Yet Another Protestantism & Communion Thread

[Gabriel_of_12]

well, you are too late to tell John Paul II that he got it wrong when he said that manna was a symbol, but you could still correct the Catholic Encyclopedia…BTW, what’s a “tangent element”?

yep, that is what makes it an ** eaten** symbol.

That’s a poor example, John Paul the great believed in the real presence of the Eucharist lets be clear here to our visiting posters.

When speaking of the Manna outside of the liturgy becomes a foreshadowing or symbol of the reality. When the manna is celebrated in liturgy be it the Jewish passover meal or the Jesus last supper neither celebration negates the “real presence” of God among their midst.

Speech outside of the liturgy in both cases can reference bread and manna as a symbol before the actual “consecration” or “Zakar” in the sedar meal’s case when God’s presence from eternity is made present “always” in the liturgy, never symbolically, when ever God’s covenant is make new or renewed.

 

[Roy5]

In all honesty, and reluctantly, I have a problem with the whole concept of requiring a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. This includes transubstantiation, of course, but also the popular emphasis among evangelical Protestants that ‘only in the blood of Jesus’ can we find forgiveness and salvation.

** Primitive humanity placed considerable emphasis upon spilling blood to appease the gods.** Was it the Aztecs who went so far as to cut out 'live hearts' with that as their goal? We find such a concept among many tribes, and in a somewhat difference sense it is part of temple worship in the Jerusalem. Jesus became angry at the moneychangers who were permitting people to change their money to buy animals then to be slain to secure foregiveness.

** The whole notion that God would demand that his son go through torture and hell to win our salvation can sound noble, but it doesn’t resonate well with many** (me among them). There is something paganish about it We read in Matt 25, for example, that those who love one another and demonstrate it are those who will enter heaven - not a word about blood sacrifices etc.

**  One other wildly radical thought. It will offend some,** so perhaps it best that you stop reading. I have known people personally, and read of many more, who suffered enormously over long periods of time. They were basically innocent. Think of victims of the holocaust as but one example. Or. yes, think of those innocent Amalekite children or those little ones in Jericho who were slaughtered mercilessly because 'God ordered Saul and Joshua' to murder them. History is full of stories of savagery and gulags.

** Jesus did suffer tremendously. But he knew that in three short days** (less actually) he would rise from the grave and regain his position of ruling eternally in the heavens. His suffering was enormous, but Christian doctrine says that his eternal reign was assured.

** For myself, I find that the Christianity I bend toward allows a wide variety of ideas about Christ** and the crucifixion, and about communion, too. Mainline Protestantism permits a wide range of of views of communion, from a simple, communal meal of fellow Christians remembering Christ to the belief that the spirit of Jesus is especially present at communion. This emphasis upon the suffering and sacrifice of Christ loses some of its impact when I remember that Jesus was going to reign supreme soon, and he knew it. Besides, the notion that we cannot be saved without a human sacrifice makes me uneasy.

  **Christ on the cross means a number of things to me**. It reminds us of the millions of people who suffered death unjustly and cruelly over the centuries. It reminds us that great people have laid down their lives because they stood fast for justice and righteousness. It reminds us that those innocent who suffer will win the ultimate victory, too. It reminds us that death is nothing to be feared if we are people of faith. It reminds us that while evil can appear to be in charge. "behind the dim unknown, standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own."

** Yes, I have trouble believing that God requires a human blood sacrfice, even that of Jesus. **. I don’t have trouble, however, trying to be a loyal disciple of Christ who was whipped and scourged and crucified for going about doing good. Let us work together to eradicate such injustice as still inflicts our world.

** God bless everybody **- of every creed, color, culture and country.

 

[Newsy]

Roy, you are welcome to have your opinion, but you must not have studied much of the OT. When God made a covenant with Moses, that was part of it. The OT sacrifice never fulfilled the Covenant, Christ was the fulfillment. God shows us that sin requires sacrifice as early as Eden. When God banished Adam and Eve, first He clothed them with the skin of animals. Those animals didn’t just take off their coats, they had to be sacrificed.

The Passover lamb’s blood had to be spread over the doorposts. The blood represented life to the Israelites. The entire Mosaic Covenant required animal sacrifice, it’s referred to as the Blood Covenant.

Christ bought back our freedom with His blood. He owed no debt, He lived perfectly inside the Old Covenant. We have all sinned, Old Covenant curses demand our death. Christ paid a debt He didn’t owe to redeem us, people who owed and couldn’t pay.

Whether you like the thought of actual blood or not, that was required. Christ’s passion and suffering spilled His real blood, when people attempt to “clean up” Christianity, they inevitably fall into heresy.

 

[Roy5]

Newsy
If you can believe the plaques in the days of Moses, that God - for example - killed the oldest son in every Egyptian home to change Pharoah's heart - well, fine. I can't. There is, to begin with, no historical or anthropological or archealogical evidence that the Hebrews ever were in Egypt. Read the scholarly literature on this issue. We can love the scriptures and learn lessons from them without believing in the unbelievable. I for one need a reasonable religion that has some basis in factual history and does not contradict the essentials of science.

 

[Nicea325]

well, you are too late to tell John Paul II that he got it wrong when he said that manna was a symbol, but you could still correct the Catholic Encyclopedia…BTW, what’s a “tangent element”?

yep, that is what makes it an ** eaten** symbol.

I do not think so,stop isolating one’s words Radical. John Paul II did not believe or teach your novelty (man-made) Protestant position of a symbolic Eucharist. Far from it. Appparently you are missing the point. The manna they ate was a real-material substance they could eat as was the Passover lamb. They did not pretend it was merely a symbol. You are merely applying your Protestant ideas again. Not everything is a SYMBOL Radical.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

If you can believe the plaques in the days of Moses, that God - for example - killed the oldest son in every Egyptian home to change Pharoah's heart - well, fine. I can't. There is, to begin with, no historical or anthropological or archealogical evidence that the Hebrews ever were in Egypt. Read the scholarly literature on this issue. We can love the scriptures and learn  lessons from them without believing in the unbelievable. I for one need a reasonable religion that has some basis in factual history and does not contradict the essentials of science.

That’s interesting Roy5 because if I were to apply your belief analogy to U.S history I could never believe an Abraham Lincoln or George Washington ever existed, they become imaginary folklore characters.

Question for you Roy5? When or how does your faith ever apply to your science?

If you have found a formula that the two never contradicts each other, welcome to the Catholic Faith. If your faith and science are in contradiction? Then what you might have is a “double minded” religion?