Skip to comments.The Eucharist: The Lord's Supper
Posted on 06/10/2007 4:48:46 AM PDT by markomalley
Roman Catholic Christians share with most Christians the faith that Jesus Christ, on the night he was betrayed, ate a final or last supper with his Apostles. This final meal was also the celebration of the Jewish Passover or Feast of the Unleavened Bread which commemorated the passing over of the Jews from the death in slavery to the Egyptians to life in the Promised Land.
Christians differ in the meaning this Last Supper has to them and the Church today. Catholic Christians together with other historical Christian Churches (e.g., Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Christians, Lutherans, Anglicans and some Episcopalians, etc.) believe the literal words of Jesus - that the bread and wine are truly his body and blood. Other later Christian Churches profess a mere symbolic meaning to the words of Jesus.
The faith of the Catholic Church is based on both a fundamental principle of hermeneutics and the constant faith of the Church from Apostolic times.
The Catholic Church teaches that the first principle of hermeneutics--the science of the translation and interpretation of the Bible--is the literal meaning of the text.
The first writer of the New Testament was the apostle Paul. His Letter to the Corinthians was written as early as 56 AD, earlier than the first Gospel, Mark's, written about 64 AD. Paul was also not an eyewitness to what he wrote but testifies to his source.
The next New Testament text in chronological order would have been Mark's Gospel. Written about 64 AD, in Rome, Mark, not an eyewitness, probably heard the account of the Last Supper he recorded from the Apostle Peter.
The third account of the Last Supper could be Matthew's. Matthew, the tax collector Levi, was an eyewitness to the meal. He was one of the twelve Apostles. Matthew probably wrote his Gospel in the 70's.
Luke's account of the Last Supper, written from the standpoint of a Gentile convert and a non-eyewitness, probably heard the details of the Last Supper from Paul. Luke was a traveling companion of Paul. Luke also wrote in the 70's.
The beloved disciple, John, the last of the New Testament writers, wrote his Gospel in the 90's. John was an eyewitness to the events of the Last Supper (Jn 6:30-68).
Hence Catholic Christian belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist rests upon the literal meaning of the words of the Last Supper as recorded by the Evangelists and Paul.
The uniformity of expression across the first four authors affirms the literalness. Belief in the real presence demands faith--the basis of new life as called for by Christ throughout scripture. But faith in signs conferring what they signify is the basis also for the Incarnation--appearances belying true meaning. The true significance of the real presence is sealed in John's gospel. Five times in different expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of what he means.
The best way a person can make a clear literal point is repetition of the same message in different ways. Jesus did this. Those around him clearly understood what he was saying--cannibalism and the drinking of blood--both forbidden by Mosaic Law.
Had these disciples mistaken the meaning of Jesus' words, Jesus would surely have known and corrected them. He didn't. They had clearly understood his meaning--Jesus' flesh was to be really eaten; his blood to be really drunk.
Non believers often respond that even at the Last Supper, the apostles did not sense that they had flesh in their hands and blood in their cup. But Jesus is God. The creative literalness of the words: "This is my body; this is my blood" must be believed. God cannot lie. And God can turn bread into flesh and wine into blood without the appearances of bread and wine changing.
Medieval philosophers and theologians called this expression of Divine Truth and Creative Power "transubstantiation". Yes, God can change the substance of any created matter while the appearances remain unchanged. And this demands faith.
Paul confirms elsewhere in his letters the reality of the real presence.
The persuasion of the Church from Apostolic times about the objective reality of these words of Christ is clear from many documents.
Irenaeus (Asia Minor, 140 - 202), Tertullian (Rome, 160 - 220), Cyprian (Carthage, 200 - 258) are just a few of the earliest who attest to the objective reality of the words of Christ.
In the Church in Alexandria, Athanasius (293 - 373) and Cyril (376 - 444) equally attest to the literal meaning of the words of Christ at the Last Supper.
In the Church in Palestine, Cyril (Jerusalem, 315 - 387) and Epiphanius (Salamis, 367 - 403) also affirm in their teaching the same reality.
Unanimity is found across the universal church until the 11th century. Berengar (Tours, France, 1000 - 1088) was one of the first to deny the real presence by arguing that Christ is not physically present, but only symbolically.
The Council of Rome (a local council), 1079, taught against Berengar that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ.
By the 16th century, some Reformers (excluding Luther) also taught that Christ's presence in the Eucharist was only figurative or metaphorical. Since there were other opinions being taught as truth (figurative presence and metaphorical presence) a teaching authority (see Chapter 5) had to be appealed to discern error from the truth. The way of the Church was to follow the model of Acts 15.
The Council of Trent (1545 - 1563) defined the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Eucharist as both the continuing sacrifice of Christ and a real sacrament. The institution of the Eucharist as sacrament was contained in the words "Do this in remembrance of me."
Roman Catholic Christians celebrate the Eucharist in the liturgical act called the Mass. The word Mass comes from the Latin missa ("sent"). It was taken from the formula for dismissing the congregation: Ite missa est ("Go, the Eucharist has been sent forth") referring to the ancient custom of sending consecrated bread from the bishop's Mass to the sick and to the other churches.
The Mass contains two parts: the liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word is a copy of the Jewish synagogue service of the first century: readings from Scripture followed by responses from the congregation often from the Book of Psalms. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is a reenactment of the Last Supper. A celebrant does what Christ did: take bread and wine and say the same words Christ said and then share the now consecrated bread and wine with the congregation.
Roman Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and remain such until the elements are entirely consumed. The Body and Blood not consumed at one Eucharist are reserved for the next celebration of the Eucharist and venerated as the Body and Blood of Jesus.
Roman Catholic Christians take the word of God seriously and seek to remember Christ in the Last Supper "as often as" possible. And in doing this proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
Catholic Christians also believe that there is only one sacrifice, Jesus', but following the command "as often as" to proclaim the death of the Lord, the sacrifice of Christ is made physically present to every Christian in all places in every age. The Eucharist makes the atemporal aphysical actions of Christ's redeeming action truly present to us always and everywhere. This is incarnational.
Following the word of God, Catholics also know that Christ is not and cannot be resacrificed. This has never been the teaching of the Catholic Church.
The constant faith of the Church from the Apostolic Fathers attests to the fact that the Mass was the one Sacrifice of Calvary made present to the faithful.
The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this statement explicitly.
The Roman Catholic Church through history approached her faith life with the clarification of language. That is, she translated the essentials of revealed faith into the vocabulary of living language.
Transubstantiation reflects Roman Catholic faith in the literalness of the words of the Bible.
