Posted on 02/08/2006 1:14:31 PM PST by jecIIny
“He who grounds his faith on Scripture only has no faith”
The faith existing in the Church, from the beginning throughout all ages, is the infallible standard to determine the true sense of Scripture: and accordingly, it is certain, beyond the shadow of doubt, that the Redeemer is God, and hath filled us even with divine power. In fact, he who grounds his faith on Scripture only, that is, on the result of his exegetical studies, has no faith, can have none, and understands not its very nature. Must he not be always ready to receive better information; must he not admit the possibility, that by nature study of Scripture another result may be obtained, than that which has already been arrived at? The thought of this possibility precludes the establishment of any decided, perfectly undoubting, and unshaken faith, which, after all, is alone deserving of the name. He who says, ‘this is my faith,’ hath no faith. Faith, unity of faith, universality of faith, are one and the same; they are but different expressions of the same notion. He who, if even he should not believe the truth, yet believes truly, believes at the same time that he holds fast the doctrine of Christ, that he shares the faith with the Apostles, and with the Church founded by the Redeemer, that there is but one faith in all ages, and one only true one. This faith is alone rational, and alone worthy of man: every other should be called a mere opinion, and, in a practical point of view, is an utter impotency.
Ages passed by, and with them the ancient sects: new times arose, bringing along with them new schisms in the Church. The formal principles of all these productions of egotism were the same; all asserted that Holy Writ, abstracted from Tradition and from the Church, is at once the sole source of religious truth, and the sole standard of its knowledge for the individual. This formal principle, common to all parties separated from the Church;—to the Gnostic of the second century, and the Albigensian and Vaudois of the twelfth, to the Sabellian of the third, the Arian of the fourth, and the Nestorian of the fifth century—this principle, we say, led to the most contradictory belief. What indeed can be more opposite to each other, than Gnosticism and Pelagianism, than Sabellianism and Arianism? The very circumstance, indeed, that one and the same formal principle can be applied to every possible mode of belief; and rather that this belief, however contradictory it may be in itself, can sill make use of that formal principle, should alone convince everyone, that grievous errors must here lie concealed, and that between the individual and the Bible a mediating principle is wanting.
What is indeed more striking than the fact, that every later religious sect doth not deny that the Catholic Church, in respect to the parties that had previously seceded from her, has in substance right on her side, and even recognizes in these cases her dogmatic decisions; while on the other hand, it disputes her formal principles? Would this ecclesiastical doctrine, so formed and so approved of, have been possible, without the peculiar view of the Church entertained of herself? Doth not the one determine the other? With joy the Arian recognises what has decided by the Church against the Gnostics; but he does not keep in view the manner in which she proceeded against them; and he will not consider that those dogmas on which he agrees with the Church, she would not have saved and handed down to his time, had she acted according to those formal principles which he requires of her, and on which he stands. The Pelagian and the Nestorian embrace also, with the most undoubted faith, the decisions of the Church against the Arians. But as soon as the turn comes to either, he becomes as it were stupified, and is inconsiderate enough to desire the matter of Christian doctrine without the appropriate ecclesiastical form—without that form, consequently, by the very neglect whereof those parties, to which he is most heartily opposed, have fallen on the adoption of their articles of belief. It was the same with Luther and Calvin. The pure Christian dogmas, in opposition to the errors of the Gnostics, Paulicians, Arians, Pelagians, Nestorians, Monophysites and others, they received with the most praiseworthy firmness and fervency of faith. But, when they took a fancy to deliver their theses on the relations between faith and works, between free-will and grace, or however else they may be called, they trod (as to form) quite in the footsteps of those whom they execrated….
This accordingly is the doctrine of Catholics. Thou wilt obtain the knowledge full and entire of the Christian religion only in connection with its essential form, which is the Church. Look at the Scripture in an ecclesiastical spirit, and it will present thee an image perfectly resembling the Church. Contemplate Christ in, and with his creation—the Church—the only adequate authority—the only authority representing him, and thou wilt then stamp his image on thy soul….
