Confusion[edit]

I found this section (quoted below, on Catholic and Orthodox) confusing. If these churches are “not in commuion with the Roman Catholic Church”, then why are they in the section about the Catholic Church? That the adjective “catholic” appears in the name does not seem to warrant inclusion in the section on “Catholic and Orthodox”. If any stranger were to ask someone in town to direct him to the local Catholic Church, he would be pointed to one of these.

Some churches also known by the adjective "...Catholic", but not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, do ordain women as well as men as priestesses; such churches include some Old Catholic and Anglican Catholic communities, as well as some Independent Catholic Churches. These non-Roman Catholic, Christian churches, often in imitation of the Anglican Communion, also generally permit the ordination of married people and, sometimes, of homosexuals and bisexuals.

I have adjusted the page slightly to clarify this. Lostcaesar 23:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Priests in islam[edit]

"There are priests in Christianity, Shintoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam"

Are there priests in Islam? -- An article may want to include a note about Jewish priesthood during the time of the Temple, absence of same afterward (or link to appropriate entry on this).

No priests in Islam that I'm aware of - lots of officials, ritual butchers for halal meat, the whole ulema, but not priests.

Would a mullah or imam be considered (equivalent to) a priest? From the mullah article it looks like in that regard a rabbi would be closer to the mark (of course, the clergyman most similar in role to a mullah is a mullah). --Calieber 18:06, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)

I'd be interested in knowing where that statement came from that men are not ordained until age 35. I was in the Catholic seminary six years and never heard of that. The usual age was 26. RSvK 03:54, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Canon 11 of Neocaesarea and Canon 14 of Trullo both say 30 for the given reason that it's the same age at which Christ began his minstry. It was never 35; that was a misstatement. In actual practise the minimum age is 25. (Enforcement of these canons were always at the discretion of the bishop. Moot at this point, but I thought I'd answer your question anyway. Csernica 23:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One definition of "priest" is "one who acts as a mediator between men and the divinity or the gods in any form of religion". On that purpose priests existed (as far as we know) since 9000 years. (Catalhoyuk - Konya, Turkey ; the bull deity and its mediator) Then there are sun-god believers and reincarnation believers. (such as shamanism). Though in the beginning; priests were old warriors (or hunters, we can't specifically know it. As far as we can see from paintings on the walls, they were going out chasing either people or animals with weapons). When they got old, it was quite dangerous for them to join any fight or hunting because they were generally getting killed.(being a priest was always a way to get out of wars.) To survive they convinced youngs that they were the mediators between them and the divinity of the gods (or the god, or the after-life. We can't know this specifically as well). Actually the word "priest" comes from the late latin word "presbyter" which comes from older greek word "presbyteros" comperative to "presbys" meaning "elder". Later on astronomers, (or/and first scientists were also using the same technique to survive.). Later on older widows in Europe during 17th century has used the same technique and predicted themselves as witches. (It was the only way for them to survive in the society) Priests also existed in ancient religions of Egypt & Greece etc. I guess it is quite wrong to analyze it only under Abrahamic religions. (Imam by the way means "Leader" in arabic, it was also used for governors of arabic countries) Thus we can state that Imams are generally muslim priests. --Nerval 09:33, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing in Islam called priest cuz in Islam there is no intermediate between you & your god you can speak freely & directly to your god at anytime you want & we believe that god is everywhere around us & can even knew what we are thinking of or feeling at the moment & in the Quran [Islam holy book] god describe this special relation between the human & his creator as {he [god] is closer to you [human] even than your own unmblical cord}. As for the [Emam] for the suna muslim or [Mola] for sheia muslims they are nothing more than a guiding instructors who people refer to when they get confused about any islamic legislation or scripture understanding just like the professor in the university very well knowledged & good reputated person whom people trust & learn from but by the end of the day can never replace the real science nor the only source of it..Also eventhough people trust alot their opinions but it is still debatable if there is no clear instruction in the quran or prophit suna.

