My one question is: how can one read X and Y at face value without contradiction?Well there's the rub; the reasoning looks self-serving.
X and Y differ in content
One can read X and Y so that they contradict
Our beliefs preclude contradiction between X and Y
Therefore X and Y MUST be metaphorical.
I counter with
X and Y differ in content
One can read X and Y at face value without contradiction
Our beliefs preclude contradiction between X and Y
Therefore X and Y are consistent.
I did not say that blood was "literally" in the cup.This does not make sense; the blood is never said to be in the cup, but is clearly referring to the blood shed on the cross.
The two are referring to the same thing, but that doesn't imply that there is literally blood in the cup.
But my post spoke of partaking in the sacrifice of the Lord on Calvary and not of partaking of something rather more abstract such as the new covenant.Jesus said:
This is my blood
This is the covenant in my blood
We know that we are saved through His blood, and His blood is the core of the new covenant. Therefore, you are correct in saying that the two are referring to the same thing: the new covenant.
Not agreed that we are merely reminded of the new covenant in Jesus' blood. Those who partake of holy communion partake of the sacrifice of Christ at Calvary. They really partake of it not merely remember it. It works very much like the Israelites on the verge of entering the promised land where it is said, "The LORD, our God, made a covenant with us at Horeb; not with our fathers did he make this covenant, but with us, all of us who are alive here this day." (Deuteronomy 5:2-3) even though the generation that was at Horeb had passed away in the desert while Israel wandered there until they all died because God refused to let them enter his rest. The generation that Moses addressed is still said to have been there at Horeb and God is said to have made his covenant with them not with the generation that was there 40, or so, years previously. The point being that God's speaks of them being there in a way quite unlike a literalist might but his words are still true without being a metaphor; they are a revelation.
The bread and the cup are changed by the Word (our Lord, Jesus Christ). "You will send forth your Spirit, and they will be created. And you will renew the face of the earth." (Psalms 104:30)The cup is the new covenant in His blood, which we partake in when we internalize Christ and accept Him. Communion mirrors this when we drink the cup, the new covenant in His blood.
That is correct. The "miracle of the Mass" was awe-inspiring to Medieval man, who lived in a world of myth and magic, precisely because it inverted the teachings of Aristotle. Aristotle couldn't be bested...except by God, it was reasoned. BTW, Aristotle was regarded by the church as a saint, because of his wisdom, even though he'd died before Christ's nativity.The teaching of transubstantiation is based on aristotlean psuedo-philosophy (the concept of "substance").
Quite right.Not only that, but there is no need for transubstantiation to participate in the sacrifice at Calvary.
Again, correct.The bread and cup are not changed and were not changed at the Lord's Supper.
The teaching of transubstantiation is based on aristotlean psuedo-philosophy (the concept of "substance").
Not only that, but there is no need for transubstantiation to participate in the sacrifice at Calvary.
We participate in His sacrifice when we internalize and accept Him, which is symbolized when we take communion and internalize the bread and wine.
The new covenant is not abstract; all Christians partake in it as we are washed in His blood.
The bread and cup are not changed and were not changed at the Lord's Supper. Transubstantiation is not required (or even desirable) to be able to say that one is participating in Christ's sacrifice during Communion.
Changed your mind?
...
...
Because the idea of "substance" and that it can change without affecting external properties and appearance has been disproven. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry
...
...
Taking this to a much further degree makes it more accurate:
one can participate in the benefits of Jesus' passion much more fully when they are not confused over the nature of communion in believing that it is literally changed, but rather experience the transforming power of internalizing Christ and His power to save us from damnation and wash us of our sin through His blood, as is represented by internalizing the bread and wine.
...
Exactly how does belief in the real presence as explained by terms such as transubstantiation inhibit one from receiving Christ internally with his power to save his people from damnation and wash them clean of their sins by his blood?
Because believing that you literally internalize Christ by literally consuming His flesh and blood is a distraction from the way we are actually called to internalize Christ through faith and have his Blood wash us from our sins and save us from damnation