Do you remember?

[thessalonian]

The most common objection to the Catholic view of the real presence is that it says to "do this in remmeberence of me.". i.e. rememberance = symboly. The implication is that we are supposed to remember what happened in the past by the bread and the wine causing a light bulb to go off in our head. The word rememberance allegedly tells us that it is about a past event. But my question for you today is does remberence preclude prescence? As food for thought:

CCC 1341 The command of Jesus to repeat his actions and words "until he comes" does not only ask us to remember Jesus and what he did. It is directed at the liturgical celibaration, by the apostles and their successors, of the memorial of Christ, of his life, of his death, of his resurreciton, AND OF HIS INTERCESSSION IN THE PRESCENCE OF THE FATHER.


Jesus said "I will be w
ith you always until the end of time.". Surely he wants us to remember this prescence which is not in the past. He said "where two or more are gathered, there I am in their midst". Should we remember that he is present when two or more are gathered. Should we remember that he said that "my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink" (note the present tense). Something they would be likely to remember at the last supper as John 6 occured one year before Matt 26 (see John 6:4). Does rememberence preclude prescence. If I had to go to court for something I didn't do, ie. murder, and my wife said "remember I will be praying for you in the courtroom" does that mean that she prayed for me in the past and is not present in the courtroom. Is rememberence with regard to Jesus Christ a remeberence of nice things he did for us in the past or a rememberence of his real and continuing prescence today?


Blessings

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
The most common objection to the Catholic view of the real presence is that it says to "do this in remmeberence of me.". i.e. rememberance = symboly. The implication is that we are supposed to remember what happened in the past by the bread and the wine causing a light bulb to go off in our head. The word rememberance allegedly tells us that it is about a past event. But my question for you today is does remberence preclude prescence?

Jesus said "I will be with you always until the end of time.". Surely he wants us to remember this prescence which is not in the past. He said "where two or more are gathered, there I am in their midst". Should we remember that he is present when two or more are gathered. Should we remember that he said that "my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink" (note the present tense). Something they would be likely to remember at the last supper as John 6 occured one year before Matt 26 (see John 6:4). Does rememberence preclude prescence.

Good question! Protestants believe that Christ is present at their worship services, but they use the "remembrance" angle to argue that the Real Presence is impossible. Not consistent (but I'm sure somebody will make up some way that it's different!).

Remember also that Christ said "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out..." Not will be poured out, but is poured out. Christ's once-for-all sacrifice exists today just as it existed at Calvary.

 

[CatholicConvert]

Remember also that Christ said "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out..." Not will be poured out, but is poured out. Christ's once-for-all sacrifice exists today just as it existed at Calvary.

This is actually quite fascinating when you think of it. The use of the present tense in our Lord's words means that at the very time He was presenting to apostles the chalice, the Blood was in the act of being poured out.

The question then, of course, is WHERE? Where was this happening since the crucifixion was still many hours away?

In Revelation we find John seeing the Lamb "as it had been slain". In other words, a perpetual sacrifice, neverending before the Father. In another area, it speaks of the "Lamb slain before the foundation of the world

In other words, despite Protestant protestations, the sacrifice existed in timeless eternity as a reality long before it came to exist in a few hours of chronological time. It was made present for that short duration as a reality and a visible reality to us sinners that we might know that God had done away with our sins by the sacrifice of His Son from before the foundation of the world. And in like manner, we re present it in time, according to the command of our Lord God, just as it was presented in time in AD 30, even though it had already happened in timeless eternity

Mindboggling, y'all!!!

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by CatholicConvert:
Remember also that Christ said "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out..." Not will be poured out, but is poured out. Christ's once-for-all sacrifice exists today just as it existed at Calvary.

This is actually quite fascinating when you think of it. The use of the present tense in our Lord's words means that at the very time He was presenting to apostles the chalice, the Blood was in the act of being poured out.

The question then, of course, is WHERE? Where was this happening since the crucifixion was still many hours away?

In Revelation we find John seeing the Lamb "as it had been slain". In other words, a perpetual sacrifice, neverending before the Father. In another area, it speaks of the "Lamb slain before the foundation of the world

In other words, despite Protestant protestations, the sacrifice existed in timeless eternity as a reality long before it came to exist in a few hours of chronological time. It was made present for that short duration as a reality and a visible reality to us sinners that we might know that God had done away with our sins by the sacrifice of His Son from before the foundation of the world. And in like manner, we re present it in time, according to the command of our Lord God, just as it was presented in time in AD 30, even though it had already happened in timeless eternity

Mindboggling, y'all!!!

Yes, what infinite riches await the mind that has been enlightened by the truth. I have often said that I am far less restricted with regard to scripture than any Protestant. The bounds of tradition provide theological freedom as the ten commandments bring moral freedom.

Thanks for the insight.

Blessings.

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by CatholicConvert:
Remember also that Christ said "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out..." Not will be poured out, but is poured out. Christ's once-for-all sacrifice exists today just as it existed at Calvary.

This is actually quite fascinating when you think of it. The use of the present tense in our Lord's words means that at the very time He was presenting to apostles the chalice, the Blood was in the act of being poured out.

The question then, of course, is WHERE? Where was this happening since the crucifixion was still many hours away?

In Revelation we find John seeing the Lamb "as it had been slain". In other words, a perpetual sacrifice, neverending before the Father. In another area, it speaks of the "Lamb slain before the foundation of the world

In other words, despite Protestant protestations, the sacrifice existed in timeless eternity as a reality long before it came to exist in a few hours of chronological time. It was made present for that short duration as a reality and a visible reality to us sinners that we might know that God had done away with our sins by the sacrifice of His Son from before the foundation of the world. And in like manner, we re present it in time, according to the command of our Lord God, just as it was presented in time in AD 30, even though it had already happened in timeless eternity

Mindboggling, y'all!!!

You said it!!!

If it was beyond imagining that God would become man and suffer and die for our sins, how much more beyond imagining is it that Christ further offers His sacrifice to the Father "in timeless eternity." This is the wonderful, unfathomable love that is God! O Felix Culpa, that we should gain such a Savior!

 

[Kiffin]

I appreciate this thread. It is true that the Lord's Supper is not a Funeral service. The traditional Protestant view does not however deny the real presence (it just disagrees with the Roman Catholic view of the real presence). The Complete Absence view is a form of hyper Zwinglianism. I am Reformed Baptist however and my view is the same as that of John Calvin and the Church of England. Just a few quotes.

39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is 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.

1689 Londan Baptist Confession Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do them also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of His death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

The Book of Common Prayer And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and, of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Savior Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.

And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching thee to grant that, by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we, and all thy whole Church, may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion.

And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee; humbly beseeching thee that we, and all others who shall be partakers of this Holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction, and made one body with him, that he may dwell in us, and we in him.

And although we are unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service, not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences, through Jesus Christ our Lord;

By whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honor and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty, world without end. AMEN.

 

[rsr]

I couldn't have said it better.

 

[Dale McNamee]

Dear Kiffin,

Thanks for posting the prayer quote from the Book of Common Prayer. My pastor recites it every Sunday that we have communion.

Regarding the discussion regarding transubstantiation (RC doctrine of communion), consubstantiation (Luthern,Episcopalian,etc. doctrine of communion),and symbolism only (Zwingli,et all),I offer 1 Corinthians 11:23-32 for your consideration:

1 Corinthians 11
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
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.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.


In Christ,

Dale

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by Dale McNamee:
Regarding the discussion regarding transubstantiation (RC doctrine of communion), consubstantiation (Luthern,Episcopalian,etc. doctrine of communion),and symbolism only (Zwingli,et all)

Lutherans reject consubstantiation.

They confess, according to the words of Irenaeus, that in this Sacrament there are two things, a heavenly and an earthly. Accordingly, they hold and teach that with the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, offered, and received. And although they believe in no transubstantiation, that is, an essential transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, nor hold that the body and blood of Christ are included in the bread localiter, that is, locally, or are otherwise permanently united therewith apart from the use of the Sacrament, yet they concede that through the sacramental union the bread is the body of Christ, etc. [that when the bread is offered, the body of Christ is at the same time present, and is truly tendered]. Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 1580

[ August 27, 2003, 04:01 AM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

[Yelsew]

But my question for you today is does remberence preclude prescence? As food for thought

Today, we do not have the event to remember, but rather only the words on paper that tell us of the event. Those words describe a much deeper spiritual event. One that involves the consumption of the essence of Jesus Christ's Flesh and Blood. In the scriptures we are told that Jesus is the living word of God and that the blood is the life of the flesh. So, the metaphor for us is one of reading and committing the Holy Word of God to our internal being, eating the flesh of Jesus, and drinking the blood which is the Life of the flesh and is the Holy Spirit. So we read the word and trust the Holy Spirit to quicken the word in us. We symbolize the eating of Jesus flesh which is reading the word, by consuming "a bread", we symbolize the acceptance of the Holy Spirit by drinking the symbolic blood (wine or grape juice). We do that using substitute elements because we do not have the body of Jesus with us, the scriptures tell us that Jesus ascended bodily into heaven to sit at the right hand of God.

