I believe in His humanity He felt the death of the OT. His soul was a glorified soul and the consequences of sin I think were that much more repulsive and horrifying. I think at the moment it parted the suffering of sin was complete.
the consequence of sin , or the consequence of taking on sin, the sin that was laid upon Him?
The assault of of Satan upon His soul the consequences of sin at the hands of men on His Body. We are His Body and our sin He suffered for. As His members. The assault of evil spirits on His soul available to them since His final kenosis began and was bereft of all protection.
well, i would have to study it further, again. But words have meaning and Christ did ask why He was forsaken. It is form Christs perspective , and as answered in previous post twas a temporary sentiment, but not to be dismissed , so as to appreciate the agony, that was more than physical (which started this post, that His suffering was only physical) that our sin did cost Him.
So did “He who knew no sin, become sin” ? Was it laid upon Him ?
No. I see His body and soul suffered the consequences of sin. The evil spirits hated Him. His Soul was laid bare to their hateful assault. His Body given over to hateful assault of evil men. That’s how I see He bore our sin.
No. I don’t think Augustine was referring to certain Christian churches where they had valid apostolic succession and the real Eucharist as opposed to other Christian churches that did not have valid apostolic succession and a Eucharist that was “fake.” My post was in response to guanophore’s analysis to Augustine’s writing. This is what I understood her to be saying about it, but I was trying to get clarification.
What does this mean? How is He manifested? What is different after the consecration?
Do you believe that when Jesus entered the room that He was there in substance, but not physically present or perceptible to the senses? Were they only aware that He was there because they had faith that he was there in philosophical substance?
Isaiah 53:6 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
It means the Holy Spirit decends on the bread and wine, and making them mysteriously united to the same flesh of Christ, which died at Calvary. The difference, is they are no longer regarded as bread and wine, but the flesh and blood of our Lord.
The similarity, is that Jesus (flesh and blood) moves with the Spirit, and is able to defy the laws of physics. Transubstantiation is beyond physics, yet still related to the actual flesh of the Lord. It is like entering the mind of God. It has everything to do with faith, and nothing with carnal senses.
to that would be the unity of the Body of Christ and the Church. It is the sins of those who are members of His Body that He takes on Himself. It is said One Body I think it is a transfer that happens through love.
yeah, He seemed to suffer torments of the soul that one would think happens to the rest of us after death. For example the suffering in His soul that He described as ’ “I am deeply grieved, even to death;. Suffering so intense He sweat blood. We know that Jesus was the strongest man ever so this inner suffering must have been unimaginable powerful.
Isn’t this a Calvinist view that Christ descends spiritually and unites people with Him?
If the difference is in how they are regarded, then that sounds like a symbol. In a symbol the meaning is changed, but not the item itself.
I think it has to do with the body enjoying the freedom of the soul. The body, obeys the will and the will is not bound by any law including the laws of physics,
“10. The sum is, that the flesh and blood of Christ feed our souls just as bread and wine
I dont know. But we dont have to oppose something just because Calvin agreed with it.
Thank you for sharing what is actually said at that point in the Liturgy. I am curious about what the sentences are before this one since this one contains the word “therefore”. This seems to indicate a prior need, action or requirement or qualification, "make holy, therefore,…susanlo:
I dont know. But we dont have to oppose something just because Calvin agreed with it.
This is what is prayed during the Liturgy of the Eucharist:
"Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray, by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Calvin retained significant portions of the Apostolic faith, including infant baptism. He did value “the Lord’s supper” as an “ordinance”, though rejected Real Presence. This is where he came to odds with Luther, who believed more than just a spiritual communion.
I suppose that depends upon one’ s point of view. Obviously all those who received this teaching from the Apostles acknowledge that it is the Flesh and Blood of our lord, but many pagans have spurned this and desecrated the elements because they don’t regard it as such. Perception is one part of it, and the Teaching of Christ is another. One’s lack of ability to perceive what exists does not change what exists.
I agree. It is a question that an inquiring mind cannot really help asking, but it seems so much easier to leave it in the form of a Divine Mystery, as they do in the East. The attempt to rationalize and explain everything sometimes just seems to create more problems. I was just asked on another thread to “prove” that Jesus was referring to Real Presence in John 6, and told that if I could not do this, then I was reading into the text. Well, I find that many matters of the faith cannot be “proved” with Western science. That does not prevent me from accepting them, but I can see why it causes a stumbling block to some.
Bravo! Can we start right now? Today would be a very good day.
You know you are welcome to attend Mass any time. Going for research purposes is not a problem.
