The Eucharist IS Scriptural!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Church_Militant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Church Militant:
"23 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. 24 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. 25 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.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 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. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many inform and weak among you, and many sleep. "
Click to expand...
Ya, you could of quoted more from St.Paul, you know, give your readers a little more “context”.
1 Cor 11:20-22/33-34
“When you come together, it is not the Lords Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungary, another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!”

"So then, my brothers, when you come together to EAT, wait for each other. If anyone is hungary, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgement. And when I come I will give further directions.(from the sounds of it, St.Paul will give directions of what NOT to do) 😃

So we see there is a feast with proclaiming the bread and wine as Jesus’ body and blood. But the RCC doesnt teach this.
Chalk another one up for Sacred tradition?
 
Church Militant:
I offer as evidence the following passages of Scripture:

John 6:31-70

"31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. 34 They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. 35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst…66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. 67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. 68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? 69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 70 And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. "
Click to expand...
Peace.

I recently went round-and-round with a non-Catholic on John 6 to no avail. The non-Catholic quoted DA Carson (5-point Calvinist born in 1946) who wrote a commentary that the entire figurative basis of John 6 is set in verses 30-35. It did not matter what I said, the scriptural evidence I presented to the contrary, how I argued that the terminology used by Christ of “gnaw” did not lend itself to the figurative interpretation, and that figurative interpretation would be misinterpreted by those present to think that to curse Christ would lead to everlasting life. I even provided examples in which Christ clarified misunderstandings (Matthew 16:5-12, John 3:1-5, 22, and John 10:10-16).

And that John 6 is supported by 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-34, Luke 22:15-20, and1 Corinthians 11:23-25.

The Non-C argued that there is no foreshadowing in John 6 (no matter this event occurred on Passover) and that John 6, based on Carson, is purely figurative and not to be taken literally.

Do you know how frustrating that got me for to try to convince the non-C otherwise? Granted, I suspect that the non-C did not want to be convinced, but I tried every effort to get the opinion to change and the argument went nowhere. I spent a lot of time reading and re-reading John 6, Ott’s “Fundamentals,” the CCC, and “Unabridged Christianity,” not to mention praying, to try to convince the non-C that John 6 is literal.

That weekend, during my morning run, I hit upon this idea and wanted to run it by you: John 6 is about 3 miracles:

Miracle # 1- The multiplication of loaves. The disciples saw and believed.

Miracle # 2 - Christ walked on water. The disciples saw and believed.

To make sure that the disciples were believers on faith rather than sight alone, Christ offered Miracle # 3 which is the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood. In a way, Miracle # 3 was a test (?) to determine the depth of their faith. At this, the disciples left (how could they believe that which they could not see?). The graphic nature of the text removes the “figurative” argument. Only the Apostles stayed with Christ, reinfored by St. Peter. There is more to it than that (John 6 as 3 miracles), but I am interested in the opinions of those whose knowledge is more extensive then mine.

Peace.

Jim
 
40.png
geno75:
Anyways, lets skip back to John 4 13-14-
Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again; but whoever drinks the water I shall give will never thirst; the water I shall give will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

John 4 32-
Jesus said, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.”…"My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and TO FINISH HIS WORK."

John 6:26-27
Jesus answered them and said-"Amen, amen I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw the signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled. (Looks like Jesus catches those that were fed in the beginning of chapter 6 of wanting a temporary “hand out”, not an eternal “hand up”.)
Jesus said-“Do not WORK for food that perishes but for food the endures for eternal life, which the son of man will give you.”
Well, you know the rest of chapter 6. I especially love Jesus when he finishes saying-“The WORDS I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.” The Apostle Peter sums it up perfectly-“You have the WORDS of eternal life.”

Jesus’ Words and the Works. You want Jesus in your life? God is telling us to TAKE HIM ALL! Taking only what you need for yourself from this real bread of heaven, that is Jesus, will never give you eternal life. His words and his works! Jesus’ body and blood is eternal spiritual food indeed!

Hold out you hand and remember the words written of Jesus-“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that WHOEVER believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” Are you a “whoever”?

