A Look at the Early Catholic Church from the Acts of the Apostles

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 04-26-16 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[aMorePerfectUnion]

But consider this aspect: Jesus is our one High Priest because He offers Himself as the sacrificial Lamb to the Father. At the Last Supper He says "Do this is remembrance of Me," so He is telling His Apostles there assembled, to join in his priestly action.

Christ did indeed offer Himself on the cross. He indeed commanded to carry out the Lord's Supper "in memory" of Him until He comes.

Christ gives no command to turn wine to blood, nor matzoh bread into His actual Body. Nor does He establish the Apostles (an actual office of the Church foundation) as "priests" (not an office of the Church). Hence, Priest is not "a" NT office of the Church; Priest is "the" NT office of the Church. And who does this priestly action? Jesus Christ Our Lord.

You are really stretching here MDO. It can only be because no verse establishes, nor recognizes "priest" as an office of the church.

This is all prophesied in Malachi, where He foresees that a pure and perfect sacrifice will be offered from the rising of the sun to its setting, among the gentiles. I thank God I have seen this prophecy fulfilled.

Dear Mrs. Don-o... this prophecy has nothing to do with the Church or the Lord's Supper. It has to do with Judah and Jerusalem, a real Temple and the restoration of sacrifices. As such, you haven't seen the fulfillment yet.

Here is a brief commentary on the passage to save me time.

3:1 The Lord’s response to the cynical Israelites was to point them to the future. He predicted the coming of His messenger (cf. Isa. 40:3–5). There is no question about who this was because Jesus identified him as John the Baptist (Matt. 11:10; cf. Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27). This future messenger would clear the way in preparation for Yahweh (cf. Isa. 40:3; John 1:23). Clearly Jesus Christ is Yahweh since John the Baptist prepared the way for Jesus.

Then the Lord, whom the Israelites were seeking, would suddenly come to His temple (cf. Ezek. 43:1–5; Zech. 8:3). Though Jesus entered the temple in Jerusalem many times during His earthly ministry, this sudden coming was not fulfilled then (cf. vv. 2–5). It will occur when He returns to set up His messianic kingdom. “The messenger of the covenant” is another name for the Lord who would come following the appearance of the first messenger promised in this verse. He would be the divine Messiah. “Messenger” means “angel,” and the Angel of the Lord is in view here. The “covenant” is the New Covenant that God promised to make with the Jews in the future (cf. Jer. 31:31–34; Ezek. 37:26). The Jews delighted in this Messenger because His coming had been a subject of messianic prophecy and an object of eager anticipation from early in Israel’s history (Gen. 3:15; pass.). Sovereign Yahweh promised His coming again here. The Jews had been expressing disbelief that God would intervene and establish justice in the world (2:17), but God promised He would.

3:2–3 When the Lord came suddenly to His temple, no one would be able to stand before Him. Elsewhere the prophets foretold that this time would be a day of judgment on the whole world marked by disaster and death (4:1; Isa. 2:12; Joel 3:11–16; Amos 5:18–21; Zech. 1:14–18).

Here Malachi said no one would be able to endure His coming because He would purify the priesthood, the people who stood closest to Him. As a fire He would burn up the impurities of the priests, and as a laundryman’s soap He would wash them clean (cf. Isa. 1:25; Jer. 6:29–30; Ezek. 22:17–22; Zech. 3:5). The Levitical priests would then be able to offer sacrifices to Yahweh in a righteous condition rather than as they were in Malachi’s day (cf. 1:6–2:9; Isa. 56:7; 66:20–23; Jer. 33:18; Ezek. 40:38–43; 43:13–27; 45:9–25; Zech. 14:16–21). The multiple figures of cleansing and the repetition of terms for cleansing stress the thoroughness of the change that the Lord’s Messenger would affect.

3:4 After this cleansing of the priests, Judah and Jerusalem (i.e., all Israel) would be able to offer sacrifices that would please the Lord, in contrast to the present ones that did not (cf. 1:13–14). They would be acceptable like the offerings the priests offered earlier in Israel’s history, before the priesthood had become corrupt. Constable, T. (2003). Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Mal 3:2–4).

