The Eucharist

[neal4christ]

(consubstantiation versus transubstantiation)

What's the difference between these two?

So Christ is not being crucified again in Mass in your eyes? It is more of a memorial to His sacrifice and partaking of it? See, I have always heard that Catholics kill Christ over and over. That is not what you believe, is it?

I would like to see an actual Mass service, but I am a little intimidated by it. I don't want to do something wrong or offend someone there, because I have never (at least I can't remember if I did) stepped foot in a Catholic church. Is it okay to just watch? Would they not like the fact that I am Baptist and watching their service?

I know there are Protestants here who will probably label me as a heretic, but I am a firm believer in not condemning until you know what you are condemning. Yet I found myself condemning all Catholics, yet I really don't know what you believe. My personal apologies for doing that, and I hope others will at least find out what you guys believe before they label you heretic, apostate, anti-christ, etc. After all, there is nothing to be afraid of when it comes to truth. I figure by looking into this either I will be strengthened in my own beliefs, or something may change. If it is truth, there is nothing worth holding onto over it.

Thanks,
Neal

 

[thessalonian]

Neal,

The Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. Yes the bread and the wine are symbols. Symbols of us being crushed like the wheat is crushed and molded like the wheat is molded and cooked until it becomes something new. Then it is united with all the other grains of wheat to become bread. But when this bread is consecrated to God it becomes Christ himself, poured out for our sins. It is not against the phrase in John, "it is finished". This charge is one of the most rediculous that I have heard. For in saying this, you are saying that believing that we are saved today by grace is contradicting that statement. The Eucharist is grace. The Eucharist is making Christ's sacrifice that occured physically 2000 years ago, present for us today in an unbloody representation so that the grace from that sacrifice can be applied to our lives. It is our mana in the desert of life, giving us strength to continue in him and follow him, and to bear the fruit of good works so that we can bring him to others. It is our pascal sacrifice, the bread and wine offered by the priest Melcheizedek, the offering of pure grain in Malachi 1:11.

Here is something I wrote for a guy at work to present some of the evidedence from scripture regarding the truth of the real prescence of Christ in the Eucharist.

In the Old Testament we see many forshadowings of the Lord's Supper.
Among them is the first Passover in which Moses took the Jews out of Egypt
in to the Desert for 40 years. And God commanded them to sacrifice an
unblemished Lamb. And that lamb was to be eaten. Fully consumed before
the dawn of the next day.

Exodus 12:5-10
'Your lamb shall be an unblemished male a year old; you may take it
from the sheep or from the goats.
You shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month, then
the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel is to kill it at
twilight.
'Moreover, they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two
doorposts and on the lintel of the houses in which they eat it.
'They shall eat the flesh that same night, roasted with fire, and
they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.
'Do not eat any of it raw or boiled at all with water, but rather
roasted with fire, both its head and its legs along with its entrails.
And you shall not leave any of it over until morning, but whatever
is left of it until morning, you shall burn with fire.

Then we have the journey through the desert and the story of the
Mana in the Desert, feeding the Isrealites as they journeyed accross the
desert. God provided completely for their physical needs as they made
their journey accross the desert.

Exodus 16:4
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Behold, I will rain bread from heaven
for you; and the people shall go out and gather a day's portion every day,
that I may test them, whether or not they will walk in My instruction.


Now in John 6 Jesus gives new meaning to the story of the Mana in
the desert. This story once again takes place around the passover. Not
likely a coincidence:

John 6:4
Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near.

There is the story of the loaves and fishes and the feeding of 5000
and Jesus crosses a sea which has significance but for the sake of brevity
I will not bring it up here.
Then Jesus goes in to his bread of life discourse.

John 6:30
So they said to Him, "What then do You do for a sign, so that we may
see, and believe You? What work do You perform?

John 6:31-35
"Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'HE
GAVE THEM BREAD OUT OF HEAVEN TO EAT.' "
Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not
Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who
gives you the true bread out of heaven.
"For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and
gives life to the world."
Then they said to Him, "Lord, always give us this bread."
Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will
not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

The Jews grumble because he said he came down from heaven.

John 6:41
Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, "I am
the bread that came down out of heaven."

Then he really stirs them up:

John 6:47-54
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
"I am the bread of life.
"Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
"This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may
eat of it and not die.
"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats
of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give
for the life of the world is My flesh."
(53) Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can
this man give us His flesh to eat?"

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat
the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in
yourselves.
"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up on the last day.

Note verse 53. The Jews recognize that he is speaking literally.

He does not correct himself or say, no you have it all wrong. He merely
more ephatically states what he has already said.
Once again in verse 56 I think the words are unmistakable. This is
the 4th time he has said thes same thing with no hint that I can see that
he is explaing things mearly symbolically.

John 6:56
"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in
him.
"As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so
he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.
"This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the
fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever."

Now his disciples even get a bit rankled. And they even leave him
over this statement.

John 6:60-62
Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, "This is
a difficult statement; who can listen to it?"
But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to
them, "Does this cause you to stumble?
As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not
walking with Him anymore.

And he challenges the Twelve on their loyalty on it also.
John 6:67
So Jesus said to the twelve, "You do not want to go away also, do
you?"
Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words
of eternal life.
"We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of
God."

