Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: CynicalBear
No priest found in any of those. presbýteros – properly, a mature man having seasoned judgment (experience); an elder.

Hm... the dictionary disagrees with you, FRiend:
Origin of PRIEST

Middle English preist, from Old English prēost, ultimately from Late Latin presbyter — more at presbyter

Origin of PRESBYTER

Late Latin, elder, priest, from Greek presbyteros, comparative of presbys old man, elder; akin to Greek pro before and Greek bainein to go — more at for, come
This, I'd add, is yet another case of where the Protestant "either/or" view can blind people to reality (which accommodates "both/and"). There's no incompatibility between "priest" and "mature man with seasoned judgment". Re: the idea of young men being priests or bishops, see below.

The Greek word for priest is hiereus

Correction: *A* word for "priest is "hierus"... and it was specific to the priesthood of the Old Covenant (e.g. the Levites); the New Covenant extended that "priesthood of all believers" to all of the baptized.

and is never used for New Testament church authority or leadership. It is used for all believers.

Right. But "presbyteros" most certainly IS used to describe all of the above... and "presbyteros" is the etymological root of our modern English word, "priest". Go check your favorite dictionary, if you don't believe me. Alternately, go ask a member of the Greek Orthodox Churches, who still call their priests "presbyteroi"; do you think that's an accident?

(As a side-note: I'm really getting the idea that Evangelicals don't really know what to do with the Orthodox Churches; the Orthodox believe almost all of what the Catholic Church teaches, but Evangelicals--when faced even with the CONCEPT of the Orthodox--often seem to sputter into an awkward sort of silence, followed by a change of subject. I've always been curious about that...)

1 Timothy 3:2 An overseer, then,

:) "Overseer"! Then you don't even like the term "bishop"? The word "episkopos" is the Greek word for bishop (ask the dictionary, or the Orthodox, if you'd rather not have a Catholic's word for it!), you know.

Incidentally, I wonder if that means that you don't like the KJV, either... since it renders the word as "bishop", every time...

must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),

Can I assume that, in the midst of all that extra verbiage, your main point is CELIBACY of Catholic bishops? That's usually what Protestants are implying, when they quote this passage.

But surely you know that marriage was not a MANDATE for bishops (or for anyone)? It's simply not the case that an unmarried man would be disqualified!

Beyond that: the Catholic Church has always taught (as anyone who took even the slightest care and time to look into the matter) that marriage and Holy Orders (i.e. ordination of bishops, priests, and deacons) are not incompatible; the modern Church (by "modern", I mean "since the early 2nd millenium"--many centuries before Luther ever came on the scene) chose to follow the advice of Our Lord Jesus:
"Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:11b-12)
...and the fervent, repeated advice of St. Paul:
"I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. [...] I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry -- it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better (1 Corinthians 7:32-38)
Or, do you have a problem with such advice from St. Paul and from Jesus, Himself? Is the "Bible alone" not good enough, in this case? It's absolutely clear that the Church policy of clerical celibacy is not only allowed by God, but it's PRAISED. No one's forcing you (or anyone else) to follow suit, mind you... so why should it bother you? It's perfectly biblical, and it's sensible.
1,243 posted on 05/07/2015 7:08:59 AM PDT by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1240 | View Replies ]


To: paladinan
(As a side-note: I'm really getting the idea that Evangelicals don't really know what to do with the Orthodox Churches; the Orthodox believe almost all of what the Catholic Church teaches, but Evangelicals--when faced even with the CONCEPT of the Orthodox--often seem to sputter into an awkward sort of silence, followed by a change of subject. I've always been curious about that...)

Excellent point; I would normally attribute it to ignorance of anything beyond their own religious tradition, except for the fact that the Orthodox are a witness that the Reformation is illegitimate and not built on the foundation of the Jewish apostles and prophets. That is the reason the Reformation was insufficient and there is a flood of new religious denominations, sects, communities, and cults flowing out of Protestantism with a focus on Restorationist faith groups.

1,248 posted on 05/07/2015 7:54:06 AM PDT by af_vet_1981 (The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1243 | View Replies ]

To: paladinan; CynicalBear

Nope no priests in the NT Pal...

