Posted on 06/10/2007 4:48:46 AM PDT by markomalley
Roman Catholic Christians share with most Christians the faith that Jesus Christ, on the night he was betrayed, ate a final or last supper with his Apostles. This final meal was also the celebration of the Jewish Passover or Feast of the Unleavened Bread which commemorated the passing over of the Jews from the death in slavery to the Egyptians to life in the Promised Land.
Christians differ in the meaning this Last Supper has to them and the Church today. Catholic Christians together with other historical Christian Churches (e.g., Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Christians, Lutherans, Anglicans and some Episcopalians, etc.) believe the literal words of Jesus - that the bread and wine are truly his body and blood. Other later Christian Churches profess a mere symbolic meaning to the words of Jesus.
The faith of the Catholic Church is based on both a fundamental principle of hermeneutics and the constant faith of the Church from Apostolic times.
The Catholic Church teaches that the first principle of hermeneutics--the science of the translation and interpretation of the Bible--is the literal meaning of the text.
The first writer of the New Testament was the apostle Paul. His Letter to the Corinthians was written as early as 56 AD, earlier than the first Gospel, Mark's, written about 64 AD. Paul was also not an eyewitness to what he wrote but testifies to his source.
The next New Testament text in chronological order would have been Mark's Gospel. Written about 64 AD, in Rome, Mark, not an eyewitness, probably heard the account of the Last Supper he recorded from the Apostle Peter.
The third account of the Last Supper could be Matthew's. Matthew, the tax collector Levi, was an eyewitness to the meal. He was one of the twelve Apostles. Matthew probably wrote his Gospel in the 70's.
Luke's account of the Last Supper, written from the standpoint of a Gentile convert and a non-eyewitness, probably heard the details of the Last Supper from Paul. Luke was a traveling companion of Paul. Luke also wrote in the 70's.
The beloved disciple, John, the last of the New Testament writers, wrote his Gospel in the 90's. John was an eyewitness to the events of the Last Supper (Jn 6:30-68).
Hence Catholic Christian belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist rests upon the literal meaning of the words of the Last Supper as recorded by the Evangelists and Paul.
The uniformity of expression across the first four authors affirms the literalness. Belief in the real presence demands faith--the basis of new life as called for by Christ throughout scripture. But faith in signs conferring what they signify is the basis also for the Incarnation--appearances belying true meaning. The true significance of the real presence is sealed in John's gospel. Five times in different expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of what he means.
The best way a person can make a clear literal point is repetition of the same message in different ways. Jesus did this. Those around him clearly understood what he was saying--cannibalism and the drinking of blood--both forbidden by Mosaic Law.
Had these disciples mistaken the meaning of Jesus' words, Jesus would surely have known and corrected them. He didn't. They had clearly understood his meaning--Jesus' flesh was to be really eaten; his blood to be really drunk.
Non believers often respond that even at the Last Supper, the apostles did not sense that they had flesh in their hands and blood in their cup. But Jesus is God. The creative literalness of the words: "This is my body; this is my blood" must be believed. God cannot lie. And God can turn bread into flesh and wine into blood without the appearances of bread and wine changing.
Medieval philosophers and theologians called this expression of Divine Truth and Creative Power "transubstantiation". Yes, God can change the substance of any created matter while the appearances remain unchanged. And this demands faith.
Paul confirms elsewhere in his letters the reality of the real presence.
The persuasion of the Church from Apostolic times about the objective reality of these words of Christ is clear from many documents.
Irenaeus (Asia Minor, 140 - 202), Tertullian (Rome, 160 - 220), Cyprian (Carthage, 200 - 258) are just a few of the earliest who attest to the objective reality of the words of Christ.
In the Church in Alexandria, Athanasius (293 - 373) and Cyril (376 - 444) equally attest to the literal meaning of the words of Christ at the Last Supper.
In the Church in Palestine, Cyril (Jerusalem, 315 - 387) and Epiphanius (Salamis, 367 - 403) also affirm in their teaching the same reality.
Unanimity is found across the universal church until the 11th century. Berengar (Tours, France, 1000 - 1088) was one of the first to deny the real presence by arguing that Christ is not physically present, but only symbolically.
The Council of Rome (a local council), 1079, taught against Berengar that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ.
By the 16th century, some Reformers (excluding Luther) also taught that Christ's presence in the Eucharist was only figurative or metaphorical. Since there were other opinions being taught as truth (figurative presence and metaphorical presence) a teaching authority (see Chapter 5) had to be appealed to discern error from the truth. The way of the Church was to follow the model of Acts 15.
The Council of Trent (1545 - 1563) defined the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Eucharist as both the continuing sacrifice of Christ and a real sacrament. The institution of the Eucharist as sacrament was contained in the words "Do this in remembrance of me."
Roman Catholic Christians celebrate the Eucharist in the liturgical act called the Mass. The word Mass comes from the Latin missa ("sent"). It was taken from the formula for dismissing the congregation: Ite missa est ("Go, the Eucharist has been sent forth") referring to the ancient custom of sending consecrated bread from the bishop's Mass to the sick and to the other churches.
The Mass contains two parts: the liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word is a copy of the Jewish synagogue service of the first century: readings from Scripture followed by responses from the congregation often from the Book of Psalms. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is a reenactment of the Last Supper. A celebrant does what Christ did: take bread and wine and say the same words Christ said and then share the now consecrated bread and wine with the congregation.
Roman Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and remain such until the elements are entirely consumed. The Body and Blood not consumed at one Eucharist are reserved for the next celebration of the Eucharist and venerated as the Body and Blood of Jesus.
Roman Catholic Christians take the word of God seriously and seek to remember Christ in the Last Supper "as often as" possible. And in doing this proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
Catholic Christians also believe that there is only one sacrifice, Jesus', but following the command "as often as" to proclaim the death of the Lord, the sacrifice of Christ is made physically present to every Christian in all places in every age. The Eucharist makes the atemporal aphysical actions of Christ's redeeming action truly present to us always and everywhere. This is incarnational.
Following the word of God, Catholics also know that Christ is not and cannot be resacrificed. This has never been the teaching of the Catholic Church.
The constant faith of the Church from the Apostolic Fathers attests to the fact that the Mass was the one Sacrifice of Calvary made present to the faithful.
The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this statement explicitly.
The Roman Catholic Church through history approached her faith life with the clarification of language. That is, she translated the essentials of revealed faith into the vocabulary of living language.
Transubstantiation reflects Roman Catholic faith in the literalness of the words of the Bible.
Jesus (omnipotent God) said: "This is my body; this is my blood." And again Jesus said: "I am the bread of life;" "My flesh is true food; my blood is true drink;" "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood ...;" etc.
Roman Catholics take Jesus at His word: the bread is his body; the wine is his blood.
From the Apostles at the Last Supper until today, the bread and wine of Eucharist looks and feels and tastes like bread and wine in the eating and drinking.
Similar to all of God's Word, faith is essential. Faith in what? In the words of Jesus even though the bread does not look, feel, taste like flesh; even though the wine does not look, feel, taste like blood.
Medieval philosophers and theologians sought simply to label this simple biblical faith: Jesus said that bread is his body and wine is his blood even though it did not appear to change into visible flesh and blood.
Transubstantiation means the substance part of the bread and wine elements changes; but the accidental parts--sight, taste, smell, touch--do not. Catholics believe that since Jesus said it and He is God, he can do it. They believe! "Transubstantiation" merely labels it.
In everyday life, it is not at all uncommon to believe in things man cannot perceive by the senses: wind, electricity, love, peace, etc. All the more when Jesus says it.
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." -- 2 Timothy 2:4"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
The only "stimata" that matters for anything is the "circumcision made without hands" which is the "circumcision of Christ." (Colossians 2:11)
And this "stigmata" is inward, spiritually given and spiritually discerned.
They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." -- Titus 1:15-16"Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
Did you just make that up?
That was hilarious. I thought it was right out of Monty Python.
"We fight against mysticism and tyranny." -- from the movie, "300."
You didn't answer the question. You evaded it. It is a yes or no question.
-A8
The pope has a new book, Jesus of Nazareth, which is basically a reflection on the Christ of the Gospels. He exhibits some mild disdain for the biblical scholars. He says that he simply trusts that the Gospels tell us about Jesus. A crucial point in his thinking is that the Jesus of the Gospels in not a liberal rabbi, nor a prophet, not even a new Moses but the Lord himself, and that any Jew who encountered him was forced at some point or another to choose between “the eternal Israel” and Jesus. We also have to make this choice, and it is a hard one do do.
My “once every ten years” moment of inspiration. Check back with me in 06/11/2017 provided the Maya calendar is wrong and the world doesn’t end in 12/21/2012.
Some would say that Benny Hill is a godly man and miracle worker as well. I'm sure the Catholic Church isn't about to declare him a saint. Would you say his work is from the devil?
I learned how by watching you respond to what tiki said. Did I do it right? It was my first attempt.
Or you could consider trying to keep the posts from needing to be wiped clean. Call me a dreamer ...
And it doesn't work for me. I don't consider it okay to slander me over here and to misstate and mock my religion over there somewhere and expect it to be as though it never happened.
Here is the problem.
As God laid out the plans for His new church He made no provision for a priesthood because there was no longer a need for sacrifices ( the role of the priest)
Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
No priesthood .
From these were to come bishops and elders
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
There is no role of Priesthood in the new church because there is no longer a system of sacrifices that had the role of pointing to Christ
Hbr 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Hbr 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Hbr 10:6 In burnt offerings and [sacrifices] for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Hbr 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God
In 70 AD God destroyed the priesthood because we now have a high priest in Christ and the Jewish "type" was no longer needed
But what thou actually saidst was what I quoted (and evidently misunderstood) to wit: No one has ever said that Luther was a metaphysician.
And I was thinking that if Luther was going to say that Aquinas didn't understand Aristotle, evidently Luther said or implied he was a metaphysician.
But I get that you're saying he wasn't a very good metaphysician.
I note with severe disapproval that you dodged my question about whether my health plan would pay the metaphysician bill ... tsk tsk tsk.
Does that work in reverse?
If you're going to nurse a grudge from here on out, I don't know that there's much to be done about it. I suggest that we take each thread individually, seeing how it unfolds. You never know, we just might pal around on one thread even though we're at each other's throats on another.
Sometimes silence is the better part of valor.
If you insist on my opinion, it's this...
Like Calvin and Toplady and Spurgeon and Luther and hundreds of other Christians have pointed out, the RCC is filled with sorcery, mysticism, superstition and error.
The Holy Spirit does not lead anyone to any of those destinations, so I can only conclude someone else is leading Roman Catholics astray. My advice would be to resist those leadings and return to Scripture and to full confidence in the power and "goodness of God to lead you unto repentance" and "unto life."
"From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." -- Galatians 6:17
Now, is Paul speaking about visible signs on his own body, or is he speaking about the marks on Christ's body that are now spiritually part of Paul?
As Scripture interprets Scripture, let's see what is said in Isaiah.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." -- Isaiah 53:4-5"Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
From this repetition we learn that it is Christ's suffering that has saved us; Christ's obedience that has made us free; Christ's atonement that has paid the price for our sins in full.
Protestants hold in contempt the idea that God would wish to lacerate a believer's body in order to prove a point. It would be sadism on the part of God and masochism on the part of the believer.
Worse, it somehow seeks to bring glory to the person himself by his own pain rather than to the blood and wounds and suffering of Christ.
It's like the self-flaggelating monks. It dishonors God and Christ's sacrifice. Better those men should join a soup kitchen and dish out dinner to God's hungry children than waste their time in solitude and self-inflicted wounds.
It's not much different than Angelina Jolie's self-mutilating cutting of her arms. "It's all about me."
AMEN!
Anything that draws attention to the individual rather than to Christ is suspicious. Doubly so when the attention-grabber does not point to Christ either.
Very good response.
It really meets no need I am aware of having to discuss these things with people who prefer logomachy to dialogue.
“He made no provision for a priesthood”
Not to quibble but God did make provision for the priesthood. 1 Pet. 2:9, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:”
When the veil was torn exposing the empty Holy of Holies, what God did was take the franchise away from the professionals and give it to all believers as part of our inheritance so that nothing stood between us and our true mediator.
People that do not know or study scripture will miss the misuse if they do not have a bible in hand
As an example this quote of his
First, take a look at Revelation 5. In Revelation 5, there is a scroll with seven seals that nobody can break open and everybody is really upset. In fact John almost begins to cry. In 5, verse 2, "A strong angel proclaimed with a loud voice, 'Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?' And no one in heaven and on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it." What is the scroll? The word is biblion. Most likely it's a reference to a covenant document, the New Covenant document that nobody is worthy to break open. "And I wept much, but no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it," because this scroll would consummate and fulfill the promises of the Old
This is 100% supposition and without any support...he has taken the greek word and he decided what it means, with no support in the scripture
Testament.
biblion
Part of Speech neuter noun Outline of Biblical Usage
1) a small book, a scroll, a written document
2) a sheet on which something has been written
a) a bill of divorcement
book--rather, as accords with the ancient form of books, and with the writing on the backside, "a roll." The writing on the back implies fulness and completeness, so that nothing more needs to be added ( Rev 22:18 ). The roll, or book, appears from the context to be "the title-deed of man's inheritance" [DE BURGH] redeemed by Christ, and contains the successive steps by which He shall recover it from its usurper and obtain actual possession of the kingdom already "purchased" for Himself and His elect saints. However, no portion of the roll is said to be unfolded and read; but simply the seals are successively opened, giving final access to its contents being read as a perfect whole, which shall not be until the events symbolized by the seals shall have been past, when Eph 3:10 shall receive its complete accomplishment, and the Lamb shall reveal God's providential plans in redemption in all their manifold beauties. Thus the opening of the seals will mean the successive steps by which God in Christ clears the way for the final opening and reading of the book at the visible setting up of the kingdom of Christ. Compare, at the grand consummation, Rev 20:12 , "Another book was opened . . . the book of life"; Rev 22:19 . None is worthy to do so save the Lamb, for He alone as such has redeemed man's forfeited inheritance, of which the book is the title-deed. The question ( Rev 5:2 ) is not (as commonly supposed), Who should reveal the destinies of the Church (for this any inspired prophet would be competent to do)? but, Who has the WORTH to give man a new title to his lost inheritance? [DE BURGH].
Jaminson
Scott continues
Turn over with me now to Corinthians, chapter 9, verse 13. He says, "Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings in the same way the Lord commanded. That those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel."
Now we might be tempted to read Corinthians 9, 13 and 14 and say, "Well, back in the Old Testament they did temple service and altar service and sacrifice, but now in the New Testament they only proclaim the word."
1st he fails to give the correct citation it is 1 Coth
Lets look at his conclusion, he wants to use this as a proof text for communion.. but is that what Paul was teaching in context?
. 1Cr 9:13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live [of the things] of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
1Cr 9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
1Cr 9:15 But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for [it were] better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.
1Cr 9:16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!
1Cr 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation [of the gospel] is committed unto me.
1Cr 9:18 What is my reward then? [Verily] that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.
What was Paul saying here?
All the tribes were given an inheritance of land by God EXCEPT the tribe of levi ( the Priests that did the sacrifices. God told them HE was their inheritance not land.
So God set aside a part of all the sacrifices to go to them and their family for food as they had no other jobs but to serve God in the temple. They would live off the sacrifices of the people and their offerings. Thus the reference to those that serve at the altar eating from it .
Paul and the other apostles as the teachers and preachers in the new church had not income. They too had to rely on the donations and good will of the people. God was their inheritance . This was about the physical support of the ministry nothing more
Scott is nothing other than consistent in forcing scripture into his mold
That is the priesthood of believers, not a church role .
From Matthew Henry
Those who received him were highly privileged, v. 9. The Jews were exceedingly tender of their ancient privileges, of being the only people of God, taken into a special covenant with him, and separated from the rest of the world. "Now,’’ say they, "if we submit to the gospel—constitution, we shall lose all this, and stand upon the same level with the Gentiles.’’ (1.) To this objection the apostle answers, that if they did not submit they were ruined (v. 7, 8), but that if they did submit they should lose no real advantage, but continue still what they desired to be, a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, etc. Learn, [1.] All true Christians are a chosen generation; they all make one family, a sort and species of people distinct from the common world, of another spirit, principle, and practice, which they could never be if they were not chosen in Christ to be such, and sanctified by his Spirit. [2.] All the true servants of Christ are a royal priesthood. They are royal in their relation to God and Christ, in their power with God, and over themselves and all their spiritual enemies; they are princely in the improvements and the excellency of their own spirits, and in their hopes and expectations; they are a royal priesthood, separated from sin and sinners, consecrated to God, and offering to God spiritual services and oblations, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. [3.] All Christians, wheresoever they be, compose one holy nation. They are one nation, collected under one head, agreeing in the same manners and customs, and governed by the same laws; and they are a holy nation, because consecrated and devoted to God, renewed and sanctified by his Holy Spirit. [4.] It is the honour of the servants of Christ that they are God’s peculiar people. They are the people of his acquisition, choice, care, and delight. These four dignities of all genuine Christians are not natural to them; for their first state is a state of horrid darkness, but they are effectually called out of darkness into a state of marvellous light, joy, pleasure, and prosperity, with this intent and view, that they should show forth, by words and actions, the virtues and praises of him who hath called them.
Why would God NEED to predestine those He already perfectly knew would come?
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.