Baptists, Does Scripture point to the Catholic Lord's Supper/Eucharist?

[Anna_Scott]

qui_est_ce:

Dear members of Baptistboard.com. . . . .

Request Baptist Comments re Eucharist

(Edited to comply with Banned Topics)

**“I have never read where Paul or the apostles instructed the church to pray to Mary, or believe the bread and wine became the literal body of Christ. . . . .]” **

(Edited to comply with Banned Topics)

My Partial Quote:
"2. As for the bread and wine becoming the literal body of Christ; I’ve given this much thought. There are Scriptures that do point to this. I’m sure you are all aware of them. I plan to do more study regarding when the idea of the real presence began and when it fell out of favor with Protestants. Many of you may be farther along in your studies, and can provide some quotes from early church fathers compared to Reformation and Post-reformation writers. I welcome any resources you may have.

Regarding the Lord’s Supper; we are most familiar with the passage, in Luke 22:19, where Christ says, “Do this in remembrance of me.” These are usually the words spoken by Baptist ministers during the Lord’s Supper.

**Luke 22 (ESV): **19 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 for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.
However, in searching the Scriptures, I found many passages that speak of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. Jesus said, “I am the bread of life.”

Jesus also said, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;” and “my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” So, do we accept His Words as spoken? Are they literal or symbolic?

John Chapter 6 has given me much to ponder on this issue:
John 6: 35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

**John 6: **48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

**John 6: **52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

I am rather perplexed by the way certain passages of Scripture, such as the creation story in Genesis, are taken literally; and others are reduced to allegory.

I don’t think we can condemn our Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ, because they accept Christ’s words, literally, as spoken. I do not see how this is teaching a different Gospel.

Many other passages of Scripture also point to consuming the body and blood of Christ.

**Matthew 26: **26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

**Mark 14: **22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

1 Corinthians 10: 14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?"

The “Real Presence” of Christ in the Catholic Eucharist is foreign to many of us in the Protestant Sector. Yet, these Scriptures cause me to ponder the Catholic interpretation.

Baptists, would these passages cause you to consider the “real presence” of Christ in the Catholic Eucharist?

Catholics friends, please correct misconceptions if/when they arise.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Definitions

EUCHARIST
"The true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, who is really and substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine, in order to offer himself in the sacrifice of the Mass and to be received as spiritual food in Holy Communion. It is called Eucharist, or “thanksgiving,” because at its institution at the Last Supper Christ “gave thanks,” and by this fact it is the supreme object and act of Christian gratitude to God.

Although the same name is used, the Eucharist is any one or all three aspects of one mystery, namely the Real Presence, the Sacrifice, and Communion. As Real Presence, the Eucharist is Christ in his abiding existence on earth today; as Sacrifice, it is Christ in his abiding action of High Priest, continuing now to communicate the graces he merited on Calvary; and as Communion, it is Christ coming to enlighten and strengthen the believer by nourishing his soul for eternal life. (Etym. Latin eucharistia, the virtue of thanksgiving or thankfulness; from Greek eucharistia, gratitude; from eu-, good + charizesthai, to show favor.)"

REAL PRESENCE
"The manner of Christ’s presence in the Holy Eucharist. In its definition on the subject, the Council of Trent in 1551 declared that “in the sacrament of the most holy Holy Eucharist is contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Denzinger 1636, 1640).

Hence Christ is present truly or actually and not only symbolically. He is present really, that is objectively in the Eucharist and not only subjectively in the mind of the believer. And he is present substantially, that is with all that makes Christ Christ and not only spiritually in imparting blessings on those who recieve the sacrament. . . . ."

TRANSUBSTANTIATION
“The complete change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood by a validly ordained priest during the consecration at Mass, so that only the accidents of bread and wine remain. . . . .”

Difinitions taken from CatholicCulture.org.
Link: catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33393
“All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.”

**Catholic Forum Members: please add, correct, and comment on these definitions for clarification and assistance in this discussion.

Also, please provide any helpful quotes from Early Church Fathers regarding the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist.**

Since I grew up in the Baptist Church, I really want to know how those, of my religious background (Baptists,) view the Scriptures that seem to point to the Catholic interpretation of the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist. I have thought about this for a long time; and really want to give the issue careful and prayerful consideration.

