Posted on 08/18/2012 9:13:06 PM PDT by Salvation
No, it isn't ridiculous. What IS ridiculous is all the word play and semantic games that must take place to try to get to the place where Catholics have to believe in the "real presence", properly confected by the "right" guy in the "right" garments saying the "right" words in order to really believe they are eating their savior and have a chance at salvation. I honestly think it took awhile for all the thinking heads to hash it out over the centuries, taking a little bit here a little bit there, to come up with the idea that what you can't physically see, really physically IS there. That is a far cry from believing that Jesus was really and truly God incarnated, Almighty God became a man, took on human flesh and blood and endured the horrendous agony and humiliation of the cross so that we can be redeemed by His shed blood.
I wish Catholic apologists would stop and think about what they are really getting across when they toe the "party" line and exclude the other believing Christians of the world from the fellowship of the Body of Christ. We are not saved by how we "see" the elements of the Lord's Supper observance but by how we see Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith.
Yes, I understand what Catholics define as "transubstantiation".
The bread and wine is completely changed to the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Yes, it still looks like bread and tastes like wine, but it is totally transformed.
It is COMPLETELY changed, YET, it still looks like the same. Like I said, a perception of the one who believes something is not what it appears or it no longer is what it still looks like. I don't think my understanding is the problem.
Do we really need to continue this argument? You were the one who chose to post this thread, is this what you had in mind when you did? Have the issues of this age-old debate changed or do we only continue to cover the same ground over and over again? If you want to "preach to the choir", why not use the well-worn Caucus? Why post an OPEN religion forum thread that attacks Protestants from the very first paragraph? Is it aiding unity in Christ or causing discord? Only you can answer, I don't pretend to know your intent or motives.
You nearly lost me at the first line, which reads, "In order to be a good Protestant, you must be a good anti-Catholic. I read thru it quickly and found nothing but the typical antiCatholic propaganda available all over the web. Just another not-for-profit antiCatholic 501(c)3. This article is couched in more polite terms than some--the faux sense of concern and understanding is a humorous but totally nonbelievable touch, lol--but it's the typical omission of scriptural support for Catholicism coupled with a bit of misdirection, disinformation, then the "logical" conclusions in support of Protestantism. Kind of a disappointment from someone who earlier accused Catholics of trying to dupe ignorant people.
Jesus made promises about His Church. Disbelieve them if you wish. I choose to believe. Jesus was not Himself a sola scriptura Jew. But you are free to be a sola scriptura Christian if you wish. Jesus accepted Jewish teaching authority and tradition. You are free to reject apostolic Christian authority and tradition if you wish. Jesus honors your free choice. How can I do any less? I wish you peace.
I think it's hard to make a blanket statement about protestants because their beliefs are so diverse. I remember going to a Methodist church some years ago and at their Christmas Eve communion service, the minister said a prayer in which he said he was consecrating the bread and wine into Christ's real body and blood. He wasn't talking about anything symbolic. I about fell out of the pew. It was a total heartache on so many levels!
Thank you for bringing this to light.
Are you too much the scientist here, rather than a faith-filled person?
“I don’t pretend to know your intent or motives.”
Of course.
You shouldn’t.
"And if they ignore Romans 13
No element of Scripture is to be ignored. Romans 13 can be compared to what God said on all the matters contained therein.
Protestants believe Jesus is the New Covenant paschal lamb of God but they stop there.
“I think it’s hard to make a blanket statement about protestants because their beliefs are so diverse.”
~ ~ ~
“So Diverse”, truly, imagine, each person gets to decide the most important thing, your own justification! Protestantism is cancelled by Ephesians 4:5.
Maybe, there are few but by far Protestants accept Jesus is
the Lamb of God. Our Lord is the Lamb sacrificed in the New Covenant. Remember the famous hymn, it’s touching and very solemn, the lyrics are ~ Oh Lamb of God, I come, I come. The “altar call”...Billy Graham’s hymn.
