Posted on 09/18/2010 8:26:32 PM PDT by markomalley
Crucifying Christ afresh is subjecting him to public disgrace.
The Catholic church just doesn't get *once for all*, does it?
I wonder what about that is too hard for them to understand.
Nowhere does Augustine say the bread and wine change materialistically. They remain bread and wine, symbolically representing the sacrifice of Christ which we are to remember and thank God for every time we partake of His table.
And constant!
We need no present day Pharisee to conjur up our Savior in a biscuit.
We don’t dilute our Savior with prayers to deceased humans.
AMEN! "And constant."
"Once, for all" Thank God, He "remembers our sins no more."
Thankfully, too, men come to realize the lie of transubstantiation when they realize that the very reason for Rome declaring its priests to be "another Christ" is because magic requires a magician.
They believe in alchemy, not in Scriptural teaching; not in the things of God, spiritually discerned.
.
“Mystery, Babylon!
.
You wrote:
“What error? Paul didn’t say Christ offered his sacrifice once in heaven? Jesus didn’t say, ‘Do this in remembrance’?”
The sacrifice is always offered in heaven. This is symbolized here on earth by the fact that there were altar railings to show what happened on the altar was happening in heaven. It is a timeless, once-for-all sacrifice that is re-presented.
“Where do I find this “re-presenting” in Scripture?”
Everywhere you find the breaking of bread after the Last Supper.
“And just how do you define this “re-presenting” if that is what is being done?”
I don’t define it. The Church does.
You wrote:
“As usual, we read the same words and come to different conclusions.”
I come to the correct conclusions. You come to the Protestant ones.
“Nowhere does Augustine say the bread and wine change materialistically.”
He said it became Christ’s body and blood. How is that not different from bread and wine?
“They remain bread and wine, symbolically representing the sacrifice of Christ which we are to remember and thank God for every time we partake of His table.”
And now we see your earlier error more clearly. Lutherans believe in the Real Presence. They believe it’s Christ’s body. You don’t. You only believe in a spiritual presence. You Protestants can’t agree. You all “read the same words and come to different conclusions.” Imagine that.
Catholics read the Lord’s words in John 6, and then reject them, since they have not the Holy Spirit, they must reject the idea that his ‘presence’ is spiritual as he stated.
.
One gets the impression that non-Catholics think "spiritual" means "not-real". Because if one says "spiritually you are a penguin" then what is being said is REALLY, fundamentally, in truth "you ARE a penguin". It's not that you look like a penguin, or smell like a penguin, or taste like a penguin, all those things are accidental to penguiness, but at the root of everything, in your essence you're a penguin.
So maybe when non-Catholics say "spiritually" they mean "in theory", or "metaphorically"... or "not really"?
“The sacrifice is always offered in heaven. This is symbolized here on earth by the fact that there were altar railings to show what happened on the altar was happening in heaven. It is a timeless, once-for-all sacrifice that is re-presented.”
Then what is taking place is a symbol, a representation of what is taking place in heaven?
If then the sacrifice is offered once and only once in heaven it cannot
then be offered at the same time on earth and as Paul said,
Christ didn't offer himself year after year.
The idea that the taking of the bread and wine is a sacrifice each time it takes place is contrary to Scripture and self contradictory as your words show.
You wrote:
“Catholics read the Lord’s words in John 6, and then reject them, since they have not the Holy Spirit, they must reject the idea that his ‘presence’ is spiritual as he stated.”
Nowhere in John 6 does Jesus claim His presence is merely spiritual nor do we deny that He has a spiritual presence. What we deny is the idea that Christ lied when He said it was His flesh and blood. We believe His words. We also deny heretical Protestant teachings that empty Christ’s words of meaning and slip in a false meaning instead to make themselves more comfortable.
All Protestants do not see a spiritual presence in their mock re-enactments of the Lord’s Supper. I have had them tell me so. I have no reason to believe they are lying on that score.
I never said ALL prots believe it. Some Prots, believe either in a spiritual presence or a memorial/commemoration or a combination.
You wrote:
“The source you referenced called each Mass performed a sacrifice and you yourself called the Mass a sacrifice.”
Of course it is a sacrifice. It just isn’t a NEW sacrifice.
