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

[rev_kevin]

Because He said that it was.

So do we.

This is a question that Christians have been asking right from the very beginnings of the Church.

The current theory is called “Transubstantiation” which proposes that there are two aspects to any material thing - its “substance” (the real essence of the thing) and it’s “accidents” (its outward appearance). So, to give a simple example, we have the substance “ball.” Individual balls have specific characteristics - roundness (but not all balls are round - footballs are not round); colour; markings, what they are made of (rubber, plastic, animal skins) and so on. These characteristics are called “accidents.” Not every ball has the same “accidents” but they all share the same “substance” - they are all balls.

When Christ comes to us at Mass, He displaces the substances of the bread and wine (without in any way altering their accidents) with His own substance, without (in most cases, other than in the case of Eucharistic miracles, which tend to be quite rare) any of His accidents.

The early Christians recognized Christ in the Eucharist, but they were unable to explain how it was that He was present with or under the appearances of the bread and wine - but even though they couldn’t explain it, they still condemned those who saw it as "only a symbol (such as Arius) and they still required that those who called themselves Christians were to understand that when they received the Eucharist, they were partaking of Christ’s body and blood, soul and divinity. It was only later that the explanation of Transubstantiation became available - but they believed it before they understood it, or could explain it.

I see no evidence that it is actually transformed into his body and blood. At the last super when he said this is my body he raised up bread as a symbol of his body and the same with the wine as a symbol of his blood.

 

[jmcrae]

I see no evidence that it is actually transformed into his body and blood. At the last super when he said this is my body he raised up bread as a symbol of his body and the same with the wine as a symbol of his blood.

No, He didn’t. He said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood.” Nothing about it being a symbol, or a representation.

St. Augustine explains that He was holding Himself in His own two hands, there.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I see no evidence that it is actually transformed into his body and blood. At the last super when he said this is my body he raised up bread as a symbol of his body and the same with the wine as a symbol of his blood.

Christ spoke symbolically about food and explained the symbolism each time. When He spoke of eating His body, many of His disciples left Him and walked with Him no more. He did not stop them and explain any symbolism, instead He turned and asked His Apostles if they would leave Him too. You can find that in John 6., or simply read through this thread for more information.

 

[rev_kevin]

No, He didn’t. He said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood.” Nothing about it being a symbol, or a representation.

St. Augustine explains that He was holding Himself in His own two hands, there.

Ok so when Jesus raised up the bread, the bread wasn’t a symbol of his body and the same for the wine? That seems like a symbol to me.

 

[jmcrae]

Ok so when Jesus raised up the bread, the bread wasn’t a symbol of his body and the same for the wine? That seems like a symbol to me.

No - it was really Himself, under the appearances of bread and wine. We see how Jesus has the ability to do this, in the miracle of the loaves and fishes. The same loaf and fish were able to be eaten by five thousand men, and each of their wives and children, all at the same time.

 

[rev_kevin]

No - it was really Himself, under the appearances of bread and wine. We see how Jesus has the ability to do this, in the miracle of the loaves and fishes. The same loaf and fish were able to be eaten by five thousand men, and each of their wives and children, all at the same time.

Under the appearances of bread and wine so that would make them symbol’s of his body.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Do you consider the statement to be respectful of the Catholic faith? To me it assumes what we need according to your personal interpretation and opinion. I found it offensive and disrespectful.

Then lets talk about what it says. I posted quite a bit and you did not respond to it or I missed it. Its not disrespectful. It might be overly brief but its accurate in a general sense. Listen, I have no patience for sensitive people but on the other hand I do not intentionally seek to offend anyone either. Lets get on with this. I think my points are valid or I would not spend time typing them!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Under the appearances of bread and wine so that would make them symbol’s of his body.

So you don’t think God has the power to turn bread and wine to His body and blood and remain the same in appearances?

 

[rev_kevin]

So you don’t think God has the power to turn bread and wine to His body and blood and remain the same in appearances?

God can do anything, Now your next question is going to be, then why wouldn’t he do it then if he can do anything.

 

[Rightlydivide]

There is no one who actually does a literal re-enactment of the Lord’s Supper - with congregations numbering in hundreds or even thousands of people, this is physically impossible.

Given this, at Mass, we do wait for one another (everyone lines up in an orderly manner), and each one receives the same amount as everyone else.

How is it done in your church? Does everyone sit down at the Communion table with a plate of unleavened bread and a cup of wine before him, and all eat at once, as at a banquet?

I believe and I think I have shown that Paul is talking about a meal with the bread and wine. He states the problem is how the meal is done with the attitudes and over drinking going on. He clearly states to eat at once. Now, listen, I am a fundmentalist. I do not think that any verse in the New Testament is any more important or less important than another. I do not care if anyone finds it practical or not. I do not see allowances for such things.
Yes, that is essentially how it is done. Its a meal and the end of the meal.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Then lets talk about what it says. I posted quite a bit and you did not respond to it or I missed it. Its not disrespectful. It might be overly brief but its accurate in a general sense. Listen, I have no patience for sensitive people but on the other hand I do not intentionally seek to offend anyone either. Lets get on with this. I think my points are valid or I would not spend time typing them!

I have not been disrespectful to you or your belief. I have made an argument for my beliefs and rebutted what you had to say with more explanations. Sensitive has nothing to do with the way you worded the statement which was a direct ‘smear’ against a Catholic belief. I have no patience for people who seem to want to only speak negatively about Catholicism.

I expect my points to be rebutted and so should you, only let’s leave the ‘you are doing it wrong and have long left anything about the Lord behind’ statements.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I believe and I think I have shown that Paul is talking about a meal with the bread and wine. He states the problem is how the meal is done with the attitudes and over drinking going on. He clearly states to eat at once. Now, listen, I am a fundmentalist. I do not think that any verse in the New Testament is any more important or less important than another. I do not care if anyone finds it practical or not. I do not see allowances for such things.
Yes, that is essentially how it is done. Its a meal and the end of the meal.

People eat meals because they are physically hungry or to avoid being hungry. Paul told them if they were hungry to eat at home, so that they not come to judgement.

I also raised the point that Paul started the correction, specifically stating he was addressing heresies, which are practices against doctrines.

I don’t see how anyone gets he’s teaching them to eat at once, when he clearly tells them to wait on one another.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

God can do anything, Now your next question is going to be, then why wouldn’t he do it then if he can do anything.

Rev. if you’re going to explain your beliefs, try fully explaining instead of assuming the next question. I have no more questions and am comfortable with the presentation of scriptures and explanations I provided. I guess you’re satisfied with yours…

 

[rev_kevin]

Rev. if you’re going to explain your beliefs, try fully explaining instead of assuming the next question. I have no more questions and am comfortable with the presentation of scriptures and explanations I provided. I guess you’re satisfied with yours…

Everytime someone here and I believe you have also asked the question about God being able to do anything and someone answers yes God can do anything, the very next question is like the one I stated. Yes I’m satisified with it just being a symbol.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Under the appearances of bread and wine so that would make them symbol’s of his body.

Here’s a radical thought (well, not really…) that The Lord’s Supper is both a symbol and real, both pointing to the Eucharist.

The symbols point to an ontological reality, meaning symbols aren’t just in name only but based in reality. Even those that deny the Eucharist would believe that the Lord’s Supper believe the bread represents (or symbolizes) Jesus’ Body and points to His Sacrifice on the Cross; the bread represents points to an event that actually happened done by God Himself. In other words, to say that the Lord’s Supper is a symbol cannot be used to demean reality but to point to objective truths. The Eucharistic is no less due to the symbolism used in our Lord’s words but by that same symbolism, we must believe spiritual truths contained in that symbolism.

St. John called Jesus’ miracles “signs”, signs (or symbols) that pointed to His divinity. While detractors of the Eucharistic use John 6:64 that “It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life” (Douay-Rheims). Indeed, Jesus’ words are spiritual but that doesn’t mean that His words are less true or deny what is previously said. As Christians, we believe that the Holy Spirit is real, but if what is spiritual is untrue or metaphoric, then we must assume that God revealed as the Holy Spirit must be as well. Jesus’ words are spiritual but true, based in reality.

In conclusion, I don’t think detractors can use symbolism or spirituality to deny the Eucharist because what is contained or pointed in these words are true. The only alternative is that Jesus was a nominalist–meaning He said “I am the bread of life” but His words weren’t based in reality…

 

[Rightlydivide]

I have not been disrespectful to you or your belief. I have made an argument for my beliefs and rebutted what you had to say with more explanations. Sensitive has nothing to do with the way you worded the statement which was a direct ‘smear’ against a Catholic belief. I have no patience for people who seem to want to only speak negatively about Catholicism.

I expect my points to be rebutted and so should you, only let’s leave the ‘you are doing it wrong and have long left anything about the Lord behind’ statements.

I am contrasting the two ways. One is a religious ceremony almost completely divorced from its context as a meal. I addressed your points in this passage and showed that Paul is talking about one event. A meal. In this event, people are to eat together. it is not a free for all but it certainly is a meal. What specific point would you like me to rebut? This thread is growing fast. If you believe I only have spoken negative about Catholics, you are wrong.

 

[Rightlydivide]

People eat meals because they are physically hungry or to avoid being hungry. Paul told them if they were hungry to eat at home, so that they not come to judgement.

I also raised the point that Paul started the correction, specifically stating he was addressing heresies, which are practices against doctrines.

I don’t see how anyone gets he’s teaching them to eat at once, when he clearly tells them to wait on one another.

People also eat meals for relgious purposes. The seven annual feasts attest to that.
Yes, if they are hungry they are better off eating at home so they will do this properly. He is still referring to the Lord’s Supper. In other words, it would be better to eat at home if you cannot do it correctly. Wait “ON” …? Explain that! I want to make sure you are not confused about what this word means in Greek.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

I am contrasting the two ways. One is a religious ceremony almost completely divorced from its context as a meal. I addressed your points in this passage and showed that Paul is talking about one event. A meal. In this event, people are to eat together. it is not a free for all but it certainly is a meal. What specific point would you like me to rebut? This thread is growing fast. If you believe I only have spoken negative about Catholics, you are wrong.

I don’t think Catholics are denying that the Eucharist is a meal. It’s the Marriage Supper. Does one need to discern themselves over lunch as well? Are Lord’s Supper and what Paul speak one event to you?

 

[Rightlydivide]

I don’t think Catholics are denying that the Eucharist is a meal. It’s the Marriage Supper. Does one need to discern themselves over lunch as well?

There is nothing in the context to believe that every meal is to be the Lords Supper. It is an occasion. Verse 20 does not indicate how often but it being every meal would take defending.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am contrasting the two ways. One is a religious ceremony almost completely divorced from its context as a meal. I addressed your points in this passage and showed that Paul is talking about one event. A meal. In this event, people are to eat together. it is not a free for all but it certainly is a meal. What specific point would you like me to rebut? This thread is growing fast. If you believe I only have spoken negative about Catholics, you are wrong.

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.

I bolded and underlined part of your statement for emphasis. I believe that was intended to be negative of Catholics.

When we come together, it is now to eat the Lord’s Supper.

Paul taught what the Lord’s Supper was, “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 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. 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. For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.”

Sounds more like a religious ceremony than a ‘meal’ to me.