On the Methodist minister consecrating the bread and wine, I believe it happened, we realize, nothing was changed. This is one traditional Protestant group who will convert at the Great Warning. They won’t have a problem.
After the teachings you reference, Jesus didn't turn to his apostles and ask if they would leave too. And Peter wasn't prompted to make a profession of faith.
That is because the cast was different in each event in which the Lord did these things, but which does not negate Jn. 6 from exampling the same methodology. And that by faith in Christ one obtains living water, which the women at the well was invited to receive by faith, and no one else needed the Lord's supper to spiritual live, and which fits perfectly with the words of John. And who wrote "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. " (1 John 5:13) Yet none of the “things” he wrote therein talks about the Lord's supper, except by way of living selflessly, recognizing and treating other believers as members of the Body of Christ, which was the message in 1Cor. 10-12. Thus Christ's “meat” was doing the Father's will in service to Him and man. (Jn. 4:34)
In 1 Cor 5:7, Paul tells us that Jesus is the Paschal Lamb. Jews understood that the Passover lamb was killed, had its blood sprinkled, and then was eaten.
The Jews also understood that you did not drink the blood of the sacrifice, and that it was to be roasted with fire, and that what remained till morning was to be burned with fire, (Ex. 12:8-10) which things were not literally part of the death of the Messiah, but spiritually fulfilled as is often the case in typology.
Thus rather than defining the Passover as representing the elements being changed into the literal body of Christ, Paul's application is spiritual, with ritual purity of the Passover representing heart purity in the body of Christ, (1Cor. 5:8) with “not discerning the body” in 1Cor. 11 referring to effectually not recognizing other members as being part of the body.
The Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice, but a festal commemoration of a sacrifice designed to bring believers to examine whether they are living and loving consistent with Christ's sacrificial giving of Himself for the church, therefore that and they are the focus in application, not the elements, and thus in the communal agape feast (Jude 1:12; 1Cor. 1:21; Acts 2:46) of the Lord's Supper and overall, members are to be treated more as Catholics treat the elements in their focus upon them.
Apart from addressing the crowd with the teaching of John 6, Jesus also privately and in the context of the passover seder ate his Last Supper with the apostles, instructing them to "Take, eat; this is my body." (Mt 26:26)
This secret instruction on this is pure conjecture, and the absence of any real theological instruction in transubstantiation, being such a radical novel doctrine as consuming human flesh and blood, is contrary to the manner in which the Holy Spirit provides for the atonement (and other primary doctrines).
I think your observation about the apostles being Jews is a good one. An important one. And one that underscores that at the Last Supper, they well understood Jesus was instituting something new and that it transcended symbolism.
I find this frankly absurd, as “well understood” all depends upon your hypothetical secret instruction in transubstantiation 101, while what Scripture evidences is that they did not even understand that Christ had to die, (Lk. 24:13-44) thus they would hardly have comprehended how giving His flesh for the world translated into physically consuming Him, and much later the apostles did not yet even understand that they could eat pork, (Acts 10:9-14) let alone drink human blood.
Instead, being Jews they would have no problem understanding “this is my body” as being allegorical, it being consistent with Jewish language and the Lord's own abundant use of metaphor, as the door and sheepgate, etc. and who giving living water and makes believers into water fountains. (Jn. 4:10; 7:37)
That is because the cast was different in each event in which the Lord did these things, but which does not negate Jn. 6 from exampling the same methodology. And that by faith in Christ one obtains living water, which the women at the well was invited to receive by faith, and no one else needed the Lord's supper to spiritual live, and which fits perfectly with the words of John. And who wrote "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. " (1 John 5:13) Yet none of the “things” he wrote therein talks about the Lord's supper, except by way of living selflessly, recognizing and treating other believers as members of the Body of Christ, which was the message in 1Cor. 10-12. Thus Christ's “meat” was doing the Father's will in service to Him and man. (Jn. 4:34)
In 1 Cor 5:7, Paul tells us that Jesus is the Paschal Lamb. Jews understood that the Passover lamb was killed, had its blood sprinkled, and then was eaten.
The Jews also understood that you did not drink the blood of the sacrifice, and that it was to be roasted with fire, and that what remained till morning was to be burned with fire, (Ex. 12:8-10) which things were not literally part of the death of the Messiah, but spiritually fulfilled as is often the case in typology.
Thus rather than defining the Passover as representing the elements being changed into the literal body of Christ, Paul's application is spiritual, with ritual purity of the Passover representing heart purity in the body of Christ, (1Cor. 5:8) with “not discerning the body” in 1Cor. 11 referring to effectually not recognizing other members as being part of the body.
The Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice, but a festal commemoration of a sacrifice designed to bring believers to examine whether they are living and loving consistent with Christ's sacrificial giving of Himself for the church, therefore that and they are the focus in application, not the elements, and thus in the communal agape feast (Jude 1:12; 1Cor. 1:21; Acts 2:46) of the Lord's Supper and overall, members are to be treated more as Catholics treat the elements in their focus upon them.
Apart from addressing the crowd with the teaching of John 6, Jesus also privately and in the context of the passover seder ate his Last Supper with the apostles, instructing them to "Take, eat; this is my body." (Mt 26:26)
This secret instruction on this is pure conjecture, and the absence of any real theological instruction in transubstantiation, being such a radical novel doctrine as consuming human flesh and blood, is contrary to the manner in which the Holy Spirit provides for the atonement (and other primary doctrines).
I think your observation about the apostles being Jews is a good one. An important one. And one that underscores that at the Last Supper, they well understood Jesus was instituting something new and that it transcended symbolism.
I find this frankly absurd, as “well understood” all depends upon your hypothetical secret instruction in transubstantiation 101, while what Scripture evidences is that they did not even understand that Christ had to die, (Lk. 24:13-44) thus they would hardly have comprehended how giving His flesh for the world translated into physically consuming Him, and much later the apostles did not yet even understand that they could eat pork, (Acts 10:9-14) let alone drink human blood.
Instead, being Jews they would have no problem understanding “this is my body” as being allegorical, it being consistent with Jewish language and the Lord's own abundant use of metaphor, as the door and sheepgate, etc. and who giving living water and makes believers into water fountains. (Jn. 4:10; 7:37)
And again, one obtains life in them by repentant faith in the gospel message, not by eating the Lord's Supper.
And again, one obtains life in them by repentant faith in the gospel message, not by eating the Lord's Supper.
From your perspective, you don't find it extraordinary that John felt the need to "instruct" about the Last Supper in John 6 but then does not even mention it during the events which surround the passion? The Upper Room Discourse? I think you have to look for another explanation for John 6, the symbolism does not fit the context or the later developements of the book.
Prophecy R Us approves of the preceding message. For a limited time, 1/2 off Protestant prophecies.
That acceptance of Catholic doctrine and dogma (aka the "party line") is a thoughtless act is a common theme amongst Protestant apologists. Not only is it insulting, but it is patently false.
Catholic doctrine recognizes and embraces mysteries. Protestantism often treats a mystery as a failure of human reason. For Catholics mysteries are are not things that are inherently self contradictory or require cognitive dissonance. We see mysteries for what they are; ideas and beliefs beyond the capability of humans to fully fathom, but not beyond a faith based acceptance.
This goes to the core of our understanding of divine revelation. Catholics believe that divine revelation is the vehicle God uses to share knowledge not otherwise achievable by science and human understanding. That is why we find it so grotesque when Protestantism attempts to subordinate mysteries and divine revelation to human reason.
To expect that Catholics will be swayed from their faith based positions by the literary skills and persuasive arguments of Protestant apologists, amateur and professional is preposterous. Frankly, it smacks of spiritual pride; that love of self for the love of God, that is the antithesis of holiness and contradicts the love of other.
Peace be with you.
“Not only is it insulting, but it is patently false”
“To expect that Catholics will be swayed.....is preposterous.”
I concur on both points.
