''Do this in memory of me''

[Ag_not]

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.

 

[Steadfast]

I don’t believe in Transubstantiation.

I “believe, teach, and confess that in the Holy Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, and are truly distributed and received with the bread and wine.” (Epitome of the Formula of Concord VII:6)

 

[coolduude]

I don’t believe in Transubstantiation.

I “believe, teach, and confess that in the Holy Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, and are truly distributed and received with the bread and wine.” (Epitome of the Formula of Concord VII:6)

Read John 6. The Lord was speaking literally, no excuses. How do you deny the Lord?

I can back that up, but I’m short on time.

 

[Steadfast]

Read John 6. The Lord was speaking literally, no excuses. How do you deny the Lord?

I can back that up, but I’m short on time.

I agree. He was speaking literally.

We really eat His Body and Blood in communion.

 

[emeraldcoast]

I agree. He was speaking literally.

We really eat His Body and Blood in communion.

Something that I find very interesting is that when I have attended an ELCA service, just as in my church they have offered both the host and the cup to us–just like Jesus did at the Last Supper. Surprisingly, the Catholic Church in which I attend a weekly Mass NEVER offers the cup to the people. I can not think of any Prostestant Service with Communion that I have attended that did not offer both the bread and cup together.

God Bless!

 

[jay29]

Something that I find very interesting is that when I have attended an ELCA service, just as in my church they have offered both the host and the cup to us–just like Jesus did at the Last Supper. Surprisingly, the Catholic Church in which I attend a weekly Mass NEVER offers the cup to the people. I can not think of any Prostestant Service with Communion that I have attended that did not offer both the bread and cup together.

God Bless!

In short, both the consecrated bread and wine, each contains the entire Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. The recipient lacks nothing if he/she only has one of them.

 

[CWBetts]

In short, both the consecrated bread and wine, each contains the entire Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. The recipient lacks nothing if he/she only has one of them.

Also, since it is Jesus, I don’t want to be the guy that spills Him

 

[BJRumph]

While certainly true, that is besides the point. If we, as Catholics, are being so hype-literal about emulating the Last Supper as it being literally Blood and flesh, why do we feel, quite unsupported by the same scriptures used to support our belief, the freedom to ignore the fact that Christ also offered BOTH the Body AND Blood, and commanded the partaking of BOTH EVERY time He mentions the requirement to consume Him?

Granted, both Parishes here in town offer BOTH to communicants, the question is still a valid one to be addressed with the same effort that is used to ‘defend’ Transubstantiation.

Jesus did not ever in scripture suggest that partaking of one was ‘as good as’ taking the other or both. Certainly, He commanded multiple times for his followers to partake of His Body AND Blood. He clearly recognized ownership of Both, but still saw fit to command us to partake in BOTH, rather than ever suggesting only one was ‘good enough’.

Whether we look at it literally or symbolically, Christ saw and taught the necessity of receiving both, and never suggested that one was the equivalent to the other, or that one was also both. It was not enough to Him that they both came from Him, such recognition of the unity of Origin was implicit in asserting that they had to both be of Him; He always stated a requirement of receiving BOTH, and never said one was the same as, or even as good as, the other. A totality of reception was always taught. Well, at least by Christ…

 

[BJRumph]

GRanted, I understand that in some places, the Host is soaked in the Wine, so it is possible, under such a form, to receive BOTH, while still only partaking in an Singular action.

Under the Eucharistic form here in the US (anyway), the only way we could suggest a similar ‘combination’ would require us to drink of the Wine, rather than receiving the Host, as only the wine is an admixture of the two.

 

[CWBetts]

The only time I don’t take both is when i’m sick, actually. I dont want the rest of the parish to get sick just from taking Communion

 

[BJRumph]

The “one is as good as the other” ONLY works when taking the commandment symbolically; but doing so is what takes away from the necessity of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. SO…

 

[brkn1]

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.

It is literally impossible to do anything in the “memory” of the very same thing.
Jesus used “in memory of Me” to make sure we understand that there was only one Sacrifice offered for our sin at Calvary.

“Without shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin.”
There is no shedding of blood in the “bloodless sacrifice” of the mass. You will find absolutely no Scripture that describes sin being remitted in any other way, but through the shedding of blood.

 

[emeraldcoast]

While certainly true, that is besides the point. If we, as Catholics, are being so hype-literal about emulating the Last Supper as it being literally Blood and flesh, why do we feel, quite unsupported by the same scriptures used to support our belief, the freedom to ignore the fact that Christ also offered BOTH the Body AND Blood, and commanded the partaking of BOTH EVERY time He mentions the requirement to consume Him?

Granted, both Parishes here in town offer BOTH to communicants, the question is still a valid one to be addressed with the same effort that is used to ‘defend’ Transubstantiation.

Jesus did not ever in scripture suggest that partaking of one was ‘as good as’ taking the other or both. Certainly, He commanded multiple times for his followers to partake of His Body AND Blood. He clearly recognized ownership of Both, but still saw fit to command us to partake in BOTH, rather than ever suggesting only one was ‘good enough’.

Whether we look at it literally or symbolically, Christ saw and taught the necessity of receiving both, and never suggested that one was the equivalent to the other, or that one was also both. It was not enough to Him that they both came from Him, such recognition of the unity of Origin was implicit in asserting that they had to both be of Him; He always stated a requirement of receiving BOTH, and never said one was the same as, or even as good as, the other. A totality of reception was always taught. Well, at least by Christ…

I agree with you, BJRumph.

God Bless!

 

[Ag_not]

It is literally impossible to do anything in the “memory” of the very same thing.
Jesus used “in memory of Me” to make sure we understand that there was only one Sacrifice offered for our sin at Calvary.

So what does these words mean to you then:

John: 6 53-55 UNLESS YOU EATthe flesh of the son of man, you have no life within you.

1 Corinthians 11 27 - 29:

Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaining the body and blood of our Lord. For he who eats and drinks without discerning the Body eats and drinks judgement upon himself.

Now, how do you ‘‘discern’’ something if it’s symbolic, and doesn’t Paul indicate that celebrating the Eucharist is something that is to be continued, since if it was once only, how can someone eat and drink (in the future) in an unworthy state? So to my original question, even if you DONT believe the last supper in a litteral sense, how do you explain not partaking of even a symbolic rememberance of the last supper?

 

[TomaszA]

Peace BJRumph,

Jesus did not ever in scripture suggest that partaking of one was ‘as good as’ taking the other or both.

Actually, He did.

John 6:54 say, “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” It’s parallel, verse 57 says, “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.” The parallel between the double and single forms shows that the Whole of Christ is present under both species.

By “whole” we mean each consecrated species contains the totality of Christ. Thus, the Consecrated Bread contains not only the Body, but also the Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord and Savior. The same is true for the Consecrated Wine.

This is also revealed by St Paul when he says,
"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord."
1 Corinthians 11:27

This clearly shows that whether a person drinks the Blood or consumes the Body unworthily, the guilt is attributed to both the Body and Blood of Christ, once again showing that one species contains the Whole of Christ.

Although it is true both the Body and Blood were available to both priests and lay, there are also cases in antiquity where only the Body was given to laity, such as Communion received by children, Communion received at home, and Communion received by the sick.

Those who received in the singular form, the Body of Christ, were in no way deprived. The reason being as scripture and Church affirm, the totality of Christ is present under both Species.

Certainly, He commanded multiple times for his followers to partake of His Body AND Blood. He clearly recognized ownership of Both, but still saw fit to command us to partake in BOTH, rather than ever suggesting only one was ‘good enough’.

When bringing up the Last Supper we have to remember that the Apostles, whom Jesus ordained into the Sacerdotal Priesthood, shared in the Body and Blood. This does not necessarily mean that the Universal Priesthood of the laity also needs to share in both species. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, the Sacerdotal Priesthood in the OT was entitled to certain aspects of the Sacrifice that the Universal Priesthood of Jews was not, so this is not a new concept.

Anyway, I’m not a theologian nor am I that good at explaining things so I know I have done some injustice to this mysterious and marvelous reality. For me, I am content with the proclamations of the Church of God which Christ said, “Those who hear you, hear Me.” Amen, I hear You Lord Jesus in the teachings of your Church!

Hope this helps,
Tomasz

 

[brkn1]

So what does these words mean to you then:

John: 6 53-55 UNLESS YOU EATthe flesh of the son of man, you have no life within you.

1 Corinthians 11 27 - 29:

Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaining the body and blood of our Lord. For he who eats and drinks without discerning the Body eats and drinks judgement upon himself.

Now, how do you ‘‘discern’’ something if it’s symbolic, and doesn’t Paul indicate that celebrating the Eucharist is something that is to be continued, since if it was once only, how can someone eat and drink (in the future) in an unworthy state? So to my original question, even if you DONT believe the last supper in a litteral sense, how do you explain not partaking of even a symbolic rememberance of the last supper?

