How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[larkin31]

Excellent!

Then please explain what your point is here:

It sounds like you’re saying that’s what Jesus wanted, but that’s NOT what Catholics do.

Why such suspicion on your part? My only point is that I understand what Catholics believe and practice on this point.

Then you’re saying, “I fully agree” that the Catholic Church does indeed do this 24/7, throughout the world.

Yes, precisely.

(BTW, no other denomination fulfills this command of Jesus like we do–every single day, every single hour, from east to west, in every corner of the planet!.)

Correct: only Catholics are Catholic!

 

[larkin31]

Hi, Larkin31,

So, considering everything else I said, this was all you chose to comment on?
Yes. I thought that it was an unfair and incorrect criticism.

 

[shawn38]

If the bread and wine have been converted to the body and blood of Christ, why does Jesus reference the cup as “fruit of the vine” after the transubstantiation would have taken place?

Matt 26:27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I 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.”

Jesus had said, “this is my blood” and prayed, He still referred to the contents as, “fruit of the vine”.

 

[shawn38]

Paul refers to the elements of the Lord’s Supper as “eat this bread and drink the cup” in 1 Cor 11:26 after they should be transubstantiated.

Is the “cup” literally the “new covenant” in 1 Cor 11:25, or figuratively representing?

1 Cor 11:25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

 

[rinnie]

Jesus Christ said DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME!!

This is a command. DO THIS. This is my BODY which has been given up for you. This is my Blood. DO THIS

He said it, and he meant it! Do this is not something done in the past. Jesus Christ said DO THIS that means present!

The Eucharist is Just what Jesus Christ stated. This IS my Body and This IS my blood. DO THIS!

 

[rinnie]

Paul refers to the elements of the Lord’s Supper as “eat this bread and drink the cup” in 1 Cor 11:26 after they should be transubstantiated.

Is the “cup” literally the “new covenant” in 1 Cor 11:25, or figuratively representing?

1 Cor 11:25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

Well Shawn what did Jesus say. Did he literally Say this IS my body and this IS my blood or didn’t he?

And you are correct on the point that you cannot be in a state of Mortal Sin and receive the Living Christ. If you do you have condemned yourself. That is Catholic teaching.

If the Eucharist was not the Living Christ then you could not condemn yourself. The scripture is quite clear when you recieve the Lord in a unworthy manner you are indeed sinning against the Living Christ.

 

[shawn38]

Nothing you have provided has proved that the Eucharist was taught as being symbolic. Do yourself a favor, read EARLY CHURCH history ACCEPT the FACTS the early church NEVER taught a symbolic Eucharist.

You follow an NOVEL belief and it is a FACT!

Apparently Irenaeus disagrees.

“How can they (Gnostics) be consistent with, themselves when they say the bread for which they give thanks is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood, if they do not say he is the Son of the Creator of the world? … Let them either change their views or avoid offering the bread and wine. But our view is in harmony with the eucharist, and the eucharist confirms our view”. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.xviii.4, 5)

The Gnostics viewed everything physical as evil. Had Irenaeus argued that the natural elements of common juice and bread were transubstantiated into something different than what they appear, namely the body and blood of Christ, the Gnostics would have agreed completely, while maintaining their view that the body of Christ was not composed of natural elements, but only appeared to be.

When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body,"1600 that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body…Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.

Tertullian, Against Marcion IV Chapter XL

 

[Radical]

Well Shawn what did Jesus say. Did he literally Say this IS my body and this IS my blood or didn’t he?

In all likelihood he didn’t. Jesus likely spoke in Aramaic which doesn’t have the verb “is”. Jesus would have said something like, “This–my body.”

If the Eucharist was not the Living Christ then you could not condemn yourself. The scripture is quite clear when you recieve the Lord in a unworthy manner you are indeed sinning against the Living Christ.

There are at least two problems with this claim.

