/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

The priesthood of all believers

>>754074

1 Peter 2:5-9

>>754074

[-]

>>754074

WE HAVE THIS THREAD FOUR TIMES A WEEK

>>754081

Begore Core.

>>754081

>The priesthood of all believers

Orthodox teach this too. In the most literal sense, they specifically use the office of presbyter, deacon, and bishop/episkopos, which are specifically scriptural terms. Priest is a western shorthand. And they especially don't believe in the concept of "priesthood" in the sense of continuing Jewish tradition. As the book of Hebrew says, Christ made a sacrifice once and for all, and there's no need for a temple or levitical priesthood (nor do Orthodox "sacrifice" every week in the literal finite time and space sense, as some Catholics seem to want to say.. I can't really wrap my head around their explanations tbh).

>>754098

What are you talking about

>>754098

They both have apostolic succession, there was originally a single church.

>>754098

>"Im retarded and I want literally everyone to know it"

Catholics do not have apostolic succession. They lost it when they were cut off from the Church and so they do not have any sacraments other than possibly baptism. However it's not like Catholic clergy isn't in charge of many people still, although if they want to fulfill the mission of bringing them to salvation then they need to bring them into the Orthodox Church rather than teach them heretical doctrine and feed them earthly food that they think is spiritual.

Now, that was a response from an Orthodox perspective. Catholics believe that the Eastern Orthodox have valid apostolic succession, have the sacraments, and there is imperfect communion with the Catholic Church as a result. They would say our bishops, priests, and deacons are "real" buy they are working illicitly because they do not submit to the Pope.

>>754220

"But" not "buy". Sorry, I am phoneposting.

>>754220

Do Orthodox ever think that that's even going to happen, especially when the eastern bishops under the Isodore of Kiev assented to reunion with the Church at Florence?

>>754237

It's widely understood that the impetus for union at Ferrara-Florence was Eastern desperation for Western military strength, not true agreement. Constantinople fell, but the Church lives on.

>>754237

I don't understand the point you're making. Of the three main Orthodox unionists at the council (Bessarion, Isidore of Kiev, George Scholarius), Bessarion and Isidore joined the Church of Rome while George became a staunch anti-unionist. Bessarion and Isidore were made cardinals, and Isidore unsuccessfuly tried to proclaim the union in Poland, Lithuania, and Russia. Worried by Isidore's attempts to solidify the union, and by the unionist party in Constantinople, the Church of Moscow decided to distance itself from Constantinople and proclaim its own independance, a sentiment that they felt was confirmed when the city fell shortly after the unionist party, led by the emperor (but, I should note, opposed to the canonical hierarchy, which was anti-unionist), officially recognized the union.

… What does any of this have to do with what I said?

We both have apostolic succession.

The orthodoxes only illicitly produce the body and blood of Christ.

>>754278

/thread