Posted on 02/22/2010 10:34:43 AM PST by MarMema
Alexander Pope?
No, I mean’t the old guy in the funny hat. Lives in Rome, perhaps you’ve heard of him?
You should have read all of our posts carefully. We agree that traditions that are clearly verifiable should be observed.
Jannes and Jambres were identified through the writings of Pliny and other sources which would have been available to St. Paul in his religious studies prior to his conversion.
http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T4837
As a Protestant and Presbyterian, I would generally agree with that statement. In my experience, it is more true of Presbyterians than any other Protestant group. Jesus had this troubling habit of saying things that don't fit well into our systematic theologies.
I think that we all sometimes need to step back and examine ourselves. While Reformed Christians rightfully IMO criticize the Roman Catholic tendency to over-rely on tradition, they need to recognize that their own confessions in many ways have become basically the same thing, man-made traditions.
In reformed, confessional circles, a new insult has arisen. "Biblicist" is applied to someone who relies solely on a Bible text without support from a confession. I wear the insult as a badge of honor, BTW. I don't know how the people who consider this an insult and elevate confessions to such a level can also claim Solo Scriptura but they do.
“The English word “priest” comes from “presbuteros” PERIOD.”
True. And irrelevant for understanding scripture and “presbuteros”.
It’s current meaning is “1. a person whose office it is to perform religious rites, and esp. to make sacrificial offerings.” (Random House) or “In many Christian churches, a member of the second grade of clergy ranking below a bishop but above a deacon and having authority to administer the sacraments.” (Am Her)
That doesn’t describe what the word “presbuteros” meant in 30-100 AD. It meant:
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
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G4245&t=NASB&page=2
” 5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” - Titus 1
How many Catholic priests are the husband of one wife, with believing children? And where is Paul’s instruction for them to offer Mass or hear confession or assign penance?
You wrote:
“How many Catholic priests are the husband of one wife, with believing children?”
Plenty. Not only have I had a parish priest who was married to an earthly bride, but all the priests I have met have been married to the Church and all had believing children.
“And where is Paul’s instruction for them to offer Mass or hear confession or assign penance?”
In his letters. 1 Cor 11 makes it plain how to say Mass. 2 Cor 2:10 makes it plain that the Apostles and those they appointed heard confessions. And we know St. Paul himself did penance so there’s no reason to think Christians did not imitate him.
The Office of New Testament Priest
by James Akin
In both Old and New Testaments, there are three ranks of priests, which are commonly referred to as the high priests, the ministerial priests, and the universal priests.
At the time of the Exodus the high priest was Aaron (Ex. 31:30), the ministerial priests were his four sons (Ex. 28:21; the sons were Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar, the first two of which were killed for abusing their priestly duties), and the universal priests were the people of Israel as a whole (Exodus 19:6).
Prior to this time, there had been neither a high priest nor had God elected all of Israel as universal priests. There was only the ministerial priesthood, which appears to have resided in the firstborn male of each family. The existence of the pre-Aaronic ministerial priesthood is shown in Exodus 19:22 and 24, which differentiate the priests from the people but occur before the establishment in the Aaronic priesthood in Exodus 28. The fact that the ministerial priests were held by the firstborn is suggested (though not proven) by the exchange of the priestly tribe of Levi for the firstborn of Israel in Numbers 3.
In any event, the three-fold model of the priesthood which was in use at the time of Aaron was carried over into the New Testament and thus we find there also a high priest, ministerial priests, and universal priests. In the New Testament age the high priest is Jesus Christ (Heb. 3:1), the ministerial priests are Christ’s ordained ministers of the gospel (Rom. 15:16), and the universal priests are the entire Christian people (1 Peter. 2:5, 9).
So the Bible clearly states that all Christians are priests (1 Peter 2:5, 9), as the Catholic Church clearly teaches for all who bother to read its teachings, see Catechism of the Catholic Church 1141-4, 1268, 1305, 1535, 1547, 1591-2 on the common priesthood. But the Bible also said the same thing about the Israelites (Ex. 19:6), yet this did not prevent there from being a separate, ministerial priesthood even before the Law of Moses was given (Ex. 19:22, 24).
Furthermore, since the top, Old Testament office of high priest corresponds to Jesus, the New Testament high priest, and since the bottom, Old Testament universal priesthood corresponds to the New Testament universal priesthood, the middle, ministerial priesthood in the Old Testament corresponds to a middle, ministerial priesthood in the New Testament.