Vestments[edit]

Recently added section in Christian Traditions needs a tweak, as it suggests that only Orthodox clergy wear ceremonial crosses, cassocks and other vestments. Any religious clothing experts out there to revise? Otherwise I'll give it a go...eventually. Quill 21:23, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're right. Well, someone had to do it anyway, but I gave it a tad more than a tweak. Csernica 23:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Photo[edit]

I wouldn't use a photo of Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer to represent a typical catholic priest, because he as the founder of Opus Dei represents a small minority within the catholic church that is highly controversal. Someone could ask his/her local catholic priest to take a photo to post here!

I have removed 2 pictures on the grounds that they are not factual. One is a romanticised 19th ventury depiction of the accient world and the other a bit of Catholic fantasy. They would be suitable to illustrate a section on priests in art or popular imagination, but we now have plenty of other excellent pictures. I felt a bit bad removeing the picture of the priestesses as most of the photos are of Catholics, but the top picture of the priestess on the plate is really good. --Simon Speed 11:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information[edit]

Can poeple more knowledgeable on the subject add to the text on Women as theological figures - whether notable female theologians or the position of women in religious hierarchies.

There could also be more information on priestess on #this# page.

Jackiespeel 20:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Priestesses[edit]

If one types in “priestess”, he is linked to this article. Yet there is no information of priestesses in the usual sense, as in pagan priestesses of the ancient world. I thought about adding a section on the role of priestesses and their history, but it felt out of place since it deals with classical pagaism rather than contemporary religion. Is this the right place for that? Lostcaesar 23:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The convention is for new threads to go on the bottom of the page.
There are sections "In Judaism", "In Christianity". I think it would be entirely appropriate to include sections for other religions. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For "priestess", may I suggest to add disambiguation? There a Canadian rock band called Priestess, here some links about this band http://www.priestessband.com http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/121505/music2.html sd-100 July 22 2006

Marriage and the Priesthood[edit]

Eric Flint, a science fiction author, suggested that marriage was not uncommon in the Catholic priesthood, even as recently as the 1900s. He seems to do a respectable amount of research, as is common his profession. However, I've not been able to find a source to back it up. Historically speakin', how common have married priests been in the West, and was it ever formally allowed/when was it formally disallowed? MrZaiustalk 20:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New threads at the bottom, please.
Well he's wrong, at least as far as the Latin rite is concerned. A celibate priesthood has been the canonical norm in the West since the 4th century or so. We find canons from African councils in that time mandating it. (These were the same set of canons that first officially defined a Biblical canon.) See [1] [2] [3] [4]. These were collections from earlier councils, codified in 419. Obviously it's possible to interpret them to say that a priest should just abstain from his wife before Mass, and this is how the commentary understands them. But by in 691 universal priestly celibacy was certainly the rule in the West since the Quinisext council in that year condemned the practice. [5]. This canon was ignored by Rome, of course, as was the council in general. (The Fathers in Trullo understood erroneously that Western priestly celibacy was founded on these African canons, when in facy it was a disciplinary vow imposed prior to ordination.) There's a reasonably thorough discussion here [6]. (The online edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia was published in 1908, close to the time Flint was talking about, and if a married Catholic priesthood was "not uncommon" it would surely be mentioned there.)
Now, it's barely possible that Flint was referring to Eastern-rite Catholicism in the United States. Here he'd be correct. Eastern-rite clergy are generally married in their native countries, and this was also true in the US in the early 20th Century. However, American Eastern-rite bishops are now forbidden to ordain married men to the priesthood.
By the way, I know a number of professional SF writers, and they are as likely to carry out sloppy research as anyone else. You can't use their word as a reliable source. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Questioning assertions like the one mentioned above plainly imply that I wasn't treating his fiction as a reliable source. It will be interesting to look back through the book and see whether he explicitly stated that it was an Eastern-rite priest. Thanks for your quick response. MrZaiustalk 22:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's his "Belisarius" series, then he's almost certainly talking about Eastern Orthodox priests who were, and still are, and will be for the forseeable future, married men. Only bishops are required to be celibate. Priests may be celibate and may not marry after ordination, and are always celibate if they happen to be monks, but a very large majority of Orthodox priests are married. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Request that someone explain a revert[edit]

[7] Just out of curiosity, why was this edit reverted? Was it just because it was an anonymous author, or was there a factual error in it? Give some explanation, please. MrZaiustalk 13:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Sources are given for neither your fact nor the anonymous user's conflicting fact (and the Kohanim article does not mention this.) A good way to gain support against your edits being reverted is to cite sources. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not my fact. I was wondering if the statement was factually innaccurate or if there was a source that could be cited. Look at the logs. It was an anonymous edit. Is there anyone watching this article that can back it up or refute it? They were interesting statements, if true. MrZaiustalk 15:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist Monks are not priests at least in terms of the given definition[edit]

"A priest or priestess is a person having the authority or power to perform and administer religious rites; and in particular, rites of sacrifice to the Deity or Deities" Unless this is changed I see no reason why I shouldn't delete "Buddhism" from the subsequent list. Buddhist monks have no more authority or power to perform religious rites than lay people. Budhhist monks do not worship any deity or deities. One last thing - there is no mention of the high rates and recent incidents of peadophilia and paedophiles in the christian and particularly Catholic clergy (I know of the US and Australia) which suprises me as there should be a mention here as it is important, factual, and topical. Sorry to offend but that is just that way it is! (cited facts on high rates of homosexuality in the clergy may be of importance too (not that this bears any relationship whatsoever with peadophilia). Mattjs 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Buddhist Monks are mentioned in detail in Monks and no one in their right mind (a pun for anyone who knows anything about Buddhism and if you dont know it then you are not qualified to revet my edit) would mention Buddhism in this Priest article even just as a label (along with the peadophiles - Oops, sorry, sorry, that's just a joke and very very non-"right speech" of me). Mattjs 21:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously if anyone objects it would be better to add a one liner to Monks e.g. "For Buddhist Monks and other whatevers (other than peadophiles - Oops, sorry again I just cant help myself) see Monks. Or something like that. Mattjs 21:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering though is there any historical evidence of the little boys behind the Vatican tradition in the Catholic church. It is a little known story like the fact that popes during the days of the holy roman empire were holy warriers in armour at the head of the holy army or am i wrong on both counts? (I don't believe so!) Mattjs 21:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an external link in Child sexual abuse and a link there to Roman Catholic sex abuse cases so that may be good enough I guess. 220.240.58.190 18:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

Just why someone deleted Judas Priest link on top?

The fans of Judas Priest call them just "Priest" (see Kai Hansen's or Sum 41 interviews, if you do not believe me) - it is a call name, a nick name of the band... Most fans would type in "priest" and would see, that such article does not exist (about the band), and simply quit to another resource of information...

BTW it includes some FAR LESS known ban, called "Priestess", either delete both and ling to disambiguation page, or leave BOTH BAND links here...

Anglican theology of priesthood.[edit]

User:HarvardOxon insists that the following is accurate:

"Roman Catholic, Orthodox and a small minority of Anglican Christians who reject traditional interpretations of Anglican theology [citation needed], therefore, believe that priests and bishops share in the one priesthood of Christ through the sacrament of Holy Orders, and are empowered to offer the one sacrifice of Jesus in the Eucharist which, as Hebrews says, is offered "once for all," being identical with the very sacrifice of the Cross: the Mass, or Divine Liturgy, as the eucharistic celebration is known, is therefore literally a re-presentation (making present again) of Christ's single sacrifice, according to this theology." (emphasis added)

