Posted on 05/17/2012 5:40:57 PM PDT by Gamecock
Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why.....
The number of people who have left the Catholic church is huge.
We all have heard stories about why people leave. Parents share stories about their children. Academics talk about their students. Everyone has a friend who has left.
While personal experience can be helpful, social science research forces us to look beyond our circle of acquaintances to see what is going on in the whole church.
The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life has put hard numbers on the anecdotal evidence: One out of every 10 Americans is an ex-Catholic. If they were a separate denomination, they would be the third-largest denomination in the United States, after Catholics and Baptists. One of three people who were raised Catholic no longer identifies as Catholic.
Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why. But the U.S. bishops have never devoted any time at their national meetings to discussing the exodus. Nor have they spent a dime trying to find out why it is happening.
Thankfully, although the U.S. bishops have not supported research on people who have left the church, the Pew Center has.
Pew’s data shows that those leaving the church are not homogenous. They can be divided into two major groups: those who become unaffiliated and those who become Protestant. Almost half of those leaving the church become unaffiliated and almost half become Protestant. Only about 10 percent of ex-Catholics join non-Christian religions. This article will focus on Catholics who have become Protestant. I am not saying that those who become unaffiliated are not important; I am leaving that discussion to another time.
Why do people leave the Catholic church to become Protestant? Liberal Catholics will tell you that Catholics are leaving because they disagree with the church’s teaching on birth control, women priests, divorce, the bishops’ interference in American politics, etc. Conservatives blame Vatican II, liberal priests and nuns, a permissive culture and the church’s social justice agenda.
One of the reasons there is such disagreement is that we tend to think that everyone leaves for the same reason our friends, relatives and acquaintances have left. We fail to recognize that different people leave for different reasons. People who leave to join Protestant churches do so for different reasons than those who become unaffiliated. People who become evangelicals are different from Catholics who become members of mainline churches.
Spiritual needs
The principal reasons given by people who leave the church to become Protestant are that their “spiritual needs were not being met” in the Catholic church (71 percent) and they “found a religion they like more” (70 percent). Eighty-one percent of respondents say they joined their new church because they enjoy the religious service and style of worship of their new faith.
In other words, the Catholic church has failed to deliver what people consider fundamental products of religion: spiritual sustenance and a good worship service. And before conservatives blame the new liturgy, only 11 percent of those leaving complained that Catholicism had drifted too far from traditional practices such as the Latin Mass.
Dissatisfaction with how the church deals with spiritual needs and worship services dwarfs any disagreements over specific doctrines. While half of those who became Protestants say they left because they stopped believing in Catholic teaching, specific questions get much lower responses. Only 23 percent said they left because of the church’s teaching on abortion and homosexuality; only 23 percent because of the church’s teaching on divorce; only 21 percent because of the rule that priests cannot marry; only 16 percent because of the church’s teaching on birth control; only 16 percent because of the way the church treats women; only 11 percent because they were unhappy with the teachings on poverty, war and the death penalty.
The data shows that disagreement over specific doctrines is not the main reason Catholics become Protestants. We also have lots of survey data showing that many Catholics who stay disagree with specific church teachings. Despite what theologians and bishops think, doctrine is not that important either to those who become Protestant or to those who stay Catholic.
People are not becoming Protestants because they disagree with specific Catholic teachings; people are leaving because the church does not meet their spiritual needs and they find Protestant worship service better.
Nor are the people becoming Protestants lazy or lax Christians. In fact, they attend worship services at a higher rate than those who remain Catholic. While 42 percent of Catholics who stay attend services weekly, 63 percent of Catholics who become Protestants go to church every week. That is a 21 percentage-point difference.
Catholics who became Protestant also claim to have a stronger faith now than when they were children or teenagers. Seventy-one percent say their faith is “very strong,” while only 35 percent and 22 percent reported that their faith was very strong when they were children and teenagers, respectively. On the other hand, only 46 percent of those who are still Catholic report their faith as “very strong” today as an adult.
Thus, both as believers and as worshipers, Catholics who become Protestants are statistically better Christians than those who stay Catholic. We are losing the best, not the worst.