This priesthood is identical with the office of elder. In fact, the term “priest” is simply a shortened, English version of the Greek word for “elder” — presbuteros — as any dictionary will confirm. This is any some Old Catholic translations render the word as “priests” where Protestant Bibles have “elder.” For example, in the Douay-Rheims Bible (the Catholic equivalent of the King James Version) we read:
“For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldst ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee” (Titus 1:5).
“Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man; and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him” (James 5:14-15).
We also see in the New Testament that the functions of the Old Testament elder — who served in the synagogue — have been fused with the functions of the Old Testament priest — whose served in the temple.
We can see the fusion of the two concepts in Romans 15:15-16. In the New International Version of this passage, we read:
“I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty [literally, “the priestly work”] of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.”
Paul tells us that because he has been given a calling as a professional minister of Christ, he has a priestly work of preaching the gospel so that the Gentiles may be an offering — a sacrifice to God. This is not something only he has. Every elder in every church has that same “priestly work” of preaching the gospel. So Paul here conceives of the office of the New Testament minister as a priestly office. Notice that the hearers of the gospel in this passage are not depicted as priests, but as the sacrifice to God. Paul draws a distinction between himself and his work of preaching the gospel, and his readers and their duty of hearing it. It is the minister, not the congregation, who is here pictured as priest.
A second passage revealing the fusion of the offices of Old Testament elder and Old Testament priest is Revelation 5:8, where we read:
“And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.”
Here we have the twenty-four heavenly elders (presbyteroi) depicted as offering incense to God in bowls, just as the Old Testament priests did with their own gold incense bowls (Num. 7:84-86).
It is especially important to note that this was a function only priests could perform, as indicated a few chapters later, in Numbers 16, which records the story of Korah’s rebellion. This story concerns precisely the issue which is before us today: Whether the fact that all believers are priests means that there is no ministerial priesthood. Korah said it does mean that, and he gathered a rebellion against Moses and Aaron to usurp the priesthood from them. Numbers 16 says:
“Now Korah . . . and Dathan and Abiram . . . took men; and they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men; and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said . . . ‘You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?’ When Moses heard it, he fell on his face; and he said . . . ‘In the morning the LORD will show who is his, and who is holy . . . Do this: take censers . . . put fire in them and put incense upon them before the LORD tomorrow, and the man whom the LORD chooses shall be the holy one. You have gone too far, sons of Levi! . . . [I]s it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel . . . would you seek the priesthood also? Therefore it is against the LORD that you and all your company have gathered together; what is Aaron that you murmur against him?’” (Num. 16:1-11).
After this you can guess what happened. The men loaded up their censers and tried to offer incense before the Lord, but God caused the earth to open its mouth and swallow up Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, then he caused fire to come out of the Tabernacle and swallow up the two hundred and fifty men offering incense, showing that they were not to be priests, not the ones to offer incense, even though God had said that in one sense the whole congregation were priests.
Thus, in the Old Testament God was willing to kill people that are not priests who offer incense to him. So when we see the elders (presbyteroi) doing so in his heavenly temple, we must infer that they are priests. A fusion of the office of elder and priest has taken place.
Scripture takes the distinction between clergy and laity very seriously. Both Old and New Testaments warn people against assuming an office to which they have not been ordained. For example, I direct your attention to Jude 11, a verse most people gloss over when they read the book. That verse discusses various wicked Church leaders and states,
“Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error, and perish in Korah’s rebellion.”
It is therefore possible for people, even in the New Testament, to perish in Korah’s rebellion by usurping the office of the priesthood.
And notice that it is not only those who actually perform the priestly duties that are subject to death, but those who follow those that have usurped priestly duties. God also killed those lay people who merely supported Korah and his pseudo-priests. Moses also had to intercede to keep God from killing those in the congregation who merely supported Korah, even though they did not themselves offer incense. Later, when the people grumbled after Korah was dead, Moses again had to intervene to stop God from killing them all, but almost 15,000 of them died anyway for being followers of Korah.
It is against this sin that the book of Jude warns us, because the same thing can happen in the New Testament age. We cannot confine the warning against Korah’s rebellion to the Old Testament age. Jude tells us it was going on in his day as well. Just as Korah, Dathan, and Abiram came along and said, “Hey, in Exodus 19 God said we are all priests, so we don’t need a ministerial priesthood; we can do that ourselves!” today people come along and say, “Hey, in 1st Peter God said we are all priests, so we don’t need a ministerial priesthood; we can do that ourselves!”