First, the author of Hebrews 10 equates a deliberate sinning after receiving knowledge of the truth (v. 26) with the trampling of the Son and with the treating of his blood as unholy.(v. 29)

So if we look at the two passages we see:

a) in 1 Cor 11 Paul said, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” in the context of the Lord’s Supper

b) In Hebrews 10, to “deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth,” is equated with trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him. In that passage there is no indication that there is one and only one way to “deliberately keep on sinning “ (namely by eating the bread or drinking the cup in an unworthy manner) In fact, there is no indication that the Lord’s Supper is in any way under consideration.

c) Since the Eucharist is the one and only thing claimed to involve a RP, and since Hebrews 10 does not indicate that the Lord’s Supper is in any way involved, there must be a way to trample the Son of God under foot and to treat Jesus’s blood as an unholy thing w/o having anything to do with a RP.

d) Further, the consequences described in the two passages for the wrongful actions are different. In 1 Cor 11 eating/drinking in an unworthy manner results in sickness and possibly death. In Hebrews 10, deliberate sinning after knowledge results in damnation. The penalty in Hebrews 10 appears to be the more significant and so “trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him” would appear to be more significant than " profaning the body and blood of the Lord".

e) Therefore, I would suggest that your assumption that a RP must be involved (at 1 Cor 11) b/c the offense is described in such a serious manner fails b/c Hebrews 10 describes a more serious offense against the body (what else would one trample) and against the blood of Christ w/o a RP being involved.

Second, the passage reads: * For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.*

Note the “therefore”. It would seem from the “therefore” that the stated reason that one is “guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord” is b/c the Lord’s Supper “proclaim(s) the Lord’s death until he comes” (and not b/c of some RP)… Symbols and rituals were viewed as possessing considerable significance.

 

[shawn38]

Jesus Christ said DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME!!

This is a command. DO THIS. This is my BODY which has been given up for you. This is my Blood. DO THIS

He said it, and he meant it! Do this is not something done in the past. Jesus Christ said DO THIS that means present!

The Eucharist is Just what Jesus Christ stated. This IS my Body and This IS my blood. DO THIS!

Matt 26:29 I 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.”

Gen 49:18-12 A dying Jacob at a great distance saw Christ’s day, and it was his comfort and support on his death-bed. Jesus is the true Vine; wine is the appointed symbol of his blood, which is drink indeed, as shed for sinners, and applied in faith.

 

[shawn38]

“Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [Isa 33:13-19] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks.”

(Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70)

“Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, “This is my body,” that is a “figure of my body.” On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body.”

(Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)

““Observe” he (Cyprian) says, in presenting the cup, to maintain the custom handed down to us from the Lord, and to do nothing that our Lord has not first done for us: so that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be mixed with wine. For, as Christ says, ‘I am the true vine,’ it follows that the blood of Christ is wine, not water; and the cup cannot appear to contain His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened, if the wine be absent; for by the wine is the blood of Christ typified, that blood which is foreshadowed and proclaimed in all the types and declarations of Scripture.”

(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, book 4, ch 21, quoting Cyprian)

"And she hath furnished her table: "that denotes the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity; it also refers to His honoured and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper.

(Hippolytus, Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs 9:1)

It appears that the “early church fathers” may have spoke wth a literalistc view, but taught symbolicly.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Shawn38.

I realize your intent with this post … but it would be best to take a truly historical view to what the ECF were doing. A fully developed theology of the Euchsarist did not come around until the 9th Century… or about 400 years after the last ECF. If you want to see how these ECFs developed their thinking, this link may be helpful: catholicfaithandreason.org/fathersoneucharist.htm

God bless

“Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [Isa 33:13-19] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks.”

(Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70)

“Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, “This is my body,” that is a “figure of my body.” On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body.”

(Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)

““Observe” he (Cyprian) says, in presenting the cup, to maintain the custom handed down to us from the Lord, and to do nothing that our Lord has not first done for us: so that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be mixed with wine. For, as Christ says, ‘I am the true vine,’ it follows that the blood of Christ is wine, not water; and the cup cannot appear to contain His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened, if the wine be absent; for by the wine is the blood of Christ typified, that blood which is foreshadowed and proclaimed in all the types and declarations of Scripture.”

(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, book 4, ch 21, quoting Cyprian)

"And she hath furnished her table: "that denotes the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity; it also refers to His honoured and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper.

(Hippolytus, Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs 9:1)

It appears that the “early church fathers” may have spoke wth a literalistc view, but taught symbolicly.

 

[PRmerger]

Why such suspicion on your part?

What some might call suspicion, others might call skepticism. See? Some things are subjective.

My only point is that I understand what Catholics believe and practice on this point.

Fair enough.

Correct: only Catholics are Catholic!

Non-sequitor. (And tautological, BTW )

My quote was:

(BTW, no other denomination fulfills this command of Jesus like we do–every single day, every single hour, from east to west, in every corner of the planet!.)

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
I’ll say it again,early church teachings are 100% away from your novel tradition,whether you care to admit it or not.