Interestingly enough Peter speaks for the group as he did in Matt
16:18 but that is a different topic.
In Matthew's Gospel we have the Lord's supper. There is much in
this verse that ties it to John 6 that I won't go in to right now other
than to note: it is on the Passover, which is also called the feast of
the unleavened bread. This ties together both the Ex 12 sacrifice and the
story of the manna in the desert. One year before in John's Gospel Jesus
had given the bread of life sermon. This verse fullfilled it.

Matthew 26:26-28
While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing,
He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My
body."
And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them,
saying, "Drink from it, all of you;
for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many
for forgiveness of sins.

After Jesus arises from the dead he meets two men on the road.

An interesting prophecy that was taken by the early Church to be
about the Lord's Supper and the celebration of the Eucharist is in

Malachi 1:11
"For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be
great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered
to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great
among the nations," says the LORD of hosts.
Today there is a Mass each and every second of the day going on
somewhere in the World. This verse is particularly intersting becasue I
believe in those quotes I sent you this verse is refered to in the quote
from the Didache and in a quote from Justin Martyr as refering to the
Eucharist.
One final verse before this gets unbearably long.

1 Corinthians 11:23-30
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you,
that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;
and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My
body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup
is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in
remembrance of Me."
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim
the Lord's death until He comes.
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an
unworthy manner, shall be GUILTY OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD.
But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the
bread and drink of the cup.
For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if
he does not judge the body rightly.
For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number
sleep.
Note the seriousness with which Paul regards the Lord's supper. To
me it seems a bit harsh if the Lord's supper were just taken symbolically.

Come to the wedding supper of the lamb. Your invited:

Revelation 19:9
Then he *said to me, "Write, 'Blessed are those who are invited to
the marriage supper of the Lamb.' " And he *said to me, "These are true
words of God."


There is much more that I could say but this is getting kind of long
so I will stop. I hope it
helps.

God bless.

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by neal4christ:
What's the difference between these two?

Con: That the Body and Blood of Christ is present in, with, and under the species of bread and wine.

Trans: That the substance of bread and wine fully changes into the Body and Blood of Christ. The bread and wine are no longer present except in their accidents (those things perceivable to the senses).

Originally posted by neal4christ:
So Christ is not being crucified again in Mass in your eyes?

Of course not. If I did, I would be saying that His death on the cross was insufficient, which is wholly not the case, and something I'm sure you also believe. His death was ALL sufficient, but that doesn't mean that this can not be re-presented to us for the edification of our spiritual lives.

Originally posted by neal4christ:
It is more of a memorial to His sacrifice and partaking of it? See, I have always heard that Catholics kill Christ over and over. That is not what you believe, is it?

The Catechism answers this pretty sufficiently. I'm not going to be able to explain it better than it, most likely. It is re-presentation of the same sacrifice, not a new one, or even a continuation of the first and only one. It is a memorial, yes, but not MERELY a memorial. Christ is ACTUALLY and PHYSICALLY present.

Again, if something in my explanation is still lacking, I'll try better. I'm at home for the weekend, and my Catechism is back at the dorm. I'll have quick access to it tomorrow night.

Originally posted by neal4christ:
I would like to see an actual Mass service, but I am a little intimidated by it. I don't want to do something wrong or offend someone there, because I have never (at least I can't remember if I did) stepped foot in a Catholic church. Is it okay to just watch? Would they not like the fact that I am Baptist and watching their service?

Absolutely not; they won't mind a bit. Find a seat in the back, and participate as much as you feel comfortable with. I know many people who are not Catholic that go to Mass with me who do not kneel; plus people with handicaps obviously can't kneel, so you're usually not the only one. There are times of standing (during some prayers, during the Our Father, during the reading of the Gospel, etc). Again, participate as much as you are comfortable with. If you wish to just listen, then just listen. If you have more questions on that, please ask.

Originally posted by neal4christ:
I know there are Protestants here who will probably label me as a heretic, but I am a firm believer in not condemning until you know what you are condemning.

What we don't know scares us. Catholicism in the form that many people THINK it is IS scary, and I would have no part in it. But it ain't like that, and it's not scary.

Originally posted by neal4christ:
Yet I found myself condemning all Catholics, yet I really don't know what you believe. My personal apologies for doing that,

Apology completely accepted. My apologies if I've ever misrepresented your own faith. On both parts, it was likely unintentional.

Originally posted by neal4christ:
and I hope others will at least find out what you guys believe before they label you heretic, apostate, anti-christ, etc. After all, there is nothing to be afraid of when it comes to truth. I figure by looking into this either I will be strengthened in my own beliefs, or something may change. If it is truth, there is nothing worth holding onto over it.

Thanks,
Neal

Exactly! If we're right, what do we have to fear in opening ourselves to others' beliefs? If nothing else, yes, it will stregthen/reinforce our own beliefs, and allow us to better minister with those in the differing faith. And if you do make the change, then I'm sure someone with a faith as strong as your own is being lead there by God; neither you nor I are the type to follow a whim in regards to our faith. I spent a year and a half of DAILY study before making a decision. I expect no less from you, in whichever way you chose to follow.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Born Again Catholic]

Neal

I couldn't find it tonight but if your interested i will continue to look, i used to have a web address which referenced virtually every word spoken in the mass back to the Bible.

You also might enjoy reading about Scott Hahn's first time at Mass, and his suprise at recognizing so much there from scripture because of his seminary training esp as it relates to the OT.

