Posted on 05/24/2014 8:26:44 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
If, if IF.
There was no "if" on my part to what you are attempting to suggest or "put words in my mouth" for. I find your proposition to be in part self-refuting...which can be seen when we recognize the meanings changed, along as the words themselves change when shifting from one to another language, even as you wrote the progression out in your own words.
The fallacy being that the usage of the word "priest" (and conceptual equivalents) as it is thought of and used today (and in some centuries past RC history) particularly in the associated "doctrines" and all the rest of the accumulated theological baggage that accompanies the word itself --- were all there from the beginning.
Acceptance for your explanations would lead right to the very etymological fallacy error which daniel1212 covered well enough in reply #182.
Found there also is trace evidence (from historians) that "priesthood" as it came to be known -- was not much at all found in the very earliest Church, even as other particular words themselves were employed as for church shepherding & oversight...which begs questions of how-where-why the later developing applications came into being, which I'll not delve much into for the time being, other than to point out that what can be looked upon as patristic fathers are not precisely the same as directly "Apostolic" ---- being as there is no real guarantee to them having conveyed what was earliest and initially established --- without additions and subtle change having been introduced, and possibly even some redaction when it comes to "tradition", with myself focusing here upon church attitudes/practices in regards to presbyters & elders as more than one of the historians daniel1212 cited has spoken towards. Read 'em and weep.
The very difference of that earliest church...one can still find traces of in the Orthodox "priesthood of believers" descriptive language -- which sort of language was for a large window of time spoken against within Roman Catholicism (and still frequently enough ridiculed on these pages by more than a few FRomans) while sacerdotalism was wielded as powerful psychological weapon against dissent, backed also by weaponry of other sort, including punitive civil aspects, which could include forfeiture of property and even a person's life.
THAT was the system which God intended? It was once vigorously argued within Roman Catholicism that it was.
The "function aspect" is part & parcel to issues of etymology concerning the words under discussion, with again this discussion on this thread being sparked by the false accusations of one of your co-religionists.
Remember too the title of THIS THREAD -- who started this thread, and what sort of other comments have been made by Roman Catholics (who are much ballyhoo'd among themselves as "all agreeing" etc.) for yet wider context.
Being as you had delved into the subject matter of word usage, priesthood & eucharist recently elsewhere, eventually wrapping and blending it all together -- I included addressing portion of of my one of my initial comments towards yourself --- naming you there -- part way through the comment, with the previous portion more addressed to the accuser, and my comments there to her serving as introduction of sorts to that which was further directed more to yourself and your "portions".
But putting that once again aside ... "the early church fathers" you mention do not support your positions to the degree that they would need to, not nearly early enough in the known history to justify Roman Catholic sacedotalism, which aspect itself is the very issue lurking beneath the word usage issue.
Regardless of the degree the various 'Orthodox' have much similar liturgy, the doctrinal differences are enough to present serious challenge to the claims Romanists often make for their own elevated "priesthood" as to those priesthood's alleged "powers" and authority.
One may be able to find liturgy itself much consistent with what is used today -- yet to go from there to assumption that is much equivalent to support of Roman Catholic doctrines concerning such as "Eucharist" (and more also) being in actual application what the Apostles first established, is the very problem I was pointing out.
You may say you "have no problem" with Orthodox approaches towards such things as Eucharist, but Romanist doctrines are markedly different, with yet more additional layers of doctrines not directly linked to "eucharist" doctrines themselves -- but which must be complied with or else one is shut off from communion.
I'm not talking about the error of support for abortion, or sin for having one, or some other sin issue -- for considerations towards those if leading to dis-fellowship are dealt with on a case-by-case basis within whichever ecclesiastical body. Everyone will do as they think they must. So be it.
What does come to mind though in regards to RCC attitudes (if not practice, even if we may need look towards history for the worst applications -- like burning people at the stake for openly disagreeing with "Rome") are dogmas such as "Immaculate Conception" and the demands "all must" submit to the Roman Pontiff and the like, with opposition towards those dogmas if openly expressed would lead to ex-communication.
IF it were true (I say it is not) that only a "priesthood" having what men view as proper enough Apostolic succession can preside over the consecration and partaking of the bread & wine, that would bar everyone not "Catholic" from participation in the Lord's Supper -- which is serious.
Such implications are why I ended a previous note to you with the quote from Kallistos -- having not first encountered that in a book, his own or any other, but told that by an Orthodox 'priest' whom I years ago had occasionally engaged in theological discussion with, with himself bringing that quote to his own lips when we were speaking of the partaking of communion, the differing doctrines associated with that, along with myself giving him testimony of my own personal experience with the Spirit of the Lord, in that type of setting and elsewhere.
Romanist sacredotalism (if it could get away with it) would have it that they alone can provide access to Christ Himself, as the OP of this thread has just repeated.
Making exception for the 'Orthodox', though possibly convenient, by default brings along with it serious challenges to Romanist claims, even as it can lend support for some aspects or limited extent of some others --such as conceptions and beliefs as towards apostolic succession, but still the rocks themselves would cry out if the children (and the throng of the thankful & disciples) didn't.
