Well then, here's an article you might find enlightening:
The Continuum: The Biblical Basis of Eucharistic Sacrifice
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hmm...try to find that explicitly taught in the NT! I've been looking for decades. (yeah, I know, you can build an argument for it if you try hard enough)
We don't believe it happens at a particular moment, rather, the entire liturgy is the consecrating act. This is also why the Holy Spirit is called down upon the people as well as the gifts in order that both may be changed together; the words recapitulate the liturgy, they do not "ring the bell", so to speak.when he prays the Epiclesis, for you Orthodox).
Well then, here's an article you might find enlightening:
The Continuum: The Biblical Basis of Eucharistic Sacrifice
We do give ourselves and our praise and thanksgiving as a sort of sacrificial offering, but there's also a sense in which the one perfect and all-sufficient Sacrifice of Christ is made present at the Altar of Consecration when the priest says the Words of Institution (or alternatively, when he prays the Epiclesis, for you Orthodox).
But that doesn't make our celebration of the Lord's Supper a sacrifice.
To the extent that it has a sacrificial quality, it is because of it being the sacrifice of ourselves as a sacrifice of "praise and thanksgiving."
I can see good reason for all of these ideas, but I tend to think that we can say that the people present at the Crucifixion that demanded Jesus death were the ones doing the sacrificing, though unknowingly. And it is not wrong for us to identify ourselves with them.
Well, is it just imagery, or are we in fact part of that crowd, metaphysically speaking.
He is the scriptural presbyter. We call him "priest" as a colloquialism.I am still having difficulty with this topic. It seems that Anglicans take issue with the "Sacrifice" of the Mass. But if the really is no sacrifice then:
a) why is there a priest to begin with?
Again, slang. The Prayerbook uses a more appropriate term, "Holy Table."b) why is there an altar?
That was the Old Testament church. Christ's church is different. You yourself referred to a foreshadowing.c) why was the purpose of God creating a priesthood in the OT?
Yes, Christ is our high priest.Was it to foreshadow the Priesthood of Christ
Who said anything about window dressing or mere remembrance? No one who has contributed to this thread. At least not so far as I remember. (Actually, you are confusing two different matters at this point--the Lord's Supper as (possible) sacrifice and the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament.)and why would Christ tell us to do something in remembrance of Him that is just window dressing?
It's imagery. But imagery can be powerful and meaningful. OTOH, what if we are part of that crowd, metaphysically speaking? It still isn't a sacrifice if that's the case, and that was the point. The Supper can be seen in a dozen mystical and very meaningful ways and yet not be a literal OT-type sacrifice.
If we want to talk about literalism, and really rejecting it, we cannot even use the language of the Trinity or of Fatherhood and Sonship for God. After all, God is not a Father or a Son, literally.
Yeah read that. Doesn't touch on the point I was making...
I do. My own bishop is a contributor to that "rubbish" blog.besides....who reads THAT rubbish blog?
But that doesn't make our celebration of the Lord's Supper a sacrifice.
To the extent that it has a sacrificial quality, it is because of it being the sacrifice of ourselves as a sacrifice of "praise and thanksgiving."
How do you know?
But of course some things are to be taken literally and others not.
Albion is correct. There is no good translation into English for what we call the Old Testament 'priesthood'. The word "priest" in English is a shortened form of "presbyter".He is the scriptural presbyter. We call him "priest" as a colloquialism.
God is a Father to his Son, literally. Human fathers are fathers to their sons, relatively.After all, God is not a Father or a Son, literally.
In Judeo-Christian tradition, how would you define "sacrifice", Albion?-the Lord's Supper as (possible) sacrifice
In Judeo-Christian tradition, how would you define "sacrifice", Albion?
That's not what Old Testament sacrifice was for either.What I'm saying is that the Lord's Supper is not a New Testament version of a priest slaying some living being as a way of placating God. It does not earn merit with God because something has given its life as an offering to God.
Only if the sacrifice is a re-sacrifice.Generally speaking, those who think it is that say that the victim is Christ, and that is possible only if he who was crucified for our sins is somehow sacrificed again so that God will give us something in return.
Why not?But the crucifixion cannot be repeated, therefore the usual way around that is to say that it is a timeless act, meaning that the priest sacrifices Christ if not directly; he just allegedly "re-presents" the one sacrifice to the Father...No, we don't get to do that
What I'm saying is that the Lord's Supper is not a New Testament version of a priest slaying some living being as a way of placating God. It does not earn merit with God because something has given its life as an offering to God. Generally speaking, those who think it is that say that the victim is Christ, and that is possible only if he who was crucified for our sins is somehow sacrificed again so that God will give us something in return. But the crucifixion cannot be repeated, therefore the usual way around that is to say that it is a timeless act, meaning that the priest sacrifices Christ if not directly; he just allegedly "re-presents" the one sacrifice to the Father...with the same result. No, we don't get to do that, and we don't need to do that.
If I may ask...Well, the pre-consecrated bread and wine symbolize Christ's Body and Blood, respectively, and they're vehicles of the Eucharistic Sacrifice in that once the priest consecrates them on the Holy Altar they actually become the Body and Blood of Christ for the faithful to partake of.
I've been meditating on scripture regarding Communion and have a few new thoughts on it.
Yeshua said that unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood, we have no eternal life. (John 6:53-58)
Paul told the Corinthians that many of them died because they didn't correctly discern the body of the son of God. (1 Corinthians 11:27-30)
Of course, the blood gives us eternal life but the flesh is for our physical healing:
Surely our griefs [sickness] He Himself bore, and our sorrows [pains] He carried….But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. (Isaiah 53:4-5 - emphasis added)
According to Exodus 12, the Hebrews ate the Pascal lamb - all of it - and none were feeble.
I never did before, and I'm not Catholic (obviously) but I've come to feel transubstantiation may be correct.
Just my thoughts....
transubstantiation is a teaching that is directly contrary to the teaching of imputation and supports the RCC doctrine of infusion. Communion is a covenantal act where the elements are representations of something that is imputed to the believer. Just as the act of the covenant that Abraham made with YHWH represented the covenant he was making with YHWH. There was no reason that the animal parts that were laid out on the ground turned into anything else, but instead signified the agreement made in the covenant. They were representations for the purpose of the Covenant. There is no need for magically changed Communion elements, either, when the elements are representing the blessing and cursing of the Covenant. Things that are imputed to those who partake of it. The Covenant is imputed to the believer through faith, not by something magically delicious.
If anything should be learned through the New Covenant, it's that we are the seed of Abraham, not of the Pope and his fantasized inventions.
Romans 4:5-7
5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
2 Corinthians 5:17-21
17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.[a] The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.You would rather believe lies and your private interpretations than accept anything from one of the bad ol' Reformed critics that INTERPRETED scripture. Like your not INTERPRETING scripture and are far superior to any critic because you have the Spirit.do you agree with the teaching of Transubstantiation when it states that the Eucharist not only contains the physical body of Jesus Christ, but His soul, His body, and His divinity as well?This is, in part, the teaching of Transubstantiation, that the Eucharist is divinity. See the Council of Trent. You believe that? That is part of the definition of Transubstantiation. Or do we have to suffer through one of your private definitions of it?
Just my thoughts.... "Real Presence is a teaching held by many Protestant groups, and has been considered an orthodox position. Lutherans are considered orthodox (within the Protestant movement) and teach this, for one. Luther having written about it and this can be easily found on the Internet. It is not the same as the teaching of Transubstantiation, which Rachel claimed she may believe in the OP. The main difference is that the RCC's doctrine considers the Eucharist an, sort of, extension of Christs body, soul, blood and divinity. It is a divine substance that literally turns into the divine Son. Even going so far as to say that Christ's soul is present in the transformed bread and wine, which is the actual body and blood of Christ to them. To this teaching, I believe all of the early Protestant Reformers objected and posited either the idea of a Sacrament in which there was a presence of Christ or an Ordinance of obedience. To this day, the Protestant church rejects the idea of Transubstantiation. This is perhaps one of the most distinguishing doctrines of the whole of the Protestant movement.
No, the priest doesn't re-present Christ's Sacrifice to God. Rather, by his consecratory act in persona Christi by the authority of his priestly office, he makes Christ's historical Sacrifice present to us in the Sacrament of His Body and Blood. Or, more properly, Christ Himself makes His one perfect, all-sufficient, and historical Sacrifice present to us through the Eucharistic ministry of His priests.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?