Did God Turn Away from Jesus when Jesus was on the Cross?

[japhy]

“Depicts” is a poor choice of words, for it implies that Christ is only creating an image of His Sacrifice. If that is what you meant, I think you are wrong. If I misunderstood you, then I apologize. From the same site…

The “lamb standing as though it had been slain” is the most paradoxical of images! It means it clearly bears the marks of its slaughter (the glorious wounds of the crucifixion at the least) but it was standing! How fitting that, even in heaven, the crucified Christ is prominent.

 

[po18guy]

BTW, to validate that Christ knew that He was referencing Psalm 22, look at His last Words, “Father, into your hands I commit my Spirit”. These are words found in the middle of Psalm 31, another Psalm that describes Christ’s Passion and ends with praise of God!

Was not this His human nature calling out, as it did in the garden? Since David was completely human, and expressed human thoughts and emotions, this would be consistent since Christ also had a 100% human nature. It was also His human nature which fell on the via Dolorosa, since His Godly nature would suffer no such flaw. His Divine nature had no need to call out to the Father, since It knew “everything” as Peter would later point out while he affirmed Christ three times.

Christ’s peace.

 

[NotWorthy]

The “lamb standing as though it had been slain” is the most paradoxical of images! It means it clearly bears the marks of its slaughter (the glorious wounds of the crucifixion at the least) but it was standing! How fitting that, even in heaven, the crucified Christ is prominent.

So Correct!

And don’t forget the prophecy of Malachi, which is repeated at nearly every Mass:
*** For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering**; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts*.“So that from east to west, a perfect offering may be made”.

 

[BRB]

“Depicts” is a poor choice of words, for it implies that Christ is only creating an image of His Sacrifice. If that is what you meant, I think you are wrong. If I misunderstood you, then I apologize. From the same site:

I think you may be confusing two separate issues. First … our inital remission of original sin is conferred upon us by our baptism into the Trinity / purified by holy water. H.S. is initially received at this time. Christ’s once in time sacrifice makes this reality.

Later, @ confirmation, the additional anointing of H.S. occurs … as we make known our intentions to the Trinity.

The Eucharist only comes after this point in our Christian walk. Thusly, our baptism and confirmation are enabled by Christ’s passion on Cross. Eucharist is only for those who have already been purified in cross of Christ via Baptism and Confirmation.

Now some might say … well what about that first upper room Eucharist, before Christ had suffered the passion. Was it efficacious ? No, because the passion had yet to occur. The apostles had no conception of what it signified. Only later would they realize.

Later, when on the Cross … Christ spoke the words “It is Finished”, and the Eucharist was given its life meaning.

But, we still have the issue of the H.S. … which didn’t come upon the Apostles until later, and even later yet to the Church @ pentecost. So, the first Mass … came on (or after) pentecost.

For Catholic Christians … what does the Eucharist do for us ? Does it give us our initial salvation ? Clearly not.

Don’t confuse our Rebirth in Christ with our later need of Eucharist. Always put the horse before the cart.

What John’s Revelation vision signifies is much debated. Some of the early Church patriachs didn’t even wish to include it in the early Canon. They didn’t think it was understandable and of dubious value. I’m not suggesting I agree with them. But, many have their own idea of what the book means. Most haven’t a clue.

Everytime I read it … I see another possible meaning.

So again … tell me,… what does the Eucharist do for a Reborn Christian ?

 

[NotWorthy]

I think you may be confusing two separate issues. First … our inital remission of original sin is conferred upon us by our baptism into the Trinity / purified by holy water. H.S. is initially received at this time. Christ’s once in time sacrifice makes this reality.

Later, @ confirmation, the additional anointing of H.S. occurs … as we make known our intentions to the Trinity.

The Eucharist only comes after this point in our Christian walk. Thusly, our baptism and confirmation are enabled by Christ’s passion on Cross. Eucharist is only for those who have already been purified in cross of Christ via Baptism and Confirmation.

Now some might say … well what about that first upper room Eucharist, before Christ had suffered the passion. Was it efficacious ? No, because the passion had yet to occur. The apostles had no conception of what it signified. Only later would they realize.

First of all, what in the world does all this have to do with the thread?!?

Second, you are wrong. The Eucharist at the Last Supper was efficacious for it brought the Apostles forward to Calvary, just as the Eucharist as Mass makes us present at Calvary.

Later, when on the Cross … Christ spoke the words “It is Finished”, and the Eucharist was given its life meaning.

But, we still have the issue of the H.S. … which didn’t come upon the Apostles until later, and even later yet to the Church @ pentecost. So, the first Mass … came on (or after) pentecost.

For Catholic Christians … what does the Eucharist do for us ? Does it give us our initial salvation ? Clearly not.

Don’t confuse our Rebirth in Christ with our later need of Eucharist. Always put the horse before the cart.

BRB, are we on the right thread?

What John’s Revelation vision signifies is much debated. Some of the early Church patriachs didn’t even wish to include it in the early Canon. They didn’t think it was understandable and of dubious value. I’m not suggesting I agree with them. But, many have their own idea of what the book means. Most haven’t a clue.

Everytime I read it … I see another possible meaning.

So again … tell me,… what does the Eucharist do for a Reborn Christian ?

Now, I’m sure you’re on the wrong thread.

 

[BRB]

The Eucharist at the Last Supper was efficacious for it brought the Apostles forward to Calvary, just as the Eucharist as Mass makes us present at Calvary.

:

I disagree. What did it do for Judas ? Brought forward to Calvary ?? In what way ?

And, for the other Apostles … did it stop Peter from denying Christ 3 times. It would appear that perhaps only John was at foot of Cross. Do you think that the ‘doubting’ Thomas was not hiding out somewhere for fear of his life ?

 

[BRB]

First of all, what in the world does all this have to do with the thread?!?

:

Maybe I misunderstood your intent & materials from others you were highlighting.

I thought you were in some way linking the Eucharist memorial to our initial Christian conversion. Were you ?

 

[NotWorthy]

I disagree. What did it do for Judas ?

It didn’t do a thing for Judas. Why? Because he didn’t participate in the Eucharist. He did not discern the Body and Blood when he ate and drank, so he ate and drank damnation on himself. The Eucharist doesn’t heal the sick. It bolsters those who are already in a state of Grace.

Brought forward to Calvary ?? In what way ?

Yes, it brought them forward to Calvary. What did Jesus say? This IS My Body… This IS My Blood. If the Eucharist brings us **back **to Calvary, why is it hard for you to accept that it can bring the Apostles **forward **to Calvary?

And, for the other Apostles … did it stop Peter from denying Christ 3 times. It would appear that perhaps only John was at foot of Cross. Do you think that the ‘doubting’ Thomas was not hiding out somewhere for fear of his life ?

No. I think Thomas was out and about because he didn’t fear the Jews. The Scriptures are silent on his whereabouts, so it’s only guess-work (on yours and my part), but Thomas already displayed a willingness to die for Jesus in John’s Gospel when he says, “We might as well go die with him” (paraphrasing).

What are your thoughts on Thomas and why is it pertinent to the conversation.

Did the Eucharist stop Peter from denying Christ 3 times? No. Does the Eucharist prevent you from sinning after you receive it worthily? Are you a better person than Peter and I?

 

[NotWorthy]

Maybe I misunderstood your intent & materials from others you were highlighting.

I thought you were in some way linking the Eucharist memorial to our initial Christian conversion. Were you ?

No, in no way was I linking it to our initial Christian Conversion. Baptism does that.

 

[BRB]

No, in no way was I linking it to our initial Christian Conversion. Baptism does that.

Yes … we agree on that.

I think the best explanation on the Eucharist, and how it relates to all aspects of Christianity is what Scott Hahn covers in his lecture series on it entitled “Answering commom objections”.

He covers the ‘once for all’ Cross event, the non-bloody sacrifice, how Eucharist is the fullfilment of all prior Bloody Animal sacrifices of Jews, he clearly states Christ only crucified once in history … not to be re-crucified in Mass, but instead …Christ’s Cross is to be recelebrated / remembered at each Mass … when He presents his Resurrected body to us in the hosts as [the living sacrifice] … and we receive awesome physical and spiritual healing — if we receive in faith.

Eucharist today is intended to RESTORE the Christian on at least a weekly Sabbath frequency… and maintain our faiths in Christ via living graces He/H.S. provides us. Its the Living, Ongoing, Forever … representation of Risen Christ to the Christian. Spiritual food like none other…

 

[BRB]

It didn’t do a thing for Judas. Why? Because he didn’t participate in the Eucharist. ?

He participated, yes. Christ personally offered him the host … and he took it.

Again … none of the Apostles really knew what the true significance of the meal was until the passion and Christ’s resurrection.

The Eucharist was actually taken on the night before the passover meal was normally celebrated … according to John. The other Gospels say it was on the Passover night … but, they got it wrong / per John’s testimony.

Certainly Judas didn’t desire to celebrate Christ … so it was totally w/o meaning to him.

 

[NotWorthy]

He participated, yes. Christ personally offered him the host … and he took it.

Judas participated in the Eucharist no more than a Baptist does who takes Communion illicitly in a Catholic Church, for they don’t believe that It is the Body and Blood (Soul and Divinity) of Christ.

Again … none of the Apostles really knew what the true significance of the meal was until the passion and Christ’s resurrection.

You are right, but that doesn’t prove your point. None of the Apostles knew the true significance (Heck, you and I probably don’t KNOW the TRUE significance), but the important thing is they believed in Jesus’ Words. I think Peter explained it best earlier in John 6: “Master, to whom would we turn? For you have the Words of Everlasting Life”.

Translation: “Jesus, I have no clue what you are talking about, and yet I know that you speak the Truth”.

The Eucharist was actually taken on the night before the passover meal was normally celebrated … according to John. The other Gospels say it was on the Passover night … but, they got it wrong / per John’s testimony.

Certainly Judas didn’t desire to celebrate Christ … so it was totally w/o meaning to him.

I understand that there are several disputes over when the Last Supper was instituted, but I’ve got to ask you: Are you saying that the Holy Spirit inspired the Gospel Authors to give a false statement? Maybe that needs to be another thread.

 

[BRB]

Judas participated in the Eucharist no more than a Baptist does who takes Communion illicitly in a Catholic Church, for they don’t believe that It is the Body and Blood (Soul and Divinity) of Christ.

.

You are wrong in this regard …

Anyone sealed in Christ, and a True Believer [Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, etc] … where the Eucharist is properly blessed by N.T. scriptural liturgy, if received in faith per the understanding given to us by Christ & Paul, will receive Christ’s body/blood and H.S.

This may occur in any Denomination. Catholics don’t hold a lock on the Eucharist. Christ alone knows our intensions … He keeps the books.

I would agree, if it is not properly blessed and received as Christ … it does no good & Paul believed it to be the cause of physical/spiritual infirmaties of the N.T. Christians.

 

[NotWorthy]

You are wrong in this regard …

Anyone sealed in Christ, and a True Believer [Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, etc] … where the Eucharist is properly blessed by N.T. scriptural liturgy, if received in faith per the understanding given to us by Christ & Paul, will receive Christ’s body/blood and H.S.

Sorry about that, but I’ve got to throw a flag on the play. The Eucharist must be properly blessed by a properly ordained Priest. The Recipient should agree with the Church’s teachings, or shouldn’t receive the Eucharist - including people that call themselves Catholic.

And in any regards, the Baptist do not believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist, so the analogy still stands. The rest of this should go in another thread.

This may occur in any Denomination. Catholics don’t hold a lock on the Eucharist. Christ alone knows our intensions … He keeps the books.

Catholics and Greek (and Russian) Orthodox are the only ones I know of that can properly Consecrate the Hosts. There may be a few others, but the number is very small.

The number is certainly far less than the number of the faiths that claim to properly consecrate the host, for where is the altar, where is the sacrifice?

I would agree, if it is not properly blessed and received as Christ … it does no good & Paul believed it to be the cause of physical/spiritual infirmaties of the N.T. Christians.

So, you agree that Paul didn’t participate in the Eucharist that he didn’t believe?

 

[BRB]

Sorry about that, but I’ve got to throw a flag on the play.
Catholics and Greek (and Russian) Orthodox are the only ones I know of that can properly Consecrate the Hosts. There may be a few others, but the number is very small.

The number is certainly far less than the number of the faiths that claim to properly consecrate the host, for where is the altar, where is the sacrifice?

?

The Lutheran Missouri Synod, Church of Christ, and others would throw that Flag back at You.

Also, lets take the Baptist, since you used them as example :

if the ordained minister speaks the proper words of Christ ,,, 
doesn't matter if he believes it to be blood/body or wine/bread 
[same as for Catholic priest].   As long as the lay person 
receives it as Christ [body, blood, and H.S]. ... it is efficacious 
for them.

You seem more concerned with letter of law, calling fouls, and throwing flags. Be careful now. Don’t start throwing stones @ those Protestants that are investigating, or perhaps are new to the Catholic ‘legal system’.

Welcome your Christian brethren, don’t see us as heretics with intent to corrupt your church. Lets celebrate Ecumenism efforts to arrive at a Unity in Christ. United we stand, divided the work of Christ is hindered.

Yes, I’m convinced that Catholic church has the true historical root system via bishops/deacons/popes. But, Ecumenism within the Church Universal will not fully occur until Catholicism becomes more evangelical and understanding of those grievous errors, which led to Protestant reformation. It was your own ‘properly ordained’ priest(s) which pointed out the obvious - and started the effort to rehabilitate matters. In hindsight, the Church should of dealt with the matter with more mercy and understanding.

Don’t the recent popes believe capital punishment to be in error ? There was a price on Luther’s head back @ that time.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Lutheran Missouri Synod, Church of Christ, and others would throw that Flag back at You.

Also, lets take the Baptist, since you used them as example :

if the ordained minister speaks the proper words of Christ ,,, 
doesn't matter if he believes it to be blood/body or wine/bread 
[same as for Catholic priest].   As long as the lay person 
receives it as Christ [body, blood, and H.S]. ... it is efficacious 
for them.

I’m sorry, but your facts are simply incorrect. They, the Baptist and the Church of Christ will tell you it’s nothing more than a memorial. They are not consuming Christ. The Lutherans have an argument, which is one reason I didn’t use them , for they believe the Presence is in their Eucharist, although once Church is over, the Presence is gone. But none of them feel they are taking part in the Sacrifice that Catholics feel, which is one reason they shouldn’t partake in our Eucharist.

You seem more concerned with letter of law, calling fouls, and throwing flags. Be careful now. Don’t start throwing stones @ those Protestants that are investigating, or perhaps are new to the Catholic ‘legal system’.

You may be mis-judging me, my friend. Don’t get too judgmental, yourself. If you think I’m not Ecumenical, then I can have many of my Christian friends PM you on these forums, for they feel that I’m more sensitive to their feelings and beliefs than many of the more hard-core Catholics around here.

But, the Catholic Church cannot water down Her teachings in order to draw others in. We need to be more evangelical and welcoming, granted, but the legal system is what it is.

Welcome your Christian brethren, don’t see us as heretics with intent to corrupt your church. Lets celebrate Ecumenism efforts to arrive at a Unity in Christ. United we stand, divided the work of Christ is hindered.

Unity is my fondest wish, and most fervent prayer, my brother, please believe that.

Yes, I’m convinced that Catholic church has the true historical root system via bishops/deacons/popes. But, Ecumenism within the Church Universal will not fully occur until Catholicism becomes more evangelical and understanding of those grievous errors, which led to Protestant reformation. It was your own ‘properly ordained’ priest(s) which pointed out the obvious - and started the effort to rehabilitate matters. In hindsight, the Church should of dealt with the matter with more mercy and understanding.

And Luther should have remained and changed the Church from within.

Don’t the recent popes believe capital punishment to be in error ? There was a price on Luther’s head back @ that time.

This would be a great new thread, for we are grave danger of hi-jacking this thread (what was the OP, anyway? ).

 

[japhy]

You seem more concerned with letter of law, calling fouls, and throwing flags. Be careful now. Don’t start throwing stones @ those Protestants that are investigating, or perhaps are new to the Catholic ‘legal system’.

It is the teaching of the Church that a valid ordained priesthood is necessary for the confection of the Eucharist. Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, and your neighborhood non-denominational ecclesial community have no valid ordained priesthood. You are saying, essentially, that any layperson can confect the Eucharist, and the Church has taught soundly that this is not true.

 

[Lori_Hodgert]

First off notice that Jesus said My God twice. Why? most protestants believe that Jesus was asking the the question to God the Father , and God the Holy Spirit. Also one of the punishments for sin is seperation from God ( the Trinity) so when Jesus made this statement this part of sin penalty was imposed on Jesus as a substitute

I always thought that like in the Apostles Creed "He descended into hell’ meant that he took on all our sin and had to briefly be separated from His Father. So when he asked “why have You forsaken Me?” He was sad to be separated briefly from His Father. Jesus was obedient to God and took on our sins but the result was brief separation because God cannot be touched by sin. These are just my thoughts???

 

[NotWorthy]

I always thought that like in the Apostles Creed "He descended into hell’ meant that he took on all our sin and had to briefly be separated from His Father. So when he asked “why have You forsaken Me?” He was sad to be separated briefly from His Father. Jesus was obedient to God and took on our sins but the result was brief separation because God cannot be touched by sin. These are just my thoughts???

“He took on ours sins” means “He took on the punishment for our sins” according to the Deuteronomic Covenant promises. These punishments include exile and death.

You say God cannot be touched by doing and I agree with you. I say Jesus is God, therefore, Jesus cannot be touched by sin. God would never turn His Back on anyone doing the Will of the Father’s.

BTW, Welcome to the Forums, Lori!!! Hope you enjoy your stay.

 

[BRB]

It is the teaching of the Church that a valid ordained priesthood is necessary for the confection of the Eucharist. Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, and your neighborhood non-denominational ecclesial community have no valid ordained priesthood. .

I know this is what many Catholics believe. Namely that Protestants are unsaved heretics, and can not receive efficacious Eucharist from their ordained priests, ministers, pastors, etc.

Remember this … God knows a believer’s intentions. He first examines our spiritual hearts. Those Protestants sealed in Christ can receive efficacious Eucharist … if it is properly invoked, blessed … and received by that Protestant as the body/blood/H.S. of the Lord.

I agree that many Protestants don’t think its anything but symbolic. But, some do accept it as the actual risen Lord. For them it is of healing value. Encourage the unbelieving Protestants to see the true teaching of the Universal Church … and bring them back into the fold.

Its been said by Catholic priests that it “takes a miracle for a Protestant to convert to Catholicism”. So, you job / mission will be tough. Spend some time examining what Protestants really believe … so not to offend them and make the job even harder.