Does the RCC teach that non-Catholic Christians are anathema?

[Pat_De]

Directly contradictory to all the extant evidence.

They will wrongly interpret what some of the efc’s as well as Scripture, before 150 AD to make it seem that way, but the truth was always understood as Paul taught, which is how God taught/wrote it. <<

You miss the explanation of John 6 that Jesus gives and goes quite well with the “Bread of Life sermon”, which I highly recommend you compare the two and see if He wasn’t using a carnal example to make a spiritual point, which you have totally missed or distorted to fit your own theology.

Further study of the “cup” as used in the NT , including the big hint Jesus gives as a starting point is exactly what Paul is speaking of and it has little to do with wine or blood in and of itself. But it does have to do more with the promises of the New Covenant, which is a hint for you to do your own study should you care to know the truth.

Many of Jesus’ followers were quite disturbed by His words. Disturbed enough to abandon Him. He didn’t chase after them and say “wait, it’s symbolic.” He looked at the Apostles and said “well, what about you guys?”

If you ever look at how Jesus dealt with people one on one you will see He went for the juggler. A Jewish ruler asked Him specifically, what must I do to inherent internal life? Of all the people to ask and what a question to ask and Who better to ask and what did Jesus do? Read the story and figure out why Jesus answered the way He did and when you discover the answer you will understand why most, yes most, who call themselves Christians and identify with Christianity will be separated fro god for eternity. Don’t let yourself be found in that place; find the story “The Rich Young Ruler”.

Having grown up believing as you do know, I come more and more to appreciate the wisdom of “leaning not on my own understanding.”

It is always easier to let someone else do the hard work of reading, studying and understanding the Lord you claim to love and also explains why the “true interpreter” from you perspective has written a great verse by verse and book by book commentary of the Bible so all of us can be Catholic, not.

 

[Pat_De]

They didnt? Do you have anything to offer other than an unqualified opinion???
With respect to your claim regarding the Apostles, what evidence do you offer to validate your claim that they didnt celebrate the Lord’s Supper “in a transubstantial way”? The only evidence we have comes from Paul in his letter to the 1st Corinthians and it absolutely speaks of the Lords Supper in terms of a “participation in the body and blood of the Lord” and goes further to say that in regards to those who participate in it, “whoever does not recognize the body eats and drinks judgment on himself”. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. - Paul speaks exactly and clarifies for any student of Scripture that is already a Christian a clear understanding and is also verified by the Book of Acts, but only a Christian can understand what the apostle wrote under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, the first generation of Christians succeeding the Apostles clearly spoke of the literal, Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as well. Ignatius was a disciple of John the Apostle - here’s his take on it from Ch7 of his letter to the Smyrneans:

Anyone can and many will revise history for their own agenda and the very words of the ecf’s have been distorted and you will find no efc stating*** “this is the literal blood and the literal flesh in which I and the church are sharing”*** and you will not find the word “transubstantiation” of the bread or wine into the flesh or blood. After about 120-140 AD you may find some of this begin to emerge, but this would be at the time when no direct eyewitnesses or direct contact with the apostles; so anything can go.

 

[Pat_De]

They didnt? Do you have anything to offer other than an unqualified opinion???
With respect to your claim regarding the Apostles, what evidence do you offer to validate your claim that they didnt celebrate the Lord’s Supper “in a transubstantial way”? The only evidence we have comes from Paul in his letter to the 1st Corinthians and it absolutely speaks of the Lords Supper in terms of a “participation in the body and blood of the Lord” and goes further to say that in regards to those who participate in it, “whoever does not recognize the body eats and drinks judgment on himself”. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. - Paul speaks exactly and clarifies for any student of Scripture that is already a Christian a clear understanding and is also verified by the Book of Acts, but only a Christian can understand what the apostle wrote under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, the first generation of Christians succeeding the Apostles clearly spoke of the literal, Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as well. Ignatius was a disciple of John the Apostle - here’s his take on it from Ch7 of his letter to the Smyrneans:

Anyone can and many will revise history for their own agenda and the very words of the ecf’s have been distorted and you will find no efc stating*** “this is the literal blood and the literal flesh in which I and the church are sharing”*** and you will not find the word “transubstantiation” of the bread or wine into the flesh or blood either. After about 120-140 AD you may find some of this begin to emerge, but this would be at the time when no direct eyewitnesses or direct contact with the apostles; so anything can go.

