Posted on 10/24/2005 8:02:08 PM PDT by NYer
Thank you for sharing that story!!!
You lived your life in a holy way, O St. Nektarios; being a Bishop rich in wisdom, you have glorified the Lord with your life of virtue; being strengthened by the power of the Holy Spirit, you drive out evil spirits and heal the sick. Intercede for those who come to you in faith!
You are absolutely right! Someone posted a thread about a year ago regarding a priest, ordained pre VCII who eventually left for the reasons you cited.
Campion: *** Etymologically, the English word "priest" (which, of course, originally described Catholic clergy) comes from "presbyter".***
Interesting... Why wouldn't the early Church use the normal Greek word for priest? Why "elder" Presbuteros? Being that I am a protestant, you probably suspect what my opinion is regarding this, but I would really like to know the reasoning behind this from your side. Why not just call a priest a "priest"?
Pyro7480: ***Not necessarily. "Hiereus" is a generic word for "religious leader," coming from the root word "hier," meaning "holy."***
My resources show Hiereus being translated pretty specifically as "priest" (contextually it is used to describe a "priest" of the pagan god Zeus, [Acts 14:13] or of Jewish priests - or metaphorically of all believers Hierateuma - "priesthood" [1 Pet 2:5,9])
Perhaps Kolokotronis will shed some light on the Greek usage of Presbuteros and Hiereus...
The above excerpt, from the link you posted, NYer, reminds me of St. Charbel.
"Perhaps Kolokotronis will shed some light on the Greek usage of Presbuteros and Hiereus..."
They mean the same thing, at least in Greek...priest.
That's kind of a backwards question; they didn't name offices in the early church by wondering what people 2000 years hence would call them in a language that didn't exist yet.
The better question is why do we translate "hiereus" into English as "priest" and not something else? Well, obviously, we don't have another word. "Hiereus" made it into English as a root, e.g., "hierarchy", and as an adjective, "hieratic," but not as a noun.
Okay. So how is it that priest == presbyter == "hiereus" == cohen (to add the Hebrew)? Part of it is that the (NT) Greek was filtered through the (church) Latin to the English, and Latin collapsed both "presbyter" and "hiereus" into one word, "sacerdotus" (usually rendered in English as, you guessed it, "priest").
In fact, official Catholic documents in Latin sometimes refer to the "presbyteral priesthood," to distinguish the priesthood of a presbyter from the priesthood of the baptized laity.
Being that I am a protestant, you probably suspect what my opinion is regarding this
Protestants get hung up on this for no reason I can decipher, except that they aren't aware of the way the language has evolved. Catholic priests are /presbyteroi/ in New Testament language. Nothing scary, strange, or anti-Biblical about it.
There is no blanket permission for all Christians to go around administering this Sacrament. James is clear that the "presbyteros ecclesiae" should be called, not just anyone.
As for whether a presbuteros is a priest, I don't know of any other kind of man who can forgive sins: "and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him". Likewise, since the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice for sin (cf. Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 10:16-21), it follows that the ministers of the Eucharist are true priests (cf. Heb. 5:1). Ancient and apostolic tradition restricts the celebration of the Eucharist to presbyters and bishops, therefore it follows that they are true priests.
And now as to prescribing who ought to receive, and who to administer this sacrament, this also was not obscurely delivered in the words above cited. For it is there also shown, that the proper ministers of this sacrament are the Presbyters of the Church; by which name are to be understood, in that place, not the elders by age, or the foremost in dignity amongst the people, but, either bishops, or priests by bishops rightly ordained by the imposition of the hands of the priesthood. ... If any one saith, that the Presbyters of the Church, whom blessed James exhorts to be brought to anoint the sick, are not the priests who have been ordained by a bishop, but the elders in each community, and that for this cause a priest alone is not the proper minister of Extreme Unction; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Session XIV, Decree and Canons On Extreme Unction)
Jer. 33:17 - Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.
Dan. 2:44 - Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession.
Isa. 22:20 - in the old Davidic kingdom, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the chief steward of the household of God. The kingdom employs a mechanism of dynastic succession. King David was dead for centuries, but his kingdom is preserved through a succession of representatives.
Isa. 22:19 - Shebna is described as having an "office" and a "station." An office, in order for it to be an office, has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required. This was the case in the Old Covenant kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives.
