Can you remit sins , John 20:19-23 ????

[ronniechoate34]

How do you know you are contrite "enough"?? Some people are scrupulous and aren't sure if God really forgave them because they weren't contrite enough. Ever hear of Martin Luther?

I am not Martin Luther. My faith hasn't wavered on these issues and contrite is contrite. I don't think that there is a set standard for it. Either you hate your sins or you don't. There isn't any walking the fence. If you don't feel convicted and you know you've sinned then that's when we need to pray for conviction. God will convince you of your sin.

This says absolutely nothing about you, ronnie. Just the publican.

You really don't know my true feelings because they're between me and God. Remember that it's up to each man to work out his own salvation with fear and trmbling. You should know that passing this judgment on me is gonna reflect back poorly on you when you face the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Word of God according to you. Why did Jesus tell the Apostles they had the power to forgive sins if "all I need is me and Jesus"?

We have been over this. I'm not gonna go over it again. There are at least two threads dedicated to this subject. Feel free to study away at them.

Where does the NT speak in such a manner that sins are forgiven by private prayer to God in our closets?

M't:6:5: And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
M't:6:6: But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
M't:6:7: But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
M't:6:8: Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
M't:6:9: After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
M't:6:10: Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
M't:6:11: Give us this day our daily bread.
M't:6:12: And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
M't:6:13: And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
M't:6:14: For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
M't:6:15: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

It seems that a careful reading of Scriptures shows it is much more common for the forgiveness of sins to be done through the ministry of men, whether the High Priest in the Holy of Holies, offering a sacrifice at the Temple, or calling upon the elders when one is sick to have his sins forgiven.




IF we ONLY are to go to God, why does James 5 speak of calling upon the elders to pray that a person's sins be forgiven? Why not just "go to God myself"???

Jas:5:13: Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms.
Jas:5:14: Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
Jas:5:15: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
Jas:5:16: Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.


I don't see anything about men forgiving anyone in these scriptures. It's all done by Jesus Christ. Not the elders or any other person for that matter. And this says we are to confess oour faults, not our sins. Imagine a woman confessing to any orinary man her lewd thoughts or her sensual ways. GOD FORBID!! No man is above this temptation unless he is a homosexual or a eunich. In fact it's proven to be a real problem within the Catholic church. It's proven itself to be a faulty devilish system yet it continues to destroy marriages and break homes. Teens confessing to queers in closets and the like. It's wrong!! WRONG!!! And it's pagan!!


Re:16:15: Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.


I am sorry but you aren't gonna hear all about my shame. You don't need to, It's between me and Jesus. He can handle it because He's perfect.

Maybe, maybe not... I don't see how the virtue of humility and obedience is developed in your bedroom. Neither did the first Christians.

It's not. It's developed from within. In fact it springs from the presence of the Holy Ghost in ones life. That carries with a person no matter where they are. Unless of course some professed Christian is lurking in the shadows and hiding in the darkness. That's not the Holy Spirit. That's a lying murderous hate filled spirit.

They repented in public, didn't they, ronnie...

I don't know about them all. I know for sure that after they did they professed a good confession in Christ. Whether they aired out their dirty laundry or not is something you haven't a clue about. It's the newness of life that shows if someone is truly repentant, not the confession of their sins to another person.

 

[unknown2me]

Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

The Spirit that lives in me has this Power and Authority. I have seen this Scripture of Truth fulfilled many times and saw with my own two eyes the evidence of it come to pass...So therefore I can say of a Truth... This Scripture of Truth can be fulfilled today.

Jesus wasn't speaking to you, he was speaking to the apostle.

I do not recall seeing an apostle standing there with me...when Jesus gave me the Power and Authority to remit sins or retain them...

Did you see one ? If you did then you can see better than I.

 

[Vince]

I'm not ridiculing you for flying into a rage, Francisdesales, but you have to face reality. If you are teaching a religion based on ancient documents, you have to deal with the fact that those ancient documents don't really reach your religion.

