I did not intend to imply that you were debating the reliability of the NT, though I did expect that sort of reaction to be part of your own reply. :^')
But thank you for the implied support for the Scriptures not having been in some way secretly altered by "Protestants" with an agenda reaching so far as to having removed the word "priest" where some *think* it should belong, or existed (in the texts) where it never did (other than in Vulgate and translations based fairly singularly upon that text).
Salvation --- Did you get that part? Though CTrent and I do disagree on much (though much of that as to "shadings" of interpretation) we can agree there was not some sort of telling bias which can impute guilt towards "Protestants" as you did appear to have alluded to.
CTrent;
I included yourself since there has been much on-going conversation pertaining to historical etymology of the various words focused upon as used in translations, which in Roman Catholic practice helped to produce/expand upon a sacerdotalism though similar in some regards to Orthodox views, are *not quite* shared with the Orthodox in regards to conceptual belief and practices, at least in regards to what came to be termed Eucharist.
"...In the East, however, the culminating point of the prayer is not in the remembrance of Christ's act but in the invocation of the Holy Spirit, which immediately follows: "Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon the Gifts here spread forth, and make this bread to be the precious Body of Thy Christ... ." Thus, the central mystery of Christianity is seen as being performed by the prayer of the church and through an invocation of the Spirit. The nature of the mystery that occurs in the bread and wine is signified by the term metabole ("sacramental change"). The Western term transubstantiation occurs only in some confessions of faith after the 17th century."
The above view can be seen to align moderately well [enough] with Calvin's own expression of there being pneumatic presence, in that the Real Presence spoken of in regards to Eucharist be of Spirit and not bodily carnal "real presence".
In Luther's own description (in hoping to evade what was thought to by many a "carnal" view or approach among many Roman Catholic of his time) he sought to avoid that perceived-to-be carnal view by using differing terminology than was otherwise common, ending up in net result, favorably comparable to the Orthodox view (as expressed in the above), and Calvin's later writings and description & theology concerning it.
There is room for an overview which Luther, Calvin, and the Orthodox appear to have in effect reached the same basic destination (though using differing rhetorical paths to get there) with that ending destination be in some alignment or overlap with Roman Catholic approach, at least for those Roman Catholics who's own inward thoughts would consider the "under the forms of the bread & wine" to be a "spiritual" sort of presence --- but those (Catholics) blockaded from admitting so using wording similar to Luther's or Calvin's, much for reason of all the acrimony prevalent in those eras which could lead to consequences potentially harmful to one's own health -- like -- a guy could be murdered over it --- killed just for uttering particular wording out loud, if one did so enough.
Though too, it is not merely a matter of wording, but what the wordings can mean as towards ecclesiological consideration, which is the point of all this writing I am here doing. Please bear in mind that 'arguments' I am here presenting, are embedded within and much contained within the supplied embedded links.
Personally, I think I understand (also going by personal experience) and can agree with the Orthodox, Lutheran, & Calvinistic views, seeing them in much agreement among themselves in final result (who can say where the Wind comes from and will eventually go? John 3:8) and with some slight but perhaps significant demurral -- can be in significant amount of agreement with Roman Catholic wording and/or description, as long as the associated theological baggage regarding the consecration and communal consumption of the remembrance of Christ's own sacrifice, "this is my body...broken for you..share this among yourselves" is not entirely Romanist in sacerdotal character.
I would hope that more of my fellow "Protestant" or nominally so, would learn and personally accept a "this IS" His body type of prayerful apprehension towards the fuller and deeper meaning which is (or can be apprehended/discerned) as central to participation in communion.
If this could be but done (and it can be, as God is my witness) while adhering to a forensic or Calvinistic view of justification, boldly approaching the throne of Grace (we are forgiven) then in the hour(s) of visitation which are awaited and sought for, there too in the taking of communion itself, corporately in conjunction with others, the culmination which is reception of the Divine can and will as David wrote, restore his (our) soul.