It is interesting that scripture tells us that both blood and spirit is the life of the flesh. The Old Testament says that the blood is the life of the flesh, whereas the New Testament says the spirit is the life of the flesh. In the Eucharist, we have a symbol for blood which is also the symbol for spirit, as they both quicken the flesh.

For those of you who believe in the "real presence", go ahead. As for me I believe that the eating of the bread of the Eucharist represents the consuming of the Holy Word of God, and that drinking of the "blood" represents the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who illuminates the hole scriptures.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
Lutherans reject consubstantiation.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that your particular branch of the Lutheran church rejects consubstantiation?

 

[CatholicConvert]

For those of you who believe in the "real presence", go ahead.

Thank you.

Interestingly enough, it was an article by Dr. Michael Horton in Modern Reformation magazine which actually triggered my thoughts towards a more Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. He wrote the article as a defense of Presbyterian sacramental understanding against the "bare memorialism" of Anabaptistry. Fascinating article, and after I finished it, I was thoroughly convinced of the need for sacraments to convey grace. As such, I began to refer to our Presbyterian communion as "the Body and Blood of Christ", not realizing at that time the need for a properly ordained priesthood with valid orders to actually make the change.

As I continued to study the Catholic Faith, it became clear to me, in a covenantal and marital context, why the Bride of Christ needs His Body to be complete in Him. No marriage is complete without physical union. I have seen writings which compare the Eucharist to the marital bed. It is, after all, the Marriage Feast of the Lamb.

There is also the issue of forensic VS infused justification in this. Once I learned that forensic justification could not be defended from the wording in Romans 4, the Eucharist became the source of justification, and as you have pointed out, since the life of the flesh is indeed in the blood, we need His Blood to be justified, not faith alone as Luther taught. The practical means of this is to ingest His Blood and make Him part of us, cleansing and justifying us completely.

Still another issue which arises is that of "organic union" with Him as the Last Adam. Remember how our organic union with Adam, i.e., being "flesh of his flesh" condemned us (Romans 5:12). Well, God has a way of undoing damage in the very way it was done, not in some distinctly different manner, therefore, since our share in the flesh of Adam destroyed our relationship to God, we must therefore share in the flesh of the one called "the Last Adam" (1 Corin. 15:45). But the problem is that He is not going to have children after his bodily issue, therefore, we must share in His Flesh in another method. Thus again, I saw quite clearly and distinctly the need for the Eucharist to be truly the Body and Blood of the Lord.

As for me I believe that the eating of the bread of the Eucharist represents the consuming of the Holy Word of God, and that drinking of the "blood" represents the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who illuminates the hole scriptures.

Might I ask for a little bit of scripture and a nice quick exegetical sermon on that? It is an interesting view, but not one the Church ever accepted.

You know, the view that the bread and wine become TRULY the Body and Blood is not just a Catholic view. The Orthodox hold to the same view as do some high church Anglo Catholics who reject Cranmer's "Black Rubrics" which effectively severed any possibility that the Anglicans might have the true Eucharist.

I also might suggest sitting down with a nice glass of sherry some night, along with a fine cigar, and pondering deeply on WHY the Early Fathers, as early as 115AD and the writings of Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, disciple of Apostle John, did not express your belief, or, in fact, any other belief than that of the fact that the elements truly become the VERY BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST. What would make the third generation of men from Christ Himself believe such a thing if it is error? Where did they learn it from? Did Polycarp teach this to his disciple? Well, surely he must have gotten this idea from Apostle John.

You see, Yelsew, when I was examining the Catholic and Orthodox Faiths (they are extremely similar), both history and scripture gave me good reasons not to reject this understanding.

And finally, think of the verses I quoted which speak to the fact that the sacrifice is eternal, never-ending, always present before Almighty God. Do you realize that in timeless eternity, in a mystery we do not understand, Christ will be always the Great High Priest and the Victim in a never ending YOM KIPPUR offered for the Church and as the eternal Passover Lamb offered for the personal sins of God's people? He was that before the foundation of the world, He was seen as that by John on Patmos, and therefore, we have every reason to believe that He is such evermore.

And yet, He will also be the King of Glory in timeless eternity. I think there is much more to God than our teeny little minds can wrap themselves around, and the Eucharist is but the tip of the iceburg!!

