Can I? Yes. Will I? No, not here on a RCC forum with board rules, I’ve said this before I’m not here to try to change someone’s beliefs, esp. not a Catholic’s belief. I know it is maintained by most Catholics (not all) that the ECF’s unanimously add credence to a somatic real presence idea of the Eucharist. From reading whole writings and not just short statements by several ECF’s on the topic, I just don’t agree.
The miracle of the manna ceased when the Israelites reached the promised land. We too expect the Eucharist to “cease” when we reach our heavenly homeland with our family and Lord.
I am a believer that Scripture is perspicuous in its plain sense. I acknowledged before that I thought your reading was possible in that it did not logically contradict the text, but as I said, it does not appear to be what Paul was getting at. The immediate topic of the conversation is not the congregation. In these verse, Paul is speaking in the singular, not the plural, which stands out less in an English translation. Paul is not speaking about the congregation as a whole, but about the individual’s encounter with the Lord in the Sacrament. The big problem with wanting to take “body” in verse 29 to mean the local congregation simply because body can mean church is that there is nothing in the context to suggest that “body” refers to the local congregation and everything to suggest that body refers to the Sacrament. If Paul meant body in the sense you intended, he would have clarified it further. But even granted that your reading were the correct one, the Sacrament has already been identified as the body of Christ from the Savior’s own words.
Can you please point to a forum rule that prohibits the quoting of an ECF?
Honestly that doesn’t mean anything to me, I disagree with Luther on several key points. I fully agree that many ECF’s apparently taught a somatic RP, their teaching on it makes a bigger impact. For me, however, reading their own words, in many cases it is not cut and dry because they underscore the symbolic nature of the bread and wine and call it as such. Once more, I understand why some hold to a somatic RP, I just have not been convinced in mind and heart yet, though I’m open to it if God wills me to see it that way.The entire context of that passage is indeed the congregation and how they are dividing themselves up at the agape feast.
And the fact of our brothers and sisters all comprising the Body of Christ means we are to treat and love other believers as we treat and love God. Love, not worship, obviously. Here it appears Paul is pointing out the Corinthians do not love their siblings, for they are acting reprehensibly toward the body of Christ. To me, it’s clear, but I understand your POV even if not agreeing with it.
My point included ,the fact that Paul was using his “special revelation” of the supper to “correct” abuses, and behaviour inconsistent to its character.
explaining the whole sequence of the supper,through to verse 27.)Well, of course you disagree with him on the point of the real presence, but referring to the symbolic nature of the Sacrament isn’t an exclusion of the real presence. As you read and study, I would you to consider the possibility that the two, real presence and symbolism, are not mutual exclusive, that it is a both/and.
I think it could be read as Kliska mentions to some degree. I don’t see the continuity of truth through scripture and history though.
There is no where in the gospel of John ( nor his epistles ,or in the book of the “Revelation of Jesus Christ”) were the writer gives a narrative ;(unlike the other Gospel writers) or where there is a historical record of the “last supper” .
The divisions in the congregation is the motivation for him to write about how to behave in the Lord’s Supper, so it is part of the larger context, but it is not the immediate context of verse 29. Remember, the question is what “the body” is. It is true that “Christ’s body” can mean “the Church,” but that is only a secondary definition and, all things being equal, it would have lesser priority than a more primary reading. In the verses immediately preceding verse 27, after the Last Supper narrative in which the bread Christ was holding in his hands is identified as his body, Paul tells the Corinthians how they ought to eat that same supper, which is following a sufficient self-examination so that we eat worthily. If by the word “body,” Paul meant the local congregation rather than the bread of the Lord’s Supper, there would probably be something clarifying this sense or some remark of Paul’s that built upon “body” as Church. Yes, it is true that their divisions were the congregation’s sin in these particular circumstances (in addition to intemperance), but that is not the immediate context.The entire context of that passage is indeed the congregation and how they are dividing themselves up at the agape feast.
And the fact of our brothers and sisters all comprising the Body of Christ means we are to treat and love other believers as we treat and love God. Love, not worship, obviously. Here it appears Paul is pointing out the Corinthians do not love their siblings, for they are acting reprehensibly toward the body of Christ. To me, it’s clear, but I understand your POV even if not agreeing with it.
Bernard, I think you are making the fallacious assumption that people’s actions are an infallible guide to how they ought to act based on their knowledge. You cannot take every case of rudeness as ignorance on the part of the one acting rudely. People do bad things even though they really should know better. You could find plenty of examples today (when the doctrine of the real presence is known throughout the world even if it is not universally accepted) of congregations who presumably believe in the real presence but do not act like it in their church services. That does not mean that they are unaware of the doctrine or even that they don’t believe it. It only means that they are not behaving correctly.My point included ,the fact that Paul was using his “special revelation” of the supper to “correct” abuses, and behaviour inconsistent to its character.
But the fact that Paul the Apostle had first given to the church at Corinth,that which he received directly from The Lord . Before that he is seen having to correct them.This is more the emphasis;(not because others could not have given the Corinthians this at this period ), but that this personally was brought to light for Paul to teach)
What was this (revelation) that he received ?
1Corin11:23," That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread
Now why ,if after three years,did Paul who visited Peter at Jerusalem ,and then stayed fifteen days,(and before this he was with The early "church " at his conversion)
and also met with the Lord’s brother James.( Galations 1:18,19) Was an adequate understanding not acquired ? Because it was yet another 14 years of seclusion (Gal2:1) being taught of The Lord alone,before his ministry truly begins Gal2:1 with Barnabas.
Surely Paul would have been well versed in the practice by then, having no further need of a personal revelation of the " Last Supper", application and practice?
Was Paul’s early walk still with eyes still blinded?
Did the the other apostles forget to mention the (if it was so prominent and at the forefront) basics in instruction?
Or is The Lord dealing with Paul the dementia sufferer, who needs often to be reminded of the basics of daily living?
It is not so that John did not mention the Last Supper. He devotes several chapters to Christ’s words from the Last Supper in chapters 13 through 17 in his Gospel. It is true that he doesn’t make much mention of the food, but that does not give us reason not to connect John 6 to the Lord’s Supper. The three Synoptic Gospels were for a long time in wide circulation at the time of John’s writing, and presumably the Christian churches are meeting regularly to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, so it is absurd to say that John 6 does not point to the Lord’s Supper just because John doesn’t explicitly make the connection for us (“but he spake of the bread of the Lord’s Supper” as in John 2:21). For a First-Century Christian reading John’s Gospel, John 6 would undoubtedly bring to mind the Supper they celebrated every week (if not more), just as a Christian reading John 3:5 would say, “Hey! That sounds just like baptism!” That the “Bread of Life” is a symbol of Christ does not preclude it also meaning the Lord’s Supper (especially since we believe in the real presence), just as the Living Water meaning the Holy Spirit primarily does not preclude it from referring also to the sacrament of baptism, which is an instrument through which he operates, and St. John himself (arguably) makes this connection explicit in 1 John 5:8.
It is not so that John did not mention the Last Supper. He devotes several chapters to Christ’s words from the Last Supper in chapters 13 through 17 in his Gospel. It is true that he doesn’t make much mention of the food, but that does not give us reason not to connect John 6 to the Lord’s Supper. The three Synoptic Gospels were for a long time in wide circulation at the time of John’s writing, and presumably the Christian churches are meeting regularly to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, so it is absurd to say that John 6 does not point to the Lord’s Supper just because John doesn’t explicitly make the connection for us (“but he spake of the bread of the Lord’s Supper” as in John 2:21). For a First-Century Christian reading John’s Gospel, John 6 would undoubtedly bring to mind the Supper they celebrated every week (if not more), just as a Christian reading John 3:5 would say, “Hey! That sounds just like baptism!” That the “Bread of Life” is a symbol of Christ does not preclude it also meaning the Lord’s Supper (especially since we believe in the real presence), just as the Living Water meaning the Holy Spirit primarily does not preclude it from referring also to the sacrament of baptism, which is an instrument through which he operates, and St. John himself (arguably) makes this connection explicit in 1 John 5:8.
Regarding the types and shadows in the Old Testament ,I too would accept your assertions that they were all fulfilled in and by the Coming into the world of he whom these things typified.
With Paul especially, it is very important to look at the whole context or a gestalt view of it, since he likes to constantly connect his ideas and refer back to the main point deep into his thought. This is one reason why he is so tricky to read (even Peter says the same) because of how his ideas intertwine in the Greek and build off of one another.
I contend it is both and inseparable… or all 3; Christ’s literal body, the gather of believers, and the bread.
Right, because the manner of partaking is at question, not whether or not the people are worthy of partaking. No one is worthy of partaking, but we can partake worthily.
I would argue that the whole of 1 Corinthians is indeed putting it in the context of the Ekklesia as the Body of Christ, for one of the main things Paul is concentrating on in the whole of this letter is how the Body of Christ should act, esp. toward one another, and we can see this directly in Chapter 12.
I know for a fact that your point is not to do this, but when I read this I can only feel that your POV downplays that we are all of one Body and in fact, our love for one another is a testament and witness to the fact of Jesus’ resurrection and the fact that we are disciples of Christ. I contend that this lack of love and this lack of recognition of the body of Christ has indeed been the source of suffering, and the source of unbelief for many even “outside” of the Body. It makes perfect sense, to me, for Paul to be jumping on the Corinthians because not only are they not discerning the body of Christ in the congregation, they are doing this in the direct context of the Lord’s Supper! Where two or more are gathered in His name, there He is in the midst of them… so here are these Christians getting together and acting worse than the pagans around them; they disrespect each other, and disrespect Christ by splitting up and being selfish, gluttonous, and drunk.
Well, yes, as that is directly called for (except that Jesus was fully human and fully God, so we are to love a human as we love God). But God does a very important thing and says, basically, that what I do to another member of His body is doing it to Him. In short, I think Paul is doing something here that we should all be doing; focusing on those around us in our congregations, and see ourselves as the body of Christ. Those that practice this and see Him in our fellow believers grow closer to the heart of God, and we begin to see that promise of Jesus displayed that where two or more are gathered in His name, there He is in the midst… we need to wake up and remember just Who it is that is well and truly present (
) amongst us believers.It is true,no one should deny, that there are great similarity in the language used ,and in the elements used also ,but this in of itself should not be used as proof.The Manna of John 6:32 refers to that in the Old Testament but is independent of that “bread” spoken of by
Please be patient with me. Can you rephrase what you have written? It would really help me too if you narrowed down to one point. I’m afraid I don’t follow it as I should.