The Errant Origin of the Eucharist & for the Mass In Scripture

[Albion]

And yet the use of that sacrament in practise is of a work which means not of grace since it is originating from the works of catholicism.

When a word has been carried into practise to have a different meaning, the world will go to the original use of the term as used in the RCC as being the correct definition of the term sacrament.

No. That's not the case. I know you worry about it, but that's not the case.

The case is that Martin Luther wasn't done reproving from the words & works of catholicism in keeping the faith which is the good fight. Words and practises have been carried over into Protestant churches that can lead the world into believing that Protestants are doing it as a sacred work also,

Either of the sacraments Christ ordained is a sacred work.

 

[Tellastory]

No. That's not the case. I know you worry about it, but that's not the case.

Either of the sacraments Christ ordained is a sacred work.

Then I rest my case as you have just proven to me that my concern is legit.

I would call water baptism and the Lord's Supper as an ordinance.

Calling water baptism a sacred work, you would be hard pressed in trying to convince anyone that believes it is a necessity for salvation that it is not.

1 Corinthaisn 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

And calling the Lord's Supper a sacred work and thus holy communion can take on a meaning for which the Mass can derive from, it is no wonder why Catholics see no difference in it in spite of the Protestant's declaration of faith as standing apart from the works of catholicism.

Luke 13:26 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. 27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.

Calling a statue sacred makes it an idol. I cannot see how anyone can say otherwise when it comes to calling the bread & the wine sacraments.

 

[Albion]

Then I rest my case as you have just proven to me that my concern is legit.

I would call water baptism and the Lord's Supper as an ordinance.

Of course you would.

Calling water baptism a sacred work, you would be hard pressed in trying to convince anyone that believes it is a necessity for salvation that it is not.

Did anyone say that it is a necessity for salvation? Well, no. Your point was that Christ ordained it but it's not "holy."

And calling the Lord's Supper a sacred work and thus holy communion can take on a meaning for which the Mass can derive from

And it is more likely that it will NOT take on that meaning.

In fact, it does not.

Nor have you even attempted to show how it might.

That's because it's a theory without any substance.

But you don't care about that because your thesis is that if the Catholic Church does anything that's even similar to what the rest of us do, we must all immediately stop following the Bible. I don't consider that to be a sensible POV.

 

[Tellastory]

Of course you would.

Paul used the term ordinance. So why not use that term instead to avoid any misrepresentation?

Did anyone say that it is a necessity for salvation? Well, no. Your point was that Christ ordained it but it's not "holy."

I thank you for bearing with my folly, but Christ never said that water baptism was a holy work and neither was the bread and the wine. When something does not do anything at all, then it is nothing. When a thing does something as in a supernatural way, then that thing is a sacred work and thus a holy thing.

And it is more likely that it will NOT take on that meaning.

In fact, it does not.

Nor have you even attempted to show how it might.

That's because it's a theory without any substance.

But you don't care about that because your thesis is that if the Catholic Church does anything that's even similar to what the rest of us do, we must all immediately stop following the Bible. I don't consider that to be a sensible POV.

The Catholic Church was the first to use that term sacrament. If discernment dictates to drop the term "Mass" in some Protestant circles, then it should follow suit to do the same with Eucharist, sacrament, and the "holy" part of communion.

The thing is... no churches are willing to drop traditional words & phrases that everybody is accustomed to in order to just go with scripture as the way the disciples and the early church had done it.

Alot of believers will defend it by saying that they know in spirit what they mean, but yet still hold to the words and phrases that say otherwise.

The Catholics calls Jesus the Saviour, but they look to the RCC and the works of catholicism within to save themselves by in denying that faith.

How far behind are Protestants when they do not agree with the sacred works of catholicism, but yet carry some of those sacred works over?

My concern is for the people that are on the outside looking in, what are they hearing and seeing when Protestant carry some of those sacred works over? Protestant can say Jesus is the Saviour and that they are saved, but doing sacred works may have them looking like the Catholics.

