Protestant who believes in the real presence

[Hodos]

Perverted humans are one thing, perverted doctrine is another.

I agree. But there is a valid argument that much of the issues being experienced right now are DUE to or exacerbated by a perversion from doctrine. Ultimately you guys are going to need to work through that. But I think that giving careful consideration to 1 Timothy 3 would be prudent. Anyway, was illustrating a point. I don’t want to push that any further than necessary.

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

Perverted humans are one thing, perverted doctrine is another.

I agree. But there is a valid argument that much of the issues being experienced right now are DUE to or exacerbated by a perversion from doctrine. Ultimately you guys are going to need to work through that. But I think that giving careful consideration to 1 Timothy 3 would be prudent.

Since you ignored my previous post; can you give me a full reference quote for Matthew 5:43, especially the latter part of the verse?

 

[Hodos]

You need a reference to Matthew 5:43? Ok. Matthew 5:43.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Once Jesus established HIS Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, and gave all His promises to His Church, those “traditions” of THOSE “Jewish Elders” aren’t in the same category as His one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

God also established the authority of the high priesthood. They claimed the same authority that you do, and as Roman apologists point out frequently, they sat in Moses seat and Christ affirmed we should obey them. So if Christ can simultaneously establish them and rebuke them through the judicious application of God’s Word, why is Rome different?

Re: Moses seat from one of the great Catholic apologists
Excerpt from http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

" Matthew 23, verses 1 and 2, “Then said Jesus to the crowds and to His disciples, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat. So practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do, for they preach but they don’t practice.’” They preach, but they don’t practice what they preach. [snip for space]. He goes on in this chapter to call the scribes and the Pharisees “fools, hypocrites, blind guides, vipers and whitewashed tombs.” He doesn’t think too highly of the scribes and the Pharisees, does He?

But what does He say here? “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat.” Therefore, “you have to,” it’s in the imperative tense, “You have to practice and observe whatever they tell you.” “Whatever they tell you,” you have to practice and observe. Why? Because they sit on Moses’ cathedras. The Greek word is “cathedra”. The Church, when it speaks of Peter’s authority and the Popes speaking ex-cathedra are simply borrowing from Jesus’ teaching.

Now, I would challenge anybody to go back into the Old Testament and find some explicit text in the Old Testament where we find Moses establishing a chair, some endowed seat, that will always have successors. You don’t find a text explicitly saying that. So why does Jesus refer to it. Because there is also oral tradition, even in the Old Testament, which was used by God to transmit certain essential terms that the covenant family of God requires and depends upon for its life. Jesus doesn’t quote a text. He appeals to a well-known oral tradition that He assumes the scribes and the Pharisees know about as well as His listeners. He doesn’t just assume they know it, He assumes they are going to submit to it, and that they have been submitting to it. It’s just that they have been experiencing problems because Old Testament priests and bishops are sometimes just as troublesome as New Testament priests and bishops are. But why do we follow, because they have so much charm and charisma? No, because Jesus Christ has established in the Old Testament a seat of Moses which is replaced in the New Testament with the seat of Peter. "

As a suggestion, Try looking information up first before you post. Your response to me was 1 minute after I posted.

 

[AugustTherese]

You need a reference to Matthew 5:43? Ok. Matthew 5:43.

What is Jesus quoting? From what?

 

[Hodos]

Yep. In that section, that is the application. In sections on the Sabbath for example, they are quite right about the law, but misapply it in the greater context of the full content of the law. Again, another refutation of their tradition even though they are the civil and theological authority. Just because one holds authority doesn’t make one infallible. God alone is infallible.

 

[steve-b]

AugustTherese:

Perverted humans are one thing, perverted doctrine is another.

I agree. But there is a valid argument that much of the issues being experienced right now are DUE to or exacerbated by a perversion from doctrine. Ultimately you guys are going to need to work through that. But I think that giving careful consideration to 1 Timothy 3 would be prudent. Anyway, was illustrating a point. I don’t want to push that any further than necessary.

