Posted on 04/27/2008 3:36:18 AM PDT by markomalley
The Catholic Church teaches that in the Eucharist, the communion wafer and the altar wine are transformed and really become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Have you ever met anyone who has found this Catholic doctrine to be a bit hard to take?
If so, you shouldn't be surprised. When Jesus spoke about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in John 6, his words met with less than an enthusiastic reception. "How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (V 52). "This is a hard saying who can listen to it?" (V60). In fact so many of his disciples abandoned him over this that Jesus had to ask the twelve if they also planned to quit. It is interesting that Jesus did not run after his disciples saying, "Don't go — I was just speaking metaphorically!" How did the early Church interpret these challenging words of Jesus? Interesting fact. One charge the pagan Romans lodged against the Christians was cannibalism. Why? You guessed it. They heard that this sect regularly met to eat human flesh and drink human blood. Did the early Christians say: "wait a minute, it's only a symbol!"? Not at all. When trying to explain the Eucharist to the Roman Emperor around 155AD, St. Justin did not mince his words: "For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him . . . is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."
Not many Christians questioned the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist till the Middle Ages. In trying to explain how bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, several theologians went astray and needed to be corrected by Church authority. Then St. Thomas Aquinas came along and offered an explanation that became classic. In all change that we observe in this life, he teaches, appearances change, but deep down, the essence of a thing stays the same. Example: if, in a fit of mid-life crisis, I traded my mini-van for a Ferrari, abandoned my wife and 5 kids to be beach bum, got tanned, bleached my hair blonde, spiked it, buffed up at the gym, and took a trip to the plastic surgeon, I'd look a lot different on the surface. But for all my trouble, deep down I'd still substantially be the same ole guy as when I started.
St. Thomas said the Eucharist is the one instance of change we encounter in this world that is exactly the opposite. The appearances of bread and wine stay the same, but the very essence or substance of these realities, which can't be viewed by a microscope, is totally transformed. What was once bread and wine are now Christ's body and blood. A handy word was coined to describe this unique change. Transformation of the "sub-stance", what "stands-under" the surface, came to be called "transubstantiation."
What makes this happen? The power of God's Spirit and Word. After praying for the Spirit to come (epiklesis), the priest, who stands in the place of Christ, repeats the words of the God-man: "This is my Body, This is my Blood." Sounds to me like Genesis 1: the mighty wind (read "Spirit") whips over the surface of the water and God's Word resounds. "Let there be light" and there was light. It is no harder to believe in the Eucharist than to believe in Creation. But why did Jesus arrange for this transformation of bread and wine? Because he intended another kind of transformation. The bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ which are, in turn, meant to transform us. Ever hear the phrase: "you are what you eat?" The Lord desires us to be transformed from a motley crew of imperfect individuals into the Body of Christ, come to full stature.
Our evangelical brethren speak often of an intimate, personal relationship with Jesus. But I ask you, how much more personal and intimate can you get? We receive the Lord's body into our physical body that we may become Him whom we receive! Such an awesome gift deserves its own feast. And that's why, back in the days of Thomas Aquinas and St. Francis of Assisi, the Pope decided to institute the Feast of Corpus Christi.
A few years ago I decided to try an experiment. I would try to align my life and thoughts and mind and heart according to the idea that God is working within me 100%. Every good thought, instinct and deed I had, I decided to attribute to the Holy Spirit. And every negative, foul thought, instinct and deed I would attribute to my resisting the Holy Spirit.
And in a short while I realized this was exactly how life had always been, though I hadn't been really aware of it.
And I knew then just how much richer life was when I understood this truth.
Not my righteousness; Christ's. Not my obedience; Christ's. Not my good works; Christ's. All graciously, freely and mercifully imputed to my account by God for His glory.
And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you." -- Philippians 3:8-15"Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
What if you say something thats disrespectful..
You know like calling the RCC "the CHURCH"..
meaning of course, the ONLY church..
Which is what most roman catholics MEAN by the Church..
' That is reformed churchs are NOT the church..
After all the word catholic MEANS universal.. "church"..
Thats pretty disrespectful just using the word church..
The RCC exudes disrespect.. like a snail..
I'm to talk the subject of disrespect with you..
There are other words the RCC(and drones) use disrespectfully..
But I'm game let's talk.. since you brought up the subject..
Since I am not Mormon, I am called "apostate" by them. And since I am not Islamic, I am called "infidel" by them.
Because I eschew all the doctrines and traditions of men across the board - including Roman Catholic doctrine and tradition - I am called "heretic" by many. And to believers of a many other things, I am called "cultist" because I believe in Christ Jesus.
I have also been called gnostic, Satanist, demon-possessed, psychotic, Jesus freak, etc.
And I count it all joy, dear brother in Christ!
When did I do that?
On a "respectful dialogue" thread?
He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved." -- Psalm 62:1-2
"Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them: and that rock was Christ." -- 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 "Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation.
The rock was Peter...Christ said so in the passage I provided.
Perusing this thread....does not look so different than other threads.
If we consider the ramifications of our differing points of view we find that the Biblical view that Christ is the rock maintains the authority of Christ over His church.
Whereas the fantasy that Peter was somehow the first pope leads men to bow down to other men, and to call other men "Father," and to blasphemously believe that a human being other than Christ Jesus can be "infallible" in any way, all in contradiction to Scripture.
Error compounding error.
Did you see on the other thread the howls of protest to the idea that there might be threads created on which “respectful dialogue” would be the standard?
Yes I did. I had to laugh. Seems some are addicted to it.
This is not respectful.
However, if both sides do not agree to forgive and forget - but instead bring suspicions and resentments with them to the table, I do not see how markomalley's goal can be achieved.
Well said, very well said. Symbolism can't survive the "hard saying" test.
The Fourth Cup
by Scott Hahn
I HAVE a vivid recollection of a conversation with a friend at an Evangelical seminary we attended ten years ago. Walking over, he said, “Scott, I’ve been reading fascinating stuff on the sacraments.”
“Sacraments bore me,” I replied sharply. Little did I know.
I thought of the incident recently as I made my way home from an inspiring hour of Benediction. I got the urge to write about the Scripture study which led me into a Catholic understanding of the Holy Eucharist (and eventually into the Catholic Church) about five years ago.
It all started with a Sunday morning service at the local Evangelical church which my wife and I attended during our last year at seminary. The preacher had just finished an exciting sermon on the meaning of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary. But something he said stuck with me. In the middle of the message, he raised a simple question: “In John 19:30, what did Jesus mean when he cried, ‘It is finished’? What does the ‘it’ refer to?” Instantly the standard Evangelical answer came to my mind: Jesus’ words signify the completion of our redemption at that moment.
The preacher happened to be a fine Scripture scholar as well as one of my favorite seminary professors, so I was taken aback when he proceeded to show quite convincingly that Jesus could not have meant that. For one thing, Paul teaches that our redemption is not complete without Jesus being “raised for our justification” (Rom. 4:25). The preacher also showed how the standard Evangelical answer is taken from theology and read into the text (”eisegesis”), instead of being drawn from the text interpreted in context (”exegesis”). To my amazement, he candidly admitted he didn’t have a satisfying answer to his own question.
I couldn’t hear the rest of his sermon. My mind began racing ahead in search of a solution. It only came after graduation, in my first year as a pastor while studying Scripture in preparing a series of sermons on what we Presbyterians called “the Lord’s Supper.”
THE FIRST stage of my discovery process came in studying the Old Testament background to Jesus’ Last Supper. The occasion was the Jewish feast of Passover (Mark 14:12-16). This memorial celebrated God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt. During that fateful night, every firstborn son in Egypt perished except those in Israelite families where a lamb without blemish or broken bones (Ex. 12:5, 46) was slain and eaten as a substitutionary sacrifice. Then Moses led Israel out of Egypt to Mount Sinai, where the Law was given and the covenant was sealed between God and his people through sacrifice and communion.
Recent study of biblical covenants by scholars such as D. J. McCarthy shows how such a covenant formed a sacred flesh-and- blood bond between Yahweh and Israel, making them one family. This family bond was expressed in relational terms of father and son (Ex. 4:22; Deut. 1:31; 8:5; 14:1) as well as husband and wife (Jer. 31:32; Ezek. 16:8; Hos. 2:18-20). Liturgical feasts and rituals were to signify and strengthen the family communion that existed by covenant between Yahweh and Israel.
THIS WAS an important part of the Jewish understanding of Passover during the time of Jesus. It is significant that Jesus in the Gospels uses the word “covenant” on only one occasion, when he institutes the Eucharist during the Passover celebration in the upper room: “And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks [eucharistesas] he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, ‘This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many’” (Mark 14:23-24). In his own mind, as both the Firstborn Son and Lamb of God, there was a connection between Pass-over and the self-sacrifice by which the new covenant was to be established.
The second stage of my rethinking came from studying the Jewish Passover liturgy. The structure of the Passover seder, known as the Haggadah, appears to have been formalized long before the time of Jesus. In fact, the Gospel accounts seem to assume its structure in narrating details of the Last Supper.[Readers may complain about my assuming the proto-Talmudic character of the liturgical structure of the seder. Someone could argue that it is anachronistic to retroject the seder liturgy from the Mishnah back to the first century. I respond by pointing out that virtually all scholars recognize substantial similarities in form between the Jewish paschal liturgy recorded in the New Testament and the Mishnah. For instance, Paul’s mention of “the cup of blessing” (1 Cor. 10:16) surely connects with the third cup. I don’t know any commentator who denies a connection here. Moreover, the Mishnah is not known for an innovative approach to liturgical reforms. Thus, so long as I am not building my argument on a comprehensive identity of form between the two, I think I avoid any anachronism and remain on safe ground—indeed, the same safe ground as the vast majority of exegetes (e.g. Joachim Jeremias) and liturgiologists (e.g. Joseph Jungmann).]
The Passover meal was divided into four parts. First, the preliminary course consisted of a festival blessing (kiddush) spoken over the first cup of wine, followed by the serving of a dish of herbs. The second course included a recital of the Passover narrative and the “Little Hallel” (Psalm 113), followed by the drinking of the second cup of wine. The third course was the main meal, consisting of lamb and unleavened bread, after which was drunk the third cup of wine, known as the “cup of blessing.” The Passover climaxed with the singing of the “Great Hallel” (Psalms 114-118) and the drinking of the fourth cup of wine.
New Testament scholars see this pattern reflected in the Gospel narratives of the Last Supper. In particular, the cup blessed and distributed by Jesus is identified as the third cup in the Passover Haggadah. This is apparent from the singing of the “Great Hallel” which immediately follows: “And when they had sung a hymn. . . .” (Mark 14:26). Indeed, Paul identifies this “cup of blessing” with the Eucharistic cup (1 Cor. 10:16).
At this point a significant problem arises. Instead of proceeding immediately to the climax of the Passover, the drinking of the fourth cup, we read: “And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives” (Mark 14:26). While it may be difficult for Gentile Christians unfamiliar with the Haggadah to perceive the serious disorder this sequence represents, it is not lost to Jewish readers and students of the seder. For them, Jesus skipping the fourth cup could be compared to a priest omitting the words of consecration at Mass. The fundamental purpose or goal of the liturgy seemingly was missed.
Not only is the omission conspicuous, it appears to be underscored by the words of Jesus in the preceding verse: “Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the Kingdom of God” (Mark 14:25). It is almost as though Jesus meant not to drink what he was expected to drink. On the other hand, a few scholars speculate that psychological factors account for Jesus’ forgetfulness. They point out how, subsequently, “he began to be greatly distressed and troubled. And he said to them, ‘My soul is very sorrowful, even unto death’” (Mark 14:32). Perhaps he was too upset to be bothered with liturgical precision in following the rubrics.
WHILE THIS analysis may seem plausible, further reflection renders it improbable. For one thing, if he was so distracted and confused, it seems doubtful Jesus would forget and interrupt the Passover liturgy after expressly declaring his intention not to drink the fourth cup, especially since he went ahead and sang the “Great Hallel.” Why would he declare himself so plainly before acting in so disorderly a fashion? His other actions that night indicate a man admittedly distressed but in full possession of himself. Why then did he choose not to drink?
The third stage of my discovery process was reached when the answer to that question seemed to become more evident by my focusing on Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane. Notice what he prayed: “And going a little farther, he fell on his face and prayed, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but thou wilt’” (Matt. 26:39). Three times altogether Jesus prayed for his Father to take away “this cup.” An obvious question arises: What cup was Jesus talking about?[Some scholars explain Jesus’ language by identifying it with “the cup of God’s wrath” in the Old Testament prophets (Is. 51:17; Jer. 25:15). Surely there is a connection here, but the connection seems less direct than does the primary link suggested by the Passover setting. Note how Jesus’ resolution not to drink “the fruit of the vine” seems to reappear in the scene at Golgotha right before he is crucified: “And they offered him wine mingled with myrrh; but he did not take it” (Mark 15:23). The narrative does not explain his refusal, but it probably points back to Jesus’ pledge not to drink until his Kingdom is manifested in glory. Incidentally, the synoptic Gospels often recount sayings of Jesus combining imagery of banquet feasts with his Kingdom glory (Matt. 22:1ff; Luke 22:15ff).]
The fourth stage of the process was reached when I found in John’s Gospel a perspective on Jesus’ Kingdom glory decidedly different from that found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.[Critics may say what I am attempting is methodologically unsound and precritical (mea maxima culpa) because I correlate the synoptic and Johannine accounts in my argument. My response is that I am assuming that critical exegesis has been done and shows the synoptic and Johannine accounts to be different but complementary and, hence, non-contradictory. Where I pick up, therefore, is in the province of biblical theology, where exegetical results are correlated according to theological concerns. Another point regarding John’s Gospel: I discovered in my research that the paschal character of the Last Supper is typically rejected by Catholics who approach such matters with a “more critical than thou” mindset. I find the supposed conflict between the synoptics and John is resolved to my satisfaction by Annie Jaubert, The Date of the Last Supper (Staten Island: Alba House, 1965). She argues two calendars were operative in Christ’s time and accepts the ancient Syriac testimony of a “Holy Tuesday” institution of the Eucharist. Granted, there are difficulties in that, but her work helps harmonize the five trials of Jesus (Annas, Caiaphas, Pilate, Herod, and Pilate), which fit much easier into a Tuesday to-Friday time frame than in a Thursday-midnight-to-morning frame. She also published an article arguing that even John’s account of the upper room shares a paschal background, “The Calendar of Qumran and the Passion Narrative in John,” in J. Charlesworth, ed., John and Qumran (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1972), 62-75. I have read criticisms of Jaubert’s thesis, but I don’t feel much force behind them; for a popular summary of the alleged problems, see Raymond Brown, “The Date of the Last Supper,” in The Bible Today Reader (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1973), 322-28.] John depends on irony in depicting the Kingdom glory of Jesus in connection with the suffering of the cross: “And Jesus answered them, ]The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified. . . . Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out; and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.’ He said this to show by what death he was to die” (John 12:23, 31-33).
With profound spiritual insight, John links Jesus’ “hour of glory” with the supreme manifestation of his love upon the cross (John 3:14, 7:37-39, 8:28, 13:31). Following this to the end of the fourth Gospel, I began to notice several places where John deliberately weaves together various strands of Kingdom and Passover imagery in depicting Jesus’ trial and passion. The result was to draw a little nearer to what Jesus meant when he said, “It is finished” (John 19:30).
First, Jesus’ claim to kingship in John comes precisely at the moment when he appears weakest and most vulnerable—when he is standing accused before Pilate (18:33-37). Pilate’s cynical response is to dress him in a purple robe with a crown of thorns and to present him to his own unbelieving people: “Now it was the day of preparation of the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, ‘Behold your King!’ They cried out, ‘Away with him, away with him, crucify him!’” (19:14). John realized that the sixth hour was when the priests were prescribed to begin slaughtering lambs for the Passover.
Second, only John mentions that Jesus was stripped of a seamless linen tunic (19:23-24). The same word for “garment” (chiton) is used in the Old Testament for the official tunic worn by the High Priest in sacrifice (Ex. 28:4; Lev.16:4). This is meant to remind faithful readers that Jesus, their glorious King and Passover lamb, is also the High Priest of the New Covenant (19:23-24).
Third, the identification of Jesus with the Passover lamb is reinforced by John’s noting Jesus’ bones remained unbroken, as prescribed by the law for the Passover lamb (Ex. 12:46): “that the Scripture might be fulfilled, ‘Not a bone of him shall be broken’” (19:33, 36). This brings to fulfillment the words used in John’s introduction of Jesus at the start of his Gospel: “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (1:29).
GRADUALLY these Passover and Kingdom themes from John’s Gospel began to converge in my mind as I reapproached the question of Jesus’ meaning in saying, “It is finished” (John 19:30). For one thing, I noticed that my King, Priest, and paschal victim, in his “hour of glory” while suffering on the cross, made a profound gesture: “After this Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), ‘I thirst.’”
Jesus was thirsty long before this closing moment of his life. His words, therefore, must reflect more than a desire for a last drink of fluid. He seems to have been in full possession of himself as he realized that “all was now finished.” Whatever it is that “was now finished” seems to be directly connected to his utterance, which he spoke “to fulfill the Scripture.” More things fall into place upon reading what followed his expression of thirst: “A bowl of sour wine stood there; so they put a sponge full of the vinegar on hyssop and held it to his mouth” (19:29). Only John noticed that hyssop was used, the branch prescribed in the Passover law for sprinkling the blood of the lamb (Ex.12:22).
This verse reveals something significant. Jesus had left unfinished the Passover liturgy in the upper room by not drinking the fourth cup. He stated his intention not to drink wine again until he came into the glory of his Kingdom. As we have seen, he refused some on one occasion, right before being nailed to the cross (Mark 15:23). Then, at the very end, Jesus was offered “sour wine” (John 19:30; Matt.27:48; Mark 15:36; Luke 23:36). But only John tells us how he responded: “When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, ‘It is finished’; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit” (19:30).
AT LAST I had an answer to my question. It was the Passover that was now finished. More precisely, it was Jesus’ transformation of the Passover sacrifice of the Old Covenant into the Eucharistic sacrifice of the New Covenant. I learned Scripture teaches that the Passover sacrifice of the New Covenant began in the upper room with the institution of the Eucharist, not merely with Jesus being crucified on Calvary, as I was taught and had been teaching. In Jesus’ mind, his Eucharistic sacrifice as the Passover lamb of the New Covenant was not finished until Calvary. In sum, Calvary begins with the Eucharist and the Eucharist ends with Calvary. It is all of one piece.
It did not occur to me at the time that this is the teaching of the Catholic Church on Christ’s sacrifice in the Eucharist. I was still anti-Catholic in my theological outlook as an Evangelical Protestant, though I must confess I had never thoroughly read a single Catholic work explaining or defending the Church’s teaching. Besides, I had never attended Mass. On the other hand, some of my parishioners and students were ex-Catholics, and a few of them began warning me about certain “Romish” tendencies they detected in me. I assured them I was only following Scripture.
Further study of the matter led me to additional revisions. For one thing, I sought confirmation and clarification elsewhere in Scripture for my conclusion regarding the inseparable connection between Jesus’ Passover sacrifice in the Eucharist and on Calvary. In particular, further study of John’s Gospel presented considerable support for this conclusion, especially in Jesus’ discourse on the Bread of Life in chapter six.
The occasion for the discourse is explicitly stated: “Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand” (6:4). John shows how Jesus miraculously provided bread for five thousand after “he had given thanks [eucharistesas],” thereby evoking Eucharistic imagery. Jesus then identified himself as the “true bread from heaven” (6:32ff.) and the “bread of life” (6:35), drawing a parallel with Moses, through whom God supernaturally fed manna to the Israelites while forming a covenant with them right after the first Passover (Ex. 16:4ff.). In this way John prepares his readers to understand how Jesus formed a new covenant family by means of his own Eucharistic sacrifice as High Priest and paschal victim.
Even clearer testimony is provided when Jesus declares, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (6:53-56).
I CLEARLY remember when I first studied this passage in the midst of my discovery process. It felt as if I had never really comprehended the words before, though I had read the fourth Gospel all the way through many times. It became evident that Jesus deliberately used the strongest language to convey the connection between his sacrifice as the Passover Lamb and the Eucharist, even in the face of unbelief and scandal (6:60-69).
The reason for this connection lies in the Old Testament Passover itself. It was not enough to kill the lamb. Death was only one aspect of the sacrifice. The ultimate goal was restoring communion between God and his people, which was vividly accomplished by the Passover meal. In other words, you had to eat the lamb. Jesus’ sacrificial death, begun in the upper room and finished at Calvary, was not the full end of his Passover sacrifice either. The ultimate goal is restoring communion, which is accomplished by the Eucharist. In sum, we too have to eat the Lamb.
PAUL shares a similar perspective when he states, “Christ our paschal lamb has been sacrificed.” (1 Cor. 5:7). Notice he does not conclude, “There is nothing more to be done.” Instead, he says in the very next verse, “Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor. 5:8). In other words, something more remains for us to do. We are to feast upon Jesus, the bread of life and our Passover Lamb.
Paul reinforces the reality of this communion elsewhere: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation [koinonia] in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation [koinonia] in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). Such language reflects a solid belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. No wonder Paul warns, “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Cor. 11:29).
I saw a similar outlook in the Epistle to the Hebrews. This came as a surprise, since I had always taught, as I had been trained, that Hebrews, more than any other New Testament book, contradicted the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The main theme of Hebrews is the priesthood of Jesus, particularly as it relates to his “once for all” sacrifice (Heb. 7:27; 9:12, 26; 10:10). This is succinctly stated: “Now the point in what we are saying is this: We have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the sanctuary and the true tabernacle which is set up not by man but by the Lord” (Heb. 8:1-2).
Unlike priests in the Old Testament, Jesus does not make daily offerings of distinct sacrifices (Heb. 7:27). On the other hand, “every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer” (Heb. 8:3). Does this mean that Jesus’ “once for all” sacrifice is exclusively past? Or does it not assert that Jesus’ sacrifice, precisely because of its “once for all” character, has become the one perfect and perpetual offering he continually presents in heaven on our behalf? The conclusion is that Jesus no longer bleeds, suffers, or dies (Heb. 9:25-26). He is enthroned in his resurrected and glorified human body as our High Priest and King (Heb. 7:1-3).
It is precisely in this manner that the Father beholds a perfect and perpetual offering in the living body of the Son. If Jesus’ offering has ceased, there would be no basis for his ongoing priesthood, but Jesus’ priesthood is said to be permanent and to “continue forever” (Heb.7:24). Moreover, there would be no reason for an earthly altar if Jesus’ offering is ended, which is what I believed as an Evangelical Protestant—until I discovered that Scripture teaches the reverse: “We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat” (Heb. 13:10). The “once for all” character of Jesus’ sacrifice points to the perfection and perpetuity of his offering. It can be re-presented upon our altars in the Eucharist so that “through him [we] continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God” (Heb. 13:15).
FINAL confirmation came for me when I came upon an exciting feature of John’s vision of Christ in the Book of Revelation. Upon hearing the angel announce the appearing of Jesus as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah,” John looks and beholds “a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain” (Rev. 5:5-6).
In other words, he who is our celebrant priest and reigning king in the liturgical worship of the heavenly assembly also appears continually as the Passover Lamb of the New Covenant. He appears as the Lamb because his sacrificial offering continues. It will continue until he restores communion with each of his children through the Eucharist. Indeed, it will continue that way for God’s family forever into eternity. After all, our everlasting blessedness is depicted in John’s vision of the New Jerusalem as “the marriage supper of the Lamb” (Rev. 19:9, 21:2, 9-10, 22:17).
Scott Hahn, a former Presbyterian minister, teaches theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville.
Hmmmm...
Good question.. What is salvation..
Saved from what?, saved out of what?, saved into what?..
What is difference from being saved or not saved?...
I would have to say "saved from the flesh".. We are being saved from the flesh, our own flesh not another's flesh.. We are slaves to the flesh all our lives.. Veritable slaves.. We have to dress it, groom it, bathe it, feed and water it, breed it, shave it, cut its hair, monitor its health, entertain it, warm it, cool it, put glasses on it, rub emollients in it, educate it, work it, rest it, provide shelter for it.. On and ON.. We are slaves to it..
We are slaves to the flesh even while looking forward to being saved from it(the spirit).. As Jesus said the flesh is flesh and the spirit is spirit.. Yet some grow comfortable with the flesh(atheists, agnostics, buddists, hindus etc..).. And others look forward to something "better".. Jesus calls it "the spirit/Spirit".. Pity that many do not see this dichotomy.. of the flesh and the spirit..
Wonder if HELL could be being relgated to living as flesh for eternity.. What a slavery that would be.. Slavery to a filthy, demanding, obstinate human body for eternity..
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. - I John 1:5-10
How could we love Him so much and not?
I believe that is pretty standard.... when one grows up being taught “Catholic be evil” why would you honestly approach something that might change your total world view to include bigotry in some cases. It is much easier to continue along the current path you are on with personal assurance of salvation.
That is also why there are many who very accidentally and on their own come to the realization, and horror, that the Catholic Church is right. Truth will bang you up side of your head “with a 2X4” if you seek Truth.
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.