1 Corinthians 11:29-30

[Pax]

sandusky:

Pax, I should not have agreed with you that regeneration is a miracle. It is supernatural, but it is not a miracle. Miracles are distinguished by an intervention/intrusion/overriding of God into the natural order, and is witnessed by His people.

Scripture does not call the Eucharist a miracle, the RCC does, and also says that it is a miracle that is unobservable. Is that not a true statement?

Let’s prove it out. Read through the O.T. and list all of the miracles that occurred, with the qualification that no one saw them occur.

You will not find any such miracles. Why? Because a miracle is an observable phenomenon. It is not a spiritual act of God, it is God overruling physical/natural law.

Hope that helps you.

You were right the first time when you agreed with me. God created the heavens and the earth. Clearly this is a miraculous work of God. God sent the word, Jesus, and thus performed another great miracle that is the cause of our justification. I believe it was St. Augustine who said that God’s work of our justification is a greater work than that of creation. The work of creation is a visible miracle but non-believers see nothing miraculous in it. Justification is a miraculous work within us but there is no “visible” external sign to be seen by either the believer or the non-believer.

Paul speaks of baptism as the circumcision done without hands. [See Col 2:11-12]. Baptism is miraculous no matter how you wish to look at the nature of miracles. What about a visit from an angel? Surely this would be a miracle. And guess what…a visitation with from an angel could be an unseen miracle. We are told in Hebrews 13:2 “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”

I don’t think your arguments are consistent with scripture and IMHO your view limits what we might receive from God. Our minds and thoughts are as nothing compared to those of God, and to make assumptions that would limit the way God might interact with us is a mistake. In Romans 11:33-34 Paul says, “How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?”

 

[RyanL]

Pax:

Justification is a miraculous work within us but there is no “visible” external sign to be seen by either the believer or the non-believer.

Pax,
I hope you don’t mind if I jump in, but to circumvent the anticipated objection ("…by their fruit you shall know them…") I will state the following:

What fruits were shown by the Thief on the Cross?
What was his “visible sign of regeneration”?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Pax]

Thanks Ryan. I always enjoy reading your posts, and you are quite right. We have been narrowly focused in this discussion. I tend to zero in on things without always looking at the broader picture. Your (name removed by moderator)ut is always welcome.

 

[sandusky]

RyanL:

Pax,
I hope you don’t mind if I jump in, but to circumvent the anticipated objection ("…by their fruit you shall know them…") I will state the following:

What fruits were shown by the Thief on the Cross?
What was his “visible sign of regeneration”?

God Bless,
RyanL

Ryan, you are an intelligent guy, but you think you too highly of yourself.

Scripture is indeed profitable for reproof; let’s see if you take it as you are instructed to take it.

Your only interest in this is winning, and the understanding of the truth for you will suffer because of that. Not because I say so, but because the Lord hates a proud heart.

 

[Pax]

Sandusky,

You have no reason to speak so of Ryan. In the interest of charity we all strive to do the best we can in the way we present things in apologetic discourse. Please know that while we may disagree and may at times disagree strongly, that you are always welcome here and we harbor no ill will toward you. Apologetics is a defense and explanation and is not a fullfillment of ego.

I have found myself making mistakes and outright uncharitable comments out of pride and arrogance. I always try to apologize when I do this. At other times emotions run high and impatience will surface. Again, this is a time for an apology not an apologetic.

You defend your position vigorously and we would expect nothing less from you or any other Protestant that visits our home court. Naturally, we do the same. I hope our exchanges are profitable and that understanding increases between one and all.

 

[RyanL]

sandusky:

Ryan, you are an intelligent guy, but you think you too highly of yourself.

May I ever be a lowly handservant, humble and meek - this is my prayer. If you took my words otherwise, I seek your forgiveness.

sandusky:

Scripture is indeed profitable for reproof; let’s see if you take it as you are instructed to take it.

I will accept scripture as the word of God, properly understood. As such, I am bound to it and search it out as a light unto my feet. May it ever be my guide.

sandusky:

Your only interest in this is winning, and the understanding of the truth for you will suffer because of that. Not because I say so, but because the Lord hates a proud heart.

Again, may I ever be humble.

That said, you did not answer either of the questions nor did you respond to the preponderance of Scripture to support the Eucharist being the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Meek does not mean doormat. Humble does not mean letting the Truth go.