Yet too, this visitation/restoration of and by His Spirit is not restricted to consumption of consecrated bread, and I do believe that one desperately needs to be born of the Spirit to discern the Spirit present in conjunction with partaking of the bread and the wine, deep calling unto deep as it were, but that depth which answers back the call from Him, not ourselves, but Him (His Spirit) that is within us -- which He alone can send (in the first place) even though this can occur, be transmitted as it were by the laying on of hands by those whom are presbyters & elders of the Church.
As for portion of the remainder of your reply, setting aside considerations towards singular papacy as that came known to be, for the rest;
...I am not certain what you mean other than to be once again doubling down on sacerdotalism as formally spoken of with Roman Catholicism, there being aspects of that which were not exactly present in the earliest Church as that theology within the theology later developed into becoming.
The present day Orthodox witness much refutes (but not entirely) aspects of Romanist sacerdotal teachings & beliefs, by way of the Orthodox mysticism (in regards to Eucharist) which as witnessed --- is not a thing of a pharmacopeia confecting act singularly reliant upon priests themselves as agents whom by their words alone transform or "confect" the visitation (of the Holy Spirit).
As Kallistos wrote in The Orthodox Church page 197;
Not everything received from the past is of equal value, nor is everything received from the past necessarily true. As one of the bishops remarked at the Council of Carthage in 257:‘The Lord said, "I am truth." He did not say, I am custom’ (The Opinions of the Bishops On the Baptizing of Heretics, 30). There is a difference between ‘Tradition’ and ‘traditions:’ many traditions which the past has handed down are human and accidental — pious opinions (or worse), but not a true part of the one Tradition, the essential Christian message.
It is good to keep an eye towards what truly did come before (as regards "tradition") rather than acceptance of all or most of that which has come along since the year 257 if not before, as far back as we can well enough establish --- or else remind for reason of restraint --- to not go beyond or away from that which was presented as Gospel by Paul and the first Apostles, by either additions or redaction.
Those looked upon, became titled as "priests" among the Orthodox, fulfill liturgical leadership role (among other things) among a priesthood of believers.
You may say that this is "the same" as within [Roman] Catholicism, but there are important differences not so easily swept away by short-sightedness & rhetoric.
Protestants are not devoid of recognition towards eldership and presbytery function either, along with recognition of role for deacons, teachers, and for some -- genuine prophetic individuals also if thusly gifted (but those rarely if ever seen as infallible, for they are not) when those are at all recognized; rather than prophetic leading be only a corporate thing. Still if one prophesy, let another judge, as it is written.
As Kallistos Ware famously remarked;
"We can say where the Church is, but we cannot say where she is not"
BlueDragon:
No, I don’t think Protestants secretly altered the words with respect to Priests. Never said that. That would be a false accusation.
The quote you use from the Eastern Orthodox Church is not a problem for the Catholic Church. Transubstantiation is clearly only a Latin Theological term. In this sense, Rome would not ever require the Orthodox to use that term to describe what happens during the Eucharistic prayer. For the record, what you are describing with the quote
“In the East, however, the culminating point of the prayer is not in the remembrance of Christ’s act but in the invocation of the Holy Spirit, which immediately follows: “Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon the Gifts here spread forth, and make this bread to be the precious Body of Thy Christ... .” Thus, the central mystery of Christianity is seen as being performed by the prayer of the church and through an invocation of the Spirit. The nature of the mystery that occurs in the bread and wine is signified by the term metabole (”sacramental change”). The Western term transubstantiation occurs only in some confessions of faith after the 17th century.”
is the Epiclesis [calling upon the Holy Spirit. If you read the links below under the label “epiclesis”, you will see the same notion of calling upon the Holy Spirit in all Catholic Liturgical prayers.
http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/RM3-EP1-4.htm
Where Catholic Theology differs from the Eastern Orthodox, only in degree, not substance, is that Catholic theology uses the term “transubstantiation” to describe the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Orthodoxy does not attempt to define it, but leaves it in the realm of Holy Mystery.
