He who eats and drinks without recognizing the BODY eats and drinks a judgement on himself

[ufamtobie]

1 Corinthians 11: 27 This means that whoever eats and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord.

St. Paul, states above if we eat Our Lord flesh and drink his blood unworthily we sin against God. St. Paul, clearly believes in Transubstantiation.

St. Paul, goes on to say: 1 Corinthians 11: 28 A man should examine himself first; only then should eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

Now why would St. Paul say this? BeCause St. Paul, truely believes in Transubstantiation. Many Catholics before recieving the Body and Blood of Christ Examine themselves such as going to confession asking Jesus to pardon their sins.

St. Paul, goes on to say: 1 Corinthians 11: 29 He who eats and drinks Without RECOGNIZING the BODY eats and drinks a judgement on himself.

Many Protestants, and some socalled Catholics eat and drink **Without RECOGNIZING the BODY. ** Thus bringing Judgement on his or herself.

If St. Paul, thought that the Holy Eucharist was only a symbol and not the real Presence Of Our Lord, he would of not put much thought into it, Stating in these Bible verse that one has to examine themselves, or they who eat and drink without recognizing the BODY eats and Drinks JUDGEMENT to himself.

If St. Paul, Thought that the Eucharist was only a Symbol and not the Real Presence why did he say: 1 Corinthians 11: 30 That is why so many among you are sick and dying.

People wake up and believe in Transubstantiation. If not you will be bringing Judgement onto yourselves.

Ufamtobie

 

[thecoach]

1 Corinthians 11: 27 This means that whoever eats and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord.

St. Paul, states above if we eat Our Lord flesh and drink his blood unworthily we sin against God. St. Paul, clearly believes in Transubstantiation.

St. Paul, goes on to say: 1 Corinthians 11: 28 A man should examine himself first; only then should eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

Now why would St. Paul say this? BeCause St. Paul, truely believes in Transubstantiation. Many Catholics before recieving the Body and Blood of Christ Examine themselves such as going to confession asking Jesus to pardon their sins.

St. Paul, goes on to say: 1 Corinthians 11: 29 He who eats and drinks Without RECOGNIZING the BODY eats and drinks a judgement on himself.

Many Protestants, and some socalled Catholics eat and drink **Without RECOGNIZING the BODY. ** Thus bringing Judgement on his or herself.

If St. Paul, thought that the Holy Eucharist was only a symbol and not the real Presence Of Our Lord, he would of not put much thought into it, Stating in these Bible verse that one has to examine themselves, or they who eat and drink without recognizing the BODY eats and Drinks JUDGEMENT to himself.

If St. Paul, Thought that the Eucharist was only a Symbol and not the Real Presence why did he say: 1 Corinthians 11: 30 That is why so many among you are sick and dying.

People wake up and believe in Transubstantiation. If not you will be bringing Judgement onto yourselves.

Ufamtobie

All this is is you merely extrapolating your interpretation on Paul’s words. What is ironic here is that you want to be so careful to observe the words of Paul, yet when he states alludes such things as in Colossians that the Sabbath day is up to the individual to observe, the church makes non-observance a sin. Also the judgement could be from not gathering in love as Jesus commanded thus giving poor example or something else, such as Annais, and has nothing to do with transubstanation at all. After all, if he reallyy meant this, he probably would have been direct in saying this becomes the body and blood in reality, but he doesnt.

 

[gcnuss]

***1

People wake up and believe in Transubstantiation. If not you will be bringing Judgement onto yourselves. ***

I suggest that the issue is not one of believing in transubstantiation but one of believing that in the Eucharist one receives the true Body and Blood of Christ. It is the “what” and not the “how” that is important.

Speaking as a Lutheran, I believe the Real Presence is a mystery that goes beyond our human understanding. Any attempt to explain how Christ is present in what appears, to our senses, to be bread and wine is futile. We simply accept that Jesus’ words are true – “this is my body,” and “this cup is the new covenant in my blood.” We don’t need to know how it is done. We accept our Lord’s words at face value.

 

[Steadfast]

There isn’t anything about Transubstantiation here.

Note that the context is Paul’s criticism of the Corinthian church for their divisions.

