Replies

presbyters are not priests and priests are not presbyters

I'm sure this has been gone over, but still . . .

priest O.E. preost, shortened from the older Gmc. form represented by O.S., O.H.G. prestar, O.Fris. prestere, from V.L. *prester "priest," from L.L. presbyter "presbyter, elder," from Gk. presbyteros (see Presbyterian). In O.T. sense, a translation of Heb. kohen, Gk. hiereus, L. sacerdos.

How about looking at the language that God chose for the scriptures

the greek word for elder is different than the greek words for priest.. archiereus which translates into “High Priest” and hiereus which translates one that OFFERS SACRIFICES.

The role of the priesthood in scripture was to offer sacrifices.. That is what a priest does in scripture.. God set aside one tribe to be priests, they were not granted any land as God was their inheritance .

The greek have a couple words for priest

hiereus

1) a priest, one who offers sacrifices and in general in busied with sacred rites
a) referring to priests of Gentiles or the Jews,
2) metaph. of Christians, because, purified by the blood of Christ and brought into close intercourse with God, they devote their life to him alone and to Christ

and archiereus

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) chief priest, high priest
2) the high priests, these comprise in addition to one holding the high priestly office, both those who had previously discharged it and although disposed, continued to have great power in the State, as well as the members of the families from which high priest were created, provided that they had much influence in public affairs.
3) Used of Christ because by undergoing a bloody death he offered himself as an expiatory sacrifice to God, and has entered into the heavenly sanctuary where he continually intercedes on our behalf.

Neither role is given in scripture for the new church ..

Christ fulfilled the role of Priest on the cross.. there is no more sacrifice for sin

He is now our High Priest..

The word for elder is presbyteros here is the GREEK definition
1) elder, of age,
a) the elder of two people
b) advanced in life, an elder, a senior
1) forefathers
2) a term of rank or office
a) among the Jews
1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)
2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice
b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably
c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God

Even the Douay-Rheims Bible does not translate that as priests.
.
Acts 4:5 And it came to pass on the morrow, that their princes, and ancients, and scribes, were gathered together in Jerusalem;

A poor translation from the greek, but non the less even they did not translate it as priest.

Now the Holy Spirit knows the difference in the greek words.. there is no priesthood provided for in the NT church.

There was no priests in the new church.it was about 300 AD before the first priesthood appeared..

The root theological problem is that in the way they approach scripture, and especially in terms of their non-Biblical individualism, they do not understand what it means that the Church is the Body of Christ and the we are members of that Body, having different functions and roles.

They do not understand what it means that we have died and are vivified with Christ's Spirit. And they do not understand Christ, eternity, or infinity.

They read Paul -- who is certainly very great indeed -- but they do not understand his very practical mysticism. And lacking this understanding, they have to go to the times before Christ or to non-Christian religions for their notion of priesthood.

This is why, on the vexed matter of "alter Christus" they completely miss the boat. They cannot articulate what it is they argue against in a way which we recognize as having to do with what we profess. And so they hurl the same dicta at us over and over again and it makes absolutely no difference to what we believe.

Arguing with them is like fighting with phantoms, but they are always fighting not against the Catholic Church but against their own mistaken ideas of what we teach and believe. And when we point out the errors, they blame us.

When the conversation reaches this stage it's best to back off. When they want to learn what we teach, they will be taught. Until then let them repeat themselves. It does them no good and us no harm. And these matters are of too great consequence to waste much time in idle fencing. If Rnmomof7 prefers her idea of what we teach to the truth, it's okay. She's a good person; God is a gracious God; it'll all come out OK.