the person of Christ [ 2nd Cor. 2:10 ]

Stan , why don't you think that Jesus [ God ] isn't powerful enough to have our sins forgiven by communicating His forgiveness through a priesthood?

neophyte said:

Stan,be careful now, have you read Lev 19:20-22, that verse is found in the Bible, isn't it ?

Now let's move on the NT here we see where Jesus also, besides dying on the Cross for our sins, actually verbally forgives sins,

, Jesus being the High Priest. We see Jesus forgives the paralyzed man in { Luke 6: 18-26 ] the woman taken in adultery [ John 8:1-11 ] the sinful woman [ Luke 7:39-50 ] and the good thief [ Luke 23:39-43 ]

Stan,then look into your Bible, we see Jesus passing on His power and authority to forgive sins to men [ John 20:23 ] back it up with [ Luke 10:16 ]

And of course Jesus wants His Apostles to pass on and give this power to other qualified "ordained men " ,[ Matt. 28: 18-20 ]

Jesus left His power in the Church [ His Church ] when He said : " Whose sins YOU shall forgive , they are forgiven " ------

" For what I have pardoned .... I have done it in the person of Christ [ 2nd Cor. 2:10 ]

Stan , why don't you think that Jesus [ God ] isn't powerful enough to have our sins forgiven by communicating His forgiveness through a priesthood?

Click to expand...

We are NOT subject to the Levitical Laws. They are Old Covenant. We along with ALL Jews, are under the New Covenant. The OC is obsolete and gone. I said scripture actually, but I'll clarify and say NT.

As Jesus is GOD, I see no reason why He should not forgive sin. I've dealt with these verses already in another thread you are on and am not in the habit of repeating myself. You can take it anyway you want, but the Bible doesn't contradict itself, "ONE MEDIATOR", is just what the Words means, ONE.
Acts 10:43
All the prophets testify about Him that everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name.”
Acts 13:38
“Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.
Ephesians 1:7
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace
Hebrews 9:14
How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

Accepting Jesus as our Saviour is all we need to do to have forgiveness of sins.

I'm afraid your assumptions are NOT supported even by the scriptures you try and use.

What you've done again with 2Cor 2:10 is take it OUT of it's proper context. The scripture there reads, If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you to some extent—not to put it too severely. [sup]6 [/sup]The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient. [sup]7 [/sup]Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. [sup]8 [/sup]I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him. [sup]9 [/sup]Another reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. [sup]10 [/sup]Anyone you forgive, I also forgive. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, [sup]11 [/sup]in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes.

In proper context, Jesus was saying in John 20:23 is in the same vein and what He said in Matthew 6:15;
Matthew 6:15
But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

This is for ALL people, NOT just the Apostles.

The reason Jesus doesn't do this is because it was the OC way...NOT the NC way. I'm sorry if you don't see the difference, but it is God's NEW way of doing things. ONE MEDIATOR. I suggest you read Heb 9 to understand exactly what Jesus did by shedding His blood. It is a redemptive process that is effectual and all we have to do is accept it and Him as our Saviour. That is salvation. That is the forgiveness of sins. You are trying to support an institution that is NOT supported by the NT. In a way it is very similar to the OT/OC priesthood, which Paul clearly says was NOT able to forgive sins.

Stan said:

We are NOT subject to the Levitical Laws. They are Old Covenant. We along with ALL Jews, are under the New Covenant. The OC is obsolete and gone. I said scripture actually, but I'll clarify and say NT.

As Jesus is GOD, I see no reason why He should not forgive sin. I've dealt with these verses already in another thread you are on and am not in the habit of repeating myself. You can take it anyway you want, but the Bible doesn't contradict itself, "ONE MEDIATOR", is just what the Words means, ONE.
Acts 10:43
All the prophets testify about Him that everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name.”
Acts 13:38
“Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.
Ephesians 1:7
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace
Hebrews 9:14
How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

Accepting Jesus as our Saviour is all we need to do to have forgiveness of sins.

I'm afraid your assumptions are NOT supported even by the scriptures you try and use.

What you've done again with 2Cor 2:10 is take it OUT of it's proper context. The scripture there reads, If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you to some extent—not to put it too severely. [sup]6 [/sup]The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient. [sup]7 [/sup]Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. [sup]8 [/sup]I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him. [sup]9 [/sup]Another reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. [sup]10 [/sup]Anyone you forgive, I also forgive. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, [sup]11 [/sup]in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes.

In proper context, Jesus was saying in John 20:23 is in the same vein and what He said in Matthew 6:15;
Matthew 6:15
But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

This is for ALL people, NOT just the Apostles.

