How well can you answer this question?

[Marc1152]

The question is faulty.

Orthodox don’t believe in transubstantiation as Catholics do.
.

"

That is a miss leading statement. Orthodox do believe in the actual presence of the Lord in the Eucharist and maintain the original form of leavened bread put into the chalice with the wine. It is given by spoon.

Transubstantiation is a technical breakdown of how the bread and wine become the Lord. We have no such theories and just say that it does.

 

[Marc1152]

The reason Protestants have trouble understanding why they don’t have a valid Eucharist is that they have no concept of the mystical role of the Church. One is as good as another. Everyone who believes is equal…THE Church is just a building… No valid Priesthood…etc

Plus, they think the Eucharist they serve is just symbolic in any case…They have bad software and bad hardware.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Pax thanks

just got back from our thanksgiving weekend
give me a bit to look up those sites

as Arnold said I’ll be back

 

[Kitty_Chan]

"

That is a miss leading statement. Orthodox do believe in the actual presence of the Lord in the Eucharist and maintain the original form of leavened bread put into the chalice with the wine. It is given by spoon.

Transubstantiation is a technical breakdown of how the bread and wine become the Lord. We have no such theories and just say that it does.

In my understanding of this whole thing, how you say you have no theories, just that it does.

Has been my understanding as well.

Do you agree with what Pax and I have spoken about.???

as for the other thing you said about protestants, all I can say is I have a catholic understanding of communion when mostly Ive been in protestant churches. Attend a bit of catholic with my friend but those ideas of communion were before that.

I will let you draw any conclusions from there. I do not hold to any particular churches teaching as Ive never been a member only attended various ones, depending on where Ive lived. Guess thats what happens when you find God outside of a church. and were never raised in one. Only as far as sunday school to learn right from wrong and the golden rules.

 

[Marc1152]

Maybe somebody has already mentioned this but you are eating his flesh in the form of bread and drinking his blood in the form of wine. The bread and wine are actually the Christ, this is not a symbolic act.

In the Orthodox rubrics if the Priest sees the bread turn into flesh in the chalice, he is to stop and do an exorcism as this would be considered a demonic anomaly.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Maybe somebody has already mentioned this but you are eating his flesh in the form of bread and drinking his blood in the form of wine. The bread and wine are actually the Christ, this is not a symbolic act.

In the Orthodox rubrics if the Priest sees the bread turn into flesh in the chalice, he is to stop and do an exorcism as this would be considered a demonic anomaly.

Fasinating! not to be conterversial but isnt there some bit of bread that was tested to be dna or something, in a church somewhere. (Hows that for quality remembering eh?)

Yes and thats my “problem” as it were Ive always understood when I looked at the (acutally juice) that it is His blood, and when I ate the bread it is His flesh. Take that with eat and drink damantion to yourself and is it any wonder I can hardly bring myself to do it.

How I got that from my background with Baptists and Nazarenes is well I refuse to call it freaky. But it has my attention, if you think about it I shouldnt have known, right? But I do. Thats why Im sorta going opposite and trying with Paxs help to understand this.

And also Marc another totally frusterating thing is I had taken commumion a couple times before I left the Baptists and was feeling a bit better about it. Later on I was at my friends church (we often went to each others and since I didnt have one I went to hers) Anyway, that day I participated and finally felt if I can say it this way, good about it. Shes Catholic. Then I came here and found out it was a no no. See my confusion and frusteration??

And Pax you are the first person to admit that there is symbolism in the cermony. And to anyone reading thats exactly what Ive been asking. Not is it symbolic, and thats that, but symbolism is involved in it. Everyone has a fit when that word is mentioned. And Pax you stating that leads to understanding especially with what I was trying to explain about symbols being powerful earlier.

 

[Pax]

Kitty,

Catholics react strongly to the issue of symbolism because we are often told that the Eucharist is “only” a symbol. Your views are unusual for a non-Catholic.

I would say that your understanding is different from other non-Catholics because you have been blessed with an insight by way of grace through the scriptures. You have apparently been able to read the scriptures on this topic for what they actually say and are intended to mean.

Non-Catholics do not believe that their communion is in fact the precious body and blood of Jesus. They are right in their conclusion. Confecting the Eucharist can only be accomplished through an ordained priestly ministry with valid orders. You can well imagine what would happen if anyone and everyone could confect the Eucharist. Sacrilegious acts would abound.