May God Bless you and Keep you, and hold you in the palm of His hand,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

Pax,

Thank you for your kind words. Please let me know if I go “over the top”. I trust you.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Michael_Francis]

Charity Reminder:

Maintain the very highest level of charity and if any of you feel that you cannot, I suggest that you withdraw from the discussion. The topic is 1st Corinthians 11:29-30 and it is not personal.

 

[SpiritualBeing]

Stand in the gate of Jehovah’s house, and proclaim there this word: Thus saith Jehovah of Armies the God of Israel, Amend your ways and your doings; trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of Jehovah, the temple of Jehovah, the temple of Jehovah, are these. Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and come and stand before Me in this house, which is called by My name, and say, We are delivered, while ye do all these abominations? Is this house become a den of robbers? Behold, I, even I, have seen it, saith Jehovah (Jer. 7:2-4, 9-11).

I believe the saying above was not meant for the Jews only, but for all of us. It is for every Christian who goes to his church that they come before God in charity and faith, than they have the right to receive Holy Communion. The temple of Jehovah, means the church of God. Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and come and stand before Me in this house (church).

William

 

[sandusky]

Michaelgazin:

So it is this particular bread and wine, when consumed during the communion liturgy, that one must discern the body and blood of Jesus or else eat and drink judgement upon him/herself? What about that particular bread and wine, when consumed during the communion liturgy, make it a symbol of the body and blood of Jesus, as opposed to that same bread when consumed outside the communion liturgy?

Yea, you shouldn’t revere bread. I meant, in your situation, revering that which the bread symbolizes so as not to eat and drink judgement upon himself.

How do I discern the body of Christ in the particular bread and wine I use, so as not to drink judgment upon myself.

That is a good question, and one that Paul answers in the chapter. Look first at 11:1

1 Corinthians 11:1
Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.

This is a standard exhortation of Paul (1 Cor 4:16; Phil 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess 1:6; 2 Thess 3:9; etc.)
What does he mean by that? Present your body to God as a living sacrifice (Rom 12:1); Present yourself as a instrument of righteousness to God (Rom 6:13); remember Christ bought you so glorify God in your body (1 Cor 6:20); remember that you were redeemed not with perishable things, but with the precious blood of Christ (1 Pet 1:18-19); and, what were the Corinthian’s doing? Exactly the opposite. Sexual sin, drunkenness, divisions, in short, they were not imitating Paul, nor were they imitating Christ, and dare I say, neither were they discerning the body and blood much at all, let alone at the Lord’s Supper.

But, the focal point of this evil was the Lord’s Supper; vv20-21, says that when they gathered together for the Lord’s Supper, “it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.” They were just looking for a good time. The wealthy folks brought lots of food and drink and didn’t wait for anyone, but dove right in, and those who came and had little, found nothing left to eat, and they found all the wine consumed, and many were drunk.

So, as far as distinguishing the Lord’s Body and Blood, they weren’t doing that much at all; even in the weeks, days, and hours leading up to the Lord’s Table. The issue of not distinguishing the body and blood of Christ, in the bread, is not the issue.

Paul tells them that he received instruction about the Lord’s Supper from the Lord Himself. In fact, Paul repeats the account of the Supper as the Gospels present it. Again, no mention of a consecration, or any such thing. When Paul says in v27 that whoever eats in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, he is just reiterating what he said in v20: it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper that they came; they were guilty of the body and blood on their way to the Supper, prior to seeing, eating, or drinking anything.

Your view states that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice; Paul never mentions that here, in fact, he says, For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Therefore let us the celebrate the feast… (1 Cor 5:7,8). He also states the purpose of the Lord’s Supper; it is a remembrance of Christ and what He has done, and what He is doing, and it is to proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. Again, the focus on eating the bread is not the point of the Supper, but remembrance and proclamation of Christ and His work. At least it is according to Paul.

And if they drink unworthily, they drink judgment to themselves, which Paul tells us is discipline in v32, and the discipline is that God has caused some to become sick and weak, and some He has killed, so that that they will not be condemned along with the world. A clearer statement of OSAS is hard to find. They were in gross sin, and the discipline, not the punishment, was sickness and weakness for some, and death into the arms of the Lord for others. The Lord stopped them from sinning to the point of the loss of their salvation.

