Posted on 01/31/2009 3:49:27 PM PST by NYer
Issue: What are the biblical origins of the Mass and the New Testament priesthood? Is the Mass really a sacrifice, or is it merely symbolic?
Response: The biblical origins of the Mass and the New Testament priesthood are rooted in the Old Testament. Both the Old and New Testaments provide clear evidence that the Mass is a true sacrifice, offered by a priest, and the Victim is the Body and Blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
God stated three times that the Passover sacrifice would be “an ordinance for ever,” not for a temporary period, such as until the Messiah came. This sacrifice, and other Old Covenant sacrifices, find their culmination in Christ—’s sacrifice on Calvary (Ex. 12:14, 17, 24; cf. Lk. 22:7-20). Christ’s sacrifice at the Last Supper was a sacrifice of His Body and Blood, soul and divinity (cf. Catechism, nos. 1362-67, 1373-77). Much as the sacrifice offered at the Last Supper fulfilled the Old Covenant sacrifices, the priesthood of Christ—the priesthood of Melchizedek—replaced the Levitical priesthood of the Old Testament. This New Testament priesthood, handed on to the apostles and their successors, allows Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary to fulfill the perpetual ordinance of a sacrifice through the celebration of the Mass (cf. Heb. 6:19-7:28).
Prefiguring the Lamb of God
God made a covenant with Abraham, swearing that all the nations (Gentiles) would bless themselves through his descendants (cf. Gen. 22:18). He designated Mount Moriah as the place where He would provide the sacrificial lamb, which was prefigured by the lamb that Abraham sacrificed that day (cf. Gen. 22:4-14). God the Father fulfilled the sacrificial provision in an ultimate way by offering His only-begotten Son (cf. Gen. 22:2; Jn. 3:16), the Lamb of God (cf. Rev. 5:6).
Interestingly, Mount Moriah’s location, Salem, is another name for Zion or Jerusalem (cf. 2 Chron. 3:1; Ps. 76:2). In fact, Scripture identifies Mount Moriah as the site of Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem, the city in which Christ’s sacrificial death took place. Also, Melchizedek was the priest and king of Salem (cf. Gen. 14:18). Jesus, as the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world, is the definitive High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek; Jesus offers Himself as the sacrifice of salvation and the universal blessing through whom all the nations will bless themselves (cf. Gen. 22:18; Acts 3:17-26; Heb. 6:19-7:28).
According to the terms of the Old Covenant, the Passover sacrifice has to be offered at the Temple in Jerusalem (cf. Deut. 16:1-6; 2 Chron. 35:1-19), a sacrifice that has not occurred since the Temple’s destruction in A.D. 70. One is left with two alternatives. First, one could state that Israel has failed to keep the covenant with God recorded in Exodus 12. Yet if that is true, God is thereby implicated for failing to provide His People with the means to continue the ordinance that He told them to keep forever.
Alternatively, one could state that the Temple sacrifice was destined by God to become obsolete and that, as the Lamb of God, Jesus perfectly fulfilled the Passover sacrifice (cf. 1 Cor. 5:7). This is the teaching of the Church. Jesus prophesied the fall of the Temple (cf. Mt. 24:1-2), an event that happened in A.D. 70 shortly after the “desolating sacrilege” of the Temple (Mt. 24:15). In addition, while prophets accurately foretold that the Temple would be rebuilt after its destruction in 587 B.C., no subsequent biblical prophets prophesied the Temple’s restoration after Christ’s predicted destruction.