Thank you so much,
Anna

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

I agree with the Baptist that there’s no Eucharistic texts that supports the new, unique Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation - and it’s dogmatic insistence upon it’s exclusive interpretation of the words “become” “converts” “transmutates” in the Eucharistic texts (in fact, I agree with the Baptists that those words DON’T EVEN APPEAR in any Eucharistic texts, therefore no hermeneutic of them - correct or incorrect - is possible.

I disagree with the Baptists that the meaning of is is not is. I believe it is. Thus, I agree with Real Presence (which has to do with the meaning of “is” in the Eucharistic texts), I just don’t accept Transubstantiation (which has to do with the meaning of “becomes” “converts” “change” in the Eucharistic texts).

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Good lord… That site scares the dickens out of me. And I used to be a baptist!!!

I fall back to this, Sancta Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Not a Baptist but…
Do you believe that the Gospels and Corinthians teach this as part of a meal?
If it is the central core part of worship, where do we find the words that make this occur?
Can those words change or are they to remain the same?

 

[JRKH]

Isn’t there another passage from St Paul about those partaking unworthily eating and drinking condemnation on themselves?

Peace
James

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Isn’t there another passage from St Paul about those partaking unworthily eating and drinking condemnation on themselves?

Peace
James

**1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved may be made manifest among you.
1Co 11:20 When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord’s supper.
1Co 11:21 For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk.
1Co 11:22 What, have you no houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not.
1Co 11:23 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,
1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
1Co 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
1Co 11:30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you: and many sleep.
1Co 11:31 But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
1Co 11:32 But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world.
1Co 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
1Co 11:34 If any man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto judgment. And the rest I will set in order, when I come. **

 

[AmateurPianist]

I am not a Baptist (although I have some Baptist blood in me), and I have no intention on getting sucked into a Real Presence debate. I am formally undecided on this issue. I know that I am a minority here, but I also do not believe this issue to be that important for me to make sure I get right. Once a while back I asked God about this and He seemed to be saying to approach it as though it were the body and blood of Christ and to leave the physics and chemistry of it up to Him. That is sufficient for me.

My personal opinion is that I find some type of real presence Scripturally possible but not Scripturally proven. It depends ultimately on, with apologies to Bill Clinton, what the meaning of is is. For example I can show you a pencil and say “this is a pencil”. I also can open up my wallet, take out a dollar bill and say “this is George Washington”.

But let us say for now that Scripture does teach some form of Real Presence. I then note that Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, and (I am not sure) Presbyterians believe in some form of Real Presence.

If I were to believe in the Real Presence, I would conclude that Scripture is so general on the topic that you can’t use the Bible to support one organizations perspective of it over another ones. Intuitively I sort of like the Methodist/Wesleyan real presence above all others.

 

[Catherine_S]

Also, please provide any helpful quotes from Early Church Fathers regarding the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist.

Thank you so much,
Anna

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and** I in him"** (John 6:53–56).

The Real Presence

**The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists frequently attack this doctrine as “unbiblical,” but the Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71). **

The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: “Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity” (ibid., 197–98).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

 

[mskejj]

Also, please provide any helpful quotes from Early Church Fathers regarding the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist.

If you go over to the main page and scroll to the bottom, you will see several topics discussed. Click on Fathers Know Best and it will direct you to a page with more topics that the Early Church Fathers have written about…Click on “The Real Presence” and you will see many different quotes from the Early Church Fathers concerning the Eucharist.

I just listened to a CD by Tim Staples which you would probably find very interesting…he explains who John’s gospel was in response to…especially concerning the “Bread of Life” discourse. He was defending the truth against the sect of people called the Gnostics. Remember that the gnostics was a sect that believed that all matter was evil and all spirit was good. They believed Jesus had no body and was not divine (he was just completely pure like we were meant to be before), it just seemed that he had a body…they preached that the Eucharist was just a symbol of Jesus not his true flesh and blood. (They were vegetarians and preached against eating meat and getting married) Notice how so much of John’s Gospel made a point of showing that Jesus WAS God…and then also notice how many times he points out that Jesus taught them that it was his Flesh and Blood…even to the point that many disciples left him and he didn’t run after them to explain that he was speaking symbollically. The CD by Tim Staples was really good

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

**Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
. . . and are now ready to obey your bishop and clergy with undivided minds and to share in the one common breaking of bread – the medicine of immortality, and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ for evermore (Letter to the Ephesians 20 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus
He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood) from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported) how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him? (Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 189]).

Clement of Alexandria
“Eat my flesh)” [Jesus] says, “and drink my blood.” The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Hippolytus
“And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table” [Proverbs 9:1] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper * (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

Aphraahat
After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

---

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

**Cyril of Jerusalem
The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so. . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul (ibid„ 22:6,9).

Theodore
When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, “This is the symbol of my body” but, “This is my body.” In the same way when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say. “This is the symbol of my blood,” but, “This is my blood,” for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup) but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

Ambrose of Milan
Perhaps you may be saying, “I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?” It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

Augustine
I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know that you have received what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That bread which you see on the altar having been sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ, That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
What you see is the bread and the chalice, that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith, yet faith does not desire instruction (ibid. 272).**

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Bible gives us plenty of examples of ‘symbolic’ eating.

Symbolically eat one’s flesh and drink one’s body and blood was to assault

**Psa 14:4 Shall not all they know that work iniquity, who devour my people as they eat bread?

Isa 9:18 For wickedness is kindled as a fire, it shall devour the brier and the thorn: and shall kindle in the thicket of the forest, and it shall be wrapped up in smoke ascending on high.
Isa 9:19 By the wrath of the Lord of hosts the land is troubled, and the people shall be as fuel for the fire: no man shall spare his brother.
Isa 9:20 And he shall turn to the right hand, and shall be hungry: and shall eat on the left hand, and shall not be filled: every one shall eat the flesh of his own arm: Manasses Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasses, and they together shall be against Juda.

Isa 49:26 And I will feed thy enemies with their own flesh: and they shall be made drunk with their own blood, as with new wine: and all flesh shall know, that I am the Lord that save thee, and thy Redeemer the Mighty One of Jacob.

Mic 3:3 Who have eaten the flesh of my people, and have flayed their skin off them: and have broken, and chopped their bones as for the kettle, and as flesh in the midst of the pot.

2Sa 23:15 And David longed, and said: O that some man would get me a drink of the water out of the cistern, that is in Bethlehem, by the gate.
2Sa 23:16 And the three valiant men broke through the camp of the Philistines, and drew water out of the cistern of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and brought it to David: but he would not drink, but offered it to the Lord,
2Sa 23:17 Saying: The Lord be merciful to me, that I may not do this: shall I drink the blood of these men that went, and the peril of their lives? therefore he would not drink. These things did these three mighty men.

Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And I wondered, when I had seen her, with great admiration.

Rev 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest in the beast: These shall hate the harlot and shall make her desolate and naked and shall eat her flesh and shall burn her with fire. **

Jesus spoke symbolically about food and each time explained what He meant.

**Joh 4:31 In the mean time, the disciples prayed him, saying: Rabbi, eat.
Joh 4:32 But he said to them: I have meat to eat which you know not.
Joh 4:33 The disciples therefore said one to another: Hath any man brought him to eat?
Joh 4:34 Jesus saith to them: My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, that I may perfect his work.

Mat 16:5 And when his disciples were come over the water, they had forgotten to take bread.
Mat 16:6 Who said to them: Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Mat 16:7 But they thought within themselves, saying: Because we have taken no bread.
Mat 16:8 And Jesus knowing it, said: Why do you think within yourselves, O ye of little faith, for that you have no bread?
Mat 16:9 Do you not yet understand, neither do you remember the five loaves among five thousand men, and how many baskets you took up?
Mat 16:10 Nor the seven loaves, among four thousand men, and how many baskets you took up?
Mat 16:11 Why do you not understand that it was not concerning bread I said to you: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees?
Mat 16:12 Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.**

When Christ spoke about eating in John 6, He did not explain any symbolism.

Joh 6:66 After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.

He let them walk, not only let them walk, He turned to the Apostles and asked:

Joh 6:67 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Passover meal was part of the covenant from God and men. It required an active participation. In reading Exodus 12:17, we see this was to be done perpetually, for ever. To reject the Last Supper as the adjustment to, or replacement of, or more specifically a fulfillment of, the covenant command of God, means we should still be celebrating the Passover meal as prescribed by God.

We know from Jeremiah 31:31, a new covenant was prophesied. This prophesy was brought to mind in the New Testament, in a letter from St. Paul to the Hebrews 8:7 – 12.

The prescription of the Passover meal was detailed and clear from the Lord, as written in Exodus 12.

A lamb without blemish was to be slaughtered at twilight, eaten with unleavened bread, the lamb’s blood was to be sprinkled on the doorposts with hyssop, none of the lamb’s bones were to be broken, and this ordinance was to be celebrated perpetually.