Below are links to one of the chief Liturgies of the Orthodox Church, the first 1 is the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrystostem. The 2nd Link is a theological explanation from the Orthodox Church of America on the Eucharist. Nothing in it that I was a Catholic disagree with. The 3rd link is from the Orthodox Church of America regarding Holy Orders [Bishops/Priests/Deacons]. Again, nothing that I disagree with as a Catholic. The 4th link is an Orthodox explanation of the epiclesis, which I linked earlier in the context of the Roman Liturgy and Catholic Church. Link is one on the Eucharistic prayer. Nothing again that presents a problem for me as a Catholic. In fact, the Orthodox priest is saying the Eucharist ad orientalem, which is the classic posture in the Roman Rite before the change at Vatican II whereby the Priest faced the assembly vs facing “allegorical East”
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/liturgy/liturgy.html
http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/holy-eucharist
http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/holy-orders
http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-divine-liturgy/epiklesis
http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-divine-liturgy/eucharistic-canon-anaphora
The Catholic Liturgy is linked below, if you look at it, the basic structure of the Roman Liturgy is the same as the Orthodox Liturgy. Where the Eucharistic Rite is in the following link, the Eucharistic prayers that I linked earlier are what is said at that part of the Liturgy.
http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/Mass.htm#Introductory
Now in closing, I do see you are moving more and more to a Liturgical and sacramental understanding of the Eucharist. That is a good thing. I have read every Liturgical writing in the patristic period and all of them are in the basic structure and in fact, have specifically the same prayers, as the Roman Liturgy of today. The Didache, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome and Cyril of Jerusalem all have Liturgical writings. So proper worship is Liturgical, and for me Catholic Liturgy, which is centered on the Eucharist and a set order of prayers that conveys the “symbola” of faith [Creeds, etc] and the public reading of scriptures, all together is true worship. Orthodox have true worship and for that reason, the Catholic Church sees the Orthodox as having valid Eucharist. Now, among the Protestants, the Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed all are closer to historic worship than the rest of Protestants. All of them retain some degree of Liturgy with Eucharist, Creed, Scripture. Protestantism beyond those 3 and what they call worship is only partially worship. All it really involves in Teaching a sermon and songs. That is partially worship but not Liturgy. Now, those who go to those types of Protestant churches I am sure are going in good faith, but the early Church was a Church that viewed Liturgy as the most important action of the Church, the worship of God a the public Liturgy and the celebration of the Eucharist.
So, I think while you and I will not totally agree, I do detect in you and stronger belief in the Eucharist and Sacramental Presence of Christ than maybe you had earlier in your life. Assuming that is true, then one thing that can help is for some of the more Liturgical Protestants who actually do read the Church Fathers and say the Creed to call out the Protestants here who attack Catholics and our doctrine of the Eucharist. Things like Killing Christ again or re-sacrificing Christ and cannibalism, etc, is excessive rhetoric that makes this place a zoo at times.
I think any honest reading of the NT Gospels and Saint Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians will see a strong foundation for Eucharistic Doctrine. A reading of the early Church Fathers will only reinforce that an indicates how men who new the Apostles viewed the Liturgy [i.e. Clement of Rome most likely new Saint Paul], Saint Polycarp was a disciple of Saint John, and Igantius of Antioch was a pupil of Polycarp, etc. and thus the Eucharist. The Liturgy and Eucharist are continually written about throughout the Patristic period and the Canons of all the Councils have in their canons teachings about the Eucharist and other sacraments.
So the Catholic position on the Eucharist is well founded as is the Orthodox. For protestants who have a view of real presence of the Eucharist that is not quite 100% the Catholic view or even the Orthodox view [I believe theirs is 100% consistent with ours], yet still hold to sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist [as many Anglican, Lutheran and Reformed actually do], I have no problem with you guys stating something to the effect that I think the Catholic view of the Eucharist has a basis in the NT and Church Fathers [we also see a sacramental or real presence], I just think that Catholic theologians of the 2nd millennium in trying to define what happens during the “epiclesis” was not something that needed to happen because any term you use [in this case Transubstantiation] would never be adequate enough to fully define it. That is a fair criticism and one that I think the Orthodox actually hold to. They just leave it as a Holy Mystery, don’t define what happens in the epiclesis, but again, they end up in the same place as we Catholics do in terms how they understand the Real Presence of Christ, it is under the forms of bread and wine, his true Body and Blood.