Real Presence input wanted;

[benhur]

So, this is a question for those of my brothers and sisters who believe in the Real Presence whatever your denomination. This is an area I’ve been studying for a long while now (as I come from a “symbolic” background as far as communion goes), and thus far Pitre has come the closest to helping me “get it” (it being the Real Presence) at least on a head level. One reason is the emphasis on consuming the flesh of the lambs in the various OT sacrifices which directly call for that. (Passover, Todah offerings, etc…)

My question is this; is there a parallel somewhere or in a form I’m missing for drinking blood? I see drinking and pouring out wine, I see drinking and even pouring out water… I see sprinkling blood, smearing blood, and dipping blood, but no drinking blood except in a negative sense, such as in Revelation. I’m aware of the prohibition about drinking blood, because the life of the soul resides in the blood. So perhaps there is no parallel with eating of flesh?

Hi Kliska,

The OT ate the lamb , but they also continually offered lambs and blood sacrifices. This is to cease, hence the bread , an old passover symbol of purity , would be our new symbol for flesh. Again to get away from continual flesh offering. Furthermore the Jews eat lamb in Passover , but do not insist that it is “the” same lamb from the original Passover. I believe transubstantiation calls for us to eat flesh that was on the cross, that is the “Original” Lamb, which is way beyond symbolism of Passover. They certainly did not drink blood , again making literal comparison to OT difficult. I mean one can say they ate fleshly lamb so we must also , but they did not drink blood but we do that ? Inconsistencies are less apparent the closer one goes to a symbolic, spiritual view.

Blessings

.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi Kliska,

The OT ate the lamb , but they also continually offered lambs and blood sacrifices. This is to cease, hence the bread , an old passover symbol of purity , would be our new symbol for flesh. Again to get away from continual flesh offering.

How can we “get away from” the once for all sacrifice of Jesus’ flesh and blood?

Furthermore the Jews eat lamb in Passover , but do not insist that it is “the” same lamb from the original Passover.

It wasn’t the same Lamb. Because the same sacrifice was not sufficient for all generations. Yet, Exodus 12 requires a memorial sacrifice to be made and followed as ordained… OR that person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel. The sacrifice of Jesus is sufficient for all generations.

I believe transubstantiation calls for us to eat flesh that was on the cross, that is the “Original” Lamb, which is way beyond symbolism of Passover. They certainly did not drink blood , again making literal comparison to OT difficult. I mean one can say they ate fleshly lamb so we must also , but they did not drink blood but we do that ? Inconsistencies are less apparent the closer one goes to a symbolic, spiritual view.

Transubstantiation profoundly recognizes that the spiritual realities are just as real and substantial as our physical realities. In the Spirit world, we would see the reality of Transubstantiated Communion.

Blessings

… and to you also.

 

[benhur]

So, this is a question for those of my brothers and sisters who believe in the Real Presence whatever your denomination. This is an area I’ve been studying for a long while now (as I come from a “symbolic” background as far as communion goes), and thus far Pitre has come the closest to helping me “get it” (it being the Real Presence) at least on a head level. One reason is the emphasis on consuming the flesh of the lambs in the various OT sacrifices which directly call for that. (Passover, Todah offerings, etc…)

My question is this; is there a parallel somewhere or in a form I’m missing for drinking blood? I see drinking and pouring out wine, I see drinking and even pouring out water… I see sprinkling blood, smearing blood, and dipping blood, but no drinking blood except in a negative sense, such as in Revelation. I’m aware of the prohibition about drinking blood, because the life of the soul resides in the blood. So perhaps there is no parallel with eating of flesh?

The good news for all of us, regardless of eucharistic views, is that all hold to the historic event at the last supper, and that we do likewise in remembrance, even repeating the Lord’s words and blessings of the elements. Also that we do so solemnly and after self examination as Paul cites. “Just do it”, as Nike says. Me thinks we think to much beyond that. Yet the early church did show such unity with and amongst several reasonings/thinkings, probably stemming from using John 6 bread of life discourse to explain the historic LS…All I know is Jesus after blessing the cup still calls it “fruit of the vine” and not His blood.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

…All I know is Jesus after blessing the cup still calls it “fruit of the vine” and not His blood.

His true blood is “fruit of the vine”.

1 Cor. 10
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?

… now you know another thing!

 

[benhur]

How can we “get away from” the once for all sacrifice of Jesus’ flesh and blood?

Hii rc,

We do not get away from that. I suggested we get away from "continual offering of flesh ". We can not offer it (flesh) to God anymore, since He offered it (flesh/Lamb) for us.

