Posted on 09/04/2011 7:11:37 AM PDT by Publius804
VATICAN CITY (EWTN News/CNA) — Pope Benedict XVI is encouraging Catholic and Orthodox Christians to work together in re-evangelizing traditionally Christian countries.
“For a renewed proclamation of the Gospel in the modern world we need evangelizers animated by the same apostolic zeal of (St.) Paul,” the Pope said in a letter to mark the close of the 12th Inter-Christian Symposium.
Over the past four days, the symposium has brought together both Catholic and Orthodox scholars in the Greek city of Thessaloniki to discuss the topic of “The Witness of the Church in the Modern World.”
The Pope described the theme as “very timely and central” to his “concerns and prayers” for a “New Evangelization” of traditionally Christian countries where the practice of the Christian faith has declined in recent times.
Pope Benedict noted that although the Church has never ceased to “proclaim the salvific mystery of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ,” the regions in need of re-evangelization are “currently experiencing the effects of a secularization capable of impoverishing the most profound aspects of man.”
People living in these regions seem to give a “contradictory” response to the Christian Gospel, the Pope said.
On the one hand, “there is widespread disinterest, even a lack of sensibility” towards transcendent things, and on the other hand, there seems to be “a profound nostalgia for God” that “persists in the hearts of many, expressing itself in various ways.”
Christianity was brought to the city of Thessaloniki by St. Paul in the first century. The Pope asked for his intercession that the talks between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches encourage “a climate of fraternal charity” and observed that the “mutual understanding of our traditions and true friendship are already in themselves a contribution to the cause of Christian unity.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
Sure they were, no question. And?
And the Greek term for this is “diakonia”, correct?
Yes, but let’s cut to it, you have a destination, no? yes?
Yes, it can. What did I capitalize wrong? What I say is that the office is important, not whether the word is ever used also as a title. From the scripture cited in my previous two posts, the deaconate, priesthood and episcopacy are offices with distinct duties as well as some overlapping duties.
why insist that elder, older man, whether literal or figurative, is a priest
Priests of the New Testament are presbyteroi in the original. They are priests because they celebrate sacraments (see for example, James 5:14) and are a distinct people for that reason (1 Timothy 4:14). Since they are obviously not Hebrew or pagan priests, the word hiereus is not used and instead the word presbyteros is coined and used in a novel sense. That the English word "priest" is used to cover both non-Christian hiereus and Christian presbyteros is a defect of the English language; most languages don't confuse the two.
The presbytery was not a priesthood
Repeat it some more and it will become true, would it not? The point of bringing 1 Timothy 4:14 is indeed to point out that the imposition of hands ordained St. Timothy to something he was not before. Yes, there are many gifts given the priests.
Martha became a diakonos
She served Jesus, yes (forms of the same word as deacon are used in Luke 10 to describe here work, but not herself as a person), but there is no ordination of St. Martha into deaconate described in the Bible, and there is one in the case of the seven deacons.
Generally, understand this: each word has some etymology out of which a new meaning emerges. You would not argue that because "president" means "one sitting ahead of others" presidency of the US is not a political office but rather something people find themselves doing on occasion; but you exhibit the same foolishness when it comes to the terminology of the Holy Scripture.
The word hiereus IS in fact used of Christian priests, specifically those who would rule with Christ as kings and priests. The word hiereus is used of Christ as he is archiereus not archpresbyteros.
Both Paul and John use the Greek hiereus to speak of these king/priests and the Jewish priests but presbyteros and hiereus are NOT used interchangeably....because presbyteros does not mean priest and the defect is not in the English language but the efforts to do retro-exegesis according to the bias of the Catholic church and its efforts to install priests in the Chistian congregations where none exists.
I see how well you “read Greek in the original” and so forth.
Paul knew the word for priesthood and he didn't use it at 1 Tim. 4:14. Paul used the word prebytery, elders, older men not priests or hiereus.
But you should know this since you “read Greek in the original” and should require no further enlightenment from me.
Yes, -- in Revelation ιερευς is used for the Christian priests, and also in Hebrew the word is used for Christ. I did not say that ιερευς was never used in Christian context, -- Catholic priests have in fact removed the need for the Hebrew priests as they, the Catholic Priests, are priests after Christ (John 20:21) in the order of Melchisedech, -- I said that when the affairs of the Church are described in Pauline letters, a new and specific word is used, πρεσβυτερος to more accurately describe the new function.
install priests in the Chistian congregations where none exists.
No Hebrew ιερει exist in the Christian Church that Christ founded; πρεσβυτεροι very much exist because St. Paul writes of them to Titus and Timothy. They are Catholic Christian priests.
No need to rush.
The Greek term for someone who serves in this manner is Diakonos.
Are we still in agreement?
THIS is what you said earlier:
“Priests of the New Testament are presbyteroi in the original. They are priests because they celebrate sacraments (see for example, James 5:14) and are a distinct people for that reason (1 Timothy 4:14). Since they are obviously not Hebrew or pagan priests, the word hiereus is not used and instead the word presbyteros is coined and used in a novel sense. That the English word “priest” is used to cover both non-Christian hiereus and Christian presbyteros is a defect of the English language; most languages don’t confuse the two”
“...presbyteroi in the original” for Christian priests, remember? Now it’s:
“Yes, — in Revelation (hiereus) is used for the Christian priests, and also in Hebrew the word is used for Christ”.
