Eucharist Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter jpete79
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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 passage does not imply that Jesus drank from the cup Himself. He blessed the cup, instructed the apostles to drink from it, and then later remarked that he would not drink “wine” until they were together his Father’s Kingdom.

Thal59**
 
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.
I see you can’t think outside the box?😉

Like I said above, Jesus is the Source of all things. He is the Source of every vine and every branch.

He is the Source of every life, yes, including every man, every woman, even the woman from whom He would be made man.

Why would this make the Incarnation redundant? He did this for *our *sakes, to prove his love for us. To show us what Man was created to be. To show us what sacrificial love means. To save us. To restore us. I don’t think this is redundant at all.

So, when He states that He is the Vine, He is stating the ultimate Truth.
 
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…”)
And if Jesus had said, “This is really my body…” you would argue that he didn’t say, “This is really, truly my body…”

And if Jesus had said “This is really, truly my body…” you would argue… I think everyone gets the point.

No matter what words Jesus would have used at the Last Supper, you wouldn’t believe Him.
 
And if Jesus had said, “This is really my body…” you would argue that he didn’t say, “This is really, truly my body…”

And if Jesus had said “This is really, truly my body…” you would argue… I think everyone gets the point.

No matter what words Jesus would have used at the Last Supper, you wouldn’t believe Him.
But I do believe him. He said, “This is my body…”

Would I believe him if he said, “This is really, truly, absosmurfly my body…”? That is an odd question. He didn’t say that. I don’t have to answer it.
 
But I do believe him. He said, “This is my body…”

Would I believe him if he said, “This is really, truly, absosmurfly my body…”? That is an odd question. He didn’t say that. I don’t have to answer it.
Then you believe what the Catholic Church teaches if you believe Jesus.

Congratulations! I hope you start RCIA soon and will be received into the Church this Easter Vigil.

All sarcasm aside, I know you get my point, which is why you’re dodging it. I guess you know better than St. Paul because here is what he said:
The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? (1 Corinthians 10:16)
drbo.org/chapter/53010.htm
I guess St. Paul is mistaken along with the apostles. But I thought Lutherans believe that the Bible is the word of God and cannot be in error? Yet, St. Paul believes what the Catholic Church teaches.

If the apostles and early Christians only thought it was the body and blood of Christ, then the Bible is clearly teaching an error.

So, if you are correct about the apostles only thinking it is the body and blood of Christ, then you’re wrong about the Bible being free of error. If the Bible is free of error, then you are wrong about the Eucharist.

Just for your clarification, the correct answer is the latter.
 
In case you need more proof of St. Paul’s belief in the Eucharist, he has this to say:
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. (1 Corinthinians 11:23-29; emphasis mine)
drbo.org/chapter/53011.htm
St. Paul makes his belief in the Real Presence clear. He had no doubts about Christ chagning bread and wine into His body, blood, soul, and divinity.

So it comes down to this: Do you believe the Bible is without error? If so, then you must believe in the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Real Presence.

If you don’t believe the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence, then you don’t believe the Bible is without error. You can’t believe one without believing the other.
 
In case you need more proof of St. Paul’s belief in the Eucharist, he has this to say:

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. (1 Corinthinians 11:23-29; emphasis mine)
drbo.org/chapter/53011.htm

St. Paul makes his belief in the Real Presence clear. He had no doubts about Christ chagning bread and wine into His body, blood, soul, and divinity.

So it comes down to this: Do you believe the Bible is without error? If so, then you must believe in the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Real Presence.

If you don’t believe the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence, then you don’t believe the Bible is without error. You can’t believe one without believing the other.
These are the Scriptures, along with the 6th Chapter of John, that really got to me when I was seeking answers. I searched and searched, but couldn’t find any Protestant arguments that were convincing enough to allow me to hold onto the belief that communion was symbolic only. The whole house of cards came tumbling down, and I am soooo greatful.😃
 
These are the Scriptures, along with the 6th Chapter of John, that really got to me when I was seeking answers. I searched and searched, but couldn’t find any Protestant arguments that were convincing enough to allow me to hold onto the belief that communion was symbolic only. The whole house of cards came tumbling down, and I am soooo greatful.😃
I have found that most Protestants don’t read St. Paul’s epistles that clearly contradict their beliefs. I once had a conversation in a forum with a fundamentalist who never read 2 Thessalonians 2:14 which says, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” When I said St. Paul told us to hold on to the traditions by word or letter, she wanted the passage because she never heard of it.

It’s amazing how some Protestants will so easily cast aside all reason and logic to hold on to their beliefs.

