- Status
G
gcnuss
Guest
Semper Fi,
Could you elaborate on what you think makes a Lutheran Church “really Lutheran?”
G
GKC
Guest
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Well, for instance… they accept political correctness, false ecumenism and secularism higher than their religoius doctrine. They have a liberal stance on abortion, have female clergy, open communion, homosexual clergy, etc.
It’s more like a denomination which promotes a secular agenda rather than a Christian agenda and has the attitude that “Jesus is good for me when I need Him” sort of stance on Christianity.
As for represantatives of Lutheranism who actually hold to the Lutheran confession, I would consider the Missouri or Wisconsin synods if I was going to become Lutheran.
P
Paleolutheran
Guest
Please Alegre,
We…DO HAVE CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST. We do NOT reject his clear “THIS IS MY BODY” “THIS IS MY BLOOD.” We simply don’t accept the Roman Catholic injection of Aristotelian metaphysics to explain this. We reject the term and terms within “transubstantiation,” minus the “substance” in the fathers (but with a different meaning than the Roman Church). Christ was asked who the best one was in Matthew 18…Jesus main message here was that those who are humble as a child were greatest in the kingdom of Heaven.
I am aware that the term evangelical came from the catholic faith…since the Gospel is also called the Evangel. Luther wanted the church who followed his teachings (after reunification with the Roman church seemed impossible) to be called Evangelical Catholics, evangelical because of the message of the Gospel and catholics because the Confessions are a return to the theology and traditions of the early universal church some time before the Great Schism in 1054.
I do not doubt Jesus when he says the gates of Hell will not prevail against his church. I see that as the Una Sancta, the invisible church on earth and in Heaven. My view has no problem…the Roman view does. The Roman view is that they are the true church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it, however the Bishop of Rome at the time of the Great Schism excommunicated the Eastern patriarchs and they excommunicated him…and they still use that verse as you are using. So my question to you is…which of the two “lungs of Christendom” have the gates of Hell prevailing against them? They can’t both be right, yet their excommunication of the Bishop of Rome was entirely legal and right in the context of the unabashed insertion of the filioque into the Nicene Creed illegally (regardless of if the doctrine is true or not).
Jesus did not tell the children that Peter was the rock on which he will found his church…he said that in the presence of all the disciples and in the context of Peter’s confession of faith: “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” HOWEVER, in light of the passages “feed my sheep, care for my sheep” those three affirmations of Christ that precede Christ’s statements are undoing the three denials Jesus fortold.
You also seem to forget that Christ told ALL the disciples that they had the keys of the Kingdom…and that is also in reference to what He said in Matthew 18 right after the question of who was the greatest that in the context of church discipline a decision to expel a brother is only valid when several members decide it…because where two or three are gathered in His name He is there. Again…equality of bishopS…not authoritarian primacy of one. That is why, while I view St. Peter as a great Apostle and martyr, one of Christ’s three closest disciple’s friends, one of the greatest leaders of the early church, the first Bishop of Rome, etc. But he did not have a primacy of authority…IF HE DID…he would have used it when he was sure of his position at the Council of Jerusalem against St. Paul. Instead St. Peter admitted he was wrong about circumcision and assented to the decision of the council.
Pax Christi,
Chris Heren
P.S. Jesus loves all mankind, not just children, and needing more than one sentence to explain why I am not Roman Catholic isn’t lack of maturity of faith, it shows that I have friends who are in almost every denomination or non-denomination in Christendom, ecumenism is a close love, and I myself have analyzed my beliefs and continue to analyze constantly. If I am condemned for not being on the Mother Ship, I assent to God’s will if that is His will. To God alone be the glory and honor forever.
We…DO HAVE CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST. We do NOT reject his clear “THIS IS MY BODY” “THIS IS MY BLOOD.” We simply don’t accept the Roman Catholic injection of Aristotelian metaphysics to explain this. We reject the term and terms within “transubstantiation,” minus the “substance” in the fathers (but with a different meaning than the Roman Church). Christ was asked who the best one was in Matthew 18…Jesus main message here was that those who are humble as a child were greatest in the kingdom of Heaven.
I am aware that the term evangelical came from the catholic faith…since the Gospel is also called the Evangel. Luther wanted the church who followed his teachings (after reunification with the Roman church seemed impossible) to be called Evangelical Catholics, evangelical because of the message of the Gospel and catholics because the Confessions are a return to the theology and traditions of the early universal church some time before the Great Schism in 1054.
I do not doubt Jesus when he says the gates of Hell will not prevail against his church. I see that as the Una Sancta, the invisible church on earth and in Heaven. My view has no problem…the Roman view does. The Roman view is that they are the true church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it, however the Bishop of Rome at the time of the Great Schism excommunicated the Eastern patriarchs and they excommunicated him…and they still use that verse as you are using. So my question to you is…which of the two “lungs of Christendom” have the gates of Hell prevailing against them? They can’t both be right, yet their excommunication of the Bishop of Rome was entirely legal and right in the context of the unabashed insertion of the filioque into the Nicene Creed illegally (regardless of if the doctrine is true or not).
Jesus did not tell the children that Peter was the rock on which he will found his church…he said that in the presence of all the disciples and in the context of Peter’s confession of faith: “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” HOWEVER, in light of the passages “feed my sheep, care for my sheep” those three affirmations of Christ that precede Christ’s statements are undoing the three denials Jesus fortold.
You also seem to forget that Christ told ALL the disciples that they had the keys of the Kingdom…and that is also in reference to what He said in Matthew 18 right after the question of who was the greatest that in the context of church discipline a decision to expel a brother is only valid when several members decide it…because where two or three are gathered in His name He is there. Again…equality of bishopS…not authoritarian primacy of one. That is why, while I view St. Peter as a great Apostle and martyr, one of Christ’s three closest disciple’s friends, one of the greatest leaders of the early church, the first Bishop of Rome, etc. But he did not have a primacy of authority…IF HE DID…he would have used it when he was sure of his position at the Council of Jerusalem against St. Paul. Instead St. Peter admitted he was wrong about circumcision and assented to the decision of the council.
Pax Christi,
Chris Heren
P.S. Jesus loves all mankind, not just children, and needing more than one sentence to explain why I am not Roman Catholic isn’t lack of maturity of faith, it shows that I have friends who are in almost every denomination or non-denomination in Christendom, ecumenism is a close love, and I myself have analyzed my beliefs and continue to analyze constantly. If I am condemned for not being on the Mother Ship, I assent to God’s will if that is His will. To God alone be the glory and honor forever.
P
Paleolutheran
Guest
Semper’s right. A quia subscription to the “LUTHERAN” Confessions is what makes a Lutheran church “really Lutheran (they are a faithful exposition of Scripture).” ELCA accepts the Lutheran Confessions “in so far as they are in agreement with Scripture.”
Pax Christi,
Chris Heren
P
Paleolutheran
Guest
GKC,
I understand that Christ is not sacrificed again…but he is offered up again. Hebrews 10:3-18 to me indicates that Christ is not offered up again either. I also don’t see it as the priest’s responsibility to offer Christ up to the Father because that is what Christ himself did on the Cross by His own action. All we do is accept that gift, we don’t offer Him up again…for if it is the same sacrifice as Calvary, it is the same offering of Christ’s from that time as well.
Pax Christi,
Chris Heren
C
ctos
Guest
But who are we to ‘accept’ or ‘reject’ something? Isn’t it a question of faith? How could any but the Catholic Church carry the faith fully back to Christ? “Transubstantiation” is just a name for what occurs: accidents are the same, substance is changed. Where is the controversy? Why not believe, in order to understand?
G
GKC
Guest
PL,
I suspected you had that level of sophistication, and that I wasn’t really telling something new.
Your last sentence is exactly correct. It is the same offering. The very same. But “time” is no part of it. The same sacrifice, the same offering.
In Anglicanism, there is the concept of another sacrifice, but it is ours; our bodies and souls. But the sacrifice of the Mass is the original sacrifce and offering. In all respects. Not one now, and one then. The same.
The concept of the sacerdotal priesthood is one that distinguishes the Lutheran understanding from the Anglo-Catholic and RC understanding.
BTW, I like your posts.
Pax tecum, frater.
GKC
Anglicanus Catholicus
P
Paleolutheran
Guest
Ctos,
You don’t seem to be following me. The Roman Church only at the Council of Trent (which is nowhere near the time of Christ) separated the “substance” and the “accidents” of the elements in the Eucharist AS DOGMA. Before that time it was an opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas that the substance of the bread and wine were destroyed (what they actually “WERE”) and the body and blood of Christ replace them, and the accidents (what are perceived) remained unchanged.
That understanding of the Eucharist, based on Aristotelian metaphysics is an innovation of St. Aquinas and goes contrary to the fathers who, while they said the bread and wine substantially change, simply defended the Real Presence, which Lutherans accept. To remain faithful to the fathers, we must ALSO look at how they saw using scholasticism in understanding the mystery of the Eucharist:
“We must reverence God everywhere. We must not contradict him, when what he says seems contrary to our reason and intelligence. His words must be preferred to our reason and intelligence. This ought to be our behavior to the Eucharistic mysteries too. We must not confine our attention to what the senses can experience, but hold fast to his words. His word cannot deceive”-St. Chrystostom. HOWEVER, it was not until Pope Paul effectively used Papal authority to alter the meaning of the Greek word to what it is now.
THAT is the controversy. The fathers all taught that the Eucharist as a mystical participation in Christ’s body and blood, not a scholastic exercise to explain the Real Presence. At the Council of Trent (after Luther was excommunicated I might add), did this opinion contrary to the fathers become Dogma. Luther did not change anything, and his teaching on what happens to the bread and wine are VERY similar to the Eastern Orthodox view which, even though they will use the WORD transubstantiation, detest the scholastic intrusion on the mystery.
Pax Christi,
Chris Heren
C
ctos
Guest
Why can’t the Catholic Church clarify over time, show the application of different modes of thought, etc.? As the thinking of people became more detailed, the difference between “accidents” and “substance” was observed, and this was incorporated into the teaching of the Church in the appropriate way. It remains a mystery, as we say at Mass. It is not intended as a scholastic exercise. And anyway, who has the keys to the kingdom? 
He who hears you, hears me. Why do we think that we can insist on one understanding or another?
He who hears you, hears me. Why do we think that we can insist on one understanding or another?
C
ctos
Guest
I always wonder: what is a person’s real motive in disputing a teaching of the Catholic Church. For example, take this matter of the Eucharist, and whether it reflects “transubstantiation” or rather should be taken as a mystery without any application of or use for scholastic terms. The fact is, when we look at the piece of bread, we really have no idea what it is. We know through our understanding, which is guided by our faith. It is in faith that we know that it is more than bread. How much more than bread is it? Again, faith should guide our understanding.
These little disputes all seem to be based on a person taking some aspect of the faith, and applying independent reason to it, thinking for himself. So the question in my mind is always, what happens in that person to make them try to reason independently of the Church? [Now of course they’ll say that they aren’t reasoning independently of the Church, they are reasoning consistently with the Church, and if only the “Roman Church” weren’t misguided they (we) would see this.]
Luther was rightly scandalized by some of what was going on in his day. Fine. There was bad stuff happening. IIRC he tried to call for a council, but conditions were difficult throughout that time. But I think his intellect basically just came apart at the seams. He was so upset at the problems he saw, that he suffered maybe even from “intellectual desolation”. And he solved his problem by reasoning independently.
People may genuinely believe that they dispute what the Church has done. But I think what really happens under the hood is that they aren’t reasoning with faith. In faith there is no room for disagreement. It is not hard to see the dogmatic definitions at Trent as consistent with the Faith. The Church clarified. Did the early Christians have a word for “Mother of God”? or “Assumption”? As time goes along, the Faith is clarified. Those of true faith stay with Holy Mother Church.
To go back in time and say that the Church was dallying with rationalism or whatever… these are arguments that try to undo the sausage that was made, because someone now wants a different sausage.
But it’s not even that messy. The Church does not promote error. Period.
Luther was not an especially holy man. That in itself casts great doubt on his case. He is legendary for his foul mouth, and for the aspersions he cast on the Holy Father.
These little disputes all seem to be based on a person taking some aspect of the faith, and applying independent reason to it, thinking for himself. So the question in my mind is always, what happens in that person to make them try to reason independently of the Church? [Now of course they’ll say that they aren’t reasoning independently of the Church, they are reasoning consistently with the Church, and if only the “Roman Church” weren’t misguided they (we) would see this.]
Luther was rightly scandalized by some of what was going on in his day. Fine. There was bad stuff happening. IIRC he tried to call for a council, but conditions were difficult throughout that time. But I think his intellect basically just came apart at the seams. He was so upset at the problems he saw, that he suffered maybe even from “intellectual desolation”. And he solved his problem by reasoning independently.