Some of the common explanations of why people leave do not pan out in the data. For example, only 21 percent of those becoming Protestant mention the sex abuse scandal as a reason for leaving. Only 3 percent say they left because they became separated or divorced.
Becoming Protestant
If you believed liberals, most Catholics who leave the church would be joining mainline churches, like the Episcopal church. In fact, almost two-thirds of former Catholics who join a Protestant church join an evangelical church. Catholics who become evangelicals and Catholics who join mainline churches are two very distinct groups. We need to take a closer look at why each leaves the church.
Fifty-four percent of both groups say that they just gradually drifted away from Catholicism. Both groups also had almost equal numbers (82 percent evangelicals, 80 percent mainline) saying they joined their new church because they enjoyed the worship service. But compared to those who became mainline Protestants, a higher percentage of those becoming evangelicals said they left because their spiritual needs were not being met (78 percent versus 57 percent) and that they had stopped believing in Catholic teaching (62 percent versus 20 percent). They also cited the church’s teaching on the Bible (55 percent versus 16 percent) more frequently as a reason for leaving. Forty-six percent of these new evangelicals felt the Catholic church did not view the Bible literally enough. Thus, for those leaving to become evangelicals, spiritual sustenance, worship services and the Bible were key. Only 11 percent were unhappy with the church’s teachings on poverty, war, and the death penalty Ñ the same percentage as said they were unhappy with the church’s treatment of women. Contrary to what conservatives say, ex-Catholics are not flocking to the evangelicals because they think the Catholic church is politically too liberal. They are leaving to get spiritual nourishment from worship services and the Bible.
Looking at the responses of those who join mainline churches also provides some surprising results. For example, few (20 percent) say they left because they stopped believing in Catholic teachings. However, when specific issues were mentioned in the questionnaire, more of those joining mainline churches agreed that these issues influenced their decision to leave the Catholic church. Thirty-one percent cited unhappiness with the church’s teaching on abortion and homosexuality, women, and divorce and remarriage, and 26 percent mentioned birth control as a reason for leaving. Although these numbers are higher than for Catholics who become evangelicals, they are still dwarfed by the number (57 percent) who said their spiritual needs were not met in the Catholic church.
Thus, those becoming evangelicals were more generically unhappy than specifically unhappy with church teaching, while those who became mainline Protestant tended to be more specifically unhappy than generically unhappy with church teaching. The unhappiness with the church’s teaching on poverty, war and the death penalty was equally low for both groups (11 percent for evangelicals; 10 percent for mainline).
What stands out in the data on Catholics who join mainline churches is that they tend to cite personal or familiar reasons for leaving more frequently than do those who become evangelicals. Forty-four percent of the Catholics who join mainline churches say that they married someone of the faith they joined, a number that trumps all doctrinal issues. Only 22 percent of those who join the evangelicals cite this reason.
Perhaps after marrying a mainline Christian and attending his or her church’s services, the Catholic found the mainline services more fulfilling than the Catholic service. And even if they were equally attractive, perhaps the exclusion of the Protestant spouse from Catholic Communion makes the more welcoming mainline church attractive to an ecumenical couple.
Those joining mainline communities also were more likely to cite dissatisfaction of the Catholic clergy (39 percent) than were those who became evangelical (23 percent). Those who join mainline churches are looking for a less clerically dominated church.
Lessons from the data
There are many lessons that we can learn from the Pew data, but I will focus on only three.
First, those who are leaving the church for Protestant churches are more interested in spiritual nourishment than doctrinal issues. Tinkering with the wording of the creed at Mass is not going to help. No one except the Vatican and the bishops cares whether Jesus is “one in being” with the Father or “consubstantial” with the Father. That the hierarchy thinks this is important shows how out of it they are.
While the hierarchy worries about literal translations of the Latin text, people are longing for liturgies that touch the heart and emotions. More creativity with the liturgy is needed, and that means more flexibility must be allowed. If you build it, they will come; if you do not, they will find it elsewhere. The changes that will go into effect this Advent will make matters worse, not better.
Second, thanks to Pope Pius XII, Catholic scripture scholars have had decades to produce the best thinking on scripture in the world. That Catholics are leaving to join evangelical churches because of the church teaching on the Bible is a disgrace. Too few homilists explain the scriptures to their people. Few Catholics read the Bible.