The reason Jesus doesn't do this is because it was the OC way...NOT the NC way. I'm sorry if you don't see the difference, but it is God's NEW way of doing things. ONE MEDIATOR. I suggest you read Heb 9 to understand exactly what Jesus did by shedding His blood. It is a redemptive process that is effectual and all we have to do is accept it and Him as our Saviour. That is salvation. That is the forgiveness of sins. You are trying to support an institution that is NOT supported by the NT. In a way it is very similar to the OT/OC priesthood, which Paul clearly says was NOT able to forgive sins.

Click to expand...

Any interpretation we arrive at must not contradict what has already been defined as CHristian truth. That is why God gave the Church the power of defining things-to keep us from going wrong. We must be willing to submit our interpretations to the final judgment of Christ's Apostolic Church i.e Built on Apostles 1Cor.3:10; Eph.2:20;Authority of the Church Matt.16:18-19; Matt. 18:15-18; Jn. 20:23; Church contains the truth of the Christian Faith 1 Tim. 3:15

Exegetes and believers must not pit their private interpretation against the mind of the Church or treat your method of interpretation as the ultimate arbiter of what Scripture can or cannot mean[ this is what is meant by "private interpretation ]

neophyte said:

Any interpretation we arrive at must not contradict what has already been defined as CHristian truth. That is why God gave the Church the power of defining things-to keep us from going wrong. We must be willing to submit our interpretations to the final judgment of Christ's Apostolic Church i.e Built on Apostles 1Cor.3:10; Eph.2:20;Authority of the Church Matt.16:18-19; Matt. 18:15-18; Jn. 20:23; Church contains the truth of the Christian Faith 1 Tim. 3:15

Exegetes and believers must not pit their private interpretation against the mind of the Church or treat your method of interpretation as the ultimate arbiter of what Scripture can or cannot mean[ this is what is meant by "private interpretation ]

Click to expand...

You are NOW talking about the RC church my friend, which has done more over the centuries to blind people to the actual truth of the gospel than any others have. Our barometer of interpretation IS the Bible in ALL its context. God's Holy Spirit is what is meant to keep us from doing wrong. He uses conviction to guide us into ALL truth.
Paul teaches in Romans 8:14-17; For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. [sup]15 [/sup]The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” [sup]16 [/sup]The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. [sup]17 [/sup]Now if we are children, then we are heirs —heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

What you fail to admit or realize is that the HEAD of the Church is Christ, NOT any man. He is the only infallible One, NOT any man. The Church is NOT an institution, it IS the Body of Christ.
Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
Ephesians 5:24
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Ephesians 5:32
This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.
Colossians 1:18
And He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

To say God is NOT able to show us the truth of His word without an intermediary is to deny what the Bible says.

Kidron said:

The biography of Madame Jeanne Guyuon.


read.

That is my answer...







K




No one is "attacking" Christ's mother.
What we are doing is denying and highlighting 1500 years of false theology lies regarding Mary's position that have been created and espoused by the Roman Catholic church.

Try to understand the difference.




K

Click to expand...

Well the fact is a lot of Protestant fail to understand in depth, pushing a silly worldly position.
I would think you are coming across as just ignorant and like to push anything you can to prove a narrow minded and short sighted nasty view. and i hope you can do better than that.
I did not come down in the last shower and i am not a RC as i was a protestant to and know where you are coming from.
Looks like you are just building a wigwam for a gooses girdle.

Exactly when did this become a debate between RC's and Protestants?

The OP is about women being pastors, and as RC's don't have any, why are they protesting?

Stan said:

Exactly when did this become a debate between RC's and Protestants?

The OP is about women being pastors, and as RC's don't have any, why are they protesting?

Click to expand...

I once rejected the RCC position on why not woman and i thought it was some sort of prejudice but i have come to see the RCC view on all this is correct. and women could be a deacon etc i think, like a pastor position maybe.
The thing is now days we are all so worldly and full of Political correctness subhuman ego trash that we can't see the trees for the forest. Men want to be a woman for crying out loud and women are trying to be men, it's a sad joke to see such weakness of a mind twisted, surely the work of Satan.

MR ROSENBERGER said:

I once rejected the RCC position on why not woman and i thought it was some sort of prejudice but i have come to see the RCC view on all this is correct. and women could be a deacon etc i think, like a pastor position maybe.
The thing is now days we are all so worldly and full of Political correctness subhuman ego trash that we can't see the trees for the forest. Men want to be a woman for crying out loud and women are trying to be men, it's a sad joke to see such weakness of a mind twisted, surely the work of Satan.

Click to expand...

This is strictly a Biblical position and there is NO scripture that states a woman cannot be a pastor. I challenge you to find even ONE.