Jesus (omnipotent God) said: "This is my body; this is my blood." And again Jesus said: "I am the bread of life;" "My flesh is true food; my blood is true drink;" "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood ...;" etc.
Roman Catholics take Jesus at His word: the bread is his body; the wine is his blood.
From the Apostles at the Last Supper until today, the bread and wine of Eucharist looks and feels and tastes like bread and wine in the eating and drinking.
Similar to all of God's Word, faith is essential. Faith in what? In the words of Jesus even though the bread does not look, feel, taste like flesh; even though the wine does not look, feel, taste like blood.
Medieval philosophers and theologians sought simply to label this simple biblical faith: Jesus said that bread is his body and wine is his blood even though it did not appear to change into visible flesh and blood.
Transubstantiation means the substance part of the bread and wine elements changes; but the accidental parts--sight, taste, smell, touch--do not. Catholics believe that since Jesus said it and He is God, he can do it. They believe! "Transubstantiation" merely labels it.
In everyday life, it is not at all uncommon to believe in things man cannot perceive by the senses: wind, electricity, love, peace, etc. All the more when Jesus says it.
Corpus Christi ping! (please pass it on as you see fit)
As a Presbyterian I also believe in the real presence of Christ to the saved at communion as His spiritual presence is as real as a physical one.
Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
I believe that the doctrine of transubstantiation comes from a mis-reading of the Lords words . I think the apostles understood what He was saying but those not present have missed the actual teaching.
The Last Supper was actually the Last “passover “ and the 1st Lords Supper.
Gods intervention to end the slavery of His people by the Egyptians held many types that pointed to Christ’s death .
We see as a prime example the final plague God brought on the Egyptians.
Every 1st born was to die at the hand of Gods avenging angel.
God gave specific orders on how the jews were to be protected from that sword of death.
They were to have a perfect Lamb and to slaughter him. They were to spread the blood of that lamb over the drop posts ( in a shape similar to a cross) When the angel saw that blood he would pass over that home and the people inside were preserved from the plague.
God gave specific instructions on how to eat that Lamb, that passover meal was to be a ritual that would be celebrated in remembrance of the grace and salvation of God for His people.
That meal prefigured Christ, on the night Jesus was betrayed they celebrated the meal that prefigured His coming .
Christ OUR PASSOVER LAMB would be slain, and many would be saved that were under His blood.
There was a piece of matzo broken into 3 parts.
One pieces was broken and the hidden piece it was wrapped in white linen ( as Christ dead body was in the tomb ) it is called the aphikomen
When the meal is finished the host breaks off olive-size pieces of matzoh from the aphikomen and distributes them to all. They each eat it, in a reverent manner. Sometimes there is a blessing, “In memory of the Passover sacrifice, eaten after one is sated.”
It was at THIS point during the Last Supper Jesus broke the bread and passed bits to His disciples; however, Jesus added the significant words given in Luke 22:19),
Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying,[b] This is my body which is given for you:[/b] this do in remembrance of me.
The symbolic broken matzo wrapped in white linen was the symbolic body of Christ revealed in the passover meal. Jesus was revealing the prophetic nature of the passover and the passover meal.
Consider that Jews had a probation against the eating of blood, yet not one disciple asked Jesus what He meant. That is because they understood when he took the APHIKOMEN into his hands, this broken Matzo that had been hidden in a linen wrap was symbolic of HIM.
Matzo has no leaven, leaven is a sign of sin. Jesus was sinless.
The Matzo had been broken as His body would be broken .
It was wrapped in linen as He would be and be hidden for a time.
This is the exact spot where Jesus proclaimed “This is my body which is given for you.” as he held that broken Matzo
The next step of the ritual meal is drinking from the wine-goblet called the “Cup of Redemption.” That’s when Jesus said,
“This cup is the New Testament (Covenant ) in my blood, which is shed for you.”
The Passover meal was a REMEMBRANCE of the deliverance of the Jews. Just as the passover was a type of Christ so is the Passover meal.
Jesus was telling them this, and He was telling them NOW instead of the remembrance of the passover, their eyes were opened and the meaning revealed NOW they were to do the mean in remembrance of HIM, of His blood, the blood of the Lamb of God.
As He held that bread He was revealing the mystery that the symbolism held.
Think of the words the apostles used
1Cr 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
The broken matzo was a type of Christ, who’s body would be broken for them.
Then in the passover tradition
The host now takes the third cup of wine, “the cup of redemption,” or “the cup of blessing,” and offers the main table grace blessing. (In Jewish tradition, the main blessing comes after the meal.) Then they all drink from the third cup.
“Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you’.”
Here is what the apostles and disciples said at the Lords table
1Cr 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
The were recalling “remembering” the PASSOVER ritual. THEY understood that Jesus was revealing a spiritual truth about the passover being a prophetic meal that prefigured HIM.
The Passover was fulfilled on the day that Christ died, and so from that day forward that meal not longer held a prophetic promise of a future savior, but it was now a remembrance of the completed work of salvation at the cross.
You might want to look into the meaning of “anamnesis”. You do not understand “remembrance” in the proper sense.
Praise God that you believe that as well!
I understand what you are saying about the Passover meal in typology.
One thing to remember, though, is what St. Paul said in 1 Cor 11:29 ("For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.")
And one must remember Jesus' own teaching on the subject
Jhn 6:31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'" Jhn 6:32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. Jhn 6:33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world." Jhn 6:34 They said to him, "Lord, give us this bread always." Jhn 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. Jhn 6:36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. Jhn 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out. Jhn 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; Jhn 6:39 and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. Jhn 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." Jhn 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven." Jhn 6:42 They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" Jhn 6:43 Jesus answered them, "Do not murmur among yourselves. Jhn 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. Jhn 6:46 Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father. Jhn 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. Jhn 6:48 I am the bread of life. Jhn 6:49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. Jhn 6:50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." Jhn 6:52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Jhn 6:53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; Jhn 6:54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. Jhn 6:55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. Jhn 6:56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. Jhn 6:57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. Jhn 6:58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."
He's very explicit there in what he taught...and many of his disciples were disturbed by his teaching and left that day (cf John 6:66). If he were speaking in allegories, why would they have been disturbed?
By the way, do you have a reference for the Matzo being broken into three parts? That is very interesting and I'd like to read up on it more...
As for John 6 this is another misreading. Jesus always taught in symbols and parables. That was the case in John 6
John 6 is a metaphor please read the 6th chapter of John from verse 1 until the end with me .
Jesus preformed a miracle where thousands were fed bread. He then went away from the crowd.
The crowd followed him, but not because they sought Christ as teacher or Savior, not because they knew he was the Christ, but because they wanted to get their stomachs full of bread.
Read the rebuke of Christ to them
Jhn 6:25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
Jhn 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
It was then He began to teach that they were looking for a miracle that would fill their stomachs ( as did the nation of Israel in the desert) and not for His presence or teaching. They only wanted their temporal needs met.
Jhn 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
Jhn 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Jhn 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Jesus laid out that salvation was by FAITH, and that Faith was a work of the Father
Then then decided to put Christ to a test ...Give us PROOF. It was THEY that brought up the manna (bread) Not Christ
Jhn 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
Jhn 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
Jesus clarified where salvation comes from;
Jhn 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven
He was pointing out that the "bread from heaven " that kept their fathers only gave them physical life.. HE on the other hands was sent from the Father to give them eternal spiritual life.
They did not "get it" they were looking for REAL bread to give them physical life as had happened in the desert, they were looking for tangible bread like manna, justy as they were looking for an earthly savior not a divine salvation.
Jhn 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
Jesus then patiently explained to them that His flesh is life for the world.. His crucified body was what was going to bring eternal life, not a temporal one
Jhn 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Jhn 6:36 But I said unto you,That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
Jhn 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Jhn 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Jhn 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
The entire message is on salvation by faith .
The listeners did not get it , they were hung up on another point .
Jhn 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
Jhn 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
Notice the focus of the crowd was not on Him being the BREAD or eating Him but that He said he came down from heaven ( a claim of divinity )
Jhn 6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:45 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.
Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
Jhn 6:48 I am that bread of life.
Jhn 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
Jhn 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Jesus here declares that the manna was a TYPE of Christ.. The manna gave physical life, His flesh is for the eternal life of men
Jhn 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?
Jhn 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Jhn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. Jhn 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Jhn 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Jhn 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Keep in mind He had already taught at some length that He that believed on Him would be saved. He has already taught that the man that is taught by the Father comes to him and are saved. So to interpret this as other than a metaphor of being saved by His soon to be broken body and his shed blood, by internalizing the fact of the atonement in faith is not a good reading and it is not the understood by the new church
This is from jamison
"Here, for the first time in this high discourse, our Lord explicitly introduces His sacrificial death--for only rationalists can doubt this not only as that which constitutes Him the Bread of life to men, but as THAT very element IN HIM WHICH POSSESSES THE LIFE-GIVING VIRTUE.--"From this time we hear no more (in this discourse) of "Bread"; this figure is dropped, and the reality takes its place" [STIER].
Jhn 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
Jhn 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
If they were offended at that, he was saying wait until you hear the rest
Jhn 6:62 [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Jhn 6:66 From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
They did not like hearing that salvation had to be given them and much like the manna in the desert, it was totally a gift of the Father. They could not do anything on their own to earn it, they only had access to it by faith ( remember the Jews could only gather enough manna for the one days meals, and for 2 days on the day before the sabbath, they had to have faith in God to provide what was necessary for their life) . The idea that salvation was all of God and not found in law keeping was blasphemy to the law oriented Jews that felt their salvation was based on their will, their law keeping etc
To make an attempt to make this a teaching on the Lords supper misses the mark. Christ was still alive and in His flesh and he was, by your reckoning , telling them to do something they could not do because the Lords Supper had not been instituted yet,it is a spiritual eating and drinking that is here spoken of, not a sacramental.
This was clearly a metaphorical teaching to Jews looking for a Physical savior like Moses, and for physical bread to meet their physical hunger. Jesus always used symbols that the Jews understood to make spiritual points.
While I agree that there is figure used here regarding physical bread satisfying physical hunger, I believe the end is that the figure stops at that point. The spiritual bread satisfies the spiritual hunger that is in each of us. It nourishes us and gives us the spiritual strength to walk as children of God in a dark and perverse world.
The type of the manna in the desert was a foreshadowing of partaking in the Eucharist. The type of the passover lamb was a foreshadowing of us partaking in Christ's passover. The manna truly, not figuratively, came down from heaven. The children of Israel literally partook of the lamb, not figuratively. Christ is the true bread from heaven. Christ is the true Lamb of God, the firstborn male born without spot or blemish. He is our passover. And, according to Rev 5:6, his sacrifice having happened once, is, in a sense, ongoing ("I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain," -- slain lambs aren't usually standing after their slaying is done). If you take a look at Rev 13:8 (depending upon the translation), it reveals the nature of this one sacrifice very explicitly (the Greek says, ἀρνίου τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου -- of the lamb that was slain before the foundation of the cosmos).
So rather than being a simple metaphor, I do believe that the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ (while keeping their accidents, of course). And I do believe that consumption of that Body and Blood is partaking in the literal passover of the Lord and is as necessary for my spiritual well-being as participation in the passover was for the physical safety of Israel as they escaped to Egypt or the physical strengthening of Israel as they ate the manna in the desert.
Having said that, I am truly thankful that are positions on the issue are not nearly as divergent as I'd feared.
Thank you for posting this. I have never heard the Passover being presented in this way. May I ask what your source is so I can learn more?
When I began to recognize that the Truth of Scripture conflicts with the teachings of the RCC, I began my journey toward the righteousness that comes only through the blood of Christ. I found the RCC eucharist, with its funky idea of transubstantiation, the single, most difficult doctrine to jettison.
If on the “peter was the first pope” doctrine rests the authority of the RCC, then the false doctrine of the “eucharist” is where their power resides. By controlling the sacrifice of the Lord through their man-made priesthood, they purport to dispense Christ’s atoning sacrifice according to their own whim.
The freedom from the tyranny of man is one of the greatest gifts Christ brought us through His sacrifice. No man controls or dispenses God’s love. It is available for “all who call upon Him” (Romans 10:12). No more is there a need for an earthly priesthood, as we have “a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Hebrews 2:17).
I thank the good Lord that He has shown me “a more perfect way”, and has led me “from darkness into His marvelous light”! I pray that those who remain in the shackles of that man-made institution will also find the journey to the promised land.
I tell you what, I read your response and reject it out of hand. That’s once. Please say it one more time and then take a break and read your Bible.
I suggest Titus 3:10, Rom 16:17-18, I Tim 6:3-6:6, Matt 10:11-15 and I Cor 5:5.
And then, if you are a real Bible believer and not simply a troll, follow the directions in the Book.
Indeed Christ's "presence" is real. And he is present always.
and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. (Matthew 28:20 ASV)
Not once a week. Not only when someone conjures him up in some mystical ritual.
Present and real.
Opinions expressed above are those of the poster and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Free Republic, the Religion Moderator, the poster's church, or God.
Woohoo! Thanks Mark.
Feast Hymns/Sequence (late, but worth it), in case anyone needs them:
I’ve read and understood. I am convinced that the Lord established His remembrance, that it is a sacred remembrance, and that we ought not take it lightly.
The concept of transubstantiation is not just irrational and non-Scriptural, it goes against the basic freedoms given to all men by Christ. It does nothing more than give power to men; setting one class apart from the rest; enabling the tyranny of a select few over all the rest. It replaces the free gift of God to all who are in Christ Jesus with the work of a select few administered and dispensed to those who grovel before them.
I will take the Lord’s Supper with my fellow Believers in solemn remembrance of His sacrifice, just as He instituted. I will not trade His blessings for the chains of the bondage of men.
Titus 3:10, Rom 16:17-18, I Tim 6:3-6:6, Matt 10:11-15 and I Cor 5:5.
Please feel free to act scripturally and follow the above scriptures....
From G363; recollection: - remembrance (again).
We also remember that the Jews ate the Passover Lamb.
I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, but I will assert again the non-Scriptural basis of the RCC eucharist. It has more in common with sorcery than with the Bible.
Think about it, a select group of hand-picked priests control a key religious symbol by performing an incantation complete with a magic spell. The object of this incantation magically, but not apparently or even measurably, changes into another substance that holds sway over the eternal souls of all people.
This is not an ordinance of God, but a control method of men.
If you actually read the scriptures I cited -- twice -- mind you, you'd see what you, as a Bible-believing Christian, should do about those of us, like us Catholics, who persist in speaking (or posting) heresy (at least in your opinion).
So you've done your Biblical duty. Any more posting on this thread by you is going against scripture.
Or do you not really believe that the Bible is the Word of God???
Or is it that you only feel obliged to follow the scriptures that you 'feel like' following at one point in time???
Wow, I’m listening to Fr. Groeschel , he is brilliant today.
What about that beam in your eye, dear friend?
God Bless you and thank you for your testomony. It is great to see a member of a Protestant church speak about the presence of Jesus in His body and blood. This is a break from all the anti-Catholic bashing that sadly does occur in a number of threads.
Sequence of St. Thomas courtesy of the New Liturgical Movement blog:
“In case you didn’t get to hear it chanted on Thursday, or today if the Feast was transferred, at least you can read it here in an English translation; the sequence for Corpus Christi, Lauda Sion Salvatorem (written by St. Thomas Aquinas):
Sion, lift thy voice and sing:
Praise thy Savior and thy King;
Praise with hymns thy Shepherd true:
Dare thy most to praise Him well;
For He doth all praise excel;
None can ever reach His due.
Special theme of praise is thine,
That true living Bread divine,
That life-giving flesh adored,
Which the brethren twelve received,
As most faithfully believed,
At the Supper of the Lord.
Let the chant be loud and high;
Sweet and tranquil be the joy
Felt to-day in every breast;
On this festival divine
Which recounts the origin
Of the glorious Eucharist.
At this table of the King,
Our new Paschal offering
Brings to end the olden rite;
Here, for empty shadows fled,
Is reality instead;
Here, instead of darkness, light.
His own act, at supper seated,
Christ ordained to be repeated,
In His memory divine;
Wherefore now, with adoration,
We the Host of our salvation
Consecrate from bread and wine.
Hear what holy Church maintaineth,
That the bread its substance changeth
Into Flesh, the wine to Blood.
Doth it pass thy comprehending?
Faith, the law of sight transcending,
Leaps to things not understood.
Here in outward signs are hidden
Priceless things, to sense forbidden;
Signs, not things, are all we see:-
Flesh from bread, and Blood from wine;
Yet is Christ, in either sign,
All entire confessed to be.
They too who of Him partake
Sever not, nor rend, nor break,
But entire their Lord receive.
Whether one or thousands eat,
All receive the selfsame meat,
Nor the less for others leave.
Both the wicked and the good
Eat of this celestial Food;
But with ends how opposite!
Here ‘tis life; and there ‘tis death;
The same, yet issuing to each
In a difference infinite.
Nor a single doubt retain,
When they break the Host in twain,
But that in each part remains
What was in the whole before;
Since the simple sign alone
Suffers change in state or form,
The Signified remaining One
And the Same forevermore
Lo! upon the Altar lies,
Hidden deep from human eyes,
Angels’ Bread from Paradise
Made the food of mortal man:
Children’s meat to dogs denied;
In old types foresignified;
In the manna from the skies,
In Isaac, and the Paschal Lamb.
Jesu! Shepherd of the sheep!
Thy true flock in safety keep.
Living Bread! Thy life supply;
Strengthen us, or else we die;
Fill us with celestial grace:
Thou, who feedest us below!
Source of all we have or know!
Grant that with Thy Saints above,
Sitting at the Feast of Love,
We may see Thee face to face. Amen”
Please share for those of us who have to tune it in on our computers!
“If on the peter was the first pope doctrine rests the authority of the RCC, then the false doctrine of the eucharist is where their power resides. By controlling the sacrifice of the Lord through their man-made priesthood, they purport to dispense Christs atoning sacrifice according to their own whim.”
It is not only RC doctrine but it is also Bible-based that Jesus would build His church on the rock of Peter. Also the same Bible you speak of also is where we see the origins of the priesthood, in Genesis 14:18-20, of King Melchizedek, who also becomes a priest of God, bringing bread and wine to Abram. So it is the same Holy Bible that is the basis to why there is a priesthood in the RC Church. Plus the priest in the RC Church offers up the sacriface of Mount Calvary made when He gaved up His very for the forgiveness of our sins.
I do hope and pray this better explains what the Holy Bible says when it comes to the priesthood and its Bible origins.
Of interest, before our being born into this life, we are nourished by our mother’s flesh and blood. Jesus nourished us in this life before we are born into the next. Neither, of course, is cannibalism. It is what He says, you either believe Jesus or you don't.
Scott Hahn picks up on the number of times that Christ is called the Lamb in the Book of Revelation. His book, “The Lamb’s Supper” is quite beautiful in explaining the import. Here is an interview he did with EWTN going into more detail on this:
The Eucharist as The Lamb’s Supper
from a talk by Scott Hahn
One of the most important ways that the Old Covenant foreshadows the New is in its use of the image of the sacrificial lamb. Let’s see how this relates to the Eucharist in Scripture.
First, take a look at Revelation 5. In Revelation 5, there is a scroll with seven seals that nobody can break open and everybody is really upset. In fact John almost begins to cry. In 5, verse 2, “A strong angel proclaimed with a loud voice, ‘Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?’ And no one in heaven and on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it.” What is the scroll? The word is biblion. Most likely it’s a reference to a covenant document, the New Covenant document that nobody is worthy to break open. “And I wept much, but no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it,” because this scroll would consummate and fulfill the promises of the Old Testament.
“Then one of the elders said to me, ‘Weep not. Lo, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, he has conquered so that he can open the scroll and seven seals.’” You could almost feel the hallelujah rising up from within your soul. The Lion of the tribe of Judah! You turn. You look and John turns to look and what does he see in verse 6, “ And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw,” what? Aslan, the lion? No. David crowned with glory? No. You’d think so, a lion and a king are the words used to describe it. “I turned and I saw a lamb standing, looking as though it had been slain.”
Jesus Christ is the son of David and the king of the new and heavenly Jerusalem. He is the Lion of the tribe of Judah and He is the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world, as it said elsewhere in Revelation. But here in heaven on the throne of glory, after His crucifixion, Hs resurrection, His ascension, His enthronement, He still looks like a lamb. He still looks as though He had been slain. Why not clean up the body? Why not wipe away the wounds? Why continue resembling a lamb? Because He’s continuing the Passover offerings, the sacrifice. Not by dying, not by bleeding and not by suffering but by continuing to offer up Himself as the firstborn and as the unblemished lamb, as the perpetual, timeless, everlasting sacrifice of praise to the Father.
And what do the people do? They rejoice and they break out into a song. And what is the song, “Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals for thou was slain.” Past tense, “And by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.” And what has he done? He’s become a priest to be sure, but for what purpose? “He has made them a kingdom and priest to our God.” He has made those whom he has saved priests. And what do priests do? They offer sacrifice.
Has Christ’s sacrifice ended all sacrifices? No. Christ’s sacrifice has ended all ineffective, bloody animal sacrifices that never did anything anyway. Now for the first time in history we can really begin to offer sacrifice to God. Romans 12 says, “Offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God.” And it wouldn’t be holy and acceptable except that it’s united to Christ’s perpetual sacrifice. He’s not bleeding. He’s not dying. He’s not suffering, but he is offering a sacrifice as a lamb does, as a priest king does continually, forever.
And that’s what it’s all about. John wouldn’t see a lamb looking as though it had been slain if the whole kit and caboodle was completed and done. Yes, it’s completed and done, but it’s still going on, and it’s going to go on forever in the future. Why? Because Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, as Hebrews tells us.
Now, is this strange? Is this teaching novel? Well, let’s take a look at 1st Corinthians and see how natural it seems to the apostle Paul. We have already looked at 1st Corinthians 5, “Christ, our Passover,” that’s in verse 7, “Christ, our Paschal Lamb has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” What’s he talking about? Is he talking about leaven being like sin. No. He’s saying let us celebrate the feast with unleavened bread. What feast? The Eucharist! The sacrifice continues because communion must be celebrated. We’ve got to eat the lamb, the resurrected, glorified, enthroned lamb that still looks as though he’d been slain because he’s still giving himself to us.
Turn over with me now to Corinthians, chapter 9, verse 13. He says, “Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings in the same way the Lord commanded. That those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.” Now we might be tempted to read Corinthians 9, 13 and 14 and say, “Well, back in the Old Testament they did temple service and altar service and sacrifice, but now in the New Testament they only proclaim the word.”
The problem with that is that Paul goes on to say, Corinthians 11, as we will see, how Christ’s death is proclaimed. Take a look with me at 1st Corinthians, 11:23-26. “For I received from the Lord what I shall deliver to you.” Interesting, he received it not from Peter and the apostles. When Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus or perhaps at some other time, what did Jesus deliver to Paul? Instructions for the Eucharist. “I received from the Lord what I also deliver to you. That the Lord Jesus Christ, on the night when He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also the cup after supper saying, ‘This cup is the New Covenant in my blood. Do this.” Commandment, imperative tense. “As often as you drink it in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”
You proclaim the gospel. Let’s go back then to Corinthians 9, verse 14, “In the same way the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.” How does Paul proclaim the gospel? Just by preaching? Or by celebrating the Eucharist? “As often as you do this, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” That’s the gospel. Paul is talking in verses 13 and 14 about how he should be supported as an apostle and he does so in conjunction with temple service at an altar where there is sacrificial offerings which he as an apostle has the right to receive from. What’s he talking about? A New Covenant temple? A New Covenant altar? A New Covenant sacrifice where he proclaims the gospel by celebrating the Eucharist.
Now let’s go on to Corinthians 10 and get things straight really quickly here because Corinthians 10, gives us a proper warning. In the first ten verses of Corinthians 10, Paul says that back in the Old Testament with Moses, verse 3, “They all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink.” The water from the rock and the manna in the wilderness and both, Paul says in a sense, were signs of Christ’s presence among them. Nevertheless, verse 5, “with most of them God was not pleased for they were overthrown in the wilderness.”
In the next three verses he describes the Golden Calf incident where thousands of them died. In other words just because you receive supernatural food and drink doesn’t mean you’ve got it made in the shade. You have to set things right with God and keep things right with the Lord. Verse 11, “Now these things happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for our instruction upon whom the end of the ages has come.” We now have a greater and much more supernatural food and drink. So we can relax? No. We’ve got to be even more circumspect in searching out our hearts and making sure we are right with God.
He goes on in verse 16, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a coenia, a communion, a participation in the blood of Christ?” Not a symbol. But a share, a communion. The bread which we break , is it not a coenia, a communion in the body of Christ. “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body for we all partake of the one bread.” He doesn’t mean to say that there’s one enormous loaf that we all take a piece from. There are many loaves of bread. There are many breads in that earthly sense, but there’s only one bread in the heavenly sense, and that’s Christ. Because we receive from one bread Christ, the Bread of Life, we who are many become one body, namely, the Body of Christ. He’s suggesting that we become what we eat.
He goes on to contrast our sacrifice with other sacrifices and he says, verse 18, “Consider the people of Israel. Are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?” What he is saying is back then when you eat the sacrifice, you have a communion in the altar of those animals. Now we have a communion on all of our altars in the New Covenant with Christ, the Lamb of God. Verse 21, “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord with jealousy? Are we stronger than he?” For some reason God takes this with the utmost seriousness. Why?
Corinthians 11, he spells it out even clearer. We’ve already read verses 23 through 26. Now we can conclude with verse 27 where he says, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the Body and the Blood of the Lord.” Now that language is actually like civil judicial language. Somebody who’s practically guilty of murder or capital offense is guilty of the body and blood. Now if it’s only a symbol, he might be guilty in some lesser sense, but when you profane the Lord’s Supper, you actually become guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord. “Let a man examine himself, therefore, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning,” — the symbolism? No. “...the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”
Now is he just speaking metaphorically? He couldn’t be because in the next verse he says, “That is why many of you are weak and ill and some have died.” To receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is playing with fire of the worst sort. He goes on in chapter 12, verse 12, “For just as the body is one,” the Church, that is, “...and has many members and all the members of the body though many are one body, so it is with Christ for by one Spirit we were all baptized in the one body.” When we received the water of Baptism, we received the Spirit of God. “And all were made to drink of the one Spirit.” When we receive Eucharist, Communion, we receive the Spirit as well as the flesh and the blood and the body, soul, humanity and divinity of Christ.
This is significant, very significant. This, in fact, gives us the whole interpretive key to the Book of Revelation. Many non-Catholic as well as Catholic scholars have noticed that the whole structure of Revelation is a big Passover liturgy where Christ, the Priest King, the firstborn Son and the Lamb looking as though it’s been slain conducts and celebrates the heavenly liturgy. And the earthly liturgy is meant to be a reflection in that, a participation in that, and the early Church took it for granted. There is the Lamb looking as though it’s been slain and making all of the people in heaven priests so they can assist in the offering of the firstborn son of God to the Father and join themselves with it.
Abridged from Scott Hahn’s audio and video tape presentation,
“Eucharist: Holy Meal” as it appears in the “Catholic Adult Education on Video Program” with Scott and Kimberly Hahn.
Full text available in our library.
Both the individual audio and video cassettes and the entire 20 cassette
library, complete with study guides, are available from:
St. Joseph Communications
PO Box 720
West Covina, CA 91793
I do hope you have time and see fit to come back to the thread. I enjoyed our discussion earlier this morning.
Look DEEPER at anamnesis.
Look at what it really means:
As Robert Sungenis noted in a written debate with some anti-Catholics a decade ago:
“In support of this perpetual sacrifice, the word translated “memorial” or “remembrance” used at the Last Supper (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor.11:24-25) is the Greek word “anamnesis.” It is also used in the Septuagint in connection with sacrifice (Lev.24:7). “Anamnesis” translates the Hebrew word “azkarah,” which is used seven times in the OT in reference to sacrifice (Lev.2:2,9,16; 5:12; 6:15; Num. 5:26). It is also significant that “anamnesis” is only used four times in the NT, the fourth time appearing in Hebrews 10:3 also in reference to a memorial sacrifice. Hence, Jesus’ use of “anamnesis” in Luke 22:19 specifies the sacrificial dimension of the Eucharist. In effect, Jesus would be saying, “Whenever you do this, do it as a memorial sacrifice of me.” The use of “anamnesis” in Luke 22:19 is even more significant in denoting sacrifice since there was another Greek word Luke could have used for a non-sacrificial memorial (”mnemosunon,” cf., Mt.26: 13; Mk.14:9; Acts 10:4).
“As for your analysis of the word “anamnesis” used in Luke 22:19, here is what you wrote: “The word “anamnesis” means, “recollection: remembrance (again)”. It comes from “anamimnesko” which means “to recollect: - call to mind, remembrance”. Mark 1 1.21 uses this word: “And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him...”...This is obviously not a sacrifice.” Would you mind telling us from what Greek reference you got this information? The word “anamnesis” does not, as you say, “come from,” the word “anamimnesko.” It is a cognate of “anamnesis.” Both have a common root, “anamneo,” but they are different words used different ways. I have proved and stated previously that “anamnesis” is used EXCLUSIVELY in reference to a memorial sacrifice in the NT (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25; Heb. 10:3). The word “anamimnesko” is used EXCLUSIVELY in reference to “memory” or “remembrance” Mk. 11:21; 14:72; 1 Cor. 4:17; 2 Cor. 7:15; 2 Tim. 1:6, Heb. 10:32). It is never used with sacrifice. The Jews chose the word “anamnesis” when they were performing sacrifices (Lev. 2:2,9,16; 5:12; 6:15; 24:7; Num. 5:26; 10:10), never the word “anamimnesko.” They only used “anamimnesko” when referring to a non- sacrificial remembrance (Gen. 8:1; 41:9; Ex. 23:13; 2 Sam. 18:18, et al). In fact, Numbers 10:9-10 shows us the distinction of the two words very vividly. Numbers 10:9 says, “...Then you will be remembered [anamimnesko] by the Lord your God.” Numbers 10:10 says, “you are to sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, and they will be a memorial [anamnesis] for you before the Lord.”It is obvious that the latter reference is purposely being changed to “anamnesis” to accomodate the sacrificial language since that is the way the word is exclusively used in the OT. In addition, the use of “anamnesis” in Numbers 10:10 is in reference to a “burnt offering” (which required the shedding of blood and the application of that blood, cf, Levitcus 1:1- 17; 4:1-26) and hence, this discredits your comment that, “each reference is concerning a meal offering not blood.” Thus, audience, we see that Catholic theology is vindicated again. Jesus uses a specific word in his Last Supper “anamnesis” in Luke 22:19) that was used EXCLUSIVELY for sacrifices in the Old Testament, including those of blood. Do I have to say more?”
Learn more about anamnesis.
That is true through the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit.
However, Christ himself sits at the right hand of God the Father in heaven. When we participate in Holy Communion the Holy Spirit narrows the distance between us and Christ and we enjoy spiritual communion with Christ himself. There is real mystery on how the Holy Spirit narrows that distance.
As further proof of the alchemy, at a certain point in the elevation of the eucharist the bread and wine morphs into Jesus Christ's body and blood. Below that specific point, grocery store. Above that specific point, divinity.
All during His ministry, Christ spoke against this type of mysticism. Instead, He preached simple faith in Him as our sin-bearer, the propitiation of our sins.
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36
I found this terrific review of a booklet written by Calvin I hadn't heard of before --
Though written so many hundreds of years ago, this small work by the powerful Geneva Reformer contains much of value for us. Calvin wrote it to persuade a friend to leave the Roman Catholic fold. His friend had written to him and asked whether it was possible to remain a member of the false church while inwardly being of Reformed convictions. At that time, there was a large group of people in Reformation Europe, referred to as Nicodemites (after the Pharisee Nicodemus of John 3), who were in prestigious positions, and for whom conversion to the Reformed faith would mean disaster in terms of social consequences. Such people could lose their family, their incomes, and even possibly their lives. It was one of these Nicodemites who had written to Calvin wondering what he should do. The question is phrased this way in the Translator's Introduction: "Is it lawful for a person who has renounced Popery in his heart to conform outwardly to its rites, for the purpose of avoiding persecution, or for any other imaginable cause?" In the 64 pages of this minute tome, Calvin gives his reasons why his correspondent should remove himself immediately from fellowship with the Roman Church. Calvin's arguments are completely founded on Scriptural grounds, as we would expect. He outlines why the Roman Catholic Church is a false church and why true Christians can have nothing to do with the blasphemies and idolatries found within. Even being in the presence of the mass can give the appearance to others of conformity to sin against the second commandment. Calvin describes Roman Catholic worship and the Mass and argues "that those only preserve the holy religion of God who profane it by no defilements of unhallowed superstitions, and that those violate, pollute, and lacerate it, who mix it up with impure and impious rites" (pp.17-18)...
"...I dare say that we have been gravely deceived if we think that the Roman Catholic Church as an institution has changed substantially since the 16th century. Recently I had the opportunity to observe a Roman Catholic mass on television and what I saw taking place there was the very same accursed idolatry spoken of in our Heidelberg Catechism. Moreover, as I read John Calvin's little booklet, it was as if I was reading a commentary and description of what I had observed. The false Roman Church of Calvin's day is the false Roman Church of our day.
Though written so many hundreds of years ago, this small work by the powerful Geneva Reformer contains much of value for us. Calvin wrote it to persuade a friend to leave the Roman Catholic fold. His friend had written to him and asked whether it was possible to remain a member of the false church while inwardly being of Reformed convictions. At that time, there was a large group of people in Reformation Europe, referred to as Nicodemites (after the Pharisee Nicodemus of John 3), who were in prestigious positions, and for whom conversion to the Reformed faith would mean disaster in terms of social consequences. Such people could lose their family, their incomes, and even possibly their lives. It was one of these Nicodemites who had written to Calvin wondering what he should do. The question is phrased this way in the Translator's Introduction: "Is it lawful for a person who has renounced Popery in his heart to conform outwardly to its rites, for the purpose of avoiding persecution, or for any other imaginable cause?"
In the 64 pages of this minute tome, Calvin gives his reasons why his correspondent should remove himself immediately from fellowship with the Roman Church. Calvin's arguments are completely founded on Scriptural grounds, as we would expect. He outlines why the Roman Catholic Church is a false church and why true Christians can have nothing to do with the blasphemies and idolatries found within. Even being in the presence of the mass can give the appearance to others of conformity to sin against the second commandment. Calvin describes Roman Catholic worship and the Mass and argues "that those only preserve the holy religion of God who profane it by no defilements of unhallowed superstitions, and that those violate, pollute, and lacerate it, who mix it up with impure and impious rites" (pp.17-18)...
ANSWER: The Lord's Supper declares to us that our sins have been completely forgiven through the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ which he himself finished on the cross once for all.^1 It also declares to us that the Holy Spirit grafts us into Christ,^2 who with his very body is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father^3 where he wants us to worship him.^4 But the Mass teaches that the living and the dead do not have their sins forgiven through the suffering of Christ unless Christ is still offered for them daily by the priests. It also teaches that Christ is bodily present in the form of bread and wine where Christ is therefore to be worshiped. Thus the Mass is basically nothing but a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ and a condemnable idolatry. -- (^1 John 19:30; Heb. 7:27; 9:12, 25-26; 10:10-18 ^2 1 Cor. 6:17; 10:16-17 ^3 Acts 7:55-56; Heb. 1:3; 8:1 ^4 Matt. 6:20-21; John 4:21-24; Phil. 3:20; Col. 3:1-3) QUESTION 95: What is idolatry? ANSWER: Idolatry is having or inventing something in which one trusts in place of or alongside of the only true God, who has revealed himself in his Word.^1 -- (^1 1 Chron. 16:26; Gal. 4:8-9; Eph. 5:5; Phil. 3:19)
QUESTION 80: What difference is there between the Lord's supper and the popish mass?
ANSWER: The Lord's Supper declares to us that our sins have been completely forgiven through the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ which he himself finished on the cross once for all.^1
It also declares to us that the Holy Spirit grafts us into Christ,^2 who with his very body is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father^3 where he wants us to worship him.^4
But the Mass teaches that the living and the dead do not have their sins forgiven through the suffering of Christ unless Christ is still offered for them daily by the priests.
It also teaches that Christ is bodily present in the form of bread and wine where Christ is therefore to be worshiped.
Thus the Mass is basically nothing but a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ and a condemnable idolatry. --
(^1 John 19:30; Heb. 7:27; 9:12, 25-26; 10:10-18
^2 1 Cor. 6:17; 10:16-17
^3 Acts 7:55-56; Heb. 1:3; 8:1
^4 Matt. 6:20-21; John 4:21-24; Phil. 3:20; Col. 3:1-3)
QUESTION 95: What is idolatry?
ANSWER: Idolatry is having or inventing something in which one trusts in place of or alongside of the only true God, who has revealed himself in his Word.^1 -- (^1 1 Chron. 16:26; Gal. 4:8-9; Eph. 5:5; Phil. 3:19)
"The Christian church has struggled through the centuries to understand just how Christ is present in the Eucharist. Arguments and divisions have occurred over the matter. The Wesleyan tradition affirms the reality of Christ's presence, although it does not claim to be able to explain it fully. John and Charles Wesley's 166 Hymns on the Lord's Supper are our richest resource for study in order to appreciate the Wesleyan understanding of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. One of these hymns expresses well both the reality and the mystery: "O the Depth of Love Divine," stanzas 1 and 4 (The United Methodist Hymnal, 627):
O the depth of love divine, the unfathomable grace! Who shall say how bread and wine God into us conveys! How the bread his flesh imparts, how the wine transmits his blood, fills his faithful people's hearts with all the life of God! Sure and real is the grace, the manner be unknown; only meet us in thy ways and perfect us in one. Let us taste the heavenly powers, Lord, we ask for nothing more. Thine to bless, 'tis only ours to wonder and adore.
Article XVI of The Articles of Religion of The Methodist Church describes the sacraments as "certain signs of grace, and God's good will toward us, by which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in him" (Book of Discipline, page 63). Article XVIII describes the Lord's Supper as "a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ" (Book of Discipline, page 64).
United Methodists, along with other Christian traditions, have tried to provide clear and faithful interpretations of Christ's presence in the Holy Meal. Our tradition asserts the real, personal, living presence of Jesus Christ. For United Methodists, the Lord's Supper is anchored in the life of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, but is not primarily a remembrance or memorial. We do not embrace the doctrine of transubstantiation, although we do believe that the elements are essential tangible means through which God works. We understand the divine presence in temporal and relational terms. In the Holy Meal of the church, the past, present, and future of the living Christ come together by the power of the Holy Spirit so that we may receive and embody Jesus Christ as God's saving gift for the whole world."