[The Catholic] is freely convinced, that the Church is a divine institution, upheld by supernal aid, ‘which leads her into all truth;’ that, consequently, no doctrine rejected by her is contained in Scripture; that with the latter, on the contrary, her dogmas perfectly coincide, though many particulars may not be verbally set forth in Holy Writ. Accordingly he has the conviction, that the Scripture, for example doth not teach that Christ is a mere man; nay, he is certain that it represents him also as God. Inasmuch as he professes this belief, he is not free to profess the contrary, for he would contradict himself; in the same way as a man, who has resolved to remain chaste, cannot be unchaste, without violating his resolution. To this restriction, which everyone most probably will consider rational, the Catholic Church subjects her members, and consequently, also, the learned exegetists of Scripture. A Church which would authorize anyone to find what he pleased in Scripture, and without any foundation to declare it as unecclesiastical, such a Church would thereby declare, that it believed in nothing, and was devoid of all doctrines; for the mere possession of the Bible no more constitutes a Church, than the possession of the faculty of reason renders anyone really rational. Such a Church would in fact, as a moral entity, exhibit the contradiction just adverted to, which a physical being could not be guilty of. The individual cannot at one and the same time believe, and not believe, a particular point of doctrine. But if a Church, which consists of a union of many individuals, permitted every member, as such, to receive or to reject at his pleasure, any article of faith, it would fall into this very contradiction, and would be a monster of unbelief, indifferent to the most opposite doctrines, which we might indeed, on our behalf, honour with the finest epithets, but certainly not denominate a Church. The Church must train up souls for the kingdom of God, which is founded on definite facts and truths, that are eternally unchangeable; and so a Church, that knows no such immutable dogmas, is like to a teacher, that knows not what he should teach. The Church has to stamp the image of Christ on humanity; but Christ is not sometimes this, and sometimes that, but eternally the same. She has to breathe into the hearts of men the word of God, that came down from heaven: but this word is no vague, empty sound, wherof we can make what we will.
Johann Adam Möhler
Once you answer the question "If you error in your belief that Jesus Christ is God, might we say that your worship of him might be considered idolatry rather like the jews with moses staff?", you'll have your answer.
He nowhere says they are but signs. Once again, you are putting words into his mouth. Yes, he says they are signs, just as the Church does, but not only signs. He also believes in the real, physical presence. I've shown you his other quotes to prove this. Do you use the same tactic in your interpretation of scripture, i.e. pulling a single quote out of context in isolation and ignoring everything else?
The title of Augustine's tract is WHO IS IN BONDAGE TO SIGNS, AND WHO NOT. And he goes on to state "and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom." Get that? Not carnal bondage to signs, but spiritual freedom.
The term "Real Presence "does not translate into transubstantiation at all.
The doctrine of the Real Presence, as believed by Orthodox and Catholics alike, asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. It is not just a spiritual presence as your are trying to redefine the phrase. Transubstantiation is merely an explanation of the “how” of the Real Presence and is not a contradiction of it. You are attempting to confuse the issue by trying to make the two in opposition to each other.
As you well know the proposition that the bread became the physical presence of Christ was not [proposed until the 9th century and not a mandatory belief ( dogma of the Catholic church until Trent.
Until the 9th Century?? This is patently false, as demonstrated by Scripture and elsewhere on this thread. Here is some more evidence:
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).
Clement of Alexandria
"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Tertullian
"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
Hippolytus
"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).
Origen
"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).
Council of Nicaea I
"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).
Aphraahat the Persian Sage
"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).
Ambrose of Milan
"Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).
Theodore of Mopsuestia
"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).
Augustine
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]). "I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
... "What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).
Council of Ephesus
"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).
Some sources, please, for your allegations regarding the late date for Catholic understanding of the Eucharist...
But, in any case, the argument I made from "lack of Divine Providence" is still valid. If Catholic Eucharistic doctrine is wrong, it has been wring from the get-go. If so, then Jesus Christ, omniscient, Second person of the Holy Trinity, KNEW it would be botched from the get-go as a misapplication of His words on the subject of the Eucharist, yet He allowed it to be thus misunderstood, setting the stage for 1500 years worth of "idolatry" until a very carnal Augustinian monk *finally* got a glimmer of correct understanding! Preposterous! Especially when one considers that this is supposed to be the final covenant with people until He comes in glory. The OT covenants wee but a foreshadowing of the NT covenant. Doctrine was to reach a state of perfection, even if He still allowed for sinful weeds to mix in among the wheat.
