[Petrosius]

In her effort to conform NT pastors to her erroneous understanding of the Lord's Supper (“Eucharist”), Catholicism came to render presbuteros” as “priests” (which the RC Douay Rheims Bible inconsistently does: Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5), and sometimes “episkopos,” in order to support a distinctive NT sacerdotal priesthood in the church, but which the Holy Spirit never does. For the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests*, is “hiereus” or “archiereus.” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) and which is never used for NT pastors, nor does the words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) which He does use for NT pastors mean "priest." Presbuteros or episkopos do not denote a unique sacrificial function, and hiereus (as archiereus=chief priests) is used in distinction to elders in such places as Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5.

You misunderstood the meaning of my post. You correctly point out the difference between presbuteros and heireus. This distinction is kept in Latin with presbyter and sacerdos. English, however, has failed to maintain two separate words. The English word "priest" can refer to either the sacrificial office of hiereus or the New Testament office of presbuteros. This is why in these discussions I like to stay with the Greek terms. I was not claiming that the Catholic priesthood was the same as the Temple office of heireus. But there was in the New Testament the offices of epsicopos, presbuteros and deaconos. This second office continues today and in English is call "priest", a word which is indeed derived from the original Greek term for the office. It is because of the lack of an unique English term for heireus that the English word for the office of presbuteros has been applied to it. BTW, Latin texts upon which Catholic theology is based still make a distinction between the terms presbyter and sacerdos.

Catholic writer Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide," states, "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions." "When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist."

Dues is speaking here of the use of the term heireus/sacerdos not the English term "priest" thus it does not apply to the use of the word in English for the office of presbuteros. As for his claim that the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice only later in the 3rd century he is just wrong:

The Didache

"Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

Pope Clement I

"Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release" (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch

"Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God" (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

"God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus

"He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles" (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).

[Springfield Reformer]

English, however, has failed to maintain two separate words

That simply is not the case.  If one uses a dictioary approach to discovering modern English usage, the distinction in English initiated by Tyndale to reflect the distinction in Greek has now run for half a millennium and is still going strong.  From Merriam-Webster Online:

Priest:  one authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion especially as a mediatory agent between humans and God; specifically :  an Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic clergyman ranking below a bishop and above a deacon

Elder:
1:  one living in an earlier period
2
    a :  one who is older :  senior <a child trying to please her elders> 
    b :  an aged person
3:  one having authority by virtue of age and experience <the village elders>
4:  any of various officers of religious groups: as 
    a :  presbyter 
    b :  a permanent officer elected by a Presbyterian congregation and ordained to serve on the session and assist the pastor at communion 
    c :  minister 
d :  a leader of the Shakers 
e :  a Mormon ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood

A case can be made that there can be overlapping uses of the two terms, such as when a Roman Catholic priest is described in terms of his non-sacerdotal duties, i.e., those that would be identical to any Presbyterian or Baptist elder or minister.  But when, as you concede, the Vulgate itself maintains the Greek's distinction between presbyter and sacerdos, why is it at all wrong for Tyndale and his progeny to provide a means of recognizing that distinction in English? Particularly when that distinction has been spectacularly successful in disentangling the Christian minister's duties of governance and spiritual oversight from the outmoded sacerdotal duties of the OT priesthood, rendered entirely obsolete by the only remaining arch-hiereus (high priest), Jesus Christ?  Only Jesus retains the sacerdotal aspect of the priestly office in fulfillment of the OT typology of priest and temple. Overseers and elders are caretakers of the Ecclesia, undershepherds of the one sheep-fold, but not mediators offering sacrifices on behalf of an invented underclass of believers.

As for whether the early believers viewed the Eucharist as a sacrifice in the sense presented by transubstantiation, it is egregiously anachronistic to read back into those early texts a meaning that clearly took centuries to evolve.  For example, you cite to the Didache, but nothing in the text of that document suggests a sacrifice in the nature of an offering for sin.  Indeed, the name "eucharist" itself is an expression of thanksgiving.  The entire meal is viewed here, not in terms of propitiation, but in terms of thanksgiving.  This is reinforced by Scripture:

Hebrews 13:15-16  By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.  (16)  But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

This is particularly significant coming from the writer of Hebrews because he has just spent the preceding 12 chapters disabusing his readers of the false idea that any further sacrifices of propitiation, i.e., for the removal of sin, are needed, in that Jesus accomplished the entire work of propitiation, once for all, past tense, obsoleting the entire OT sacerdotal system.  Therefore we can be absolutely certain that sacrifice (thusia)  as used here, while it has an etymological connection to animal sacrifice, is NOT being used as an additive to the one-time sacrifice of Christ for sins, but is describing instead a natural response of the believing heart, the desire to offer our praise to God in thanksgiving for all He has done for us.