We can't do God's work. Only God can do God's work. To declare a holy work to be done by the believer's hand ........ how is it possible that God would place His holy work in our hands to do?

John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Answer: He did not.

Water baptism does not save and thus it is not a sacred work.

The bread & the wine is not sacred when it is nothing as it is to be done in remembrance of Him.

A believer can never have particpated in the bread & the wine and still be saved. Having partaken of the bread & the wine does not make the believer any more special than the believer that did not participate.

So the idea of Christ ordaining something as a sacred work is from what? What the church had said that is what Christ has taught? Christ taught us to do good works, which is more than just water baptism and the Lord's Supper, but we do not see the rest of those good works as a sacrament or a sacred work or a holy thing.

Seems the churches after the NT churches have gotten carried away with calling some ordinances or good works a sacred works or holy things.

The only church that would do that would be the one that tried to enslave believers to the works within. That would be the RCC.

I am saying that Martin Luther and the Protestant churches have not protested enough in keeping the faith which is the good fight.

We should say what we mean and not use terms that opposes what we mean if our faith is to shine as standing apart from the "sacred works" of catholicism.

Thanks for bearing with me in my folly, brother. I do love you in Christ, but I am seeing the consequences of ignoring these terms... and like a lobster in a slowly boiling pot, it seems the list of sacraments are growing in the Protestant churches as it has added the sacrament of marriage and the sacrament of infant baptism to that list of water baptism & the Lord's Supper in my former Presbyterian church.

 

[Albion]

I thank you for bearing with my folly, but Christ never said that water baptism was a holy work and neither was the bread and the wine. When something does not do anything at all, then it is nothing. When a thing does something as in a supernatural way, then that thing is a sacred work and thus a holy thing.

Correct. Then we are in agreement about that.

We should say what we mean and not use terms that opposes what we mean if our faith is to shine as standing apart from the "sacred works" of catholicism.

The point is that you and I do NOT believe the same thing. But my belief is not dependent upon what the Roman Catholic Church says, even though you delight in saying that.

 

[Tellastory]

Originally Posted by Tellastory

I thank you for bearing with my folly, but Christ never said that water baptism was a holy work and neither was the bread and the wine. When something does not do anything at all, then it is nothing. When a thing does something as in a supernatural way, then that thing is a sacred work and thus a holy thing.
​

Correct. Then we are in agreement about that.

Are we?

No. That's not the case. I know you worry about it, but that's not the case.



Either of the sacraments Christ ordained is a sacred work.

This is an example of how we say one thing and yet say something else as to doubt what we have said.

The point is that you and I do NOT believe the same thing. But my belief is not dependent upon what the Roman Catholic Church says, even though you delight in saying that.

I do not "delight" in saying it. Just pointing out by His grace & by His help, how you are opposing yourself as do the other churches.

We say one thing, but yet fail to see how we oppose ourselves in another.

I've done it myself which is why I trust Jesus Christ to correct me so that I mean what I say in according to my faith in Jesus Christ with no partiality so that it is understood clearly and without any contrariness that it would be misunderstood.

 

[Tellastory]

Believing in the Eucharist and believing in the Lord Jesus are not at odds with each other.

Scripture says to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no emphasis on believing in the Eucharist other than some reference Jesus had said to the Jews only because they did not believe Him earlier on how they were to receive this living bread and that was by coming to & believing in Jesus Christ. John 6:33-35

John 14:15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."

That saying was in relation to the promise of the permanent indwelling Holy Ghost and if you go back to the first verse, you will see that commandmet repeated on down to verse 15 which is to believe Him.

John 15:20 "If they kept my word, they will also keep yours."

Catholics tend to have an all-of-the-above approach to the words of the New Testament.

