quote:

---

Anyone can Baptize at any time in cases of emergency

---

So then it becomes apparent that you don't REALLY have to have a priest. It is simply preferable in order to better ensure that the right tone and meaning is being applied to the baptism ceremony.

In the same way, it is best to celebrate Eucharist with a priest, in a church, amongst other worshippers in order to ensure that you are cognizant, reverent and prepared for the gift of communion. But the only absolute requirement is the faith and belief of the receiver of said communion.

quote:

---

Second, the matter of the Sacrament (i.e. Eucharistic species) must be bread and wine.

---

So completely wrong... But I understand that this is a matter of opinion and neither of us will be able to convince the other.

quote:

---

Having the validity dependent upon the disposition of the celebrant is the old heresy of Donatism.

---

I hadn't heard of Donatus before but I think we are in agreement as to the incorrectness of such a belief.

quote:

---

Diehard: would you say that a common law marriage is a sacramentally valid marriage? It meets the basic requirements in the Bible: a woman leaves her parents and moves in with the man.

If that's not a valid sacramental marriage, then how can any one just eating bread and drinking wine, thinking about Christ be a valid Eucharist?

---

I never made this point (or intended to). Merely eating bread/wine and moving in together mean nothing. The Eucharist and Marriage are sacred things. Both should be entered into with heavy hearts, full of understanding and thanksgiving. But what makes it VALID is not whether you go through the motions of one's particular church! There are no magic phrases that make each one valid once said.

I really don't get why this is so hard to understand.

quote:

---

I really don't get why this is so hard to understand.

---

Ditto.

I'd take what was original posted in this thread as respects from the Church being the bride of Christ and literally taken from the side of Adam.

quote:

---

Can I, during lunch today, consecrate my oreos and coke

---

Seamaster, these items on your diet? I hope you didn't give in.

Also, to answer the question, anything other than what the Lord commanded is NOT valid. Too many examples throughout the bible where God strikes people dead or condemns them because they did things "their" way.

We read unleavened bread and fruit of the vine. That eliminates everything else.

"For my ways are not your ways, nor my thoughts your thoughts"- Isaiah (cannot recall chapter and verse off the top of my head.) Despite what we think is ok and good, the Lord does not think like we do. So to be safe, we better obey Him and not stray. I am sure Uzziah, for example, THOUGHT he was doing a good thing. The Lord thought otherwise.

[This message has been edited by 05AG (edited 5/28/2008 4:45p).]

Yeah, on second thought, I'd agree with the bread/fruit of the vine. Oreos and Dr. Pepper wouldn't be ideal if bread/wine were available.

Of course bread and wine are preferable. They should do a much better job of ensuring that we who are receiving the Eucharist are fully aware of the body and blood that they represent and the sacrifice that Jesus made for us. But in times of necessity, other food and drink COULD be used. It isn't the composition of the Eucharist that makes it sacramental, it is the faith and rememberance of the sacrifice that makes it valid.

quote:

---

But in times of necessity, other food and drink COULD be used.

---

I'll stick with the example I used above rather than rattle off several others.

Don't you think Uzziah, out of necessity to save the ark and prevent damage, touched it with all sincerity to try and do a good thing? He did this despite being commanded NOT to touch it. Again, the Lord thought otherwise and stuck him dead.

Of course God didn't command us to use only unleavened bread and wine. Again, it isn't about the composition of the host. It is all about the receiver's faith and rememberance of Christ's sacrifice.

[This message has been edited by PetroAg87 (edited 5/28/2008 5:34p).]

What else did He authorize? He told us what He wants, so that pretty much eliminates everything else.

Cain sacrificed to the Lord but his sacrifice was not pleasing. Why?

Does anybody realize how Gnostic it is to remove the matter from the equation? All that matters is faith...matter doesn't matter. (Pun intended.)

Matter DOES matter in the bible. It really matters...

quote:

---

What else did He authorize?

---

He neither authorized nor prohibited any food or drink item. Apparently the specific food item used wasn't important enough to merit any sort of verse.

quote:

---

Matter DOES matter in the bible. It really matters...

---

Not in relation to the Eucharist it doesn't.