We remember it in thanksgiving thru symbols now of bread and wine, till His return.

It wasn’t the same Lamb. Because the same sacrifice was not sufficient for all generations. Yet, Exodus 12 requires a memorial sacrifice to be made and followed as ordained…

Well I think the memorial was just that and did not require , or have theological thinkings beyond that , a remembrance of deliverance by blood. Yet other sacrifices were continual for sin offering , apart from Passover.

The sacrifice of Jesus is sufficient for all generations.

Amen. And Remembrance and Thanksgiving for Calvary should not require a literal eating of a fleshly Lamb.

Transubstantiation profoundly recognizes that the spiritual realities are just as real and substantial as our physical realities. In the Spirit world, we would see the reality of Transubstantiated Communion.

That is a mouthful , the crux of the matter. All have spiritual and physical realities to their communion, and CC transubstantiation is a highly processed spiritual thought on the matter.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

His true blood is “fruit of the vine”.

1 Cor. 10
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?

… now you know another thing!

yes a participation in remembrance and thanksgiving for Calvary where he shed His blood and died bodily.

 

[rcwitness]

yes a participation in remembrance and thanksgiving for Calvary where he shed His blood and died bodily.

Paul uses the example of Israel actually eating the sacrifice to relate how we become partners in the Altar.

So actually eating Communion is necessary to participate in the life of Jesus, wouldn’t you agree? We may disagree whether certain Communions are valid or not, but can we agree that sharing in the Lord’s Supper is part of a saving belief in Jesus (believing in Jesus)? Whether we call it an ordinance, command, or Sacrament… is it the way Jesus wants us to give thanks and receive his grace/blessing?

 

[PJM]

quote
Originally Posted by rcwitness View Post
His true blood is “fruit of the vine”.

1 Cor. 10
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?
… now you know another thing! end quote

yes a participation in remembrance and thanksgiving for Calvary where he shed His blood and died bodily.

My dear friend in Christ,

such a position, while somewhat common in the non-Catholic-Christian ranks, is much like judging a book, ONLY by its Cover

To actually get what the authors 5 of the in the case of the REAL PRESENCE] intend Us to grasp in AWE; one actually needs tp prayerfully get into the book:thumbsup:

For example:

READ with a literal understanding; John 6:47-58 & 1st Cor, 11:23-30; THAT is the Teaching Jesus would have ALL of us grasp

GBY

Patrick

 

[benhur]

]Paul uses the example of Israel actually eating the sacrifice to relate how we become partners in the Altar.

Hi rc,

Paul does not say we then eat sacrifices, but the cup and the loaf, we do partake, participate. But we are like the OT in that we are one at the altar…our altar is not sacrificial in OT sense , but in thanksgiving and remembrance of Calvary sacrifice.

Again we do not eat the "sacrifice’’ but the elements of remembrance signifying the body and blood of the Lord.

So actually eating Communion is necessary to participate in the life of Jesus, wouldn’t you agree? We may disagree whether certain Communions are valid or not, but can we agree that sharing in the Lord’s Supper is part of a saving belief in Jesus (believing in Jesus)? Whether we call it an ordinance, command, or Sacrament… is it the way Jesus wants us to give thanks and receive his grace/blessing?

Yes as per my post to Kliska 5 previous posts. .

Yes, we all “ecuharist” by any definition.

The validating by some is somewhat troublesome, and not all folks invalidate others communion.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,
Paul does not say we then eat sacrifices, but the cup and the loaf, we do partake, participate. But we are like the OT in that we are one at the altar…our altar is not sacrificial in OT sense , but in thanksgiving and remembrance of Calvary sacrifice.

Ok. You say we participate in the sacrifice by eating the “elements of remembrance”. We say the elements we use for our remembrance celebration, symbols of bread and wine, after the consecration of the Word, become an actual Communion with His sacrifice.

Again we do not eat the "sacrifice’’ but the elements of remembrance signifying the body and blood of the Lord.
Yes as per my post to Kliska 5 previous posts.

Yes, we all “ecuharist” by any definition.

I think we need to be careful of relevatizing the Lord’s Supper. There is one Table, One Bread, On Body, One Faith. This is Scriptural. This does no support the division of leadership and Communion which the Apostles Taught.

The validating by some is somewhat troublesome, and not all folks invalidate others communion.

By not validating a Communion, it’s validating all Communions. You are speaking as though you are a Bishop.