Neither Clement nor Ignatius knew anything about Catholic priests, as they did not exist yet. The Bible teaches that God ended the Jewish priesthood, and all true believers are now priests. There are no such things as professional priests in Christianity.

The Didache clearly teaches baptism by immersion, after you get saved. It is assembled from various sources, including a synagogue manual.

 

[chestertonrules]

Jesus wasn't speaking to you, he was speaking to the apostle.

I do not recall seeing an apostle standing there with me...when Jesus gave me the Power and Authority to remit sins or retain them...

Did you see one ? If you did then you can see better than I.

Jesus did not give you the power to forgive other men's sins, unless you are a priest.

Where did you get the idea that you can forgive the sins of other men?

 

[chestertonrules]

I'm not ridiculing you for flying into a rage, Francisdesales, but you have to face reality. If you are teaching a religion based on ancient documents, you have to deal with the fact that those ancient documents don't really reach your religion.

Neither Clement nor Ignatius knew anything about Catholic priests, as they did not exist yet. The Bible teaches that God ended the Jewish priesthood, and all true believers are now priests. There are no such things as professional priests in Christianity.

The Didache clearly teaches baptism by immersion, after you get saved. It is assembled from various sources, including a synagogue manual.

You are clearly quite ignorant of early Church history. Please do some research.

FYI:

"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

"For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?" Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).

"Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: 'And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.'" Hegesippus, Memoirs, fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiatical History, 4:22 (A.D. 180).

 

[unknown2me]

Jesus wasn't speaking to you, he was speaking to the apostle.

I do not recall seeing an apostle standing there with me...when Jesus gave me the Power and Authority to remit sins or retain them...

Did you see one ? If you did then you can see better than I.

Jesus did not give you the power to forgive other men's sins, unless you are a priest.

Where did you get the idea that you can forgive the sins of other men?

I am a Priest and of great Authority and Power...

There is no need for you to keep telling me I am not what I am...You will not learn anything that way.

 

[mondar]

Neither Clement nor Ignatius knew anything about Catholic priests, as they did not exist yet.

You are clearly quite ignorant of early Church history. Please do some research.

FYI:

"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

"For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?" Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).

"Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: 'And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.'" Hegesippus, Memoirs, fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiatical History, 4:22 (A.D. 180).

chestertonrules,
If I might ask, where in your quotes does Clement, Ignatius, or Hegesippus say that there are priests? I see that they mentioned Bishops. I do want to mention that these Fathers wrote in Greek. The word they used relates to elders....
(see Titus 1:5 -7 where both the term bishop/overseer and the term elder is used of the same person). I would like to see a demonstration that Clement understood the term Bishop to be a priest. Could you be reading later history back into Clement by assuming that the term Bishop and Priest are the same thing?

Oh, and if I can ask a favor, please dont say insulting things like I am clearly ignorant or stupid or something like that. I am a pretty sensitive fellow. But I would like to see your reasons why you equate the terms bishop and priest.

 

[ronniechoate34]

You are clearly quite ignorant of early Church history. Please do some research.

FYI


2Co:2:14: Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
2Co:2:15: For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
2Co:2:16: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
2Co:2:17: For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.


During the days of the early church the Word of God was being corrupted by many men. Hey! Here's a thought, that's still happening today. The things that these people wrote down and preached lingers there's no doubt. There is also no doubt that as time progressed this particular problem continued to worsen. Do we have a corrupted word of god that people swear is the gospel truth today? Yes we do. In fact over the last hundred years the reformed churches have let many heresies into the door.


Ac:20:25: And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.
Ac:20:26: Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
Ac:20:27: For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
Ac:20:28: Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Ac:20:29: For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Ac:20:30: Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Ac:20:31: Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.


During the days of the early church men perverted the gospel. Hey! I wonder if that spirit that made them fellows so perverse is dead? I doubt it. I see it, at work in the churches today.

