The Universal Church

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The context of using that word ποιεῖτε is the Last supper, and it tells us how DO THIS is being used by Jesus. DO WHAT? Jesus is changing bread and wine into His body and blood. Changing one thing into another thing.

Strongs (that you link) disagrees with you.

The definition is

make, manufacture, construct, cause.

THAT says it all. THAT is the authority and power Jesus is giving His apostles at this moment to do exactly what He is doing. Change bread and wine into His body and blood.

What part of that are you having trouble with?

 

[lanman87]

What part of that are you having trouble with?

That you are using the wrong definition.

The correct definition, according to strongs is to do (Latinago), i. e. to follow some method in expressing by deeds the feelings and thoughts of the mind;

changing or making something is the wrong definition in the context of the sentence. (according to Strongs).

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

What part of that are you having trouble with?

That you are using the wrong definition.

The correct definition, according to strongs is to do (Latinago), i. e. to follow some method in expressing by deeds the feelings and thoughts of the mind;

changing or making something is the wrong definition in the context of the sentence. (according to Strongs).

click on the word ποιεῖτε
The definition is right under it

AND

keep scrolling down to the bottom of the page

Strong’s

to make or do

Apparently a prolonged form of an obsolete primary; to make or do (in a very wide application, more or less direct) – abide, + agree, appoint, X avenge, + band together, be, bear, + bewray, bring (forth), cast out, cause, commit, + content, continue, deal, + without any delay, (would) do(-ing), execute, exercise, fulfil, gain, give, have, hold, X journeying, keep, + lay wait, + lighten the ship, make, X mean, + none of these things move me, observe, ordain, perform, provide, + have purged, purpose, put, + raising up, X secure, shew, X shoot out, spend, take, tarry, + transgress the law, work, yield.

ALL this shows the motivation behind the action Jesus took in passing the power and authority down to His apostles for THEM to be able to do what Jesus intended for THEM to do…

 

[lanman87]

eep scrolling down to the bottom of the page

Strong’s

to make or do

Apparently a prolonged form of an obsolete primary; to make or do (in a very wide application, more or less direct) – abide, + agree, appoint , X avenge, + band together, be, bear, + bewray, bring (forth ), cast out, cause, commit, + content, continue , deal, + without any delay, (would) do(-ing), execute, exercise, fulfil, gain, give, have, hold, X journeying, keep, + lay wait, + lighten the ship, make , X mean, + none of these things move me, observe, ordain, perform, provide, + have purged, purpose, put, + raising up, X secure, shew, X shoot out, spend, take, tarry, + transgress the law, work, yield .

Yes, but on the right side it gives the general definitions and which scriptures correspond with the two definitions listed at the top. Luke 22:19 is listed under definition 2. Meaning that out of all those usages the folks at Strong’s consider the usage in Luke 22:19 to be:

II. to do (Latinago), i. e. to follow some method in expressing by deeds the feelings and thoughts of the mind;

Now you may want to argue that Strong’s is wrong and it should be under the first definition, which is

I. to make (Latineffcio),

but the fact is whenever you give that link you are actually showing the meaning of the poieó to be a more Reformed/Protestant understanding of the meaning.

 

[mcq72]

Re: the Eucharist

The point I’m making, is different.

Jesus made, a do this or else statemen

I wonder how old is this " valid ordination" to do eucharist. Not sure the earliest forefathers mention this. Indeed one could say there is discussion of what communion is or is not
One could also say there is discusiion of a presider over cerrmony, even a " president," and also of a presbyter/ bishop. The context of valid ordination seems to be lacking. Yes, orthodoxy is aim but not sure of any focus on valid orders needed for “real presence”.

 

[mcq72]

The definition is

make, manufacture, construct, cause

So i take cotton and thread and dye and and a template, and make the flag of the United States, our national symbol.

 

[Nicene]

Plus read somewhere that so much attention to the “present” by straining at the literal understanding of eating might make some forget that we are still in covenant, until the Testator come back, the glorious ultimate and final fulfillment . Just as Passover was memorable and inspiring, it was not done in a vacuum, but in expectation of something further, even better, His first coming. So to we also look forward to His second coming, in our communion remembrance, in thanksgiving.

Ok so to the strawmen. 1 the accusation of a strawman arguement (which displayed above is clearly not the case). 2. the strawman of conflating “Trogon” with “Anamnesis” 3rd strawman attempting to change the discussion of tghe last supper to Hebrews through latching onto covenant instead of addressing “Anamnesis” being rathner vague in the first sentence.