[aMorePerfectUnion]

The English word “priest” is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, which is commonly rendered into Bible English as “elder” or “presbyter.”

Which doesn't make the Office that of the Catholic understanding of "priest", which entered later in history. All that matters is what the office meant in the exact words - in Greek - that God inspired in Scripture. He did not write Scripture in English.

The ministry of Catholic priests is that of the presbyters mentioned in the New Testament (Acts 15:6, 23).

No. The Scriptures referring to the Church record the actions of bishops and elders and deacons and apostles. Not priests - except Jewish and pagan.

The Bible says little about the duties of presbyters, but it does reveal they functioned in a priestly capacity.

It defines their duties in two passages and none describe "priests."

[Mrs. Don-o]

Welcome to the discussion, aMPU, and thanks for these thoughts.

When He said "This is my Body," and said "Do this," that indicates they too were to say "This is my Body" and it would be, in truth, His Body. They can't do it if they meant their own bodies (if "My" body meant "Fr. Strohmeyer's body") so it must be the offerer is not doing his own action, but participating mystically in the one action, the one sacrifice of Christ. It is Christ, only, who can say "This is My Body" and makes it so.

Correct?

Concerning Malachi: he speaks of a future time when, "from the rising of the sun to its setting" --- which means all around the world, east to west --- there would be a pure sacrifice among the Gentiles.

This refers neither to a sacrifice at Jerusalem, nor a sacrifice amongst the Jews. It specifically refers to everywhere in the world, and among the Gentiles.

[ealgeone]

The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ absolutely states that we need each other. Noplace in the Bible does it say "We are to pray to God only" --- if you mean pray in the sense relevant here, the sense of communicating and sharing with one another as living members of the living Christ.

See, the catholic has to again resort to redefining prayer.

But, here is the answer to your question.

1It happened that while Jesus was praying in a certain place, after He had finished, one of His disciples said to Him, “Lord, teach us to pray just as John also taught his disciples.”

2And He said to them, “When you pray, say:

‘Father, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come.

3‘Give us each day our daily bread. 4‘And forgive us our sins, For we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.’”

Jesus did not teach them to pray to anyone than other the Father.

Are we to pray for each other? Yes.

But those prayers are offered to God....not the saints, not Mary, not Paul, not Peter, etc.

[ResisTyr]

👍

[ResisTyr]

Where did the term “Catholic Church” first originate? I don’t ever remember Christ uttering that term. In fact His church should be referred to as “Christ’s Church” if anything.

[nascarnation]

The earliest recorded evidence of the use of the term “Catholic Church” is the Letter to the Smyrnaeans that Ignatius of Antioch wrote in about 107 to Christians in Smyrna. (from Wiki)

[daniel1212]

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.

Which is simply lying sophistry, which "Catholic Answers" specializes in, for in reality what "derived" means is that is this is where its etymology evolution leads, but which does not mean the end result is a valid representation of its original meaning (examples: cute used to mean bow-legged; bully originally meant darling or sweetheart; Nice originally meant stupid or foolish; ), and in the case of "priest" for presbyter it is certainly a different one.

Due to her erroneous understanding of the Lord's Supper (“Eucharist”), Catholicism (by the end of the 2nd century or later) came to consider NT pastors to be a distinctive sacerdotal class of clergy, distinctively called “priests” (which the RC Douay Rheims Bible inconsistently calls them: Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5), and sometimes “episkopos,”), but which the Holy Spirit never does. For the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests *, is “hiereus” or “archiereus (over 280 times total, mainly as the latter).” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) is never used for NT pastors. Nor do the words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) - which He does use for NT pastors (over 60 times) - mean "priest." Neither the Hebrew word, "ko^he^n," nor the Greek word "hiereus," or the Latin word "sacerdotes" for priest have any essential connection to the Greek word presbyteros. It follows that the Latin word "sacerdos" which corresponds to priest has no morphological or lingual relationship with the Latin word for “presbyter” (for which statements and certain others I rely on the knowledge of others, by God's grace). Nor are presbuteros or episkopos described as having 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.