I hope you don't mind if I share a "Mass" experiance I had.

It is hard to say now but I used to get nothing out of Mass it just seemed like a lot of words and meaningless movement up and down ( i was catechised very poorly at the time)

One day it hit me how selfish I was I was living every other hour of the week for myself and I was upset that in this one hour a week I wasn't lifted up by the homily(sermon)by the priest and the service seemed boring.

Finally i decided to go to Mass not to get anything out of it for myself but just to give glory to God with my every word and action.

The Mass took on a whole new light and Jesus showered me with His Grace.

God Bless

[ January 26, 2003, 03:09 AM: Message edited by: Born Again Catholic ]

 

[BrianT]

I'm enjoying this thread. Lot's of things to think about.

One aspect I'd like to see a little more discussion on is the literal vs. symbolic. I'm not sure it is enough that the historic support is there (but I admit it is impressive and giving me pause).

I'd like to ask more about the scripture itself. Yes, it says the bread "is" the body. But that in itself does not mean it is not a comparison, a symbol. Similies use "like" and "as", but metaphors can use "is", "am", "are", etc.

Matt 11:14 says John the Baptist "is" Elijah, Acts 4:11 says Christ "is" a stone. Similarly, John 15:5 Christ says "I am the vine, ye are the branches" and in John 10:9, he says "I am the door". Yet we don't take these literally. How can we be sure the bread and wine are not used in a similar, metaphorical way?

One other question that came to mind as I read this thread: was the bread and the wine at the Last Supper also literally Christ's body and blood, even though the sacrifice on the cross had not been made yet?

Thanks,
Brian

 

[GraceSaves]

Brian, Neal, etc.

Driving back to school today, and then I have Mass tonight at 6pm (right when I'll arrive), so I won't be able to respond to new questions until later tonight. Just letting you know in advance!

God bless,

Grant

 

[neal4christ]

Thanks, Grant, look forward to the response. Good questions, Brian.

Neal

 

[CatholicConvert]

OH MAN!!

Did my heart ever LEAP when I read this thread. You know, it was the Blessed Sacrament which started a serious consideration of the Catholic Faith and strangely enough, it was the writing of a Calvinist, Dr. Michael Horton, which started it all!! (Dr. Horton's hair will probably turn WHITE if he learns that one of his articles led a Presbyterian to the Catholic Faith!! )

Brian and Neal --

There is SOOOOOOOOO much to the Blessed Sacrament that we could burn HOURS and tons of web space, (which I think the administrators would frown upon).

Let's see....first off "substance". i.e., the fact that the substance is changed but what we see is not. I am led to think immediately of the Incarnation, where the substance was God, but that which was seen was flesh and human. Is it possible for substance to change and yet for the "accidents" (what we see) to be left?

I must say yes, because I believe in a God Who is big enough to do such a thing. Some would say to me "You mean that God....the same God Who holds His universe together, is in that little wafer (or in our case, as Eastern Catholics, cube of bread).

Sointenly!!

My response would be "You mean that God, the same God Who holds the universe together in His hands, is in that little baby boy's body?"

We human beings have such a penchant for trying to UNDERSTAND everything. I do feel that Protestantism took the mysterious out of Christianity as the Reformation moved along. To do so reduces God to Someone Who can be understood easily. I prefer the mysterious, or at least a certain amount of mystery in my worship.

But WHY must it be really and truly His Flesh and Blood.....

Oh, there is a very good reason for that, and once I understood it, I have never looked at it in the same manner.

FROM THE BOOK "THE DANCE OF ISAIAH"

I have waxed eloquent in an area which seems to be quite unrelated to the need for the Eucharist to be the true Body and Blood of our Lord. But in truth, these concepts are the foundation of the need for the Real Presence. We are born unrighteous by the mere fact of our organic unity with our father Adam. By being flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, in his loins when he sinned, we also are made very real partakers of and participants in that sin. This is no paper declaration of sin in heaven, but a very real participation in both the sin of Adam and the consequent state of separation from God, called “death”,which is the consequence of that sin. It all comes from our organic union with Adam.

Therefore, it is equally necessary that we have not just a paper righteousness in Heaven, but a real righteousness coming from an organic unity with one Who is perfectly righteous Himself.

Guys, this is the HEART of what salvation is, that we are "in Christ". That is not just a kind of nice thought, it is a real reality. In a mystery which we do not understand, we will be both individuals and yet intimately part of Christ, joined in a union which is exemplified by the marital union between husband and wife.

"Well, surely that is the Spirit of God. We are righteous because we have Him living in us and God sees Him instead of us!”

WRONG!!

I ran several computer word searches through my Bible program. I tried every combination of words and phrases which I could find using the words “spirit” and “righteousness”. Time and time again I came up empty. The best I could find was 3 New Testament verses which mention the spirit and righteousness together. And the only one which mentions them in a way that could possibly look supportive of such a notion actually shows that it is CHRIST living in us who is our righteousness, NOT THE SPIRIT OF GOD!! (Romans 8:10). The work of the Holy Spirit, the purpose of His indwelling is as the seal of our faith and the down payment , or earnest, or our inheritance in Christ. He is never described as being our indwelling righteousness.

Surprised? So was I. I had always held to the Protestant view.

