www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology when did presbyters become priest ?

We all know that Jesus instituted the Holy Mystery of Orders at the Last Supper. We were all told that the Apostles were the first priests. But, we were also told that they were the first Bishops. I know that in the New Testament there is the term presbyter. My question is the following: When did the presbyter evolve to become our priest that we know today? What was the function of the New Testament presbyter. What couldn't he do?
In the beginning. if I am correct, only the Bishop could celebrate Liturgy and administer the sacrament of confirmation. I am confused. Any help given would be appriciated?

Regarding your assumptions:

"We all know that Jesus instituted the Holy Mystery of Orders at the Last Supper."

First, who is this over-generalization "we?" Second, was the purpose of the Last Supper what you imply above?

"We were all told that the Apostles were the first priests. ... we were also told that they were the first Bishops."

Now, were they priests or bishops?

OK I admit that it was my Catholic School teachers that told me that. So I have 12 years of Scholastic stuff to clean out of my head. Than Please help me.

Dear Theodore:

What probably Joe mean is that the fact that the bishops are considered successors of the apostles does not make the apostles themselves bishops. The Lord told their disciples “Do this in memory of me”, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost “. Them the apostles “ordained” the deacons (“diakonos” means “servant”) initially only “to serve the tables” and “the daily ministration” of the first Christian community (Acts 6). In the Acts we can see the deacon Philip preaching the Gospel in Samaria and baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 9). The mission of the apostles had according to the theologians (I am not a theologian) an itinerary character, they preached the Gospel, they baptized the converts to the Gospel (Paul prefers no to baptize himself) and afterwards they put the newly created Christian community under the care of a bishop “episkopos” (overseer) or presbyter “presbyteros” (ancient) laying their hand on them and praying. In the New Testament there is not a clear distinction among “episkopoi” and “presbyteroi”. The evolution of this situation to the monarchic bishopric, as theologians use to say, had been completed in the times of Saint Ignatius of Antioch. Saint Ignatius describes in his letter a Christian community under the leadership of one single bishop who celebrates the liturgy surrounded by the “perbyterium” i. e. all the priest of the Church the deacons being servants and collaborator of the bishop. According to the Ignatian ecclesiology the bishop is image of our Lord Jesus Christ and the priests are image of the apostles (the deacons image of the angels?). Afterwards the Fathers of the Church emphasized much more the character of successors of the apostles of the bishops and that is why the reason why we say that a bishop has got the “apostolic succession” that is that he was ordained bishop by a real bishop. Although the ordinations of deacons and priest have also “apostolic origin” we talk about “apostolic succession” because is the bishop who ordains other bishops, priest and deacons. I am not a theologian but hope that my explanations (in fact very poor, probably some people will disagree with me) will help you.
Yours in Christ,
Francisco
P.S. both the English word "priest" and "presbyter" come from the Greek word "prasbyteros".

Thank you, Francisco. I too should have answered Theodore's question, but got stuck on his first few statements.

Bishops, as overseers, replaced the Apostles. The earliest lists of the bishops of Rome from the earliest centuries do not have Peter on them.

Priests (or presbyters) were an extension of the bishop. They were considered elders of each community. I think your interests lie in the phase of history when presbyters were sent out to outlying communities where no bishop was going to be chosen and assumed many of the responsibilities. How those ministries were assumed in different locations make up for some of the divergencies between Eastern and Western rites. The New Testament epistles specifically state that overseers be chosen for each community, but that ended when overseers incorporated other communities under their jurisdictional umbrella.

Though Confirmation is reserved for the bishop in Western traditions, it is administered by priests in Eastern traditions. The bishop comes in a bottle. Again, it all goes back to how each church tradition handled administering a "community" larger and geographically separate from home base.

Dear Friends in Christ,

Just a note to say that the Apostles certainly possessed all the powers of bishops, but were not strictly "bishops" themselves.

The bishops are truly the successors of the Apostles, a fact our Church celebrates each and every week on Thursdays when the Apostles AND St Nicholas, representing all hierarchs, are honoured in the Horologion and Octoechos.

"Episcopus" was the civil name for "mayor" in the organization of the Roman Empire, just as "Metropolitan" was a governor in charge of a wider region.

The bishop had to remain stationary in his city or see to serve his flock directly. The Apostles, were they limited to their roles as bishops, could not move around as they did, missionizing, preaching and establishing other Churches.