Isa. 22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God's people. The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of the earthly kingdom simply means papa or father in Italian. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church "Pope." The Pope is the father of God's people, the chief steward of the earthly kingdom and Christ's representative on earth.
Isa. 22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ's kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.
Acts 1:20 - we see in the early Church that successors are immediately chosen for the apostles' offices. Just as the Church replaced Judas, it also replaced Peter with a successor after Peter's death.
John 21:15-17; Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus' creation of Peter's office as chief shepherd with the keys passed to Linus, Cletus, Clement I, all the way to our current Holy Father.
Matt. 23:2 - this shows that the Jews understood the importance of succession to the chair and its attendant authority. Here, Jesus respects Moses' seat ("cathedra") of authority which was preserved by succession. In the Church, Peter's seat is called the "cathedra," and when Peter's successor speaks officially on a matter of faith or morals, it may rise to the level of an "ex cathedra" (from the chair) teaching.
Eph. 3:21 - this divine word tells us that Jesus Christ's Church will exist in all generations. Only the Catholic Church can prove by succession such existence.
*** Jer. 33:17 - Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.***
Well, I think we are all in agreement that it isn't a false prophesy.
But you have made a leap of logic here when you say, "the throne of the earthly House of Israel". The passage doesn't say that. It says...
"For this is what the Lord says: David will never fail to have a man sitting on the throne of the house of Israel. The Levitical priests will never fail to have a man always before Me to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices."
Jesus said... "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." - Joh 18:36
Points to consider.
1. Jesus seems to be very clear that his Kingdom is not of this world (i.e. "earthly").
2. Would not the Jer. verse also indicate the continuation of the LEVITICAL priesthood, including burnt offerings & grain offerings also?
Thoughts?
NYer,
Please don't forget to state your source when you quote from someone!
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html
Today, the unconsecrated hosts and wine "fruit of the vine and work of human hands" are carried up to the priest by the faithful, at each liturgy.
***Today, the unconsecrated hosts and wine "fruit of the vine and work of human hands" are carried up to the priest by the faithful, at each liturgy.***
Are you saying these are the "Levites"?
For thus saith the Lord: "There shall not be cut off from David a man who sits upon the throne of the house of Israel: and from the priests, and from the levites a man shall not be cut off from my face, who offers holocausts, and burns sacrifices, and slaughters victims for all days." One can duly adapt this testimony, for since there is no one for the kingdom of the Jewish people, or for the priesthood of the Old Testament, and for the ceremonies of the ancient Law, it is necessary that it be transferred wholly to the kingdom of Christ and his priesthood and the worship of the New Testament: of the power of whose kingdom the divine voice says in the psalms: I will place his seat for the age of the age, and his throne as the days of heaven (Ps. 88). But of his priesthood it is written: The Lord has sworn and will not repent, "Thou art a priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedech (Ps. 109). About which the divine voice also says to the priest Heli: I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who shall do according to my heart and soul: and I will build a faithful house for him, and he shall walk all days before my Christ (1 Kings II). The members of this priesthood are the sons of the holy catholic Church, Peter witnessing, who says: You however are an elect generation, and a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people (1 Peter II). Indeed, the holocausts and sacrifices of this are offered for a thanks to God, and they are made acceptable victims for all days. (Bl. Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mainz, Explanation of the Prophet Jeremiah, P.L. 111:1065)
There is a very ancient tradition in the Church of calling deacons "Levites". For instance, in the Epistle of St. Clement, we read: "For unto the high priest his proper services have been assigned, and to the priests their proper office is appointed, and upon the levites their proper ministrations are laid. The layman is bound by the layman's ordinances." (40:4, trans. J.B. Lightfoot).
"2. Would not the Jer. verse also indicate the continuation of the LEVITICAL priesthood, including burnt offerings & grain offerings also?
Today, the unconsecrated hosts and wine "fruit of the vine and work of human hands" are carried up to the priest by the faithful, at each liturgy."
A quick question. To me this seems a true innovation. In the ancient Liturgies of The Church, as is true today in the Divine Liturgies of Orthodoxy and most Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, the gifts are brought into the altar, the Holy of Holies by a priest or priests. Where does the procession of lay people carrying the gifts come from? To my eyes it looks terribly contrived a sort of "trendy".