No, they do not, especially when they took His words that was spoken to unbelieving Jews to build their false teachings on and not on what He has said earlier in John 6:33-35 or even when He explained to His disciples afterwards that the "flesh" in the eating thereof profits nothing as it is His words as believing in Him is life.

The Mass is actually saying that God the Son's sacrifice for sin is the only thing that's going to prevent us from rotting separated from God for all eternity. All of God's actions are eternal. The Eucharist is not a new sacrifice of Christ. It is the same eternal sacrifice re-presented (not represented) on the altar.

I know it is not a new sacrifice in one regards, but it is new if it is continual as being present at that altar again for that sacrifice again.

If the RCC really believes there is no continual sacrifice for sins, then the Mass would cease to exist, but because the RCC does, then that sacrifice as happening at that moment for a Catholic to partake again is akin to saying that the one before that wasn't good enough and thus insulting to God in every way possible.

Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

That means after having knowledge of the truth that there is no more sacrifice for sins, and yet partake of the Eucharist in the Mass, then that is sinning willfully.

Hebrews 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Anybody wants to say that the one time sacrifice for sin at the cross wasn't good enough? Better reread that consequence again above.

With all of their words and practises, there is nothing simple about the sacraments, the Eucharist nor the Mass that any believer should be a part of.

1 Corinthians 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. 34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

Hebrews 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us:

You having the Holy Ghost means there is no more continual sacrifice for sins that would mimick anything of the Old Covenant as a necessity at all.

Titus 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. 16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Believers in the RCC and catholicism need to leave the RCC now if they wish to declare their faith in Jesus Christ that they are saved and to abstain from the sacrament called the Eucharist which is nothing short but an idol.

1 Corinthians 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. 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? 17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. 22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

 

[Albion]

Originally Posted by Tellastory

I thank you for bearing with my folly, but Christ never said that water baptism was a holy work and neither was the bread and the wine. When something does not do anything at all, then it is nothing. When a thing does something as in a supernatural way, then that thing is a sacred work and thus a holy thing.
​

Are we?

I agreed with your statement here:

When a thing does something as in a supernatural way, then that thing is a sacred work and thus a holy thing.

The sacraments of the Gospel, having been instituted by Christ himself, are certainly holy and you described them yourself.

I do not "delight" in saying it.

I disagree. It's more prominent in your comments than reflections upon the issue itself. Perhaps you will change now that it's been mentioned to you.

 

[barryatlake]

Albion, you know only enough about Catholic teaching to get yourselves in trouble.
If you are so anti-Catholic why then do you accept the Books of the N.T.? Because it was the bishops, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, of the Catholic Church, that compiled the bible.
If you don't believe it was the Catholic Church, then who in Christianity had the authority to determine which books belonged in the NT Canon and to make the decision binding on all Christians? If nobody has the authority [ as according to you ], then can you or anybody remove or add books to the Canon by your our own authority?

How were the bishops at Hippo and Carthage able to determine the correct Canon of Scripture in spite of the fact that they believed all the distinctively Catholic doctrines such as the apostolic succession of bishops, the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, etc?

If Christianity was intended by God to be a "Book Religion" then why didn't Jesus leave us with a completed Holy Bible.?

If Christianity is a "book religion", how did it flourish during the first 1500 years of Church history, when the vast majority of the world's population was illiterate? Hint; the understanding of God's Word was passed on to us by the Apostles [ Luke 10:16 ] [ 2 Thess. 2:15 ] in their preaching and by their replacements /successors [ example, Paul, Barnabas , Timothy, Titus and Matthias [ Acts 13:3, 14:22, 1:24-26, and Titus 1:5 ]

You also mention and criticize the Sacraments so I will address that later.

 

[Albion]

Tellastory and Albion, Blah blah blah, you both know only enough about Catholic teaching to get yourselves in trouble.
If you are so anti-Catholic why then do you accept the Books of the N.T.?

