How's Francis' job rating these days?
Posted on 07/09/2015 9:33:36 AM PDT by RnMomof7
The doctrine of Transubstantiation is the belief that the elements of the Lord’s table (bread and wine) supernaturally transform into the body and blood of Christ during the Mass. This is uniquely held by Roman Catholics but some form of a “Real Presence” view is held by Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, and some Anglicans. The Calvinist/Reformed tradition believes in a real spiritual presence but not one of substance. Most of the remaining Protestant traditions (myself included) don’t believe in any real presence, either spiritual or physical, but believe that the Eucharist is a memorial and a proclamation of Christ’s work on the cross (this is often called Zwinglianism). The Roman Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563) defined Transubstantiation this way:
By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Session XIII, chapter IV)
As well, there is an abiding curse (anathema) placed on all Christians who deny this doctrine:
If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ,[42] but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema. (Session XII, Canon I)
It is very important to note that Roman Catholics not only believe that taking the Eucharist in the right manner is essential for salvation, but that belief in the doctrine is just as essential.
Here are the five primary reasons why I reject the doctrine of Transubstantiation:
1. It takes Christ too literally
There does not seem to be any reason to take Christ literally when he institutes the Eucharist with the words, “This is my body” and “This is my blood” (Matt. 26:26-28, et al). Christ often used metaphor in order to communicate a point. For example, he says “I am the door,” “I am the vine,” “You are the salt of the earth,” and “You are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:13-14) but people know that we don’t take such statement literally. After all, who believes that Christ is literally a door swinging on a hinge?
2. It does not take Christ literally enough
Let’s say for the sake of the argument that in this instance Christ did mean to be taken literally. What would this mean? Well, it seems hard to escape the conclusion that the night before Christ died on the cross, when he said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood,” that it actually was his body and blood that night before he died. If this were the case, and Christ really meant to be taken literally, we have Christ, before the atonement was actually made, offering the atonement to his disciples. I think this alone gives strong support to a denial of any substantial real presence.
3. It does not take Christ literally enough (2)
In each of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) we have the institution of the Eucharist. When the wine is presented, Christ’s wording is a bit different. Here is how it goes in Luke’s Gospel: “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” (Luk 22:20). Here, if we were really to take Christ literally, the “cup” is the new covenant. It is not the wine, it is the cup that is holy. However, of course, even Roman Catholics would agree that the cup is symbolic of the wine. But why one and not the other? Why can’t the wine be symbolic of his death if the cup can be symbolic of the wine? As well, is the cup actually the “new covenant”? That is what he says. “This cup . . . is the new covenant.” Is the cup the actual new covenant, or only symbolic of it? See the issues?
4. The Gospel of John fails to mention the Eucharist
Another significant problem I have with the Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist and its abiding anathemas is that the one Gospel which claims to be written so that people may have eternal life, John (John 20:31), does not even include the institution of the Eucharist. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all tell the story of Christ giving the first Lord’s table, but John decides to leave it out. Why? This issue is made more significant in that John includes more of the “Upper Room” narrative than any of the other Gospels. Nearly one-third of the entire book of John walks us through what Christ did and said that night with his disciples. Yet no breaking of the bread or giving of the wine is included. This is a pretty significant oversight if John meant to give people the message that would lead to eternal life (John 20:31). From the Roman Catholic perspective, his message must be seen as insufficient to lead to eternal life since practice and belief in the Mass are essential for eternal life and he leaves these completely out of the Upper Room narrative.
(Some believe that John does mention the importance of belief in Transubstantiation in John 6. The whole, “Why did he let them walk away?” argument. But I think this argument is weak. I talk about that here. Nevertheless, it still does not answer why John left out the institution of the Lord’s Supper. It could be that by A.D. 90, John saw an abuse of the Lord’s table already rising. He may have sought to curb this abuse by leaving the Eucharist completely out of his Gospel. But this, I readily admit, is speculative.)