Attempts to rebuild the Temple have failed, most notably the effort of the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate in 362. He hoped to discredit Christ’s prophecy about the Temple. Violent earthquakes at the site killed many of his workmen. When miraculous balls of fire kept bursting forth from the Temple foundation to prevent the approach of workmen, Julian finally abandoned his attempt.[1]
The question remains: How does the Passover sacrifice of Jesus Christ continue as an ordinance forever? Just as the old Passover lamb freed the People of the Old Covenant from the bondage of slavery, the new Passover Lamb frees us from the slavery of sin (cf. Mt. 26:28). In accepting Saint John the Baptist’s designation of Jesus as the new Lamb of God (Jn. 1:29-35), Jesus states clearly that He will be both sacrificed and eaten (cf. Lk. 22:7-20; Jn. 6:51-66), just as the old Passover lamb was both sacrificed and eaten (cf. Ex. 12:8-11). Unfortunately, most contemporary Protestants do not accept this biblically based teaching about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.[2]
Transcending Time and Space
The quick Protestant rejoinder to Catholic teaching on the Mass is that Christ died “once for all” (cf. Heb. 9:26-28; 10:10), to which the Church would say, “Amen!” The Church has always taught that the one sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist (the Mass) are “one single sacrifice,” and that the Eucharistic Sacrifice “re-presents (makes present)” Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross (Catechism, nos. 1366-67, emphasis in original). How can this be? God the Son created time and space and therefore is not bound by them (cf. Jn. 1:1-3). As eternal Being, Christ stands outside of time, and therefore all of history is simultaneously present to Him. We cannot fully grasp God’s omnipotence. Like the dogmas of the Trinity or Christ’s being both God and man, God’s omnipotence is beyond our capacity to understand, yet does not contradict reason. To argue that God is limited by time and space is necessarily to argue that God is not omnipotent, and therefore not God.
In short, then, God cannot create something, including time and space, that can limit Him. For example, because of God’s omnipotence, all of us, not just one of us, can be temples of the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 6:19). This demonstrates His ability to be beyond space, for the Holy Spirit is present in the souls of all believers: the saints who have died (cf. Rev. 6:9-11), as well as all the faithful who are living today.
We can also speak of God’s ability to be present throughout time on earth and also outside of time in heaven. Relative to God, Who is eternal and unchanging, everything is present; relative to us human beings, everything we experience is bound by time and space. Because the Son of God is eternal and transcends time, what He does as the God-Man in history can transcend time. Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary is thus once for all, yet never ending; it is timeless. Thus, when we re-present Christ’s one sacrifice at Mass, God actually enables us to make ourselves present to this timeless offering. Analogously, we become “present” to the sun each morning. The sun basically stays put, while we change relative to the sun because of the earth’s daily rotation.
The Eucharistic Sacrifice is foreshadowed by the prophet Malachi: “For 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” (Mal. 1:11). The Church sees these verses as a prophecy of the Sacrifice of the Mass, for what other truly pure sacrifice could there be that Christians can offer throughout the world every day?
The Mass’s transhistorical nature is first illustrated when Christ offered His glorified Body and Blood at the Last Supper, the day before He actually died on the Cross (cf. Catechism, nos. 1337-40). It is illustrated thereafter in the Mass offered by His disciples. Saint Paul notes that Christ’s sacrifice as the new Passover Lamb is once for all, but he also explains that its celebration somehow continues on in history: “For 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” (1 Cor. 5:7-8). Thus, the merits of Christ’s sacrifice are applied to Christians throughout the centuries.
We speak of the Eucharist as an unbloody sacrifice. Christ is not killed at each Mass. If that were so, there would be many sacrifices, and Christ would not have died “once for all.” Rather, the Council of Trent teaches that at each Mass “the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner” (as quoted in Catechism, no. 1367).
He’s Got His Whole Self . . . in His Hands?
Some people ask incredulously, “Could God hold Himself in His hands at the Last Supper? And how could He offer up a sacrifice the day before He actually died?” The short answer is that Jesus could because He can do all things (cf. Mt. 19:26), such as when He appeared to His disciples in the flesh miraculously after His Resurrection, despite locked doors. To answer these questions about the Last Supper adequately, we must examine the biblical and other historical evidence for the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist by analyzing whether God really offered His Body and Blood, soul and divinity at the Last Supper, and whether priests re-present the same sacrifice at every Mass.
Consider Jesus’ words: “[H]e who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. . . . [H]e who eats this bread will live for ever” (Jn. 6:54-56, 58).
Some Christians argue that Christ meant this statement figuratively, just as He did when He described Himself as the “vine” or the “door” (Jn. 10:7-9; 15:1-5). However, “to eat the body and drink the blood” of someone was an ancient Hebrew idiom that meant to slander a person. The Old Testament testifies to this figurative meaning: “When evildoers assail me, uttering slanders against me, my adversaries and foes, they shall stumble and fall” (Ps. 27:2). A footnote in the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition confirms that “uttering slanders against me” in Hebrew literally means “to eat up my flesh.” If we then insert the figurative meaning in John 6:54, Jesus says that “he who slanders me has eternal life.” Such a figurative interpretation would make our divine Lord look very foolish.
