Eucharist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Timmy_Z
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Now if you look at the Luke, you see that Jesus show them in scripture (which we Catholic received during Mass in the Liturgy, 1st Reading, 2nd Reading, and the Gospel Reading, and thereafter, we see Jesus breaking the Bread. This event took place after the Resurrection. This was the First Mass established by Jesus after his Resurrection.

You call it ritual but Jesus instituted this ritual. He instituted at the Last Supper, and again he practiced in Luke 24:1-35. There are other passages in the Gospel that show the breading of the bread.

The Mass is often referred to as “Breading of the Bread” and we celebrate it on the first day of the week, Sunday. In many Catholic churches, we do it daily.
 
Linkowski said:
I had no idea that a cermony could be Christ:confused: …this is not scriptural and it would be very difficult for you to prove this from scripture.
Click to expand...
I think that it is actually the other way around. How would you try to prove to me that ceremony isn’t in the bible.

The first miracle happened at a ceremony.

Jesus was baptized at a ceremony,

Jesus as a child attended many Jewish ceremonies.

I hope you can see that I can go on an on. But now I wont you to show me your proof.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Yes but in those parable did anyone left and said, “THIS IS HARD SAYING.”

Compare the Bread Discourse in John 6 to other parables and ask yourself why did the 72 disciple left Jesus and did not return to him after he told them, that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood.

If you read the parables of Jesus, like the seed, he explains it and he tells them about the symbolic meaning.

It is in only in John 6 that Jesus keep insisting, unless you EAT the flesh of the Son of Man, you shall have no life in you."

This is pretty clear. I read John 6 discourse many times, and it does provide the deeper theological meaning of Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
And Manny, doesn’t John always explain when Jesus is talking Symbolically?
 
maryj said:
And Manny, doesn’t John always explain when Jesus is talking Symbolically?
Click to expand...
John explains fully that Jesus’ flesh is real flesh and his blood is real drink.

In some translation, Jesus’ flesh is true flesh, and his blood is true drink.
 
heisenburg said:
Greetings to you in Christ…

Was there some dissent? absolutely, I’d be lying if i said there wasn’t. Ultimately though, this was the prevailing view with a great deal more minor quotes regarding the Eucharist. The Didache which is dated possibly as early as 70AD contains Hints of the Eucharist. This document was used as a sorta how to for Christians before everything really got off the ground and was widely accepted. It is probably one of the Earliest Christian writing outside the bible letters.

Anyway… As mentioned, If this was a heresy, there would have been a very large outcry. Every other heresy in History was met with stiff documented evidence… this is the contrary with the Eucharist. The outcry is against people that do NOT believe.

Though there are those that disagree on this board, The Eucharist is a continuation of the Sacrifice of the OT… Remember the Law was Not abolished, so the sacrifice is still needed. Obviously Jesus was that sacrifice, through a miracle, we can perform the second part of the sacrifice, the literal eating of the sacrifice. It is from the one time, sacrifice. not a repeated sacrifice. His flesh is simply provided to us by the miracle of Transubstantiation. He is not re-sacrificed, just re-presented.

The NT reiterates this continuation with “this is my flesh, this is my blood” as well as John 6. If the understanding that the law still exist, but that Jesus is fulfilling it, literal eating is the conclusion that is drawn

Hope that helps

In Christ
Click to expand...
This is it!! The OT foreshadows Christ and His church. Matt 5:17 “I have come not to abolish, but to fulfill” They had to EAT the sacrifice for it to be complete and pleasing to God. He is the new and everlasting covenant. Jesus was sent to take our punishment for breaking our covenant with God.He was given as a sacrifice, We must EAT, take and EAT. If the Eucharist was meant to be symbolic, why didn’t Christ have someone “step” in for Him at Calvary? Just crucify someone else and it will be “symbolically” Him. Because we MUST EAT the Sacrifice, the Lamb of God who was sent to take away the sins of the world. So simple and so beautifully done, ah what a great God.
 
What about St. Paul?

You said you did not see the Eucharist in the New Testament but you fail to answer the questions that arise from the letter of St. Paul to an early Christian community regarding the Eucharist. St. Paul refers the the "Cup of Blessing which we bless" The action of blessing clearly refers to a liturgical action of substance and not just some ‘memorial’

Extant writings from the early church fathers and the scriptures should contain similarities in thought. As others have noted, no where is the word ‘trinity’ found in scripture. The word was defined to illustrate the concept found in scripture “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”. St. Paul’s writings discuss the Eucharist and transubstantiation is how that Eucharist was understand to occur…Bread and Wine into Body ad Blood…

You still have not addressed the questions…how does a mere “memorial” have a life giving or life ending affect upon the partaker?
 
2 Corinthians 13:4-6 KJV 4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you. 5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? 6 But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.

Christ is already in the believer continually.
 
Linkowski said:
2 Corinthians 13:4-6 KJV 4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you. 5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? 6 But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.

Christ is already in the believer continually.
Click to expand...
Of course Christ is in the believer, and as long as we presevere to the end. But this has nothing to do with the Eucharist at all.
 
Linkowski said:
2 Corinthians 13:4-6 KJV 4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you. 5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? 6 But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.

Christ is already in the believer continually.
Click to expand...
I don’t see the connection to the Eucharist in these passages.
Can you elaborate on your intention please?

In 2 Corinthians 13, St. Paul “threatens the impenitent, to provoke them to penance”.

newadvent.org/bible/2co013.htm

In these passages, St. Paul admonishes us to examine ourselves, to see whether we are* holding to* our faith. This examination of conscience is a pious Catholic practice. Our faith, which is a gift from God, must be nurtured. Faith is not a one-time event that God bestows upon us. St. Paul is speaking about how the indwelling of Christ brings about an internal transformation to those who cooperate with His grace, which supports the Catholic teaching that Justification = Inner Change of Person (Infusion); Not Just a Declaration by God (Imputation).

www.scripturecatholic.com

How is this related to this thread about the Eucharist? Are you equating having “no life in you” with Jesus “already in the believer continually”?
 
Eden said:
I don’t see the connection to the Eucharist in these passages.
Can you elaborate on your intention please?

In 2 Corinthians 13, St. Paul “threatens the impenitent, to provoke them to penance”.

newadvent.org/bible/2co013.htm

In these passages, St. Paul admonishes us to examine ourselves, to see whether we are* holding to* our faith. This examination of conscience is a pious Catholic practice. Our faith, which is a gift from God, must be nurtured. Faith is not a one-time event that God bestows upon us. St. Paul is speaking about how the indwelling of Christ brings about an internal transformation to those who cooperate with His grace, which supports the Catholic teaching that Justification = Inner Change of Person (Infusion); Not Just a Declaration by God (Imputation).

www.scripturecatholic.com

How is this related to this thread about the Eucharist? Are you equating having “no life in you” with Jesus “already in the believer continually”?
Click to expand...
I am just saying…people speak of the Eucharist as if you are receiving Christ into the body…but, Christ is already in me. That is the confusion.
 
There aren’t that many ancient sources that have survived up to our day that specifically mention the Eucharist. Justin Martyr is one. Ignatius of Antioch is another. But when you look at all the other early sources, although they do not specifically mention the real presence, they are equally Catholic in tone and belief. For example, Clement of Rome (90 AD), Diadach, Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria, Origin, Hippolitus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, the Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, etc… Not one of them, who are orthodox, denounced this belief in the real presence. Most of the other writtings are Gnostic

In the second century, you have the great struggle against Gnosticsm, that had already started in the first century. You can see that John is arguing against Gnostic tendencies in the first letter of John when he says that whoever does not believe that Jesus came in the flesh is the antichrist. You have Ireneaus making powerful arguments against Gnosticism in his letter against the Heretics. Gnostics did not believe that Jesus was a real human being because they rejected the body as evil. They did not believe in the reality of the incarnation. They see the body as a prison and something to be discarded and spiritualized.

This is a tendency that Protestantism has absorbed, to a certain extent, by rejecting a sacramental view of the universe and of the Church. By having it as just a Jesus and me faith, you reject the real concret manifestation of his incarnation. When he said he would be with us until the end of time, he also included his sacramental physical presence in the Eucharist, not just his spiritual dimension. When he came to the disciples in the upper room, he asked them for food. He showed them his wounds, he showed them that he was real. The disciples on the road to Emmaus only recognized him at the breaking of the bread. This is a beautiful sign of the Eucharist, and Jesus’ real presence there. The Eucharist is an real symbold of the oneness of the church, the litteral one body of the church. We are spiritually and physically united to Christ, and therefore enter into communion with the Holy Trinity through the resurrected Christ.

The early church father often compared the idea that Eve came from the side of Adam, to the idea that the church came from the pierced side of Christ on the cross. The church comes from Christ, is centered on Christ. Christ is the life of the church, and we as Catholics can receive him every day in the holy Eucharist. I wish you could share in this oneness, this Eucharistic unity.

God bless,
Ut.
 
Linkowski said:
I am just saying…people speak of the Eucharist as if you are receiving Christ into the body…but, Christ is already in me. That is the confusion.
Click to expand...
Receiving Christ in the Eucharist strengthens the soul. In fact when the Epistles was written many of the Christians at the time received the Lord in the “breading of the bread,” so in that context, Jesus remains in us.

Jesus also commanded us, “Do this in remembrance of me.”

Receiving the Eucharist is instituted by Jesus Christ. Throughout Scripture itself, we see the Breading in the Bread in Luke’s Gospels, we also see in the other NT text.

Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is **“Touto estin to soma mou.” **This phraseology means “this is actually” or “this is really” my body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - “touto mou estin to soma.” The statement is “this is really” my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying “this represents (not is) my body and blood.” However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for “represent,” but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for “estin” which means** “is.”**

Matt. 26:28; Mark. 14:24; Luke 22:20 - Jesus’ use of “poured out” in reference to His blood also emphasizes the reality of its presence.

Exodus 24:8 - Jesus emphasizes the reality of His actual blood being present by using Moses’ statement “blood of the covenant.”

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, “the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ’s body and blood?” Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul’s questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word “koinonia” describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.

1 Cor. 10:18 - in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.

1 Cor. 11:23 - Paul does not explain what he has actually received directly from Christ, except in the case when he teaches about the Eucharist. Here, Paul emphasizes the importance of the Eucharist by telling us he received directly from Jesus instructions on the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the Christian faith.

1 Cor. 11:27-29 - in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

1 Cor. 11:30 - this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin results in actual physical consequences to our bodies.

1 Cor. 11:27-30 - thus, if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of literally murdering the body of Christ, and risking physical consequences to our bodies. This is overwhelming evidence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are unjust penalties if the Eucharist is just a symbol.
 
Linkowski said:
I am just saying…people speak of the Eucharist as if you are receiving Christ into the body…but, Christ is already in me. That is the confusion.
Click to expand...
Spiritually, yes, he is always present in those who believe. Physically he is present within us when we receive the Eucharist. Do you understand the distinction between physically and spiritually present?
 
Timmy:

You seem to be genuinely intent on uncovering the truth of the history of the belief in the Real Presence. But, you also seem to be reluctant to accept the evidence that we have provided from the Early Fathers or from other Catholic sources.

Ok, fair enough. How about a Protestant scholar of the Early Church? If you have searched this site throughly you have run across this page:

catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

The page cites to a book written by J.N.D. Kelly, a Protestant scholar. In the book he states:
Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood. (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
Click to expand...
But you don’t have to take our word for it. The cite is right there. Look up Kelly’s work for yourself.

Now, let me propose a challenge to you. Link, you chime in too if you want.

We have cited to numerous pre 300 A.D. writings, and some within 100 years of Pentecost, that clearly and unambiguously tell us how the earliest Christians understood the Eucharist. We even have one Protestant scholar, Kelly, who backs us up. ***Martin Luther ***even believed in the Real Presence for cryin’ out loud.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

You have yet to cite to one single solitary orthodox source which asserts that the dominant position of the of the Church was ever was anything other than what we have shown you that it was. Soooooooo…why don’t you do a little research into pre-Reformation Christian beliefs and practices and show us where we are wrong.

Show us some pre-Reformation written document that demonstrates that the belief in the Real Presence was ever anything other than the dominant view whole of orthodox Christendom at any time prior to 1520.

Let us know what you turn up.
 
Martin Luther even believed in the Real Presence for cryin’ out loud.
Click to expand...
Consubstantiation is different from the RCC view (I was to be a Lutheran pastor once upon a time).
You have yet to cite to one single solitary orthodox source which asserts that the dominant position of the of the Church was ever was anything other than what we have shown you that it was.
Click to expand...
I have read a little of Augustine and Aquinas for general Christian apologetics. Beyond that, last night I read Justin’s first apology (I love general Christian apologetics) which sparked this thread. I have a long way to go before I can say I know the dominant view of any church period or how strong the dissent was.

Thanks,
Tim
 
Timmy_Z said:
I have a long way to go before I can say I know the dominant view of any church period or how strong the dissent was.

Thanks,
Tim
Click to expand...
You won’t find any Christian who denied the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament before the year 500 A.D.
 
You won’t find any Christian who denied the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament before the year 500 A.D.
Click to expand...
Can you site who?

Thanks,
Tim
 
Who denied it after 500 A.D. or who affirmed it prior?
Click to expand...
We have already gone over those who affirmed it. Who were the first deniers?

Thanks,
Tim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top