5. Problems with the Hypostatic Union and the Council of Chalcedon
This one is going to be a bit difficult to explain, but let me give it a shot. Orthodox Christianity (not Eastern Orthodox) holds to the “Hypostatic Union” of Christ. This means that we believe that Christ is fully God and fully man. This was most acutely defined at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Important for our conversation is that Christ had to be fully man to fully redeem us. Christ could not be a mixture of God and man, or he could only represent other mixtures of God and man. He is/was one person with two complete natures. These nature do not intermingle (they are “without confusion”). In other words, his human nature does not infect or corrupt his divine nature. And his divine nature does not infect or corrupt his human nature. This is called the communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties or attributes). The attributes of one nature cannot communicate (transfer/share) with another nature. Christ’s humanity did not become divinitized. It remained complete and perfect humanity (with all its limitations). The natures can communicate with the Person, but not with each other. Therefore, the attribute of omnipresence (present everywhere) cannot communicate to his humanity to make his humanity omnipresent. If it did, we lose our representative High Priest, since we don’t have this attribute communicated to our nature. Christ must always remain as we are in order to be the Priest and Pioneer of our faith. What does all of this mean? Christ’s body cannot be at more than one place at a time, much less at millions of places across the world every Sunday during Mass. In this sense, I believe that any real physical presence view denies the definition of Chalcedon and the principles therein.
There are many more objections that I could bring including Paul’s lack of mentioning it to the Romans (the most comprehensive presentation of the Gospel in the Bible), some issues of anatomy, issues of idolatry, and just some very practical things concerning Holy Orders, church history, and . . . ahem . . . excrement. But I think these five are significant enough to justify a denial of Transubstantiation. While I respect Roman Catholicism a great deal, I must admit how hard it is for me to believe that a doctrine that is so difficult to defend biblically is held to such a degree that abiding anathemas are pronounced on those who disagree.
The discussion was over the object of the Greek word translated ‘profits’. There was no effort to deceive on MadDawg’s part, just didn’t put the passage ID up with it since it was a rather esoteric side note.
Please take some time to go over the Religion Forum guidelines found at my profile page.
Click on my name at the bottom of this reply.
Pay close attention to the part about posting foreign languages.
Do not debate the RM on issues such as this.
~~~~~~~
The Passover was a remembrance of the Jews being sustained in the desert by manna ....
No, the Passover is the memorial of God's command to the Hebrew slaves in Egypt to paint a sacrificial lamb's blood on the side and top door posts (prescient of Christ's blood and sacrifice on the cross) of their houses such that when God's Death Angel, about to pass through Egypt and slay the firstborn of every human and animal, He would see the mark and pass over the house with the blood sign, and leave the firstborn ones of that house alive without harm.
God tells us in Exodus 12:12-14 AV:
12 "For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night,
and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both
man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will
execute judgment: I am the LORD.
13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the
houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass
over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy
you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial;
and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your
generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
There is an old hymn about this, relating the Passover to the Cross and the believer-disciple's salvation from the Eternal Death by His Shed Blood as the Lamb of God:
==========
WHEN I SEE THE BLOOD
Christ our Redeemer died on the cross,
Died for the sinner, paid all his due;
Sprinkle your soul with the blood of the of the Lamb,
And I will pass, will pass over you.
. . When I (when I) see the blood (see the blood),
. . When I (when I) see the blood (see the blood),
. . When I (when I) see the blood (see the blood),
. . I will pass, I will pass over you (over you).
Chiefest of sinners, Jesus will save;
All He has promised, that He will do;
Wash in the fountain opened for sin
And I will pass, will pass over you.
Judgment is coming, all will be there,
Each one receiving justly his due;
Hide in the saving sin-cleansing blood,
And I will pass, will pass over you.
O great compassion! O boundless love!
O loving kindness, faithful and true!
Find peace and shelter under the blood,
And I will pass, will pass over you.
