Reformation Question, let's look at this

  • Thread starter Thread starter ralphinal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Steadfast said:
Yes.
Click to expand...
Ok.

So Christ offered his own body to the 12 with his own hands, then offered that same body to God as the one sacrafice for all men, and now we can offer it to God as well. Are you alright with that?
 
ralphinal said:
Ok.

So Christ offered his own body to the 12 with his own hands, then offered that same body to God as the one sacrafice for all men, and now we can offer it to God as well. Are you alright with that?
Click to expand...
No, because the last supper was not a sacrifice. It was a giving and partaking of His Body and Blood broken and shed for the forgiveness of sins, but the Sacrifice took place once and for all, never to be repeated, recreated or participated in by others.
 
Steadfast said:
No, because the last supper was not a sacrifice. It was a giving and partaking of His Body and Blood broken and shed for the forgiveness of sins, but the Sacrifice took place once and for all,** never to be repeated, recreated or participated in by others.**
Click to expand...
How do you arrive at this?
 
Steadfast said:
No, because the last supper was not a sacrifice. It was a giving and partaking of His Body and Blood broken and shed for the forgiveness of sins, but the Sacrifice took place once and for all, never to be repeated, recreated or participated in by others.
Click to expand...
SO how is the Real Presence the same body and blood?
 
ralphinal said:
SO how is the Real Presence the same body and blood?
Click to expand...
How does it follow that it being the real Body and Blood necessitates it also being a re-presentation of the Sacrifice (or as the literature used to have it, “an unbloody sacrifice”)?
 
notsmart said:
How do you arrive at this?
Click to expand...
From the Bible.

I’m not the one insisting on something that isn’t there; i.e. that since we eat the True Body and Blood, we must also necessarily be participating in an “unbloody sacrfice”.
 
Steadfast said:
How does it follow that it being the real Body and Blood necessitates it also being a re-presentation of the Sacrifice (or as the literature used to have it, “an unbloody sacrifice”)?
Click to expand...
One Christ, one body of Christ (in this case it is not the Church). the fact that it is the same as it was on the cross and at the Last Supper means that we partake in the Sacrifice of the Cross. At least that is what logic says to me.

We do not have “left over” from the Last Supper. Each time, new bread and new wine are turned into His Body and Blood. IT is a mystical event that puts us at the Cross.
 
ralphinal said:
the fact that it is the same as it was on the cross and at the Last Supper means that we partake in the Sacrifice of the Cross.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how this follows, it appears to be a leap.
ralphinal said:
We do not have “left over” from the Last Supper.
Click to expand...
I agree.
ralphinal said:
Each time, new bread and new wine are turned into His Body and Blood. IT is a mystical event that puts us at the Cross.
Click to expand...
We believe that it is in the nature of the meal that in order for it to be what Christ instituted it to be, it must be faithfully received. So, the Sacrament is only complete when it has been partaken of by Christians.

Therefore, I would agree with you that there are no leftovers of Christ’s Body and Blood though there may very well be extra bread and wine.
 
TriuneUnity said:
Didn’t the Anglicans changing the rite of the orders invalidate theirs?

In the case of the Reformation in Germany, would the bishops benefitting from the sale of indulgences support a movement to end them? lol. Of course, theological adherence to the teachings of Rome would play a significant factor.

What about the English Reformation, though? Didn’t many of the bishops side with Henry?
Click to expand...
I dont’ think so. It was departure from the Apostolic Succession.

Most Westerners have no understanding that the Reformation politics and conflicts with the Latin Rite bypassed the majority of the other Catholic Rites.
 
Steadfast said:
I don’t see how this follows, it appears to be a leap.

I agree.

We believe that it is in the nature of the meal that in order for it to be what Christ instituted it to be, it must be faithfully received. So, the Sacrament is only complete when it has been partaken of by Christians.

Therefore, I would agree with you that there are no leftovers of Christ’s Body and Blood though there may very well be extra bread and wine.
Click to expand...
So by what means does in “un-Jesus?” I think you know Biblical languages better than I. Is the word for “is” in this is my body a perminant is or a transient is?
 
ralphinal said:
So by what means does in “un-Jesus?” I think you know Biblical languages better than I. Is the word for “is” in this is my body a perminant is or a transient is?
Click to expand...
Ralph,

We agree that when He said “is” He meant “is”.

You are continuing to imply a conclusion that I do not find particularly compelling.

I will look forward to your demonstration of how the bread and wine being His Body and Blood necessitates an identification and re-presentation of the sacrifice such that it may be called itself a sacrifice.
 
Steadfast said:
Ralph,

We agree that when He said “is” He meant “is”.

You are continuing to imply a conclusion that I do not find particularly compelling.

I will look forward to your demonstration of how the bread and wine being His Body and Blood necessitates an identification and re-presentation of the sacrifice such that it may be called itself a sacrifice.
Click to expand...
I will have to get back to you, as I have several appointments today.

The main reason that I mentioned the is is because you had said that any remaining Elements revert to bread and body. I was not doubting the Real Presence but that there was a time limit involved.
 
guanophore said:
I dont’ think so. It was departure from the Apostolic Succession.

Most Westerners have no understanding that the Reformation politics and conflicts with the Latin Rite bypassed the majority of the other Catholic Rites.
Click to expand...
According to Apostolicae Curae, it was the change in the ordination rite, in the Edwardine Ordinal, judged a defect in form, combined with the presumed defect of intent, in developing such a rite and using it, that broke the apostolic succession.

GKC
 
Steadfast said:
There is no “participation” in that sacrifice. It was done for us by Christ alone.
Click to expand...
But without sharing in the fruit of that sacrifice, we cannot be saved.

I think the question is not whether we participate in the sacrifice–if we don’t it would do us no good–but whether the Church participates in the sacrifice in any way other than as a passive recipient of grace. My (quasi-Anglo-Catholic, liturgical-movement, Wesleyan) understanding of the Eucharist is that we offer ourselves and all that we have and are to God (an offering that is itself based on God’s gift to us, since everything we have and are is a gift to God) and God graciously transforms our gifts by uniting them with the one perfect sacrifice offered by Christ on Calvary.

This may not fit Lutheran theology. But I don’t think Lutheran theology is entirely orthodox–it’s too one-sided and too suspicious of the power of grace to transform nature. However, I’ve been getting into Barth recently, and he may change my mind on this. May, but probably not. (I need to do some serious reading of both Barth and von Balthasar.)

Edwin
 
Steadfast said:
There is no “participation” in that sacrifice. It was done for us by Christ alone.
Click to expand...
This is not true. Christ is our passover lamb. As you recall, everyone was required to participate in Passover by consuming the lamb.
Steadfast said:
No, because the last supper was not a sacrifice. It was a giving and partaking of His Body and Blood broken and shed for the forgiveness of sins, but the Sacrifice took place once and for all, never to be repeated, recreated or participated in by others.
Click to expand...
Such a formulation seems to disregard the entire pre-figurement of Passover, of which Christ Himself is the fulfillment. There is no Jewish feast that involves so much participation!

It also denies the amanesis or memorial concept. When Jesus stated that we should eat and drink in memory of HIm, He meant that we should recreate the conditions, just as the Passover recreated the conditions of deliverance from Egypt.

We must be mindful that salvaton is from the Jews, and that which is concealed in the OT is revealed in the NT.
 
GKC said:
According to Apostolicae Curae, it was the change in the ordination rite, in the Edwardine Ordinal, judged a defect in form, combined with the presumed defect of intent, in developing such a rite and using it, that broke the apostolic succession.

GKC
Click to expand...
Thanks for that interesting tidbit! 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top