Eucharist: Is this Correct?

[ralphinal]

I certainly understand that, even for those who believe in the real presence of the Eucharist, “it all has to be kept in perspective.” However, I bet if you were watching CNN as you were getting ready for work one day and a news flash came on saying that a most miraculous thing had happened, that Jesus (yes, JESUS!!!) had appeared down at Sacred Heart, you wouldn’t even bother calling in sick. You’d just beat feet down to Sacred Heart.

Perhaps my understanding of the belief is incorrect, but it seems to me that if one really believed in the real presence, you’d be doing the same thing every time a mass was celebrated at Sacred Heart.

You need to understand that a lot of CAtholics do not accept the belief either, for worse reasons than yours. To be honest, many who don’t accept it do not because it would cause them a great deal of cognative dissonance.

I attend daily mass when I can. As I said before, my vocation does not allow me the ability to be in the church 24 hours a day. However, that does not mean that I am not there when I can be.

 

[twopekinguys]

I certainly understand that, even for those who believe in the real presence of the Eucharist, “it all has to be kept in perspective.” However, I bet if you were watching CNN as you were getting ready for work one day and a news flash came on saying that a most miraculous thing had happened, that Jesus (yes, JESUS!!!) had appeared down at Sacred Heart, you wouldn’t even bother calling in sick. You’d just beat feet down to Sacred Heart.

Perhaps my understanding of the belief is incorrect, but it seems to me that if one really believed in the real presence, you’d be doing the same thing every time a mass was celebrated at Sacred Heart.

I probably wouldn’t head to Sacred Heart for several reasons.

1. I’m not a big one for traffic jams. (I’m sure there would be one)
2. Just because something is reported, doesn’t make it true.
3. I would go to my local parish, and pray in front of Jesus in the Tabernacle, or Monstrance if it was during adoration, and ask him to help me understand what was going on, and if it was truly him that appeared.
4. The Church investigates sightings, apparitions, etc. and they are better trained than I am in distinguishing if things are a hoax or not. (It’s kind of like finding a lump on your arm. I know it’s a lump, but a Doctor would be the one to tell me if it is cancer or not)
5. It seems like CNN, and most of the major news services tend to seek out them most dysfunctional person available to interview, which tends to blur their credibility. I call it “Hillibillies on Parade”.

Even with faith, we need to use reason.

 

[stormstopper]

Just as in John Chap. 6, when many no longer would follow Jesus because his instruction on the Eucharist was too hard to take…

The MAIN reason, according to a strict reading of the text, as to why the people left Christ, were in relation to His teaching on the sovereignty of God and the inability of man to come to Him in 6:44 (“no man is able to come to me unless the Father which has sent me, draw him”) and vs. 65: “And He was saying, 'Because of this I said unto you that no one is able to come to me except it is given to him by the Father”.
Coming to Christ is not something that is the result of persuasive speaking, and only God has the ability to open our eyes of understanding, as He did to Peter, telling Him that flesh and blood had not revealed to Him the truth of Christ’s identity, but the Father had. And obviously, Jesus was the greatest orator of all time, yet as we read in verse 66, many “went away from following Him and no longer walked with Him”. The operative factor of the Father was missing. In context, these people went away, not primarily because of Jesus’ words about eating His flesh, but because He asserted that it is simply not possible for anyone to come to Him unless the Father enables him. What caused them to abandon ship was the proclamation of the absolute sovereingnty of God and the inability of man. The text specifically says, “Because of THIS, many of His disciples went away…”

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The excuses we as Protestants have for rejecting the “Real Presence” in the Eucharist are many, not the least of which is the fact Jesus said He was GOING AWAY no less than 5 times, and would send the Holy Spirit in His place!

The RC OBJECTION: "We believe that as a result of consuming the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, we are granted the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. For as John Paul II has said, “Through our communion in His body and blood, Christ also grants us His Spirit” (and) “the joint and inseparable activity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. . . is at work in the Eucharist” {Ecclesia de Eucharistia, #17 & 23}.

