Quote:
There are two statements at odds here. You said in a previous post that they don't believe that anything is happening. Now you equate that to your list of beliefs above. My only point is those two statements are not equivalent. They can believe that something is happening without affirming the above items. I realize that you disagree with their view of what is actually happening, but that's not what you said.
When I said they don't believe anything is happening it was shorthand - they don't believe that the actual ritual act is doing anything, that the bread and wine themselves are not special or particular, that they are only symbols. The ritual is an odd appendage that they do because Jesus said so (which is admirable in its own way) but its done merely for that fact and not for any particular value it has in itself.
Quote:
You're equating a conscious choice to turn ones back on the family of God (which is what that would be in the analogy) with people seeking to obey and drawn near to God in ways that are, in your view, inadequate.
You are more concerned about the disobedience, but God is more concerned with our hearts (ref. any number of passages here).
You're only able to claim ignorance as long as you are ignorant. I don't judge people, but I do recognize that at some point the schism perpetuates because people refuse. In my opinion, knowing what we know today about the historical church, and with the wealth of patristic and historical evidence, there is no excuse for certain forms of heretical beliefs about the Eucharist to persist.
Disobedience is a matter of the heart. God commands obedience - extremely exacting, and specific obedience - from His people. And this absolutely extends to not only the intent of their worship but also the means. If anything, the means are a way to lead us to intent, the strict attention paid to examine the worthiness of the sacrifice leads us to understand the gravity of the examination we make of ourselves. The strict attention required of the priests in their sacrifice shows us how seriously we should take this subject in our own worship.
Separating from the Eucharist is literally separation from Christ and His Body, because it is precisely through the Eucharist that we are in communion par excellence. Denying it is denying Him. Unity is found through Him, and the NT is clear that it is precisely in and through the Eucharist that we are one. Just as circumcision (or marriage to a circumcised man) and eating the Passover is what made one an Israelite, the Eucharist is part of what makes one a Christian. This is an extremely serious and grave subject, and this topic alone is worth any effort to reconcile.
Quote:
Since we have the scriptures, we can't just make up instructions
I mean, the irony of this is pretty telling. Modern protestant worship looks nothing like the worship of the Apostles, almost by intent. Modern non-Eucharistic worship is actually not even worship, strictly speaking, because worship always involves sacrifice in the scriptures. It is in a way a denial of worship, anti-worship in the Greek sense (the thing other than). The scriptures are clear: THIS IS MY BODY, THIS IS MY BLOOD. Christian interpretation of these words was unanimous and unequivocal for centuries.
We are not called to "figure out how to do" anything. We are called to be obedient and submit to our spiritual leaders.
That doesn't mean God doesn't honor the intent. But just as God's grace is not a license for sin, it is not license for continued rebellion and active disobedience. "Do this in remembrance of me" is a command, is it not? Should we make sure we follow it exactly? Isn't a promise of the Spirit that we will walk in His statutes, keep His ordinances and obey them, and in that be His people and He our God?
If we can't agree on this most central and in a way most basic command - the hallmark of Christian worship, the fulfillment of the Torah, the culmination and end of the Law, the sacrifice and celebration of the Lord's death and resurrection... what are we even doing here? You have to jettison the entire understanding of fellowship, hospitality, celebration, gift giving, mutual relationship, pledging of self and obedience that is the reality of sacrifice in the OT
and in the NT.
Priests are bound to the altar they serve - this is part of the meaning of the ordination of a priest in the Torah, where the blood is marked on the priest's ear, thumb, and big toes, and the altar. We are bound to the table of the Lord, and in the sacrifice our priesthood is actualized. We are participating in His priesthood, through Him, and in His sacrifice, in ourselves. St Paul says offering ourselves as living sacrifice is our form of rational worship. This is what we do in anamnesis every Divine Liturgy. What altar do these people serve? At some point it is a denial of the very essence of the thing.
Without this, apart from all of this understanding, I genuinely believe the Apostles would absolutely understand people who have a separate worship, a separate teaching, a separate or even no altar, and no sacrifice at all, to be practicing a different faith. It looks nothing at all like that of Israel, given by the same Yahweh who became Man and was crucified for us.