 

[francisdesales]

The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much....is isn't man that forgives sin but the prayers for the man that lead him to repent...then God does the healing and the forgiving. The sinner must be converted...repent of his sins, then God forgives him. Man's part is praying and preaching the Word so the sinner can repent and the Lord can forgive. Man neither heals nor forgives...he is merely the instrument God uses to bring about healing and repentance.

Prayers lead men to repent and prayers to God by OTHERS lead to forgiveness - from this passage. Apparently, it was already a practice in the church to call upon "elders", presbyters, to pray that someone's sins be forgiven.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Oh, and if I can ask a favor, please dont say insulting things like I am clearly ignorant or stupid or something like that. I am a pretty sensitive fellow. But I would like to see your reasons why you equate the terms bishop and priest.

Mondar,

The bishop was evidence that the Eucharist was indeed the valid Flesh and Blood of Christ. I happen to be reading Ignatius now. Apparently, there were Docetist communities nearby who taught Christ never came in the flesh (hence, John's harsh words in his epistles). The Bishop, who could be traced back to Apostolic ordination, was proof that the Eucharist (which looks like ordinary bread) was Christ Himself. Priests offer sacrifices, that is their main vocation in the community. Thus, Ignatius constantly tells Christians to obey the Bishop and only congregate where the bishop meets to celebrate the Eucharist.

The Eucharist is our life, because it is Christ HIMSELF.

Presbyters, elders, are synonymous with priests in the writings of the Fathers.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

That's the point, though. No man can know whether someone else is contrite enough.
Therefore, no man can forgive sins. God, alone, can see man's heart.

Not someone, ME..! I was speaking of the scrupulous, someone unsure of HIS OWN contrition.

Now, first, please be advised this public confession idea is regarding SERIOUS sins, sins that effect the entire community, back in the days of the Apostles. When we sin as such, we wound the community. We not only sin against God, but our fellow Christians in communion. Thus, we see 1 Cor 5 Paul expell the perverted man. When was he forgiven, Glory? When he shut the door and prayed to God? Perhaps, but NOT in the community's eyes. Only when the leaders of the Church seen the repentance and forgave him (as Paul does in 2 Cor 2) do we see the man return to the community. This can only take place by public confession of sins. No one can know someone is sorry for their sins unless they say so publicly.

Remember, sin effects the community, as well. We are not in a vacuum, insulated from other people. We are a Body, and when one member is "sick", it effects the rest of the community. Thus, Scriptures are full of warnings to keep away from these "members", presumably until they reconciled. And this happens only within the community.

What man can do is call on the sinner to truly repent, and assure him that if he does that, God is faithful to forgive him his sin.

That is not what Jesus said to the Apostles after the resurrection in John 20. How can someone else BIND me from my sins being forgiven - unless Jesus Himself said that?

 

[francisdesales]

I'm not ridiculing you for flying into a rage, Francisdesales, but you have to face reality. If you are teaching a religion based on ancient documents, you have to deal with the fact that those ancient documents don't really reach your religion.

I'm not in a rage, I am just pointing out that you do not know what you are talking about...

Christianity for 1500 years was based upon the ancient writings of men, beginning with the Apostles. Sacred Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition. The writings articulate what we believed. They teach our religion, if you took the time to read the writings and not just do word searches for "priests". I HAVE read those writings and they most certainly do teach what we continue to teach: sacrifice of the Mass, real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, an heirarchy of bishops, presbyters and deacons, authority held by these men, salvation from sin via baptism, confession of sins publically, prayers for the sake of dead saints, saved by faith working in love (not faith alone) - shall I continue???

Neither Clement nor Ignatius knew anything about Catholic priests, as they did not exist yet.

Wrong on both accounts. Chesterton has already documented the discussion by Clement. What you need to realize is what priests do - they are representatives of the community before God in public worship. That is exactly what Clement is describing regarding the Eucharist in Chapter 42 and 43. You do a word search for "priests" and claim to make such ridiculous statements? A priest offers sacrifice with the community in public worship. And Ignatius, how can you MISS his numerous statements about the bishop as the proof of the real presence in community worship, being offered to the Father in heaven. To say they never heard of it is ridiculous, they were quite aware of their Jewish roots. They were perfectly aware of what a priest was.

