''Do this in memory of me''

[Henning]

How, in Luke 22:19, can Jesus have two real bodies: 1) Jesus’ real body (skeleton, nerves, etc) that’s in the room saying “do this in memory of me”, and 2) the body (bread) in his hands. Which is his real body and which is the symbol ?

 

[TomaszA]

Peace Brkn1,

You can not “commemorate” “the Sacrifice of Calvary MADE PRESENT”.

The Sacrifice of Mass is the making present of the Sacrifice of Calvary under the Sacramental Veil. Because it is made present under the Sacramental Veil there is an objective distinction in the mode of presentation between the bloody sacrifice of the Cross and the bloodless sacrifice of Mass. For this reason, the bloodless sacrifice commemorates the bloody sacrifice.

We are told to “Do this in remembrance…”; not “Do this to make present…”.

What makes the Mass a real sacrifice and not merely a memorial of a sacrifice is that Jesus explicitly said, "This is My Body."

If the Consecrated Bread and Wine is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, then a real sacrifice is being offered to God.

Since there is a distinction in the mode of presentation, we are still commemorating Jesus on the Cross when we partake in the Sacrifice of Mass.

You are preaching another gospel not found in scripture, unless you twist the truth. There is no “explicitly handed down” words of the apostle to defend your claim. The “breaking of bread” would have been described as “eating of Jesus” in Scripture, if explicit were the case.

It is clear that your rejection of the Real Presence is a departure from the teaching of Jesus Christ.

Weigh the options yourself. A teaching that is 2,000 years old versus one that is 500 years old. A teaching that is universally held among Christians of various races and languages, versus one that originated in Germany.

It is clear which is innovation and which is Divine Teaching.

 

[TomaszA]

Peace Henning,

How, in Luke 22:19, can Jesus have two real bodies: 1) Jesus’ real body (skeleton, nerves, etc) that’s in the room saying “do this in memory of me”, and 2) the body (bread) in his hands. Which is his real body and which is the symbol ?

Both are His Body.

 

[Henning]

Peace Henning,

Both are His Body.

Howdy,
I get that both are his body, but one has to be symbolic of the other…right? Trying to think of any analogous example of a person’s body extending into an inanimate object (no sarcasm )

 

[TomaszA]

Howdy,
I get that both are his body, but one has to be symbolic of the other…right? Trying to think of any analogous example of a person’s body extending into an inanimate object (no sarcasm )

Why does one have to be a symbol of the other?

The Consecrated Bread and Wine is substantially Jesus Christ.

 

[brkn1]

Peace Brkn1,

The Sacrifice of Mass is the making present of the Sacrifice of Calvary under the Sacramental Veil. Because it is made present under the Sacramental Veil there is an objective distinction in the mode of presentation between the bloody sacrifice of the Cross and the bloodless sacrifice of Mass. For this reason, the bloodless sacrifice commemorates the bloody sacrifice.

It is clear which is innovation and which is Divine Teaching.

Hi TomaszA,
Both the “Sacramental Veil” and “the bloodless sacrifice of Mass” are man-made innovations.

You claim a “bloodless sacrifice” is the same thing as a “Present” “bloody sacrifice”. That is also a man-made innovation, which lacks sense.

Turning “Do this in remembrance of Me” into “Sacrifice Me again and again for the remission of your venial sins.” is a man-made innovation. There was only one Sacrifice that was finished as Jesus declared. Finished means that there is no need to repeat what has been accomplished. That one Sacrifice did it all without the need of repetition.

 

[Henning]

Why does one have to be a symbol of the other?
.

Dunno, because they’re completely different; one has his genetic ‘prints’ and the other doesn’t, one is plant material and the other mammal. If he had said ‘this is my spiritual body’ it’d be easier to get brain around (maybe), but physical body…? I can’t get the sense of it (not that everything needs to make sense). The disciples in the upper room seeing the bread in his hand would have naturally thought that it (the bread) was a symbol because they could see his body before their eyes. They wouldn’t have thought that he was saying ‘my physical body is now extended into the bread’. The bread didn’t become animal tissue…

 

[TomaszA]

Brkn1.