If you wish to receive the flesh and blood of the Lord in the Eucharist you must be in full communion with Jesus Church. We would love to have you join. Perhaps over time you will come to know and love the Catholic Church and will be fully joined to the body of Christ. It seems to me that you are almost there.

Pray and seek the truth with an open heart. The Lord will not disappoint you.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Kitty,

Catholics react strongly to the issue of symbolism because we are often told that the Eucharist is “only” a symbol. Your views are unusual for a non-Catholic.

I dont care for only a symbol statements. How can something so important be only or just something to do on the first sunday of the month? And not taken serious. Its not logical to me plain and simple.

I would say that your understanding is different from other non-Catholics because you have been blessed with an insight by way of grace through the scriptures. You have apparently been able to read the scriptures on this topic for what they actually say and are intended to mean.

Well thanks its always seemed obvious, I think thats why I have such a problem understanding it from any church prespectives. Its also kept me away from partaking, which is not right I realise more and more I have to correct that somehow. Hard when I dont attend a usual church.

Can I go to a non-catholic church and have communion and just think how I think here?? I guess the few times I did, I did it that way anyway. Im kinda serious on that, would that be wrong? As even if I would decide to go to a catholic church it would take a while.

While Im on the topic if I went with my friend to her catholic church just what can I do?? with regards to Eucharist.

Non-Catholics do not believe that their communion is in fact the precious body and blood of Jesus. They are right in their conclusion. Confecting the Eucharist can only be accomplished through an ordained priestly ministry with valid orders. You can well imagine what would happen if anyone and everyone could confect the Eucharist. Sacrilegious acts would abound.

Honestly, I dont like what you say here, but I accept it. If thats the way it works then thats the way of it. Maybe thats where when, they say a symbol now it makes sense. If they are not with those orders as you say then they could only perform a symbol of the Euchrist and that would be communion. Theres a logic in that too.

btw I think Gods quite logical. He invented it why wouldnt He be? If we’re patient we can see it.

 

[Marc1152]

Fasinating! not to be conterversial but isnt there some bit of bread that was tested to be dna or something, in a church somewhere. (Hows that for quality remembering eh?)

Yes and thats my “problem” as it were Ive always understood when I looked at the (acutally juice) that it is His blood, and when I ate the bread it is His flesh. Take that with eat and drink damantion to yourself and is it any wonder I can hardly bring myself to do it.

How I got that from my background with Baptists and Nazarenes is well I refuse to call it freaky. But it has my attention, if you think about it I shouldnt have known, right? But I do. Thats why Im sorta going opposite and trying with Paxs help to understand this.

And also Marc another totally frusterating thing is I had taken commumion a couple times before I left the Baptists and was feeling a bit better about it. Later on I was at my friends church (we often went to each others and since I didnt have one I went to hers) Anyway, that day I participated and finally felt if I can say it this way, good about it. Shes Catholic. Then I came here and found out it was a no no. See my confusion and frusteration??

And Pax you are the first person to admit that there is symbolism in the cermony. And to anyone reading thats exactly what Ive been asking. Not is it symbolic, and thats that, but symbolism is involved in it. Everyone has a fit when that word is mentioned. And Pax you stating that leads to understanding especially with what I was trying to explain about symbols being powerful earlier.

The Orthodox would say that you are not ready to approach the Chalice and therefore it is no wonder you are in such a tizzy about it.

If you come to Orthodoxy, you will not be allowed to commune until after a fairly long time of instruction usually form 18 months to two years. Even after becoming Orthodox, you must strictly prepared each week with some fasting and saying a rule of prayer that you will be given and abstaining from certain things until after communion.

So maybe your focus should shift from how to think about taking communion and what it is or does, to a decision to approach more Ancient forms of Christianity and go through the process of conversion. You may be taking the cart before the horse right now.

Here is a good web site that has hour long programs about all of the hot button topics. It is run by two layman who converted to the Orthodox Church from Protestantism. They have a very easy going style, not ponderous at all. Click on audio archives to see a list of programs.

ourlifeinchrist.com

 

[Marc1152]

Oh and I almost forgot the central thing you must do to prepare for communion, to have given a confession recently. Some Orthodox groups require you confess every time before taking communion.

