Posted on 11/18/2014 5:19:32 AM PST by Gamecock
Again, you have it backwards. It was the function of the presbuteros in offering the sacrifice of the Mass that is behind the English using "priest" for hiereus.
Rome erroneous began regarding presbuteros primarily as priests, based upon imposed functional equivalence, and the same title followed, contrary to the choice of distinctive terms the Holy used, and how He describes and reveals NT pastors.
Wrong, as presbuteros are not given the title of the hiereus of Jupiter. There is no validity for using any distinctive title for hiereus and making it the same for presbuteros. If you do not like "priest" then find another one, but do not make that the title for presbuteros, as the Spirit never uses hiereus for presbuteros. That effectively is RCs complaint. .
Thank you very much for the clarification. Now i understand where you are coming from. Please forgive undue offense.
Old English preost probably shortened from the older Germanic form represented by Old Saxon and Old High German prestar, Old Frisian prestere, all from Vulgar Latin *prester "priest," from Late Latin presbyter "presbyter, elder," from Greek presbyteros - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=priest
Yet it remains that using the distinctive term which came to be used for hiereus to title presbyteros is wrong. Rather than making hiereus/sacerdos (offerer of sacrifices," from sacer "holy") equate to presbyteros/preost (which the RC Douay Rheims Bible inconsistently does), the distinction should have been maintained, as in the KJV.
So my complaint is not only that "priest" is an inaccurate translation of hiereus/sacerdos , but that it was used as the title for presbuteros instead of elder/overseer.
See my post #80.
Well that is quite interesting. Mr. Bush is not active on his website must mean he is sitting on a bar stool sampling the adult beverages?
The man would be in his golden years now. Perhaps he is under the radar serving “tables” for Christ. Can’t think of a better finishing push.
Also other than this article, no one was parading him around it seems as you have found scant postings searching Google.
So again, speculation on your part.
Seems the “Coming Home” video blogs is the definition of your concerns of parading around folks.
And rightly so, since every office of the Early Church was derived strictly from the synagogue - And there is no sacerdotal process therein. The priesthood was exclusive to the Temple.
Perhaps it is more accurate to say...the way some here parade them around.
I appreciate your civility in this discussion, but while i concur that the English word "priest" as coming from preost was a valid if it only was used for presbuteros, distinctive of hiereus, yet since priest is the word which came to used for the Jewish hiereus, then it is wrong to use it for NT presbuteros, as it ignores the distinction made in the Greek by never titling "presbuteros" "hiereus."
I would view the desire to impose "elder" as the proper translation of presbuteros as an dishonest attempt to deny the continuation of the office of presbuteros in today's Catholic priest.
But presbuteros actually means senior/elder, and it is God which made the distinction in terms. Jewish elders (zâqên, from old) as a body existed before the Levitical priesthood, most likely as heads of household or clans, and while Levitical priests (kôhên) can also be elders, simply being an elder did not make one a Levitical priest, and hiereus (as archiereus=chief priests) is used in distinction to elders in such places as Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5.
The fact that the Holy Spirt never used the hiereus for presbuteros means that He is the one denying the continuation of the office of presbuteros as meaning hiereus, as a distinctive sacerdotal class of clergy, and presbuteros are never shown or described as engaging in a unique sacrificial function, or even offering the Eucharist as their primary function.
In fact, they are never shown doing so or manifestly instructed to do so in any of the duties listed that are interpretive of the gospels, but breaking break is described as something all are to do, showing/declaring the Lord's death by sharing food with each other in that communal meal, recognizing each other as members of the body of Christ which the Lord purchased with His own sinless shed blood.
As shown in this post on 1Cor. 11:19-34, the only manifest description of the Lord's supper in the life of the church.
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.The Nestorian error goes further than merely making distinctions. There is nothing in Chalcedon that requires one to accept that Christ's corporeal body, which has it's origin under the temporal limits of human history, also exists in a hypothetical timeless state for which there is no Scriptural evidence. For one thing, it is in the nature of humans to be biologically finite. We have physical boundaries. Christ, even in His glorified, post-resurrection humanity, never appears corporeally in multiple locations simultaneously. To argue that the corporeal aspect of His human nature can take on properties exclusive to the divine nature, such as omnipresence, is really to argue for confusion of the natures, and thus to defy Chalcedon.