Jesus never protected the Church from a Judas, nor did He promise He would ever, on this side of eternity, protect the Church from Judases. What He promised, He comes through on.

 

[steve-b]

Yep. In that section, that is the application. In sections on the Sabbath for example, they are quite right about the law, but misapply it in the greater context of the full content of the law. Again, another refutation of their tradition even though they are the civil and theological authority. Just because one holds authority doesn’t make one infallible

True

Hodos:

God alone is infallible.

Until He gives that power to another through the power of the keys and the Divine authority that comes through that. It’s still God behind it

 

[AugustTherese]

God alone is infallible.

Sure, and He chose to use fallible men as a means to write and speak His infallible Word - what makes you think he wouldn’t choose fallible men (Magisterium) to infallibly interpret that Word?

 

[AlNg]

Valid ordination in apostolic succession, is required to make that happen

Why is apostolic succession necessary for Holy Communion, but not for Baptism?

 

[Agathon]

Good isn’t perfect.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Valid ordination in apostolic succession, is required to make that happen

Why is apostolic succession necessary for Holy Communion, but not for Baptism?

Valid ordination is required for making the Eucharist happen

all links are operational

At the Last Supper

Lk 22:19

Jesus said to His apostles when He instituted the Eucharist

ποιεῖτε, do this

Do what?

Definition:

(a) make, manufacture, construct, (b) do, act, cause, to appoint or ordain one, to change one thing into another,

Jesus is ordaining His apostles to do what He is doing here, namely change bread and wine into His body and blood that will be given up for us. IOW it is also a sacrifice.

AND

Unless a person receives the Eucharist faithfully they have no life in them. Not my words, they come from Jesus [ John 6:53 ]. John 6:53 RSVCE - So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, - Bible Gateway

AND

for further context, Links are operational
Lk 22:
17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this ποιεῖτε in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."[c]

ποιεῖτε, = make, manufacture, cause, produce, construct, change one thing into another, & ordain,

They (the apostles) are to Do exactly what JESUS DID here. That is, they are to actually Change bread and wine into His body and blood. Not a symbol, but the actual body and blood of Jesus just as Jesus did… And in this action and those words, Jesus ordained THEM, He gave His apostles the power and authority to do exactly what He did. And what Jesus did here, as He said, was to continue… i.e. as in ordination, in apostolic succession. THEY don’t do any of this on their own. Jesus does it IN THEM and Jesus does the same in all those who are validly ordained in apostolic succession.

Without this authority and ordination, THEY could NOT do this or anything supernatural…

That same requirements weren’t required for baptism

 

[Hodos]

Until He gives that power to another through the power of the keys and the Divine authority that comes through that. It’s still God behind it

The high priestly office carried the same power and was still corrected via scripture.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Until He gives that power to another through the power of the keys and the Divine authority that comes through that. It’s still God behind it

The high priestly office carried the same power and was still corrected via scripture.

Nope.

Just to name one of many things , the high priest no matter how many animals he slaughtered on the altar,

• his sacrifice could not forgive sins.

And

• The Forgiveness of Sins | Catholic Answers

 

[Hodos]

Lk 22:19

No argument there. Jesus instituted the Holy Supper here. Note in Matthew the great commission where the disciples are commissioned to make disciples of all nations (the same term used for the 11), baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. In other words, the same words of institution given to the disciples are in turn given to the Church corporately. Now check out 1 Corinthians 11. Paul is chastising the Church in Corinth for its disgraceful way of celebrating the Lord’s Supper. He starts by saying, so then when you come together as a church there are divisions among you. This isn’t excluding the elders or overseers from Paul’s criticism. Paul warns them in vs 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat or drink of the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. Again, two things are demonstrated here. One, there is no mention that one must be ordained to minister over the sacrament. Two, Paul makes very plain that whether the Lord’s Supper is celebrated rightly or unworthily, the Lord IS present and that the responsibility of receiving the Eucharist rightly is on the individual.

