T
Thom18
Guest
Not in the Eucharist. Only the priests of God can consecrate the Eucharist, and if you are protestant clergy or laity of any Church, you’re not His priest.
- Status
H
Hodos
Guest
Hyperbole much? I never said we don’t have a need for pastors, only that the efficacy of the sacrament is not dependent upon the worthiness of the person ministering or receiving the sacrament. 1 Corinthians 11 demonstrates this.
H
Hodos
Guest
Actually it wasn’t. There is a direct link between the power to forgive or retain sins and the proclamation of Jesus death until he comes which is what the Lord’s Supper is (1 Corinthians 11).
H
Hodos
Guest
Not true whatsoever. An unsupported assumption can be dismissed as such.
T
Thom18
Guest
No one is making the argument that one’s ability to consecrate is hinged on “worthiness”. Being a priest isn’t about how “worthy” you are, and you can’t perform priestly duties without being a priest.
T
Thom18
Guest
The burden of proof is on you. Prove why Jesus would make Himself present in the faux eucharists of other faiths, causing the people to eat and drink judgement on themselves.Thom18:
Not true whatsoever. An unsupported assumption can be dismissed as such.
C
CRM_Brother
Guest
Concerning the Church as a whole, this is valid. The problem with this argument falls in Christ’s statement “Do this in memory of me.” The only people who were present for this were eleven of the Twelve Apostles (Judas had already left). Christ had already spoken at length about the True Presence in the Bread of Life Discourse and many left him because of it. If this directive was meant for everyone in the sense that everyone would be able to enact the consecration of bread and wine into His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity the order “Do this in memory of me,” would have been made in a similar manner to the believers as a whole. Instead, it is directed to a group of disciples which Christ has already set apart and instituted a hierarchy among them with Peter as head. Add to this that he had already instituted a priesthood amongst them in the washing of the feet, a part of the ritual for the High Priest of the Temple of Jerusalem in preparation for entering into the Holy of Holies and the presence of God in the Inner Sanctuary of the Temple on the Sabbath of Passover. As such these ‘new High Priests’ enter into the presence of God, not in the presence of the Ark of the Covenant, but in the presentation of Christ in the Eucharist. He then commands them to do this in memory of Him, commissioning them to bring this divine presence in the Eucharist to others. The Apostles did not simply transfer the authority to make real this presence of God to anyone. Instead, they chose specific men, just as Christ did, to do so: the Bishops. It is this passing on of the authority originally bestowed upon the Apostles by Christ which allows the True Presence to be instituted at the Consecration as, over time, the needs of the Church became too great for one man to handle and so the Bishops passed this authority to their priests.
Last edited:
T
Thom18
Guest
Let’s take an example from the Old Covenant. God set some men apart to carry out His sacrificial priesthood. For what reason? Why would He create a priesthood at all if just anyone can perform these duties so long as they’re done “in good faith”?
S
steve-b
Guest
These are errors in thinking described by Pius IX. We see this thinking all the time in society.
EXCERPT From Pius IX
III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM
- Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. – Allocution “Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862 ; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851 .
- Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. – Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
- Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
- Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. –
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
- The Eucharist being valid depends on the one effecting the Eucharist is validly ordained.
- Those who receive the Eucharist unworthily (in mortal sin) are then held “guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord”.
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
You need a priest to consecrate, not just a sole ‘pastor’. Who said anything about worthiness? That has nothing to do with anything. Our Church anathematized Donatism at the Council of Arles centuries before the ecclesial community you attend was even a thought.
H
Hodos
Guest
Again, Christ is our high priest. Read Hebrews. The sacrifice was made already. Completely agree with the need for elders and overseers to preach, teach, and maintain good order. However, as 1 Corinthians demonstrates, Christ is truly present in the sacrament even when administered or received unworthily. There is no requirement for ordination to make Christ present in the sacrament. You again speak as if the work of the sacrament is done by man, when the work of the sacrament is done by God because he fulfills his promise.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Yes! And He offers His living Body and Blood only through those who share and participate in that eternal priesthood, hence the earthly, ministerial priesthood.
Which part? You are 16 centuries removed from the Jewish understanding of what a sacrifice contains. I suggest you read the book of Leviticus where the priest offers bloody and unbloody sacrifices; especially the part where Blood gets sprinkled on the altar of sacrifice. Also, the once-for-all bloody sacrifice of Christ is a timeless universal, a supratemporal reality; it is not fixed in time and space 2,000 years ago. That once-for-all bloody sacrifice is made present on the altar where the High Priest offers His unbloody and living sacrifice through His ministerial priest. Protestant ‘pastors’ do not share in this Sacred Priesthood and cannot therefore make present that same Body and Blood of Christ.
Last edited:
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Our belief is not needed for Jesus to be present in the Eucharist. The sacraments operate regardless of the faith of those receiving them. An atheist who went up to get Communion that was consecrated by a priest who had lost his faith would still be receiving (sacriligiously) the Body of Christ.
Last edited:
T
Thom18
Guest
Prove it. The ball is in your court.
Last edited:
H
Hodos
Guest
Feel free to demonstrate this scripturally since 1 Corinthians 11 demonstrates otherwise.
H
Hodos
Guest
No it isn’t. You are unfamiliar with rules of debate apparently. I am taking the negative argument, that scripture does not affirm your understanding. You are the one assuming the positive, that ordination is required to make the sacrament efficacious. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate that scripture supports your claim. I have already offered 1 Corinthians 11 by the way to demonstrate the negative.
H
Hodos
Guest
My point exactly.
H
Hodos
Guest
No I am not since I am applying the book of Hebrews, which explains the once and for all nature of Christ’s sacrifice in context to a contemporary first century Jewish audience. You are the one introducing an innovation that flips Hebrews on its head.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
How? Or, is that your thing? You assert suggestions without explaining how or why what you are suggesting or substantiating your claim.
It’s like a child retorting with, “I know you are, but what am I”, without explaining their mindless reverse of burden.
- Status