Well, the bible says that Christ was once offered as a sacrifice to take away sins, and that offering was made to God. It's plain wrong and blasphemy for anyone to claim to offer Christ again as a sacrifice, and that to man. Furthermore, all of God's regenerate people today are priests unto God. We don't need a human priest seeing we have a Great High Priest that is passed into the heavens, and He has made us kings and priests unto God. We then, as priests, offer our own sacrifices unto God, those being living sacrifices.
-
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!
The Eucharist (as practiced by the Roman Church)
- Thread starter 1Tim115
- Start date
Well, the bible says that Christ was once offered as a sacrifice to take away sins, and that offering was made to God. It's plain wrong and blasphemy for anyone to claim to offer Christ again as a sacrifice, and that to man. Furthermore, all of God's regenerate people today are priests unto God. We don't need a human priest seeing we have a Great High Priest that is passed into the heavens, and He has made us kings and priests unto God. We then, as priests, offer our own sacrifices unto God, those being living sacrifices.
Tom Butler
New Member
And, RAdam, to pick up where you left off, so the Lamb of God lies on the Sacred Table. Is that literally or metaphorically?
And it is the priests who are offering the sacrifice. Does that mean that the Lamb was alive on the Sacred Table, and the priests executed him?
Don't be silly, you might say, or course not. It's symbolic.
So, uh, the sacrifice which takes away the sins of the world doesn't actually do that, since it has to be done again and again. Or maybe the sacrifice has only temporary efficacy. Say, 24 hours?
Okay, I'm confused. Just exactly when does the wine and bread become the flesh and blood? Do I read Jesus right when he says we have to eat his flesh and drink his blood? That it has to be his flesh and blood when we eat it or drink it? That the transubstantiation takes place before ingestion? Literally? Is the priest placing Jesus' flesh on the tongue, or is it a wafer. Is the priest drinking blood or wine? If it's wine, it ain't blood. If it's a wafer, it ain't flesh.
I know my comments have some sarcasm, but the questions are, in fact, sincere.
And it is the priests who are offering the sacrifice. Does that mean that the Lamb was alive on the Sacred Table, and the priests executed him?
Don't be silly, you might say, or course not. It's symbolic.
So, uh, the sacrifice which takes away the sins of the world doesn't actually do that, since it has to be done again and again. Or maybe the sacrifice has only temporary efficacy. Say, 24 hours?
Agnus Dei said:
Okay, I'm confused. Just exactly when does the wine and bread become the flesh and blood? Do I read Jesus right when he says we have to eat his flesh and drink his blood? That it has to be his flesh and blood when we eat it or drink it? That the transubstantiation takes place before ingestion? Literally? Is the priest placing Jesus' flesh on the tongue, or is it a wafer. Is the priest drinking blood or wine? If it's wine, it ain't blood. If it's a wafer, it ain't flesh.
I know my comments have some sarcasm, but the questions are, in fact, sincere.
First Tom, I'm an Orthodox Christian...NOT a Roman Catholic...our Sacramental theologies are quite different...we don't try and dogmatize, if you will, the Eucharistic meal with terms like "transubstantiation". The term "transubstantiation" is strictly a RC term born in or around the reformation.
So as an Orthodox Christian, when does the bread and wine become Christ's body and blood respectfully?...we don't know at what point this takes place, all we know is that at some point the elements become that of Christ's body and His blood before we partake in the elements.
During our Liturgy, the Priest serving the Liturgy will call down the Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts laid forth, changing them by the power OF the Holy Spirit...there's a little more to it, but you should get the idea.
I don't intend to be sarcastic either Tom, but I'm afraid the answer to your question is in Holy Spritures...
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. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. (John 6:53-56)
Hope that helps...In XC
-
As often as we do this we proclaim the Lord’s death? How is that demonstrative of symbolism? In the verses before, we see the familiar words, “This is my body,” etc. Nothing about this representing my body. In the verses after, we are warned that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. Would Paul be so stern about abusing bread and drinking wine? Would people actually die for abusing mere bread and wine? I don’t think so.
Dr. Walter
New Member
My friend,
when a writer uses a metaphor, he does not say, "Looky, I am about to use a metaphor"! By definition a metaphor is stating directly that one thing is another thing and always uses the linking verbs ("am" "is" "are").
For example, the language "I AM the door" is the same language as "I AM the bread of life." Do you believe that Jesus IS or turns into a LITERAL door???
