Protestant who believes in the real presence

[Hodos]

And, I’m asking why did he have two different translations for those two passages. Just because Greek was translated into Latin doesn’t mean the inherent original meaning was completely lost. Quit stating the obvious for an attempt to patronize.

I didn’t say that a translation necessarily means that the inherent original meaning is completely lost. In this case, however, it is already demonstrable that it was. This has been corrected in later translations by returning to the Greek manuscripts as our basis for translation. I am not patronizing you, it was your attempt at patronizing me that backfired. You keep trying to ask a “stump the chump” question without understanding the implication of your question.

 

[AugustTherese]

In this case, however, it is already demonstrable that it was.

Where? How?

This has been corrected in later translations by returning to the Greek manuscripts as our basis for translation.

Corrected around the 16th century?

 

[Hodos]

Corrected around the 16th century?

Yes, when the Greek manuscripts again became the standard for translation. This would apply to Roman Catholic Bible versions that got away from the Vulgate in favor of the Greek texts as well. This isn’t a strictly Protestant phenomenon. You can thank Jimenez and Erasmus for laying the groundwork on this one.

Where? How?

Again, read above. Episcopos and Prebuteros do not have the connotation of priest. They mean overseer or elder. The Greek does have a word that means priest, hieros. The issue that you are having is that the Vulgate did not adhere to that distinction, but translated into the text a third century Western innovation.

 

[AugustTherese]

Episcopos and Prebuteros do not have the connotation of priest. They mean overseer or elder.

They can mean overseer or elder, but are not limited to just that. A Bishop doesn’t solely oversee his flock; he is a priest with ministerial faculties and indelible sacerdotal powers. This would be analogous to saying that a pastor only has pastoral connotations, as he only leads his flock, but does not have the priestly faculty to forgive sins, in which, ironically he does not.

Jesus Christ would not establish the Priesthood of the New, Eternal Covenant just to leave Earth having no ministerial priests for the High Priest to work with, in and through.

Yes, when the Greek manuscripts again became the standard for translation.

Again, the meaning does not get lost just because the Greek was translated into Latin and then into English.

 

[Hodos]

They can mean overseer or elder, but are not limited to just that.

Again, you are supplying third century doctrine to first century lexicon. The passages that deal with elders and overseers are not in the context of offering sacrifice, but in the context of preaching, teaching, and administration, demonstrating the meaning you are eisegeting into the text.

Jesus Christ would not establish the Priesthood of the New, Eternal Covenant just to leave Earth having no ministerial priests for the High Priest to work with, in and through.

Again, here the priesthood of which you speak is applied to the body of all believers who are proclaiming the gospel and offering prayers. This is not being used in a sacrificial manner, it is being used in the context of being a mediator or intercessor, and it is not specific to the clerical offices, and still isn’t being used in the context of administering the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Once again, the doctrinal explanation provided to first century Jews is that Jesus provided the once for all sacrifice, and that he is the priest and mediator of a new covenant, an eternal covenant. Go ahead and place Hebrews on your recommended reading list alongside Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians. Might as well add 1 Timothy and Titus as well since we are having context issues with Church offices.

Again, the meaning does not get lost just because the Greek was translated into Latin and then into English.

No, but through the unscrupulous acceptance of tradition as the norm by which doctrine is based, it certainly can change the meaning of Greek (to be fair, Latin) to be something it did not mean to the apostles.

 

[AugustTherese]

Again, you are supplying third century doctrine to first century lexicon. The passages that deal with elders and overseers are not in the context of offering sacrifice, but in the context of preaching, teaching, and administration, demonstrating the meaning you are eisegeting into the text

If you neglect the whole NT and isolate that verse to narrowingly view through protesting eyes under the pretext of Greek, I suppose I can see your argument.

Nevertheless on some points I have written to you rather boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
Romans 15:15-16

Read how many times an altar is referenced to in Revelation. Then tell me, what is an altar used for.

 

[AugustTherese]

Again, you are supplying third century doctrine to first century lexicon.

Weird how not one soul realized this until a few anathematized men around the 16th century proposed this fantastical idea.

 

[Hodos]

The apostolic fathers seemed to recognize this for over 300 years. Weird that it changed just as the Church was trying to keep the Lapsed from seeking forgiveness from Martyrs and Confessors rather than Bishops who went into hiding during the great persecution.

 

[AugustTherese]

What is an altar used for? @Hodos

 

[ZMystiCat]

Yet If the opportunity presents itself, we need to give answers for the hope that’s in us. That’s why I gave this as well Post 29

And as it turns out the one in question is questioning all of this.

It’s more that I want to make sure that we’re on the same page. Yes, Protestants both reject the Real Presence and Apostolic Succession, meaning that they lack any valid priesthood. (Unless Old Catholics have maintained it, but as far as I’m aware, they basically went full Anglican eventually.) Will it eventually get down into questions about why Protestants don’t have the Real Presence? Possibly, but I think we first need to establish that we’re talking about two separate things.

Perhaps my approach is based on my own experience as a former Presbyterian. In it, we claimed to have some form of Real Presence (more a spiritual presence than a physical one), but I was a bit disappointed by how comparatively hollow the Presbyterian view was compared to the splendid beauty of the Catholic view, to say nothing of how Presbyterians don’t act like it’s anything special the same way Catholics do. That was enough for me. I didn’t really bother with questions about whether or not Jesus was physically existing. As far as I was concerned, if He was, we weren’t giving Him due reverence.