While the Levitical priesthood prohibited the consumption of blood (cf. Lev. 17:10-14; see also Gen. 9:1-4), Jesus came to do away with and yet fulfill this temporary discipline. Given that this Levitical prohibition and similar ones that were still in force when Christ preached on the Eucharist in Capernaum, one could understand the Jews’ disbelief and would therefore expect Christ to clarify Himself if He intended a figurative interpretation of His words. However, despite the ensuing departure of many of His followers (Jn. 6:66), Jesus did not back down from His command to eat His Body and drink His Blood.
Like the Passover lambs before Him, Jesus would be both sacrificed and eaten. Whereas animal blood symbolized life and thus yielded imperfect atonement, Jesus freely offers us His Blood—indeed commands consumption (cf. Jn. 6:54-55)—because His Blood provides us redemptive life and perfect atonement.
Saint Paul affirms Christ’s Real Presence during the sacrifice of the Mass (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23-32). How can people “be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:27), and why are they getting sick and even dying, if they are merely consuming bread and wine? As Jesus teaches and Saint Paul affirms, the re-presentation of this one offering—this “breaking of bread” (Acts 2:42)—was to continue in the Church. We partake of this one sacrifice in a sacramental manner, under the appearance of bread and wine, and in a way that does not diminish God, Who is infinite. Jesus not only fulfills Passover in Easter, but also makes it possible for the New Covenant of His sacrifice to be re-presented every day at Mass.
The Priesthood of Melchizedek
Christ’s priesthood forever according to Melchizedek (cf. Ps. 110:4; Heb. 5:6) makes clear the connection between the Last Supper, Jesus’ Crucifixion, and the Mass. When Christ died on Calvary, “he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 5:9-10). While Christ suffered and died once for all, His sacrifice on Calvary is somehow connected with and continues forever according to a Melchizedekian offering or sacrifice: one using the elements of bread and wine (cf. Gen. 14:17-20). On the day before He died on the Cross, Jesus “pre-presented” His completed, glorified sacrifice under the appearances of bread and wine (cf. Lk. 22:19-20) and thus manifested that He is not constrained by time (cf. Catechism, nn. 1337-40). Fulfilling Christ’s command to “[d]o this in remembrance of me” (Lk.22:19), the Church re-presents this same timeless offering of His Body and Blood under the appearances of bread and wine.
Indeed, as a faithful Priest Who continues to intercede for His People in Heaven after His death and Resurrection, Jesus must have something to offer. He does, and it can only be His one, definitive, and never-ending sacrifice (cf. Rev. 5:1-14), which He continues to offer forever as a priest according to the order of Melchizedek through His priests on earth (cf. Catechism, no. 1337). While Jesus does not need to re-present His sacrifice sacramentally to save us, He faithfully continues the Passover ordinance forever as His gift to us, reminding us daily of His great love and providing us with abundant graces to aid our journey to heaven. “When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ’s Passover, and it is made present: the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. ‘As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out’” (Catechism, no. 1364, citations omitted).
Christ is the one mediator between God and man (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5), but He allows certain men to participate in His mediation, by exercising authority in general (cf. Mt. 28:18-20), granting forgiveness of sin (cf. Jn. 20:21-23), and re-presenting His one sacrifice sacramentally (cf. Mt. 26:26-28). The Catholic Church is the new Israel, a spiritual house, and a holy priesthood (cf. 1 Pet. 2:5). The Eucharist is disconcerting to some Christians, not only because it simultaneously shows God’s awesome omnipotence and humble condescension, but also because it reminds us that salvation is not a momentary, once and for all event, but a process that involves our saying yes to God each and every day. Salvation is by grace, but our free assent is needed for the gift of salvation to be efficacious in our lives.
Christ has perfected the Passover ordinance. He has torn down the barrier between God and man, enabling us to be reconciled to the Father and partake again of His divine nature (cf. Rom. 5:15-17; 2 Pet. 1:4). Heeding Christ’s command, we continue re-presenting and partaking of His sacrifice at every Mass. While “[t]his is a hard saying” (Jn. 6:60), it is very much in keeping with salvation history, and not too remarkable for a God Who created us out of nothing and became man to save us from our sins. Our response to such an incredible gift should echo the words of Saint Peter, when Christ asked him if he also would leave Him: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God” (Jn. 6:68-69).