**I’ll take your word for it. I don’t know the history well enough on this. I have no problem admitting it. **

At least you are honest. I highly suggest you study what the early church believed and taught. I’ll tell you this much,it was not symbolic until the Protestant Reformation 1500+ years later.

Quote:
Explain to me why on earth Jesus would have one consume a mere symbol and not give us His Body,Soul and Divinity? No offense,but you are like the Jews who walked,your thinking is far to carnal.

It is no offense in the world to me to say that I am like a Jew. Did you mean it as an offense? Why would ANYONE take it as an offense?

Why do you think they walked away? Because Jesus’ referred to a symbolic Eucharist? Wow! Imagine that? People getting highly offended for having to eat a ‘symbol’ of His Body?

**Jesus might say “do this in remembrance of me” because, well, that is what he wanted. **

Yep and just like he said: EAT MY Flesh,not a symbol of my Flesh.

Quote:
BTW: You did not answer me,what was CONSUMED during the Passover meal?

**I did not see this question. Seder bread and wine were consumed, of course. You already know these answers, right? **

You do not see it because you do not see the connection,which is not uncommon for many non-Catholics.And…what else do they consume?

 

[Nicea325]

Jesus did not say let this be my body and it was his body. He did not say let this be my blood and it was his blood. It is a symbol of his body and blood. Show me in history when the bread and wine became his real body and real blood. The Apostles didn’t mention that it was.

Wow! And Christ is not capable of giving his body and blood under outward appearances? Explain to me Rev how God is not capable of such a possibility?

Apparently you do not grasp transubstantiation. I cannot believe how much you have been bought by such novel beliefs.

Christ’s own words at the Last Supper. He did not say, “This bread is my body,” but simply, “This is my body.” Those words indicated a complete change of the entire substance of bread into the entire substance of Christ. The word “this” indicated the whole of what Christ held in his hand. His words were so phrased as to indicate that the subject of the sentence, “this,” and the predicate, “my body,” are identical.

As soon as the sentence was complete, the substance of the bread was no longer present. Christ’s body was present under the outward appearances of bread. The words of institution at the Last Supper were at the same time the words of transubstantiation. If Christ had wished the bread to be a kind of sacramental receptacle of his body, he would surely have used other words, for example, “This bread is my body” or “This contains my body.”

 

[PRmerger]

Wow! And Christ is not capable of giving his body and blood under outward appearances? Explain to me Rev how God is not capable of such a possibility?

'zactly!
[sign]
“It’s no harder to believe in the Eucharist than it is to believe in creation.” M. D’Ambrosio, PhD[/sign]

 

[larkin31]

What some might call suspicion, others might call skepticism. See? Some things are subjective.

Fair enough.

Non-sequitor. (And tautological, BTW )

My quote was:

revised: “Catholics practice Catholic rituals.”

 

[larkin31]

Wow! And Christ is not capable of giving his body and blood under outward appearances? Explain to me Rev how God is not capable of such a possibility?

So, your argument after all this discussion of scripture is, simply, “God can do anything”?

It is not an argument over what God CAN do, but over what the scripture describes.

 

[PRmerger]

revised by PR: “Catholics -]practice Catholic rituals/-] follow the commands of Christ through their Catholic rituals.”

 

[larkin31]

xxx

so you say

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Nicea325,

Are you giving the Rev a hard time… ?

I want you to know that I am still waiting on the Rev to respond to my post… and, I guess it will take some time. All that ‘dancing around’ can get one rather tired!

God bless

Wow! And Christ is not capable of giving his body and blood under outward appearances? Explain to me Rev how God is not capable of such a possibility?

Apparently you do not grasp transubstantiation. I cannot believe how much you have been bought by such novel beliefs.

Christ’s own words at the Last Supper. He did not say, “This bread is my body,” but simply, “This is my body.” Those words indicated a complete change of the entire substance of bread into the entire substance of Christ. The word “this” indicated the whole of what Christ held in his hand. His words were so phrased as to indicate that the subject of the sentence, “this,” and the predicate, “my body,” are identical.

As soon as the sentence was complete, the substance of the bread was no longer present. Christ’s body was present under the outward appearances of bread. The words of institution at the Last Supper were at the same time the words of transubstantiation. If Christ had wished the bread to be a kind of sacramental receptacle of his body, he would surely have used other words, for example, “This bread is my body” or “This contains my body.”