 

[Pat_De]

During my lifetime I’ve seen considerable change in the Catholic attitude toward Protestants and vice versa.

As a child, the Protestant wing of my family would refer to the "Syllabus of Errors" by Pius IX (1864) in which he used the word anathema over and over to sharply condemn Protestantism, democracy as we know it, separation of church and state, etc. Check it out on the internet.

That seemed to be the attitude until John XXIII. Vatican II, which he called (1962-65), watered down the denunciations of Protestants amd Protestantism. They became "separated brothers and sisters". Almost overnight Catholics could join with Protestants in ecumenical services, priests joined what had been previously all-Protestant clergy associations, and various other restrictions against Protestants were lifted. Protestant pastors were welcome by many priests to participate in weddings service at Catholic churches and many priests (not all) assisted at weddings in Protestant churches. 

 If one pays attention to CAF postings, however, many of them seem to echo the deep bitterness toward Protestantism that was widespread pre-Vatican II. Most Catholics, like Protestants, certainly the lay people, seem to feel that as fellow Christians we 'agree to disagree' and leave it at that. Sadly, there are still those 'on both sides' who hold fast to religious prejudices that, in my view, contradict the spirit of Christ.

 God bless Catholics, Protestants and all God's children.

It is why religion has never saved a soul!!

 

[Pat_De]

JL: According to Paul there are two ways to discern. [1Cor11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, NOT DISCERNING THE LORD’S BODY. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.] Those receiving unworthily did not DISCERN the Lord’s body. Since they didn’t DISCERN the Lord’s body, they had to DISCERN it was not the Lord’s body. There are two ways to discern either it is the Lord’s body or it is not the Lord’s body. Who discerned incorrectly and ate and drank damnation to himself? Those who did not discern the Lord’s body.

The rest of your post is nothing more than a made up statement without evidence, which is evidence the statement is false. By the way do you deny you belong to Calvary Chapel or Vineyard Outreach?

First, I wish you were more discerning to the Word of God and second why do you keep referring to theses religious organizations; I belong to Jesus Christ, a God-man who was hung on a cross where God poured out the wrath i stored up for myself onto Him; therefore by faith through repentance and trust in His dying on the cross and believing that He died, was buried and resurrected is indeed proof He is Who He claimed to be; therefore by faith and obedience He is my Savior and my Lord to whom I put my full trust in; He and He alone is worthy of worship; anything else is idolatry in my world.

 

[Pat_De]

I echo Roy’s post. There has always, in the Jewish faith and now in the Christian faith, been a discrepancy between following the spirit or the letter of the law. Just as some of the heresies that Paul dealt with in the early church continue to exist today, usually under a different handle, so that atitude of the Pharisee exists today. It’s not a sect but a human condition, a shortful that taints us all. We should be talking about what we have in common in our love of Jesus, not focusing so much on what seperates us. Why aren’t we asking ourselves or giving testimony to how we have, today, shown our love for Christ by loving our neighbor or making sacrifices so we can serve the poor and needy. There is a lot of energy being expended here that could be used to further the kingdom in a more real way. One of Jesus’ last commands was toward unity. When the world sees Christians (catholic,protestand and orthodox) uniting in the love of Christ we will again turn this world upside down in love. No theology here just the greatest commandment “Love you neighbor”. Dave P.S. I am not deep into this but I would suggest googling Chiara Lubick or The Focalare Movement for a little insight.

What separates us is doctrine concerning salvation and the gospel, what will unite is the tossing aside of such, which no one who is a Christian will ever compromise the gospel of salvation.

The greatest commandment is “Love God with all of your heart, mind, soul and strength”.

 

[momtoo]

First, I wish you were more discerning to the Word of God and second why do you keep referring to theses religious organizations; I belong to Jesus Christ, a God-man who was hung on a cross where God poured out the wrath i stored up for myself onto Him; therefore by faith through repentance and trust in His dying on the cross and believing that He died, was buried and resurrected is indeed proof He is Who He claimed to be; therefore by faith and obedience He is my Savior and my Lord to whom I put my full trust in; He and He alone is worthy of worship; anything else is idolatry in my world.