Jewish elders (Hebrew "zaqen") as a body existed before the priesthood of Levitical priests (Hebrew "kohen"), most likely as heads of household or clans, and being an elder did not necessarily make one a Levitical priest (Ex. 3:16,18, 18:12; 19:7; 24:1; Num. 11:6; Dt. 21:2; 22:5-7; 31:9,28; 32:7; Josh. 23:2; 2Chron. 5:4; Lam. 1:9; cf. Mt. 21:13; 26:47) or a high priest, offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb. 5:1) While elders exercise could some priestly functions such as praying and laying hands on sacrifices, yet unlike presbuteros and episkopos, elders and priest were not the same in language or in distinctive function. Like very young Samuel, one could be a kohen/priest without being an zaqen/elder, and one could be a elder without formally being a priest, whose primary function was to offer expiatory sacrifices for the people.

The Catholic use of "priest" for what Scripture calls presbyteros/elder is defended by the use of an etymological fallacy since "priest" evolved from "presbyteros, if with uncertainty," with presbyteros being considered and called priests early on, based on Latin biblical and ecclesiastical language, and who were later referred to in old English (around 700 to 1000 AD) as "preostas" or "preost," and finally resulting in the modern English "priest," thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never using the distinctive term of hiereus for NT presbuteros, or describing as them as a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers.

However, etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and evolving changes in form and meaning. over time, but etymologies are not definitions. The etymological fallacy here is that of erroneously holding that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily essentially be the same as its original or historical meaning. Since presbyteros incorrectly evolved into priest (and were assigned an imposed unique sacerdotal function) therefore it is erroneously considered to be valid to distinctively use the same title for OT priests as for NT pastors, despite the Holy Spirit never doing so and the lack of unique sacerdotal distinction for NT presbyteros.

All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). But nowhere are NT pastors distinctively titled hiereus, and the idea of the NT presbuteros being a distintive class titled "hiereus" was a later development, with an imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function.

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." (http://books.google.com/books?id=ajZ_aR-VXn8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s)

And R. J. Grigaitis (O.F.S.) (while yet trying to defend the use of priest), reveals, "The Greek word for this office is ‘?e?e?? (hiereus), which can be literally translated into Latin as sacerdos. First century Christians [such as the inspired writers] felt that their special type of hiereus (sacerdos) was so removed from the original that they gave it a new name, presbuteros (presbyter). Unfortunately, sacerdos didn't evolve into an English word, but the word priest [from old English "preost"] took on its definition." (http://grigaitis.net/weekly/2007/2007-04-27.html)

Titus 1:5-7: Bishops and elders were one: the former (episkopos=superintendent or “overseer,”[from “epi” and “skopos” (“watch”) in the sense of “episkopeō,” to oversee, — Strong's) refers to function; the latter (presbuteros=senior) to seniority (in age, implying maturity, or position). Titus was to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbuteros] 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 [episkopos] must be blameless...” (Titus 1:5-7) Paul also "sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church," (Acts 20:17) who are said to be episkopos in v. 28. Elders are also what were ordained for every church in Acts 14:23, and bishops along with deacons are the only two classes of clergy whom Paul addresses in writing to the church in Phil. 1:1. This does not exclude that there could have been “archbishops/elders” in the New Testament church who were head pastors over others, but there is no titular distinctions in Scripture denoting such, and which distinctions are part of the hierarchical class distinctions which came later, and foster love of titles and position which the Lord warned about. (Mk. 10:42-44; Mt. 23:8-10).

Even the fourth century Roman Catholic scholar Jerome (347-420), confirms,

“The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptised, instead of leaving them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. And this is not my private opinion, it is that of Scripture. If you doubt that bishop and presbyter are the same, that the first word is one of function, and the second one of age, read the epistle of the Apostle to the Philippians. Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution of the Lord. (Commentary on Tit. 1.7, quoted. in “Religions of authority and the religion of the spirit," pp. 77,78. 1904, by AUGUSTE SABATIER. A similar translated version of this is provided by "Catholic World," Volume 32, by the Paulist Fathers, 1881, pp. 73,74).

There is more if you care to read itby God's grace.

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.”

Wrong, and which presumes the Catholic church is smarter than the Holy Spirit who refrains from ever using "priest" for NT pastors. Priests were not the only ones to lay hands on souls, which "a certain disciple named Ananias" did on Paul, (Acts 9:1-18) and deacons also could teach the flock, and perform healing, (Acts 8:5-7) and "certain prophets and teachers" sent Paul and Barnabas on their mission (Acts 13:1) while the distinctive and essential active duty of a priest is to offer sacrifice for sins, (Heb. 10;11) which for Catholics means the Eucharist, which NT pastors are never described as doing.

[rwa265]

This is why Christians say catholics worship Mary.

---

Quite a list you have there. Do you understand that Catholic Christians would look at this same list and say that we do not worship Mary?

Outward actions do not determine whether one is venerating or adoring. It is what is in the heart.

Catholics are in a better position to know what they mean by their actions than those who observe those actions. If you want to know what we mean by our actions, ask us. But don’t tell us we are worshiping Mary when we know in our hearts that we are not worshiping Mary. You cannot possibly know.

May the peace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ be with you.
Rich

[ealgeone]

Quite a list you have there. Do you understand that Catholic Christians would look at this same list and say that we do not worship Mary?

Sadly you're right.

[daniel1212]

Are you saying you don’t believe St. Luke or St. Paul?

See above. It is you who are saying you don’t believe St. Luke or St. Paul - of the Holy Spirit of Christ.

[ealgeone]

But that would be referring to the ekklesia..the body of all believers in Christ....not the roman catholic church.

There is a difference.

[ealgeone]

Something didn’t come through on your post.

[Mrs. Don-o]

What do you mean, "redefining" prayer? As if this were some innovation? Actually, using "pray" in a way that narrowly or restrictively indicates "adoration" is itself an innovation, and not a very legitimate one to import into a discussion on practices of the Christian faithful.

Look up how "pray" was used in Shakespeare's time, and you'll see that "pray" meant "ask," and you could pray anything from anyone "A bit more victuals, I pray thee." It's only recently, in the last 300-400 years, in English (not necessarily in other languages), that "pray" has been narrowed and construed --- by some --- to something like "worship."

When Jesus said to pray in this way --- "Our Father" --- He did not say that was the only prayer allowable. We can pray to God the Father, and God the Son, and God Our Lord the Holy Spirit --- that is to say, to the Holy Trinity --- in that one sense of adoration, and using many kinds of words. Otherwise, how short would church be! In and out in two minutes!

In a broader and time-honored sense, we can express verbally our living bond of love with anybody in the Body of Christ, share our joys and sorrows with them, and petition their prayers and intercession.

I can do this with you. With my husband. With my parents, who have gone on before us. With St. Peter, with St. Michael the Archangel, with St. Joseph Jesus' foster-father, and with Mary. And my mother (1913-1994) --- Winnie, please pray for your grandsons!

Otherwise, we'd be saying we don't need them. As if we didn't need them! St. Paul says you can never say you don't need them! We have a vital connection in Christ, living, constant, viral, powerful, effective as St. James says, and far stronger than death.

All these prayers are ultimately offered to God OF COURSE ---not "just" the saints, not Mary, not Paul, not Peter, etc. as if they could do anything as "independent operators" --- because we can offer them only with and through other members of the Body of Christ. In Him we live, and move, and have our being. Without Him, we are useless, incommunicado, powerless, pointless and dead.

So as for adoration, we do that to God alone, to the Blessed Trinity. As for prayer, we do that for each other. All of us. I pray for you, you pray for me.

