Posted on 05/22/2014 8:23:50 AM PDT by Salvation
Where in the New Testament are "priests" mentioned?
Full Question
The New Testament mentions three categories of Church leaders: bishops, presbyters, and deacons. So how can the Catholic Church justify its office of "priest"? The New Testament writers seem to understand "bishop" and "presbyter" to be synonymous terms for the same office (Acts 20:17-38).
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.
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."
Episcopos arises from two words, epi (over) and skopeo (to see), and it means literally "an overseer": We translate it as "bishop." The King James Version renders the office of overseer, episkopen, as "bishopric" (Acts 1:20). The role of the episcopos is not clearly defined in the New Testament, but by the beginning of the second century it had obtained a fixed meaning. There is early evidence of this refinement in ecclesiastical nomenclature in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 107), who wrote at length of the authority of bishops as distinct from presbyters and deacons (Epistle to the Magnesians 6:1, 13:1-2; Epistle to the Trallians 2:1-3; Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8:1-2).
The New Testament tendency to use episcopos and presbuteros interchangeably is similar to the contemporary ... use of the term "minister" to denote various offices, both ordained and unordained (senior minister, music minister, youth minister). Similarly, the term diakonos is rendered both as "deacon" and as "minister" in the Bible, yet in Protestant churches the office of deacon is clearly distinguished from and subordinate to the office of minister.
In Acts 20:17-38 the same men are called presbyteroi (v. 17) and episcopoi (v. 28). Presbuteroi is used in a technical sense to identify their office of ordained leadership. Episcopoi is used in a non-technical sense to describe the type of ministry they exercised. This is how the Revised Standard Version renders the verses: "And from Miletus he [Paul] . . . called for the elders [presbuteroi] of the church. And when they came to him, he said to them . . . 'Take heed to yourselves and all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians [episcopoi], to feed the church of the Lord.'"
In other passages it's clear that although men called presbuteroi ruled over individual congregations (parishes), the apostles ordained certain men, giving them authority over multiple congregations (dioceses), each with its own presbyters. These were endowed with the power to ordain additional presbyters as needed to shepherd the flock and carry on the work of the gospel. Titus and Timothy were two of those early episcopoi and clearly were above the office of presbuteros. They had the authority to select, ordain, and govern other presbyters, as is evidenced by Paul's instructions: "This is why I left you in Crete . . . that you might appoint elders in every town as I directed you" (Ti 1:5; cf. 1 Tm 5:17-22).
Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff
Hahahahahahaaaaa!
2 Timothy 3: 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
-— , but the argument that the catholic position is not based on scripture needs to stop because it simply isn’t true.-—
Mark 8: 5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”
6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“ ‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observec your own traditions!
This passage is probably the verse most commonly cited in defense of Luther's doctrine of "the Bible alone as the sole rule of faith," but it simply doesn't support Luther's doctrine.
Where do you see "the Bible alone as the sole rule of faith" in this passage?
Additionally, the scriptures that Paul is referring to are the Old Testament, since the New Testament was not yet canonized, with some books yet to be written. Is the Old Testament the "sole rule of faith"?
If so, which Old Testament is the "sole rule of faith," the Orthodox canon, the Catholic canon, or Luther's canon? Does the Bible tell us which is the correct Bible?
Fourth, Paul is giving this prudent advice to Timothy, "the servant of God," i.e., a presbyter/priest, or bishop.
Finally, Scripture upholds the authority of Apostolic Tradition and the Church, in addition to Sacred Scripture.
"If he will not listen to the Church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector." --JesusThese verses flatly contradict Luther's doctrine, which is why Protestants seem to be unfamiliar with them, or simply ignore them."He who hears you, hears me." --Jesus to the Apostles
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." --Jesus to Peter [see also Isaiah 22:22 and Rev. 3:7]
"the church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of truth." --St. Paul
"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." --St. Paul
"Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you." --St. Paul
Sure it is...Changing words and adding words to scripture eliminates any truth to the statement that that person's view is based on scripture...
That's no different than if I would claim that Jesus said, 'I am one of the ways of truth and life and no one comes to the Father but by me and my mother'; and then claiming the statement is based on scripture...Nada...
We don't ignore Scripture, we put it into proper CONTEXT! Paul was addressing Timothy, but the Words have been preserved as a direction to all believers. Again, the RC usurpation of Scripture (God Breathed /inspired Words) where it suits their purposes, but ignores the rest!
1 Corinthians 1: 31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33 even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. ...
... 11: 1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.
2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. ...
Right here...
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Additionally, the scriptures that Paul is referring to are the Old Testament, since the New Testament was not yet canonized, with some books yet to be written. Is the Old Testament the "sole rule of faith"?
The NT was canonized the second Paul spoke it...
If so, which Old Testament is the "sole rule of faith," the Orthodox canon, the Catholic canon, or Luther's canon? Does the Bible tell us which is the correct Bible?
Glad you brought that up because YES, it certainly does...
Luk_24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
There you go...No Catholic apocrypha involved whatsoever...
And here's another...
Luk_11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
Everything between Genesis and Zachariah...
"If he will not listen to the Church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector." --Jesus
Did Jesus tell every one who had an issue with another believer to pack up and head to Rome??? Nope...This is a local church issue and had nothing to with the pyramid theology of Rome...