And there it is Pat De, you belong to Jesus Christ. You have made your very own religion with a membership of one, yourself. I’ve seen others do so as well. This is what allows protestants to jump from one protestant church to another. Roman Catholics can’t do that, wouldn’t do that. If you recall in the Bible (as you like to), Jesus told Peter he would be the rock for what He must call His Church. Oh, by the way, you do realize that the Roman Catholics made the Bible right? You do know a little history right? The first attempt at an old testament was in the 100’s. The full Bible was finally assembled in the 300’s by Pope Demasus from all the writings being used by the Christian (now being called Catholic) Church. The Bible was the Roman Catholic Canon, made for the Church (not the other way around). The King James version was our Bible with basically some books taken out and “authorized” by King James after (stupid) King Henry wanted a divorce and split from the Church. The Anglican Church was formed and Catholics were not allowed to be Catholic for hundreds of years. Maybe you should check out “Submission of the Clergy” and St. Thomas More, oh but perhaps your religion won’t let you believe what you see. St. Thomas More was martyred because he wouldn’t submit (conform). Thus we call him a Saint. By the way, Pat De, I think I know you. And now I will certainly be praying for you, whether you want me to or not

 

[NHInsider]

No, it was added later; I meant exactly what I said and history confirms the same. Not a big deal; just pointing out another way the church has changed over time.

Since this is the underlying argument you seem to rely upon, it would be helpful if you would provide some documentation other than your own assertions. You seem to be in possession of some knowledge that seems to refute all the work of generations of historians and theologians and contradicts the archaelogical, written and oral records. Either show us the facts or fess-up, is your name really Dan Brown?

You will not know what your church teaches until you look it up and all you have to do is watch TV to see the Pope himself bowing down to a statute or a relic.

Scripture tells us that man looks on the outward appearance but God knows the heart. (1 Sam 16:7) You, however, are presuming from someone’s posture that you know the intent of their heart. When you see a child kneeling beside the bed to pray, do you think the child is worshipping the bed? Of course not.

You miss the explanation of John 6 that Jesus gives and goes quite well with the “Bread of Life sermon”

Jesus “explanation” is pretty clear - He reiterates the offensive statement, ratcheting up the impact by changing the verb from “eat” to “chew.” I am very familiar with the “spiritual” interpretation and in fact believe that it has an important, if supplementary meaning. But I find NO scriptural basis for rejecting the literal meaning of the language, particularly in light of the consistent references to that meaning in the early years of the Church. (Which of course you claim don’t exist.)

I highly recommend you compare the two and see if He wasn’t using a carnal example to make a spiritual point, which you have totally missed or distorted to fit your own theology.

Further study of the “cup” as used in the NT , including the big hint Jesus gives as a starting point is exactly what Paul is speaking of and it has little to do with wine or blood in and of itself. But it does have to do more with the promises of the New Covenant, which is a hint for you to do your own study should you care to know the truth.

First of all, don’t patronize me. You don’t know the first thing about my qualifications, and in this forum, they don’t matter. But don’t flatter yourself that you are going to intimidate me with your superior background or intelligence.

Secondly, it is patently ridiculous to say that the “cup” has “little to do with wine or blood.” Even if you want to find only symbolic meaning in a passage, the symbolism has to begin with the physical, literal objects and the historical references. In the case of the Last Supper, each cup of the Paschal meal already had a symbolic, spiritual context before Jesus took up the cup at the end of the meal and gave it another, more universal and eternal significance.

It is always easier to let someone else do the hard work of reading, studying and understanding the Lord you claim to love and also explains why the “true interpreter” from you perspective has written a great verse by verse and book by book commentary of the Bible so all of us can be Catholic, not.

The Lord did not tell His followers “I’m returning to the Father - take this book, it will tell you everything you need to know until I come back.” The only words we know He wrote were traced in the dust of the public street. What He did say, to the Apostles, was “I’m going to send you the Holy Spirit to teach you - go proclaim the gospel to the whole world, baptize them and teach them to do what I have commanded” and “whoever hears you, hears me.”

First, I wish you were more discerning to the Word of God and second why do you keep referring to theses religious organizations; I belong to Jesus Christ, a God-man who was hung on a cross where God poured out the wrath i stored up for myself onto Him; therefore by faith through repentance and trust in His dying on the cross and believing that He died, was buried and resurrected is indeed proof He is Who He claimed to be; therefore by faith and obedience He is my Savior and my Lord to whom I put my full trust in; He and He alone is worthy of worship; anything else is idolatry in my world.

The Church you disdain was established, explicitly and deliberately, by the Lord Jesus. She proclaimed, preserved and passed on the Gospel; selected, copied and translated the Bible, carried the message to the ends of the earth, baptising, preaching and ordaining as the Lord commanded. The very same people who preserved the words you treasure proclaimed the doctrines you reject. Without the Church you would not know of the Incarnation, the Cross or the Resurrection. Your prideful rejection of your mother does not change the facts. By God’s grace you have been saved - by His grace may you come to the fullness of faith.

 

[jlhargus]

Originally Posted by jlhargus
JL: According to Paul there are two ways to discern. [1Cor11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, NOT DISCERNING THE LORD’S BODY. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.] Those receiving unworthily did not DISCERN the Lord’s body. Since they didn’t DISCERN the Lord’s body, they had to DISCERN it was not the Lord’s body. There are two ways to discern either it is the Lord’s body or it is not the Lord’s body. Who discerned incorrectly and ate and drank damnation to himself? Those who did not discern the Lord’s body. By the way do you deny you belong to Calvary Chapel or Vineyard Outreach?

First, I wish you were more discerning to the Word of God.

JL: So your answer is? You discern it is NOT the Lord’s body.

and second why do you keep referring to theses religious organizations; I belong to Jesus Christ, a God-man who was hung on a cross where God poured out the wrath i stored up for myself onto Him; therefore by faith through repentance and trust in His dying on the cross and believing that He died, was buried and resurrected is indeed proof He is Who He claimed to be; therefore by faith and obedience He is my Savior and my Lord to whom I put my full trust in; He and He alone is worthy of worship; anything else is idolatry in my world.

JL: So the answer is yes, you are Calvary Chapel.

 

[jlhargus]

No, it was added later; I meant exactly what I said and history confirms the same. Not a big deal; just pointing out another way the church has changed over time. He did mean for us to break bread as the church in the book of Acts tells us and a remembrance of His death, burial and resurrection for the Christian man or woman.

JL: Yet you are unable to post ANY evidence, which is evidence the statement is FALSE.

 

[Philthy]

]For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. - Paul speaks exactly and clarifies for any student of Scripture that is already a Christian a clear understanding and is also verified by the Book of Acts, but only a Christian can understand what the apostle wrote under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Hi Pat!
Im a Christian. I do not disagree with the fact that when we eat and drink the Lords Supper we proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. What I was looking for was evidence that the the Apostles did not celebrate the Lord’s supper in a “transubstantial way”. You have both confused one for the other and have assumed that they are somehow mutually exclusive when, in fact, they are not.

Anyone can and many will revise history for their own agenda and the very words of the ecf’s have been distorted and you will find no efc stating*** “this is the literal blood and the literal flesh in which I and the church are sharing”*** and you will not find the word “transubstantiation” of the bread or wine into the flesh or blood. After about 120-140 AD you may find some of this begin to emerge, but this would be at the time when no direct eyewitnesses or direct contact with the apostles; so anything can go

Here is Ignatius - disciple of John from his letter to the Smyrneans, Ch7:
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, ** because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.** Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes.

Bolding mine. The flesh that suffered on the Cross, Pat, was it Christ’s literal flesh?

Just the facts, please.

Blessings!

 

[vwtaylorii]

Anyone can and many will revise history for their own agenda and the very words of the ecf’s have been distorted and you will find no efc stating*** “this is the literal blood and the literal flesh in which I and the church are sharing”*** and you will not find the word “transubstantiation” of the bread or wine into the flesh or blood. After about 120-140 AD you may find some of this begin to emerge, but this would be at the time when no direct eyewitnesses or direct contact with the apostles; so anything can go.

We never seen God call the Holy Trinity until the middle of the third century, but that doesn’t mean the doctrine is not in the Bible or explained by the early Christians. It is the same for the Holy Eucharist. In Jn 6 Bread of Life discourse, Jesus repeated himself constantly, “Eat my body and drink my blood.” If he was talking in a symbolic term, he would not repeat himself when people are confused. In addition, the greek word “trogo”- meaning to gnaw or chew- was used in that verse was never used for something symbolic.

 

[PRmerger]

It is why religion has never saved a soul!!

That is like saying “a relationship with Christ has never saved a soul”, since “religion” comes from the Latin word, *religiare *which means…

relationship!

