Can "Christian Zionists" be saved?

SoulandForm

Personally I dont believe they can because their denial that the Church is the true Israel.

antiskeptic

SoulandForm wrote: »

Personally I dont believe they can because their denial that the Church is the true Israel.

I wonder did Abraham believe that the Church was the true Israel? Cos if not...

SoulandForm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wonder did Abraham believe that the Church was the true Israel? Cos if not...

Our Father Abraham was most definitely in the Church.

Abraham is not the Father of the fallen away Jews though, and most of them have no blood connection to Abraham.

St Paul and St John in the New Testament curse the fallen away of the Old Testament Church- are they not blessed by God?

Peregrinus

God can save anyone he wills. It is blasphemy to deny this.

SoulandForm

Peregrinus wrote: »

God can save anyone he wills. It is blasphemy to deny this.

And yet we know from Scripture that God wills for ALL men to be saved and also that only few are saved.

God is not arbitrary and correct faith has a lot to do with Salvation.

Also surely it is blasphemy to see God as directly behind atheistic and genocidal Zionism as well as to see Rabbinic Judaism as the continuation of the Old Testament Church?

antiskeptic

SoulandForm wrote: »

Our Father Abraham was most definitely in the Church.

My point was that Abraham couldn't believe what you insist must believed in order to be saved. And so he must, by your reckoning be lost.

antiskeptic

Peregrinus wrote: »

God can save anyone he wills. It is blasphemy to deny this.

What about those who "perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." (2 Thess 2:12). Can God save someone who refuses to be saved?

(Interesting that it's not doing something that results in salvation but refusal to do something (not quite the same thing) that results in damnation).

antiskeptic

SoulandForm wrote: »

Also surely it is blasphemy to see God as directly behind atheistic and genocidal Zionism as well as to see Rabbinic Judaism as the continuation of the Old Testament Church?

Perhaps you mean something other than what I understand by Christian Zionism

Wiki wrote:

"Christian Zionism is a belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Biblical prophecy.

Whilst that belief might drive some to "genocide", it needn't necessarily.

tommy2bad

SoulandForm wrote: »

Personally I dont believe they can because their denial that the Church is the true Israel.

Your going to have to expand on this a bit, I don't understand what brought this up or in what context you want to discuss it.

newmug

I don't think any non-Catholics can be saved. Catholicism is the genuine, full blooded, 100% true church, passed directly down from Jesus. It baffles me why anyone who calls themselves Christians wouldn't want to be a Catholic. People give us flak all the time for not "moving with the times", but we aren't changing a single iota of what Jesus said for anyone. Let me be the first to say aswell, that even among Catholics, even among the chosen, an enormous number won't be saved due to their sins.


But I believe the 11th commandment is what will cover all non-Catholics, and indeed all sinners. Jesus said, "But I give you one above all those - love your neighbour". That's a powerful thing to say, ie that being sound to others and platonically loving people is more important than "First, I am the Lord, your God". It just shows you that God really is all about love.


So I believe that that commandment is a get-out-of-jail-free card for Bhuddists, athiests, looper Westboro-Baptists, deluded Presbyterians, non-practicing Catholics and everyone in between.

leonil7

salvation is by grace through faith (eph 2:8), not by affiliation, race or tradition. israel or the zionists might boast they are the true sons of abraham, the muslims do to.

but Paul already refuted and clarified this given the issue with the Galatians => the TRUE sons of Abraham are not know by bloodlines, but by the SAME FAITH as that of abraham.

Gal 3:7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.

Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

it is still as always neither jew nor greek (gentiles). it is our oneness with christ that we are then the true sons of abraham, affinity not by blood, nor by color, nor by race, nor by language, nor by institutional membership but by same faith.

SoulandForm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Perhaps you mean something other than what I understand by Christian Zionism

Whilst that belief might drive some to "genocide", it needn't necessarily.

That belief is genocidal because it involves the destruction of the Palestinian nation.

And that belief is soul-destroying heresy because it says that God's promises to Israel apply to the descendents of and those who follow Rabbinic Judaism (whatever there actual blood connection to the Old Testament Church).

So on two counts it is an evil belief.