The MODERN DICTIONARIES have adapted Rome’s definition.. but to really know you have to look at what THE HOLY SPIRIT said in Greek..

You NEED A GREEK DICTIONARY

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.”


1,253 posted on 05/07/2015 8:42:43 AM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1243 | View Replies ]

To: paladinan; RnMomof7; CynicalBear
This is a rehash/edit of something I posted a while back on "preist" versus "presbuteros":

The problem is working backward.  It doesn't work to start with an English word that has drifted significantly from its etymological origins and project that new and modern meaning back into a Greek word that in its original context does not support it.  It matters what the lexicons say presbuteros meant during the New Testament period. Semantic drift does occur, and without drawing in good lexicographic analysis as an objective measure of that change, you can't be sure what a word meant at any given stage of it's progression through the various host languages. You can't do good translation without doing the necessary science.

Furthermore, as a matter of practical translation, those in English cultures influenced by centuries of Protestant differentiation between "priest" and "elder" will be truly unable to hear "priest" without inferring strong sacerdotal overtones, which are incongruent with NT usage.  I cannot hear it otherwise even with conscious effort. To me it's like trying to picture red while saying blue. No matter what contours "preost" may (or may not - see note below) have had in the 12th Century, the sacerdotal sense is arguably the modern winner in this contest, as attested by the Merriam-Webster definition's emphasis that in English, sacerdotal duty is a prominent aspect of the word "priest."  

This state of affairs leaves the translator with only a few choices:

1) Go ahead and use "priest" for presbuteros, knowing in advance a large number of the intended readers are going to project sacerdotalism back into the Biblical text where it is not inferred by a proper semantic analysis of presbuteros, such as we find in Louw-Nida.  This is something of an activist approach.  Translations can and no doubt will continue to be used to intentionally promote semantic drift in favor of some group.  The new "politically correct" Bible translations are a good example of this.  

But that's not a particularly helpful approach for those who wish to understand the word of God in it's original sense, on it's own terms.  Translation is more than just science.  It is also rooted in a certain trust of the translator, that they are making good faith representations of meaning in the choices they make.  Using a historically and semantically overloaded term like "priest" for the much more bland and generic presbuteros would be a breach of that trust.  Even if I were to turn Catholic tomorrow (God forbid), I could never do that. "Elder" would still be the better way to represent that term.

2) An alternative would be to do what the translators of the KJV did, just import the controversial word whole and untranslated into the host language, leaving context as the arbiter of meaning.  That is how we got the word "Baptize," which is nothing but the Greek "baptizo," leaving people free to debate whether it means "immerse," "sprinkle," etc.  I question the wisdom of that approach, but it would be better than using the misleading "priest," if the translators couldn't bring themselves to use "elder."

However, even that would lead to some oddball situations that solve easily with "elder."  For example, in 1 Timothy 5:2 we have this:
 Πρεσβυτέρῳ μὴ ἐπιπλήξῃς, ἀλλὰ παρακάλει ὡς πατέρα· νεωτέρους, ὡς ἀδελφούς· 2 πρεσβυτέρας, ὡς μητέρας· νεωτέρας, ὡς ἀδελφάς, ἐν πάσῃ ἁγνείᾳ. 
Which translates as:
Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;  (2)  The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
Is Paul talking about the office of elder?  Hardly, because the passage proceeds to cover proper communication with younger men, older women, and younger women, clearly focusing on age, or age in combination with modes of showing respect.

And then what about those "elder women?"  They are not women priests.  But the word is presbuteros, with a feminine ending, thus presbuteras.  So here it is obvious that "priest" would be completely wrong.

Then there's this passage:
Acts 23:14  And they came to the chief priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul. (KJV)
Which in the Douay Rheims comes out as:
23:14 Who came to the chief priests and the ancients, and said: We have bound ourselves under a great curse that we will eat nothing till we have slain Paul.
So your own translators have punted on this, avoiding both "priest" for "presbuteros," because what nonsense it would be to translate it thus:
23:14 Who came to the chief priests and the [priests], and said: We have bound ourselves under a great curse that we will eat nothing till we have slain Paul.
All this to say it matters little for Bible translation purposes what "preost" had bundled into it's meaning in the 12th Century.  What matters for translation is, who is my target audience, and how do I get them to hear, in their own, current language, what the Bible actually says in the original, unimpeded by my own biases as translator?

