Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Ethel mermania]

Yes. The rabbinic Jewish tradition in my mind would be similar to the catholic one as I am describing it.

Right so, The confusion over the "Priesthood of all believers" is largely due to language. English is the worst language to have this conversation, particularly because of the word Priest. The word Priest is a shortening of the word Presbyter, derived from the greek word πρεσβύτερος which is one of 3 holy orders established in the New Testament. Deacons, (διάκονος) Presbyters, (πρεσβύτερος) and Bishops (ἐπίσκοπος). But somewhere along the line, the word "Priest" became expanded to include any position that fulfills a similar function as the Presbyters, like Buddhist, Greek, or Levitical Priests, leading to the confusion.


Greek is a much better language for this, because there is a distinction between those holy orders, named by those three terms, and ἱερεύς which is the word used in the Septuagint to identify Levitical Priests, and the ἀρχιερεύς or "high priest."

When we say there is a priesthood of all believers with Christ as our high priest, we mean that we are all ἱερεῖς, with Christ as our ἀρχιερεύς. We all partake in the sacramental role that the Levitical Priests did, principally the Sacrifice, (Communion is actually a sin offering as outlined in Leviticus.)

Our "Priests" are actually Pastors and take on the Rabbinic Role in addition to the Priest Role. So while we are all priests, we still defer to the teachings of the Church which is our earthly Rabbi.

That leads me to a completely different question but for now,

so presbyter to you means the laity?

And. I always thought communion was a blessing. Much like a marriage

[Punished UMN]

Right so, The confusion over the "Priesthood of all believers" is largely due to language. English is the worst language to have this conversation, particularly because of the word Priest. The word Priest is a shortening of the word Presbyter, derived from the greek word πρεσβύτερος which is one of 3 holy orders established in the New Testament. Deacons, (διάκονος) Presbyters, (πρεσβύτερος) and Bishops (ἐπίσκοπος). But somewhere along the line, the word "Priest" became expanded to include any position that fulfills a similar function as the Presbyters, like Buddhist, Greek, or Levitical Priests, leading to the confusion.


Greek is a much better language for this, because there is a distinction between those holy orders, named by those three terms, and ἱερεύς which is the word used in the Septuagint to identify Levitical Priests, and the ἀρχιερεύς or "high priest."

When we say there is a priesthood of all believers with Christ as our high priest, we mean that we are all ἱερεῖς, with Christ as our ἀρχιερεύς. We all partake in the sacramental role that the Levitical Priests did, principally the Sacrifice, (Communion is actually a sin offering as outlined in Leviticus.)

Our "Priests" are actually Pastors and take on the Rabbinic Role in addition to the Priest Role. So while we are all priests, we still defer to the teachings of the Church which is our earthly Rabbi.

That leads me to a completely different question but for now,

so presbyter to you means the laity?

And. I always thought communion was a blessing. Much like a marriage

No, presbyters are what we call priests in English.

[Tarsonis]

Right so, The confusion over the "Priesthood of all believers" is largely due to language. English is the worst language to have this conversation, particularly because of the word Priest. The word Priest is a shortening of the word Presbyter, derived from the greek word πρεσβύτερος which is one of 3 holy orders established in the New Testament. Deacons, (διάκονος) Presbyters, (πρεσβύτερος) and Bishops (ἐπίσκοπος). But somewhere along the line, the word "Priest" became expanded to include any position that fulfills a similar function as the Presbyters, like Buddhist, Greek, or Levitical Priests, leading to the confusion.


Greek is a much better language for this, because there is a distinction between those holy orders, named by those three terms, and ἱερεύς which is the word used in the Septuagint to identify Levitical Priests, and the ἀρχιερεύς or "high priest."

When we say there is a priesthood of all believers with Christ as our high priest, we mean that we are all ἱερεῖς, with Christ as our ἀρχιερεύς. We all partake in the sacramental role that the Levitical Priests did, principally the Sacrifice, (Communion is actually a sin offering as outlined in Leviticus.)

Our "Priests" are actually Pastors and take on the Rabbinic Role in addition to the Priest Role. So while we are all priests, we still defer to the teachings of the Church which is our earthly Rabbi.

That leads me to a completely different question but for now,

so presbyter to you means the laity?

No the laity are ἱερεῖς.

Presbyters, are those guys with they white collars we typically refer to as priests.

And. I always thought communion was a blessing. Much like a marriage

Communion is a Sacrament, like Marriage, but Sacraments aren't all the same.

Communion is of course a blessing, but principally it is partaking in the sin offering in a similar fashion as outlined in Leviticus 6.

[Ethel mermania]

As an outsider, that is not what I recall, and (I am not saying I am right mind you, the comments perked my interest)

I thought all catholics had to defer to the teaching of the church on religious matters. Where the protestants have more of a personal interpretation of the Bible as opposed to strictly following the teachings of the church fathers?