This is why, as Cantor Joe astutely comments, the early lists of the Bishops of Rome do not include St Peter as the first Bishop. St Peter consecrated a Bishop for Rome and established the Church there, as he did in Antioch and indeed in many towns and villages throughout the East.

This is also why a number of Roman claims to jurisdictional primacy over the entire Church simply rang hollow on Eastern Church ears.

First of all, how could, the Christian East asks, a bishop or even a Patriarch (of the West) claim jurisdiction over others that are not his own designated charge (i.e. Western, Roman, Italian)?

Secondly, just because Sts Peter and Paul established the Church of Rome AND because this is the ONLY Apostolic See in the West, does not mean that Rome can lay claim to a triumphalist notion of jurisdiction and authority over the entire Church.

This is because Sts Peter and Paul and the other Apostles established many, many similar Churches at Antioch, Alexandria and other centres including villages and towns in the East. Could not a village that could trace its original episcopate back to St Peter the Apostle not make a similar claim as Rome with respect to jurisdictional primacy?

There are some other symbolic indications of the historic connection between a bishop and the Roman civil role of mayor as well.

The double-looped chain on which the Bishop (and the Priests in our Churches) wears his encolpion is actually taken from the same "chain of office" worn by the Roman mayors. The double loop indicates a two-tier level of responsibility in terms of public service. And "liturgy" itself is a Roman civil term that means precisely "public service."

The Episcopal cathedral, its architecture I mean, is also taken directly from the "cathedra" used by the Roman mayors and governors to dispense justice and perform their public service.

These buildings were long and spacious and could accommodate many people etc. For these reasons, the Christian Church adopted it and its architectural style. The sanctuary was the spot where the Roman civil authorities had their seats of office or "cathedras" from which they made authoritative pronouncements and passed judgements - the same episcopal chairs that we have near the sanctuary in our Churches today.

And even the way in which bishops (and in the Eastern Church priests as well) bless with index and middle fingers extended and the other three joined together is taken from the former Roman practice of forming the fingers in the same way and holding the hand of in this way to indicate that one has something important to say and so everyone should consider it a solemn moment.

Cantor Joe's statement about the relationship between priest and bishop is important as well (he doesn't speak to the wind, unlike me).

Many of the responsibilities that our priests perform and that are denied to the Latin clergy actually serve to underline the fact that the priest is acting in his own bishop's name as his assistant and with his blessing and authority.

There is, ideally, a greater fraternal relationship between the bishop and the priest in the East and a greater amount of liturgical and power sharing. Let us consider that in the West only the Pope may bless with his hand shaped in the Christogram as one small example.

And the practice of the East is actually closer to the practice of the New Testament Church where such clerical divisions were not yet solidified and defined.

Alex

Dear Alex,

The Patriarchs of Antioch, since the 1970's, have held that the Apostle Thomas was not even a priest, nor had he the powers of one, let alone those of a bishop, and so one cannot speak of his having ordained any successors in India, contrary to our tradition and that of the Coptic Orthodox Church. It is partly based on this, and the other "petrine" claims Antioch is making, that the current ecclesiastical situation in India is based (after that declaration was first made by the Patriarch in a letter to our Catholicos, the latter excommunicated him).

Hence, if you could convince the good Patriarch of what you just said above, a grateful Indian Church would be in your debt.

Dear Qathuliqa Mor Ephrem,

Do you have his e-mail address?

And, secondly, can I be an Honorary Oriental Orthodox of more than one Church?

Alex

Mor Ephrem,

Only since the 1970s?? What is the basis for their claim, which seems so arbitrary?!

In Christ,
mikey.

Dear Alex,

As far as I'm concerned, you've been an honourary Syrian/Indian for a long time.

Dear Mikey,

To understand the Patriarch's claim, you have to understand the current ecclesiastical situation in India. It gives me a headache, and there isn't too much that is in English. I'll relate specifically those things which refer to the situation I cited, and I suppose any other discussion on these things should be in another thread about India.

The Patriarchs of Antioch claim that the Indian Church has always been under Antioch.

The Indian Church claims that it was founded by the Apostle Thomas, one of the twelve, who had all the powers of the apostles, ordained a bishop as a successor, etc. This is also in sync with the Coptic Orthodox liturgical tradition, which relates this in its Synaxarium. Orthodoxy teaches that all the apostles were equal. Hence, the Indian Church, founded by Thomas, would be equal to any other apostolically founded Church.