Hi TomaszA,
Both the “Sacramental Veil” and “the bloodless sacrifice of Mass” are man-made innovations.

An innovation is a departure from constant teaching.

I can demonstrate that early Christians of the 1st century believed the Mass to be a sacrifice and that the Eucharist is truly His flesh. This supports our interpretation of the Bible, which clearly indicates the Real Presence as well as the sacrificial nature of the Mass.

If what the Church of God has always believed to be true is false, we would not be able to demonstrate it through early sources.

We can also demonstrate that the Mass is the fulfillment of the prophecy of a clean sacrifice in the order of Melchizadek.

You claim a “bloodless sacrifice” is the same thing as a “Present” “bloody sacrifice”. That is also a man-made innovation, which lacks sense.

It can’t be an innovation because it has always been believed.

The bloodless sacrifice is the same as the bloody sacrifice only because the same Minister presides over it, and the same Sacrificial Gift is offered. The only difference is in the mode of presentation.

Turning “Do this in remembrance of Me” into “Sacrifice Me again and again for the remission of your venial sins.” is a man-made innovation. There was only one Sacrifice that was finished as Jesus declared. Finished means that there is no need to repeat what has been accomplished. That one Sacrifice did it all without the need of repetition.

At Mass the Sacrifice of Calvary is made present. It is not another sacrifice independent from that absolute sacrifice on the Cross. That absolute sacrifice is what makes the Mass.

Call this what you want, I will believe as has always and universally been believed. You may believe as has been believed for 500 years among a group of Europeans and those they influenced.

 

[TomaszA]

Dunno, because they’re completely different; one has his genetic ‘prints’ and the other doesn’t, one is plant material and the other mammal. If he had said ‘this is my spiritual body’ it’d be easier to get brain around (maybe), but physical body…? I can’t get the sense of it (not that everything needs to make sense). The disciples in the upper room seeing the bread in his hand would have naturally thought that it (the bread) was a symbol because they could see his body before their eyes. They wouldn’t have thought that he was saying ‘my physical body is now extended into the bread’. The bread didn’t become animal tissue…

If Jesus taught that this was just a symbol then that’s what the Apostles would have taught and the Church of God would have always believed.

The fact is Scripture, history, and the official teaching of the Church all indicate that this is not a symbol, but that Jesus is really present.

If God can become man, Jesus can become bread.

 

[Henning]

If Jesus taught that this was just a symbol then that’s what the Apostles would have taught and the Church of God would have always believed.

The fact is Scripture, history, and the official teaching of the Church all indicate that this is not a symbol, but that Jesus is really present.

Except for ‘scripture’, can’t argue with this.

If God can become man, Jesus can become bread.

Hmm…have to give this some more thought. Thanks TomaszA

 

[TomaszA]

Except for ‘scripture’, can’t argue with this.

Interpretation of scripture is not something modern Protestants invented. It’s been going on since the very beginning among the very first Christians. Now if there was a teaching introduced a thousand years later that contradicts what early Christians believed, who is more likely to be right? I’d say the early Christians because they were living in a time closer to the events at hand. If there was a question about scripture they could ask an Apostle or someone who learned from an Apostle!

I think the early Christians believed in the Real Presence because it’s clearly taught in Scripture, among other things. If you disagree, let’s talk about it.

God bless,
Tomasz

 

[steve_b]

There are many pagans that use the same argument to defend their superstitions and gross idolatries.

If you as a Protestant tried to worship bread and wine in a Protestant assembly after one of your ministers distributed those elements you WOULD be guilty of idolotry because what you would be worshiping or receiving would be plain bread and wine.

Not so in the Catholic Mass
brk:

“It has always been done this way.” That does not make it true.

You’re completely forgetting WHO made what Catholics do and believe … true. You’re trying to reason your way through this as a Protestant without possessing the apostolic faith.
brk:

The mass is said to remit “venial” sins in a “bloodless sacrifice”, but the Holy Bible is clear that “without the shedding of blood is no remission.” (Hebrews 9:22). This clear statement contradicting the efficacy of the mass proves that the claims for the mass are unbiblical.

Again you’re trying to reason as a Protestant, without possessing the apostolic faith.
brk:

Jesus said “I am the bread of life.”; not “I will become, at times, the bread of life.”

Jesus is God. In His divinity He is** I AM**. He is the eternal NOW. There is no time, no past present or future in eternity. Just the eternal…I AM.
brk:

Jesus told the woman at the well that “true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth” since “God is a Spirit.”

Yes God is spirit. But He is also incarnate.

Jesus who is God incarnate explains

I am the way AND** the truth.** NO ONE comes to the Father except through ME.

Catholics worship in Spirit AND Truth. Jesus was talking about the Catholic Church.
brk:

You seem to prefer keeping the main part of your worship on a physical (substantiated) level.

Our beliefs ARE substantiated. Before the NT was even written the Catholic Church was trained directly by Jesus and the apostles.
brk:

Jesus is a literal piece of bread, although He is only a symbolic door, vine, etc.

the Catholic Church who gave us the scrptures, gives the proper interpretation of the scriptures you’re arguing about.
brk:

Jesus died for our sins once at Calvary and He physically went back to the Father. He will not physically return until the Second Coming promised. The Holy Spirit was sent by Jesus to take His place until Jesus returns physically. Jesus is physically in Heaven right now as our High Priest and Mediator.

And Jesus ordained His priesthood the apostles at the last supper to continue ALL that Jesus taught. We went over this previously when we dissected “DO” in the command, “do this in memory of me”

As to your other comments from

Jn 14:13-26

I think you should read these passages again
brk:

Jesus said that it was expedient for us that He goes away to the Father. Jesus was speaking in the physical sense, since He is always spiritually with those that are His sheep.

Jesus put Peter in charge of His sheep. Peter is to feed AND rule Our Lord’s sheep. Whatever he binds…whatever he looses…

If you are seperated from Our Lord’s Church and argue about such things as the mass is unbiblical etc etc… can you even do what Jesus said?

 

[SIA]

This question is aimed at those people of christian faith, believing in the Bible, that do NOT believe in trans substanciation.

What do the words in the title mean to you, and how do you interpret this instruction of Our Lord, if it’s the case you do not go to a church that celebrates the Last Supper in any shape or form?

Bruxilda.

I do not believe in trasubstantiation. I believe in what the Bible clearly states about Christ’s body and blood.

 

[redeemedbyJesus]

We partake in communion at our church, we break the bread and drink the wine and remember what Jesus did for us on the cross.

We do it to remember Jesus. I don’t believe anywhere in scripture do we see any evidence of the mass and Jesus turning into bread. If the Eucharist is truly Jesus… why wasn’t Jesus more clear about it?

 

[brkn1]

If the bread and wine were truly turned into the body and blood of Jesus, that would be a miracle. The problem with such a miracle is that it would be the only miracle performed by Jesus, which did not have a tangible proof of its reality. All other miracles by Jesus were unquestionably true miracles and proof of Jesus’ claim to Divinity. The bread and wine still remaining obviously bread and wine after “transubstantiation” goes against the pattern of all previous and later miracles of Jesus. The whole idea behind a miracle is a manifested deviation from the natural physical laws by a supernatural power. That makes “transubstantiation” a deviation from the manifested deviation. I have to put it into the unsubstantiation category of unbiblical claims. The violation of the biblical pattern of miracles is enough to reject it, even without the blood eating and cannibalism thrown in too.

