Why did Jesus utter these words? As has been well-pointed out on this thread, He is quoting Scripture... specifically, Psalm 22. He had very little breath available to Him and He had something to teach. As the author and embodiment of Scripture, these words were written prophetically (they foresaw Him on the Cross) and preparationally (they are unique in all of Scripture so He can't be misunderstood as to His citation). The opening passages of the Psalm paint a bleak picture of Him hanging on the Cross. One could easily focus on this part and empathize with His despair. But again, Christ is teaching, not lamenting. Keep reading...
Psalm 22:22 I will tell of your name to my brothers;The rest of the Psalm is glorious. It speaks of His triumph. Jesus was helping his disciples look beyond the affliction of the Cross because if they recalled the full Psalm, they will remember that it ends in triumph.
in the midst of the congregation I will praise you:
23 You who fear the Lord, praise him!
All you offspring of Jacob, glorify him,
and stand in awe of him, all you offspring of Israel!
24 For he has not despised or abhorred
the affliction of the afflicted,
and he has not hidden his face from him,
but has heard, when he cried to him.
When God looked at Jesus on the Cross... what did He see? Did He see our sin and turn away? Consider that we are sinful people and God sent His only Son to die for our sins when we were at our worst. He does not turn from us, we turn from Him. He doesn't abandon us, He saves us. When God looked upon Jesus on the Cross, He saw an obedient Son doing His Will and He loved Him.
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.
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.
This isn't meant to be a snark but instructive as to why the Church is here and how She has stood the test of time.
Sorry, that is a snark, and most of the answers were consistent. Some of the difference come from different understandings of the Apostles' Creed. Plus, there are multiple layers to what God is trying to point out with Psalm 22. Some of the differences in response are due to people pointing out the different layers.
I wonder if I ask a random group of Catholics the same question if I would get the exact same answer. Yes, I know there is the party line, but not everyone knows it.
What is consistent with all of the response is the lack of this sacrifice being performed over and over in a Mass. Just as "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?" points us to Psalm 22 and the Suffering Savior, so do the words, "This is My body" points us back to the cross. Both are symbols represent something larger.
LOL! You're actually asserting that the unsourced post #42, which appears to be nothing more than your own private interpretation and conjecture, stands as the definitive, authoritative, and instructive for all "Catholic perspective" on Jesus' words.
Absolute nonsense. The presumption made by the Catholic Church is just that, presumption. Like I said, anyone who purports to understand the full meaning of those words is akin to claiming to understand the full meaning of the hypostatic union. The audacity of the Catholic Church is astounding.
Not really. As you titled this thread on the opening lines of Psalm 22 and not the entire psalm and also the associated linking prophecies and fulfillment. You do well fleshing that out in a later post but not at the beginning. So the original post lacks what most Roman Catholic doctrine lacks...Biblical exegesis.
I will also note your own CCC allows for differing views on a multitude of faith issues. This would be one as long as a Catholic does not deny the full Deity of Christ.
The other flaw with this approach, vanity thread, is that it is open to Mormons, JWs, Oneness Pentecostals and other such Arian or tritheism heresies. So yes you are going to get different answers as none of those groups are in the (little "o") orthodox Christian tradition.
Our Savior and High Priest was on the cross (the altar) that day. One time for all.
This isn't meant to be a snark but instructive as to why the Church is here and how She has stood the test of time.
Truly? I still await three responses to posts I made to you on the other thread you called 'unproductive.' Perhaps take some of that instruction there to respond. Also, the church is not a she, the Church is the Body of Christ with Him as the Head and we as the members. And it's God's Truth that stands the test of time as not one of His words will be changed or come back empty. And how to we measure our actions and practices against God's Truth? Seek His Words and counsel. Where do we find those? Not in a catechism mixed with words of men.
You were doing fine, until you referenced flatly unscriptural “facts” as established objective doctrine, reversed the relation of symbolism vs substance (crucifixion was the substance, not the symbol; communion is the symbol, not the substance), revealed the thread as bait to attack Protestants, declared your own understanding perfect, and descended into full-on snark while declaring it not (unprompted).
“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.”
First of all the idea that “without the Catholic Church as a foil, you flounder for meaning” is utter rubbish. My faith, and the faith of any regenerated, bible-believing Christian is not in reference to Rome in any way shape or form. Most saved people never give a thought to what Rome believes or teaches.
And then maybe you need teaching that is “authoritative” but every single truly born-again regenerate Christian is “taught of God.” God gave us His Word and He gives us teachers, but we are never to simply accept anyone’s “authoritative” teaching. The people in Berea were called more noble because they searched the Scriptures daily to see if what they had been taught was true. They didn’t blindly accept teaching—and their teachers were Paul and Silas.