The Eucharist is an experiential thing, not something you reason your way through.

 

[Pax]

…
…

Honestly, I dont like what you say here, but I accept it. If thats the way it works then thats the way of it. Maybe thats where when, they say a symbol now it makes sense. If they are not with those orders as you say then they could only perform a symbol of the Euchrist and that would be communion. Theres a logic in that too.

btw I think Gods quite logical. He invented it why wouldnt He be? If we’re patient we can see it.

I can understand how my remarks would make you uncomfortable. It is not a happy thing for me to say that our non-Catholic congregations only partake of the Eucharist in a symbolic way. I truly wish that we all worshipped side by side in one faith, one Lord, and one baptism with each of us receiving the body and blood of the Lord in the Eucharist.

When a non-Catholic congregation recognizes that what they are receiving is not the body and blood of Christ, I see this as a positive thing and a negative thing. On the negative side is the possibility that they will forever believe that no church has the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and that it is always only a symbol. On the positive side there is the possibility that they will be blessed with the same realization that you have been given. This would then lead them to seek the Church of Jesus that has the real presence in the Eucharist.

As far as what you can do when attending a Catholic Church I have a couple of suggestions. At the consecration, and later at the minor elevation of the body and blood, worship the Lord in the Eucharist with your whole heart, mind, and soul.

At communion pray to the Lord giving thanks for the great gift of faith that you have in knowing that He is truly present in his body, blood, soul, and divinity. Tell Jesus that you would dearly love to receive Him in the Eucharist and that you long for the day when you can. Ask the Lord to help you get there and to remove any obstacles that stand in your path. Then tell the Lord that you wish to receive him spiritually in communion with those that are able to partake of the Eucharist. Give thanks to the Lord for his blessings.

Before attending mass always prepare yourself spiritually. Make all of your preparations for attending a kind of spiritual and physical procession. Use the idea of preparation and procession as a way of getting closer and closer in mind and heart with Jesus. You are approaching the altar of the most holy and precious event that occurs on earth for you are approaching the place where heaven and earth meet. The mass and the Eucharist are an incredible event that too many take for granted.

The Lord is good and he will lead you. Pray that every door and window to your heart and soul will be open to the Holy Spirit. You will not be disappointed.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

I can understand how my remarks would make you uncomfortable. It is not a happy thing for me to say that our non-Catholic congregations only partake of the Eucharist in a symbolic way. I truly wish that we all worshipped side by side in one faith, one Lord, and one baptism with each of us receiving the body and blood of the Lord in the Eucharist

When a non-Catholic congregation recognizes that what they are receiving is not the body and blood of Christ, I see this as a positive thing and a negative thing. On the negative side is the possibility that they will forever believe that no church has the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and that it is always only a symbol. On the positive side there is the possibility that they will be blessed with the same realization that you have been given. This would then lead them to seek the Church of Jesus that has the real presence in the Eucharist…

Just to be clear, I dont want you feeling badly, thats why I said I dont like it, but I accept it. Thats sorta the territory one gets in with God anyway.

As for worship, I too wish everyone did, and truthfully, at first I was mad at Catholics then I found out Nazarenes are also closed communion so I put away my anger. Facts is facts.

In another thread I spoke about my bro-in-laws Nazarene church having communion like the Orthodox, with the bread in the wine. He was upset and didnt know where they got the idea (I knew ) funny he said if they keep it up I may never take communion again. I thought hmmm sounds great! I dont know if its a good idea or not. But maybe they are trying for those roots you speak about. I pray its a good thing. Thought it may encourage you, I hope.

As far as what you can do when attending a Catholic Church I have a couple of suggestions.

ok terms Im not familiar with consecration, minor elevation, and its called communion, Eucharist is the Body and Blood, commnion is partaking?? I know now I cant have the Blood but what about the Bread. and the priest is blessing people can I do any of these? When does these things happen? or is there somewhere kind of a order of service or something I can use as a guide??

Keep in mind my darling friend had me go up for communion last time we were there. Someone here told me it was ok I didnt know and I think Gods forgiving. I imagine He probably smiled and shook His head when He saw us in the pews debating and panicking what to do. But my pal shes not been going lately and now I know thats bad for her. I wont omit God bugging me so I go and He knows I will ask her to take me. I bet I can help her remember some things and we wont be such a headache.