“Then what is taking place is a symbol, a representation of what is taking place in heaven?”
Yes, and it is real as well. And imperfect analogy could be: The American flag is a symbol. It is also made out of cloth. You can touch it. It is not just an image, but has a material existence.
“If then the sacrifice is offered once and only once in heaven it cannot
then be offered at the same time on earth and as Paul said,
Christ didn’t offer himself year after year.”
The same sacrifice can be re-presented again and again. This was not only prophesied in Malachi 1:11.
“The idea that the taking of the bread and wine is a sacrifice each time it takes place is contrary to Scripture and self contradictory as your words show.”
Nope. Nothing I said was contradictory. The taking of bread and wine is not a sacrifice - nor did I ever say it was. I don’t know who believes it is. That is not what we believe. The offering of Christ’s BODY AND BLOOD is a sacrifice. No matter who does or does not take it it is still a sacrifice. It is fascinating to see how you get things wrong. Rather than correctly state what I posted you actually - apparently - look at things from exactly the wrong end. You apparently believe the sacrificial quality of something is dependent upon the person passively receiving the sacrifice rather than the Person making the sacrifice and the actual offering of the sacrifice. How telling. If that doesn’t show that Protestants twist everything to subjectivism and fellings, I don’t know what does.
The Greek “estin” of Luke 22:19, “This is (estin) the body of me” may properly be translated “means” so in line with the rest of the Scriptures Jesus words would be,
“This means my body”.
“I wonder what about that is too hard for them to understand.”
It's the impossibility of fitting much of Catholic doctrine into the confines of Biblical teachings.
Someone posted an excellent commentary about how Jesus was just telling the disciples what the elements, which were part of the Passover Supper, really represented.
Here they had been eating the bread and drinking the cup for centuries not knowing what the bread and cup really represented.
Jesus was simply saying that the bread and cup were pictures of Himself, the bread representing how His body was broken, and the cup representing His shed blood.
The ironic thing is, Catholics keep insisting that the bread and wine turn into the literal,actual body and blood of Christ, except that they don’t look like it.
Sure......
It either is or isn’t.
All the *real presence* nonsense is just an explanation to excuse away why it doesn’t, which in reality just means that the bread and cup are symbols of what they claim is *really* happening.
Merely spiritual? - To one that has not the spirit perhaps it is "merely" spirit, but to the body of Christ, Spirit is everything here on Earth.
John 6:What we call life here on Earth is not life in the kingdom of God; it is corruption.
63] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Since you lack the spirit, you lack understanding of things spiritual.
You wrote:
“Merely spiritual? - To one that has not the spirit perhaps it is “merely” spirit, but to the body of Christ, Spirit is everything here on Earth.”
I never said “merely spirit”. I said merely spiritual - as in “merely a spiritual presence” as opposed to Real Presence.
“Since you lack the spirit, you lack understanding of things spiritual.”
No, actually I apparently understand them better than you do. I also did not twist your words. I do not engage in such dishonest tactics. I suggest you do the same so you don’t look so much like a hypocrite.
> “I never said “merely spirit”. I said merely spiritual”
.
What might the difference be?
A spiritual presence is the real presence in this age. He said that he would send the spirit, not a package from the celestial butcher shop!
You sound just like the nutty unbelievers that try to ‘debate’ Bob Dutco on his radio program!
Ahhh...well now that clears things up.
“Yes, and it is real as well. And imperfect analogy could be: The American flag is a symbol. It is also made out of cloth. You can touch it. It is not just an image, but has a material existence.”
The flag is a symbol of the country, not the country its self. That's what symbols are. Just as the bread and wine were symbols of Christ's flesh and blood not the actual flesh and blood.
“The same sacrifice can be re-presented again and again. This was not only prophesied in Malachi 1:11.”
Mal. 1:11 says,
“For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.”
How you connect Mal 1:11 with the last supper is unclear.
Offering OR taking of the bread and wine is not the sacrifice. That was done once and therefore as Paul said at Hebrews 10:18,
“Now where remission of these (sins and inequities) is, there is no more offering for sin.”
No “re-presentation” needed, no more offering, the sacrifice has been made once and need not be reoffered. That's what the Scriptures make clear.
.
From the Catholic Catechism:
1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”190
No blood at the Mass?
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.