Posted on 05/22/2014 8:23:50 AM PDT by Salvation
Where in the New Testament are "priests" mentioned?
Full Question
The New Testament mentions three categories of Church leaders: bishops, presbyters, and deacons. So how can the Catholic Church justify its office of "priest"? The New Testament writers seem to understand "bishop" and "presbyter" to be synonymous terms for the same office (Acts 20:17-38).
Answer
The English word "priest" is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, which is commonly rendered into Bible English as "elder" or "presbyter." The ministry of Catholic priests is that of the presbyters mentioned in the New Testament (Acts 15:6, 23). The Bible says little about the duties of presbyters, but it does reveal they functioned in a priestly capacity.
They were ordained by the laying on of hands (1 Tm 4:14, 5:22), they preached and taught the flock (1 Tm 5:17), and they administered sacraments (Jas 5:13-15). These are the essential functions of the priestly office, so wherever the various forms of presbuteros appear--except, of course, in instances which pertain to the Jewish elders (Mt 21:23, Acts 4:23)--the word may rightly be translated as "priest" instead of "elder" or "presbyter."
Episcopos arises from two words, epi (over) and skopeo (to see), and it means literally "an overseer": We translate it as "bishop." The King James Version renders the office of overseer, episkopen, as "bishopric" (Acts 1:20). The role of the episcopos is not clearly defined in the New Testament, but by the beginning of the second century it had obtained a fixed meaning. There is early evidence of this refinement in ecclesiastical nomenclature in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 107), who wrote at length of the authority of bishops as distinct from presbyters and deacons (Epistle to the Magnesians 6:1, 13:1-2; Epistle to the Trallians 2:1-3; Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8:1-2).
The New Testament tendency to use episcopos and presbuteros interchangeably is similar to the contemporary ... use of the term "minister" to denote various offices, both ordained and unordained (senior minister, music minister, youth minister). Similarly, the term diakonos is rendered both as "deacon" and as "minister" in the Bible, yet in Protestant churches the office of deacon is clearly distinguished from and subordinate to the office of minister.
In Acts 20:17-38 the same men are called presbyteroi (v. 17) and episcopoi (v. 28). Presbuteroi is used in a technical sense to identify their office of ordained leadership. Episcopoi is used in a non-technical sense to describe the type of ministry they exercised. This is how the Revised Standard Version renders the verses: "And from Miletus he [Paul] . . . called for the elders [presbuteroi] of the church. And when they came to him, he said to them . . . 'Take heed to yourselves and all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians [episcopoi], to feed the church of the Lord.'"
In other passages it's clear that although men called presbuteroi ruled over individual congregations (parishes), the apostles ordained certain men, giving them authority over multiple congregations (dioceses), each with its own presbyters. These were endowed with the power to ordain additional presbyters as needed to shepherd the flock and carry on the work of the gospel. Titus and Timothy were two of those early episcopoi and clearly were above the office of presbuteros. They had the authority to select, ordain, and govern other presbyters, as is evidenced by Paul's instructions: "This is why I left you in Crete . . . that you might appoint elders in every town as I directed you" (Ti 1:5; cf. 1 Tm 5:17-22).
Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff
When I told you it was a CATHOLIC CAUCUS thread that was because it was a CATHOLIC CAUCUS thread. When you weighed in with your critical comments about the Catholic Church you should have not made them unless you’re Catholic. Now someone has changed the thread to ECUMENICAL. Why it was changed I don’t know. The article is about Catholics and the heirarchy in the priesthood.
Even on an Ecumenical thread there is to be no arguing or antagonism.
Read the Religion Moderator’s Rules way up at the top.
**Repeat, your own Catholic translation **
Where did I say that any translation was mine?
For your information, please read the rules for Ecumenical threads. They are not for antagonism.
Good bye.
Dear Religion Moderator,
I am having trouble keeping this thread open as an Ecumenical thread. Most posters don’t seem to know that there is NO antagonism on an Ecumenical thread.
Your advice needed — Shall I close the thread since people are not following the rules for Ecumenical threads as you have posted on your homepage at FR?
I don’t want to arouse an argument but when Paul gives instructions regarding the selecting of these men, one of the instructions were that they were to be married to one wife or one wife men depending on the translation. That makes perfect sense in selecting elders of the church but how does that apply the application to the current priesthood?
If you read Titus ch 1 v 5 through 7 you can see that Titus is to appoint elders to the position of Bishop.
Also 1 Tim ch 3 v I through 12
No one was appointed to elder.
Please read the rules
Sorry I wrote down the chapter and verses.
Hey Holden, I happen to agree with you, that said I should not be accused of being disagreeable by any one else.
Is not the DR translation a Roman Catholic translation? And are you not a Roman Catholic? I specifically referenced the DR (per your insistence) and highlighted the fact that you indeed are propagating blatant falsehoods; the DR does not translate any of the terms for elder as 'priest' in the NT qualification passages.
I notice you didn't make any comments on the content of my post ...
For your information, please read the rules for Ecumenical threads. They are not for antagonism.
I am amazed how often Catholics on these threads just throw out propaganda ... and when they are confronted with the truth, they scream antagonism. Sorry, spitting your venom and then hiding behind the forum 'rules' is not really an honest approach to dialogue in any forum.
The simple fact is that the truth of Jesus Christ offends many people ... and like in the days of Jesus Himself ... its religious people who are offended the most.
Good bye.
Acts 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent
Amen! Keep posting His TRUTH, dartuser.
Oh, please don’t try to put words in my mouth, Arthur.
That’s neither what I said, nor anything close to being operative concerning how I believe. OTOH, I would ask you, “How many times does the Bible have to say something before it’s true?”
I brought the 1 Peter 2 section forward because it seemed conspicuously missing from the verses to which one would go as part of a NT word study on ‘priest’.
Really, I’m beginning to understand that jumping all over one’s perceived adversaries is a trait some conservatives share with liberals. And that ain’t good.
HF
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3158978/posts?page=2#2
Please read the rules for Ecumenical threads — no antagonism.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3158978/posts?page=2#2
Please read the rules for Ecumenical threads — no antagonism.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3158978/posts?page=2#2
Please read the rules for Ecumenical threads — no antagonism.
Then don’t post on an Ecumenical thread.
This Religion Forum thread is labeled “ecumenical” meaning posters must make their points without antagonizing other posters.
From this point forward on this thread, comply with the Religion Forum guidelines to not antagonize other posters on RF labeled “ecumenical.”
Thank you.
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.