Finally, we can see the fusion of the offices of elder and priest in the fact that the church is a combination of the Old Testament synagogue (where the teaching occurred) and the Old Testament temple (where the sacrifice occurred). The New Testament church incorporates both of these elements, with the liturgy of the word (teaching) and the liturgy of the Eucharist (sacrifice), which has been the structure of Christian worship since the first century.
This brings us to the principle sacrifice of the New Testament priesthood, which is the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper. To see the sacrificial dimension to the Lord’s Supper, note first that it is the New Testament equivalent of the Old Testament Passover feast, in which the sacrificed paschal lamb was consumed (1 Cor. 5:7-8). The New Testament Eucharist, like the Old Testament Passover, is thus a sacrificial meal.
The sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist is even built into its visible structure in a way that was not the case with the Passover meal. Jesus first says that the bread is his body and then that the wine is his blood. Whether this is literally or symbolically true is a question beyond the scope of our present discussion. What I want to point out is that the bread and the wine, the body and blood, are separate. The sacrament thus shows his body and blood in a state of separation from each other, in a state of sacrifice. The famous Protestant scholar Joachim Jeremias points this out in his book, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, which Protestant scholars have come to regard as the definitive work on this subject. He states,
“[W]hen Jesus speaks of ‘his flesh’ and ‘his blood’ . . . [h]e is applying to himself terms from the language of sacrifice . . . Each of the two nouns presupposes a slaying that has separated flesh and blood. In other words: Jesus speaks of himself as a sacrifice [p. 222].
By displaying the body and blood in a state of separation, the elements display a sacrificial character. This is true regardless of whether Christ is literally present in the sacrament or whether he is only symbolically present. Even if he is only symbolically present, then the Eucharist symbolizes a sacrifice. It is a symbolic sacrifice. Because elders have the duty of performing the sacraments, they have the duty of performing this sacrifice, again indicating the priestly character of their office.
Further confirmation is found in the words Jesus used to instruct his ministers to perform it. His statement, “Do this in remembrance of me,” may also be translated, “Offer this as my memorial sacrifice” — a fact Protestant preachers never mention when they talk about this passage. But it has a most important bearing on our discussion, because by telling the apostles to offer his memorial sacrifice, Jesus clearly ordained them as his priests.
In Greek, these words are Totou poiete eis tan emen anamnesin. They are usually translated into English as “Do this in remembrance of me,” but this does not do full justice to the words.
First of all, the word poiein or “do” has sacrificial overtones. This can be seen by examining the way it is used in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. As Protestant theologian D. M. Baillie says in his book The Theology of the Sacraments,
“There is no doubt that this verb is used frequently in the LXX in a cult or sacrificial sense. Gore says there are from 60 to 80 instances.”
He then goes on to give examples. For instance, Exodus 29:38:
“This is that which you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar: two lambs . . . “
Here the verb poiein should clearly be translated as “offer,” as all the Protestant translations of this passage have it. The King James, the Revised Standard, and the New International Version all render it as “offer.”
Jesus’ word anamnesis, usually translated “remembrance,” also has sacrificial overtones. For example, in the NIV of Hebrews 10:3 we read,
“But those sacrifices are an annual reminder [anamnesis] of sins.”
The word for “reminder” in this passage is anamnesis. The passage thus tells us that these sacrifices are an annual anamnesis, an annual memorial offering, on behalf of the sins of the people. In fact, all of the occurrences of this word in the Protestant Bible, both in New Testament and the Greek Old Testament, occur in a sacrificial context.
An anamnesis of a memorial offering which one brings before God to prompt his remembrance. The thought is the same as when the Psalmist urges God to remember him, or the congregation, or Mount Zion, or how the enemy scoffs, or how God’s servant has been mistreated. The idea of a memorial offering is to present the gift to God and prompt him to take action. For example, in the NIV of Numbers 10:10 we read,
“Also at your times of rejoicing . . . you are to sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, and they will be a memorial [LXX, anamnesis] for you before your God.”
Joachim Jeremias admits this in his book. While liberal Protestant scholarship tried to interpret the Lord’s Supper as a pagan memorial meal which merely commemorated a loved one, Jeremias saw through this and recognized the Palestinian background for the Lord’s Supper and its offering of the elements to God to prompt his remembrance of Jesus and what he did.
