J
- Status
M
moondweller
Guest
The work of salvation didn’t take place until the cross of Christ. Not prior to it. Only ONE MAN could accomplish it, only ONE Man “finished” it. Neither Abraham, Moses or Mary had anything to do with it. Salvation rested on Christ and His sacrificial work alone, and the aforementioned are merely beneficiaries of it - “by grace through faith” - not participants of it. If Jesus would have ascended back to heaven prior to the cross there would have been no salvation: IOW, no forgiveness of sins; no expiation; no justification; no reconciliation; no sanctification; no propitiation; no glorification. All would have remained as it was since the fall of Adam. ALL, to this day, including Mary, will have died in their sins - but for one Man, and Him alone.
.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
You are thinking temporally, not eternally. The salvific work of the Cross is an eternal event that continues in the Liturgy, as evidenced in Revelation
M
moondweller
Guest
I see you’re experienced with tampering with the text in order to make it say what you want.Fixed it for you.
Yup “you” fixed it.
M
moondweller
Guest
“It is finished.” You just don’t believe it.
D
davidv
Guest
Why would say such a mean thing as this?
M
Miriam1947
Guest
From Scott Hahn’s talk on The 4th Cup
Scott Hahn is a former Presbyterian minister who converted to Catholicism in 1986
**
Why did he (Jesus) skip the fourth cup?**
And you know the circumstances and details surrounding the Last Supper. I won’t recount all of them, but let’s just go over the more salient features. In Mark 14:22ff we read, “And as they were eating he took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them and said, 'Take; this is my body. And he took a cup and when he had given thanks (the Greek word for that is eucharisto) he gave it to them and they all drank of it, and he said to them, ‘This is my blood of the new covenant which is poured out for many.’” And then he adds a kind of unusual statement: “Truly I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” And then, when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the night to the Mount of Olives.
Now that might not seem very significant to you but to scholars who study the gospel accounts of the Passover in the upper room, there’s a big problem. Why? Because we know the way the Passover has been celebrated for centuries, for millenia; it’s a very ancient liturgy, it’s well known, it’s no secret. Jews still celebrate it according to the same structure.** There are four cups that represent the structure of the Passover. The first cup is the blessing of the festival day, it’s the kiddush cup. The second cup of wine occurs really at the beginning of the Passover liturgy itself, and that involves the singing of psalm 113. And then there’s the third cup, the cup of blessing which involves the actual meal, the unleavened bread and so on. And then, before the fourth cup, you sing the great hil-el psalms: 114, 115, 116, 117 and 118. And having sung those psalms you proceed to the fourth cup which for all practical purposes is the climax of the Passover.**
Now what’s the problem? The problem is that gospel account says something like this: after the third cup is drunk Jesus says, “I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until I am entering into the kingdom of God.” And it says, “Then they sang the psalms.” Every Jew who knows the liturgy would expect: and then they went ahead and said the grace and the blessing and had the fourth cup which climaxed and consummated the Passover. But no, the gospel account say they sang the psalms and went out into the night.
I’m sure this doesn’t seem like a big problem and for a long time it didn’t seem big to me, but it had led many scholars to question whether he was celebrating a Passover at all because you just don’t blow apart the liturgy that way. You don’t just sidestep the most important part. It would be like saying the Mass and skipping the Eucharist, forgetting the words of consecration. So why did Jesus do it? Other scholars say, well back then there must not have been a fourth cup. But ancient revered traditions like that don’t just spring up overnight and then cover the globe like the Passover liturgy has, with all four cups. And so it seems likely that there might be a better explanation. But where? Why did he skip the fourth cup? After all, he was raised a Jew, he’d been celebrating the Passover every year of his life since he was a little boy according to the strictest laws of Moses.
Well, maybe there’s a psychological reason. Maybe he was so anxious, so uptight about what he knew he was going to do, he - for instance, we read in Mark 14:32, “They went out to a place called Gethsemane and he said to his disciples, ‘Sit here while I pray.’ He took with him Peter, James and John and began to be greatly distressed and troubled, and he said to them, ‘My soul is very sorrowful even unto death.’”
Three times he fell down to the ground and said to his Father, he cried out. “Abba, Father!” The most intimate of terms.** “All things are possible to Thee. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what Thou wilt.”** Remove this cup. Take away this cup. What is this cup?
