confecting the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ?

[BobRyan]

Wow, and it only took a half dozen quotes that did not contain the word before one that does was finally produced.

I guess I have a hard time understanding why that kind of cat and mouse approach to discussion is necessary.

I have no idea what your talking about.

 

[BobRyan]

Apostasy and excommunication are two different things.

Apostasy refers to the action of the priest in the OP.. excommunication refers to the action of the Catholic Church in response to it.

hopefully we do all agree on that.

 

[BobRyan]

1. We offer to Thee. The Eucharist is offered to God the Trinity — not just to the Father but also to the Holy Spirit and to Christ Himself. So, what is the sacrifice of the Eucharist? By whom is it offered? and to whom is it offered? In each case the answer is Christ.

Out of curiosity what exactly do the Orthodox claim they are offering "to Christ" in the Eucharist?

 

[BobRyan]

Several times in the New Testament the phrase "and they went out ministering". The word ministering in Greek is liturgeo, which is equivalent to liturgizing.

It would be helpful if you would quote a text that has a reference.

The Bible records that people were made sick by taking communion improperly,

But says nothing about "having the wrong liturgy for communion".

It also says we are to confess our sins to each other James 5:16

Very different from saying that each person in church is a cleric or priest or that the abolished priesthood of Hebrews 7 had returned on earth.

It also says that we are to obey the orders of the elders appointed over us, for they help us find spiritual good things Hebrews 13:17

True - but elders are also - not priests.

You say:

"literal flesh and blood is worthless - it is My WORDs that have Spirit and LIFE" John 6:63

Because I enjoy reading John 6:63

"the WORD became flesh and dwelt among us" John 1"

Because John 1:14 is good context showing that the symbolism starts from chapter one when it comes to the Word. So in John 6 Jesus consistently uses symbols for the word.

It is the WORDS of Christ that we must take into ourselves. A consistent theme in the Gospel of John.

John 15: 7 If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.

 

[BobRyan]

Hebrews 9

1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.

3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;
..

Hebrews 9 & Hebrews 10 most definitely do tell us about the New Covenant. (Which is what the Levitical system pointed to, as a “shadow” of the things to come).

Also, very importantly, these verses are clear that it is ONE sacrifice.

True - Hebrews 10 -- "once for all time"

And Hebrews 8:6-12 - we have the New Covenant in the book of Hebrews

 

[amariselle]

I'm not even going to bother replying to you anymore because you aren't even taking what I am saying into consideration, instead just posting the same point over and over.

I have definitely posted other points and responded respectfully to points you have made. The points you made are actually points I have heard many times before, and I have in fact carefully considered them. Please do not assume that I haven’t thought seriously about these issues many times. (Over many years).

This is a forum where discussions on various topics take place. Sometimes people do repeat themselves and choose to emphasize things, and that is fine. At no point is anyone ever required to respond to someone else. So, you are free to stop discussing things with me whenever you like.

The Bible is not the only authority. Apostolic tradition is also essential.

That is the Catholic position, yes. It is one that I (and many others) do not hold to, which is why, as I said, when the two disagree, and they do, I believe the Bible to be the supreme authority, as it is the inspired word of God, which is above the teachings and traditions of man.

We can argue all day every day about what we think verses conclusions are, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter to me because what I follow is the 2000 year old beliefs that the apostles passed down. I know this for a 100% fact after years of searching. 2000 years of fathers, monks, holy men and miracles do not lie to the witness of what I believe.

I wasn’t actually “arguing”, so I apologize if it seemed that way.

You are obviously free to believe as you like.

God bless.

 

[☦Marius☦]

I have definitely posted other points and responded respectfully to points you have made. The points you made are actually points I have heard many times before, and I have in fact carefully considered them. Please do not assume that I haven’t thought seriously about these issues many times. (Over many years).

This is a forum where discussions on various topics take place. Sometimes people do repeat themselves and choose to emphasize things, and that is fine. At no point is anyone ever required to respond to someone else. So, you are free to stop discussing things with me whenever you like.



That is the Catholic position, yes. It is one that I (and many others) do not hold to, which is why, as I said, when the two disagree, and they do, I believe the Bible to be the supreme authority, as it is the inspired word of God, which is above the teachings and traditions of man.



I wasn’t actually “arguing”, so I apologize if it seemed that way.

You are obviously free to believe as you like.

God bless.

At least you are civil. That's better than 98% of people on this site

 

[BobRyan]

However, I see your point. The Church has the right to discipline her priests. But the Church cannot remove the mark on the soul from the Sacrament of ordination. Therefore, we have the concept of "valid, but illicit". I don't see the problem here. Most churches practise (or ought to practise) church discipline, .

I am not complaining about the idea of church discipline.. I am pointing to the detail that they reference this as the "powers of the priest" and pointing to one detail which is that both Catholics and Protestants agree.. that the Protestants claim no such "powers" for our elders, deacons, pastors etc when it comes to "confecting the body,soul,blood and divinity" of God the Son each week.

 

[☦Marius☦]

I am not complaining about the idea of church discipline.. I am pointing to the detail that they reference this as the "powers of the priest" and pointing to one detail which is that both Catholics and Protestants agree.. that the Protestants claim no such "powers" for our elders, deacons, pastors etc when it comes to "confecting the body,soul,blood and divinity" of God the Son each week.