However in bringing up this section of Hebrews you have inadvertantly stumbled onto something which is worthy of discussion. Hebrews is a liturgical book. Liturgy is the actualization of the faith. So lets unpack what you have written. Your first sentence tells me a lot:

Plus read somewhere that so much attention to the “present” by straining at the literal understanding of eating

To recall to make present isn’t a concentration of the here and now. I’m not sure where you read it but it certainly would not be the Orthodox or Catholic Church. They are literally the words of consecration, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. “Recall to make present” is not the sence of I recall someones name, rather to be recalled to active duty. Baptism brings us into the covenant and communion among many other things renews the covenant. Lets go onto Hebrews:

1 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven,
2 a minister (λειτουργός-lituirgist) in the sanctuary and the true tent which is set up not by man but by the Lord.

A liturgist performs rites and offers the public works of worship (literally what liturgy means) and Hebrews is virtually a book of types:

19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people

Sound familiar, water, blood, hyssop, sprinkling the people? Which are a type of Christ on the cross and the ratification of the covenant. “It is finished” on the cross is “it is consummated”

1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices which are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who draw near.

cont.
Edit: corrected with “not”

 

[Nicene]

The “true form of these realities” refers to the sacraments. Heb 10: 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. and the Eucharist Heb 13: 10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.

Christs “coming” Parousia, happens daily. However if I am reading correctly your implication is that we are “in covenant” alludes to OSAS, which is far from true Heb 6: 4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6 if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.

The most personal relationship is not one where you just talk to someone who is far away, but someone you meet in person every day who abides in you and you in Him, a symbiotic relationship.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[mcq72]

When Jesus ordained His apostles at the Last Supper, and gave them the power to do exactly what He did when He used the words

Again, could you illucidate thru explicit scripture or earliest fathers the conferring of this specific power only to specific people ?

 

[mcq72]

3rd strawman attempting to change the discussion of tghe last supper to Hebrews ( a liturgical book) through latching onto covenant instead of addressing “Anamnesis” being rathner vague in the first sentence.

I mention covenant not so much due to Hebrews, but to Jesus’s own consecratory words (in the gospels, which are even more “liturgical books”) of covenant till or to His return (second coming), where we will be present with Him in His full glory, something better than any type of communion participation now.

instead of addressing “Anamnesis” being rathner vague in the first sentence.

So any presence is only vague if not the full eloquent verbiage of an Aquinas and transubstantiation, even though a better revelation gives such an appearance of much straw? Is minimum of explanation of Orthodox only partly vague?

 

[Nicene]

You mean like this Ignatgius to the Smyrneans:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.

So as we know Ignatius was a disciple of John and appointed Bishop by him, So Either St. John didn’t understand Jesus or he got it right. As well one has to go no further than 1 Cor 11 to find that what you are proposing is not biblical.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Ok…like 600 posts ago…all lanmam said was to change the passover to the Passover…so that whatever Jewish passover was/ is as far as bringing to " present", we now do with eucharist communion…his words were " remember and celebrate" if I recall correctly…heard no argument against what meltzer or others infer to remebrance…it may be quite objective and subjective at same time…certainly meltzer would not say the sacrificial lambs of the remebrance were miraculously somehow the lambs of the original passover…current lambs signifying the original lambs suffices for the celebration/ remembrance.

And I wonder, is going back to the past so as to “participate” the same as brining the past to the present as to “participate” ?

Again not sure how any form or definition of remember is not bringing the past to the present .

We have objective facts to “remember” (deliverance, salvation) and even objective based feelings of thanksgiving, etc…

Our communion has " words" to recall and replay, just as old passover did, to objectively remember and bring again to the forefront or present.

So short answer is you don’t believe what Jews have understood for 6000 years, Jesus and Rabbis then and now, Catholics and Orthodox for 2000 and came up with something innovative and modern. Got it. You should have just said so, it would have made your reply much shorter.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

edit: fixed formatting

 

[Nicene]

Ok, very well thought out. Yes, how do we eat Jesus? It is not subjective for us as i think you imply.

It is quite objective. We do participate, we do literally spiritually eat, even at the foot of the cross, when we are born of the Spirit, when we first believe, unto life.

So two thousand years later, we are either like the centurion, or like the thief on the cross, where we encounter a living Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, in and with saving faith.

Calvary is objectively realized and we burst forth in thanksgiving, again and again, as we remember as how we came to be betrothed to the Almighty.

Jesus isn’t a spirit to Catholics. We think and understand incarnationally. When he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven he had a glorified body. Other than that sentence it was more, to be honest, Gnostic vague-ary.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Lenten_ashes]

It is quite objective. We do participate, we do literally spiritually eat, even at the foot of the cross, when we are born of the Spirit, when we first believe, unto life

Can’t disagree with that on the surface. Where I think you guys go wrong is your either/or approach. We receive Jesus through the Word, through the initial encounter, as you say, and also through the Eucharist, continually. Jesus promised not to leave us as orphans and so he left us the Holy Spirit and Himself in the Eucharist. Ignatius clearly understood this and if he got it wrong then Christianity was derailed from the beginning.

 

[Vico]

transubstantiation as a sacrifice

It is a memorial of the one sacrifice.

Catechism of the Catholic Church on the Eucharist (Sacrament)

1330 … The Holy Sacrifice , because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church’s offering.

1358 We must therefore consider the Eucharist as:
- thanksgiving and praise to the Father ;
- the sacrificial memorial of Christ and his Body;
- the presence of Christ by the power of his word and of his Spirit .

 

[mcq72]

Can’t disagree with that on the surface. Where I think you guys go wrong is your either/or approach. We receive Jesus through the Word, through the initial encounter, as you say, and also through the Eucharist, continually. Jesus promised not to leave us as orphans and so he left us the Holy Spirit and Himself in the Eucharist. Ignatius clearly understood this and if he got it wrong then Christianity was derailed from the beginning.

Thank you . You are right, we receive Him in Word, like you, but differ on real presence and literal eating of His flesh as opposed to spiritual eating, yet both opreations in and by faith.

We look forward, as you, to His literal return in His fully glorified body. Until then, yes you have Him literally bodily and spiritually in the symbols of bread and wine, and some of us only spiritually.

We both have Him with us now spiritually , and you physically though encumbered thru symbolic elements.

And again, we both look forward to His literal return (for you unencumbered…hopefully you do not find my use of that word offensive, but I use it relative to what it will be like on His return, where you will not need a mass or a priest, or thru faith or symbols, not too mention ourselves finally fully free from our sinful flesh being fully like Him).

 

[mcq72]

Ignatius clearly understood this and if he got it wrong then Christianity was derailed from the beginning.

Ignatius to me cites what gospels and Corinthians say each in slightly different contexts. In a each case discernment is needed, and rationale is found by and in the several communion practices we still have today. I disagree with those who say there was only one explicit understanding in early church or that it was transubstantiation only, if at all.

I mean Jesus said, “Thiis is my body.” Paul says the Lord’s words also, and Ignatius also correlates the bread to His body. Did Jesus mean transubstantiation? Did Paul, or Ignatius?

Just saying Ignatius says nothing new to any communion view. Further explicitness however is forthcoming for different views culminating in later centuries and finally with Aquinas for your case.

 

[mcq72]

Heb 13: 10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.

Well, we don’t have a temple and gates and no altar for blood letting anymore .

“By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.” vs 15,

Or psalms or Hosea…no bulls but lips are required.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Do you see any kind of correlation between the miraculous bread from heaven, aka “Manna”, and the Eucharist?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

eep scrolling down to the bottom of the page

Strong’s

to make or do

Apparently a prolonged form of an obsolete primary; to make or do (in a very wide application, more or less direct) – abide, + agree, appoint , X avenge, + band together, be, bear, + bewray, bring (forth ), cast out, cause, commit, + content, continue , deal, + without any delay, (would) do(-ing), execute, exercise, fulfil, gain, give, have, hold, X journeying, keep, + lay wait, + lighten the ship, make , X mean, + none of these things move me, observe, ordain, perform, provide, + have purged, purpose, put, + raising up, X secure, shew, X shoot out, spend, take, tarry, + transgress the law, work, yield .

Yes, but on the right side it gives the general definitions and which scriptures correspond with the two definitions listed at the top. Luke 22:19 is listed under definition 2. Meaning that out of all those usages the folks at Strong’s consider the usage in Luke 22:19 to be:

II. to do (Latinago), i. e. to follow some method in expressing by deeds the feelings and thoughts of the mind;

Now you may want to argue that Strong’s is wrong and it should be under the first definition, which is

I. to make (Latineffcio),

but the fact is whenever you give that link you are actually showing the meaning of the poieó to be a more Reformed/Protestant understanding of the meaning.

Only in your mind.