The word “body” is rich in meaning to Paul. I think his first interest is in addressing the issue of schism in the church. He is referring, first and foremost, to the Body (and Blood) as the Body of Christ, the Church.

So what he is doing is taking the opportunity to use Holy Communion to inculcate real communion among the Corinthian Christians.

I don’t deny that the passage implies an acceptance and belief in the Real Presence, but his point is not to teach that. His point about recognizing and being worthy is about not being in conflict with ones brethren in the church, not about accepting or believing in a particular eucharistic doctrine.

It has been argued that culling Scripture to support this or that pet doctrine without much regard to what it actually means is disrespectful to the Word of God and can involve a violation against the commandment not to take His Name in vain since we are using His Word for something He did not intend.

We should be careful with this. The Bible isn’t a Big List of Apologetic Proofs. It is the Verbum Dei, the very Word of God and we should approach it with reverence and never, ever, impose a meaning upon it, rather, we should let it speak.

We may be surprised at what the Holy Spirit will say to us if we do this.

 

[elvisman]

All this is is you merely extrapolating your interpretation on Paul’s words. What is ironic here is that you want to be so careful to observe the words of Paul, yet when he states alludes such things as in Colossians that the Sabbath day is up to the individual to observe, the church makes non-observance a sin. Also the judgement could be from not gathering in love as Jesus commanded thus giving poor example or something else, such as Annais, and has nothing to do with transubstanation at all. After all, if he reallyy meant this, he probably would have been direct in saying this becomes the body and blood in reality, but he doesnt.

Ummm, maybe because Jesus said it himself.
(John 6:35-71, Matt. 26:26-29)

 

[AgnosTheist]

Many Protestants, and some socalled Catholics eat and drink **Without RECOGNIZING the BODY. ** Thus bringing Judgement on his or herself.

Thats why its infinitely better to become secular humanists than “Protestants, and some socalled Catholics”.

RIGHT? RIGHT!!!

 

[SyCarl]

There is a difference between accepting the Real Presence in the Eucharist and accepting transubstantiation. It is clear that the early church believed in the Real Presence but they preferred to leave exactly what happened as a mystery. Transubstantiation is an explanation that tries to restrict the mystery to one particulair formula.

When Scripture or the fathers talk about the body and blood of Christ they are affirming the Real Presence but such reference don’t mean an acceptance anything more than that. They do not mean that they accept transubstantiation as the form of the Real Presence.

 

[JimO]

After all, if he reallyy meant this, he probably would have been direct in saying this becomes the body and blood in reality, but he doesnt.

I have to disagree with you here. Paul was not figurative or symbolic in his teaching. First, Paul does say that the bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus. He starts out in verse 23 stating, “I received from the Lord what I handed on to you…” and then he goes on to recite nearly verbatum what Jesus said at the Last Supper (This is My Body…This is My Blood). The fascinating thing here is that Paul wasn’t at the Last Supper and yet he doesn’t say, “I received from Peter (or the Apostles or the believers) what I handed on to you…” What he is saying is that the Eucharist was given to him by direct revelation from Jesus (see Galatians 1:11).

Why would Paul be given direct revelation from Christ the particular circumstances surrounding the Last Supper? Well, he was the Apostle to the Gentiles and he needed to know because it was so important.

I find all this very exciting. It was these very Scriptures, coupled of course with John 6 and the Last Supper narratives that changed me some years ago from a casual Catholic, when it came to receiving the Eucharist, to one who has begun to recognize the supreme give we have been given.

I wouldn’t be so direct as the OP, but I would encourage all Catholics to seriously look into the teachings of the Church related to the Eucharist and the Mass and receive the abundant grace offered through the Eucharist.

 

[JimO]

Thats why its infinitely better to become secular humanists than “Protestants, and some socalled Catholics”.

I find it ironic when someone recommends that another not believe.

 

[AgnosTheist]

I find it ironic when someone recommends that another not believe.

whats ironic with that? if these people would not convert to catholicism, i think it would be in the Catholic Church’s best interest if all Protestants (& maybe even the Orthodox) become secular humanists instead.

Right?

 

[JimO]

whats ironic with that? if these people would not convert to catholicism, i think it would be in the Catholic Church’s best interest if all Protestants (& maybe even the Orthodox) become secular humanists instead.

Right?

No, not true. Having part of the truth, and many of the essential parts of it at that, is far better than rejecting it all. We are not accountable for our ignorance of the truth, but if we willingly reject the truth, that could be big trouble.

I find it ironic because I understand the motive of a religious person who genuinely believes that they offer someone hope. But I could never understand one who tries to convince someone who has hope that there is none.

 

[AgnosTheist]

No, not true. Having part of the truth, and many of the essential parts of it at that, is far better than rejecting it all. We are not accountable for our ignorance of the truth, but if we willingly reject the truth, that could be big trouble.

that is like saying half-truths are better than no truth. sometimes the most dangerous lies are those with elements of truths in it.

IF catholicism is correct, half-truths would mean that protestants are eating & drinking in judgement of their own heads. that sounds BAAAAD!

But I could never understand one who tries to convince someone who has hope that there is none.

perhaps that someone is merely saying that another person’s hope is misplaced.

 

[JimO]

that is like saying half-truths are better than no truth. sometimes the most dangerous lies are those with elements of truths in it.

I didn’t say half-truths and I think you know that. I’m saying that a Protestant who has a sincere devotion to Christ, but isn’t aware (from my Catholic perspective of course) of the fullness of the faith through the Sacraments of the Church, then they are better off then not knowing Christ at all.

IF catholicism is correct, half-truths would mean that protestants are eating & drinking in judgement of their own heads. that sounds BAAAAD!

No, because Protestants are not receiving the Eucharist. Without a valid priesthood, the bread and wine is only symbolic in a Protestant church. Remember, in Paul’s time there was only one Church with one Apostolic priesthood.

If a Protestant receives communion in a Catholic church and doesn’t realize that he is not supposed to, then there is no ill intent and there is no judgement. The passage refers to Catholics who know they are in a state of mortal sin or who deny the Real Presence and then partake. That is BAAAAD!, as you say.

perhaps that someone is merely saying that another person’s hope is misplaced.

Okay, if you truly care and are somehow trying to help people like me improve my life by telling me that my beliefs are misplaced. Fine, I have no problem with that. However, if you want someone else to be open to the “1% possibility” concept, you must also be willing to be open.

I work with a number of atheists who harass me about my faith. They can’t seem to come to terms with an educated scientist being a devout Catholic and they let me know this often and try to “enlighten” me. Knowing these people, I don’t get the sense that they really care about my personal happiness or peace of mind. They just want to prove me wrong for some reason. I didn’t mean to imply any ill intent on you BTW. You have always been kind and polite.

 

[AgnosTheist]

I work with a number of atheists who harass me about my faith. They can’t seem to come to terms with an educated scientist being a devout Catholic and they let me know this often and try to “enlighten” me. Knowing these people, I don’t get the sense that they really care about my personal happiness or peace of mind. They just want to prove me wrong for some reason. I didn’t mean to imply any ill intent on you BTW. You have always been kind and polite.

You know, atheists who tries to convert a christian, or christians who tries to convert an atheist…most of the time they dont really care about the happiness of their targets. These missionaries are often just acting out their human social nature which subconsciously tells them “strength lies in numbers”. I know, i experienced playing in both fields. Everybody loves having somebody who shares their views. And still there is nothing like Christianity and Islam which maximizes this basic human trait.

 

[JonNC]

.

No, because Protestants are not receiving the Eucharist. Without a valid priesthood, the bread and wine is only symbolic in a Protestant church. Remember, in Paul’s time there was only one Church with one Apostolic priesthood.

JimO,
This brings an interesting question: For the sake of discussion, I will not debate at this time the validity of the Lutheran clergy.
The Orthodox Church, however, has a valid priesthood, according to the Catholic Church. They, therefore, ***are ***recieving the Eucharist! But they don’t believe in Transubstantiation! Are they eating and drinking judgement on themselves?

Jon

 

[JimO]

You know, atheists who tries to convert a christian, or christians who tries to convert an atheist…most of the time they dont really care about the happiness of their targets. These missionaries are often just acting out their human social nature which subconsciously tells them “strength lies in numbers”.

I think that’s a fair statement. It’s amazing how many people are swayed by popular opinion. It is becoming less common for people of any background to have true conviction.

 

[elvisman]

There is a difference between accepting the Real Presence in the Eucharist and accepting transubstantiation. It is clear that the early church believed in the Real Presence but they preferred to leave exactly what happened as a mystery. Transubstantiation is an explanation that tries to restrict the mystery to one particulair formula.

When Scripture or the fathers talk about the body and blood of Christ they are affirming the Real Presence but such reference don’t mean an acceptance anything more than that. They do not mean that they accept transubstantiation as the form of the Real Presence.

**That is beating around the bush. **
Besides the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation has always been to decribe it as a mystery.
Without transubstantiation, there is no presence - real or otherwise - unless you refer to consubstantiation which is not what the ECFs believed in.

 

[JonNC]

That is beating around the bush.
**Besides the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation has always **been to decribe it as a mystery.
Without transubstantiation, there is no presence - real or otherwise - unless you refer to consubstantiation which is not what the ECFs believed in.

Elvisman,
The EO do not believe in transubstantiation. Do they not have the real presence?
I know this is the Catholic expression of the real presence, just as “in, with, and under” is the Lutheran expression. Both of these are merely human expressions of the mystery of the real presence. And it is, in fact, a mystery.

Jon

 

[SyCarl]

That is beating around the bush.
**Besides the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation has always **been to decribe it as a mystery.
Without transubstantiation, there is no presence - real or otherwise - unless you refer to consubstantiation which is not what the ECFs believed in.

The views of the early church fathers were really quite varied.

1. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4:18:5)
   newadvent.org/fathers/0103418.htm

This reference to two realities would seem to be more in line with consubtantiation.

Augustine speaks of the sacrament resembling the reality so that in some manner the bread and wine are the body and blood.

Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood, in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith.-Augustine (Letters, Number 98, Paragraph 9
newadvent.org/fathers/1102098.htm

Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again.-Augustine (Tractates on the Gospel of John. Tractate 26, Paragraph 1)
newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm

Augustine seems to limit the Real Presence to the faithful. Transubstantiation does not do this. The presence is real no matter who partakes. This also seems to be the view of Ephrem the Syrian.

There remained yet another act that would abolish the Passover and would become the Passover of the Gentiles, a source of life to the end. Our Lord Jesus took bread in his hands, plain bread at the beginning, and blessed it, made the sign of the cross over it and sanctified it in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit, and he broke and distributed it in morsels to his disciples in his kindness. He called the bread his living body, and he filled it with himself and with his Spirit. He stretched forth his hand and gave them the bread that his right hand had sanctified. Do not regard as bread what I have given you now…eat it, and do not disdain its crumbs. For this bread that I have sanctified is my body. Its least crumb sanctifies thousands of thousands, and it is capable of giving life to all who eat it. Take, eat in faith, doubting not at all that this is my body. And he who eats it in faith eats it in fire and the Spirit. If anyone doubts and eats it, it is plain bread to him. He who believes and eats the bread sanctified in my name, if he is pure; if he is a sinner, he will be forgiven. He, however, who despises it or spurns it, he may be sure that he is insulting the Son, who has called the bread his body and truly made it so. Receive of it, eat of it, all of you, and eat in it the Holy Spirit, for it is truly my body, and he who eats it will live forever. -Ephrem the Syrian (Memra for the Fifth Day of the Great Week (Holy Thursday), Sermon 4) Joel C. Elowsky, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament IVa John 1-10, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), p. 236.)

Pope Gelastius denies that the substance or the nature of the bread cease. This would not be in accordance with transubstantiation.

The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.-Gelasius (Philp Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 3, 95)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.x.xxii.html

Theodret says something similar.

You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they are become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be.Theodret (Dialogues, 2)
newadvent.org/fathers/27032.htm

So while the fathers definitely seem to believe in the Real Presence it does not appear that their views were all consistent with transubstantiation.

 

[Steadfast]

Yes, it is pretty clear that Irenaeus’ view was closer to the Lutheran than to the Catholic.