In v28, Paul gives the key to distinguishing the body and blood of Christ when he says, But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. The distinguishing of the body and blood of Christ takes places within the heart of the believer, it is inward examination of self, not outward examination of bread. Paul does not tell them to examine the bread, but their hearts to distinguish the Lord, as He is not found in bread.

So, the answer to your question is that there is nothing special about the bread and wine, because the body and blood of the Lord are not in the bread and wine. Discernment of the body and blood of the Lord is found in the examination of the heart.

 

[RyanL]

sandusky:

Your view states that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice; Paul never mentions that here, in fact, he says, For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Therefore let us the celebrate the feast… (1 Cor 5:7,8). He also states the purpose of the Lord’s Supper; it is a remembrance of Christ and what He has done, and what He is doing, and it is to proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. Again, the focus on eating the bread is not the point of the Supper, but remembrance and proclamation of Christ and His work. At least it is according to Paul…

sandusky,

You are quite right with what you have said up to this point (although, I would assert, it is not a “merely” but rather an “also”). But after reading the quoted section above, I wonder if you read the end of my first post (about the Passover), or if you have ever studied the Jewish Passover and the “remembrance” aspect of it. You may do some search for answers to the 4 questions of the Seder meal.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[sandusky]

Ryan:

In order to have been ‘passed over’, you had to eat the lamb. Passover was commanded to be celebrated forever, which is done through the fulfillment of the Eucharist. Re-read Exodus 12! Christians who do not celebrate Passover (in this way or the old way) are disobeying the commands of God, and have never eaten the Lamb (thus have no biblical right to believe they will be “passed over”).

I read the points you make about the Passover, as you asked.

Let me begin with your closing statement above. You have not read the text carefully. In order to be “passed over,” you had to put the blood on the lintel, and on the two doorposts (Ex 12:23; cf 12:13). The Lord looked for the blood on the lintel and doorposts; He does not mention the lamb with respect to being “passed over.” He was interested in the blood, as it is the blood that He gave for atonement (Lev 17:11; Heb 9:22).

Now that you see that, I must ask you a few questions with respect to your closing statement above:

1. Now that you have been shown, that the significance to being “passed over” is the blood on the lintel and doorposts, and not the eating of the lamb, will you retract your statement that any Christian who has not partaken in the Roman Catholic Eucharist is not saved?
2. Now that you have been shown, that the significance of being “passed over” is the blood on the lintel and doorposts, and not the eating of the lamb, will you repent of having carelessly used God’s Word to further your position?
3. Now that you have been shown that it is the blood on the lintel and doorposts that was the reason for being “passed over,” and not the eating of the lamb, will you recommend to your elders, that the “eating of the lamb,” the Eucharist, to be “passed over” in the Roman Catholic Church, be changed to placing The Lord’s blood upon the lintel and the doorposts of their homes?
4. Now that you have been shown that it is the blood on the lintel and doorposts that was the reason for being “passed over,” and not the eating of the lamb, will you abandon the notion of the literal body and blood of The Lord in the Eucharist?”

With respect to your numbered points:

In Pt. #2, you place significance on the lamb killed by the Levites for the ceremonially unclean. Will you explain why that is significant to you?

In Pt. #3, you say that Ex 12:48,49; Nu 9:14 prefigure baptism as a requirement to partake in the Eucharist. I do not understand that; will you please explain?

In Pt. #6, you place significance on the penalty for not observing the Passover. Why is that significant to you?

In Pt. #7, you say that Eze 45:21-24 re-institute the Passover. Will you explain that further?

Also, Israel and the Church, are two different entities. Those ordinances given to Israel, are Israel’s alone. They do not belong to the Church.

 

[michaelgazin]

Thanks for the response sandusky. I didn’t find an answer to my question however. In particular, I was interested in who determines which bread constitutes the Lord’s Supper, and when that bread becomes a symbol of Christ, and when it is not a symbol. Understanding this is crucial, because if a person mistakenly eats the bread without recognizing that it has become a symbol of Christ risks falling ill or perhaps death.

So, I am interested in learning who and how one determines which bread constitutes the Lord’s Supper, and when it becomes a symbol of Jesus.

sandusky:

Again, no mention of a consecration, or any such thing.

This is not really an issue as far as Catholicism is concerned. It is doubtful that Paul would address those things that only concern ordained ministers in letters addressed to entire communities of believers. That is an issue that would be dealt with personally, and as Paul says, I received from the Lord that which I delivered (already) to you. This was not their first nor only instruction on the matter.

