Posted on 08/13/2010 2:53:38 PM PDT by Quix
We discuss the Roman Catholic notion of TRANSSUBSTANTIATION a fair amount hereon.
As I was driving across the beautiful, majestic Dineh Rez yesterday, I listened to most of more than 75 hymns and praise songs in a particular CD collection I had with me.
I was pondering that issue a fair amount—particularly the rather intense Roman Catholic obsession with it. I recalled how my noting that I could IMAGINE that, GOD in His Grace and Mercy COULD allow the verse about ACCORDING TO YOUR FAITH, SO BE IT UNTO YOU . . . to operate in some spiritually powerful sense for some RC’s in the act of partaking of The Lord’s Supper.
It was curious to me that my posting such assertions were never responded to very well, if at all, by more than one RC, if that many.
Then I began to prayerfully ponder what that ‘special’ application of “ACCORDING TO YOUR FAITH, SO BE IT UNTO YOU” might be like, operate like, look like.
ALL OF A SUDDEN,
It was as though a clear Voice in my spirit said something to the effect that: “IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT FAITH. IT HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT OBJECTS, NEVER.” My further sense was that GOD ALONE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ONLY “OBJECT” OF OUR AFFECTIONS THAT HE SUPPORTED.
Then some historic Scriptural examples came to mind. The forbidden fruit in The Garden was not about the fruit. It was about TRUSTING GOD—HAVING FAITH THAT GOD HAD ADAM AND EVE’S BEST INTERESTS AT HEART—THAT HE WOULD NOT WITHHOLD ANYTHING GOOD FROM THEM THAT WOULD BE TRULY GOOD FOR THEM. It was about TRUSTING GOD’S PROVISION AND CHARACTER ENOUGH to obey Him fully, in child-like faith and confidence in ABBA FATHER.
The altars of sacrifice that followed were not about the altars; nor even about the sacrifices. THEY WERE ABOUT TRUSTING GOD AND HIS INSTRUCTIONS ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THAT OBEDIENCE TO HIM WAS A SUPREMELY HIGH PRIORITY AND THAT GOD’S LOVE AND PROVISION WOULD SUFFICIENT—EVEN HIS PROVISION FOR SIN.
Noah’s Ark was not about the ark. It was about FAITH THAT GOD SPOKE TRUTH AND THAT GOD’S PROVISION WOULD BE SUFFICIENT. It was about FAITH IN GOD AND IN GOD’S WORD.
The blood on the doorposts in Egypt—as supremely vital and foreshadowing as that was . . . was not per se , about the blood. THAT TOO was about TRUSTING GOD AND TRUSTING GOD’S WORD AND THAT GOD’S PROVISION FOR SIN, FOR LIFE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT.
The brass serpent on the cross in the wilderness was not about serpents nor crosses. THAT TOO was about TRUSTING GOD AND TRUSTING GOD’S WORD that God’s provision FOR SIN AND FOR LIFE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT.
The Ark of The Covenant was NOT about a gold chest, angels & wings, golden hemorrhoids, Arron’s staff that budded nor the stone tablets of the Ten Commandments. It was about FAITH IN GOD, IN GOD’S LOVE AND IN GOD’S PROVISION.
Similarly, The Bread and The Wine are not about the Bread and The Wine—REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY TURN INTO SOMETHING MORE, OR NOT. They are about REMEMBERING GOD’S FAITHFULNESS AND PROVISION FOR SIN AND FOR ETERNAL LIFE—AND TO HAVE FAITH IN GOD’S ONGOING PROVISION FOR BOTH, DAY BY DAY.
I do NOT believe they turn into, what would by now, be massive tonnage of Christ’s body and blood. God has never had that kind of emphasis ON FLESH throughout Scripture. I don’t believe He suddenly shifted HIS EMPHASIS AND FOCUS in the middle of the stream.
Nevertheless, as a thought experiment, just pretend for a moment . . . that for some very strange and OUT OF BIBLICAL CHARACTER REASON, He did facilitate or allow that to happen.
EVEN THEN—WOULD THE BREAD AND THE WINE/LITERAL BODY AND BLOOD BE THE FOCUS?
NO WAY. GOD KNOWS US TOO WELL.
He knows we would quickly turn such elements and all the rituals around them into unmitigaged idolatrous nonsense AND REMOVE OUR FOCUS FROM THE (in Martin Buber’s terms) I-THOU RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EACH INDIVIDUAL AND THE FATHER—WHICH WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF CHRIST’S SACRIFICE TO BEGIN WITH.
