Posted on 07/09/2008 5:53:23 AM PDT by markomalley
Of particular interest was, "Do those who celebrate holy Mass faithfully show all this? Do they live Christ's love? Do those who receive Christ so often under the species of bread, see Him under the form of their brothers and sisters?"
A very challenging statement, part of a very thorough catechesis.
Eucharistic ping!
Bookmarking
A heartfelt thanks for this post. It makes this sometimes “better than thou” Catholic reexamine his heart,mind, and soul before approaching the Table of the Lord.
A Reformed view of the RCC Eucharist:
Scripture teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ has not only made a once-for-all-time atonement, but that his historical death on the cross is a complete atonement. He has completely satisfied God’s justice: the debt due to man’s sin has been fully paid and therefore all those who come to God through Jesus Christ are wholly free from condemnation. No further expiation for sin can ever be needed. The biblical view is that cleansing and forgiveness for sin are found in the blood of Jesus Christ alone, and never in the works or sufferings of man, for the law demands death as a penalty for sin. The significance of the reference to blood with respect to the work of Christ is that it signifies his life has been given over in death on our behalf and as a payment for our sin. It is because a full atonement has been made that a full forgiveness can be offered:
The blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7).
In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace (Eph. 1:7).
Scripture nowhere teaches that men must suffer temporal punishment for their own sins to render satisfaction to God, either in this life or in the life to come. All punishment for sin was borne by Christ. This is why the Word of God declares that ‘There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus’ (Rom. 8:1). God certainly disciplines believers for sin, but this has nothing to do with making atonement or expiation. In the discipline of his children God’s action is remedial, not punitive; it flows from love, not wrath (see Heb. 12:4-13).
Scripture does speak of a eucharistic sacrifice. The word ‘eucharist’ literally means ‘thanksgiving’ and the New Testament frequently enjoins believers to offer this kind of sacrifice of praise: ‘Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of the lips that give thanks to His name’ (Heb. 13:15). This is the true eucharistic sacrifice. Scripture also speaks of other sacrifices the believer is to offer to God — our goods to meet the needs of others, and ourselves in total surrender to God (Heb. 13:16; Rom. 12:1). These are all true sacrifices in the New Testament but they have nothing to do with the expiation of sin.
If, as we have seen, there is no more sacrifice for sin — what is the meaning of the Lord’s Supper? The Supper was established by the Lord Jesus as a memorial of thanksgiving and praise for his atoning sacrifice by which believers were to commune with him spiritually and also to proclaim his death until he comes again. The bread and wine, as Augustine points out, were given as figures or visible symbols of his body and blood and therefore are figurative expressions of his self-sacrifice. They are visible reminders to his people of what he has done on their behalf. When the Lord says, ‘This is my body’, he is speaking figuratively and not literally. In fact, in Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:16,18, Christ refers to the wine after consecration as the ‘fruit of the vine’, indicating that it was still wine. Twice, in 1 Corinthians 11:23-27, Paul refers to the consecrated bread as ‘bread’.
-————> The above is an extract from http://www.the-highway.com/eucharist_Webster.html
“When the Lord says, This is my body;, he is speaking figuratively and not literally”
You must have missed John.
Catholics=John 6:53-58 Everyone else=John 6:60-66
Therefore, you must be part of the everyone else.
Regards,
Lurking’
Lurking
eh, no - I haven’t missed that bit of John, I merely have the God given understanding of what it means and do not hold to the RCC magic show mysticism that was created by men to control men.
Now wait a minute, folks. I made this an “open” thread.
Manfred’s original post (#5) was a very constructive post, as it wasn’t bashing the Church, it was, in a constructive fashion, pointing out where the author of the piece thought we had it wrong. (Of course, neither I nor I’m certain 99.9% of orthodox Catholics would agree with that author)
The post was not snide nor disrespectful. It expressed a disagreement.
Bottom line is if Manfred is going to express disagreement respectfully, as he did in post #5, I think the least that we Catholics should be able to do is to respond back to him in a respectful fashion. C’mon folks, we complain about Protestants being disrespectful and then we have to show our hind quarters FIRST?? What’s up with that??
