Of course not as you are not to objectively examine the evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching, as your assurance of Truth rests upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.
This you cannot deny, and is cultic, not Christian, as the NT did not begin under the premise of an assuredly infallible magisterium being essential for valid assurance of Truth, so that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation requires this.
And your citations of Pelikan were from 1959.
I myself stated that he was later Orthodox, and it was almost 40 years later that he was formally taken in by the EOs, stating that he had not as much converted to Orthodoxy as "returned to it, peeling back the layers of my own belief to reveal the Orthodoxy that was always there." And which does not invalidate what he said in those quotes, nor that he rejected it, as what he pointed out was the variegated beliefs of Rome before Trent and the historical basis for the Reformers, contra Roman apologetics.
We need not discount the scholarship of believers who later became apostate (not that i am judging Pelikan as saved or lost, even as a Lutheran), and if it was a proRoman scholar before becoming evangelical, then the testimony of his prior scholarship surely would be held as valid by RCs.
His Development of CHristian Doctrine 5 volume work was from the 70’s and after his Patristic and Early Church History works, he became Eastern Orthodox
And as another convert (former SBC) to EO states,
"The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." — .” Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135; And Pelikan is not alone in faulting Trent:
Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development." Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries ...
On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. - http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html
and also worked from the East to help bridge the gap between Rome and the East.
The division btwn East and West is deeper and wider than the kisses, and after about a millennium will they not be reconciled.
The reason the term priest was not used was largely cultural and reflects the early Church wanting to separate itself somewhat from Temple Jewish practice of the Levites and avoid a term that was also used by pagan Greeks who also had both priests and priestesses.
Typical RC spin, and this cultural cause being one that feminist use to invalidate male headship. Pagans had priests and priestesses in the OT as well, but the Holy Spirit was not afraid of mixing them up, while what we do not have in the NT is NT pastors engaging in a unique sacrificial atoning function, which is the primary distinction of priests, and a manifest reason NT pastors are never given that title by the Holy Spirit.
And as said, Catholic scholars attribute the title as being due to the view of the Eucharist.
the Apostles were clearly charged to commemorate the Eucharist,
More extrapolation from Scripture. They were simply shown a simple ceremony and told, "this do in remembrance of me" "as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." (Lk. 22:19; 1Cor. 11:25) and which the entire church is told to do.
And never is any more instruction given them on how to perform this or shown doing so, or is it otherwise evidenced to be a priestly function, but in the only manifest description of it interpretive of the gospel accounts then it is described contrary to a RC Mass, as instead it was a communal meal in which independent eating was actually not to eat the Lord's supper. For it was by and how they engaged in a communal meal that they showed the Lord's death, by recognizing each other as members of that body.
The idea of a class of clergy distinctively titled priests handing out a piece of bread and sip of wine to individuals to obtain spiritual and eternal life is not in Scripture, but is read into it.
As the Apostles started to get older or martyred ,they begang to appoint “Overseers” [Bishops, episcopi], Presbyters [Latin word from the original Greek, from whence the English word Priest comes from;
You already tried this, and the validity of which parroted RC polemic was clearly refuted. Do you suppose more posting of propaganda is convincing?
Presbyter is used some 60 times ,yet nowhere is what they are charged to do defined. Now you are subtracting from the Word. A Presbyter (elder) is a overseer/episcopi. Paul called all the presbuteros of Ephesus together and charged them to care for the church of God, which they were made overseers/episkopos, and he himself commend them to God, "and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up..." . (Acts 20:17,28,32)
Titus 1:5,7 also uses the terms synonymously, as does 1Pt. 5:1-2, in which, similar to Acts 20:17,28, the presbuteros functionally act by taking oversight, episkopeō.
Presbuteros are shown being the ones entrusted with money being given to help the impoverished brethren in Judaea. (Acts 1:30)
And that along with the apostles, Paul and Barnabas decides to go committe about a basic matter of contention, that being the apostles and presbuteros at Jerusalem, who together with the community thought it good to send Paul and Barnabas with the sentence of James and the church. But which two men soon split on their own. (Acts 15)
And presbuteros later ill-advised Paul to take a vow involving a Jewish sacrifice in seeking to make peace with the Jews, which attempted admixture almost left the apostle dead. (Acts 21:18ff)
In 1Tim. 5:17 we see that presbuteros labor in word and in doctrine, and as a presbuteros/episcopi Timothy is charged to "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. (2 Timothy 4:2)
Thus both your distinction btwn the two offices, and bare assertion that nowhere is what presbyters are charged to do defined, is refuted by Scripture. presbyters denote what they are while episkopos denotes what they do.