The church needs a massive Bible education program. The church needs to acknowledge that understanding the Bible is more important than memorizing the catechism. If we could get Catholics to read the Sunday scripture readings each week before they come to Mass, it would be revolutionary. If you do not read and pray the scriptures, you are not an adult Christian. Catholics who become evangelicals understand this.
Finally, the Pew data shows that two-thirds of Catholics who become Protestants do so before they reach the age of 24. The church must make a preferential option for teenagers and young adults or it will continue to bleed. Programs and liturgies that cater to their needs must take precedence over the complaints of fuddy-duddies and rubrical purists.
Current religious education programs and teen groups appear to have little effect on keeping these folks Catholic, according to the Pew data, although those who attend a Catholic high school do appear to stay at a higher rate. More research is needed to find out what works and what does not.
The Catholic church is hemorrhaging members. It needs to acknowledge this and do more to understand why. Only if we acknowledge the exodus and understand it will we be in a position to do something about it.
It seems to me that the works that demonstrate faith are those works that flow from faith naturally and evidently. We have faith and we’re (or should be) to action.
Salvation isn’t a payback or wages earned but rather the response of God being pleased by our faith.
As Paul said, “without faith, it is impossible to please Him well....” (Heb 10:6)
Actually, it has become the gates of Hell for multitudes, as for being “narrow,” that we both know is an insolent assertion, as Rome treats even the most nominal as members in life and in death.
And even in high places there are different kinds of Catholics:
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, the head of the Roman Catholic in England and Wales recently expressed his hope and belief that God will save all people in an interview he gave for the Catholic Herald.
In an interview with The Catholic Herald this week, the Cardinal reveals his optimism for mankind as he sets out his vision of both heaven and hell.
Hell, he implies, may even be empty – conforming with Our Lord’s wish to save all souls. And heaven is a place where believers and non- believers may meet.
Q: And hell?
A: We’re not bound to believe that anybody’s there, let’s face it. But certainly in the Scriptures there’s a stark confrontation between heaven and hell.
But when Jesus talks about hell, it’s also exhorting people to repent, to turn away. It is in the context not of “you will be damned”, but “repent and turn to God”. I believe that hell exists and it is really the absence of God...
I cannot think of heaven without thinking of being in communion with all the saints and with all the people I’ve loved on this earth.
Q: It is sometimes said that there will be a separate heaven for Bavarians because they would not be in a state of eternal happiness if they had to share heaven with the Prussians. Will Catholics and Protestants be together in heaven?
A: I hope they won’t be separate. I think that the divisions manifest here on earth will be reconciled in some mysterious way in heaven. I’m not thinking just of Catholics and Protestants, but people of other faiths and people of no faith. We are all children of God.
Q: So we shouldn’t be surprised if we were to meet in heaven someone who was a Muslim or an atheist on earth?
A: I hope I will be surprised in heaven... I think I will be. www.romancatholicism.org/cormac-apokatastasis.htm
Also,
..there’s a question about whether this canon’’ – the relevant church law – “was ever intended to be used’’ to bring politicians to heel. He thinks not. “I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon was never intended to be used this way.’’ — from the thread [Archbishop] Wuerl: Why I Won’t Deny Pelosi Communion (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2247058/posts)
And.
Albany Bishop Howard Hubbard says it is “unfair and imprudent” to conclude that Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his girlfriend, Sandra Lee, shouldn’t receive Communion simply because they’re living together. — from the thread Bishop: None of your business (Hubbard rejects Catholic expert’s criticism of Gov. Cuomo; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2627965/posts)
From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/benign>http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/benignity
be·nign (b-nn) adj.
2. Showing gentleness and mildness. See Synonyms at kind1.
3. Tending to exert a beneficial influence; favorable: a policy with benign consequences for the economy. See Synonyms at favorable.
4. Having little or no detrimental effect; harmless: a chemical additive that is environmentally benign.
5. Medicine Of no danger to health; not recurrent or progressive; not malignant: a benign tumor.
Good question. I would add, why doesn't drinking of this "Living Water" then mean we would never be thirsty again? Jesus said so. Also, Jesus said he was the Bread of Life and those who "ate" this bread would never hunger again, so why does it have to be repeated? Why do people still go eat lunch after Mass?