Incidentally, there is another "origin story" for "priest" that takes another genetic path into the Greek, and surprisingly, in this version it doesn't go back to presbuteros, but hiereus!:
[after discussing the standard "presbuteros" theory ... ]

An alternative theory (to account for the -eo- of the Old English word) makes it cognate with Old High German priast, prest, from Vulgar Latin *prevost "one put over others," from Latin praepositus "person placed in charge," from past participle of praeponere (see provost). In Old Testament sense, a translation of Hebrew kohen, Greek hiereus, Latin sacerdos[!?] (emphasis added by me).

From here:  http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=priest
Granted, this is a minority position.  But I find it fascinating that an alternate theory even exists.  Take the "v" out of "prevost" and viola! you have "preost!"  Which again highlights the need to be careful about relying too heavily on long chains of etymology.  Lexicography doesn't rely on a single fragile data point drawn from an irrelevant time period, but on a large number of data points all working together to give us an accurate view of how a word was used during the period of history and by the people most relevant to our inquiry.  We want to know how Paul used presbuteros, not how Chaucer used preost.

Peace,

SR

1,258 posted on 05/07/2015 9:40:27 AM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1243 | View Replies ]

To: paladinan

I know you spend so much time trying to fit Catholic beliefs into scripture but it doesn’t work. The dictionary surely isn’t a source you wish to use. Gay now means a homosexual according to the current dictionary. That would have made everybody in the 1920s a homosexual. Retrofitting is what the Catholic Church does but it’s not New Testament Christianity. And the pathetic attempt at explaining the benefits of being single from Paul’s letters may make you feel better but it’s still not what he said was REQUIRED for elders and bishops. There are REQUIRED to be married with children they have raised.


1,292 posted on 05/07/2015 4:29:14 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1243 | View Replies ]

To: paladinan; metmom

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.


1,294 posted on 05/07/2015 4:42:39 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1243 | View Replies ]

To: paladinan; CynicalBear; RnMomof7; Springfield Reformer; ealgeone
There are no such things as priests in the New Testament church other then the priesthood of all believers.

Yes, there were, and there are; look for the Greek word "presbyteros" and "presbyteroi". There were also bishops (episkopos/oi) and deacons (diakonos/oi).

No priest found in any of those. presbýteros – properly, a mature man having seasoned judgment (experience); an elder.

Middle English preist, from Old English prēost, ultimately from Late Latin presbyter — more at presbyter Origin of PRESBYTER Late Latin, elder, priest, from Greek presbyteros, comparative of presbys old man, elder; akin to Greek pro before and Greek bainein to go — more at for, come

CB is correct, the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests*, is “hiereus” or “archiereus.” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) is never used for NT pastors. The words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) - which He does use for NT pastors - do not distinctively mean "priest."

But "presbyteros" most certainly IS used to describe all of the above... and "presbyteros" is the etymological root of our modern English word, "priest". Go check your favorite dictionary,

What occurred is that "presbuteros" in Greek (presbyter in Latin) was translated into English as "preost," and then "priest," but which also became the word used for "hierus" ("sacerdos" in Latin), losing the distinction the Holy Spirit made by never distinctively giving NT presbuteros the distinctive title hiereus.

Your dictionary proof is that of engaging in an etymological fallacy , since "priest" from old English "preost" etymologically is derived from "presbyteros," due to imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function.

Etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and evolving changes in form and meaning. over time, however, etymologies are not definitions. The etymological fallacy here is a linguistic misconception, a genetic fallacy that erroneously holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to or the same as its original or historical meaning. So that since presbyteros incorrectly became priest from preost, therefore it is erroneously considered to be valid to use the same title for OT priests as for NT pastors.

All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).

: *A* word for "priest is "hierus"... and it was specific to the priesthood of the Old Covenant (e.g. the Levites);

Wrong: Hierus is the uniquely distinctive word for priests, both Jewish and pagan. (Acts 14:13) and hiereus (as archiereus=chief priests) is used in distinction to elders in such places as Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5.

