Discussion on Eucharist between Protestant and Orthodox viral video

[tikkasakko]

Thoughts on this interaction. I found it very interesting.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

These quibbles over substance, transubstantiation, etc, are all so tiresome because they miss the greater question: is the Eucharist the cause of our salvation? Though the Sacerdotalist model would say that the Eucharist is efficacious, when you peel back the layers you find out this isn't the case at all, not even in a Sacerdotalist system.

Classical Reformed theology places the efficacy of salvation in the Atonement itself: When Christ died, He did actually atone for the sins of His people. The Lord's Supper then is everything that the Bible says it is, a remembrance, a proclamation, a participation, a thanksgiving offering, pointing as a symbol back to that reality.

In the Sacerdotalist model, the Atonement does nothing to actually save, but enables the Eucharist to save, so then comes all the non-Biblical language of application, propitiatory sacrifice, re-presentation, perpetuation, transubstantiaton, bloodless sacrifice, etc. In effect, the Atonement is turned into a symbol that points forward to the Eucharist. This is backwards and undermines the finished nature of Christ's work on the cross. This is why even Catholics have said that you can attend Mass thousands of times and still die in mortal sin/go to Hell. Whereas the Reformed would say that if you have faith in Christ, then it is impossible for you to not be saved.

One of the key points of Hebrews is that Christ died once for all time and actually perfected His people in so doing. It explicitly refutes the idea that Christ needs to suffer often, since His death on the cross is sufficient to save. If Christ's sacrificial work is not sufficient, then you would need another priest to give you a finished work.

The Sacerdotalist model leads to endless squabbles over "valid sacraments," who is the true church, all as a way to prop up each church's own specific authority and to keep people in that communion.

 

[Samseau]

These quibbles over substance, transubstantiation, etc, are all so tiresome because they miss the greater question: is the Eucharist the cause of our salvation? Though the Sacerdotalist model would say that the Eucharist is efficacious, when you peel back the layers you find out this isn't the case at all, not even in a Sacerdotalist system.

Classical Reformed theology places the efficacy of salvation in the Atonement itself: When Christ died, He did actually atone for the sins of His people. The Lord's Supper then is everything that the Bible says it is, a remembrance, a proclamation, a participation, a thanksgiving offering, pointing as a symbol back to that reality.

In the Sacerdotalist model, the Atonement does nothing to actually save, but enables the Eucharist to save, so then comes all the non-Biblical language of application, propitiatory sacrifice, re-presentation, perpetuation, transubstantiaton, bloodless sacrifice, etc. In effect, the Atonement is turned into a symbol that points forward to the Eucharist. This is backwards and undermines the finished nature of Christ's work on the cross. This is why even Catholics have said that you can attend Mass thousands of times and still die in mortal sin/go to Hell. Whereas the Reformed would say that if you have faith in Christ, then it is impossible for you to not be saved.

This is all anti-Roman Church stuff, has nothing to do with Orthodoxy. We believe the body and blood of Christ appears at indeterminate points of time during Divine Liturgy. There is no squibbling over anything. It's a mystery, we don't know how it works and never will.

You either take the body and blood of Christ, or chances are extremely high that one will not be saved. That is what Christ taught and anything else is just heresy. Which is why 100% of the early Church fathers participated in the "breaking of the bread" which is listed numerous times in Paul's journeys in the Book of Acts.

One of the key points of Hebrews is that Christ died once for all time and actually perfected His people in so doing. It explicitly refutes the idea that Christ needs to suffer often, since His death on the cross is sufficient to save. If Christ's sacrificial work is not sufficient, then you would need another priest to give you a finished work.

Christ isn't suffering with the Eucharist, His body and His blood was given up once for all time on the cross. His body is infinitely divisible, just as how Christ fed the thousands with bread, yet always one.

The Sacerdotalist model leads to endless squabbles over "valid sacraments," who is the true church, all as a way to prop up each church's own specific authority and to keep people in that communion.

You're either descended from the Apostles and have the gift of the Holy Spirit inside the Body of Christ (his Church), or you don't.

 

[Thefinalepic]

Thoughts on this interaction. I found it very interesting.

It was well done on the students part. I also liked how the other guy said there has been 3 Vatican councils.

 

[NSOE]

They touched on the Sola gratia principle at one point. My Catholic understanding is that Jesus has opened the door and we have to walk through it ourselves, if you're in the state of grace you will do your part- the works. Matthew 25:31-46 (KJV):

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

 

[Samseau]

It's funny how Prots love to quote Paul yet completely ignore the Eucharist, when Paul is some of the earliest writings we have on the Eucharist:

1 Corinthians 10

16 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? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

1 Corinthians 11

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

When Paul speaks of "by faith you shall be saved," this is what faith looks like. Faith is not merely saying, "I believe in Jesus Christ," those who believe shall eat of His body and drink His blood.

The thief on the cross would have done the same, except, Christ had not yet perished (the sacrifice of the lamb was not yet complete) and the thief was nailed to a cross, making it physically impossible. Thus the thief, and all those saved while Christ was alive, did not need the Eucharist as the savior was physically present. For us, we the only way we can physically connect with Christ is to drink His blood and eat His body. And the only ones who can transform blood and wine into genuine articles of Christ are those who carry the Holy Spirit as descended from the Apostilles, which is why the Orthodox Church is the only way to have true faith in Christ.

Paul was taught by other early Christians, because Christ himself taught this as recounted in the Book of John, so these teachings predate Paul and go back to the very first years of Apostolic Ministry.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

It's funny how Prots love to quote Paul yet completely ignore the Eucharist, when Paul is some of the earliest writings we have on the Eucharist:

I can't speak for the Quakers, but we don't ignore the Eucharist. We receive the Eucharist every Sunday in my church.

The thief on the cross would have done the same, except, Christ had not yet perished (the sacrifice of the lamb was not yet complete) and the thief was nailed to a cross, making it physically impossible. Thus the thief, and all those saved while Christ was alive, did not need the Eucharist as the savior was physically present.

The thief on the cross would have done the same, yes, because he had faith in Christ. No one is arguing against receiving the Eucharist.

And the only ones who can transform blood and wine into genuine articles of Christ are those who carry the Holy Spirit as descended from the Apostilles, which is why the Orthodox Church is the only way to have true faith in Christ.

This is why Sacerdotalism is rejected by Protestants. The idea that the "validity" of the Eucharist depends upon Apostolic Succession is not taught by the Apostles in Scripture, and it's anachronistic to believe it is. It leads to endless fragmentation over which church has the true sacrament. If you are going to be consistent with this, then you would have to say that everyone who hasn't received the Eucharist in the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't have true faith in Christ and are thus not saved.

Paul was taught by other early Christians

Not true. Paul is an Apostle because he received His teaching directly from Christ, not from men.

Galatians 1:11 For I make known to you, brothers, that the gospel which I am proclaiming as good news is not according to man. 12For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:22 And I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which are in Christ; 23but only, they kept hearing, “He who once persecuted us is now proclaiming the good news of the faith which he once tried to destroy.” 24And they were glorifying God because of me.

Galatians 2:7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8(for He who worked in Peter unto his Apostleship to the circumcised worked in me also unto the Gentiles), 9and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Peter and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10Only they asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do.

 

[Blade Runner]

As Shamoun said, the guy and his son are evangelists, not theologians or scholars. They got pwned here, but of course they did, because they can't come clean about history, the actual Church, what it means, and their own "Rome-a-phobia"

Funny enough, as someone Orthodox once said, all protestants are crypto papists. It's a good one, as they (rightfully or not) hate their parent (mother) Church, but are always linked to them. History is not without irony.