After the 1950's, the Indian Church and the Patriarchate of Antioch reconciled, and under our terms, which Antioch accepted twenty or so years after we made them (in the form of a constitution), we were one again. The main point was that the Patriarch of Antioch had a "spiritual primacy", but the temporal, administrative head of the Church in India was the Catholicos of the East.

In 1965, a council of the Oriental Orthodox Churches was held in Addis Ababa, and every Oriental Orthodox Church but Antioch agreed that the Church in India was *autocephalous*.

In the 1970's, the Patriarch of Antioch wrote an encyclical to our Catholicos, saying that it was wrong for him to use as a title "Catholicos of the East and Metropolitan of Malankara, Nth successor to the Apostolic Throne of Saint Thomas". The reason the Patriarch gave was that the Apostle Thomas did not have the charism of priesthood, nor the powers of that priesthood. He was simply an apostle, an itinerant preacher. Anyone can baptise, so his baptising of many people wasn't a problem. But it was asserted, contrary to our tradition and that of the Copts, among others, that he never ordained anyone. He did not have a problem, obviously, with any of the other apostles, just with Thomas. Why just with this one apostle, if not to exercise his authority "over" our Church (I think the letter also asserted something along the lines of "the priesthood comes from Christ through Peter to the other apostles"...I could've botched that up, but the idea is along those lines, although it excludes Thomas)?

The Catholicos excommunicated the Patriarch after he would not recant, and excommunications were exchanged. In spite of the excommunications, however, our Church has never ceased to commemorate the Patriarch of Antioch in the Liturgy even before our own Catholicos.

The Church of Antioch is great, but ever since Patriarch Mar Abdul Messiah was ousted and replaced by Patriarch Mar Abdullah (a former RC who some say conspired with members of the Holy Synod who did not like Mar Abdul Messiah to get rid of him provided that they make him Patriarch), one can notice some disturbing trends.

In many ways, the Patriarchate is looking toward Rome to discern how to "exercise" a Petrine ministry. The Patriarch is a successor of Peter. So if the Roman Patriarch is a successor of Peter, and he can do certain things because of that, why not he? So since then, the Patriarchs have styled themselves "Universal Heads" of the "Universal" Syrian Orthodox Church, writing "Patriarchal Bulls", sending "Apostolic Delegates" here and there, and other things...the one thing they don't dare do is proclaim any "patriarchal infallibility", but everything else the Patriarchs do or institute has interesting similarities with the Roman view of the Papacy and with Roman Catholicism in general. In India, the Jacobites (the Patriarchal faction) have their own bishops and Synod. But outside of India, Indian Jacobites do not get their own Indian Jacobite bishop (that is, a member of that Synod), but a bishop taken from India to be a member of the Antiochene Synod, to take care of Indian Jacobites "outside" of the traditional territories. Furthermore, I've heard that the regulations say that, even though there is at least one Indian bishop as a member of the Antiochene Synod, and can vote for a Patriarch, no Indian can ever be elected Patriarch...there is allegedly some official prohibition of that. The traditional episcopal daily vesture of the Syrian Church has largely been disregarded everywhere but India, and you'll see Syrian bishops look more like Roman Cardinals than anything else. They are the only Church in our communion that I know of who has shortened just about every fasting period. Their clerics and bishops are generally not as educated as Orthodox clerics, and those that are educated usually find their way to the Orthodox Church.

In India, the Jacobites support this "Petrine" concept, and the Eastern Catholics are all too happy about it. Recently, it was reported that the Malankara Catholics have been publishing through official organs articles praising the Jacobites for drawing closer to the Petrine view of things (since they are Catholics, why would this not be anything but happy news?), and criticising the Orthodox Church for its position. Syro-Malabar bishops frequently attend gatherings of the Jacobites and open them with prayer as honoured guests, and they too are appreciative of their "Petrine" views. The Orthodox in India are not recognised by the Jacobites or by Antioch, and the Catholics aren't helping matters much.

Meanwhile, every other Oriental Orthodox Church I know of recognises the Indian Orthodox Church and is in communion with it, and we, and not the Jacobites (to my knowledge), receive visiting hierarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, most recently the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomeos I. We don't have anything against Rome either (our Catholicos and the Pope have exchanged visits a few times, and we do allow intercommunion under certain conditions), but we resent what's going on in India and the participation of Catholics in these things.

That's a lot, but it is not nearly enough to do the situation justice.