People may genuinely believe that they dispute what the Church has done. But I think what really happens under the hood is that they aren’t reasoning with faith. In faith there is no room for disagreement. It is not hard to see the dogmatic definitions at Trent as consistent with the Faith. The Church clarified. Did the early Christians have a word for “Mother of God”? or “Assumption”? As time goes along, the Faith is clarified. Those of true faith stay with Holy Mother Church.
To go back in time and say that the Church was dallying with rationalism or whatever… these are arguments that try to undo the sausage that was made, because someone now wants a different sausage.
But it’s not even that messy. The Church does not promote error. Period.Luther was not an especially holy man. That in itself casts great doubt on his case. He is legendary for his foul mouth, and for the aspersions he cast on the Holy Father.
K
KnightErrantJR
Guest
I grew up as a Missouri Synod Lutheran, went to a Lutheran grade school, and had several confirmation teachers, including my pastor, so impressed with my work in confirmation class that I was hounded for quite some time to become a pastor.
That having been said, a great number of questions arose in my mind over time, and they are the reasons that I have become Roman Catholic. I don’t say any of these thigns out of disrespect, but because they are matters that concerned me and are important to me now.
While I always felt like the Lutheran church was “more right” than other protestants, and I was always bothered by the disregard in other protestant denominations for the Lord’s Supper and a structured liturgy, I also felt like there were a lot of issues not covered by the Lutheran church.
Here is one that took me quite a long time to fully be able to elaborate:
If I go to church, as a Lutheran, every week, and listen dutifully, and read my catechism, and I accept that there are only two sacraments, then why can I not declare myself a pastor? If Apostolic succession is as loose as Lutheran’s define it, then the pastor’s call to "go forth and make desciples of all nations should be enough.
If I am therefore able to do this, then I can say the Words of Institution and “make” the bread and wine the body and blood, although the way I was taught, often, as a point of faith, was that without a person receiving the Body and Blood, in faith that it IS the Body and Blood, then it isn’t really the Body and Blood. I could have been taught improperly, but I was indeed taught that the Body and Blood are not present until they are recieved by someone that beleives that they are (or can be) the Body and Blood. If this is the case, why can’t I hand anyone that is Lutheran a piece of bread and declare it the Body of Christ?
Finally, if I also accept that there are only two sacraments, then why can I not find a nice woman that likes me, and the two of us can declare that we are married? If there is no sacramental marriage, then why isn’t marriage just an agreement? In fact, even if were to be a sacrament, in the Lutheran understanding of it, using the example of the Lord’s Supper, why would it not be a valid marriage if two people agreed that they were married?
The importance of Apostolic progression and an ordained priesthood is the difference between having a lot of “nice” traditions that are increasingly seen as symbolic, and having a Church that has lasted 2000 years, and continues to be the baseline against which Christians who have not accepted the fullness of the Church measure their faith, conciously or not.
That having been said, a great number of questions arose in my mind over time, and they are the reasons that I have become Roman Catholic. I don’t say any of these thigns out of disrespect, but because they are matters that concerned me and are important to me now.
While I always felt like the Lutheran church was “more right” than other protestants, and I was always bothered by the disregard in other protestant denominations for the Lord’s Supper and a structured liturgy, I also felt like there were a lot of issues not covered by the Lutheran church.
Here is one that took me quite a long time to fully be able to elaborate:
If I go to church, as a Lutheran, every week, and listen dutifully, and read my catechism, and I accept that there are only two sacraments, then why can I not declare myself a pastor? If Apostolic succession is as loose as Lutheran’s define it, then the pastor’s call to "go forth and make desciples of all nations should be enough.
If I am therefore able to do this, then I can say the Words of Institution and “make” the bread and wine the body and blood, although the way I was taught, often, as a point of faith, was that without a person receiving the Body and Blood, in faith that it IS the Body and Blood, then it isn’t really the Body and Blood. I could have been taught improperly, but I was indeed taught that the Body and Blood are not present until they are recieved by someone that beleives that they are (or can be) the Body and Blood. If this is the case, why can’t I hand anyone that is Lutheran a piece of bread and declare it the Body of Christ?
Finally, if I also accept that there are only two sacraments, then why can I not find a nice woman that likes me, and the two of us can declare that we are married? If there is no sacramental marriage, then why isn’t marriage just an agreement? In fact, even if were to be a sacrament, in the Lutheran understanding of it, using the example of the Lord’s Supper, why would it not be a valid marriage if two people agreed that they were married?
The importance of Apostolic progression and an ordained priesthood is the difference between having a lot of “nice” traditions that are increasingly seen as symbolic, and having a Church that has lasted 2000 years, and continues to be the baseline against which Christians who have not accepted the fullness of the Church measure their faith, conciously or not.
A
AlegreFe
Guest
I don’t doubt your belief. I believe that you have faith and believe what Jesus said when He said “this is my body… this is my blood.” There’s no problem there. The problem lies in the fact that the Lutheran church does not have validly ordained Priests and there is no apostolic succession either. And because there are no validly ordained Priests in the Lutheran church there is no Eucharist; I mean the real Eucharist as in the real presence of Jesus Christ.
As far as the rest of your post, I don’t want to go on and on as I can see where this will be going. We will never agree and so I just leave this in God’s hands. I pray that God open up your eyes, mind and heart so you can see the fullness of Truth in the Catholic Church.
A
AlegreFe
Guest
Let me get this straight… you believe that if someone (of any denomination) has faith and believes that the bread becomes the body and blood of our Lord then it is; is that right, is that what you believe?
In the Catholic Church if a validly ordained Priest celebrates the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass but does not believe in the real presence, the host is still transubstantiated into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. The consecration is NOT contingent on the Priests faith of the real presence. I thank God for that because if that was the case, I would have some doubts at times if I was indeed receiving Jesus in the Eucharist or if I was just receiving a symbol.
Sound strange? Well not really if you think about it and know about “In Persona Christi.” It is not the Priest but Jesus Christ Himself standing at the altar and He only does this for the validly ordained Priests. Christ instituted His Ministerial Priesthood at the Last Supper. At that same time, He instituted the Holy Eucharist. The only ones there in the room were the Apostles and Jesus Christ. So unless a person was ordained by a Bishop that succeeds the Apostles, then there is no Priest and there is no Eucharist.
It is obvious that God has given you the gift of Faith and He let you see the Fullness of the Truth of the Catholic Church. I pray that your faith remain as strong as God wills it to be.
K
KnightErrantJR
Guest
I was probably unclear as to my actual feelings, as I was trying to be clever, and I’m sorry about that. I understand the teachings of the Catholic Church and fully embrace its teachings. I was trying to explain some of the thought process that led me to think that my previous, Lutheran faith had been flawed.
Sorry for any confusion.
Sorry for any confusion.
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
As per in Persona Christi (“In the Person of Christ”) it isn’t the Priest who offers the Sacrifice to the Father, it IS Christ. That is what the Priesthood is about.
G
GKC
Guest
I
Iowa_Mike
Guest
One thing I haven’t seen discussed here is Apostolic Succession. Jesus, at the last supper, instituted the Eucharist and established the priesthood.
With respect, from a Catholic perspective, since priesthood stems from the Last Supper and has passed down through Apostolic Succession within the Catholic Church, how can a Luthern minister say a valid mass?
Iowa Mike
The bishops are the successors of the apostles and the bishops [CC 861] ordain Catholic priests. In the Catholic Church only one who has received the sacrament of Holy Orders can say a valid mass. We Catholics believe…no priest…no mass…no Eucharist.
With respect, from a Catholic perspective, since priesthood stems from the Last Supper and has passed down through Apostolic Succession within the Catholic Church, how can a Luthern minister say a valid mass?
Iowa Mike
P
Paleolutheran
Guest
All,
I am somewhat confused. How, when Jesus instituted the Supper did He also institute the historic sucession of bishops? I know Acts does help verify the idea, and it was also agreed upon by the early Lutheran church, but the question to bear in mind is not just whether the Lutheran church is apostolic, but is the Roman Church from the Reformation till now? What is Papal Primacy and when, if it were used in the early church would we have vastly different doctrine than we do?
It has been argued that the Keys of the Kingdom were given to just St. Peter, but this is made false by the later passage where Christ gives the authority to bind and loose sins to the decision of a minimum of two disciples. Luther wanted the equality of Bishops as it was practiced in the early church councils. If the early councils had practiced the primacy as it is now practiced, Pope Honorious would never have been excommunicated after his death, nor condemned by Constantinople III! Instead Honorious would have stayed fast in his heretical beliefs because he was St. Peter’s successor. Clearly the early church did not recognize that St. Peter’s sucessor was infallible in matters of doctrine…it was the CHURCH represented by the bishops, EQUAL in authority, who were infallible in such matters.
We as Lutherans accept any ordination done in a priest’s church to be true by divine right. Hence, we do have an Office of the Holy Ministry, but it is not a sacredotal priesthood because all Christians are priests (1 Peter 2:9-10) with Christ as the sole High Priest (Hebrews 9). While I understand that the priest stands in for Christ during the Mass, Christ never hinted that that is what his disciples should do…they should merely do what Christ did in remembrance of Him. In other words, this is a gift, given to us, not offered as Christ did on the holy cross. I would also point out that the Didache which is very possibly the teachings of the Twelve with regard to worship, does not have a portion where the priest offers sacrifice…in fact the two chapters on the Eucharist begin with “Now concerning the Eucharist, give THANKS this way,” indicating that it is not a sacrifice redone or reoffered, but a gift to be received from the one true sacrifice. Indeed even the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom mentions a bloodless sacrifice of spiritual worship during the Eucharist…this we do not deny, and indeed practice…but to reoffer Christ outside of time as has been mentioned earlier still makes it a bloody sacrifice!
It has also been said that only a truly ordained sacredotal priest would be able to effect the change considered in the Eucharist…where does Christ say this? Where is it said in the pre-Schism canons? I may be wrong here, but I’m still confused where the Roman church is still the first and true church…the true church on earth, in my opinion either does not exist anymore after the Great Schism, or it is in the East where the equality of bishops is still practiced.
Sorry for the poor quality of this post. I was out of town for the weekend, and had some car trouble, and am tired, and…well, you get the idea..
Pax Christi,
Chris Heren
I am somewhat confused. How, when Jesus instituted the Supper did He also institute the historic sucession of bishops? I know Acts does help verify the idea, and it was also agreed upon by the early Lutheran church, but the question to bear in mind is not just whether the Lutheran church is apostolic, but is the Roman Church from the Reformation till now? What is Papal Primacy and when, if it were used in the early church would we have vastly different doctrine than we do?
It has been argued that the Keys of the Kingdom were given to just St. Peter, but this is made false by the later passage where Christ gives the authority to bind and loose sins to the decision of a minimum of two disciples. Luther wanted the equality of Bishops as it was practiced in the early church councils. If the early councils had practiced the primacy as it is now practiced, Pope Honorious would never have been excommunicated after his death, nor condemned by Constantinople III! Instead Honorious would have stayed fast in his heretical beliefs because he was St. Peter’s successor. Clearly the early church did not recognize that St. Peter’s sucessor was infallible in matters of doctrine…it was the CHURCH represented by the bishops, EQUAL in authority, who were infallible in such matters.
We as Lutherans accept any ordination done in a priest’s church to be true by divine right. Hence, we do have an Office of the Holy Ministry, but it is not a sacredotal priesthood because all Christians are priests (1 Peter 2:9-10) with Christ as the sole High Priest (Hebrews 9). While I understand that the priest stands in for Christ during the Mass, Christ never hinted that that is what his disciples should do…they should merely do what Christ did in remembrance of Him. In other words, this is a gift, given to us, not offered as Christ did on the holy cross. I would also point out that the Didache which is very possibly the teachings of the Twelve with regard to worship, does not have a portion where the priest offers sacrifice…in fact the two chapters on the Eucharist begin with “Now concerning the Eucharist, give THANKS this way,” indicating that it is not a sacrifice redone or reoffered, but a gift to be received from the one true sacrifice. Indeed even the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom mentions a bloodless sacrifice of spiritual worship during the Eucharist…this we do not deny, and indeed practice…but to reoffer Christ outside of time as has been mentioned earlier still makes it a bloody sacrifice!
It has also been said that only a truly ordained sacredotal priest would be able to effect the change considered in the Eucharist…where does Christ say this? Where is it said in the pre-Schism canons? I may be wrong here, but I’m still confused where the Roman church is still the first and true church…the true church on earth, in my opinion either does not exist anymore after the Great Schism, or it is in the East where the equality of bishops is still practiced.
Sorry for the poor quality of this post. I was out of town for the weekend, and had some car trouble, and am tired, and…well, you get the idea.
.Pax Christi,
Chris Heren
- Status