Posted on 04/27/2008 3:36:18 AM PDT by markomalley
PRAISE GOD FOR SANITY IN READING. THANKS ENORMOUSLY.
I really did search long and hard for a term I could live with but that was accurate and not particularly offensive.
I can’t imagine anyone being at/in St Peter’s as I’ve been . . . and thinking any other word would be MORE fitting.
Now, I suspect some may be TAKING OFFENSE quite eagerly BECAUSE of various uses I’ve made of the term. But that’s a different issue, story. I make creative uses of lots of words. Does that rob them of others’ use? Does that rob them of other, more conventional meanings? What a construction on reality that would be!
Not if you are talking about transubstantiation as taught by the Roman Catholic Church.
uhhhhh
OK.
The disrespect is in the context in which it has been used on this forum.
In this case, context is the key to the persception of disrespect.
I’ve explained that at great length on another thread. I have no interest in explaining it here.
Basically, using the label you’d like to demand of me is extremely offensive and UNBiblical, to me.
Precedent is also very informative in this case.
I understand your protests against “Respectful Dialogue.”
Your words and insights are truly anointed !Blessings on you and yours.
b'SHEM Yah'shua
What reason would you have to be unable to post RCC if you already can post RC?
On transubstantiation, I find that my Catholic (and some transubstantiation-believing Protestant) friends are really not too far away from my Protestant beliefs.
At some point both Catholics and Protestants both procure unleavened wafers and wine from some place. Nobody (I think) would dispute that at this point they are simply bread and wine.
They represent a metaphor or proxy for the blood and body of Christ at this stage as they have been procured for this purpose.
At some point - whether it is at consecration or the actual communion (I think that is what this article said) if you believe in transubstantiation, the change occurs.
The common ground I see is that we all agree (maybe) that at some point we are simply dealing with bread and wine - and the sacramental blessing for the Eucharist converts it - either spiritually, or spiritually & literally - depending on what side of the fence you are on.
The value to the receiver is the same, in my opinion, but if I’m wrong and transubstantiation actually does occur, I’ll be none worse for it!
YOU- Not if you are talking about (T)transubstantiation as taught by the Roman Catholic Church.
--------------------------
Are you saying that in transubstantiation Jesus is not come back in the FLESH?.. according to the rite.. Tha Jesus is come back spiritually, instead?.. or that he somes back both fleshly and spiritually.. Penn and Teller Christianity has always crawled my nape(among the reformed also).. Yet I do believe in miracles.. You know , real ones..
This is very disrespectful.
1. The symbols (and I'll explain later why they're symbols) were only intended to be consumed on one day a year, on the Passover. Passover is one of the Lord's yearly holy days, established by the Lord, the eternal God, for his people:
Lev 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD's passover.
As such, Jesus Christ, God incarnate, observed it:
Luk 2:41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
Luk 2:42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
Note this:
Luk 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
Luk 22:16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
Luk 22:17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
Luk 22:18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
In the scripture above, Jesus links the symbols of the bread and wine WITH Passover, the Passover that he himself created and which he observed when incarnate.
If I understand Catholic belief properly, that they hinge they're understanding that the bread and wine in use TODAY are (or become) the actual body and blood of Christ. As evidenced in the article, much of this hinges on the interpretation of the verses (and others like it) above. For example:
Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
As Catholics correctly point out, the did not say "this is a SYMBOL of my body." However, IF we want to take this argument to literally and to it's logical conclusion, the the ONLY bread that was Christ's body was the bread he was talking about at that time. He said "THIS is my body". He didn't say "This, and future pieces of bread, are my body."
Now Paul taught future Christians in biblical times that the the bread and wine were to be taken on Passover:
1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
The first verse is important. Paul is correcting people in how and when they were taking the Passover.
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
What did Paul deliver to them that he received from the Lord? That the SAME NIGHT, Passover, which he had been betrayed, he took the bread and wine. Since it was NOT the same bread and wine, Paul understood they were symbols.
Interesting observation...one that I hadn't heard before.
As an aside, do you recall (no peeking now), what three things were contained inside of the tabernacle in the ark of the covenant?
Matt 26:
26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." 27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."
Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26 offer more of the same affirmation.
"A Biblical view of the Real Presence rejects two aberrations. On the one hand, it is wrong to reject Christ's clear words simply because our fallen human reason cannot fully understand how it comes to pass. Any effort to make the "This is" something less than a clear word, as Reformed theology does by denying the real presence of the body and blood of Christ on earth, is a departure from Christ's words. On the other hand, it is also fruitless to engage in theories about how the body and blood are present in, with, and under the bread and wine. A dogma such as transubstantiation, as generally taught by Roman Catholicism, is not set forth by Scripture."
Theology and Practice of The LORD'S SUPPER Part I A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod May 1983.
http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/Theol_lord_supper1.pdf.
Heb 7:
26Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.
The bold is mine. The Lord's Supper is a means of grace accepted through faith by believers. Grace and faith are not reliant upon human effort, as they are gifts from God.
To whom?.. Its a "if the shoe fits, wear it" statement..
Rather present "your case" for transubstatiation and we'll ralk about it.. respectfully..
If you cannot or will not thats another story..
Its you that seem to be NOT respecting ME,, rather..
Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
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.