Posted on 05/24/2014 8:26:44 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Catholic seem to believe their doctrine supercedes the plain words of Joel, Peter and Paul, which are as follows:
"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call." (Joel 2:32 KJV)
"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Acts 2:21 KJV)
"For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?" (Rom 10:12-15 KJV)
There are no other requirements to be saved.
Philip
Indeed, to KJV accuracy vs. RC compelling Scripture to conform to her, seeing as your PROBLEM is that it was the Holy Spirit who out of the over 150 times archiereus/hiereus (one office: Titus 1:5-7; Acts 20:17,28) occurs in the NT then the Holy Spirit never gives them that title! Any Greek lexicon will tell you that. A priest can be an elder, but elders preceded the Jewish priesthood, and is not the word for priest.
Rcs appeal to dictionaries that trace priests as coming from presbyteros, because that is where it is etymologically derived from, "Middle English preist, from Old English prēost, ultimately from Late Latin presbyter" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/priest).
However, Etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and evolving changes in form and meaning. over time . Etymologies are not definitions.
With "priest," what we have is a etymological fallacy , which is a linguistic misconception, a genetic fallacy, that erroneously holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. This the basis of the fallacious argument for using "priests" for presbuteros, which means "elder/senior." They might as well argue that "apologia" in Scripture (1Pt. 3:15) must mean "to express regret for doing or saying something wrong" since that is a dictionary definition.
How then did presbuteros come to be rendered priest? Because of imposed functional equivalence, not because that is what the word meant in the NT, and was used by the Holy spirit to describe pastors. And He knows better than Rome.
"Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions." — Catholic Greg Dues in “Catholic Customs & Traditions
As R. J. Grigaitis (O.F.S.) states while also trying to justify the use of priest:
"The Greek word for this office is ‘ιερευς (hiereus), which can be literally translated into Latin as sacerdos. First century Christians [such as the inspired writers] felt that their special type of hiereus (sacerdos) was so removed from the original that they gave it a new name, presbuteros (presbyter). Unfortunately, sacerdos didn't evolve into an English word, but the word priest took on its definition." http://grigaitis.net/weekly/2007/2007-04-27.html
"So far as i know, it was only ca. 200 that the term “priest” started to be applied to the bishop and only still later was it applied to the presbyter... When the eucharist began to be thought of as a sacrifice, the person assigned to preside at the eucharist (bishop and later presbyter) would soon be called a priest, since priests were involved with sacrifice." — Raymond Brown (Sulpician Father and a prominent Biblical scholar), Q 95 Questions and Answers on the Bible, p. 125, with Imprimatur.
Some other Catholics also confess that “the Latin word presbyter has no lingual or morphological relationship with the Latin word sacerdos, but only an inherited semantical relationship.” - http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=744379.0;wap2z
As a result of this change, the CE states,
“presbyter soon lost its primitive meaning of "ancient" and was applied only to the minister of worship and of the sacrifice.“ - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm)
Yet as Vines correctly states, "The NT knows nothing of a sacerdotal class in contrast to the laity; all believers are commanded to offer the sacrifices mentioned in Rom. 12:1; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15, 16; 1 Pet. 2:5; (d) of Christ, Heb. 5:6; 7:11, 15, 17, 21; 8:4 (negatively); (e) of Melchizedek, as the forshadower of Christ, Heb. 7:1, 3." -Vine's NT Dictionary.
The only sense in which pastors are priests is by being part of the general priesthood of all believers, as all are called to sacrifice. (1Pt. 2:5,9; Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9)
Nowhere are NT pastors even shown engaging in any uniquely sacrificial function, which was the primary function of priests, and this distinction corresponds to the distinctions in their title. Nowhere are NT pastors shown distributing common bread as part of their pastoral functions, let alone turning it into human flesh and distributing it to be eaten to give spiritual and eternal life. What Rome considers paramount and central and common, the Holy Spirit fails to mention or describe NT church pastors doing.
Unlike hiereus, presbuteros or episkopeō can be used interchangeably without distinction, as one denotes the position (senior) and the other the function (overseer). Titus was to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbuteros] in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop [episkopos] must be blameless...” (Titus 1:5-7)
. Elders are also who were ordained in Acts 14:23, and bishops along with deacons are the only two classes of clergy whom Paul addresses in writing to the church in Phil. 1:1.
Paul called all the presbuteros of Ephesus together and charged them to care for the church of God, which they were made overseers/episkopos, and he himself commend them to God, "and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up..." . (Acts 20:17,28,32)
Titus 1:5,7 also uses the terms synonymously, as does 1Pt. 5:1-2, in which, similar to Acts 20:17,28, the presbuteros functionally act by taking oversight, episkopeō.
Presbuteros are shown being the ones entrusted with money being given to help the impoverished brethren in Judaea. (Acts 1:30)
And that along with the apostles, Paul and Barnabas decides to go committe about a basic matter of contention, that being the apostles and presbuteros at Jerusalem, who together with the community thought it good to send Paul and Barnabas with the sentence of James and the church. But which two men soon split on their own. (Acts 15)
And presbuteros later ill-advised Paul to take a vow involving a Jewish sacrifice in seeking to make peace with the Jews, which attempted admixture almost left the apostle dead. (Acts 21:18ff)
In 1Tim. 5:17 we see that presbuteros labor in word and in doctrine, and as a presbuteros/episcopi Timothy is charged to "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. (2 Timothy 4:2)
Thus once again your argument for Rome is an argument against her.
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"
I wasn’t referring to books of the Bible. It’s sad you believed I was, if that’s actually the case.
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.
So what were you referring to?
Save it.
Where I'm at with this, I have been for a long time (like since '83 or so) -- for what I much base this on is my own experience also, far from the narrow confines of Romanist or Orthodox so-termed "liturgy" which so many are so wrong in believing even that be entirely necessary; to be transmitted by only those whom yourself or others (Roman Catholic or some form of 'Orthodox') approve of, much less there needing be a sacerdotal priesthood to "confect" Christ's presence into the bread and the wine -- or else I myself was made one of those "priests", even by the breath of God Himself.
I wrote to encourage the brethren whom I also pinged, not writing to indicate myself to be joining in with the rest of the bondage which can so often (too often?) be found coiled around the feet of that which is otherwise truly holy -- which holiness some, but not all do find, regardless of all the oh-so-cherished by some others obstacles and distractions which they set up to block off finding Him there (in Catholic setting, as elsewhere also) for sake of or fear that an unqualified-to-their-own eyes individual my find the freely provided Grace of Christ Himself.
He seeks persons out, not because of or for sake of perfection in liturgical presentation, but for sake of His own righteousness despite our own lack of possessing our own righteousness, just as it has been (that the case has been as the brutal truth of the matter) from the time of Moses.
BlueDragon:
Ok, I will save it. If you wrote to encourage your brethren. Why include me??? In the future, if you are writing to encourage your brethren, then I think that would exclude me. Trust me, I will not get my feelings hurt if you leave me out of your pings.
Given your post, the only reason I can see that you pinged me is because you must have felt the need to do so for some reason only you in your heart know. Again, I don’t know why you pinged me, but my hypothesis is you perhaps were hoping to provoke me? draw me into a debate with you?
I understand, you reject the Catholic understanding of Liturgy and Eucharist and I guess after the links I gave you, you pretty much feel the same way about the Eastern Orthodox. Fine you reject it, I accept it.
So Let’s make a deal, no need for you and I do debate our views of Eucharistic theology. My views align with Rome and the Catholic Church, yours I assume align with Reformed-Calvinist views.
I am comfortable leaving it at that.
No. Though if you chose to "be provoked" for what also served as comment towards statements and positions put forth by yourself elsewhere recently, then there is little I can do as to your own choice in reaction.
This began originally as I did say in the first two comments pinged to yourself, that and very much to establish confirmation from yourself (which you did supply twice, than you) that the missing "priest" or "priests" in so-called "Protestant" texts were not some evil plot bias, as hinted towards by the person I also pinged to this comment.
If I rejected it altogether, in toto, then why would I have spoken of those who do find the grace, even the Spirit of Christ in those settings?
You are correct. I pour my heart on these pages, and still you do not understand me.
Myself, and my experience does not fit the "form" and language you are most accustomed to. Perhaps.
Yet I understand you, quite well enough, even to knowing much of what you will say in reply to me, even as I write that which I do.
What is the a Gospel?
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1125082127473
The Gospel of Jesus Christ
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=61000231635
How Can We Witness if We don’t know What the Gospel is?
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=3907235851
Well researched post. Thanks.
BlueDragon:
If all you wanted to state is that the word used in Greek “presbuteros” and that “presbyter” is the Latin equivalent from where the word priest in English is derived. I agree. The word “presbuteros” means literally “elder man” which is what I Stated. So, in that sense, all it is describing is the type of Man who is to be appointed by “Overseers” [Episkopos] or earlier when the Apostles appointed “presbyters”
Had you left it at that, no harm no foul. Yet, you had to get into the “function aspect” of what those “overseers” and “presbyters” did in terms of their ministry. My position, as documented by how the early Church Fathers understood what overseers and presbyters and also deacons were to do in terms of “function” indicates that it was a priestly ministry in that these men were called to lead the entire “priestly people” [1 Peter 2:9] in the Divine Worship [Liturgy] and serve the Christian community in that regard as well as celebrating and administering the sacraments.
Ok, I see the Priestly function of the Clergy as the natural order that Christ handed to the Apostles and they handed to the early Church and that it is for the service of the “priesthood of the entire Church and laity”. You see it is detracting from the “universal priesthood of all believers” in your Reformed Theology. Ok, fair enough. We disagree on that point and will never agree.