(i.e., his comeback to you in post #7 was a direct result of YOUR snideness in post #6)
I didn't think post #6 was all that snide. The poster in #7 has a history of cutting and pasting his anti RCC arguments on any thread on FR with the word Catholic mentioned.
Did I miss something? wasn't it Christ who commanded: “Unless you eat of the Flesh of the Son of Man, you shall not have life in you”.
it is amazing the number of Protestants who want literal translations of the Bible - who then backslide, mumble and obscure when it comes to John 6:53-58.
It appears Manfred and his source are in the group who says: “This is too hard..” as in John 6:60-66.
Christ was not equivocal - either you is or you isn't.
I don't retract a thing.
Lurking’
The God-given understanding of Holy Eucharist is Transubstantiation. Congratulations on accepting God's Truth.
And twist and obfuscate and prevaricate and contort and deny and circumlocute and dismiss et cetera ad infinitum . . .
Maybe next time you dismiss something as "RCC magic show mysticism" you should consider what the hundreds of millions of your fellow Protestants believe because the belief in the "Real Presence" IS NOT unique to the Catholic Church, it is held to varying degrees by the Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists and others.
It is strange that some people hate Catholics so much that they label things "RCC magic show mysticism" when the TRUTH is that the ONLY belief that is unique to the Catholic Church is papal primacy, ALL other beliefs are held by millions of Protestants.
Truth is not subject to majority vote. I care far less about what man - or any group thereof - think than I do for what the Scriptures say. Hence, I side with the RCC on right to life and side with the Reformed on the Lord’s Supper.
Thank you waggle,
I do not mean to disparage other Protestants who do take the Lord at His Word.
We can always quibble about the details.
It is a daunting concept to get a mere mortals brains wrapped around, even without the “magic show mysticism” herring.
Regards,
Lurking’
I never claimed it was.
I care far less about what man - or any group thereof - think than I do for what the Scriptures say.
Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. (John 6:54)
Thank you.
And to provide a counterpoint, it is amazing how Catholics ignore literal interpretations, except for 6 verses.
From the article I posted a link to previously: http://www.the-highway.com/eucharist_Webster.html
When Jesus refers to himself as the bread of life and says that men must eat his flesh and drink his blood, he makes it clear that his words were to be interpreted spiritually and figuratively: ‘The flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life’ (John 6:63). This discourse could not refer to the Lord’s Supper for Christ had not instituted that ordinance at the time he gave this teaching. He is not speaking here of the eucharist, but of his sacrifice on Calvary. The whole discourse of John 6 is a presentation of Jesus as the atoning sacrifice for the sin of the world in the giving of his flesh and blood, and how men are to appropriate the benefits of that sacrifice. It is those who believe who experience the benefits of his work, and so when he likens faith to eating his flesh and drinking his blood he is explaining the nature of saving faith as the appropriation of his person into the believer’s heart. The Son of God would have us understand that saving faith is much more than mere intellectual assent to truth. As John Calvin pointed out:
We are quickened by the true partaking of him; and he has therefore designated this partaking by the words ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’, in order that no one should think that the life that we receive from him is received by mere knowledge. As it is not the seeing but the eating of bread that suffices to feed the body, so the soul must truly and deeply become partaker of Christ that it may be quickened to spiritual life by his power . . . In this way, the Lord intended, by calling himself ‘the bread of life’ (John 6:51), to teach not only that salvation for us rests on faith in his death and resurrection, but also that, by true partaking of him, his life passes into us and is made ours — just as bread when taken as food imparts vigour to the body.34
Christ often used very vivid language to impress spiritual truth upon men’s minds. When speaking with Nicodemus he tells him that he must be ‘born again’. He refers to himself as a ‘vine’ and believers as ‘branches’. These references are obviously not to be taken in a literal sense. Again, in Matthew 5:29-30 Jesus says:
And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to go into hell.
Christ is obviously using starkly realistic language to convey an important spiritual truth: the necessity for radical repentance from sin. He speaks in physical terms but we are not meant to take his words in a literal, physical sense. Precisely the same is true with his teaching in John 6 and his words at the institution of the Lord’s Supper. To interpret all his words in those passages literally would adopt an interpretation which directly contradicts the teaching 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.