Mr. R, Alex is right on the money with this comment. One of the earliest icon depictions of Christ is as "Christ the High Priest". Christians viewed Christ as the "High Priest" for at least 10 centuries before anyone heard of the Reformers.
Posted on 10/25/2009 9:52:48 AM PDT by narses
I believe there are a number of instances where the Bishop of Rome, during the first 400+ years, TRIES to tell other Bishops what to do, without their accepting it. In this letter, a Bishop is telling laity to accept an elder...which is not exactly radical teaching for any church...except Baptists!
For the record, to refresh your memory, in #117 I wrote: "Well, try presbeia (the way it was pronounced back then in the 1st century). Presevyia is a modern-Greek pronunciation, but the spelling is the same in either case — πρεσβεια. That's why fundamental knowledge of Greek helps when discussing concepts developed in Greek, so as to avoid transliterational confusion. Presbeia gives 43,000 hits.
And, based on that you conclude that I am Greek but have not studied Greek?!? And I thought your Jude 11 was odd...
And when did I pass myself as a scholar? Please provide post number and quote. Evidence building skills. Try working on them a little harder. When I read your stuff, it makes me recall that psychiatrist story with circles and triangles...
And for the record, I have studied koine greek [sic] on the university level, though not very successfully, and long ago
I hate to ask how long were you at a university considering that you seem to think Greek is written in lower-case letters for some strange reason—consistently!
And I hate to think how much you learned about Greek considering that it never occurred to you that presvyia could be transliterated as presbeia, while complaining that presvyia returns only 4 hits.
What utter falsehood! There is nothing in greek [sic] that can't be explained in english [sic] provided the one doing the explaining has a thourough knowledge of both languages, and isn't a pedantic blowhard
Anyone who speaks more than one language knows very well that some things simply cannot be expressed in another languages directly, but only approximately. I think Kolo is right concerning ΟΩΝ
How can you deny something that never existed? When Pope +Leo I (5th century) argued for strong papacy based on the Bible, he did not use Jude 11 or Numbers 16 as scriptural "evidence" that Moses prefigured Peter and Peters' successors at Rome.
If he did, the Church would have denied it, because no one in the Church, Latin or Greek, understood it to mean that. What Pope argues that Jude 11 or Numbers 16 does? As far as I know, they use Matthew 16 for that purpose.
LOL! Kolo is using solipsism? Is that what you learned in your Greek course at some university? Are you sure you are not confusing it with sophism...? :)
PT to Kolo: And mabye you better look up the word "caveat" while you're at it...
You are telling a lawyer of 30 years of practice to look up what caveat means? LOL!
Where does the Bible say princes of Israel? And I thought only the caridnals are the "princes" of the Church, not all bishops. And since when are bishops compared to secular rulers?
Before you go on any further, it is time perhaps for you to demonstrate just whose teaching do you espouse here other than your own? Which Pope of Council or Magisterial pronouncmeent expresses your views on this subject? I think it is disingenuous for you to ask for evidence when you have none to offer to back up the interpretations you are spouting.
Why would he do that if he knew (or should have known) Israel would reject him? And why would he say he was sent only for the lost tribes of Israel? But, then, he also doesn't know the date of his return...hmmm.
We don't know at which point in time that was isnerted into the text or whether it was part of the original. But we do know that the First Letter of Clement appeals to reason, arguing that someone who is without blemish should not be deposed. But, the Epistle of Clement is not a pristine document either, as so many present it to be. For one, Clement repeatedly refers to the OT as scripture, but never to any references to the NT (mostly Pauline Epistles).
Here are more interesting facts about I Clement.
...translating presbyteroi as seniores (elders) rather than episcopi...
Pauline prayer that believers should submit themselves in all humility to the civil authority, has been reversed to state precisely the opposite: a prayer that all princes and rulers may now subject themselves to the Church, the Gelasian Pope Gelasius I doctrine that was being revived and put into effect during the eleventh-century Gregorian reform Gregorian Reform"
So, whatever we read in them, keep in mind that no matter what it says, it is also a "a modification of the text to suit the later spirit of the Roman church," something so often encountered with all documents of yore. The details of it shows that beyond any doubt (reversing the Pauline teaching on authority, etc.). Note also that it refers to bishops as "elders."
What I am saying is that although the authenticity of the original author is not so much disputed, the letter cannot be taken as Gospel, knowing that changes have been made in it.
Prudence therefore suggests proceeding with a grain of salt and not reading too much into it.
“I just gave you an example of an important piece of patristic literature where a bishop of Rome corrects someone whom he accuses of sedition and implies Aaronic privilege.”
Alex, the writings of The Fathers are full of instances where a Patriarch or Metropolitan corrects other bishops. There is even the use of the story of Korah in those corrections and by the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Constantinople. The consensus patrum, it seems to me, is clear. The story is used to support hierarchial ecclesiology. The Fathers knew the story, Alex. Its clear they didn’t connect it to papal supremacy.
To show continuity from the geographical Israel to the Catholic Church, the true Israel.
The issue here is St. Clement’s reliance on the Old Testament to draw the link to the priesthood to Aaron. If you have evidence that that part was inserted you need to present the evidence.
