Posted on 06/22/2002 5:57:49 PM PDT by Siobhan
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
There is probably no doctrine in the Catholic Faith that has been misunderstood more by Protestants than that of the Holy Mass. The Mass is the central act of Catholic worship: Christ's sacrifice on Calvary is perpetuated because the priest offers it anew to the Father. It is not a new sacrifice, but the same one that Jesus offered on the Cross 2,000 years ago, the difference being that in the Mass it is — in a sense — unbloody. Jesus does not die or suffer again at each Mass, but is simply re-presented, re-offered to the Father.
In short, the only difference between the Sacrifice of the Cross and that of the Mass is that the mode of offering is different. On the Cross, the mode of offering was bloody; in the Mass, the mode of offering is unbloody. This is the only difference. Since Christ's Sacrifice is present both on Calvary and at every single Mass, it is the same Sacrifice, and what is said of one must be said of the other. Therefore, since Christ's Sacrifice on Calvary was propitiatory — i.e., sin-atoning — so is the Sacrifice of Holy Mass. The Council of Trent teaches very explicitly: "Appeased by this sacrifice [of the Mass], the Lord grants the grace and gift of penitence and pardons…crimes and sins."
By giving us the Mass, our Lord has ensured a way to apply the graces merited on His Holy Cross to us today, to all of His faithful in any and every age. As James Cardinal Gibbons noted, "In the Sacrifice of the Mass I apply to myself the merits of the sacrifice of the cross, from which the Mass derives all its efficacy." The Mass carries the Cross throughout the centuries until Christ returns. Each and every day (except Good Friday), the Church celebrates Mass to make present what Christ has wrought, to dispense and unlock again the infinite graces which He earned for us so that God's wrath for us on account of our sins might be appeased. Since Christ's Sacrifice is infinite and all-pleasing to God, there is potential forgiveness of any sin, if our souls are properly disposed and we are truly penitent.
Protestants will try to tell you that Christ underwent our punishment — He did not! If that were so, then Christ would have had to be sent to Hell for all eternity, for this is what we truly deserve (see Rev. 20:13-14). Christ suffered for us, no question, but He did so in order to earn for us God's forgiveness, not so that we wouldn't have to suffer or be punished temporarily. In other words, Jesus helped us avoid Hell not by undergoing the punishment Himself, but by offering Himself to God in order to appease God's wrath and prevent His justice from being executed (see Isa. 53:10-12; Heb. 2:17). Just as lambs and goats were slain in the Old Testament in order to appease the wrath of God, so Christ was slain and slaughtered to appease God's wrath, but with Christ it was once and for all.
However, we are talking here about possible, or potential, forgiveness, not necessarily actual forgiveness. The Church does not teach that because of what Christ did for us, all sins will be forgiven in the sense that all people will be saved in the end; rather, the truth is that all sins can be forgiven because of Christ's ultimate act of love. What does the "can" depend on? It depends on us, on our willingness to repent, receive forgiveness, and obey Christ (see Heb. 3:12-15; Rom. 11:21-23). So that the graces of Calvary can be applied to all believers, and not just to those who were around the Cross that first Good Friday, our Lord instituted the Holy Mass. Now all who attend Mass can benefit from Christ's wonderful Sacrifice and receive His Body and Blood.
Protestants don't avail themselves of that privilege. All they do is pray, sing, read the Bible, and hear a sermon. No wonder, then, that the focus during their service is on the preacher, the "pastor," who is expected to give them a moving sermon. Protestants seem to believe that they have to "feel good" at their worship service. (I'm thinking especially of Evangelicals and Pentecostals here.) Since all they can focus on is the Bible, the music, and the pastor's sermon, it follows that if there is no emotional reaction on their part, they figure that something is wrong. This is evidenced by the preacher's tone, which is usually extremely emotional and theatrical. The desired outcome is that there be some sort of deeply felt reaction on the part of the listener — either intense joy or sorrow or shame or just simple but enthusiastic agreement that shouts "Amen!" from the back of the auditorium. The more touched one is, the more one has worshiped God, the Protestant axiom seems to be. After all, how often have we heard that a Catholic became Protestant or that a Protestant has switched to a different church or denomination because he "didn't get fed"! But the true believer goes to church in order to worship God, not to feel moved. Not Me, but Thee.