ποιεῖτε,

I am quite familiar with poiete and it carries wide range of meaning, usually as do or make, but it does have quite a few more colloquial applications. Note that in your own translation it was translated as Do this which is probably the most appropriate translation. At this point, you are scrolling through the list and straining for a word anywhere near what you are trying to introduce as new doctrine, rather than letting the passage speak for itself.

Now, all that being said, I absolutely agree that for the purpose of good order in worship that the pastor of a congregation should be the one administering the sacrament. This has absolutely NOTHING to do however with the efficacy of the Lord’s Supper. As we saw already, the Lord is present when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper rightly or not (which should be a sobering thought to those who go up to receive). It has everything to do with the fact that overseers or pastors are charged with the care of their congregation and the administration of the sacrament one of the means of discipline to correct an unrepentant believer.

 

[Hodos]

Nope.

Just to name one of many things , the high priest no matter how many animals he slaughtered on the altar,

• his sacrifice could not forgive sins.

Agreed. It is Christ who forgives our sins through HIS sacrifice. The Lord’s Supper is the proclamation of what has already been accomplished as Paul states in 1 Corinthians.

 

[AlNg]

Note in Matthew the great commission where the disciples are commissioned to make disciples of all nations (the same term used for the 11), baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. In other words, the same words of institution given to the disciples are in turn given to the Church corporately.

it doesn’t seem to be consistent to require Apostolic succession for holy Communion, but not for Baptism.

 

[Hodos]

it doesn’t seem to be consistent to require Apostolic succession for holy Communion, but not for Baptism.

Completely agree.

 

[Agathon]

Ties on to the matter of Holy Orders which can be understood through checking what happened when Moses and Aaron had to deal with the rebellion of the faction of Korah.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Lk 22:19

No argument there. Jesus instituted the Holy Supper here. Note in Matthew the great commission where the disciples are commissioned to make disciples of all nations (the same term used for the 11), baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. In other words, the same words of institution given to the disciples are in turn given to the Church corporately.

There are offices in the Church that require ordination. VALID ordination

Hodos:

Now check out 1 Corinthians 11. Paul is chastising the Church in Corinth for its disgraceful way of celebrating the Lord’s Supper. He starts by saying, so then when you come together as a church there are divisions among you. This isn’t excluding the elders or overseers from Paul’s criticism. Paul warns them in vs 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat or drink of the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. Again, two things are demonstrated here. One, there is no mention that one must be ordained to minister over the sacrament. Two, Paul makes very plain that whether the Lord’s Supper is celebrated rightly or unworthily, the Lord IS present and that the responsibility of receiving the Eucharist rightly is on the individual.

This is why you shouldn’t be privately interpreting a book that you received from the Catholic Church.

ποιεῖτε,

Hodos:

I am quite familiar with poiete and it carries wide range of meaning, usually as do or make, but it does have quite a few more colloquial applications. Note that in your own translation it was translated as Do this which is probably the most appropriate translation. At this point, you are scrolling through the list and straining for a word anywhere near what you are trying to introduce as new doctrine, rather than letting the passage speak for itself.

Jesus ordained the apostles here.

Hodos:

Paul is writing against the likes of those who won’t follow doctrine, or order. Paul had a certain style with people in error. He warned people twice, if they didn’t change after 2 corrections he was done with them. Maybe it’s a sign, but Corinth doesn’t exist anymore.

I absolutely agree that for the purpose of good order in worship that the pastor of a congregation should be the one administering the sacrament. This has absolutely NOTHING to do however with the efficacy of the Lord’s Supper.

You’ll find out someday how wrong you are. No validly ordained priest, no Eucharist.

Hodos:

As we saw already, the Lord is present when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper rightly or not (which should be a sobering thought to those who go up to receive).

Meaning there was a valid priest or bishop celebrating, and any abuse in the celebration is a huge sin.