Or even, it seems, the anti-everyone-who-isn't-Catholics who show up on Protestant topic threads and buzz around like flies on a hot August ..... Some of you guys just can't help yourselves, can you? It's a form of religous OCD. You know...scrupulosity?
And there's that scrupulosity again. What part of my post did you find haunting or unkind? My intention was to give counsel and comfort to Papertyger. If you felt offended perhaps you should first look inward, in what we Catholics call reflection, to determine why.
Peace be with you
"ho artos hemon ho epiousios" (Τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον) - Matthew 6:11
You should partake of the Eucharist as often as you sin.
"Dearly beloved and most cherished brethren, who are gathered in this holy temple to adore the living God in piety and justice and partake of the holy, immortal, spotless, and awesome mysteries of Christ: hear me, humble and unworthy as I am, for it is not I who speak and teach you, but the grace of the all-holy, good, and life-creating Spirit. I speak, not on my own, but as I was taught by the Holy Canons, the God-bearing Fathers, and the ways of our Holy Church as received by the holy apostles, instructed by God. I am the humblest and smallest of men: I do not know your actions nor do I know your needs, but I do know the fear of God which commands each and every one of us, both men and women, small and great: Let none of you who is guilty of sin and who is gnawed by his or her conscience dare to draw near this sacred Fire before repenting and confessing or to come in ridicule, because God is a consuming Fire."
"To those who draw near in faith and fear of Him who is our God and King and the judge of all mankind, He will completely burn away your sins and will fill your souls with light and sanctification."
"But to the faithless who draw near without shame, He burns and sears both soul and body. “For this reason there are many among you who are sick and, being sick, sleep”; that is, many die without having repented or been forgiven."
"Therefore, my brethren, I implore you and say: let no blasphemer, perjurer or liar, no fornicator, adulterer or sodomite, no magician or fortune teller, no thief or heretic draw near to the awesome mysteries of Christ or touch them without having confessed and prepared himself, for “it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” - Saint John Chrysostom
Peace and Blessings.
I agree with your points. It made me to start thinking about how the Jews that were following Jesus around to get the free meals he always seemed to provide, ran out on Him when he spoke about giving His flesh and blood for them to consume. He obviously had already been talking about how God provided manna in the wilderness for the Jews following Moses, and he very clearly said that those who ate that bread perished, but the bread he would give, they would never hunger and never die. The shallow thinkers among them got grossed out thinking he was talking about his literal flesh and blood - and they DID know the Law of Moses prohibiting such - and they took off before he sat down with those who remained, that still believed enough in him, to explain His meaning. Peter said it well, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God."
It is strange that even today there are people who INSIST that Jesus WAS speaking of literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood and they even came up with a term to use to explain away the very clear evidence that the bread and wine used in the service didn't actually change their substances. Pages and pages of philosophy and theological wranglings - all done to get people to believe they alone had the POWER to confect such a change.
I think, more than the dismay I feel over the confusion and even battles such wranglings have caused, I anguish most for those who have been convinced that only their church has special priests who have this magic power and, no matter how much Scripture speaks to them of the truth, they are bound to their religion with the chains of "only we can give you eternal life because only we can give you the true body of Christ". I praise the Lord that He led me out before those chains took hold and I endeavor to join with my brothers and sisters in Christ to not cease to speak the truth of the Gospel whenever and where ever God leads. Thank you for your words.
Would you also call sophists:
Alexander Roberts and W. H. Rambaut, trans., The Writings of Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.2.2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1874)
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. III, Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh,
Eusebius of Caesarea, On the Theology of the Church, iii.11, 12. Taken from Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist
A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, The Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem, XXII.1-2, XXIII.7 (Oxford: Parker, 1842),
Pope Gelasius, I On the Two Natures in Christ. Taken from Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, vol. I (London: Longmans, Green, 1909),
J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978)
Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. II, St. Augustin: The City of God and On Christian Doctrine, On Christian Doctrine 3.16.2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956)
A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John by S. Augustine, Homily 92.1, p. 873; Homily 50.13 (Oxford: Parker, 1849)
Theologians such as Duns Scotus, Biel, Occam & Wessel
Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988)
Francis Clark, Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967)
Thomas Falls, Saint Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 117, (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1948)
St. Augustin: The Writings Against the Manicheans and Against the Donatists, Reply to Faustus the Manichean 6.5, 20.21 (New York: Longmans, Green, 1909)
Because those are the sources Webster used to prove his contentions See http://www.the-highway.com/eucharist_Webster.html. The blatant biases I am speaking of are from those that refuse to read an article from a man who dared to leave the Church they worship no matter how well researched AND truthful it is. You guys sure brag about all the former Protestants that leave for Catholicism, yet it has not stopped me from reading their views. I think it begs the question, what are you afraid of?
