Which reduces the Lord's cry to the Father that He was forsaken to be mere rhetoric. But if you ever read Lv. 26 you would see that the scapegoat upon whom the iniquities of Israel were placed was led away into the wilderness by the hand of a strong man (they do not want that stinking goat to return).
This aspect of Is. 53 was fulfilled by the Lord, as well as being the sin offering, and in a real if mysterious sense the Father turned away from the Son, as to the Son was laid "the iniquity of us all." (Isaiah 53:6; 1Pt. 2:24)
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)
Thanks be to God!
As Catholics, we see even more... when you see Christ on the Cross, you are seeing the Priest offering the sacrifice of His Own Body, the sacrificial Lamb, and the Bridegroom of the Church. It is the Marriage Feast of the Lamb where Heaven and Earth are rejoined in the family bond of the New Covenant. What was begun at the Last Supper (and not ended as one cup remained from which He partook on the Cross) was played out in reality in His Own Flesh on the Cross. On the Cross, He is offering Mass. His ejaculation of Psalm 22 could be seen as His Homily. It is finished with the final cup (the hyssop) and His Death.
Whatever else you may see, which i do not think is even all indisputable RC interpretation, you do err based upon Scripture, but at least you did not try to support your imaginative interpretation by it.
It is the Marriage Feast of the Lamb where Heaven and Earth are rejoined in the family bond of the New Covenant.
Wrong, as while "it is finished" speaks of His imminent death completing the atonement, which instituted the New Covenant, though that and the church actually did not begin until He gave up His spirit, the only Marriage Feast of the Lamb is after the Lord's return.
And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God. (Revelation 19:9)
On the Cross, He is offering Mass.
Absurd. The Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice for sins, but the cup the Lord said to drink - which is no more literally to be consumed than what it contained was blood - represents the Lord's blood which was to be poured out, like as Ps. 22:14 says "I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels." (Psalms 22:14)
Likewise we read, “And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the LORD. And he said, Be it far from me, O LORD, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men.”
Here, David equates the water obtained at the peril of the men's life (blood representing life: Lv. 17:11), with that of their lives themselves. In like use of metaphor, the Lord Jesus in the Lord's supper accounts is holding up bread and wine as a “picture”” of Himself, illustrating that just as such life physical giving substances could be broken and poured out, so would His body be “broken,” and His precious sinless blood be “poured out “ in offering a ransom for many (Mk. 10:45).
Similarly, the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)
Which manner of metaphorical language is prevalent in Scripture , and which the apostles would have been well familiar with.
The second reason for this thread is to point out the disunity that the Sola Scriptura perspective brings. Without the Catholic Church as a foil, you flounder for meaning. It's easy to point to the Church and tell Her where you disagree. It isn't so easy to agree with one another in your own exegesis. Read this thread and you will see bafflement, guesses, and conjecture. You won't read teaching from the Protestant perspective that is authoritative and instructive for all.
Which is more fantasy, as i think answers overall show a basic unity, while you have your own fallible interpretation, as you have yet to show that all your teach here has been indisputably defined.
And RCs themselves have a great deal of liberty to interpret (wrest) Scripture to support Rome, as they demonstrate.
Which reduces the Lord's cry to the Father that He was forsaken to be mere rhetoric.
No it does not. The life of Christ is played out in the words of prophetic Scripture. His emotions and suffering are real. So is His desire to teach His disciples. "My God, my God, why have you abandoned Me?" isn't the full statement that is being made from the Cross. It is all of Psalm 22 by reference. In the Psalm, we read of His suffering but also of His triumph. As the Psalm says, " For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard."
Jesus wasn't abandoned by God on the Cross as the Psalm says He wasn't. If we believe in a Just God, what justice is there in abandoning His Son in the moment of ultimate obedience? None. Some have rationalized that God can't look on our sins... but then how can He look on us at all? After all, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." (Rom 3:23). There is more to the story than just the words that were uttered. It was a full statement of abject dejection as well as of impending triumph. Jesus is teaching His Jewish audience, specifically His disciples, what they are seeing and telling them this isn't the end of the story.