While certainly some Anglicans would reject this understanding of priesthood, would not many, if not most, Anglicans basically accept it? I would appreciate comments from knowledgeable Anglicans. --Midnite Critic 02:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a poll of Anglicans, it is not possible to accurately conclude how many perceive the sacerdotal role in this manner. This is definitely an Anglo-Catholic perspective held by some broad church Anglicans, and I'm inclined to agree with HarvardOxon that it's a minority. I'm more troubled by the phrase "traditional interpretations of Anglican theology," since it invites the question, "whose tradition?" I think a more balanced construction of the sentence would read, "Roman Catholic, Orthodox and a small minority some of Anglican Christians who reject traditional more mainstream interpretations of Anglican theology." Better? Fishhead64 03:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see the problem with the original phrasing. Does not "traditional interpretation of Anglican theology" strongly imply that the tradition in question is Anglican? TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem, on any given issue, is nailing down, "What is the Anglican position?" Usually, there are multiple answers, and this question is no exception. An Anglican user has changed the reference to "many Anglicans (especially Anglo-Catholics)...". I am comfortable with this and I think it is essentially accurate. --Midnite Critic 05:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the "Anglican position" has no relationship to the 39 Articles, why are they printed in the BCP? If they are in no way normative, why do they exist? Why are Old Catholics and the like invited to such ordinations, as some openly state, to "insure" their validity? You demanded a citation for the statement that Anglo-Catholics reject traditioonal interpretations of the Articles, yet you simply accept "MANY Anglicans" because you feel "comfortable"? How many is "many"? The truth is, much as certain Anglicans want to simply cause to be true by stating it that Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican are all pretty much the same thing, it is not the case -- any more, frankly, than it would be true to equate Anglican priests with Lutheran pastors in the other direction. The Anglicans should have their own, separate paragraph -- it is misleading and inaccurate to simply lumnp them in with the Catholics and Orthodox.HarvardOxon 05:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the presence of Old Catholics is to ensure the "validity" of the ordinations in their own eyes, but rather that since the (Roman) Catholic Church does not recognise the validity of the Anglican Apostolic Succession, particularly due to the changes in ordinals in Edward VI's reign, this removes some fo the issues there (since the Old Catholic succession is not disputed). David Underdown 11:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Harv, the question here is not whether Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy understand the Anglican priesthood to be the same as theirs. Obviously, Rome denies the validity of Anglican orders, and, in general, the Orthodox position, although stated differently, is pretty much the same as Rome's. But the question, in this case, has to do with how ANGLICANS see the Anglican priesthood, and the truth is, a large chunk of Anglicanism views the Anglican priesthood in sacerdotal terms, similar or identical to the theologies of priesthood held by Rome and the Orthodox with regard to their own priesthood(s). --Midnite Critic 15:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Anglican theology, namely that of the BCP and 39 articles, rejects the concept of the "real presence", and therefore is not the same as Roman Catholic and Orthodox positions. The Anglican theology of priest is based on the New Testament office of presbyter, a pastor or elder of God's church in a locality. The Roman and Orthodox uses of priest are closer to the function of the Aaronic priesthood, namely, the offering of sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins. The Sydney Diocese, of which I'm a part, has recently started using the term Presbyter again to avoid the confusion with the Roman and Orthodox concepts. --Journeyman 23:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Journeyman, as you must know, the Diocese of Sydney sits squarely at the very bottom of the churchmanship tower and is therefore far from typical of the Anglican Communion as a whole, much of the latter being unwilling, the 39 Articles notwithstanding, to make these distinctions (which are covered in the section of the article dealing with the Anglican Communion and which, in fact, speaks of the use of "presbyter" by some sections of the AC for the reason you cite). Further, given the role, or lack thereof, of the 39 Articles throughout much of Anglican history in many places, I don't it's quite correct to speak of them in terms of "traditional Anglican theology" and leave it at that. Newman's attempts to read them in line with Tridentine Roman Catholicism was simply the tip of the iceberg in this regard, and the BCP (1662?), of course, is even more ambiguous. --Midnite Critic 23:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Journeyman, if what you say about the reasoning behind "presbyter" is correct, then it avoids nothing. "Priest" and "presbyter" are the same office for both Romans and Orthodox, and the terms are used interchangeably. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, yes we realise that us Sydney Anglicans are somewhat unsual in the western Anglican church. TCC - I didn't know that Romans and the Orthodox use the word presbyter these days. Midnite Critic - I don't want to recontest the reformation, suffice to say that I'm saddened that the AC is no longer throughly protestant, as IMU the Anglican church was founded on the principal of there being no priest between God and man, save Jesus Christ. Appologies I didn't see the bit about prebyter at the end of the paragraph. I think I might add a separate section about the Protestant doctrine of priest, namely the "priesthood of all believers" which is not mentioned in the article. --Journeyman 12:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it, Journey. There are also Catholic/Orthodox doctrines of same, and a discussion of the various views of the PAB would be a useful addition to the article. BTW, you may be interested in the following: http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=2177 --Midnite Critic 13:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it turns out there is a separate article on PAB, which is linked under "See also". However, a textual reference to PAB in this article as well wouldn't be a bad thing. --Midnite Critic 23:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed disambig notice[edit]