Whenever someone is being disrespectful to the Catholic religion, on the sole basis of its classification as a “religion”, he is speaking nonsense.

 

[PRmerger]

First, I wish you were more discerning to the Word of God and second why do you keep referring to theses religious organizations; I belong to Jesus Christ, a God-man who was hung on a cross where God poured out the wrath i stored up for myself onto Him; therefore by faith through repentance and trust in His dying on the cross and believing that He died, was buried and resurrected is indeed proof He is Who He claimed to be; therefore by faith and obedience He is my Savior and my Lord to whom I put my full trust in; He and He alone is worthy of worship; anything else is idolatry in my world.

That’s very Catholic of you to say that, Pat!

 

[Tomb54]

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. - Paul speaks exactly and clarifies for any student of Scripture that is already a Christian a clear understanding and is also verified by the Book of Acts, but only a Christian can understand what the apostle wrote under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Anyone can and many will revise history for their own agenda and the very words of the ecf’s have been distorted and you will find no efc stating*** “this is the literal blood and the literal flesh in which I and the church are sharing”*** and you will not find the word “transubstantiation” of the bread or wine into the flesh or blood either. After about 120-140 AD you may find some of this begin to emerge, but this would be at the time when no direct eyewitnesses or direct contact with the apostles; so anything can go.

If they did not believe in the real presence in the early church then why did they just say we do not eat the Body or drink the Blood of your Lord when they were charged with cannibalism?

“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”
-“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D. Think this is before the time you randomly try to write off the Apostles teaching on the Eucharist.

And again and he knew some of the Apostle
“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”
“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

You will also find it in the NT but you most likely will interpret that to fit your beliefs and not what he early church believed.

 

[Tomb54]

Pat De I would like to ask you do you think Hymenaeus is the same person here? Does he deny the Jesus as his personal savior or that Jesus died for us? Does he interpret the words of the Apostles to fit what he wants them to say?

17And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
*18Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
*19Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
2Tim 2

19Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:

20Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
tim 1

Just something to think about When you think Jesus started His church 1500 years later instead of when He sent the Holy Spirit and that the ECF do not teach what the early Christians believed.

 

[vwtaylorii]

thats excommunication

anathema is a curse to cuts off a person from Christ

Anathema does not mean cut off a person from Christ because it comes close to saying damming somebody to hell. It is an ancient biblical greek word that was used to cut a person of from fellowship for preaching false teachings until they repent. If it really mean to cut somebody off from Christ, Paul would be doing that because he used that word 5x in original greek (Gal 1:8–9; 1 Cor 16:22; 12:3; Rom 9: 3), and he didn’t cut anybody off from the Body of Christ. No human can do that.

studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=331

The only people that can be anathema are people who are part of the fellowship (i.e. only people who are Catholic will be excommunicated from the Catholic Church). A Protestant cannot be anathema because they are not members of the Cathollic Church.

 

[Tomb54]

No, it was added later; I meant exactly what I said and history confirms the same. Not a big deal; just pointing out another way the church has changed over time. He did mean for us to break bread as the church in the book of Acts tells us and a remembrance of His death, burial and resurrection for the Christian man or woman.

No it was not added later but allowed again. The teachings of the ECF show this very well and so do many writings and some of the councils. The Eastern Churches (both Orthodox and Catholic) have never removed it from the service if I am right. They dip the Body of our Lord into His Blood (with a spoon now-a-days) and then drop it into the persons mouth. This is why I have seen in some writing the description of lay people compared to little birds waiting to receive our Lord in communion. If any Eastern Churches are here they can clarify this more for you and say if I am right or not.

 

[Pat_De]

And there it is Pat De, you belong to Jesus Christ. You have made your very own religion with a membership of one, yourself. I’ve seen others do so as well. This is what allows protestants to jump from one protestant church to another. Roman Catholics can’t do that, wouldn’t do that. If you recall in the Bible (as you like to), Jesus told Peter he would be the rock for what He must call His Church. Oh, by the way, you do realize that the Roman Catholics made the Bible right? You do know a little history right? The first attempt at an old testament was in the 100’s. The full Bible was finally assembled in the 300’s by Pope Demasus from all the writings being used by the Christian (now being called Catholic) Church. The Bible was the Roman Catholic Canon, made for the Church (not the other way around). The King James version was our Bible with basically some books taken out and “authorized” by King James after (stupid) King Henry wanted a divorce and split from the Church. The Anglican Church was formed and Catholics were not allowed to be Catholic for hundreds of years. Maybe you should check out “Submission of the Clergy” and St. Thomas More, oh but perhaps your religion won’t let you believe what you see. St. Thomas More was martyred because he wouldn’t submit (conform). Thus we call him a Saint. By the way, Pat De, I think I know you. And now I will certainly be praying for you, whether you want me to or not

You better read and understand Jesus words and warnings, for He admits one at a time.