[This message has been edited by PetroAg87 (edited 5/29/2008 12:32a).]

quote:

---

Not in relation to the Eucharist it doesn't.

---

Because you say so???

Yes because I said so!

Why would you assume that the composition of the host DOES matter other than being told by others that that is what you should believe?

I don't believe that the food and drink turns into actual flesh and blood but believe instead that it is a symbolic representation of Christ's sacrifice. Under those circumstances, why should the composition matter?

[This message has been edited by PetroAg87 (edited 5/29/2008 8:12a).]

You must be right then...

It comes down to personal opinion doesn't it? But I certainly wouldn't continue to believe as I do if I didn't think I was right. Would you?

Let's look at the issue from another angle. You believe in transubstantiation so let's assume for the moment that such an event indeed occurs during the Eucharist. Does such a miracle occur because:
a) the ceremony is being presided over by a Apostolic priest?
b) because the host consists of unleavened bread and wine?

If either of the above is not present, does that mean that the Eucharist is not present? Why? Surely it isn't because God isn't capable of turning items into his flesh and blood without a priest's assistance or if it isn't a specific food product. So is it a matter of God not wanting to do it when those two situations aren't present?

[This message has been edited by PetroAg87 (edited 5/29/2008 9:50a).]

quote:

---

It comes down to personal opinion doesn't it?

---

No it doesn't. Truth is not defined by personal opinion.

I think there is absolute truth as well. I think that the TRUTH of the matter is that taking the Eucharist is a matter of the heart, not a matter of if you took it in right form.

However, we can argue about this until the cows come home...and I don't think anyone is changing their minds.

Well, actually, diehard...

I changed MY mind about 2 years ago. I've known many others who have done the same.

What changed my mind? Reading the bible and stepping away from the "lense" through which I once read it. I accepted a certain biblical paradigm...one of many. I asked myself, "Why do I accept this paradigm? Why is it more true than one of the many others?"

So...Minds may not be changed every time the discussion comes up but ulimately discussions about truth will pull the listeners towards truth.

quote:

---

Well, actually, diehard...

I changed MY mind about 2 years ago. I've known many others who have done the same.

What changed my mind? Reading the bible and stepping away from the "lense" through which I once read it. I accepted a certain biblical paradigm...one of many. I asked myself, "Why do I accept this paradigm? Why is it more true than one of the many others?"

So...Minds may not be changed every time the discussion comes up but ulimately discussions about truth will pull the listeners towards truth.

---

Touche.

I stand corrected.

quote:

---

Truth is not defined by personal opinion.

---

But determining what is truth IS a matter of personal opinion.

Jesus told the apostles to "do this" in memory of me. "This" being the consecration of the bread and wine into his body and blood. He didn't tell Ali bin Schmucko or Joe Sixpack to do "this". And if he wanted to use something else besides bread and wine for the Eucharist, then that would have been plainly delineated in the NT. It is not.

Petro is partly right. The efficaciousness of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not only through the hands of the priest, but also by the mode of the receiver. IOW, the more you respect and discern THE Body and THE blood of Christ in the Eucharist, the more powerful it is.

quote:

---

And if he wanted to use something else besides bread and wine for the Eucharist, then that would have been plainly delineated in the NT.

---

Why do you assume that to be the case? And if you so believe then how come there isn't more concern with the specifics of the bread and wine being used? There certainly seem to be a lot of scholars who believe that it was regular bread rather than unleavened bread that was consumed during the Last Supper. Does that mean by your argument that Communion using unleavened bread is therefore not valid? And useage of a white wine, rose wine, or port wine would also make the communion invalid? Why do you think Christ would be so hung up on the specifics of the food and drink? Especially if it is going to be transformed anyway.

It is the message and meaning of the Eucharist that is important rather than the specifics of the sacramental host.

PetroAg...

Its more than that. Think about it...what meal was happening during the first Holy Communion???

The Passover. Did Jews care about Matter? Unleaven bread and wine! Did the "matter" of the passover lamb matter before the Exodus? What if a Jewish family hadn't slain a lamb but instead a chicken...and used chicken's blood on the door post. Do you think that the curse of Israel would have passed over their home because they had "faith" that the chicken blood would work just as good????

quote:

---

what meal was happening during the first Holy Communion??? The Passover.

