Quote:
Originally Posted by abqfriend
I am a Roman Catholic. The Catholic Church takes the words of Christ as literal as referred to those stated in the Last Supper accounts. Other religious traditions take them figuratively or understand them differently. Such is the diversity of religious traditiions and understanding of Sacred Scripture. The term "sacrament" is viewed differently by many religious traditions. Lutherans have "sacraments" but Lutherans have no priests.
Lutherans have both male and female ministers. Roman Catholics and the LDS Church have only male priests. The Anglican/Episcopal Church has both male and female priests.
So one can have a sacrament without having a priest-depending on one's view of what a sacrament is-and who can officiate as engaging in such sacraments- depending on the understanding of that religious tradition.
You would not find total agreement on your statement that there was no evidence that early Christians believed that it was not the Body and Blood of Christ.-
-Carol
|
Well, I was referring to the first 200 years or so of Christianity. We have the apostolic epistles and just a few other text from the first and second century. The Sacrament as we know it today did not seem to exist. Still by 301 AD, even when Christianity was not a "religio licita" or legally recognized/authorized religion at the seat of the empire, it appears that the sacrament was symbolic rather than literal as it appears to be taken sometime later.
I suggest that for the uninitiated, without any religious training and free from the theological interpretations of late, the commandment to "eat and drink" is taken as a symbolic gesture of the covenant and in remembrance of the Savior.
The above is simply an observation based on the sources and also to illustrate that over time given the evolution of Christianity it has come to mean different things to different people.