Posted on 12/17/2014 4:04:52 PM PST 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 Protestant 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).
How many posts from multiple people will it take to point out to you the English or Latin etymology cannot be compared to the original Greek.
There isn’t a specific date like March 15, 256 AD. Like all falling away, it is gradual process. A little false teaching here and a little false teaching there and pretty soon you’re way off base.
Show me in Scripture where it says that the Bible existed as a coeternal book with God.
Yes, all Scripture is God-breathed but he did this in time. God also breathed into Adam to give him life but he did not exist from all eternity.
Of course the church did not establish itself upon its own authority. Rather, it was established by Jesus Christ and given authority by him. The establishment of the local churches was done by those in authority. The division of the apostolic authority between the three orders of episcopoi, presbuteroi and deaconoi was done by the authority given to the church by Jesus Christ. What we find in Scripture is a record of this action by the church, not an instruction given to the church by Scripture.
Meanwhile it took Rome over 1400 years after the last book was penned to issue an infallible/indisputable complete canon.
You make multiple errors. The first, common among Protestants, is to identify the Catholic Church only with the church of Rome. Rather, the Catholic Church consists of the world-wide church in union with Rome. This includes hundreds of local churches with their own bishops. The second is a misunderstanding of the working of the Magisterium of the church. The Ordinary Magisterium is the universal day to day teaching of the church. The Extraordinary Magisterium, the decrees of popes and councils, is only convoked when the teachings in the Ordinary Magisterium are called into question. As to the question of the canon of the Bible, it was accepted since the 4th century when the universal church accepted the list proposed by the North African councils under St. Augustine. This list was explicitly accepted by Pope Damasus I in the local Council of Rome in 382. The Council of Trent only restated what the Catholic Church had already accepted because the canon was questioned by the Protestants.
No matter how much you want to repeat it, the use of preost/priest for presbuteros did not come about by employing an English word that only meant hiereus. The insistence that priest can only mean hiereus is a linguistic fallacy.
No, as that is Rome's problem with the Holy Spirit, as it is He who unlike Rome, never uses the distinctive title given to OT and pagan hiereus for presbuteros …
But preost/priest is not a distinctive title given to TO and pagan hiereus. It was a distinctive title given only to presbuteros, a usage that has lasted for over a thousand years. Its use for hiereus came latter.
Thus it is God which disassociates the modern office of the Catholic priest from that of the New Testament presbyter.
It is not God but Tyndale and his following Protestants who have attempted to disassociate the two.
IOW, *Did God really say.....?*
If Scripture being God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired isn't enough for Catholics to recognize it's inherent authority and integrity, then there is no hope for them.
To constantly be changing the word of God, breathed out and inspired by Himself in exchange for the opinions of mere men is a sure path on the road to deception and destruction.
There is no hope for any Catholic until and unless they acknowledge the inherent authority and truthfulness of the word of God as spoken through the prophets, Jesus, and the disciples.
Tampering with the word of God is the work of the enemy.
You are confusing the two meanings of priesthood. I am arguing for the continuation of the priesthood as the continuation of the presbyterate. To try to state that I am arguing for the continuation of the Temple priesthood is dishonest.
How many posts will it take to point out to you that I am not arguing solely from etymology but from original and constant English usage.
I will settle for a century.
I am not questioning its authority or integrity, just its eternal existence.
To constantly be changing the word of God, breathed out and inspired by Himself in exchange for the opinions of mere men is a sure path on the road to deception and destruction.
Surely the error of Protestants who mistake there own private interpretations of the Bible for the word of God itself.
There is no hope for any Catholic until and unless they acknowledge the inherent authority and truthfulness of the word of God as spoken through the prophets, Jesus, and the disciples.
Not to worry. Catholics do indeed accept the authority of the Scriptures. We just differ with your interpretation of it.
This still ignores the fact that Jesus Christ established His Messiahship, mission and message upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the NT church. How can you ignore that?
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (Matthew 22:29)
He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions. (Matthew 22:43-46)
But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. (John 5:36)
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures [not tradition]. (Luke 24:44-45)
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2)
For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 18:28)
And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. (Acts 28:23)
But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:4-7)
What we find in Scripture is a record of this action by the church, not an instruction given to the church by Scripture.
Sigh. RCs insist in imaging Scripture began with the NT, when in reality its message is a fulfillment of Scripture:
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) (Romans 1:1-2)
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: (Romans 16:25-26)
You make multiple errors
Wrong, i made zero errors. It is you who continue to err in your superficial consideration of things.
. The first, common among Protestants, is to identify the Catholic Church only with the church of Rome. Rather, the Catholic Church consists of the world-wide church in union with Rome.
That is not an error, as i am well aware of the many types of Catholic churches, besides the schismatic EOs and others. But as "Rome" represents that which they are in union with, thus the church of Rome is rightly used in speaking of Catholicism. One down.
The second is a misunderstanding of the working of the Magisterium of the church. The Ordinary Magisterium is the universal day to day teaching of the church. The Extraordinary Magisterium, the decrees of popes and councils, is only convoked when the teachings in the Ordinary Magisterium are called into question.