Jeremias states,
“[T]he command for repetition [of the Lord’s Supper] may be translated: ‘This do, that God may remember me.’ How is this to be understood? Here an old Passover prayer is illuminating. On Passover evening a prayer is inserted into the third benediction of the grace after the meal, a prayer which asks God to remember the Messiah. . . . In this very common prayer, which is also used on other festival days, God is petitioned at every Passover concerning ‘the remembrance of the Messiah’” (Jeremias, 252).
So Jesus’ command to the disciples to “do this in memory” of him was a command to present the elements to God as an anamnesis, as a memorial sacrifice to bring to God’s mind the work that Jesus did on the cross for us.
Of course, Jesus does not die again in this sacrifice (Heb. 9:26), but death is not an essential part of a sacrifice. The essence of a sacrifice is the idea of presenting a gift to the deity. This gift may or may not be presented to God by killing it. There are numerous sacrifices in the Bible in which the gift is not killed. In fact, there is a class of sacrifices, known as “wave offerings” in which the gift is “waved” before God to present it to him. In wave offerings it is not at all required for the gift to be destroyed. For example, if you read Numbers 8:11-21, you will see that the entire tribe of Levi was waved before God as a wave offering to consecrate them as ministers at the Tabernacle. So God’s ministers present themselves as a wave offering to God.
If you read Romans 12:1, you find out that we present ourselves to God as wave offerings, for Paul tells us to offer our bodies to him as a living sacrifice. It is in this manner that the resurrected Jesus presents himself to God, as a wave offering, a living sacrifice, a living memorial that God may remember what he did on the cross and bestow upon us the graces of salvation. By his intercessory ministry in heaven, Christ continually presents to God what he did on the cross, he continually brings it before God as a memorial offering of what he did in the past, so that we might receive God’s grace.
This is true regardless of whether Jesus is actually or only symbolically present in the elements. I recognized this fact even when I was still a Protestant: Regardless of the doctrine of the Real Presence, the sacrament of communion is a sacrifice, just as the early Church said it was, and just as the Christian Church throughout the ages has understood it. We thus see the function of the temple — offering of sacrifice — being brought together with the function of the synagogue — teaching the people — into the New Testament church. Those who preside over the church thus incorporate both the functions of the Old Testament priest and the Old Testament elder.
Thus in the Christian liturgy that has come down to us from the first century, the church first celebrates the Liturgy of the Word (synagogue service) followed by the Liturgy of the Eucharist (temple service.)
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/ntpriest.htm
Just so others will realize you are joking, here are the scripture passages...
“2 Cor 2:10 makes it plain that the Apostles and those they appointed heard confessions.”
5Now if anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure—not to put it too severely—to all of you. 6For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, 7so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 8So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. 9For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. 10Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, 11so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs.
“1 Cor 11 makes it plain how to say Mass.”
17But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, 19for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
23For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
33So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another— 34 if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.
“And we know St. Paul himself did penance...”
Golly. That must be why the ESV, NASB & KJV don’t even have the word penance in them!
“His statement, “Do this in remembrance of me,” may also be translated, “Offer this as my memorial sacrifice” — a fact Protestant preachers never mention when they talk about this passage.”
It would require the Protestant preachers to lie...
What does scripture SAY about the need for priests?
11 And every [Jewish] priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
15 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,”
17 then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” 18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. — Hebrews 10
There is no more sacrifice to offer.
I apologize then. However, all the traditions of The CHurch are clearly verifiable an they do not contradict scripture.
Thank you for your honest and frank statement — we of course have a lot of faulty people in The Catholic Church too (I’ll be at the top 25% I’d guess!). It’s good that we focus on God and on our common enemies — Islam and secularism.
In other words, it is a Latin-English corruption of the original meaning of the word presbyteros with a new meaning it never had. Protestant Bibles simply went back to the original meaning of presbyteros calling them elders, as they should be. They also call priest a priest where the Greek word iereus appears (i.e. Heb 10:11).
You wrote:
“Just so others will realize you are joking, here are the scripture passages...”
2 Cor 2:10 Post the KJV version. Look for the word “person”.
1 Cor 11 makes it plain how to say Mass - and all you did was prove that with the actual verses. Thanks.
““And we know St. Paul himself did penance...”
