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

[wmscott]

The question “Baptists, Does Scripture point to the Catholic Lord’s Supper/Eucharist” would be the same as asking them to shoot themselves in the foot. However, if Baptists or any other Protestant religion that believed that the Most Holy Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ as the Catholic Church teaches, then why would that want to remain anything other than Catholic. Peace.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

And why would that be important to the discussion? I’m sorry but it appears to be seeking a validation that the Catholics must be wrong IF we can find another entity that disagrees with them.

Look at the scripturesand the writings of the early Church fathers from the earliest Christian Church and how they, Christians, practiced their faith. Some of those writings were written before the canon of the Bible was defined. Why is that important? Because things that were taken for granted, as all believed, had to be explicitly written down so there would be no misunderstanding and cause the original teaching to change.

The Orthodox and Catholics believe it is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. They may use different words to describe how it happens, but both believe in the real presence.

And yes, wiki is subject to change anytime someone wishes to change it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

For those who depend on wiki for ALL answers, see what wiki says about the leader of the Protestant reformation and his view of the real presence.

The theologians, including Zwingli, Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Johannes Oecolampadius, differed on the significance of the words spoken by Jesus at the Last Supper: “This is my body which is for you,” “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (1 Corinthians 11:23–26).[134] Luther insisted on the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine, which he called the sacramental union,[135] while his opponents believed God to be only spiritually or symbolically present.[136] Zwingli, for example, denied Jesus’s ability to be in more than one place at a time; but Luther stressed his ubiquity.[137] According to transcripts, the debate sometimes became confrontational. Citing Jesus’s words “The flesh profiteth nothing” (John 6.63), Zwingli said, “This passage breaks your neck”. “Don’t be too proud,” Luther retorted, “German necks don’t break that easily. This is Hesse, not Switzerland.”[138] On his table Luther wrote the words “Hoc est corpus meum” (“This is my body”) in chalk, to continually indicate his firm stance.[139]

Theologians 1500 years after the death and resurrection of the Lord and the first practicing Christians rejected the writings of those Christians for their own interpretations. Yet, people put more weight in their opinions than the early Church fathers.

As Protestantism splintered more and more, beliefs became dilluted and appears to be still diluting to this day.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I appreciate the great resources from Catholics!!! Wow. Much to read and consider.

I don’t see any Baptist posts, yet, unless I overlooked one. Remain hopeful.

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.

FidesSpesCarita,

They scare me too. They pretty much tore me up and made lunch meat out of me.

Posted by Marcia in the thread you linked:

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.

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. . . . . .

Roman_Catholic,

Sadly, Marcia, was the only one at BB, who even attempted to respond to the issue. So, I have to give her credit for that.

Anna

 

[jmcrae]

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.

They don’t use the word “transubstantiation” but their understanding is that what we are kneeling to at the Consecration is Jesus Christ; not bread and wine, although He has the appearances of bread and wine at that moment.

 

[Anna_Scott]

**AmericanJosiah; AmateurPianist; Rightlydivide;
**
Thank you for joining the discussion. I appreciate your comments.

Would anyone comment directly on the following Scripture passages; and how you interpret the passages; and why you do or do not believe they support the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist.

**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.

**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.

**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?"

Thanks,
Anna

Edited to Add P.S.

Really need Baptists to participate.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

For those that subscribe to the ‘love feast’ over the Lord’s Supper. Paul ends his letter of correction by telling them if they’re hungry, physically, to eat at home. The meal they came together to share was to feed them spiritually.

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.

 

[jmcrae]

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?"

Thanks,
Anna

Notice that when the people of Israel made a sacrifice, in order for the sacrifice to “take effect” (in order for their sins to be forgiven, if it was a sacrifice for sins, or in order to become ritually pure, if it was a sacrifice for purification) they had to eat the meat of the animal or bird that had been killed on the altar.

In the same way, Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross is completed in us when we partake of His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist. Christ has provided this means for us to partake of Him, because it is physically (not to mention morally) impossible for us to partake directly of His flesh as He is dying on the Cross for us. So, in consideration for our weaknesses, He generously comes to us on the Altar under the appearances of the bread and wine, at every Catholic Mass.

 

[Anna_Scott]

The question “Baptists, Does Scripture point to the Catholic Lord’s Supper/Eucharist” would be the same as asking them to shoot themselves in the foot. However, if Baptists or any other Protestant religion that believed that the Most Holy Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ as the Catholic Church teaches, then why would that want to remain anything other than Catholic. Peace.

This disenchanted Protestant/estranged Baptist (soon to have named removed from Baptist Church roles) would say, you just asked a great question.

I am planning to visit an Episcopal Church near my home in the next few weeks. I’ll keep studying and praying. That’s all I know to do right now.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Notice that when the people of Israel made a sacrifice, in order for the sacrifice to “take effect” (in order for their sins to be forgiven, if it was a sacrifice for sins, or in order to become ritually pure, if it was a sacrifice for purification) they had to eat the meat of the animal or bird that had been killed on the altar.

In the same way, Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross is completed in us when we partake of His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist. Christ has provided this means for us to partake of Him, because it is physically (not to mention morally) impossible for us to partake directly of His flesh as He is dying on the Cross for us. So, in consideration for our weaknesses, He generously comes to us on the Altar under the appearances of the bread and wine, at every Catholic Mass.

jmcrae,

I can see consuming the sacrifice; but they were never to consume the blood. Can you shed light on this?

Anna

 

[jmcrae]

This disenchanted Protestant/estranged Baptist (soon to have named removed from Baptist Church roles) would say, you just asked a great question.

I am planning to visit an Episcopal Church near my home in the next few weeks. I’ll keep studying and praying. That’s all I know to do right now.

Anna

Why an Episcopal church?

Why not just save that middle step, and come all the way over to visit a Catholic Church?

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae,

I can see consuming the sacrifice; but they were never to consume the blood. Can you shed light on this?

Anna

As I understand it, animal blood was forbidden to the Israelites because of the idea that when you partake of blood, you take on the characteristics of the one whose blood you have consumed (ie: you become genetically related to it).

We want to become related to Christ, and take on His characteristics, but we don’t want to become related to any of the lower animals, nor take on any of their characteristics.

 

[Rightlydivide]

1Cr 11:20-22 When ye come together therefore into one place, [this] is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before [other] his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise [you] not.

People are eating at different times and it is to excess. People are getting drunk. They are treating the Lord’s Supper as a common meal. Paul is going to give them a solution and it is not going to involve discarding the meal but how the meal is conducted. See, if it was just a normal meal, they can eat that way at home. The meal is a special occasion and has a special purpose as Paul is about to point out. The seperation you see is in terms of how it is done. Not that it is done. Now lets turn to the example that Paul gives for us to follow

1Cr 11:23-26 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: And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

The meal is orderly. Bread is broken and the words are given. It is done in remembrance of him. Also notice a break and a cup; something that is not optional. We are to do it in remembrance of him until when? Until he comes. I think that is important as well but then lets turn to Paul’s final solution.

1Cr 11:33-34 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

Look at this closely. You are to wait and eat together. If anyone is hungry, physically hungry, let him eat at home. This is Paul’s central teaching on the so called Eucharist. IF you are hungry, eat at home! Because when we eat together, we eat do not do it like it used to be done. It has order and it is done together. Here you have what the Bible actually teaches about the how to do the Lord’s Supper. This is the teaching directly from the Apostle Paul. Of course it will be ignored. People will continue to stand in line in front of a man in a robe and receive the host after a long series of prayers and bowing. They have long since left the true Lords Supper. An organized meal were everyone eats the bread and the wine and does it at the same time.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

This disenchanted Protestant/estranged Baptist (soon to have named removed from Baptist Church roles) would say, you just asked a great question.

I am planning to visit an Episcopal Church near my home in the next few weeks. I’ll keep studying and praying. That’s all I know to do right now.

Anna

Just a heads-up - I spent 2 years in a Lutheran church before I became Catholic. The Episcopal church, which would have been my first choice at the time, was too liberal for my conservative still-mostly-Baptist self. I’ve found that within the Episcopal church there is a lot of wiggle room for personal interpretation, similar to what you find in Baptist churches. There is no central authority to declare official doctrine.

During those two years while I two-timed - going to 8:00 service at the Lutheran church then to the Baptist church at 10:00, I’d say, “Now, I’m not about to become Catholic, but…” and then go on to agree with something or other in Catholic theology. Then, I listened to John Martignoni’s CDs (www.biblechristiansociety.com) “One Church,” “Apostolic Authority & The Pope,” “Mary & The Bible; Sacraments & The Bible” and realized that God was basically shoving me through studying the Scriptures, towards the Catholic Church. I have no regrets, and I no longer have anything to protest. I call “One Church” my Burning Bush Moment, but the others just made it that much more clear that God was calling me home to His Church and there was nowhere else to go.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Why an Episcopal church?

Why not just save that middle step, and come all the way over to visit a Catholic Church?

Just sent you a PM.

As I understand it, animal blood was forbidden to the Israelites because of the idea that when you partake of blood, you take on the characteristics of the one whose blood you have consumed (ie: you become genetically related to it).

We want to become related to Christ, and take on His characteristics, but we don’t want to become related to any of the lower animals, nor take on any of their characteristics.

Could you give me a source regarding taking on the characteristics of the one, whose blood you have consumed? I don’t remember that in my Jewish studies.

Thanks,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Still no Baptists in the discussion???

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Still no Baptists in the discussion???

I’m a former Baptist who can still tell you what I thought re: those Scriptures as a Baptist - will that help?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Of course it will be ignored. People will continue to stand in line in front of a man in a robe and receive the host after a long series of prayers and bowing. They have long since left the true Lords Supper.

Do you consider the above statement to be respectful of the Catholic faith?

 

[jmcrae]

Could you give me a source regarding taking on the characteristics of the one, whose blood you have consumed? I don’t remember that in my Jewish studies.

Thanks,
Anna

I got that idea from Scott Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper. I’m not sure off-hand where he got it from; he lists a number of sources in his bibliography.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I got that idea from Scott Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper. I’m not sure off-hand where he got it from; he lists a number of sources in his bibliography.

salvationhistory.com/studies/courses/online/the_lambs_supper_the_bible_and_the_mass

The above is a link to a free online course on the Lamb’s Supper, by Scott Hahn. Scott was a former Presbyterian theologian, who converted to Catholicism through his own personal studies.