Sacerdotalism

[Standing Up]

Yet again, no! See below, and see the addendum...



Addendum: Christ gave His Divine power to "loose and bind" to His Church. The Church exercises this power not only in regard to sin, but also in establishing it's structure and governance. Since the Church, through this divine, Christ given ordinance, ordains men to administer both word and sacrament within His Church, then only those men should do it! While the sacrament may indeed be valid if administered by a layman; the Church has said no; so the answer is no. What is "bound" on earth, is "bound in Heaven".

Yes, there's structure and governance, but didn't the Church tell you also to submit to the bishop of Rome?

Here's the deal. In the OT, there was a "barrier", a mediator between the people and God. God had offered to speak directly, if you hear His voice, but they refused. So God established the unique Levitical priesthood, rather than a nation of priests at Sinai.

We, however, have come to Zion. Jesus is the mediator. We eat at His table, not the other (1 Cor. 10:21).

There is no NT sense of a class of priests intermediating between the people and God again.

Presbyter is elder, not priest.

Didache recogizes only bishop and deacon, no priest.

Clement of Rome recognizes only bishop and deacon, no priest.

Polycarp does not recognize a priest class.

 

[simonthezealot]

Yes, there's structure and governance, but didn't the Church tell you also to submit to the bishop of Rome?

Here's the deal. In the OT, there was a "barrier", a mediator between the people and God. God had offered to speak directly, if you hear His voice, but they refused. So God established the unique priesthood, rather than a nation of priests at Sinai.

We, however, have come to Zion. Jesus is the mediator. We eat at His table, not the other (1 Cor. 10:21).

There is no NT sense of a class of priests intermediating between the people and God again.

THAT IS IT...In a nutshell! Nice post...

None of the sacerdotalist want to accept that it is a barrier yet it is clearly an issue for them, and it is not derived from scripture.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Yes, there's structure and governance, but didn't the Church tell you also to submit to the bishop of Rome?

Here's the deal. In the OT, there was a "barrier", a mediator between the people and God. God had offered to speak directly, if you hear His voice, but they refused. So God established the unique Levitical priesthood, rather than a nation of priests at Sinai.

We, however, have come to Zion. Jesus is the mediator. We eat at His table, not the other (1 Cor. 10:21).

There is no NT sense of a class of priests intermediating between the people and God again.

Presbyter is elder, not priest.

Didache recogizes only bishop and deacon, no priest.

Clement of Rome recognizes only bishop and deacon, no priest.

Polycarp does not recognize a priest class.

THAT IS IT...In a nutshell! Nice post...

None of the sacerdotalist want to accept that it is a barrier yet it is clearly an issue for them, and it is not derived from scripture.

Terminology...

In the early Church, when it was small, the term bishop equates to pastor or priest. Deacons/elders were, and still are assistants to the pastor. Likewise the Pastor is the bishop of his congregation.

We need only to read the Epistles, Acts, and the Seven Letters in Revelation to see that as the Church evolved and grew, there was a need for a unifying form of governance; which the Apostles provided. The term bishop evolved to mean a "Pastor's Pastor"; arch-bishop, the Pastor's Pastor's Pastor; and the Pope/Ecumenical Patriarch/or in our case Synod President, the Pastor of the whole community.

Again, these terms describe offices set up under the Divine authority to loose and bind here on earth.

It does not get any simpler than that.

 

[Rick Otto]

Religioneers thrive on exclusivity & dogma.

 

[Rick Otto]

Terminology...

In the early Church, when it was small, the term bishop equates to pastor or priest. Deacons/elders were, and still are assistants to the pastor. Likewise the Pastor is the bishop of his congregation.

We need only to read the Epistles, Acts, and the Seven Letters in Revelation to see that as the Church evolved and grew, there was a need for a unifying form of governance; which the Apostles provided. The term bishop evolved to mean a "Pastor's Pastor"; arch-bishop, the Pastor's Pastor's Pastor; and the Pope/Ecumenical Patriarch/or in our case Synod President, the Pastor of the whole community.

Again, these terms describe offices set up under the Divine authority to loose and bind here on earth.

It does not get any simpler than that.

Clear as mud.
Oversimplifications don't get simpler than that.
Easy equations grease the clergy/laity division.

 

[Kristos]

You guys are all over the place on this one...

Yes, there's structure and governance,

Put a pin in that. The rest of post is somewhat at odds with it, unless you think that structure and governance is only administrative in nature and not spiritual.

but didn't the Church tell you also to submit to the bishop of Rome?

No, it didn't.

Here's the deal. In the OT, there was a "barrier", a mediator between the people and God. God had offered to speak directly, if you hear His voice, but they refused. So God established the unique Levitical priesthood, rather than a nation of priests at Sinai.

We, however, have come to Zion. Jesus is the mediator. We eat at His table, not the other (1 Cor. 10:21).

This is the Eucharist. The sacrament of the gathering. The offering is made by all and for all. Christ is the offerer and the offeree. The gathering has Christ as its head, the icon of whom is the bishop. Because the bishop cannot be everywhere at once, he authorizes presbyters to act in a limited way in his place. The Eucharistic celebration changes significantly when a presbyter is celebrating, but still in the fulfillment of the sacrament also is the icon of Christ.

There is no NT sense of a class of priests intermediating between the people and God again.

If someone implied this, I must have missed it. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are different. We can only recognize what has been given.

Presbyter is elder, not priest.

If you want to get technical - EO has presbyters, but this is normally translated to priest most likely due to the American hypersensitivity to anything in a foreign language.

Didache recogizes only bishop and deacon, no priest.

Clement of Rome recognizes only bishop and deacon, no priest.

Polycarp does not recognize a priest class.

That's nice. What's your point? That only the bishop should be presiding over the Eucharistic celebration? Back to the pin, the bishop is the spiritual leader of the flock. While certainly his actions should not conflict with scripture, he does have some latitude in his governance. He may recognize the gifts of Holy Spirit in his flock and use them accordingly. This has come to include the delegation of limited sacramental actions to a local presbyter. This does not deny that others in the community may have a similar gift of the Holy Spirit, but according to good order, one is chosen from equals, not by his own merit lest he should boast, but by the Spirit.

 

[Rick Otto]

...he authorizes presbyters ...

The celebration is dependant upon the spiritual leader?

the bishop is the spiritual leader of the flock.

2 or three equals gather & wish to celebrate. What to do?
What may be "hyper" here is a sense or sensation of 'order', and the sensitivity seems to be towards lack of titular & costumed authority figures.

 

[Standing Up]

You guys are all over the place on this one...


Put a pin in that. The rest of post is somewhat at odds with it, unless you think that structure and governance is only administrative in nature and not spiritual.


No, it didn't.


This is the Eucharist. The sacrament of the gathering. The offering is made by all and for all. Christ is the offerer and the offeree. The gathering has Christ as its head, the icon of whom is the bishop. Because the bishop cannot be everywhere at once, he authorizes presbyters to act in a limited way in his place. The Eucharistic celebration changes significantly when a presbyter is celebrating, but still in the fulfillment of the sacrament also is the icon of Christ.


If someone implied this, I must have missed it. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are different. We can only recognize what has been given.


If you want to get technical - EO has presbyters, but this is normally translated to priest most likely due to the American hypersensitivity to anything in a foreign language.


That's nice. What's your point? That only the bishop should be presiding over the Eucharistic celebration? Back to the pin, the bishop is the spiritual leader of the flock. While certainly his actions should not conflict with scripture, he does have some latitude in his governance. He may recognize the gifts of Holy Spirit in his flock and use them accordingly. This has come to include the delegation of limited sacramental actions to a local presbyter. This does not deny that others in the community may have a similar gift of the Holy Spirit, but according to good order, one is chosen from equals, not by his own merit lest he should boast, but by the Spirit.

We pretty much, sort of agree. But Paul to the Corinthians said, brethren, when we come together ... Again, nothing about even a bishop or deacon, let alone a priest. Was Paul confused? Did he not mean what he said?

1 Cor. 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

v 14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
v 15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
v 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
v 17

Folks, the first Passover out of Egypt was done by the household; you are the "priest"; they heard and obeyed. At Sinai, however, because the people refused to hear God's word, He distinguished a Levite priesthood as intermediaries. (Sinai was Pentecost, the giving of the Law. For Christians its the giving of the Spirit. But like them, do we refuse to hear and obey?)

We have come to Zion. Things are different.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The celebration is dependant upon the spiritual leader?
2 or three equals gather & wish to celebrate. What to do?
What may be "hyper" here is a sense or sensation of 'order', and the sensitivity seems to be towards lack of titular & costumed authority figures.

So it seems that you are saying that the Church should deny that mandate of our Lord to loose and bind; and thereby surrender itself to anarchy and pandemonium? In reality all mankind becoming each a "Church" of one?

I'll be honest, I for one already see such anarchy and pandemonium within reformed protestantism; whereas the orthodox, liturgical denominations which hold to the historic forms of structure and governance may not be in fellowship, but agree on everything else at least 95% of the time (considering the size and human diversity within these denominations; it's quit a miracle really). That in itself is quite a contrast when looking at the relationship that reformed protestants have among their denominations.

 

[Kristos]

We pretty much, sort of agree. But Paul to the Corinthians said, brethren, when we come together ... Again, nothing about even a bishop or deacon, let alone a priest. Was Paul confused? Did he not mean what he said?

1 Cor. 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

v 14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
v 15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
v 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
v 17

Folks, the first Passover out of Egypt was done by the household; you are the "priest"; they heard and obeyed. At Sinai, however, because the people refused to hear God's word, He distinguished a Levite priesthood as intermediaries. (Sinai was Pentecost, the giving of the Law. For Christians its the giving of the Spirit. But like them, do we refuse to hear and obey?)

We have come to Zion. Things are different.

