The Universal Church

[lanman87]

what exactly is the Eucharist , to you, in your terms ?

The Lord’s Supper is a time of thanksgiving and memorial of what Christ has done for us on the cross, is a public proclamation of Christ death and resurrection, It is a way to spiritually connect with Christ and what He has done for us and it helps reaffirm our relationship with Christ and grow us spiritually as our faith is strengthened.

 

[lanman87]

The Institution in the Upper Room occurred because Christ wouldn’t have the time to offer up His Body and Blood to the Apostles.

The Institution and the Cross are taken together. Not separately.

The following is an excerpt from this article on Baptist Press.

When Jesus identified the bread and the fruit of the vine as His body and His blood, He spoke typologically. The bread did not become His body; the fruit of the vine did not become His blood. Rather, they represented the fullness of His sacrifice for those He came to redeem. How do we know?

First, the Lord’s Supper has its origins in the Jewish Passover, a memorial event designed as a perennial reminder to the Jews of God’s deliverance from bondage in Egypt. Jesus’ command to receive the Lord’s Supper “in remembrance of Me” establishes it as a memorial meal after the likeness of the Passover “type.”

Second, the specificity of Jesus’ language points to a symbolical understanding of the Lord’s Supper. It is hard to imagine the disciples thinking that Jesus, while physically sitting in their presence, literally entered the bread and the fruit of the vine. He did not say, “This bread becomes My body.” Sitting before His disciples in His pre-glorified incarnate state, He said, “This is My body … This is My blood.” Though they did not fully understand what that moment meant until after the resurrection, they clearly understood the metaphorical nature of His language, much as they understood so many other metaphorical occurrences of biblical imagery (e.g., the Lord is … my Rock, my Shield, my Fortress, my Shepherd).

Though receiving the Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act, it is nevertheless deeply meaningful. When Jesus’ followers participate in the celebratory meal, their prayerful, introspective reflection demonstrates their desire for and commitment to a continuing lifestyle of deepening devotion, communion, unity, trust, obedience, gratitude and service (1 Corinthians 10:16-17, 21; 11:20-34).

 

[Michael16]

@lanman87,

So, this article’s author is stating that This IS isn’t this becomes?

It’s ignoring the plain sense of This IS by nitpicking exact wording.

 

[steve-b]

He as his opinions just as his former boss does:

“We are an Eastern Church in communion with Rome and faithfully so, yet which wants to remain faithful to the pure, Orthodox spiritual tradition. I make bold to say that we are an Orthodox Church with the little or big plus of communion with Rome, with the Pope and our Holy Father Benedict XVI who presides in primacy and charity. Treat us as a real Eastern Church, just as you would the Orthodox on the day when the much longed for union takes place!” -Patriarch Gregorios III Laham, on letter “ecclesiology and ecumenism”

Note the words used

Preside = holds the presidency
Primacy = preeminent authority
communion with Rome = one with pope of Rome and all those in union with Rome

Orthodox = not in communion with the pope of Rome and those in union with Rome.

The Orthodox are in schism

ziapueblo:

Or

Patriarch Sviatoslav Shevchuk of the UGCC: “We are an Orthodox Church, with Orthodox theology, Liturgy, spirituality and canonical tradition that chooses to manifest this Orthodoxy in the spirit of the first Christian millennium, in communion with Rome.”

ZP

The UGCC are 100% Catholic NEWS of the UGCC news, note the 1st article on the page

 

[mcq72]

Do what?

Well, lets see. Drink the cup and eat the bread that were obviously still bread and wine and Jesus body fully intact at the Supper, just as the bread is still bread and wine still wine whilst His body is still in heaven today.

That can be true by figurative or transubstantive understanding…

However, the real crux is the reason for the doing. Remebrance or sacrifice combination ? For remembrance nothing of former is required, …could be figurative or literal eating, and no need of heirus priest. For a sacrifice one would need the literal, transubstantiated elements, and a heirus priest .

To me the real issue is it a sacrifice, upon which rests a primary function and need of a heirus type priesthood?In fact which also rests the need for a specific church for salvation (for indeed we must eat Him for eternal life, and only certain churches claim transubstantiated elements at hands of validly ordained priests).

I do not find it a conflict of interest for a presbyter, bishop teacher saying we eucharist in remebrance only and not as a sacrifice also, except of praise and thanksgiving, as the term suggests.

 

[lanman87]

So, this article’s author is stating that This IS isn’t this becomes?

It’s ignoring the plain sense of This IS by nitpicking exact wording.

Not really, Jesus was in is human body and was not yet glorified. Is it possible for a human body to be bread and wine? For that matter, is it possible for a human body to be two places at once? Wouldn’t Christ expressed pain if part of His body was broken off and turned into bread?

No, Christ was pointing to how His body was about to be broken on the cross and giving us a way to remember and celebrate what He has done for us in the same way the Passover was a way for the Jews to remember and celebrate the deliverance from Egypt. The difference is that Christ himself is the Lamb and that it only needed to happen once. It is not a sacrifice given by priest over and over again like it was in the Jewish law.

 

[Michael16]

@mcq72,

Presbyter comes from the Greek presbytus. One who goes before.

The priest and the bishop goes before us on the altar and offers the Sacrifice of the Eucharist in Mass.

Thus, we see their priestly nature in action and the Sacrifice of the Eucharist.

@Margaret_Ann: You’re an EC. Please back check my Greek for me.

 

[ziapueblo]

The UGCC are 100% Catholic

I know this and their Patriarch and this is what he believes, “We are an Orthodox Church . . . in communion with Rome.”

And from the quote you highlighted from Patriarch Gregorios III, “I make bold to say that we are an Orthodox Church with the little or big plus of communion with Rome . . .” He says “with the little or big plus of communion with Rome . . .” Obviously, some may not see it as a “big plus.”

Preside = holds the presidency

Agreed

Primacy = preeminent authority

So you are saying universal and supreme jurisdiction over the Church?

ZP

 

[Michael16]

Now you’re ignoring, @lanman87.

You’re denying Christ’s nature as God. If God can do whatever wants, as we know that nothing is impossible with God; you’re saying that God is bound by human and natural limitations and thus God is bound and subject to His own Creation.

Since I made an allusion to the Annunciation in Saint Luke: By your logic, the Holy Spirit couldn’t impregnate the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Please explain that.

By the way: In Mass, we do not re Sacrifice Christ. We are participating in the one Sacrifice of Christ in an unbloody manner.

Think of it as an eternal now.

 

[mcq72]

Presbyter comes from the Greek presbytus. One who goes before.

The priest and the bishop goes before us on the altar and offers the Sacrifice of the Eucharist in Mass.

Thus, we see their priestly nature in action and the Sacrifice of the Eucharist.

@Margaret_Ann: You’re an EC. Please back check my Greek for me.

Very good…lol…still does not answer the why of the term…i mean my pastor presbyter does not go behind us when teaching or eucharisting…lol…dont know exact greek meaning either, just that it is not heirus synonym.

 

[Michael16]

@mcq72,

Different words, but same function.

You see: That’s my basic point. Protestant exegesis relies on nitpicking exact wording and then arguing ad nauseam over exact meanings and intentions; while losing track of the plain meaning of what is being said and done in the text.

Heirus may not have been used; but we’re seeing priestly functions in action by the presbyters.

So, presbyters are priests. I’ll also add that as presbyter, we see why we call priests Father.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

what exactly is the Eucharist , to you, in your terms ?

The Lord’s Supper is a time of thanksgiving and memorial of what Christ has done for us on the cross, is a public proclamation of Christ death and resurrection, It is a way to spiritually connect with Christ and what He has done for us and it helps reaffirm our relationship with Christ and grow us spiritually as our faith is strengthened.

Thanks.

That’s also my understanding of what you believe as a Protestant

AND

in your answer, you don’t mention the bread and wine, changing into the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus , AFTER the consecration .

AND

I’ll just add, you can’t claim that

Because

THAT reality can only come from valid consecration which can only come from, valid apostolic ordination of a priest. Outside of which, that reality doesn’t happen.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Do what?

Well, lets see. Drink the cup and eat the bread that were obviously still bread and wine and Jesus body fully intact at the Supper, just as the bread is still bread and wine still wine whilst His body is still in heaven today.

That can be true by figurative or transubstantive understanding…

However, the real crux is the reason for the doing. Remebrance or sacrifice combination ? For remembrance nothing of former is required, …could be figurative or literal eating, and no need of heirus priest. For a sacrifice one would need the literal, transubstantiated elements, and a heirus priest .

To me the real issue is it a sacrifice, upon which rests a primary function and need of a heirus type priesthood?In fact which also rests the need for a specific church for salvation (for indeed we must eat Him for eternal life, and only certain churches claim transubstantiated elements at hands of validly ordained priests).

I do not find it a conflict of interest for a presbyter, bishop teacher saying we eucharist in remebrance only and not as a sacrifice also, except of praise and thanksgiving, as the term suggests.

You didn’t read the definition behind Jesus words "DO THIS"

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

What’s being changed from one reality into another? And one is being ordained to make that happen

 

[Michael16]

Exactly, @steve-b.

We’re seeing the Sacrificial nature of the Words of Institution, the Transubstantiation and the priestly function in the bishop and priest to confect the Host in the Eucharist.

By your own logic, @mcq72; you’re seeing the need for the Church Christ founded upon Saint Peter for salvation.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The UGCC are 100% Catholic

I know this and their Patriarch and this is what he believes, “We are an Orthodox Church . . . in communion with Rome.”

And from the quote you highlighted from Patriarch Gregorios III, “I make bold to say that we are an Orthodox Church with the little or big plus of communion with Rome . . .” He says “with the little or big plus of communion with Rome . . .” Obviously, some may not see it as a “big plus.”

I’m not sure where you’re going with that.

As I’ve been saying all along, people freely make their own choices. If they choose wrongly, in the big issues, scripture NOT ME, says they suffer huge consequences.

Preside = holds the presidency

Agreed

Primacy = preeminent authority

ziapueblo:

So you are saying universal and supreme jurisdiction over the Church?

from canon law #43 NOT me,

“The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches).

Emphasis mine

 

[ziapueblo]

As I’ve been saying all along, people freely make their own choices. If they choose wrongly, in the big issues, scripture NOT ME , says they suffer huge consequences.

If someone wished to call themselves “Orthodox in communion with Rome” I see no issue with that or ajar this has to do with “choosing wrong” (I would say the same with being Orthodox). Byzantine Catholics live the Orthodox Faith. I’m sorry you take issue with this.

from canon law #43 NOT me,

You are correct. Even though many Byzantine Catholic Patriarchs, bishops, priest, all the way down the line see that the codes need to be changed, they are unfortunately under the immediate jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome.

ZP

 

[Michael16]

@mcq72,

I had to do some thinking in order to formulate how I wanted to articulate the nature of Tradition and Scripture.

It wasn’t until you mentioned Saint Paul to Barnabas that I understood that Tradition and Scripture are born twins.

The Apostles preached, taught and founded churches and wrote their Gospels and Epistles. Thus, we have Tradition and Scripture.

The original Scripture being the Septuagint and the corpus of writings that not all of which were always accepted everywhere and by everyone that we’re eventually canonized or rejected in 382; giving us the set of books that the Church everywhere accepted as the inspired Word of God.

In the centuries later, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are synergistically mutually supporting pillars and the Magisterium of the Church defined what the proper interpretations are of those normative sources as troubles arose.

Then we have the Protestants in the 16th century.

More later. My kids just got home from their grandparents.

 

[lanman87]

You’re denying Christ’s nature as God.

No I’m not. Christ was both fully God and fully man. Are we talking about Spiritual flesh or human flesh?

 

[lanman87]

THAT reality can only come from valid consecration which can only come from, valid apostolic ordination of a priest. Outside of which, that reality doesn’t happen.

I understand that is what Catholicism teaches. I’m also convinced it was not part of the gospel message of Christ and the apostles and was created later by theologians who were trying to understand the Gospel message.

The fact is we (who are born of the Spirit) are all priest and Christ is our Great High Priest. We all have direct access to the throne of Grace and no longer need an earthly priest to intercede for us. Christ himself intercedes for us who are His Children by faith, through grace.

 

[Michael16]

@lanman87,

Did Christ specify?

Actually, He did. THIS IS My Body; THIS IS My Blood.

Either way, I answered your objections of Christ can’t be in multiple places at once, et cetera; with nothing is impossible with God.

You haven’t tackled my response yet.