|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: Liturgy as performance
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Yes, but what does a 'priest' actually mean in this context? As pointed out earlier, the OT priest is a Greek 'hiereus', the classic sacrificing priest. Our modern western word 'priest' is derived from the word 'presbyter' or elder, and clearly has a somewhat different meaning (not to mention that I can't find in the NT that an 'episkopos' is something special rather than just a synonym of 'presbyter').
I think Kevin is sort of right here in the sense that Rev 1; 6 and I Pet 2; 5 refer to all Christians as 'priests' in the OT/'hiereus' sense. By implication none of us gets to be priest over against the others, though some of us are the different office of 'presbyter/episkopos'.
Interestingly Romans 15 does give an example of an individual Christian as a 'leitourgos' - Paul himself being a 'minister/leitourgos' of Christ Jesus to the nations/gentiles. He then goes on to refer to himself 'ierourgounta' the gospel of God, so that 'the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable'. This seems actually to be about evangelism rather than church service; I'll be giving it more study because on my reading so far there are some interesting possibilities here!
Posted by k-mann
quote:
But it doesn’t mean that everyone should, or could, have the job of the priest
Yes, but do you mean here presbyter/priest, or hiereus/priest? It makes a difference.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The Catholic tradition is to have a deacon read the Gospel, so now that it is kinda sorta allowed to have people read multiple parts for the Passion narrative on Palm Sunday and Good Friday, you still have to have a deacon read the words spoken by Christ. If your denomination or churchmanship does not value this tradition, then fine. But if you do, I think you should take this into consideration. If a deacon is not present, you can have a priest read the words spoken by Christ, since priests were ordained deacons before they were ordained priests.
That's not accurate. The rubric (paragraph 21 of the rubrics for Palm Sunday) state:
quote:
It [the entire Passion] is read by a Deacon, or if there is nor Deacon, by a Priest. It may also be read by readers, with the part of Christ, if possible, reserved to a Priest.
So, one option is to read it like a normal Gospel, entirely read by the Deacon (or Priest in his absence). The other option is to split it up with different readers taking different parts, but the part of Christ being taken by a Priest. In this case, the deacon has no particular role. The Good Friday rubrics direct you back to Palm Sunday.
It should be noted that "readers" lacks a capital letter. There is no intention to limit to or even prefer those instituted as Lectors.
I have no idea why the "if possible" is there -- why wouldn't it be? I suppose this might be to prevent people from thinking they can't do the Passion in a SCAP.
At my place, I didn't take any part in the Passion reading on Palm Sunday, having already proclaimed the Entrance Gospel at the one Mass I assisted at. On Good Friday, I will take the part of narrator.
Oh, my mistake then. I had never been in a Catholic Church where a deacon was present on Palm Sunday until this year, when the Deacon did read the words of Christ, so I assumed this was just like with normal readings of the Gospel. Interesting to see that this was breaking the rules!
How are the rubrics for Good Friday different, I wonder?
So since on Palm Sunday the words of Christ, when parts are split up, is reserved to a Priest, then it seems to be all about the Priest celebrant at the Eucharist acting in persona Christi. Of course, Christ is also present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, in the Word being proclaimed, and in the congregation assembled, but Roman Catholics believe that if you're going to talk about "roles" in a "performance", the "Christ role" should go to a Priest....makes sense.
Is there any pre-Vatican II liturgical precedent to compare this to? Were the Passion narratives split up among parts ever before Vatican II on Palm Sunday or Good Friday? If so, what was done and what rules were there about who could say what?
Also, all non RC's should note that in any performance outside of the Liturgy, it really doesn't matter who plays the role of Christ - I don't think there is even a rule against women playing Christ (although Mother Angelica of EWTN fame protested this when it was done at World Youth Day in Denver).
It is a common practice for kids to "act out" the Nativity reading at a Christmas Mass on Christmas Eve in RCC Churches. Is this against the rules? If it is not against the rules, then you have a kid (with no lines, of course), playing the role of the Christ child in the Liturgy, and the kid is obviously not an ordained priest.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
When "performance" - in theatre or church - is badly done or is clearly designed solely to draw attention to the performers themselves, then the rational is all too obvious and the congregation/audience remains earthbound!
Liturgical performers should never be drawing attention to themselves. Role-players should strive for absolute anonymity, allowing the congregation to focus on the liturgy's purpose, the worship of God.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Yes, I agree - again, that would also be true in secular theatre, as a good actor directs one towards the character they are playing rather than themselves.
Where this is not the case is in preaching, which must involve the communication of God's message via the individual speaker. We see this in the OT where each prophet had their own unique style. However, even here, the preacher is pointing to something (some One) beyond them, they are not doing for their own personal glory.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
If we are priests as Christians, then Robert the individual Christian is a priest.
Yes, I suppose, but as Steve Langton has said, it doesn't mean there are some who are priests and others who are not. Either the body of Christ as a whole is the priest / priesthood, or each of us individually is a priest.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
The verb means ‘acting as a priest.’ If he is acting as a priest, he is a priest.
Okay, Paul is a priest. But so are all Christians then; there is no demarcation between those Christians who are priests and those Christians who are not priests. I'm cool with that, if you want to insist that someone 'doing priesting' means they are a priest.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Originally posted by k-mann: quote:
If we are priests as Christians, then Robert the individual Christian is a priest.
RIC is a hieros-priest in that he participates in Jesus Christ's sacrificial priesthood. Just like every other Christian. (Including children). That priesthood, the Old Testament Temple priesthood, is Jesus's, and also ours as we are in Jesus.
RIC is only a presbyter-priest if he has been set aside for that office by the church. That's part of church government. Not all Christians are elders, just as not all Christians are flower-arrangers.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
[QUOTE]
Liturgical performers should never be drawing attention to themselves. Role-players should strive for absolute anonymity, allowing the congregation to focus on the liturgy's purpose, the worship of God.
