I think Christ speaks literally about many things, yet when Jesus said, "I am the door of the sheep" in John 10:7, or "you are my flock, the sheep of my pasture" in Ezekiel 34:31, are we to take that literally? I doubt anyone believes he turned into a literal door or we turn into literal sheep. No doubt Jesus spoke literally at times, but not at all times.
It's the same way, Christ spoke in parables and word pictures, and used common objects in an agricultural context to illustrate a heavenly principle. No one thinks Jesus actually became a grape vine with leaves on his arms. No doubt, even Catholics understand this was symbolism. Do any Catholic Bishops or priests teach or believe that Jesus transformed into a lamb with wool that talked and chewed grass? I don't think so.
So how do we know that the communion elements were not Jesus' literal flesh and literal blood? How can we know it was symbolic? Because Jesus didn't ask them to eat part of his arm, or drink blood from a wound he inflicted on himself. What did he give to eat? They were eating the Passover - the ultimate symbol - a perfect spotless lamb - unleavened bread -Matzo - because leaven is a picture of sin.
Is there a way for us to know that this was really symbolism- a picture of Christ as the sinless Passover lamb, who reconciled us to God with his substitutionary death on the cross? Absolutely !! How do we know exactly? What is the evidence that they weren't actually eating his blood. Because the Gospels are historical accounts and the text plainly says that Christ took the bread, and he blessed it/ gave thanks, and broke it, and then took the cup/wine. It was the same actual physical wine and unleavened bread [Matzo] used in Passover for thousands of years.
Most importantly - the Bible very explicitly states that no one should eat or drink blood, and the laws even stated how animals had to be killed and the blood drained out, so this would be a direct contradiction to the very laws that God himself gave.
Is there a way for us to know that this was really symbolism- a picture of Christ as the sinless Passover lamb, who reconciled us to God with his substitutionary death on the cross? Absolutely !! How do we know exactly? What is the evidence that they weren't actually eating his blood. Because the Gospels are historical accounts and the text plainly says that Christ took the bread, and he blessed it/ gave thanks, and broke it, and then took the cup/wine. It was the same actual physical wine and unleavened bread [Matzo] used in Passover for thousands of years.
Most importantly - the Bible very explicitly states that no one should eat or drink blood, and the laws even stated how animals had to be killed and the blood drained out, so this would be a direct contradiction to the very laws that God himself gave.
The entire Jewish sacrificial system is symbolic and has elements that point to Jesus, so they are all metaphors themselves. Jesus at the Last Supper was formally identifying what was about to happen to him with the Jewish sacrificial system and regulations concerning Passover.
The symbolic actions (Jewish ceremony and sacrifice) point to the true sacrifice (Jesus on the Cross). Passover was always a symbolic action (blood on doorposts symbolizing the blood of Christ), so the eating of bread and drinking of wine which was symbolic remains symbolic, but the symbol is now being clarified as pointing to Jesus. The difference is not a mystical transformation of bread into body or wine into blood, it is a change in the interpretation of the symbols.
And that takes me to my second point. I think Protestants disagree with transubstantiation not because they don't believe the Bible, but because they believe that Christ's sacrifice was done once for all time. It's ironic, when the Bible does literally say Christ sat down as an offering priest because of His own sacrifice, Protestants believe this, while i believe Roman Catholics do not. Hebrews 10:12, "But this man (Jesus), after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God." There is no priest presuming to be Christ on earth who offers the "same" sacrifice that Christ did some 2,000 years ago.
I'm no expert but there are those who say a priest standing and offering bread/wine presumes to be Christ and presumes to offer the "same" (sans blood) sacrifice as Christ did 2,000 years ago. But Christ's sacrifice on earth was done once, never to be repeated.
Scripture is very clear...Christ paid the penalty once-for-all-time. He doesn't keep dying over and over, and He isn't crucified over and over. All a person has to do it simply read the book of Hebrews - Christ is our high priest, who paid the penalty for all mankind once, never to be repeated, and the veil in the temple was torn in two - and this gave everyone, man, women, Jew and Gentile, direct access to God.
Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of me." We remember what happened in the past when Jesus died on the Cross. It is a celebration, not a continuation of a sacrifice, a repeat of it, or an extension of it.