Christ is the high priest in the old sense, and the only one. Christian priests are just ministers of Christ. We believer they received their authority from the Apostles through the successors of the apostles, the chief priests whom we call bishops. The power to ordain came from the Apostles, who selected priests and deacons and passed on the ordination power to some of them, called bishops. Now this is the schematic. How it worked out historically is hard to see because of the scarcity of sources, and the writers of the New Testament, as in so many cases, do not bother with such details. We do know that by the time of Ignatius that that was the way he saw things and we assume it was the norm.
The Roman hierarchy could hardly have been established until after Peter reached Rome. But there is an old saying, where Peter is, there is Rome. No one contends that Peter was “the pope” in exactly the same way that Francis is, because the present form is an historical development. But it is not contrary to the New Testament, which vests the authority of the Church in the Apostles, who are the chief elders of the Church. The pope traces his authority to Peter, the most prominent of the Twelve, and to a lesser degree to Paul. No other place can claim to have exercised apostolic authority throughout the past two thousand years with the same authenticity.Who knows how things might have developed if Jerusalem had not been obliterated as the center of the church, which makes moot any reference to James.
Go get the book "Biblical Eldership" by Strauch ... if you muster up the courage to read it ... you will understand why the RCC ecclesiology is unbiblical.
I will use your own standard. I have read the New Testament, and no, episcopacy, is not incompatible with the “government” of the Church as described in the NT.
And you are reading into those words doctrines of your own devising or those of your teachers.
With the modern translation of your choice (since you want to use my standard) ... show me where in the NT the priest is a church leader, then show the list of qualifications for the priest. Something like 'if a man desire to be a priest, he desires a good thing ... if he is above reproach,' etc., etc. And I really must insist on the mention of the word 'priest' in the Greek, since that is the heart of the dispute.
Then show there is a separate office of bishop and pope, AND demonstrate that the pope is superior and the head of all the others ... AND ... that that pope is the bishop of Rome.
Then explain why the churches in Revelation 2-3 do not mention Rome ... as it is inconceivable if the RCC existed and the vicar of Christ resided in Rome that Jesus had nothing to say to that church.
But before you do that ... you should explain the passage in Acts where all three Greek words for church leadership are used to refer to the same office. Bishop = shepherd = elder.
I could go on ... but you have your hands full already.
“Changing words and adding words...”
Exactly - Wycliff’s bible in the English vernacular took particular care to mistranslate words (priest, church, and charity) which elimates any truh to the statemnt that that person’s (who is using Wyclirff’s bible) view is based on scripture.
Wycliff mistranslated church into congregation.
Luther added the word alone to Romans 3:28.
Luke 1:28 is Full of grace in the original language and falsely rended by protesants as highly favored one ...
Protestants are actually the ones who have twisted and distorted words and phrases, and eliminated entire books, since the 14th century when they began their agenda.
The protestants actually do what they claim the Catholics do as far as mangling scripture and then citing it in cherry picked verses to maintain such fallacies as Faith alone that is NOT mentioend once in the bible.
2 Timothy 3 does not say scripture alone - Catholics certainly believe that all scripture is inspired.
Wycliff didn't write the bible of the Reformation...I don't own or read a Wycliff bible...
Wycliff mistranslated church into congregation.
You mean as opposed to a called out assembly of believers (who make up a congregation???
Act_8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
Act_15:4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
Well, there we can see clearly that the church is NOT a magisterium made up of apostles, elders and bishops...The church is the people in the pews as defined by the bible...
So where does the Catholic religion get its definition of ecclesia and what does it mean???
Luther added the word alone to Romans 3:28.
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
I wonder where Luther got that idea...Perhaps from the apostle to the Gentile church???
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Is that the cherry picking you are referring to???
Luke 1:28 is Full of grace in the original language and falsely rended by protesants as highly favored one ...
You pull up that original bible and we can have something to discuss...
Have at it and show that the Catholic concept of a hierarchy is inconsistent with what is written in the New Testament. Hierarchy, of course, means a holy order of thing. We have a Supreme leader, Jesus, who gathers around him disciples, and among them has favorites whom he empowers. We have not only the symbolic Twelve, but an inner circle within the Twelves and including others, perhaps, with one, Peter, the most prominent. We have the Seventy who are sent out as missionaries, likewise empowered. I see a model for the Church. And the priesthood, as finally constituted, is unlike the Jewish priesthood, not a caste, owing nothing to bloodline and everything to divine authority passed on by the other leaders. And the crux of the matter is not what you say but the mass, whether one accepts or rejects it. What sort of authority did Jesus confer on those gathered at the Last Supper? More broadly, what authority was he conferring on the Church? What was the content of the Gospel he wanted them to preach? And who is to say?
Show me where 'priest' is mentioned in the qualifications for church leadership ...
I'll save you the bytes ...
There are none ...
For Catholics, the priesthood is synonymous with the presbyterate. The real question is the authority associated with the word. The American Heritage College dictionary says, def. #1 that a presbyter is a priest in various hierarchial churches, #2 a teaching/ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church. The word itself comes from the Middle East word “preost” which comes from the Latin word presbyter, or church elder. Meaning, a church leader?
I honestly tried ...
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.