So if you happen to die today, I hope you believe that you will be in front of Jesus who sits at the right hand. Even if you believe in purgatory, by what AUTHORITY did you enter Jesus’ presence in heaven? Maybe it was the keys of the kingdom he gave you when you confessed that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the son of God. But do you really believe this, or were the keys giving to one man, one line of man? Is the problem here with non-caths dealing with authority from one supreme church leader taking this authority on for yourselves?

How can we do Jesus’ work if we cant have the authority of heaven to destroy the works of the prince of this world? If you cant accept his keys, how can you handle his REAL flesh and blood? Is not Jesus in his FULL GLORY in heaven?! Yes he is.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
geno75:
Ya, you could of quoted more from St.Paul, you know, give your readers a little more “context”.
1 Cor 11:20-22/33-34
Click to expand...
If you are attempting to offer some type of evidence opposing the belief of the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, I am unconvinced. :hmmm:
40.png
geno75:
Chalk another one up for Sacred tradition?
Click to expand...
Demeaning sarcasm is not a cherished Christian characteristic. 😦
 
I think Geno is working from the Revised Fundamentalist Version of the Bible. In it, “This is my body” has been restored to the original language, which says, “This bread represents my teachings.”
 
The real problem the followers first had was for one, they asked Jesus to give them this bread of life forever. What they got was Jesus saying He was the bread that came down from heaven. The were pretty miffed at that statement. From there, Jesus’ teachings got waaaaayyyy tooooo carnal for their minds.

Jesus was speaking the rest of the chapter, so were was this #3 miracle?
 
40.png
Mickey:
Demeaning sarcasm is not a cherished Christian characteristic. 😦
Click to expand...
Now dont pull that one on me. I see some of the “good natured ribbing” that you folks dish out here. The use of smilies are a good effect to.

No mean to demeanor anyone.

peace
 
40.png
geno75:
The real problem the followers first had was for one, they asked Jesus to give them this bread of life forever. What they got was Jesus saying He was the bread that came down from heaven. The were pretty miffed at that statement. From there, Jesus’ teachings got waaaaayyyy tooooo carnal for their minds.

Jesus was speaking the rest of the chapter, so were was this #3 miracle?
Click to expand...
Peace.

The 3rd miracle was the Eucharist.

Peace.
 
40.png
geno75:
The use of smilies are a good effect too.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, you were not speaking in the language of simile. And I agree with you, hurtful sarcasm should not be used by any of us on this forum.

Simile–A figure of speech in which two essentially unlike things are compared, often in a phrase introduced by like or as.
 
40.png
Mickey:
With all due respect, you were not speaking in the language of simile. And I agree with you, hurtful sarcasm should not be used by any of us on this forum.

Simile–A figure of speech in which two essentially unlike things are compared, often in a phrase introduced by like or as.
Click to expand...
Typo-smiley 😃 😃 😃

sorry lol
 
40.png
jim1130:
Peace.

The 3rd miracle was the Eucharist.

Peace.
Click to expand...
In this gospel book it is not implied. Where is the wine in chapter 6? And there is no mention of proclaiming the bread(body) and wine(blood) for his death at the last supper.

Why do you think the Apostle John wrote this gospel in this way?
 
40.png
geno75:
Ya, you could of quoted more from St.Paul, you know, give your readers a little more “context”.
1 Cor 11:20-22/33-34
“When you come together, it is not the Lords Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungary, another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!”

"So then, my brothers, when you come together to EAT, wait for each other. If anyone is hungary, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgement. And when I come I will give further directions.(from the sounds of it, St.Paul will give directions of what NOT to do) 😃

So we see there is a feast with proclaiming the bread and wine as Jesus’ body and blood. But the RCC doesnt teach this.
Chalk another one up for Sacred tradition?
Click to expand...
You obviously don’t understand what you wrote above. This passage is NOT teaching that we are not to partake of the Eucharist. Paul is admonishing the Corinthians for making the “meal” - the Eucharist a “community feast” unrelated to the spiritual. The Corinthians had taken the “meal” too far. They were using the opportunity to feed themselves as we would, say, at a BBQ. In their fellowshipping, they had separated themselves into their “cliques” and had used the opportunity to leave out the “undesireable” - the poor.

Paul was telling them that if they were hungry, they should eat their regular meals at home. They were to come to the table of Lord to receive Him and to treat each other as members of their own families. He was trying to teach them the true meaning of the Eucharist, that it was a participation in the actual body and blood of our Savior and to eat of Him unworthily, would result in condemnation.

The last line you posted here, strengthens the argument FOR Sacred Tradition because he says that there is much more that he will teach them that he didn’t write in the letter. He may very well have given them more instruction on what not to do because they’d had messed up the Eucharist (Mass) so badly that he wanted to teach them more in person.
Don’t be so quick to dimiss the value of Tradition. You’ve missed the point entirely.

Your idea of context is skewed some.
 
40.png
geno75:
In this gospel book it is not implied. Where is the wine in chapter 6? And there is no mention of proclaiming the bread(body) and wine(blood) for his death at the last supper.

Why do you think the Apostle John wrote this gospel in this way?
Click to expand...
Why are you so hung up on there not being a mentioning of wine in the gospel of John?

It didn’t need to be mentioned because the Eucharist - the Mass - is the extension or fulfillment of the Passove meal. In the Passover meal there are 4 cups of wine to be drunk during the course of the meal. The Passover meal was a directive to the Israelites from God. They did it they way He said to do it. Wine was a common drink and used at probably most or all meals - sacrifical or not. They didn’t have grape juice back then.
 
Gino75,

Is believing the Eucharist to be symbolic - a too hard teaching?
 
40.png
geno75:
Ya, you could of quoted more from St.Paul, you know, give your readers a little more “context”.
1 Cor 11:20-22/33-34
“When you come together, it is not the Lords Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungary, another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!”

"So then, my brothers, when you come together to EAT, wait for each other. If anyone is hungary, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgement. And when I come I will give further directions.(from the sounds of it, St.Paul will give directions of what NOT to do) 😃

So we see there is
Click to expand...
a feast with proclaiming the bread and wine as Jesus’ body and blood. But the RCC doesnt teach this.
Chalk another one up for Sacred tradition?The context changes absolutely nothing. The Eucharist has always been a feast like that. You can’t prove differently, but I can prove you wrong right now from the writings of one of St. John’s own disciples, Ignatius of Antioch, John’s close friend, disciple, bishop of the church in Antioch, and martyr for the faith in Rome by being thrown to wild animals. This letter was penned within 10 years of the death of St. John.

Letter to the Church at Smyrna
CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

So then it is certain that this is what he was taught by the author of John 6, and that the interpretation of this doctrine as held by Catholics today is the same as that held by the New Testament and the early church.

(Be sure to read chapter 8 too. There’s some important stuff there as well that you’re not gonna like)

If I have to choose who to believe between you and the rest of the post reformation teachers & preachers, and Ignatius and St. John, who do you think I’m gonna go with?
Pax vobiscum,
 
40.png
geno75:
In this gospel book it is not implied. Where is the wine in chapter 6? And there is no mention of proclaiming the bread(body) and wine(blood) for his death at the last supper.

Why do you think the Apostle John wrote this gospel in this way?
Click to expand...
Stick to context…Look at posts 2 & 4. It’s all there and all ties in together. Only by puling verses out of the context of all the relevant passages can you even attempt to make the assertion that you do, but the New Testament does not support you. This is where so many n-C errors come from.
Pax vobiscum,
 
40.png
geno75:
In this gospel book it is not implied. Where is the wine in chapter 6? And there is no mention of proclaiming the bread(body) and wine(blood) for his death at the last supper.

Why do you think the Apostle John wrote this gospel in this way?
Click to expand...
Peace.

I am in no position or standing to speculate why St. John’s Gospel differs from the Synoptic Gospels at all, whether comparing Matthew 26: 26-28, Mark 14:22-34, and Luke 22:15-20 with John 6. Linguistically, they differ, but they are substantially similar in form. Are you, yourself, able to determine and explain why the Holy Spirit moved John to write in a style different from St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke?

Peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top