Posted on 04/13/2014 7:37:12 AM PDT by CharlesOConnell
A fine young man, a father of children and a professional, approached me at church: "What do you think of that Pope John-Paul? He's no good." Others also didn't like him. I put a magnetic sign on my car, it was met with sneers: 5 pictures of the Pope immediately after being shot, in 1/6th of the space, "In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood." – Hebrews 12:4
Yet I also didn't like Pope John Paul II, not in himself, but because of the cult of personality around him. I love Pope John Paul, yet I dislike hearing his name appended with "The Great", as if I am expected to join in perpetual enthusiasm about his person, regardless of how well I correspond to his message and mission.
I loved Cardinal Ratzinger, but didn't notice such a rabid welcome for him as Pope Benedict XVI, so I felt freer to attend to Him, even despite controversies like the Regensburg Lecture or various public relations disasters caused by those who sought to manage him. I was happy when his resignation finally thwarted the manipulations of those who were secretly working against him.
Now I have seen enough to ignore those who get all hot and bothered by Pope Francis upsetting the apple cart, instead concentrating on the message of the man himself. If it were all peaches and cream, so that my comfort weren't afflicted by Francis' message, what use would it all be?
Jesus remarked that "foxes have dens and birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to rest his head". Matthew 8:20. His followers were ready for him to expel the Romans and restore the Davidic Kingdom. Yet he told them to go out without even taking any money.
Why should we only listen and respond to messages, and messengers, that we like? What use is it, how can Christ's message transform us, if we only hear what confirms us in what we're already doing?
Would the word 'conquer' serve as translation as well as the word triumph, do you suppose?
Trying to distinguish them in my head when I'm praying them, I think Of "vincit" as Him breaking in, smashing down the walls; "regnat" as Him sitting on His throne and putting everything in order all around him; training his cadre of ministers, legislating; "imperat" as ordering His law to be proclaimed throughout the world, His forces arming, and justice done.
Tagline.
"Triumphs", well enough = conquers.
Now others may know also.
“... No it is not. Ever.”
Actually it is. Always.
“... yes he IS. He entered ONCE into Heaven and made a sacrifice once for all, according to Hebrews.”
Yes, and He made the Apostles priests as well.
“... No, He never did in Scripture.”
Yes, actually He did. When He told the Apostles to carry on the Eucharist in remembrance of Him.
“... and yet there was no Eucharistic sacrifice in the NT or in the Church before 100AD.”
Yes, there was. Hence, the use of the word anamnesis.
“Yes, and He made the Apostles priests as well.”
Only in the sense that Peter writes ALL believers are a kingdom of priests. The Apostles are not given any separate priesthood in Scripture. It is ironic that Peter, the claimed first pope would write that every single believer is a kingdom of priests, instead of writing about a priestly class or office. Nor did he take any opportunity to teach that Apostles are a class of priests.
“Yes, actually He did. When He told the Apostles to carry on the Eucharist in remembrance of Him.”
At the celebration of Passover, Christ instituted a new remembrance, using the cup and the bread - to do in memory of Him until He returns. In memory. Not in changed substance. This came later as a teaching as paganism crept in along with candles and robes and goofy hats.
“Yes, there was. Hence, the use of the word anamnesis.”
Meaning “remembrance.” Not sacrifice perpetually. I participated in remembrance of Him this morning with my ekklasia, following His command.
Do what in memory of Him?
Have you read any of the 4Gospels...?
All of them. Have you thought of your answer to the question yet?
Or, what did you do when you “…participated in remembrance of Him…”
“Only in the sense that Peter writes ALL believers are a kingdom of priests. “
Israel was said to be a priestly nation (Ex 19:6) yet it had a select priesthood. For Christians it is the same through Christ.
“Not in changed substance.”
Christ said it was changed in substance - Body and Blood, not bread and wine any longer.
“Not sacrifice perpetually.”
Re-presentation of one sacrifice - the sacrifice of Christ.
“Or, what did you do when you “…participated in remembrance of Him…”
We followed His commands.
Your post indicates a dodge.
His command was to do what in memory of Him?
“Israel was said to be a priestly nation (Ex 19:6) yet it had a select priesthood. For Christians it is the same through Christ.”
The Church is the opposite of Israel - instead of descendants and tribes being the basis of serving as a priest, every believer in Christ is a priest.
“Christ said it was changed in substance - Body and Blood, not bread and wine any longer.”
He did not say it was the first time, but assuming He did for the sake of argument, He did not say it would be ever again. He said to do it in memory of Him.
“Re-presentation of one sacrifice - the sacrifice of Christ.”
Already presented the one and only time in heaven according to Hebrews. I suggest you review it.
Hebrews 9:12 - “Christ entered the ·Most Holy Place only once—and for all time. ·He did not take with him the blood of goats and calves. ·His sacrifice was his own blood, and by it he ·set us free from sin forever.”
“Your post indicates a dodge.”
No, I was explicit. I’m sorry you expect me to dance when you play a tune.
No dance. Just a simple question.
No answer for it?
And, of course, “followed His commands” is not at all an explicit answer to the specific question.
For example, did He command:
Take, eat; this is my body?
Oh I gave you an answer.
Here is Paul’s inspired explanation and instructions concerning the Lord’s Supper
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.
33 So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. 34 Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.
Did exactly that though if you are familiar with the Gospels, you would have already known that....
So, did eat and drink discerning the body of Christ? Or without discerning the body of Christ?
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.