You go on to say:
“Catholic priests have in fact removed the need for the Hebrew priests as they, the Catholic Priests, are priests after Christ (John 20:21) in the order of Melchisedech....”
Nay not so according Paul’s words to the Hebrews, chapters 9 & 10. He says it was Christ entering into the Most Holy to offer himself as the sacrifice that abolished the need for any repetitious sacrifices by Hebrew priests. He being the High Priest no lower priests were needed or mentioned as having a part.
“....in the order of Melchisedech..”?
At Hebrews 7:17 Paul quotes Psalm 110:4 and applies that oath and promise about Melchizedek to Christ and Christ alone. There is but one member of this High Priesthood and since would be it no priesthood of others was set up or in existence.
John 20:21 uses the word ‘apostello’ to refer to Christ being sent out by his father, not priest, and those he sent were disciples not priests, certainly not like Melchizedek.
You continue:
“I said that when the affairs of the Church are described in Pauline letters, a new and specific word is used, (presbyteros) to more accurately describe the new function”
But presbyteros (I have trouble getting the Greek font up) was used to mean elder and older man long before the time of Christ, as far back as during the time of Homer I believe, so the word is not new and it’s meaning well known to Greek speaking persons.
If you mean a novel useage then you should be able to show it was applied to Jewish priests too as hiereus was to describe their priestly functions. You cannot.
Lastly you come up with this absolute gem!
“No Hebrew (hierei) exist in the Christian Church that Christ founded; (presbyteroi) very much exist because St. Paul writes of them to Titus and Timothy. They are Catholic Christian priests.”
Of course not! Hebrew priests never officiated in the Christian church.
“......(presbyteroi) very much exist because St. Paul writes of them to Titus and Timothy. They are Catholic Christian priests.”
Not unless Paul wrote in English as translating presbyteroi, prebyteros, etc. as priest or priestly is evidence of a religious bias in the translating being justified by what I called reverse-exegesis.
One...you haven’t examined the Greek you claimed to be able to read.
Two...You seem just as unfamiliar with the Scriptures and both could be corrected.
Yes.
That would be “yes”, if we can arrive at our destination before my first SS check arrives.
There’s no mention of SS checks in Scripture so you should refuse to cash them, anyway.
What is the English language term for the Greek word “Diakonos?”
If you can find priests in presbytoi like annalex it should be a snap for me to find SS checks!
Diakonos has rather broad application and could be translated as minister, waiter, servant hence Christ was termed diakonos, angels, women, secular authorities were also.
The term deacon is more a transliteration than a translation of diakonos.
What is the title for a Priest in the Greek Orthodox Church?
Diakonos has rather broad application and could be translated as minister, waiter, servant hence Christ was termed diakonos, angels, women, secular authorities were also.
Ask a Greek to translate it, in context, to English for you.
The term deacon is more a transliteration than a translation of diakonos.
As are many other English terms regard their Greek roots, ex: telephone.
Since the idea of a minister as a servant, particularly a religious minister, instead of a superior, has faded they would probably translate diakonos as deacon in keeping with modern English, which is demonstrative only of the fact that languages change, Greek included.
Enough of the twenty questions... what the Greek Orthodox Church does/says is irrelevant.
How the Greek speakers of the Bible used those terms is the point at hand.
And we can plainly see how the Church they established uses the term.
As I’ve gone to some lengths to point out.
Christ simply abolished the need for Hebrew priests, not just for sacrifices by them. This is why ιερευς is only used for Christian priests to underscore their type being the Hebrew priests. Ordinarily, to describe the function and role of the Christian priest πρεσβυτερος is used, like in the letters to Timothy and Titus.
Hebrews 7:17 Paul quotes Psalm 110:4 and applies that oath and promise about Melchizedek to Christ and Christ alone
He doesn't actually say "alone" in that verse, and the chapter, adressed to the Jews explains that Christ is NOT a levitical priest, but rather in the order of Melchisedech, and generally the Jewish law is dissolved with Christ. It is not contrasting Christ with the Catholic priests but Christ with the Hebrew priests.
However, the Catholic teaching is that in essence, Christ IS the only priest. When a ministerial priest receives an ordination, -- for example, when priests were ordained by Titus, -- they did not become, like levitical priests, distinct and multiple priests, but rather they received the grace to stand in for Christ, -- become another Christ in the sacramental sense, -- in their sacramental and liturgical function: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (John 20:21). To which you had this to say:
John 20:21 uses the word ‘apostello’ to refer to Christ being sent out by his father, not priest, and those he sent were disciples not priests, certainly not like Melchizedek.