[rwa265]

What’s sad is that those outside the Church waste so much time worrying about what Catholics believe. I would think that Christ wants us to be more concerned with building our own faith rather than tearing down the beliefs of His other followers.

[ealgeone]

Yes...we pray FOR each other but not TO each other. That's the difference.

What do you mean, "redefining" prayer? As if this were some innovation? Actually, using "pray" in a way that narrowly or restrictively indicates "adoration" is itself an innovation, and not a very legitimate one to import into a discussion on practices of the Christian faithful.

The catholic has to redefine prayer TO Mary as not being prayer to her, but rather, veneration/adoration.

Yet the catholic invokes Mary's name for salvation, mediation, advocacy, etc. Catholic writings teach the catholic can go to Mary and get prayers answered when Christ won't answer or isn't moving fast enough for the catholic.

I know that last line will upset some, but that is what catholicism teaches.

This is how easy the line is crossed when the catholic "venerates" Mary.

Any prayer to Mary is one less prayer to God.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"The catholic has to redefine prayer TO Mary as not being prayer to her, but rather, veneration/adoration."

Now hold on a minute. Wrong, wrong, and wrong: three times wrong in one sentence.

First, we are not "redefining" prayer. We are using the older and historic meaning of the word. I made that point in my last post with an observation on the shifting of the semantic field of the word "pray" over the past couple hundred years --- can you please deal with that?

Second, I NEVER said we don't pray *to* Mary, but quite the opposite: I said we do pray *to* Mary, and it's legit: we're not worshiping her as if she were a goddess or some such thing.

And third, I NEVER used the term "veneration/adoration." My repeated point is that veneration is NOT adoration.

Honestly, you're not thinking right, if you think I said the diametrical opposite of what I said.

Would you please read carefully and note that I say we DO pray to Mary, and this is NOT adoration?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

When He said "This is my Body," and said "Do this," that indicates they too were to say "This is my Body" and it would be, in truth, His Body. They can't do it if they meant their own bodies (if "My" body meant "Fr. Strohmeyer's body") so it must be the offerer is not doing his own action, but participating mystically in the one action, the one sacrifice of Christ. It is Christ, only, who can say "This is My Body" and makes it so.

This understanding of the Lord's Supper does not appear in the NT during the time of the Apostles. It happened later in history and is read back into passage, as you are doing. He says do in rememberance, not do over again. For a discussion of the historical development of the Eucharist, see Daniel1212's post on this thread. There isn't a reason for me to rewrite it.

It is worth noting in this discussion, that Christ's Sacrifice did not happen during celebration of the Passover, but the following day on the cross. There is nothing in Christ's Words that indicates the wine nor matzoh turned into His actual Body or Blood. There is every reason to understand His Words as metaphorical - just as the celebration of the Passover did not again re-sacrifice the lambs as on Passover, nor apply their blood to the doorpost. It was a remembrance of a historical event that was commanded to be carried out every year as a remembrance. So is the Lord's Supper - in memory of Him.

Concerning Malachi: he speaks of a future time when, "from the rising of the sun to its setting" --- which means all around the world, east to west --- there would be a pure sacrifice among the Gentiles.

In a Temple, by Levites.

This refers neither to a sacrifice at Jerusalem, nor a sacrifice amongst the Jews. It specifically refers to everywhere in the world, and among the Gentiles.

I thought you were referring to a different passage in Malachi. Sorry I confused the situation. This from Malachi 1:11:

“For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations,” says the LORD of hosts.

The passage says an offering of incense and a grain offering would occur among the nations. I note it says nothing about real body or real blood being involved. Nor does it mention wine.

Best, as always.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

forgot to ping you bro’

[ealgeone]

Second, I NEVER said we don't pray *to* Mary, but quite the opposite: I said we do pray *to* Mary, and it's legit: we're not worshiping her as if she were a goddess or some such thing.

The idols and statues say otherwise.