Laying on of hands is a sign of ordination and is carried over from the Old, as in the Book of Numbers
You also tried this before and what i said still stands. Laying on of hands in conveyance of virtue is not restricted to the priesthood, and is not their distinctive defining function which sacrifices for sin is, (Heb. 5:1; 10:11) and a common shared function btwn priests and NT pastors does not render them a distinctively class of clergy titled them priests. Stop trying to do what the Holy Spirit would not!
but as the Apostles appointed Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons
Rather, presbuteros were ordained which are episkopos.
presbuteros
presbuteros
And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders [presbuteros] of the church. (Act 20:17)
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers [episkopos],...(Act 20:28)
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Act 20:28)
Now in Acts 2, we do see “breaking of the Bread” as the central act of Liturgical worship. Acts 20:7 again indicates that. That is a Liturgical rite of worship. So those appointed Overseers [Bishops] and Presbyters by the laying of hands would be the Leader of Divine Worship Liturgy [i.e. Eucharist] In-credible! It is telling what a RC can blithely suppose he can extrapolate out of Scripture. Acts 2:46 does not describe any "Liturgical rite of worship," or any ritual but simply describes that as an organic community they "breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart." (Acts 2:46) Yet somehow RCs imagine a ritual mass going on in every house with priests dispensing bread. Do you really think the Holy Spirit would not be careful among the other details provided to at least once describe the apostles or NT pastors ritually blessing bread as being the Lord's real body and dispensing it, and perhaps miracles occurring because of it, esp. since this is the source and summit of the Christian life for Caths, around which all revolves, yet the Holy Spirit even records the use of Paul's handkerchiefs? (Act 19:12)
Once again the Holy Spirit does not cooperate with Catholicism in His inspired word
Acts 20:7 does does pertain to a preaching service, but simply says "the disciples came together to break bread," that's it, and no mention of Paul or a pastor doing the breaking or it being the means of grave, and instead it presents the preaching of Paul as the focus and means of edifying. Thus far what we see described is more Protestant than Catholic. Equating breaking of bread with the Mass is an example of egregious extrapolation, calling things that are not as if they were.
Presbyters...would administer the sacraments [Baptism, Anointing, hearing confessions, etc]
Again, as shown, it was not only presbyters who did so. A deacon baptized, and a certain devout disciple conveyed the baptism with the Holy Spirit to Paul, (Acts 9,22) and prophets anointed men.
The text of James 5, based on structural does indicate that it was the presbyters who did the “anointing of oil” that is a priestly function, despite your “protests” to the contrary.
Which again, fails to justify a distinctive class of clergy titled priests. Praying is a priestly function as well, but does not make one a priests in distinction from others who pray. If only the Holy Spirit had you there to advise Him, but the Scriptures are given by inspiration of the Spirit of God, not Rome.
How many of you confess in sins in Church?? If one is to read the text the way you read it, then I guess we have these Southern Baptist standing up at the First Baptist Church [or maybe, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.....] saying Pastor, last night I was watching HBO and you know, my wife is not like she use to be...
That honestly is what is needed, and has clear OT support, but in general terms Ja. 5 does not say this is a public confession, but "one to another."
And the seed of Israel separated themselves from all strangers, and stood and confessed their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers. And they stood up in their place, and read in the book of the law of the Lord their God one fourth part of the day; and another fourth part they confessed, and worshipped the Lord their God. (Nehemiah 9:2-3)
Sorry, your take on the text is poppycock. The structural of the text given it was the presbyters [elders] who are called to anoint with Oil and the notion of confession indicates it was the presbyters who the sick person was confessing.
The poppycock belongs to the papists, as structural of the text shows only the aspect of anointing was by the presbyters, and says nothing about the sick confessing, which is likely why he needs the elders, then it exhorts "confess your faults one to another" - not "confess your faults your sins to a priest'! For "the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much," (James 5:16) which applies to all, not 'the effectual fervent prayer of a priest" or just the presbyters.