It is not Christian, nor is it according to the rule of FR, to label everyone who disagrees with you as a "troll."
It's been shown time and again that some RC posters cannot abide disagreement with the magisterium. If one's contentions cannot be supported by Scripture, those contentions need to be reevaluated. And that's not the fault of the Scriptures nor the person pointing out the error.
Terrific post. I hope all the RCs take the time to read it and see where the perpetual offering of the mass blasphemes the word and will of God.
The “Quiddush” said on the eve of Sabbath and of the Passover, runs:
The blessing of the wine: “Praise to Thee, Eternal, our God, King of the world, who hast created the fruit of the vine.”
The blessing of the bread: “Praise to Thee, Eternal, our God, King of the world, who bringest forth the bread out of the earth.”
The concluding doxology: “Praise to Thee. Eternal, our God, King of the world, who hast sanctified us through Thy commandments, who hast been well pleased with us and hast granted us this holy Sabbath in thy gracious love, to be an everlasting possession and a Memorial of thy work of creation. For it is the first of all holy festivals, a Memorial of the exodus from Egypt. Yea, thou hast chosen us and sanctified us from all peoples, and hast given us Thy holy Sabbath in love and grace. Praise to Thee, Eternal who dost sanctify the Sabbath.”
It’s a Memorial, nothing more and nothing less!
I enjoyed looking at your profile page.
And you will please note that ears-to-hear and I were having a very nice conversation along those lines until the other poster decided to post troll-like spam on the thread.
If the other poster or you would like to have an adult conversation, either of you are more than welcome to do so. It's called having a discussion...something that adults do when they don't agree with one another.
But that's not what this other individual did. The other individual simply accused the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of teaching heresy or worse (and, by extension, Catholic believers). No evidences were given. Just an assertion. Fine. That is his/her right to do so (we live in a free country, right?). This poster simply wrapped him/herself in the scriptures (without citing applicable scriptures to support that belief).
Well, I gave that other poster "the Word." I quoted several scriptures that are appropriate for him/her to use in the situation where he/she found herself (dealing with a "heretic"). I then challenged this poster to act in accordance with those scriptures.
Isn't that what one is supposed to do? Teach each other scriptures? Reprove each other with scriptures? Correct each other's behaviors with scriptures?
If, after the posting given me by this other poster and my rejection of that posting, this poster did other than what the scriptures called for, that other poster is clearly not acting in accordance with scripture and is just trying to stir stuff up. In other words a troll.
To repeat, though, if you would like to have an honest, adult, discussion of the issue that is the subjet of the thread, I'm all ears (or all eyes, as it were).
That’s gonna leave a mark.
The priest has the power in his magic finger, to draw God down from heaven, whenever the priest chooses. Jesus is then at his beck and call—Oh the power of it! The priest can crucify Him over and over. Makes you wonder what is really going on
So we know by this that many disciples, followers of Jesus couldn't handle this any better than those who today don't believe that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. What made the difference between those who left and the Apostles is their absolute belief in Jesus. As Peter pointed out Jesus had the words of eternal life. It didn't matter that what He said was hard to understand, they believed in Jesus with a supernatural faith and if He said that, He meant that.
This is also not a parable. When Jesus used parables, he explained them to the Apostles and in this case, He said it and He obviously meant it or He would have explained it to the Apostles.
So if there are those out there who cannot accept this hard saying we are left with the knowledge that many who actually walked with Jesus and called Him friend is Jesus' lifetime could not accept it and many walked away.
As far as making any of these people understand...it is impossible, only Jesus can speak to their hearts and inform them of the truth of the mystery of the Eucharist. In the meantime, Jesus has given us a great gift and we can only feel profoundly humble for it.
In part you are correct that the doctrine of transubstantiation comes from a misreading of the Lords words. The whole doctrine actually centers around John 6:60-66 of which the Catholics tend to leave parts out by focusing on two specific verses (see above in this document). One really need to go back to 55 and up to verse 70 to get the full context of the message. Our Catholic friends claim the take the literal interpretation but here is what John 6:55-70 says in its entirety.
Most interesting, and problematic, for our Catholic friends who claim to take a literal translation are verses 64-65. The true disciples had no idea as to what our Lord was talking about but all they knew was that He alone could save them. Our Lord point blank asked the true disciples (after the others had left) if they wanted to leave. Where could they go as Peter puts it? As our Lord pointed out to them, they were saved because Christ had chosen them (except Judas alone remained of the unbelievers). The rest were only in it for the free meal. This is really one of the greatest passages of election of all time IMO. It has nothing to do with the Eucharist and is totally misinterpreted.
Nowhere in scripture does it say that grace is imparted through the Eucharist as is taught by the Church. In fact, the purpose of the communion is clearly spelled out by Paul:
“I hope all the RCs take the time to read it and see where the perpetual offering of the mass blasphemes the word and will of God.”
Dr., is this a common Protestant belief? Do Masses offered by other Churches such as the Orthodox and Oriental Christians blaspheme the word and will of God? Or is there some difference in the Catholic(Latin rite) Mass that makes it alone blasphemous in your view?
2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
24:25 Behold, I have told you before. 24:26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
OK, that's just blasphemy.
Actually, not quite. The Mass has the power to take the congregation to a different space/time, so everyone in the congregation is experiencing the original crucification.
showing signs and wonders, pulling fire down fron heaven
Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
Gotcha. We don't teach grace is imparted solely from the Eucharist. We wish all people could eat and drink worthily. If you cannot we ask that you refrain. It's that simple. It is desirable, it SHOULD be the most desirable thing in the world. But your state of grace determines whether you can eat and drink it worthily, not the other way around.
I guess you wouldn’t have liked it today when we put the Host in a special ciborium and erected a canopy over it, and then had a procession to our Shrine to Mary, with the Bishop carrying the Host, sang psalms, said the following, kneeling, and then processed back:
Blessed be God.
Blessed be His Holy Name.
Blessed be Jesus Christ, true God and true man.
Blessed be the name of Jesus.
Blessed be His Most Sacred Heart.
Blessed be Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar.
Blessed be the Holy Spirit, the paraclete.
Blessed be the great Mother of God, Mary most holy.
Blessed be her holy and Immaculate Conception.
Blessed be her glorious Assumption.
Blessed be the name of Mary, Virgin and Mother.
Blessed be Saint Joseph, her most chaste spouse.
Blessed be God in His angels and in His Saints.
May the heart of Jesus, in the Most Blessed Sacrament, be praised, adored, and loved with grateful affection, at every moment, in all the tabernacles of the world, even to the end of time. Amen.
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.