It is evident you are teaching when our Lord said: “This do in remembrance of Me,” He was teaching literally, that we eat His literal flesh, and drink His literal blood.”
I believe and understand the Lord Jesus was emphazing and magnifying “Remember Me.”
Our focus should be on the person, and not on the loaf, nor the cup.”This do in remembrance of Me,” can be likened unto
“This is My beloved Son, hear Him.”
My prayer is; “that we all continue to examine ourselves,and earnestly seek to please Him, as we pursue godliness, and “Study to shew our selves approved unto God, rightly divding the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
You could not get more carnal than teaching: “you must literally drink human flesh, and you must drink literal blood.”
As God word says: “To be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.” (Romans 8:6)
Of course He was, -- why else say so?
You previously noted that John 6:63 Jesus also instructs that the food of the Eucharist is spiritual food, that is, it is not there to feed the body. However, nowhere does Jesus instructs us to take the Eucharist symbolically. It is true that we should remember Jesus (and not only in the Eucharist), that the Eucharist is to feed our spirit, that He is present in many ways at all times and not solely Eucharistically, and that we should imitate Him and become like Him. The Church does not disagree with any of that. However, to ignore the discourse on the Eucharist in John 6, or to dismiss the instruction to "do this" -- i.e. eat His Body is to ignore the clear teaching of the scripture.
Better brush up on your reading of St. Paul's epistles before you try and pass yourself off as an authority on Scripture, again.
"And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is My body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of Me. In like manner also the chalice, after He had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in My blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of Me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew(that means proclaim for those of you who were educated in an outcome based curriculum) the death of the Lord, until He come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. Therefore are there many inform and weak among you, and many sleep." 1 Corinthians 11:24-30
I should add that “do this” in Luke 22:19 means both for the Apostles to offer His body in the future, and for all of us to partake of it.
The qualifier “in rememberance” ensures that it is not a separate sacrifice that takes place at Mass but rather the one perfect sacrifice becomes accessible to us over time and space (Heb. 10:14)
It is true that in isolation that phrase alone might mean something akin to an anniversary celebration that we have for various occasions, for example, as we gather for a meal on an anniversary of a wedding or someone’s birth or death. But we also have John 6, that specifically discusses the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (my flesh is food indeed), and in 1 Corinthians the Eucharist is explained as having the power to unite His Church on the path to salvation (1 Cro 10:17, 1 Cor. 10:33), to show us the Paschal sacrifice of Christ (1 Cor. 11:26), but also to condemn those unworthy of receiving His body (1 Cor. 11:29). A mere symbol would not do that.
Shew is translated from the Greek word artos a masculine noun,and in other translations is "show" - the Israelites made it in the form of an oblong or round cake, as thick as one’s thumb, and as large as a plate or platter hence it was not to be cut but broken. It again, is a sign or picture of the death of Christ.
Further - what was this "sign" to signify? It was to serve as a reminder of what Christ had done - until His return (which hasn't happened yet). We are to commemorate Christ's payment for sin each time we celebrate the Lord's Supper.
And the last section you pasted - For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily - drinks and eats judgment unto themselves. A better (accuracy from the Greek) would be:
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
And let us not leave out the context of 1 Corinthians 11 - and what the focus of this section was - The church at Corinth had become very polarized into what we today would call "cliques". When they would gather for the Lord's Supper (remember, in that time, they didn't have a formal "ceremony", it was "whenever they gathered together". This does not imply that they had the Lord's Supper every "Sunday" or worship day. Remember, for the entire congregation to come together in a local church at that time was not always an easy feat. Some would have to travel, weather, and other responsibilities and such prevented them all from coming together as one body, but I digress...
Anyway. This church had basically broken into the "haves" and the "have-nots". Those with money and riches were bringing their own "feast" for the Lord's Supper, while the poor arrived with little or nothing. And each group was eating and drinking on their own. This was not in the spirit that Christ intended and Paul was preaching against that practice - calling for each to come together.