When the poster formerly known as Againor says Jesus didn’t say, “This is really my body,” he reminds of when I was in third grade at recess. We had to say “I call” whenever we wanted a certain swing or play somewhere on the playground. If I said “I want that swing” it didn’t count because I didn’t say “I call that swing.” Even though I want and I call meant the same thing, I could only get the swing by saying, “I call.” Childish? Of course it is, but we were 8 years old, so what do you expect?

Jay D’s argument that Jesus didn’t say, “This is really…” is just like the playground at recess. If that’s the best he can do, he really needs to re-think his beliefs.
 
The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? (1 Corinthians 10:16)
Mr. Swiss Guard,

I believe St. Paul in what he did and did not 😉 write. He did not write “…the communion of the real blood of Christ” nor did he say “…body, blood, soul, and divinity…”.

I know it sounds to you like playground semantics, but I don’t think it is.

To say “this is Jesus’ body and blood” is one thing. I can believe that statement and still regard the details as a divine mystery.

To say “this is Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and divinity in transubstantiated into the true presence” is rather more specific. More specific, I believe, than biblical doctrine allows.
 
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?
This explanation and Bro.Rich’s is the best way to describe it.
 
Will Jesus be celebrating Mass in Heaven and drinking his own blood? Or is it the fruit of the vine He will drink?

If its wine as He states, then saying “This is my blood” must be taken as figurative.
Will Jesus be celebrating Mass in Heaven and drinking his own blood?

Nobody knows what Jesus is doing in heaven. If Jesus did not partake of the bread and wine at the last supper, what makes you think he does so in heaven?

If its wine as He states, then saying “This is my blood” must be taken as figurative.

Not at all. Jesus gave His body and Blood for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus, who never sinned, has no need of the Eucharist personally. It is for our benefit, not His. You are also making the mistake in thinking that if wine is available either in heaven or in the eternal life, it must only be used sacramentally. Is it possible that when Jesus spoke of drinking wine anew in the kingdom with His apostles, He meant it as a socail drink between friends?

Thal59
 
Will Jesus be celebrating Mass in Heaven and drinking his own blood?

Nobody knows what Jesus is doing in heaven. If Jesus did not partake of the bread and wine at the last supper, what makes you think he does so in heaven?

If its wine as He states, then saying “This is my blood” must be taken as figurative.

Not at all. Jesus gave His body and Blood for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus, who never sinned, has no need of the Eucharist personally. It is for our benefit, not His. You are also making the mistake in thinking that if wine is available either in heaven or in the eternal life, it must only be used sacramentally. Is it possible that when Jesus spoke of drinking wine anew in the kingdom with His apostles, He meant it as a socail drink between friends?

Thal59
I think you missed the point. Jesus has just spoken the words “This is my blood” and then tells the disciples that He will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day…". The Lord immediately calls it wine again, not literal blood.

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
 
Mr. Swiss Guard,

I believe St. Paul in what he did and did not 😉 write. He did not write “…the communion of the real blood of Christ” nor did he say “…body, blood, soul, and divinity…”.

I know it sounds to you like playground semantics, but I don’t think it is.

To say “this is Jesus’ body and blood” is one thing. I can believe that statement and still regard the details as a divine mystery.

To say “this is Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and divinity in transubstantiated into the true presence” is rather more specific. More specific, I believe, than biblical doctrine allows.
So, if St. Paul and Jesus used the words real and really you would believe in transubstantiation?

I apologize if I doubt your sincerity on the subject. If Jesus has said, “This is really my body…” you would still disagree because he didn’t say really and truly.

I will agree that it sounds like playground semantics. I disagree that it isn’t playground semantics.

Jesus spoke Aramaic. Do you know the Aramaic word for really? Is there an Aramaic word for really? Did Jesus need to say really for the apostles to understand him? Did the apostles need playground semantics to believe what Jesus taught?

I find it difficult to believe that for 1,500 years the Jesus and the Holy Spirit allowed this misunderstanding among Christians. I believe Jesus called the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Truth who would teach the apostles all things. If so, that includes transubstantiation.

So, what you’re now telling me is that not only does the Bible teach error, the Holy Spirit isn’t the Spirit of Truth. How could the Spirit of Truth teach the error of transubstantiation for 1,500 years?

The fact is the apostles understood Jesus perfectly. They taught the early Church what He taught them.

One of the many problems with Protestantism is that you have very little history. Your church didn’t exist at the Last Supper. My Church was present at the Last Supper.

Sorry Mr. D, but I’ll believe Jesus and the Holy Spirit before I believe some novel teaching that didn’t exist for the first 1,500 years of the Church.

Off topic question Mr. D: Are you a Chicago Bears fan?
 