Then one can certainly remember, because it is a memorial "This do in remembrance of Me."
His Body was prepared by God, in order that it be a perfect Sacrifice [Heb 10:5]. In remembrance of His Death on the Cross of Calvary that purchased our Redemption, which we celebrate in that referred to as "the Last Supper". It was intended to be, and still is a memorial celebration, not a sacrifice again, and again, and again..
So, there is no more need for sacrifice as the following scripture will clearly define
Hebrews 10:1 For the Law (the Law of Moses) having a shadow of good things to come (the Law of Moses was only meant to be temporary; it portrayed Christ Who was to come),and not the very image of the things (it was quite impossible for the Law to present a proper image of Who and what Christ would be; it suggest such, but was only a suggestion), can never with those Sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. (The animal Sacrifices could only cover sins, they couldn't take away sins. That remained for Christ to do [John 1:29]
Hebrews 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? (Paul asked this question simply because the fact that the animal Sacrifices had to be offered over and over proclaimed their insufficiency. They were, in reality, only a stopgap measure.) because that the worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. (This proclaims what the Proper Sacrifice of Christ could do, and did do. The phrase, "no more conscience of sin," should not be misunderstood as "no more consciousness of sin.")
Hebrews 10:3 But in those Sacrifices (animal Sacrifices)there is a remembrance again made of sins every year (That the High Priest of Israel had to go into the Holy of Holies once a year with animal blood proclaimed the fact that this system was basically flawed, and was meant only to point to Christ Who was to come.)
Hebrews 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. (The word "impossible" is a strong one. It means there is no way forward through the blood of animals. As well it applies to all other efforts made by man to address the problem of sin, other than the Cross.)
Hebrews 10:5 Wherefore when He (the Lord Jesus) comes into the world (presents Christ coming as Saviour, Who undertakes in Grace to meet every claim the Throne of God has against penitent sinners), He said, (Psalms 40:6) Sacrifice and Offering You would not (refers to the fact that He would pay for sin, but not with animal Sacrifices), but a Body have You prepared Me (God became man with the full intention that His Perfect Physical Body was to be offered up in Sacrifice on the Cross, which it was; the Cross was ever His destination):
Hebrews 10:6 In Burnt Offerings and Sacrifices for sin (proclaims the root of the problem which besets mankind--it is "sin"; the idea is, that the Sacrifices were not sufficient as it regards "sin"; therefore God took no pleasure in them in that capacity) You have had no pleasure.
Hebrews 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the Volume of the Book it is written of Me,) (The entirety of the Old Testament points exclusively to Christ, and in every capacity.) to do Your Will, O God. (The Cross was the Will of God because it had to be if man was to be Redeemed.)
Hebrews 10:8 Above when He said, Sacrifice and Offering and Burnt Offerings and Offering for sin You would not (refers to the fact that animal Sacrifices could not cleanse from sin), neither had pleasure therein (concerns the insufficiency of the Sacrifice); which are offered by the Law (refers to the fact that all these Offerings were included in the Mosaic Law; even though instigated by God, they were meant to point to Christ)
Hebrews 10:9 Then said He, Lo, I come to do Your Will, O God. (The doing of the Will of God, as it regards Christ, pertained totally and completely to His Sacrifice of Himself on the Cross.) He takes away the First (the Old Covenant which He did by the Sacrifice of Himself), that He may establish the Second (The New Covenant which He did by going to the Cross, the only way it could be established).
Hebrews 10:10 By the which will (the Sacrifice of Christ took away the First Covenant, satisfying its demands, and established the New Covenant) we are Sanctified through the Offering of the Body of Jesus Christ once for all (this proclaims unequivocally that the only way the Believer can live a victorious life is by the Cross ever being the object of his Faith.)
Hebrews 10:11 And every Priest stands daily Ministering and offering oftentimes the same Sacrifices, which can never take away sins. (proclaims the insufficiency of this method)
Hebrews 10:12 But this Man (this Priest, Christ Jesus), after He had offered one Sacrifice for sins forever (speaks of the Cross), sat down on the Right Hand of God (refers to the great contrast with the Priest under the Lenticular system, who never sat down because their work was never completed; the work of Christ was a "Finished Work," and needed no repetition);
Hebrews 10:13 From henceforth expecting till His enemies be made His footstool. (These enemies are Satan and all the fallen Angels and demon spirits, plus all who follow Satan)
Hebrews 10:14 For by one Offering He has perfected forever them who are Sanctified. (Everything one needs is found in the Cross [Galatians 6:14];)
Hebrews 10:15 Whereof the Holy Spirit also is a witness to us (a witness to the Cross): for after that He had said before (refers to the fact that the Holy Spirit has always witnessed to the veracity of the Finished Work of Christ),
Hebrews 10:16 This is the Covenant that I will make with them after those days (proclaims its distinctive feature as being the Sanctifying Work of the Holy Spirit Who would be caused to take up His permanent abode in the Believer, all made possible by the Cross), says the Lord, I will put My Laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them (the work of the New Covenant, which accompanies the Born-again experience);
Hebrews 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more (He has taken them all away, and did so by the Cross)
Hebrews 10:18 Now where remission of these is (with all sins Atoned, the argument is settled), there is no more Offering for sin. (No more offering is necessary, for Christ paid it all)
Hebrews 10:19 Having therefore, Brethren, boldness to enter into the Holiest by the Blood of Jesus (the Cross has made it possible for any and every Believer to come into the presence of the very Throne of God, and at any time so desired)
Hebrews 10:20 By a new and living way (presents the New Covenant), which He has consecrated for us (by the Cross), through the Veil (contains an allusion to the Veil which separated the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place in the Tabernacle), that is to say, His flesh (refers to giving Himself on the Cross, which opened up the way to God);
Hebrews 10:21 And having an High Priest over the House of God (the actual Greek says, "a Priest, a Great One"; He is the Head [Col. 1:18];
Hebrews 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of Faith (Faith in the Finished Work of Christ), having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. (This portrays Paul using Old Testament Types to represent the reality we now have in Christ [Lev. chapters 8-9],)
Hebrews 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our Faith without wavering (Faith in Christ and the Cross); (for He is faithful Who Promised;) (This refers to the fact that everything the New Covenant promises, which is Salvation and total victory over all sin, will be realized in totality.)
Brother, based on the above scripture, it can only be concluded that the world has been dealt a Judaized form of Christianity in an attempt to retain the Old Levitical sacrificial system only this time in an unbloody manner.
For it is written: Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the Law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission
Let us continue....
Hebrews 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the pattern of things in the Heavens should be purified with these (everything that retained to the Tabernacle and all of its Sacred Vessels was a copy of that which was in Heaven; inasmuch as the Vessels and Tabernacle were touched by men, they had to be purified by Blood, OE "animal blood"); but the Heavenly things themselves with better Sacrifices than these (If man were to enter Heaven, the abode of God, there would have to be a better Sacrifice than that of animal blood)
Hebrews 9:24 For Christ is not entered into Holy Places made with hands(Christ did not enter the earthly Tabernacle or Temple, regarding the offering up of His Precious Blood on the Mercy Seat) which are the figures of the true. (presents the fact that these "figures" were only temporary); but into Heaven itself, now to appear in the Presence of God for us (presents the purpose and reason for the Cross; all of it was done "for us")
Hebrews 9:25 Nor yet that He should offer Himself often (read that verse again; refers to the fact that the one Sacrifice of Christ which was the Offering of Himself on the Cross, was eternally sufficient for the cleansing from all sin....past, present, and future; it will never need to be repeated, as the High Priest enters into the Holy Place every year with blood of others (refers to the High Priest of Israel of Old, who went into the Holy of Holies once a year on the Great Day of Atonement, carrying animal blood)
Hebrews 9:26 For then He (the Lord Jesus) often have suffered since the foundation of the world (presents the fact that He wasn't functioning as the High Priest of Israel who, as stated, had to offer Sacrifice yearly) : but now once in the end of the world has He appeared to put away sin by the Sacrifice of Himself. (this presents the One Sacrifice of Christ as sufficient for all time. The end of the world= "in the consummation of the ages" As well, by the Sacrifice of Himself, he didn't merely cover sin, but rather took it away [Jn 1:29])
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die (due to the Fall, all men are under a sentence of death, and in fact all have died Spiritually, which means to be separated from God. That's why YOU, as directed by Jesus Himself says "You Must Be Born AGAIN" this time of the SPIRIT!), but after this the Judgment (the answer to the Spiritual death of man is Christ and what He did at the Cross; if Christ the Saviour is rejected, all will face Christ the Judge; for as death was inevitable, the Judgment is inevitable as well.)
Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and only them who look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto Salvation. (this refers to the Second Coming. "Without sin" refers to the fact that the Second Coming will not be to atone for sin, for that was already carried out at the Cross at His First Advent. The Second Coming will bring all the results of Salvation to this world, which refers to all that He did at the Cross. We now only have the "First-fruits" [Romans 8:23]
The problem with the world and the Church as well, is that it has ever sought to substitute something else in place of God's plan for Salvation. But let all know, it is alone the Cross! the Cross! the Cross!
Just as He went, we all must go.. The Way of the Cross
I sincerely hope and pray, just as the Lord does, because He is forever interceding for us, that you might find your way to His Way, the Way of the Cross. God Bless
You assume the Church has sought to substitue something else. It has not, as taught by the Church. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial.
1363 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men. In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.
1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. "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."
1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood." In the Eucharist Christ gives us 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."
1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.
1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."
1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering.
The Eucharist is a memorial, just like how you point out the Bible proclaims. The Mass is not another sacrifice, or a repeat sacrfice. It is the one and only sacrifice of the Cross made present.
I sincerely hope and pray, just as the Lord does, because He is forever interceding for us, that you might find your way to His Way, the Way of the Cross.
It sounds like you assume I haven't.
Read what the Chrurch has to say
http://www.catholic.com/library/Sacrifice_of_the_Mass.asp
What you linked to doesn't disagree at all with what I posted earlier. The Mass is a sacrifice - the one and the same sacrifice of the Cross made present. Not a different sacrifice or a repeat sacrifice, but the same sacrifice.
That really doesnt make sense. If I owe a debt to someone, yes I must pay it. However if it has already been paid in full whats the point?
If you borrowed money from me and paid me in full that would clear your debt wouldn't it not? Ok, why go and re-enact the event in attempts to repay it perpetually, it make no sense whatsoever
Just accept Jesus Christs' Sacrifice alone as payment in full for your sins
Now, one can certainly remember with gratitude, I'm not saying we should not do that
But you cannot pay anymore on this debt because the Lord already paid that debt in full on Calvary
I think I will stir the pot a little. Go to this link.
http://www.mission.org/jesuspeople/transub.htm
Sunday School is a school you never graduate from!:-)
Study To Show Thyself Approved Unto God (2 Tim. 2:15)
Peter tells us, “His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). How is this life and godliness found? “Through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence” (1:3). And where is the knowledge of Christ found? In the Word of God.
Peter encouraged us to be “like newborn babes, [who] long for the pure milk of the Word, that by it you may grow in respect to salvation” (1 Peter 2:2).
Paying a debt? Who said the Mass is about paying a debt? It always strikes me as funny when people build a false notion of the Catholic Church, then knock it down so they can do their little victory dance.
You should have spent more time with your nose in the Cathechism. The point is worship.
If your doctrine is wrong and the bread is a "remembrance" LIKE THE PASSOVER would you say Catholics bowing before the bread and shaking incense is idolatry?
Paschasius Radbertus was the first to formulate the doctrine of transubstantiation in the ninth century. Before then there was no doctrine of Transubstantiation, even then it was not thoroughly accepted and there was debate
In the early church here was no "special reverence" for the mass or the host .
There were no pews, no kneelers and people wandered about fellowshipping during the service.
It was not until Aquinus that the idea of Transubstantiation was finalized
Not I who is confusing anything.
The fact is we as protestants believe Jesus is really present at the Lords supper, Luther believed the Lord was really present at the Lords supper.