"This IS my body" is the same language as "Ye ARE the body of Christ." Do you think the church at Corinth IS or turns into the LITERAL body of Christ??
John 6:35-36 plainly states in about as literal terms as possible, "HEY I am going to use metaphorical language" as He interprets coming, eating and drinking by words that cannot be misunderstood:
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.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
Jesus first states the metaphor ("I AM the bread of life") and then he defines this metaphor so that you cannot possibly misunderstand that eating and drinking him is COMING AND BELIEVING in him.
This sets the precedence of interpretation and you cannot get it any clearer than this. There is no way he could clarify it any better or yell out "HEY I AM GOING TO USE METAPHORICAL LANGUAGE."
Dr. Walter
New Member
The term "shew" translates the Greek term "katangello" which means to preach or announce or proclaim or declare. That is the very function of a SYMBOL as it proclaims, announces or declares a truth for all to SEE.
The very function of a symbol is to RIGHTLY PORTRAY the truth it is designed to declare. It is a VISIBLE EXPRESSION of a truth. It is a VISIBLE PREACHMENT of a truth(s).
Tom Butler
New Member
Perhaps you could help my understanding by detailing the difference between the Orthodox view and the RC view. From your comments I can't detect the difference, but it seems me you're defending the RC view.
I appreciate your efforts in quoting scripture to answer my questions, but honestly, I'm looking for an explanation of how the verse can possibly be literal. Just saying it is does not address the questions I raised.
Maybe distill them down to one. When does transubstantiation take place?
What I'm defending Tom IS the Real Presence...NOT the RC dogma of "transubstantiation". Even the major players of the Reformation still held to the Real Presence and even a few of the major protestant denominations still hold the same view today...
When you read John 6 Tom what happens? Many of Christ's Disciples leave Him...why? Because they can't understand HOW Christ is going to give His "literal" flesh to eat...They know it's against everything Moses taught and like you and many others...they just couldn't wrap their minds around this teaching...which is why we in the Orthodox Church refer to this Sacrament as a Great Mystery.
Also, do you take Genesis "literal" Tom; in that the earth is between 6 to 10 thousand years old? Honestly, the language in John 6 is a lot more clearer than Genesis, yet many want to take Genesis literal...btw, I personally take Genesis literal...
In XC
-
Tom, in both the the Roman and the Orthodox tradition transubstantiation takes place before the elements are consumed. Agnus has said the Ortodox don't attempt to put a specific time on this but in the RCC they believe it takes place with the words of consecration. These are recited by the priest and are very much like the words used by Baptists at the Lord's Supper.
The bolded asterisks are the point in the Eucharistic Prayer where it is believed that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, they left Him because they didn't like what He preached. Well, what did He preach? He preached on the depravity of man and man's inability to come to Him. He preached on election, the effectual call, and preservation. He preached on resurrection. He preached on feasting on Him in a spiritual sense. He preached on the exclusivity of these blessings to Him and Him alone, these blessings cannot be had elsewhere. They didn't like His preaching and called it hard sayings. Christ responded by saying, "doth that offend you." It wasn't because He was telling them something against what Moses taught, He didn't. It was because there were offended at what He said.
The misunderstanding they had earlier was that He was going to give them His literal flesh. He corrects them on this. He says, "it is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." He wasn't talking about feasting on His physical flesh and physical blood. He was talking about sprititual things. Christ is the bread of God come down from heaven which we are able to feast on today, not in some ceremony intended to shew the Lord's death, but in the preaching of the gospel, in the reading of our bibles, in prayer. We are able to feast on the things of the Lord and be spritually nourished. "Ho, every one that thirsteth, some ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness."
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
The primary difference Tom is that the Roman Catholics define what they mean by the "real presence". The Orthodox do not define it but leave it as a mystery. Thus transubstantiation (though ultimately not a real definition) is not adopted by the Orthodox. Rather the real presence is maintained but not fully explained.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I'm not really purporting the consept of the real presence at this point. However, from a historical perspective of word use the ancients believed the symbol did more than represent what it symbolized. They believe the symbol was the thing. Thus words in their mind had real power. Which is why some cultures believed that you should give people your "true name" so that they didn't have power over you. thus your modern application to an ancient word use should be tempered by the cultural understanding of the day.
Let's consider symbols.