I have found that most Protestants don’t read St. Paul’s epistles that clearly contradict their beliefs. I once had a conversation in a forum with a fundamentalist who never read 2 Thessalonians 2:14 which says, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” When I said St. Paul told us to hold on to the traditions by word or letter, she wanted the passage because she never heard of it.

It’s amazing how some Protestants will so easily cast aside all reason and logic to hold on to their beliefs.

When the poster formerly known as Againor says Jesus didn’t say, “This is really my body,” he reminds of when I was in third grade at recess. We had to say “I call” whenever we wanted a certain swing or play somewhere on the playground. If I said “I want that swing” it didn’t count because I didn’t say “I call that swing.” Even though I want and I call meant the same thing, I could only get the swing by saying, “I call.” Childish? Of course it is, but we were 8 years old, so what do you expect?

Jay D’s argument that Jesus didn’t say, “This is really…” is just like the playground at recess. If that’s the best he can do, he really needs to re-think his beliefs.
We were indoctrinated in such a way as to believe any explanation that was put forth against Catholic teaching. Part of the technique of Evangelical/Fundamentalist (for example) preaching is rhetorical, to make any argument sound plausible, if your delivery struck an emotional chord, then nobody ever had a reason to question it.

Now, I’m not saying that this was in any way deliberately deceptive, because the preachers really believed what they taught, they were themselves taught formulas for doing battle using the Bible selectively. The real tragedy was that huge portions of Scripture were completely ignored or glossed over as irrelevant to the argument. We were not taught how to look at Scripture in context of all of Scripture, so that everything was integrated and non-contradictory without doing serious damage to the context.

This is why you will find a lot of Protestants (of every form) will never have noticed verses like the ones you noted above, they were never part of their overall interpretive system.

And I know that even in reading the Bible from front to back, my mind just completely passed over verses that didn’t make sense to me according to what I already believed. I think somewhere in my mind I figured that my belief system which had been taught to me by well respected theologians and ministers had to have reasonable explanations for these problem verses or even whole passages, I would simply find them out later.

And I never did. One day I went on a deliberate search to figure it all out when I realized there were gaping holes in my belief system. And I discovered that what I had taken for granted, that the reasonable explanations were out there, well they just weren’t out there.

Sure, there were explanations. But they were filled with word games, to the point of ridiculousness. And I wondered, is my system so insecure that word games are all that’s left to keep it standing? Bottom line was, yes.

Was I happy to discover all this? NO. My whole world fell apart. But then it came back together again beautifully. The Eucharist is the center of Christian worship. The Bible teaches it, the Early Church Fathers taught it from the beginning, every orthodox Christian believed it for 1500 years. Word games will not take away the truth of the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

p.s. When I read the Pauline Epistles now, it’s crazy how much more I see there. I feel like I’ve stepped from what had been a beautiful drawing into a fantastic 3 dimensional world. It’s like discovering this world of Living Scripture for the first time!
 
Will Jesus be celebrating Mass in Heaven and drinking his own blood? Or is it the fruit of the vine He will drink?
YES, since as we see in the Letter to the Hebrews, He is both Priest and Victim.

As Priest, He will be eating the Victim - because that’s what priests do. They Sacrifice the Victim (Jesus sacrificed Himself on the Altar of the Cross) and then they eat the Victim - which is what Jesus will be doing when He is celebrating the Heavenly Mass.

He established the Eucharist precisely in order to make this possible.

Also keep in mind that the same One who said “This is …” is the same One who said, “I am …,” and “Let there be …” - none of which were symbolic statements - they were Words that created the realities of which they spoke.
 
YES, since as we see in the Letter to the Hebrews, He is both Priest and Victim.

As Priest, He will be eating the Victim - because that’s what priests do. They Sacrifice the Victim (Jesus sacrificed Himself on the Altar of the Cross) and then they eat the Victim - which is what Jesus will be doing when He is celebrating the Heavenly Mass.

He established the Eucharist precisely in order to make this possible..
I do not think the Church believes that.

Anyone know if the Church believes that the Lord will be celebrating mass in Heaven and eating and drinking His own body and blood?
 
I think you missed the point. Jesus has just spoken the words “This is my blood” and then tells the disciples that He will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day…". The Lord immediately calls it wine again, not literal blood.

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
I found this explanation of Matthew 26:26-29 from the Douay-Rheims Bible online site. I hope it helps.
 
Continued from the previous post.

Just out of curiosity, here is the account of the Last Supper in Mark 14:22-25 says:
22 And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. 23 And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many. 25 Amen I say to you, that I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it new in the kingdom of God.
drbo.org/chapter/48014.htm
Notice here that St. Mark, just like St. Matthew, puts the words “…fruit of the vine…” after the words of consecration. Now, with two of the evangelists placing “fruit of the vine” after consecration, one evangelist placing it before, and one evangelist remaining silent, why is it that Catholics take St. Luke’s account over both St. Mark’s and St. Matthew’s account?