Not contrived ... nor trendy. According to Catholic Encyclopedia ,
"The idea of this preparatory hallowing of the matter of the sacrifice by offering it to God is very old and forms an important element of every Christian liturgy. In the earliest period we have no evidence of anything but the bringing up of the bread and wine as they are wanted, before the Consecration prayer. Justin Martyr says: "Then bread and a cup of water and wine are brought to the president of the brethren" (I Apol., lxv, cf, lxvii). But soon the placing of the offering on the altar was accompanied by a prayer that God should accept these gifts, sanctify them, change them into the Body and Blood of his Son, and give us in return the grace of Communion. The Liturgy of "Apost. Const." VIII, says: "The deacons bring the gifts to the bishop at the altar . . . (xii, 3-4). This silent prayer is undoubtedly an Offertory prayer. But a later modification in the East brought about one of the characteristic differences between Eastern and Roman liturgies. All Eastern (and the old Gallican) rites prepare the gift before the Liturgy begins. This ceremony (proskomide) is especially elaborate in the Byzantine and its derived rites. It takes place on the credence table. The bread and wine are arranged, divided, incensed; and many prayers are said over them involving the idea of an offertory. The gifts are left there and are brought to the altar in solemn procession at the beginning of the Liturgy of the Faithful. This leaves no room for another offertory then. However, when they are placed on the altar prayers are said by the celebrant and a litany by the deacon which repeat the offertory idea. Rome alone has kept the older custom of one offertory and of preparing the gifts when they are wanted at the beginning of the Mass of the Faithful. Originally at this moment the people brought up bread and wine which were received by the deacons and placed by them on the altar. Traces of the custom remain at a papal Mass and at Milan."
If you consider that these are an offering from the people to the priest to be consecrated, it all makes perfect sense. In the Maronite Tradition, the following chant is sung during the procession:
I Myself am Bread of Life the Lord declared.
From on high I came to earth to give the world,
life from the Father.
Pure word without flesh and like a grain of the finest wheat.
Mary's womb became for me a fertile garden.
Now priests carry me aloft up to the altars.
Hallelulia! Accept our offerings.
We do, however, maintain a 'credence' table where Father places the offerings and says prayers over them before the liturgy begins. The offerings are kept 'veiled' until the actual procession. The transfer of the offerings goes from the people to the priest at the bottom of the bema and he carries them aloft up to the altar.
"The bread and wine are arranged, divided, incensed; and many prayers are said over them involving the idea of an offertory. "
Wrong! There is nothing in the preparation of the bread and the wine which, at least the East, has ever been considered to be an offertory in the sense that we all use that term. The offertory is quite well defined within the Divine Liturgy of +John Chrysostoms. Frankly, the earliest writings, when they speak in any detail at all, always speak of the deacons or priests carrying the offerings in procession. I must say your quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia appears to me to be a post hoc propter hoc sort of spin to lend an air of ancient authority to a truly innovative practice. By the way, where did the lugging of a basket of money down with the bread and wine come from?
Personally, it makes no difference to me if in Latin Rite Churches lay people process up to the solea with the gifts. How the Latin Church conducts its liturgies, within certain parameters, is the business of the Latin Church. I do think its unfortunate to use that act to buttress a theological point, however.
I intentionally posted the source - the newadvent.org web site that purports to be the Catholic Encyclopedia. Recall the discussion we had several weeks ago where the web master of this site had posted outdated information about St. Maron (couldn't even spell his name) so I will discount it. However, I would be most interested in any link to the early Church Fathers that explains how the offertory was handled in those first centuries. As I recall from the pre VCII days, the priest carried the offerings with him when he processed during the Entrance dialogue, but I am no longer sure.
"As I recall from the pre VCII days, the priest carried the offerings with him when he processed during the Entrance dialogue, but I am no longer sure."
As a former altar boy, Orthodox and Latin Rite from those halcyon days, I can tell you that your memory is right on the money. At both a High and a Low Mass, the priest carried the chalice and the host on the patten to be consecrated. They were covered by a veil of sorts (the pall?) on top of which was the corporal, I think. When it was set down on the altar table in front of the tabernacle, it looked like a trapezoid. The ciborium, as I remember it, was in the tabernacle.
How good is my memory? :)
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.