You really should pause and think before making statements like that. I was not only a Catholic longer than you have been, but I taught religion for the church. I guess I don't need to read your blah blah blah further, do I?

 

[barryatlake]

Albion, I doubt very much that you was a teacher of the Catholic faith, for if you really were a competent instructor of Christianity you wouldn't have left Jesus' Church.
Without Christ's Church and following God's plan, the fulness of Christianity will be missed, lack of this vital relationship with God leads to injustice with possibly sacrificing one's salvation. [ 2 Thess.2:15 ]

" For he who despises wisdom and instruction is doomed. Vain is their hope, fruitless are their labors, and worthless are their works. Their wives are foolish and their children wicked; accursed is their brood" [ Wisdom 3:11-12 ]

 

[Albion]

Albion, I doubt very much that you was a teacher of the Catholic faith, for if you really were a competent instructor of Christianity you wouldn't have left Jesus' Church.

Actually, it's been the sharper teachers, like Luther and Doellinger, who saw the light.

Anyway, I know you have to say SOMETHING, don't you?.

 

[shturt678]

Matthew 13:9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. 10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

There is an importance to that reference above because believers really should not have a teaching based on a parable.

The errant origin of the Eucharist & the Mass in scripture is based on an answer that Jesus was giving to the Jews that were not believing what He spoke plainly to them before about that bread of life.

This is what the Jews were not believing in how to receive that bread of life to have eternal life.

John 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

Jesus told the Jews again about how to receive eternal life by believing in Him as that bread of life.

John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life.

From there, Jesus began speaking the hard thing to the Jews because they would not believe Him about how to receive that bread of life. This is where it becomes a parable because they refuse to believe how to receive the bread of life by coming to & believing in Him.

This is also the errant origin of the Eucharist and for the Mass.

John 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Proof that this reference above is why no church should be basing a practise on is when Jesus spoke the truth of that parable to His disciples what He had meant below.

John 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

So once again, Jesus tells His disciples how to receive the bread of life and that is by believing in Him which by declaring to His disciples that some of them did not believe in Him.

He had pointed out earlier that the flesh profiteth nothing, meaning that the eating thereof profits nothing, but believing Him and His words does.

That also means eating the bread & drinking the wine profits nothing as it is to be done in remembrance of Him. That's all it is about.

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Would you rather do a practise that is based on what Jesus has said plainly to His disciples or do a practise as a continual sacrifice for sins that is based on what Jesus had said in a parable to the unbelieving Jews?

I view the "Sacrament" as God's means of grace .... correct? The rites instituted by Jesus ... correct? I call it the "Lord's Supper," and use the other Lutheran terms .... or did I misunderstand you completely regarding the concept of "Sacrament"? Liked Matt.13:9.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Then may the Lord help me to be clearer still.

The term "sacrament" should be dropped. Look up the definition as it varies and why it should be dropped as any seeker will see that term as it would be misrepresenting what the Lord meant for the breaking of the bread to be about.

The same goes for the Eucharist and calling communion as "Holy Communion" as well as when the RCC is naming the event as the Mass.

If a church wishes to be scriptural in her practises, then a reformation is needed, pruning away words with His help and discernment that are not definitive of her faith in Jesus Christ to truly stand apart from being identified with the works of catholicism in the eyes of the world.

As always, these threads seem to be all about anti-catholicism.

The term derives from the Roman word meaning an emblem or symbol.

It does, but meanings and usages do change over time.

Did the apostles use the term ever? Answer: No.

No, they did not; neither did they use the term School-Bus; yet a School-Bus is very real to those who operate, ride, and share the highway with them.

What is the origin of sacrament as introduced into the churches? Answer: The RCC in defining grace as a work by the use of the term sacrament.

At this link below shows why sacrament should be dropped as it equates sacrament even for the Protestant to a work and not just the Lord's Supper, but to baptism as well. Then reading on, we see the works of catholicism. This is proof that Martin Luther was not done reproving from the works of catholicism in keeping the faith which is the good fight.