I want to say again I totally appreciate you taking time to talk to me. Like I said you and Marc are finally answering my questions. Unfortunetely I have to wrestle things to the ground before I get them But good news is I dont change my mind.

Quick example is suffering, used to ask why? had more than a few loud and not to reverant conversations with Him. He was patient, and even after I was proven wrong yet again, Jesus never said Im right, never gloated, I only felt love. So I give, Im not asking anymore.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

The Orthodox would say that you are not ready to approach the Chalice and therefore it is no wonder you are in such a tizzy about it.

So maybe your focus should shift from how to think about taking communion and what it is or does, to a decision to approach more Ancient forms of Christianity and go through the process of conversion. You may be taking the cart before the horse right now.

Here is a good web site that has hour long programs about all of the hot button topics. It is run by two layman who converted to the Orthodox Church from Protestantism. They have a very easy going style, not ponderous at all. Click on audio archives to see a list of programs.

ourlifeinchrist.com

Well the tizzy is a good description, it was making me nuts actually. I had to reconcille it with what I did know and it was clashing, now its making a whole lot more sense. Thank you both again, my head doesnt hurt anymore.

I ordered that study guide, I figured it could be a good way to understand. and I will look at the site too. Its interesting the opening bit about orthodox not jewish etc.

If I didnt find any answers for some of the hows and whys of communion I was going to shelf it again under mysteries. Stuff I havent figured out but knew God would let me know if He thought I needed to.

Obviously He thought I needed to

Now I know I can start that shift you spoke of, seems like a good step, Ancient forms of Christianity, thats interesting, wonder if my prefering although not ancient certainly older by todays standards, old school I guess But CS Lewis, Andrew Murray and through discussions with others havent read but Aquinas and the other fellow, cant think of others at the moment. Anyway I take the older guys over the new anyday.

btw what do you think about the Nazarene doing communion the orthodox way. (well the part about the bread in the wine) and wine! I had some response on that thread, Im just wondering if its a link. Remember I love connections. I store them away like a squirrel and pull them out and join them later. Thats really why I ask.



Also, I wonder now how well I can answer the question

 

[byoby]

Jesus often taught in parables, remember he said to “Do this in remembrance of me.” He also told the woman at the well that he was living water that of which if she drank she would never thirst. It is obvious that Jesus is using worldly language to symbolize Heavenly concepts that He is the food and drink that satisfies our souls. The bread and the wine are symbolic of Christ Sacrifice for us and by participating in them we are to remember what he did for us, not that he has to die or physically be consumed over and over again. I can not believe that it is the literal body & blood of Christ because by observing it, it is still bread and wine. Our faith is not a blind faith but one based on evidence, physical miracles demonstrated in the Bible are clearly observable and undeniable to those who witnessed them which is a good test for any claimed miracle. Jesus said that we as beleivers are all being raised up to be a Royal Priesthood with him as our High Priest. I believe that if you will read the book of Hebrews you will see that Christ fullfilled the Priesthood and abolished it in the earthly sense with a “New Covenant”. Jesus is the True mannah from Heaven, food & drink for our soul that satisfies. Paul in 1rst Corinthians Chapter 11 affirms that it is bread, “before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup” We are to examine ourselves when we do this to recall that we are doing it in remembrance of him and to do it reverently. If I am missing something here point it out to me in the scriptures.

Did God tell us to not drink blood?

Jesus physical body is where he said he was going, at the right hand of the Father in heaven, He sent The Holy Spirit to be our counseler until He physically returns.

"So if anyone tells you, “there he is, out in the desert, do not go out: or here he is, in the inner rooms, do not believe it.”

 

[tiemry]

What Jesus is saying is to have Him in you. Not eating his flesh or drinking His blood exactly, but to live with Him within you always

 

[estesbob]

Jesus often taught in parables, remember he said to “Do this in remembrance of me.” He also told the woman at the well that he was living water that of which if she drank she would never thirst. It is obvious that Jesus is using worldly language to symbolize Heavenly concepts that He is the food and drink that satisfies our souls. The bread and the wine are symbolic of Christ Sacrifice for us and by participating in them we are to remember what he did for us, not that he has to die or physically be consumed over and over again. I can not believe that it is the literal body & blood of Christ because by observing it, it is still bread and wine. Our faith is not a blind faith but one based on evidence, physical miracles demonstrated in the Bible are clearly observable and undeniable to those who witnessed them which is a good test for any claimed miracle. Jesus said that we as beleivers are all being raised up to be a Royal Priesthood with him as our High Priest. I believe that if you will read the book of Hebrews you will see that Christ fullfilled the Priesthood and abolished it in the earthly sense with a “New Covenant”. Jesus is the True mannah from Heaven, food & drink for our soul that satisfies. Paul in 1rst Corinthians Chapter 11 affirms that it is bread, “before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup” We are to examine ourselves when we do this to recall that we are doing it in remembrance of him and to do it reverently. If I am missing something here point it out to me in the scriptures.

Did God tell us to not drink blood?

Jesus physical body is where he said he was going, at the right hand of the Father in heaven, He sent The Holy Spirit to be our counseler until He physically returns.

"So if anyone tells you, “there he is, out in the desert, do not go out: or here he is, in the inner rooms, do not believe it.”

Can you tell us any other “parable” where he lost a mulititude of his followers and where his discoples confronted him and said this is a hard teaching?

Why was the fact the Eucharistis his physical Body and Blood the uquestioned belief of ALL Christians for 1,500 years?

Scipture, Tradition and the teachings of the Church all support the fact the Euucharist is his Physical Body and blood. Unless a belief can pass this three pronged test is is suspect, to say the least.

 

[Pax]

Jesus often taught in parables, remember he said to “Do this in remembrance of me.” He also told the woman at the well that he was living water that of which if she drank she would never thirst. It is obvious that Jesus is using worldly language to symbolize Heavenly concepts that He is the food and drink that satisfies our souls. The bread and the wine are symbolic of Christ Sacrifice for us and by participating in them we are to remember what he did for us, not that he has to die or physically be consumed over and over again. I can not believe that it is the literal body & blood of Christ because by observing it, it is still bread and wine. Our faith is not a blind faith but one based on evidence, physical miracles demonstrated in the Bible are clearly observable and undeniable to those who witnessed them which is a good test for any claimed miracle. Jesus said that we as beleivers are all being raised up to be a Royal Priesthood with him as our High Priest. I believe that if you will read the book of Hebrews you will see that Christ fullfilled the Priesthood and abolished it in the earthly sense with a “New Covenant”. Jesus is the True mannah from Heaven, food & drink for our soul that satisfies. Paul in 1rst Corinthians Chapter 11 affirms that it is bread, “before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup” We are to examine ourselves when we do this to recall that we are doing it in remembrance of him and to do it reverently. If I am missing something here point it out to me in the scriptures.

Did God tell us to not drink blood?

Jesus physical body is where he said he was going, at the right hand of the Father in heaven, He sent The Holy Spirit to be our counseler until He physically returns.

"So if anyone tells you, “there he is, out in the desert, do not go out: or here he is, in the inner rooms, do not believe it.”

Please refer to all of the posts in this thread for many of the scriptural references that you have overlooked. Please refer to my post #10 on this thread for an answer to your claims about the book of Hebrews and the ministerial priesthood. You misunderstand Paul when he speaks of the bread and wine. Your misunderstanding is because you are ignoring all of what he says about the Eucharist in Chapters 10 and 11. For example you seem to overlook 1 Cor 10:16 which says, “**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”? Verse 21 says, “You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord, and the chalice of devils: you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils.” It is important to see the contrast that Paul is making to the table of devils. We know that Jesus stands as the lamb that has been slain at the heavenly altar. We also know that Jesus declared that the bread and wine were his body and blood. He is the sacrifice before the Father. The pagans offered flesh and blood upon their altars to their idols. Paul shows that flesh and blood are offered on both the Catholic altar and on the pagan altar. On the Catholic altar it is the body and blood of Jesus. On the pagan altar it is the blood of animals.

Also in Chapter 11 verses 22-27 Paul says this:
What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God; and put them to shame that have not ? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not. 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. 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. **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. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 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.

Please note that Paul quotes Jesus and does not say that Jesus is only speaking symbolically. Moreover, you cannot be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if is only bread and wine.

