Protestant who believes in the real presence

  • Thread starter Thread starter redbaron162
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hodos said:
You are unfamiliar with rules of debate apparently. I am taking the negative argument, that scripture does not affirm your understanding.
Click to expand...
This is Catholic Answers Forum. You are a guest in our house. The burden will always be on you and any other Protestant. Good try, though! 😉
 
Hodos said:
40.png
Thom18:
Prove it. The ball is in your court.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
You claimed that you don’t need to be ordained to consecrate the Eucharist. I asked you to prove it- 1 Corinthians 11 is inadequate “proof”. Simply stating, “read Hebrews”, “read 1 Corinthians” does nothing to explain your thinking. And I already addressed your “worthiness complaint”, so you can go back and read it.
 
Hodos said:
40.png
AugustTherese:
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.
Click to expand...
Feel free to demonstrate this scripturally since 1 Corinthians 11 demonstrates otherwise.
Click to expand...
“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”
1 Corinthians 11:26

‘You proclaim the Lord’s death’ everytime His supratemporal death is made present on the altar. This would make no sense to proclaim His death considering He has already risen from that death, according to your doctrine.
 
Last edited:
AugustTherese said:
You proclaim the Lord’s death’ everytime His supratemporal death is made present on the altar. This would make no sense to proclaim His death considering He has already risen from that death, according to your doctrine.
Click to expand...
This may be your worst explanation of scripture yet. We don’t proclaim Christ’s death when we proclaim the gospel? Proclamation is not the same as re-offering the sacrifice. Especially since scripture already said, his sacrifice was completed for all time.
 
Last edited:
AugustTherese said:
How? Or, is that your thing? You assert suggestions without explaining how or why what you are suggesting or substantiating your claim.
Click to expand...
My suggestion was to read Hebrews. I’m fairly certain that was pretty clear. Trying to get you to actually look at the gospel firsthand. If you fear doing so that’s on you.
 
Last edited:
Hodos said:
We don’t proclaim Christ’s death when we proclaim the gospel?
Click to expand...
Without His death, there is no resurrection! The Paschal Mystery includes both His death and resurrection. You might not proclaim His death because you do not have a validly ordained Priest to make that present, but do not caricaturize St. Paul’s words to attempt to make us believe he was a Confessiona Lutheran that didn’t believe in the Sacred Priesthood.
 
Hodos said:
Proclamation is not the same as re-offering the sacrifice
Click to expand...
Then why do you confess to believe in Christ’s Eternal Priesthood? If He has nothing to offer, then His Priesthood is no longer. And, the bloody sacrifice is re-presented.
 
Last edited:
AugustTherese said:
Without His death, there is no resurrection! The Paschal Mystery includes both His death and resurrection.
Click to expand...
Precisely. That’s why we proclaim (not re-offer) Christ’s death until he comes. Also, you are ignoring the context of the passage which is that the Corinthians were humiliating one another through the sacrament (worthiness of the minister or receiver didn’t stop Christ from being truly present), hence why Paul emphasizes the sacrificial nature of Christ’s death. He is showing the paradox between what the sacrament proclaims and their actions toward one another.
 
You misunderstand the full breadth and width of the priestly role, which Hebrews explains. The sacrifice was once for all time, his role as mediator before God in light of that sacrifice is eternal. Once again, Hebrews addresses this. Crack it open.
 
Hodos said:
that sacrifice is eternal.
Click to expand...
Yes! Yes! Yes! And, do you not understand that there are two elements to a sacrifice? The killing (bloody offering) of the victim and the offering up of the fruits (unbloody offering) of that victim. Yes?
 
Hodos said:
No, an apostolic one. My doctrine matches what the author of Hebrews proclaimed.
Click to expand...
Doubtful, since your doctrine is at odds with what the early Church taught- and who knows better what the divinely inspired authors had to say than their students, and their students in turn?
 
Yep. Already done. As the author of Hebrews stated. You will also note that the office of priest is not instituted in the Bible. Rather they were elders, bishops or overseers, and deacons. It is the Latin misinterpretation of Presbuteros that led to it being mistranslated as priest. Again, an innovation.
 
Last edited:
Thom18 said:
Doubtful, since your doctrine is at odds with what the early Church taught- and who knows better what the divinely inspired authors had to say than their students, and their students in turn?
Click to expand...
Then surely you can demonstrate from the apostolic documents in the New Testament your understanding.
 
Hodos said:
Then surely you can demonstrate from the apostolic documents in the New Testament your understanding.
Click to expand...
From the New Testament, the Councils of the first centuries, the writings of the Early Church Fathers- all of it.

Now, is the Eucharist a sacrifice or not? You haven’t answered this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top