The Jewish Passover meal consisted of:

1. The Festival Blessing – Drink from the 1st cup of wine.
2. Passover Narrative and Little Hallel (Psalms 113) – Drink from 2nd cup of wine.
3. Main Meal: roasted lamb, unleavened bread, and bitter herbs and spices – Drink from 3rd cup of wine.
4. Great Hallel (Psalms 114 – 118) and the drinking of the 4th cup of wine, and closed when presiding priest or host says the phrase, “TEL TELESTI” which is interpreted as “It is finished” or “It is consummated”.

Now let’s look at the Lord’s Supper that occurred during the celebration of the Passover, or Seder, meal.

3 of the Gospel authors told us about the Lord’s Supper. Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote about it. All 3 say He gave the cup, of the new covenant, to the Apostles and told them to drink, but it does not tell us that Christ, the High Priest, drank of the cup. Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:18, tells us that, during the Passover meal, Christ announced He would not drink fruit of the vine again, until he drank it in the Kingdom of God. After making this announcement, Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26 tell us, “Then, after singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.” After singing a hymn, the great Hallel, they went out to the garden, without the High Priest closing the celebration, not only not closing the celebration, but declaring He would not drink fruit of the vine again, until He drank it in the Kingdom of God. He did not say, “It is finished” or “It is consummated”.

When God made the covenant with Moses, Moses asked who to tell had told him of the covenant, Exodus 3:13 – 14. God told Moses, “I am, who I am.”

When Christ was arrested in the garden, He asked who they were looking for and they replied, “Jesus of Nazareth”. In John 18:5, Jesus told them, “I AM he”. When those arresting Him heard this, they went backward and fell to the ground (John 18:6).

Mark 15:22 – 24 told us that Christ was offered wine drugged with myrrh, but He did not drink it.

John 19:28 – 30 explains that Our Lord, aware that everything was now finished, in order that scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst”. Hearing this, they took a sponge and dipped it in common wine, sour wine, fruit of the vine, and held it up to His mouth with hyssop. After taking the wine, our Lord said, “It is finished”, bowed His head and gave up the spirit.

John 19:33 – 38 told us that our Lord’s legs were not broken, so that scripture might be fulfilled.

Mark 15:33 – 34 tells us the time the Lamb of God death, which was twilight, the same time Moses was instructed to slaughter the sacrificial lamb.

Christ came to fulfill the law, and it was fulfilled with the new covenant. A covenant of God and men, that requires participation of those being set free.

 

[JRKH]

Not a Baptist but…
Do you believe that the Gospels and Corinthians teach this as part of a meal?
If it is the central core part of worship, where do we find the words that make this occur?
Can those words change or are they to remain the same?

I think that the quote from Prodigal son in answer to my query contains an answer for you.

In particulare we can see where Paul is differentiating between just eating and partaking of the Lords supper in this
1Co 11:22 What, have you no houses to eat and to drink in?

It seems clear that there is a difference between “The Lords Supper” and just eating.

Peace
James

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Posted by Marcia in the thread you linked:

When Jesus said “I am the bread of life,” this was clearly a metaphor. He also said “I am the door” in a similar context.

Yes clearly… It is so clear that Christians from day one have believed that Christ meant exactly what He said. So clear that disciples who had watched Him walk on water, and feed a “multitude of people” with “five barley loaves and two fish” walked away from Him after his discourse in John 6. It was so clear that the ‘great reformer’, Martin Luther, still believed it and was so sure of it that those who did not believe it were, he felt, pawns of the devil.

Moreover, to believe that wine and bread actually turns into the body of Christ is to sacrifice him again, which is totally unbiblical, not to mention a horrendous and unnecessary action. We are saved when we believe, not when we eat his flesh.

Marcia doesn’t seem to understand the eternity of Christ’s once and for all sacrifice. She also doesn’t seem to understand Catholic teaching on this issue. The claim of “unbiblical” will be important later. In fact lets look at that now.

Disgreement,** as long as it’s not on the essentials of the faith**, is not always a bad thing. It’s fine to disagree on secondary issues.

I knew if I looked through that page long enough I would find something a long the lines of this. I cannot possible see how a group, who claims that they go only by the Bible for their beliefs, cannot see how unbiblical this is. In all my reading of the Bible I have never seen where the ‘essentials’ and where the ‘non-essentials’ are outlined. This leads us to determine what is and is not essential for ourselves, which is quite contrary to using the Bible alone.

Of course this individual follows this inexcusably bad theology with this equally inexcusable statement:

But these are not biblical teachings and are done by extreme groups (mostly charismatic). There will always be false teachings everywhere in Christendom; this has nothing to do with whether what the Catholic church teaches is valid and biblical.

Translation:* all Christians are wrong, its just Catholics who are wrong enough that they are no longer Christian*… To which I say, grow a back bone!

Last but not least when it is mentioned that perhaps it would be better to go to Catholics to learn what they actually believe we get this:

No, we shouldn’t. Read the official catechism; that’s what counts. Catholics often don’t know what their Church teaches.

Yes Marcia, Catholics often don’t know what their Church teaches. Baptists also do not know what the Catholic Church teaches either it appears. Lets looke at the Catechism, which is after all what counts…

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”

Hmmm so much for:

Moreover, to believe that wine and bread actually turns into the body of Christ is to sacrifice him again, which is totally unbiblical, not to mention a horrendous and unnecessary action. We are saved when we believe, not when we eat his flesh.

At what point do this become bearing false witness?

God bless

 

[jmcrae]

But let us say for now that Scripture does teach some form of Real Presence. I then note that Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, and (I am not sure) Presbyterians believe in some form of Real Presence.

What Presbyterians believe is that the Presence of the Lord comes to us when we make use of the bread and wine, much as the Holy Spirit comes to us in Baptism when we make use of the water. So, they understand the Sacramental nature of it, but they don’t believe in a Real Presence as such.

If I were to believe in the Real Presence, I would conclude that Scripture is so general on the topic that you can’t use the Bible to support one organizations perspective of it over another ones. Intuitively I sort of like the Methodist/Wesleyan real presence above all others.

Right - it’s really only when we get into the writings of the Early Church Fathers that we really begin to see Christ’s presence in the Eucharist being explained and defined. Keep in mind that Transubstantiation, in and of itself, is simply a way of explaining what’s going on. What we know is, Christ is present, and the elements themselves (bread and wine) are gone. How we explain it, is that Christ exchanges His substance for the substances of the bread and wine - even though their appearances remain. When we kneel down at the time of the Consecration, we are kneeling to Christ who has taken on the appearances of bread and wine; not to actual bread and wine.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I think that the quote from Prodigal son in answer to my query contains an answer for you.

In particulare we can see where Paul is differentiating between just eating and partaking of the Lords supper in this
1Co 11:22 What, have you no houses to eat and to drink in?

It seems clear that there is a difference between “The Lords Supper” and just eating.

Peace
James

You are right about what you say but not the conclusion I believe. That is PRECISELY what Paul is saying. However, that does not mean that it is not a meal. It is a meal based upon the context. 1st Corinthians 11:33 says for everyone to wait for one another. Did Paul change his mind about that? No of course not. It was a meal. The Lord supper component with the wine and bread is part of the meal. The whole context is of a meal.

Here is a discussion concerning it.
Is A Meal Part of the Lord’s Supper?

At this point, I would have to answer the question by saying that to isolate the bread and the wine of the Lord’s Supper from a meal is certainly unnatural. All the evidence points to the integral connection of the Lord’s Supper with a meal. Consider the following:

1. The old covenant Passover involved a meal "which was meant to satisfy hunger as well as to commemorate the Exodus."6 The evidence in Matthew, Mark and Luke suggests that the Last Supper was a Passover meal.7

Since Christ ate the Passover dinner with His disciples before He instituted the ordinance, the early church continued that practice by eating an evening meal (often referred to as a “love feast”) together before the Lord’s Supper was observed.8

1. The “blood of the covenant” language (Matt. 26:28) suggests a parallel of the Lord’s Supper with Exodus 24, where after the Mosaic covenant was ratified with blood, a fellowship meal was enjoyed (24:11).

1. In the context of Jesus’ institution of the Supper, He and His disciples were eating a meal: “while they were eating” (Matt. 26:26; cf. 1 Cor. 11:25).

