Communion

[PJM]

=PLeeD;7327179]I don’t see it that way. In John 6, Jesus is already speaking figuratively by comparing himself to manna from heaven. He says "For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

Jesus wasn’t bread when he came down from heaven to give life to the world. He came to the world as an infant human child. His speech is figurative.

The problem with the point you try to make is that the Jews were grumbling about more than being told to eat flesh and drink blood.

The first thing they say in verse 42 is, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?” This grumbling started the first time listed in the book of John that Jesus publicly claimed to have come from heaven.

So the “hard teaching” wasn’t solely concerning eating flesh and drinking blood. That wasn’t even the first point made that led to all the grumbling.

Very truly I tell you, you are right that those verses lead to the path through the gates of heaven. It’s just that they don’t say anything to prove transubstantiation as true.

Caveat; it doesn’t bother me that some people believe transubstantiation is true. I simply don’t feel compelled, either by evidence of scripture, or through leading of the Holy Spirit, to believe it’s true. I could be wrong, but it’s not a salvation issue. One day I hope to know the truth.

Friend your understanding is clouded by humanistic thinking. We MUST understand what is taking place here is a Miracle. As such it is beyond human understanding.

But because it is beyond our understanding except for the looking glass of LOVE and Faith; nothing GOOD is impossible for God. READ John 6: v 55! Because this is God Himself; and God is thee GREATEST Good, it has to be true.
Please go back and READ my post # 36 of this string.

God’s continued Blessings,
Pat

 

[Reuben_J]

I surely don’t wish to argue with you about this, but i really don’t think you listened to what I said.

I know that it is his flesh and blood because Scripture says so blatantly. My question is where does transubstantiation come from? Jesus obviously didn’t somehow physically change that bread and wine, he simply said that it is his body and blood. So then why can’t we simply trust that he is present when we do it in remembrance of him?

My earlier post gave you the background so that you can appreciate where transubstantiation comes from. I am not very sure what you meant by “where does it com from” but I thought my answer was pertaining to that.

We **do not **say that the bread and the wine are physically changed. That’s not what transubstantiation is.

He did not say he was present in the bread and the wine. He said it is his body and his blood.

 

[PJM]

=Reuben J;7327606]My earlier post gave you the background so that you can appreciate where transubstantiation comes from. I am not very sure what you meant by “where does it com from” but I thought my answer was pertaining to that.

We **do not **say that the bread and the wine are physically changed. That’s not what transubstantiation is.

He did not say he was present in the bread and the wine. He said it is his body and his blood.

Friend, I supplied that specific answer in POST 39. Please go back and look at it.

 

[pipper]

The question is, if it really is His flesh and blood, then it seems odd to refer to communion as “remembering” Him. We aren’t remembering at all. We are in His real presence.

The question is not whether he is there. Most all of us assume he is there in one form or another, though not all of us claim to understand or even care to attempt explanation of the mystery.

Someone referred to an incomplete meaning in the word “remembrance” that doesn’t cover all the original Greek word implies. Can anyone point to commentary on that point?

The word inadequately translated as remembrance is the Greek word anamnesis. It means much more than just thinking of something that happened and is past.

Anamnesis more accurately is translated as re-call. In the Holy Eucharist we are recalled to the sacrifice of Christ so that we are really there, not just thinking of something that happened once and is over and done.

That is where the sacrifice of Christ comes in, it does not mean that we kill Jesus over and over, but we are there at the sacrifice through anamnesis.

 

[Reuben_J]

Friend, I supplied that specific answer in POST 39. Please go back and look at it.

Friend, I am trying to explain to a non-Catholic. What changes is the substance. One cannot see substance. Substance is what a thing is i.e. “book” or “chair” or “bread”.

What we see are the accidentals, which have not changed.

 

[mortonsam]

My earlier post gave you the background so that you can appreciate where transubstantiation comes from. I am not very sure what you meant by “where does it com from” but I thought my answer was pertaining to that.

We **do not **say that the bread and the wine are physically changed. That’s not what transubstantiation is.

He did not say he was present in the bread and the wine. He said it is his body and his blood.

You got me confused now. If he isn’t truly present, then why do we call it the Real Presence?

 

[mortonsam]

From Father Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary:

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. While the faith behind the term itself was already believed in apostolic times, the term itself was a later development.*** With the Eastern Fathers before the sixth century, the favored expression was meta-ousiosis, “change of being”; the Latin tradition coined the word transubstantiatio, “change of substance,” which was incorporated into the creed of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The Council of Trent, in defining the “wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the wine into the blood” of Christ, added “which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation”*** (Denzinger 1652). after transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe they are sustained in existence by divine power. (Etym. Latin trans-, so as to change + substantia, substance: transubstantio, change of substance.)

