I do not claim there were no elders in the early church. However, priest is both a different word and a different role. A priest offers sacrifices. We are ALL priests, called to offer sacrifices of thanksgiving, good deeds, etc.
Priest is not an office in the early church because the sacrifice - Jesus - was given once for all...”He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.” Heb 7
“You can also search the Scriptures for (1) a notion that nothing was revealed to the 12 which was not also included in Scripture,”
Actually, what scripture says is that they A) “are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus”, and B) “[are] God-breathed and [are] useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Now, if the Apostles also taught something beyond what was required for salvation, and to thoroughly equip the man of God for every good work, have a nut! I always figured the Assumption of Mary would fall in that category, and if you want to say that knowledge was whispered from Bishop to Bishop for 1800 years, have at it!
But if you say you have extra doctrine required for salvation or to equip the man of God for every good work...well, that is a conflict.
And I thought Catholics agree that doctrine cannot disagree with scripture.
And of course, Petronski will say “your interpretation” and then fail to give any other interpretation....
Catholic Tradition does not disagree with Scripture...again, only with other personal interpretations of Scripture.
Wow.
Really?
You're telling me that's in the BIBLE?
Gosh, if we don't count the approximately 500 times that's been not only mentioned but examined on FR alone, I'd have to admit that I've never heard that before!
(Okay, I'm done with the ponderous, juvenile sarcasm. -- for the time being.)
I think it's a heck of a stretch to parlay that into (a)Sola Scriptura and (b) the notion that the Church went off the rails within about 5 minutes of that's being written. I certainly do NOT find it conclusive or dispositive. I think it's circular.
And I believe that passage is from a letter written to an episcopos, is it not?
I have already agreed that the modern sense of "priest" is more like hierous than like presbuteros. But, again, you quote a passage from Scripture as though you find it dispositive, and my sincere reaction is "So?" I am quite aware of the once-for-all nature of the sacrifice of Christ. Hebrews is one of the Epistles I actually spend considerable time with, since I find it strangely beautiful and compelling. We Catholics take seriously what Paul says about the Church as the body of Christ. The Sacrifice we offer is not, in our view, offered by us, nor is it offered more than once. It is offered by Christ once and for all.
And this goes not only for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but also for someone's offering the pain of a migraine headache or somesuch to Jesus to be united to His Sacrifice. His is the offering, He is the offering, priest, and victim.
Are you familiar with Justin Martyr's description of Xtian Sunday worship? It was written about 156 AD.
But in general, you guys use a sort of hidden hermeneutic which is post-1500, nationalistic and, even, sort of constitutional and Montesquieu-ish (is that a word).
Say on the Marian dogmata: We do NOT think that they were handed down in secret. We make no bones at all about discussing how doctrine develops. From the 5th century Vincent of Lerins to the 19th century Newman we talk about how various points which are present in germ are over time and in response, usually, to controversy unfolded (or "developed" if you prefer.)
Once they are so unfolded then a member of the Church who does not acquiesce with that unfolding is preferring his judgment to that of the Church. And we already discussed varieties of gifts and the teaching charism and vocation as covered in Paul.
What we have hear is about 500 years of different cultures. Those on the Protestant side not only don't get the whole Catholic culture of thought and law and the rest, but they think they DO get it. They say they see, so the problem, if not the fault, remains.
I finally began to understand this when I saw how a Protestant would deliver what he clearly thought was a devastating and final argument in refutation of some Catholic dogma or practice and we'd go, "Wha'? Of Course!" just as I did with the Hebrews reference.
You say, "Priesthood of all believers, once for all, so their can't be a Catholic priesthood," while we say, "Priesthood of all believers, once for all, THEREFORE there is a Catholic priesthood."
Then one side accuses the other of being disingenuous and goes off in a huff.
In another thread you said you don't require satisfaction from your horses, you require only amendment, (more or less.) I answered something like, "You could rephrase that as, 'The only satisfaction I require is amendment.'" But the conversation languished.