I removed this from before the intro: "This article does not address the priestesses of thousands of years of ancient religious rites." It looked a bit odd as part of the disambiguation notices. Maybe it should be integrated into the introduction somehow, or the article expanded to include this information, or a separate article written about it, or...? Kla'quot 06:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a dab notice at all; not all hatnotes are. But it's a misguided complaint. If nothing has been written in this article about pagan priesthoods of either sex, it's simply because no one has done the work. Merely complaining about it as User:83d40m did, isn't helpful. TCC (talk) (contribs)

Dress section[edit]

A lot of speculative and unsupportable claims have been added to this section, some of which are demonstrably false. The earliest documented religions are the Sumerian and Egyptian. For neither of these is there any evidence of development from worship of a "Great Goddess". Nor can the description of the "transition" to religions dominated by male gods and priests be shown from the available evidence. The evidence for the "Great Goddess" consists solely of the Neolithic "Venus" figurines, the uses of which have not been determined with any certainty, and for which no priest- or shaman-like office can be assumed.

Nor is it clear that the famous serpent-brandishing figure from Crete is a priestess as stated in the caption here. It could well be an image of a goddess, as many sources assert with equally false certainty.

As is, it's more OR than anything else. It needs to be fixed or cut. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Note to This[edit]

I deleted this section sometime ago but it was added back in. The Great Goddess information, as the person above me mentioned is false. It should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.227.127.252 (talk) 22:15:14, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

First Image[edit]

I noticed the recent change to the first picture of the article. Shouldn't the primary picture be of a priest performing a priestly duty instead of having a pictures of a sculpture representing a priest? I'm going to change the images back for the reasons, but feel free to discuss it here. Dgf32 (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the picture should be of the ordest type of priest, not an actual priest, more neutral, more historic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.251.136 (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priests / Priestesses[edit]

I find that the article, particularly when it comes to the most antique forms of priesthood, places too much emphasis on the role of women. While very interesting, the distinction on whether male or female priests are allowed is not necessarily relevant to understanding the nature, function, and roles of a priest / priestess. If enough people consider it relevant, I suggest considering the creation of a special header at the bottom of the article, in which the gender-related issues of priesthood are discussed, but otherwise, for it to be content-neutral, the article should limit to saying what is the female form of the word 'priest', and perhaps, at most, enlisting the religions that had/have all-male or all-female priests. Regards, --Daylightdemon (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that struck me as odd. The first time I read through the article I thought, what about ancient religions that didn't have female priests? Are they not important? Yumecosmos (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly Written Paragraph[edit]

I happened upon this article, and it seems to me as if the introduction needs some serious work. There were a number of grammatical and spelling errors, as well as simply unnecessary or odd sentences. For example one entire paragraph digressed about Judaism and Rabbis in the intro, and seemed to be written colloquially. I deleted it, because it also seemed redundant when you look down at the whole separate section on Judaism. Please post here if you disagree, but if you're going to revert then please do a VERY careful reading of it first. The intro as it stood was unacceptable. Here's a copy of the paragraph I deleted:

Judaism has male priests, that serve in hereditary positions. They have few but significant religious roles, especially in Orthodox Judaism. However those de-facto officiating in Judaism, both men and women, are called Rabbi. A Rabbi is not a priest, he is more of a religious techer or community leader. Rabbi in classical Hebrew means "great"or "distinguished". In post-Biblical Hebrew it means "master" as opposed to "slave".

Mnpeter (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Episcopalian" in subsection title[edit]

I'm aware that the official title of the church in America is "Episcopal", used as an adjective, not "Episcopalian". Hence there is logic in changing the subsection title as someone did. BUT there are cross links to this subsection from CoE / Anglican / Episcopal clergy in many articles. So if you want to change the title, FIX THE LINKS! Peter coxhead (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "Episcopal" from the subsection title, as "Episcopal" is merely a type of Anglican. Otherwise we might as well say Anglican or Church of England", "Anglican or Church of Ireland", etc. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removing discussion tag[edit]

Since it has not attracted any discussion, I am going to remove the tag calling for discussion about separating only Christian priests into a new article. The article is not overly long, therefore, it seems rather inappropriate to elevate only one group to a separate article -- which could be perceived as a cultural bias. It always can be reinstated if editors really want to pursue the topic. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

question[edit]