==========
There is nothing about manna here in this paradigm of spiritual life.
The Matzo ..the unleavened bread of the passover represented the manna in the desert ..
I hope you will permit me to respectfully correct your misstatement here.
First, there is no connection or relationship between the unleavened bread matzos) and the "what-is-it" substance (manna). These substances are not even physically alike at all, even though manna is sometimes referred to in Scripture as "bread." Matzoh (Hebrew)--which is adzumos (Greek)--was made from grain flour, but at the moment the Death Angel was to suddenly pass over Egypt, the Hebrew slaves had so little notice and were in such haste to leave Egypt that there was no time for leavening substance to work. The reason that baked cracker-bread is used during the Passover memorial feast days is to remind them of the urgency of their flight out of the Nile Delta when God freed them from 430 years of slavery to the Egyptians, and commanded them never to forget it.
Manna is something quite different than adzumos. Later on, in their wandering in the Sinai area, there was no chance to grow grain to make bread, and they were very hungry. So God caused the manna to fall out of the clouds over them from the sky, like snowflakes, every night except on evening of the Sabbath. As to preserving it:
"And they gathered it every morning, every man according to his eating: and when the sun waxed hot, it melted" (Ex. 16:21 AV).
It wouldn't stand even the heat of the sun, so it could not be baked "bread." And they couldn't even keep it overnight (except for the Sabbath). So you can see that there was no connection between the leavened bread cakes(artos, Greek) nor unleavened bread crackers (adzuma, Greek) with the pasty manna-stuff.
Now, going on, Jesus is not identified figuratively with manna. Follow this passage from John's gospel:
"Jesus answered and said unto them,
'This is the work of The God, that you
continually commit trust unto (He) Whom
That One (God) sent.'"
In response they said to Him,
'What miraculous sign therefore are You Yourself doing
in order that we behold and continually commit trust
to You? What are You working?'
(Note here that Jesus had just yesterday fed them with real bread, miraculously.) 'Our fathers ate the manna in the desert according as it
is standing written, He gave them bread out of Heaven to eat.'
(Note--here see Psalm 78:24-25)
In response Jesus said to them,
'Amen, amen, I am saying to you, Moses has not given to you
the bread (artos) out of Heaven; but on the contrary,
My Father gives to you The Genuine Bread (artos) out of Heaven.
For The Bread (artos) of The God is The One descending out
of Heaven and gives absolute life to the world.'
In response they said to him,
'Lord, give to us this bread all the time!'
OK, what we see here is that the language gives us the clues that literally or figuratively speaking, Jesus is not represented by manna nor by adzumos. And He certainly is not literally artos, but He in this passagepersonally identifies Himself in the figurative-literal sense as the Source Of Life (a title), and as The Genuine Bread (a title). In other passages He as The Word is equated with (another title, "A human's life is not derived from baked bread dough alone, but also by every spoken command of the Savior God Himself) descended from His Throne in The God's Heaven.
That is the figurative-literal "bread" Who sustains spiritual life in His Body by coming to Him for instruction in--feeding on--the Word of God.
He took the bread and broke it... just as His body would be broken
Well, "broken" not in the English-language sense that brittle matzos/adzumos cracker-bread would be snapped, for that would contradict Scripture:
"The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that
the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath
day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought
Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might
be taken away.
Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first,
and of the other which was crucified with him.
But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead
already, they brake not his legs: . . .
For these things were done, that the scripture should be
fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken" (Jn. 19:31-33,36 AV).
But in the sense that soft baked flat bread, like pita bread, is torn to divide it, His body was (by humans) wounded--lacerated, poked, bruised, punctured, sliced, pricked, perforated, ruptured, slapped, ligaments torn--painful in itself; but by the Mighty God subjected to the ultimately agonizing burning as of the white-hot furnace of the flames of the Lake of Fire itself, in which He was our Substitute, which remnant and reminding effect was still seen by Beloved John:
"His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as
snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a
furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. . . " (Rev. 1:13-14 AV).
His body wracked, His eyes and feet as burned in a furnace, pericardium pierced? yes . . . but bones broken, no.
But thanks for the opportunity to explain this to you, with respect.
(My emphases shown by bolding the above text portions)
MHG, I am in limited agreement with MD on this. I too can read Greek (with crutches), and have always found the passage (John 6:63) connected back to the flesh of Jesus by contextual clues, not by any special mechanism of the Greek per se.
The sense of it seems to be that Jesus is setting forth a correction to the category error His fair weather disciples are making. They have missed the metaphor, and are stuck in a materialistic understanding, a flesh-bound frame of reference, and cannot see the spiritual point being made, that they must crave Jesus for spiritual life like they crave food for physical life. Jesus directs them in the disputed passage to look to the category of spiritual things, rather than fleshly. It is a category correction, and as such no personal pronoun is necessary, as the physical flesh of Christ is included in the category of flesh generally.
But as I said, and really as MD’s position allows, that analysis is based on nothing extraordinary in the Greek, but just context equally as evident in the translation as the original.
Peace,
SR
I was referring to the word ‘profits’ and the negation which follows it in the Greek text, indicating that the ‘thing’ flesh benefits nothing. The inference is back to what He had said about eating His flesh, and He was correcting the possible misunderstanding that may have left with His steadfast followers. The way many read the sentence they believe Jesus is saying the flesh gets no benefit/profit from eating Him. It is not the way the Greek sentence is constructed. The construction indicates the flesh is the thing that either gives the benefit or not. In this case the ‘not’ is indicated with the flesh ‘not profits nothing’ ‘ouk ophelei ouden’. Jesus goes on to point to what does profit or benefit the believer: “The words that I speak to you spirit are, and life they are.” This then refers us back to what does not profit, what is not spirit and not life. Catholicism truns that meaning on its head, just as those who ceased to follow Him had done in the carnal perspective of thinking He had commanded them that they must eat His flesh for spirit and life.
That is most clearly, a metaphor, a literary/oratorical device, one of which more expressive communication strategies Jesus had been training His rudely educated disciples through parables, in preparing to broadcast the Gospel stories to a world greater in complexity and nuances than the culture and occupations of their youth.
It is clear that these disciples understood the hidden comparison by which Jesus wanted to construct the rubric:
"Look fellas, the contents of this cup, red, stain-imparting, fluid, water-based, a medium of exchange in the market-place, poured out into this cup, thirst-quenching, life-sustaining, nourishing, and manufactured by crushing its beauty to yield the "blood" of the grape-cluster; think of this when you are calling up the conditions and reasons for my death as I am commanding you and your spiritual progeny forever--abused and pierced to pour out My blood to give you eternal life, a fluid to wash away your death-dealing sins and sinfulness, the currency better than corruptible silver or gold to purchase your souls from the god of this world, drinking in the spiritual principle of 'life is in the blood', poured out freely without cost to you but not without value and price to Me and My Father . . .", etc.; something to meditate on when gathering for worship and instruction in righteousness.
Well, you can see what Jesus was getting at by instituting a memorial context and procedure to undergird the Culture of Christ for centuries to come, by means of a very definitive, concise, and economical use of language that dismisses any concept that the contents of the cup were actually literally (and unacceptably) changed into human blood. Even the early Jewish evangelists were instructed to make sure that their Gentile learners stayed away from the diet use of ingesting blood, raw or congealed; certainly not to use the literal sense in teaching and practicing the Remembrance Supper.
Understanding this takes some sophistication in linguistics to appreciate, the cost of which educating new babes in Christ the early religionists were not willing, nor perhaps even able, to impart, to give to their students the richness and texture of rehearsing Christ's Passion.
The simple, ignorant, unrealistic allegorical device which they have resorted to for supplantin Biblical truth is the unwieldy, insupportable, questionable, unrealistic teaching of literal "transubstantiation" (or with Lutherans backing off but not rejecting "consubstantiation"). This trickery is instituted and taught to the Nicolaitan domineering priesthood to implant with the rude peasantry, "I just mumbled over this wine and it has really changed into Jesus' Blood. So drink it, and you will get enough grace and morality to hold you over until next Sunday." This is in the same incredible vein as the tought, "If I kill a lion and eat its heart, I will get its strength and fearlessness."
Fellas, this doctrine just doesn't make Biblical sense, even to a child who has not yet been deluded to ingest such trashy philosopheritis.
But keep on holding up the Word of Life, and holding on, Bro.
Τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ ζωοποιοῦνas contrasted with ...
The Spirit is the giving life [thing]
ἡ σὰρξ οὐκ ὠφελεῖ οὐδένwhere the double negative isn't a positive but an emphatic negation of "profit" applied to the direct object "no one." We know ouden ("no one/nothing") is the direct object because it is in the accusative. This means "flesh" is the subject and "profits" is the transitive verb, the verb whose action is sent from the subject to the direct object. So the movement is from left to right. The flesh fails to provide the benefit that the spirit does provide, which is to give life, to make alive, which is a participle here, and further cements the contrast between flesh as inert and spirit as the superior, active principle of the discussion. Any attempt to invert this must be done in vigorous rejection of ordinary Greek grammar.
the flesh [emphatically] profits no one (or perhaps "accomplishes nothing")
Answering what seems to be a rhetorical question (as well as being unasked to participate):
The Greek is clearer than the typical English translation when submitted to proper hermeneutical eisegesis and expositionally deconstructed so that the 21st century English-speaker has in his mind the same precise understanding that the first-century Koine writer (and the Holy Spirit) is projecting.
I think you’re on the right track here.
Anyone who’s eaten fried chicken knows flesh is not without its benefits.
:)
We need to look at this verse as parallel to other Holy Scripture that contrasts flesh with spirit. It’s akin to “carnal.” Or purely physical.
Christ used mud and spittle, He was Incarnate “in the flesh.” Holy Eucharist is His body and blood..
To look only at the physical: to say it’s the mud that healed.. etc. is the error. The physical is part, but not the whole. To see only the physical/material is carnal; to realize both and transcend the physical.. spiritual.
No less real, but transcending the material world.
το πνευμα εστιν το ζωοποιουν
the spirit is that which is the continuously-absolute-life-giving (begetting/Thayer?) one (present participle as predicate neuter singular articulate noun, embodying a sense of activity)
(but, comparatively)
η σαρξ ουκ ωφελει ουδεν
the flesh exists (emphatically not) continuously=ever benefits=contributes nothing=(not anything)
That means, rephrased, as I take it:
the literal, material flesh is never, no not ever, contributing anything.
Hm, Spring?
the flesh exists (emphatically not) continuously=ever benefits=contributes nothing=(not anything)
corrected:
the (literal, material) flesh never, no not ever, contributes anything.
(That is, it is dead.)
It is sad that their list is too short for effective functioning as the Body of The Christ
Indispensable?
Of course these two ordinances are, and Baptists recognize, that they are indispensable to the functioning of the church. If the assembly is not implementing these commands, it is not a church.
What they (and others) do not fully recognize that agape love (the in-spite-of sovereign preference of one above self and others), and the continual never-ceasing recruitment, induction, and processing of disciples into full spiritual maturity, are also ordinances indispensable to the functioning of the local church as a valid corporate Christ-authorized entity as well as to the individual constituents thereof.
Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
Bible - the sole authority of and for faith and practice
Autonomy or independence of the local church
Priesthood of all believers
Two offices --
. . Pastor
. . Deacon
Individual soul liberty and responsibility
Separation of Church & State
Two ordinances --
. . baptism of the believerby immersion
. . Lord's Supper
Saved, baptized and serving members
What happens to the soul if they ARE 'dispensed' with?
If so, then it is not legitimate Christian organization that the faith-regenerated believer-disciple-priest should commune with or in.
The problem is that the Baptists actually have another ordinance that they consider indispensable, and that is the "ordination" of a pastor, who in the local church is considered to be the only shepherd/elder/teacher, above in authority to the ordinary member. So this tends to create the situation where discipling another member into approaching the same level of spiritual maturity as the seminary-schooled pastor-teacher brings into play the ugly quality of turfiness--a fear of inability to graciously share leadership and the sacred platform with other Spirit-gifted members.
This is, of course, extreme in denominational organizations, but even in the independent local pastored Bible fellowships it is a hindrance to developing true spirituality and unfeigned love (that may include justified scolding and sharp reproofs) of the brethren.
And that is an unhappy consequence, IMHO.
O teread the guidelines last night. Things have changed!
I agree. In this case however, I thought the point at issue was how the saying about the profitless flesh was related to the discourse about "food indeed."
If the phrase "he sarx mou" [the flesh of me] had been there, THAT would have been clear WRT what I thought was the point at issue. So my question was not "the Greek" in general, but the Koine of this particular verse.
FR needs a like button.
Thank you for your opinion.
I guess we're all here because of our interest in "politics" at various levels of exaltation and debasement. When it comes to what we technically call "offishul" leaders, the need here for a Religion Moderator prompts the conjecture that a lot of groups need umpires and executives.
The local church is a polity like any other, and to some extent subject to the same principles of group dynamics as any other. It has the further burdens of being concerned with the most important things and of getting the special attention of the ancient enemy because he rightly perceives it as a threat.
IMHO, the combination of the serpent's particular attention and inevitable human moral (and other) frailnesses means that no political organization or structure cannot go bad.
WRT to turfiness, in the Catholic Church I have known quite holy pastors whose attitude seemed to be, "Whatever. Let people be creative. No fire will start that we cannot with God's help put out." And I have known others who had almost a compulsion to have a finger well into every pie that came near the place!
But, the persistence of the enemy is such that when a pastor (as we call them these days) has a light and guiding hand, the tendency to turfiness devolves downward to various strong lay-leaders and sub-groups. A light and open hand requires as much alertness as a heavy hand.
The deadly effect, as I see it, of turfiness, is that it makes it too easy for people to coast and "murmur," rather than take an active part. Ruling cliques and sullen majorities result.
My current parish CLAIMS 2,600 FAMILIES! (How accurate this claim is not even the angels in heaven know.) About 30% make a significant financial contribution. About 95% are passive "consumers." And our new pastor has a heavy hand -- genial and affable, but heavy.
It's interesting.
We do have different beliefs on what Jesus said in John 6. We are surely not alone on that. Christians have been struggling over those words ever since Jesus spoke them. Heresies were declared, Orthodox and Catholics believe differently, and Luther, Calvin, Zwingle, the Wesley brothers, each had a different understanding on what He meant. There are even different understandings within the Anglican faith.
I haven’t really mentioned my beliefs regarding the Holy Spirit. As a charismatic Catholic, my beliefs might be closer to yours than you realize. I attend a weekly prayer group, Fire in the Spirit, where we invoke the Holy Spirit, speak in tongues, and sing songs of praise to God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I have been a group leader in Life in the Spirit seminars. But most of all, I read what Scripture tells us about the Holy Spirit. It happened that I was a reader recently when the Scripture verse to be read was Acts 2:1-11. There was a burning in my heart as I spoke those words. It boggles the mind how the Spirit enabled them to proclaim the word in different tongues so that Jews from every nation under heaven could understand them in their own tongue. I do believe that we are born from above in the Spirit. I also believe that God does not limit Himself on how He enters into us. Primarily, I come to Jesus as a child, believing His every word, even when I struggle to understand them.
Peace,
Rich
HMMMmmm...
How's Francis' job rating these days?
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.