 

[Pat_De]

Since this is the underlying argument you seem to rely upon, it would be helpful if you would provide some documentation other than your own assertions. You seem to be in possession of some knowledge that seems to refute all the work of generations of historians and theologians and contradicts the archeological, written and oral records. Either show us the facts or fess-up, is your name really Dan Brown?

You just made several claims and you show me where the literal eating and literal drinking of His blood and the transubstantiation is; I cannot refute something that does not exist, but I did give the evidence of Jesus own words, Paul’s own words and if you look at the earliest church you will find the meeting of Christians and breaking of bread, but no mention of eating of flesh or transubstantiation. So I provided you with Biblical material/support, which you apparently reject, so the ball is in your court to prove your claims.

Scripture tells us that man looks on the outward appearance but God knows the heart. (1 Sam 16:7) You, however, are presuming from someone’s posture that you know the intent of their heart. When you see a child kneeling beside the bed to pray, do you think the child is worshiping the bed? Of course not.

Straw-man; you Church teaches the worship of statues, relics and Mary despite that many during the councils, where such things were brought up rejected such notions.

Jesus “explanation” is pretty clear - He reiterates the offensive statement, ratcheting up the impact by changing the verb from “eat” to “chew.” I am very familiar with the “spiritual” interpretation and in fact believe that it has an important, if supplementary meaning. But I find NO scriptural basis for rejecting the literal meaning of the language, particularly in light of the consistent references to that meaning in the early years of the Church. (Which of course you claim don’t exist.)

Jesus made it quite clear what He meant and it is a shame you don’t seem to be able to see it or understand it. Read verse 60 till the end and it should be clear, but if it is not clear to you, then you just don’t see what is so obvious.

First of all, don’t patronize me. You don’t know the first thing about my qualifications, and in this forum, they don’t matter. But don’t flatter yourself that you are going to intimidate me with your superior background or intelligence.

Secondly, it is patently ridiculous to say that the “cup” has “little to do with wine or blood.” Even if you want to find only symbolic meaning in a passage, the symbolism has to begin with the physical, literal objects and the historical references. In the case of the Last Supper, each cup of the Paschal meal already had a symbolic, spiritual context before Jesus took up the cup at the end of the meal and gave it another, more universal and eternal significance.

Go back and read my statement carefully about the wine and blood in reference to the cup and perhaps you will retract your statement?? I could careless about your qualifications or education; it is meaningless when it comes to understanding Scripture according to God.

The Lord did not tell His followers “I’m returning to the Father - take this book, it will tell you everything you need to know until I come back.”

It is nice to know what was not written by Jesus, but maybe He did say that; neither of us were there so we depend on what was written and given to us by the Holy Spirit; at least that is what I do.

The only words we know He wrote were traced in the dust of the public street. What He did say, to the Apostles, was “I’m going to send you the Holy Spirit to teach you - go proclaim the gospel to the whole world, baptize them and teach them to do what I have commanded” and “whoever hears you, hears me.”

Unfortunately, you couldn’t tell anyone the gospel because you do not appear to know what the gospel is as far as I can tell and hopefully I am wrong and you will correct me.

The Church you disdain was established, explicitly and deliberately, by the Lord Jesus. She proclaimed, preserved and passed on the Gospel; selected, copied and translated the Bible, carried the message to the ends of the earth, baptising, preaching and ordaining as the Lord commanded. The very same people who preserved the words you treasure proclaimed the doctrines you reject. Without the Church you would not know of the Incarnation, the Cross or the Resurrection. Your prideful rejection of your mother does not change the facts. By God’s grace you have been saved - by His grace may you come to the fullness of faith.

None of that makes any sense because Scripture teaches the Christian that the church or bride of Christ has yet to be revealed, which contradicts your claims here; so either your teaching is correct or the Biblical teaching is; you pick it is your life, not mine.