Remember - the "Last Supper" - the event that serves as an example for celebrating the Lord's Supper, was at the conclusion of a fellowship meal - not of a "church service". Does this preclude having the Lord's Supper in conjunction with a regular service? - not at all. But again, look at the example.
And Christ's own words speak to this all being done IN REMEMBRANCE - not as a renewed sacrifice. But if we participate - and yet we are unworthy (definitely does not mean perfect, as none are righteous - period), but indicates one's heart towards the Lord and his fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
This is somewhat akin to calling oneself a Christian, while blaspheming God at every turn. Wearing the title unworthily (without being a "born-again" believer in Jesus Christ" is dangerous. But again, I somewhat digress.
And far be it for me to lay ANY claim to being an authority on Scripture. A student of the Scriptures? Yes. Someone who takes study and prayer seriously? Yes. A seminarian? Yes. But I will never lay claim to being an expert or an authority, regardless of how much education I receive.
What I do know - I will never place my faith and trust in anything a human being can do or claims to be able to do. My faith and trust are completely and totally 100% in the redeeming work already accomplished by Jesus Christ in that once and for all sacrifice on the cross - His death, burial, and resurrection (which is part of what scriptural water baptism demonstrates...fodder for yet another debate), His continued work towards sanctification in my life, and the eternity He has for me in HIS Heaven.
Let me close, for I am persuaded that we cannot but continue in circles, with these thoughts.
“Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things, another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let him that eateth despise not him that eateth not; and let him which eateth not judge him that eateth for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgeth another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up; for God is able to make him stand.
One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” (Romans 14:1-5)
“......for we shall all stand before the judgement seat of Christ.” (Romans 14:10b)
Excellent! And Amen!!!!!
A very good point: IN REMEMBRANCE-—NOT A RENEWED SACRIFICE!!!!!!!
As God’s Word teaches us, “to have the mind of Christ” and
“the Spirit of Christ” (Phil. 1:5 and Romans 8:9)
With this concept His Mind and the Spirit bears witness with my spirit, we are not called to eat human flesh, nor drink human blood.”
Apparently, for the Protestant heretics to take the Holy Scripture seriously it has to be addressed to them specifically, and not to the Church of Corinth.
The context is unity on the body of Christ (10 Cor. 16f); the Holly Sacrifice of the Mass is contrasted with heathen offerings (10 Cor. 10:20). That is interrupted in the begining passages of Ch. 11 with a discourse on appearance as a sign of internal schism (1 Cor 11:16f), then the topic of the Eucharist is resumed in v.20.
We see that the Eucharist is not an ordinary meal (v.22). Rather, the words of Institution in the Gospel of Luke are repeated (v. 23-27). This passage is, therefore, a reminder of the sacramental nature of the Eucharist as contrasted with a common memorial snack which the sectants had. One would think that a modern day sectant -- a Protestant heretic -- read that passage with some attention, as it applies to him dircetly, rather than wave it off as some kind of "context".
But is the error of the sectants in Corinth merely disunity? Not at all; the error is theological: they don't understand What they eat (v.29). The Eucharist itself will deliver the punishment. Signs and symbols cannot do that.
I don't see any circles. The scripture plainly shows the Protestant desacralized view of the Eucharist as a gross error. The limited nature of the law of Moses and the call to charity in Romans 14 has nothing to do with the topic on hand.
Error? Like reading in “Holly Sacrifice of the Mass” where it does not exist in the Bible. I believe that is addressed quite clearly in:
Deuteronomy 12:32
Proverbs 30:6
1 Corinthians 4:6
Revelation 22:18-19 (MAY be referring to that particular book...so I won’t be too dogmatic about this one).
And why are we not to add to (or take away) from God’s Word?
Psalms 119: 160
Again, the Lord’s word does not relate in any way that the Lord’s Supper, itself, has any form of sacramental power or nature. Every time it is mentioned, it is as a remembrance of the one perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It is proclaimed that we are to do it whenever we “do this” (as in gather to celebrate) - it is called an ordinance - a rule or command that we are too do it until the Lord’s return.
Every one of the Epistles included in the Canon of scripture is there because of a selection process - one of the big questions - did it have “universal” application - not just to the audience in the salutation. Was it spread beyond the person or church that letter was addressed to.