John 19 describes in unique detail the sacrifice of our Lord. There’s no mistaking the fact that St. John, the beloved disciple, understood our Lord’s sacrifice as the culmination, the fulfillment of the Old Testament Passover.
Here is the true priest, as well as the true victim.
"After this" - at the very end of his cruel sufferings - “Jesus, knowing that all was now finished said, in order to fulfill the scriptures, ‘I thirst.’”
When Jesus had received the sour wine he said the words that are spoken of in the fourth cup consummation, "It is finished."
"They put a sponge full of the sour wine on hyssop and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the sour wine he said the words that are spoken of in the fourth cup consummation, “It is finished.” What is the it referring to? That grammatical question began really bothering me at some point. I asked several people and their response was usually, “Well, it means the work of redemption that Christ was working on.” All right, that’s true, I agree it does refer to that, but in context. An exegete, a trained interpreter of the word is supposed to find the contextual meaning, not just import a meaning from a theology textbook. What is Jesus speaking of when he says, “It is finished?” I mean, our redemption is not completed once he - he’s not yet raised. Paul says, "He was raised for our justification.
Nature of the Mass
So what is the it talking about? **He said, ‘It is finished’, and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit, his breath. The it, of course you realize by now, is the Passover sacrifice. **
S
StTommyMore
Guest
There are some problems with your interpretation. What is “it” referring to? It cannot be the salvifvic work, because we are not saved by His death, but his resurrection. As the Apostle said, “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:14). Could “it” be referring to His earthly ministry? No, because he spent forty days catechizing the Eleven be fore He ascended into heaven. I propose “it” refers to the Jewish passover liturgy. As our Great High Priest, He was offering Himself as a sacrifice as the spotless Lamb. We must also remember that “It is finished” only appears in John’s Gospel, a Gospel that has liturgy as one of its themes. “It” is the Passover Liturgy which was started the night before. When he took the wine from the hyssop (this in itself has liturgical connotations), he drank from the 4th cup, completing the liturgy. At any rate if “it is finished” refers to the sacrifice, it makes it temporal, rather than eternal, and any sins after calvary would not be washed away, plus Revelation 4 makes no sense if not viewed as heavenly liturgy.
G
GreggAlvarez
Guest
Oh Moondweller,
You and your accusations on us about Christ. If we did not believe in the work of Christ we would not be defending His Church so militantly. We know you believe in Christ. You know we do. You would just love love to think that we do not in order to make the Church wrong. Unfortunately for you, things are not always as we want them.
You are terribly mistaken that nobody else was involved in God’s plan for salvation. To make you happy though, I will say that WITHOUT MARY, THERE IS NO CATHOLICISM. Without Catholicism, there is no Protestantism. Let me back track a little. Without Mary, no Jesus. No Jesus, no Catholicism. No Catholicism, no Protestants. So, from my point in the previous post where you would like for there to be no Mary, there is no Jesus or Catholicism. The plan for salvation had Mary involved. You are going to blow this one WAY out of proportion and say something ridiculous like, “See! You worship Mary and completely disregard Jesus.” I cannot stop you from saying that or something similar. We know what we believe and I would be damned to see that you would even understand any of what I just said, much less agree with it. So, without Mary, no Jesus (per my argument in my previous two posts). Without Jesus, no Catholicism. Without Catholicism, no Protestantism. This equates to my two points: 1. Without Mary, no Catholicism and 2. Without Mary, no Protestants. As for Mary and Jesus, I will say one thing that no person can disagree with: Only through the instrument does the music come.
Ok… Let the blowing-out-of-proportion begin!
You and your accusations on us about Christ. If we did not believe in the work of Christ we would not be defending His Church so militantly. We know you believe in Christ. You know we do. You would just love love to think that we do not in order to make the Church wrong. Unfortunately for you, things are not always as we want them.
You are terribly mistaken that nobody else was involved in God’s plan for salvation. To make you happy though, I will say that WITHOUT MARY, THERE IS NO CATHOLICISM. Without Catholicism, there is no Protestantism. Let me back track a little. Without Mary, no Jesus. No Jesus, no Catholicism. No Catholicism, no Protestants. So, from my point in the previous post where you would like for there to be no Mary, there is no Jesus or Catholicism. The plan for salvation had Mary involved. You are going to blow this one WAY out of proportion and say something ridiculous like, “See! You worship Mary and completely disregard Jesus.” I cannot stop you from saying that or something similar. We know what we believe and I would be damned to see that you would even understand any of what I just said, much less agree with it. So, without Mary, no Jesus (per my argument in my previous two posts). Without Jesus, no Catholicism. Without Catholicism, no Protestantism. This equates to my two points: 1. Without Mary, no Catholicism and 2. Without Mary, no Protestants. As for Mary and Jesus, I will say one thing that no person can disagree with: Only through the instrument does the music come.
Ok… Let the blowing-out-of-proportion begin!
J
jericho777
Guest
I hope you don’t think I was trying to say I was agreeing with those heresies because they are just that , false teachings.
You have failed to read further in Romans which stated that sin came through Adam only who is the father of all humans not Eve. It is explicit from scripture that Jesus is sin free because He is not from Adam and therefore there is no contradiction in Rom 3:23. Jesus is eternally begotten from our Heavenly Father and conceived by the Holy Spirit. Paternity determines ones sin lineage. Jesus is the last Adam who only is able to remain faithful and save us. Does this clarify my position?
F
Fair_Lady
Guest
I’m actually much less concerned about the degree of open/close-mindedness than truthfulness.
Sorry, I can’t agree that dialog works in the way you suggest. Not all explanations are turthful so I cannot and must not accept all explanations. But I do hope that I present what I have to say in a civil manner.
J
JustaServant
Guest
I see you’re experienced with tampering with the text in order to make it say what you want.
I was pulling your leg MD, hence the smileys…
J
JustaServant
Guest
Nothing like calling people you don’t know from Adam liars.
You and MD are real pieces of work. You ask questions, expecting the answer YOU want to hear, and then call those liars when they give what you percieve the wrong answer.
Its like a bigot asking a African American to tell him how much he likes watermelon and fried chicken, and then calling him a liar when he says he’s a vegetarian.
F
Fair_Lady
Guest
I just want to clarify that I have nothing but respect for Mary and for the role that she was used in while here on earth. However, I truly believe that she is being elevated above the status of what any human being should be. There is no room or value for devotion to any human being or angel in heaven or earth, for:
“9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” From Philippians 2
Jesus Christ is vastly superior over every creation and that includes the most revered saints, including Mary. Why should one minute of devotion be expended to someone less than Christ? Each of us needs to decide where our allegiance is - is it to God or His creation? For the sake of our souls, it needs to be wholly to God.
J
JustaServant
Guest
Elaborate
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
You have a problem with false dichotomies.
First, no Catholic considers Mary to be ‘equivalent’ to Christ. Mary is a creature. Christ is Creator.
Second, do you love your parents? Why? Why spend one minute of ‘devotion’ to mere human beings instead of Christ?
Well, you’ll say, in loving my parents (as the commandments tell us to do), I am showing my devotion to Christ.
So ‘showing devotion’ (to a parent, a spouse, a child) is not ‘taking away’ from Christ.
Oh, my father (rest his soul) has been gone over 40 years now. He hasn’t stopped being my father though, and I haven’t stopped loving and respecting him as my father. So those in heaven are still ‘part of the human family’.
By my still retaining love and devotion to my dear departed dad, am I somehow ‘taking away’ from the devotion I give to God? Not hardly.
You remind me of some people I’ve known in life who feel that a person has a ‘finite’ capacity for love, and that if, for example, their spouse has a child, that the ‘love’ the spouse gives the child is ‘taking away’ from the ‘fund of love’ that the deluded spouse thinks is exclusively’ his.’ They can’t seem to grasp that one can have ‘infinite’ love and that with the addition of a child, instead of ‘taking away’ from the love already there, the person’s capacity for love actually increases to embrace that child or further children.
We have an infinite love for Christ, but along ‘with’ that infinite love for Him we can also have a ‘lesser’ love for our family, our friends, our fellow humans. . . including Mary and the saints. By loving them fully we ‘increase’ our capacity to love Christ to the HIGHEST level.
M
Miriam1947
Guest
Tantum ergo, what a great explanation of our capacity for love.
F
FCEGM
Guest
I think another problem she has is that - as she expressed it - Mary was “used” by God. All the other problems follow from that.
F
FCEGM
Guest
Dittoes!Tantum ergo, what a great explanation of our capacity for love.
P
paul_c
Guest
As I told Moondweller, you don’t have to bring Mary down to elevate Jesus. Jesus is God. He can’t get any higher…
- Status