---

Possibly it was the Passover but perhaps not. However, the original words used when describing the Last Supper bread are those used when refering to regular bread rather than unleavened bread. This indicates that the Last Supper may have actually occured during the days of preparation which occurs prior to the Passover meal. Whether it occured as part of a Passover meal or not however makes absolutely no difference to me.

quote:

---

What if a Jewish family hadn't slain a lamb but instead a chicken...and used chicken's blood on the door post. Do you think that the curse of Israel would have passed over their home because they had "faith" that the chicken blood would work just as good????

---

Did the sacrifice of a chicken represent the same level of economic sacrifice to a family as would the sacrifice of a lamb? I doubt it and therefore, a chicken might not have been sufficient. But such a decision hinges on the level of sacrifice made by the family rather than some magical quality that exists in lamb's blood rather than chicken blood.

Consider another scenario: If just prior to Passover, someone had stolen a family's sacrificial lamb and the family as a result was forced to use a small calf instead....Do you really think that God would have killed the first borns in that family because they didn't use a lamb? Or would their intent to provide a sacrifice and their faith in the protection of God have been enough to spare them. You apparently believe the former Seamaster but I firmly stand behind the latter.

I think there's a story somewhere in the bible where the Pharisees got mad at Christ for healing on the Sabbath.

I think that would be good to explore.

quote:

---

But such a decision hinges on the level of sacrifice made by the family rather than some magical quality that exists in lamb's blood rather than chicken blood.

---

No. It had to be a lamb. Sorry. You are reading sola fidism into the text...

quote:

---

You are reading sola fidism into the text...

---

Yeap I probably am. And I have no problem or issue doing so.

So getting back to my scenario... You believe that if someone had stolen the family's sacrificial lamb forcing them to use a calf instead...that God would have struck the first borns dead because they didn't follow directions closely enough??? Wow. Do you think that is because without lamb's blood, God wouldn't have been able to properly identify the family? That he would have been unable to determine their intent and faith??? I really don't think so Seamaster.

I think those people would have gone to a neighbor and had them paint lamb's blood on the their door...AND eaten the passover meal with them.

Read the Bible. Bad things happened when people disobeyed God. Look at Lot's wife.

Without taking sides, and inserting myself into the hypothetical, it is my belief that it was God who provided the lambs to those He would save.

I don't think it was whether or not a family had a lamb to sacrifice that determined their salvation. It was God who provided the sacrifice that He required to those He deemed worthy of salvation.

Prolly true TD.

God DID provide THE Lamb who would be slain...

quote:

---

I think those people would have gone to a neighbor and had them paint lamb's blood on the their door...AND eaten the passover meal with them.

---

Perhaps they would have. But perhaps not. The question remains: If the family unable to find a sheep through no fault of their own, had used a calf instead...you really think that their belief, faith, and intent wouldn't have been enough SeaMaster??? You think God would have struck the first borns down anyway?

Or consider a slightly different version of the scenario: Little Johnny runs down to the butcher to buy some lamb's blood. But the butcher gives him calf blood instead (Quite a run on lamb's blood). So the family is sitting there in their home believing that they have done everything as per God's instructions. And yet they don't have lamb's blood on their doorway through no fault of their own. Again Seamaster, you believe that God would strike the first borns down under such a situation? They don't have lamb's blood on their door after all and that is what matters right???

[This message has been edited by PetroAg87 (edited 5/29/2008 4:20p).]

In the context of ancient israel captive in Egypt...they didn't have butchers. Families were large and connected. Typical families would have scores of members. They would have eaten the passover together and God would have provided the lamb.

And I doubt that they used the name Johnny for their kids also but that doesn't alter the fact that you are attempting to dodge the question. I understand. You are backed into a corner and not sure how to answer.

IF a family unintentionally had used something other than lamb's blood... Do you think God would use that as a reason to strike them down regardless of their faith and intent?

[This message has been edited by PetroAg87 (edited 5/29/2008 6:15p).]

Petro,
You yourself are avoiding questions. You never answered about Uzziah.
Do you think what he did was unintentional (just a reaction) that was done in all good faith and intent?

[This message has been edited by 05AG (edited 5/29/2008 7:23p).]