Your view states that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice; Paul never mentions that here

Actually he does. His use of “remembrance” actually sheds some light on the sacrificial understanding. Here is a little commentary on it:

“In support of this perpetual sacrifice, the word translated “memorial” or “remembrance” used at the Last Supper (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor.11:24-25) is the Greek word “anamnesis.” It is also used in the Septuagint in connection with sacrifice (Lev.24:7). “Anamnesis” translates the Hebrew word “azkarah,” which is used seven times in the OT in reference to sacrifice (Lev.2:2,9,16; 5:12; 6:15; Num. 5:26). It is also significant that “anamnesis” is only used four times in the NT, the fourth time appearing in Hebrews 10:3 also in reference to a memorial sacrifice. Hence, Jesus’ use of “anamnesis” in Luke 22:19 specifies the sacrificial dimension of the Eucharist. In effect, Jesus would be saying, “Whenever you do this, do it as a memorial sacrifice of me.” The use of “anamnesis” in Luke 22:19 is even more significant in denoting sacrifice since there was another Greek word Luke could have used for a non-sacrificial memorial (“mnemosunon,” cf., Mt.26: 13; Mk.14:9; Acts 10:4).”

The distinguishing of the body and blood of Christ takes places within the heart of the believer, it is inward examination of self, not outward examination of bread. Paul does not tell them to examine the bread, but their hearts to distinguish the Lord, as He is not found in bread.

I agree with you until the end. One can examine the bread all day long, and according to Catholic theology, never physically discern the Lord (except in rare circumstances). It is, as is defined by discern, to ‘perceive or recognize as being different.’ Paul however, never says Jesus is not the bread, or not in the bread.

So, the answer to your question is that there is nothing special about the bread and wine, because the body and blood of the Lord are not in the bread and wine. Discernment of the body and blood of the Lord is found in the examination of the heart.

Why then, if I may ask, use bread or wine…or anything at all? Why not use water, or pancakes or somn else while still discerning the body and blood of the lord? Why are the disciplinary actions limited to irreverance when participating in the Lord’s Supper. Should people fall sick by reading the Bible without discerning the body, or going to church without discerning the body, or praying without discernment? If the bread and wine are nothing special, then the action, application, and disciple of the Lord’s Supper can be applied to all practices of Christendom, could it not?

 

[sandusky]

Michaelgazin:

Actually he does. His use of “remembrance” actually sheds some light on the sacrificial understanding. Here is a little commentary on it:

“In support of this perpetual sacrifice, the word translated “memorial” or “remembrance” used at the Last Supper (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor.11:24-25) is the Greek word “anamnesis.” It is also used in the Septuagint in connection with sacrifice (Lev.24:7). “Anamnesis” translates the Hebrew word “azkarah,” which is used seven times in the OT in reference to sacrifice (Lev.2:2,9,16; 5:12; 6:15; Num. 5:26). It is also significant that “anamnesis” is only used four times in the NT, the fourth time appearing in Hebrews 10:3 also in reference to a memorial sacrifice. Hence, Jesus’ use of “anamnesis” in Luke 22:19 specifies the sacrificial dimension of the Eucharist. In effect, Jesus would be saying, “Whenever you do this, do it as a memorial sacrifice of me.” The use of “anamnesis” in Luke 22:19 is even more significant in denoting sacrifice since there was another Greek word Luke could have used for a non-sacrificial memorial (“mnemosunon,” cf., Mt.26: 13; Mk.14:9; Acts 10:4).”

I’ll address the above first. Sorry, the Greek fonts are not translating well, but it is the English definition that we are interested. My second post which consisted of the footnotes to the sources below isn’t working at all. I’ll list them separately for you though.

Again, I have an adequate Greek library, and I find no definition pertaining to a sacrifice. A.T. Robertson is a well-known, and reliable N.T. translation.

You cite no sources. Below are just a few I grabbed. Not one defines anamnhsiV, even as an alternate of any kind. It is translated “remembrance,” without exception.

364 aνάμνησις [anamnesis /an•am•nay•sis/] n f. From 363; TDNT 1:348; TDNTA 56; GK 390; Four occurrences; AV translates as “remembrance” three times, and “remembrance again” once. 1 a remembering, recollection. Additional Information: For synonyms see entry 5280, hupomnesis.See entry 5809 for comparison of synonyms.