Golly. That must be why the ESV, NASB & KJV don’t even have the word penance in them!”
Penance is a form of mortification:
Col. 1:24.
Not only was I not kidding, but I was right.
Protestant preachers regularly tell untruths. That’s on their heads, not Christ’s.
You wrote:
“There is no more sacrifice to offer.”
Except the re-presentation of the one already offered.
You wrote:
“Vlad, the English derivation of the word priest is from prebyteros, which in no way corresponds to the priestly function or the biblical term used for a priest.”
So, when you go church does your priest call himself something other than priest when speaking English?
“In other words, it is a Latin-English corruption of the original meaning of the word presbyteros with a new meaning it never had.”
Again, does your priest call himself a priest?
“Protestant Bibles simply went back to the original meaning of presbyteros calling them elders, as they should be.”
No. They went bacl to the original translation of the term. The original translation does not automatically equate with the actual meaning as used, understood or implied by early Christians. Again, does your priest call himself priest or not?
“They also call priest a priest where the Greek word iereus appears (i.e. Heb 10:11).”
And does your priest call himself priest or not? And what is his function?
The reason Daniel was in the lions den was not over the Babylonian god Bel, whom Darius had shown by defeating the the Babylonians to be nothing, following the prophecies of Isa. 46:1,2 and Jer. 51:44, but rather because Daniel prayed to Yahweh or Jehovah instead of Darius. (Dan. 6:10-17)
Thus this apocryphal fairy tale is false as it purports to tell what happened to Daniel.
I could go to Tobit and the burning of fish parts to drive off a demon but I've provided sufficient to answer your question I think.
I posted 2 Cor 2 from a modern translation to make it easier for a casual reader to understand. In context - a paragraph rather than a single verse - it is obviously NOT talking about confession.
Here is another modern one:
5 I am not overstating it when I say that the man who caused all the trouble hurt all of you more than he hurt me. 6 Most of you opposed him, and that was punishment enough. 7 Now, however, it is time to forgive and comfort him. Otherwise he may be overcome by discouragement. 8 So I urge you now to reaffirm your love for him.
9 I wrote to you as I did to test you and see if you would fully comply with my instructions. 10 When you forgive this man, I forgive him, too. And when I forgive whatever needs to be forgiven, I do so with Christ’s authority for your benefit, 11 so that Satan will not outsmart us. For we are familiar with his evil schemes.
1 Cor 11: Does it say “Do this in REMEMBRANCE of me” or “Do this in PARTICIPATION of my sacrifice”?
And Colossians 1, for those not inclined to look it up:
21Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.
24Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. 25I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness— 26the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. 27To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
Let the readers decide for themselves is this is about Paul doing mortification or penance, or Paul rejoicing in his sufferings, knowing they result in the proclamation of the gospel. The ex-military guy in me reads them as the latter, but others can read and decide themselves.
Did Jerome use priest or elder?
You wrote:
“Did Jerome use priest or elder?”
Find out on your own.
1 PETER - Chapter 5
CHAPTER V.
Ver. 1. The ancients, therefore, that are among you, I beseech, who am myself also an ancient,[1] &c. According to the letter, the senior, I, a fellow senior; or, the elder, I, a fellow elder. Mr. Nary, and also the French translators, commonly put, the priest, I, your fellow priest. Or even it might be, the bishops, I, your fellow bishop. The Latin word, senior, and the Greek word presbyteros, which here are in the text, if we should follow their derivation only, signify elderly men, or men advanced in years; but since by a received use, they signify and represent to us offices and dignities, either ecclesiastical or civil, either belonging to the Church or state, which in other languages are now generally known by other words, we may however be permitted to use, even in translating the holy Scriptures, those words and names by which now are represented to us those offices and dignities. It cannot be doubted but the Greek and Latin words, which we find in this verse, were applied, after the establishment of the new law of Christ, to signify such ministers of God and the Church which are now called priests and bishops: and it is for this reason that I judged it better to put the word priest, and fellow priest, (meaning priests of the higher order, commonly known by the name of bishops) than to use the words seniors, elders, or presbyters. I should not blame the Protestant translators for translating always the Greek word, presbyter, by the English word elder, nor the Rhemes translators for putting it here senior, if these words were sufficiently authorised by an ecclesiastical use and custom to signify priests or bishops; which I think can scarce be said, to say nothing that the word elders hath been used by fanatical men, who admit of no ordination of bishops or priests by divine institution, and who have affixed it to their lay elders, who are appointed and degraded