The Bible teaches that God ended the Jewish priesthood, and all true believers are now priests. There are no such things as professional priests in Christianity.

Catholic priests, beginning with the NT, PARTICIPATE in the One Priesthood of Jesus Christ, as we all do, but they participate in Christ's minsitry in a unique way. No such thing as professional priests??? That is your modern opinion, not one taken from studying ancient Christianity

The Didache clearly teaches baptism by immersion, after you get saved. It is assembled from various sources, including a synagogue manual.

Clearly, you haven't read it. It doesn't mention whether a persron is saved before Baptism or not. If it is true to the Scriptures, one is saved AS A RESULT of baptism... And how does anyone know from "what sources it was assembled from"? That is pure speculation. Considering Christianity has much Judiam in it, it would not be surprising to contain some Jewish teachings, as Psalm 1. I see you don't care for fasting. Too bad, since disciples of Christ fast.

 

[glorydaz]

That's the point, though. No man can know whether someone else is contrite enough.
Therefore, no man can forgive sins. God, alone, can see man's heart.

Not someone, ME..! I was speaking of the scrupulous, someone unsure of HIS OWN contrition.

Now, first, please be advised this public confession idea is regarding SERIOUS sins, sins that effect the entire community, back in the days of the Apostles. When we sin as such, we wound the community. We not only sin against God, but our fellow Christians in communion. Thus, we see 1 Cor 5 Paul expell the perverted man. When was he forgiven, Glory? When he shut the door and prayed to God? Perhaps, but NOT in the community's eyes. Only when the leaders of the Church seen the repentance and forgave him (as Paul does in 2 Cor 2) do we see the man return to the community. This can only take place by public confession of sins. No one can know someone is sorry for their sins unless they say so publicly.

Remember, sin effects the community, as well. We are not in a vacuum, insulated from other people. We are a Body, and when one member is "sick", it effects the rest of the community. Thus, Scriptures are full of warnings to keep away from these "members", presumably until they reconciled. And this happens only within the community.

What man can do is call on the sinner to truly repent, and assure him that if he does that, God is faithful to forgive him his sin.

That is not what Jesus said to the Apostles after the resurrection in John 20. How can someone else BIND me from my sins being forgiven - unless Jesus Himself said that?

Yes, I see your point as far as the church community is concerned, a public confession is important. But that is asking forgiveness of the brethern as opposed to being forgiven by God.

I don't believe the binding and loosing has to do with someone's sin, but what is permitted or forbidden by the teaching of the Gospel. Matthew says "whatsoever" referring to the kingdom message and shows that the passage refers to things, in this case beliefs and actions, not directly to people. The apostles were Jesus' authoritative spokesmen and their decisions would be binding. Jesus spoke God's authoritative words and authorized His apostles to speak those words to the church. We, in turn, have the authority to preach the Word to the unsaved.

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

[Vince]

Francisdesales, I am glad to see your acknowledgment that no early Christan writer referred to the Catholic priesthood. But I was surprised by your statement that I learned that by researching the internet. I didn't.

There is no one day nor place where the Catholic priesthood began. Different pagan priesthoods were blended into Christianity in different places and different times, introducing different pagan rites that were "Christianized." Magical gestures to invoke the powers of the gods became the Sign of the Cross. Christians were taught that the Sacrifice of Christ was not "finished," but must be re-offered by priests on pagan altars.

Fighting it out through Church councils, papal decrees, and military force, the Catholic Church eventually stabilized the system, condemning the teachings of many of the early priests (and some saints) as heretical.

 

[mondar]

Oh, and if I can ask a favor, please dont say insulting things like I am clearly ignorant or stupid or something like that. I am a pretty sensitive fellow. But I would like to see your reasons why you equate the terms bishop and priest.