SoulandForm

A simple reason is that the Papacy which is supposed to be Infallible on Faith and Morals has not been historically consistent on either and since Jesus Christ is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow from that we have to assume that the Papacy as Catholics understand it is a creation of men and to place oneself under it is to give up the freedom we have in Christ.

newmug wrote: »

I don't think any non-Catholics can be saved. Catholicism is the genuine, full blooded, 100% true church, passed directly down from Jesus. It baffles me why anyone who calls themselves Christians wouldn't want to be a Catholic. People give us flak all the time for not "moving with the times", but we aren't changing a single iota of what Jesus said for anyone. Let me be the first to say aswell, that even among Catholics, even among the chosen, an enormous number won't be saved due to their sins.


But I believe the 11th commandment is what will cover all non-Catholics, and indeed all sinners. Jesus said, "But I give you one above all those - love your neighbour". That's a powerful thing to say, ie that being sound to others and platonically loving people is more important than "First, I am the Lord, your God". It just shows you that God really is all about love.


So I believe that that commandment is a get-out-of-jail-free card for Bhuddists, athiests, looper Westboro-Baptists, deluded Presbyterians, non-practicing Catholics and everyone in between.

newmug

SoulandForm wrote: »

A simple reason is that the Papacy which is supposed to be Infallible on Faith and Morals has not been historically consistent on either and since Jesus Christ is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow from that we have to assume that the Papacy as Catholics understand it is a creation of men and to place oneself under it is to give up the freedom we have in Christ.

Well that's the mirror image view that Catholics have of non-Catholics! All forms of Protestantism "is a creation of men and to place oneself under it is to give up the freedom we have in Christ". We see the office of the Pope as infallible, ie the job of not corrupting the Word of God to suit mans desires, and dare I say it we're doing a good job! That's not to say the man doing the job isn't infallible, indeed many popes were! But nobody's perfect, so all we can do is continue trying to live the Word of God ourselves, because when the time comes, God wont ask you to account for somebody else's sins.


As with all non-Catholics, if you don't do what Jesus asked, yes you can be saved, but your chances are seriously diminished.

• Jesus said not to steal, but the thief on the cross was saved.
• Jesus said don't kill (and by extension, don't hurt others or be violent) and yet St. Peter was saved eventhough he took a swipe at a soldiers head with a sword.
• Jesus said to receive the Eucharist, take this all of you and eat it, this is my body. If you don't do that, you're shooting yourself in the foot straight away.
• So as for Zionists, their chances are slim, but not impossible.

SoulandForm

Popes speaking as Popes have said contradictory things at different times (long before Vatican II).

newmug wrote: »

Well that's the mirror image view that Catholics have of non-Catholics! All forms of Protestantism "is a creation of men and to place oneself under it is to give up the freedom we have in Christ". We see the office of the Pope as infallible, ie the job of not corrupting the Word of God to suit mans desires, and dare I say it we're doing a good job! That's not to say the man doing the job isn't infallible, indeed many popes were! But nobody's perfect, so all we can do is continue trying to live the Word of God ourselves, because when the time comes, God wont ask you to account for somebody else's sins.


As with all non-Catholics, if you don't do what Jesus asked, yes you can be saved, but your chances are seriously diminished.

• Jesus said not to steal, but the thief on the cross was saved.
• Jesus said don't kill (and by extension, don't hurt others or be violent) and yet St. Peter was saved eventhough he took a swipe at a soldiers head with a sword.
• Jesus said to receive the Eucharist, take this all of you and eat it, this is my body. If you don't do that, you're shooting yourself in the foot straight away.
• So as for Zionists, their chances are slim, but not impossible.

newmug

SoulandForm wrote: »

Popes speaking as Popes have said contradictory things at different times (long before Vatican II).

Yea I know. That's my point. The man is fallible. The Word of God cannot be.


Anyway, you raised something interesting there. You said in your original post, that Zionists are doomed because they deny that "The Church" is the true Israel. I agree in principal. But that begs the question, what do you mean by "The Church"? Do you mean Christianity in general?

SoulandForm

newmug wrote: »

Yea I know. That's my point. The man is fallible. The Word of God cannot be.


Anyway, you raised something interesting there. You said in your original post, that Zionists are doomed because they deny that "The Church" is the true Israel. I agree in principal. But that begs the question, what do you mean by "The Church"? Do you mean Christianity in general?

You misunderstand- of course Popes can say silly things, but I was talking when they were speaking as Pope.

Define Christianity in general?