ANSWER: The biblical evidence will not permit the Roman Catholic to have it both ways because the gift of the Spirit has been promised outside of the Communion ceremony by faith as Scripture clearly teaches! Because the RCC cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint any direct biblical link as to what advantage might result from actually swallowing the physical body of Jesus, she cleverly solves this problem by co-joining the presence of the Holy Spirit as a benefit, so that everything said about the Holy Spirit, may equally be said about the Eucharist. Thus she deceitfully transfers all the attributes of the Spirt’s presence which are found in the Bible in abundance, and then unwarrantedly transfers them over to the Eucharist, which are not stated anywhere. Swallowing the body of Christ, literally or not, is a biblically proven separate action that does not give any promise equal to what the Holy Spirit has already been appointed for. The Catechism readily admits that the Spirit will “teach us everything”, helps in understanding the Word of God, renews us into the image of Christ, sanctifies the church, and produces in us “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and self-control” according to Galatians 5:22 {CCC # 729, 1101, 1109, 747, 736}. Furthermore, they agree that He has been sent . … . “to lead us into all truth” — “to convince the world of sin, righteousness and judgment” ---- “to shine in our hearts to give us light” — “to give us wisdom” — “to quicken us to spiritual life” — “to help our infirmaties, to help us pray, to intercede for us” — “to confirm within our hearts that we are children of God” —and “to be the seal of our inheritence” { John 16:13, 1 Cor 6:20, 2 Cor 4:6, Eph 1:17, John 6:63, Romans 8:16; 26, Eph 1:13}.

We have as yet to hear of any benefit of the RCC Eucharist that has not already been defined as one of the Holy Spirit’s assigned duties. That being the case, ingesting the actual body of Christ does not serve any purpose, so our thesis will show He must have been speaking metaphorically in those places where He bids us to “eat Him”. The Holy Spirit which inspired the Scripture, singlehandedly multi-tasks all the benefits Christ promised when He emphatically stated His physical presence was going away and the Comforter sent to fill in the void. Moreover, the catechism as quoted above {#1374} which states that the Eucharist materializes the “real presence” in the fullest sense, is a lie. Galatians 3:26 says that when “we receive the promise of the Spirit by faith” ---- we are filled with that Spirit and with all the fullness of God {Luke 1:41; 67, 4:1, Acts 2:4; 4:8; 31; 6:3; 5, 7:55, 9:17, 11:24, 13:9; 52, Eph 3:17-19; 5:18, }. The RCC says the Eucharist brings “fullness” —but the Holy Spirit says HE does! Both cannot be true since you cannot fill a vessel that is already full with something else! Yet the RCC presses even further by supposing that, "in the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice, the Church prays that the Father of Mercies will grant His children the fullness of the Holy Spirit . . . " {Ecclesia de Eucharista, #43}. Let the RCC pray all she wishes. The Bible will not support this “dual presence in the fullest sense”, and therefore, she has neither one.

In addition, as they looked skyward to see Him leave this world, the angel said, “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into Heaven.” {Acts 1:11}. Since He left in His resurrected body, He will return in “like manner” and in no other manner—including disguising Himself under the form of bread and wine. Notice— if the RCC position were true, the angel should have reminded them in similar fashion as He did at the empty tomb. … . “He is risen. . . just as He said unto you.” {Mk 16:7} And then we would read, "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? {You have the reality of His bodily presence when He hides Himself in the bread and wine, just as He said unto you}. But the angel offered no such reminder. Hence, the ascension of Christ and consequent sending of the Spirit for our comfort explicitly denies the necessity for transubstantiation, and thus the case for Jesus speaking symbolically in John 6 and the Last Supper, rings true.

Furthermore, when we take God’s character into consideration, we note that the overwhelming evidence indicates that when He wishes to demonstrate His power by miracles, they must be seen! No where in the Bible are we ever told of a miracle taking place where all the evidence indicated no miracle had taken place.

Interesting take. Can you provide Early Church Fathers who support your position?

Not only that but whose interpretation of the Scriptures is used to create this Answer that stormstopper is giving us as an “authoritative” one.

