Priests are a gift from the Heart of Christ, Pope Benedict says

Not being able to read Greek, I'm no expert in patristics (although I suppose I could scramble over to a reference book as well as anybody :) ) but for bishops early on, I'll mention St. Paul, inasmuch as he ordained others by the laying on of hands, and issued epistles in which he directed, corrected, ruled, governed, interceded, laid down commandments, defended his authority, rebuked fraudulent leaders and installed faithful ones.

He wrote an Epistle to the Ephesians (around 62 A.D.), and wrote a couple to the Corinthians while he was in Ephesus, in which he laid down rules for the proper reception of the Lord's Body and Blood (1 Corinthians 11:29), by which we may reasonably infer that he celebrated the Eucharist and was accepted as an authority on its correct observance.

As I understand it, Paul was succeeded as bishop (overseer) of Ephesus by Timothy, whom he had ordained, and who was a native of the city (see 1 Timothy 1, 3; 2 Timothy 1, 18; 4:12) Thus an Apostolic succession. During the first three centuries, Ephesus was one of the main sees of the Church in Asia Minor: Eusebius (Church History) records some of the early ecclesial activity there.

As for the sacrifice of being, as you claim, "only" one of thanksgiving (eucharistia), all the churches, Orthodox and Catholic, which trace their roots through Ephesus and other Apostolic Sees, understand that as being synonymous with Eucharistic Liturgy.

I don't know of any that didn't. Can you name any of the ancient churches that didn't? I'm here to learn.

(Please excuse the rather breathless sentence structure here. I'm in and out of the house, maybe not as coherent as I ought to be!) Peace!

“What authority, if any, does the SBC have and what purpose does it serve if not to exercise some sort of control over “like-minded” congregations?”

No authority. It doesn’t exist to supervise. Once in a great while, a church will publicly state it believes XYZ, and X will be something like homosexuality. The only discipline that exists is that the other churches can vote to refuse to seat their delegates to the national convention (a one/year event, I think - never gone myself and don’t know anyone who has).

I don’t know if any church has tried to continue to call themselves “SBC” if the SBC refuses to seat their delegates.

The SBC doesn’t exist to supervise doctrine or churches. It exists to pool money for missions and seminaries. The big split between the Northern and Southern Baptists, for example, occurred when the Northern Baptists won a vote to refuse to support any missionary who owned slaves.

“In 1844, Georgia Baptists asked the Home Mission Society to appoint a slaveholder to be a missionary in Georgia. After much discussion, the appointment was declined. A few months later, the Alabama Baptist Convention asked the Foreign Mission Society if they would appoint a slaveholder as a missionary. When the society said no, Virginia Baptists called for Baptists of the South to meet at Augusta, Georgia, in early May, 1845, for the purpose of consulting “on the best means of promoting the Foreign Mission cause, and other interests of the Baptist denomination in the South.”

http://www.baptisthistory.org/sbaptistbeginnings.htm

Not a very noble beginning! The SBC formally apologized and repented of its actions some years ago.

“Except that the NT churches were subject to apostolic authority. Most of Paul’s epistles are basically “meddling” in other churches’ business, telling them what to do, what not to do, and even giving them commandments of his own.”

Emphasis on “apostolic authority”. Since there are no apostles now, baptists figure following what they wrote is obeying the apostles.

“I think the Bible is very clear that not everyone can interpret, or prophesy, or teach, etc.”

Yes...but how to determine that? It doesn’t say someone needs to be approved by a central authority to preach. I think the Apostles knew - as Jesus taught them - that there would be weeds among the wheat in the visible church, and that many would go astray by following false teachers.

I can think of two models for preventing heresy. One is a hierarchical structure, with someone (or someones - bishops) who knows ‘the truth’ and prevents others from falling into heresy. The other is a written standard, if you will - to use scripture as the rule. Of course, scripture can be interpreted in many false ways - but if 100 churches try to follow scripture, then only a few will be overridden with weeds and fall under the control of false teachers. In this model, individual believers following the Holy Spirit are the guard against heresy.