 

[benhur]

Ok. You say we participate in the sacrifice by eating the “elements of remembrance”. We say the elements we use for our remembrance celebration, symbols of bread and wine, after the consecration of the Word, become an actual Communion with His sacrifice.

Hi rc,

Yes there is a difference in our views , but I would still call it “communion” with the sacrifice of Calvary and the Lord /Lamb of the sacrifice.

I think we need to be careful of relevatizing the Lord’s Supper. There is one Table, One Bread, On Body, One Faith. This is Scriptural. This does no support the division of leadership and Communion which the Apostles Taught.

There is no division unless we quibble as to just what is the eating. What the apostles taught is implicit, not explicit.

By not validating a Communion, it’s validating all Communions. You are speaking as though you are a Bishop

Lol…my mother said when I was a child that I should become a bishop…

I would validate a communion that does as the Last Supper, which we both do…just wouldn’t make it a "sacrifice’’ but of praise…and would not be dogmatic on just how the bread is Hid body, that is I don’t think the Lord then disqualifies a communicant over this when all else is in line…of course I would say you go to far but still have the basics…I would understand that mine does not meet the basics to you, and then of course that is more serious…nothing to do with being relative with the truth…we both have absolutes that must be met for a valid communion.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Yes there is a difference in our views , but I would still call it “communion” with the sacrifice of Calvary and the Lord /Lamb of the sacrifice.

So, you are acting as Bishop, and Chief Bishop at that. Are Mormons and LDS valid Communions, according to your judgment also? I could also list many heretical sects throughout the ages of the historical Church. What makes their Communion different than any others?

There is no division unless we quibble as to just what is the eating. What the apostles taught is implicit, not explicit.

The “eating” is not the source of division, but the validity of the Presbyter/Bishop who oversees the Mass. I am not promoting legalistic doctrine, but nevertheless, we uphold a lawful faith, worship, and leadership.

Lol…my mother said when I was a child that I should become a bishop…

You should have!

I would validate a communion that does as the Last Supper, which we both do…

What we do, is a mystery. We participate by faith, not by flesh and blood, yet our flesh and blood participates, and in His flesh and blood! This is the whole treasure of the Christian faith!

just wouldn’t make it a "sacrifice’’

We don’t either. He does.

but of praise…

… and His true sacrifice in our Communion is incompatible with “praise” ???

and would not be dogmatic on just how the bread is Hid body, that is I don’t think the Lord then disqualifies a communicant over this when all else is in line

Disqualifies? It’s either a real participation in His sacrifice or a symbolic participation. Our intention of thanksgiving is very relevant to reception, but it does not make what we receive this or that. His Word alone does this.

…of course I would say you go to far but still have the basics…I would understand that mine does not meet the basics to you, and then of course that is more serious…nothing to do with being relative with the truth…we both have absolutes that must be met for a valid communion.

But you judge and determine your parameters and validity. My ordained leaders, throughout the history of the Church affirmed mine. They call it Sacred Tradition.

 

[benhur]

Are Mormons and LDS valid Communions, according to your judgment also? I could also list many heretical sects throughout the ages of the historical Church. What makes their Communion different than any others?

Hi rc,

We both agree here, and I stated we both have absolutes as to what constitutes communion, and what constitutes a Christian for that matter.

The “eating” is not the source of division, but the validity of the Presbyter/Bishop who oversees the Mass.

Agree that the value of the priesthood is enhanced, even legitimized, by the doctrine of transubstantiation. As the eucharisting changed towards a sacrifice, and as literal change of the elements was demanded, a presbyter now is needful to become a “heirus”, a priest in OT sense.

I am not promoting legalistic doctrine, but nevertheless, we uphold a lawful faith, worship, and leadership.
You should have!

All well and good (for many other churches also have those claims and qualities) but being apostolic is paramount in what that means. Many practices evolved, as did doctrine, and is at the center of many divides (being “apostolic”).

What we do, is a mystery. We participate by faith, not by flesh and blood, yet our flesh and blood participates, and in His flesh and blood! This is the whole treasure of the Christian faith!

Yes, as it is that we are now His monstrances, truly.

We don’t either. He does (make the elements/communion a sacrifice).

Yes, but you ask that He does so.

… and His true sacrifice in our Communion is incompatible with “praise” ???

You miss the point. The sacrifice is not Christ on Calvary to be represented. It is a sacrifice of praise, from us (eucharist), that the Father has presented and already blessed Calvary thru Resurrection, to us. Calvary gift is one directional, from the Father to us. The praise /eucharist is one directional, from us back to the Father God.