You can also search this forum for threads on the Eucharist and you will see all of the scriptural verses discussed both pro and con.

I hope this helps.**

 

[Pax]

…
…
Did God tell us to not drink blood?
…
…

A scriptural analysis of the prohibition against eating blood does not support arguments against the Eucharist.

Jesus, himself, gives us the command to eat his flesh and to consume his blood as true food and true drink.[per Jn 6 on the discourse on the bread of life.]

A look at the OT reveals some interesting insights relative to the new covenant. In Leviticus 1:1-5 we read the following:

"THE LORD called Moses, and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel, and say to them, When any man of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of cattle from the herd or from the flock. 'If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish; he shall offer it at the door of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the Lord; he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. Then he shall kill the bull before the Lord; and Aaron’s sons the priests shall present the blood, and throw the blood round about against the altar that is at the door of the tent of meeting.”

There are many similar references in the OT describing animal sacrifice and the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar. This was done for the atonement of sin. When we compare this with the NT we see that "In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. [Hebrews 8:13]

The scriptures then go on to say “Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary. For a tent was prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence; it is called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain stood a tent called the Holy of Holies, having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, which contained a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail. These preparations having thus been made, the priests go continually into the outer tent, performing their ritual duties; but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood which he offers for himself and for the errors of the people. By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the sanctuary is not yet opened as long as the outer tent is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various ablutions, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.” [Hebrews 9:1-14]

There is clearly a foreshadowing in the Old Testament and an unveiling in the New Testament when it comes to blood, sacrifice, atonement, and eternal redemption. This foreshadowing includes the Eucharist which is prefigured by the manna and the bread of the presence as well as the sprinkling with blood. This whole theme in the OT is also continued in the Passover which requires the participants to consume the lamb. Jesus is the paschal lamb in the New Covenant.

So why is blood so important and why the prohibition of consuming blood in the OT? Furthermore, why does the consumption of Jesus flesh and blood become mandated in the New Covenant? Scripture clues us in by telling us the significance of the flesh and blood. The blood is considered to be “the life” in the living creature. Leviticus 17:11 says, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.” Once again, this is a prefiguring of Jesus eternal redemptive sacrifice where we have a better covenant.

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

Please note that the “life” of the animal is in the blood and that is why the blood was given to God in sacrifice and everyone was forbidden to consume it. In the New Covenant Jesus blood gives us life. Animal blood in sacrifice cannot give that to us and that is why the Jews were told not to consume it. Eternal life is given to us through the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus. His flesh and blood are not like the flesh and blood of the animal sacrifices of the OT. Moreover, we do not consume the flesh and blood of Jesus in the same fashion as condemned in the OT. In the Eucharist we receive Jesus body, blood, soul, and divinity. In the Eucharist we receive this precious life giving gift sacramentaly rather than carnally. The prohibition in the Old Law simply does not trump Jesus’s command that we eat his flesh and drink his blood as true food and true drink.

The body and blood of Jesus are the “life” of Jesus. We are a priestly people and have a ministerial priesthood. Priests offer sacrifice. Hebrews 9:7 indicates that sacrifices are not offered without blood. Our sacrifice is the re-presentation of Jesus sacrifice of his body and blood offered to the Father. Jesus has told us to “do this in remembrance” of him. Jesus is the paschal lamb and must be consumed. Jesus says, “this is my body…this is my blood.” Jesus says, "“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”

Eternal life is in the body and blood of Jesus and it is his body and blood that we are to consume.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… Why was the fact the Eucharistis his physical Body and Blood the uquestioned belief of ALL Christians for 1,500 years?

Scipture, Tradition and the teachings of the Church all support the fact the Euucharist is his Physical Body and blood. Unless a belief can pass this three pronged test is is suspect, to say the least.

Perhaps the first 1,500 years of the church was just wrong.

Perhaps not.

Unfortunately, Protestants don’t have 2,000 years of Tradition. It’s very logical for a Protestant to deny Transubstantiation - especially when there is a thread going around at the moment regarding God giving us reason and not religion. Transubstantiation is not reasonable, albeit true to scripture.

Even the daddy of Protestants (you know, Martin Luther) had troubles denying Transubstantiation. I think Lutherans still believe in it. Maybe somebody else can confirm this.