Eucharist Question

[jpete79]

I have a question about the Eucharist and Transubstantiation. I am not looking to debate what I believe but I would like an opinion on the following verses from Matthew

27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the** covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

The key that I want to ask is this; in verse 28 we see Christ say that the cup holds the blood of the covenant which is poured out for the forgiveness of sin, then in verse 29, Christ says, i will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on.

The question I have is if you believe the transformation of the wine into the real blood of Christ, why would he refer to it at the last supper as the fruit of the vine AFTER he said it is his blood?

In my opinion, this sounds like it should not be taken literally and I was wondering how you can explain it.**

 

[Lazerlike42]

The Scriptures identify Jesus as being the Vine many times (for instance Romans 9 I believe). The fruit of the vine is the blood of Christ.

 

[jpete79]

Lazerlike42:

The Scriptures identify Jesus as being the Vine many times (for instance Romans 9 I believe). The fruit of the vine is the blood of Christ.

If that’s the case, I have another question (still on the topic of the Eucharist)…

27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the** covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Still in these verses, Christ said, 28This is my blood of the** covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

If this is the case; why would Christ then say in 29, “I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

If his blood redeems our sins, why would he drink that blood himself, unless the Eucharist was meant to be an act of fellowship in remembrance.****

 

[Lazerlike42]

jpete79:

If that’s the case, I have another question (still on the topic of the Eucharist)…

27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the** covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Still in these verses, Christ said, 28This is my blood of the** covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

If this is the case; why would Christ then say in 29, “I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

If his blood redeems our sins, why would he drink that blood himself, unless the Eucharist was meant to be an act of fellowship in remembrance.****

The Eucharist is meant to be an act of fellowship. This does not exclude it from being also the literal blood of Christ. Very often people have difficulties with Catholic and other Christian beliefs because they introduce a non-existant dichotomy into a situation. It is not a matter of the Eucharist being either an act of fellowship or the reception of Christ physically, but rather it is that it is both.

For example, many non-Christians have a difficulty with the Trinity. They see that God is either One or He is three. They cannot accept that He is both.

 

[Aaron_I]

jpete79:

If his blood redeems our sins, why would he drink that blood himself, unless the Eucharist was meant to be an act of fellowship in remembrance.

Probably for the same reason that he received baptism: to show us the path to follow. The Bible is quite clear that there is one baptism for the remission of sins, yet Jesus was still baptized.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I would also say, to draw the two points (mine and Aaron’s) together, that Jesus’ human nature may have required in some way the baptism and Eucharist, although I am uncertain as to whether this is a theologically correct statement or not.

 

[VociMike]

Lazerlike42:

The Scriptures identify Jesus as being the Vine many times (for instance Romans 9 I believe). The fruit of the vine is the blood of Christ.

Exactly.

 

[Jay_D]

The Scriptures identify Jesus as being the Vine many times (for instance Romans 9 I believe). The fruit of the vine is the blood of Christ.

Remember, we are talking about the Real Presence. Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine.

Do you think Jesus really is the Vine, as in, literally? I believe Jesus is God and man. I don’t believe Jesus is vine. Therefore, I cannot accept your explination.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I have a question about the Eucharist and Transubstantiation. I am not looking to debate what I believe but I would like an opinion on the following verses from Matthew

27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the** covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

The key that I want to ask is this; in verse 28 we see Christ say that the cup holds the blood of the covenant which is poured out for the forgiveness of sin, then in verse 29, Christ says, i will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on.

The question I have is if you believe the transformation of the wine into the real blood of Christ, why would he refer to it at the last supper as the fruit of the vine AFTER he said it is his blood?

In my opinion, this sounds like it should not be taken literally and I was wondering how you can explain it.**

Because He is the “Vine”.

 

[Jeanette_L]

Do you think Jesus really is the Vine, as in, literally? I believe Jesus is God and man. I don’t believe Jesus is vine. Therefore, I cannot accept your explination.

Jesus is the Vine before the vine. He is the true source of which every vine exists. Re-visit the miracle of the wedding feast at Cana. Who is the true creator, the origin of everything? What was he showing us in creating wine from water?

He is the Vine.

Stop hanging out in the shallow waters, go out into the deep, you’ll never come back.

 

[Eden]

Remember, we are talking about the Real Presence. Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine.

Do you think Jesus really is the Vine, as in, literally? I believe Jesus is God and man. I don’t believe Jesus is vine. Therefore, I cannot accept your explination.

John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, “I am the vine.” Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine. In John 6, Jesus’ disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18 – Jesus says He will not drink of the “fruit of the vine” until He drinks it new in the kingdom. Some Protestants try to use this verse (because Jesus said “fruit of the vine”) to prove the wine cannot be His blood. But the Greek word for fruit is “genneema” which literally means “that which is generated from the vine.” In John 15:1,5 Jesus says “I am the vine.” So “fruit of the vine” can also mean Jesus’ blood. In 1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul also used “bread” and “the body of the Lord” interchangeably in the same sentence. Also, see Matt. 3:7;12:34;23:33 for examples were “genneema” means “birth” or “generation.”

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

 

[Jay_D]

Jesus is the Vine before the vine. He is the true source of which every vine exists. Re-visit the miracle of the wedding feast at Cana. Who is the true creator, the origin of everything? What was he showing us in creating wine from water?

He is the Vine.

Stop hanging out in the shallow waters, go out into the deep, you’ll never come back.

If Jesus is the Vine before the vine because he is the true source of which every vine exists, wouldn’t that make the incarnation rather redundant?

Jesus was the Man before the man because he is the true source of which every man exists (according to your reasoning). Jesus “the Man before the man” would then be born a man.

 

[Eden]

If Jesus is the Vine before the vine because he is the true source of which every vine exists, wouldn’t that make the incarnation rather redundant?

Jesus was the Man before the man because he is the true source of which every man exists (according to your reasoning). Jesus “the Man before the man” would then be born a man.

Are you a Jehovah’s Witness? It is always welcome when a poster is upfront about what belief-system they are representing.

Nevermind, I see you have changed “etc.” to Lutheran. Thanks.

 

[dal11]

Why don’t we see what the guys the apostles taught thought about it. Oh yeah, they thought it was really his body and blood. I’ll take their word for it.

 

[VociMike]

If that’s the case, I have another question (still on the topic of the Eucharist)…

27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the** covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Still in these verses, Christ said, 28This is my blood of the** covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

If this is the case; why would Christ then say in 29, “I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

If his blood redeems our sins, why would he drink that blood himself, unless the Eucharist was meant to be an act of fellowship in remembrance.****
The Eucharist is meant to be an act of fellowship in remembrance. Catholics don’t deny that aspect. But that doesn’t prevent the Real Presence. After all, even Protestants agree that “wherever two or three are gathered in my name, I am in their midst”. So even your concept of the Eucharist includes Christ actually present.

 

[VociMike]

Remember, we are talking about the Real Presence. Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine.

Do you think Jesus really is the Vine, as in, literally? I believe Jesus is God and man. I don’t believe Jesus is vine. Therefore, I cannot accept your explination.

No, Jesus is not literally a vine, just at the Precious Blood (the “wine” at the Last Supper) wasn’t really fermented juice of grapes from vines. Both references are symbolic. So the explanation is perfectly cogent.

 

[Jay_D]

Why don’t we see what the guys the apostles taught thought about it. Oh yeah, they thought it was really his body and blood. I’ll take their word for it.

I would state it more simply: They thought it was his body and blood.

(Because Jesus said “This is my body…” he didn’t say “This really is my body…”)

 

[visavismeyou]

We actually just had a very vibrant and wholesome debate about Transubstantiation. Since that discussion strayed off of topic, the moderators closed it. However, you can read it here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=111024&page=4

Since then I have begun to read a book I bought named “Eucharistic Miracles”. The first miracle in the book is a story about a priest in the 8th century. The priest was known for being a doubter of the Transubstantiation. As he was conducting the Consecration a piece of flesh appeared on top the unleavened bread that was to be the host and the cup of wine now was full of real blood. After the event, the blood congealed into 5 “nuggets”. Since this event the flesh and blood had been subjected to continual observation and many scientific experiments. The latest of which was in 1971 where both the blood and flesh was found to be definitively human, have an AB Blood type and the flesh was of a human’s heart. In the 1971 examination it was found that the container which held the flesh was never hermetically sealed, had no traces of any sort of preservative, yet the flesh shows no sign of decay whatsoever.

This 1300 year old piece of flesh and the 5 “nuggets” of congealed blood can be seen in a tabernacle in the Church of St. Francis in Siena, Italy.

Besides that I’d like to share with you some of the main points that John and some of us Catholics debated about in the thread linked above.

One of the main arguments of John’s was that Jesus’ statements in 1 Cor 10, 1 Cor 11, John 6 were all of a spiritual nature, that Jesus never actually meant we ought eat his flesh and drink his blood.

My main response is simply that Jesus said the things he said the way he said it because he was talking about his entire body, the spiritual as well as the physical. Additionally, Jesus would not be deceptive, he would not say he was the fruit of the vine, the sacrificial Lamb of God, the Bread of Life and then say that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood as only a spiritual aspect because that would be misleading.

Additionally, if you look at the phrases “Drink the blood of” and “Eat the flesh of” from the way that the people of Jesus’ time would have understood them, you would see that these phrases meant to ridicule or attack whoever was the direct object of the phrase. Thus the sentence Jesus spoke: “No one will get to heaven unless they eat the flesh of the Son of God” would mean “No one will get to heaven unless they ridicule the Son of God”. That does not make sense.

Thus, Jesus could not have meant this figuratively nor could he have meant it only spiritually, he meant it literally and we must believe that in some way, Jesus comes into the bread and wine at our Eucharist and that bread and wine are the real presence of Jesus.

 

[jmcrae]

If his blood redeems our sins, why would he drink that blood himself, unless the Eucharist was meant to be an act of fellowship in remembrance.

Because He is our High Priest. The High Priest eats and drinks of the Sacrifice first, then the rest of the priests, and then the people for whom the Sacrifice was made.

Since He is both High Priest and Victim, the Eucharist provides the means for Him to do this.

 

[visavismeyou]

Hey Jpete does this answer your question?