1. The accounts in Acts indicate that the brethren were fond of “breaking bread” (Acts 2:42,46; 20:7) together. Few would deny that “breaking bread” and the “Lord’s Supper” were almost synonymous in the practice of the early church.9

1. In 1 Corinthians 11 we find that “coming together to eat” (v. 33) and “coming together as a church” (v. 18) coincide.

These meals were called agapae - love feasts - and became a marked feature of the early church. On a fixed day, generally the first day of the week, the Christians assembled, each bringing what he could as a contribution to the feast: fish, poultry, joints of meat, cheese, milk, honey, fruit, wine and bread. In some places the proceedings began by partaking of the consecrated bread and wine; but in other places physical appetite was first appeased by partaking of the meal provided, and after that the bread and wine were handed round.10

Lenski asserts that "the Agape is not a divine institution. Therefore Paul lays down no regulations concerning it."11 However, while there is truth in his remark, it would seem that the burden of proof rests on him to show what sense Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 make if the ordinance is removed from a meal context. Just how do we propose to relate the Lord’s Supper to the little piece of bread and the sip of wine that characterize our services?

Hodge puts a wedge between the Lord’s Supper and a “common meal.” Thus he believes Paul’s words in 11:23-26 "are specially designed to separate the Lord’s Supper as a religious rite from the social element with which it was combined."12 But it is not a question of “either/or.” The Lord’s Supper was embedded in a common meal. What Hodge separates, the early church viewed together. The Corinthian abuse did not rule out the meal dimension (11:33).

It was apparently "the very purpose of these congregational gatherings to celebrate the Lord’s Supper."13 But the disorderly actions of the Corinthians made it impossible to have the Supper.

Instead of taking all the food that was brought and apportioning it to all who were present so that each should receive a proper share, cliques were formed, and relatives, friends, those of one clique at together, probably at private tables, the rich and prosperous separated from the poor, letting those who could bring little or nothing sit by themselves…when the Agape ceased to be an Agape, the Sacrament was also virtually impossible.14

Thus, for Lenski to say later that "to discern the Lord’s body means to perceive that in the Sacrament that body is really present and received"15 totally misses the point of the context. The Corinthian problem was not related to “the elements” in the Supper, but to their broken relationships in the body of Christ.

The warnings and judgments of 11:27-32, therefore, must be seen in light of this problem which is twice articulated by Paul before and after the “institution” section (11:23-26). It appears to me that 11:23-32 has more often than not been considered in isolation from that which surrounds it. This has led to serious misunderstandings concerning taking the Supper “unworthily” and examining one’s self.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You are right about what you say but not the conclusion I believe. That is PRECISELY what Paul is saying. However, that does not mean that it is not a meal. It is a meal based upon the context. 1st Corinthians 11:33 says for everyone to wait for one another. Did Paul change his mind about that? No of course not. It was a meal. The Lord supper component with the wine and bread is part of the meal. The whole context is of a meal.

Paul starts by speaking of heresies, beliefs/teachings or practices against doctrine. ‘Love feasts’ are not doctrinal.

This was not a ‘love feast’ they came together for. Pauls states it clearly, it is to eat the Lord’s Supper. If it were a ‘love feast’, why does Paul ask them if they have no houses to eat and drink in?

Paul also let’s us know, “When you come therefore together into one place…” as Christians suffering persecution did, coming together for ‘Church’.

Further separation from the idea of a ‘love feast’ is supported when Paul specifically states, ‘For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.’ This was clearly the Lord’s Supper.

How does one ‘prove’ himself and then be allowed to eat at a ‘love feast’?

When you come together to eat the Lord’s Supper, specifically referenced as bread/body and cup/blood, Paul states one risks damnation for not discerning the body and blood of the Lord.

Wait for one another, that all may eat of the body and blood, just as waiting in line for communion.

1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved may be made manifest among you.
1Co 11:20 When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord’s supper.
1Co 11:21 For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk.
1Co 11:22 What, have you no houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not.
1Co 11:23 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,
1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
1Co 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
1Co 11:30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you: and many sleep.
1Co 11:31 But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
1Co 11:32 But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world.
1Co 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
1Co 11:34 If any man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto judgment. And the rest I will set in order, when I come.

As for the parallel between the Passover and Lord’s Supper, I have provided a detailed post showing a clear ‘type’ or prophesy of what was to come with the new and everlasting covenant. It’s as clear as Psalms 22 prophesizing the sacrifice of our Lord.

Some Protestant scholars had to really ‘spin’ this passage, else the Catholics are right and if they’re right on this…

The writings of the early Church fathers tell us how the early Church viewed the bread/body and cup/blood, but some prefer to depend on someone from a much later time, far removed from the actual events, to tell us what it really means.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I know this is wiki, but here is one one source I have used on this.

This is a change from the last time I read this. The last time I read, the Orthodox section was distinct from the Catholic section. Which then begs the question on whether the Orthodox believe in transubstantiation the same way as the Catholics do.