I don't know where you heard this but it's wrong. The word "bread" is "artos" and is used in the KJV 99 times. "Daily" is "epiousios" which is an adjective to describe the bread and it's only used in this passage. It does reflect back to the bread that the Israelites made - not manna.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Another Catholic question (sorry guys!)
- Thread starter annsni
- Start date
I don't know where you heard this but it's wrong. The word "bread" is "artos" and is used in the KJV 99 times. "Daily" is "epiousios" which is an adjective to describe the bread and it's only used in this passage. It does reflect back to the bread that the Israelites made - not manna.
So ourselves are represented in the bread and wine that becomes Christ's body and blood? I don't understand.
But if it is truly His body and blood, then it is not a bloodless sacrifice, is it? And why are we re-presenting Christ's sacrifice over and over again when it's done? There is only one sacrifice and it is finished - Christ said so Himself.
Yes, the families ate the lamb but they were not saved from death by eating the lamb but by the blood of the lamb on the doorposts of the house. The "Angel of Death" didn't go into the homes to see who ate and didn't eat the lamb but the blood was the sign.
No problem. I understand that you all are wrong on your view of communion.
So, it does describe the 'artos' as 'epiousios' (supersubstantial?) and it is the epiousios that only appears in this passage?
Why would it not reflect back to the manna? He says give us this day our daily (supersubstantial) bread. That is what he did for Israel.
There is no "supersubstantial" in the passage. Instead it is giving the sense of a bread that is sufficient to take from one day to the next. It is the bread that the Israelites made each day that was about the size of a dinner plate and as thick as a thumb. Yes, like manna, it is a bread that sustains us but it is a man-made bread and not like manna that is made by God.
Why is our living sacrifice only given at the Eucherist and not daily in every moment? We need a special time/place/intercessor to give our sacrifice?
Your right, shouldn't just be taking place during Church.
As to the sacrificial objection you stated.
Vincent Arong notes:However, since Christ has eternally vanquished death, he can no longer suffer and die as he did on the Cross. Therefore the sign of the separate consecrations recall the means of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary -- which was death -- yet, at the same time, makes present the essential reality of that very same sacrifice-- which is himself. On the other hand, since the separate consecrations refer to the death of Christ, the sign-reality connection that exists between the Mass and Calvary is maintained. This leads to a profound implication: since the Mass makes present Christ's sacrifice, that would mean that the priest and the offering are synonymous and identical at both the Mass and at Calvary: Jesus Christ. Therefore, not only do the signs of bread and wine make present the reality of Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross, but they also make present the very reality of the body and blood of Jesus Christ himself. The union that exists between the Mass and the death of Christ is not just in the event of the sacrifice but also in Him who is given in sacrifice, namely, Jesus Christ.
Remember St. Paul's chastisement of the Corinthians for not discerning the Lords body and blood in the Eucharist?
Specifically titled, "The Sacrifice of the Mass," an event in which Christ is re-sacrificed over and over again.
The Bible is specific about this event also:
Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
The RCC make a mockery of such scripture.
The verse:
For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.
is in the future, and it speaks of the Millennial Kingdom, when offerings will be made from every corner of the earth to Christ, and thus this verse will be literally true.
It has nothing to do with what profanity goes on in the RCC today.
But what if there is no "millennial kingdom"? I know you think there is and by so thinking you're in good company. However, there continues to be heated debate over the matter of premillennialism/postmilennialism/amillennialism and none of us can really know for sure. Besides, Malachi does not say this refers to the millennial kingdom and nowhere else does scripture talk about sacrifices being offered during this theoretical period. Besides, if Christ died once for all, what possible reason could there be for making these offerings?
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not concerned with what others may speculate. I am convinced in my mind that there will be a Millennial Kingdom and the prophecy will be fulfilled that Jesus will reign on the throne of David for a thousand years. For that not to happen there is too much Scripture either to deny or to ignore.
Concerning "sacrifices", it speaks more of offerings than sacrifices. I believe these would be more thank offerings not blood sacrifices, or praise offerings.
Malachi 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.
When in history has this ever happened and is it happening now?
The Gentiles are the nations--all nations and peoples other than the Jews.
Over one billion of the world's population are Muslim.
One billion are Hindu.
One Billion live in China and practice Confucianism, Taoism, etc.
That accounts for half of the world's population right there.
The name of the Lord Jesus Christ is not known among these peoples. These nations do not bow down to Christ as Lord. They do not offer incense to him. His name is not great among these nations. That is not happening today, and will not happen until Christ rules this world, and rules with a rod of iron, and in perfect peace and harmony.
All right, so you agree there is no scriptural nexus between Malachi 1:11 and the "millennial kingdom." And do you really think there would be Gentiles (nations in the modern translations) in the "millennial kingdom"? As I understand it from the premillennialists, Christ will reign in this kingdom of the future. In the Kingdom of God "there is neither Jew nor Greek," so Malachi 1:11 must be referring to something else.
According to the Pre-mill position there is a seven year period called The Great Tribulation. At the end of that period "the remnant", that is the nation of Israel as a whole will turn to Christ when he comes again. It will be at the battle of Armageddon, and the nations of the world that will come up against Israel will be defeated.
Thus there will be Jews distinct from Gentiles (which survived the Tribulation), both of which are distinct from those believers which were raptured seven years before that event. The OT repeatedly speaks about the Messiah coming in glory for His own, that is the Jews. Even in John 1:11, "He came to His own, but his own received him not." But there will come a day when they will receive him.
Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
--This is yet to be fulfilled.
Yes , I understand. I think it's fair to say that I understand more of the Catholic position since leaving the Catholic Church in my teens than I ever did whilst I was in it! But the sacrifice of the Mass is still something I struggle to get my head round; I guess I, in common with virtually everyone else here, have better self-catechised than I was by the Church (or at least think I have!)!. I might pose your questions on another Christian board I frequent and get back to you with the replies.
Last edited by a moderator:
-ish! I'm a member of Reform if that assists.
When the minister calls the Holy Spirit down on the gifts to make them holy so that they may become "for us the Body and Blood of Christ" (Anglican Eucharistic epiclesis); my understanding though is that the Catholic view (in contrast to those of the other churches to which you have referred) is that the elements become the Body and Blood at the Words of Institution, not the epiclesis...yes?
OK, the response I got on the other board from one of the Catholics (he's a Thomist theologian BTW so no slouch!) is that the the issue of the who, why, how and when of the sacrifice is an open question!