What is the difference between priest and pastor? Someone told me they're different, but I don't quite get it. I figure that priests can be nonchristians, but pastors can't? (LAz17 (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Feminist article?[edit]

Yes there was a whole host of female religious leaders in the ancient world but that does that mean that the entire article needs to be feminized? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.4.18.85 (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the list under the heading "Priests and Priestesses", it's obviously just a list of Priestsesses in ancient religions. Which is interesting enough, but not useful for information under the titled section. This is either mislabeled or misleadingly incomplete. There actually were male priests in ancient religions. This gives the impression that "Wikipedia says..." there were ONLY female priests in the ancient world. That can't be desirable, can it? ~Brad Gregory, lost my login.

Citation from "International Standard Version"[edit]

The ISV is a Protestant translation of the Bible, so we would naturally expect their website to espouse a Protestant perspective concerning the Christian priesthood, which most Protestant sects repudiate. My question is, why cite this so obviously biased source when discussing the etymology of "priest" as it appears in the Greek of the New Testament? And why not cite a Catholic or Orthodox source giving their interpretation of the Greek, which would differ? If the most ancient denominations of Christianity have always viewed the term "presbyter" to refer to one who offers the sacrifice of the Eucharist and performs functions similar to those of Levitical priests, is not their understanding also relevant in this section of the article?

There is a violation of neutrality here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.173.75 (talk) 06:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism[edit]

In Tibetan Buddhism (as well as a few other flavors, but Tibetan being the most well-known), a Lama is a priest within the context of this article. Is there any reason that this isn't covered? It seems like a big oversight to me, unless there's a specific reason. Canine virtuoso (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

I am sorry, since when wicca is religion and has to be mentioned among other religions, priests?... uh, ok, why not write this in the wicca article? this thing includes some real time mostrosity, sickness and sorry [bullshit], and honestly none, and I mean none studies it in comparative religion, it is out of it! An article about priests should be about those real, not perceived. This is not even sectarianism but 'pretending to be believes' sick practices, which not always are quite humane. --Amphibian1 (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, not quite sure where to start on this one (though a spelling and grammar check is always useful before hitting the "Save page" button. This article is about priesthood in general, and yes Wicca is a religion at least as far as the UK Census and the US Army Chaplains' department is concerned. OK, a minority one, but there's no monstrosity, sickness or bullshit in the text you removed and no reason not to restore it. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Grammar does not have more meaning than religious studies. --Amphibian1 (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I too, can say that you have a grammar simplicity of a comic book. --Amphibian1 (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

74.32.234.139 (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)A priestess (feminine) or priest (masculine) (from Greek πρεσβύτερος presbýteros through Latin presbyter, "elder"), is a person authorized by God, through His angels, through the anointing of the Holy Spirit for man 666, to speak for God. To be in God’s Royal Priesthood the blessings spoken by His angels, always bares record of The Word of God, The Testimony of Jesus Christ, God sent and signified it by His Angel, to His servant John. (Revelation 1:1-3)[reply]

However, human beings created in "The image of God," do not always represent Gods Royal Priesthood and receive the blessings they are to pass on to the Sons and Daughters of God. By coveting a title, position, financial backing, there are some charlatans who claim a relationship with God, His angels, His Spirits, His character and normally these do not claim they speak in the name of Jesus.

If they did speak in the name of Jesus Christ, and do act and teach His self - sacrificing life, they would receive the blessings of their "Royal Priesthood74.32.234.139 (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)." Https://DecodingBibleProphecy.com Author:THE RED HORSE War Against The Government of God, Connie Ordelheide Anderson, WESTBOW PRESS[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Priest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this statement accurate? Priests and priestesses have existed since the earliest of times (see Proto-indo-European trifunctional hypothesis)". There is no source given for it, "earliest times" would imply palaeolithic (rather that the Bronze Age Proto-indo-Europeans), and I'm sure I've read in various places that priests and priesthood in the strict sense most likely didn't exist in early hunter-gatherer societies. Iapetus (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Priest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Karlie[edit]

Priest-queen and you will get it right 2600:1700:2A10:2290:4D6D:886C:242:AD5 (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Female priest" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Female priest has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 29 § Female priest until a consensus is reached. fgnievinski (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories