John Heers, what's up, brother. Glad to see you properly bashing the gnosticism of a livestreamed liturgy, man -- we still have yet to get rid of ours at St H's. In other news, in several places in the NT Saint Paul gives lists of functions/roles in the church -- apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, teachers, etc -- but he never lists "priests." This is neither an oversight on his part, nor too obvious to mention: One of the stark, subversive themes of the NT is the idea that you nod to as you sprint past here, the idea that there is no separate class of priests in the New Israel (=church). Beyond the obvious things, like quoting the OT dream of Israel being a "kingdom of priests," etc, this theme is developed in the NT by applying priestly language to everyday believers, e.g. "Offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, which is your spiritual service [latreia]" (Rom. 12:1). In the first great revolution of the church, summarized as "the Constantinian Shift" but involving a lot more than Constantine, Christianity was "religionized" (to use Yannaras' phrase), i.e. converted back into more or less normal religion as such, including a separate class of priests, etc. What about that, man?
This needs to be addressed good brother! And I will... when I come back. But I think you touched on it but my article didn't draw it out: It's both. The thing you describe is present all along, but the presence of the notion of "the priesthood of all believeers" doesn't do away or lessen the notion of "the priesthood that serves the sacrifice". Both. And. Done. Your history tells us about one type of priest. Mine... another. Maybe we do an article together about both! What up my brother?
Graham, love your writing. I appreciate your observation that "priest" isn't used in the NT at all - only to refer to Jewish priests, and to Christ as the High Priest of the eternal order of Melchizedek. Indeed all Christians are called to be priests, directors of sacrifice ala John's post here, but to sacrifice ourselves and our own will to God. 1 Corinthians 10:16 is the only reference to the Eucharist that is presented as physicality - it seems to refer to gatherings of early Christians partaking in a Eucharist in their private homes and worship.
As Orthodox Christians we're obligated to interpret that - that the physical consumption of the Eucharist in worship practice was established early after Pentecost. "Do this in remembrance of me" implies the practice is followed after The Last Supper, right?
So then, as humans do, in small groups and those that grow, how do we organize this particular sacrament, among others as seen by those at Pentecost, Paul, and anyone else experiencing Theosis thereafter? We don't have fantastic records of the first centuries, but we have some.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm Ignatius establishes the ordering of the church in Chapter 8. I don't believe that the Constantinian Shift religionized Christianity insomuch as it permitted it to exist within the context of larger social structures, society, government, civilization itself. The apostles saw it appropriate to appoint bishops from the earliest days because the cosmos is ordered and hierarchical. As an Orthodox father of many children, my highest priority is to understand (by grace) the proper ordering of Christian men and Christian women, first with The Holy Trinity, then with themselves and their spouses, families, communities, and societies, such that they can achieve salvation, and their children, and their children, and their children.
Indeed Mag P, the evidence for both priesthoods exists. But for me the evidence is in the seeing. And I see such a class of people in my life, serving the Divine Liturgy... and I wonder. And that makes me happy, the wonder. Why them and not me? And that hierarchy reminds me of a place that I am in, and he is not. And all of that is good for me I think. Proof of an order. And yet, I remain a priest somehow, just not THAT priest. You know?
Definitely. Observe the archetype so that one can represent the archetype, fractally. And this is the Liturgy, work of the people. He can't be a priest, showing how to worship, unless you are there worshipping, showing him how to priest. It's another example of the temple pattern.
John Heers, what's up, brother. Glad to see you properly bashing the gnosticism of a livestreamed liturgy, man -- we still have yet to get rid of ours at St H's. In other news, in several places in the NT Saint Paul gives lists of functions/roles in the church -- apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, teachers, etc -- but he never lists "priests." This is neither an oversight on his part, nor too obvious to mention: One of the stark, subversive themes of the NT is the idea that you nod to as you sprint past here, the idea that there is no separate class of priests in the New Israel (=church). Beyond the obvious things, like quoting the OT dream of Israel being a "kingdom of priests," etc, this theme is developed in the NT by applying priestly language to everyday believers, e.g. "Offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, which is your spiritual service [latreia]" (Rom. 12:1). In the first great revolution of the church, summarized as "the Constantinian Shift" but involving a lot more than Constantine, Christianity was "religionized" (to use Yannaras' phrase), i.e. converted back into more or less normal religion as such, including a separate class of priests, etc. What about that, man?
This needs to be addressed good brother! And I will... when I come back. But I think you touched on it but my article didn't draw it out: It's both. The thing you describe is present all along, but the presence of the notion of "the priesthood of all believeers" doesn't do away or lessen the notion of "the priesthood that serves the sacrifice". Both. And. Done. Your history tells us about one type of priest. Mine... another. Maybe we do an article together about both! What up my brother?
Graham, love your writing. I appreciate your observation that "priest" isn't used in the NT at all - only to refer to Jewish priests, and to Christ as the High Priest of the eternal order of Melchizedek. Indeed all Christians are called to be priests, directors of sacrifice ala John's post here, but to sacrifice ourselves and our own will to God. 1 Corinthians 10:16 is the only reference to the Eucharist that is presented as physicality - it seems to refer to gatherings of early Christians partaking in a Eucharist in their private homes and worship.
As Orthodox Christians we're obligated to interpret that - that the physical consumption of the Eucharist in worship practice was established early after Pentecost. "Do this in remembrance of me" implies the practice is followed after The Last Supper, right?
So then, as humans do, in small groups and those that grow, how do we organize this particular sacrament, among others as seen by those at Pentecost, Paul, and anyone else experiencing Theosis thereafter? We don't have fantastic records of the first centuries, but we have some.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm Ignatius establishes the ordering of the church in Chapter 8. I don't believe that the Constantinian Shift religionized Christianity insomuch as it permitted it to exist within the context of larger social structures, society, government, civilization itself. The apostles saw it appropriate to appoint bishops from the earliest days because the cosmos is ordered and hierarchical. As an Orthodox father of many children, my highest priority is to understand (by grace) the proper ordering of Christian men and Christian women, first with The Holy Trinity, then with themselves and their spouses, families, communities, and societies, such that they can achieve salvation, and their children, and their children, and their children.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB-z96Qd_JU
Indeed Mag P, the evidence for both priesthoods exists. But for me the evidence is in the seeing. And I see such a class of people in my life, serving the Divine Liturgy... and I wonder. And that makes me happy, the wonder. Why them and not me? And that hierarchy reminds me of a place that I am in, and he is not. And all of that is good for me I think. Proof of an order. And yet, I remain a priest somehow, just not THAT priest. You know?
Definitely. Observe the archetype so that one can represent the archetype, fractally. And this is the Liturgy, work of the people. He can't be a priest, showing how to worship, unless you are there worshipping, showing him how to priest. It's another example of the temple pattern.