 

[ralphinal]

Not only that but whose interpretation of the Scriptures is used to create this Answer that stormstopper is giving us as an “authoritative” one.

I am willing to make this an only scripture discussion, but I would like to know if his position was ever held in the church

 

[stormstopper]

To be honest, many who don’t accept it do not because it would cause them a great deal of cognative dissonance.

Protestant rejection of the “Real Presence” does not have anything to do with “cognative dissonance”, but rather as a result of having an upset stomach.
To be more specific,have you ever wondered what the RCC teaches about what happens to Christ when the Eucharist is digested? A few basic facts are in order. First, Christ is said to exist “whole and entire” under each particle of the bread and every drop of wine {Trent, Session 13, ch.3}. Second, and this is important: the presence endures only as long as the Eucharistic species subsists" {CCC #1377}. As St. Thomas Aquinas has stated, “When the color, savor and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread and wine that the species of bread and wine no longer remain, then Christ’s body and blood do not remain” {Summa Theologica, 3:77:4}. And, “This real presence only remains while the Blessed sacrament still continues undestroyed, which will only be for a few minutes at most” (“How to Become a Catholic” by Fr. George Searle).

This means that when the wafer enters the stomach and the acids immediately attack it, altering its structure {normally within 5 minutes} Jesus then leaves—“whole and entire”. Hence, the most anyone can be sure of is that this “jesus” {2 Cor 11:4} lingers in the stomach for five minutes doing who knows what, and then makes a fast getaway when the stomach acids begin their attack. The only real nourishment one gets is from the “vacant” wafer that makes its way through the digestive trail. Think about it! The RCC is teaching you that the continual entering and exit of the Lord Jesus Christ visiting your stomach is the “center, source and summit of the Christian life” {CCC #1324 & #1343} and is necessary for salvation. This is a fatal fabrication. Jesus says that, “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him”. The word “dwelleth” means to “remain, to endure, to last and to abide”. It is certain then that the Lord could not have been referring to the Roman Catholic Eucharist when He said to eat His flesh because the Roman Catholic “jesus” {2 Cor 11:4} does not remain, endure or abide, but packs His bags and exits after five minutes. . . .until the next Mass. Rome’s endless cycle of a hamster-wheel “hello-and-good-by Savior-in-the stomach” —is not Christianity, but a pseudo-intellectual sham. The Bible says He would remain. The RCC says He does not.

 

[ralphinal]

Protestant rejection of the “Real Presence” does not have anything to do with “cognative dissonance”, but rather as a result of having an upset stomach.
To be more specific,have you ever wondered what the RCC teaches about what happens to Christ when the Eucharist is digested? A few basic facts are in order. First, Christ is said to exist “whole and entire” under each particle of the bread and every drop of wine {Trent, Session 13, ch.3}. Second, and this is important: the presence endures only as long as the Eucharistic species subsists" {CCC #1377}. As St. Thomas Aquinas has stated, “When the color, savor and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread and wine that the species of bread and wine no longer remain, then Christ’s body and blood do not remain” {Summa Theologica, 3:77:4}. And, “This real presence only remains while the Blessed sacrament still continues undestroyed, which will only be for a few minutes at most” (“How to Become a Catholic” by Fr. George Searle).

This means that when the wafer enters the stomach and the acids immediately attack it, altering its structure {normally within 5 minutes} Jesus then leaves—“whole and entire”. Hence, the most anyone can be sure of is that this “jesus” {2 Cor 11:4} lingers in the stomach for five minutes doing who knows what, and then makes a fast getaway when the stomach acids begin their attack. The only real nourishment one gets is from the “vacant” wafer that makes its way through the digestive trail. Think about it! The RCC is teaching you that the continual entering and exit of the Lord Jesus Christ visiting your stomach is the “center, source and summit of the Christian life” {CCC #1324 & #1343} and is necessary for salvation. This is a fatal fabrication. Jesus says that, “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him”. The word “dwelleth” means to “remain, to endure, to last and to abide”. It is certain then that the Lord could not have been referring to the Roman Catholic Eucharist when He said to eat His flesh because the Roman Catholic “jesus” {2 Cor 11:4} does not remain, endure or abide, but packs His bags and exits after five minutes. . . .until the next Mass. Rome’s endless cycle of a hamster-wheel “hello-and-good-by Savior-in-the stomach” —is not Christianity, but a pseudo-intellectual sham. The Bible says He would remain. The RCC says He does not.