as it seemeth good to their congregations. Though the Protestants of the Church of England always translate elders for presbyters in the New Testament, yet I do not find this word once used in their liturgy or common prayer book, when any directions are given to those that perform the church office, who are called priests, bishops, curates, or ministers. -— And a witness of the sufferings of Christ. St. Peter being called and made the first or chief of the apostles soon after Christ began to preach, he was witness of what Christ suffered, both during the time of his preaching and of his passion. -— Glory. Some think that St. Peter only means, that he was present at his transfiguration, where was shewn some resemblance of the glory which is to come in heaven. Others think, that he expresseth the firm hopes he had of enjoying the glory of heaven. (Witham)
1] Ver. 1. Seniores, presbuterous; consenior, sumpresbuteros. It is certain that in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and in other languages, such as have a superiority and command over others, in the Church or in the commonwealth, have been called by words that by their derivation express men advanced in age and years; because men chosen to such offices were commonly, though not always, advanced in age. Yet whether old or young, we give them the names which use and custom hath affixed to their dignities; for example, in English, the chief magistrate of a town we call the mayor or major, not the greater of such a town; those who rule with him, we call the aldermen, not the elderly men according to the derivation. The like might be said of senate, senators, and many other names of offices and dignities; and, as the authors of the annotations on the Rheims Testament observed, it would be ridiculous to translate such words according to their etymologies. We must not translate pontifex, a bridge-maker; lapis, a hurt foot, &c. Apostolos, by its derivation, signifieth only one sent, or a messenger; episkopos, an overseer, or inspector; diakonos, a servant, or waiter; yet Protestants as well as Catholics translate, apostles, bishops, deacons; and where presbuteroi, or seniors, signify men now known by these words, priests or bishops, why may we not in translating give them these names? It is true a particular difficulty occurs, because (as St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, and others have taken notice) the Greek word, o presbuteros, is used in the New Testament sometimes for those who by their dignity were priests only, sometimes for bishops, and many times in the gospels for those who were governors among the Jews, or members of their great council or sanhedrim and sometimes only for those who by their age were elder or more advanced in years. This makes it impossible, in translating, to represent the signification of this Greek word always in Latin or in English by the same Latin or English word, which a translator should endeavour to do as much as possible. The Protestant translators have indeed always rendered the Greek presbuteros by the English word elder; they adhere to the derivation of the word without regard to the different offices signified by that one word, and for which we have different words in English. I take notice that the Latin interpreter of the old Vulgate, though generally very exact, has not followed this rule of translating presbuteros by the same Latin word: for example, Acts xv. 2. he puts presbyteros, and yet in the same chapter (ver. 4, 6, 22, and 23) he puts seniores. Acts xx. 17. for presbuterous he puts majores natu; and these same persons, by the 28th verse, are called episcopi, episkopoi. In the epistle to Timothy and Titus, as also in those of Sts. James, Peter, and John, for the same Greek word we sometimes find presbyteri, and sometimes seniores. A late English translation from the Latin, (in the year 1719. by C. N.) for seniores and presbyteri sometimes puts elders, sometimes priests, whether it be seniores or presbyteri in the Latin; and when mention is made of the ministers of the gospel, (as Acts xv. 4.) for seniores he translates elders, and yet in the same chapter (ver. 6, 22, and 23) for the same word he puts priests, &c. The translators of the Rheims Testament were more exact, for generally speaking of seniores they put the ancients, when mention was made of those who were presbuteroi among the Jews; when seniores were applied to the ministers of the gospel, they put seniors; and for presbyteri, they translate priests. Yet they have gone from this in one or two places; for in Acts xi. 30., where we read mittentes ad seniores, they put to the ancients; and also, in Acts xvi. 4., for senioribus we again find ancients. For my part I judged it best, for distinction sake, to put elders in the gospels for seniores, or presbuteroi of the Jews. I had put in the Acts of the Apostles seniors where I found seniores, speaking of the ministers of the new law; and where I have found the Latin, presbyteri, I have translated priests; and Acts xx. 17. I have translated the seniors. I have also been in a doubt here in this place of St. Peter, and also in the 2nd and 3rd of St. John, whether to put seniors or priests: I have put ancient priests, not doubting but that St. Peter and St. John speak of themselves as priests of the first order, or as they were bishops.
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id269.html
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.