Clarification on the Eucharist please!

[Lief_Erikson]

Consider this also, heathnprotstnt. Protestants interpret these passages, John 6, 1 Cor. 11, and all the other Eucharistic passages, which are vivid in their literalism, in various ways to try to explain them in non-literal ways. However, the Bible doesn’t give any clear teaching or interpretation except the literal. The Bible repeatedly says that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Jesus, and that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood to be saved, all statements Protestants spend a lot of time interpreting into something acceptable in their own theologies, but the Bible never gives any clear statement about the Eucharist that resembles any of the Protestant Confessions of Faith. The Protestant confessions, or the words of any Protestant pastor about the meaning of the Eucharist, are very clear, but the Bible gives no statement anywhere near so clearly expressing a Protestant view.

If the apostles were Protestant, they would have mentioned Sola Scriptura explicitly in the Bible. If they were Protestant, they also would have explained the Eucharist clearly in accordance with Protestant theology, rather than only giving complicated symbolic statements about it that have to be interpreted and can easily convince people of the truth of Eucharistic literalism. Jesus too. If He was Protestant, or accepted Protestant theology on the Eucharist, then when asked the question outright, “how can this man give us his flesh to eat?”, He, the good Shepherd Who was discussing things crucial to salvation (“unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you”) would have given them a clear answer expressing theology according to the Protestant understanding. He would not have given them repeated literalistic symbolic utterances that caused them to return to their former way of life, convinced He was nuts and truly was planning to give them His flesh and blood as literal food and drink.

Christ teaches the disciples (and us) to “do this in remembrance” of him to proclaim his saving death until He returns.

Yes, He does. If we ate His flesh and drank His blood without having Him in mind, with our minds wandering, not remembering Him, wouldn’t this be disrespectful and dishonoring Him? We need to prepare ourselves before partaking of Holy Communion, and center our hearts on Him.

Lastly, any reference to drinking actual blood (Old Testament) equates it to sin.

Certainly not Jesus’ words.

God says, “do not call unclean anything that I have made clean,” in Acts. The Blood of His Son, the unblemished Lamb, is clean. And the Book of Revelation says we are all washed clean in it.

God’s word is not contradictory. God is the creator; He is not “in” creation or anything created.

Not true. The Word of God repeatedly says He lives inside of us.

But the Eucharist is not actually an example of Him living inside creation. For the physical substance of bread and wine are annihilated in His coming, and only their appearance remain. The accidents are there (color, feel, seeming bread molecules, etc.), the outward appearances, but the substance has been changed into the substance of Christ. So the bread and wine are no more, and Christ alone is.

Again, I ask these questions of out a desire to learn, not to disrespect. I am married into (for over 25 years) a large family of RCs. I have yet been able to understand this. I have been told I simply have to have faith. Why? A good Buddhist has faith…but faith in the wrong thing has eternal consequences, depending on the doctrine at issue.

Well said! And I applaud your desire to investigate and learn.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

In short, I look to scripture, as Paul makes it clear it is sufficient for our needs.

It says all scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, refutation, correction, and training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17). It doesn’t say scripture ALONE is, as a Protestant text would have.

Also, if you have questions on doctrine, the Bible doesn’t encourage us to just look at the scriptures and figure it out for ourselves. Though some Jews looked to the Old Testament prophecies to identify Jesus as the Messiah, like the Bereans, and they are commended for this, for good reason! This scene is similar to how Catholic and Protestant apologists use scriptures, reason, or whatever it is we share with other people as common ground, so that by these means we might come to unity in faith.

Instead of commanding us in the epistles to look to the scriptures if we have any doctrinal questions, and to make our private interpretations of scriptures into our final authority, the Bible repeatedly commands us to listen to the apostles and bishops and accept their judgments as the commands of God.

For instance, in Titus 2:1, 15, Paul writes to the bishop Titus:

“As for yourself, you must say what is consistent with sound doctrine . . . Say these things. Exhort and correct with all authority. Let no one look down on you.”

Titus is commanded to exhort and correct, and teach sound doctrine, “with all authority.” In Acts 20, Paul tells the bishops that the Holy Spirit has chosen them to defend the flock from error. In 1 John 4, John writes, “whoever listens to God listens to us; whoever does not listen to God does not listen to us. This is how you can discern between the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.” Again, apostolic authority and hierarchy is the source of truth and knowledge.

Jeremiah prophesied about this, “I will appoint over you shepherds after my own heart, who will shepherd you wisely and prudently” (Jeremiah 3:15).

In Hebrews 13, Paul speaks at length about the authority of the presbyters.

7
Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.
8
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
9
Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching. 2 It is good to have our hearts strengthened by grace and not by foods, which do not benefit those who live by them.

Paul says, “do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching,” and as a remedy and protection against this, he says, “Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.” We are supposed to imitate the faith of the presbyters and accept the word of God they speak. Not just read the scriptures. That isn’t the way Paul gives us, to avoid being carried away by strange teaching.

Paul also says, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit to them : for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they that shall give account; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief: for this were unprofitable for you” (Heb. 13:17, ASV).

The presbyters watch over our souls to protect them, and we should submit to them, Paul says.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

As for false doctrine, Paul says the following in Gal. 1.

6
I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel
7
(not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!
9
As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!

The Apostle Paul claimed absolute authority for his preaching. Even if a messenger from Heaven gave you a teaching that contradicted his, it must be rejected. The teaching authority of the Church, in this ancient and original Christian Church, had ultimate and final authority, and their message had to be accepted as the ultimate rule – not private interpretation of scripture.

Indeed, we can see this very clearly and explicitly laid out in Acts 15, where the Early Church resolves a great doctrinal dispute over circumcision. The Early Church does not resolve this dispute by having everyone making their own final decision for themselves on the grounds of private interpretation of scripture. Rather, the leaders of the Church, the presbyters and apostles, gather together in council, dialoguing about the issue and debating it on various grounds (including scripture, as well as Peter’s revelation from God, etc.). Then, in this council (note that Protestants don’t use councils to determine true doctrine in a definitive and binding way, for all, if they ever even use councils), Peter stands and speaks a final word on the matter. Not any long or new argument, but just a final statement about the issue. The assembly goes silent and the debate ends. Then Paul and Barnabas give some confirming words, explaining how Peter’s verdict makes sense, and James gives final words to get his party, which had been the group insisting on the Gentiles’ circumcision, to get them to fully submit to Peter’s ruling.

Then the council writes a letter to the churches, in which they declare what their verdict on the matter is, and also tell the people that this “seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” If the Holy Spirit speaks it, it is infallible. Thus the council declares their decree to be the infallible command of the Holy Spirit.

They don’t give this as a mere recommendation for others to consider, based on their own judgment of the scriptures. Rather, here is how the Bible describes the authority of the council (after saying the judgments were not just those of men but also those of the Holy Spirit):

Acts 16:4, “As they [the emissaries of the council] traveled from city to city, they handed on to the people for observance the decisions reached by the apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem.”

They hand on decisions for observance, not recommendations for consideration.

That’s how authority and the resolution of doctrinal disagreements worked in the Early Church, and in the Catholic Church to this day. You won’t find it in Protestantism, which started in the 16th centuries and introduced many new and unbiblical novelties into Christianity. To find a Church which puts these Biblical teachings into practice, you need to look much further back in history than the Reformation.

 

[Barbkw]

Just to add one more thought:

On Holy Thursday, at the Last Supper, when Jesus (the Everlasting Sacrifice) instituted the Eucharist, He presented the unleavened bread and the wine (as each were also part of Passover feasts) and He said that these earthly items were the New Covenant sacrifice and that they were His Body and His Blood (transubstanitation).

See also Feast of the Unleaven Bread

 

[bjmad]

Here is a piece written by Clement I at the time of Peter. He mentions the Eucharist here but also in other places of his Recognitions that he wrote. Pope Clement I (called CLEMENS ROMANUS to distinguish him from the Alexandrian), is the first of the successors of St. Peter of whom anything definite is known, and he is the first of the “Apostolic Fathers”… He has left one genuine writing, a letter to the Church of Corinth, and many others have been attributed to him. Also, don’t let the title confuse you. He didn’t ordain widows but rather Peter created an order of widows. You’ll understand when you read.

Recognitions Book VI

CHAP. XV.–BISHOPS, PRESBYTERS, DEACONS, AND WIDOWS ORDAINED AT TRIPOLIS.
When he had said these things, and others to the same effect, he dismissed the crowds; and having, according to his custom, supped with his friends, he went to sleep. And while in this manner he was teaching the word of God for three whole months, and converting multitudes to the faith, at the last he ordered me to fast; and after the fast he conferred on me the baptism of ever-flowing water, in the fountains which adjoin the sea. And when, for the grace of regeneration divinely conferred upon me, we had joyfully kept holiday with our brethren, Peter ordered those who had been appointed to go before him, to proceed to Antioch, and there to wait three months more. And they having gone, he himself led down to the fountains, which, I have said, are near the sea, those who had fully received the faith of the Lord, and baptized them; and celebrating the** Eucharist **with them, he appointed, as bishop over them, Maro, who had entertained him in his house, and who was now perfect in all things; and with him he ordained twelve presbyters and deacons at the same time. He also instituted the order of widows, and arranged all the services of the Church; and charged them all to obey Maro their bishop in all things that he should command them. And thus all things being suitably arranged, when the three months were fulfilled, we bade farewell to those who were at Tripolis, and set out for Antioch."

In earlier txts written by Clement I (Recognitions - Books I - V), there are statements made where Peter told Clement he was not able to sit with him and partake in the breaking of the bread because he wasn’t one of them nor baptised as of yet. Pretty interesting stuff.

 

[bjmad]

Here is a quote from Ignatius of Antioch in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D
Quote:
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
.:

Another Quote from Ignatius of Anthioch

“Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice-even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God” (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).