Each letter, then applies to each church (and we could delve into the whole “universal” vs. “local” church argument another time). Thus each letter is also applicable to us today. For that matter, I read the Bible as if every part were addressed to me. If it does not directly apply, I still have a lesson to learn from it - just as each individual and autonomous church had in the first century.
But context is so important in ANY reading to understand what is actually being said. And considering how important the Bible is, and the authority of the Bible - we should be careful then, if we are to understand what IT says, that we understand the context (one reason the study of Biblical History is so important to Bible translation and interpretation. In fact, History helps to give teeth to the study of Biblical languages (primarily Greek and Hebrew).
Your interpretation that the chapter comes to an abrupt stop to address an apparent schism (which was indeed in the brewing within that local church at Corinth), then just as abruptly changes direction back to the Lord’s Supper comes from your presupposition. Yet it is all interrelated, and further does not match Paul’s literary style or the logic of the text itself.
The early church, from an historical perspective, would have regularly eaten - some together, some not. And bread being a staple along with wine, the “elements” would have been fairly common. BUT...
They were instructed by Christ first, then by Paul, to assemble together to solemnly commemorate Christ’s sacrifice. You are correct, when they celebrated this - it was no ordinary meal. But it was usually celebrated in conjunction with a meal - just as the “Last Supper” was.
Also keep in mind what “doing church” was like for the early Christians, so many of which had to exercise their worship in private (most early churches were in member’s homes). It was often an all-day affair. Thus it would seem a logical extension that they would share a meal - and then would celebrate the Lord’s Supper.
And remember what the term “Protestant” means... For some of us, who are Baptist and of the more conservative varieties who can be called “landmark” Baptists - we believe that the “true” church has existed, very often in parallel to, the “Catholic” church (a term that developed in the 2nd and 3rd Century - but still not universally applied to the religion of Rome until even later) throughout church History from the time of the Apostles. Thus, technically, Landmark Baptists do not believe that their faith evolved out of the Catholic Church, although the Reformation did a great deal to help the cause.
You'll have to take it up with Christ, he taught it.
The context of John Ch 6 bears witness to it.
The original Greek bears witness to it.
The Church Fathers bear witness to it
St. Paul bears witness to it.
Regards, Gonzo
If you wish to dispute the analysis of the text of 1 Cor. 10 and 11, please do so.
My contention is that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is fully explained in the relevant passages of 1 Cor 10-11. I explained why: the Sacrament is related to the Christian unity, salvation, and above all is explained to literally be the body and blood of our Savior. Failure to understand it is explained to be damning in itself. Memorial meals do not do that. What, precisely, in this paragraph do you dispute?
You made references to various verses to do with adding to the Scripture. The Holy Catholic Church not only did not add or subtract from the Scripture — she is what made the scripture available to you today, despite Protestant corruption. The Church can however, authoritatively explain the scripture. If you think anything was added to it by us, please do not hesitate to substantiate your charge, briefly, and I will respond, also briefly as it is not the main topic.
Out of curiosity, what scriptural or historical record is landmark Baptist mythology based on? I am aware that Baptists do not like to be called Protestants, but on the issue of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament you seem to be no different from any post-Calvin Protestant. Let us remember that the topic of the thread is the Catholic teaching, not the distinctions that may exist among the non-Catholics.
Thank you,
And praise God I can and have taken it up with my Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ. As we know, He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.(John 1:11-14)
And of His fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. (John 1:16-17)
Aren’t you glad it is not men who decides who is saved, and it is not men that saves. We praise God, that salvation is of the Lord.
In His mercy and grace;
LetMarch
1. The verses from 1 Corinthians used do not identify the "elements" as literally the body and blood of Christ. That interpretation quite literally did not become a Catholic doctrine officially until well after the 3rd Century - well over 200 years after Paul and the other Apostles were long gone, and well after all of the books now considered the New Testament Canon were penned and widely distributed.
1 Cor 10:16 is close, and 1 Cor. 11:27-29 makes it clear that whatever the elements are in some intrinsic sense, they have the same effect as the actual body and blood. Further, the words of Jesus repeated in v. 24 leave no doubt: "this is my body". This is even if we leave John 6 out of scope, as does St. Paul.