“It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” (John 6:45)
Also, the idea that different people from different perspectives and different stages of their spiritual journey shouldn’t be surprising. Also, we have no idea who is and isn’t saved. Also, I didn’t specifically reference Psalm 22 because it had already been ably mentioned by several others. Another thing, I dashed out a brief response to a question on an internet forum. I doubt anyone answered your question with the depth and thoughtfulness they are capable of given time. Since we don’t have Rome’s authoritative teachings to blindly spout, you should marvel at the general consistency of the responses.
Incorrect. The traditions of the Catholic Church or "foil" as you call it, are interpretations of men and traditions of men. In specific to the false teachings of the Catholic Church, the teaching of purgatory is blasphemous as it calls Jesus's teachings a lie. When we accept Jesus as our Lord and savior, our sins are forgiven and we are therefore we are acceptable to God. When we stand before God on Judgement day, Jesus has paid the price and granted the grace of forgiveness of our sins. No perfection is required. Otherwise, the thief would not be able to enter paradise "this day".
Lots of interesting observations there. Thanks for posting.
The entire time Jesus was suffering His Passion he was uttering the passages in the Psalms as he was fulfilling them. The “seven words” on the Cross were the times where His verbalization of those Pslams were audible.
Is there a Magisterial, infallible interpretation of that passage somewhere?
That's something I'd be interested in reading . If you name one, don't forget to let me know where the document or statement that contains the interpretation is stated to be infallible.
Otherwise it is simply one mans opinion..his own personal opinion ...of no more "worth" or value than anyoneelses
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.
I don’t see the Protestant replies here as disunity at all. While some people might favor the interpretation of Psalm 22 over that of Jesus being forsaken by God at that time to suffer our punishment in our place, or vice versa, this is a very minor point. The differences can be explained by different experiences, which come down to the Lord teaching each person individually. After I first read the Bible, I saw it more as a reference to Psalm 22 because I still didn’t understand the other interpretation so well, but now that I know a lot more, I believe, like many Christians do, that both are correct.
I also know a lot more about a lot of things in the Bible, which has increased my understanding, but that doesn’t mean that when I knew less my knowledge was off-base or faulty. The foundation of the most important beliefs about Jesus was always sound. The right foundation, if it’s there, is always far stronger than some minor mistakes, imperfections, weaknesses, or immatury in our understanding, or else no one’s faith would survive
In this question, unless there is deep, contentious disagreement where people disavow another interpretation being expressed then there is not disunity. If that was the case, you could ask people who spoke either of Psalm 22 or Jesus needing to be forsaken for our sakes if they thought the other interpretation didn’t apply and should be rejected but I doubt many if any people would say that. The two interpretations are both interpretations supported by Scripture. And, too, your interpretation sides with Psalm 22 against the other interpretation, while someone posted from the Catholic catechism on this question, and it only mentions the interpretation of Jesus being forsaken for our sins.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1O.HTM
I’ve also seen quite a few articles by Catholic apologists that similarly “insult” Protestants. But there is an actual point to what is said in the title, and it’s not about the abilities of individual Catholics, but about Catholic teaching and belief. Growing up and living for decades in a highly Catholic place, while being from a mainstream Lutheran family, there wasn’t a born-again Christian presence so I also have to say that I didn’t understand “it is finished,” either.
Look at both the Catholic and evangelical beliefs on salvation, where both will agree on crucial things like that Jesus is God’s Son, the second person of the Trinity, was born of a virgin, died for man’s sins, and was resurrected.
Beyond that, the Catholic understanding of Christianity is to look at yourself and consider what’s right and what’s wrong in order to do the right and avoid the wrong. That’s therefore about the person and their performance, which is sometimes good and sometimes bad.
In the born-again Christian understanding, someone should also consider what’s right and what’s wrong in order to do what’s right and avoid what’s wrong, but then it recognizes something else. The emphasis isn’t on keeping track of your good works and sins, but instead on the reason that you’re trying to do what God wants you to, and trying not to do what He commands you shouldn’t - that you have been converted so that you are no longer in rebellion against Him, but agree with Him that He is good and just, that His ways are the only right ones, that sin is wrong, destructive and deadly, which grieves Him, and that you’ve personally sinned against Him. That means you are no longer His enemy, but are on His side. THAT is God’s ultimate work accomplished in a person, a person who has accepted God’s authority over himself.
Such a person will not perfectly follow God on earth, because he is still in the unredeemed flesh and in this fallen world, but he will desire to and make every effort to. As Paul wrote in Romans 7, once he agreed with God that sin is sin and he didn’t want to do it, it was no longer him doing it, but the sin that dwelled in him, in his flesh. As the Bible also says, though, all of this isn’t a license to sin, and no Christian who’s really yielded himself to God would want it to be, but only explains why Christians aren’t perfect in all they think, say and do while still on earth. Yet the most important work by God has been completed in them, that they have been reconciled to Him.