Sacrament | Define Sacrament at Dictionary.com
<ship>

No, you could not be more wrong (at least from the definition use by Confessional Lutherans), Sacraments/sacramental acts are not works that we do, but are what God does for us, despite us and our sinful nature; they are all about God and not about us. Sacrificial acts are things that we do; prayer, corporate worship (which would include the celebration of the Mass) good works. Such sacrificial acts are not done to earn merit, but are done as a result of our faith.

By the simplest of "the Churches" definition, that is Churches which have retained the teaching and practices of the first Cent. (we know this from writings such as the Didache), going back to Augustine; a Sacrament is a means of grace which uses outward physical signs, and conveys the forgiveness of sins. The Pastor or Priest who administers these sacraments is not doing a human work, but is fulfilling God's command, and is acting as a stand-in for Christ, in his place (in persona Christi), as it is Christ who instituted, commanded and administers the Sacraments.

Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

As I explained above, these are not our works.

<snip>

If the Protestant churches want the Catholic Churches to do away with traditions, words, and practises that are not scriptural and that are opposing themselves by the scripture, then the Protestant churches have to lead by example.

Years ago, I read on the internet that Lutheran leaders in the British Isles now say that it was a mistake to leave the RCC which is to me, evidence of what happens when they do not get rid of the small leaven of catholicism as it will leaven into a whole lump... and yet, we are called to come out of the world so that our light will be seen by men. <snip>

Reformed protestants can do as they please, apart from legalism and personal interpretation, one sect has little in common with others; the diversity in Protestantism is far greater than the diversity noted between Confessional Lutherans, RCs, the Orthodox, and orthodox Anglicans; despite the disunity among our Churches, there remains way more unity than can be claimed by protestants.

My Synod is in full communion with the Lutheran Church in England; we share Clergy and Sem. resources. I believe that your recollection of what you read was incorrect. We did not leave the RCC, we were excommunicated. Read the Augsburg Confession; we did not desire to split, but sought dialogue towards reform. Dialogue was not forthcoming then, however, today our Churches are now on rather good speaking terms.

 

[Albion]

It does, but meanings and usages do change over time.

I suppose, but in this case it's not been changed; it's been misrepresented by a person who's misunderstood the meaning.

Reformed protestants can do as they please, apart from legalism and personal interpretation, one sect has little in common with others; the diversity in Protestantism is far greater than the diversity noted between Confessional Lutherans, RCs, the Orthodox, and orthodox Anglicans; despite the disunity among our Churches, there remains way more unity than can be claimed by protestants.

I always have to smile at the claim made by some Lutherans--the original Protestants and, to some observers, the only Protestants--that they're to be classsified with the EO, RC, Anglicans, and anyone else who can possibly be considered Catholic instead of Protestant.

I have often wondered why there is this desire to deny their own identity.

 

[Knee V]

"Sacrament" is not a "catholic" word, per se; it's just a Latin word. It is the translation of the Greek word "mysterion".

And a "symbol"is not something that merely represents something else. Rather, a "symbol" is something that brings things together, and it is the opposite of "diablos", which is something that divides (which is where we get the word "devil"). And even something that "represents" something is something that re-presents something; in other words, it "presents again" and allows us to partake of that reality.

So yes, the sacraments are "symbols" and "representations". They present to us the reality behind them, and they bring us together with each other and with God.

 

[shturt678]

As always, these threads seem to be all about anti-catholicism.

No, you could not be more wrong (at least from the definition use by Confessional Lutherans), Sacraments/sacramental acts are not works that we do, but are what God does for us, despite us and our sinful nature; they are all about God and not about us. Sacrificial acts are things that we do; prayer, corporate worship (which would include the celebration of the Mass) good works. Such sacrificial acts are not done to earn merit, but are done as a result of our faith.