1. aνάμνησις anamnēsis, an-am´-nay-sis; from 363; recollection:— remembrance (again).

390 aνάμνησις (anamnēsis), εως (eōs), ἡ (hē): n.fem.; ≡ Str 364; TDNT 1.348—LN 29.11 reminder, remembrance (Lk 22:19; 1Co 11:24, 25; Heb 10:3+)

aνάμνησις means “remembrance” or “recollection.” Synon. aπόμνησις; cf. PhiloPlant., 108. ἀνάμνησις is philosophically distinguished from μνήμη (“memory”) as the “reliving of vanished impressions by a definite act of will”1: cf. Plat.Phileb., 34b; Leg., V, 732b: ἀνάμνησις δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐπιρροὴ φρονήσεως aπολειπούσης; Aristot.Hist. An., I, 1, p. 488b, 88; PhiloLeg. All., III, 91–93; Congr., 39 f.; Virt., 176; Berliner Klassikertexte, 2 (1905), Index, s.v. ἀνάμνησις. The active element in ἀνάμνησις (ποιεῖν … ἀνάμνησιν, e.g., burial inscription in Nicomedia from the imperial period)2 leads on from the signification of a. “recollection in the consciousness” (PhiloVit. Mos., I, 21; Congr., 111; 1 Cl., 53 1; Just.Ap., 44, 11) to that of b. “recollection by word” or “commemoration” (commemoratio),
364. ἀνάμνησις anamnēsis; from 363; remembrance:— remembrance(3), reminder(1).

Also, A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 4, The Epistles of Paul pg. 164, translated as remembrance.

G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, T&T Clark Ltd., New York, NY, 3rd Ed., 2001, pg. : translated as remembrance, and indicates the Hebrew word from which taken is also translated remembrance.

 

[sandusky]

(cont from post #114)

Sorry, the footnotes are quite extensive, but I can’t get them up here. I have no reason act deceitfully, and if I acted in that manner, you know who would know.

Enhanced Strong’s Concordance: 364 anamnesis

The New Strong’s Dictionary of Hebrew and Greek Words: anamnesis

Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek New Testament 390 anamnesis

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: anamnesis

New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries, Updated 364 anamnesis

Must away now. Will get to the rest of your post tomorrow.

 

[michaelgazin]

It should be translated as remembrance, however the hebraic understanding of this remembrance is different than the understanding we commonly apply to it today. As was stated, its use was commonly in reference to a sacrifice.

 

[RyanL]

sandusky,

It was readily evident that you used a great deal of restraint in your reply. Thank you. It is not my intention to provoke you or belittle you, so please excuse me if I have come across that way.

sandusky:

…In order to be “passed over,” you had to put the blood on the lintel, and on the two doorposts (Ex 12:23; cf 12:13).

True. That was the final aspect of the Passover. Could you please tell me on which house they were to place the blood (Ex 12:7)? Also, could you please quote Ex 12:8 in your response and tell me what kind of bread was to be used? Ex 12:11 - “…you shall eat it in haste. It is the LORD’s Passover.” (NKJV)

sandusky:

… will you retract your statement that any Christian who has not partaken in the Roman Catholic Eucharist is not saved?

I made no such statement. I said that there was no biblical reason to believe this would *certainly *be the case. Catholic theology holds that those who have never partaken may also attain that promise (through desire or through the infinite mercy of God), so again your paraphrase is not my belief.

sandusky:

will you repent of having carelessly used God’s Word to further your position?

If I have ever carelessly used the word of God, may He grant me mercy. I will pray for discernment.

sandusky:

…will you recommend to your elders, that the “eating of the lamb,” the Eucharist, to be “passed over” in the Roman Catholic Church, be changed to placing The Lord’s blood upon the lintel and the doorposts of their homes?

No, I will not.

sandusky:

…will you abandon the notion of the literal body and blood of The Lord in the Eucharist?”

Under pain of death, no, I will not.

sandusky:

In Pt. #2, you place significance on the lamb killed by the Levites for the ceremonially unclean. Will you explain why that is significant to you?

It was a sacrifice undertaken at the hands of the priests for the faithful.

sandusky:

In Pt. #3, you say that Ex 12:48,49; Nu 9:14 prefigure baptism as a requirement to partake in the Eucharist. I do not understand that; will you please explain?

