My point of course being that either Jesus commanded an empty symbol to be done or there is something more to it.
It clearly is not absurd, but it does miss the important point.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that he rejects the Catholic understanding of it.
Thanks.
I think most of the misunderstanding of what “remembrance” has happened because of the loss of connection with the early church, and by extension, the Jewish roots of the Church. If one does not understand the anamnesis of the Passover, a lot gets lost.
Okay, I’m going to call for jargon clearing here. I don’t know what the word “anamnesis” means, and though many on this board do, most Catholics (let alone most people who are not Catholic) don’t know the meaning of the word.Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that he rejects the Catholic understanding of it.
Thanks.
I think most of the misunderstanding of what “remembrance” has happened because of the loss of connection with the early church, and by extension, the Jewish roots of the Church. If one does not understand the anamnesis of the Passover, a lot gets lost.
I don’t recall ever having cleaned my jargon, but you will probably recognize this word as it has been imported into English.
Excellent.
Agreed and the words “token” are used to describe the elements and “ordinance” for the ceremony. There elements did not change nor become those of the original “sacrifice” except in remembrance which is to make present spiritually and mentally, emotionaly et.c
Yes, but I guess we differ on what "present’ ’ must mean. To me it does not require CC “transubstantiation”.
No offense meant, for I did say it is good to “renew our mind” if that is what we are talking about. I see that as a personal quest . But corporately don’t usually consider the Table as actual fighting but more of a thanksgiving for a past battle already won. Perhaps it seems like a subtle difference but may have it’s root in some folks (CC and others) as seeing the Eucharist as a sacrifice and pray/petition for it’s reception before the Father which is more of a present or current action/battle. That is different than a present thankfullness for both a past sacrifice and past Fatherly reception.
Took a look, maybe only 15 minutes. Would like to know not just his testimony on switching to Catholicism but overall “conversion”, like while he was “evangelical”. You know us, we usually say well maybe He was not a real christian, or born again if he “left”, ( and even if he didn’t leave). But he is knowledgeable but did not see any specific reasoning for “transubstantiation” though I may have missed it . He has plenty of OT background for Mass etc. but not sure he differentiated it enough from how Protestants have a Sunday service or communion. Not sure he addresses the part of the mass that I find not biblical or early church, and that is the part of the mass that prays for a Fatherly reception of our “sacrifice”…Another note is that he speaks much of OT and properly so. Just that you can go to far with it and muddle the distinction between old and new. And does some CC terminology and thought been aided by Greek philosophy, at least in terms of explanation of transubstantiation ?
You are wrong. At Passover the real lamb must really be eaten, each and every time. They don’t just sit around and remember when they ate the lamb in Egypt.
Right but the lamb eaten is not the same lamb eaten that eventful night. It is a token lamb, not physically connected to original.
We also don’t just remember but also participate with the tokens and I respectfully understand your further transubstantiation .
Well, yes, it would be kind of difficult for Jews today to eat the physical lambs that were eaten at the original Passover, since they have already been eaten.
And St. Paul says so:Well, yes, it would be kind of difficult for Jews today to eat the physical lambs that were eaten at the original Passover, since they have already been eaten.
Christ, on the other hand, gives us his glorified body to eat which is present with us always.
Jon
You can and should read his book “Rome Sweet Home”. He was as Evangelical as you can get, very devout, very “born again”.
He also hated Catholicism very much, and pulled a lot of people out of the Church in the mistaken idea that he was saving them. Nobody was more devoutly Evangelical than he was, at one time. He was even accepted to St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Seminary, which is very prestigious; they don’t let lukewarm folks attend there.
I think they are referred to as the “frozen chosen”. Yes ,anti catholic and very intellectual but as you know, there are several variations of presbyterianism /anglicanism and not sure where the seminary stands.
Does he share his born again conversion experience ?
Not all, just as not all departing Catholics were not poorly catechized.
That is good . Don’t think it is true for many ex-Catholics becoming Protestant. They might say they were closed minded, proud and somewhat lost, and worldly, not truth seekers, in short, not born again.
On the one hand the bible says no one seeks after God (or His Truth) yet it says seek and ye shall find, with the understanding that *no one seeks unless he is drawn, of the Father.
Right, there is no foreshadow of transubstantiation.Well, yes, it would be kind of difficult for Jews today to eat the physical lambs that were eaten at the original Passover, since they have already been eaten.
and right after His Last Supper consecratory words Jesus said, “of the the fruit of the vine I shall no longer drink …”. But yes, thank you, understand your tradition. I still find it interesting that in the eating discourse of John 6 Jesus says the flesh availeth little. Though not the primary meaning it still fits for some of us…the precision and multifaceted and economic use of Words.
This made me chuckle.