Returning to the Protestant Faith

[adstrinity]

That is “mystical” in my fragile and ignorant mind and actually it kind of “freaks” me out a little. I understand it does not you or others, but it does me and I don’t mean it with any disrespect to your beliefs.

Is that because you associate, “mystical,” with new age and eastern philosophies?

 

[Masters_Servant]

To be fair, it’s a longstanding Christian practice to compare true doctrine with false (I don’t agree with MacArthur on what is true and what is false, of course!). And it’s not as if Catholics don’t do it. It’s true that most priests today don’t do it. But from what I’ve read this was not the case before Vatican II, when attacks on Protestantism and other non-Catholic views were common. And the huge Catholic apologetics industry clearly shows that many Catholics feel the need to defend their faith and criticize theological views they regard as false.

For MacArthur, Catholicism is an enemy of the Gospel. Given his premises, I think he does the right thing in attacking it. But I don’t agree with his premises.

Edwin

That was well stated.

 

[Masters_Servant]

I guess that’s the problem I have, the “enemy of the Gospel” part. I’m fine w/ differing views, as well as defending those views, using Scripture, Tradition, history, whatever. But I would never call another Christian tradition (belief, denomination, whatever you’d like to call it) “an enemy of the Gospel” and go after them like MacArthur and some others do w/ Catholicism. “The Southern Baptist Convention preaches a false Gospel”. The sounds so ridiculous! Of course, I don’t think S. Baptists have the complete Gospel, but as they are preaching Christ as Savior I’m not going to attack them and say they aren’t Christians and need to be “saved”, or talk about the “evils” of the Altar Call and Believer’s Baptism.

**I don’t know, I guess I just don’t know why we all can’t “just get along”
**
In Christ,

Ellen

To answer the question, there is a vast difference in salvation doctrine, which is to say there are competing gospels, so the only way to get along is to put aside doctrine. I doubt either side will ever fully do this although there does seem to be some movement in that direction, but time will tell.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

And yet St. Paul warns of condemnation, if we don’t perceive Christ in the elements, by faith, but think that we are only eating bread and drinking wine.

where is that?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

where is that?

1Co 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

 

[Masters_Servant]

Thanks again for the post. i thought of this transsubstaniation and in the Bible it happens at least once in the OT (furnace of fire) and with Jesus, Moses and Elijah and each time the glory was partially revealed, but the substance remained in its true form. So how bread and wine becomes a person is beyond my comprehension; whereas the picture in the Bible is within my comprehension. Of course it is not about me…LOL

I made a mistake here; I have confused transubstantiation, which is more like transmutation with transfiguration. My apologies to those that may have been annoyed.

 

[Masters_Servant]

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
A person cannot be found guilty for murder if they destroy a Kodak photo of someone. How could someone be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if He isn’t really there?

The Jews are still under that guilt, so that is one example. This is saying you are guilty of participating with those that put him on the cross literally. Since this is a clear picture of the gospel, the rejection of the gospel has the same consequences as the Jews who rejected the Christ.

 

[Masters_Servant]

He wasn’t a cardinal, just a priest as far as I know.

It received an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, I’m sure. That doesn’t mean that it expressed official Catholic teaching, only that the church officials who looked at it were satisfied that it fit within the spectrum of legitimate Catholic thought. Something that it can be hard for those not familiar with Catholicism (or familiar only with a caricature) to grasp is that Catholicism has room for a wide variety of opinion. Fr. O’Brien’s way of putting it was a common one in Catholicism for a long time. It is no longer common, in my experience. I believe that this kind of language flourished primarily after the Reformation as part of the reaction to the Protestant denial of the sacrificial priesthood of Christian presbyters, although the language does have roots in the Middle Ages.

Still, if you ask why Fr. O’Brien would use such language, the answer lies in the explanation I gave. Christ “obeys” the priest because Christ is faithful to His covenants. It’s not that the priest has some power independently of Christ. No Catholic theologian would ever have said this.

****Why do people find it so confusing that Catholics differ among themselves? Perhaps because some silly Catholic apologists present Catholicism as monolithic.

Again, the book in question is not official, just a popular book from 1938 expressing a way of looking at the Catholic Faith that was common at that time and is now somewhat less common (though it still has its champions).

I think that the issue among Catholics would be less the substance of what O’Brien said but his way of putting it. As an Anglican, I certainly think that the language of “command” was highly inappropriate and misleading, and I think most Catholics today would agree with me. But the substantive theological claim is that Jesus’ presence can be counted on whenever a properly ordained priest celebrates the Eucharist with the right elements and using the right words. Again, I think a better way of putting the Catholic belief here is to say that Jesus is faithful.

Actually, I would argue that the “epiclesis”–the invocation of the Holy Spirit–is an important part of the Eucharist and its absence in Western Catholic liturgies is a flaw. But you’re right that this is not a view which can be prooftexted easily. We would have to have a conversation about the nature of sacraments, the work of the Holy Spirit, the nature of grace and salvation, etc.

Catholics do not believe that Jesus is offered over and over. And Fr. O’Brien’s unfortunate language is of course metaphorical. The priest’s power to “reach up into the heavens” rests solely on the words of Christ in the first place. Fr. O’Brien was not talking about human beings somehow magically compelling God by their own efforts. However, I think that the language he used was reprehensibly inappropriate, and one of the reasons I am an Anglican and not a Roman Catholic is that I think this strand of Roman Catholic Eucharistic piety is deeply misguided.

Edwin

Thanks for the explanation and pretty good one at that!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Jews are still under that guilt, so that is one example. This is saying you are guilty of participating with those that put him on the cross literally. Since this is a clear picture of the gospel, the rejection of the gospel has the same consequences as the Jews who rejected the Christ.

I disagree with this interpretation Masters Servant. Reading the passage in context, it’s easy to see St. Paul is correcting those who have been participating in the Lord’s supper, when they come together.

Verse 28 shows the authority of the Church as St. Paul tells the Church to let a man prove himself, the LET him eat and drink.

It goes on to say, ‘when you come together to EAT, wait for one another.’

Explain verse 34 in the context you’re trying to convey.

**[1Co 11:20 When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord’s supper.
1Co 11:21 For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk.
1Co 11:22 What, have you no houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not.
1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread,
1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
1Co 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
1Co 11:30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you: and many sleep.
1Co 11:31 But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
1Co 11:32 But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world.
1Co 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
1Co 11:34 If any man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto judgment. And the rest I will set in order, when I come. ****

 

[Masters_Servant]

Is that because you associate, “mystical,” with new age and eastern philosophies?

No, but it is "mysterious’ beyond ordinary understanding and this is how I mean it. I have read quite a bit lately and mystical and mysterious are used frequently in Catholic writing and explanation of things. Not a big deal, supernatural is similar and we use that in our vocabulary when speaking of Biblical things.

 

[Masters_Servant]

I disagree with this interpretation Masters Servant. Reading the passage in context, it’s easy to see St. Paul is correcting those who have been participating in the Lord’s supper, when they come together.

Verse 28 shows the authority of the Church as St. Paul tells the Church to let a man prove himself, the LET him eat and drink.

It goes on to say, ‘when you come together to EAT, wait for one another.’

Explain verse 34 in the context you’re trying to convey.

**[1Co 11:20 When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord’s supper.
1Co 11:21 For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk.
1Co 11:22 What, have you no houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not.
1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread,
1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
1Co 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
1Co 11:30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you: and many sleep.
1Co 11:31 But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
1Co 11:32 But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world.
1Co 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
1Co 11:34 If any man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto judgment. And the rest I will set in order, when I come. ****

Verse 33 and 34 are clear, they speak for themselves. It is the “love feast” they are having and some people would arrive early and eat the food so when some arrived later, there would not be any. Back in Corinth, they would have a feast called the love feast before celebrating the Lord’s Supper. Hope that helps.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Verse 33 and 34 are clear, they speak for themselves. It is the “love feast” they are having and some people would arrive early and eat the food so when some arrived later, there would not be any. Back in Corinth, they would have a feast called the love feast before celebrating the Lord’s Supper. Hope that helps.

I still disagree with the interpretation, as verse 20 is specific about why they have come together. The entire passage shows St. Paul is correcting them and specifically states his authority in his correction in verse 23.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Back in Corinth, they would have a feast called the love feast before celebrating the Lord’s Supper.

Can you please provide the scripture and verse that states the Church in Corinth would have a love feast before celebrating the Lord’s Supper?

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

Hello,

While researching, looking at the catechism, and various other places I came across this, which seems to affirm what I had heard:

**The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating. “No act is greater,” says St. Thomas, “than the consecration of the body of Christ.” In this essential phase of the sacred ministry, the power of the priest is not surpassed by that of the bishop, the archbishop, the cardinal or the pope. Indeed it is equal to that of Jesus Christ. For in this role the priest speaks with the voice and authority of God Himself.

When the Priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man.** It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors:** it is greater than that of the saints and angels, greater than that of the Seraphim and Cherubim.**

Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, **the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times! **The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s command. (Cardinal John A. O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., (Huntington, IN 1974), pp. 255-256)

This book has the approval of the Vatican if I understood correctly.
catholicnation.com/priesthood.htm

Then I came across this site which repudiates the official Vatican approved book, so who is correct and why; I am in a state of confusion here.

Additionally, NO WHERE are we told that the Holy Spirit needs to be “BEGGED” out from heaven by a priest to transform a wafer into Diety {CCC #1105} and as one popular priest has written: “When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings down Christ from His throne, and places Him upon our altars to be offered again as the victim for the sins of men” {Fr. John O’Brien, “The Faith of Millions”-- p. 255-6}. As a matter of fact, Romans 10:6 emphatically condemns these wild ideas: “who shall ascend into heaven to bring down Christ from above?” The apostle is teaching that the language of faith does not ask a man to climb to heaven to bring Christ down again since that is impossible as well as unnecessary because Jesus has already come to earth in His incarnation, “nor yet that He should offer Himself often” {e.g. in the Mass} because, “there is now no more offering for sin” {Hebrews 9:25; 10:18}.

Source

Since this is a little off topic; if you do not want to answer perhaps you can forward to someone who is able and send me an email…thanks so much for you help in grasping this.

DISCLAIMER: The following statement is not to be taken seriously, the Poster is not responsible for the reaction of my Catholic friends who lack a sense of humor.

Catholics should know that God is NOT a God of CHAOS! These disagreements can not happen in Gods true church!

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

1Co 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

doesnt the context state what is meant by unworthily?. there were people stuffing themselves and getting drunk if I remember right. I believe if Jesus transformed the bread and wine for the disciples and that transformation is necessary for the efficacy of His death on the cross for me. Then I trust that He will do this for me when I take the communion.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

I made a mistake here; I have confused transubstantiation, which is more like transmutation with transfiguration. My apologies to those that may have been annoyed.

thats why I couldnt figure out what you ment. I thought it was a Catholic thing that I was unfamiliar with.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

The Jews are still under that guilt, so that is one example. This is saying you are guilty of participating with those that put him on the cross literally. Since this is a clear picture of the gospel, the rejection of the gospel has the same consequences as the Jews who rejected the Christ.

what jews are under what guilt??? I though everyone had moved past the whole
“Christ Killer” thing

 

[Randy_Carson]

Holy Communion has a more complete form as a sign when it is received under both kinds. For in this manner of reception a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet shines forth. Moreover there is a clearer expression of that will by which the new and everlasting covenant is ratified in the blood of the Lord and of the relationship of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Father’s kingdom. (30)
The General Instruction further states that “at the same time the faithful should be guided toward a desire to take part more intensely in a sacred rite in which the sign of the Eucharistic meal stands out more explicitly.” (31)

1. The extension of the faculty for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds does not represent a change in the Church’s immemorial beliefs concerning the Holy Eucharist. Rather, today the Church finds it salutary to restore a practice, when appropriate, that for various reasons was not opportune when the Council of Trent was convened in 1545. (32) But with the passing of time, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the reform of the Second Vatican Council has resulted in the restoration of a practice by which the faithful are again able to experience “a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet.” (33)

So, this document confirms what I said previously. Receiving both species has greater symbolic value, but Jesus is fully present in both.

Catholics miss nothing by receiving only the host.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sorry about that Randy, you did not say that but the post said that and I saw the words in red as the “source link” and the rest were your words. But I see that the entire post was from the “source link” and I made an error by oversight and I apologize to you…sorry!

Post#126

PS I sent you a PM because I need the CCC link that I deleted by accident…thanks

You are forgiven. I know it’s hard to keep everything straight when you’re being overwhelmed by so many posts.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

doesnt the context state what is meant by unworthily?. there were people stuffing themselves and getting drunk if I remember right. I believe if Jesus transformed the bread and wine for the disciples and that transformation is necessary for the efficacy of His death on the cross for me. Then I trust that He will do this for me when I take the communion.

There were people who treated the ‘Lord’s Supper’ as just another meal. They ate and drank without discerning what the ‘Supper’ really was.

We can tell this letter is for the leaders, or authority, in the Church of Corinth in verse 28, “But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.” As we can see, someone is to ‘let’ a man prove himself and ‘let’ him eat and drink.

Now, when I speak of examples in scriptures spoken to the Apostles, or authority of the Church, I’m not saying that verse, or passage, is not for all of us. It is, only it is for our understanding of what the authority asks, or requires, of us.

As you state, “Jesus transformed the bread and wine for the disciples…” It was Jesus who transformed the bread and wine at the Church of Corinth. It is still Jesus who transforms the bread and wine in His Churches today. Again, as we see from St. Paul’s writing to the Church, someone is to ‘let’ a man prove himself and ‘let’ that man eat and drink. This clearly indicates someone is in ‘charge’ of the bread and wine.