Where was Peter buried?

[mchale]

Priests came into being by RCC doctrine, and they are not found in the new testament. Ralph

Ralphy, lets review this again. The English word priest is in fact simply a derivation of the word presbyter (presbyteros in Greek) which means elder. To this day, the formal office that a Catholic “priest” holds is that of presbyter.

Paul and the apostles definitely apointted men to be presbyters and ordained them to the role by the laying on of hands. That is beyond dispute as it is described in the New Testament. By continuing to ordain men as presbyters, the Catholic Church is simply following a practice that was started by the Church in the the Bible. We can dispute whether God has granted them the ability to perform the sacrements, but the role of prebyter is beyond dispute.

As I have pointed out in another post, these “priests” are distinct from either the Jewish priests or the pagan priests that existed in the time of Jesus. In the New Testament, the Greek word hiereus is used when referring to jewish or pagan priests. And that word is also, I believe the word to use when talking about the priesthood of all believers. Modern English really doesn’t have a word for this seperate type of priesthood.

–
Bill

 

[ralphy]

Thats a ridiculous statement to make. Read 1Timothy and 2Timothy and Titus. They are all about church structure. They were written 2000 years ago in Greek, so they don’t use the same nomenclature, but the positions are essentially the same.

If the positions are essntially the same, then one can assume that "they"are still offering sacrifices, right. RC are so gullible they believe anything the RCC says to them without question. Salvation is very simple to understand, that’s the way God made it. However the RCC and their teaching have people doing all kinds of rituals, works and obligations to obtain salvation. It seems to me that God must look down on the RCC and say, “what are you teaching and doing”, I have written it down for you just follow the instructions I have left for you. Ralph

 

[paul_c]

If the positions are essntially the same, then one can assume that "they"are still offering sacrifices, right. RC are so gullible they believe anything the RCC says to them without question. Salvation is very simple to understand, that’s the way God made it. However the RCC and their teaching have people doing all kinds of rituals, works and obligations to obtain salvation. It seems to me that God must look down on the RCC and say, “what are you teaching and doing”, I have written it down for you just follow the instructions I have left for you. Ralph

Ralph, they are the same positions as those described by Paul in his epistles to Titus and Timothy. Not the same positions as the old testament. You are so sure of yourself, yet Paul was talking specifically about this attitude you have when warning Timothy in 2Timothy 4:
1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power:
2 proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching.
3 For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers
4 and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.

Heed the warning… We Catholics are not gullible. We have arrived at the truth through reason. And part of that reasoning is accepting that the Church was given the truth to teach us for our benefit. And it is also recognizing our own limitations in comparison with the Church fathers, who were taught be Jesus himself and who passed on what they were taught through the Popes and bishops for 2000 years. Look at what you wrote. above. You think that you can interpret what was written by the Apostles better than the people they taught. That is both arrogant and foolish. Listen to the church. Why do you think they would lie? What benefit is in it for them to mislead you?

 

[mchale]

If the positions are essntially the same, then one can assume that "they"are still offering sacrifices, right. RC are so gullible they believe anything the RCC says to them without question. Salvation is very simple to understand, that’s the way God made it. However the RCC and their teaching have people doing all kinds of rituals, works and obligations to obtain salvation. It seems to me that God must look down on the RCC and say, “what are you teaching and doing”, I have written it down for you just follow the instructions I have left for you. Ralph

Sigh… Ok, lets see…

Did Jesus not instruct the Apostles to Baptize?
Did Jesus not instruct the Apostles to do the Eucharist in rememberence of him?
Did Jesus not instruct us to obey God’s commandments of loving God and the neighbor?
Did he not instruct the Apostles to forgive sins and to heal the sick?
Did the apostles and Paul not appoint presbyters and episcopi to lead the early church communities?
Did you learn nothing about the parable regarding judgement? Or that faith without works is dead? Or that to have faith without love is worthless?

Catholics certainly believe that faith is the key to our Salvation. Without faith, no other thing we can do will profit us in the slightest. In fact, we believe in Jesus so much, that we actually have decided to take everything he says seriously and not be overly literal when Paul tells us that by faith alone are we saved.