Oh, I can hear all the wails about how “knowing” (fantasizing) that “TRANSUBSTANTIATION” is “REAL” causes individuals to focus more intensely and directly on THE FATHER.
I can conceive of that to a degree for some relatively few individuals.
I don’t believe it for a flash for most of the loudest pontificators hereon.
THE ACT, THE RITUALS, THE SUBSTANCES, THE OBJECTS ARE FARRRRRRRR TOOOOO PRECIOUS AS OBJECTS AND SUBSTANCES TO THEM. That’s Idolatry.
I realize that’s likely to be tricky for some to wrap their rigid, willfully blind noggins around. Maybe even for some not so willfully blind.
Consider . . . if one is focusing on a wafer and swallow of wine . . . even if one is convinced and pretending or being utterly convinced that the wafer and wine are literally Christ’s flesh and blood . . . where is the focus?
At least LARGELY, the focus is ON THE “FLESH AND BLOOD.” The focus is on a “GLORIFIED” SOMETHING held in one’s hands or mouth.
If anything, that’s a FOCUS ON THE RESIDUE OF A CRUEL CRUCIFIXION.
YET, let’s pretend a bit more preposterously. Let’s assume that we are talking about the one in a million RC’s who MIGHT for flashingly brief moments spring-board from the cruel tangibles in their mouth or hands to THE RISEN LORD in their focus. What then is the import of literal flesh and blood in their mouth or hands that any Proddy misses out on by reaching the SAME QUALITY OF FOCUS with the elements merely as symbolic items of remembrance?
Christ implemented, as far as I can think or discern, the Lord’s Supper as a REMEMBRANCE much as the Ark of the Covenant was—saying—HEY—FOLKS—WHEN YOU SEE THE ARK, WHEN YOU THINK OF THE ARK—REMEMBER GOD’S FAITHFULNESS AND PROVISION THROUGH FROM EGYPT TO JERICO AND BEYOND. HAVE FAITH IN GOD! STRENGTHEN YOUR FAITH IN GOD!
Similarly, when we partake of the elements—FOCUS ON FAITH IN GOD—ON CHRIST’S PROVISION FOR SIN AND FOR ETERNAL LIFE—FOCUS IN ON HIM AND HIS VERY ONGOINGLY ACTIVE AND ETERNAL PROVISION.
The INGESTION of CHRIST IN US IS SPIRITUAL—TOTALLY SPIRITUAL—MUST BE TOTALLY SPIRITUAL FIRST AND FOREMOST. Yes, it influences our physical bodies as HE IS WHO HE IS IN US—THE RESURRECTED CHRIST.
The internally broken down elements are eliminated through normal bodily functions. NOT SO WITH THE RISEN CHRIST—HOLY SPIRIT WITHIN US. AS WE FOCUS MORE ON HIM—THE RISEN LORD, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS—HE GROWS WITHIN US IN TERMS OF HIS INFLUENCE, HIS CONTROL, HIS SATURATION OF ALL OUR BEING WITH HIMSELF AND HIS PROVISION FOR US.
God’s focus NEVER HAS BEEN the flesh—not the objects of the flesh, nor the deeds of the flesh. The flesh is a vehicle for our training as sons of God—primarily as children of God—spirits enlivened with God.
YES, HE WILL REDEEM AND RESURRECT OUR BODIES. It’s not as though He trashes our bodies. However, HE CERTAINLY DOES NOT exalt the flesh in any sense. And there’s not a shred of Scripture to suggest that HE WANTS US TO EXALT EXAMPLES OF FLESH—OBJECTS OF FLESH—EVEN OSTENSIBLY AS CHRIST’S OWN BODY AND BLOOD.
It has NEVER been about the objects. It HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT FAITH IN GOD AND IN HIS LOVE AND PROVISION—HIS PROVISION FOR SIN, HIS PROVISION FOR ETERNAL LIFE.
WE ARE HIS WORKMANSHIP—IN OUR HEARTS, MINDS, SPIRITS . . . He takes care of our bodies sufficiently to achieve the that task through our life process, trek, dance.
God even trashed the ritual with the most sacred object in the HOLY OF HOLIES when He rent the Temple Curtain. What greater declaration could He have made about His attitude toward a focus on objects and rituals?
Ever notice how Catholics, more often than Protties, have a crucifix about their neck rather than an empty cross?
