In ~rememberance~ of Me?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bengeorge
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bengeorge

Guest
Hi Folks,

I’ve had a few Protestants say:

“Christ said ‘do this in ~rememberance~ of Me’, so if He were really there, why do we have to remember him.”

It seems kinda inane to me, but it got the other Protestants around saying “oh, good point!”

Does anyone have a pithy comeback to this?
 
Well Jesus was a jew. Prehaps they should go ask a rabbi what happens when they remember the Passover.
 
40.png
bengeorge:
Hi Folks,

I’ve had a few Protestants say:

“Christ said ‘do this in ~rememberance~ of Me’, so if He were really there, why do we have to remember him.”

It seems kinda inane to me, but it got the other Protestants around saying “oh, good point!”

Does anyone have a pithy comeback to this?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Mass is the representation of the sacrifice of the Cross outside of time and a reenactment of the Last supper in time. The Sacrifice of the Cross and the Last Supper were bonded together. “Do this in Remembrance of Me” Do what? To Remember what? Reenact the Last Supper to participate in the Sacrifice of the Cross outside of time joined with those in the Heavenly Kingdom.
 
He was commissioning the Eucharist. He was really there and yet He said, “Do this in rememberance of me”. Why would they need to remember him if He was there? Yet, He told them to do it. As sure as He told them “This is my body.” He wanted us to remember His sacrifice at Calvary. As often as we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim His death. If He didn’t want us to do it, He wouldn’t have said so. I find it much more interesting that He told us to do this, rather than just preach the word.

If it’s really not Him, how come we must discern ourselves before we eat Him as St. Paul said? How come we are told if we don’t eat Him we wont have life in us? See what answers you’ll get to these (IF it comes up again)…and, I’m sure that you WILL get answers…
 
40.png
Trelow:
Well Jesus was a jew. Prehaps they should go ask a rabbi what happens when they remember the Passover.
Click to expand...
To that point, Jesus was celebrating Passover at that time, instituting the New Passover.
 
Joseph Bilodeau:
To that point, Jesus was celebrating Passover at that time, instituting the New Passover.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Now back to what I said. What does “remember” mean in the Jewish faith with regards to the Passover?
 
Here’s a posting I made to the same challenge on a different forum. The guy I was responding to was a 7th day adventist:

You would do well to do a word study on anamnesis, the greek word here translated as “rememberance.” In Lev 24:7 the Hebrew word 'azkarah was translated in the LXX to anamnesis. See also Numbers 10:10. It means a “memorial offering,” intended to be re-lived perpetually.

You should be very interested to know that in Lev 23:24, the Hebrew word zikrown is also translated to anamnesis when talking about a command to “remember” a special sabbath. Tell me, should we just “think about” a sabbath, or should we live it?
 
Oh, here’s a good section from an on-line source that I believe I saved from Steve Ray’s website: catholic-convert.com. I can’t find the original page right not, so I can’t give you the URL, but you can probably find it on his website someplace. It’s called “Catholic Doctrine in Scripture” of something similar.

1 Cor. 11: 24 – “‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’” In recent centuries, Protestant thinkers have latched onto the word, "remembrance,” to bolster their view of the Sacrament of the Eucharist as symbol only. However, when an old friend visits – in person – we do a lot of recalling of old times together. This nostalgic sharing could certainly be termed a “remembrance.” Loved ones can recall the past together more easily than they can apart. So the word “remembrance” implies nothing about the Real Presence, pro or con. Fr. Mitch Pacwa, a popular author and scholar, says that the Greek word “anamnesis” – which we translate as “remembrance” – is a word that occurs very rarely in scripture and, when it does, is almost always associated with sacrifice. Outside of the context of the Last Supper, the word is found in the New Testament only in Heb. 10: 3, where the “remembrance” is actually equated with the act of carrying out a sacrifice under the Mosaic law: “…in those sacrifices there is only the yearly remembrance of sins…” In the Old Testament, the word occurs in Lev. 23: 24, where we find it translated as “reminder”: “…you shall keep a sabbath rest, with a sacred assembly and with the trumpet blasts as a reminder, you shall then do no sort of work, and you shall offer an oblation to the Lord.” Notice once again the context of sacrifice. And in Num. 10: 10, we see the translation, “reminder,” again: “On your days of celebration, your festivals, and your new moon feasts, you shall blow the trumpet over your holocausts and your peace offerings; this will serve as a reminder of you before your God.” Again, the clear reference is to “oblation,” or sacrifice. So, if Jesus did not view the Last Supper – or the Mass – as a sacrifice, then he chose a very odd word – this “remembrance” – to instruct his followers to carry on the tradition. For when he says, “Do this in remembrance of me…” he is making a crystal-clear reference to sacrifice, one that his followers could not possibly have overlooked.
 
40.png
Schabel:
Here’s a posting I made to the same challenge on a different forum. The guy I was responding to was a 7th day adventist:
You would do well to do a word study on anamnesis, the greek word here translated as “rememberance.” In Lev 24:7 the Hebrew word 'azkarah was translated in the LXX to anamnesis. See also Numbers 10:10. It means a “memorial offering,” intended to be re-lived perpetually.

You should be very interested to know that in Lev 23:24, the Hebrew word zikrown is also translated to anamnesis when talking about a command to “remember” a special sabbath. Tell me, should we just “think about” a sabbath, or should we live it?
Click to expand...
http://www.kardwell.com/images/esy-rd-bingo-hcard.jpg

👍
 
But of course Christ is really present even at the Protestant’s Lord’s Supper. Mt 18:20 “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Sometimes it seems some Protestants are so busy arguing against the Catholic Church they forget what they themselves believe.
 
So true VociMike!

And thanks to all of you for clearing this up for me, escpecially the post from Schabel
 
40.png
VociMike:
But of course Christ is really present even at the Protestant’s Lord’s Supper. Mt 18:20 “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Sometimes it seems some Protestants are so busy arguing against the Catholic Church they forget what they themselves believe.
Click to expand...
Protestants believe that Christ is spiritually present at the Lord’s Supper. Physically Jesus is in heaven at the right hand of the Father.
 
40.png
onlyone:
Protestants believe that Christ is spiritually present at the Lord’s Supper. Physically Jesus is in heaven at the right hand of the Father.
Click to expand...
Here is John 6 (A Catholic Specialty)
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
bengeorge:
“Christ said ‘do this in ~rememberance~ of Me’, so if He were really there, why do we have to remember him.”

It seems kinda inane to me, but it got the other Protestants around saying “oh, good point!”

Does anyone have a pithy comeback to this?
Click to expand...
I bet they won’t have an answer for this:

Tell them that the Body of Christ was dismembered by Adam and original sin. When we receive Holy Communion with Him we are actually bringing ourselves together with him, and thus we “re-member” the dismembered Body of Christ. This works especially well when Communion is the Real Presence.

Alan
 
40.png
onlyone:
Protestants believe that Christ is spiritually present at the Lord’s Supper. Physically Jesus is in heaven at the right hand of the Father.
Click to expand...
The original statement was “Christ said ‘do this in ~rememberance~ of Me’, so if He were really there, why do we have to remember him.”

Is Christ “really” present when He is spiritually present? Or is He only “really” present when He is physically present?

What do you even mean by “spiritually present”? Can you show me where “spiritually present” means “not really present”?
 
40.png
VociMike:
The original statement was “Christ said ‘do this in ~rememberance~ of Me’, so if He were really there, why do we have to remember him.”

Jesus was establishing a way to remember Him after He died and went back to heaven. Notice He did not say, “Do this, this IS Me!”

Is Christ “really” present when He is spiritually present? Or is He only “really” present when He is physically present?

Oh, yes, Jesus is really present whenever two or three gather together in His Name but He is not physically present as the host! The wafer is not truly Christ but a symbol of His broken body and shed blood. God is Spirit and those that worship Him, must worship in spirit and truth!

What do you even mean by “spiritually present”? Can you show me where “spiritually present” means “not really present”?
Click to expand...
Again, Jesus is spiritually (not physically) present whenever two or more gather together in His Name! Jesus has not yet returned to the earth physically! He is now in heaven sitting at the right hand of the Father interceding on our behalf.

Acts 17:11
 
40.png
onlyone:
Again, Jesus is spiritually (not physically) present whenever two or more gather together in His Name! Jesus has not yet returned to the earth physically! He is now in heaven sitting at the right hand of the Father interceding on our behalf.

Acts 17:11
Click to expand...
I can’t quote all of your response because you seem to have inserted your remarks inside of my QUOTE box, but let me just ask you a few questions.

First, you said Christ did not say “Do this, this IS Me!”. Well, He said “This IS my body” and “This IS my blood”. So why are we not to believe Him?

You talk about Christ being “spiritually” present here on earth while being present (physically present?) in heaven. Answer me this: Is Christ really present in heaven? Is Christ really present on earth whenever two or three…? If He is really present in both places, how is this possible?

You make a mistake when you suggest that Catholics believe Christ is “physically” present in the Eucharist. We believe that Christ is “sacramentally” present, that He is truly, really, and substantially present.

Now, if you agree that whenever two or three gather that Christ is really present, then why do you insist that such a presence is allowed, but that being truly, really and substantially present is not allowed?
 
40.png
VociMike:
I can’t quote all of your response because you seem to have inserted your remarks inside of my QUOTE box, but let me just ask you a few questions.

First, you said Christ did not say “Do this, this IS Me!”. Well, He said “This IS my body” and “This IS my blood”. So why are we not to believe Him?

You talk about Christ being “spiritually” present here on earth while being present (physically present?) in heaven. Answer me this: Is Christ really present in heaven? Is Christ really present on earth whenever two or three…? If He is really present in both places, how is this possible?

You make a mistake when you suggest that Catholics believe Christ is “physically” present in the Eucharist. We believe that Christ is “sacramentally” present, that He is truly, really, and substantially present.

Now, if you agree that whenever two or three gather that Christ is really present, then why do you insist that such a presence is allowed, but that being truly, really and substantially present is not allowed?
Click to expand...
First – VociMike, I am not following you around the forum – intentionally anyway.

I do not understand the connection that you (and others) are trying to draw between the word “remembrance” and the contextual idea of sacrifice. That His followers would have understood the word to refer to a sacrifice makes complete sense to the extent that He was saying “do this” (i.e., take part in communion) to remember the sacrifice that I am about to be for you and everyone else who believes in Me.

I have no qualms with the communion service or ceremony or tradition. I think it is clear that Jesus called us to “do” it. He said to do it in “remembrance” in light of what was about to happen which didn’t make any sense to them until the stone was rolled away, and they saw Him in the upper room after He rose (like a lot of things that He had said to them before He died).

Jesus is “present” here through the Holy Spirit. His spiritual presence is no less “present” than if He walked into the room – it would just be much easier to point Him out!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top