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).

What do women and headdresses have anything to do with where two or more meet? Is this a party where we all wear funny hats?

(To be serious for a little bit, you can’t just cite a whole chapter and act like I can pick out exactly what you’re referencing. I know you’re probably focused on verses 17-22, but you’re still giving so little explanation of your argument that it’s impossible to really have a discussion. I can’t even figure out where 17-22 has any relevance to what you said earlier, and I’m not going to try to guess.)

 

[otrrl]

Protestants believe in private interpretation of the Bible – except the Catholic interpretation, of course. So, your disagreement is not focused on the Eucharist, in the first place, it’s on the matter of private interpretation. First and Second Peter are short books in the new testament, in one of those it says were NOT supposed to interpret the Bible everyone the way he/she wants.

So, you’re on the right track with apostolic succession, but you have to throw in the part about private interpretation. The person sitting next to her in their church might not accept that doctrine. Further, what is her pastor’s authority to pronounce that? The Eucharist is a participation in the body and blood of Christ, part of the sacrifice on Calvary. The sacrifice involves the priesthood, first of Christ, then of priests in succession of the apostles.

Catholics believe in spiritual communion with Christ. So, unless you’ve got better answers above from others, I’d suggest you drop the topic. Another thing comes to mind – do they just discard the leftovers that have not been consumed? That would be some sort of contradiction or sacrilege for treating the Body of Christ that way.​

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Scripture was written by and for Catholics, though. So any understanding you are getting that opposes the catholic view is incorrect.

 

[Hodos]

False on both accounts. Some Protestants do not believe in the physical presence of Christ in the sacrament, but not all. Both sides can provide equally compelling arguments as to their understanding of whether Christ is physically present. Either way, it doesn’t matter. Whether Christ is present or not does not depend on me.

As far as apostolic succession, that to is false. We have a different understanding of what apostolic succession means. Apostolic succession has nothing to do with a genealogy of who sat in a particular office. It has to do with preserving the teaching handed down by the apostles. We see the verifiable, authentic teaching of the apostles as what was handed down in the scriptures. Being faithful to that over a person, as Paul exhorted us to do in Galatians is what makes one’s doctrine apostolic.

 

[Hodos]

Scripture was written by and for Catholics, though. So any understanding you are getting that opposes the catholic view is incorrect.

Negative. Scripture was written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for all, that the gospel might be proclaimed to the ends of the earth.

 

[Hodos]

Protestants believe in private interpretation of the Bible –

No we don’t. We believe in the correct interpretation of scripture. So when a tradition arises that causes someone to interpret scripture in a manner that is foreign to the original audience, and contrary to the context of a particular book or passage we recognize that this interpretation should be challenged. This isn’t a free for all. We stand on the shoulders of those who came before us but recognizing that no one vaulted father gets it right 100 percent of the time.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

This is what happens when we are divorced from the continuity of history and Tradition and make up our own. Jesus was fulfilling the Old Covenant, not throwing it in the garbage. There were 3 levels of the priesthood in God’s Israel of the Old Testament. Level 1-They were all priests (as we are) 2- there is the Ministerial level of Priesthood, that is those who act alongside the High Priest. 3- the High priest which is God (Jesus). God did not just throw out ministerial priests and leave us alone. And not just anyone can be a ministerial priest, then must be validly ordained from one of the 12 apostles just as the original Jewish priests were descended from the Levites, one of the original 12 tribes of Israel.

 

[Hodos]

I fully agree, which is why I reject tradition that contradicts the apostolic teaching as provided in scripture.

This is what happens when we are divorced from the continuity of history and Tradition and make up our own.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Some Protestants do not believe in the physical presence of Christ in the sacrament

If you’re talking about the Real Presence comment, I was talking specifically about the Catholic understanding of it. As far as I’m aware, no Protestant group believes that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ, just that Christ is present in some way with it. If you could point me to a Protestant group that does believe in it as we do, then fine, but the closest I know of are Lutherans and Anglicans, who still aren’t quite Catholic enough.

As far as apostolic succession, that to is false. We have a different understanding of what apostolic succession means.

I know, but again, you reject the Catholic and historical understanding of it.

Bear in mind, my comment was made as a Catholic to a Catholic in a discussion about how Protestants differ from Catholic interpretation. Frankly, I wasn’t that concerned about getting into all the little nuances of the dozen or more Protestant interpretations because, as far as I’m aware, none accept either as we do.

No we don’t. We believe in the correct interpretation of scripture.

Ignoring the Protestants who absolutely and unashamedly profess belief in private interpretation as part of their “personal relationship with God”, even the more traditional Protestants ultimately make tradition subject to one’s personal interpretation of the Scripture, because tradition is only accepted on the grounds that it can be found in Scripture. Of course, being found in Scripture is itself contingent on the interpreter being able to get the same interpretation. To quote John Calvin, “[A]ll things our ours.” In other words, you’re still the final authority, but you’re just not willing to admit to it openly.

Granted, I know some Protestants who do submit to a tradition in all ways, but that just leads to a bizarre scenario of, for instance, Reformed Christians yelling “no one is always right” while simultaneously treating the Westminster Confession as always right.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

But wait. Wouldn’t throwing out ministerial priests and putting nothing in their place not only be foreign to the original audience but also be outrageous to them? You should really try to put aside your bias and read not only about Judaism during the time of the Levitical priesthood but also read writings from the early church fathers. You would see that the fulfillment of the old covenant is not only complete, but also beautiful.