Why not just go back to (John 6:51) to get the correct understanding of what Jesus was talking about:
“I am the LIVING BREAD which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I give is my flesh, which I give for the life of the world.”

Jesus became incarnate so that He could ONCE die as He gave His flesh as the Perfect Sacrifice. Jesus shed His Blood at Calvary to remit (pay for) our sins. We eat of Jesus’ flesh when we are made by the Holy Spirit to accept and believe in this Gospel of Jesus’ attonement for our sin. This is what Jesus was referring to when He said we must be “born again”.

Notice that Jesus says that “if ANY man should eat of this bread, he shall live FOREVER:…” . This result of “living forever” does not come from the “communion” that you claim for the Lord’s Supper.
That must mean that Jesus is speaking about spiritual eating of Jesus flesh “they (Jesus’ words) are spirit”.
Jesus carries the explanation to the correct understanding when He says: v.63 “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; …” That is the born again experience by the Holy Spirit which brings eternal life to those quickened, when they are enabled to spiritually eat of Jesus’ “words that I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life.”

 

[Ag_not]

We eat of Jesus’ flesh when we are made by the Holy Spirit to accept and believe in this Gospel of Jesus’ attonement for our sin. This is what Jesus was referring to when He said we must be “born again”.

Can you pin that down a bit better for me? Where in the scripture does it say that *by receiving the Holy Spirit *we are eating of Jesus’ flesh?

What passages specifically equate these two actions?

 

[Ag_not]

Why not just go back to (John 6:51) to get the correct understanding of what Jesus was talking about:
“I am the LIVING BREAD which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I give is my flesh, which I give for the life of the world.”

Jesus became incarnate so that He could ONCE die as He gave His flesh as the Perfect Sacrifice. Jesus shed His Blood at Calvary to remit (pay for) our sins. We eat of Jesus’ flesh when we are made by the Holy Spirit to accept and believe in this Gospel of Jesus’ attonement for our sin. This is what Jesus was referring to when He said we must be “born again”.

Notice that Jesus says that “if ANY man should eat of this bread, he shall live FOREVER:…” . This result of “living forever” does not come from the “communion” that you claim for the Lord’s Supper.
That must mean that Jesus is speaking about spiritual eating of Jesus flesh “they (Jesus’ words) are spirit”.
Jesus carries the explanation to the correct understanding when He says: v.63 “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; …” That is the born again experience by the Holy Spirit which brings eternal life to those quickened, when they are enabled to spiritually eat of Jesus’ “words that I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life.”

Why did Jesus ask the apostles if they took offence at his words, if it was clear to them that he was speaking symbolically. What did, right then, some of the disciples leave him never to return. What did they mean by ‘’ this is a hard saying’’. What is hard about a symbolic representation of christ’s body and blood? BUT it would be impossible to comprehend if he meant it literally. Wouldnt it. Is that why some left and found it too hard to understand and accept. Because he WAS speaking literally?

Why would the disciples who were with Him, who had seen him do miracle after miracle after miracle, up and quite right there over something that was just symbolic? And why didn’t Jesus elaborate further when he say his disciples leave - he even asked Peter would he leave too? He didnt say, what’s up with these idiots, cant they see a metaphore when I hit them with it???

 

[brkn1]

Can you pin that down a bit better for me? Where in the scripture does it say that *by receiving the Holy Spirit *we are eating of Jesus’ flesh?

What passages specifically equate these two actions?

Perhaps you could give me a decent explanation of why Jesus said “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63)?
Jesus said this during the time everyone was trying to understand what He meant by eating His flesh as the “living bread”.

What is the Spirit quickening and how does eating the living bread result in eternal life? v.54

 

[brkn1]

Why did Jesus ask the apostles if they took offence at his words, if it was clear to them that he was speaking symbolically. What did, right then, some of the disciples leave him never to return. What did they mean by ‘’ this is a hard saying’’. What is hard about a symbolic representation of christ’s body and blood? BUT it would be impossible to comprehend if he meant it literally. Wouldnt it. Is that why some left and found it too hard to understand and accept. Because he WAS speaking literally?

Why would the disciples who were with Him, who had seen him do miracle after miracle after miracle, up and quite right there over something that was just symbolic? And why didn’t Jesus elaborate further when he say his disciples leave - he even asked Peter would he leave too? He didnt say, what’s up with these idiots, cant they see a metaphore when I hit them with it???

You seem to be no different than those who were stuck in the idea of the physical miracles of Jesus. They could not understand spiritual things. Jesus would never propose cannibalism which violates the law which He came to fulfill.
They could not understand this, since they were not born again.