I do so enjoy how you mix the physical and metaphysical in such a way.

Please, can you provide early church fathers holding your view?

 

[Ceil-1]

stormstopper, you are so authoritative in your teaching/opinions. What are your credentials?

 

[stormstopper]

Thanks for explaining. The answer is not so easy. Let’s start with the first part.

Catholics DO understand that what was once bread and wine after they have been concecrated are 100% the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. This is based on scripture and the traditional understanding from the Apostles.

Indeed, let us see exactly what Scripture says:

‘‘THIS IS MY BODY’’ {Matt 26:26}

There are only two alternatives: either Jesus was saying “this is in fact my body”, or “this represents my body”. Contrary to the RCC, we believe that when we respect and stay within biblical parameters, the latter is the only logical choice----it being a metaphor. A metaphor boldly declares that one thing IS another —when it really isn’t.

The key is found in the verb “is”. It denotes representation. We have recourse to metaphor when we look over a map and say, “This is England”. We don’t mean that the paper is England, but those inkspots upon it represent that country.

OBJECTION: “Granted---- but that’s because the listenser already knows that those who point to maps don’t really mean the figure on the map is the actual country. That’s not the case with Matthew 26:26 which has no “already-decided agreement” that the word “is” will be pointing out something that is not real, or is a metaphor.”

ANSWER: Not true! The Passover meal was incredibly rich in symbolism! They would have eaten . . …

*** MOROR {bitter herbs}. Representing the bitterness of Egyptian slavery.

*** UNLEAVENED BREAD {Matzot}. Representing the haste with which the Israelites left Egypt, for they couldn’t wait for the bread to rise.

*** CHAROSETH {mixture of chopped apples, nuts, wine & cinnamon}. Representing the mortar used by the Israelite slaves to make bricks.

*** CEREMONIAL CUPS. Different cups were used to represent the various phases of the Exodus.

*** The Passover Lamb. The blood of that sacrifice was put over their doorposts so the death angel would pass over.

We see then that before the Supper, the apostles were already thinking symbolically because each of the items on the table was a symbol and a reminder to the Jewish people of their escape from Egypt by the hand of God. During the Supper, the disciples had every reason in the world to believe Jesus was speaking figuratively when He said, “This is my body”. When He held the bread and said the words, no one at table could possibly have taken Him to mean the bread was actually His physical body— since He was sitting right there in His physical body! Too, after the Supper, He continued to use illustrations by washing the disciples feet in response to their arguing who among them was the greatest. The greatest was the one who served {John 13:3-17}. And finally, subsequent to the Supper, even Paul used the word “body” figuratively many times to signify something else, namely the church—{Rms 12:5, 1 Cor 12:13; 20, Eph 1:22, 23; 2:16; 4:4; Col 1:18, 24; 3:15}. He even went so far as to figuratively identify the body of believers as BREAD in 1 Cor 10:17: “For we, though many, are one bread and one body. . .” The only sane conclusion is that Paul duplicated the metaphorical speech of Christ when He figuratively identified the bread as His body at the Last Supper!

The biblical evidence is crystal clear: the emblems of bread and wine were meant for us to mediatate on the solitary, majestic and horizon-filling grandeur of the Lord Jesus Christ’s rescue mission to humanity. It was never meant to be a sacrifice offered to God over and over again as we observe in the Mass. That happened “once” 2,000 years ago—“once” being stated 7 times in Hebrews 7, 9 & 10 . . .completely precluding any idea of repetition with, “Nor yet that He should offer Himself often” {9:25}. Needless to say, the event at Calvary doesn’t need to be renewed, re-enacted, reapplied, refurbished or “re-presented”. . . not now----not ever!