Matthew 24:23-27 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. (24) For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. (25) Behold, I have told you before. (26) Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. (27) For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.He rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and according to Hebrews is there now, seated in power at the right hand of the Father, making intercession for us who believe. All under those limitations that are inherent in his human nature, even though perfectly and seamlessly united with His divine nature in one Person. Therefore He can tell His disciples that anyone coming along with stories of Him being corporeally present among us before His return is someone we are NOT to believe. Therefore the Holy Spirit, in providing us with this God-breathed record of truth, is insisting that we continue to acknowledge not only the divine nature of Christ, but also the human, and not as suddenly becoming corporeally timeless or omnipresent, but as a bridegroom on a journey to a distant land, from which He will one day return and gather us to Himself.
24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.Here Augustine, using John 6 as an example, recognizes that asking someone to eat literal human flesh and drink literal human blood appears to be inciting a "crime or vice," and therefore must be seen as a figure, because God would not encourage us to commit crime or surrender to vice. It is remarkable in a way because this has to be one of the earliest recognitions of the mechanism of metaphor, that we encounter an analogy between two objects that cannot be resolved unless we accept that the relationship is not literal, but instructive.
Available here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm
True, and the metaphorical view of Jn. 6 is the only one that is wholly consistent with the rest of Scripture, and John in particular.
And to be consistent with the "verily, verily" unequivocal imperative of Jn. 6:53: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you," RCs must exclude from salvation all who reject the literalistic view.
Yet nowhere is spiritual life obtained by eating anything, and only in paganism by consuming human flesh, such as shown here.
Moreover, the use of figurative language for eating and drinking is quite prevalent in Scripture, in which men are referred to as bread, and drinking water as being the blood of men, and the word of God is eaten, etc
For David distinctly called water the blood of men, and would not drink it, but poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, as it is forbidden to drink blood. (2 Samuel 23:15-17)
More examples would be when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)
And or that the Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)
And or when David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)
And or when Jeremiah proclaimed, Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)
And or when Ezekiel was told, “eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 3:1)
And or when (in a phrase similar to the Lord’s supper) John is commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )
Furthermore, the use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:
• In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.
• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.
• In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.
• In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14) — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.
• In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive. (John 7:38)
• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.
• In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.
• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.
More on John by God's grace.
Going thru old posts..
That was overall a eloquent explanation, thanks, though i would not say that your aside re using “Baptize” for “baptizo” was evasive translating.
A little late, but i think GPH would appreciate this well written response (as i do). Deeper than the usual FR level. Bless God.
Thanks. All glory to God. I don’t make the news. I just report it. :)
And that’s one of the main reasons I enjoy the RF on FR. I actually get to learn things I never knew before. Somebody raises a challenge and I say, hmmm, I’m not sure how to respond to that. But then I find that for somebody somewhere, this is old news, the objection has already been raised and dealt with, Scripture once again winning the day over vain human philosophy and the fallible traditions of fallible men and women. Like He says, those who put their trust in the Lord will never be disappointed.
Peace,
SR
Amen
I haven't studied the Platonic influence on Eucharistic theology, but you are quite correct to see that Augustine did not believe in transubstantiation. There is no question that Augustine believed in a "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist, but this is in the faith of the believer, and not in any of the physical elements of the material itself. This understanding of the Lord's Supper was transferred to the Reformed faith through John Calvin and is known as "Suprasubstantiation," understood in this way:
"Christ is present in heaven but by virtue of the Holy Spirit our souls are lifted to partake the flesh and blood of our Lord. Our mouth eats the sign (bread and wine) whereas the mouth of faith eats that which the sign signifies, namely, Christ and the benefits of the covenant of grace" (Hyde, Daniel. In Living Color: Images of Christ and the Means of Grace. p. 154. Grandville: Reformed Fellowship, 2009.).
In other words, eating with teeth and stomach effects nothing, but it is a spiritual act that is performed through faith. Augustine frequently speaks using "realistic" language, but, in the same writings, makes it clear that he is speaking spiritually, and not materially. Note the following quotes which reflect the position of the quote above:
“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. (Augustine, Tractate 25)
Believe, says Augustine, and "thou hast eaten already," also from his commentary on John chapter 6. In the next chapter of his Tractates on John:
“Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food. (12) What then did the Lord answer to such murmurers? Murmur not among yourselves. As if He said, I know why you are not hungry, and do not understand nor seek after this bread. Murmur not among yourselves: no man can come unto me, except the Father that sent me draw him. Noble excellence of grace! No man comes unless drawn. There is whom He draws, and there is whom He draws not; why He draws one and draws not another, do not desire to judge, if you desire not to err.” (Augustine, Tractate 26)
To believe on Christ, says Augustine, is to eat the living Christ.
In another quote, the Eucharist, which symbolizes both the entire church and Christ, “not really consumed.” The Eucharist signifies an invisible reality, and is not that reality. Christians should take the spiritual lesson of unity from the Lord’s supper.
“What you can see passes away, but the invisible reality signified does not pass away, but remains. Look, it’s received, it’s eaten, it’s consumed. Is the body of Christ consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ consumed? Perish the thought! Here they are being purified, there they will be crowned with the victor’s laurels. So what is signified will remain eternally, although the thing that signifies it seems to pass away. So receive the sacrament in such a way that you think about yourselves, that you retain unity in your hearts, that you always fix your hearts up above. Don’t let your hope be placed on earth, but in heaven. Let your faith be firm in God, let it be acceptable to God. Because what you don’t see now, but believe, you are going to see there, where you will have joy without end.” (Augustine, Ser. 227)
The body of Christ not held by any believer, even in the sacrament. Christ is held in the heart, and not in the hand. This cannot be so if transubstantation is true.
“Let them come to the church and hear where Christ is, and take Him. They may hear it from us, they may hear it from the gospel. He was slain by their forefathers, He was buried, He rose again, He was recognized by the disciples, He ascended before their eyes into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and He who was judged is yet to come as Judge of all: let them hear, and hold fast. Do they reply, How shall I take hold of the absent? how shall I stretch up my hand into heaven, and take hold of one who is sitting there? Stretch up thy faith, and thou hast got hold. Thy forefathers held by the flesh, hold thou with the heart; for the absent Christ is also present. But for His presence, we ourselves were unable to hold Him.” (Augustine, Tractate 50)
One final quote for now. Augustine speaks of the use of "common parlance" (iow, "realistic language) such as saying that Christ is raised tomorrow "On Easter," though not literally, and that the bread is the body of Christ, in the same sense as the Easter example:
“You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord’s Passion, although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, This day the Lord rose from the dead, although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? And yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood.” (Augustine, Letters 98)
There are many more quotes that establish Augustine's position on the matter. It is clear that Augustine did not hold to transubstantiation, but to what the Reformed know as "Suprasubstantiation."
Came across this (not to say ECFS were always consistent with themselves, much less each other - or Rome - or could not hold compatible opinions);
Jerome: The Body and Blood of Christ are Poured into our Ears
We have read the Sacred Scriptures. I think the Gospel is the body of Christ; Holy Writ, His teaching. When he says: ‘He who does not eat my flesh and drink my blood,’ although the words may be understood in their mystical sense, nevertheless, I say the word of Scripture is truly the body of Christ and His blood; it is divine doctrine. If at any time we approach the Sacrament the faithful understand what I mean and a tiny crumb should fall, we are appalled. Even so, if at any time we hear the word of God, through which the body and blood of Christ is being poured into our ears, and we yield carelessly to distraction, how responsible are we not for our failing? FC, Vol. 48, The Homilies of St. Jerome: Vol. 1, On the Psalms (at Psalm 147), Homily 57 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1964), p. 410.
http://voxpatristica.blogspot.com/2013/02/jerome-body-and-blood-of-christ-are.html
Thanks!
He is still a baptized Catholic, a confirmed Catholic and an ordained priest. He will have to answer for his abandonment of Christ with those marks on his soul.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.