That's my take on this challenging, but very important matter. May God give us wisdom.
--------------------------------------------------------
Protestant Minister's Response to Newsletter #422 (Part 2)
Most importantly - the Bible very explicitly states that no one should eat or drink blood, and the laws even stated how animals had to be killed and the blood drained out, so this would be a direct contradiction to the very laws that God himself gave.
My Comments
A few points to make here:
1) Would Jesus tell us to symbolically do something that was wrong? For example, would He tell us to symbolically murder someone? Would He tell us to symbolically steal? Would He tell us to symbolically worship a false god? Would He tell us to symbolically fornicate? No! Jesus would never tell us to symbolically do something that was wrong. So, for the pastor to argue that Jesus was telling folks to symbolically do something that was wrong - whether at the Last Supper or in John 6:53-57 - is simply a nonsensical argument. Which means, that when Jesus tells us to eat His flesh and drink His blood, He is talking about something that cannot be wrong to do - whether taken symbolically or literally. He is obviously talking about something that the pastor simply cannot comprehend.
I.e., the pastor is in the same situation as was everyone who heard Jesus say they must eat His flesh and drink His blood on that day recorded in John 6:53-57. With one exception. No one who heard Jesus that day understood how what He was saying could be true. However, unlike the pastor, everyone who heard Him speak that day took Him to be speaking literally, not symbolically. Many of His disciples did not believe His words, so they walked away. Today, many Protestants do not believe His words, so they refuse to come back. Peter and the other Apostles didn't fully understand, but they had faith, so they stayed. Catholics today don't fully understand, but they have faith, so they stay.
2) The Jews believed that the life of something was in the blood. So for a human being to take the life of an animal into their body would be degrading to that human being. You would be lowering yourself from the level of man to the level of the animals. That's why it was wrong for man to partake of the blood of animals. Jesus, however, was telling them to take His blood, the blood of the Divine, into their bodies. This would not be degrading man, rather, it would be elevating him. Which is exactly what Jesus was trying to do. Do we not become new creations in hChrist (2 Cor 5:17). Does not Christ live in us (Gal 2:20)? Jesus even says that if we do not eat His body and drink His blood (which contains His life), that we have no LIFE in us (John 6:53). Drink His blood - life. Don't drink His blood - no life. He is giving us new life...His life.
So Jesus, as He does in a few other places (the Sermon on the Mount, for example), is essentially taking what was taught in the Old Testament and transforming it...taking it to a whole new level and whole new understanding. "You have heard that it was said..." and then He takes what they had heard to a new level, gives it a new understanding. So this in no way, shape, or form runs contrary to the Old Testament prohibition on eating or drinking the blood of animals. Jesus is no animal.
Protestant Minister
The entire Jewish sacrificial system is symbolic and has elements that point to Jesus, so they are all metaphors themselves. Jesus at the Last Supper was formally identifying what was about to happen to him with the Jewish sacrificial system and regulations concerning Passover.
The symbolic actions (Jewish ceremony and sacrifice) point to the true sacrifice (Jesus on the Cross). Passover was always a symbolic action (blood on doorposts symbolizing the blood of Christ), so the eating of bread and drinking of wine which was symbolic remains symbolic, but the symbol is now being clarified as pointing to Jesus. The difference is not a mystical transformation of bread into body or wine into blood, it is a change in the interpretation of the symbols.
The symbolic actions (Jewish ceremony and sacrifice) point to the true sacrifice (Jesus on the Cross). Passover was always a symbolic action (blood on doorposts symbolizing the blood of Christ), so the eating of bread and drinking of wine which was symbolic remains symbolic, but the symbol is now being clarified as pointing to Jesus. The difference is not a mystical transformation of bread into body or wine into blood, it is a change in the interpretation of the symbols.
And that takes me to my second point. I think Protestants disagree with transubstantiation not because they don't believe the Bible, but because they believe that Christ's sacrifice was done once for all time. It's ironic, when the Bible does literally say Christ sat down as an offering priest because of His own sacrifice, Protestants believe this, while i believe Roman Catholics do not. Hebrews 10:12, "But this man (Jesus), after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God." There is no priest presuming to be Christ on earth who offers the "same" sacrifice that Christ did some 2,000 years ago.
I'm no expert but there are those who say a priest standing and offering bread/wine presumes to be Christ and presumes to offer the "same" (sans blood) sacrifice as Christ did 2,000 years ago. But Christ's sacrifice on earth was done once, never to be repeated.
Scripture is very clear...Christ paid the penalty once-for-all-time. He doesn't keep dying over and over, and He isn't crucified over and over. All a person has to do it simply read the book of Hebrews - Christ is our high priest, who paid the penalty for all mankind once, never to be repeated, and the veil in the temple was torn in two - and this gave everyone, man, women, Jew and Gentile, direct access to God.
Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of me." We remember what happened in the past when Jesus died on the Cross. It is a celebration, not a continuation of a sacrifice, a repeat of it, or an extension of it.
That's my take on this challenging, but very important matter. May God give us wisdom.
--------------------------------------------------------
Protestant Minister's Response to Newsletter #422 (Part 2)
Most importantly - the Bible very explicitly states that no one should eat or drink blood, and the laws even stated how animals had to be killed and the blood drained out, so this would be a direct contradiction to the very laws that God himself gave.
My Comments
A few points to make here:
1) Would Jesus tell us to symbolically do something that was wrong? For example, would He tell us to symbolically murder someone? Would He tell us to symbolically steal? Would He tell us to symbolically worship a false god? Would He tell us to symbolically fornicate? No! Jesus would never tell us to symbolically do something that was wrong. So, for the pastor to argue that Jesus was telling folks to symbolically do something that was wrong - whether at the Last Supper or in John 6:53-57 - is simply a nonsensical argument. Which means, that when Jesus tells us to eat His flesh and drink His blood, He is talking about something that cannot be wrong to do - whether taken symbolically or literally. He is obviously talking about something that the pastor simply cannot comprehend.
I.e., the pastor is in the same situation as was everyone who heard Jesus say they must eat His flesh and drink His blood on that day recorded in John 6:53-57. With one exception. No one who heard Jesus that day understood how what He was saying could be true. However, unlike the pastor, everyone who heard Him speak that day took Him to be speaking literally, not symbolically. Many of His disciples did not believe His words, so they walked away. Today, many Protestants do not believe His words, so they refuse to come back. Peter and the other Apostles didn't fully understand, but they had faith, so they stayed. Catholics today don't fully understand, but they have faith, so they stay.
2) The Jews believed that the life of something was in the blood. So for a human being to take the life of an animal into their body would be degrading to that human being. You would be lowering yourself from the level of man to the level of the animals. That's why it was wrong for man to partake of the blood of animals. Jesus, however, was telling them to take His blood, the blood of the Divine, into their bodies. This would not be degrading man, rather, it would be elevating him. Which is exactly what Jesus was trying to do. Do we not become new creations in hChrist (2 Cor 5:17). Does not Christ live in us (Gal 2:20)? Jesus even says that if we do not eat His body and drink His blood (which contains His life), that we have no LIFE in us (John 6:53). Drink His blood - life. Don't drink His blood - no life. He is giving us new life...His life.
So Jesus, as He does in a few other places (the Sermon on the Mount, for example), is essentially taking what was taught in the Old Testament and transforming it...taking it to a whole new level and whole new understanding. "You have heard that it was said..." and then He takes what they had heard to a new level, gives it a new understanding. So this in no way, shape, or form runs contrary to the Old Testament prohibition on eating or drinking the blood of animals. Jesus is no animal.
Protestant Minister
The entire Jewish sacrificial system is symbolic and has elements that point to Jesus, so they are all metaphors themselves. Jesus at the Last Supper was formally identifying what was about to happen to him with the Jewish sacrificial system and regulations concerning Passover.
The symbolic actions (Jewish ceremony and sacrifice) point to the true sacrifice (Jesus on the Cross). Passover was always a symbolic action (blood on doorposts symbolizing the blood of Christ), so the eating of bread and drinking of wine which was symbolic remains symbolic, but the symbol is now being clarified as pointing to Jesus. The difference is not a mystical transformation of bread into body or wine into blood, it is a change in the interpretation of the symbols.
My Comments
Yes, indeed, the entire Jewish sacrificial system is symbolic and points to Jesus. The pastor is right about that. But he obviously doesn't understand the full implication of what he is saying here. Because while the Jewish system is symbolic, it is fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ, who most definitely is not symbolic. As the pastor says, "the symbolic actions (Jewish ceremony and sacrifice) point to the true sacrifice (Jesus on the Cross)." So, it was symbolic, but it ain't symbolic any more! The pastor admits it was really Jesus on the Cross. John 6:51 states that the bread Jesus wants us to eat is the flesh He will give for the life of the world. When did He give His flesh for the life of the world? On the Cross. Was the flesh on the Cross real...or symbolic? The pastor says it was real. So, John 6:51 is telling us - and this is repeated in John 6:53-58 - that Jesus wants us to eat His real flesh that was nailed to the Cross and drink His real blood that was shed on the Cross! If John 6:51-58 is talking of Jesus' symbolic flesh, then it was only Jesus' symbolic flesh that was nailed to the Cross.
The pastor says, "Passover was always a symbolic action (blood on doorposts symbolizing the blood of Christ), so the eating of bread and drinking of wine which was symbolic remains symbolic, but the symbol is now being clarified as pointing to Jesus." Passover, he says, was symbolic...pointing to Jesus. But, now that the real thing...Jesus Christ...is here, the symbolic has been fulfilled. Yet, the pastor claims, "so the eating of bread and drinking of wine which was symbolic remains symbolic." So, wouldn't that mean, if the pastor is correct, that the blood of the lamb which was symbolic, remains symbolic with the blood of the Lamb? Well, wait a minute, pastor. You just said we now have the true sacrifice. So, sorry, pastor, but the symbol has been replaced by that which it symbolizes...the real thing! Hebrews 10:1, "For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities..." Well, we no longer have the symbol that points to Jesus, we now have Jesus! We no longer have the shadow, we have the true form of these realities...Jesus Christ!
"The difference is not a mystical transformation of bread into body or wine into blood, it is a change in the interpretation of the symbols," according to the pastor's private, non-authoritative, fallible interpretation of the Bible. But, the Bible itself, says no such thing. The pastor has, apparently, never really thought this through.
Protestant Minister
And that takes me to my second point. I think Protestants disagree with transubstantiation not because they don't believe the Bible, but because they believe that Christ's sacrifice was done once for all time. It's ironic, when the Bible does literally say Christ sat down as an offering priest because of His own sacrifice, Protestants believe this, while i believe Roman Catholics do not. Hebrews 10:12, "But this man (Jesus), after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God." There is no priest presuming to be Christ on earth who offers the "same" sacrifice that Christ did some 2,000 years ago.
I'm no expert but there are those who say a priest standing and offering bread/wine presumes to be Christ and presumes to offer the "same" (sans blood) sacrifice as Christ did 2,000 years ago. But Christ's sacrifice on earth was done once, never to be repeated.
Scripture is very clear...Christ paid the penalty once-for-all-time. He doesn't keep dying over and over, and He isn't crucified over and over. All a person has to do it simply read the book of Hebrews - Christ is our high priest, who paid the penalty for all mankind once, never to be repeated, and the veil in the temple was torn in two - and this gave everyone, man, women, Jew and Gentile, direct access to God.
My Comments
Actually, Protestants disagree with transubstantiation because they don't properly understand the Bible. They don't think they need a guide, like the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8), in order to properly understand the Bible. Pride often gets in the way of understanding.
And I love it when non-Catholics try to tell Catholics what it is they believe and don't believe. We believe every single word of the Bible. Every one! However, we don't necessarily believe the private, fallible, Protestant interpretations of the Bible. We believe Hebrews 10:12. However, we also believe Hebrews 8:3. What is the sacrifice our high priest, Jesus Christ, offers on behalf of our sins today...2000 years after He walked the earth? Is it not His death on the Cross? Indeed it is. And this pastor agrees with that. In fact, I could almost guarantee that this pastor has, on more than one occasion, talked about himself or others being "covered in the blood of Christ". Well, pastor, how is that possible since Jesus stopped bleeding 2000 years ago and He has already sat down at the right hand of God? How can you be covered in the blood of Christ if Jesus is no longer bleeding?!
The pastor might reply, "Well, John, God exists outside of time and space, He is in the eternal present with all of the past, present, and future in front of Him. So the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is eternally in front of the Father. So, even though Jesus is no longer bleeding, we can point to His death on the Cross and say, 'See, Father, we have been made worthy because of what Your Son did for us on the Cross 2000 years ago.'" In essence, pastor, you would be offering the same sacrifice to the Father, that Christ offered 2000 years ago, wouldn't you? And, now, pastor, you would be approaching an understanding of Catholic teaching on the sacrifice of the Mass.
We do indeed offer the Father the same sacrifice, albeit in an unbloody manner, that Christ offered on the Cross 2000-years ago, because there is no other pure sacrifice (Malachi 1:11) to offer. And, speaking of Malachi 1:11, pastor, what pure sacrifice is this prophecy in Malachi referring to? This pure sacrifice that will be offered from the rising of the sun to its setting in all the nations of the world? What sacrifice is that? It's the same sacrifice. Of course Christ does not die over and over...He is not crucified over and over. Once was enough. But we still offer that one sacrifice to the Father for the forgiveness of sins.
There is a very popular "salvation quiz" that many Protestants like to give Catholics. It goes something like this: "If you were to die today, and then stand before the throne of God and He asked you why He should let you into Heaven, what would you say?" Do you know what the correct Protestant answer to this Protestant quiz is? The correct answer is: "Because Jesus died for my sins." In other words, Protestants believe that the correct answer is to "offer" the Father the death of His Son on the Cross, as reason for allowing you into Heaven. So don't tell me Protestants don't try to "offer" the same sacrifice that Jesus offered 2000 years ago. They do, although, in a substantially inferior manner.
At every Mass, we offer the once for all - all people, all time - sacrifice of Jesus Christ to the Father. We "re-present" that offering to the Father. So this Protestant pastor is simply wrong. I do, however, agree with him on one point - he is no expert.
Protestant Minister
Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of me." We remember what happened in the past when Jesus died on the Cross. It is a celebration, not a continuation of a sacrifice, a repeat of it, or an extension of it.
That's my take on this challenging, but very important matter. May God give us wisdom.
My Comments
Once again, he truly does not understand the implication of his statements. He correctly states that Jesus said to, "Do this in remembrance of me." But the pastor makes a critical mistake here and focuses on the word "remembrance" instead of on the word "this". Jesus said do "this". He didn't just say to remember, He said to do "this". What is the "this"? It is the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood. That is what we are to do. We remember Him through the eating of His body and drinking of His blood.
The pastor, however, tells us that Jesus simply meant that we should remember what happened in the past when Jesus died on the Cross. It had nothing to do with sacrifice. Jesus was, rather, talking about a celebration. So, let's put the pastor's words into that scene at the Last Supper. "And He took bread, and when He had given thanks He broke it and gave it to them saying, "This is My body which is given up for you. Remember what I'm going to do tomorrow and celebrate it."
Sorry, but when He said do "this" in remembrance of Me, He was talking about eating His flesh and drinking His blood.
The pastor closes his comments with, "That's my take on this challenging, but very important matter." Is that good enough, though? I mean, the pastor recognizes that everything he has just said is nothing more than his "take" on this "very important matter". His personal "take" on the matter. And I assume he recognizes that his "take" carries all the authority of his private, fallible interpretation of the Bible - which is absolutely none. No authority whatsoever. Yet, what does he teach his people? He is teaching his people his opinion - his private, non-authoritative, fallible opinion - on this "very important matter".
If the best that I could do is teach someone my private, non-authoritative, fallible opinion on "very important matter[s]," I don't think I would ever get in the pulpit to preach. What if I were to lead someone astray with my "take" on this "very important matter"? What if I were to cause the loss of someone's salvation because I steered them in the wrong direction with my private, fallible "take" on this or some other "very important matter"? I wouldn't be able to sleep at night with that kind of responsibility on my shoulders. Very scary undertaking this man has gotten himself into. Jesus taught with authority. This pastor teaches with absolutely no authority. He teaches his personal "take" on things.
(No newsletter next week as I'll be traveling to speak at that conference in Houston.)