The standard for worship is certainly set by God Himself. In Hebrews 12:28, St. Paul says: "Let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe." Gee, read that again. He doesn't say, "any worship, with shouts of joy and clapping of hands." He says it must be done in reverence and awe. Also, Paul emphasizes that the worship ought to be acceptable. This means that some worship is not acceptable. How to decide? Whom to trust on the matter? You can choose between the Protestant notion of "each believer decides for himself" (whence Paul's admonition in Heb. 12:28 would make no sense at all) and the Catholic notion of "listen to the Apostles and their successors," for they speak for Christ (see Lk. 10:16; 2 Cor. 5:20).
Here's the Catholic position, then. Since we're all imperfect, sinful, and totally dependent on Christ, we ourselves, no matter how much we might try, could not possibly worship God in a pleasing fashion. Think about it: God is infinite. He deserves infinite honor, glory, and worship. No creature could possibly give Him His due since all creatures are, by definition, finite. The ceremonial laws of the Old Testament were great, but by no means sufficient. God wanted to be worshiped by man in a particular fashion. Though the lambs and goats could never really take away sins (see Heb. 10:4,11), this is how God wanted man to make atonement for his sins under the Old Covenant. But now we're under a New Covenant, which is everlasting and a perfection of the Old. Through Christ, God is worshiped infinitely and perfectly. The Sacrifice of the Cross gives God His due! Hence, it follows that if we want to worship God in an acceptable fashion, as Paul commands us, we must somehow unite ourselves to that Sacrifice of Christ.
How? Through the Mass, which is the same Sacrifice made available to us here and now! No wonder the Church requires the faithful to go to Mass weekly! It is through Holy Communion (a visible sign conferring grace) that the believer unites himself with the Lord. No relying on fuzzy feelings, mustering a sense of faith, dramatic sermons, or "worship music." No, here we have something much more profound, something absolutely inimitable: a visible union between Christ and the believer. No shouting, dancing, or clapping can possibly trump that.
The Church teaches that the "chief fruit of the Eucharist is an intrinsic union of the recipient with Christ" (Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 394). Jesus affirmed this most eloquently: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (Jn. 6:57). Through Christ's Sacrifice, God is given infinite worship, and hence he who unites himself to that Sacrifice can worship God in an acceptable way, in the way He wants to be worshiped. "The sacrifice of the Mass…is always pleasing to God" (Ott, p. 413). That this is true is obvious since the true priest and victim of the Mass is Christ, who, on the Cross, was both priest and victim (see Heb. 7:26).
Now, all of this will raise some Protestant eyebrows. We often hear the argument that since the Mass is not a bloody but an unbloody Sacrifice, it cannot take away sins and therefore can't be the same as that of the Cross; after all, we read in Hebrews 9:22: "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." Thus, many Protestants conclude and triumphantly exclaim: "Look, your very own Bible condemns your Mass! It cannot take away sins if it's not bloody!" Gee, what happened here? Have Catholics overlooked this passage for 2,000 years? Are Protestants the first to have discovered Hebrews 9:22?
Actually, the Church wrote the Bible, compiled the Bible, and therefore interprets the Bible. It would be foolish to believe either that the Church was not aware of this passage, or that she teaches something contrary to Holy Scripture. So let's recapitulate: We've already seen that the Church insists that the Sacrifice of our Lord is one. It is unique and was done once and for all: "We have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. 10:10). The Church teaches that the Sacrifice of the Mass is identical to that of the Cross; it is not a different one; in fact, it could not be because this would imply that Christ's Sacrifice is defective, whereas both the Bible and the Church clearly teach the opposite: "Where there is forgiveness of [sins through Christ], there is no longer any offering for sin" (Heb. 10:18); "The satisfaction which Jesus Christ has in an admirable manner made to God the Father for our sins is full and complete" (Catechism of the Council of Trent, Article IV).
Mass and Cross being the one Sacrifice of Christ, then, we must ask ourselves: What is the nature of that Sacrifice? Is it bloody or unbloody? Clearly, Christ's Sacrifice was bloody! After all, He shed His most precious Blood on our behalf (see Rom. 3:25, Eph. 1:7, etc.). In its essence, then, Christ's Sacrifice is bloody. What is different at Mass is the mode or manner of offering. It is to this sense that the Catholic refers when he says that the Mass is un-bloody. But in the Mass, bread and wine transubstantiate into the Body and Blood of Christ. So obviously, in that sense, the Mass is a bloody Sacrifice. It does (and must) contain the true Body and Blood of Christ, otherwise it could hardly be identical to the Sacrifice on Calvary. However, whereas on Calvary, Christ died and shed His Blood in a unique way, in the Mass our Lord mystically renews His death and Body-and-Blood Sacrifice in a sacramental way, not under the appearance of His Body and Blood, as on the Cross, but under the appearance of bread and wine; hence the manner of offering at the Mass is unbloody. It is bloody in the sense that it is the Body and Blood of Christ, but unbloody in the sense that it is offered under the appearance of bread and wine in a sacramental fashion.
Christ does not suffer again or die again in the Mass; however, He does renew His already completed suffering and death on the Cross. Protestant Eric Svendsen wonders just what this means: "It is difficult to know just what the real difference is between a re-presenting of Christ's sacrifice and a re-sacrificing of him." Let's help Mr. Svendsen out here: A sacrificial action is clearly characterized by the killing of the victim. For there to be a new or another sacrifice, there would have to be a new killing. At Mass, no killing takes place, so it cannot be a re-sacrificing of Christ. What, then, does it mean to re-present or mystically renew the Sacrifice of Calvary? It means that we once again take the already sacrificed Christ, hold Him up to the Father, and say, "Father, look upon the Lamb that was slain for our sake. Through this holy and perfect Sacrifice, pardon our sins, and turn Your wrath away from us; be appeased by the pleasing odor of this unblemished Lamb." In order to do this, obviously, Christ must be made present again — which is why the priest transubstantiates the bread and wine into Christ's Body and Blood.
This may all seem rather overwhelming due to the complicated theological matter. But let us remember that, being earthly creatures, we are always confined to a limited view of the truth and to expressing what we know about this truth in human and finite words. We must always keep in mind that we're dealing with mystery — a mystery that cannot be completely understood from this side of Heaven.
The Sacrifice of the Mass was prophesied in the Scriptures, most notably in Malachi 1:11: "From the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts" (italics added). How privileged are we who receive the sacramental Body and Blood of our Savior; it is as though we were at the Cross 2,000 years ago! "Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need" (Heb. 4:16).
Eating Flesh and Drinking Blood: Metaphors of Reviling or Metaphors of Belief?
By Michael Taylor
In an effort to defend the literal interpretation of John 6:53-58, virtually every Catholic apologist resorts to some form of the following argument: Eating flesh and drinking blood cannot be metaphors for belief in Jesus, for both eating flesh and drinking blood were already Old Testament metaphors for reviling or causing someone injury (e.g., Psalm 27:2, Ecclesiastes 4:5, Isaiah 9:20, 49:26, Micah 3:1-3). Therefore, Jesus was speaking literally. Karl Keating, citing John A. O?brien, argues:
?[T]he phrase ?to eat the flesh and drink the blood?, when used figuratively among the Jews, as among Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating Him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense.? Christ would be saying, ?He that reviles me has eternal life? (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, [San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988], 241).
Essentially the Catholic apologist is saying that either Jesus was speaking metaphorically of reviling, or he was not speaking metaphorically at all. But if Jesus was not speaking metaphorically of reviling, then he must have been speaking literally. There are several problems with this argument.
A False Dilemma
A false dilemma is the fallacy of forcing a complex issue into a choice between two options, without admitting of alternative solutions. The Catholic apologist is guilty of this fallacy. We do not need to choose between metaphorical reviling or literalism. There are alternatives. For example, the unbelieving Jews of John 6:52 interpreted eating and drinking in neither a figurative sense nor a sacramental sense; rather they interpreted his words in a crassly literal, or carnal sense: ?How can this man give us his flesh to eat?? Of course, this is not a viable alternative, as Jesus is clearly not prescribing cannibalism. But it does demonstrate the faulty logic of the Catholic position. Is there a viable alternative to metaphorical reviling and sacramental literalism? In deed there is. James D. G. Dunn argues that
[Jesus] uses the language of ?eating?, ?munching?, ?drinking? as metaphors for believing in Jesus: the need to believe in Jesus is the central emphasis of the whole passage [John 6] (vv. 29, 35, 36, 40, 47, 64, 69)?to munch Jesus? flesh and drink his blood is the believe in Jesus as the truly incarnate one (James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, 2nd Edition, [Harrisburg: Trinity Press. 1990], 170, emphasis in original).
In other words, metaphorical believing is a viable alternative. The Catholic apologist rightly acknowledges that eating flesh and drinking blood can be metaphors of reviling, but errs in claiming that they can only be metaphors of reviling. Any given word or words can be used metaphorically in a number of ways. Consider, for example, the word ?sword.? In Luke 2:35, a ?sword? (romphia) will pierce Mary?s heart. Clearly ?sword? is a metaphor for sorrow. But in Revelation, the ?sword? (romphia) in Jesus? mouth is a metaphor for judgment (cf. Revelation 1:16; 2:16; 19:15, 21). In Matthew 10:34, ?sword? (machaira) is a metaphor for division and violence, whereas in Ephesians 6:17 and Hebrews 4:12, the ?sword? (machaira) is a metaphor for the Word of God.
There is therefore nothing wrong in principle with the suggestion that eating flesh and drinking blood can have more than one metaphorical meaning. The Catholic has to concede at least this point. But what is even more devastating to the Catholic argument is the fact that both eating flesh and drinking blood are metaphorical in other ways besides reviling or causing someone injury. Sometimes eating flesh and drinking blood are metaphors of distress under persecution (Leviticus 26:29; Dueteronomy 28:53; Jeremiah 19:9). Sometimes they metaphorically express divine justice or giving someone their just desserts (Numbers 23:24; Isaiah 49:26; Revelation 16:6). Ezekiel uses these metaphors in a combined sense of ironic retribution and festal celebration (Ezekiel 39:17-20). In Second Samuel 23:17, David refuses to drink the blood of the heroic men who risked their lives to bring him a drink of water. The metaphorical sense here suggests both solidarity with, and a refusal to dishonor the brave. Finally, James speaks of eating flesh as a metaphor for greed (James 5:3).
The Catholic could reply that all of these other metaphorical uses still convey the overall sense of calumny or violence?that they are all negative. In other words, one could legitimately object that if Jesus is using eating flesh and drinking blood as metaphors for belief in him, then this would be an unprecedented positive use of those terms. Of course this objection assumes that Jesus would be constrained by past usage?that there could be no first time positive use of these terms unless there had been a positive precedent. This, of course, is fallacious reasoning. It very well could be the case that eating flesh and drinking blood in John 6 are the first positive uses of these metaphors.
For the Sake of Argument?
Let us suppose for the sake of argument that Jesus? hearers would have understood both eating flesh and drinking blood as negative metaphors, and that no other metaphorical use is possible. If so, then such a metaphorical reading of John 6:53-57 would lead to several absurd propositions. For example, Jesus would be saying, ?Unless you revile me, you have no life in you? (John 6:53); ?He who reviles me has eternal life? (verse 54); ?He who reviles me abides in me? (verse 56); ?He who reviles me will also live because of me? (verse 57). Admittedly, such propositions are absurd when viewed prospectively. But when viewed retrospectively, each one of those propositions contains an ironic ring of truth. In the Old Testament, eating flesh and drinking blood metaphorically connoted both physical harm and psychological harm (i.e., slandering or mocking someone). In the passion according to John, Jesus is both physically reviled (John 18:23, 19:1, 18) and psychologically reviled (John 18:40; 19:2-3, 14, 19, 24). It is therefore possible that eating flesh and drinking blood allude to the cross.
But if such metaphors can allude to the passion, then why not the eucharist as well? The answer is that they can. We should not exclude the possibility that the eucharist may also be in view. In fact, there very well may be secondary sacramental allusions throughout John?s gospel. But the case for such allusions has to be argued, not presumed. What we can safely say is that there are no direct references to the eucharist in John 6 or anywhere else in John?s gospel. John has taken pains to leave out the institution of the eucharist. While there are ample allusions to the cross, there is nothing that is unambiguously allusive to eucharist.
Protestants sometimes object that the eucharist cannot be in view in John 6, because it had not yet been instituted. Catholic apologists reply that by that logic, the cross could not be in view either, since Jesus had not yet died. But there is one crucial piece of evidence that Catholics apologists should keep in mind: Throughout John?s gospel, Jesus has been alluding to his impending death: ?Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit? (John 12:24). Jesus has even alluded to the cross itself: ?As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up? (John 3:14, see also 8:28; 12:32). The same cannot be said of the eucharist. After all, John?s gospel actually has a crucifixion in it?but it takes pains to leave out the eucharist! Therefore, with all of the clear allusions to his death on the cross?and no unambiguous allusions to the eucharist?it would be most natural to understand the ?flesh and blood? of John 6 as primarily an allusion to Jesus? death on the cross.
Why Protestants Overreact
Were not for the extreme liberties that Catholic apologists have taken with John 6, it is unlikely that most Protestants would react as they do. Some Protestants can be down right anti-sacramental in their interpretation of John 6, not even conceding the possibility of a eucharistic subtext. But given the way Roman apologists have read their doctrine into the text, who can blame them? Take, for instance, the following comments by Catholic apologist, Stephen Ray:
In this narrative [the multiplication of the loaves], John gives us a beautiful picture of the Church: ?all the people? numbering five thousand men (excluding women and children) representing the universal Church, gathered in ?small groups? of fifty to one hundred, representing the local churches, all being fed by Christ, the Great High Priest, who provides the ?bread? to all the people through the hands of his priests, the apostles. Later he explains that the bread is his flesh, which must be eaten, just as the meat of the Passover Lamb had to be eaten? (Stephen K. Ray, Crossing the Tiber [San Francisco: Ignatius, 1997], 198, n. 11).
Where does one begin to sort out this eisegetical mess? Note well that this is really a conflation of several texts and traditions. The ?small groups? actually comes from Mark?s version of the multiplication of the loaves, and the ?Great High Priest? is Hebrews? theological interpretation of Jesus? death on the cross?not his multiplication of the loaves! If the multiplication of the loaves is eucharistic, as Catholics are wont to claim, then one wonders what the eucharistic significance of ?fish? might be, and why there was no wine. By Catholic standards, this would be an invalid consecration for lack of proper matter. We might also ask whether or not the loaves were made of unleavened bread, which, according to Catholic canon law, is the only kind of bread that can be consecrated. One can also see a bit of the Council of Trent, which asserted that by the words ?Do this in memory of me,? Jesus had ordained the apostles priests! Ray seems to have forgotten that the Institution of the eucharist (and therefore the alleged presbyteral ordination of the apostles) had not yet taken place! It would be better from him to claim that the apostles were transitional deacons at this point?or just plain old unordained eucharistic ministers. In any event, Ray?s eisegesis gives us a fairly representative example of the way Catholics will use any text as a pretext for justifying the theological ?developments? of the later church.
Metaphors of Belief
It can sometimes be difficult to follow the logical flow of John?s use of metaphor, especially in John 6. For example, in verse 27, Jesus tells us to work for imperishable food. But in verse 29, we learn that ?work? is really a metaphor for belief in Jesus. That is simple enough, but what is the imperishable ?food? that we are to ?work for?? Verse 33 gives us the answer: ?The Bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.? Now John is using one metaphor to explain another. But what is this ?bread of God?? Verse 35 gives us the answer: ?I am the bread of life.? Finally we have the complete picture. Jesus himself is the bread, which is the imperishable food for which we are to work?that is, the one in whom we are to believe.
Likewise we read in verse 53 we read: ?Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.? Here it appears that Jesus is using highly evocative language to express the necessity of belief in Him. This interpretation gains plausibility in light of what Jesus has already said in verse 47: ?Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.? Further confirmation can be found back in verse 35: We already know that Jesus is ?the bread of life.? But the rest of the verse tells us: ?he who comes to me will not hunger, and he who believes in me will never thirst.? This language strongly suggests that ?eats my flesh? should most likely be taken as a metaphor for coming to Jesus, while ?drinks my blood? is most likely a metaphor for belief in Jesus. Further confirmation for this is found in John 7: 37-38, where coming to belief in Jesus is metaphorically expressed as drinking: ?If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me, as Scripture said, ?From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.??
<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>
In verse 54 we read: ?He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.? This statement appears to be the metaphorical corollary to verse 40: ?For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who beholds the son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I myself will raise him on the last day.? What Jesus states literally in verse 40, he states metaphorically in verse 54. The connection between belief and eating/drinking could not be more obvious.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>
<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>
Finally we come to John 6:57: ?As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me, he also will live because of me.? For the Catholic apologist, ?he who eats me,? simply defies any metaphorical interpretation. But once again, we must ask if this is necessarily so. In verse 6:51, Jesus has already told us: ?if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever, and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.? Following the logic of metaphor, we see that the bread is Jesus? flesh, which is nothing less than Jesus himself. The terms ?eats me? in verse 57, therefore, simply restates the same metaphor of eating bread/flesh in a more direct way. The ?me? is Jesus himself. The ?eats? is the metaphor of coming to and believing in him.
Conclusion
Catholic apologists who claim that eating flesh and drinking blood are either metaphors of reviling in John 6 or they are not metaphors at all, are guilty of the either/or fallacy. They are giving us a false dilemma. While the Old Testament and other passages can shed light on how those terms have been metaphorically used elsewhere, the determining criterion for a proper exegesis of those terms is the immediate Johannine context. The context makes it clear that eating flesh and drinking blood are primarily metaphors for belief in Jesus. One could make the case that metaphors may also contain secondary sacramental allusions to the eucharist. But this case has to be made, not assumed.
So it is always good to look for the truth of God. Truth should never cause one to be lost. God does not act that way. Jesus said he was the way the TRUTH and the life..NO man can come to the Father but by Him. It is always good to consider the word of God from many different perspectives..that never does harm:>)
Wow, 2,000 years of fallacy. What deluded people. The audacity of them, to take not only what Our Lord said at face value, but what His Apostles taught at face value. What next, an Apostolic Church? A Church whose teachings are based on the Words of Our Lord and the teachings of His Apostles? Who would have thunk it?
One of the things I have often considered is how we can hold tradition above Christ. ( I am not only talking about RC's here it is true of almost all faiths)
Remember the story in the OT where Moses hold up the pole with the serpent on it in the desert ? Everyone that looked on it was saved.
Sometime later we read in the OT the it had to be removed from the temple because people were worshipping it. That prophetic sign of Christ had become an idol.
I think that is part of sinful human nature..the gift becomes to object of worship over the giver.
I noted that in a Charasimatic church..every one was focued on the "gifts".That is all they talk about.
You can find that in churchs that dwell on tradition..there are Protestant churchs that will not sing anything but Psalms...
I suspect for some RC's the Eucharist is in that group. It is a spiritual end in itself ..not the meaning and purpose of it..
You have seen as I have people go to communion and really believe they have just injested the body of Christ..and then cursings come out of that mouth minutes later..where is the changed heart?
Have you ever wondered how you would react to that? Would communion still be a holy moment, an encounter with Christ?
I am just asking out of curosity you do not have to answer .I know that it was a big change for me.I wonder how others would respond.
It won't happen. The deposit of faith and Our Lord's words and teaching precludes that. Unlike every other Church, the Catholic Church doesn't have "new" revelations that contradict the deposit of faith. Truth doesn't change.
It seems to me that you have already made the case to yourself. So why are you embroiled with still seeking answers on this forum thread? If you are looking for converts, then you have come to the wrong place.
If you are truly seeking answers, then I would recommend you acquire a copy of the book In the Presence of Our Lord by Fr. Benedict Groeschel, which presents the history, theology and psychology of eucharistic devotion. In the meantime, perhaps the following analysis by Urs Von Balthasar will provide some insight into the significance of the Eucharist.
And when the primitive Church and Paul can, from the fact of Jesus' Resurrection, draw the conclusion that the Cross meant salvation for all (this remained unrecognized during the event itself) - "He was given up for our sins and raised for our justification": (Rom 4:25) - this truth, as a "sacred open secret," is already manifest in the gesture with which Jesus offers his Flesh and Blood at table as "given" and "poured out." ... The passivity of the Passion, with its fetters, scourging, crucifixion and piercing, is the expression of a supremely active will to surrender which for that very reason transcends the limits of self-determination into the limitlessness of letting oneself be determined. On the other hand, such a will to surrender, which gives itself - in the eucharistic gesture of self-distribution - beyond all the bounds of human finitude .... Paul and John perceive this clearly in portraying the complete self-giving of Jesus to his own and to the world as the concretized self-giving of the Father, who, out of love for the world he created and in fidelity to his covenant with it, gives up what is most precious to him, his Son (Rom 8:32, Jn 3:16) ... his Incarnation contains God's infinite will to give himself ... insofar as it is God's personified gift to the world; and the realization of this self-giving at the Last Supper, the Passion and the Resurrection is nothing but the actualization of this self-giving that was always intended and really planned and initiated .... Jesus' eucharistic gesture of self-distribution to his Apostles, and through them to the world, is a definitive, eschatological and thus irreversible gesture. The Father's Word, made flesh, is definitively given and distributed by him and is never to be taken back.
RnMom, are you Michael Taylor? If not, why did you copy and paste his thoughts to this thread? A link would have been sufficient. Were you invited over here? Did you read the title - Catholic Caucus? It didn't say Formerly Catholic Caucus or Anti-Catholic Caucus.
Why don't you just pray for us instead of inflicting us with your uncharitable posts? Please.
PRAYER TO ST. MICHAEL
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in the day of Battle; Be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, cast into Hell, Satan and all the other evil spirits, who prowl through the world, seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen
If you read the opening of the article it addresses how protestants do not understand the mass..so I felt free as a protestant to comment..
I have been polite and I thought it was an interesting exchange ..why are you threated by it?
Scripture says you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free...if you are firm in your faith I should have no impact on it.
You are more than welcome to read and comment on any thread with a Protestant theme. This is not a closed forum. We would be happy for your opinion
Not true, what keeps us is in the Church Jesus Christ founded is our faith, the Sacraments (including, of course, Holy Communnion) and the Graces that flow from those Sacraments. As for my "non-answer", it was as clear and absolute answer as a non-question can aspire to.
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.