In my opinion , the CC has it conflicting a bit, of offering the gift back to the Father , hoping that it is accepted (much ala OT hope), and then praising for that opportunity.

You do have both active elements , praise and sacrifice. I believe we only have one active element , praise, for the sacrifice is a done deal (hence the praise, even knowing it is already accepted, undergirding the praise).

Disqualifies? It’s either a real participation in His sacrifice or a symbolic participation.

Yes, just like the original. Was the Last Supper a real eating of His flesh and blood or symbolic ? Just what makes it a real participation, for the apostles certainly participated, in either fashion.

Our intention of thanksgiving is very relevant to reception, but it does not make what we receive this or that. His Word alone does this.

Well, again a priest is needed, and a very specific petition. The Lord’s words were specific enough. No need to go further.

But you judge and determine your parameters and validity. My ordained leaders, throughout the history of the Church affirmed mine. They call it Sacred Tradition.

And you have also personally judged, that such Sacred Tradition is “valid”. It is personal for both of us.

And you know I have history and tradition and churches and teachers and scholars that say differently. That is, I did not come up with this on my own. So like you,I hear many things, but come to believe what others have also believed before me. And we must decide if there is a Korah rebelling against a righteous Moses, or a righteous Elijah or Jeremiah, calling for reform.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,

We both agree here, and I stated we both have absolutes as to what constitutes communion, and what constitutes a Christian for that matter.
Agree that the value of the priesthood is enhanced, even legitimized, by the doctrine of transubstantiation. As the eucharisting changed towards a sacrifice, and as literal change of the elements was demanded, a presbyter now is needful to become a “heirus”, a priest in OT sense. All well and good (for many other churches also have those claims and qualities) but being apostolic is paramount in what that means. Many practices evolved, as did doctrine, and is at the center of many divides (being “apostolic”).
Yes, as it is that we are now His monstrances, truly.
Yes, but you ask that He does so.
You miss the point. The sacrifice is not Christ on Calvary to be represented. It is a sacrifice of praise, from us (eucharist), that the Father has presented and already blessed Calvary thru Resurrection, to us. Calvary gift is one directional, from the Father to us. The praise /eucharist is one directional, from us back to the Father God.

In my opinion , the CC has it conflicting a bit, of offering the gift back to the Father , hoping that it is accepted (much ala OT hope), and then praising for that opportunity.

You do have both active elements , praise and sacrifice. I believe we only have one active element , praise, for the sacrifice is a done deal (hence the praise, even knowing it is already accepted, undergirding the praise).
Yes, just like the original. Was the Last Supper a real eating of His flesh and blood or symbolic ? Just what makes it a real participation, for the apostles certainly participated, in either fashion. Well, again a priest is needed, and a very specific petition. The Lord’s words were specific enough. No need to go further.
And you have also personally judged, that such Sacred Tradition is “valid”. It is personal for both of us.

And you know I have history and tradition and churches and teachers and scholars that say differently. That is, I did not come up with this on my own. So like you,I hear many things, but come to believe what others have also believed before me. And we must decide if there is a Korah rebelling against a righteous Moses, or a righteous Elijah or Jeremiah, calling for reform.

Blessings

The Christian understanding and usage of Ministerial Priesthood is accepted by the vast majority of believers in Jesus.

Today the term “priest” is used inRoman Catholicism,Eastern Orthodoxy,Anglicanism,Oriental Orthodoxy, theChurch of the East, and some branches ofLutheranismto refer to those who have beenordainedto a ministerial position through receiving thesacramentof Holy OrdersRejection of Holy orders is a modern notion.

 

[rcwitness]

We both agree here, and I stated we both have absolutes as to what constitutes communion, and what constitutes a Christian for that matter.

Yes, we do.

Agree that the value of the priesthood is enhanced, even legitimized, by the doctrine of transubstantiation. As the eucharisting changed towards a sacrifice, and as literal change of the elements was demanded, a presbyter now is needful to become a “heirus”, a priest in OT sense.

The Sacrifice of His Eucharist is a proclamation (and real belief) in the “once for all” sacrifice of Jesus. The event of the crucifixion happened in time, yet the Passion and Body and Blood of Christ has been caught up into eternity! This is what He serves to us, hidden as the symbols of bread and wine.

What do you mean by “now”? There is a difference between Old Covenant Priest, and New Covenant Priest. Even as the Bread of the Presence was only for the Priests to eat, and now the Eucharist is served to members by the Priests.