Even if this is restricted to presbyters, they offer no sacrifice for sin, which is the distinctive function in Scripture that titles them priests, while the priests or Rome are disallowed as they are not Biblical presbyters, but need conversion themselves.
The overall general nature of this chapter is evident throughout, in which the aspect of elders is the exception, and thus in the same spirit is concludes,
Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. (James 5:19-20)
Thus you first make presbyters distinctively into priests, then make anointing with oil by presbyters for healing into confessing sins as a precursor to death, then make "confess your faults one to another" as being restricted to priests! For all must be made subject to Rome.
Saint Paul himself spoke of a “ministry of reconciliation” in 2 Corinthians Chapter 5 which Catholics and Orthodox understand in the context of the Sacrament of Reconciliation
Which likewise is speaking to all believers, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation." (2 Corinthians 5:17-18)
Thus the general exhortation of the above verse, "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him..."
Early on the Didache taking up Christ command to the Apostles to forgive sins [John 20:21-23),
Resorting to testimony of initial ecclesiastical deformation only weakens your case, and John 20:21-23 sees its interpretation in church discipline as in 1Cor. 5 and the corporate (mainly) pastoral intercession of Ja., 5, as i explained, while Rome counts and treats even known public prosodomite murderers as members in life and in death, and even men morally more like Judas than Christ as popes. While Jn. 5:14,15 is turned in "Last Rites," as it is usually about the last wrong thing Rome does to her members.
Saint Paul takes up this “ministry of Reconciliation [2 Cor 5:18] ...
You already tried this. All are called into this ministry. Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word. (Acts 8:4)
It seems at this time, late 1st century,
Irrelevant. History only means what Rome says it does anyway.
Saint Paul in his Letter to the Romans [Romans 15:15-16] speaks of his calling by Christ as “The grace given to me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, The word for "priest" is not here, thus "the offering [prosphora] up of the Gentiles may be acceptable, " (KJV, NAB) Which word here says the LXX used in Dan. 3:34, where Nebuchadnezzar is offering praise to God. The fact is that all believers engaged in making sacrifice and making offerings, (Rm. 12:1; Heb. 13:15) thus all are priests, part of the general priesthood, (1Pt. 2:5,9) and there is nothing here or anywhere in which a NT pastor has a unique sacrificial call that distinctively makes him a priest.
Liturgy actually comes from. So the text suggest.. a “priestly service"
Give it up: there is nothing distinctive about presbyters that justifies distinctively titling them priest, and your problem is obviously with the Holy Spirit.
With respect to him describing Apostolic ministry as a “ministry of reconciliation”, in the OT, that was a priestly role...The Greek word used is “mysterion” which is the term used in Greek for Sacred/Religious Rites.
All believers are stewards of "mystery," as Scripture has revealed what was revealed to Paul, and like deacons, all are to be "Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience." (1Ti 3:9) Who makes this stuff up? You continue to make desperate arguments, supposing you know better than the Holy Spirit, which Rome presumes to do. If this makes Paul a priest, and by extension, even those who receive no new revelation, then why not call him that, unless God is afraid to confuse him with pagan priests, yet you derive it from them here! Why not stick with Biblical language, except that you do not want to be confused with those American Fundamentalist Protestants? The reality is that it was not because of some function held by priests and others that presbyters ended up being called priest, but due to the imposed functional sacrificial equivalence in turning the Lord's supper into a sacrifice for sins.
Saint Paul’s notion of Ambassador for Christ used in 2 Cor 2:10-11 we read “Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive...,
The lengths you go to in order to supply what the Spirit failed to do for you. Here believers are doing the forgiving, and Paul follows, yet i can agree with your rendering, but which does not interpret 2Cor. 5:18, and distinctively title him a priest. Why do you do so much work to do what the Holy Spirit did not and could have easily done? Except that like the Scribes and Pharisees of old, Rome presumes of herself "above that which is written." (1Cor. 4:6)
In conclusion, I ex ante reject the your views of ecclesiology, sacramental theology and theology of ministry. It is obvious that you reject mine. So as I told Mr. Rogers [Baptist], lets end it right here and agree that you and I will not agree.