What part did I find UN-benign? Probably when you said:
One need look no further than any Catholic topic thread in this forum to find examples of scrupulosity in those anti-Catholics who show up like flies on a hot August dung heap.
In the not so distant past, I recall a person who often used scatological words to describe those he disagreed with. I also recall a verbal confession of a changed heart and attitude that sounded repentant about using such unChristian terms and a determination to always speak with love and demonstration of Christian charity that reminded others of the exhortation to:
Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. (Eph. 4:29)
But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. (Col. 3:8)
I try to abide by this and in my own way, give counsel and comfort and help my fellow Christians look inward, reflect and determine why they choose the words they do. Hope this was helpful.
“ANY kind of works to the equation it ceases to be grace and becomes a debt owed because of work. Romans 11:6 very clearly states that if it is by grace then it cannot be by works because grace would not be grace. The opposite is true, too, if we are saved by our works, then it cannot be by grace because work would not be work.”
~ ~ ~
Romans 11:6
[6] And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace.
footnote:
[6] It is not now by works: If salvation were to come by works, done by nature, without faith and grace, salvation would not be a grace or favour, but a debt; but such dead works are indeed of no value in the sight of God towards salvation. It is not the same with regard to works done with, and by, God’s grace; for to such works as these, he has promised eternal salvation.
Please READ the footnote. In CAPS, BB said: “ANY” kind of works, Paul doesn’t mean ALL work, He’s means work done in a payment due type of thinking, a debt, no. Two verses that would help you understand are Roman 4:4 and Galatians 3:18.
Romans 4:4
Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt.
Here, Catholic Thinker puts it better and so does the Catechism and the Council of Trent. read on...
+ + +
Sola fide is a false and unscriptural teaching, but, even so, it is not at all accurate to say that Catholicism teaches “works-based” salvation. The Catholic teaching regarding salvation is that it is, first of all, a free gift from God (grace) - no man can merit salvation. This can be readily verified from a catechism or any orthodox Catholic source. See the Catechism here:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a2.htm
and also
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm
The Council of Trent states: “We are said to be justified by grace because nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification. For ‘if it is by grace, it is no longer by works; otherwise,’ as the apostle says, ‘grace is no more grace’”.
This DOES NOT MEAN, however, that good works do not play any role in salvation. Scripture demonstrates that faith & works are bound together.
As is all too typical of Protestant objections to Catholic teaching, their arguments pit Scripture against Scripture, via gross oversimplification (“proof-texting”) and reading select verses in isolation, whereas the Catholic teaching beautifully harmonizes the whole of Scripture...
+ + +
He’s not being anti- Protestant by the last paragraph,
Protestants do, they ignore verses which contradict
Martin Luther’s faith alone.
James 2:24
Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
PASTING POST #993. Jesus says “flesh” several times in
John 6 in speaking about His FLESH. Why is it taken
literally sometimes in the same chapter but called a
“symbol”, a metaphor at other times in the very same chapter? The first Christians believed Our Lord’s words, you receive His body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. It’s divine, supernatural, change, Our Lord
wants you to believe.
_____ _____ ______
John 6:55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
John 6:55 is the metaphor.
~ ~ ~
John 6:51-52
I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my FLESH, for the life of the world.
Jesus says that the bread which He will give for the life of the world is His flesh. When did He give His flesh for the life of the world? On the cross. Was that symbolic? If you think Jesus is speaking symbolically here when He says that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, then you must also conclude that Jesus’ death on the cross was symbolic...it wasn’t really Jesus hanging up there...it was symbolic flesh and symbolic blood.
