John Heers, what's up, brother. Glad to see you properly bashing the gnosticism of a livestreamed liturgy, man -- we still have yet to get rid of ours at St H's. In other news, in several places in the NT Saint Paul gives lists of functions/roles in the church -- apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, teachers, etc -- but he never lists "priests." This is neither an oversight on his part, nor too obvious to mention: One of the stark, subversive themes of the NT is the idea that you nod to as you sprint past here, the idea that there is no separate class of priests in the New Israel (=church). Beyond the obvious things, like quoting the OT dream of Israel being a "kingdom of priests," etc, this theme is developed in the NT by applying priestly language to everyday believers, e.g. "Offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, which is your spiritual service [latreia]" (Rom. 12:1). In the first great revolution of the church, summarized as "the Constantinian Shift" but involving a lot more than Constantine, Christianity was "religionized" (to use Yannaras' phrase), i.e. converted back into more or less normal religion as such, including a separate class of priests, etc. What about that, man?
This needs to be addressed good brother! And I will... when I come back. But I think you touched on it but my article didn't draw it out: It's both. The thing you describe is present all along, but the presence of the notion of "the priesthood of all believeers" doesn't do away or lessen the notion of "the priesthood that serves the sacrifice". Both. And. Done. Your history tells us about one type of priest. Mine... another. Maybe we do an article together about both! What up my brother?
Make every man a priest and soon you lose any sense of the sacred. The Eucharist is seen as a historical appendage -- a vestige of the 'Constaninzation.' (the 'Hellenization' to use Adolf Harnack's term who was the originator of this debilitating historical thesis) of a purer early Christianity that today gives us the likes of Joel Osteen and other therapeutic 'Christian' preachers. Contemporary Christianity it seems has become one of two options: get rich quick or feel good now. Why not put a Starbucks in the lobby? A hot latte goes down well before worship.
So how do we participate in Christ's sacrifice in the way that the early Christians did? How do we recover the sense of the sacred in its cosmological dimension and every day ramifications? One place is to understand what "remembrance" (...do this in remembrance of me...) really means. It is not mere recall; it's anamneis -- a recapitulation, an entering into the concrete, salvific dimensions of the actual event of Christ's sacrifice, a participation in the final sacrifice that ends (completes) all sacrifices.
And for that you need a priest -- a presbyter, one who presides over the ones called out (ekklesia) -- a man who offers the sacrifice to Christ in ways that Christ offered Himself to the Father.
Good stuff, John! I loved "it just turns out to be a gnostic wordfest. It's lame." I can hear your voice in my head saying that.
This is timely, as I've been trying to make some sense of the Eucharist as a sacrifice... In protestantland, that's one of our bugaboos (as you know). Of course, this isn't the main thrust of the above, but it provides helpful context, so thank you!
I wonder if there's some insight to be had by examining the differences between the idea of sacrifice in the Eucharist and the idea of sacrifice in the supra...?
Indeed Mag P, the evidence for both priesthoods exists. But for me the evidence is in the seeing. And I see such a class of people in my life, serving the Divine Liturgy... and I wonder. And that makes me happy, the wonder. Why them and not me? And that hierarchy reminds me of a place that I am in, and he is not. And all of that is good for me I think. Proof of an order. And yet, I remain a priest somehow, just not THAT priest. You know?
John Heers, what's up, brother. Glad to see you properly bashing the gnosticism of a livestreamed liturgy, man -- we still have yet to get rid of ours at St H's. In other news, in several places in the NT Saint Paul gives lists of functions/roles in the church -- apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, teachers, etc -- but he never lists "priests." This is neither an oversight on his part, nor too obvious to mention: One of the stark, subversive themes of the NT is the idea that you nod to as you sprint past here, the idea that there is no separate class of priests in the New Israel (=church). Beyond the obvious things, like quoting the OT dream of Israel being a "kingdom of priests," etc, this theme is developed in the NT by applying priestly language to everyday believers, e.g. "Offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, which is your spiritual service [latreia]" (Rom. 12:1). In the first great revolution of the church, summarized as "the Constantinian Shift" but involving a lot more than Constantine, Christianity was "religionized" (to use Yannaras' phrase), i.e. converted back into more or less normal religion as such, including a separate class of priests, etc. What about that, man?
This needs to be addressed good brother! And I will... when I come back. But I think you touched on it but my article didn't draw it out: It's both. The thing you describe is present all along, but the presence of the notion of "the priesthood of all believeers" doesn't do away or lessen the notion of "the priesthood that serves the sacrifice". Both. And. Done. Your history tells us about one type of priest. Mine... another. Maybe we do an article together about both! What up my brother?
Make every man a priest and soon you lose any sense of the sacred. The Eucharist is seen as a historical appendage -- a vestige of the 'Constaninzation.' (the 'Hellenization' to use Adolf Harnack's term who was the originator of this debilitating historical thesis) of a purer early Christianity that today gives us the likes of Joel Osteen and other therapeutic 'Christian' preachers. Contemporary Christianity it seems has become one of two options: get rich quick or feel good now. Why not put a Starbucks in the lobby? A hot latte goes down well before worship.
So how do we participate in Christ's sacrifice in the way that the early Christians did? How do we recover the sense of the sacred in its cosmological dimension and every day ramifications? One place is to understand what "remembrance" (...do this in remembrance of me...) really means. It is not mere recall; it's anamneis -- a recapitulation, an entering into the concrete, salvific dimensions of the actual event of Christ's sacrifice, a participation in the final sacrifice that ends (completes) all sacrifices.
And for that you need a priest -- a presbyter, one who presides over the ones called out (ekklesia) -- a man who offers the sacrifice to Christ in ways that Christ offered Himself to the Father.
So much depends on the language, and the language of theology is Greek. Here is a more complete explanation: https://accot.stcyrils.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Anamnesis.pdf
Good stuff, John! I loved "it just turns out to be a gnostic wordfest. It's lame." I can hear your voice in my head saying that.
This is timely, as I've been trying to make some sense of the Eucharist as a sacrifice... In protestantland, that's one of our bugaboos (as you know). Of course, this isn't the main thrust of the above, but it provides helpful context, so thank you!
I wonder if there's some insight to be had by examining the differences between the idea of sacrifice in the Eucharist and the idea of sacrifice in the supra...?
Peace and love, brother!
Indeed Mag P, the evidence for both priesthoods exists. But for me the evidence is in the seeing. And I see such a class of people in my life, serving the Divine Liturgy... and I wonder. And that makes me happy, the wonder. Why them and not me? And that hierarchy reminds me of a place that I am in, and he is not. And all of that is good for me I think. Proof of an order. And yet, I remain a priest somehow, just not THAT priest. You know?