Replies

One more time...get a greek dictionary...Rome does not get to redefine words

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

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

The greek have a couple words for priest

hiereus

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

and archiereus

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

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

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

He is now our High Priest..

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

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

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

Greg Dues has written Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide (New London: Twenty Third Publications, 2007). On page 166 he states,
“Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions.”

“A clearly defined local leadership in the form of elders, or presbyteroi, became still more important when the original apostles and disciples of Jesus died. The chief elder in each community was often called the episkopos (Greek, ‘overseer’). In English this came to be translated as ‘bishop’ (Latin, episcopus). Ordinarily he presided over the community’s Eucharistic assembly.”

“When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice, the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title ‘priest’ (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist.”

Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern U.,
Pulitzer Prize Winner
author of WHY I AM A CATHOLIC, wrote the following in his
Best Seller WHAT JESUS MEANT page 81.

(Sorry for the "universal ping"--too many disparate people to track down; I promise not to abuse it!) Okay... a few minutes to breathe (and a few hours to sleep). Sorry for the delay. Since there are numerous posts from numerous people about numerous aspects of this topic (i.e. priesthood, use of Greek lexicons, alleged "corruption" of the Church by the 4th or 5th century A.D., etc.), let me try to summarize what I see, so far. (If I miss any point that anyone wants addressed, please let me know; I'm trying to be efficient with time, and these sorts of discussions seem to expand to fill whatever available time an average person has! I'm not trying to dodge or neglect anyone's point, honest!) First: I'm a bit puzzled by the Protestant idea that any given Protestant can pick up their favorite English translation of the Bible--or even the Greek Scriptures (with an imperfect knowledge of the languages/dialects, the traditions, and the idioms of the time, and with uncertainty as to which Greek manuscript to follow... since there are inconsistencies between them)--look up what a contemporary lexicon says is the meaning of a given word in the Koine Greek (most defer to Strong's Concordance, I suspect--and his views were influenced by his Protestant background and by his strict adherence to the KJV), take it as absolutely certain, and then turn around and pronounce the Catholic Church to be wrong, heretical, unbiblical, and the rest of the standard anti-Catholic litany.

Then, when challenged with the writings of the Church Fathers, and when challenged with the translations of St. Jerome (who lived roughly 347-420 A.D., who translated those selfsame texts into Latin--over 1000 years before Luther was born, and over 1400 years before James Strong was born--and who was far closer to the culture and time in whcih the original texts were written, and who had access to manuscripts which have since perished), many such people reply with the bizarre rejoinder that, "Oh, well, obviously we can't trust THEM, since they were simply Catholic "shill" who were toeing the party line! And they're probably mostly forgeries, anyway!" Mm-hmm.

(Do I really need to explain how that's a fallacy? Excluding all sources of data which conflict with your preconceived notions really isn't logical... or honest, for that matter. This is especially the case with spurious comments such as, "Catholicism corrupted Christianity, and it did so almost completely by the 400's A.D." Really? And the "gates of Hades will not prevail" against the "pillar and foundation of the truth" bit? Forgive me if I'm skeptical of such claims... especially since the "evidence" usually consists of complaints that the early Catholics did not embrace Protestant assumptions such as "sola Scriptura", "sola fide", etc.)

Just to illustrate the point: I once had an ongoing debate with a Unitarian Pentecostal (a very odd species!), who rejected the Trinity and believed (in addition to believing that only those who speak in tongues can be saved) in the old heresy known as "modalism" (i.e. that there is only One Person in One God--and "Father", "Son", and "Spirit" are "masks" which the One God uses to interact with different people in different venues). This person insisted that the Catholic Church, corrupted by Constantine in the 4th century, "heretically" defined God as a Trinity (in deference to pagan gods--she even had references to three-headed statues of Egypt, etc.), while the "true Christian" writings were all destroyed and the "true Christians" were either killed or converted by force. She further argued that the Trinity is a direct violation of the ages-old belief in "One God", and that any efforts to "explain away" the Trinity as being somehow "Three Persons in One God" was obvious nonsense and Catholic "spin".

So... Protestants on this board: do you agree with the young modalist's conclusions? If not, WHY not? I ask, because a good many arguments against Catholic teaching are sounding AWFULLY SIMILAR to that sort of reasoning, especially with regard to "Catholic corruption of the early Church" (how on earth would anyone prove that?), "Catholic spin" (which can be said without basis, about anything), "it's not in the Bible" (e.g. it's true that, while the Bible strongly IMPLIES the Godhood of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, it never actually comes out and SAYS it explicitly... at least, not in a way that the modalists couldn't come up with a semi-plausible counter-interpretation), and the like.

Re: the definitions of "presbyteros" and "hiereus": I agree that the word "hiereus" is never used to describe what the Catholic Church identifies as "ordained priests"; the word "presbyteros" is used almost exclusively (with the caveat that bishops are, in fact, priests, in the Catholic understanding--so technically, "episkopos" can also refer to those who are priests--though not "merely" priests). But here's my point: what of it? The word "priest" in the Catholic Church was never meant to convey a meaning identical to the word "priest" in OT/Jewish understanding; they have similarities, but they also have striking differences. The Early Church used the word "presbyteros" to describe "ordained man [i.e. recipient of Holy Orders], delegate/assistant of the bishop"; and since the word "presbyteros" (which, yes, can also be translated "elder") was always rendered as "sacerdos" [i.e. "priest"] in every Latin Scripture text I can find (which date back to at least the 4th centure A.D., and which are much older than Webster's Dictionary, BTW! :) ), both in the OT and the NT. So... is anyone going to say that all these Latin texts are "simply corrupted by Romanism" and/or "obviously wrong"? If so, then how would one PROVE those sweeping claims to be anything other than self-sealing, circular, wishful-thinking nonsense?

Final note: some Protestants (even on this board) have presented some gross distortions of Catholicism, in efforts to attack it... which really does strike me as the "straw man" phenomenon. Is it too much to ask that opponents learn what the Church ACTUALLY teaches, as opposed to making up nonsensical claims and (for example) hiding them under a hypothetical additional claim that "this is what Catholics REALLY believe, given my interpretation of how they behave, etc."?