See here is the funny thing, all the things you are accusing the Catholic Church of are also embraced by all the other churches that can legitimately trace themselves back to the earliest days of the Church (Essentially the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches).

Naturally I don’t actually expect you to respond. You tend not too when someone actually puts the facts in front of you. Instead you respond to other posts.

–
Bill

 

[ralphy]

Sigh… Ok, lets see…

Did Jesus not instruct the Apostles to Baptize?
Did Jesus not instruct the Apostles to do the Eucharist in rememberence of him?
Did Jesus not instruct us to obey God’s commandments of loving God and the neighbor?
Did he not instruct the Apostles to forgive sins and to heal the sick?
Did the apostles and Paul not appoint presbyters and episcopi to lead the early church communities?
Did you learn nothing about the parable regarding judgement? Or that faith without works is dead? Or that to have faith without love is worthless?

Catholics certainly believe that faith is the key to our Salvation. Without faith, no other thing we can do will profit us in the slightest. In fact, we believe in Jesus so much, that we actually have decided to take everything he says seriously and not be overly literal when Paul tells us that by faith alone are we saved.

See here is the funny thing, all the things you are accusing the Catholic Church of are also embraced by all the other churches that can legitimately trace themselves back to the earliest days of the Church (Essentially the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches).

Naturally I don’t actually expect you to respond. You tend not too when someone actually puts the facts in front of you. Instead you respond to other posts.

–
Bill

So are the priests still offering sacrifices, which are not required. The Lord’s table is a memorial, not a sacrifice, we don’t need anymore sacrifices. Healing the sick was only given to the apostles at that time for a sign to encourage people, or maybe I am missing something about that, do the “so called” apostles of today (like the pope) still do this healing?. By the way, if the apostles and Paul appointed leaders in the early church, they sure were not “priests”. Those other churches you mentioned: Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, are really Cathoilc churches, with a little different stroke.You indicate that you take Jesus seriously, but not Paul, it is all Gods word, you should take it all seriously. Ralph

 

[ralphy]

Lets settle one thing here, the modern word priest, is actually derived from the greek work prebyter which is often translated as elder in the New Testament. It is clear from the New Testament that the Apostles apointed prebyters at the churches they established. It is unfortunate that the modern word priest is used not just for prebyters but also for priests of the Old Testament (and pagan priests as well).

That being said, the sacrifice of the Mass is not a sacrifice in the same sense that a sacrifice in the Temple was. When Jesus died on the Cross he offered himself once, perfectly for the forgiveness of all of our sins. The Eucharist is not a new sacrifice, rather it is a continued participation in the perfect sacrifice of Jesus. This sacrifice is renewed at the Mass not for God’s sake but for ours, that we may personally partake in it and be strengthened in our faith.

–
Bill

Don’t you get it at all, “THERE IS NO MORE SACRIFICE FOR SIN”, it does not have to be “renewed” at mass for anybody’s sake, this is strickly a “memorial”. I serve the Lord’s table in my church on occasion, I am not a priest, I am a born again christian, just doing the will of the lord. Ralph

 

[ralphy]

Ralph,

‘An empty kettle makes much noise’.

Wise up and listen to what you are being told.

God bless.

And your answer will be? Ralph

 

[zach_dunn]

So are the priests still offering sacrifices, which are not required. The Lord’s table is a memorial, not a sacrifice, we don’t need anymore sacrifices.

**ralphy, you don’t even read what people say to you. We’ve told you several times that we do not offer sacrificeS, they are not new or different. At the Catholic Mass, Jesus’ once for all sacrifice on Calvary is made present again. It is the same sacrifice, not a different one, and it’s not new.

It is an actual sacrifice. It’s the unbloody sacrifice following Melchizedek, “priest of God Most High”. Which is re-representing Jesus’ bodily sacrifice on the cross which is what Jesus told us to do (“do this in remembrance of me”). It can’t be explained any more simple than this, ralphy. But I’m sure you’ll skim over this post as well.**

Healing the sick was only given to the apostles at that time for a sign to encourage people, or maybe I am missing something about that, do the “so called” apostles of today (like the pope) still do this healing?.

**Are you talking about healing miracles or about the Catholic Sacrament of Extreme Unction? The Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick (Extreme Unction) is spelled out in James 5:

James 5:14-15
“14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.”