Thanks for posting that. It’s stunning to see just how much Catholics have essentially replaced Christ with Mary.
They indeed are, and in fact everyone is acting out what they really, truly believe, at least at the moment, regardless of whether it corresponds to what they profess. And every time we chose to yield to the desires of the flesh (which need not be in a “big” sin, but even lust for food) we are saying that it is Lord, but the Christian wishes he/she would never sin (thus even if they could sin in Heaven, they will not). See http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/rubornagain.html “ARE YOU BORN AGAIN?, by J. C. RYLE - 1816-1900
May our (my) consecration always match our desire, by faith.
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).
Does presbyter or elder mean priest?
In her effort to conform the Bible to her erroneous understanding of what the elements used in the Lord's Supper (“Eucharist”), Roman Catholicism (and near kin) came to render presbuteros” as “priests” in English (which the RC Douay Rheims Bible inconsistently does: Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5), and sometimes “episkopos,” but neither of which is the same word which is distinctly used for priests*, that being “hiereus” or “archiereus.” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) Nor does presbuteros or episkopos denote 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.
The only priesthood (hierateuma) of the church is that of all believers as they function as priests, offering both gifts and sacrifices response to being forgiven of sins, in thanksgiving and service to God and for others. (1Pt. 2:5; Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9)
Jewish elders as a body existed before the priesthood, 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) A priest could be an elder, and could elders exercise some priestly functions such as praying and laying hands on sacrifices, but unlike presbuteros and episkopos. the two were not the same in language or in function, as one could be a elder without formally being a priest. Even the Latin word (sacerdos) which corresponds to priest has no morphological or lingual relationship with the Latin word for “presbyter.”
Despite the Scriptural distinctions in titles, Rome made the word “presbyteros” (elders) to mean “priest” by way of functional equivalence, supposing that the bishops turn bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ which is then physically consumed. However, the elements used in the commemoration of the Lord death (“the Lord's supper,” and called the “Eucharist” by Catholics) symbolically represent Christ death (see here), and the sacrifice involved in this is one which all communicants are to engage in, that of unselfish love for His body, the church (as shown here in the exegesis of 1Cor. 11:17-33). Moreover, despite Rome's centralization of this act as a cardinal doctrine, little is taught on it, the description of the Lord's supper and of disciples breaking bread neither assigns nor infers that pastors engaged in transforming the elements, but simply show it to be a communal meal. Thus formally identifying a distinctive class of Christian clergy as “priests” rather than “presbyters” (elders) is not only grammatically incorrect by is functionally unwarranted and unscriptural.
In response to a query on this issue, the web site of International Standard Version (not my preferred translation) states,
No Greek lexicons or other scholarly sources suggest that "presbyteros" means "priest" instead of "elder". The Greek word is equivalent to the Hebrew ZAQEN, which means "elder", and not priest. You can see the ZAQENIM described in Exodus 18:21-22 using some of the same equivalent Hebrew terms as Paul uses in the GK of 1&2 Timothy and Titus. Note that the ZAQENIM are NOT priests (i.e., from the tribe of Levi) but are rather men of distinctive maturity that qualifies them for ministerial roles among the people.
Therefore the NT equivalent of the ZAQENIM cannot be the Levitical priests. The Greek "presbyteros" (literally, the comparative of the Greek word for "old" and therefore translated as "one who is older") thus describes the character qualities of the "episkopos". The term "elder" would therefore appear to describe the character, while the term "overseer" (for that is the literal rendering of "episkopos") connotes the job description.
To sum up, far from obfuscating the meaning of "presbyteros", our rendering of "elder" most closely associates the original Greek term with its OT counterpart, the ZAQENIM. ...we would also question the fundamental assumption that you bring up in your last observation, i.e., that "the church has always had priests among its ordained clergy". We can find no documentation of that claim. (http://isv.org/catacombs/elders.htm)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).
Does presbyter or elder mean priest?
In her effort to conform the Bible to her erroneous understanding of what the elements used in the Lord's Supper (“Eucharist”), Roman Catholicism (and near kin) came to render presbuteros” as “priests” in English (which the RC Douay Rheims Bible inconsistently does: Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5), and sometimes “episkopos,” but neither of which is the same word which is distinctly used for priests*, that being “hiereus” or “archiereus.” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) Nor does presbuteros or episkopos denote 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.
The only priesthood (hierateuma) of the church is that of all believers as they function as priests, offering both gifts and sacrifices response to being forgiven of sins, in thanksgiving and service to God and for others. (1Pt. 2:5; Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9)
Jewish elders as a body existed before the priesthood, 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) A priest could be an elder, and could elders exercise some priestly functions such as praying and laying hands on sacrifices, but unlike presbuteros and episkopos. the two were not the same in language or in function, as one could be a elder without formally being a priest. Even the Latin word (sacerdos) which corresponds to priest has no morphological or lingual relationship with the Latin word for “presbyter.”
Despite the Scriptural distinctions in titles, Rome made the word “presbyteros” (elders) to mean “priest” by way of functional equivalence, supposing that the bishops turn bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ which is then physically consumed. However, the elements used in the commemoration of the Lord death (“the Lord's supper,” and called the “Eucharist” by Catholics) symbolically represent Christ death (see here), and the sacrifice involved in this is one which all communicants are to engage in, that of unselfish love for His body, the church (as shown here in the exegesis of 1Cor. 11:17-33). Moreover, despite Rome's centralization of this act as a cardinal doctrine, little is taught on it, the description of the Lord's supper and of disciples breaking bread neither assigns nor infers that pastors engaged in transforming the elements, but simply show it to be a communal meal. Thus formally identifying a distinctive class of Christian clergy as “priests” rather than “presbyters” (elders) is not only grammatically incorrect by is functionally unwarranted and unscriptural.
In response to a query on this issue, the web site of International Standard Version (not my preferred translation) states,
No Greek lexicons or other scholarly sources suggest that "presbyteros" means "priest" instead of "elder". The Greek word is equivalent to the Hebrew ZAQEN, which means "elder", and not priest. You can see the ZAQENIM described in Exodus 18:21-22 using some of the same equivalent Hebrew terms as Paul uses in the GK of 1&2 Timothy and Titus. Note that the ZAQENIM are NOT priests (i.e., from the tribe of Levi) but are rather men of distinctive maturity that qualifies them for ministerial roles among the people.
Therefore the NT equivalent of the ZAQENIM cannot be the Levitical priests. The Greek "presbyteros" (literally, the comparative of the Greek word for "old" and therefore translated as "one who is older") thus describes the character qualities of the "episkopos". The term "elder" would therefore appear to describe the character, while the term "overseer" (for that is the literal rendering of "episkopos") connotes the job description.
To sum up, far from obfuscating the meaning of "presbyteros", our rendering of "elder" most closely associates the original Greek term with its OT counterpart, the ZAQENIM. ...we would also question the fundamental assumption that you bring up in your last observation, i.e., that "the church has always had priests among its ordained clergy". We can find no documentation of that claim. (http://isv.org/catacombs/elders.htm)
Scripture couldn't be any more clearer than that...
Obviously the words of God are meaningless and contemptible to that Catholic leader/teacher...
That priests were not a feature of the early Christian congregation. But the truth cannot be repeated too often, thanks for the post.
That's the idiocy of your religion's teaching...
All of scripture does NOT harmonize...You can not harmonize all of scripture and come out with any coherent understanding...It doesn't fit... You end up throwing away most of the scripture because you don't know what to do with it...
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
You have to RIGHTLY divide the scriptures, not run them all together to create one big mess...And it does when you run them together...
You guys even have to throw out most of John chapter 6 because it doesn't all fit with your literal interpretation of a few of the verses you like...
That shows a serious lack of spiritual guidance in your religion's reading of the scriptures...
In John 6 Jesus says that anyone that eats of Him should live forever. Then why to people who take communion in the Catholic church die?
There's a real problem with interpretations that take one sentence in a passage literally and the next figuratively, and then another one metaphorically, all depending on what they want it to say.
In interpreting a passage, there should be at least some consistency in HOW the passage if to be interpreted. If it's to be literal, take ALL of it literally. If it can't all be taken literally without contradicting itself, other Scripture, or making no sense at all, then it's perfectly clear that it ought not to be taken literally, that there's some other way of interpreting it.
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.