Low church Protestants you mean.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Out of curiosity what exactly do the Orthodox claim they are offering "to Christ" in the Eucharist?

Praise and love. The communion between the Church and Christ is supposed to resemble the communion between the Trinity.

 

[BobRyan]

Low church Protestants you mean.

If you have some declared protestant (as in real protestant) group claiming that they have priests "with powers" to "confect the body,blood,soul and divinity" of God the son each week... by all means contribute with an actual post that said group would admit to.

 

[Albion]

I am not complaining about the idea of church discipline.. I am pointing to the detail that they reference this as the "powers of the priest" and pointing to one detail which is that both Catholics and Protestants agree.. that the Protestants claim no such "powers" for our elders, deacons, pastors etc when it comes to "confecting the body,soul,blood and divinity" of God the Son each week.

Yes, but look...

A great many Protestants believe that the priest or minister does--by officiating at the Lord's SUpper--cause a supernatural event to happen.

Moreover, it is not something that a layperson can do.

So most people, I think, would call that a "power" to do something or other. It is not the power to "confect blah blah blah," but it is something similar.

 

[BobRyan]

The Orthodox Church believes the Eucharist to be a sacrifice. As is heard in the Liturgy, "Thine of Thine own we offer to Thee, in all and for all."

1. At the Eucharist, the sacrifice offered is Christ himself, and it is Christ himself who in the Church performs the act of offering: He is both priest and victim.
2. We offer to Thee. The Eucharist is offered to God the Trinity — not just to the Father but also to the Holy Spirit and to Christ Himself. So, what is the sacrifice of the Eucharist? By whom is it offered? and to whom is it offered? In each case the answer is Christ.
3. We offer for all: according to Orthodox theology, the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice, offered on behalf of both the living and the dead.

The Church teaches that the sacrifice is not a mere figure or symbol but a true sacrifice. It is not the bread that is sacrificed, but the very Body of Christ. And, the Lamb of God was sacrificed only once, for all time. The sacrifice at the Eucharist consists, not in the real and bloody immolation of the Lamb, but in the transformation of the bread into the sacrificed Lamb.

Out of curiosity just "what" exactly do the Orthodox claim they are offering "to Christ" in the Eucharist"???

Praise and love. The communion between the Church and Christ is supposed to resemble the communion between the Trinity.

hmmm "praise and love"

Because your quote above makes it look like they were offering "Christ to Christ"

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
I am not complaining about the idea of church discipline.. I am pointing to the detail that they reference this as the "powers of the priest" and pointing to one detail which is that both Catholics and Protestants agree.. that the Protestants claim no such "powers" for our elders, deacons, pastors etc when it comes to "confecting the body,soul,blood and divinity" of God the Son each week.

Yes, but look...

A great many Protestants believe that the priest or minister does--by officiating at the Lord's SUpper--cause a supernatural event to happen.

Do they claim to have "powers" to "confect the body blood soul and divinity" of the Son of God?

"powers" that they would not lose even if in apostasy??

Moreover, it is not something that a layperson can do.

1. Then no person ever had such "powers"

It is not the power to "confect blah blah blah," but it is something similar.

And you also argue that it is a power that no person has??

 

[☦Marius☦]

If you have some declared protestant (as in real protestant) group claiming that they have priests "with powers" to "confect the body,blood,soul and divinity" of God the son each week... by all means contribute with an actual post that said group would admit to.

Luthrans, Anglicans, and Methodists all believe in the real presence...

What's that Evangelical song?

"Lord prepare me
To be a con-fect-ion-ary"

 

[☦Marius☦]

1. Then no person ever had such "powers"



And you also argue that it is a power that no person has??

Laymen are non priests/ bishops. The apostles we're the first bishops, which is confirmed by both secular and church accounts...

 

[☦Marius☦]

Out of curiosity just "what" exactly do the Orthodox claim they are offering "to Christ" in the Eucharist"???



hmmm "praise and love"

Because your quote above makes it look like they were offering "Christ to Christ"

Christ's sacrifice was love- so therefore we can offer an equivalent in praise and love.

 

[Albion]

Do they claim to have "powers" to "confect the body blood soul and divinity" of the Son of God?

That is the RCC way of describing what they believe about their own priests. As I said in my previous post, many Protestants believe that their priests/ministers have a similar power, while not buying into the RCCs belief about the Mass.

In short, these other priests/ministers have power, but not the exact same as is believed by Catholics. So if you want to argue against the RCC belief, that is one thing; but it appears that you want to say that only they believe their clergy have a spiritual power of some sort. If that is the case, you are mistaken.

powers" that they would not lose even if in apostasy??

In most cases, the answer is No, but there are some churches which would say Yes.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Apostasy refers to the action of the priest in the OP.. excommunication refers to the action of the Catholic Church in response to it.

hopefully we do all agree on that.

Apostacy and rebellion are two different things. A person can get excommuned for many things other than apostacy, which is rejection of the church.

 

[BobRyan]

Apostacy and rebellion are two different things

Well the quotes in the OP reference apostasy and the response to it as being - excommunication. The point was that the reference to the priest as having "powers" to confect the eucharist - which they consider to be the powers to "confect the body blood soul and divinity of Christ".

. A person can get excommuned for many things other than apostacy, which is rejection of the church.

Indeed so there are probably some "other examples" that would bring out your point.