Gladly. Biblical prefigurements are quite common (and I can go on at some length, but would prefer another thread on which to do it). In this particular example, Ex 12:48 states “…No uncircumcised male may eat of it.” In other words, you had to enter a covenant relationship with God for the Passover to be properly observed. In the NT Church, baptism has replaced circumcision (Col 2:10-12). The Church teaches that you must be baptized to receive Holy Communion.

sandusky:

In Pt. #6, you place significance on the penalty for not observing the Passover. Why is that significant to you?

Failure to attend mass (read: keep the NT Passover) is a mortal sin.

sandusky:

In Pt. #7, you say that Eze 45:21-24 re-institute the Passover. Will you explain that further?

Ok. I’m busted. I probably shouldn’t have included this, but did because it relates to the Passover. I don’t have a doctrinal reason…

sandusky:

Also, Israel and the Church, are two different entities. Those ordinances given to Israel, are Israel’s alone. They do not belong to the Church.

Do the 10 Comandments belong to Israel or the Church? I am not advocating a return to Levitical law, but when God says to “do xxx forever”, we should probably listen; He doesn’t tend to change His mind.

Again, thank you for bearing with me. Please pray for me that I may address you with courtesy and respect.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

michaelgazin:

It should be translated as remembrance, however the hebraic understanding of this remembrance is different than the understanding we commonly apply to it today. As was stated, its use was commonly in reference to a sacrifice.

michaelgazin,

You should head down to Barnes & Noble, and pick up a book on the Passover Seder Haggadith (that’s where I got mine). The one I picked up (and recommend) is yellow paperback, and cost $1.25. If you’ve never read through it, I highly recommend it!

Here is an excerpt:

The wicked child distances himself from the service and asks, "What is the meaning of this service to you

?" We exclude him in the reply, saying “Because of what God did to me, in taking me out of Egypt.”
Rememberance for the Jew (our fathers in the faith) is entirely different than a mere recollection. It is a bringing-into-the-present of the past action. A “re-presentation”, if you will. Why should we be surprised that this is the NT Church’s understanding?

Simple Greek definitions don’t do this word justice. You have to understand the Jewish Passover to really “get” it.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[sandusky]

You say, with respect to consecration:

Michaelgazin:

This is not really an issue as far as Catholicism is concerned. It is doubtful that Paul would address those things that only concern ordained ministers in letters addressed to entire communities of believers. That is an issue that would be dealt with personally, and as Paul says, I received from the Lord that which I delivered (already) to you. This was not their first nor only instruction on the matter.

Will you refer to the Scriptures in which they are given subsequent instruction on the matter?

Michaelgazin:

I agree with you until the end. One can examine the bread all day long, and according to Catholic theology, never physically discern the Lord (except in rare circumstances). It is, as is defined by discern, to ‘perceive or recognize as being different.’ Paul however, never says Jesus is not the bread, or not in the bread.

Paul also never says that He is in the bread. Is there a point that you are trying to make, and I am missing?

Michaelgazin:

Why then, if I may ask, use bread or wine…or anything at all? Why not use water, or pancakes or somn else while still discerning the body and blood of the lord?

Those are the what the Lord used (1 Cor 11:23-26).

Michaelgazin:

Why are the disciplinary actions limited to irreverance when participating in the Lord’s Supper.

The Lord holds that ordinance in high regard, and it requires a right heart attitude, as is seen in Paul’s instruction to examine oneself prior to participation.

Michaelgazin:

Should people fall sick by reading the Bible without discerning the body, or going to church without discerning the body, or praying without discernment?

I have found no such discipline inflicted upon anyone for that.

Michaelgazin:

If the bread and wine are nothing special, then the action, application, and disciple of the Lord’s Supper can be applied to all practices of Christendom, could it not?

No. That is legalism, ie., requiring something of the believer that God Himself does not specifically require. That was one of the contentions that the Lord had with the Pharisees: they were legalists, they added to the instructions of God. A believer should be discerning, however there is no norm for discernment. Some people I know are very discerning, and it is to those I look for instruction. Others are not very discerning, and it is to those that I come alongside, and give instruction. We are a body, and each member is important.

As a Catholic, the pinnacle of your worship is the Lord’s supper, and in that, it is the elements upon which you are fixed. As a non-Catholic, it is not upon the elements that I am fixed, but rather on the historical event of the cross.

That too, is the focus of the N.T. church with respect to the Lord’s Supper. It was, and is, a “love feast.” It was a time of gathering together for fellowship, in a disposition of joy, and celebration for what Christ did on the cross. And though the remembrance in the mind was vivid, and emotional, it was in no way a sacrifice.

You contend that a “remembrance” to the Jew was a sacrifice. How can you read Paul’s words and say that? Paul said the lamb “has been sacrificed” (1 Cor 5:7); and, that the Lord’s Supper is a “remembrance” that “proclaims the Lord’s death until he comes.” A sacrifice is clearly not in view in Paul’s language.

 

[Pax]

sandusky:

…

Paul also never says that He is in the bread. Is there a point that you are trying to make, and I am missing?

Those are the what the Lord used (1 Cor 11:23-26).

The Lord holds that ordinance in high regard, and it requires a right heart attitude, as is seen in Paul’s instruction to examine oneself prior to participation…

…

Sandusky,

I cannot agree with your contention concerning what Paul and Jesus said. Paul quotes what Jesus told him, just as the other apostles quoted Jesus’s words at the last supper. Jesus said "This IS my body…and this IS my blood. When an apostle quotes Jesus, he is affirming the words of the Lord and giving them to us as the eternal truth. If the apostles went on to explain the words differently than the quotes they give of our Lord, then you might be able to say that Paul doesn’t believe Jesus to be “in the bread”[sic]. Paul never says that he does not agree with the exact words of the Lord that were given to him. Instead he gives an affirmation by quoting them. This is made clear in 1 Cor 11:23 when Paul says, “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you…” The only way around this is by a digression and argument over the meaning of the word “is.” From the Catholic perspective the meaning of “is” lacks any debatable dimension, and the apostles and Jesus never gave us any reason to believe that he meant something different.

sandusky:

As a Catholic, the pinnacle of your worship is the Lord’s supper, and in that, it is the elements upon which you are fixed. As a non-Catholic, it is not upon the elements that I am fixed, but rather on the historical event of the cross.

That too, is the focus of the N.T. church with respect to the Lord’s Supper. It was, and is, a “love feast.” It was a time of gathering together for fellowship, in a disposition of joy, and celebration for what Christ did on the cross. And though the remembrance in the mind was vivid, and emotional, it was in no way a sacrifice.

You contend that a “remembrance” to the Jew was a sacrifice. How can you read Paul’s words and say that? Paul said the lamb “has been sacrificed” (1 Cor 5:7); and, that the Lord’s Supper is a “remembrance” that “proclaims the Lord’s death until he comes.” A sacrifice is clearly not in view in Paul’s language.

Catholics are not focused on the elements. Catholics see beyond the bread we eat, and Catholics see beyond the cup we drink. Catholics are focused on the Lord and his true presence.

What we are participating in is a sacrifice. I would refer you to the prophecy of Malachi 1:11. The prophecy is fullfilled by the Catholic mass. The verse says: “For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.” We know this to be a propehcy because at the time of Malachi the Lord’s name was not known or great among the nations. Furthermore, there is only one perfect offering and that is the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The prophecy says, however, that this perfect offering will be from east to west and from the rising of the sun unto its setting. It also says that this will be in all the nations. Only the sacrifice of the mass with the Eucharistic re-presentation of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus fits the prophecy. It is the anamnesis as understood in the OT Passover in which Jesus is now the lamb.

This also fits well with the book of Hebrews where we are told of Christs priesthood in the order of Melchizedek. Jesus is our high priest and he is a priest “forever.” Jesus is seen in the book of Revelation as the lamb that has been slain and John tells us of the activities around the heavenly altar and of Jesus standing in front of the heavenly throne. In all of this Jesus is our high priest before God. In Rev 7:17 it says, “For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of living water; and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.” In this we see that Jesus eternal mediation continues in heaven. The book of Revelation describes the heavenly liturgy of Christ’s eternal sacrifice and priesthood. This is the holy and perfect offering that is brought to us “in time” in the sacrifice of the mass and the perfect offering of the Eucharist.

Something that might help you appreciate and understand the mass and the Eucharist as well as the Passover, would be the study of Todahs in the OT. A todah is adoration, thanksgiving, and sacrifice. The carry over into the New Covenant and the Eucharist is a seemless and beautiful thing to behold.