It helps focus the mind on the suffering Jesus endured for our sakes -- and inspires us to endure more.
In this light you might consider 1 Peter 4:12-13.
Or Colossians 1:24.
You might consider C.S. Lewis's belief that his osteoporosis was suffering for the sake of remission of his wife's bone cancer; or Charles Williams' chapter The Doctrine of Substituted Love in his book Descent into Hell (these with an eye to Galatians 6:2).
Or there is always 1 Cor. 11:29 to ponder.
Cheers!
I'm sure they will think the same thing as the Anglicans, that Protestantism is not a unified theology and has its lunatic fringe.
Randy Moss, Brett Favre, Randy Johnson, Brooks Robinson, Sandy Koufax...
They are the cream of the crop.
"When I grow up I wanna be just like..."
Now apply that to those who are either unusually devoted to God, or special recipients / channels of Grace.
See Acts 26:29--
Paul replied, "Short time or long--I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains."
Or 1 Cor. 11:1 -- "Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ"
But note that veneration does not connote, and Paul rebuked strongly (in the very next verse, yet!) those who tried to make it connote, "clubbishness" or "cliqueishness" -- the only allowable franchise is Christian:
"What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?"
Cheers!
Tonight's discussion topic:
John 6:54-69.
Many turned away at "my flesh is food indeed, my blood is drink indeed" -- but His disciples pushed past the paradox -- "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."
If your trust is in Christ -- let the rest go.
If you trust that Christ USES various objects or sacraments -- remember the admonition to the Jews that "it is the altar which makes the gift holy."
And at all times continue to pray for one another.
Cheers!
Okie-dokey.....I'll ask the question again later. Maybe I'll get a cogent answer then.
I don't think so. I've thoroughly refuted the Nazi pope, Catholics worship Mary, priests are "another Christ", Sola Scriptura, the Eucharist is just a piece of bread" nonsense well over 100 times and it still keeps getting posted by the rabid calvinist clique.
“...And how does the really heretical crowd who says Mary and the Saints are DEAD feel?”
Yes, and how do they explain this: Revelations “12:1 And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 12:2 she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. 12:3 And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. 12:4 His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; 12:5 she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, 12:6 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God” ?
Thank you for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
Have you -- in keeping with prayerful consideration -- ever re-mulled-over the Catholic Eucharistic prayers, such as:
"Lord, you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness. Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body + and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ."
I'm not a trained theologian, nor a Church historian, or anything like that.
And so I see there is a possible grammatical uncertainty in the prayer : "for us" could mean (for all I know) "on our behalf" or "to our benefit". On the other hand it could mean "for us *believers*" or "for those of us who hold to this doctrine of transubstantiation"...?
(You might also make an analogy to Mark 6:5...)
This is further complicated by the fact that not all Protties are technically allowed to partake, because they are (in the old sense of the word) not "in communion" with the Catholic Church.
Mull it over, I guess.
And continue to pray for all who name the name of Christ.
Cheers!
Thank you. I don't see how anyone can misinterpret that.
Luk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
(e-Sword:KJV)
Them's red-letter words, right there.
Some see the glass half empty. Others....well...
Well... if the official dogma of the Anti-Catholic FR Schism is to hate all in order to be a disciple... well I’m glad to be Catholic and believe that Jesus called us to love.
I could show you a dozen scriptures... but no one on your side will look them up anyway... not in the Catholic hater playbook.
Well... if the official dogma of the Anti-Catholic FR Schism is to hate all in order to be a disciple... well I’m glad to be Catholic and believe that Jesus called us to love.
I could show you a dozen scriptures... but no one on your side will look them up anyway... not in the Catholic hater playbook.
What do you think the verse meant, and how does it fit the context of what SoothingDave was saying in post #60?
I could show you a dozen scriptures...
Probably hundreds... But that does not negate this verse. What does it say? Especially since the Law says to honor your father and mother... Is Jesus breaking the Law?
It’s telling us to not love any one or any thing on earth more than God.
Jesus doesn’t literally want us to hate anybody.
Talk about cherry-picking Scripture and missing the forest for the trees.
Because I make the mistake of reading his words:
We might glibly say that ALL OF CHRIST was included in the INCARNATION. However, to construe an infinite God as contained in a mortal body seems absurd, to me. We just don’t have a perspective in time or loftiness to pontificate much at all about such things.
Shhhhh.....
Quoting Holy Writ is a proddy prerog, “Romanists” cannot do that.
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.