The answer is actually found in Mark 14:30 about Peter’s denial of Jesus:
30 And Jesus saith to him: Amen I say to thee, today, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shall deny me thrice.
St. Mark mentions the cock crowing twice, while the other three evangelists only mention the cock crowing once. Why does St. Mark say twice when the others don’t? Here is the exlpanation:
30 “Crow twice”… The cocks crow at two different times of the night; viz., about midnight for the first time; and then about the time commonly called the cock crowing; and this was the cock crowing our Saviour spoke of; and therefore the other Evangelists take no notice of the first crowing.
St. Mark uses more precise language than the other evangelists about the cock crowing. That doesn’t mean St. Mark is contradicting the other evangelists, he is using more precise language.

St. John is the only evangelist who records Christ’s discourse with His disciples as well as the washing of feet. Does this mean neither Christ’s discourse or the washing of feet didn’t happen or wasn’t important because only one of the four evangelists recorded it? Of course not. St. John was the evangelist entrusted to tell both stories, just as St. Mark was the evangelist entrusted to use precise language regarding the cock crowing.

St. Luke is the evangelist entrusted with using precise language regarding Christ’s words at the Last Supper. Like St. Mark with the cock crowing and St. John with Christ’s discourse, St. Luke gives the most detailed account of the words used at the Last Supper. This is why Catholics use St. Luke’s Gospel account of the words spoken by Christ at the Last Supper.

I hope this explanation helps Kaycee. God bless.
 
We were indoctrinated in such a way as to believe any explanation that was put forth against Catholic teaching. Part of the technique of Evangelical/Fundamentalist (for example) preaching is rhetorical, to make any argument sound plausible, if your delivery struck an emotional chord, then nobody ever had a reason to question it.

Now, I’m not saying that this was in any way deliberately deceptive, because the preachers really believed what they taught, they were themselves taught formulas for doing battle using the Bible selectively. The real tragedy was that huge portions of Scripture were completely ignored or glossed over as irrelevant to the argument. We were not taught how to look at Scripture in context of all of Scripture, so that everything was integrated and non-contradictory without doing serious damage to the context.

This is why you will find a lot of Protestants (of every form) will never have noticed verses like the ones you noted above, they were never part of their overall interpretive system.

And I know that even in reading the Bible from front to back, my mind just completely passed over verses that didn’t make sense to me according to what I already believed. I think somewhere in my mind I figured that my belief system which had been taught to me by well respected theologians and ministers had to have reasonable explanations for these problem verses or even whole passages, I would simply find them out later.

And I never did. One day I went on a deliberate search to figure it all out when I realized there were gaping holes in my belief system. And I discovered that what I had taken for granted, that the reasonable explanations were out there, well they just weren’t out there.

Sure, there were explanations. But they were filled with word games, to the point of ridiculousness. And I wondered, is my system so insecure that word games are all that’s left to keep it standing? Bottom line was, yes.

Was I happy to discover all this? NO. My whole world fell apart. But then it came back together again beautifully. The Eucharist is the center of Christian worship. The Bible teaches it, the Early Church Fathers taught it from the beginning, every orthodox Christian believed it for 1500 years. Word games will not take away the truth of the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

p.s. When I read the Pauline Epistles now, it’s crazy how much more I see there. I feel like I’ve stepped from what had been a beautiful drawing into a fantastic 3 dimensional world. It’s like discovering this world of Living Scripture for the first time!
As they always say on Relevant Radio, welcome home Jeanette!

Protestant pastors aren’t being deliberately deceptive when they either misinterpret Sacred Scripture or ignore certain passages, they are just going by their Protestant traditions!

They can deny it all they want, but Protestants have many traditions not found in the Bible such as sola Scriptura, sola fide, and others. There are as many Protestant traditions as there are Protestant denominations. This is why Protestants will look at the Church as believers. It doesn’t really matter what you believe on the “little things” as long as you believe the “important things.” If the Bible is the word of God, then what part of it isn’t important?

I loved reading your conversion story. You showed courage in not giving up when your world fell apart. You took the words of Pope John Paul II to heart: “Be not afraid!”

Now you have the fullness of truth. I know you couldn’t be happier. I strayed from the faith for a few years and when I came back I really wanted to re-learn my faith and live it. Finding a parish with perpetual adoration really strengthened my faith. It has been my parish now for five years even though I’ve been going there for adoration for 13 years.

Congratulations again Jeanette and keep reading the Scriptures. St. Paul’s epistles never get old. You’ll be surprised just what else you see!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top