So with respect to the discussion about the words “overseer”, presbyter, etc. and how they are translated, there was no bias in using “elder” in protestant Bibles and “presbyter” in Catholic Bibles or “Priest” if that is used given it is the English word derived from the Latin or “overseer” vs. “Bishop”, I would not have responded with “provoke”
When you added your mini diatribe about “sacerdotal” interpretation of the function of what “overseers” and “presbyters” did, that, and only that, is the context of the usage by me of “provoke”. I stand 100% by what I wrote in reference to “priestly function” in terms of ministry [e.g. Ordained are the ones who celebrated and consecrated the Holy Eucharist] and have posted enough on that in earlier posts and I am not going to get into it again here.
Only God has power and authority. He shares His Glory with no one and He is not a man. He made that very clear in the Torah.
The trinity makes zero sense. How can jesus be fully man and fully God at the same time? If jesus was God in the flesh then how could he die? How can he be God and the son of God at the same time?
The reason it makes no sense is because it is a manmade doctrine.
Matthew 28:16-20
The Commissioning of the Disciples.*
16f The eleven* disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them.
17* When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted.
18* g Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19h Go, therefore,* and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20i teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.* And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the footnotes:
* [28:16–20] This climactic scene has been called a “proleptic parousia,” for it gives a foretaste of the final glorious coming of the Son of Man (Mt 26:64). Then his triumph will be manifest to all; now it is revealed only to the disciples, who are commissioned to announce it to all nations and bring them to belief in Jesus and obedience to his commandments.
* [28:16] The eleven: the number recalls the tragic defection of Judas Iscariot. To the mountain…ordered them: since the message to the disciples was simply that they were to go to Galilee (Mt 28:10), some think that the mountain comes from a tradition of the message known to Matthew and alluded to here. For the significance of the mountain, see note on Mt 17:1.
* [28:17] But they doubted: the Greek can also be translated, “but some doubted.” The verb occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in Mt 14:31 where it is associated with Peter’s being of “little faith.” For the meaning of that designation, see note on Mt 6:30.
* [28:18] All power…me: the Greek word here translated power is the same as that found in the LXX translation of Dn 7:13–14 where one “like a son of man” is given power and an everlasting kingdom by God. The risen Jesus here claims universal power, i.e., in heaven and on earth.
* [28:19] Therefore: since universal power belongs to the risen Jesus (Mt 28:18), he gives the eleven a mission that is universal. They are to make disciples of all nations. While all nations is understood by some scholars as referring only to all Gentiles, it is probable that it included the Jews as well. Baptizing them: baptism is the means of entrance into the community of the risen one, the Church. In the name of the Father…holy Spirit: this is perhaps the clearest expression in the New Testament of trinitarian belief. It may have been the baptismal formula of Matthew’s church, but primarily it designates the effect of baptism, the union of the one baptized with the Father, Son, and holy Spirit.
* [28:20] All that I have commanded you: the moral teaching found in this gospel, preeminently that of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5–7). The commandments of Jesus are the standard of Christian conduct, not the Mosaic law as such, even though some of the Mosaic commandments have now been invested with the authority of Jesus. Behold, I am with you always: the promise of Jesus’ real though invisible presence echoes the name Emmanuel given to him in the infancy narrative; see note on Mt 1:23. End of the age: see notes on Mt 13:39 and Mt 24:3.
I don’t care. It contradicts God’s Torah and is thus irrelevant and false to Jews and Noahides.
“But I don’t think they believe in the Real Presence, as in the bread and wine actually becoming the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus.”
No where in the Word of God does it say nor is it taught that the bread and wine ‘become’ the body and blod of my Lord Jesus. Jesus said, ‘This is my body...This is my blood...’
It is, it does not become. Catholics are wrong about transsubstantion, protestants about trasnliteration. It does not become, it does not represent...it is.
Maybe one of the best ways for a protestant to be saved is to never have been a catholic?
“None of them can - for they have no sacrificial priesthood from Christ.”
Pure balderdash. Where is this ‘sacrificial priesthood’ any kind of a Biblical requirement? Oh, Apostolic Succession? More balderdash.
“No where in the Word of God does it say nor is it taught that the bread and wine ‘become’ the body and blod of my Lord Jesus. Jesus said, ‘This is my body...This is my blood...’
I see. When you eat a loaf of bread and drink a pint of wine you are really eating Jesus. Gotcha.
I will pray for you. I don’t think you get it. And you certainly did not excell in your high school debate club.
The point I was trying to make is you are ignorant of Transubstantiation. But what you are trying to say is any time a protestant denomination brings out a few saltine crackers and grape juice and has their version of the Last Supper the saltine crackers and grape juice are really Jesus Christ. Not the way it is. In the Catholic Church, only the priest may consecrate the bread and the wine of the Eucharist. The priest has the power by virtue of his ordination to make Christ present and to reveal his death and resurrection. This power is passed on to him by the Church itself through the sacrament of Holy Orders, linking Church, priest, and laity in the Eucharistic sacrament.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.