Which is a very good reason for the parish priest or other chief ministers of the church NOT to always read the Gospel, or to take the part of Jesus in a shared reading. They will inevitably be seen as some sort of authority figure by at least some of the congregation and when only they read (or preach) it sends a message that they are somehow specially important or holy, and the plebs in the pews aren't worthy to take part themselves but just have to sit back and listen.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
[QUOTE]
Liturgical performers should never be drawing attention to themselves. Role-players should strive for absolute anonymity, allowing the congregation to focus on the liturgy's purpose, the worship of God.
Which is a very good reason for the parish priest or other chief ministers of the church NOT to always read the Gospel, or to take the part of Jesus in a shared reading. They will inevitably be seen as some sort of authority figure by at least some of the congregation and when only they read (or preach) it sends a message that they are somehow specially important or holy, and the plebs in the pews aren't worthy to take part themselves but just have to sit back and take what they are given by their betters.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Yes, but what does a 'priest' actually mean in this context? As pointed out earlier, the OT priest is a Greek 'hiereus', the classic sacrificing priest. Our modern western word 'priest' is derived from the word 'presbyter' or elder, and clearly has a somewhat different meaning (not to mention that I can't find in the NT that an 'episkopos' is something special rather than just a synonym of 'presbyter').
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
But it doesn’t mean that everyone should, or could, have the job of the priest.
Yes, but do you mean here presbyter/priest, or hiereus/priest? It makes a difference.
Well, it is interesting, I think, that the word ‘priest,’ which is derived from πρεσβύτερος (presbyteros) and not from ἱερεύς (hierevs), started to be used to describe the priests of the Old Covenant. That suggests that the presbyters were sacrificial, at least when people started to use these terms.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I think Kevin is sort of right here in the sense that Rev 1; 6 and I Pet 2; 5 refer to all Christians as 'priests' in the OT/'hiereus' sense. By implication none of us gets to be priest over against the others, though some of us are the different office of 'presbyter/episkopos'.
It is hard to guess what people really mean. Of course no one is priest for themselves, apart from others. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t individual priests. But that also applied to the priests and levites of the Old Covenant. So I do not see the relevance.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Interestingly Romans 15 does give an example of an individual Christian as a 'leitourgos' - Paul himself being a 'minister/leitourgos' of Christ Jesus to the nations/gentiles. He then goes on to refer to himself 'ierourgounta' the gospel of God, so that 'the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable'. This seems actually to be about evangelism rather than church service; I'll be giving it more study because on my reading so far there are some interesting possibilities here!
To me this seems that St. Paul is actually a priest. In his work with the Gospel of God, which is the proclamation of the crucified and risen Jesus Christ as Lord and King, and not a document, St. Paul is offering the people back to God. But that is exactly what a priest does. The gifts and sacrifices offered by, say, a Levite, was a representation of the people for whom he offered it (or of himself, and perhaps his family, if he offered on his own behalf). The difference now is that we can offer ourselves directly, through Christ, and that some people have been given the task to ‘facilitate’ this (cf. Romans 15:16; Phil 2:17).
The reason for this is that the sacrifice of Christ, as the sacrifices of any of the High Priests, is not his own, but the people’s. The sacrifice of Christ is the sacrifice of the people.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by k-mann
quote:
Well, it is interesting, I think, that the word ‘priest,’ which is derived from πρεσβύτερος (presbyteros) and not from ἱερεύς (hierevs), started to be used to describe the priests of the Old Covenant. That suggests that the presbyters were sacrificial, at least when people started to use these terms.
I could be wrong, of course, but I thought that 'presbyters' came to be considered as 'sacrificial' priests, and likened to the OT priests, when communion became re-interpreted as the sacrificial 'Mass' of the Catholic Church.
This in turn was part of the also questionable 'nationalisation' of the Church in the Roman Empire.
As a Protestant I don't accept the 'sacrificial' interpretation of the communion/Mass; and as an Anabaptist I also don't accept the state church system. So for me all Christians are 'hiereoi', priests in the OT sense; but that priesthood is modified by the fact of Jesus' definitive sacrifice. 'presbyter/elder' means a different kind of job to do with church government, but not like the OT sacrificing 'hiereus'.
My initial post was to draw attention to the confusion in English whereby we have come to use a word derived from 'presbyter' to refer to the OT type of 'priest'.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
As I understand it, in the earliest of early Church Latin texts "sacerdos" is nearly always used in conjunction with the bishop, which is why the seven orders of the Church ends with "priest". "Priest" didn't become synonymous with "presbyter" until later.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Ad Orientem; please explain more, including at what date the word 'sacerdos' was used. The English word 'priest' is definitely derived from 'presbyter/elder', whence for instance that an RC priest's house is called a 'presbytery'.
It still seems to me that the NT does not know of 'priests' as a distinct order in the church and the 'presbyter/episkopos' is not a priest in the OT sense but a different kind of office??
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I could be wrong, of course, but I thought that 'presbyters' came to be considered as 'sacrificial' priests, and likened to the OT priests, when communion became re-interpreted as the sacrificial 'Mass' of the Catholic Church.
Then shouldn’t they have been given some name that derives from hierevs or cohen, and not the other way around?
And when, exactly, did communion become ‘re-interpreted as the sacrificial 'Mass' of the Catholic Church’? When was the time of ‘decay’? When the Didache was written, perhaps?
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It still seems to me that the NT does not know of 'priests' as a distinct order in the church
Then what does St. Paul mean, in Romans 15:16, when he says that he is “acting as a priest” so that “the offering of the Genties might become acceptable, sanctified in the Holy Spirit”? Or to ask a more fundamental question: Why was the Scriptural canonisation process good, while the theology of those doing the canonisation bad?
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Still thinking through some of your post, k-mann; but on this;
quote:
by k-mann;
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I could be wrong, of course, but I thought that 'presbyters' came to be considered as 'sacrificial' priests, and likened to the OT priests, when communion became re-interpreted as the sacrificial 'Mass' of the Catholic Church.
k-m: Then shouldn’t they have been given some name that derives from hierevs or cohen, and not the other way around?
I think the point is simply that the word 'presbyter/elder' was well established and therefore was not changed although the concept of the function of the elder did change. At the point of translation into English the word 'priest' came to be used both of the OT priests and of the RC priesthood as then practised. That is, the confusion already existed at that point. Language does things like that, it doesn't always do the logical.
by k-mann
quote:
Then what does St. Paul mean, in Romans 15:16, when he says that he is “acting as a priest”
I'm still working on that, but I don't think he means he is acting as a 'priest' in a sense different to the 'priesthood of ALL believers'. Furthermore the context does not seem to be 'liturgy' in the sense of this thread, or indeed a conventional OT view of priesthood.
by k-mann
quote:
Why was the Scriptural canonisation process good, while the theology of those doing the canonisation bad?
I'd be delighted to debate scriptural canonisation in a separate thread; I think in this thread it might be a tangent too far. Discussing the nature of priests in too much detail is already a bit tangential to the original point of this question.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Ad Orientem; please explain more, including at what date the word 'sacerdos' was used. The English word 'priest' is definitely derived from 'presbyter/elder', whence for instance that an RC priest's house is called a 'presbytery'.
It still seems to me that the NT does not know of 'priests' as a distinct order in the church and the 'presbyter/episkopos' is not a priest in the OT sense but a different kind of office??
Cyprian of Carthage uses the term "sacerdos" for the bishop. Likewise, Hippolytus of Rome uses "archiereus" and "hiereus" for the bishop. Of course, that doesn't mean that they saw the New Testament priesthood in terms of the Levitical priesthood. Christ is the head of the Church and a priest in the order of Melchisedech. In turn the bishop governs the Church and ministers to the people in place of Christ. But as for why terms such as "sacerdos" eventually became to be referred to "presbyter", that's probably because as the Church grew the bishop couldn't be everywhere so they ordained the presbyters to serve the liturgy where the bishop couldn't. Thus they shared in the bishops' priestly ministry, albeit in a limited capacity strictly under the authority of the bishop.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Thanks, Ad Orientem; but big query - the NT seems only to know of 'presbyters/elders' who are clearly in several places synonymous with 'episkopoi/overseers'. Neither word seems yet to have acquired a specifically ecclesiastical meaning, though 'elder' was apparently in use for the non-priestly governors of synagogues. Your reconstruction of events seems to start at a stage where the NT view has already changed and arguably in dubious ways...?
And in the NT I can't see that either presbyter or episkopos means a priest in the hiereus/sacerdos sense, that language is applied only to Jesus and to ALL believers as a holy priesthood. What's going on??
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
It seems to me that we can't go far wrong in reading the NT through the lens of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Many of the things that Anabaptists object to as "Constantinian" innovations are present already a good century or more before Constantine's accession, and were relatively non-controversial (discounting obvious heretics like Marcion, Montanus & Donatus).
Of course, I'm aware that this is not a conclusive refutation of Anabaptist/Free Church positions. In the end, you picks your hermeneutic (or historiography) and you takes your chances.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Fr Weber; I sort of agree. I fear that the way the argument has developed, there is a tendency, of which I also am guilty at times just for the sake of brevity, to use 'Constantinian' as shorthand for what most people, including these days most Anabaptists,agree was actually a process that took many decades. As an obvious point, making Christianity compulsory took place quite a bit after Constantine, at the end of the 300s, while certainly some trends now seen as Constantinian actually started in previous decades.
One might, I think, argue that some of those trends might well have died out in a free church but became exaggerated and fixed in a state church because they suited the purposes of such a 'kingdom of this world' for Jesus.
Also that where the NT is clear - as it rather is, for instance, about the identity of presbyters and episkopoi, the Ante-Nicene Fathers may be recording a process of decline rather than an original interpretation? Or at any rate, that in the days when copies of the NT were probably comparatively rare, some not-very-NT ideas did develop?
Marcion and Montanus fairly obvious heretics; Donatism less obviously so and a somewhat mixed movement anyway. Clearly wrong in the sense that it looks as if the Donatists would not have wanted to forgive Peter's denial as Jesus did; but also clearly right in rejecting the state church idea in the end, a point at which the Imperial Church was decidedly wrong.
Should we now let this thread get back to its original topic??
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Stonespring before Vatican 2 the Passion Gospels ,would be read (in Latin) by the celebrating priest on Palm Sunday as well as on Monday and Tuesday of Holy Week and then the St John Passion on Good Friday.
In churches where there were sufficient clergy then three priests/deacons would read/sing the Passion with the choir singing the crowd parts.
Certainly in Europe (including UK ) it was relatively rare to encounter an actual deacon and in solemn liturgies the part of the deacon was normally taken by a priest taking the role and wearing the vestments of a deacon.
Since the early 1960s and the beginnings of a vernacular liturgy in the Catholic Church -reading of Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular - then the Passion has normally been read in ordinary parish churches by groups of lay people.
The first time I experienced this was in the parish church of Lourdes (not at the shrine !) and this was 1964.It made a very welcome change from the common practice in most churches of the Passion being read in monotone Latin by one priest.In the UK this was not usually read in translation afterwards as was the normal
practice on Sundays ( 2 x 20 minute readings would be too much penance).In France and the German lands the Passion would usually be read at the same time as the celebrant read it in Latin either by a cleric or a lay person.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I think the point is simply that the word 'presbyter/elder' was well established and therefore was not changed although the concept of the function of the elder did change.
But that presupposes that it was indeed changed, that the presbyters of the New Testament weren’t sacrificial priests the way, for instance, St. Cyprian understood it.
But when do you suppose this change occurred? Can you point me to definitive point in history? Can you cite a Church Father, before or after Nicea, who didn’t believe in the sacrificial character of the presbyteral priesthood, were this is understood different from the sacrificial nature of the priesthood of all the baptised? And why do you think that those who did indeed hold to this ‘special priesthood’ understanding of the presbyters had no qualms with the texts of the New Testament, but in fact canonised them?
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
At the point of translation into English the word 'priest' came to be used both of the OT priests and of the RC priesthood as then practised. That is, the confusion already existed at that point. Language does things like that, it doesn't always do the logical.
No, but that assumes it was illogical. My claim is that it was logical, that it follows from the understanding of presbyters that had always been the case. But I’m happy to be proven wrong. Can you cite any Church Father, before or after Nicea, who didn’t believe in the sacrificial character of the presbyteral priesthood?
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm still working on that, but I don't think he means he is acting as a 'priest' in a sense different to the 'priesthood of ALL believers'. Furthermore the context does not seem to be 'liturgy' in the sense of this thread, or indeed a conventional OT view of priesthood.
I think, on the contrary, that this is describing liturgy exactly. The liturgy was the offering of the Church (cf. Phil. 2:17), in union with the still ongoing offering of Christ (cf. Hebrews 8:1-3).
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'd be delighted to debate scriptural canonisation in a separate thread; I think in this thread it might be a tangent too far. Discussing the nature of priests in too much detail is already a bit tangential to the original point of this question.
My point was that those whom we are happy to give the right to canonise Scripture all believed in the sacrificial character of the presbyteral priesthood.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
[QUOTE]
Liturgical performers should never be drawing attention to themselves. Role-players should strive for absolute anonymity, allowing the congregation to focus on the liturgy's purpose, the worship of God.
Which is a very good reason for the parish priest or other chief ministers of the church NOT to always read the Gospel, or to take the part of Jesus in a shared reading. They will inevitably be seen as some sort of authority figure by at least some of the congregation and when only they read (or preach) it sends a message that they are somehow specially important or holy, and the plebs in the pews aren't worthy to take part themselves but just have to sit back and listen.
For what it is worth, my parish had three choir soloists sing the Passion as narrator, Jesus, and all other spoken parts. The clergy played no role in it.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
This discussion about 'priest' is interesting. There's obviously an important difference in theology involved which is a major part of what the Reformation was about. There is though another problem of which people do not always pick up. This is that in English there is only one word which translates two different concepts in biblical Greek.
The English word 'priest' clearly derives from the Greek word presbyteros via its Latin equivalent. It also clearly has always included in its meaning - and still does - 'the person responsible for looking after a local Christian congregation' and 'pastor'.
It has also acquired an additional meaning along the way, so that it is the only word now used in English that means 'a person who performs religious sacrifices', corresponding to the Hebrew word cohen and the Greek word used to translate that in the LXX, hiereus, Latin, sacerdos. There must originally have been an Anglo-Saxon word that meant that, but whatever it was, it has been lost. Almost certainly, this is because by the Anglo-Saxon period, the mass was seen as a sacrifice. Christian ministry had combined both roles.
We, now therefore, without thinking about it, talk of the Jewish High Priest, or even of pagan priests, when no one would use presbyteros with that meaning.
In the Jewish world, these two concepts were quite different. A cohen/hiereus was descended from Aaron and performed sacrifices in the Temple. He did not have responsibility for any congregation. Rabbis were responsible for teaching, synagogues and pastoral care. They were not descended from Aaron. They did not sacrifice.
When the New Testament refers to Jesus as 'our great high priest' this is cohen/hiereus. Likewise the reference to the priesthood of all believers. However, at that stage in the development of Christian ministry, episcopos and presbyteros was describing a role that corresponded to a rabbi, not a cohen/hiereus. Whatever we may think about the nature of the Mass or how quickly that theology developed, in the most primitive stage of church development, cohen/hiereus was regarded as a term that could only describe Jesus's role, which we would now describe as both priest and victim,
The usage that allowed ministry to be likened to cohen/hiereus seems to have developed sometimes in the early post-primitive era. It probably happened in two stages. First, if it was recognised that the body and blood 'were' Jesus and proclaimed his death until he returns, then they became themselves priest and victim. Second, it could follow from that, that the person who offers them has a sacerdotal as well as a presbyteral role.
At the Reformation, the Protestant side of the debate argued that this theological development had been a mistake. This debate continues. Nevertheless, as far as I know, no Christian ecclesial community that stresses the sacerdotal, i.e. cohen/hiereus nature of priesthood, has separated it from the presbyteros/rabbi role. Whichever side of the divide you are on in arguments about the nature of the Mass/Eucharist/Holy Communion/Lord's Supper/Holy Liturgy, you take it for granted that your priest/minister/pastor/elder does the leader, pastor and teacher bit, the job of both a presbyteros and indeed an episcopos.
It is a pity, though, that English has lost whatever word it must have had for 'a person who offers sacrifices'. It would make argument a lot easy and a lot less self-delusional.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
What Enoch said. Pretty much exactly.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
My point was that those whom we are happy to give the right to canonise Scripture all believed in the sacrificial character of the presbyteral priesthood.
So what? Since when did being inspired by the Holy Spirit on one thing stop someone holding false beliefs on another? We don't trust the Church Fathers because of any special powers they had, but because and insofar as their writings are consonant with scripture, and we believe them to have been guided by God the Holy Spirit.
Anyway its pretty much irrelevant. Despite danbrownian fantasies, the whingings of neo-Gnostic apologists, and innumerable paranoid conspiracy theories, its simply not true that the NT canon was cobbled together at Nicea or Constantinople or by some secret agents of the Emperor. At the most all that happened was dotting the Is and crossing the Ts. Trimming round the edges. Most of the core NT books were accepted by churches before the end of the second century. Possibly before the end of the first. Certainly the Gospels, Acts, Paul's letters, and probably John's letters and 1 Peter as well. All the rest was pretty much decided before Constantine.
Yes, the churches wrote the New Testament. But the churches that wrote the New Testament were the first-century, mostly Jewish, apostolic churches with living eyewitness memories of Jesus. And no sacrificial priests other than the Temple priests of Jerusalem.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
What Enoch said. Pretty much exactly.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
My point was that those whom we are happy to give the right to canonise Scripture all believed in the sacrificial character of the presbyteral priesthood.
So what? Since when did being inspired by the Holy Spirit on one thing stop someone holding false beliefs on another? We don't trust the Church Fathers because of any special powers they had, but because and insofar as their writings are consonant with scripture, and we believe them to have been guided by God the Holy Spirit.
Anyway its pretty much irrelevant. Despite danbrownian fantasies, the whingings of neo-Gnostic apologists, and innumerable paranoid conspiracy theories, its simply not true that the NT canon was cobbled together at Nicea or Constantinople or by some secret agents of the Emperor. At the most all that happened was dotting the Is and crossing the Ts. Trimming round the edges. Most of the core NT books were accepted by churches before the end of the second century. Possibly before the end of the first. Certainly the Gospels, Acts, Paul's letters, and probably John's letters and 1 Peter as well. All the rest was pretty much decided before Constantine.
Yes, the churches wrote the New Testament. But the churches that wrote the New Testament were the first-century, mostly Jewish, apostolic churches with living eyewitness memories of Jesus. And no sacrificial priests other than the Temple priests of Jerusalem.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Thanks ken and Enoch for stating what I tried to but which had got rather lost in the heat of the argument. including the bit about how scripture wasn't canonised by people 300 years later but was recognised much earlier - indeed clearly before c140CE when Marcion came along trying to put a more restricted canon in place. Though I'd concede a few minor epistles now in, and a few eventually not accepted, were finalised around the time of Nicea.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Thanks ken and Enoch for stating what I tried to but which had got rather lost in the heat of the argument. including the bit about how scripture wasn't canonised by people 300 years later but was recognised much earlier - indeed clearly before c140CE when Marcion came along trying to put a more restricted canon in place. Though I'd concede a few minor epistles now in, and a few eventually not accepted, were finalised around the time of Nicea.
My point was not that no one recognised Scripture before the fourth century, but that those who did canonise Scripture in the fourth century had no qualms about including scriptures that some, including anabaptists, claim disprove the unique priestly character of the New Testament presbyters.
They saw those presbyters as sacrificial priests. One cannot simply say that they weren’t sacrificial because the word means ‘elder’ (unless one also provide arguments that being an elder precludes being a sacrificial priest). It is historical fact that the early Church claimed that the presbyters were sacrificial priests. And I believe that is in complete continuity with St. Paul. He calls himself a priest, with reference to his ministry (Rom 15:16, cf. Phil 2:17). From that I draw the conclusion that the New Testament presbyters were sacrificial priests. When Paul say that he is ‘acting as a priest’ (hierourgéō), he is a priest who intercedes for the people of God as an intermediary. He offers the people back to God in union with the perfect sacrifice of Christ, the great high priest.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And no sacrificial priests other than the Temple priests of Jerusalem.
So what does St. Paul mean when he, explicitly, says that he – in his ministry – acts as a priest? Is it just a ‘metaphor’? If yes, how do we know? Cannot that argument be used to denounce almost anything? And if it is a metaphor, what is it a metaphor of?
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
originally by k-mann;
quote:
My point was not that no one recognised Scripture before the fourth century, but that those who did canonise Scripture in the fourth century had no qualms about including scriptures that some, including anabaptists, claim disprove the unique priestly character of the New Testament presbyters
SL: I’ll try to disentangle this and make my point as clear as possible; for those who finally formally canonised the scriptures in the fourth century, it didn’t really matter whether or not they had ‘qualms’ about the teaching found in scripture – the key ‘scriptures’ were already known and settled and could not realistically be rejected. Nor could the fourth century people offer any alternative or extra ‘scriptures’ that had the necessary apostolic ‘provenance’ to be acceptable.
Therefore whatever the opinions of ‘Ante-Nicene Fathers’ and the like, the NT was fixed, and in due course available to be read by the Reformers (and by precursors such as Hussites, Waldensians, and the Wycliffite ‘Lollards’ of England to correct the problems that over the years had gradually corrupted the RC Church, and not only about the issue of ‘priesthood’ - the NT also contains the necessary teaching to dismantle the ‘Constantinian/Theodosian’ error of entangling church and state.
‘…the unique priestly character of the NT presbyters’. Well that of course is exactly what is in question here! Do the NT ‘presbyters’, ACCORDING TO THE TEACHING OF THE NT ITSELF, actually have such a ‘priestly’ character, and if so IN WHAT SENSE, given that the priesthood of the OT is clearly ‘fulfilled’ and so superceded by the self-sacrificing priesthood of Jesus himself?
quote:
Originally by Steve Langton;
Furthermore the context does not seem to be 'liturgy' in the sense of this thread, or indeed a conventional OT view of priesthood.
Response by k-mann;
I think, on the contrary, that this is describing liturgy exactly
Unless I totally misunderstood (which I’ll concede is possible!!), “'liturgy' in the sense of this thread” meant things to do with THE CONDUCT OF CHURCH SERVICES OR RITES/RITUALS. In the passage I quoted Paul does not appear to be using the word ‘liturgy’ (or rather his self description as a ‘leitourgos’ of Jesus to the Gentiles) in that sense. Obviously in a broader sense he must be describing ‘liturgy’ in some proper sense, or he’d be self-contradictory – the usual translation as a ‘minister’ to the nations/Gentiles seems fair enough to me.
With a busy Easter weekend and the next week that’s all I have time for now; I’ll hopefully come back to the meaning of ‘hierourgounta’, and some other issues, in a few days….
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
K-Mann, I don't know what writings of Paul you have in mind but Romans 5.16 and Phillipians 2.17 aren't relevant to the point you were trying to make. Typo?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
ken, it's Romans 15 (fifteen) verse 16 - and unless the ship has given you a different version to me, k-mann got it right, you misread! Phil 2;17 is intended, I think, to be relevant as an example of Paul using sacrificial and by implication 'priestly' language about what he does. Which has me feeling that we and k-mann are maybe closer than appears, but struggling with language problems including the 'priest/presbyter' confusion in English....
I've had a look at k-mann's blog; the English bits are quite interesting, but my skills haven't yet found a way to translate the Norwegian items. He appears to be a kind of 'Luthero-Catholic' in a sense roughly comparable to 'Anglo-Catholic'.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I regret to have to say that any argument that a doctrine of a sacrificial Christian priesthood had developed as far back as the New Testament and can be traced in the later NT writings is weak and almost certainly driven by a desire to find what one is looking for.
The problem is actually a quite different one. When one tries to look at what people thought before there had been an argument about something, it's quite difficult to tell. What, for example did a 'high and dry' CofE person in the late C18 think about Holy Communion, before the Oxford Movement had happened and set everyone's theological teeth on edge on those sort of issues?
If one were able to call back someone from the past before the differentiations developed by controversy, and ask him or her, 'what do you think about ... ?' you could get a number of responses, 'obviously', 'obviously not', 'a bit of both', 'that's an interesting question I've never thought of before' or 'what's the fuss about?'
There are some that are fairly straightforward. We can say with confidence that if you'd asked anyone in any era before the last twenty years or so whether the Christian faith could accommodate same sex marriage, they would have responded with amazed horror that anyone should even ask the question. We can say with nearly as much confidence that until at least the 1930s, if you'd asked anyone 'did Jesus die in our place, bearing our sins, or did he conquer death and defeat Satan?' their reply would have been somewhat on the lines, 'why does this have to be one or the other?' or even, 'stupid question; obviously both and more'.
When you read 'The Imitation of Christ', which well precedes the Reformation, it's an odd mixture of what we'd now assume are defining Protestant and Catholic positions. Its writer was a religious, but no post-Tridentine could have written it or got away with doing so.
But I strongly suspect that there is no answer to the question, 'what did people believe about the eucharist and nature of priesthood before the developments of late antique and medieval theology?' We just don't know. If we imagine we can answer this, I suspect most of the time we are choosing the answer that happens to suit our own preferences.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
broadly sympathetic to what you say here,Enoch; but I still think it's worthwhile trying to disentangle HOW different ideas arose and make some effort to sort out legitimate and illegitimate developments.
I'm trying here to ask what 'priesthood' means for a 'post-Jesus' people of God, where clearly the OT Levitical priesthood does not apply, and to question whether 'elders' are meant to be understood as 'priests' in a sense different from the 'royal priesthood' that all Christians share.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
‘…the unique priestly character of the NT presbyters’. Well that of course is exactly what is in question here! Do the NT ‘presbyters’, ACCORDING TO THE TEACHING OF THE NT ITSELF, actually have such a ‘priestly’ character, and if so IN WHAT SENSE, given that the priesthood of the OT is clearly ‘fulfilled’ and so superceded by the self-sacrificing priesthood of Jesus himself?
Yes, St. Paul himself says he is a priest, as part of his MINISTRY.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
K-Mann, I don't know what writings of Paul you have in mind but Romans 5.16 and Phillipians 2.17 aren't relevant to the point you were trying to make. Typo?
First, not once have I referred to Romans 5:16. I have referenced Romans 15:16. And Philippians 2:17 is most relevant. St. Paul, writing about his (then) potential martyrdom, references their liturgy, “the sacrifice and service/liturgy of your faith” (τῇ θυσίᾳ καὶ λειτουργίᾳ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν). As an apostle, St. Paul offers “the sacrifice and service” of the faith of the congregation. That offering is, really, an offering of the people themselves (just as any offering stand as a representative of the one who offers). In Romans 15:16, St. Paul talks more generally, that his task, as an apostle, is to offer the people of God back to God. He is an intermediary.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Which has me feeling that we and k-mann are maybe closer than appears, but struggling with language problems including the 'priest/presbyter' confusion in English....
My claims is that there isn’t any confusion, unless you insist that presbyters aren’t sacrificial priests. Which is what we are discussing. And I think St. Paul’s words are clear. As an apostle, and not merely as a Christian, he offers the people of God.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
posted by k-mann;
quote:
quote:
________________________________________
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I think Kevin is sort of right here in the sense that Rev 1; 6 and I Pet 2; 5 refer to all Christians as 'priests' in the OT/'hiereus' sense. By implication none of us gets to be priest over against the others, though some of us are the different office of 'presbyter/episkopos'.
________________________________________
It is hard to guess what people really mean. Of course no one is priest for themselves, apart from others. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t individual priests. But that also applied to the priests and levites of the Old Covenant. So I do not see the relevance.
SL; I think you may have misunderstood here. The relevance is as follows;
ALL Christians are ‘priests’ (‘hiereus’); but ipso facto, presbyters are not ‘priests’ in a special sense in which other Christians aren’t ‘priests’. They are just the mature people (elders) appointed to run the church’s affairs (‘episkopoi’/overseers/managers). In the description of Christians as a ‘royal priesthood’ I detect both elements of mutual service – we all serve each other in ways which are like priesthood, priesthood transposed into NT/post-Jesus’-sacrifice terms – and elements of us being ‘priests’ towards the world, as when Paul uses the word ‘hierourgeo’ in what is clearly a missionary context. I do not detect any idea that some of us (eg Paul, or ‘presbyters’) are priests in a special extra sense while others of us aren’t.
Later Christians (even as early as the Didache) confusing 'presbyteroi' with 'hiereoi' are not really relevant unless the NT itself clearly teaches such an identification and in a way that doesn't apply to other Christians.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Later Christians (even as early as the Didache) confusing 'presbyteroi' with 'hiereoi' are not really relevant unless the NT itself clearly teaches such an identification and in a way that doesn't apply to other Christians.
I would tend to agree with this point, Steve, but many Christians place great importance on post-Biblical tradition (or rather, Tradition) and, for them, I suspect it is very much relevant if an early post-NT document like the Didache presents a change or development from the NT picture.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Surely the only way to understand the scripture on such points, as with any other, is to look at the constant practice of the Church. You can't separate the two.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
I rather agree, South Coast Kevin - but the bone of contention arises when we move from the sacrificial priesthood of the elders as a valid development occurring within the early Church (a view with which I have some sympathy) but k-mann's insistence that the concept is explicitly present as a New Testament teaching. A couple of oblique lines from St. Paul aside, I don't see a shred of evidence to support this.
This is not necessarily a problem of course - most Christians sign up to Creeds and understandings of the Trinity which are not made explicit in the NT and consider this a perfectly valid theological approach, as long as we do not start believing anything which is contrary to the NT. So, the question really becomes whether teachings like that of Hebrews preclude Christ's Ministers sharing in his sacrificial priesthood in some way that other baptised persons do not, or not.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Later Christians (even as early as the Didache) confusing 'presbyteroi' with 'hiereoi' are not really relevant unless the NT itself clearly teaches such an identification and in a way that doesn't apply to other Christians.
I would tend to agree with this point, Steve, but many Christians place great importance on post-Biblical tradition (or rather, Tradition) and, for them, I suspect it is very much relevant if an early post-NT document like the Didache presents a change or development from the NT picture.
Yes, I disagree with the assumption of Steve, that there was a ‘confusion.’ His argument is the classic corruption creeped into the Church at [insert preferred time in history], and now we must go back to the ‘pure gospel.’
I still haven’t seen anyone try to answer what St. Paul meant by his priestly ministry, a ministry not in reference to his general discipleship, but to his ministry as an apostle.
Ad Orientem is right, of course. The Tradition is the lense through which we read Scripture. And Christianity has never been a ‘religion of the book.’ The ‘people of the book’ are the Muslims. Liturgy is more important than teaching.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
[Steve Langton's] argument is the classic corruption creeped into the Church at [insert preferred time in history], and now we must go back to the ‘pure gospel.’
Without perhaps stating it this strongly, don't all Christians believe this to some extent about certain issues? Is there anyone who thinks their church / denomination (a) is currently 100% correct on all matters of significance, and (b) has always been so?
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I still haven’t seen anyone try to answer what St. Paul meant by his priestly ministry, a ministry not in reference to his general discipleship, but to his ministry as an apostle.
Well, I had a go - with my suggestion that Paul said he was 'priesting' (whatever precisely that means) rather than 'being a priest'. Let me add that perhaps his 'priestly ministry... as an apostle' simply means that the specific form his priestly ministry takes is as an apostle. Your priestly ministry might be as an encourager or a generous giver, while mine might be as an administrator or a teacher. But all Christians have a 'priestly ministry'.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Liturgy is more important than teaching.
You see, this comment makes no sense to me at all. My church has no liturgy, not in the sense of a written down set of words and rubrics anyway. Sure, we have conventions and structures, so 'liturgy' in the broader sense. Do you mean that this is a powerful way in which God's people are taught, in which we learn how to be followers of Jesus? If so, then I agree; our prayers, songs, rituals, customs etc. are certainly all powerful teachers, at least as much as the activities that get formally labelled as teaching. Apologies if I've misunderstood...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
originally by k-mann;
quote:
His (Steve Langton's) argument is the classic "corruption crept into the Church at [insert preferred time in history], and now we must go back to the ‘pure gospel.’"
("quotes" to get over my inadequacies with UBB use; 'crept' because I'm a bit pedantic with English)
Well yes and no...! 'Corruption' was creeping into the Church FROM THE VERY BEGINNING and a good deal of the NT is devoted to fighting that corruption to keep the Church on track. And it has continued to try to creep in ever since, and it has continued to need fighting. Fighting, that is, to keep to the apostolic teaching as found in the NT, and to keep a scriptural guard on 'tradition' to ensure that the scriptural teaching is legitimately developed, not developed in a way that ultimately contradicts or undermines it.
originally by k-mann;
quote:
I still haven’t seen anyone try to answer what St. Paul meant by his priestly ministry, a ministry not in reference to his general discipleship, but to his ministry as an apostle.
Right now I'm not really trying to answer that but to get better definition from you of how you see this 'priestliness'. Because the terms have become confused, it's actually not clear what you mean. As I've said, I suspect we may be closer than appears at first sight; but just endlessly repeating Romans 15;16 and saying Paul called himself a 'priest' isn't enough.
Actually I'll be further investigating the meaning of 'priesthood of all believers' (a Lutheran concept, I believe) as a result of this discussion here. I already think it's not going to end up meaning the RC version of 'priesthood'....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I really fail to see how you can claim that the church has been subject to corruption from the beginning and yet exempt scripture, but not the tradition from which it arose, from that corruption. Why is scripture considered pure but not the church that endorsed it?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We would get a better perspective if we moved away from talk of the eucharist as sacrifice to a consideration of the priestly life as sacrifice.
Yes, lay people are called to live sacrificial lives too but people in public ministry are supposed to exemplify it, model it.
That's a very good point. St Paul speaks of 'present your bodies as a living sacrifice' - in contrast with presenting dead animals. He also isn't, for that matter telling them to present the bread and wine. However, I'm not at all sure I'd agree with the notion that this is peculiar to exercising public ministry. It sounds a bit like thinking vicars are called vicars because they are holy, vicariously, on behalf of everyone else, letting the rest of the faithful off. St Paul isn't there speaking just to those exercising ministry at all. And it seems to me that the priesthood of all believers is about all the faithful modelling Christ to the unbelieving multitudes.
Going back to what I said before, if one had asked the episcopoi and presbyteroi shortly after AD 70 are you the true successors to the cohenim of the Temple, what answer would they have given? I suspect K-Mann would say 'yes' and South Coast Kevin and Steve Langton would say 'no'. However, I don't know, and I don't think anyone else does. People give the answer that suits what they prefer to believe about ministry and the Eucharist now.
My suspicion, for what it's worth, is that for the sitzimleben that could produce the Epistle to the Hebrews, the answer would be something like 'no - perish the thought - that would be to encroach on the work of Christ'. But as I've just said, I don't actually know. And I don't think after 20 centuries that anything fresh is now likely to come to light that would give us more knowledge than we already have.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by arethosemyfeet;
quote:
I really fail to see how you can claim that the church has been subject to corruption from the beginning and yet exempt scripture, but not the tradition from which it arose, from that corruption. Why is scripture considered pure but not the church that endorsed it?
As I said, the NT itself shows as a fact of history early attempts to corrupt the message, and contains the teaching of the apostles and their associates - that is, the original witnesses to Jesus' acts and teaching - countering that attempted corruption by pointing to the original teaching. Other early writings were not accepted as scripture because they didn't have that 'provenance' as coming from the original witnesses, Jesus' directly appointed 'ambassadors' which is what 'apostles' basically means.