And such praise is a true sacrifice as against our fallen nature, because in our sin and pride we have ourselves as the centers of our universe, and tend to think we deserve the good things that come to us, and this discourages a spirit of thanksgiving and praise.  Very often, in our darkest moments, we are bitterly tempted to turn entirely inward, and even the thought of praise in those moments, because of our sin, can seem awkward and unnatural, insincere.  But it remains our duty, because no matter what we may be feeling due to our weakness of faith, His matchless glory is undiminished, He is still the mighty Savior, Who has rescued us and delivered us from the hand of the oppressor, and as such He is still worthy to be praised and thanked, most of all for the darkness and sorrow He Himself was willing to endure on our behalf, to give us life through His death. And so our praise is offered to Him, in good times and bad, for better, for worse, always, and under all circumstances, we offer to him from ourselves a willing witness and testimony to His goodness and love to us.  If this is our small sacrifice, it does not absolve us of sin, as His sacrifice for us does, but it is still a sacrifice, and still and always the right response of a believing heart.

Romans 12:1  I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

Peace,

SR




 

[daniel1212]

You misunderstood the meaning of my post. You correctly point out the difference between presbuteros and heireus. This distinction is kept in Latin with presbyter and sacerdos. English, however, has failed to maintain two separate words. The English word "priest" can refer to either the sacrificial office of hiereus or the New Testament office of presbuteros. This is why in these discussions I like to stay with the Greek terms.

Then stay with the Greek, rather than defining presbuteros by what is morphed into! In reality, RCs do not want to stay with the Greek, but want to define it by what it came to denote due to imposed equivalence, not what it originally meant, which made distinction btwn hiereus and presbuteros. .

. But there was in the New Testament the offices of epsicopos, presbuteros and deaconos. This second office continues today and in English is call "priest", a word which is indeed derived from the original Greek term for the office.

It indeed was derived, via Latin, yet even a Catholic forum will tell you that “the Latin word presbyter has no lingual or morphological relationship with the Latin word sacerdos, but only an inherited semantical relationship.” - http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=744379.0;wap2z

Instead presbuteros became priest under the premise that the primary function of NT pastors was that of engaging in the "sacrifice" of the mass, an imposed functional equivalence that the Holy Spirit did not make by ever titling presbuteros/epsicopos (one office: Titus 1:5-7) hiereus,

And having presumed to help the Holy Spirit (again), RCs defend it by or and in a un etymological fallacy "that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. This is a linguistic misconception.."

Dues is speaking here of the use of the term heireus/sacerdos not the English term "priest" thus it does not apply to the use of the word in English for the office of presbuteros.

Of course it applies, as the presumed primary sacrificial function denotes priests is behind a distinctive class of clergy being titled that. Yet for NT pastors it is prayer and preaching the word, (Acts 6:3) which they are abundantly shown doing and instructed to do, and never even shown officiating a the Lord's supper in bread making and dispensing. All the believers were to told to to share food, showing the Lord's death by that communal meal, as described here .

. As for his claim that the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice only later in the 3rd century he is just wrong: ]

He did not even say claim that the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice only later in the 3rd century, but that "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity," and " When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension."By the third century bishops were considered priests."

Thus he says by the 200 AD+ period, and as , even praise is a sacrifice ,Dues may be referring to a more widespread understanding of the Eucharist as an atonement for sin, offered by priests, as per Hebrews 5:1 regarding OT priestly duty, , "that he [the HP] may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.' (Hebrews 5:1) In any case, that the Lord's supper is an sacrifice for sin, versus declaring it, is not what it is manifest to be in the NT., which is the unchanging standard regardless of the varied and changeable misunderstandings of pious men.

Irenaeus

Came across this but have not read it all , and though you might want to: http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/07/27/eating-ignatius/