So you decided, but the problem is that while you can only defend Rome, the Holy Spirit will never agree that NT pastors should have been and should be now titled "priests," versus what He called them in distinction, and it is Catholics who need to convert to His side, and respect the distinction He made.
“The reason the term priest was not used was largely cultural and reflects the early Church wanting to separate itself somewhat from Temple Jewish practice of the Levites”
So the Apostles didn’t use the term “priest” because of their cultural concern that someone would associate them with Jews and the Temple...
Didn’t we have an exchange earlier on this thread about the lengths Paul went to do exactly that? He had Timothy circumcised, he took vows and participated in Temple activities, and did so at the urging of Jewish Christians. He boasted of his Jewishness, and made a habit of preaching the Gospel to the Jews first, and only then turning to the Gentiles.
James was written “To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion”, and Hebrews was obviously directed to Jews. Romans discusses Jews at length.
Peter, whom you believe was the Vicar of Christ, was the Apostle to the Jews (”On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles)”.
In 1 Peter we read, “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.”
That phrasing is very Jewish in origin. But of course, Paul wrote that the Jews are the trunk, and we Gentiles are branches grafted on.
So where was this reluctance by the Apostles to be identified as Jewish?
“Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.” (Philippians 3:5-6)
Paul also wrote: “I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city [Jerusalem] at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers’ law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.” (Acts 22:3)
He also wrote, “Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.” (Romans 9:4-5)
So...I am to believe the Apostles NEVER used the word “priest” as an office in the Church because of “the early Church wanting to separate itself somewhat from Temple Jewish practice of the Levites”?
Call me skeptical...
“And as another convert (former SBC) to EO states,
“The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional.” — .” Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135; And Pelikan is not alone in faulting Trent:
Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of “doctrinal development.” Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an “original deposit” of faith, a “seed,” which grew and matured through the centuries ...
On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of “papal infallibility” and “the immaculate conception” of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation.
- http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html “
That’s a keeper for future reference.....
The word priest is there in Romans 15:16 [hiereus] is the root word used and the literally translation is priestly service for the Gospel or acting as a priest for the Gospel.
Cultic??? Really, that is where you are going with this. I could just as easily say you are no different that Smith of the Mormons, who of course from his “plain reading of scripture” came up with Mormonism, I can make say you are different than the founders of the JW’s and Adventist and Oneness Pentecostals, who of course, from the “plain reading of scripture” came up with their groups, etc, etc.
Your theology is the “Doctrine of your own head” nothing more and nothing less. You make you the Pope, Church Council, etc of reading the Bible. That is what you and most every other FR fundamentalist Protestant on this site.
As for evangelicals that convert to Orthodoxy, many of them embrace 99% of what they once rejected as fundamentalist protestants, which is in the Catholic Church, but one thing they never leave behind is their anti Roman polemics. They can just now do it in a Church that has Bishops, Sacraments, Liturgical worship, similar doctrine of Justification, Scripture and Tradition and Church Councils, and even about the Virgin Mary [Just don’t dogmatically define it with precise terms].
The entire Church was told to celebrate the Eucharist but only the Apostles where there when it was celebrated. They were the Ministers of the Eucharistic celebration, not everyone. You are reading into the text what you want to read, No Church Father starting with Clement of Rome [90AD], The Didache [80-100AD], Igntius of Antioch 107AD, Polycarp and his Letters 140-150 AD] and Justin Martyr [155AD], all speak of Eucharist, Bishops, Presbters or Deacons [some all 4] understand those Eucharistic texts the way you as a self appointed Free Republic Protestant internet theologian interprets them.
Again, your view??????????????????????? on the matter or the constant witness of the Patristics.
I am well aware the title Overseer and Presbyter at times were used interchangeably, I have read the 27 books of the NT and have numerous commentaries on them as well as have read, many of the Church Fathers commentaries or Homilies on them. All Bishops/Overseers are presbyters, but not all presbyters are overseers. There are ample Church Father commentaries on the Pauline Epistles that point that out and Ignatius Letters clearly point that out much earlier than say Saint John Chrystostem’s commentaries/Homilies on the Pauline Epistles.