Not quite, as the contents of the canon, while largely settled, were subject to questioning and disagreement down thru the centuries and right into Trent . Which means just what i said, that there was no infallible/indisputable complete canon til 1546. RCs err in trying to deny that to those who have done research (which they evidence they did not, or are being deceptive.
As to the question of the canon of the Bible, it was accepted since the 4th century when the universal church accepted the list proposed by the North African councils under St. Augustine.
You err in failing to qualify "accepted."
Summing up most of the above, the Catholic Encyclopedia states,
At Jerusalem there was a renascence, perhaps a survival, of Jewish ideas, the tendency there being distinctly unfavourable to the deuteros. St. Cyril of that see, while vindicating for the Church the right to fix the Canon, places them among the apocrypha and forbids all books to be read privately which are not read in the churches. In Antioch and Syria the attitude was more favourable. St. Epiphanius shows hesitation about the rank of the deuteros; he esteemed them, but they had not the same place as the Hebrew books in his regard. The historian Eusebius attests the widespread doubts in his time; he classes them as antilegomena, or disputed writings, and, like Athanasius, places them in a class intermediate between the books received by all and the apocrypha. The 59th (or 60th) canon of the provincial Council of Laodicea (the authenticity of which however is contested) gives a catalogue of the Scriptures entirely in accord with the ideas of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Oriental versions and Greek manuscripts of the period are more liberal; the extant ones have all the deuterocanonicals and, in some cases, certain apocrypha.
The influence of Origen's and Athanasius's restricted canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, excluding the deuteros from canonical rank in theory, but admitting them in practice. The latter styles them "ecclesiastical" books, but in authority unequal to the other Scriptures. St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books... (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament, eph. mine)
The Catholic Encyclopedia also states as regards the Middle Ages,
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
This list was explicitly accepted by Pope Damasus I in the local Council of Rome in 382.
You fail to note (or known) that the claim that the Council of Rome (382) approved an infallible canon depends upon the Decretum Gelasianum, the authority of which is disputed (among RC's themselves), and is generally regarded as spurious based upon evidence that it was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent. This would not be the first time RCs made use of forgeries . In addition, the Council of Rome found opponents in Africa.” More: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm
The Council of Trent only restated what the Catholic Church had already accepted because the canon was questioned by the Protestants.
You fail to note the weighty RC support this questioning had. Thus any error are on your part.
I’m still wondering about the constant claim from RCs of “we gave you the Bible.”
As if the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures penned by Moses, the OT prophets and NT apostles were subject to the post apostolic churches.
Are you kidding?? Numerous examples have been posted that shows the popes, priests, individual catholics have their own "interpretation" of Scripture.
Examples have been posted that shows the catholic church has changed its postion on
Are catholics that delusional to believe that every Sunday, every priest, I mean every priest, is giving the exact same message every week??
The catholic charge against non-catholics makeing their own interpretation of Scripture is the height of narcissim.
Which clearly ignores the historical-grammatical hermeneutical method of treating passages, verses, discourses and yes words.
Rather, bo matter how much you want to repeat it, the fallacy is that while preost/priest was first used for presbuteros then that simply does not justify it being used for hiereus and presbuteros without the distinction the Holy Spirit evidenced by not once giving NT presbuteros the title of hiereus. Period!
Its use for hiereus came latter.
And which is just what we are dealing with!
It is not God but Tyndale and his following Protestants who have attempted to disassociate the two.
What absurdity! The Holy Spirit never gives NT presbuteros the title of hiereus, but Catholicism makes the two indistinguishable to support her theology, while Prot translators (as in the KJV) maintain that linguistical distinction, and your charge them with fallacy!
The fact is that God makes the linguistic distinction, which Catholicism (and a few others) circumvents in order to support the unScriptural idea that NT presbuteros engaged in a uniquely sacrificial function, and as their primary one. Ecclesiastical eisegesis!
And what is the assured wholly inspired word of God but the Scriptures (which was the context of the above.
Unless thy law had been my delights, I should then have perished in mine affliction. (Psalms 119:92)
Note that SS does not hold that this was operative from the beginning as i have explained. Even those without any knowledge of Scripture can obey the essence of the law written on their heart, but the Scripture judges even whether that is the law. While to whom much is given, much is required.
If priest has two definitions:
1) presbuteros; and
2) hiereus
why claim that the first is illegitimate? Why not claim that it is the second, derived, definition that is wrong and needs to be replaced?
BTW, we are talking about common usage, not Bible translations. If you look at the Catholic New American Bible you will see that they use presbyter as the translation.
But that is what your religion tries to mimic, by looks and deeds...There is absolutely nothing in the N.T. church in the scriptures that resembles your Catholic priesthood...Nothing...
Those things that happen in the book of Revelation have nothing to do with the layout or operation of the N.T. church...They have to do with a Temple, with Jesus on the Throne...
Are the words contained in what we call the Bible eternal or not?
The Word, Jesus Christ, is eternal. The words of Scripture are not. They were written in time.
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.