Certainly Quakers, Mormoms, Jevohah Witnesses and maybe Baptists are not in the Church. The Church is everyone who has been Baptized and believes in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation and so is joined through Sacrament and Faith to the Body of Christ.

newmug

SoulandForm wrote: »

You misunderstand- of course Popes can say silly things, but I was talking when they were speaking as Pope.

Define Christianity in general?

Certainly Quakers, Mormoms, Jevohah Witnesses and maybe Baptists are not in the Church. The Church is everyone who has been Baptized and believes in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation and so is joined through Sacrament and Faith to the Body of Christ.

But no-one "speaks" as Pope. If Francis woke up tomorrow morning and decreed that Michael Jackson was God instead of Jesus, or that its ok to kill people if they have red hair, or that women should be priests, or that everybody should endeavour to rob a bank, or any other such nonsense that ISNT in the Bible, well then they would be wrong, they would be mis-executing the office of Pope. And over the years, there have been some monumental screw-ups by various Popes, but that doesn't mean that the position / job / office itself is at fault, the man carrying it out is.


The Pope can be compared to the queen of England. She's the head of the Protestant church, but yet she's just a woman who can make mistakes too. The job of queen of England will pass on to someone else someday, who may do things that were completely at odds with stuff Lizzy said, but the office of monarch of England is not to blame. Indeed, similarly, if the queen said its ok to kill people, as long as they were Afghani's with a different ideology to the prevailing western view at the time, would that mean that all members of her church would suddenly believe it to be ok from a Christian point of view? Of course not! And so it is with the Papacy. The Pope is just the clerical head of administration, nothing else.


As for defining Christianity in general, I would imagine that most people would define it as the belief that the supernatural exists, and that Christ is the head of it. Therefore that would include Mormons, Quakers etc.


But I'd be more along your lines of thinking. I wouldn't consider them true Christians because they don't act Christian. They fly in the face of what it says in the Bible, and I don't just mean individually (which we can all do from time to time), I mean it is part of the constitution of their "church". Thou shalt not commit adultery, yet Mormons are polygamous. Love your neighbour, yet WBC's have hate ingrained in their beliefs, etc. From a Catholic point of view, all these denominations fall under the umbrella of "Protestantism".


As a Catholic, I consider the only true Church to be Catholicism. It IS the body of Christ. We are his body. It is directly handed down from Jesus himself, to Peter, then to Linus, then to Anacletus, then Clement etc all the way to Francis. We haven't deviated from the Bible in any way constitutionally, all the same truths stand, no matter how tough it might be in modern times not to succumb. We are his chosen people, the path of God leads to Catholicism. The word Catholic means "universal". We were just called Christian until Protestantism cropped up, that's why we had to have a label to differentiate from these, new, other Christians. Catholicism is the original Christianity, unsullied right the way back from Jesus. To think that powers could be conferred onto someone without the approval or link back to Jesus kinda makes a mockery of God IMO. You cant just give yourself a title (like REV Ian Paisley) and go on your merry way dishing out sacramental graces on others. Sure that's just making it up as you go along, exactly like what the Mormons do. You'll never beat the original.

Benny_Cake

Mod: It hasn't been active in quite a while, but this is really the appropriate place for Catholic / Protestant debate:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056276995

blatantrereg

Mormons aren't polygamous on the earthly plane any more - something which resulted in a schism. They can get sealed for all eternity to multiple women though. So they still get to be polygamous in the next phase of their evolution. Evolution in the Mormon sense of their spiritual progression to godhood that is. Mormons are quite certain that the idea of genetic evolution is a huge sham touted by evil tricksters.

They explain dinosaurs: Their bones are there because when god made the planet he took a chunk from a planet over there and a chunk from a planet over there, and one of the planets he scooped a chunk from had dinosaurs. Makes perfect sense if you are a total looney and/or ****wit. My experience is that they really dislike rational argument as it is perceived as an attack on their faith.

lmaopml

SoulandForm wrote: »

Personally I dont believe they can because their denial that the Church is the true Israel.

I think it's very dodgy territory one may find oneself on if they even begin to mix politics with religion - you know what they say about topics that cause division among friends, don't discuss, religion, politics or money together - many a brawl could be avoided.

Here we do discuss religion - but we're 'Christians' at heart and that is imo not merely an earthly thing - a political stance etc. It's a case of putting your life on the line for Christ to see and be more than old Isreal.