 

[stormstopper]

it cannot be idolatry to worship the Eucharist, as you are worshipping Christ in the Flesh. Further, if you believe that Jesus is God, why would you not worship him?

---

If it is not Jesus, you most certainly are guilty of idolatry, and the Scriptural evidence does indeed weigh heavily against you.

The second commandment forbids us to make “with our hands” any visible, material, corruptible, inanimate form or object, to represent the one true God {Exodus 20:1; 2-5}. He is invisible, and because of that, “you saw no form at all on the day the Lord spoke to you . . .be strictly on your guard therefore, not to degrade yourselves . . .You shall not carve idols in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters . . .” {Deut 4:15; 5:8}. In the Old Testament, nothing made with human hands to represent God was to be tolerated {Deut 4:28; 2 Chron 32:19}. And the New Testament assures us that Jesus does not dwell in temples made with hands—and that would include the Roman Catholic Eucharist. Yet the RCC says the body and blood of Christ, the Maker of all things, is “substantially contained” in the Eucharist {CCC #1367, 1374}. And the Mass includes an outright confession that the focus of the ensuing worship is an item which is handmade. The priest says, “Through your goodness, we have this bread to offer which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.” And, “It is our very sweet duty to honor and adore the Blessed Host” (Mysterium Fidei, Pope Paul VI). This is idolatry.

The catechism goes one step further to suggest that worshipping the wafer in a “secret place” -----also known as “Eucharistic Adoration”, is also acceptable. They have defined this solicitude as one’s “prayer corner with the Sacred Scriptures and icons, in order to be there in secret, before our Father” {CCC #2691}. While they do footnote this statement with Jesus’s mandate to pray in a private place {Matt 6:6}---- it must be clarified that the Catechism instructs people to do this in the presence of icons and with the intention of worshipping the Eucharist, whereas Jesus only mentioned this in terms of humble prayer to the Father. That said, the Bible strictly prohibits displaying a handmade image of the True God in a secret place for adoration: "Cursed be the man who makes a carved idol----an abomination to the Lord, the product of a craftman’s hands, and sets it up in secret. " {Deut 27:15}.

The sin of the RCC is that they have fashioned a physical object to worship as a result of their leader going away----reminiscent of the children of Israel forming a golden calf when Moses failed to return from Mt. Sanai {Exodus 32:1}. However, no image that man could ever draw, engrave, paint, sculpt, or conjure up in his mind could truly represent the infinite One {1 Kings 8:27}. The Holy of Holies within the tabernacle, and later in Soloman’s Temple, contained not the image of God, but the word of God. He has chosen to reveal Himself to humanity through words, not images. The message of the Bible is not about aesthetic gratification but about our redemption. It’s not about our feelings but about His truth. The theology of Scripture is instructional. It is given in words so man can understand it: “Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom; and with all thy getting, get understanding” {Prov 4:7}. Suffice it to say that when the Israelites were instructed to make a bronze serpent {which God intended to be a symbol that ultimately pointed to Christ’s death on the cross} they later turned it into an object of idolatry, and as a result, God told them to destroy it {2 Kings 18:4}.

While it is true that the Lord was speaking on another matter when He said, “I will spew you out of my mouth” {Rev 3:16}----it seems appropriate that He would encourage us to do the same thing with the Roman Catholic wafer, as the preponderance of evidence against it is distasteful.

 

[stormstopper]

Interesting take. Can you provide Early Church Fathers who support your position?

First of all, while many early fathers may have believed in the literal Real Presence back then, there are millions today who do not----including 70% of Catholics when asked this very question in a 1992 Gallup Poll which may be found on-line. Second, if sheer numbers don’t impress you, the New Testament predicted an immediate departure from sound doctrine from within the church both during and after the life of the apostle Paul {Acts 20:29-30, 1 Tim 1:20, 2 Tim 1:15; 2:17-18, Jude 3,4, 10-13} . Considering the voluminous evidence against Transubstantiation, it is not unreasonable to classify this belief as one of those anticipated “perverse” departures {Acts 20:30, 2 Pet 3:16}. Third, Catholics typically assert that there was never any disagreement on this issue, which is completely untrue. Let us merely look to the Roman Catholic work by Robert Sungenis to prove that there has always been, “a diversity in patristic thought on the Eucharist” (“Not By Bread Alone”, p. 306)—right up till the time it was officially defined in 1215 under Innocent III.

