Replies

I have already stated why HD's assertion was wrong in 4830. If HD bothered to read more than one verse (actually verses 5-7) he would have realized that +Paul was talking about a bishop (episkpon). Unfortunately, he remains silent on this.

Sorry, but I’m exceptionally busy at the moment and my Internet connection isn’t all there. I'm missing some of the "action". You made the assertion in 4830…

From the context of that chapter, and the term presbuteros it is clear that +Paul refers to a bishop.

I have already stated that the term elder, bishop and presbyter are often used interchangeably. The King James Version (and many others) cite the passage as:

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; Titus 1:5-7

As you can see it uses the term interchangably. What I disagreed with is using the term “priest”. I thought I had it all figured out with Reader_David post that priest is now derived from “presbuteros” which seems to make sense. But you’ve gone and confuse me again by saying that ”first rank being deacon, then priest, then bishop”. If the priest is not a bishop, then how can you call a bishop a priest? Someone is not matching up.

I should also point out this mistaken error:

The source of error is your KJV because it was man-made to be acceptable to the Geneva-worshipping lost sheep.

The KJV was developed to compete with the Geneva-worshipping folks' Geneva Bible. While the KJV is a fine version, regrettably, King James was a little squimmish about the Calvinist leanings in the Geveva's Bible interpretation. He sought to tone the interpretation down simply by choosing other more plausible words.

You see, HD, prooftexting never provides you with a correct answer. It only confuses you.

No, what really confuses me is people telling me a priest is really a bishop but a bishop is not a priest.

Harley D, I have been unfair to you. Please forgive me. I hope your computer is working again and I hope you have caught up with your back-log.

To clarify: those who finish smeniary schools are ordained deacons. Deacons are properly addressed as 'Father Deacon.' They are not priests.

Many, but not all, deacons are eleveated to full priesthood. Only a priest can serve the Divine Liturgy (aka Mass).

Some priests are elevated to bishops.Thus all bishops are priests, but not all priests are bishops.

A deacon cannot serve without the presence of a priest. A priest cannot serve without the permission of his bishop.

Thus, a deacon has no authoirty without a priest and a priest has no authoirty without a bishop. A bishop is the only an final authority in the Church.

When it comes to authority, all bishops are equal, just as all Apostles were equal.

For practical reasons, areas having many bishops become an admnistrative issue. Bishops appoint one of their peers to be the archbishop, representing many bishoprics, but not lording over them.

Several archibishops will appoint a patriarch (usually, but not always, national churches will have patriarchas ).

Again, presbuteros was the term the Greeks used to describe Jewish priests (Sanhendrin) who were, for all practical purposes, equal to bishops (Orthodox bishop's vestments come from Judaism, as does the liturgical worship).

At the time of +Paul, there were bishops and deacons. Since bishops could not serve liturgies in more than one place and more than once a day (the Catholic Church changed that after Vatican II I believe), and since the number of faithful was growing among Gentiles, a clear need developed for a 'bishop's deputy' which is what we know today as the priest (or ierei in Greek), a rank higher than a deacon and capable of serving the Eucharistic Liturgy, but not fully autonomous.

Anoyther way of looking at it is for instance doctors. medical students would be 'deacons.' Third and fourth-year medical school students are on wards and run around with interns and reisdents. However, they are not doctors yet although thye are allowed to perform many procedures under direct supervision of a doctor.

Among those who are considered 'doctors' are people who graduated medical school and received their medical license. They are your 'priests.'

Among these medical 'priests' you have interns and residents (doctors undergoing post-graduate specialty training) who work under a supervising attending physician (somone who already finished specialty training and can practice independently), i.e. the 'bishop.'