Posted on 04/13/2014 7:37:12 AM PDT by CharlesOConnell
A fine young man, a father of children and a professional, approached me at church: "What do you think of that Pope John-Paul? He's no good." Others also didn't like him. I put a magnetic sign on my car, it was met with sneers: 5 pictures of the Pope immediately after being shot, in 1/6th of the space, "In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood." – Hebrews 12:4
Yet I also didn't like Pope John Paul II, not in himself, but because of the cult of personality around him. I love Pope John Paul, yet I dislike hearing his name appended with "The Great", as if I am expected to join in perpetual enthusiasm about his person, regardless of how well I correspond to his message and mission.
I loved Cardinal Ratzinger, but didn't notice such a rabid welcome for him as Pope Benedict XVI, so I felt freer to attend to Him, even despite controversies like the Regensburg Lecture or various public relations disasters caused by those who sought to manage him. I was happy when his resignation finally thwarted the manipulations of those who were secretly working against him.
Now I have seen enough to ignore those who get all hot and bothered by Pope Francis upsetting the apple cart, instead concentrating on the message of the man himself. If it were all peaches and cream, so that my comfort weren't afflicted by Francis' message, what use would it all be?
Jesus remarked that "foxes have dens and birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to rest his head". Matthew 8:20. His followers were ready for him to expel the Romans and restore the Davidic Kingdom. Yet he told them to go out without even taking any money.
Why should we only listen and respond to messages, and messengers, that we like? What use is it, how can Christ's message transform us, if we only hear what confirms us in what we're already doing?
“discerning with regard to ourselves”
We followed the Word of God - examining ourselves for unconfessed sin before partaking.
I suggest you read the passage again to understand what it actually commands.
“The Church is the opposite of Israel - instead of descendants and tribes being the basis of serving as a priest, every believer in Christ is a priest.”
Exodus 19:6.
“He did not say it was the first time, but assuming He did for the sake of argument, He did not say it would be ever again. He said to do it in memory of Him.”
Which means it would be done again, and again, and again. And Acts tells us this: Acts 2:42.
“Already presented the one and only time in heaven according to Hebrews. I suggest you review it.”
Already have. That’s why I know what I said did not go against it in any way. Only the one and only sacrifice is re-presented. There is no other.
Again a simple question: Were you one of those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ?
You can of course explain how so or not if you wish.
“Which means it would be done again, and again, and again. “
We agree the memorial is repeated as He commands, but there is no literal body or blood. We do it in memory of His actual sacrifice until He returns. Nor is their a need or command for representation. It is finished.
“Again a simple question: Were you one of those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ?”
I did examine myself in regards to my relationships within the Body of Christ, as Paul instructs to make sure I did not have unconfessed sin against a fellow believer.
“We agree the memorial is repeated as He commands, but there is no literal body or blood.”
There is - and that is how Christians always understood it.
“We do it in memory of His actual sacrifice until He returns. Nor is their a need or command for representation.”
Re-presentation. Not representation.
“It is finished.”
Yep. And Christ’s sacrifice can be offered to the Father at every Mass or Divine Liturgy precisely because it is finished.
So, in your view, to eat and drink discerning the body of Christ means making sure you do not have unconfessed sin?
Is that your interpretation of “discerning the body”?
Try reading what I wrote one more time.
No command or reality to re-presentation.
Even Christ referred to the wine as wine after saying it was His Blood.
Simple question again.
I’ll try guessing your answer: “Yes.”
So discerning the body of Christ for you means an examination of conscience.
Quite an odd feat of exegesis requiring an error of defining “discerning.”
Odd but necessary if one is to avoid the real presence in Holy Eucharist.
“No command or reality to re-presentation.”
Actually both.
“Even Christ referred to the wine as wine after saying it was His Blood.”
Which in no way negates that it was now His Body and Blood. We too sometimes refer to it as wine and bread after the consecration even though it is now His Body and Blood.
Not what I wrote... I suggest a third reading.
Post it, if you have it.
It does negate it, since He metaphorically states it is His Body and Blood, when it remained bread and wine. Then says He won’t drink wine again until the future.
What you wrote has never directly answered the question: "Were you one of those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ?”
Perhaps you could explain why not.
“It does negate it, since He metaphorically states it is His Body and Blood, when it remained bread and wine.”
No. There was no metaphor there. None of the language used suggests a metaphor either.
“Then says He won’t drink wine again until the future.”
He says “fruit of the vine”. He was referring to the fourth cup. http://www.salvationhistory.com/audio-resources/the_fourth_cup
“What you wrote has never directly answered the question: “Were you one of those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ?””
What I wrote exactly answers that I did discern the body.
Then my following reply would be accurate:
So discerning the body of Christ for you means an examination of conscience. I.e., “examine myself in regards to my relationships within the Body of Christ… make sure I did not have unconfessed sin against a fellow believer.”
And, again, quite a tortured exegesis of discerning the body to avoid the real presence in Holy Eucharist.
What if God wants nothing to do with a pope — a guy in a made-up position who usurps authority over Him? Just askin’.
“And, again, quite a tortured exegesis of discerning the body to avoid the real presence in Holy Eucharist.”
If you read I Corinthians 11:17-33 - the entire paragraph and section concerning the abuse of the Lord’s Supper - instead of wresting just a single verse out of that context, you will learn that Paul is writing about exactly what I stated.
BONUS: if you read the paragraph and particularly the individual verse in Greek, you will have additional confirming insight.
Of course Paul talks of examination of conscience. Examination of conscience is required for confession and the Sacrament of Reconciliation is integral to the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
To substitute it for discerning the body of Christ is the error.
We have the real presence in Holy Scripture, in the history and practice of the Church, in the writings of the martyrs and Early Church fathers...
We even have it after the reformation until the sixteenth century and Zwingly.
Those who follow this error have lost the discernment of the body of Christ. And Paul warns against this.
To not realize the real presence in the Holy Eucharist requires errors of interpretation, ignoring history and following a false tradition.
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.