I have a deep empathy with the people of Isreal who have 'faith' - and always will - but I don't know exactly who has or has not, I don't know, sincerely about the 'nation' 'state' etc. of Isreal and how one can justify it's existence, all I know is it still exists......I think that providence will do it's job.

I think our job is to try to embrace people, not rich law makers but embrace people just people no matter what nation they come from, and help eachother. We are the gentiles, the gentiles are not a nation, we're
'the nations'. Religion and politics don't mix too well. We do what we can when we can and don't cause strife.

antiskeptic

SoulandForm wrote: »

That belief is genocidal because it involves the destruction of the Palestinian nation.

The belief that physical Israel has particular relevance today doesn't necessarily tie a person into pro-Israel political policy. You need to draw a distinction rather than label Christian Zionism necessarily genocidal.

And that belief is soul-destroying heresy because it says that God's promises to Israel apply to the descendents of and those who follow Rabbinic Judaism (whatever there actual blood connection to the Old Testament Church).

So on two counts it is an evil belief.

I'm not sure how you label a belief about physical Israel which is at variance with your own a "heresy" given how widespread the belief physical Israels place in God's economy. Me, I think it's utter bunkum, but accept the breadth of diversity of belief within the family Christianity.

If merely disagreeing with it then fine, but if labeling it heresy merely because it departs from what you reckon is "the truth" leaves you walking on thin ice - unless of course you suppose that your own beliefs are 100% on the money in every facet.

martinedwards

newmug wrote: »

Catholicism is the genuine, full blooded, 100% true church, passed directly down from Jesus.

I respectfully disagree.

If any 1st century Christian were to be given a guided tour of the Vatican, they would recognise VERY little of the faith they held

SoulandForm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Th
I'm not sure how you label a belief about physical Israel which is at variance with your own a "heresy" given how widespread the belief physical Israels place in God's economy. Me, I think it's utter bunkum, but accept the breadth of diversity of belief within the family Christianity.

If merely disagreeing with it then fine, but if labeling it heresy merely because it departs from what you reckon is "the truth" leaves you walking on thin ice - unless of course you suppose that your own beliefs are 100% on the money in every facet.

I do though- I accept the fact that both you and Newmug are part of the real physical Israel; the pilgrim Church on earth.

No I dont suppose that a lot of my beliefs are 100 per cent correct; but certain things I most certainly do believe I am 100 per cent.

SoulandForm

martinedwards wrote: »

I respectfully disagree.

If any 1st century Christian were to be given a guided tour of the Vatican, they would recognise VERY little of the faith they held

At the same token though if they walked into a Reformed Church today how much would they recognize of the faith they held?

In my opinion the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ethiopians are probably the most close to how the early Church was- but that doesnt stop either Protestantism or Roman Catholicism at their best being legitimate expressions of Christianity.

lmaopml

SoulandForm wrote: »

At the same token though if they walked into a Reformed Church today how much would they recognize of the faith they held?

In my opinion the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ethiopians are probably the most close to how the early Church was- but that doesnt stop either Protestantism or Roman Catholicism at their best being legitimate expressions of Christianity.

I would imagine that they would understand the sacrifice of the Mass. They would most likely know and understand the real presence too...and not in a superficial way.

There is a communion still thriving today just like yesterday. There is a community that is 'one' despite all... It is called the Catholic Church.

SoulandForm

lmaopml wrote: »

I would imagine that they would understand the sacrifice of the Mass. They would most likely know and understand the real presence too...and not in a superficial way.

There is a communion still thriving today just like yesterday. There is a community that is 'one' despite all... It is called the Catholic Church.

The idea that the mass/communion liturgy was a participation in a certain way in the One Sacrifice of Calvary they may well have understood...But the idea of offering Masses for various different things as if the mass had power outside of Calvary Im not so sure of.

lmaopml

SoulandForm wrote: »

The idea that the mass/communion liturgy was a participation in a certain way in the One Sacrifice of Calvary they may well have understood...But the idea of offering Masses for various different things as if the mass had power outside of Calvary Im not so sure of.

Mass is all about Calvary and celebrating love.. Calvary is what lives on and the only place worthy of laying ones prayer- whether we do it with others or behind closed doors there is no better place to be for a Christian- at the feet of Christ. To touch a hem - or to kiss his feet- well we can only dream about that. In the mean time we see Christ in everybody who needs him- and everybody needs him.

SoulandForm

lmaopml wrote: »

Mass is all about Calvary and celebrating love.. Calvary is what lives on and the only place worthy of laying ones prayer- whether we do it with others or behind closed doors there is no better place to be for a Christian- at the feet of Christ. To touch a hem - or to kiss his feet- well we can only dream about that. In the mean time we see Christ in everybody who needs him- and everybody needs him.

But some at least Roman Catholics offer Mass for other things as if the celebration of a Mass has power in itself outside of the ONE Sacrifice for sin (which is not to say that Roman Catholics are lost souls).

lmaopml

SoulandForm wrote: »

But some at least Roman Catholics offer Mass for other things as if the celebration of a Mass has power in itself outside of the ONE Sacrifice for sin (which is not to say that Roman Catholics are lost souls).

Perhaps this is the difference. Yes, Mass is beautiful - it is most definitely not Christ crucified all over again- - it is the representation of that fateful day when He bled and most importantly loved and taught how to love and in the right name, and for the right reason. He is present on that day for you and me no matter, and it was He who decided to give the authority to his Church. - you better believe that 'love' itself loves you - and the one King of kings loves you in all your searching - most especially in your searching...God is with you.

martinedwards

SoulandForm wrote: »

At the same token though if they walked into a Reformed Church today how much would they recognize of the faith they held?

complete agreement here!

We have no idea what the 1st Christians worship was like.

we can GUESS that it was quite like Jewish worship as most of them were Jews anyway, but for ANY denomination to claim that they are doing it just like Peter Paul Timothy and the rest of the gang were doing it is just plain naive.

just like everything else, Worship has evolved, and diverged, but I was at a RC Mass before Christmas and apart from the bells and the belief that the bread & wine transubstantiated, the difference between what I enjoyed in St Peter's Cathedral, Belfast, and what I have experienced many times in regular Anglican services was minimal.

God was glorified.

the name of Christ was revered

the Holy Spirit was invited to move in the people.

we were all worshiping the same God and I look forward to meeting up with all the good folk I shared that time with in Heaven some day.

tommy2bad

lmaopml wrote: »

Perhaps this is the difference. Yes, Mass is beautiful - it is most definitely not Christ crucified all over again- - it is the representation of that fateful day when He bled and most importantly loved and taught how to love and in the right name, and for the right reason. He is present on that day for you and me no matter, and it was He who decided to give the authority to his Church. - you better believe that 'love' itself loves you - and the one King of kings loves you in all your searching - most especially in your searching...God is with you.

Hmmmm, thinking this through before I contradict you directly.
I'm not sure your right her, my understanding is that Catholics see the Eucharist as a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal.
I'm not sure what soul and form is saying either. I get the impression that he's not catholic so may not accept transubstantiation (I'm in the 'if you say so' camp myself) but if you do then Christ is sacrificed at each Eucharist. It's much more than just a remembrance of the One sacrifice.

Anyway how dose this make any difference to Christian Zionists.

(sorry, had to reply but this tangent, as has been pointed out, belongs in the Prod V Caths debate.)

Peregrinus

tommy2bad wrote: »

Hmmmm, thinking this through before I contradict you directly.
I'm not sure your right her, my understanding is that Catholics see the Eucharist as a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal.
I'm not sure what soul and form is saying either. I get the impression that he's not catholic so may not accept transubstantiation (I'm in the 'if you say so' camp myself) but if you do then Christ is sacrificed at each Eucharist. It's much more than just a remembrance of the One sacrifice.

Um. Just to clarify:

Yes, in the Catholic view, the Eucharist is "not just a commemorative meal", and it is a "true sacrifice". But no, Christ is not "sacrificed at each Eucharist".

In the Catholic view, the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary was perfect, complete and final; it cannot be repeated.

What the Eucharist does, though, is more than simply commemorate that sacrifice; it makes that sacrifice immediately and really present to us. It's a "re-presentation" of the one sacrifice of Christ.

This is a difficult one to wrap your head around because, in the human experience, everything that happens in history happens at a specific time and in a specific place, and it's limited to that one time and place. What is past, therefore, cannot also be present. We travel in one direction through time and that is how we encounter the events of history; we cannot do otherwise.

God, however, is not limited by time; the whole of history is immediately present to him. And, being omnipotent, he can make any historical event immediately present to us. And, in Catholic thinking, this is precisely what is effected through the universe; the one, final, unrepeatable sacrifice of Christ is made present to us.

antiskeptic

SoulandForm wrote: »

I do though- I accept the fact that both you and Newmug are part of the real physical Israel; the pilgrim Church on earth.

The Church is spiritual Israel, with Christians being spiritual Jews. That country on the far side of the Med in which Jesus was born is physical Israel and it's inhabitants are physical Jews. Per Paul..

Romans 2

28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

No I dont suppose that a lot of my beliefs are 100 per cent correct; but certain things I most certainly do believe I am 100 per cent.

My point was that your on thin ice calling Christian Zionism a heresy since it is an idea widely held by the Church. Heresy's don't bear that hallmark.

lmaopml

Peregrinus wrote: »

Um. Just to clarify:

Yes, in the Catholic view, the Eucharist is "not just a commemorative meal", and it is a "true sacrifice". But no, Christ is not "sacrificed at each Eucharist".

In the Catholic view, the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary was perfect, complete and final; it cannot be repeated.

What the Eucharist does, though, is more than simply commemorate that sacrifice; it makes that sacrifice immediately and really present to us. It's a "re-presentation" of the one sacrifice of Christ.

This is a difficult one to wrap your head around because, in the human experience, everything that happens in history happens at a specific time and in a specific place, and it's limited to that one time and place. What is past, therefore, cannot also be present. We travel in one direction through time and that is how we encounter the events of history; we cannot do otherwise.

God, however, is not limited by time; the whole of history is immediately present to him. And, being omnipotent, he can make any historical event immediately present to us. And, in Catholic thinking, this is precisely what is effected through the universe; the one, final, unrepeatable sacrifice of Christ is made present to us.

The difference a 'dash' can make! Cheers Peregrinus, sometimes my passion and my vocabulary are not quite in tune with eachother - thankyou!

However, Tommy you are quite right, this is not the thread to discuss such things, and I'm sorry if I get my ole blood pressure up sometimes - hormental doesn't do it justice . In particular I don't want to upset or fall out with people who I know love Christ. No, that's not a worthwhile thing to be involved with at all..

lmaopml

Can 'Christian Zionists' be Saved'? This was the 'question' posed....


Yes, of course they can...so too can every single person who not only knows and has faith in love, but pays it forward too in the same Spirit. Nobody will be able to answer the question, because nobody knows another persons heart quite like God does, he reads the heart perfectly...

Does that mean a traditional Catholic is all of a sudden 'new age'? *shock* - certainly not!

It means a traditional Catholic is being true to her faith, and more Traditional and indeed Scriptural too - the hope and mercy of Christ is there for everybody no matter whom they are, the door is open always..for everybody! For you, for me, and for them...without judgement, but with mercy.

As a side note; please try to avoid the ban stick, you are a very interesting contributor to the forum, representative of a mind set...etc. It's cool to talk!

If you have something to say, than ye know - don't get banned for it...really, just don't...

hinault

Peregrinus wrote: »

Um. Just to clarify:

Yes, in the Catholic view, the Eucharist is "not just a commemorative meal", and it is a "true sacrifice". But no, Christ is not "sacrificed at each Eucharist".

In the Catholic view, the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary was perfect, complete and final; it cannot be repeated.

What the Eucharist does, though, is more than simply commemorate that sacrifice; it makes that sacrifice immediately and really present to us. It's a "re-presentation" of the one sacrifice of Christ.

This is a difficult one to wrap your head around because, in the human experience, everything that happens in history happens at a specific time and in a specific place, and it's limited to that one time and place. What is past, therefore, cannot also be present. We travel in one direction through time and that is how we encounter the events of history; we cannot do otherwise.

God, however, is not limited by time; the whole of history is immediately present to him. And, being omnipotent, he can make any historical event immediately present to us. And, in Catholic thinking, this is precisely what is effected through the universe; the one, final, unrepeatable sacrifice of Christ is made present to us.

A beautifully written explanation.

antiskeptic

Peregrinus wrote: »

.. the one, final, unrepeatable sacrifice of Christ is made present to us.

What aspect of the sacrifice is made present precisely? The sacrificing itself (in the sense of being made a present witness of a past event - which I can get) or the consequences of the sacrifice (such as substitutionary atonement)?

tommy2bad

antiskeptic wrote: »

What aspect of the sacrifice is made present precisely? The sacrificing itself (in the sense of being made a present witness of a past event - which I can get) or the consequences of the sacrifice (such as substitutionary atonement)?

Ahem as this is a tangent, I won't comment, just to say bringing in SA is the equivalent of a hand grenade in this discussions.

I'm still trying to figure how the Zionists are damned any more than the rest of us Christians. As their are so many variations on what it is to be Christian and even the close relatives RCC and Orthodox and Anglicans cant agree about the main thing 'How dose the sacrifice of Christ work?'
Why should one more difference of opinion matter?

antiskeptic

tommy2bad wrote: »

Ahem as this is a tangent, I won't comment, just to say bringing in SA is the equivalent of a hand grenade in this discussions.

It was only intended as a possible example of what what being "made present". I've no axe to grind at this stage - I'm just wondering if what is being "made present" can be fleshed out.

I'm still trying to figure how the Zionists are damned any more than the rest of us Christians. As their are so many variations on what it is to be Christian and even the close relatives RCC and Orthodox and Anglicans cant agree about the main thing 'How dose the sacrifice of Christ work?'
Why should one more difference of opinion matter?

It's a discussion forum. It's all about differences.

Peregrinus

martinedwards wrote: »

complete agreement here!

We have no idea what the 1st Christians worship was like.

we can GUESS that it was quite like Jewish worship as most of them were Jews anyway, but for ANY denomination to claim that they are doing it just like Peter Paul Timothy and the rest of the gang were doing it is just plain naive. . . .

In attempting to reconstruct early Christian worship we can look to three sources:

1. What is said on the subject in the NT and other writing from the early period. There’s not much said, but there is a little.

2. What we know about Jewish worship practices of the time. (Note that this is not a straightforward matter, since Jewish practices of the time were (a) fairly different from today, and (b) possibly quite diverse.)

3. What we can learn by tracing backwards through the history of Christian liturgy.

In the very early days of the church, Jewish worship was focussed on the Temple, where regular animal sacrifice was carried out and the Ark of the Covenant was venerated in the Holy of Holies. But most Jews, of course, went to the Temple rarely or never. Regular worship, for them, was attendance at the synagogue. Synagogues evolved out of schools and study circles, and what went on there was is probably best summarised as prayerful reading and teaching of scripture.

The other central experience for Jews was the ritual of Jewish life in the home, and particularly the sabbath meal and the observance of the annual feasts, notably Passover.

The very early Christians, as martinedwards points out, were Jews and they continued to attend synagogue (and, in Jerusalem, to go to the Temple) while identifying as followers of Jesus. From the NT texts, it seems that their central ritual as Christians was a communal meal. It’s not a huge stretch to think that this was a development of the sabbath meal but (a) celebrated with the Christian community rather than just with the family, and (b) adapted in light of the communal Christian memory of the commandment of Jesus at the last supper to “take and eat . . . do this in memory of me”.

Fairly early on, there were three developments that changed this original picture. The first was the admission of non-Jews into the Christian community, and an acceptance that they did not need to become Jews or observe Jewish law in order to be Christians. These gentile Christians, of course, did not go to the synagogue, and they had no sabbath meal tradition to build on. The second was the growing tendency within Judaism to exclude Christians from the synagogues, which meant that Jewish Christians also were not going to the synagogue. This meant that there was a need for both Jewish and Gentile Christians for a communal opportunity to read, hear, study and learn from scripture. And the third was a problem which arose within Christianity itself; the communal meals that the community celebrated started to become scandalous in various ways - they were excessive or riotous, they became divisive and exclusionary, they became burdensome and expensive and so fell into the control of a wealthy elite. There are various hints at these problems in the writings of Paul.

And this seems to have led to a number of changes. The communal meal became increasing formalised and ritualistic (so as to exclude gluttony, riot, etc) and it came to be celebrated by the entire community in a public hall rather than a private home (so as to prevent it being exclusive or divisive). And it was increasingly preceded by a period of prayerful engagement with scripture - hearing the scriptures proclaimed, and then hearing a sermon expounding those scriptures, as a replacement for the synagogue services that Christians no longer attended.

By the early second century, then, we had a model of Christian worship which continues to this day. Christians met in a common hall once a week. They confessed their sinfulness, sang hymns of praise, and then listened to the scriptures first proclaimed, and then expounded in preaching. Then they recalled the last supper, and shared bread and wine as they had been commanded. Then, after a final exhortation, they left.

This, of course, is basically the liturgy of the mass/eucharist, which is common to Oriental, Orthodox, Catholic and many Protestant denominations. As it has spread around the world and encountered new cultures and new theological ideas influences it has evolved a number of variations, but there is still an identifiable common core. The Christian liturgy is basically a scripture service inspired by synagogue scripture services, followed by a ritual meal originally inspired by the sabbath meal, but with substantial Christian theological overlay. As with the Jews, the formal meal follows the scripture service, but its location has shifted from the home to the hall in which the scripture service is held.

In terms of historical authenticity (NB not necessarily theological authenticity!) I think the liturgical historians agree that the oldest form of the Christian liturgy, and the one which has been subject to the least amount of influences which might distort or change it, is the liturgy celebrated by the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch, which is the oldest continuously-existing church we have. But it was a Gentile church; there was an earlier, largely Jewish, Christian church in Jerusalem, but it was completely destroyed when the Romans sacked Jerusalem in AD 70. Its liturgies may have been different from the Antiochan liturgies; we have no way of knowing.

Peregrinus

.

Peregrinus

antiskeptic wrote: »

What aspect of the sacrifice is made present precisely? The sacrificing itself (in the sense of being made a present witness of a past event - which I can get) or the consequences of the sacrifice (such as substitutionary atonement)?

The consequences of the sacrifice of Christ (whether or not they include substitutionary atonement!) are surely present whether the eucharist is celebrated or not? The sacrifice is complete; it doesn't require further completion by the celebration of eucharists. And I take "complete" in that statement to mean "complete in all its effects".

I think it's the event itself which the Catholic church holds to be presented to us in the Eucharist.

antiskeptic

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think it's the event itself which the Catholic church holds to be presented to us in the Eucharist.

Okay, a past event made present reality. Fair enough.

The consequences of the sacrifice of Christ (whether or not they include substitutionary atonement!) are surely present whether the eucharist is celebrated or not? The sacrifice is complete; it doesn't require further completion by the celebration of eucharists. And I take "complete" in that statement to mean "complete in all its effects".

Bar perhaps for the effect of consuming the host. But that's probably seen as separate to the sacrifice itself.

Peregrinus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Bar perhaps for the effect of consuming the host. But that's probably seen as separate to the sacrifice itself.

Whatever the effects or consequences of taking communion may be, they definitely do not, in the theology of any Christian tradition that I know of, include salvation.

lmaopml

Whatever the effects or consequences of taking communion may be, they definitely do not, in the theology of any Christian tradition that I know of, include salvation.

What do we do with this...? Really, how can one not concentrate on the Holy Eucharist, but of course not it alone....

Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Is the Holy Eucharist important? It seems to me to be like the bread the exiles ate in the wilderness - manna from heaven - but apparently much more that that, should it be just cast aside as not important?

How much more should we focus on 'this' bread, this food for the soul?

Peregrinus

I’m not suggesting that the Eucharist is unimportant. On the contrary, it’s absolutely central to Christian life. All I’m saying is that it’s not, and never has been, the teaching of the Catholic church that taking the Eucharist is essential to salvation. If it were, then (a) everyone who lived before the time of Christ plus (b) everyone who has lived and died since then without participating in a eucharistic church, is damned. And the church has never taught anything like that.

lmaopml

Peregrinus wrote: »

I’m not suggesting that the Eucharist is unimportant. On the contrary, it’s absolutely central to Christian life. All I’m saying is that it’s not, and never has been, the teaching of the Catholic church that taking the Eucharist is essential to salvation. If it were, then (a) everyone who lived before the time of Christ plus (b) everyone who has lived and died since then without participating in a eucharistic church, is damned. And the church has never taught anything like that.

That's why I said not 'it alone' - I agree Peregrinus. We're defo not a 'soley by' Church or people!

Somebody somewhere, some saint probably, who's words I recall once said that when we look at the cross we understand God's love 'then' for us, but when we look at the Eucharist we understand God's love today right now for us..

I tend to think of the Eucharist as food for the soul for wanderers.