God Bless,
Pat

And how is any of this helpful? Jesus simply said this is my body and this is my blood. Where does change of substance by only valid priests and all of this come in? None of it is contained in Scripture. I guess this is where I am confused.

 

[Reuben_J]

You got me confused now. If he isn’t truly present, then why do we call it the Real Presence?

It depends on what you mean by the Real Presence. I am not so sure where you come from but there are Christians who believe in the Real Presence but yet do not believe that the host is Real Body of Jesus. Don’t get me wrong, yes, we believe in the Real Presence but it does not mean Jesus is somehow hiding there in the host or that it is symbolic but the Real Presence is his Real Body and Real Blood. If you believe in that, then we are one, because you then believe in Transubstantiation which is a very elusive word for many.

My friend, PJM defines Transubstantiation earlier on. You can go from there.

 

[Reuben_J]

And how is any of this helpful? Jesus simply said this is my body and this is my blood. Where does change of substance by only valid priests and all of this come in? None of it is contained in Scripture. I guess this is where I am confused.

Oh, OK. This is the confusion. Yes, only valid priests, that’s right. Not anyone but only the apostles and their successors can confect the bread and the wine into Real Body and Real Blood of Jesus by virtue of his commission to them - “do this in memory of me”.

 

[PLeeD]

Oh, OK. This is the confusion. Yes, only valid priests, that’s right. Not anyone but only the apostles and their successors can confect the bread and the wine into Real Body and Real Blood of Jesus by virtue of his commission to them - “do this in memory of me”.

No one outside the original apostles took part in the last supper. So, based on the assumption that the last supper was a commission only to the apostles, then only apostles, i.e. priests should be able to partake in communion.

If you are going to infer a claim of apostolic succession from the account of the last supper, then that account provides no basis for lay people to be able to receive the Eucharist.

 

[mortonsam]

It depends on what you mean by the Real Presence. I am not so sure where you come from but there are Christians who believe in the Real Presence but yet do not believe that the host is Real Body of Jesus. Don’t get me wrong, yes, we believe in the Real Presence but it does not mean Jesus is somehow hiding there in the host or that it is symbolic but the Real Presence is his Real Body and Real Blood. If you believe in that, then we are one, because you then believe in Transubstantiation which is a very elusive word for many.

My friend, PJM defines Transubstantiation earlier on. You can go from there.

I don’t think so. The two are not in corelation with each other. Transubstantiation is Catholic theology, it is not found anywhere in Scripture.

 

[mortonsam]

Oh, OK. This is the confusion. Yes, only valid priests, that’s right. Not anyone but only the apostles and their successors can confect the bread and the wine into Real Body and Real Blood of Jesus by virtue of his commission to them - “do this in memory of me”.

But valid according to whom? Jesus? Again, no Scriptural support.

 

[allenirvan]

In John 6, Jesus is already speaking figuratively by comparing himself to manna from heaven.

The problem with the point you try to make is that the Jews were grumbling about more than being told to eat flesh and drink blood.

So the “hard teaching” wasn’t solely concerning eating flesh and drinking blood. That wasn’t even the first point made that led to all the grumbling.

Very truly I tell you, you are right that those verses lead to the path through the gates of heaven. It’s just that they don’t say anything to prove transubstantiation as true.

Of course he was speaking figuratively when he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” He was asserting to those disciples that he was in fact God incarnate. That’s the first step to becoming a Christian, believing that Jesus is God, just as Jesus pointed out a few verses earlier, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” So, when they start their grumbling that you pointed out, they are asserting their disbelief in His being God, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

So, you are correct, it was not ONLY the matter of eating his flesh and drinking his blood that the disciples were responding to when they said, “this is a hard teaching”; it began with their utter disbelief that he was God.

He moves on from this pure figurative language when He asserts even more boldly than before, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven.(vs 51)” To which they again assert their disbelief in His being God and, simultaneously, assert their disbelief that he can in fact, give us his flesh to eat, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (vs 52)”

At this point, Jesus spells it out for them quite clearly, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.”

So, at this point, Jesus has very clearly explained that He is God, and that his flesh is in fact food and he will give it to the world to eat. However ridiculous that sounds, it is what He said.

Now the grumblers, continuing with their disbelief of everything He said, respond, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”. Jesus, knowing them better than they know themselves, explains their disbelief to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe… 65 This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

I take this last bit to mean that even if they were to see Him ascend to into Heaven that they would not believe because they are:

1. selfish, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. vs. 26”
2. closed-minded, “How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’? vs. 42”
   And
3. closed to the Spirit, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. vs. 63"

The things Jesus said were profound and required openness to many possibilities about God that these people had not considered and were not willing to consider. Most of all, as Jesus explained no less than 3 times in vs. 36, 44, 65, belief of these things required a work of God inside them - something they were not open to. They were too focused on themselves, their “flesh (vs. 63)”, tangible things, to allow the Spirit to give them “life”, understanding, and belief.

This most certainly was a salvation issue for those who were listening on that day. The culpability of those of us who were not there and may not have received the proper teaching is up to God, but you must realize, that for some, this IS, and for those it WAS, absolutely a salvation issue. Jesus said so. I’m not saying that anyone would go to hell over it, I’m in no position to make such a claim, just repeating what Jesus said, that “whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life”…

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by PLeeD
The question is, if it really is His flesh and blood, then it seems odd to refer to communion as “remembering” Him. We aren’t remembering at all. We are in His real presence.

The question is not whether he is there. Most all of us assume he is there in one form or another, though not all of us claim to understand or even care to attempt explanation of the mystery.

Someone referred to an incomplete meaning in the word “remembrance” that doesn’t cover all the original Greek word implies. Can anyone point to commentary on that point

My dear friend in Christ,

***While the point you make comes close to being valid; it nevertheless MISTATES the actual meaning of the COMMAND: “Do this in Memory of Me.”

To gain correct understanding one needs to look at the total comand ; not simply the WORD “remember” or “remerance.” WHY?*

Because the reference here is NOT precisely recalling Jesus as Christ; RATHER it is recalling the sublime SACRIFICE that is "re-presented} [NOT REPRESENTED] but presented again and again, now in an UNBLOODY manner. It is God made present in our Midst: a Gift from God, of God and For God, and we Catholics are the benefisheries.

If it TO – BE a perpetual reminder of the Love that God has for us; and of the extrems God is wiling to GO TO, inorder that we MIGHT love Him in return.**

From the Catholic Catechism:

1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again**, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet ‘in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.’"

**1410 **It is Christ himself, the eternal high priest of the New Covenant who, acting through the ministry of the priests, offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. And it is the same Christ, really present under the species of bread and wine, who is the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

1330 The memorial of the Lord’s Passion and Resurrection.
The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church’s offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, “sacrifice of praise,” spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used, since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.

The Holy and Divine Liturgy, because the Church’s whole liturgy finds its center and most intense expression in the celebration of this sacrament; in the same sense we also call its celebration the Sacred Mysteries. We speak of the Most Blessed Sacrament because it is the Sacrament of sacraments. The Eucharistic species reserved in the tabernacle are designated by this same name.

Dear friends in Christ, I pray that this aids yor correct understanding.

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by PLeeD
The question is, if it really is His flesh and blood, then it seems odd to refer to communion as “remembering” Him. We aren’t remembering at all. We are in His real presence.

The question is not whether he is there. Most all of us assume he is there in one form or another, though not all of us claim to understand or even care to attempt explanation of the mystery.

Someone referred to an incomplete meaning in the word “remembrance” that doesn’t cover all the original Greek word implies. Can anyone point to commentary on that point

My dear friend in Christ,

***While the point you make comes close to being valid; it nevertheless MISTATES the actual meaning of the COMMAND: “Do this in Memory of Me.”

To gain correct understanding one needs to look at the total comand ; not simply the WORD “remember” or “remerance.” WHY?*

Because the reference here is NOT precisely recalling Jesus as Christ; RATHER it is recalling the sublime SACRIFICE that is "re-presented} [NOT REPRESENTED] but presented again and again, now in an UNBLOODY manner. It is God made present in our Midst: a Gift from God, of God and For God, and we Catholics are the benefisheries.

If it TO – BE a perpetual reminder of the Love that God has for us; and of the extrems God is wiling to GO TO, inorder that we MIGHT love Him in return.**

From the Catholic Catechism:

1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again**, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet ‘in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.’"

**1410 **It is Christ himself, the eternal high priest of the New Covenant who, acting through the ministry of the priests, offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. And it is the same Christ, really present under the species of bread and wine, who is the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

1330 The memorial of the Lord’s Passion and Resurrection.
The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church’s offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, “sacrifice of praise,” spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used, since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.

The Holy and Divine Liturgy, because the Church’s whole liturgy finds its center and most intense expression in the celebration of this sacrament; in the same sense we also call its celebration the Sacred Mysteries. We speak of the Most Blessed Sacrament because it is the Sacrament of sacraments. The Eucharistic species reserved in the tabernacle are designated by this same name.

Dear friends in Christ, I pray that this aids your correct understanding.

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[PJM]

=PLeeD;7329412]No one outside the original apostles took part in the last supper. So, based on the assumption that the last supper was a commission only to the apostles, then only apostles, i.e. priests should be able to partake in communion.

If you are going to infer a claim of apostolic succession from the account of the last supper, then that account provides no basis for lay people to be able to receive the Eucharist.

***So friend Christ lived and died ONLY for the Apostles? Expecting His Church, Covennt, and New Faith to Die with them?

**Eph. 4: 4 -8 ***“There is one body Only One Church] and one Spirit, Only One set of beliefs] just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, Only One God] ONLY ***one faith, ***Only One set of doctrine and dogma] one baptism, By water in the Trinity] one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. "

Christ made a New Covenant in His BLOOD ONLY for the Apostles?

Christ Founded Only One New Church; One New Faith, Put Perter in chrge and gave this Command JUST to the Apostles?**

re you aware friend that Only One Church has over 100 references in the New Testament?

Matt.28 Verses 19 to 20: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” *And your saying this was fulfilled while the Apostles still lived?

And the Key’s to the KINGDOM: What happened to thm? [Matt. 16:19]*

AND there is no more fogiveness of sin? Or do we simply not sin anymore?

** 1John.1 Verses 8 to 10:** "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

** 1John.5 Verses 16 to 17**"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. ** There is sin which is mortal**; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, ** but there is sin which is not mortal. **

** John.20 Verses 20 to 23**]" When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. ** Jesus said to them ** again, “Peace be with you. ** As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” ** And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

You may wish to rethink [PRAYERFULLY!] your position. It’s not very logical

May God grant you Wisdom and Understanding.

Pat

 

[JonNC]

I don’t think so. The two are not in corelation with each other. Transubstantiation is Catholic theology, it is not found anywhere in Scripture.

As it is a human expression of the real presence, stated by Christ Himself - “This is my body”, etc - it is far more scriptural than the expression of the bread and wine as being symbolic of Christ’s body and blood.

Jon

 

[Reuben_J]

No one outside the original apostles took part in the last supper. So, based on the assumption that the last supper was a commission only to the apostles, then only apostles, i.e. priests should be able to partake in communion.

If you are going to infer a claim of apostolic succession from the account of the last supper, then that account provides no basis for lay people to be able to receive the Eucharist.

mortonsam:

But valid according to whom? Jesus? Again, no Scriptural support.

Pleed, you misunderstand me. You have it mixed up there when you said priests only should be able to partake in communion since they are the succession to the apostles.

Look at the Last Supper. Jesus gave the bread and the wine to the apostles, and asked the apostles to do what he did, i.e. to do what Jesus did. Jesus changed the bread and the wine to his body and his blood - in layman term → transubstantiation.

When priests do in the Eucharist as what Jesus did as commanded by him, priests are to give the Body and the Blood to the sheep. “Feed my sheep”.

 

[Reuben_J]

As it is a human expression of the real presence, stated by Christ Himself - “This is my body”, etc - it is far more scriptural than the expression of the bread and wine as being symbolic of Christ’s body and blood.

Jon

Thanks Jon for rescuing me there. Appreciate it.

To mortonsam, Jesus did not say, “When two or three of you gather in my name, I am in your mist”. He said, as he took the bread and the wine, “This (this bread/this wine as he touched the bread and the wine with his hand, specifically referring to the bread and the wine) is my body, this is my blood”. And yes, like Jon said, it is right out of the Gospel of John.

 

[Reuben_J]

I don’t think so. The two are not in corelation with each other. Transubstantiation is Catholic theology, it is not found anywhere in Scripture.

It is the word Transubstantiation that scares you. That’s the Church’s term. It has been explained already. It simply means the change of the bread and the wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus. That is found in the Scripture as noted.

“You are Peter. You are Rock”. That means that person is Peter. That person is Rock.

“This is stone. This is bread”. That means that object is stone. That object is bread.

“This is my body. This is my blood”. That means whatever that ‘this’ is, it is the body of the person who says it is. It is the blood of the person who says it is.

And you do not fool around with Jesus,as what many people had found out. He had the knack of making true of what he said, no matter how ridiculous it may sound. Saying, “Get up and walk” to a leper who had been been unable to walk for what had been all his life, was indeed ridiculous. But the leper got up and walked nevertheless.

If Jesus said, as he held up the bread and the wine, “This is my body. This is my blood”, we have to take his word for it. This Jesus makes things happen according to his word.