The implication, however, is there; it comes with the very idea of hierarchical leadership. I do not dispute that papal supremacy is a latter historical development; it would be as anachronistic for the Fathers to discuss it as, for example, discuss the use of electricity. What I am saying is that the concept of multiple autocephalic churches that absolutely, never-ever should have a hierarchical top is a later invention also.
“The implication, however, is there; it comes with the very idea of hierarchical leadership.”
The implication of what, Alex? Clearly not papal supremacy. That “primacy” is of the “esse” of The Church? That, I think, is what is implied.
“I do not dispute that papal supremacy is a latter historical development; it would be as anachronistic for the Fathers to discuss it as, for example, discuss the use of electricity.”
I agree.
“What I am saying is that the concept of multiple autocephalic churches that absolutely, never-ever should have a hierarchical top is a later invention also.”
Certainly that was not the case after the 2nd century and certainly isn’t the case now.
“To show continuity from the geographical Israel to the Catholic Church, the true Israel.”
So the Catholic Church is the True Israel? Well, maybe...Israel certainly had apostasy and punishment!
“The issue here is St. Clement’s reliance on the Old Testament to draw the link to the priesthood to Aaron.”
I’m sure I’ll annoy both Orthodox and Catholic by pointing out the New Testament knows nothing of the office of priest. Deacons? Yes, and the qualifications for deacon were listed. Elders? Yes, and likewise the qualifications were given.
Priests? Nope. The Priesthood of Aaron was to offer sacrifices for the forgiveness of sin. Hebrews - and yes, it was disputed for some time - says:
“For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins...
...When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, “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,” then he adds,
“I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”
Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.”
Not only does the writer of Hebrews not JOIN us to the priesthood of Aaron, but he CONTRASTS how inferior was Aaron’s priesthood to that of Jesus.
In fact, “He does away with the first in order to establish the second.”
So...can someone tell me how a Bishop of Rome can legitimately link the Church to Aaron’s Priesthood?
To paraphrase the marriage ceremony, ‘What God has parted, let no man put together’!
I agree that a case for papal supremacy, of the kind the Pope enjoys in the Latin Church cannot be made from these examples and apply it to the Eastern Churches, but a case for papal primacy can. Where exactly lies the difference? I wish the committee studying the 1st millennium papacy every success.
I was simply reacting to some sweeping statements made earlier, to the effect that no hint at the institution of papacy can be found in patristic literature.
The Church is the True Israel, yes.
Protestant translations routinely mistranslate the Bible as pertains to the office of priests and bishops.
Both “presbyteros”, priest and “episcopos”, bishop occur in the New Testament in numerous places.
But more important is the question not of terminology but of function. The foundational verse for Christian priesthood is “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me” (Luke 22:19). Neither “priest” or “bishop” is used, but what we have here is Christ taking on the role of the priest giving the Eucharist and immediately commanding those present do it likewise. This establishes Christian ministerial priesthood: men consecrated to offer the sacrifice of Christ to their flock.
It is true that the office of bishop (that is, a priest capable of ordaining other priests) was not fully distinct from the office of priest because in most churches, given the small numbers of the faithful, the bishop was able to offer the Eucharist without delegating it to a priest, with the help only of deacons.
It is also true that the Christian priesthood is not a mere continuation of Old Testament priesthood, for obvious reasons. It is a full-scale replacement.
Mr. R, Alex is right on the money with this comment. One of the earliest icon depictions of Christ is as "Christ the High Priest". Christians viewed Christ as the "High Priest" for at least 10 centuries before anyone heard of the Reformers.
“Protestant translations routinely mistranslate the Bible as pertains to the office of priests and bishops.”
Ummm...no. They translate what the words meant at the time, rather than what they came to mean after hundreds or a thousand years.
From Wiki:
“Some modern comentators believe that these presbyters may have been identical to the overseers (episkopoi, i.e., bishops) and cite such passages as Acts 20:17, Titus 1:5,7 and 1 Peter 5:1 to support this claim.[2][3] The earliest post-apostolic writings, the Didache and Clement for example, show the church recognized two local church offices—elders (interchangeable term with overseer) and deacon.”
“[2] Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1997 edition revised 2005, page 211: “It seems that at first the terms ‘episcopos’ and ‘presbyter’ were used interchangeably ...”
[3] Cambridge History of Christianity, volume 1, 2006, “The general consensus among scholars has been that, at the turn of the first and second centuries, local congregations were led by bishops and presbyters whose offices were overlapping or indistinguishable.”
Christ was seen as High Priest at least since Hebrews was written:
“The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself...
...For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” — Heb 7 / 9
However, the writer of Hebrews doesn’t encourage the idea that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, requiring a human priest. For one thing, it is repeatedly pointed out that the sacrifice of Jesus is PAST, and that “he did this once for all”. And it also points out that Jesus is the one acting as Priest, not any human. He offers himself - he is not offered by a man.
For those wondering, the four winged characters surrounding Christ are the Holy Evangelists, referred by their symbols of man (St. Matthew), lion (St. Mark) ox (St. Luke) and eagle (St. John). Often all four have wings.
The "ο ων" that PaperTiger was quizzed upon makes its appearance, as it does always, on the nimbus of Our Lord. It is translated as "the being" or "the existence" and is a reference to the divinity of Christ by reminding us that "through Him all things were made".
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.