No, I don't think Paul was confused and I think he meant exactly what he said. The Eucharistic celebration is the sacrament of the gathering. Why? Because it is also the sacrament of love. Recall my post on John's account of the last supper. The new covenant, the new commandant is the love expressed in the Eucharist. Yes, we...all those in the community, should gather together as the body of Christ. At the last supper, they didn't go around the table, each adding something or saying his own blessing etc - Christ presided. He said the blessing, he gave thanks, he instituted the Eucharist. Now how can we do that in remembrance of him without a presider?

 

[Standing Up]

No, I don't think Paul was confused and I think he meant exactly what he said. The Eucharistic celebration is the sacrament of the gathering. Why? Because it is also the sacrament of love. Recall my post on John's account of the last supper. The new covenant, the new commandant is the love expressed in the Eucharist. Yes, we...all those in the community, should gather together as the body of Christ. At the last supper, they didn't go around the table, each adding something or saying his own blessing etc - Christ presided. He said the blessing, he gave thanks, he instituted the Eucharist. Now how can we do that in remembrance of him without a presider?

Sure. When I come to your house, you preside. When you come to my house, I'll preside. If we meet in someone's building, they'll preside. No problem.

Can we do that? If not, why not?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Sure. When I come to your house, you preside. When you come to my house, I'll preside. If we meet in someone's building, they'll preside. No problem.

Can we do that? If not, why not?

Sure you can; providing you are in full agreement doctrinally; and are doing so on the authority of the Church (called and ordained); outside of that, no.

 

[Standing Up]

Sure you can; providing you are in full agreement doctrinally; and are doing so on the authority of the Church (called and ordained); outside of that, no.

Sounds like a barrier to me.

Have you forgotton who exactly the Church is?

PS Thought this might be useful to explore---

Down to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the eucharistic elements were presented as a thank-offering by the members of the congregation themselves, and the remnants went to the clergy and he poor. In these gifts the people yielded themselves as a priestly race and a living thank-offering to God, to whom they owed all the blessings alike of providence and of grace. In later times the priest alone offered the sacrifice. But even the Roman Missal retains a recollection of the ancient custom in the plural form, "We offer," and in the sentence: "All you, both brethren and sisters, pray that my sacrifice and your sacrifice, which is equally yours as well as mine, may be meat for the Lord."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.vii.xi.html

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Sounds like a barrier to me.

Have you forgotton who exactly the Church is?

No, I have not! Christ is the Church; and we are all members of that body of Christ.

It is obvious that we have a different view of these issues, coming from our different perspectives. What you see as a barrier; I, and most of Christendom view as a unifying factor, and as means of preserving right teaching, and right belief.

I think that in the interest of peace, we should agree to disagree at this point in time. I don't see either of us budging on where we stand!

God bless you, Standing Up

!

 

[Kristos]

Sure. When I come to your house, you preside. When you come to my house, I'll preside. If we meet in someone's building, they'll preside. No problem.

Can we do that? If not, why not?

If we want to join in the heavenly banquet, would we not go to God's house?

I theory I don't see any barrier to your proposition. There no reason why we couldn't agree doctrinally, attend seminary and be ordained, but that is really up to the Holy Spirit.

 

[Kristos]

Sounds like a barrier to me.

Have you forgotton who exactly the Church is?

PS Thought this might be useful to explore---

Down to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the eucharistic elements were presented as a thank-offering by the members of the congregation themselves, and the remnants went to the clergy and he poor. In these gifts the people yielded themselves as a priestly race and a living thank-offering to God, to whom they owed all the blessings alike of providence and of grace. In later times the priest alone offered the sacrifice. But even the Roman Missal retains a recollection of the ancient custom in the plural form, "We offer," and in the sentence: "All you, both brethren and sisters, pray that my sacrifice and your sacrifice, which is equally yours as well as mine, may be meat for the Lord."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.vii.xi.html

Philip must be either confused or only referring to Western liturgical practices here. In the EO, the gifts are still brought to the Church by the people - usually there is a baking schedule to help organize it and let everyone have a chance. The entire Great Entrance is the fulfillment of the gifts being offered by the people - the Church, who by coming together in love become the body of Christ.

 

[Rick Otto]

Does brought to the church equate with bring to the table? Is ther an altar in the EO service like in the RC mass? How do the consecration rituals compare? Is The Great Entrance the delivery from oven to table?

 

[Standing Up]

Does brought to the church equate with bring to the table? Is ther an altar in the EO service like in the RC mass? How do the consecration rituals compare? Is The Great Entrance the delivery from oven to table?

Interesting question about table and altar. There's a difference, but I'm thinking there was confusion somewhere along the line. It appears Paul in Corinthians contrasts the two.

Tabernacle of Moses after the pattern: The Lord's table where the shewbread was inside the veil versus the brazen altar outside the veil.

 

[Kristos]

The gifts would be brought by the faithful to the table of oblation. During the development of the DL in Hagia Sophia during the 4th Century, this was actually a different building and preparation was done by the deacons. The Great Entrance is the procession of the gifts from the table of oblation to the altar. It used to be done by the deacons with acolytes assisting. Now it's done by the presbyter (most parishes don't even have a deacon). The procession still encircles the entire congregation to emphasize that the gifts are being offered by all and for all.