There are many peculiar things to note in this passage, first that it says out perfectly the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, Catholics didn’t just make this up like some people try to claim.

A second curious thing to note that the Greek word for “elder” in this passage (and all others I believe) is the word presbuteros which is ultimately where we get our word “priest.” You see ralphy, no matter how you try to twist it, the elder in the passage is the equivalent of a priest! But I’m sure you’ll think of some way to deny that . . . **

By the way, if the apostles and Paul appointed leaders in the early church, they sure were not “priests”.

I just showed you why they were priests. Please see the above argument.

Those other churches you mentioned: Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, are really Cathoilc churches, with a little different stroke.You indicate that you take Jesus seriously, but not Paul, it is all Gods word, you should take it all seriously. Ralph

That’s the funny thing ralphy, we are the only ones that can “take it all seriously.” You reject Sacred Tradition which is equally the Word of God as Sacred Scripture is! You crack me up ralphy, you really do.

 

[mchale]

Don’t you get it at all, “THERE IS NO MORE SACRIFICE FOR SIN”, it does not have to be “renewed” at mass for anybody’s sake, this is strickly a “memorial”. I serve the Lord’s table in my church on occasion, I am not a priest, I am a born again christian, just doing the will of the lord. Ralph

Did you even read what I wrote? Or did you just see the word sacrifice and decide to attack me on that? Catholics do not believe that Jesus is sacrificed anew at the Mass, rather we believe that the Mass is a participation in Jesus’s one perfect sacrifice, offered again in the Mass.

Further, what did Jesus ask us to do in rememberence of him? To do what he did of course. He offered his body and his blood under the form of bread and wine. So if we are offering his body and his blood, as he asked us to do, then how is this simply a memorial? Of course it is a memorial, but it is more than a memorial as Paul clearly indicates when he writes in his first letter to the Corinthians:

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Further, if you are not a priest, you are not a Christian. In the first Epistle of Peter, all beliers are priests (but not presbyters).

With respect, you are not doing the will of the Lord, you are doing what you have decided is the will of the Lord, or what someone else has convinced you is the will of the Lord.

–
Bill

 

[zach_dunn]

Don’t you get it at all, “THERE IS NO MORE SACRIFICE FOR SIN”, it does not have to be “renewed” at mass for anybody’s sake, this is strickly a “memorial”.

Ok ralphy, in your theology, how does one receive the forgiveness of sins from the sacrifice on Calvary?

I serve the Lord’s table in my church on occasion, I am not a priest, I am a born again christian, just doing the will of the lord. Ralph

Correction: you’re doing what you think is the will of the Lord.

 

[ralphy]

ralphy, you don’t even read what people say to you. We’ve told you several times that we do not offer sacrificeS, they are not new or different. At the Catholic Mass, Jesus’ once for all sacrifice on Calvary is made present again. It is the same sacrifice, not a different one, and it’s not new.

It is an actual sacrifice. It’s the unbloody sacrifice following Melchizedek, “priest of God Most High”. Which is re-representing Jesus’ bodily sacrifice on the cross which is what Jesus told us to do (“do this in remembrance of me”). It can’t be explained any more simple than this, ralphy. But I’m sure you’ll skim over this post as well.

**Are you talking about healing miracles or about the Catholic Sacrament of Extreme Unction? The Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick (Extreme Unction) is spelled out in James 5:

James 5:14-15
“14** Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.”

There are many peculiar things to note in this passage, first that it says out perfectly the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, Catholics didn’t just make this up like some people try to claim.

A second curious thing to note that the Greek word for “elder” in this passage (and all others I believe) is the word presbuteros which is ultimately where we get our word “priest.” You see ralphy, no matter how you try to twist it, the elder in the passage is the equivalent of a priest! But I’m sure you’ll think of some way to deny that . . .

I just showed you why they were priests. Please see the above argument.

That’s the funny thing ralphy, we are the only ones that can “take it all seriously.” You reject Sacred Tradition which is equally the Word of God as Sacred Scripture is! You crack me up ralphy, you really do.

I am talking about the healing that the apostles did, like heal the sick, raise the dead all the cures that took place. Does the pope do all these things? You also say in your quote, “it is an actual sacrifice”, only it is an “unbloody” sacrifice. What kind of a statement is that, it either is or it isn’t a sacrifice, which is it. Ralph

 

[mchale]

So are the priests still offering sacrifices, which are not required. The Lord’s table is a memorial, not a sacrifice, we don’t need anymore sacrifices. Healing the sick was only given to the apostles at that time for a sign to encourage people, or maybe I am missing something about that, do the “so called” apostles of today (like the pope) still do this healing?. By the way, if the apostles and Paul appointed leaders in the early church, they sure were not “priests”. Those other churches you mentioned: Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, are really Cathoilc churches, with a little different stroke.You indicate that you take Jesus seriously, but not Paul, it is all Gods word, you should take it all seriously. Ralph

First of all, I do take Paul seriously. However, I take him seriously in context of the whole Bible and in context of the Tradition that has been passed down to us from the Apostles. My point was that many Protestant doctrines seem to rest on Paul alone, independent of what Jesus actually said or did.

Regarding healing of the sick, I will grant that generally the miraculous physical healing that was granted to the apostles is rare in modern times, but I would certainly not claim that it never happens. Rather healing the sick these days takes the form of extreme unction or annointing of the sick and is more akin to a spiritual healing.

I addressed your repeated mischaracterization of the Eucharist in another post.

–
Bill

 

[Zooey]

Okay. But Peter is the Rock upon which Jesus built. There is no dispute about this except among the ignorant.

Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter is the Rock

W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann

“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence…The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)

“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

Oscar Cullman (Protestant Scholar)

“But what does Jesus mean when He says: ‘On this rock I will build my church’? The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in vew of the probably different setting of the story. For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia [church]. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich), [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1968], 6:108).

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)

"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

David Hill (Presbyterian)

“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

I have a least a dozen quotes like this…the debate on this issue is OVER.

---

I do believe that you do “infringe” on the honour due Christ alone, when you call the pope “Holy”, and “infallible”. Ralph

You don’t know what "holy"means, nor how it is being used in this context.
You do not know what “infallible” means, nor how it is used in this context.
Ye dinnae ha’e a clue, yean.

 

[St_Aloysius_1]

Hi everyone,

Recently I’ve been discussing the Papacy with an anti-Catholic, and their last message put me in somewhat of a bind, but I have faith in the Catholic Church and continue to believe she is the one faith established by Christ.

Now to my problem, I haven’t read the whole thing yet but I was wondering what you guys make of this article (I think that’s what it is)

aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

I thought St. Peter was buried under the Basilica?

Thanks for the help!
Zach

A lot of ground’s been covered here, but the bottom line is that Peter is under the Basilica San Pietro in Rome. The most obvious problem with the Jerusalem story is the claim that Peter was found in a Christian cemetery. In the first century, with Christianity an outlaw religion, there simply were no Christian cemetaries. That’s why early Christians were buried in the catacombs or common cemeteries. In these cemeteries of the 1st century we find various pagan religions, Christians, Jews, etc. There were no exclusively Christian cemeteries at that time anywhere in the Roman Empire of which Jerusalem was a part.

St Peter’s is the 2nd basilica on the Vatican Hill, the first having been built by Constantine in the 4th century. In order to construct it the Emperor had to level the cemetery and haul thousands of tons of dirt, removing it from the higher portion of the hill and filling in the lower portion. This was a monumental undertaking, not to mention a sacriledge for the dead buried there. Why would Constantine go through this kind of trouble, risking political damage and making his task so onerous? Because Tradition told him Peter was buried on the Vatican Hill. Pilgrims visited the site for over 3 centuries to see the tomb of the Apostle. It was well known in the Christian community where Peter was buried. It was also well known that he was martyred in Nero’s circus nearby, crucified upside down around 64-67 AD.

Constantine encased the tomb in a marble vault and built his basilica so the altar was placed directly above it. That basilica lasted centuries until it had to be rebuilt and replaced by the current basilica. When the new St Peter’s was built, the architects went to great care to place the present alter with it’s huge brass baldacino directly over the marble vault for the same reasons as Constantine: that Peter would lie beneath the altar.

Around the same time as the “discovery” of Peter in Jerusalem, the Vatican undertook excavations under the basilica to verify Peter’s presence. First they uncovered Constantine’s marble vault, carefull not to upset the footings of the basilica. Inside the vault they found a simple tomb, marked by a small altar like structure, very similar to the one described in the ancient histories. Next to the tomb was a large brick wall, soon to be known as the grafitti wall for all the ancient writing that was on it.

They found no bones in the tomb, but did find the bones of a man inside the wall! Among the inscriptions on the wall was one that read, “Here is Peter.” The bones had been hidden by ancient Christians concerned for their survival during the years of persecution.
The bones were assembled and tested. They were from a first century man of stocky build who was roughly in his 60s. They matched Peter. The Vatican doesn’t say with certainty that they are the saints remains. They refer to them as the bones that could be Peter. Still, when you see the ancient documentation, explore tradition and add up the unnecessary difficulties of placing the basilica where it was placed, you have to conclude that St Peter is most likely where the Church has always claimed.

I’ve seen the excavation and the tomb as well as the remains of the necropolis that once stood on the surface of the Vatican Hill. For my money, that’s where St Peter is buried.

Ancient historians describe Peter’s tomb and even made rough scetches of it for posterity.

 

[ralphy]

---

You don’t know what "holy"means, nor how it is being used in this context.
You do not know what “infallible” means, nor how it is used in this context.
Ye dinnae ha’e a clue, yean.

What do you mean when you say God is Holy, and what do you mean when you say that God is infallible?. Ralph

 

[Randy_Carson]

My friend, God is the only one that is Holy, it is to blaspheme to say that the pope is holy and infallible, and to call him father. I really believe that the RCC has another gospel, and scripture has a warning about that. Ralph

Ralphy-

Since you have already been proven wrong concerning the word “holy”, I don’t place a lot of weight on your opinions about the gospel that the Catholic Church teaches.

The plain, unvarnished truth is that no one taught anything like the “gospel” of Luther or Calvin for the first 1500 years of Christian history.

They were the ones who began to preach theological novelties.

You can verify this for yourself…some reading will do you good.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There are no more sacrifices for sin. You really should take a look at Heb 9:24-28 and Heb 10:12-18, surely this will convince you on this subject. As far as “priests” are concerned, they were required in the old testament to offer scrifices, but they are no longer required as per the scripture found in Hebrews. I believe that the RCC brought priests into the RC religion to complete the picture of “sacrificing”, as they could not fill this “senario” without them. They also borrow some other things from the old testament, such as “tabernacle”. My friend, we are under a NEW covenant, take a close look at it. Ralph

Uh…thanks, Ralphy.

Maybe you should consider that Jesus established the New Testament priesthood instead of offering your uninformed beliefs.

Did Jesus Give Priests to the Church?
By Kenneth J. Howell
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0404sbs.asp

**THE THREE-FOLD MINISTRY **
By James Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9806chap.asp

Bishop, Priest and Deacon
catholic.com/library/Bishop_Priest_and_Deacon.asp

Why We Have a Ministerial Priesthood
By Tim Staples
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea4.asp

**Is the Mass a Sacrifice? **
By Jason Evert
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109sbs.asp

 

[ralphy]

Ralphy-

Since you have already been proven wrong concerning the word “holy”, I don’t place a lot of weight on your opinions about the gospel that the Catholic Church teaches.

The plain, unvarnished truth is that no one taught anything like the “gospel” of Luther or Calvin for the first 1500 years of Christian history.

They were the ones who began to preach theological novelties.

You can verify this for yourself…some reading will do you good.

I do not know anything about Calvin or Luther except what I heard people say. I do not see their names in the Bible, so I am not too concerned about them, I follow what God says in His word. Ralph

 

[Randy_Carson]

Priests came into being by RCC doctrine, and they are not found in the new testament. Ralph

The sacrament of holy orders is conferred in three ranks of clergy: bishops, priests, and deacons.

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

Still think priests aren’t mentioned in the NT, Ralphy?

 

[Randy_Carson]

RC are so gullible they believe anything the RCC says to them without question.

Why do you believe that Roman Catholics are gullible, Ralphy?

You don’t know me or anyone else here in this forum on a personal basis; what has caused you to accept such a broad generalization about Catholics?

Have YOU been gullible enough to accept what someone else has told you about Catholics?