D
deMontfort
Guest
The latter.
- Status
S
Start
Guest
Because it’s too rigid or too lax?
Last edited:
D
deMontfort
Guest
Can’t specify. I’ll give you the words “Modernist heresy” and "apostasy " and allow you to draw your own conclusions.
M
mdcpensive1
Guest
I can’t understand how if a person actually knows that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ that they can leave such a wonderful gift that Christ has given us. Lutherans may believe they have the “real thing (presence)”, but a sacrifice is always given by a priest when you understand covenant.
S
steido01
Guest
What, exactly, is being Sacrificed if Christ is our high priest and he has already made the atoning once-and-for-all sacrifice?
G
GKMotley
Guest
That’s the Sacrifice that is re-presented. Same one.
W
Wannano
Guest
It is not my intent to muddy the waters but maybe someone can help me. It seems to me that to re-present a once and for all event negates the once and for all aspect of the said event.
Going back to John 6 when the disciples who took Jesus’ words literally and they left in disgust thinking he was looney for suggesting that they would eat his literal flesh, I have to wonder why Jesus did not explain just how His Church would do this in an unbloody manner as is done today. It seems to me that would have solved a lot of misunderstanding and avoided centuries of controversy and even bloodshed. It is a paradox to me that most of Jesus’ teachings that are hard for everyone to accept, for example, turning the other cheek, loving your neighbor as much as yourself, are clearly stated by Jesus Himself. Why is it that the central focus of His Church is not clearly spelled out by Him?
S
steido01
Guest
I’m aware, and not necessarily opposed if rightly understood.
That last part is what intrigues me. I like to see what average Roman Catholics say on the issue. There’s typically a good bit about conflating Christ’s sacrifice with… well, a considerably less-worthy sort.
That last part is what intrigues me. I like to see what average Roman Catholics say on the issue. There’s typically a good bit about conflating Christ’s sacrifice with… well, a considerably less-worthy sort.
W
Wannano
Guest
Would you care to clarify what your last sentence is referring to? For the sake of others like me who aren’t connecting the dots!
G
GKMotley
Guest
Time. It takes an understanding of time as a contingent construct, limiting on contingent creation. The one sacrifice isn’t presented again, in time. This is not a sequence, not a following of time’s arrow. It’s the same sacrifice. We are brought to it. To the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, eternally, in eternity, presenting that sacrifice before the Father, interceding for us.
It is a re-presentation of the original sacrifice. Not a new one, not an added one, not an additional one, not a repeated one, not a duplicated one, not a second one, not a copied one, not a supplemental one, not a sequential one, not a later one. The Sacrifice. That one. Made present to us at the intersection of time and history, as we are brought before the cross on Calvary,at the altar. The same sacrifice. Once done, presented to us as it was presented 2000 years ago, to the world in time, eternally offered outside of time.
It is a re-presentation of the original sacrifice. Not a new one, not an added one, not an additional one, not a repeated one, not a duplicated one, not a second one, not a copied one, not a supplemental one, not a sequential one, not a later one. The Sacrifice. That one. Made present to us at the intersection of time and history, as we are brought before the cross on Calvary,at the altar. The same sacrifice. Once done, presented to us as it was presented 2000 years ago, to the world in time, eternally offered outside of time.
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
Beats me. Sort of like the Trinity, that.
S
steido01
Guest
Sure.
As a Lutheran, I certainly understand Christ’s once-and-for-all sacrifice to be “re-presented” in the sense that, at Holy Communion, Christ’s real, physical Body and Blood is made present outside of time and space and shared with all Saints Militant and Triumphant of all eras and places. We are drawn back to the cross, forward to the feast to come while simultaneously receiving His Body and Blood in the present. This is why Lutherans agree with imagery like this:
His Real Presence is truly here on earth. If that were what Rome meant by ‘sacrifice’ in the mass, there wouldn’t be anything for Lutherans to complain about - it’s merely a descriptor for the Real Presence.
Yet Rome often means something else that smells faintly of Pelagianism to Lutheran ears. The priest seems to overstep the instruction to stand in persona Christi and administer the sacrament by adding “my sacrifice and yours” to Christ’s Sacrifice. The priest has no standing to add or remove anything from Christ’s work. Is Christ not sufficient? Is man’s sacrifice worthy of being joined to Christ’s? Is man’s thanks of salvific value as far as God is concerned? This is why Lutherans bristle at the ‘sacrifice of the mass’ - because Rome itself doesn’t know what it means by the phrase, and if she does, then she ought to know better than to conflate the two.
As a Lutheran, I certainly understand Christ’s once-and-for-all sacrifice to be “re-presented” in the sense that, at Holy Communion, Christ’s real, physical Body and Blood is made present outside of time and space and shared with all Saints Militant and Triumphant of all eras and places. We are drawn back to the cross, forward to the feast to come while simultaneously receiving His Body and Blood in the present. This is why Lutherans agree with imagery like this:
His Real Presence is truly here on earth. If that were what Rome meant by ‘sacrifice’ in the mass, there wouldn’t be anything for Lutherans to complain about - it’s merely a descriptor for the Real Presence.
Yet Rome often means something else that smells faintly of Pelagianism to Lutheran ears. The priest seems to overstep the instruction to stand in persona Christi and administer the sacrament by adding “my sacrifice and yours” to Christ’s Sacrifice. The priest has no standing to add or remove anything from Christ’s work. Is Christ not sufficient? Is man’s sacrifice worthy of being joined to Christ’s? Is man’s thanks of salvific value as far as God is concerned? This is why Lutherans bristle at the ‘sacrifice of the mass’ - because Rome itself doesn’t know what it means by the phrase, and if she does, then she ought to know better than to conflate the two.
Last edited:
W
Wannano
Guest
Thanks to both you and GK Motley. I understand what you both are saying and won’t interfere with what you are saying.Sure.
As a Lutheran, I certainly understand Christ’s once-and-for-all sacrifice to be “re-presented” in the sense that, at Holy Communion, Christ’s real, physical Body and Blood is made present outside of time and space and shared with all Saints Militant and Triumphant of all eras and places. This is why Lutherans agree with imagery like this:
His Real Presence is truly here on earth. If that were what Rome meant by ‘sacrifice’ in the mass, there wouldn’t be anything for Lutherans to complain about - it’s merely a descriptor for the Real Presence.
Yet Rome often means something else that smells faintly of Pelagianism to Lutheran ears. The priest seems to overstep the instruction to stand in persona Christi and administer the sacrament by adding “my sacrifice and yours” to Christ’s Sacrifice. The priest has no standing to add or remove anything from Christ’s work. Is Christ not sufficient? Is man’s sacrifice worthy of being joined to Christ’s? Is man’s thanks of salvific value as far as God is concerned? This is why Lutherans bristle at the ‘sacrifice of the mass’ - because Rome itself doesn’t know what it means by the phrase, and if she does, then she ought to know better than to conflate the two.
I have a hard time seeing where Christ meant for the Eucharist to be the central part of the life of the church. It seems the central focus of His Message is a changed heart in man in which He resides, not a house built by human hands. Christ’s presence is within us, and I have such a hard time seeing where and how a host accomplishes that. I am at a crossroads in my Christian life regarding this issue and feel it is time to live by my conviction, that is, once I come to peace with what my conviction really is.
It is quite easy for me to see the perspective that “religion” is made of the stuff of liturgy and fluff that by design takes the attention away fom the real purpose of Christ’s Sacrifice. But I want to be sure.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Anglicans (of certain flavors) will calm you (maybe) by making our sacrifice one of praise and thanksgiving, and adoration. It’s all we can do, and very meet, right and our bounden duty.
D
deMontfort
Guest
It depends on the Protestant confession that you adhere to as there’s a spectrum of belief within Protestantism. For Lutherans, communion is very important. For Baptists, it’s not very important at all (at least amongst the ones I’ve encountered).
G
GKMotley
Guest
You are very welcome.
I think I’d say that the Eucharist is the central part of the worship of the Church. I have no problem with your idea of the central part of the Message being a broken and contrite heart, and what that leads to.
As often, I see things as “this and”, not “either/or”. But I wish you well.
I think I’d say that the Eucharist is the central part of the worship of the Church. I have no problem with your idea of the central part of the Message being a broken and contrite heart, and what that leads to.
As often, I see things as “this and”, not “either/or”. But I wish you well.
S
steido01
Guest
Yes, some Anglicans make me feel right at home. After all; “It is truly meet, right and salutary that we should at all times and in all places give thanks to Thee, O Lord, Holy Father Almighty, everymore praising Thee and singing: Holy, Holy, Holy…”
But when we American Lutherans copied/translated our “Common Service” liturgy back from ye Anglicans, we made sure to chant that Sanctus before the Verba are spoken, with The Lord’s Prayer nestled in between, and sometim s with added prayers for the church — just to ensure that no one gets the wrong idea about adding something to Christ’s work.
But when we American Lutherans copied/translated our “Common Service” liturgy back from ye Anglicans, we made sure to chant that Sanctus before the Verba are spoken, with The Lord’s Prayer nestled in between, and sometim s with added prayers for the church — just to ensure that no one gets the wrong idea about adding something to Christ’s work.
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
Oh, we do the same, as you likely know.
No one I ever met thought that we added anything to Christ’s work. Literally no one. And given the loony zoo that is historical Anglicanism, that’s not bad.
Of course, given the maximum motleydom of Anglicanism, one never knows.
No one I ever met thought that we added anything to Christ’s work. Literally no one. And given the loony zoo that is historical Anglicanism, that’s not bad.
Of course, given the maximum motleydom of Anglicanism, one never knows.
Z
ZMystiCat
Guest
It’s a response to the comment directly above. In that case, the forum doesn’t show the reply in the upper right.
- Status