Because you...
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
But did you read the rules for Ecumenical threads?
they were sent to you here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3158978/posts?page=75#75
The English word priest is derived from the Greek word hee-er-yooce'
And interestingly, hee-er-yooce' is not used a single time by the Apostle Paul in relation to the church who was the Apostle to the Gentile church...
The role of the episcopos is not clearly defined in the New Testament,
Actually it is...
Act 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
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.
In the context of these two verses we can see that elder and overseer is the same thing...
Tit 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
Tit 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
Tit 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
And here, we can see an elder is not only an overseer but a bishop and a steward as well...PLUS, he's got to have a family...
1Pe 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
And as we can see here, the elder is also a pastor or shepherd...
Those are all one office but no where are they described as a priest...No sacrifices...No atonements...
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.
Actually, no...Minister in the New Testament comes from the Greek word leitourgos...It is similar to the office of deacon since both offices include the work of service...
Acts 20:28 "Be on guard for yourselves and for ALL THE FLOCK, AMONG WHICH the Holy Spirit has made you OVERSEERS, to SHEPHERD the church of God which he purchased with His own blood..."
1 Pet 5:1-3 "Therefore, I exhort the elders AMONG YOU ... shepherd the FLOCK OF GOD AMONG YOU proving to be examples to the flock"
1 Pet 5:1 "I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow-elder"
Peter was an elder but he was not higher in rank that any other elder. All elders in the eldership are of equal authority...
One bishop/elder is never over other bishop/elders in rank: all are equal.
One bishop/elder is never over more than one local church churches
The pyramid type organization is contrary to the Bible pattern and did not come to full development until 606 AD when pope Boniface III claimed to be the one man who ruled every local church world wide. This was 600 years too late to be the Bible pattern and represents a serious apostasy in organization.
Titus and Timothy went to different churches where no 'elders' existed...They then appointed 'elders' IN THOSE CHURCHES...They were starting up new churches...What they did not do was to ordain a bunch of elders and send them out to different churches...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3158978/posts?page=2#2
Please read the rules for Ecumenical threads — no antagonism.
they were sent to you here.
But I will get off of here just to please.
I am not antagonizing...I am posting scripture that is relevant to your thread...I am sorry that you feel antagonized but if anything is antagonizing, it is the thread you posted...However, I am not so thin skinned that what you post would bother me...
When scripture is posted that proves what you claim about scripture is not true, I don't see where you can claim to be the victim of antagonizing...
The verse you cite is about the whole people, all of whom, through baptism, share in Christ’s identity as priest, prophet, and king. It was not cited in the article because it has nothing to do with the issue of a ministerial priesthood exercised by some.
Because you...
Thank you for your posts. There was a lot of very interesting & helpful info in both. It must have taken time to pull all those Scriptures & reference material together. It was greatly appreciated.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3158978/posts?page=2#2
Please read the rules for Ecumenical threads — no antagonism.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3158978/posts?page=2#2
Please read the rules for Ecumenical threads — no antagonism.
Could you kindly point out specifically what in my post was antagonistic?
Thank you in advance.
My view would be that Greek episkopos, poimen and presbyteros, (bishop, shepherd and elder, in many translations) all refer interchangeably to the very responsible and oft-mentioned position held by elders of the NT church. Absent from any NT mention are priests in the sense of the OT usage, outside of 1 Peter 2 references. The term, "ministerial priesthood" is not to be found or even alluded to in any NT book, as I see it.
I understand Clement of Rome was probably the foremost person responsible for bringing priests and OT trappings into the NT church, not Jesus or his apostles.
HF
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3158978/posts?page=2#2
Please read the rules for Ecumenical threads — no antagonism.
Of course it is still the rule.
But it is not etched in stone as I have demonstrated.
Will I be excommunicated or burned at the stake merely for wanting to discuss the continuation of this policy?
I completely understand why the policy of mandatory clerical celibacy was put into place in the after the Middle Ages. I question whether or not it is still necessary.
This is a very interesting discussion. I hope it will be allowed to continue, as a lot of valuable information & insights are being posted. I’m not seeing any incivility either, just a polite exchange of POVs. The subject matter is fascinating, & some of the participants are amazingly well informed. Thanks to each & every one of you.
You are antagonizing me (and many other FReepers).
You consistently post these threads which are antagonistic by design and content! You expect others to passively ignore the error in their content and at odds with the clear Word of God. They are an affront to us Christians that actually know and read the Scriptures, when your post tries to explain these things from a Roman Catholic viewpoint, by ignoring the clear wording which it gives us.
Please be considerate and try to be less antagonistic!
“affront to us Christians who actually know and read the scriptures...”
Implying that Catholics don’t know and read the scriptures? That is rather patronizing ...
Did you even read the article? It is completely based on scripture references and the reasoning of scripture scholars at Catholic Answers, who have degrees in the subject. The wording scripture gives us clearly supports the Roman Catholic position and that is what is antagonizing you.
We have free will so feel free to disagree; however- don’t continue to falsely claim that the Catholic position is not scriptural. The interpretations of the scriptures are different; one is correct and one is in error, but the argument that the catholic position is not based on scripture needs to stop because it simply isn’t true.
-— , but the argument that the catholic position is not based on scripture needs to stop because it simply isn’t true.-—
What’s really strange is the dogmatic adherence to sola scriptura, when there is no scriptural support for 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.