P
Psychic
Guest
(Title)
- Status
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
The presbyter is the priest of the church. we see specifically in james 5:14 that the Christians call for the priest(presbyter) of the church, and not just anyone in regards to healing the sick through anointing, prayer and also the forgiveness of sins.
The term 'presbyter" applies to a Bishop or Priest. they are both presbyters and are appointed in every church as seen in scripture.
Do not mix this with the term 'elder" as this is a bad translation. The three are synonymous though in regards to the authority given them through the laying on of hands in succession from the apostles forward. They have the ability to confect and perform the sacraments instituted by Christ Himself.
The term 'presbyter" applies to a Bishop or Priest. they are both presbyters and are appointed in every church as seen in scripture.
Do not mix this with the term 'elder" as this is a bad translation. The three are synonymous though in regards to the authority given them through the laying on of hands in succession from the apostles forward. They have the ability to confect and perform the sacraments instituted by Christ Himself.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
The derivation of the word historically and its meaning are confounded through misuse throughout the ages. The original “presbuteros” in Greek does refer to the elder, but the reasoning dates back to the intent of God before the forming of the Calf in the desert. The eldest brother was intended to become the priest of each family when the father passed away. The entire people of Israel were to be priestly – BUT after the sin of the calf in the desert, God restricted the ministerial priesthood to Levites only.
For this reason, you will never see the word presbyter being used with respect to Jesus. His geneologies in reference to Mary and the high priestly line of Zechariah do however suggest he was priestly – although the order of Melchizadech (a pagan???) is invoked formally because the historical relationship to the Priest King of Salem, whose geneology is unknown – but whom God favored anyway.
As to how the word presbyter became what it is today is something of a mystery.
If you study the scriptures carefully, you will notice that there is institution of Apostles and Bishops, but not presbyters by Jesus. What is happening, is that the old name for “priest” is being used (elder) indiscriminantly so that it can be confused with non-priest elders. And somehow, historically, the word presbyter became proest and eventually priest in English (check out the Oxford English Dictionary if you have the time – protestant bias, but good enough for locating the general roots of the word).
The priesthood of the normal priest today is based on the authority of the bishop. In fact there have been some priests (notably abbots) who were given permission to consecrate priests themselves, by written permission of the pope. So, the powers latent in the priest by ordination can be exercised is a historical fact.
Personally, the way I interpret this is that the bishops believe they can consecrate helpers, like the scriptural deacons, who they simply do not give the full power, or perhaps (rather) the authority to perform certain acts. Illicit performance is not sanctioned by God, based on the authority of the Apostles – so that performance illicitly would also be invalid. For example, although deacons are consecrated in scripture, there is no indication that they were ever allowed to hear confessions – nor is there any mandate from Christ himself to consecrate deacons. So their consecration is purely on the authority of the Apostles to perform a lesser task –
primarily the distribution of the eucharist among the discriminated widows of the non-jewish women. The same is true of the priests (although Priests sometimes take a high view of themselves on this issue when asked about it…)
A decent book to read is on the priesthood is by – I think it is Jean Galot, which is used in the past in priestly training at Mount Angel abbey in Oregon. I don’t agree with all he says, but that is the one my local priest said he learned by – and that in spite of the technicality and anti vatican II attitude (nothing overtly in error), it is supposedly quite orthodox.
Hope this gives you a start.
For this reason, you will never see the word presbyter being used with respect to Jesus. His geneologies in reference to Mary and the high priestly line of Zechariah do however suggest he was priestly – although the order of Melchizadech (a pagan???) is invoked formally because the historical relationship to the Priest King of Salem, whose geneology is unknown – but whom God favored anyway.
As to how the word presbyter became what it is today is something of a mystery.
If you study the scriptures carefully, you will notice that there is institution of Apostles and Bishops, but not presbyters by Jesus. What is happening, is that the old name for “priest” is being used (elder) indiscriminantly so that it can be confused with non-priest elders. And somehow, historically, the word presbyter became proest and eventually priest in English (check out the Oxford English Dictionary if you have the time – protestant bias, but good enough for locating the general roots of the word).
The priesthood of the normal priest today is based on the authority of the bishop. In fact there have been some priests (notably abbots) who were given permission to consecrate priests themselves, by written permission of the pope. So, the powers latent in the priest by ordination can be exercised is a historical fact.
Personally, the way I interpret this is that the bishops believe they can consecrate helpers, like the scriptural deacons, who they simply do not give the full power, or perhaps (rather) the authority to perform certain acts. Illicit performance is not sanctioned by God, based on the authority of the Apostles – so that performance illicitly would also be invalid. For example, although deacons are consecrated in scripture, there is no indication that they were ever allowed to hear confessions – nor is there any mandate from Christ himself to consecrate deacons. So their consecration is purely on the authority of the Apostles to perform a lesser task –
primarily the distribution of the eucharist among the discriminated widows of the non-jewish women. The same is true of the priests (although Priests sometimes take a high view of themselves on this issue when asked about it…)
A decent book to read is on the priesthood is by – I think it is Jean Galot, which is used in the past in priestly training at Mount Angel abbey in Oregon. I don’t agree with all he says, but that is the one my local priest said he learned by – and that in spite of the technicality and anti vatican II attitude (nothing overtly in error), it is supposedly quite orthodox.
Hope this gives you a start.
- Status