Jewish elders (Hebrew "zaqen") as a body existed before the priesthood of Levitical priests (Hebrew "kohen"), most likely as heads of household or clans, and being an elder did not necessarily make one a Levitical priest (Ex. 3:16,18, 18:12; 19:7; 24:1; Num. 11:6; Dt. 21:2; 22:5-7; 31:9,28; 32:7; Josh. 23:2; 2Chron. 5:4; Lam. 1:9; cf. Mt. 21:13; 26:47) or a high priest, offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb. 5:1) While elders exercise could some priestly functions such as praying and laying hands on sacrifices, yet unlike presbuteros and episkopos, elders and priest were not the same in language or in function. Like very young Samuel, one could be a kohen/priest without being an zaqen/elder, and one could be a elder without formally being a priest, whose primary function was to offer expiatory sacrifices for the people

And instead of dispensing bread as part of their ordained function, which NT pastors are never described as doing in the life of the church, and instead the primary work of NT pastors is that of prayer and preaching. (Act 6:3,4) "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:2)

And which is what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Psalms 19:7;Acts 15:7-9)

Also, Titus 1:5-7 shows that bishops and elders denote men in the same office: the former (episkopos=superintendent or “overseer,”[from “epi” and “skopos” (“watch”) in the sense of “episkopeō,” to oversee, — Strong's) refers to function; the latter (presbuteros=senior) to seniority (in age, implying maturity, or position) Paul also called the elders together in Acts 20:17, and said that God has made them overseers. (Acts 20:28)

Catholic writer Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide," 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."

"When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], 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." (http://books.google.com/books?id=ajZ_aR-VXn8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s)

And R. J. Grigaitis (O.F.S.) (while yet trying to defend the use of priest), reveals, "The Greek word for this office is ‘?e?e?? (hiereus), which can be literally translated into Latin as sacerdos. First century Christians [such as the inspired writers] felt that their special type of hiereus (sacerdos) was so removed from the original that they gave it a new name, presbuteros (presbyter). Unfortunately, sacerdos didn't evolve into an English word, but the word priest [from old English "preost"] took on its definition." (http://grigaitis.net/weekly/2007/2007-04-27.html)

In response to a query on this issue, the web site of International Standard Version (not my preferred translation) states,

No Greek lexicons or other scholarly sources suggest that "presbyteros" means "priest" instead of "elder". The Greek word is equivalent to the Hebrew ZAQEN, which means "elder", and not priest. You can see the ZAQENIM described in Exodus 18:21-22 using some of the same equivalent Hebrew terms as Paul uses in the GK of 1&2 Timothy and Titus. Note that the ZAQENIM are NOT priests (i.e., from the tribe of Levi) but are rather men of distinctive maturity that qualifies them for ministerial roles among the people.

Therefore the NT equivalent of the ZAQENIM cannot be the Levitical priests. The Greek "presbyteros" (literally, the comparative of the Greek word for "old" and therefore translated as "one who is older") thus describes the character qualities of the "episkopos". The term "elder" would therefore appear to describe the character, while the term "overseer" (for that is the literal rendering of "episkopos") connotes the job description.

To sum up, far from obfuscating the meaning of "presbyteros", our rendering of "elder" most closely associates the original Greek term with its OT counterpart, the ZAQENIM. ...we would also question the fundamental assumption that you bring up in your last observation, i.e., that "the church has always had priests among its ordained clergy". We can find no documentation of that claim. ( http://isvbible.com/catacombs/elders.htm)

(As a side-note: I'm really getting the idea that Evangelicals don't really know what to do with the Orthodox Churches; the Orthodox believe almost all of what the Catholic Church teaches,

Rather, the schismatic (from Rome's perspective) Orthodox substantially differ with Rome , including no less than on ensured papal infallibility and power, from which the authority of RC bishops flows from.

And as it is RCs who have incessantly been posting promotional threads and posts here as the one true church , and as they represent the vast majority of Catholics (some RCs even say the EO are not Catholic) then therefore it is with them that you see our posts usually countering. Besides, using "RC" saves my stiff fingers from typing and making more inadvertent typos.

1,369 posted on 05/08/2015 7:21:32 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1243 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson