Non-Catholics: How do you know that the words of Jesus are true?

[Peter_J]

OK I will paraphrase “will not drink from the fruit of the vine till after I am in kingdom”. Something like that, and found in one of the gospels last supper scene.

Oh okay.

Matthew 26:29

 

[spedteacherita]

You wrote, “Of course, Lutherans do not believe in transubstantiation or consubstantiation, we do take Christ’s words to heart and know that Jesus is present in our service of Holy Communion”.

Are you saying ALL Lutherans?

Maybe Lutherans do not believe in the “True Presence” but I have read along the way that Martin Luther, most definitely, did.

As a matter of fact, I have seen it written that some of the other reformers wanted Martin Luther to change his mind concerning the “True Presence” and he declined.

This is the teaching from Luther’s Small Catechism
I do not know about any other Lutheran Synods personally but I do know that the WELS, LCMC and LCMS synods adhere to the Book of Concord which contains both the Large and Small Catechism. This is taken from the Small Catechism - I’ve posted the link if you want to look at it closer:

VI. The Sacrament of the Altar
As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household.

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?

It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.

Where is this written?

The holy Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul, write thus:

Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.

After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Take, drink ye all of it. This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.

What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?

That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.

How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?

It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.

Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?

Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins.

But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts.

bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php

An excerpt from the Large Catechism:

Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar?

Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. 9] And as we have said of Baptism that it is not simple water, so here also we say the Sacrament is bread and wine, but not mere bread and wine, such as are ordinarily served at the table, but bread and wine comprehended in, and connected with, the Word of God.

10] It is the Word (I say) which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament, so that it is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called, the body and blood of Christ. For it is said: Accedat verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum. If the Word be joined to the element, it becomes a Sacrament. This saying of St. Augustine is so properly and so well put that he has scarcely said anything better. The Word must make a Sacrament of the element, else it remains a mere element. 11] Now, it is not the word or ordinance of a prince or emperor, but of the sublime Majesty, at whose feet all creatures should fall, and affirm it is as He says, and accept it with all reverence, fear, and humility.
bookofconcord.org/lc-7-sacrament.php

We believe in the True Presence but not in the same way as the Catholic teaches.

God bless,

Rita

 

[Picky_Picky]

I was thinking about this question again today, and I think the following may help: that’s not what “literal” means, but it may work out, in many cases, that a literal meaning comes first and then a metaphorical use comes later.

An example where that is not the case is the word “moot”. If I wanted to indicate the older meaning of that word, I’d just have to say “moot, in the old sense”, because there’s nothing more literal about the old meaning than the newer meaning.

The adjective “moot” also shows the impossibility of nailing down the sure definite unchanging unchallengeable meaning of a word. I suspect you (if you are, as I think, West of the Atlantic) use the word to mean something like “insignificant”. Over here (or at least to me, because these claims are always moot) it means “debatable”. And which is literal? (Mine is right, obviously)

 

[spedteacherita]

Lord be with you sister.

Yes He said that while He was still whole physically, and the bread still looked like bread, and wine wine. He even still referred to wine as such just after His “consecrating” words. How could one not simply take it as spiritually symbolic, much like the old passover/covenant “elements”, and that for remembrance sake ?

Agreed, and as I quoted from Luther’s small and large Catechisms later on here, we understand it to be Christ fully present but still in the elements. Whether other Lutherans at the communion tables do this or not, and, remember I understand the real presence I also understand that this is a celebration of what Christ did for us, becoming our atoning sacrifice once and for all and causing me to remember what and why He did that for me and you.

Thanks for your perspective!

Rita

 

[spedteacherita]

Lutherans use the term “sacramental union” rather than consubstantiation or transubstantiation to describe how the body and blood are present. According to Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_union

Yes, Thorolfr. I found it in the Book of Concord:

Affirmative Theses.
Confession of the Pure Doctrine concerning the Holy Supper against the Sacramentarians.

6] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that in the Holy Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, and are truly distributed and received with the bread and wine.

7] 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the words of the testament of Christ are not to be understood otherwise than as they read, according to the letter, so that the bread does not signify the absent body and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but that, on account of the sacramental union, they [the bread and wine] are truly the body and blood of Christ.

bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#VII. The Lord’s Supper

Thanks for sharing that info. I’m enjoying learning more about the Book of Concord and it’s so much easier to find specific phrases and words online than in the hardcover book I have from when I went to Concordia in Ann Arbor (eons ago ).

Hope everyone is having a blessed Sunday!

Rita

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Picky Picky.

Yeah, moot used to mean “debatable” over here as well. Then because of “Moot Court” it came to mean “purely academic” (which is the only meaning that I was aware of, until several years ago when I happened to hear the whole story).

But in any case, hopefully it’s clear that this isn’t a case of one use being literal and one being metaphorical … hence demonstrating that “literal” doesn’t mean “original”.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Hi Picky Picky.

Yeah, moot used to mean “debatable” over here as well. Then because of “Moot Court” it came to mean “purely academic” (which is the only meaning that I was aware of, until several years ago when I happened to hear the whole story).

But in any case, hopefully it’s clear that this isn’t a case of one use being literal and one being metaphorical … hence demonstrating that “literal” doesn’t mean “original”.

Well, yes, and I would go further and say that the division between literal and metaphorical is rarely clear. Moot shifts from meaning a meeting to meaning a debate, to meaning a matter to be debated, a matter for debate (if there isn’t metaphor in that lot at least there is synecdoche), an undecided matter, a matter set aside for decision, a matter set aside for purely academic decision. All literal? None literal but the first? There’s no telling.

 

[MaryT777]

Hi, Ben,

While Christ did tell us to do it in “remembrance” of Him, He also said , “This IS my body - and later this IS my blood.” Of course, Lutherans do not believe in transubstantiation or consubstantiation, we do take Christ’s words to heart and know that Jesus is present in our service of Holy Communion. His favorite way to describe it was “in, with, and under.”

Time to go for my heart cath!

God bless

I have been to LCMS worship services and they do say " In with and under" but that’s a Lutheran interpretation of the words of Jesus and certainly not his words which was IS.

Mary.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

From separated brethren thread, posts 355, 353:

"There is no evidence that the apostles took it literally at this point, none.

Yes, and what was He really saying (in the discourse) ? The future transubstantiation ? The future consubstantiation ? No, at best only as a secondary lesson, but not primary. Jesus had bigger fish to fry, like plain old unbelief, and in disciples !

Jesus stopped talking as soon as faith was professed, His primary goal. Faith in Christ, not withstanding any future mode of eucharisting remembrance. "We believe " in You . Those who departed did not.

The main theme of 71 verses of John 6, to believe on the Lord Jesus as the Christ, the Lamb of God , our propitiator for sins (not the Earthly king,yet) and that is a special work and drawing of the Father. All other faith and following is vanity and off the mark"

Jesus was seeking a profession of faith and he did receive it as detailed in the end of the discourse. However, this was intended to prepare the apostles for the Last Supper where He did indeed give them His Body and Blood to eat. No one at the Last Supper refused.

God always prepares us for an event. He just doesn’t spring something on us. The Old Testament is full of God’s preparing Israel for His Son’s coming. Remember, they were expecting the Messiah. Even non-Jews knew of the Messiah’s pending arrival.

The Old Testament is full of references to the Eucharist as well. Manna was one of them.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Hi Eddie, vs 49,50 says, “your fathers ate manna and are dead. This bread (Me ) also comes down from heaven and if you eat you shall not die”

Last I heard all who have eaten this bread also die, like their fathers.?

Also, how is it that the disciples who did not believe from the beginning, and departed, give evidence of some understanding of of some type of literalness, more so than the apostles ?

I think I understand what you are asking on some of your statements.

Are you referring to the Eucharist? Yes, we Catholics who receive the Eucharist do die. Our bodies die. Jesus assured us that we will live eternally with Him because of the Eucharist and all that consuming His flesh requires.

Remember, that there is a physical death, and a spiritual death. Spiritual death is eternal damnation because of sin.

I don’t understand your last question. Please clarify.

 

[Telstar]

Then is the Catholic eucharistic wording wrong when it asks, prays that the offering in “your hands be acceptable and holy”. Is Jesus asking the Father, again, for His sacrifice to be received as worthy and holy ? Asking and thanksgiving are at opposite ends of the process. I thought eucharist=thanksgiving ?

I would think that Jesus would say , “thank you Father for receiving Me and finding favor in my sacrifice”. Thanksgiving =eucharist.

It took me a while to figure out what you were referring to (your words in bold), because it’s a bit off, and out of perspective. This is what I think you were referring to:the priest says:]

Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters), that my sacrifice
and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.

the people rise and reply:]

May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good and the good of all his holy Church.*

***** (the “Lord” refers to the Father)This is the Prayer Over the Gifts, that’s said over the bread and wine before the Consecration. This is an explanation that I found:"The wording of the new translation makes clear the theological truth that there is only one sacrifice, and that that sacrifice belongs both to the priest and the people. The response of the people, made after they rise, since all responses to a prayer of the priest are made standing] makes clear that, while the sacrifice is that of priest and people, it is offered at the hands of the priest who stands in the person of Christ. This prayer, prayed as we move toward the Eucharistic Prayer, reinforces the truth that the sacrifice is offered to the praise and glory of the Father, for the salvation of all present and for the entire holy Church."That “one sacrifice” was offered by Jesus from the Cross. Catholics do not “reenact” the Sacrifice of Calvary, like people around the US reenact revolutionary war, or civil war battles. But by the power of the Holy Spirit, in the Presence of the Father, we are actually spiritually present with Jesus as He hangs on the cross. We are surrounded in spirit by the Church Militant (the entire Church on earth), the Church Suffering (the Holy Souls in Purgatory) and the Church Triumphant (all the Saints in Heaven), along with all of the holy angels of Heaven. We have to remember that God is not subject to time as we know it. For God, everything that we might think about happening at a specific ‘time’, is happening now.

(all emphasis mine)

 

[GKC]

It took me a while to figure out what you were referring to (your words in bold), because it’s a bit off, and out of perspective. This is what I think you were referring to:the priest says:]

Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters), that my sacrifice
and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.

the people rise and reply:]

May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands* for the praise and glory of his name, for our good and the good of all his holy Church.

***** (the “Lord” refers to the Father)This is the Prayer Over the Gifts, that’s said over the bread and wine before the Consecration. This is an explanation that I found:"The wording of the new translation makes clear the theological truth that there is only one sacrifice, and that that sacrifice belongs both to the priest and the people. The response of the people, made after they rise, since all responses to a prayer of the priest are made standing] makes clear that, while the sacrifice is that of priest and people, it is offered at the hands of the priest who stands in the person of Christ. This prayer, prayed as we move toward the Eucharistic Prayer, reinforces the truth that the sacrifice is offered to the praise and glory of the Father, for the salvation of all present and for the entire holy Church."That “one sacrifice” was offered by Jesus from the Cross. Catholics do not “reenact” the Sacrifice of Calvary, like people around the US reenact revolutionary war, or civil war battles. But by the power of the Holy Spirit, in the Presence of the Father, we are actually spiritually present with Jesus as He hangs on the cross. We are surrounded in spirit by the Church Militant (the entire Church on earth), the Church Suffering (the Holy Souls in Purgatory) and the Church Triumphant (all the Saints in Heaven), along with all of the holy angels of Heaven. We have to remember that God is not subject to time as we know it. For God, everything that we might think about happening at a specific ‘time’, is happening now.

(all emphasis mine)

Also a common Anglican understanding of the Orate fratres and the re-presentation of the One Sacrifice, as we are brought to the foot of the cross, in the intersection of time and eternity, at the altar.

Amen.

GKC

 

[friardchips]

Can the words of Jesus not be authoritative without the Church?

The Church is the witness.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi RC,

I think you are too nice in only stating “remembering”, and not also re-presenting. Remembering should not be a sacrifice, unless you mean of praise, which ties in better with thanksgiving /eucharist. We remember we no longer need to make propitiatory sacrifice, and that is a cause for “celebration”. We do not need “approval” or third party priest for “remembering”.

Seems the priest goes beyond remembrance with the blessing. It is quite still OT testament to bless a sacrifice and say, “may our sacrifice be acceptable to God the Almighty Father” or “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands (the priests’ hands)”, “We bring you these gifts, make them holy”

Sorry, Calvary and its remembrance (even a representing) is already acceptable and Holy, as evidenced by the Resurrection, and the directive to “remember”.

God gave us the sacrificial Gift and blessed it .He presented Calvary to us. No need to give Him back, and that thru a priest, and hoping it be “acceptable”. We are thankful that all that other stuff is behind us. Eucharist =Thanksgiving. Sacrifice of praise.

Blessings

God ‘remembers’ His covenant through Jesus’ death and resurrection in the sacrifice of the Mass.

Exodus 2

23 In the course of those many days the king of Egypt died. And the people of Israel groaned under their bondage, and cried out for help, and their cry under bondage came up to God. 24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. 25 And God saw the people of Israel, and God knew their condition.

God doesn’t forget, He is in eternity. Rememberence is a recalling, or re-presenting the benefits of the onece made sacrifice. At Mass, we benefit from His saving sacrifice, through a true examination of conscience and contrite heart. Or we bring condemnation on ourselves for abusing Him am bring the guilt of His body and blood over us.

 

[spedteacherita]

God ‘remembers’ His covenant through Jesus’ death and resurrection in the sacrifice of the Mass.

Exodus 2

23 In the course of those many days the king of Egypt died. And the people of Israel groaned under their bondage, and cried out for help, and their cry under bondage came up to God. 24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. 25 And God saw the people of Israel, and God knew their condition.

He is in eternity. Rememberence is a recalling, or re-presenting the benefits of the onece made sacrifice. At Mass, we benefit from His saving sacrifice, through a true examination of conscience and contrite heart. Or we bring condemnation on ourselves for abusing Him am bring the guilt of His body and blood over us.

Hi, RC.

I know Ben and I don’t see everything about the Lord’s Supper eye to eye but we understand that God doesn’t forget. When Christ died He said, “It is finished!” The veil in the temple was torn from top to bottom when Christ died (along with the darkness and the earthquake). He was the last sacrifice - “It is finished.” He said. There was no longer any need to sacrifice.

Christ’s death was the atonement sacrifice that was done in the Old Testament but on Good Friday that was finished - no more sacrifice is needed.

 

[Telstar]

Yes He said that while He was still whole physically, and the bread still looked like bread, and wine wine. He even still referred to wine as such just after His “consecrating” words. How could one not simply take it as spiritually symbolic, much like the old passover/covenant “elements”, and that for remembrance sake ?

Why would you think it was only symbolic? Did Jesus say, “these will be symbols of my body and blood” or “I want you to do this with bread and wine, but I just want you to reenact what I’m doing to remember me”? Do you think Jesus was just playing “make believe” with the Apostles, when He said “this IS MY BODY” and “this IS MY BLOOD”? This is exactly what He was referring to earlier, when the other disciples had walked away, because they knew He was being serious. He meant every word He said. He knew He was going to die the next day, and this was no time for teaching in parables. He always told the truth when He was teaching the Apostles, even when they didn’t understand everything He said at the time.

The celebration of Passover, like many other signs of the Messiah that we see in the OT, was a foreshadowing of Jesus, the real Sacrificial Lamb of God, being celebrated in the Mass, forever. The Holy Eucharist is the literal Lamb of God that we actually eat to remember His Sacrifice on the cross, just like the Jews actually eat the Paschal Lamb to remember the Exodus of Moses. Was the Paschal Lamb just a symbol of the sacrifice, or a real lamb that they actually ate?

Those OT signs foreshadowed the Messiah that would come, but the signs themselves were very real. Everything that Jesus did as the Messiah, and taught us to do from that point forward, were the fulfillment of those OT signs that foreshadowed the absolute reality of Christ. The celebration of the Mass is the New Covenant equivalent and fulfillment of the celebration of Passover, where the True Paschal Lamb is offered to God as an unblemished and Holy Sacrifice, which is then shared and eaten by all the faithful. It’s just as real as Jesus is.

 

[rcwitness]

Christ’s death was the atonement sacrifice that was done in the Old Testament but on Good Friday that was finished - no more sacrifice is needed.

Yes. Im not sure how we are opposed to one another, then.

It IS Christ’s one sacrifice at Calvary which we ‘remember’ and benefit (or are condemned through).

My understanding is that Ben, and maybe yourself, does not know the context and significance of ‘rememberance’ as is used by our Lord.

I showed (one example of many) the use of God’s rememberance in regard to applying His promises to a covenant. He remembers the covenant He made AND applies it at a given time.

We believe the benefits of the New Covenant are continuously relied upon, and so the source of the power of this covenant is drawn upon, not re-sacrificed.

We are able to give thanks for, and recieve the SAME sacrifice which took place at Calvary

 

[Thorolfr]

Did Jesus say, “these will be symbols of my body and blood” or “I want you to do this with bread and wine, but I just want you to reenact what I’m doing to remember me”? Do you think Jesus was just playing “make believe” with the Apostles, when He said “this IS MY BODY” and “this IS MY BLOOD”?

So what did Jesus mean when he said, “I am the good shepherd” (John 10:11) or “I am the true vine” (John 15:1) or “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12) or “I am the gate” (John 10:9)? Is Jesus really (dare I say “literally”) a shepherd and are we really sheep? Is Jesus really a gate or a vine or a light or is this just symbolic or metaphorical language? If the latter, then why should we think that he is not speaking symbolically when he says, “I am the bread of life”?

 

[GKC]

So what did Jesus mean when he said, “I am the good shepherd” (John 10:11) or “I am the true vine” (John 15:1) or “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12) or “I am the gate” (John 10:9)? Is Jesus really (dare I say “literally”) a shepherd and are we really sheep? Is Jesus really a gate or a vine or a light or is this just symbolic or metaphorical language? If the latter, then why should we think that he is not speaking symbolically when he says, “I am the bread of life”?

Generally, because he wasn’t holding a door, and saying this is me. While he was holding bread and saying this is my body.

GKC

 

[Telstar]

Hi, RC.

I know Ben and I don’t see everything about the Lord’s Supper eye to eye but we understand that God doesn’t forget. When Christ died He said, “It is finished!”

Yes, He did. Those three words have great significance. First of all, they signify that His life of sacrifice for our salvation was finished. They also signify that the Promise of a Messiah, that God had first made to the Jews, had been accomplished, so the Old Covenant of Moses was finished, too. It also signifies that His work of establishing the New and Everlasting Covenant with His Church, that would remain until “the consummation of the world”, was finished. There was nothing more to reveal to mankind that He had not already revealed to them, through His Apostles.

The veil in the temple was torn from top to bottom when Christ died (along with the darkness and the earthquake). He was the last sacrifice - “It is finished.” He said. There was no longer any need to sacrifice.

Christ’s death was the atonement sacrifice that was done in the Old Testament but on Good Friday that was finished - no more sacrifice is needed.

Exactly! The rending of the Temple veil was a sign that God was deeply grieved by death of His Only Son.

But, as I have already explained in previous posts, the Mass is not a new sacrifice that is offered to God, but that same Sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary. It’s not just a reenactment or a new offering, but that same one Jesus made from the cross. The Body and Blood of Jesus that the Church offers every day, in Masses all over the world, is exactly the same Body and Blood that Jesus offered the Apostles at the Last Supper. That’s why He taught them how to change the bread and wine into His real Body and Blood, so that we could also offer His Sacrifice to the Father, as a perpetual sign of His Perfect Love for the Father, and for us. It’s also the very special way that He really does remain with us, forever.