You are introducing a false dichotomy. All Scripture is God speaking, including, inter alia, Romans 13:
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Peace,
SR
This is one traditional Protestant group who will convert at the Great Warning.
“Prophecy R Us approves of the preceding message. For a limited time, 1/2 off Protestant prophecies.”
~ ~ ~
The personal mock by you and others I understand, you all can’t refute the Apostolic Fathers words or the Bible. In the Gospel Paul never said unless you discern it is a “remembrance” of Christ’s sacrifice or it is “symbol” of the body of Our Lord, you bring judgment on yourself. Paul’s words corroborate Jesus’ words “This IS My body.”
I am sad over the mock and call of false prophet about your own messengers besides the Catholic messages from Heaven. You know in your heart and in the “Bible” Alone there is one plan, God wants us all to believe the same.
Revelation 6:15-17 is going to happen, it’s soon. If you
could open your heart to the Real Presence now...
Do not take it personal, you were not one of the original
reformers. You’re going by what you’ve been brought up
believing. Praying, you’ll change, I wish before the “awakening” when God shows everyone.
It’s a good idea, keep up with threads about the Eucharist,
the pinnacle of the faith, accept the Eucharist, those who
disbelieve.
1 Corinthians 11:29
King James Version (KJV)
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
Douay-Rheims Bible
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
"You are introducing a false dichotomy. All Scripture is God speaking, including, inter alia, Romans 13: 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
There is no false dichotomy and everything in Scripture did not come from God. What God says about any matter is to be taken as the fundamental and guiding rule for anything anyone else says. Matt 19:8, Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." Note that Moses attributed the divorce law to God, but God denied that. God attributed the divorce law to Moses and the hard hearts of those he led. For example, God did not put Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Obama in power. According to Paul, in Romans 13 He did, but God is not a puppeteer and does not impose and direct evil, nor will He do one's thinking for them.
2 Tim 3:16 most certainly can not be used to justify placing what any man says above God, or above reality. God gave the example which shows that Moses never overruled Him and in fact he could not. Paul likewise can not overrule God. Niether can man overrule reality. Take Noah's flood for instance. The rainbow is due to Mie scattering and always existed. It is a findamental process embedded in reality and did not come after "the flood". It was there before that and could even be seen in the mists that watered the earth before "the flood" in Genesis, in the beginning. That's one piece of evidence that indicates "the flood" is parable. Another is the fact that if it rains for 40 days and forty nights according to the description given, the surface region temperature of the earth must be ~-40 degrees C or F. The story thus defies reality on a second count, which indicates it is parable.
Interesting that you limit God to one means. I see him as able to bestow his gifts by any and all means he chooses, not merely by repentant faith. Speaking of which, it would require more faith than I can muster to jump thru the hoops that you do to reach some of your conclusions. I prefer a more simple faith that takes Jesus at his word. Peace be with you.
In the church in which I was raised, there was a big disconnect between many elements of the Old Testament and the New. And as I recall, it was the same in other Protestant churches I attended with friends and relatives. The concept of the Lord's Supper as sacrifice wasn't part of our thinking. And one reason Catholicism was poorly understood was that we didn't understand the Jewish roots of Catholic worship.
This is one reason I so appreciate that there is an OT & NT reading and psalm at every Mass. Reading the OT as a type of the NT wasn't the lens with which we read our Bibles as Protestants. So it's no wonder we talk past each other. I still get amazed at Mass sometimes when I hear something from the OT that fits perfectly with the NT but I never put the link together before despite being familiar with both passages.
I don't condemn Protestants for not understanding Eucharist as we do. And I am reminded that the catechism says those born into these traditions do not sin for worshiping in the traditions in which they're raised.
When I was Protestant, having someone point out my error was about as effective as a Protestant telling you there's no Real Presence. Wasn't going to work. Changing minds and hearts is the Holy Spirit's work. I just try to speak the truth. And I'm working to try harder to speak it with love ;)
Once again, I am thanking you for your posts.
Deo gratias.
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.