Did anyone lay hands on those and appoint them to be makers of perfect praise? I know the answer to that one.
God inhabits the praises of His people.
But as with Scripture Tradition and history, a word can mean whatever Rome says it means.
“IF it were true (I say it is not) that only a “priesthood” having what men view as proper enough Apostolic succession can preside over the consecration and partaking of the bread & wine, that would bar everyone not “Catholic” from participation in the Lord’s Supper — which is serious”
You’re right it is serious and that’s why only Catholics can participate in the Eucharist. You want to participate? Become Catholic. But in the meantime I suggest you quit criticizing Catholics for something they have been doing for 2,000 years.
I suggest your own lip -- ZIP IT!
Then READ the entire conversation I had with here with another, and understand it.
Then, with the lip still zipped (when or if thine snout swing towards my own direction) read on Afikoman, begin there and take a three-hour tour digging deep into the subject --- and perhaps the lights will come on, and with light, then you too may "see" what the disciples saw.
They were Hebrews, do not forget, and this was their religion.
Christ spoke to them always in context of that which had come before...
Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”
I have been given grace to eat of the hidden manna. Have you?
But I am not "Catholic" in that I have ever been a Roman one. Yet I have "participated" as have many others not "Catholic" such as you indicate is perquisite ----in which you could not be more wrong.
With the problem there being what comes along with what the "its" are said to mean, and how that is applied amid yet more dogma & doctrine (accumulated "baggage") which in application (here boy, carry all this luggage or ELSE face the wrath of God!) can echo the traditions of the Pharisees in making the laws of God to be of none effect.
Yet despite all of that sort of thing, I do suspect there have always been [Roman] Catholics who were given the grace to themselves eat of the hidden manna.
If one not discerning (actually noticing within themselves) the presence, each and every time partaking of the bread & wine, then I would encourage to not be too overly discouraged ---->for one's hour(s) of visitation may yet come, or come again, whichever the case may be.
If you have ever went up for communion in a Catholic Church and you are not a Catholic you have committed blasphemy.
The Holy Eucharist is reserved for those in full communion with the Catholic Church, i.e., Roman Catholic Church, and by that I mean they believe EVERYTHING taught by the Church. Even Catholics that go up for communion that are not in a state of grace are committing blasphemy.
But you do much prove my points.
Thanks! I'm much obliged.
Are you a member of the Catholic Church, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church?
Hey, Vet, I never said anything about saltine crackers and grape juice. That has been your line, whether responding to me or to others on this thread that you don’t like. That is a leftist ploy...put words never spoken in the mouth of your opponent because it suits your cause.
Your whole ‘message’ is to support the man-made priesthood in the catholic church by ‘ordaining a job’ that ‘can’t be done by the ‘laity’.
I know ‘transubstantiation’, and understand it better than what you probably do. The Lord Jesus himself makes it His body and blood when we partake of it. A priest, or even the pope is powerless to change anything or to make the bread and the wine His body and His blood. Jesus Himself ‘consecrates’ it by the very act of our responding to His charge to ‘do this often in remembrance of Me’.
Jesus Christ Himself is my High Priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedech. And in Rev 1 it says He has made us kings and priests to God and His Father. I accept that, and the power through Him to act as priest in His presence and in the presence of God the Father. No man made church hierarchy can take that away from me.
Melchisedech himself, with Abram, ‘instituted’ the importance of the bread and the wine...See Gen 14:18, ‘And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.’
“The Lord Jesus himself makes it His body and blood when we partake of it”.
Not without an ordained priest to consecrate the Host. Protestants have no idea what is going on at the Holy Eucharist. They don’t even call it that. Other than Lutherans and Anglicans, the other protestant faiths could care less what Jesus said to His diciples. Because they ignore his words. Just more of the “I don’t believe in the Real Presence, I don’t believe the bread and wine is turned into the Lord”. So for you to come along and say Jesus always makes the bread and wine his body when anyone is celebrating it is ridiculus. What you’re saying is if a baptist church brings out a box of saltine crackers and some ripple wine that it is AUTOMATICALLY the blood and body of Jesus. The celebration of the Eucharist is the greatest of all sacraments, and it takes a special, ordained, apostolic priest to conduct this mystery of salvation. Clyde the barber who preaches down at the local baptist church does not qualify.
“Clyde the barber who preaches down at the local baptist church does not qualify.”
You are so crude and so rude, and you do not understand what I have posted to you. Read and weep. You are the loser, not me. I understand, you do not. As I said before, your whole argument is to support the catholic church in their ‘only’ apostolic succession and the ‘priesthood’. That is all man-made theology. You can understand that now, or when you stand before God at the final judgement.
Don’t bother responding.
Don’t bother responding
I'll respond then. If the shoe fits...
The only thing man-made around here is this 500 year old heresy that denies the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
“The only thing man-made around here is this 500 year old heresy that denies the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.”
Of course He is present in the ‘eucharist’, or in communion. There is no communion with out Him present. And btw, where is the word ‘Eucharist’ used in the Word of God?
That requirement is found exactly NO WHERE in Scripture.
It's merely another man-made construct of Roman Catholicism.
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.