Mondar,

The bishop was evidence that the Eucharist was indeed the valid Flesh and Blood of Christ. I happen to be reading Ignatius now. Apparently, there were Docetist communities nearby who taught Christ never came in the flesh (hence, John's harsh words in his epistles). The Bishop, who could be traced back to Apostolic ordination, was proof that the Eucharist (which looks like ordinary bread) was Christ Himself. Priests offer sacrifices, that is their main vocation in the community. Thus, Ignatius constantly tells Christians to obey the Bishop and only congregate where the bishop meets to celebrate the Eucharist.

The Eucharist is our life, because it is Christ HIMSELF.

Presbyters, elders, are synonymous with priests in the writings of the Fathers.

Regards

Francis, First, let me say that I am aware that the many Early Church Fathers taught the "real presence" in the Eucharist. Of course we will disagree on what the scriptures taught as I deny the real presence. But that is not what I want to talk about. What I do want to say is that the ECFs did not necessarily think of the "real presence" as transubstantiation. That doctrine came closer to the middle ages. If you disagree maybe you can provide a quote from a Church Father from before Nicea where he equates the "real presence" with transubstantiation. The fact that the ECFs were not necessarily thinking in terms of transubstantiation is important because while transubstantiation demands a priesthood, I dont see that the "real presence" would make it necessary to have a priesthood.

 

[mondar]

Francisdesales, I am glad to see your acknowledgment that no early Christan writer referred to the Catholic priesthood.

Really? I missed this. Can you point me to the post where Francisdesales denied that early Christians writers refer to the Catholic priesthood? I missed that one.

Or did he say that they were not referred to as priests, but thats what they were?

 

[chestertonrules]

[

I am a Priest and of great Authority and Power...

I can tell.

 

[chestertonrules]

chestertonrules,
If I might ask, where in your quotes does Clement, Ignatius, or Hegesippus say that there are priests? I see that they mentioned Bishops. I do want to mention that these Fathers wrote in Greek. The word they used relates to elders....
(see Titus 1:5 -7 where both the term bishop/overseer and the term elder is used of the same person). I would like to see a demonstration that Clement understood the term Bishop to be a priest. Could you be reading later history back into Clement by assuming that the term Bishop and Priest are the same thing?

Oh, and if I can ask a favor, please dont say insulting things like I am clearly ignorant or stupid or something like that. I am a pretty sensitive fellow. But I would like to see your reasons why you equate the terms bishop and priest.

I believe that Clement might have used the word deacon for priest. The point is that the Bishops, who were appointed by the apostles, had unique authority. This unique authority came from the apostles who got it from Jesus.

Ignorance is not necessarily an insult. It is a statement of my opinion based on your post. You might be extremely intelligent, but my guess is that you haven't spent much time studying the early Church.

I'm sorry if I offended you, but your post bothered me.

Best Regards

 

[ronniechoate34]

Actually a deacon is someone who helps out the church leaders by carrying some of their load. Like Stephen.

 

[chestertonrules]

[
Regards

Francis, First, let me say that I am aware that the many Early Church Fathers taught the "real presence" in the Eucharist. Of course we will disagree on what the scriptures taught as I deny the real presence. But that is not what I want to talk about. What I do want to say is that the ECFs did not necessarily think of the "real presence" as transubstantiation. That doctrine came closer to the middle ages. If you disagree maybe you can provide a quote from a Church Father from before Nicea where he equates the "real presence" with transubstantiation. The fact that the ECFs were not necessarily thinking in terms of transubstantiation is important because while transubstantiation demands a priesthood, I dont see that the "real presence" would make it necessary to have a priesthood.

[/quote]

I agree that the word transubstantiation didn't exist. This word was created in the middle ages in an attempt to describe what is admittedly a mystery beyond human comprehension.


However, I think these two quotes from Justin Martyr and St. Cyril describe what later came to be called transubstantiation:

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

"Having learned these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine."" Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).