Do you remember?

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by thessalonian, Aug 26, 2003.

  1. thessalonian

    thessalonian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  2. MikeS

    MikeS
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. CatholicConvert

    CatholicConvert
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2001
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 :eek:

    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!!!
     
  4. thessalonian

    thessalonian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  5. MikeS

    MikeS
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    0
    You said it!!! [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
    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! [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  6. Kiffin

    Kiffin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.

     
  7. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,079
    Likes Received:
    103
    I couldn't have said it better.
     
  8. Dale McNamee

    Dale McNamee
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Messages:
    555
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  9. John Gilmore

    John Gilmore
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    748
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lutherans reject consubstantiation.

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

    Yelsew
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    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.
     
  11. trying2understand

    trying2understand
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that your particular branch of the Lutheran church rejects consubstantiation?
     
  12. CatholicConvert

    CatholicConvert
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2001
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Cordially in Christ through the Theotokos,

    Brother Ed
     
  13. thessalonian

    thessalonian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  14. thessalonian

    thessalonian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  15. Eladar

    Eladar
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  16. trying2understand

    trying2understand
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    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. [​IMG]
     
  17. Eladar

    Eladar
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,012
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  18. John Gilmore

    John Gilmore
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    748
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  19. MikeS

    MikeS
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    0
    But of course we have both. Does not refusing to believe the explicit words of Christ also belittle His message?
     
  20. trying2understand

    trying2understand
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     

Share This Page

Loading...