Yes, indeed, the entire Jewish sacrificial system is symbolic and points to Jesus. The pastor is right about that. But he obviously doesn't understand the full implication of what he is saying here. Because while the Jewish system is symbolic, it is fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ, who most definitely is not symbolic. As the pastor says, "the symbolic actions (Jewish ceremony and sacrifice) point to the true sacrifice (Jesus on the Cross)." So, it was symbolic, but it ain't symbolic any more! The pastor admits it was really Jesus on the Cross. John 6:51 states that the bread Jesus wants us to eat is the flesh He will give for the life of the world. When did He give His flesh for the life of the world? On the Cross. Was the flesh on the Cross real...or symbolic? The pastor says it was real. So, John 6:51 is telling us - and this is repeated in John 6:53-58 - that Jesus wants us to eat His real flesh that was nailed to the Cross and drink His real blood that was shed on the Cross! If John 6:51-58 is talking of Jesus' symbolic flesh, then it was only Jesus' symbolic flesh that was nailed to the Cross.
The pastor says, "Passover was always a symbolic action (blood on doorposts symbolizing the blood of Christ), so the eating of bread and drinking of wine which was symbolic remains symbolic, but the symbol is now being clarified as pointing to Jesus." Passover, he says, was symbolic...pointing to Jesus. But, now that the real thing...Jesus Christ...is here, the symbolic has been fulfilled. Yet, the pastor claims, "so the eating of bread and drinking of wine which was symbolic remains symbolic." So, wouldn't that mean, if the pastor is correct, that the blood of the lamb which was symbolic, remains symbolic with the blood of the Lamb? Well, wait a minute, pastor. You just said we now have the true sacrifice. So, sorry, pastor, but the symbol has been replaced by that which it symbolizes...the real thing! Hebrews 10:1, "For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities..." Well, we no longer have the symbol that points to Jesus, we now have Jesus! We no longer have the shadow, we have the true form of these realities...Jesus Christ!
"The difference is not a mystical transformation of bread into body or wine into blood, it is a change in the interpretation of the symbols," according to the pastor's private, non-authoritative, fallible interpretation of the Bible. But, the Bible itself, says no such thing. The pastor has, apparently, never really thought this through.
Protestant Minister
And that takes me to my second point. I think Protestants disagree with transubstantiation not because they don't believe the Bible, but because they believe that Christ's sacrifice was done once for all time. It's ironic, when the Bible does literally say Christ sat down as an offering priest because of His own sacrifice, Protestants believe this, while i believe Roman Catholics do not. Hebrews 10:12, "But this man (Jesus), after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God." There is no priest presuming to be Christ on earth who offers the "same" sacrifice that Christ did some 2,000 years ago.
I'm no expert but there are those who say a priest standing and offering bread/wine presumes to be Christ and presumes to offer the "same" (sans blood) sacrifice as Christ did 2,000 years ago. But Christ's sacrifice on earth was done once, never to be repeated.
Scripture is very clear...Christ paid the penalty once-for-all-time. He doesn't keep dying over and over, and He isn't crucified over and over. All a person has to do it simply read the book of Hebrews - Christ is our high priest, who paid the penalty for all mankind once, never to be repeated, and the veil in the temple was torn in two - and this gave everyone, man, women, Jew and Gentile, direct access to God.
My Comments
Actually, Protestants disagree with transubstantiation because they don't properly understand the Bible. They don't think they need a guide, like the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8), in order to properly understand the Bible. Pride often gets in the way of understanding.
And I love it when non-Catholics try to tell Catholics what it is they believe and don't believe. We believe every single word of the Bible. Every one! However, we don't necessarily believe the private, fallible, Protestant interpretations of the Bible. We believe Hebrews 10:12. However, we also believe Hebrews 8:3. What is the sacrifice our high priest, Jesus Christ, offers on behalf of our sins today...2000 years after He walked the earth? Is it not His death on the Cross? Indeed it is. And this pastor agrees with that. In fact, I could almost guarantee that this pastor has, on more than one occasion, talked about himself or others being "covered in the blood of Christ". Well, pastor, how is that possible since Jesus stopped bleeding 2000 years ago and He has already sat down at the right hand of God? How can you be covered in the blood of Christ if Jesus is no longer bleeding?!