Hello Kidron,

I should have asked you why you brought up Rachel Maddow, because I didn't see why you mentioned her in the first place - even after reading about her. Now, to my mention of liberty to do the Father's will, you write

The biography of Madame Jeanne Guyuon.


read.

That is my answer...

Click to expand...

Your answer to what? - The scriptures I posted? Your idea of what a godly woman should look like?


Anyway, Stan's point that there is nothing in scripture to exclude a women from the call to be a pastor, does have some validity, to say nothing of the women in scripture who've exhibited a pastor's heart towards God people, Israel.


So, is your position based on the stance of your denomination, your personal opinion, or on scripture? If scripture, which verses clinch it for you, that if a woman thought God was calling her to be a 'pastor', you would be certain it was not God calling her?

Stan said:

This is strictly a Biblical position and there is NO scripture that states a woman cannot be a pastor. I challenge you to find even ONE.

Click to expand...

I did not say a woman could not be a pastor or a type of Deacon or that there contribution was any lower, but Christ made only men Priest and that is a natural order as Mary was not the Christ now was she. woman have a calling but it's not to be a Priest as this is sadly becomes a ego driven thing that worldly trendy people like to try walk all over and like the books say at the end of times there will be such people, just a mishmash of want to be's with no direction or hope.
I am not putting woman down, but raising them up to there true calling and this foolish position of thinking the Priest is above the Saints in the Church or all of his flock, is just typical of blind fools.

Hi MR ROSENBERGER,

. woman have a calling but it's not to be a Priest

Click to expand...

I'm interested in your use of the word 'Priest', because it sounds Roman or Anglican. Is it either of those?

Do you think of a 'priest' as being the same as a 'pastor'?


Lastly, what do you think of Peter reminding the Church of this prophecy? Do you think he was speaking only to men?

Exodus 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation...'

1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ....9 But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him [be] glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Revelation 5:10

dragonfly said:

Hi MR ROSENBERGER,



I'm interested in your use of the word 'Priest', because it sounds Roman or Anglican. Is it either of those?

Do you think of a 'priest' as being the same as a 'pastor'?


Lastly, what do you think of Peter reminding the Church of this prophecy? Do you think he was speaking only to men?

Exodus 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation...'

1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ....9 But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him [be] glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Revelation 5:10

Click to expand...

Exodus19: 6--
Kingdom of priests: inasmuch as the whole Israelite nation was consecrated to God in a special way, it formed a race of royal priests who participated in the liturgical sacrifices, and through the actual offering of the sacrifices was the extreme prerogative of the Aaronic priesthood. The same condition exists in the New Dispensation as regards the whole Christian people and the Christian priesthood in the strict sense- CF - Is. 61:6; Pt. 2:5. 9. Copied out of The New American Bible


Sorry, time doesn't permit me to answer your other verses , be back later to answer them.

MR ROSENBERGER said:

I did not say a woman could not be a pastor or a type of Deacon or that there contribution was any lower, but Christ made only men Priest and that is a natural order as Mary was not the Christ now was she. woman have a calling but it's not to be a Priest as this is sadly becomes a ego driven thing that worldly trendy people like to try walk all over and like the books say at the end of times there will be such people, just a mishmash of want to be's with no direction or hope.
I am not putting woman down, but raising them up to there true calling and this foolish position of thinking the Priest is above the Saints in the Church or all of his flock, is just typical of blind fools.

Click to expand...

Just exactly where in scripture, did Christ bring 'Priests' to the church?
Ephesians 4:11-13 shows the offices/ministries He DID bring to the Church. I don't see priests there.


I suggest you read Hebrews 7, that shows Christ is the LAST and our ONLY Priest and He is our High Priest in the order of Melchizedek. The priesthood ENDED with Jesus as He is the perfect priest and ONLY mediator between God and man, as Paul said in 1Tim 2:5.

Hi neophyte,

I do understand the difference between being a priest to God and a Priest in an earthly institution as MR ROSENBERGER seemed to mean.

First Peter 2 indicates that all Christians are priests—but it does not mention the existence of a ministerial priesthood. Indeed, the ordained ministers of the New Covenant are called apostles (cf. Eph. 4:11), presbyters (cf. Jas 5:14), bishops (cf. 1 Tm 3:1), and deacons (cf. 1 Tm 3:8ff), but never priests (Gk. hiereus). So how do Catholics demonstrate the existence of a ministerial priesthood distinct from the universal priesthood?
First of all, a careful reading of 1 Peter 2, verses 5 and 9 reveals a reference to Exodus 19:6: ". . . and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." This text from Exodus indicates a universal priesthood in the Old Testament. And yet, in Exodus 19:22, we read, "And also let the priests who come near to the Lord consecrate themselves . . . " In other words, a universal priesthood in the Old Covenant did not exclude the possibility of a distinct ministerial priesthood as well. It would be natural then to expect the same in the New Covenant. And indeed, that is precisely what we discover.
So I Send You