Don't worry Brother Mor Ephrem,

We will soon get over this foreign instigated problem of ours. Only someone with a legalistic Latin background can make absurd claims about Thomas not being able to ordain anyone (or Philip the Deacon being able to Baptize the Ethiopian eunuch for that matter).

Alex,

What's all this talk about being honorary in one Church or the other? If you are honorary Oriental for one you are honorary for all (and as soon as we get those missionaries to Ukraine you will be more than honorary )

An Indian Orthodox couple visited our Church last Sunday, from my observation they then remained behind and attended the Armenian's Divine Liturgy. Wonderful experience; we are one, no need to separate us.

Dear Theodore,

In addition to all the excellent commentary above I would just like to add the simple statement that the word "priest" came about simply as an abreviation for the word "presbuteros."

As I understand it the French shortened it to "prest" and then in English it became "priest." You would never know this reading modern English translations of the Bible which are very Protestantized (even most Catholic editions). They would have you believe "priest" refers to Old Testament ministers. The word there, I believe is not at all the Greek "Presbuteros" but rather the Hebrew "Cohen." Therefore, I was surprised to find out that Priest is actually a much more accurate word for the New Testament minister rather than the Old. If anyone thinks I'm off base here, please let me know.

Trusting in Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

We should look at the canons (of the first seven ecumenical councils) in order to better understand that they show, in a distilled format, the following organization:

the president/presbyter/presviteros (in Gk) presides over the community/parish. A layperson elected to lead their parish council may not be called President. (Many parishes do it, but it is wrong.)

the priest/ierevs (in Gk) is the one who makes the eucharistic offering (and leads the vespers and matins, although reader's versions of these exist).

Whenever the bishop/episkopos (in Gk) makes the offering, he is serving as the priest at that altar. The other ordained priests serve like the presbyters of old, just assisting. The same relationship exists if just two priests are present. Only one serves as the celebrant. The other assists as a presbyter. If the local priest makes the offeratory prayers and the bishop only assists, then the bishop is not the priest for that service, although he retains his full presbyteral authority and could remove or correct the celebrant at any moment.

The bishop serves as the presbyter of all parishes, organizations, meetings and activities in his diocese. His presbyters/priests are his proxies, but are allowed to use the title presbyter (one per parish).

Priests "are" only priests on Sunday morning or other services. The rest of the time they "are" presbyters. And if two are assigned to one parish, then one "is" the presbyter and the other "is" an assistant presbyter.

We have to ultimately stop saying the "are" and the "is" in order to break out of platonic and existentialist thought patterns in order to begin saying and thinking "he serves as the priest this morning." "He serves as the presbyter of this parish/community." If we saw him on the beach in swimming trunks, would we say that he "is" a priest. We would say "he is swimming" or "he is getting some sun."

This is why the early Eastern Church (still in its Jewish roots and somewhat immune from existentialist/platonic thought) usually didn't "laicize" their scandalous clergymen but simply prohibit them from serving anywhere. If he hasn't served for thirty years and he is prohibited by his bishop from serving, are we still ready to say that he "is" a priest. He looks, acts, and serves as a lay person does. Remember the duck test.

God is the only "one who is" or "the existing one." That is his unutterable name. The Jews, Russians, and others can't even say, "I am a priest." Their traditions and language force them to say, "I priest" or "I deacon" or "I swimmer" or "I plumber."

This is a long discussion and a long battle because of where language and platonic thought have taken us and how far we have drifted from scripture and canon, but a worthy one nonetheless. It does shed some light on the canonical distinctions in the discipline and structure applied to priests and presbyters.

Apostles were sent as apostles once and for all. The apostolic movement (the 12 and the 70), like the prophetic one, is over. Please don't call any new saints "Apostle to California, or China, etc." The apostles laid the foundation (paratheke) of the NT Church. The bishops and we carry forward the Tradition (paradhosis).

I'll stop here. Regards to all in Christ.

"Priests "are" only priests on Sunday morning or other services. The rest of the time they "are" presbyters."

Dear Andrew,

The english word "priest" is etymologically simply an abreviation of the word "presbyter." Based on this, I don't follow your above sentence. Perhaps you are thinking of differences in Greek words? Could you please explain?

Trusting in Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

Dear Wm Der-Ghazarian,

Please correct me if I am wrong, but "president" and "presbyter" are the translation and anglicization (respectively) of "presviteros." "Priest" is the correct translation for "ierevs." In the service books, reference is made to "ierevs" who is the one who makes the offering. Also see my explanation above. They are not always the same person.

In Christ,

Andrew