 

[steve_b]

Hi TomaszA,
Both the “Sacramental Veil” and “the bloodless sacrifice of Mass” are man-made innovations.

You claim a “bloodless sacrifice” is the same thing as a “Present” “bloody sacrifice”. That is also a man-made innovation, which lacks sense.

Turning “Do this in remembrance of Me” into “Sacrifice Me again and again for the remission of your venial sins.” is a man-made innovation. There was only one Sacrifice that was finished as Jesus declared. Finished means that there is no need to repeat what has been accomplished. That one Sacrifice did it all without the need of repetition.

After the resurrection, on

The Road to Emmaus

Lk 24:

1 On the first day of the week,

[snip]

13Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, which was about seven miles from Jerusalem.

[snip]

15While they were talking and discussing, Jesus Himself approached and began traveling with them.
16 But their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him.

[snip]

25And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
26"Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures. 28And they approached the village where they were going, and He acted as though He were going farther. 29But they urged Him, saying, “Stay with us, for it is getting toward evening, and the day is now nearly over.” So He went in to stay with them.

30When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them.

31Then** their eyes were opened and they recognized Him**; and He vanished from their sight.

32They said to one another, “Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?”

His words He spoke again, were the same words He spoke at the Last Supper. This was Sunday, 1st day of the week. And Jesus was physically with them at the breaking of the bread.

33 And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them, 34* who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” 35 Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.

Acts 20:
7 On the first day of the week, (Sunday) when we were gathered together to break bread

---

from the Didache (~70 a.d.) (emphasis mine)

Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord’s Day

1 But every Lord’s day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, (Acts 20:7) and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. 2 But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned.Mt 5:23-24] 3 For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations. Malachi 1:11]
newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm

 

[steve_b]

I do not believe in trasubstantiation.

Neither did the disciples who left Jesus [Jn 6:66]

 

[steve_b]

We partake in communion at our church, we break the bread and drink the wine and remember what Jesus did for us on the cross.

We do it to remember Jesus. I don’t believe anywhere in scripture do we see any evidence of the mass and Jesus turning into bread. If the Eucharist is truly Jesus… why wasn’t Jesus more clear about it?

He was, and so were the apostles, and so were the ECF’s, and so has the consistant teaching of the Church for 2000 years.

 

[RobbyS]

Hi TomaszA,
Both the “Sacramental Veil” and “the bloodless sacrifice of Mass” are man-made innovations.

You claim a “bloodless sacrifice” is the same thing as a “Present” “bloody sacrifice”. That is also a man-made innovation, which lacks sense.

Turning “Do this in remembrance of Me” into “Sacrifice Me again and again for the remission of your venial sins.” is a man-made innovation. There was only one Sacrifice that was finished as Jesus declared. Finished means that there is no need to repeat what has been accomplished. That one Sacrifice did it all without the need of repetition.

The one Sacrifice is not repeated, What happens is that we are allowed to be present to participate in it. It i like we have memory of the actual event. I remember the first timeI met my wife, and that event cannot be repeated, but when I think of it, I am there again. The Body of Christ has a memory of that event
that it is able to bring us back to that it and enable us to share in that moment. You think it can be had only second hand through another person’s telling. But even Calvin thought of the
event as being told by the spirit, and we go one step further in thinking that the Spirit does in a way do what he did when he spoke to Mary and God becoime man, the man Jesus. We say something like the Spirit again speaks thru the priest and again the Word is made present and again offers himself up. Or so I see it.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I have no problem with believing in the Real Presence. I just cannot embrace transubstantiation; using Aristotelianism and Thomistic philosophy to explain a mystery and miracle makes no sense (can you explain a mystery?). Mysteries are… mysteries. Before the dogma of transubstantiation, the bread and wine simply became the Body and Blood of Christ. Period. No explanation was needed.

I don’t think we need an explanation now. The word “sacrament” in Latin was mysterion. I think that says it all.