The pastor might reply, "Well, John, God exists outside of time and space, He is in the eternal present with all of the past, present, and future in front of Him. So the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is eternally in front of the Father. So, even though Jesus is no longer bleeding, we can point to His death on the Cross and say, 'See, Father, we have been made worthy because of what Your Son did for us on the Cross 2000 years ago.'" In essence, pastor, you would be offering the same sacrifice to the Father, that Christ offered 2000 years ago, wouldn't you? And, now, pastor, you would be approaching an understanding of Catholic teaching on the sacrifice of the Mass.
We do indeed offer the Father the same sacrifice, albeit in an unbloody manner, that Christ offered on the Cross 2000-years ago, because there is no other pure sacrifice (Malachi 1:11) to offer. And, speaking of Malachi 1:11, pastor, what pure sacrifice is this prophecy in Malachi referring to? This pure sacrifice that will be offered from the rising of the sun to its setting in all the nations of the world? What sacrifice is that? It's the same sacrifice. Of course Christ does not die over and over...He is not crucified over and over. Once was enough. But we still offer that one sacrifice to the Father for the forgiveness of sins.
There is a very popular "salvation quiz" that many Protestants like to give Catholics. It goes something like this: "If you were to die today, and then stand before the throne of God and He asked you why He should let you into Heaven, what would you say?" Do you know what the correct Protestant answer to this Protestant quiz is? The correct answer is: "Because Jesus died for my sins." In other words, Protestants believe that the correct answer is to "offer" the Father the death of His Son on the Cross, as reason for allowing you into Heaven. So don't tell me Protestants don't try to "offer" the same sacrifice that Jesus offered 2000 years ago. They do, although, in a substantially inferior manner.
At every Mass, we offer the once for all - all people, all time - sacrifice of Jesus Christ to the Father. We "re-present" that offering to the Father. So this Protestant pastor is simply wrong. I do, however, agree with him on one point - he is no expert.
Protestant Minister
Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of me." We remember what happened in the past when Jesus died on the Cross. It is a celebration, not a continuation of a sacrifice, a repeat of it, or an extension of it.
That's my take on this challenging, but very important matter. May God give us wisdom.
My Comments
Once again, he truly does not understand the implication of his statements. He correctly states that Jesus said to, "Do this in remembrance of me." But the pastor makes a critical mistake here and focuses on the word "remembrance" instead of on the word "this". Jesus said do "this". He didn't just say to remember, He said to do "this". What is the "this"? It is the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood. That is what we are to do. We remember Him through the eating of His body and drinking of His blood.
The pastor, however, tells us that Jesus simply meant that we should remember what happened in the past when Jesus died on the Cross. It had nothing to do with sacrifice. Jesus was, rather, talking about a celebration. So, let's put the pastor's words into that scene at the Last Supper. "And He took bread, and when He had given thanks He broke it and gave it to them saying, "This is My body which is given up for you. Remember what I'm going to do tomorrow and celebrate it."
Sorry, but when He said do "this" in remembrance of Me, He was talking about eating His flesh and drinking His blood.
The pastor closes his comments with, "That's my take on this challenging, but very important matter." Is that good enough, though? I mean, the pastor recognizes that everything he has just said is nothing more than his "take" on this "very important matter". His personal "take" on the matter. And I assume he recognizes that his "take" carries all the authority of his private, fallible interpretation of the Bible - which is absolutely none. No authority whatsoever. Yet, what does he teach his people? He is teaching his people his opinion - his private, non-authoritative, fallible opinion - on this "very important matter".
If the best that I could do is teach someone my private, non-authoritative, fallible opinion on "very important matter[s]," I don't think I would ever get in the pulpit to preach. What if I were to lead someone astray with my "take" on this "very important matter"? What if I were to cause the loss of someone's salvation because I steered them in the wrong direction with my private, fallible "take" on this or some other "very important matter"? I wouldn't be able to sleep at night with that kind of responsibility on my shoulders. Very scary undertaking this man has gotten himself into. Jesus taught with authority. This pastor teaches with absolutely no authority. He teaches his personal "take" on things.
(No newsletter next week as I'll be traveling to speak at that conference in Houston.)
Closing Comments
Again, if you're in the greater Houston area, I hope you will consider coming out to the Fullness of Truth conference at St. Anthony of Padua in The Woodlands on Friday, April 28th and Saturday, April 29th. I'll be speaking in the morning and afternoon of the 29th. For more information and/or to register, see the link above in the "General Comments" section.