As I've pointed out before, in the classical Protestant traditions, it's not really the case that each individual is free to interpret scripture themselves. The church is not regarded as being infallible in its teachings as it is in the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox traditions, but still plays a role in defining orthodox belief. This is reflected in the importance early Protestants placed in their confessions. The difference is that Protestant churches believed in testing their churches' teachings against scripture and held that since it was possible for churches to err, it was necessary to continuously scrutinise the church's teachings for anything that contradicted or lacked support in scripture; on the other hand Catholics and the Orthodox view scripture more as a part of the tradition of the church and holds no higher authority than the rest of the church's teaching. The idea that anyone can open a Bible and reliably interpret it correctly is more a modern Evangelical conceit.

Thanks, I appreciate the restatement, as I don't always read this thread.

But the protestant attitude opens the teaches to continual examination and that examination is made,
.... for lack of a better description, much lower down the food chain than the catholics. I think that would lead to a greater reliance to one's own interpretation.

[Ethel mermania]

That leads me to a completely different question but for now,

so presbyter to you means the laity?

No the laity are ἱερεῖς.

Presbyters, are those guys with they white collars we typically refer to as priests.

And. I always thought communion was a blessing. Much like a marriage

Communion is a Sacrament, like Marriage, but Sacraments aren't all the same.

Communion is of course a blessing, but principally it is partaking in the sin offering in a similar fashion as outlined in Leviticus 6.

..."No the laity are ἱερεῖς."

You said they were the Levitical priests?

[Punished UMN]

No the laity are ἱερεῖς.

Presbyters, are those guys with they white collars we typically refer to as priests.





Communion is a Sacrament, like Marriage, but Sacraments aren't all the same.

Communion is of course a blessing, but principally it is partaking in the sin offering in a similar fashion as outlined in Leviticus 6.

..."No the laity are ἱερεῖς."

You said they were the Levitical priests?

Correct.

[Tarsonis]

No the laity are ἱερεῖς.

Presbyters, are those guys with they white collars we typically refer to as priests.





Communion is a Sacrament, like Marriage, but Sacraments aren't all the same.

Communion is of course a blessing, but principally it is partaking in the sin offering in a similar fashion as outlined in Leviticus 6.

..."No the laity are ἱερεῖς."

You said they were the Levitical priests?

Yes. The Levitical Priests were ἱερεῖς.

Presbyters are πρεσβύτερος, a holy order.

[Ethel mermania]

..."No the laity are ἱερεῖς."

You said they were the Levitical priests?

Yes. The Levitical Priests were ἱερεῖς.

Presbyters are πρεσβύτερος, a holy order.

The laity are Levitical priests?

[Tarsonis]

Yes. The Levitical Priests were ἱερεῖς.

Presbyters are πρεσβύτερος, a holy order.

The laity are Levitical priests?

Technically, we'd say the Levite Priesthood ended with the Death and Ressurrection of Christ, compounded of course by the destruction of the Temple.

Functionally, though, all Christians fill this role now:
'
"4 Come to him, a living stone, though rejected by mortals yet chosen and precious in God’s sight, and 5 like living stones, let yourselves be built[a] into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in scripture:

“See, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious;
and whoever believes in him[b] will not be put to shame.”

7 To you then who believe, he is precious; but for those who do not believe,

“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the very head of the corner,”

8 and

“A stone that makes them stumble,
and a rock that makes them fall.”

They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people,[c] in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

10 Once you were not a people,
but now you are God’s people;
once you had not received mercy,
but now you have received mercy."

1 Peter 2:5-10.

[Lost Memories]

There may also be confusion over the word "church".
There is an overlap of roles, from two different sets of roles. Two different sets with the same name... both called church.


Church (religious institution) = Deacons, (διάκονος) Presbyters, (πρεσβύτερος) and Bishops (ἐπίσκοπος)
Church (all christians) = Levitical Priests (ἱερεύς), "high priest" (ἀρχιερεύς)

Every christian is part of the church, meant as the group of all the believing.
The people who teach about christianity, are part of the church (institution of religious teachers), and also part of the church (of the believers)

Every christian, as part of the church of the believers, is ἱερεύς. Where Christ is ἀρχιερεύς.
The guys who hold mass, and teach about religious matters, commonly called priests, are also ἱερεύς, but they also hold one of the three roles of the institutional church, πρεσβύτερος.


Right?

[Lost Memories]

Hmm. When you put it all together, doesn't it mean our christian priests are priest priests ?

Church of Christ = christians "Levitical Priests" (ἱερεύς) + Jesus "high priest" (ἀρχιερεύς)
Christians "Levitical Priests" (ἱερεύς) = Lay + Priests [Deacons, (διάκονος) + Presbyters, (πρεσβύτερος) + Bishops (ἐπίσκοπος)]

So the christians have mainly two groups: the Lay "Levitical Priests", and the Priest "Levitical Priests". Lay Priest and Priest Priest

[Albrenia]

Hmm. When you put it all together, doesn't it mean our christian priests are priest priests ?

Church of Christ = christians "Levitical Priests" (ἱερεύς) + Jesus "high priest" (ἀρχιερεύς)
Christians "Levitical Priests" (ἱερεύς) = Lay + Priests [Deacons, (διάκονος) + Presbyters, (πρεσβύτερος) + Bishops (ἐπίσκοπος)]

So the christians have mainly two groups: the Lay "Levitical Priests", and the Priest "Levitical Priests". Lay Priest and Priest Priest

Priest Squared.

[Lost Memories]

Priest Squared.

Yep.


Though, using "priests" to describe all the christian religious teachers, should be incorrect. "Clergy" is better, for the whole of the religious teachers.
It's just the Clergy of the rank of Presbyters, or Priests, who bring in the Priest²

[Banbardi]

theodicy sounds awfully similar to theoidiocy

*** Warned for trolling ***

For the second time in the same thread. If you want to keep posting here, you're going to want to figure out how to converse without trolling or baiting.

whatever you say Mr shumel

[Reploid Productions]

*** Warned for trolling ***

For the second time in the same thread. If you want to keep posting here, you're going to want to figure out how to converse without trolling or baiting.

whatever you say Mr shumel

Given your history, and that your conduct hasn't changed a bit since you were last active...
*** Banbardi, 3-day RMB ban for continued flaming/baiting. ***

[Celritannia]

We're not ignoring theodicy, we're ignoring you, most likely in a similar manner to that in which your peers ignored you throughout childhood and adolescence.

Hey man this isn't Salem you can't just burn people like that.

Why? British people burn a Catholic every 5th of November.
Traditions and all

[Insaanistan]

Does believing in him as a Prophet of God count?

For the ordinary form? No. Extraordinary form? I don't know.

Does believing in the virgin birth from Mary (May God be pleased with her) and that he performed miracles fall under extraordinary?

[The Archregimancy]

For the ordinary form? No. Extraordinary form? I don't know.

Does believing in the virgin birth from Mary (May God be pleased with her) and that he performed miracles fall under extraordinary?

The core problem is that Islam rejects Christ's divinity as well as the crucifixion and the resurrection. Yes, Islam accepts the Virgin birth and that Jesus performed miracles, and this performs the basis for some form of mutually respectful theological discussion. It's these points of commonality that led 7th- and 8th-century Byzantines to initially mistake Islam for a form of Arian Christian heresy. But the Muslim concept of the mission of penultimate prophet Isa ibn Mariam is too fundamentally different from Christianity's concept of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ and Son of God, for there to be commonality over the mechanism of salvation.

That's not to say that we think that Muslims are necessarily condemned. You'll occasionally find lively discussion in this thread over a Christian concept variously called apocatastasis or universal salvation, first developed in the Eastern Mediterranean. This holds that a loving God will, in the fullness of time, ensure that all souls will eventually be saved, or reconciled with God. This is in stark contrast to the position taken by many Christians that only some can be saved (though we'll gloss over the mechanism of salvation since this is itself the subject of robust dispute), but it has longstanding roots in Christianity - particularly, but not exclusively Eastern Christianity - dating back to the second century AD. However, even those who support apocatastasis (or a more limited version thereof that holds we can at least pray for universal salvation) would argue that A) we should spend more time worrying about our own salvation than the potential for salvation of others and B) ultimately that salvation is through Christ. So even where universal salvation is believed to be possible, it's via the application of Christian principles of salvation to non-Christians who are saved through God's love rather than their own beliefs (or lack thereof).

[New Visayan Islands]

Does believing in the virgin birth from Mary (May God be pleased with her) and that he performed miracles fall under extraordinary?

The core problem is that Islam rejects Christ's divinity as well as the crucifixion and the resurrection. Yes, Islam accepts the Virgin birth and that Jesus performed miracles, and this performs the basis for some form of mutually respectful theological discussion. It's these points of commonality that led 7th- and 8th-century Byzantines to initially mistake Islam for a form of Arian Christian heresy. But the Muslim concept of the mission of penultimate prophet Isa ibn Mariam is too fundamentally different from Christianity's concept of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ and Son of God, for there to be commonality over the mechanism of salvation.

