Posted on 09/16/2017 1:21:07 PM PDT by ebb tide
But it REALLY does not look like the Lord's body which was broken, and His blood which was shed, with its manifest physicality that John emphasized, versus a Gnostic or Docetist Christ who was not what He appeared to be. And which soon to be crucified manifest flesh and blood a straight-forward literal reading of the "words of consecration" would refer to. Nor is there anything in the text which requires this to still look like bread and wine.
But since Cath priests cannot change the bead and wine into the manifestly incarnated flesh and blood of Christ (aside from a few purported miracles which do not conform to Eucharistic theology), then while what Caths receive REALLY looks like bread and wine, they are to believe that it REALLY is the crucified body and blood of Christ (even in the smallest particle), while the bread and wine REALLY no longer exist, Christ being present instead.
That is, until the bread and wine which no longer exist REALLY exist begin to manifest decay, at which point the Catholic christ REALLY no longer exist under that appearance. Nor does the bread and wine either according to Aquinas. At which point as concerns the "Real Presence" in that locale, theologically
they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. (John 20:13)
Yes, it is. Very important, whether “symbolic” or mystically real. More eloquent than words.
It was a beautiful Christmas Eve service, by the way. Music all the way through, lots of devout people, great sermon.
I’m sorry to see this thread devolve into quarreling. If people could see how stupendous and life-transforming the blessing of belief in Jesus is, they would laugh at the differences between the denominations.
I believe in the Real Presence in Holy Communion myself, and even after all these years of study of Scripture I STILL do NOT understand what Catholic theology on Communion is.
And that’s after reading Catholic theology too.
What I get from them is that a miracle happens on the altar and the bread and wine is transformed into Jesus’ flesh and blood, but it’s flesh that tastes like bread and blood that tastes like wine?
And at the same time, Jesus in heaven is re-crucified. Again and again and again every time they say these words.
And for some reason, only the priest is allowed to drink the blood/wine/whatever.
I mean, even if you take ‘this is my body’ 100% literally, doesn’t this Catholic thing go a little bit beyond what the Bible says?
I’m sorry to see this thread devolve into quarreling. If people could see how stupendous and life-transforming the blessing of belief in Jesus is, they would laugh at the differences between the denominations.
***
Yeah... behold the FR religion forum, sad to say! You learn to either grow a thick skin or learn how to pass eyes over things you don’t want to read without letting them penetrate.
The priest is stating the sacrifice of his life for the parishioners. Or that’s the way it should be. They get free bread and wine (which is allowed, it’s just not practical) and the free word of God preached to them. He gets to give up many of the usual human comforts of life. Whether he is actually doing so probably doesn’t even matter in one sense, but of course it matters in his personal relationship with God.
Pure bombast by one who often has been refuted by Scripture, and who demeans Scripture like a liberal.
My dear Luircin,
Since the Communion chalice has been received by laypeople since the late 1960’s, your remark that in the Catholic Church “only the priest” receives the Blood of the Lord, seems to show that your reading is a little outdated.
Your statement that, according to Catholics, Jesus is in heaven getting re-crucified over and over again, is not only incorrect, but quite *specifically* and *strongly* rejected by Catholic theology.
I must say such misconceptions abound in the blogosphere. Is that where you get this stuff?
Not that I blame you specifically. Far from it.
Religious “dialogue” online requires weary Catholics to be continually hauling this rubbish to the landfill.
Over and over again!
.
Yes, its a miracle like no other, since there unlike healings or changing water into wine, there is no manifest change, as unlike the Biblical incarnated Christ, "which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life," (1 John 1:1) who was manifestly incarnated, and behaved, looked, felt, and would taste and scientifically test as real flesh and blood;
the Eucharistic christ is manifest as inanimate objects, which behave, look, feel, and taste and would scientifically test as mere bread and wine, but which are said to no longer exist, but Christ does instead (in either and both species, while His body in its spatial existence in Heaven remains), even to subatomic particles (some of which would become airborne...).
Until as said, the non-existent bread and wine begin to show decay (as in mold), at which point Christ is no longer present, even though the manifest decay is not real.
See here for substantiation, by God's grace
And at the same time, Jesus in heaven is re-crucified. Again and again and again every time they say these words.
No, that is not what is theologically said to occur, even though the Eucharist is "the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins,"(CCC 1365) with His human body and human soul, with His bodily organs and limbs and with His human mind, will and feelings (John A. Hardon, S.J., Part I: Eucharistic Doctrine on the Real Presence);
As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out.”(CCC 1414; 1364) “...that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross;...For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different.” (Council of Trent, The Twenty-Second Session)
For it is imagined that the priest “offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary.” (John A. O'Brien, Ph.D., LL.D., The Faith of Millions, p. 256; Nihtt obstat, Imprimatur)
However, "crucified anew" does not mean again "in the historical sense:" "Christ was offered once, and is offered daily, but in one manner then, in another now." (Peter Lombard, Sentences, Lib. IV, Dist. 12)
And for some reason, only the priest is allowed to drink the blood/wine/whatever.
No, that is no longer true. In Vatican Two Catholicism the laity can consume both species, even though the smallest particle would give them the whole body and blood of Christ. Yes, that is what imagines occurred at the Last Supper.
I mean, even if you take ‘this is my body’ 100% literally, doesn’t this Catholic thing go a little bit beyond what the Bible says?
Actually as explained if you take ‘this is my body which is broken for you’ 100% literally, then it would be taking is less that 100% literal, since the only body of Christ that would be broken and His life-blood poured out (cf. Is. 53:10,12) was the manifestly incarnated body, not some `versus a Gnostic or Docetist Christ which was not what he appeared to be. to be.
But only the metaphorical understanding conforms to Scripture.
When I was a Catholic, MANY years ago, I was absolutely, totally, completely, 💯% convinced I was going to Hell. I KNEW it. Obviously, I don't think that way now.
I just thought of something. Do you suppose, it is also the sin of presumption in reverse, to presume one will go to Hell? A conundrum?
Only at Bugnini's Novus Ordus Masses. Not at Traditional Latin Masses. But I guess we Traditionalists are oudated, also?
The Lutheran Church accepts the real presence of Jesus:
“Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise. “ - Augsburg Confession, Article X.
“Of the Sacrament of the Altar we hold that bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ...As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance, and that there remain only the appearance and color of bread, and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement with Holy Scriptures that there is, and remains, bread, as Paul himself calls it, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break. And 1 Cor. 11:28: Let him so eat of that bread.” - Smalcald Articles, Part 3, Article 4.
“Confessional” Lutheran Churches don’t intercommune with other denominations for pretty much the same reasons as Catholics do.
That's a shame to believe in since Lutheran "priests" cannot effect a valid consecration.
Depends on the church. Most Lutheran Churches do it at every service (though some only do it monthly or twice a month), which is the historical Lutheran position:
“Now, forasmuch as the Mass is such a giving of the Sacrament, we hold one communion every holy-day, and, if any desire the Sacrament, also on other days, when it is given to such as ask for it.” - Augsburg Confession, Article XXIV.
“At the outset we must again make the preliminary statement that we do not abolish the Mass, but religiously maintain and defend it. For among us masses are celebrated every Lord’s Day and on the other festivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it, after they have been examined and absolved.” - Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article XXIV.
Agreed. Take a look at Lutheran theology on communion, I think you’ll find you sound like you’re a closet Lutheran. 8-)
.
I don’t demean Scripture. I demean the brainless way some people exploit isolated verses of Scripture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.