Circa 830, a monk by the name of Radbertus, who openly made a strong identification of the Lord’s presence in the Eucharist, was opposed by another monk called Ratramnus, who took the opposite view (ibid, p. 299). In 855, Rabanas Maurus wrote that there were those who were wrong that judged the sacrament was the same body and blood which was born of the virgin Mary and which suffered on the cross and rose from the grave" (ibid, p. 300). The wondering monk called Gottschalk, and the abbot, Gezo, accused Radbertus of advocating a realism of the Eucharist which bordered on cannibalism (p. 300-1). One by the name of Erigena, held that, “the sacrament of the altar might not be the body and blood, but only a remembrance” (p. 300). Circa 1000, Berengar, of the church of St. Martin in Tours, openly denied transubstantiation and said there was no need for the substantial presence in the sacrament and that the whole idea was nonsense (p. 302-303). Nor was it the way in which one received eternal life, to which Peter of Vienna agreed (p. 308). The Cathari movement and the Albigensians of France agreed with the argument presented by Berengar (p. 303).

Fourth, we have read Darwell Stone’s, “A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist” {circa 1900}. The two volume set includes the names of others which can be added to those above. But it is significant that Mr. Stone expresses bewilderment in four separate places in relation to the, “constant use of sacrificial language in reference to the Eucharist made by those who do consider it a literal sacrifice. It is unaccompanied by any explicit and detailed explanation of the way in which the Eucharist is a sacrifice” {p. 113, 47, 49, 153}. Quite true. And this is because Scripture will not permit it. These men simply assert it, their opinion being worthless. In spite of ample opportunity to do so in an epistle replete with sacrificial language, never once does the book of Hebrews ever connect the sacrifice of Christ to the Eucharist, and never once does Paul ever equate “sacrifice” with the Lord’s Supper in his epistles either. The ludicrous idea of the Lord’s Supper needing to be offered as a sacrifice that takes away sin, slowly crept into the church unchecked.

We would also add that when you read the early fathers, it is frustrating to note that in 95% of the cases, they merely claim the fact that Transubstantiation is true based on John 6 with no meaningful explication of why we should believe it with reasons based on God’s word. Not surprisingly, they usually couple their opinion with lame analogies such as that old stand-by, “God can do anything so it must be true”.

 

[stormstopper]

“We have as yet to hear of any benefit of the RCC Eucharist that has not already been defined as one of the Holy Spirit’s assigned duties.”

John 6:56

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”

Is this assigned to the Holy Spirit?

The answer to your question is found in the book of Galatians: It is NOT VIA THE MOUTH, BUT

‘‘HAVE YE RECEIVED THE SPIRIT … … . BY THE HEARING OF FAITH?’’

(Galatians 3:2).

Without an iota of proof, the RCC would have us believe that,
"it is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present in this unique way. Since He was about to take His departure in His visible form, He wanted to give us His sacramental presence {in the Eucharist----CCC # 1380}.

Reader, that is a boldfaced lie. Before Christ made His departure He said absolutely nothing about “this unique way of remaining mysteriously in our midst through His sacramental presence in the Eucharist” {ibid}. Instead, He promised to be with us by

*** The presence of the Holy Spirit! This is the birthright of every born again Christian; "God has made known to us the riches of the glory of this mystery, [namely] “Christ in you, the hope of glory” {Colossians 1:27}.

*** After you believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the downpayment of our inheritence" {Eph 1:13}

 

[Lapey]

I will finish some of these for you, since you don’t understand some of the significance here.

ANSWER: Not true! The Passover meal was incredibly rich in symbolism! They would have eaten . . … They would have eaten the LAMB!!! Jesus is the Lamb of God.

*** MOROR {bitter herbs}. Representing the bitterness of Egyptian slavery. We are slaves of sin; the Eucharist provides spiritual nutrition to help me not sin.

*** UNLEAVENED BREAD {Matzot}. Representing the haste with which the Israelites left Egypt, for they couldn’t wait for the bread to rise.

*** CHAROSETH {mixture of chopped apples, nuts, wine & cinnamon}. Representing the mortar used by the Israelite slaves to make bricks.

*** CEREMONIAL CUPS. Different cups were used to represent the various phases of the Exodus.

*** The Passover Lamb. The blood of that sacrifice was put over their doorposts so the death angel would pass over. One small detail you missed here, the Jews knew that the Passover lamb was to be eaten. If they had smeared the blood of the lamb on the doorpost then went to bed, what would have happened? You know as well as I there first born would have perished. They ate the lamb, as I eat the Pascal Lamb, Jesus.

Also, Jesus says to “do this in remembrance of Me”. What does remember mean from ancient text and writings? Does it mean to think of the event as an after though? No, it means renew the covenant that Jesus made with humanity that night, replacing the old.

You are right on one note, there is only one sacrifice offered, by Christ on Calvary for the remission of sins. The Mass is a remembrance of that sacrifice. We enter into that sacrifice that was given for us once and for all. We recommit ourselves to His sacrifice at the altar.

We do not re-crucify Jesus at the mass, there is no new sacrifice. There is no repetition. If Jesus is God, the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, who are you to say that His sacrifice on the cross only lasted for that one day for the hours He spent on the cross? His sacrifice lives on until He comes again!

What does revelation say about this point?

Rev. 5:6
“Then I saw standing in the midst of the throne and the four living creatures and the elders, a Lamb THAT SEEMED TO HAVE BEEN SLAIN. He had seven horns and seven eyes; these are the (seven) spirits of God sent out into the whole world.”

 

[stormstopper]

Not only that but whose interpretation of the Scriptures is used to create this Answer that.

I would be delighted to. My interpretation of Scripture comes from reliable Scripture scholars----just like yours. So we are on equal ground, since as a matter of fact, the RCC has only “officially” defined the amount of verses that can fit on one hand. Mr. Aiken says elsewhere on this site:

“the church has never undertaken the composition of an official Bible commentary. The project would involve a massive expenditure of her resources when there is simply no pressing need to do so. It is much simpler to adopt the approach. . . to allow Scripture scholars liberty to interpret any Bible passage in whatever way they feel the evidence best supports, provided certain minimal boundaries are met.”

 

[stormstopper]

Also, Jesus says to “do this in remembrance of Me”. What does remember mean from ancient text and writings? Does it mean to think of the event as an after thought? No, it means renew the covenant that Jesus made with humanity that night, replacing the old.

Your definition of a memorial cannot be validated anywhere, but you are pulling it like a rabbit out of hat. Memorials helped people to remember important events. When God placed the rainbow in the sky, it was a reminder that He would never again inundate the earth with a flood {Gen 9:13-17}. When He instituted the Sabbath rest, it was a reminder that He had created all things in six days and rested on the seventh {Ex 20:8-10}. When He instituted the Passover, it was a reminder of their deliverence from Egyptian slavery, and "This day shall be unto you for a “memorial” {Exodus 12:14}. The tribes of Israel were to be remembered by “stones of memorial” {Exodus 28:9,12}. When Joshua had twelve men take one stone each from the Jordan River, it was to be a reminder to tell their children how God had stopped the flow of the river so they could cross over {Josh 4:1-9}. When a certain woman poured expensive oil on His head, Jesus said this act of hers would henceforth be in Scripture as a memorial for her kindness {Matt 26:12-13}. The prayers and alms given by Cornelius were said to stand as a memorial before God {Acts 10:2-4}. In our day for example, there are over 150 memorials in Washington alone. The most popular being the Black Wall----which is a stretch of 58,000 names of those who perished in Vietnam. Their service and sacrifice is forever emblazoned on the nation’s conscience all because of a simple black wall. Ditto for remembering Jesus in His service and sacrifice in the simple breaking of the bread.

Yet the RCC insists that at Communion, “the central event of salvation becomes really present” {Ecclesia de Eucharista, #11}. We emphatically deny this. In Christian Communion, the MEANING of the event is made present once more, NOT the event itself—as every instance above attributes to. Need it be said that no past event can be comparmentalized in the form of a Ritz Cracker! Participating in Communion is “proclaiming the Lord’s death till He come” {1 Cor 11:26}. The proclamation of the sacrifice which transcends all time is perpetuated; the sacrifice is not. What madness it is then that the RCC explicity denies the Last Supper to be a “mere memorial” {Trent, Session 22, can. 3} where past events are laid to rest precisely as Scripture and common sense verify. The RCC sticks a rose in her mouth and expects us to believe that, "Christian liturgy not only recalls the events that saved us, but actualizes them; makes them present " {CCC #1104, 1366, 1368, 1409} . Or as JPII says, “the redeeming sacrifice is not only through faith-filled remembrance, but also through a real contact, since this sacrifice is made present. . .and cannot be understood as something separate, independent of the Cross or only indirectly referring to the sacrifice of Calvary. . .it is a sacrifice in the strict sense. . .” and, the saving work of Christ does not “remain confined to the past since all that Christ did, participates in the divine eternity and so transcends all times” {Ecclesia de Eucharistia, #11,12 & 13}. We submit the Pope’s confession that swallowing the Eucharist is somehow “participating in the divine eternity” —falls directly into the category of “great swelling words of vanity” per 2 Peter 2:18. The same can be said for, “The Eucharist is truly a glimpse of heaven appearing on earth. It is a glorious ray of the heavenly Jerusalem which pierces the clouds of our history and lights up our journey” {Ecclesia de Eucharistia, #19).

The fatal flaw of the RCC lies in her driving beyond the established biblical guard rails of “mere memorial” —and plunging over the cliff into a “divine eternity” of thinking that since they are “making present” the sacrifice of the cross in Communion, then whala! —the Eucharist itself must also be a sacrifice that need now be offered over and over again and forever {CCC #1365} . But we repeat, the Bible says “there is no longer any offering for sin”. Notice— if there was some exception to this rule, such as the continual offering of the “divine victim” {Ecclessia, #13} in the so-called “sacrifice of the mass”, the author of Hebrews would have told us in 10:18. But he did not.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I would be delighted to. My interpretation of Scripture comes from reliable Scripture scholars----just like yours. So we are on equal ground, since as a matter of fact, the RCC has only “officially” defined the amount of verses that can fit on one hand. Mr. Aiken says elsewhere on this site:

“the church has never undertaken the composition of an official Bible commentary. The project would involve a massive expenditure of her resources when there is simply no pressing need to do so. It is much simpler to adopt the approach. . . to allow Scripture scholars liberty to interpret any Bible passage in whatever way they feel the evidence best supports, provided certain minimal boundaries are met.”

Ok, can you now show us where the Church Fathers believed as you say?

 

[ralphinal]

Let us discuss as reasonable humans or not at all.

First claim, Jesus cannot be there. Please reconcile that with Matt 18:20

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

This does not refer to the Holy Spirit, this is Jesus saying that he will be there.

 

[stormstopper]

I will finish some of these for you, since you don’t understand some of the significance here.

They would have eaten the LAMB!!! Jesus is the Lamb of God.

---

I must emphatically inform you that Jesus Christ DID NOT EAT HIMSELF at the Last Supper. You must do away with these horrific traditions that are tied around your neck like a noose. The Bible simply will not support such nonsense.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

stormstopper:

Yet the RCC insists that at Communion, “the central event of salvation becomes really present” {Ecclesia de Eucharista, #11}. We emphatically deny this. In Christian Communion,

This is a troubling comment. Do you not consider the Catholic Church to be Christian?

God bless

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I must emphatically inform you that Jesus Christ DID NOT EAT HIMSELF at the Last Supper. You must do away with these horrific traditions that are tied around your neck like a noose. The Bible simply will not support such nonsense.

Does the Bible suppost its own Canon? Or is this another Tradition we must rid ourselves of?

God bless