All well and good (for many other churches also have those claims and qualities) but being apostolic is paramount in what that means. Many practices evolved, as did doctrine, and is at the center of many divides (being “apostolic”).

Not sure what you are saying. Apostolic is “of the Apostles” whether it be Teachings, Traditions, Truths or Orders.

Yes, as it is that we are now His monstrances, truly.

I take it you mean as in Vessels or Temples? We are. And we can “display Christ” also! So I don’t think that’s a bad analogy.

Yes, but you ask that He does so.

Because He has told us to do so.

You miss the point. The sacrifice is not Christ on Calvary to be represented. It is a sacrifice of praise, from us (eucharist), that the Father has presented and already blessed Calvary thru Resurrection, to us. Calvary gift is one directional, from the Father to us. The praise /eucharist is one directional, from us back to the Father God.

When we “come together” to give thanks and “bless the bread and wine”, we are doing so in thanksgiving. We are doing so in remembrance and worship. We are lifting up our hearts to our Priest, King and Prophet. Our “Ministerial Priest” is the “Elder” Christian member, who has been appointed as a “leader” or “head” or “Pastor” of the community to celebrate the Sacraments and Preach the Gospel. Mass is the center of the Christian prayer, fellowship, worship, blessing, commandment and promise. We participate, and so we have a part in His body of believers. He is united and consummated with the believer through faith and devotion. The priest does not come through a lineage or by genealogy. He enters into a succession by Laying on of Hands by those who went before him.

In my opinion , the CC has it conflicting a bit, of offering the gift back to the Father , hoping that it is accepted (much ala OT hope), and then praising for that opportunity.

Every good gift should (ideally) be offered to God. His Eucharist is bound with the gifts of bread and wine. We come with our work and efforts, which are nothing to God, apart from the Grace of His Son. His Son becomes, for us, our holy offering to God.

You do have both active elements , praise and sacrifice. I believe we only have one active element , praise, for the sacrifice is a done deal (hence the praise, even knowing it is already accepted, undergirding the praise).

The only time I have seen Scripture talk about His sacrifice as being “done” is in Hebrews 10:26 where giving into sin prevents His sacrifice as active in us.

*For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins

Yes, just like the original. Was the Last Supper a real eating of His flesh and blood or symbolic?

Both

Just what makes it a real participation

His Word and promise

…for the apostles certainly participated, in either fashion. Well, again a priest is needed, and a very specific petition. The Lord’s words were specific enough. No need to go further.

What do you mean by “go further”?

And you have also personally judged, that such Sacred Tradition is “valid”. It is personal for both of us.

In a secondary sense, perhaps. I never would deny the need for His Holy Spirit to give all individuals personal understanding and direction.

And you know I have history and tradition and churches and teachers and scholars that say differently. That is, I did not come up with this on my own. So like you,I hear many things, but come to believe what others have also believed before me. And we must decide if there is a Korah rebelling against a righteous Moses, or a righteous Elijah or Jeremiah, calling for reform.

In the end, we (every Christian) believes our orthodoxy is upheld through the ministers who offers His Eucharist meal to us. Many Christians just don’t realize the significance of that meal. Just because they diminish it in their practice, doesn’t diminish the reality. What they are participating in, actually represents their faith!

 

[benhur]

The Christian understanding and usage of Ministerial Priesthood is accepted by the vast majority of believers in Jesus.

Today the term “priest” is used inRoman Catholicism,Eastern Orthodoxy,Anglicanism,Oriental Orthodoxy, theChurch of the East, and some branches ofLutheranismto refer to those who have beenordainedto a ministerial position through receiving thesacramentof Holy OrdersRejection of Holy orders is a modern notion.

Hi rc,

Yes the term priest is used by those churches and they do constitute more than half of Christendom…not sue about that being vast majority…for sure other churches use direct biblical terms or elder/bishop/presbyter…my point still remains of regardless of name of officer, some (vast majority as you say), are not only presbyter but heirus also, while other churches are only presbyter, and do not partake in sacrifices as a heirus (priest) would.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,

Yes the term priest is used by those churches and they do constitute more than half of Christendom…not sue about that being vast majority

The Catholic Church (alone!) comprises the majority of all Christians combined. Then, add the Orthodox Churches, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodists, and probably some I’m not mentioning. But I also was referring to the Church throughout the ages. The millions upon millions of Catholics prior to the Reformation. That’s why I referred to the rejection of a Ministerial Priesthood as a modern notion.