That's not to say that we think that Muslims are necessarily condemned. You'll occasionally find lively discussion in this thread over a Christian concept variously called apocatastasis or universal salvation, first developed in the Eastern Mediterranean. This holds that a loving God will, in the fullness of time, ensure that all souls will eventually be saved, or reconciled with God. This is in stark contrast to the position taken by many Christians that only some can be saved (though we'll gloss over the mechanism of salvation since this is itself the subject of robust dispute), but it has longstanding roots in Christianity - particularly, but not exclusively Eastern Christianity - dating back to the second century AD. However, even those who support apocatastasis (or a more limited version thereof that holds we can at least pray for universal salvation) would argue that A) we should spend more time worrying about our own salvation than the potential for salvation of others and B) ultimately that salvation is through Christ. So even where universal salvation is believed to be possible, it's via the application of Christian principles of salvation to non-Christians who are saved through God's love rather than their own beliefs (or lack thereof).

Pretty sure Pope Francis went on record--not ex cathedra, though--as supportive of apocatastasis a few years back.

On an unrelated note, February 2nd is known as Candlemas, where the Blessed Virgin observed the purification rites and presented the Infant Jesus to the Temple, to Simeon's Nunc dimittis. With The Coof meaning we have to wait for after the Mass to receive Communion because the Bishop requires Communion to be distributed on the hand only, the society involved in bringing TLM back to Tagbilaran have started to formalize the post-Mass Communion rite.

[The Archregimancy]

The core problem is that Islam rejects Christ's divinity as well as the crucifixion and the resurrection. Yes, Islam accepts the Virgin birth and that Jesus performed miracles, and this performs the basis for some form of mutually respectful theological discussion. It's these points of commonality that led 7th- and 8th-century Byzantines to initially mistake Islam for a form of Arian Christian heresy. But the Muslim concept of the mission of penultimate prophet Isa ibn Mariam is too fundamentally different from Christianity's concept of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ and Son of God, for there to be commonality over the mechanism of salvation.

That's not to say that we think that Muslims are necessarily condemned. You'll occasionally find lively discussion in this thread over a Christian concept variously called apocatastasis or universal salvation, first developed in the Eastern Mediterranean. This holds that a loving God will, in the fullness of time, ensure that all souls will eventually be saved, or reconciled with God. This is in stark contrast to the position taken by many Christians that only some can be saved (though we'll gloss over the mechanism of salvation since this is itself the subject of robust dispute), but it has longstanding roots in Christianity - particularly, but not exclusively Eastern Christianity - dating back to the second century AD. However, even those who support apocatastasis (or a more limited version thereof that holds we can at least pray for universal salvation) would argue that A) we should spend more time worrying about our own salvation than the potential for salvation of others and B) ultimately that salvation is through Christ. So even where universal salvation is believed to be possible, it's via the application of Christian principles of salvation to non-Christians who are saved through God's love rather than their own beliefs (or lack thereof).

Pretty sure Pope Francis went on record--not ex cathedra, though--as supportive of apocatastasis a few years back.

Catholicism has never completely abandoned the possibility of apocatastasis, but it would also be fair to note that it's only returned to theological prominence in the last century or two, and that it has a deeper continuous tradition in Eastern Christianity. Its foundations were laid by Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Maximus Confessor; and while all of the latter are shared by Orthodoxy and Catholicism (though Maximus isn't shared by non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodoxy or the Church of the East), they're more influential in the Orthodox tradition - much like Augustine of Hippo is both a Catholic and Orthodox saint, but is undoubtedly more influential in Western Christianity.

[Tarsonis]

For the ordinary form? No. Extraordinary form? I don't know.

Does believing in the virgin birth from Mary (May God be pleased with her) and that he performed miracles fall under extraordinary?

Not to undermine Arch's commentary, which is spot on per usual, but I'll just add that nobody can truly say. The ordinary form is called that because Christ laid out to us that "this is how it works." The Extraordinary forms are essentially our acknowledgement that God is not limited to this one manner and can save whomever He wishes. So it's really anybody's guess how many Extraordinary forms there are, and what those forms happen to be.

[Sundiata]

I always learn something new from this thread.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

I've always been in favor of the concept of apocatastasis, even before I knew there was a word for it. It just makes no sense to me for a loving God to condemn the virtuous even if they are non-believers, especially when they couldn't have known about the Good News.

[Salus Maior]

Does believing in the virgin birth from Mary (May God be pleased with her) and that he performed miracles fall under extraordinary?

Extraordinary form means something different entirely from what you're thinking.

What we mean by ordinary/extraordinary form is how one gets to Heaven. Ordinary form is the way that's been revealed to us through Scripture and Tradition, which is to say by being an upright Christian who pursues holiness. Extraordinary form, essentially, is leaving open the theoretical possibility that because God is God and can do whatever He wants, He can let people into Heaven by other means outside of the ordinary. But really, that's theoretical and not something to base one's life on.

[Kowani]

Baby dies after bad baptism practices in Romania


...is that
a common thing???

It's not
right??