The Church Fathers never spoke to the nature of the change, which for many then and many Catholics today was much closer to Luther's Con Substantiation as opposed to the belief in a physical change in the accidents ( just a little of platonic thought there in your doctrine )
There is no evidence in the scriptures that the early church believed the bread was changed in substance.
I have asked this before and never gotten a good answer on this, How could the substance of the unleavened bread be changed to the body of Christ at the last supper, when he stood in front of them as a flesh and blood man.
How could they "eat " his body" when he was still earth bound as man in flesh and blood?
Perhaps I'm a little obtuse, but do you really question that Christ can be truly present at more than one place at the same time? how would this seem to favor the Lutheran or Orthodoz view of the Sacrament over the Roman Catholic view?
Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
You may want to read this properly
It says that YOUR faith , YOUR belief is a WORK OF GOD IN YOU. It does not say it is your work.
It is like me saying
This is the work of my husband, that the front porch is painted
Phl 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.
John6 soundly teaches that Salvation is a work of God from beginning to end. It is a work no man can do, God gives the faith and God gives the grace you can do nothing to "earn it"
"Salvation is of the Lord."Jonah 2:9.
Did you read the scripture you posted?
Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
He saved us and called us not because of OUR WORKS, but according to His will and his purpose WHICH WAS GIVEN TO US IN CHRIST BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN
That grace, that faith was given to us by the Father before the fall of Adam
When we do the works of God the ones he as authorized us to do according to his will then we bring him glory if we do works God has not authorized or in a manner which he does not approve then we put are will before his and those works become the works of man and are reprobate.
Amen, indeed this is true, I would say with Paul,they are the works He has ORDAINED for us to do, the works that do not bring our salvation but that flow from it bring Him glory , because they are HIS works in us , not our works.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Hbr 13:21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Phl 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform [it] until the day of Jesus Christ:
The fact is we as protestants believe Jesus is really present at the Lords supper, Luther believed the Lord was really present at the Lords supper.
You are very confused. When you say we as protestants believe Jesus is really present at the Lord's supper, you mean only spirtually as you stated above. In contrast to what you believe, Luther insisted that the words of Christ in Scripture, “This is my body”, be taken literally. Luther believed in the physical presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist as do present day Lutherns:
The earliest Christian believed in not just the spiritual presence but also the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as documented on numerous occaisions above, but which you choose to ignore. Ask someone from the Orthodox Church when the belief in the physical presence came about. It certainly wasn't in the 9th Century when transubstantiation was defined because the Orthodox don't accept (nor do they reject) transubstantiation but they still believe in the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
There is no evidence in the scriptures that the early church believed the bread was changed in substance.
No, you just choose to ignore it. And you choose to ignore what the earliest Christians believed the Scriptures said about the Eucharist.
I have asked this before and never gotten a good answer on this, How could the substance of the unleavened bread be changed to the body of Christ at the last supper, when he stood in front of them as a flesh and blood man.
Because He said it was! You don't believe him? You don't believe that when He gave just the five loaves and two fish to the crowd of five thousand, who ate and were filled, that afterwards there were twelve baskets full remaining? How could He do this? Explain how he did that and you have your answer. Or doesn't your god have the power to do such things?
According to the creed you and I both affirm, Christ came down from heaven, He was FULLY God and Fully man.
All of Christ was present at the Last Supper 100% of Him, He was never divided, all of Christ was hung on the cross to die, to believe otherwise is a heresy
how would this seem to favor the Lutheran or Orthodoz view of the Sacrament over the Roman Catholic view?
Jesus was fully man. As fully man he could only be in one place at a time, he was not omnipresent . The bread could not have been his actual body as he had not yet returned to the Father. His body was bound by the very laws of physics that he had created.
Lutherism believes that in the remembrance Christ is present along side the bread ( the accidents do not change substance) , Protestants believe He is spiritually present to the saved in the obedience to the remembrance.
Both of these positions are more consistent to the last supper than the Bread becoming the actual body and the wine becoming the actual blood of a man that was fully avive in front ot them and using 100% of his flesh and blood as he stood there
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.