We should not be surprised that the noun "priest" (Gk. hiereus) was not used as a title for New Covenant ministers: This same term was used by the more numerous Jewish and even pagan priests of the first century (cf. Lk 1:8-9, Acts 14:13). Using different titles for New Covenant priests would be one way of distinguishing them. However, the verb form of hiereus is used for New Testament ministers. It is found when Paul speaks specifically of his ministry as an apostle, referring to it as a "priestly service": ". . . because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service (Gk. hierourgounta) of the gospel of God…" (Rom 15:15b-16a).
Here we see a central clue to the priestly nature of New Covenant ministers that becomes more and more telling as we traverse Scripture. New Covenant ministers reveal their essence as priests by their priestly functions. We do not find this priestly function ascribed to deacons, but we do in the cases of apostles, bishops, and "elders." In this brief analysis, we will only consider apostles and "elders."
In Scripture, we see our Lord definitively choosing and sending apostles to act as priests, or "mediators between God and men." For example, after the Resurrection, our Lord appears to the apostles and says to them: "‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (Jn 20:21-23).
Here, Jesus communicated the power to forgive and retain sins—just as he himself had done—to the apostles. This is a priestly ministry (see also Lv 19:21-22

Stan said:

Just exactly where in scripture, did Christ bring 'Priests' to the church?
Ephesians 4:11-13 shows the offices/ministries He DID bring to the Church. I don't see priests there.

So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, [sup]12 [/sup]to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up [sup]13 [/sup]until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. ​

I suggest you read Hebrews 7, that shows Christ is the LAST and our ONLY Priest and He is our High Priest in the order of Melchizedek. The priesthood ENDED with Jesus as He is the perfect priest and ONLY mediator between God and man, as Paul said in 1Tim 2:5.

Click to expand...

Stan, you misinterpret as do all the many sects, denominations and non-denominational Protestants, there are almost as many conflicting interpretations as there are Protestant minds. Man-made confusion, certainly not from God.The following will explain another of your misunderstood interpretations ,this time Hebrew 11- [ you should have listen to the Bible being read to you at every mass when you was a Catholic ] -

Hebrews 7:22-25 says: "This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant. The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever."
Millions of Protestants and members of various quasi-Christian sects see in this and similar texts "proof" that a Catholic understanding of the priesthood is false. After all, don’t Catholics claim to have priests who are "many in number?"
One Mediator, Two Priesthoods

The Protestant interpretation of Hebrews 7 is contradicted by 1 Peter 2:5-9. Peter says: "like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ . . . But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people . . ."
When Peter declares all Christians to be priests, he does not contradict Christ as our "one mediator between God and men," which is the definition of a priest (1 Tm 2:5). The Catholic Church affirms and harmonizes both texts and both concepts.
There are two keys to understanding Hebrews 7.

• Context: The inspired author is showing the superiority of Christ’s priesthood in contrast with the Old Covenant priesthood. He never denies the existence of a New Covenant priesthood.
• Distinction: Christians do not usurp or diminish the unique priesthood of Christ when they are made to be priests. Unlike Old Covenant priests, they participate in the one priesthood of Christ. So intimate is the union of the baptized with Christ that St. Paul describes it as a body (cf. Rom 12:5,1 Cor 12:12-27) with Christ as its head (cf. Eph 1:22-23). What can be attributed to a hand in the body does not somehow take away from the head. It is Christ who empowers all Christians to participate in his priesthood. Indeed, it is "Christ [and his priesthood] living in them" (cf. Gal 2:20).

First Peter 2 indicates that all Christians are priests—but it does not mention the existence of a ministerial priesthood. Indeed, the ordained ministers of the New Covenant are called apostles (cf. Eph. 4:11), presbyters (cf. Jas 5:14), bishops (cf. 1 Tm 3:1), and deacons (cf. 1 Tm 3:8ff), but never priests (Gk. hiereus). So how do Catholics demonstrate the existence of a ministerial priesthood distinct from the universal priesthood?
First of all, a careful reading of 1 Peter 2, verses 5 and 9 reveals a reference to Exodus 19:6: ". . . and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." This text from Exodus indicates a universal priesthood in the Old Testament. And yet, in Exodus 19:22, we read, "And also let the priests who come near to the Lord consecrate themselves . . . " In other words, a universal priesthood in the Old Covenant did not exclude the possibility of a distinct ministerial priesthood as well. It would be natural then to expect the same in the New Covenant. And indeed, that is precisely what we discover.
So I Send You- [ to be continued in this thread-]