Returning to the Protestant Faith

[Katrina5]

I guess that’s the problem I have, the “enemy of the Gospel” part. I’m fine w/ differing views, as well as defending those views, using Scripture, Tradition, history, whatever. But I would never call another Christian tradition (belief, denomination, whatever you’d like to call it) “an enemy of the Gospel” and go after them like MacArthur and some others do w/ Catholicism. “The Southern Baptist Convention preaches a false Gospel”. The sounds so ridiculous! Of course, I don’t think S. Baptists have the complete Gospel, but as they are preaching Christ as Savior I’m not going to attack them and say they aren’t Christians and need to be “saved”, or talk about the “evils” of the Altar Call and Believer’s Baptism.

I don’t know, I guess I just don’t know why we all can’t “just get along”

In Christ,

Ellen

When I was confirmed in 1959, the Bishop gave a little slap on the cheek to remind us that we were to “defend the faith” and would be persecuted, so no, we can’t all just get along.
Simple doesn’t mean the same thing as easy.

 

[benidict]

I’m attending membership class for a non-denom church tonight. I’ve been attending for the last 6 months and just love it there. I am finally being fed spiritually again. (Catholic for 3 years)

sad. so this is all about you? and how your being fed “spiritually?” sounds like falling for the cult of personality to me. must be a good pastor. last i checked, the Church was about being a bulwark for truth, assembling ourselves together with the saints. recieving Christ in the Eucharist. etc. not trying to find a feel good warm and fuzzy feeling. not trying to be mean, but please look carefully at what you are giving up. the rosary, first friday adoration, the Blessed Mother the Eucharist. a whole treasure trove of spiritual reality. God bless you and yours.

 

[Masters_Servant]

No. Jesus is the one who gave the command: “Do this in remembrance of Me,” and who said that the bread was His Body.

Jesus is faithful to be where He said He would be. That is not the same thing as being subject to our commands. The God of orthodox Christianity is a gracious, covenant-keeping God.

Edwin

Thank you for the clarification. Do you have a link or source; I looked without success and got a headache in the process.

 

[jmcrae]

Thanks for the response. I understand that the Catholic priest commands Jesus to come down from heaven and must respond as part of the mystical powers associated with the sacrament of Holy Orders. Do I understand this correctly

No. It is the priest who is being obedient to Jesus; not Jesus being obedient to the priest. Jesus commands the priest to do these things and say these words, and as part of what the priest is doing, Jesus is also descending to the Altar, and displacing the substances of the bread and wine with His own substance, Body and Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

and is there a good source to read more on this that is not to overwhelming?

Have you tried the Compendium of the Catechism? - Scroll down to 271 and following.

 

[Ignatius]

I’m attending membership class for a non-denom church tonight. I’ve been attending for the last 6 months and just love it there. I am finally being fed spiritually again. (Catholic for 3 years)

Good luck with that. You should change your church affiliation, it still says Catholic.

 

[CWBetts]

Good luck with that. You should change your church affiliation, it still says Catholic.

One should never be encouraged to leave the True Church.

 

[Masters_Servant]

No. Jesus is the one who gave the command: “Do this in remembrance of Me,” and who said that the bread was His Body.

Jesus is faithful to be where He said He would be. That is not the same thing as being subject to our commands. The God of orthodox Christianity is a gracious, covenant-keeping God.

Edwin

Hello,

While researching, looking at the catechism, and various other places I came across this, which seems to affirm what I had heard:

**The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating. “No act is greater,” says St. Thomas, “than the consecration of the body of Christ.” In this essential phase of the sacred ministry, the power of the priest is not surpassed by that of the bishop, the archbishop, the cardinal or the pope. Indeed it is equal to that of Jesus Christ. For in this role the priest speaks with the voice and authority of God Himself.

When the Priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors:** it is greater than that of the saints and angels, greater than that of the Seraphim and Cherubim.**

Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, **the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s command. (Cardinal John A. O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., (Huntington, IN 1974), pp. 255-256)

This book has the approval of the Vatican if I understood correctly.
catholicnation.com/priesthood.htm

Then I came across this site which repudiates the official Vatican approved book, so who is correct and why; I am in a state of confusion here.

**Additionally, NO WHERE are we told that the Holy Spirit needs to be “BEGGED” out from heaven by a priest to transform a wafer into Diety {CCC #1105} and as one popular priest has written: “When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings down Christ from His throne, and places Him upon our altars to be offered again as the victim for the sins of men” {Fr. John O’Brien, “The Faith of Millions”-- p. 255-6}. As a matter of fact, Romans 10:6 emphatically condemns these wild ideas: “who shall ascend into heaven to bring down Christ from above?” The apostle is teaching that the language of faith does not ask a man to climb to heaven to bring Christ down again since that is impossible as well as unnecessary because Jesus has already come to earth in His incarnation, “nor yet that He should offer Himself often” {e.g. in the Mass} because, “there is now no more offering for sin” {Hebrews 9:25; 10:18}.
**
Source

Since this is a little off topic; if you do not want to answer perhaps you can forward to someone who is able and send me an email…thanks so much for you help in grasping this.

 

[Masters_Servant]

Nothing there (or anywhere else in Scripture) about the Lord’s Supper being symbolic.

Of course, the Lord’s Supper certainly is symbolic. The question is whether it is *merely *symbolic and in what sense it is symbolic. But nothing in Scripture explicitly speaks of it being symbolic.

Catholics who use the word “literal” do put themselves at a disadvantage. As an Anglican, I certainly do not believe that it is “literal,” and that’s not a word I’d apply to the classical theory of transubstantiation either (a theory to which I am not committed but which I don’t see as fundamentally or seriously wrong, just a bit too convoluted and strained in places).

But I do believe in the Real Presence. Christ is sacramentally present under the appearance (not an illusion but the level of reality perceptible by the senses) of bread and wine. (That is a statement that fits transubstantiation as well as other views of the Real Presence.) A sacramental presence is not the same thing as a presence under what Aquinas would call Christ’s “natural dimensions.”

As I said, I’m not committed to the technicalities of transubstantiation. But the paradox that you seem to have problems with–that Christ is present and yet that we look for His future coming–seems to me to be basic to orthodox Christianity. The Kingdom is already here–and yet it is yet to come. Christ has conquered death–and yet we die. We are redeemed from sin–and yet Christians still sin.

Edwin

Thanks again for the post. i thought of this transsubstaniation and in the Bible it happens at least once in the OT (furnace of fire) and with Jesus, Moses and Elijah and each time the glory was partially revealed, but the substance remained in its true form. So how bread and wine becomes a person is beyond my comprehension; whereas the picture in the Bible is within my comprehension. Of course it is not about me…LOL

 

[Masters_Servant]

And yet St. Paul warns of condemnation, if we don’t perceive Christ in the elements, by faith, but think that we are only eating bread and drinking wine.

What?? How do you read that into the passage? Is this the official Catholic position on these passages and if so, then please provide me the exposition so I can learn…thanks.

 

[Contarini]

I guess that’s the problem I have, the “enemy of the Gospel” part. I’m fine w/ differing views, as well as defending those views, using Scripture, Tradition, history, whatever. But I would never call another Christian tradition (belief, denomination, whatever you’d like to call it) “an enemy of the Gospel” and go after them like MacArthur and some others do w/ Catholicism. “The Southern Baptist Convention preaches a false Gospel”. The sounds so ridiculous! Of course, I don’t think S. Baptists have the complete Gospel, but as they are preaching Christ as Savior I’m not going to attack them and say they aren’t Christians and need to be “saved”, or talk about the “evils” of the Altar Call and Believer’s Baptism.

What about Mormons? JWs? Unitarians? For that matter, a lot of Catholics on this forum seem to see more liberal Catholics as enemies of the Gospel.

I appreciate that you are an irenic person and would not attack others in this way. All I’m saying is that often this harsh language stems from a genuine conviction that certain ideas are false and destructive to people’s souls. Myself (and yes, this does sound very 18th-century!), I find it hard to get really worked up to indignation unless I think I’m dealing with a moral issue. Prosperity Gospel, forms of theology that justify racism and violence, these I can see denouncing in pretty vitriolic terms. And as folks around here know, I’m capable of getting rather vitriolic at times–usually when I think a moral issue is at stake, though sometimes just because I think people are not being logical (and that’s a character flaw on my part).

But if you hold to a conservative theology that teaches that people really can go to hell because of believing false doctrine, then attacking that false doctrine in a harsh and angry manner may indicate that you are a loving and virtuous person (if you are willing to grant that a virtuous person could hold such a theology in the first place, which I certainly am), not the reverse.

I would even say this about Christians of the past who advocated or engaged in the killing of heretics (St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Thomas More, John Calvin, etc.).

Edwin

 

[Pixie_Dust]

What?? How do you read that into the passage? Is this the official Catholic position on these passages and if so, then please provide me the exposition so I can learn…thanks.

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
A person cannot be found guilty for murder if they destroy a Kodak photo of someone. How could someone be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if He isn’t really there?

The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus, and a person who eats and drinks unworthily, without discerning that it IS the Lord’s Body, eats and drinks to their own condemnation. Seems pretty straight-forward to me, especially when read in light of I Corinthians 10:16-17 and John 6:32-71. I believed this even while I was still technically a Baptist. When Jesus says, “This IS…” I believe it.

 

[ufamtobie]

I’m attending membership class for a non-denom church tonight. I’ve been attending for the last 6 months and just love it there. I am finally being fed spiritually again. (Catholic for 3 years)

Judi,

Bye Bye!

Ufamtobie

 

[Contarini]

Hello,

While researching, looking at the catechism, and various other places I came across this, which seems to affirm what I had heard:

**The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating. “No act is greater,” says St. Thomas, “than the consecration of the body of Christ.” In this essential phase of the sacred ministry, the power of the priest is not surpassed by that of the bishop, the archbishop, the cardinal or the pope. Indeed it is equal to that of Jesus Christ. For in this role the priest speaks with the voice and authority of God Himself.

When the Priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man.** It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors:** it is greater than that of the saints and angels, greater than that of the Seraphim and Cherubim.**

Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, **the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times! **The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s command. (Cardinal John A. O’Brien,

He wasn’t a cardinal, just a priest as far as I know.

** The Faith of Millions, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., (Huntington, IN 1974), pp. 255-256)**

This book has the approval of the Vatican if I understood correctly.
catholicnation.com/priesthood.htm

It received an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, I’m sure. That doesn’t mean that it expressed official Catholic teaching, only that the church officials who looked at it were satisfied that it fit within the spectrum of legitimate Catholic thought. Something that it can be hard for those not familiar with Catholicism (or familiar only with a caricature) to grasp is that Catholicism has room for a wide variety of opinion. Fr. O’Brien’s way of putting it was a common one in Catholicism for a long time. It is no longer common, in my experience. I believe that this kind of language flourished primarily after the Reformation as part of the reaction to the Protestant denial of the sacrificial priesthood of Christian presbyters, although the language does have roots in the Middle Ages.

Still, if you ask why Fr. O’Brien would use such language, the answer lies in the explanation I gave. Christ “obeys” the priest because Christ is faithful to His covenants. It’s not that the priest has some power independently of Christ. No Catholic theologian would ever have said this.

**

Then I came across this site which repudiates the official Vatican approved book, so who is correct and why; I am in a state of confusion here.

**Why do people find it so confusing that Catholics differ among themselves? Perhaps because some silly Catholic apologists present Catholicism as monolithic.

Again, the book in question is not official, just a popular book from 1938 expressing a way of looking at the Catholic Faith that was common at that time and is now somewhat less common (though it still has its champions).

I think that the issue among Catholics would be less the substance of what O’Brien said but his way of putting it. As an Anglican, I certainly think that the language of “command” was highly inappropriate and misleading, and I think most Catholics today would agree with me. But the substantive theological claim is that Jesus’ presence can be counted on whenever a properly ordained priest celebrates the Eucharist with the right elements and using the right words. Again, I think a better way of putting the Catholic belief here is to say that Jesus is faithful.

Additionally, NO WHERE are we told that the Holy Spirit needs to be “BEGGED” out from heaven by a priest to transform a wafer into Diety {CCC #1105}

Actually, I would argue that the “epiclesis”–the invocation of the Holy Spirit–is an important part of the Eucharist and its absence in Western Catholic liturgies is a flaw. But you’re right that this is not a view which can be prooftexted easily. We would have to have a conversation about the nature of sacraments, the work of the Holy Spirit, the nature of grace and salvation, etc.

** As a matter of fact, Romans 10:6 emphatically condemns these wild ideas: “who shall ascend into heaven to bring down Christ from above?” The apostle is teaching that the language of faith does not ask a man to climb to heaven to bring Christ down again since that is impossible as well as unnecessary because Jesus has already come to earth in His incarnation, “nor yet that He should offer Himself often” {e.g. in the Mass} because, “there is now no more offering for sin” {Hebrews 9:25; 10:18}.
**

Catholics do not believe that Jesus is offered over and over. And Fr. O’Brien’s unfortunate language is of course metaphorical. The priest’s power to “reach up into the heavens” rests solely on the words of Christ in the first place. Fr. O’Brien was not talking about human beings somehow magically compelling God by their own efforts. However, I think that the language he used was reprehensibly inappropriate, and one of the reasons I am an Anglican and not a Roman Catholic is that I think this strand of Roman Catholic Eucharistic piety is deeply misguided.

Edwin

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Nobody is making a fuss over me, believe me.

All of the Catholics within this parish I spoke to about my concern with the worship leader/music director all said they knew about it, but forgave it because he is so talented. And he is.

The priest goes to events in the community with this gentleman and his “roommate”. In our other local parish, the priest openly dates a woman. I did not believe it when I heard about it, but it has been discussed by so many people who don’t even know each other. And again, they act as though it is no big deal. He’s good at what he does and plans to retire soon.

I did not have enough time to discern if this was where God was leading me. I regret that.

You did not have to be confirmed that Easter. You could have taken all the time you needed. I’m so sorry that you were led to believe that you had to become Catholic after such a brief period of discernment. Personally, I had done all the homework before I ever crossed the threshold of a Catholic Church. I was NOT going to go to Mass and worship statues and Mary and all that other horrible stuff I’d been told about the Catholic Church.

Shortly before I was confirmed, I got major cold feet. It was because of my firm belief, based on Scripture, in Apostolic Authority and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist that I realized there was nowhere else I could go but the Catholic Church. **I had nothing to protest. **

You seem to have taken your eyes off of Jesus and instead are looking at those in your parish who might not be the best examples of Christian virtue. Jesus told his followers in Matthew23, “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.” In other words, “Even though the Pharisees are acting like morons, you are still under their authority, just don’t act like them, for goodness’ sake!” (PD Paraphrase)

 

[LindaSK]

Methodists tend to be fuzzy doctrinally, and this is an example. Most Methodists, including many pastors, probably do see it as purely symbolic. However, the United Methodist Church (speaking just of the U.S. here) does have an official teaching on the subject. And while I admit that the document is rather vague on the question of the Real Presence, it clearly does affirm it in some sense (as well as strongly affirming that the Eucharist is a means of grace) and rejects a purely “memorialist” view.

Edwin

I play in a Methodist church. In October, on Worldwide Communion Sunday, this particular pastor stated that as Methodists, “we” don’t believe in the Real Presence.

In response to other posts:
Growing up in a Union (Lutheran/UCC) church, I indeed was taught about and believed in the Real Presence of Christ in Communion. So much so, in fact, that I argued quite insistently with the priest who eventually brought me into the Church that I should be able to receive the Eucharist because I did believe in the Real Presence. Communion Sundays were important. I sang in the Chapel Choir in college. It was a state college, an ecumenical service, so, communion was never offered. I also attended a Lutheran Church in town, mainly so that I could receive communion.

A difference that no one seems to have mentioned is this. Maybe, too, it isn’t the case everywhere, but particular to my own experience. In the Lutheran churches I have attended, church attendance is up on Communion Sundays. I grew up on a dairy farm. If we took a Sunday ‘off,’ it would NEVER be on a Communion Sunday.

In Methodist churches, however, attendance is fairly constant, no significant increase because of communion. Sometimes, attendance would even be down. I had a Methodist pastor recently tell me that she knows Methodists who choose not to come on communion Sundays because they don’t accept the need to receive communion. Christ already died for our sins - PERIOD. No communion required. The previous pastor at this same church tried to have communion every Sunday during Lent last year. The Pastor - Parish Council told him, “No. It wouldn’t be special if we had it every week.” He and I both agreed that if the members of the congregation really thought communion was ‘special,’ attendance should be higher on Communion Sundays which was certainly not the case there.

Of course, I think every church - Protestant and Catholic - has its Easter/Christmas crowd!!

Again, this may not be the case everywhere, but, this has been MY experience.

Other posts talked about a ‘literal’ interpretation of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, including one of mine. I guess literal would mean the bread and wine ‘literally’ became the body and blood of Christ - in physical appearance. Transubstantiation is one of the ‘Mysteries’ of our Faith. Maybe it requires a sincere belief in Apostolic succession to accept the Catholic consecration of both species, and the need for the tabernacle. That requires Faith. I understand the difference between the Lutheran and Catholic understanding of the Real Presence. I could never say that Lutherans don’t believe in it any more than I could say that all Catholics do. Catholics receive Jesus whether they believe it or not.

Masters Servant,
Faith comes from asking questions and searching for Truth. I have appreciated your posts. I learn from both your questions and others’ responses to them. “Seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be opened to you.” I know my questions drive RCIA leaders and priests crazy. But, I haven’t run out of questions yet, and, often, answers generate even more questions!

 

[CWBetts]

Thanks again for the post. i thought of this transsubstaniation and in the Bible it happens at least once in the OT (furnace of fire) and with Jesus, Moses and Elijah and each time the glory was partially revealed, but the substance remained in its true form. So how bread and wine becomes a person is beyond my comprehension; whereas the picture in the Bible is within my comprehension. Of course it is not about me…LOL

I think your problem is that you are confusing substance and matter. Transubstantiation is explained best using Aristotelian metaphysics. (Yes, I know he was pagan, but a thought should not be dismissed exclusively based on who the thinker was. I thought should be accepted or rejected based on the content of the thought.) Matter is material, nothing more, nothing less. Substance, however, is altogether different. Substance is that which makes a thing what it is. As an example, I will use balls. One ball is 12" in diameter, and is made of rubber. The other one is 2" in diameter, and made of steel. Both are balls. Both have the substance of being a ball. Their size and material are refferd to as accidents, or those qualities a thing possesses which are not inherent to that thing. As applied to the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, the substance of the bread and wine is changed to the substance of God. The fact that the matter stays the same is irrelevant. It is not the matter that changed, but the substance. I would recommend reading Metaphysics by Aristotle for a better explanation, as well as the Summa Theologicaby St. Thomas Aquinas (an online version can be found here:newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm I hope this helps!

 

[Masters_Servant]

Dude!

Please show me where I ever made such a statement?

Sorry about that Randy, you did not say that but the post said that and I saw the words in red as the “source link” and the rest were your words. But I see that the entire post was from the “source link” and **I made an error by oversight and I apologize to you…sorry!
**

Post#126

PS I sent you a PM because I need the CCC link that I deleted by accident…thanks

 

[Masters_Servant]

Not really. The priest does not “command” God to do anything. The priest, acting in the person of Christ (in persona Christi), does what Jesus commanded His disciples to do. He repeats the words of Jesus Himself and calls upon the Holy Spirit to bring about the conversion which we call transubstantiation. The sacrifice of the Mass allows us to enter into and make present, today, the one sacrifice of Christ. It is Christ Himself, through the action of the priest, that causes the bread and wine to become His body and blood.

The priest has no “mystical powers”. He just does what Christ commanded us to do. It is the same in all of the sacraments. It is Christ who baptizes, annoints, forgives, and who causes the the simple elements of bread and wine to become his body, blood, soul and divinity.

Thanks for the direction and the very next post had the CCC spelled out. I don’t know how one uses the term “mystical powers”, but below is an example of what I mean by it.

1411
Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.

…

1413
By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

1414
As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in ***reparation for the sins of the living and the dead ***and ***to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God.

---

That is “mystical” in my fragile and ignorant mind and actually it kind of “freaks” me out a little. I understand it does not you or others, but it does me and I don’t mean it with any disrespect to your beliefs.

 

[Masters_Servant]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church…
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt1art3.shtml#151

(Footnotes included below)
1335
The miracles of the multiplication of the loaves, when the Lord says the blessing, breaks and distributes the loaves through his disciples to feed the multitude, prefigure the superabundance of this unique bread of his Eucharist.**158 **The sign of water turned into wine at Cana already announces the Hour of Jesus’ glorification. It makes manifest the fulfillment of the wedding feast in the Father’s kingdom, where the faithful will drink the new wine that has become the Blood of Christ.159[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

1336
The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the disciples, just as the announcement of the Passion scandalized them: “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”**160 **The Eucharist and the Cross are stumbling blocks. It is the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of division. “Will you also go away?”:161 the Lord’s question echoes through the ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has "the words of eternal life"162 and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself.

The institution of the Eucharist****

1337
The Lord, having loved those who were his own, loved them to the end. Knowing that the hour had come to leave this world and return to the Father, in the course of a meal he washed their feet and gave them the commandment of love.163 In order to leave them a pledge of this love, in order never to depart from his own and to make them sharers in his Passover, he instituted the Eucharist as the memorial of his death and Resurrection, and commanded his apostles to celebrate it until his return; "thereby he constituted them priests of the New Testament."164

1338
The three synoptic Gospels and St. Paul have handed on to us the account of the institution of the Eucharist; St. John, for his part, reports the words of Jesus in the synagogue of Capernaum that prepare for the institution of the Eucharist: Christ calls himself the bread of life, come down from heaven.165

1339
Jesus chose the time of Passover to fulfill what he had announced at Capernaum: giving his disciples his Body and his Blood:

      Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the passover meal for us, that we may eat it. . . ." They went . . . and prepared the passover. And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you I shall not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.". . . . And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."**166**

1340
By celebrating the Last Supper with his apostles in the course of the Passover meal, Jesus gave the Jewish Passover its definitive meaning. Jesus’ passing over to his father by his death and Resurrection, the new Passover, is anticipated in the Supper and celebrated in the Eucharist, which fulfills the Jewish Passover and anticipates the final Passover of the Church in the glory of the kingdom.

“Do this in memory of me”

1341
The command of Jesus to repeat his actions and words “until he comes” does not only ask us to remember Jesus and what he did. It is directed at the liturgical celebration, by the apostles and their successors, of the memorial of Christ, of his life, of his death, of his Resurrection, and of his intercession in the presence of the Father.167

158 Cf. Mt 14:13-21; 15:32-39.
159 Cf. Jn 2:11; Mk 14:25.
160 Jn 6:60.
161 Jn 6:67.
162 Jn 6:68.
163 Cf. Jn 13:1-17; 34-35.
164 Council of Trent (1562): DS 1740.
165 Cf. Jn 6.
166 Lk 22:7-20; cf. Mt 26:17-29; Mk 14:12-25; 1 Cor 11:23-26.
167 Cf. 1 Cor 11:26

Thanks a lot; I already clicked the link and began reading. May God bless you!

 

[Masters_Servant]

I go by these scriptures:

Matthew 26
26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

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

Luke 22
19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Please point what scripture you are following, thanks.

When did they take wine out of the Eucharist and why did they add it back in?

I am trying to remember, doesn’t the Priest hold up the bread and wine blood separately as he consecrates the 2 elements?

In my church the chalice hold only the wine/blood.

1 Corinthians 11:23-34
23 For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; 24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, ***This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. ***25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ***ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he comes. ***

I wanted to add this to what you have posted because it shows the same thing in my view. More interesting is the fact that the New Covenant was instituted, not at the Last Supper, but at the moment of death on the cross to which the blood was poured out.

Then, the last sentence (verse 26) is very important in my view because that is the Gospel. He says in verse 26, “As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” Keep doing it and doing it & doing it until He comes. This eschatological because we proclaim and remember it until He comes; the Second Coming.

This is the heart of Christian worship. It is the most specified element of our worship and the most well-defined proclamation of the Gospel of salvation. When the Jewish people celebrate the Passover they proclaim to anyone that observes them that their God is the Redeemer. Every time Christians celebrate the Lord’s Supper we proclaim God is a Redeemer. How did He redeem us? Through the God-man Christ who died in our stead.

This is my view added to your view with the understanding that this is not the Catholic view.