Cordially in Christ through the Theotokos,

Brother Ed

 

[thessalonian]

Mr. Kiffin,

You said:

"The traditional Protestant view does not however deny the real presence (it just disagrees with the Roman Catholic view of the real presence). The Complete Absence view is a form of hyper Zwinglianism. I am Reformed Baptist however and my view is the same as that of John Calvin and the Church of England."

Perhaps Mr. McNamee could clairfy this but my understanding is that the Church of England's view has not been Calvin's view but closer to the Catholic view. i.e. not just a spiritual prescence. My understanding is that the only real difference between the Catholic and Anglican consecration is that we view them as not having an ordained priesthood and so do not have a valid consecration. Besides the fact that they do not call it transubstantiation. But that's kind of like refusing to call a road from LA to New York a transcontinental highway. It still is.

It is nice to sum up the protestant view in about 3 different views but it is interesting that shortly after the reformation began, a book came out in 1577 called "200 different interprutatoins of the words This is my body". I would suspect that there is a spectrum of beliefs from Zwinglizm (I like the following name) real abscence to something akin to the Catholic view of the Anglicans.

One other question for you Mr. Kiffin. Jesus said "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not have life within you.". Even some of his own disciples turned and went to their former way of life. i.e. they rejected him. So are those who do not believe in the "correct" view, whatever that is (as it is certainly called in to question in Protestantism in general) among the saved since they materially do what the disciples of John 6:66 did?


Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

Catholic Convert:


To the following:
"As for me I believe that the eating of the bread of the Eucharist represents the consuming of the Holy Word of God, and that drinking of the "blood" represents the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who illuminates the hole scriptures.

You said:
Might I ask for a little bit of scripture and a nice quick exegetical sermon on that? It is an interesting view, but not one the Church ever accepted.

It is actually my understanding that what was said above is close to the truth, for a part of Eucharist is to hear the word of God (Liturgy of the Word). So in a sense we do consume the word of God. This however is not in conflict with consuming his flesh and blood in the literal Eucharist. On the road to Emanaus they understood his words in the "breaking of the bread" so both the word and the Eucharistic bread were present in a sort of Eucharistic celebration.

CCC 1346 ... The liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the Eucharist together form "one single act of worship"; the Eucharistic table set for us in the table both of the Word of God , and the Body of the Lord.

CCC 1347
Is this not the same movement as the Paschal meal of the risen Jesus with his disciples? Walking with them he explained the scriptures to them; sitting with them at table "he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them".

I have seen this idea of Eucharist in the writings of the fathers also.

Blessings

 

[Eladar]

One other question for you Mr. Kiffin. Jesus said "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not have life within you.". Even some of his own disciples turned and went to their former way of life. i.e. they rejected him. So are those who do not believe in the "correct" view, whatever that is (as it is certainly called in to question in Protestantism in general) among the saved since they materially do what the disciples of John 6:66 did?

Yet Jesus also said, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst."

It seems to me that the Catholics want to have their cake and eat it too. One needs to eat the literal body of Christ to fulfill a figurtive hunger.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Tuor:
One needs to eat the literal body of Christ to fulfill a figurtive hunger.

Yes!!! Exactly!!!

If only you were to know the grace that accompanies receiving our Lord in the Eucharist, you would understand how true your words are.

 

[Eladar]

If you understood what Jesus said about literal food and salvation, you wouldn't believe as you do.

Literal flesh interpretation belittles Jesus' message. What is eating compared to the gospel?

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John Gilmore:
Lutherans reject consubstantiation.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that your particular branch of the Lutheran church rejects consubstantiation? </font>[/QUOTE]There is much more unity amony Lutherans than among Roman Catholics. All Lutherans subscribe unconditionally to the Lutheran Confessions which reject consubstantiation.

There are so-called Lutherans who do not subscribe unconditionally to the Lutheran Confessions just as there are so-called Roman Catholics who do not acknowledge the authority of the Pope.

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by Tuor:
If you understood what Jesus said about literal food and salvation, you wouldn't believe as you do.

Literal flesh interpretation belittles Jesus' message. What is eating compared to the gospel?

But of course we have both. Does not refusing to believe the explicit words of Christ also belittle His message?

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
All Lutherans subscribe unconditionally to the Lutheran Confessions which reject consubstantiation.

John, this sounds completely wrong to me.

Could you please direct me to some reference material that will explain this for me?

Isn't it a Lutheran term?

Isn't it the historical majority view of those who identify themselves as Lutheran?