On the other hand, there are a number of verses which connect Christ with righteousness, most especially in us:

Ro 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

I have to jump in right here because I think I hear the sounds of Calvinists doing a victory dance. “See? See? It is FAITH which is our righteousness, not the Eucharist like you insist!”

Agreed that it is faith. The Catholic Church agrees that faith is essential. But you didn’t read the verse real carefully, and your conclusion is what happens when you read Scripture through presuppositional lenses. Read that again – slowly. It is the faith OF Jesus Christ, NOT faith IN Jesus Christ. It is the faith of the One who is Jesus Christ, not YOUR faith in Christ Jesus. Get that straight and you will understand what I am saying.

Protestants believe that “faith IN Jesus” is some sort of magic key by which the vaults of Heaven are opened and God gives us a gift called righteousness. A gift which is separate from Christ Himself. Yet Scripture here is showing us that righteousness comes through our organic unity with He Who is Himself righteousness. We become righteous by being placed in Him, staying in Him, and keeping Him in us by the reception of the Eucharist.

Ro 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Look at this. Righteousness is a gift. More tellingly is the context in which this verse appears – Romans 5: 12- 19. The whole point of these verses is how we are condemned by our organic union with Adam, without our having done ANYTHING OURSELVES. By union with him, we are separated from God. Therefore, to reverse the process and redeem us from the curse, we MUST BE IN LIKE MANNER ORGANICALLY UNITED TO CHRIST. A paper declaration of innocency does NO SUCH THING!!!

Ro 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Ro 8:10 ¶ And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Oh, look at that! If Christ be IN YOU!! How can Christ be in you except you eat His Flesh and drink His Blood? How can you share in His righteousness in the same organic union you shared in Adam’s unrighteousness unless you somehow unite with His Flesh as you united with Adam’s flesh by your birth? And since Christ is not going to be having a family of faith by the process of having children of His fleshly seed, then God had to find another way. We cannot come forth of His flesh, but his Flesh can come unto and unite within us to give us that righteousness as a real and substantial part of our being.

Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Exactly. Because when we are in Him by baptism, we cease to be in Adam. Our union with Adam placed us under the condemnation of the Law. Our union with Christ places us under the blessing of grace. But how MUCH of Christ we have IN US, how deep that union is determines how righteous we are. The more we receive Him in the Eucharist, the more He permeates our being and conforms us to His righteousness just as the more we received the works of the flesh of Adam, the more we were conformed to evil.

1Co 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

It is Christ who is identified as being made unto (or for) us as righteousness,sanctification, and redemption. Not the Holy Spirit.

Php 1:11 Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God.

Just as I said above. The more of Christ we have within us, the more we are filled with the fruits of righteousness, which righteousness comes through our organic union with Him. It is faith which causes us to seek this righteousness, faith which brings us to the altar to receive.

Php 3:9 ¶ And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

2Pe 1:1 ¶ Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

The point of the Eucharist is that we become "one flesh" with our beloved Bridegroom. Having HIS RIGTEOUSNESS by faith is real righteousness, the righteousness that a mere declaration cannot give. When God declares something, what He states either becomes or is a statement of truth. When He said "Light", there was light. And when He declared it to be good, He was stating that which is true. Light did not become good by God's declaring it good. He made it good and declared to the universe that it was so.

This same God does not take a sinner and declare Him to be righteous when in fact he is not. He declares what is, therefore, when He said of Abraham that he was righteous, He was declaring exactly what is so. And when He sees us, having confessed our sins (this is what ALL CATHOLICS are supposed to do before receiving the Eucharist, either with a priest in the case of grave sins, or in the pew to God Himself in the case of minor sins) and having recieved His Son's Body and Blood, He declares that which is true of us -- that we are indeed righteous because of our union with Christ.

And this same union will be perfected in eternity and will be the ONLY reason that we will have eternal life and be able to be in Heaven -- because we will be eternally in Christ!!!!

"Christ in you, the hope of glory!!" And what a hope that is!! God does not observe His creation from a distance, but in the words of Thomas Merton:

The Lord made His world not in order to judge it, not in order merely to dominate it, to make it obey the dictates of an inscrutable and all-powerful will, not in order to find pleasure or displeasure in the way it worked; such was not the
reason for the creation either of the world of man.

The Lord made the world and made man in order that He Himself might descend into the world, that He Himself might become Man. When He regarded the world He was about to make He saw His wisdom as a man-child, “playing in the world, playing before Him at all times.” And He reflected, “my delights are to be with the children of men.”

The Lord would not only love His creation as a Father, but He would enter into His creation, emptying Himself, hiding Himself, as if He were not God but a creature. Why should He do this? Because He loved His creatures, and because He could not bear that His creatures should merely adore Him as distant, remote, transcendent, and all powerful. This was not the glory He sought, for if He were merely adored as great, His creatures would in their turn make themselves great and lord it over one another.

Ahhhh, Merton.....he has eyes to see!!!

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

[ January 26, 2003, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]

 

[CatholicConvert]

"It is finished"

I think the question which most Protestants haven't asked themselves is this:

Exactly WHAT is finished?

And I think the answers are less than satisfactory regarding the issue of sacrifice for sins and the continuing sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist.

May I submit that what is finished is the Old Covenant. Christ fulfilled it to the letter of His Father's Law and in doing so, suceeded where Adam failed, was promoted to glory and honor, and in dying, paid for the sin of Adam that mankind might be rejoined to God to continue the program which God started in Eden.

We know that there is evidence of the passing away of the Old Covenant in Hebrews 8:13. Chapter 9 goes on to give some interesting information regarding what has happened in Heaven after the death of our Lord:

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

AMEN and AMEN!!!

23 ¶ It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

Whoaaaaaaa!!! The "heavenly things themselves" needed to be purified? What heavenly things are we discussing here? This is amazing. Adam's sin had some very far reaching consequences, did it not?

24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

To now appear in the presence of God for us. Why? To do what Hebrews 9 suggests, that is, offer eternal YOM KIPPUR for those who are the covenant people, God's Israel, the Church, composed of Jew and Gentile. High priests offer YOM KIPPUR. Christ went to do just that to provide for Himself a Bride spotless and holy before God. And the only way She would not only be cleansed, but stay holy, is that continuous application of the ONE and ONLY sacrifice. It is a continuous YOM KIPPUR, a perfect sacrifice which cleanses the Bride, His Church.

You see, the contrast in Hebrews 9 and 10 is between the high priests of Judaism who needed to come yearly and THE Great High Priest, who made ONE SACRIFICE. (Esp 10: 1 - 6 ) If we are comparing high priests in this verse, then I believe I have every right to say that the atonement on the Cross was a YOM KIPPUR which was done once. And it is applied to the CORPORATE NATION, as is done with YOM KIPPUR OFFERINGS, and not to the individual.

However, I believe that this same offering has a secondary locus, i.e., that of a sin offering for personal sins. This is seen in that Christ changed the Passover (personal application - personal sins) to the Eucharist in the Upper Room When I approach Christ's Blood personally, I am given forgiveness based upon He being my Passover Lamb.

Those people who look to Hebrews 9 and claim that the "once and forever done sacrifice" of Christ means that I myself do not need to apply that Blood to my sins are missing the contrast indicated in the words "HIGH PRIEST". You cannot apply the work of a high priest to the sins of a person. OT typology does not allow for this. And there is no reference to the Passover offering in Hebrews 9 and 10. It is all about YOM KIPPUR, which is CORPORATE in nature.

Here is a personal thought:

Since we see the continuation of an altar in Heaven, I am led to ask if the sacrifice will always be present in some form for eternity? If the people who are in Heaven in the book of the Revelation are at an altar (which is used for SACRIFICE), yet they are IN HEAVEN, which means they "made it", WHY the altar? Will the Blood always be available to us so that a repeat of Genesis never happens again? Just some musings, and certainly nothing I would teach as doctrine.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

[BrianT]

Hi Ed,

Thanks for more stuff to think about.

But again, more questions.

Originally posted by CatholicConvert:
And the only one which mentions them in a way that could possibly look supportive of such a notion actually shows that it is CHRIST living in us who is our righteousness, NOT THE SPIRIT OF GOD!! (Romans 8:10).

But if Christ is God, isn't the spirit of Christ synonymous with the spirit of God?

It is the faith OF Jesus Christ, NOT faith IN Jesus Christ. It is the faith of the One who is Jesus Christ, not YOUR faith in Christ Jesus. Get that straight and you will understand what I am saying.

I sort of understand what you are saying. (And I'm not a Calvinist)

But what about verses like Acts 24:24, Gal 3:26, Eph 1:15 and Col 2:5? They speak of faith "in" Christ.

The whole point of these verses is how we are condemned by our organic union with Adam, without our having done ANYTHING OURSELVES. By union with him, we are separated from God. Therefore, to reverse the process and redeem us from the curse, we MUST BE IN LIKE MANNER ORGANICALLY UNITED TO CHRIST. A paper declaration of innocency does NO SUCH THING!!!

Yes, I agree there is a parallel here: Adam the old man bringing death (organic and spiritual), and Christ the new man bringing life (organic and spiritual). But consider, as you mentioned we are condemned through Adam without our having done anything ourselves. If the parallel holds true, are we not restored to life through Christ in the same way? Isn't the eating of the Eucharist something we "do" ourselves?

In other words, consider what Christ's restoration of 'organic' life entails: the resurrection of the body. If it is necessary to physically eat bread that has literally become Christ in order to have Christ in you and thus be later resurrected, what about believers that died before they had the chance? Christ spoke of Lazarus being raised at the last day. The thief on the cross next to Christ did not partake of the Eucharist. And I assume that throughout the centuries, there have been thousands who have become Catholics but died before partaking of the Eucharist. Are they denied resurrection? If they are not, does this not indicate that the bread and the wine, although still very important and also affirming the contrast of Adam (death) with Christ (life), the elements are symbolic only, since resurrection would occur whether or not one actually ate the transubstantiated bread?

One last question: assuming all you say about the necessity of eating the bread for organic life (to defeat organic death), what of the Catholic who partakes of Eucharist, but later falls away? I'm not arguing for Calvin's 'preservation of the saints', but it would appear to me that if they had indeed eaten Christ, that Christ was literally and organically part of them, they could not loose that by later sin. Am I making sense? Do you understand my question?

Anyway, great thread. Thanks for your help and responses as I wrestle with this issue for myself. I'm not trying to "debate" you at all, it's just that if I'm going to come to the Catholic position on this, I have to be able to see past the obstacles in my Protestant thinking.

Thanks,
Brian

[ January 26, 2003, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

[thessalonian]

Brian T.

"One other question that came to mind as I read this thread: was the bread and the wine at the Last Supper also literally Christ's body and blood, even though the sacrifice on the cross had not been made yet?"

Augustine answers this. I can't remember if it was in confessions or one of his sermons. He said:

"Jesus held himself in his own hands".

He did say, this is my body and this is your blood.

This is God we are talking about. He made an axe float, he turned a sea in to dry land. He cured the sick and the lame and fed 5000 with a few loaves and fishes. He walked on water and made another man walk on water. He passed through a solid wall and made a virgin concieve and bear a son. So I just don't see a problem.

Another question I saw above was about symbol vs. real prescence. I answered this partly in my post above. In general from a Catholic perspective if you look in the Catechism, it is not symbol or but symbol and the real prescence. In the writings of Augustine, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian you will occasionally find terminology that makes it sound as if they hold a symbolic view and yet in other places it is very clear that they believe in the Real Prescence unequivicoly. The matter is resolved when it is understood that from their perspective, this was a symbol that became what it symbolized. Here is an article on Augustine's view if your interested.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ125.HTM

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by BrianT:
Matt 11:14 says John the Baptist "is" Elijah,

Now go read Matthew 17:10-13, and you'll see that Jesus fully explains what he meant by calling him Elijah.

Originally posted by BrianT:
Acts 4:11 says Christ "is" a stone.

This is a quotation from Pslam 188:22, and it is VERY clear that what is being said is symbolic, for not only is Christ the stone, but the stone "that the builders rejected." Who are the builders? Actual carpenters or masons? Surely not. This is a complete metaphor.

Originally posted by BrianT:
Similarly, John 15:5 Christ says "I am the vine, ye are the branches"

Read verse 4. Jesus is speaking of actual vines and branches, and then obviously makes a metaphor, tying the symbolism of verse 4 with a meaning in verse 5. It's not just a stand alone thing He says.

Originally posted by BrianT:
and in John 10:9, he says "I am the door".

The entire context of chapter 10 is metaphoric, with "sheep," "shepards," "gates," "stranger," etc. It's impossible to take this any other way that metaphorical.

Originally posted by BrianT:
Yet we don't take these literally. How can we be sure the bread and wine are not used in a similar, metaphorical way?

The above have tons of metaphorical context. In the Lord's Supper accounts, each time it jumps straight into it. He holds up a piece of bread. This IS my body. He holds up a cup. This IS my blood. He never explains that he meant something else. He was not telling a story or parable. He did not explain any deeper meaning. It just IS.

Originally posted by BrianT:
One other question that came to mind as I read this thread: was the bread and the wine at the Last Supper also literally Christ's body and blood, even though the sacrifice on the cross had not been made yet?

Thanks,
Brian

Yes, it was. God is God, and God is capable of all things. I think it was put well by others already; Christ performed miracles. Why doubt this one?

God bless,

Grant

 

[neal4christ]

If it is necessary to physically eat bread that has literally become Christ in order to have Christ in you and thus be later resurrected, what about believers that died before they had the chance? Christ spoke of Lazarus being raised at the last day. The thief on the cross next to Christ did not partake of the Eucharist. And I assume that throughout the centuries, there have been thousands who have become Catholics but died before partaking of the Eucharist. Are they denied resurrection? If they are not, does this not indicate that the bread and the wine, although still very important and also affirming the contrast of Adam (death) with Christ (life), the elements are symbolic only, since resurrection would occur whether or not one actually ate the transubstantiated bread?

One last question: assuming all you say about the necessity of eating the bread for organic life (to defeat organic death), what of the Catholic who partakes of Eucharist, but later falls away?

I wouldn't mind some input on these questions that Brian asked from anyone. I am sure Ed would not mind if you answer. If he does, he can get mad at me!

Thanks again!

Neal

P.S. I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread as well and thank you for the gentle attitudes here. So much more is accomplished when name calling and blatant lies are not mixed in! I will be posting threads on other topics of Catholicism, so please be on the look out for them in the future.

 

[CatholicConvert]

Brian --

I have to make this short since I am snagging a few minutes from work to do this (I work for myself, so it's okay).

First off -- great questions!! I know this is really tough to work through.

But if Christ is God, isn't the spirit of Christ synonymous with the spirit of God?

I think what is being said here is that we want to keep the PERSONS of the Blessed Trinity to be separate. Remember, it is ONE God, but THREE persons, a great mystery to us!!

But what about verses like Acts 24:24, Gal 3:26, Eph 1:15 and Col 2:5? They speak of faith "in" Christ.[/b]

Let's take a look:

Ac 24:24 And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.

This is not equating faith "in" Christ as being righteousness. The author did not say that one did not have to have faith in Christ, but that righteousness, OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, is HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS in us. It is His faith which is righteousness in us. But we must have faith in Him to access Him, become part of Him, and thus have His faith as our righteousness.

Ga 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Oh my, YES!! We must have faith in Christ to become the children of God. You see, our faith moves us to the waters of baptism where we enter the New Covenant and are adopted into the family of God. There is a mysterious synergy between God and man where God does all the work, yet He calls to us and expects us to believe and respond Yet that does not make us righteous. It is our union with Christ which makes us righteous. It is nothing of us and all of Him, yet we must responde to Him. Great mystery.

Eph 1:15 ¶ Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,

Again, St. Paul is expressing his thanks to God for the Ephesian church. But I do not see that this is equating to righteousness. But even suppose it is -- it is still the work of God that we have faith (Eph. 2: 8-10) and therefore still all of Him and nothing of us. It is indeed a gift!!!

Col 2:5 For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.

Same thing. And any steadfastness we have in Christ is STRICTLY BECAUSE OF HIM. He is our perseverence (Yes, there is a doctrine of perseverence in Catholicism -- it is just not the same as the Calvinist version).

Yes, I agree there is a parallel here: Adam the old man bringing death (organic and spiritual), and Christ the new man bringing life (organic and spiritual). But consider, as you mentioned we are condemned through Adam without our having done anything ourselves. If the parallel holds true, are we not restored to life through Christ in the same way? Isn't the eating of the Eucharist something we "do" ourselves?

Take the parallel to its covenantal conclusion. Everything we did in Adam -- everything we do IN CHRIST. This is why the Table of the Lord is barred to pagans and unbelievers. It is blessing for us but damnation for them because they are still "in Adam". Brother, it is not myself "alone" who is partaking, but I, as a MEMBER OF HIS BODY who does the eating. As an earlier post said, Christ held His Body in His hands!! Great mystery, but that is the nature of the great and mysterious God we deal with. The whole body of believers partakes as one, and I am a part of that Body.

So it is really not "me" doing anything -- it is Jesus as Covenantal Head because I am in Him. Hope that makes a glimmer of sense. (I am sometimes HORRIBLE at explaining things I see clearly but others do not)

In other words, consider what Christ's restoration of 'organic' life entails: the resurrection of the body. If it is necessary to physically eat bread that has literally become Christ in order to have Christ in you and thus be later resurrected, what about believers that died before they had the chance?

This is one of many reasons I am a Preterist. All who believed were assigned to the place called Paradise until Christ finished the work of the Cross in Heaven by making YOM KIPPUR for the Church and establishing the New Covenant. When He did so, all came into the FULLNESS and COMPLETENESS of eternal life. Prior to that, they had the righteousness of faith in God, but it was not complete because they were not "in Christ". When the Temple in Heaven was cleansed and the workd done, Paradise was opened and the saints inherited that which Christ had earned for them -- eternal life and completeness by being "in Him".

One last question: assuming all you say about the necessity of eating the bread for organic life (to defeat organic death), what of the Catholic who partakes of Eucharist, but later falls away? I'm not arguing for Calvin's 'preservation of the saints', but it would appear to me that if they had indeed eaten Christ, that Christ was literally and organically part of them, they could not loose that by later sin. Am I making sense? Do you understand my question?

You make a great deal of sense and your questions show that you are really givin' the old grey matter a workout!!

I would remind you that our righteousness here on earth is in proportion to our relationship with Christ Jesus. The closer we draw by the exercise of His faith in us, which in turn will (must) produce the works of charity which are an extension of His life in us, then the greater our righteousness becomes. Likewise, when we listen to the voice of temptation and draw away, the farther we get from our organic union with Him, the less righteous we are.

Think of it this way. As we exercise faith, His life is lived through us. But if we exercise sin, He withdraws from us, for He can have no union with the doing of evil. We are on our own.

I believe that the reason you may have a struggle with this is that the teaching of "forensic justification" is confusing. It sounds nice to think that we are justified forever, but that is just not so. One thing which seems correct to me (remember EVERYTHING I write is just my ideas) is that when Jesus took Adam's place on the Cross and paid for my sins, He re established the Garden Covenant and the program which God had designed from the beginning. This program was originally designed to "bring many sons to glory" by their coming into the world and growing in righteousness through the exercise of faith. Everytime we exercise faith (again, which is a gift from Him and done in Him) we grow in our own righteousness. You see, we are a type of the Blessed Trinity in that we are ONE BODY, yet still INDIVIDUALS. Adam acted as a person who was united to God, yet still an individual.

I believe (again, my personal idea here) that the Cross re united mankind to God so that each man was put on the same footing that would have existed in the Garden had the Fall not taken place -- that is to say that each person ever born would have had to follow in the footsteps of Adam and Eve and be TESTED and either SUCCEED or FAIL on his own. Theologians I have read have stated that in the covenantal matrix, it was not Eve's sin which condemned the human race, it was Adam's, because he was the covenantal head. So imagine what would have happened if Eve or any other person born had sinned and Adam had not. I personally believe that Adam, as the covenatnal head of the race would have made sacrifice for them (perhaps like Christ, giving his own life) and then would have been promoted to the position of High Priest over the human race. Again, this is just speculation on my part and certainly subject to correction. But it seems logical that if Jesus is the Last Adam, then I can make certain correlations between the two, including Adam becoming all that Jesus became (with the exception of His Godhood) because when we speak of Jesus, we are speaking of HUMANITY.

I'm sorry. I got way a field here. But it is all connected through the understanding of covenantal principles. Again, Ray Sutton's book or some Scott Hahn will be tremendously helpful to you in fitting everything together.

Okay, now that I have thoroughly confused everyone, tear my post apart and ask the appropriate questions. Gotta get to work this AM!!

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Anyway, great thread. Thanks for your help and responses as I wrestle with this issue for myself. I'm not trying to "debate" you at all, it's just that if I'm going to come to the Catholic position on this, I have to be able to see past the obstacles in my Protestant thinking.

Thanks,
Brian

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Yes, it was. God is God, and God is capable of all things. I think it was put well by others already; Christ performed miracles. Why doubt this one?

God bless,

Grant

Because right now, Christ is at the right hand of God.

Mark 16:19, Acts 2:33, Acts 7:55 , Acts 7:56, Romans 8:34, Colossians 3:1, Hebrews 10:12,
1 Peter 3:22.

He said when he returns, we will be going with him. We don't recieve him, he's gonna revieve us!!!!

John 14:3

And finally, the Holy Spirit is who's doing Christ's earthly work.

John 14:26

I know this has been civil, but I have to chime in. This is a baptist board, and I believe my comments are welcome. I completely reject the eucharist, and furthermore claim that those who participate are no closer to the Lord than I am.

 

[thessalonian]

"Because right now, Christ is at the right hand of God."

Hmmmm, the Christ I know is God so if at the right hand of God is the only place that he can be then that Christ you are speaking of couldn't be God. Too bad he's not real. He also says "I will be with you always until the end of time" and finally doesn't the Apostle Paul in Galatians says "it is not I, but Christ lives in me". How can this be if he is only at the right hand of God? Nice try though.


"He said when he returns, we will be going with him. We don't recieve him, he's gonna revieve us!!!!"

All true and well and good. When he comes in the form of a man, just as he left, he will. In the form of the Eucharist he sustains us. By the way, pre-trib rapture is a bunch of hooey, but that's another thread.


"And finally, the Holy Spirit is who's doing Christ's earthly work."

So the Holy Spirit is a separate God? Trinitarian theology says that when one person of the trinity is there, all three are. You do believe in the trinity don't you. Once again Paul says when he does good, "it is not I, but Christ lives in me.".

"I know this has been civil, but I have to chime in. This is a baptist board, and I believe my comments are welcome. I completely reject the eucharist, and furthermore claim that those who participate are no closer to the Lord than I am."

Oh yes, your comments are welcome. God will be the judge of the last part.

Blessings.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

"the pre-trib rapture is a bunch of hooey"

Thank you for the comment, but the pre-trib rapture is a viewpoint one comes to after scripture study. Some don't, some do.

But nary a eucharist in scripture.

 

[thessalonian]

BrianT and Neal:

"If it is necessary to physically eat bread that has literally become Christ in order to have Christ in you and thus be later resurrected, what about believers that died before they had the chance?"

Catholicism says that God only judges us according to our opportunities. Thus when the theif on the cross is brought up against baptism it is a foolish arguement because he never had the chance to recieve baptism. God is not limited by his sacrements. But for those who here the words and have the opportunity to obey, they are accountable.

" Christ spoke of Lazarus being raised at the last day. The thief on the cross next to Christ did not partake of the Eucharist. And I assume that throughout the centuries, there have been thousands who have become Catholics but died before partaking of the Eucharist. Are they denied resurrection?

Answered above.

" If they are not, does this not indicate that the bread and the wine, although still very important and also affirming the contrast of Adam (death) with Christ (life), the elements are symbolic only, since resurrection would occur whether or not one actually ate the transubstantiated bread?"

Nope. They would not have, had they rejected it. That is the point. The Eucharist sustains us after we are baptized and after all of our sins are removed. It removes veniel sin and gives us strength against sin. We do not believe in Eternal Security or OSAS. Therefore a man can sin after the Eucharist. If it is veniel, it stains and weakens the soul. The Eucharist has the power to forgive these sins and restore strength in the soul.

"One last question: assuming all you say about the necessity of eating the bread for organic life (to defeat organic death), what of the Catholic who partakes of Eucharist, but later falls away?"

As I stated above we do not believe in ES or OSAS. Justification is both a one time act and a process. Thus the baptized soul is free from sin. But when one later sins, if it is mortal he looses the salvation he recieved from Christ in baptism by the power of the Holy Spirit. He then must confess his sin to a priest in order to return to the grace of God and partake of the Eucharist again (in the case of mortal sin). There are many verses that say we can fall away so your question is not just hypothetical. Following Christ is a lifelong commitment, not a gauarnteed ticket to heaven when we say a sinners prayer. Paul talks over and over about perseverence. JUst as the Jews needed the mana (bread from heaven) in the desert to physically sustain them, we need the Eucharist (bread from heaven, bread of life) in this desert of life to spiritually sustain us. Good questions. I hope my answers help.

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

Member # 1910

posted January 27, 2003 11:19 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"the pre-trib rapture is a bunch of hooey"

Thank you for the comment, but the pre-trib rapture is a viewpoint one comes to after scripture study. Some don't, some do.

No, the pre-trib rapture theory comes from a eisegeis by a man named Darby in the 1800's that many Protestants today except. There was little evidence this theory even existed before that time. And yes I do study scripture thank you. Daily.

"But nary a eucharist in scripture. "

Once again your Baptist TRADITION tells you so and so that is what you believe.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I stand by what I said, you don't have to like it. It's a Baptist Board, and the RCC posts will be refuted.