From what I’ve seen, EVERY organization of man can and will go astray from what it was founded to do. Think of it as the laws of thermodynamics applied to civilization - everything in time tends to go to lower energy and greater randomness! Think of Harvard University, or the many fine conservative political organizations that drift liberal...or the Lutherans admitting homosexuals as ministers.

I think this reflects what John wrote in chapter 3: “8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Baptists look at denominations such as some Lutherans - or the Catholic Church - and conclude that a top-down hierarchy cannot be trusted. That is why a congregation can always fire it’s minister...in the end, it is the individual congregation that is responsible for following the truth.

I think this is closer to the early church than first glance appears. The great church councils determined doctrine by voting. They determined the canon by voting. And I think - MD can correct me - that the Catholic Church even now believes that sacred tradition must be tested and accepted by the laity. Those concepts that win wide approval and acceptance become part of the sacred traditions, while the pet theories of theologians may not.

At the personal level, kosta50 determines what kosta50 believes or follows. I can tell you my experience and why I follow XYZ, and you may or may not agree. If we are in substantial agreement, we can continue to work together. If not, then we would part ways. But only kosta50 can decide for himself what God is leading him to do, and on judgment day, kosta50 and I will both face God and give account for how we decided as individuals. In the New Testament, individuals are born again - not groups of people.

In January, the SBC church that I was a member of endorsed Calvinism. I pointed out to the pastor that when our disagreement is about the statement “Jesus loves you”, then we could no longer work together. So I left.

I recently joined another small SBC church. The pastor went to a Presbyterian seminary, but he agrees that God loves all of us and is grieved when we reject God. At our last business meeting, we voted to offer help to a non-SBC church that is struggling to stay afloat due to high rent. We have offered to let them use our building on Saturdays and pay just the increase in utilities and cleaning.

In a baptist ‘business model’, that makes sense. I don’t know how other approaches would view it, but I suspect a LOT of denominations/churches are realizing the enemy is Satan, not each other!

I'll mention St. Paul, inasmuch as he ordained others by the laying on of hands, and issued epistles in which he directed, corrected, ruled, governed, interceded...

Okay, that makes him equivalent to a bishop.

he laid down rules for the proper reception of the Lord's Body and Blood (1 Corinthians 11:29), by which we may reasonably infer that he celebrated the Eucharist and was accepted as an authority on its correct observance.

The Eucharist was a celebratory meal associated with the so-called Agape feast done in remembrance of Jesus, and not as part of the sacrificial liturgical service. One must keep in mind that the Christians in the first century, and especially in Paul's time, were still consider Jews and gathered in the Temple, while performing the "breaking of the bread" at home! (Act 2:46, 3:1) They also attended Friday services in the synagogues like the rest of the Jews.

St. Paul did not describe a "Mass" but the Agape meal. His objection was with some people eating and drinking too much. He thought it disrespectful as a memorial gathering to remember Christ's Last Supper; he does not describe a liturgical Eucharistic sacrifice, or transformation of the bread and wine. He simply objected to the unruliness and selfishness (gluttony) of some.

The Agape meal was never synonymous with or part of the Eucharistic liturgy.

Things began to change towards the end of the century when Christians were basically excommunicated and needed to establish a legitimate divine authority (because they could no longer claim Jewish tradition). They also had to establish a substitute for the temple and synagogal service which they could no longer attend.

The break with Judaism comes after the rabbis, who moved from Jerusalem to Jamnia following the destruction of the second Temple, decided to reject all Christian books along with their beliefs, condemn them Nazarenes as the "minim" (usurpers and sectarians), and proceeded to throw them out of synagogues.

This took place in the last decade of the first century. It is not a coincidence that this period sees the emergence of John's Gospel, precisely because of the theological vacuum created by this, and with the explicit as well as implicit aim at establishing divine authority in Christ by equating him to God.

That's why at this point we have evidence from Apostolic Fathers such as +Ignatius (born c. 60 AD, died c. 107-110 AD) of the emerging Eucharitsitc liturgy, tripartite clergy ( explicitly differentiating between presbyters as priests, and episcopes as bishops, and deacons).

Ignatius no longer speaks of the "breaking of the bread" or a memorial meal, but says that the Eucharist is the "medicine of immortality" (see Ignatius, Epistle to Ephesians 20). To him, heretics were all who denied the Eucharist as the very flesh of Jesus Christ, so it is obvious that by the early 2nd century the "orthodox" faction of Christianity believed and offered Eucharistic sacrifice and no longer identified it with a "meal" done in rememberance at home.

One can therefore reasonably infer that at the time of the break with Judaism (c. 90-100 AD), and not prior to it, the Christians developed their own liturgy, established their own clergy, established churches as places or worship as well as sacrificial offerings, and developed religious service that combined the functions of the Temple and the synagogue in one, and in line with their beliefs in the divinity of Jesus.

Of course they do. However, the oldest liturgy of the Church is the Liturgy of St. James. Experts cannot agree on its earliest date, one extreme believes it was as early as the year 60 AD (and only in Jerusalem) but the majority place it in the 4th century AD, simply because there is no evidence of any Christian liturgy until the end of the first century for the reasons outlined above, one major being that they were Jews who gathered around the Temple for sacrificial offerings and in synagogues for pastoral services, while "breaking the bread" in memory of Christ at home (as per the Book of Acts referenced above).

The Church may have been born on the Pentecost, but liturgically and theologically had to gradually evolve.

Thank you, sir. Truly a joy to read. Very informative.

In this model, individual believers following the Holy Spirit are the guard against heresy

You know that is a catch-all phrase everyone uses to justify their position. Other than that, honestly it really says nothing of consequence.

and on judgment day, kosta50 and I will both face God and give account for how we decided as individuals

No doubt we will face something on the day we leave this life. The rest is an enigma.

At the personal level, kosta50 determines what kosta50 believes or follows

Yes, he does.

At our last business meeting, we voted to offer help to a non-SBC church that is struggling to stay afloat due to high rent. We have offered to let them use our building on Saturdays and pay just the increase in utilities and cleaning

That is the beauty of the Church I remember and certainly miss. My theological and other disagreements aside, I still think that we could create paradise on earth by imitating Christ. Christianity is the only religion I can think of, where a believer actually relates to his God on a personal, human level. Of course, much of that is the result of intense hellenization that took place in the formative stages of an apocalyptic Jewish sect.

Despite potential and actual anthropomorphism creeping into one's perception of God, it also makes God a lot closer, warmer, loving, comforting, understanding, and real to our senses.

Thanks, again, on your superb post.

Thank you for this information, which is fascinating. I would like to ask you to recommend some sources, if you would, so I can do some more reading on the development of Liturgy.

(I say development of the Liturgy to emphasize that it is a thing growing, elaborating, refining and maturing what is already innate to it, unfolding from within as it were. I avoid the word "evolution" which might connote, to some, the random mutation of a thing into something alien and even opposite.)

Along those lines, I would differ from you mainly in emphasis. The 1st century A.D. agape meals did not, I think, exclude or contradict the idea that it is a sacrificial meal as well: the kernels of that idea are already contained in the Hebrew Scriptures which were diligently searched by the new Christians. From Genesis (Melchizedek) to Exodus (manna) to Malachi, there are types, foreshadowings, and prophecies of a new priesthood distinct from the Aaronic priesthood, a new and perfect sacrifice offered "by gentiles," offered in the "nations" from the rising to the setting of the sun, and a new and incomparably more wonderful bread from heaven.

And Christ Himself said "You must eat my Body and drink my Blood." Not just "You must eat my memory." And the writers of the Epistles have plenty to say about this.

So all the elements were there.

It was probably not until after the destruction of the Temple and the definitive barring of all the Christian groups from synagogues, that the sacrifice (temple) part and the readings-and-teachings (synagogue) part came together into an integrated Liturgical form for Christians. But what they "developed" had its roots in the Scriptures they already used, the teachings of the Apostles, and their long tradition of Jewish liturgical worship. These formed, from the very first, the template for their order of worship.

Thank you dear lady. First let me say I love your posts. I love the way you think, and above all how Christian your exchange is even with those you disagree with.

The sources are many, but for a wonderful summary of the history of the Mass I recommend The Mass of the Early Christians by Mike Aquinilina (Sunday Visitor Publishing, 2001). It is a great introduction. He presents a very Catholic view, which is okay, but does not exhaust the topic by any means. It's a good start.

I say development of the Liturgy to emphasize that it is a thing growing, elaborating, refining and maturing what is already innate to it, unfolding from within as it were. I avoid the word "evolution" which might connote, to some, the random mutation of a thing into something alien and even opposite

I know that, and you made that perfectly clear earlier. I emphasized evolve precisely for that reason. Primitive Christianity is a sui-generis evolution, a synthesis of the Jewish and Platonic, with a seasoning of Persian; a Hellenized Judaism if you will.

The 1st century A.D. agape meals did not, I think, exclude or contradict the idea that it is a sacrificial meal as well: the kernels of that idea are already contained in the Hebrew Scriptures which were diligently searched by the new Christians

Not all offerings to God were sacrificial, as they are not today. We dedicate or offer prayers, incense, thanks, etc. to God. But these are not sacrifices. Sacrifices are made for a specific purpose of invoking God to sacramentally (mysteriously) change things in return.

Melchizedek...

He is a problem figure for the Jewish theologians, but that doesn't necessarily mean he foreshadowed Christ. I recommend your read the Jewish take on him in Encyclopedia Hebraica (Jewish Encyclopedia) for a detailed and Bible-referenced take on him.

And Christ Himself said "You must eat my Body and drink my Blood." Not just "You must eat my memory."...So all the elements were there.

At the Last Supper, he simply said "do this in memory of me." If the "breaking of the bread" is a memorial act, then it is not a sacrifice. Of course, he blessed the bread, and since he was the High Priest, it is only proper for a priest, an icon of Christ, or alter-Christus in the Catholic tradition, to do that at the re-enactment. But he did not raise the bread nor offered it as a bloodless sacrifice for atonement at the Last Supper.

So, no, I don't see that all the elements were there.

Christian theology is a newly synthesized theology, first beginning with Paul and ending with John. Much of it was not what Jesus taught in the Gospel accounts, but what was synthesized from using an essentially different scriptural source, the Septuagint and, in John's case, Platonic Hellenism.

Much of Christian theology and worship was "built upon" by adding things that weren't there to begin with, the deuterocanonical books, for example, and to a great extent oral tradition of uncertain origin.

Your analogy to a developing baby is only remotely applicable here, since a human being, in addition to development, also experiences evolution due to specific life circumstances and 'information' that was added on that wasn't there when the embryo was formed.

The Church, being a living body, developed from preexisting material, but also evolved in response to events and realities she encountered and battles she endured in her life. If the Romans didn't burn down the Temple perhaps the Jews would have been more accepting of the Christian sectarianism and chances are all other forms of Judaism (the Alexandrian, Essenes, Sadducees, etc.) would have continued to co-exist with the Pharisees, and Chgristianity ewould could have continued to exist as a Jewish sect.

John would have never been able to openly proclaim Jesus a God equal to YHWH in all but Sonship. There would have been no need to. Christians would have continued to offer sacrifices in the Temple and attend synagogal services as separate events. Aaronic priesthood would have been the only legitimate institution, etc. Christianity would have probably resembled the Judaizers of the Jerusalem Church.

None of the events that shaped Christianity could have been predicted or accounted for at the very synthesis of the Christian movement, so development did take place initially, with evolution added to it and shaping the Church through the centuries.

None of the Aristotelian philosophy was part of Church theology until Scholasticism, and the western doctrine of divine satisfaction (Anselm) was unknown to the Church in the first millennium. Augustine's original sin was likewise a novelty to the Eastern Church as well as to the Jewish roots of Christianity. Even fasting took a life of its own. I see evlution taking place everywhere in the Church, even today.

I thank you as well, for your detailed and informative answers, which I enjoy.

Although at the Last Supper, Jesus simply said "do this in memory of me," there's all that John 6 section where Jesus commands repeatedly, almost, as it seems, obstinately "Eat and drink my body and blood! I mean it!" (Very Jewish-motherish. "Ess, Ess Mayn Kind!")

And when people respond with, more or less, "Ack! I'm outta here!" he doesn't chase along after them saying, "Wait, I didn't mean it, it's just a metaphor, strictly a memorial thing." Not at all. He turns to the Apostles and says, "You want to leave, too?"

You say If the "breaking of the bread" is a memorial act, then it is not a sacrifice. As far as I can see, that's an "if...then" that doesn't automatically work. I would argue it is a memorial act and a sacrifice. But perhaps you have a definition of sacrifice which is different from what I've understood.

I see a kind of back-and-forth giving and re-giving, each one exceeding the last. God gives us the wheat and grapes, we take it and make it bread and wine and give it back to Him. He makes it into the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus, he gives it back to us. We receive Him and are joined together by the Holy Spirit into one body, one spirit in Christ, and we're given back to Him. It's rather a cascade of mutual gifting, I think.

I'll read Aquilina when I get a chance. I appreciate the recommendation.

there's all that John 6 section where Jesus commands repeatedly, almost, as it seems, obstinately "Eat and drink my body and blood! I mean it!"

Yes, of course, but contextually John (just as Paul) represents a historically and theologically an evolutionary development — Hellenization of Jesus. To most believers, his is just another Gospel. But it's not. John's Gospel cannot be interpreted out of context of the times and where Christianity was any more than one can understand American politics of the Nixon era without taking into account the effect of the Vietnam war on the American psyche.

John's Gospel compares his flesh to manna. That is hardly a literal flesh, but symbolic. But even if taken literally, that wuld not have caused the Jews to say "Ack" because instances of cannibalism are a plenty in the Old Testament.

However, his suggestion that they should drink his blood is a different story. Judaism explicitly prohibits drinking or eating of blood of any mamal or bird (Gen 9:4)

So while shocking accounts of cannibalism are evident in the Old Testament (2 Kings 6:26-29, Jeremiah 19:9, Ezekiel 5:10, Lamentations 4:10), while called for in the New Testament (John 6:53-56). The only deviation from Judaism was Jesus' call for drinking of his blood, which ism as mentined above, prohibited by Law (Leviticus 17:10-14).

Clearly, John was busy creating something entirely new that was no longer Judaism.

I would argue it is a memorial act and a sacrifice. But perhaps you have a definition of sacrifice which is different from what I've understood

Where is the sacrifice in the Last Supper? In Judaism, sacrifice was offered asa propitiation or the atonement of guilt. Nothing in the Last Supper indicates atonement of guilt, but only remembrance.

I see a kind of back-and-forth giving and re-giving, each one exceeding the last

God doesn't need anything. Everything God gives to man is an undeserved gift. One does not return gifts because nothing we can give God would satisfy the One who needs nothing.

Sacrifice is not returning a favor. It is giving up something permanently, something prized, even essential. The idea of a sacrificial killing simply means that the one who is guilty dies, and the sins he carries die with him. It is not a "gift" returned to God.

In Judaism, the soul that sins shall die (Eze 18:4). Nor should anyone suffer for the iniquities of the other. Rather "the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself." [Eze 18:20]

In other words: no man can atone for the iniquities of another man. That's one of the myriad reasons why Judaism rejected Christ. It's a Christian innovation.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.