You know that how about Melchisedech? You could make the argument that they were apostles. But apostles in turn ordained priests (see again Timothy and Titus). A Catholic priest offers not another sacrifice at Mass but the sacrifice of the Cross. At Mass, he is Christ.
presbyteros (I have trouble getting the Greek font up) was used to mean elder and older man long before the time of Christ, as far back as during the time of Homer I believe, so the word is not new
The word in frequent and ancient use was πρέσβυς (elder, venerable etc.), but I agree that πρεσβυτερος would be recognizable as something like that. To translate for Christian πρεσβυτερος "elder" would not be incorrect in a vacuum, and perhaps given that defect of English that conflates the two kinds of priests would even be a good idea. The gross error is not in using "elder" but uin not recognizing Catrholic priesthood in that "elder". As it is, "priest" derives from πρεσβυτερος and is the time-honored way to describe the person in the role of the πρεσβυτερος of the First Church.
you mean a novel useage then you should be able to show it was applied to Jewish priests too as hiereus was to describe their priestly functions
It is a novel usage but by what logic does it follow that it should also apply to the Jewish priests? Did we not just go through Hebrews where the distinction between the levitical priests and the priesthood in the order of Melchisedech was made?
translating presbyteroi, prebyteros, etc. as priest or priestly is evidence of a religious bias in the translating being justified by what I called reverse-exegesis
Bias is to have functioning priests for centuries and still translate "elder".
The issue is not how to translate from Greek but what the greek words mean, and from the examples I showed you πρεσβυτερος is someone who gets carefully selected then ordained by an apostle or my a person in turn so appointed by an apostle; who is trained in the right doctrine and who offers sacraments. Call it pink banana if you must, it is still a Catholic priest that is described in the Timothys and Titus.
One...you haven’t examined the Greek you claimed to be able to read. Two...You seem just as unfamiliar with the Scriptures
You conclude that based on what my post, precisely?
I cannot make that proviso in every post, but you all understand that when I say “Catholic” I means any validly ordained deacon, priest, or bishop, including the Orthodox clergy.
And you reply:
“You conclude that based on what my post, precisely?”
Well, let's see.(again I won't be using the Greek fonts).
You wrote:
“Christ simply abolished the need for Hebrew priests, not just for sacrifices by them. This is why HIEREUS is only used for Christian priests to underscore their type being the Hebrew priests”
Consider Matthew 26:3. The chief priests (archeireus) and ancients, elders (prebyteros) are gathered together in the courtyard of the high priest (archiereus).
The presbyteros here are not Christian priests, nor are they Jewish priests, they are, as both Catholic and Protestant translators translate, elders, older men of the community.
Matthew says the hiereus are Jewish priests and the presbyteros are the the elders, older men of the community, or ancients as the DRV puts it.
Acts 2:17, 1 Tim 5:1,17,19 and Titus 2:2 uses the term presbyteros(or a form) and it is translated as elder, older man by most translations including the DRV but for some reason the DRV translates 1 Tim. 5:17,19 as “priest”.
You say:
“The gross error is not in using “elder” but uin not recognizing Catrholic priesthood in that “elder”. As it is, “priest” derives from PRESBYTEROS and is the time-honored way to describe the person in the role of the PREBYTEROS of the First Church”
This may be good Catholic theology but as above it is not supported by the use of the term in the Scriptures and even Catholic translators recognize this.
You wrote:
“You know that how about Melchisedech? You could make the argument that they were apostles. But apostles in turn ordained priests (see again Timothy and Titus).”
1 Tim 4:14 uses the term “presbyteriou” or presbytery and as any lexicon will attest means an elder, older man (figuratively and spiritually) who leads the congregation not a “priesthood”.
Who else is a priest after the manner of Mechizedek? Only he is so named. Only to him is the oath applied. The order of Melchizedek has only one member, Christ. See Hebrews.
“However, the Catholic teaching is that in essence, Christ IS the only priest. When a ministerial priest receives an ordination, — for example, when priests were ordained by Titus, — they did not become, like levitical priests, distinct and multiple priests, but rather they received the grace to stand in for Christ, — become another Christ in the sacramental sense, — in their sacramental and liturgical function: “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you” (John 20:21).”
Yes, that may be Catholic teaching, belief and theology but that is reading into the Scriptures what isn't found there.
You argue that since “priest” is derived from presbyteros when prebyteros is used it means “priest”. The DRV uses priest or priesthood while the NAB uses elder for presbyteros.
How a word is translated reflects the view of the translators about how that word was used.
You defined presbyteros as priests because they were appointed, ordained and because they performed sacraments but again that a reverse exegesis since there is no indication that an older man or elder, prebyteros could not grease with oil an ailing person and offer prayer over them or perform similar acts.
Essentially you're saying since only a priest could do these sort of acts everyone who did them was a priest in a fine example of circular reasoning.
You say:
“Bias is to have functioning priests for centuries and still translate “elder”
But the DRV has been translating presbyteros as “ancient”, “older man, elder” and then immediately within the same context translate as “priest”, something the NAB, NJB does not do in these same verses.
The Christian church cannot be retro-fitted with priests by mistranslation and redefining the presbyteros.
You haven’t examined the Greek you claimed to be able to read. Two...You seem just as unfamiliar with the Scriptures
“You conclude that based on what my post, precisely?”
You still have to ask?
So I’m glad we can agree that the Church established by Christ has recognized the title of Deacon since the beginning.
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.