2. The Church of the 2nd and 3rd Century was in no-way unified as "one body", and was quite divided over even basic items as the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. It was the 6th Century before there was a near universal (among Catholics) acceptance of the superiority and authority of the Roman Bishop, thus the reason many histories point to approximately 600 A.D. as the beginning of the fully-recognized papacy.
What does that have to do with anything? It is indeed evident from both canonical and early non-canonical writings that the unity of the Church suffered from heresies. How does that make body and blood of the Lord any less so? If anything, the supernatural power of the Eucharistic feast can be credited with bringing the orthodox parts together while cutting off the heresy. This is the same power of communion that is in operation today, that was described in St. Paul in chapter 10.
3. The concept of "transubstantiation" was one hotly debated within the walls of the Catholic Church for quite some time, yet was not the view expressed by Paul.
The concept that the scripture expresses directly, in John 6 and in "this is my body" language of the Institution, is Real Presence. Transubstantiation is inded a later conceptual framework that resulted from the scholastics' synthesis of Aristotelian theology and Catholic theology of the Real Presence. Transubstantiation is what explains the Real Presence. But one does not have to believe in transubstantiation in order to believe the Real Presence. to believe in the Real Presence one only needs to read the scripture as written. "This is my body"; "my flesh is food indeed" is clear enough.
Further, Christ uses the word "anamnēsis" or "memory/remembrance". Whenever we partake of it at what the early Christians called the "Love Feast", we were to be reminded by the cup of Christ's Blood shed for us, and by the bread - his body which was sacrificed.
Well, of course we are reminded. That is the least of what is happening. But, as I made the point earlier, reminders don't feed the spirit, don't give everlasting life, and on the other hand don't condemn the sinner. Christ does.
From catholic.com" Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly. "In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. " The official line is that teaching and tradition are just as important as the Bible.
Yes. That we teach: that the Holy Tradition is the source of the Holy Scripture as it preceded it. We also teach that the role and prerogative of the Church is to explain the Scripture, and that private interpretations of the Scripture are to be discouraged, at least unasmuch as they deviate from the magisterial teaching. Are you commenting on my question where did we ADD to the Scripture? My question still stands: whether you hold the Church as authority on the scripture or not (in reason your should, but that is another topic) explaining the scripture is not adding to the scripture.
Further on down the same page, the claim is made that Paul addressed Timothy in a way that backs tradition and teaching as scripture - and even tries to use "context" to back this up - yet it completely ignores a fact - a great deal of the early scriptures were orally taught because not every church had copies of all the letters. Yet would it make any logical sense that Paul would teach something differently than he wrote it down (considering that the written word was actually God's Word through Paul)? Unless Paul was teaching different doctrine than he wrote on - then the answer is simple - Dramatic turns in Catholic church teachings and doctrine throughout the centuries - in comparison to God's Word which remains - just as the Divine Author - constant and secure.
There were no "dramatic turns" in the Catholic doctrine. There was refinement of accepted doctrine, and there were non-Catholic heresies. But you are correct, of course: nothing that comes from the authentic Holy Tradition can possibly contradict scripture, and indeed, written word has advantages over unwritten one. This is why the evidence of the Holy Tradition is likewise in permanent form: they are ancient hymnody, iconography, hagiagraphy, exegesis of the Fathers of the Church, the Liturgical canons, etc. It is not like priests in seminaries are wispered something orally into their ears while holding their pens down.
And the Lord's word cannot, because of the Author's perfection, conflict or contradict itself. Yet the Catholic Church relies on Deuterocanonical books (AKA - the Apocrypha) to justify those practices and doctrines that cannot be justified or proven through the standard Canon, even when such books or particular teachings might conflict with the other scriptures. This is almost comparable to the Mormon use of their own "Deuterocanonical books" - the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price... Interesting parallel.
The Deuterocanon comes from the Septuagint, was standard reference material for the Holy Apostles as we can ascertain from the way in which they quoted the Old Testament, and it in no way contradicts the rest of the Scripture. What they do contradict is the theological fantasies of Luther, which is the reason he worked to get them removed. This is a good moment to recall that prohibition of altering the scripture and see who is really guilty of that.
What the heck happened to the formatting? The preview showed it all nice and neat with paragraphs... I just came back and find this mess??? Ugh
I think I separated your post logically; I did not skip any, just broke it into sections as I answered. It is a mystery why the preview didn’t post.
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.