Baptism is a picture, a symbol, of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Who in their right mind believes that Christ dies, is buries, and is raised again every time that a child of God is baptized? It pictures that, and it is also a picture of the person dying to sin and rising again to walk in newness of life. The person isn't really dying to sin when immersed in the water, they are merely showing it. It is an outworking of that which God has already worked in them.
The offerings made under the law were pictures of Christ. When the preists would offer these sacrifices they didn't really and truly make atonement. It wasn't possible that the blood of a bull or goat should take away sins. They pictured, or showed, what Christ would do. When Christ died on the cross, He fulfilled the shadows of Himself in the law.
Baptism is a picture, a symbol, of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Who in their right mind believes that Christ dies, is buries, and is raised again every time that a child of God is baptized? It pictures that, and it is also a picture of the person dying to sin and rising again to walk in newness of life. The person isn't really dying to sin when immersed in the water, they are merely showing it. It is an outworking of that which God has already worked in them.
The offerings made under the law were pictures of Christ. When the preists would offer these sacrifices they didn't really and truly make atonement. It wasn't possible that the blood of a bull or goat should take away sins. They pictured, or showed, what Christ would do. When Christ died on the cross, He fulfilled the shadows of Himself in the law.
Tom Butler
New Member
Thanks for the clarification. Now, as painful as it is, I am about to reveal my ignorance on the question of Real Presence. Would you explain it in detail? I understand that you hold that it is a mystery, but it shouldn't be hard to define it.
So do I.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
You have chosen the wrong subject in that view change the subject from Jesus to the person being baptised.
at this point then several questions need to be asked, since many protestants like to uses John 6:63 to mean that all teachings prior to this verse were symbolic terms:
1) where else in Holy Scripture is "spirit" ever interpreted as "symbolic"?
2) since there's no other instance of "spirit" meaning "symbolic", by what criteria do those who reject this teaching insist on applying the "symbolic" meaning to John 6:63?
3) since God, human souls, angles, and Satan are "spirits", does that mean they too are merely "symbolic"...if not, why interpret "spirit" in John 6:63 as meaning "symbolic"?
In addition, it's worthy to repeat the words of written by St. Ignatius...St. Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostles John and Peter...this was written in 107AD:
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
Now, we accept that the Gospel of John was written by the Apostle John, who had a disciple for himself, St. Ignatius...We can conclude also that St. Ignatius was familiar with Johns Gospel and probably had every opportunity to ask the Apostle many, many questions concerning John 6...after all the Apostle John knew Jesus Christ personally and could answer his questions...We also know that Christ promised His Apostles that He (Christ) would be with them always...we'll the Apostles are dead, yet they (the Apostles) made disciples for themselves and St. Ignatius later became bishop of the Church...the same Church of which they (the Apostles) established by the Great Commission of our Lord...Christ also promised His Holy Spirit would remind His Church of ALL things...So to me, I find it difficult to believe that St. Ignatius would write something contrary to what the Apostle John would approve and taught him.
in XC
-
Tom Butler
New Member
Okay, I'm learning something here. Thanks. I guess this is a matter of faith, because I can't see it with my eyes. You are asking me to believe that when the priest consecrates the elements he holds up the wafer and (as I imagine it) says: "See this wafer. It's not a wafer any more. It looks like a wafer and tastes like a wafer, but it's not. It's the actual flesh of Jesus Christ."
Same with the cup: "See this cup. Before I consecrated it, it was wine. Not now. It's blood, the blood of Jesus. Still looks like wine, still tastes like wine, but it's not. It's blood."
Agnus Dei has drawn a distinction between the RC and Orthodox view of transubstantiation, referring to the Real Presence. I suppose both views require leaps of faith that are too big for me to accept.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Orthodox don't use waifers. They use specially designed leven bread that has markings on it and they place it on a paten. Not all the bread on the paten is Eucharist. They fraction the Eucharist into cubes and serve it on a spoon.
Tom Butler
New Member
Thanks for adding to my education about all this. Question: you use leavened bread instead of unleavened? That's interesting.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I don't think the Orthodox consider the last supper as a passover meal but an institution of a new meal which is why they use Leaven bread. But I could be wrong on that respect.
I did take a Orthodox catachesis class to see what it was they taught. I didn't finish the entire class I would like to go back to learn more of what the Orthodox teach.
Last edited by a moderator: