Protestant Argument of the Eucharist

[Doreen]

Okay…you got me there…it sure doesn’t make a lot of sense with the other statements…and I didn’t assume it to translate that those who killed Him would have eternal life, although…really didn’t He die FOR all of us…FOR our sins? None are worthy, not one…

So…what point is there to the clarification that “eats his flesh” and “drinks His blood” translates to persecute, assault, kill, do harm, murder, then?

Not much of a point from Mr. Staples really? I mean, since clearly that isn’t what Christ meant; at least it can’t be applied to ALL of those statements…but we’re to believe that He meant we ARE to apply the literal eating and drinking to ALL of the statements according to the Catholic teaching?

One thing left to consider: If we are to Jesus as He is to the Father (see John 6:57)…then does Jesus “feed on” God? Why does He even bring that up in the midst of the flesh/blood topic?

See, this teaching is more than difficult to “swallow” --forgive the play on words. And I still have not seen a single citation from a single trustworthy source to confirm the literal interpretation.

You are saying you believe that the apostles passed it directly to the early “saints” of the church…but didn’t Christ have to rebuke Peter just minutes after He talked about building the church on “this rock?” I mean, you’re going to tell me there wasn’t a chance that any of those who were “ordained” over the ages may have corrupted the teaching oh so long ago? How can you be guaranteed that? That, to me, is a bit of a stretch of faith…and it’s not faith in God so much as faith in men, and that’s what scares me.

The teaching of “real presence” also doesn’t fit with the rest of the New Covenant…
Believe I am the Son of God and I came that you might have eternal life…
Love the Lord your God with all your soul, mind, strength…
Love your neighbor as yourself
Do the will of the Father who sent me…
My Spirit will come to you and write my word on your hearts and minds…
Oh and eat my flesh and blood, too.

Tell me this…how DO you explain this teaching to new converts?
I mean, I grew up in the church and blindly followed the crowd, but it never made a whole lot of sense…maybe it would help to see how you teach it…though I read some of the Catechism, and other writings of the church and so far, they didn’t flip any switches for me.

Why is it I can read the Old Testament and the New Testament, and though His ways are truly Higher than my ways, I can get a real picture of God and His character…God does amazing things throughout the pages of the Bible. You see Kings who follow Him with firm devotion followed by Kings who turn away and defile His name…and He is a jealous God…you learn He’s a patient God, He’s a compassionate God, He’s unchanging, firm, and He disciplines those He loves…He desires our hearts, He loves His people and cares for them and protects them, and strikes down their enemies…So when I try to fit this teaching in with the God of the Old Covenant…and the God of the New Covenant…It just doesn’t work. Something in my Spirit flares up and says, “NO–this is not of me.”

Meanwhile, I can fully comprehend and accept the Lord’s desire for us to commune with Him as He says: “remain in me” and “abide in me”…fellowship with me…these things are like songs to my soul…and my Spirit can’t wait to obey these calls.

So, how do you get to the point where thinking that the bread is transfigured really warms your soul?

I believe Jesus is who He says He is
I believe He can do all that He says He can do
I believe I can do all things through Him that gives me strength
I believe He died for my sins and that in Him is eternal life
I believe He has spoken to my heart in incredible ways, and He’s done miracles in my life and in the lives of many friends and acquaintances for whom I’ve had the privilege to pray…
He answers my prayers.
He is a real and loving, living God.
His Spirit is within me.

So—why would He put a stumbling block like this in my way?
Seems more like the work of the devil --and I don’t mean to attack the church, it’s just the way it rubs me – it simply doesn’t fit with all the other stuff He’s shown me.

So, yep…I’m having a hard time here. And I am grasping at straws. I really do think that it’s possible He did prophesy in that “Unless you persecute me…” line… I will have to look at other translations and study that further.

I don’t mean to be stiff-necked about this…but I don’t take teachings about the Lord lightly. I am glad you don’t either.

D.

 

[MommyofFive]

Doreen:

So…what point is there to the clarification that “eats his flesh” and “drinks His blood” translates to persecute, assault, kill, do harm, murder, then?

Not much of a point from Mr. Staples really? I mean, since clearly that isn’t what Christ meant; at least it can’t be applied to ALL of those statements…but we’re to believe that He meant we ARE to apply the literal eating and drinking to ALL of the statements according to the Catholic teaching?

That WAS the whole point of Tim Staples: to show how ABSURD it would be “persecute, assault, kill, do harm, murder…” And I did fail to mention that that particular excerpt was just that, an excerpt. There is MUCH more to the arguement that he proposes on the Eucharist. Here is another quote: “In verse 61 (Mr. Staples is talking of John 6 again here) we see that no longer was it just the wider audience but ‘the disciples’ themselves who were having difficulty with this radical statement. Surely, if Christ were speaking purely symbolically, it’s reasonable to expect that He would clear up the difficulty even if just amoung His disciples. But He doesn’t. He stands firm and asks, ‘Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?’ (vv.62-63). Did Christ ‘symbolically’ ascend into heaven after the Resurrection? No. As we see in Acts 1:9-10, His ascension was literal. This is the one and only place in the New Testament where people abandon Christ over one of His teachings. Rather than try to correct any mistaken understanding of His words, the Lord asks His Apostles, ‘Do you also want to leave?’ (verse 67). His Apostles knew He was speaking literally. St. Paul emphasizes the truth of the Real Presence: ‘Whoever eats the bread of drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord…Whoever eats and drinks without recognizing the body, eats and drinks judgement on himself’ (1 Cor. 11:27-29). If the Eucharist is merely a symbol of the Lord’s body and blood, then St. Paul’s words here make no sense. For how can one be 'guilty of the boyd and the blood of the Lord,” if it’s merely a symbol?(pg 34-35)

“Coming to Christ and believing in Christ are definite requirements for having this life He promises, but not the only ones.” “But this doesn’t erase the fact that Christ repeatedly states that ‘My flesh is real food, and My blood is real drink.’ This literal dimension of the passage can’t be explained away by appealing to ‘coming’ and ‘believing.’ To do that would be to make the mistake of focusing solely on just one aspect of the Lord’s teaching and ignoring the rest of it.” (pg 38)

Man, I got windy again. Sorry…I just wanted to show you a little more of what I had read. Tim Staples isn’t the only former Evangelical protestant (Assembly of God in his case) to find these things out. Another guy to check out: Michael Cumbie (former Pentecostal clergyman). Or Larry Lewis (former Methodist minister…although he has passed away recently, so I’m not sure what is still out there from him). There are more than just Tim Staples if you don’t find him a “trustworthy source.” I just like these guys because they are like me. They used to be on the outside looking in. They come at things with a Protestant prospective…made me proud of the Protestant background I have and even prouder of the Christian Catholic faith I have now. The Eucharist has become an integral part of my life. When I was “being saved,” the whole point was to become closer to Jesus. What better way to be the closest to Jesus than through the Eucharist He proclaimed to be His body? You can’t look at Communion as just grape juice/wine or crackers. “It requires faith to see and believe that Christ would give us His body, blood, soul and dvinity under the appearances of the bread and wine.” (sorry, another quote from Mr. Staples)

You are right that it’s a bit scary putting faith in men to get this right for the past 2000 years. But, you can make that arguement for any religion, not just Catholicism. Most Protestant churches I’ve attended (and believe me, there’ve been quite a few) have a pastor who gives his/her interpretation on Scripture. That’s human nature. But, you have to have Faith that God sees to it that the truth still gets passed around without blemish at some point, right? If not, what’s the point in debating anything regarding religion? I find it hard to believe that 1500 years after Christ spoke on His body and blood, it was suddenly found to be a metaphorical meaning and the literal meaning was completely wrong. Just my opinion.

 

[Huguenot]

mercygate:

Doreen, m’Luv.

Take a deep breath. You have turned the whole point on its head and stated exactly the opposite of what MommyofFive was attempting to illustrate in that quote from Tim Staples.

Of course, when you come to think of it, that is what the symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist has been doing for the past 500 years. It still seems not to trouble you that the doctrine of the Real Absence of Christ in the Eucharist was unknown among Christians for the 1500 years of the Church.

Well, it doesn’t really trouble me either, all the more as I’ve recently read a magazine that had a special issue on religion in the Middle Ages ;it said that the ( Catholic , but at the time there weren’t any Protestants yet … ) Church insisted on transubstantation in the 11th or 12 th century, so it seems it was as clear as you think for about 1500 years … ( although Zwingli was not born yet … )
The article also said that infant baptism became generalized in the 11th or 12th century …I just mention this because I’m Evangelical and we baptize only believers …
So infant baptism was not systematic either …
The magazine is not a religious one, it’s a historical magazine , there is one issue a month …

 

[mercygate]

Doreen:

(Re: the Bread of Life Discourse) Read it again yourself, and consider what you would have thought if you were an apostle. You’d hear him say all these things to the **angry mob…the grumbling Jews, who doubted Him greatly:
Isn’t this exactly what they had done?

Nothing in this passage indicates an “angry mob.” Seeking: yes. The challenging Jews their usually testy selves: yes. But no “angry mob.” The groups mentioned are:

1. The people who have followed him across the lake after the miracle of the loaves and fishes.
2. The disciples
3. The Jews [the learned]

1) The people ask 4 questions:

• Rabbi, when did you come here?
• What must we do to be doing the worlks of God?
• Then what sign do you do, that we may see, and believe you?
• What work do you perform?

2) The Jews ask 3 questions:

• Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?
• How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven?’
• How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

3) The disciples (not the 12) ask only one question:

• This is a hard saying, who can listen to it?

Jesus asks 4 questions:

• Do you take offense at this?
• Then what if you were to see the osn of man ascending where he was before? (Note: There is a question mark here is in the Greek text.)
• Will you also Go away?
• Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?

 

[mercygate]

Huguenot:

Well, it doesn’t really trouble me either, all the more as I’ve recently read a magazine that had a special issue on religion in the Middle Ages ;it said that the ( Catholic , but at the time there weren’t any Protestants yet … ) Church insisted on transubstantation in the 11th or 12 th century, so it seems it was as clear as you think for about 1500 years … ( although Zwingli was not born yet … )
The article also said that infant baptism became generalized in the 11th or 12th century …I just mention this because I’m Evangelical and we baptize only believers …
So infant baptism was not systematic either …
The magazine is not a religious one, it’s a historical magazine , there is one issue a month …

The clarification of the doctrine of Transubstantiation did not introduce the concept of the Real Presence jof Christ in the Eucharist. The Council of Florence simply clarified HOW the Real Presence “works.” The Eastern Orthodox, who share an equally strong belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, to this day do not define the character of that presence, preferring to call it a “mystery.”

In the history of Catholic doctrine, the definitive promulgation of a teaching does not mark the **first **appearance of the idea. It nearly always marks the end of a long discussion – usually a discussion of “how can this be?” rather than a discussion of whether or not a thing is true.

As for infant baptism, that should go to another thread but there is abundant evidence that infant baptism was practiced consistently from New Testament times. 'Nother thread.

 

[Mickey]

Doreen:

You are saying you believe that the apostles passed it directly to the early “saints” of the church…but didn’t Christ have to rebuke Peter just minutes after He talked about building the church on “this rock?”

Yes Peter was rebuked, and yes he denied Christ three times. This is a wonderful lesson in repentance for us. It does nothing to negate Peter’s mission. Peter wept and repented and was completely restored into the fold. Judas fell into despair and hanged himself.

Doreen:

I mean, you’re going to tell me there wasn’t a chance that any of those who were “ordained” over the ages may have corrupted the teaching oh so long ago? How can you be guaranteed that?

The gates of hell shall not prevail! We do have a guarantee!

Let’s also look at Luke 22:31-32.

Simon, Simon, satan has asked for you that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to me, strengthen your brethren.

The first two times the word “you” is used, it is translated from the Greek Koine as plural. So in effect, Jesus is saying, “Simon, Simon, satan has asked for “all of you” that he may sift “you all” as wheat.

The second two times the word “you” is used, it is translated from the Greek Koine as singular. “But I have prayed for **you (Peter), **that your faith should not fail; and when you (Peter) have returned to me, strengthen your brethren.

We must all be united with Christ, through Peter, so as not to be sifted by satan.

Doreen:

So—why would He put a stumbling block like this in my way?

Seems more like the work of the devil --and I don’t mean to attack the church, it’s just the way it rubs me – it simply doesn’t fit with all the other stuff He’s shown me…

Be watchful that you are not being sifted.

 

[Mickey]

Doreen:

And I still have not seen a single citation from a single trustworthy source to confirm the literal interpretation.

You have been offered the 2000 year old interpretation of the Scripture–as well as the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, the disciple of the apostle St John. Here is more:

We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus* (Justin Martyr First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

 

[Huguenot]

Huguenot:

Well, it doesn’t really trouble me either, all the more as I’ve recently read a magazine that had a special issue on religion in the Middle Ages ;it said that the ( Catholic , but at the time there weren’t any Protestants yet … ) Church insisted on transubstantation in the 11th or 12 th century, so it seems it was as clear as you think for about 1500 years … ( although Zwingli was not born yet … )
The article also said that infant baptism became generalized in the 11th or 12th century …I just mention this because I’m Evangelical and we baptize only believers …
So infant baptism was not systematic either …
The magazine is not a religious one, it’s a historical magazine , there is one issue a month …

oooops, I wanted to say "it seems it was not as clear as you think "…

 

[Huguenot]

mercygate:

The clarification of the doctrine of Transubstantiation did not introduce the concept of the Real Presence jof Christ in the Eucharist. The Council of Florence simply clarified HOW the Real Presence “works.” The Eastern Orthodox, who share an equally strong belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, to this day do not define the character of that presence, preferring to call it a “mystery.”

In the history of Catholic doctrine, the definitive promulgation of a teaching does not mark the **first **appearance of the idea. It nearly always marks the end of a long discussion – usually a discussion of “how can this be?” rather than a discussion of whether or not a thing is true.

As for infant baptism, that should go to another thread but there is abundant evidence that infant baptism was practiced consistently from New Testament times. 'Nother thread.

It means there were discussions, so it was not obvious for everybody from the start …
( I didn’t want to start a thread on infant baptism, I just mentioned it because the article I was alluding to also mentioned it … )

 

[Doreen]

Good Morning, All!
PREPARE FOR A VERY LONG POST—Print it out, if you can.

Mommyoffive: I wasn’t saying that you were mean at all, I was responding to your mention in your first post…

I have no intention to enter into some of the arguments here that have appeared to become downright mean

I didn’t think you were mean at all.

Thanks for your gracious words of explanation, in fact. I do enjoy the dialogue on here, and I haven’t given up hope of learning a great deal from this experience.

Let me share what happened last night: (Now, I can already hear KAY CEE’s sigh when she reads this --I’m assuming you are female, KC.)

Here’s what was on my heart before opening my Bible last night: (I’m quoting myself from my last post about this…since this explains what was on my heart…)

BY THE WAY, I AM WRITING THIS BEFORE READING ALL THE REPLIES THAT CAME THROUGH…because I don’t want to be thrown off track in my thinking.

So I have all this on my heart before opening the Word for a bedtime visit with the Lord:

I believe Jesus is who He says He is
I believe He can do all that He says He can do
I believe I can do all things through Him that gives me strength
I believe He died for my sins and that in Him is eternal life
I believe He has spoken to my heart in incredible ways, and He’s done miracles in my life and in the lives of many friends and acquaintances for whom I’ve had the privilege to pray…
He answers my prayers.
He is a real and loving, living God.
His Spirit is within me.

So—why would He put a stumbling block like this in my way?
Seems more like the work of the devil --and I don’t mean to attack the church, it’s just the way it rubs me – it simply doesn’t fit with all the other stuff He’s shown me.

I opened my Bible and happened across Hebrews 6:
Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death (there’s a reference number here that states that in some texts it says following this, “from useless rituals” NIV Study Bible) and of faith in God, instruction about Baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And God permitting we will do so.

4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting Him to public disgrace."

He continues to speak of land that produces a crop and land that doesn’t…in the end the unproductive crop will be burned (symbolism re: those who are fruitful in faith and those who are not…those who are not perish in the flames)

Then I hope you’ll read all this for yourself, it says:
16 Men swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument.
17 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of His purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath…

Please go read the rest of this chapter and chapter 7! It talks about Jesus as THE high priest forever. …some things that jumped out at me:
12 "For when there is a change in the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.
13 He of whom these things are said belong to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar.
15 talks about how Christ is of the line of Judah and “in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests”
In 16 It says that another priest (like Melchizadek—if you find the earliest mention of Melchizadek Gen. 14:18-20 and Ps 110:1, you will see that Melchizadek is referred to as the King of Salem --and it is rather amazing to learn that the name “Salem” is related to “Shalom” which means “Peace” — so Melchizadek is referred to as the King of Peace! Recognize that title? Interesting. It has been pointed out to me in a Bible study that Melchizadek seems to have no human ancestoral line…he just pops in as Abram’s “high priest”.)

Anyway, it goes on in Hebrews 7 to say:
18 "The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect) and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God (now here, I am sure you are thinking “Right! The Eucharist!” … keep reading…)

CONTINUED…

 

[Doreen]

It says in Hebrews 20-25:
And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: You are a priest forever.”

“Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant…because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore HE is able to save COMPLETELY those who COME to GOD through Him, because he always lives to intercede for them.”

27 “Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrificees day after day, first for his own sins and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed their sins once for all when he offered himself. …
28 For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.”

Chapter 8 talks about Christ sitting at the throne of the Majesty in heaven,
2 “…and (Christ) who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.”

READ verses 3-5 re: the sanctuary that is a copy and a shadow…
Verse 6 Says
“But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.”

*And the new covenant is foretold in Jer 31:31-34 …"I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God and they will be my people.

No longer will a man teach his neighbor or a man his brother saying, ‘Know the Lord’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and remember their sins no more."*

And finally Chapter 9:9
In chapter 9 they describe the old covenant with the tabernacle and the priesthood (I highly recommend Beth Moore’s study of this in “A Women’s Heart, God’s Dwelling Place” —you can do this study online at Lifeway.com, search “Beth Moore”) In the study she shows how every aspect of the tabernacle is a picture of Christ and of the future covenant. Chapter 9 of Hebrews expresses some of this. It’s fascinating!

And at 9:9 it says:
“This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings–external regulations applying until the time of the new order.”

(I take this to mean that these “sacrifices” don’t necessarily offend God, but they aren’t the means to salvation or forgiveness.)

9:24 “For Christ did not enter a manmade sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again…26 Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world!..
28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people…”

Man it just kept coming! See 10
"The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming–not realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly, year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship…it goes on to say that some continue in those sacrifices, but Christ came into the world saying (of God) "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me (a church of people)…with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. Then I said ‘Here I am–it is written about me in the scroll—I have come to do your will.’

Then it explains that Christ set aside the first covenant to establish the second.

10:10 “And by that will (God’s) we have been made holy through the sacrificie of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Now how does the Catholic church deal with the next section:
Hebrews 10:11: “Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest (Christ) had offered for all time one sacrifices for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God (HE’s SITTING DOWN there right now!)…
14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.”

Read on, read on! I tell you after having these words sewn in my heart, there is simply no room for rituals and sacrifices. It makes my spirit grieve when I think of it.

I will read your posts later today…for now, life calls!

In His Amazing, Unfailing, Perfect and Beautiful Love,
D.

 

[mercygate]

Huguenot:

It means there were discussions, so it was not obvious for everybody from the start …
( I didn’t want to start a thread on infant baptism, I just mentioned it because the article I was alluding to also mentioned it … )

The urgency for tightening the definition arose after heated controversies in the 9th Century between two proponents of differing theories of the Real Presence. A good discussion of the development of this doctrine appears here.

 

[Dorothy]

Doreen,

<<Now how does the Catholic church deal with the next section:
Hebrews 10:11: “Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest (Christ) had offered for all time one sacrifices for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God (HE’s SITTING DOWN there right now!)…
14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.”

St. Paul is talking about the Levitical priesthood! Aren’t you aware of that?

 

[Huguenot]

Doreen:

It says in Hebrews 20-25:
And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: You are a priest forever.”

“Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant…because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore HE is able to save COMPLETELY those who COME to GOD through Him, because he always lives to intercede for them.”

27 “Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrificees day after day, first for his own sins and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed their sins once for all when he offered himself. …
28 For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.”

Chapter 8 talks about Christ sitting at the throne of the Majesty in heaven,
2 “…and (Christ) who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.”

READ verses 3-5 re: the sanctuary that is a copy and a shadow…
Verse 6 Says
“But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.”

*And the new covenant is foretold in Jer 31:31-34 …"I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God and they will be my people.

No longer will a man teach his neighbor or a man his brother saying, ‘Know the Lord’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and remember their sins no more."*

And finally Chapter 9:9
In chapter 9 they describe the old covenant with the tabernacle and the priesthood (I highly recommend Beth Moore’s study of this in “A Women’s Heart, God’s Dwelling Place” —you can do this study online at Lifeway.com, search “Beth Moore”) In the study she shows how every aspect of the tabernacle is a picture of Christ and of the future covenant. Chapter 9 of Hebrews expresses some of this. It’s fascinating!

And at 9:9 it says:
“This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings–external regulations applying until the time of the new order.”

(I take this to mean that these “sacrifices” don’t necessarily offend God, but they aren’t the means to salvation or forgiveness.)

9:24 “For Christ did not enter a manmade sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again…26 Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world!..
28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people…”

Man it just kept coming! See 10
"The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming–not realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly, year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship…it goes on to say that some continue in those sacrifices, but Christ came into the world saying (of God) "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me (a church of people)…with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. Then I said ‘Here I am–it is written about me in the scroll—I have come to do your will.’

Then it explains that Christ set aside the first covenant to establish the second.

10:10 “And by that will (God’s) we have been made holy through the sacrificie of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Now how does the Catholic church deal with the next section:
Hebrews 10:11: “Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest (Christ) had offered for all time one sacrifices for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God (HE’s SITTING DOWN there right now!)…
14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.”

Read on, read on! I tell you after having these words sewn in my heart, there is simply no room for rituals and sacrifices. It makes my spirit grieve when I think of it.

I will read your posts later today…for now, life calls!

In His Amazing, Unfailing, Perfect and Beautiful Love,
D.

I agree with you : Christ can save COMPLETELY those who come to God through Him …
and some passages in Hebrews chapters 9 and 10 insist on the fact that He sacrificed Himself ONCE for our sins, I have also mentioned it …

 

[Huguenot]

mercygate:

The urgency for tightening the definition arose after heated controversies in the 9th Century between two proponents of differing theories of the Real Presence. A good discussion of the development of this doctrine appears here.

I’ll have a look but I haven’t got the time right now … ( I’ve just tried the link to make sure it works, it does … )

 

[Dorothy]

Huguenot:

I agree with you : Christ can save COMPLETELY those who come to God through Him …
and some passages in Hebrews chapters 9 and 10 insist on the fact that He sacrificed Himself ONCE for our sins, I have also mentioned it …

Catholics have never denied that Jesus sacrificed Himself once for our sins.

All of the references of St. Paul was to the Old Testament sacrifices.

 

[mercygate]

Doreen:

It says in Hebrews 20-25:
And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: You are a priest forever.”

In Latin, the word for “oath” is: “sacramentum.”

"Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a And finally Chapter 9:9
In chapter 9 they describe the old covenant with the tabernacle and the priesthood (I highly recommend Beth Moore’s study of this in “A Women’s Heart, God’s Dwelling Place” —you can do this study online at Lifeway.com, search “Beth Moore”) In the study she shows how every aspect of the tabernacle is a picture of Christ and of the future covenant. Chapter 9 of Hebrews expresses some of this. It’s fascinating!

Is it EVER! Hebrews is every Catholic’s favorite book concerning the High Priesthood of Christ, the one perfect Sacrifice for all, and the way in which we participate in the heavenly sacrifice today via the Holy Eucharist.

"The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming–not realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly, year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship…it goes on to say that some continue in those sacrifices, but Christ came into the world saying (of God) "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me (a church of people)…with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. Then I said ‘Here I am–it is written about me in the scroll—I have come to do your will.’
. . .
10:10 “And by that will (God’s) we have been made holy through the sacrificie of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Now how does the Catholic church deal with the next section:
Hebrews 10:11: “Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest (Christ) had offered for all time one sacrifices for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God (HE’s SITTING DOWN there right now!)…
14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.”

I thought we had clarified this waaaaaayyyy up this thread. The Celebration of the Eucharist in no way “offers [multiple] sacrifices which can never take away sins.” The Eucharist is a mystical participation in the perfect Sacrifice of Calvary, which continues as Christ’s perpetual, unbloody, offering of himself to the Father for all time. Each Priest at the altar is a Priest only by participation in the Priesthood of Christ – these are not hereditary levitical priests. This thread is very long now, and I don’t remember if I have given my dissertation on Hebrews 9&10 on this thread – where I delineate the author’s clear reference to the eucharistic gathering when he encourages them – despite the danger of persecution – not to neglect to meet together “as is the habit of some” but to encourage one another “all the more as you see the day drawing near.” And then in verse 29 he refers to the punishment due to those who treat the “covenant blood” as ordinary (NAB) [counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (KJV)]. Why do I conclude that this is a double reference both to Calvary and to the Eucharist? Because the only place where Jesus uses the word “covenant” in all of his ministry throughout the Gospels is when he says at the Last Supper: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Read on, read on! I tell you after having these words sewn in my heart, there is simply no room for rituals and sacrifices. It makes my spirit grieve when I think of it.

I hope you can view the Eucharist as more than a the kind of ritual sacrifice it replaced in the perfection of Christ’s offering.

 

[mercygate]

Huguenot:

I agree with you : Christ can save COMPLETELY those who come to God through Him …
and some passages in Hebrews chapters 9 and 10 insist on the fact that He sacrificed Himself ONCE for our sins, I have also mentioned it …

Gotta have a chuckle, Huguenot & Doreen – Do you think that Catholics don’t have the Book of Hebrews in our Bible? C’mon, give us a LITTLE credit here!

 

[Doreen]

Two points from the Catholic encyclopedia about the Eucharist that really help to understand some things:

One: It says Christ would have laid out very clearly the parameters for all sacrifices…just as the Lord does in the description down to the minute detail of the construction and performances in regard to the Ark of the Covenant, the Tabernacle and the Holy of Holies. So to use this argument against the symbolic teaching is useless, since we’d not be discussing the need and performance of this “sacrifice” if Christ had done as is the nature of God to do…LAY IT ALL OUT PLAINLY FOR US.

If you say he’s laid it out plainly by his “literal” speech of the body and blood, then everyone who desires to follow Him would know exactly what He meant…I desire sincerely to follow Him, and you’re saying He’d leave me questioning how to enter in?

Doesn’t fit with all the rest of His compassionate teachings. He’s not going to leave me as an orphan.

Another quote from the Catholic encyclopedia:

The case is not much better in regard to the parabolical interpretation, which would discern in the pouring out of the wine a mere parable of the shedding of the Blood on the Cross. This again is a purely arbitrary explanation, an invention, unsupported by any objective foundation. Then, too, it would follow from analogy, that the breaking of the bread was a parable of the slaying of Christ’s Body, a meaning utterly inconceivable. Rising as it were out of a dense fog and laboring to take on a definite form, the incomplete eschatological explanation would make the Eucharist a mere anticipation of the future heavenly banquet.

He’s wrong in that these ARE supported by foundations…the foundations laid out in every other context of Christ’s teachings.

I feel that the Holy Spirit spoke this paragraph out of this man, to show that this is truly the way it is.

And again…the Justin Martyr stuff does nothing for the argument when it’s written in 166 AD. How are we to believe this it is rooted in truth? It’s simply written by one who thinks this way, so what evidence is that?
D.

 

[Doreen]

mercygate:

Gotta have a chuckle, Huguenot & Doreen – Do you think that Catholics don’t have the Book of Hebrews in our Bible? C’mon, give us a LITTLE credit here!

I am sure you do…it’s in the two copies of “The Good News” that I received from the Catholic church…

We don’t doubt that…we doubt your ability to SEE the err of your ways.

Just as you do us…

Who is to say who is being “sifted?”