…for sure other churches use direct biblical terms or elder/bishop/presbyter…my point still remains of regardless of name of officer, some (vast majority as you say), are not only presbyter but heirus also, while other churches are only presbyter, and do not partake in sacrifices as a heirus (priest) would.

I thought you did believe that Holy Communion is a participation in the Sacrifice of Christ…

 

[benhur]

Christians combined. Then, add the Orthodox Churches, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodists, and probably some I’m not mentioning. But I also was referring to the Church throughout the ages. The millions upon millions of Catholics prior to the Reformation. That’s why I referred to the rejection of a Ministerial Priesthood as a modern notion. Hi rc,

OK agree to the numerous belief in ministerial priests, present and past.

Not sure denial of Catholic and others idea of this priesthood is only a modern notion. Indeed many say it is not in the bible , nor was it in early church , but developed over time. At best their is a ministerial presbytery. What is ministerial priesthood is that of all believers (heirus is used in NT for all of us, unlike the OT where this went unfulfilled).

I thought you did believe that Holy Communion is a participation in the Sacrifice of Christ…

I think we have been over this.

We participate in Calvary by remembering it and that He is coming back, in a eucharistic fashion communion. We do not present Calvary back to the Father as a sin offering, but rather give thanks to the Father for His propitiatory offering. We already have remission for sin and need not make any offering, and are free to eucharist.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

What do you mean by “now”? There is a difference between Old Covenant Priest, and New Covenant Priest. Even as the Bread of the Presence was only for the Priests to eat, and now the Eucharist is served to members by the Priests.

Hi rc,

What I meant was that at first the church had presbyters ministering , and “now” , when eucharist also became a reoffered sacrifice, the presbyter acted as an hiereus priest, offering up sacrifices in an unbloody fashion. The “now” meant during the evolution of the mass

The" bread of presence" was not part of OT Passover. All people participated in eating the sacrifice elements of Passover. The priest was needed for the sacrifice , but the family ate it thereafter.

Not sure what you are saying. Apostolic is “of the Apostles” whether it be Teachings, Traditions, Truths or Orders.

I think you posted about the CC being lawful, orderly, and under ordained leadership. I posted many P churches are also, but that being "apostolic’’ is just as important. That is, the law and order and leadership must be apostolic…like apostolic is as apostolic does.

Because He has told us to do so.

Yes, but I kindly disagree

When we “come together” to give thanks and “bless the bread and wine”, we are doing so in thanksgiving. We are doing so in remembrance and worship. We are lifting up our hearts to our Priest, King and Prophet. Our “Ministerial Priest” is the “Elder” Christian member, who has been appointed as a “leader” or “head” or “Pastor” of the community to celebrate the Sacraments and Preach the Gospel. Mass is the center of the Christian prayer, fellowship, worship, blessing, commandment and promise. We participate, and so we have a part in His body of believers. He is united and consummated with the believer through faith and devotion. The priest does not come through a lineage or by genealogy. He enters into a succession by Laying on of Hands by those who went before him.

Again, the “sacrifice” is at the core aspect of the CC priesthood,(as it was in OT). Another words we still have a go between , between us and the Holy of Holies

The only time I have seen Scripture talk about His sacrifice as being “done” is in Hebrews 10:26 where giving into sin prevents His sacrifice as active in us.

Hebr 10:18 Now where there is a remission of these, there is no more an oblation for sin.

Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

What do you mean by “go further”?

I say The CC goes further in eucharistic words by asking for the blessing of “transubstantiation”, and that it may be “acceptable”…these are not the Lord’s words that we have recorded, nor from the first generation of the church writings. That is going "further’’. At best some say the transforming was implicit in first church and last supper ,which later evolved to explicit, as is now.

In the end, we (every Christian) believes our orthodoxy is upheld through the ministers who offers His Eucharist meal to us. Many Christians just don’t realize the significance of that meal. Just because they diminish it in their practice, doesn’t diminish the reality. What they are participating in, actually represents their faith!

Well the reality does depend on the maturity of the participant and the congregation, as noted by Paul, but understand your putting forth that it is also based on “doctrine”, that one doctrine is deemed truer and deeper than another. I mean how well do you and I enter into remembering and eucharisting the deepest reality of what Christ really did for us at Calvary…it is first and foremost a spiritual encounter , yet in a corporate way (with others).

Again Paul notes in Cor. differences in the experience on spiritual maturity, or lack thereof, and not of "doctrine( that one belives in consubstantiation and the other transubstantiation, or spiritual symbolism of the Lord’s death).

Blessings