Another Catholic question (sorry guys!)

There is a fine line--almost indistinguishable between "re-presentation" and "re-sacrifice." In reality it is just a matter of semantics. Note that it is still called "The sacrifice of the Mass."

 

St. Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized [Ref. Unknown] (C. 373 AD):
"Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so as long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine – and thus is His Body confected."

St. Ambrose of Milan, Commentaries on Twelve of David’s Psalms 38, 25 (Inter C. 381-397 AD):
"We saw the Prince of Priests coming to us, we saw and heard Him offering His blood for us. We follow, inasmuch as we are able, being priests; and we offer the sacrifice on behalf of the people. And even if we are of but little merit, still, in the sacrifice, we are honorable. For even if Christ is not now seen as the one who offers the sacrifice, nevertheless it is He Himself that is offered in sacrifice here on earth when the Body of Christ is offered. Indeed, to offer Himself He is made visible to us, He whose word makes holy [b] the sacrifice that is offered."[/b
][/SIZE]


The Second Vatican Council succinctly outlined the Church’s teaching on the Mass as follows:

Catholics charge protestants with simply celebrating "A memorial". But to Cathlics THEY see themselves as "participating in a sacrifice" with the PRIEST having magic powers to "transform the bread" into God -- POWERS that he "retains" EVEN if he is excommunicated. In fact for Catholics this is "Christ IN YOU" and so it is "The NEW Covenant" something that can not be obtained by non-Catholics who are not eating that sacrifice.

 

why don't you share with the class BobRyan your findings in the Early Church that counter what we Orthodox, Roman Catholics and maybe even some mainline Protestants teach regarding the Eucharist as a sacrifice. Surely you have writings from the Church fathers in the first few Centuries of the Christian Church that counter our theology...all I've seen is your interpretation...and sorry, but that just doesn't cut it...

from an Orthodox perspective:

Orthodox Theology sees the Holy Eucharist as a sacrifice and this is affirmed in the words of the Priest, when he says, during the Eucharistic Canon:

Thine own of Thine own we offer unto Thee on behalf of all and for all.

The sacrifice offered at the Eucharist is Christ Himself, but He Who brings the sacrifice is also Christ. Christ is, at one and the same time, High Priest and Sacrifice. In the prayer before the Great Entrance, the Priest prays: For Thou art the Offerer and the Offered, the Receiver and the Received, O Christ our God....

This Eucharist is offered to God the Holy Trinity, and so if we ask the threefold question, What is offered? By Whom is it offered? To Whom is it offered? We say in answer, Christ. In addition, the sacrifice is offered on behalf of all and for all, for it is a sacrifice of redemption which is brought for the living and the dead.

According to St. Nicholas Cabasilas, a medieval Orthodox teacher, the Church's understanding of the Eucharist is, as follows:

In the first place, the sacrifice is not only an enactment or a symbol, but a real sacrifice. In the second, that which is sacrificed is not bread, but the very Body of Christ. In the third place, the Lamb of God was immolated only once and for all times. The Eucharist sacrifice consists not of the real or blood sacrifice of the Lamb, but in the transformation of bread into the sacrificed Lamb [Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, 32].​

According to the Orthodox Church, then, the Eucharist is not just a reminder of Christ's sacrifice or of its enactment, but it is a real sacrifice. On the other hand, however, it is not a new sacrifice, nor a repetition of the Sacrifice of the Cross upon Golgotha. The events of Christ's Sacrifice the Incarnation, the Institution of the Eucharist, the Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven, are not repeated during the Eucharist, yet they become a present reality. As one Orthodox theologian has said, During the Liturgy we are projected in time to that place where eternity and time intersect, and then we become the contemporaries of these events that we are calling to mind. Thus the Eucharist and all the Holy Liturgy is, in structure, a sacrificial service.

and it is here where the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church differ...and that's in regard to Sacramental Theology...

It is true that traditional Roman Catholic theology of the priesthood emphasized that at ordination, God gives a new priest the "power" to effect the sacraments. Thus, for instance, in the case of the Eucharist, the priest receives the "power" to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

In the Orthodox view, it is God who effects all the sacraments through Christ in the Holy Spirit. In fact, Christ exercises his ministry to the Church through the ministry of the priesthood. Thus, Christ rules the church and exercises his teaching ministry through the bishops. Christ presides at the Eucharist through the celebrant of the Liturgy. Christ absolves and remits sins through the absolution of the priest. Christ joins the couple through the blessing of the priest in marriage.

In every case, it is not the priest exercising an autonomous power he has received from God, but Christ exercising his ministry through the priest. It is a critical difference. The priest is but the visible icon of Christ who works invisibly in his Church.

This is quite evident during the consecration prayers by our priest. The priest asks the Holy Spirit to come down upon the gifts (bread and wine) put forth and by the power of the Holy Spirit change the elements into the body and blood of Christ. How this happens is a great mystery, one we don't try to explain, only we take Christ's words that this is truly His body and truly His blood...

In XC
-

 

In my mind the teaching of the Eucharist by the ECF is the most problematic area of christian development.

 

In what way?

 

There seems to be a consistant consensus on the real presence. Now how that works I have no idea but the ECF that comment on it are consistent with each other in that the real presence is in affect in some manner.

 

So how do you reconcile the teachings of the ECF's with the teachings of the Reformers some 1500 years later?

It seems to me that the men who were actually taught by the Apostles themselves, like Polycarp, and men who were taught by those who were taught by the Apostles (who were taught by Jesus) would have a better understanding of the real presence than those who came some 1500 years later.

Just thinking out loud here.

 

This is a typical SDA tactic.

I know of no Catholic that believes that priests have "magic powers".

Why don't you tell everyone about your mystical magical prophet Ellen White instead?

Come out of that cult, Bob Ryan.

 

How do you reconcile it?

 

1. You look at the teachings of the Bible, not the teachings of errant men. It is the authority of the Bible that we go by not the ECF.
2. When one studies the ECF one finds that their teachings contradict each other in many areas. They contradict each other, how therefore can they be trusted.
3. Many of them taught outright heresy, like Origen, who was a heretic even according to the RCC.
4. Some of them changed their views like Tertullian who viewed baptism one way during the beginning of his life, but once he joined the Montanists near the end of his life, had a completely different view of baptism.

The Bible is unchanging. It is our only authority in matters of faith and doctrine. It is the Bible that we rely on, not the words of fallible men.

 

Much easier said than done don't cha think DHK?

...and just whose interpretation of those Bible teachings do we go by?...Your's, BobRyan's, the Methodist's preacher's down the road, the Pentecostal across town or my Assemblies of God buddy at work...how about the Lutheran, Reformed Baptist?

...Do I align myself with the Calvinist theology or the soteriological school of Arminianism?

Let's be honest here DHK...have you REALLY "studied" the Early Church Fathers? I mean there's hundreds upon hundreds of Fathers of the Church...Apostolic, Early and Desert Fathers of the Church, not to mention Doctors and theologians...people spend their entire lives "studying" the Fathers of the Church...

do some Church Fathers teachings contradict others...yep...but does one Church Father speak for all of Orthodoxy...LOL...of course not...we take a consensus of what the Church has always taught from the very beginning, including the Fathers and Councils of the Church...

On a side note: My former IFB pastor (a Bob Jones' grad) didn't agree with half of Dr. Ron Comfort's interpretation of the Book of Revelation (specifically that NNE can be saved AFTER the Rapture), when he visited our Church...but does Dr. Comfort speak for all the IFB's?

My bet is you go to your favorite IFB website, like David Cloud's "Way of Life" website or one similar and you read some obscure article that show 2 or 3 Church Fathers contradicting each other...it could be a matter of misunderstanding...or it could be that the Church Father went off the deep end and started teaching heresy...but in any event, you probably don't do your homework and follow up, you just take what you read as the gospel...

That's not thinking for yourself DHK...I know you do this DHK, b/c I have yet to meet any IFB preachers or laity that doesn't and that included me as a former IFB

...and ALL the 'Former' IFB are the ones that started following-up on what they were being taught...

In XC
-

 

No, not at all. There must be a standard, an authority. The ECF are far from that authority as one can be. They could be considered as a cult in and of themselves. Antiquity doesn't mean correctness.

The Bible interprets itself. I don't follow Ellen G. White's interpretation, Luther's interpretation, John Wesley's interpretation, the modern 1905 Pentecostals teachings (that is when it began), Knox or Calvin's teachings, or any other man as you have mentioned above. I study the Bible, and it alone.

Your choice. I don't align myself with either.

I don't have to. I have studied enough of them to make me sick and not want to go plodding through the rest of their errant works.

Contradict and outright heresy are two different things. List all the beliefs you know about Origen. Then get back to me.

You make me laugh. There are many views on the Book of Revelation. And more than one of them are acceptable. That is about the lamest excuse for disagreement that I have ever heard.

No, that is not true. Here is the difference.
No two men agree 100% on everything as I have pointed out to you on the Book of Revelation. The big difference here is that I can read through David Cloud's material and be assured that he is not teaching heresy. I always read analytically, looking for things that I do disagree with.
But when I read the Church Fathers, there is not only that which I disagree with--there is outright heresy, and lots of it.

And you have this wonderful revelation, how?
We believe in sola scriptura, remember? Much of what I know I have gained solely on my own study--not through the mindless spoon-feeding of the RCC Magesterium, or the Orthodox Catechism, etc. We actually study the Bible and see what it says. We analyze it, go back to the original languages, find out the meaning. That is the opposite of what you just stated. What you therefore said becomes a false accusation, doesn't it?

 

one of my favorite ECFs is Paul - he wrote a lot of the NT.

Another favorite of mine is Peter and John.

What is amazing is that you can actually READ them. Having to find some non-inspired ECF to explain Paul -- then another ECF to explain the first ECF then another ECF to tell why those two prior ECFs contradicted each other -- is the kind of game people play when they don't like what the primary ECF (Paul, or John or Peter) actually said.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Ok, DHK I am struggling with this issue because when I read the ECF's they do agree on one thing - that Jesus is really present in the Lord's Supper. And my Bible says

So if we take just what the Bible says, then it says that Jesus is really present at the communion table. No where does the Bible say "this is really a symbol of my body and blood" except in the uninspired and fallible study notes of my NKJV Bible.

 

Common sense needs to prevail also.
Jesus also said, "I am the door."
Do you also take him literally there? Does he look like a door to you?
He said: My sheep follow me. Are you one of his sheep? Send me your picture? Do you resemble one of those four-footed creatures that they sacrificed in the OT.
John said of Jesus: Behold the lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world. Did Jesus look like a lamb?
He also said: "I am the light of the world." What kind of light do you think he looked like? A candlestick maybe?
He said: "I am the vine." Are his branches full of grapes?

Obviously he was using a metaphor, or was he really considering that his disciples should be cannibalistic and break the Law of the OT.

Have you never taken out something like your driver's license and shown it to a friend or child and said: "That's me." But it is not you, and to say it is, is a lie. It is an image, a representation of you. You are the one holding it. And so it was with Jesus. He was holding a representation of His blood and flesh. He was standing in front of his disciples, and his disciples knew it. They weren't that foolish to consider anything different.

 

Or in your case you can rely on your prophet Ellen White to tell you what to believe.

And you can even read her scriptures too !

 

Well... "since you asked"

How the Mass “evolved” over time.

 

BobRyan is ignoring the elephant in the room.

Most things that SDAs say about Catholics can be said about SDAs.

Interesting that he ignores it though.

BobRyan, come out of that cult.