Jesus was trying to tell those who watched the Crucifixion that He was the fulfillment of the Psalm He quoted.
The Calvinist teaching on Communion is considered to be under the umbrella of “real presence.” He did not believe in transubstantiation or consubstantiation.
That would be my impression, even from what little you referenced.
But what does that mean? How do you explain this in 21st century terms? We know that its molecular composition is the same before and after the consecration, so it does not change in chemical substance. Catholics disagree with those who believe that Jesus is united to the recipient in invisible spiritual form. Catholics disagree with those who would believe that the meaning and significance of the elements of Communion change. It is not just how they are “regarded” - this would imply a symbolic change and not necessarily a “real” change. (I think of the meaning attached to a national flag vs. a pile of colored fabric. The fabric doesn’t change, but the flag is regarded to have a different meaning than the cloth scraps that fell to the floor while sewing it.)
So what "real"ly changes?
God, the Father regards the bread and wine as no longer bread and wine, but exactly what the priest and congregation pray for it to be. The same substance which Jesus called His body and blood of the new covenant.
Not pretending to be real, but a heavenly reality known only through faith, not by carnal senses.
CatholiCISM and CathoLICS, are two different subjects…
CatholiCISM contains the fullness of Christ’s teachings. CathoLICS might - or might not - adhere to His teachings as they should. And of course those who call themselves Catholics and do not remain in Him by keeping His commandments, are what He calls the tares among the wheat.
The Catholic Church most definitely teaches correctly, and we can KNOW this because Jesus said hell would not prevail against His Church.
And He said He would be with us always. However, this does not mean that all the members of His Church are living the authentic Christianity we are taught, as we should. As Fr. Groeschel once said, there are many Catholics who do not take full advantage of the grace that God has made available to us in the sacraments.
We have to remember that the Bible gives us these examples - in John 6:66, we read of disciples who followed Jesus that found His teachings regarding the necessity of eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood in order to have life in us too hard, and so left Him.
We ALSO have the examples in John 20, wherein He breaths on His Apostles and says whose sins they forgive are forgiven, and whose sins are retained are retained. Too, that blessed are those who believe and have not seen…
More lessons for us: in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, that even some who see a man raised from the dead would not believe, and the lesson of the prodigal son, who WAS considered dead until he came back and said he was sorry - and was of course, forgiven!
Not unless he redefined that too!
Sad to go on this merry go, yet again… not once did the “symbol” come up when Jesus Spoke; not once when the Apostles Preached; not once when the Writ, as you say, was Written:
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. (St. Luke 22)
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: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. 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. (1 Corinthians 11)
The Apostles did not have 1500 of void and vacuum in which to construct nuance into the understanding of Christ’s Commands; they took the very Word of Christ and Lived it and, as St. Paul states, pass onto His Followers what Jesus Ordained: My Body/Flesh and My Blood.
Never did they delve into symbolisms and hyperboles!
It means what Jesus said.
Why would we NEED 21st century terms? This is what makes me crazy about Western mentality. Having such a need to explain “I am that I am” and such things. What hubris.
This is not always the case either.
On the contrary, the CC encourages spiritual communion for those who cannot be physically present.
Of course we must! We are bound to retain/hold fast to what was given to use by the Apostles. Changing the meaning and significance creates “a different gospel” which is anathema.
I agree with your point here, though one’s perception is important, it does not change the facts.
What really changed when Jesus was transfigured before the Apostles? Or do you believe they were just hallucinating? If not, do you have a 21st century explanation for what happened?
…and yet, Jesus warns that many will be rejected because they believe that they have arrived (Lord, Lord) but they are far from Him (be gone from my sight children of iniquity). [St. Matthew 7:21-23, paraphrased]
It is the “spirituals” that Jesus reject because they remain in their own understanding (interpretation) of His Word.
…again, interpretation; there are those who claim to see et in the Old Testament; others have discovered the cypher of God (they’ve done several programs on the science/history/ng networks on it); yet, interpretation is much like that ‘feel-good’ theology where everyone is saved no matter what or that hollowood babble that it takes evil to do good.
…nor would he interpret Hilary’s writings to mean what he wants it to mean by dissecting and divorcing Hilary’s writings from Hilary’s understanding of Revelation.
Do you hold them up as example of orthodoxy?
This is a critical reference. You see, the communion rite, as celebrated in the One Church, has always included prayers before and after the consecration. Bread and wine were brought (symbols) along with monetary donations as an offering for the sacrifice.
It is rooted in the synagogue service, and the Last supper. In fact, if you attend a synagogue service today you can recognize some of the prayers used during Mass.
…well not just to St. Augustine mind; that was the mindset (understanding); it is the reason why Christendom was coined Christendom; there were no multi bodies of Christ offered as a smorgasbord to whet the appetite or to lavish the masses with multi-colored-choose-your-design theologies.
They actually believed, as St. Paul, in One Faith, One Baptism, One Body (Church), One Spirit, One Lord, One God.
…and, when one studies Church history, one finds that all matters of Faith were discussed and treated in similar fashion until a defining conclusion was made (ie: the Bible Canon, the Divinity of Jesus, the Triune Revelation of Yahweh God). Suggesting that everyone thought the same is to limit what actually transpired; heresies fought and embraced by the defenders of the Faith.
Heresies were embraced (ie: Origen, Valentine, Marcion…) then, as today, because people have a thirst for “design” and they interpret and believe those things that they ‘see clearly’ as the path to God.
Luther held (though many continue to argue and defend him with the lame ‘personal communication’) that a Christian could kill and/or commit adultery a thousand times per day with no loss 'cause Jesus already paid the price to give His Followers carte blanche.
So yeah, even those in the “know”/“Faith” can get caught up in their own understanding; when they begin to teach such principles it becomes heresy.
The problem with such understanding is that it dismisses the exact argument: 'you dopes, don’t you have a home of your own where you can eat and drink till you’re filled? Why do you desecrate the Body and Blood of the Lord by hording the bread and drinking till you become inebriated? If you do not discern the Body/Flesh and Blood of the Lord, you sin against the Body and Blood of the Lord!
…do you mean to say that St. Paul was simply worried that gluttony and drunkenness was replacing a symbolism?
Interestingly enough, you fail to see the changes that took place, right from Scriptures about the Unfolding of the Truth both as Worship and as Practice.
“therefore” is a grammatical accident–as our Father Who art in Heaven… eventually ‘art’ changed to ‘are.’
Everything does not have to have a ‘missing-link’ phenomena attached to it.
This, of course, is one variation of interpretation.
…another is that Jesus, the human mind and body, would feel a separation from the Father (’…but I’m never alone since the Father is always with Me…’) as He would take on the sins of the world (death) onto Himself.
This of course begs the question, is God as small as man since He actually does Reveal that He is a jealous God, that He Wrath will be unleashed onto the world…
Yes, God expresses Himself in terms that the human condition can understand, but God is Spirit and does not feel/experience the human condition as humans do.
The Incarnation of the Word made it possible for God to actually experience the human condition (‘sacrifice and holocaust you did not want, but you Made me a body; here I am, God, to do your Will…’).