Contradicting the NT is basically someone who wasn't there putting forward how he wished it had been. 'The Church' is inevitably a secondary authority anyway; it was not 'The Church' from which the NT arose, rather it was the teaching of the apostles, eventually recorded in the NT, that produced the Church. The NT 'speaks for itself' by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Enoch;
quote:
if one had asked the episcopoi and presbyteroi shortly after AD 70 are you the true successors to the cohenim of the Temple, what answer would they have given? I suspect K-Mann would say 'yes' and South Coast Kevin and Steve Langton would say 'no'.
1) 'episcopoi and presbyteroi' are the same thing at that stage.
2) Primarily they were successors to 'elders' in synagogues, indeed in some cases would actually have been synagogue elders before their conversion to Christ. I think they might possibly have said that yes, they were the true successors of the cohenim, BUT successors to something that had been fulfilled and changed through Jesus, one of the changes being that now the whole church shared the status of 'priesthood' in Christ. I'm a lot less sure they would have seen themselves as 'priests' in a way other Christians aren't. But I probably agree that the question hadn't then been fully formulated.
For the 'Eucharist' I can only comment that Paul in I Cor 11 is NOT using a lot of sacrificial language in a context where it would have been a perfect response to the problem he deals with there, and when he does use sacrificial language it is in contexts other than rite and ritual - self-sacrificing service and what we would call mission, and he doesn't seem to use the language conventionally.
I would stress that I'm still thinking on my feet a bit here, looking into things that haven't been priorities for a while. I'm fairly sure of the basic points I'm making, but I'm seeing interesting potential in some of these ideas.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Primarily they were successors to 'elders' in synagogues, indeed in some cases would actually have been synagogue elders before their conversion to Christ.
I would try to get a copy of Norwegian Lutheran scholar Oskar Skarsaune’s book In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity. He shows how the Christian liturgy was influenced both by the Temple and the Synagogue.
And Yes, some of them had been leaders in the synagogue. So what? There were also priests who converted. Maybe even a few janitors. I fail to see the relevance.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I think they might possibly have said that yes, they were the true successors of the cohenim, BUT successors to something that had been fulfilled and changed through Jesus, one of the changes being that now the whole church shared the status of 'priesthood' in Christ.
Yes, just like the Old Covenant presented us with the Aronic High Priest, who had a people of priests, some of which had special roles (the priests and Levites), in the New Covenant presents us with Christ as the High Priest, who has a people of priests, some of which has special roles (the bishops, priests and deacons).
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm a lot less sure they would have seen themselves as 'priests' in a way other Christians aren't. But I probably agree that the question hadn't then been fully formulated.
Well, the evidence we have from the early Church suggests that they did. Which brings us back to the question of when the ‘corruption’ creeped in. You cannot just toss around the fact that the Church became ‘corrupted’ without actually showing when that happened, and arguing for why that era is the ‘right’ one. So again: When did the Church become ‘corrupt’ and ‘confuse’ elder and priest?
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
For the 'Eucharist' I can only comment that Paul in I Cor 11 is NOT using a lot of sacrificial language in a context where it would have been a perfect response to the problem he deals with there, and when he does use sacrificial language it is in contexts other than rite and ritual - self-sacrificing service and what we would call mission, and he doesn't seem to use the language conventionally.
(1) What Christ said was “this is my body which is given for [not ‘to’] you,” which implies that it is a sacrifice. And what he commanded the Apostles to do in remembrance of him was to offer the bread in thanks and praise to God.
(2) Why do you assume that self-sacrifice cannot also be a ritual thing? And since the early church did see that as a ritual thing, when did the ‘corruption’ creep in?
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
k-mann: quote:
That is a bizarre argument. If we are priests as Christians, then Robert the individual Christian is a priest.
Bizarre, is it? Have you really never heard of the 'priesthood of all believers'?
South Coast Kevin evidently belongs to a denomination that takes these words literally; I don't. But I do know what he's talking about.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
k-mann: quote:
That is a bizarre argument. If we are priests as Christians, then Robert the individual Christian is a priest.
Bizarre, is it? Have you really never heard of the 'priesthood of all believers'?
South Coast Kevin evidently belongs to a denomination that takes these words literally; I don't. But I do know what he's talking about.
It might help to actually read what people write. South Coast Kevin said that no one individual was called 'priest' in the New Testament, then when I pointed out that wasn't true, he made the bizarre argument that what he *really* meant was that we are all priests together.
So yes, I have heard about the 'priesthood of all baptised' (not 'all the believers'). But just because there is a priesthood of all baptised, it doesn't mean that the priestly functions are the same.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
k-mann: quote:
That is a bizarre argument. If we are priests as Christians, then Robert the individual Christian is a priest.
Bizarre, is it? Have you really never heard of the 'priesthood of all believers'?
South Coast Kevin evidently belongs to a denomination that takes these words literally; I don't. But I do know what he's talking about.
You are being obsessively individualistic. Our common priesthood, like our common salvation, is corporate, in Jesus Christ. Not some special badge of office given us from God.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
South Coast Kevin said that no one individual was called 'priest' in the New Testament, then when I pointed out that wasn't true, he made the bizarre argument that what he *really* meant was that we are all priests together.
So yes, I have heard about the 'priesthood of all baptised' (not 'all the believers'). But just because there is a priesthood of all baptised, it doesn't mean that the priestly functions are the same.
What I've been trying to say is that I see no New Testament evidence for some Christians being given the title or description of 'priest' and other Christians not. Either we are all collectively 'a priesthood' or we are all 'priests' individually; either way there is no priest / non-priest or clergy / laity distinction within the body of Christ.
Which all, of course, feeds in to my conception of what church services should be like, there being IMO no place for a small group of set-apart people to provide spiritual sustenance, a sacrifice, or however you'd like to describe it, for all the rest of us.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
In Romans 15:16, Paul clearly acts as an intermediary - working as a priest through the Gospel of God (which refers to the Lordship of Christ, and not a document) he offers the offering of the Gentiles on their behalf. Why would it be necessary to do so if every Christian is a priest in the same manner?
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