By the simplest of "the Churches" definition, that is Churches which have retained the teaching and practices of the first Cent. (we know this from writings such as the Didache), going back to Augustine; a Sacrament is a means of grace which uses outward physical signs, and conveys the forgiveness of sins. The Pastor or Priest who administers these sacraments is not doing a human work, but is fulfilling God's command, and is acting as a stand-in for Christ, in his place (in persona Christi), as it is Christ who instituted, commanded and administers the Sacraments.

As I explained above, these are not our works.

Now, I'm taking notes, thank you .... I absolutely agree; however more of a closed communion than you .... doesn't make me correct however.

 

[shturt678]

As always, these threads seem to be all about anti-catholicism.

I strongly feel these threads are also about revealing to the RC their errant inferences regarding their four senses of Actualis gratia, only for starters, compared to Sola gratia. Have almost more difficulties with the modernized Lutherans with their modernized interpretations of Scriptures.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

"Sacrament" is not a "catholic" word, per se; it's just a Latin word. It is the translation of the Greek word "mysterion".

And a "symbol"is not something that merely represents something else. Rather, a "symbol" is something that brings things together, and it is the opposite of "diablos", which is something that divides (which is where we get the word "devil"). And even something that "represents" something is something that re-presents something; in other words, it "presents again" and allows us to partake of that reality.

So yes, the sacraments are "symbols" and "representations". They present to us the reality behind them, and they bring us together with each other and with God.

Well Stated knee-v.

I suppose, but in this case it's not been changed; it's been misrepresented by a person who's misunderstood the meaning.

Agreed.

I always have to smile at the claim made by some Lutherans--the original Protestants and, to some observers, the only Protestants--that they're to be classsified with the EO, RC, Anglicans, and anyone else who can possibly be considered Catholic instead of Protestant.

I have often wondered why there is this desire to deny their own identity.

No Albion, I would hope that you would know me a bit better than that by now. Confessional Lutherans consider themselves "Evangelical Catholics"; catholic but not "Roman Catholic"; orthodox, but not "Eastern (or Oriental) Orthodox. Our theology, as confessed in the 1580 edition of the Book of Concord speaks for itself.

Now, I'm taking notes, thank you .... I absolutely agree; however more of a closed communion than you .... doesn't make me correct however.

Those who know me, know that I am an advocate of closed/close communion. A few, or even many points of theological agreement (but not all) do not support full fellowship of concord. There are Churches with which we share many points of theological agreement with, there are those with whom we share few; in these cases, they and we find that each other hold teachings that are seen as heterodox from each others theological POVs. Even a few points of disagreement preclude full alter and pulpit fellowship, as such would make a statement that we are in full agreement.

I strongly feel these threads are also about revealing to the RC their errant inferences regarding their four senses of Actualis gratia, only for starters, compared to Sola gratia. Have almost more difficulties with the modernized Lutherans with their modernized interpretations of Scriptures.

Yes, you are right; but our reformed protestant brothers and sisters tend throw the baby out with the bath water; denying anything that their particular, logical interpretation sees as "Catholic" or "Roman" in nature, even when the Bible supports such teaching. Because of our theology, I can not condemn the Catholic Church as a whole, but like Luther, I can and do point to those things where we are at odds. Likewise, like Luther, I can and do point also to where we are at odds with reformed Protestantism.

 

[Albion]

No Albion, I would hope that you would know me a bit better than that by now. Confessional Lutherans consider themselves "Evangelical Catholics"; catholic but not "Roman Catholic"; orthodox, but not "Eastern (or Oriental) Orthodox. Our theology, as confessed in the 1580 edition of the Book of Concord speaks for itself.

Well, I'm glad you wrote back. I was surprised at what I thought I was reading, that's for sure, so this clarification is worth having. At the same time, I do know a number of Lutherans who do talk like they are a branch of Catholicism and, therefore, much superior to those "Protestants" who are (I suppose) not liturgical or too emotional or something like that.