The Eucharist IS Scriptural!

[Church_Militant]

Alfie:

Will you explain to me what the benefits of the Eucharist are? Is it a temporary protection from sin? That is what I understand from reading Catholic writings. Why do you have to have to keep taking mass over and over? What happens when the mass wears off and you don’t go to mass for several months and during that period of time you die? Do you go to hell?

I think that’s already been answered by AquinasXVI.

 

[Jody60]

1st Corinthians 10:16-17

“16 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? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.”

1st Corinthians 11:23-30

"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. "

The chalice is a cup? Are you trying to tell me that the chalice also transubstantiates? Come on now… because that is exactly what these passages are refering. That is according to Catholic speak. However, there could be another possiblity and that is the chalice is merely a metaphor just like the bread and wine is. Get it? I know… perish the thought!

 

[Jody60]

Alfie:

That’s a great question.

As for the benefits of eating the body and blood of Jesus, there’s two answers to this:

1. the CCC has the OBJECTIVE causes and effects which would be better if you read it personally. That way it’s clear to you what the doctrine is. There are far too many points for a response here.
2. The SUBJECTIVE effects vary from individual to individual as you can imagine. Just like a personal relationship with people it has a life of its own and grows and grows, the intimacy cannot be graphed on a chart, it is deeply personal and mostly unspeakable joy and peace. It has to be experienced from within. Nothing cerebral from the outside can come close to explaining the interior movement of this mingling of our blood with his, our flesh with his.

As a non catholic, this may sound cryptic…but that’s my best answer to your question…it’s like asking you for your most happy moments with your parents, you may say a hundred things and still feel deficient in explaining to me the interior experience.

Maybe, if you become Catholic one day, you’ll understand. In that regard, I pray that God grant you that gift at some point. I hope that doesn’t offend you because for us, the greatest gift we can share is this intimacy with Christ that is so deep it cannot be sufficiently put into words.

God bless.

in XT.

I don’t get what you are saying. Right after the “Last Supper” all of the disciples desserted Jesus and Peter denied him. So much for the benefits of eating the body and drinking the blood. It wasn’t until pentecost that the disciples were filled with the “Holy Spirit” which than gave them the power to overcome the world. The baptism of the “Holy Spirit” is what people need, not the Mass.

 

[djrakowski]

I don’t get what you are saying. Right after the “Last Supper” all of the disciples desserted Jesus and Peter denied him. So much for the benefits of eating the body and drinking the blood. It wasn’t until pentecost that the disciples were filled with the “Holy Spirit” which than gave them the power to overcome the world. The baptism of the “Holy Spirit” is what people need, not the Mass.

I hope you’ve never had doubt, or even a sinful thought, after having received the Holy Spirit in the manner you describe, or else you’re just as guilty as these wretched apostles!

 

[NotWorthy]

The chalice is a cup? Are you trying to tell me that the chalice also transubstantiates? Come on now… because that is exactly what these passages are refering. That is according to Catholic speak. However, there could be another possiblity and that is the chalice is merely a metaphor just like the bread and wine is. Get it? I know… perish the thought!

Who said the Chalice transubstantiates? Tis only the wine that transubstantiates in the chalice.

Where do you get that this is a metaphor?

How can a sin sacrifice be valid unless the sacrfice is eaten?

 

[Church_Militant]

The chalice is a cup? Are you trying to tell me that the chalice also transubstantiates? Come on now… because that is exactly what these passages are refering. That is according to Catholic speak. However, there could be another possiblity and that is the chalice is merely a metaphor just like the bread and wine is. Get it? I know… perish the thought!

Obviously it’s not the chalice, but the contents of it being spoken of here.

This is a really fine example of literalist interpretation as opposed to a literal understanding of a passage of scripture. John Martignoni explains this beautifully here.

Apologetics 101-07 (LINK)

Q: A friend of mine said that his church takes the Bible literally, but that the Catholic Church doesn’t…is that true?

A: Actually, there is no truth to that, whatsoever. Catholics interpret the Bible in a “literal” sense, while many fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and others interpret the Bible in a literalist sense.

The “literal” meaning of a passage of Scripture is the meaning that the author of that passage of Scripture intended to convey. The “literalist” interpretation of a passage of Scripture is: “that’s what it says, that’s what it means.”

Let me give you an example to illustrate the difference. If you were to read a passage in a book that said it was “raining cats and dogs outside”, how would you interpret that? As Americans, in the 21st Century, you would know that the author was intending to convey the idea that it was raining pretty doggone hard outside. That would be the “literal” interpretation…the interpretation the author intended to convey. On the other hand, what if you made a “literalist” interpretation of the phrase, “it’s raining cats and dogs”?

The “literalist” interpretation would be that, were you to walk outside, you would actually see cats and dogs falling from the sky like rain. No taking into account the popularly accepted meaning of this phrase. No taking into account the author’s intentions. The words say it was raining cats and dogs, so, by golly, it was raining cats and dogs! That is the literalist, or fundamentalist, way of interpretation.

If someone 2000 years in the future picked up that same book and read, “It was raining cats and dogs outside,” in order to properly understand that passage in the book, they would need a “literal” interpretation, not a “literalist” interpretation. Now, think about that in the context of interpreting the Bible 2000-3000 years after it was written.

Literal, or Catholic, interpretation vs. literalist, or fundamentalist, interpretation

I don’t get what you are saying. Right after the “Last Supper” all of the disciples desserted Jesus and Peter denied him. So much for the benefits of eating the body and drinking the blood. It wasn’t until pentecost that the disciples were filled with the “Holy Spirit” which than gave them the power to overcome the world. The baptism of the “Holy Spirit” is what people need, not the Mass.

This really has zero to do with the scriptural basis for the Eucharist.

By your displayed thinking then, since you assert that you have received this baptism of the “Holy Spirit” then if you have been grossly uncharitable or otherwise sinful since then, that disqualifies the power and efficacy of that experience as well.

Your assertion that

The baptism of the “Holy Spirit” is what people need, not the Mass.

is also grossly in error since the Mass is the miraculous re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, it is indeed precisely what people need because they need that confrontation with their sinfulness and the sacrificial price that Our Lord paid for it for each one of us. How else will they come to a saving faith in Christ?

This aligns perfectly with the very words of St. Paul to the Corinthians when he says, 1: When I came to you, brethren, I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom.
2: For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. (1st Corinthians 2)

This is now answered, but please, let’s try to keep to the topic of the scriptural basis of the Eucharist.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

 

[Nevim]

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.

36 But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out. 38 Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day. 40 And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day.

41 The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.

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. "

Again it is metaphoric language, it is against the Torah to eat blood therefore if Y’shua meant this literally He would be a false prophet. Duet 13:1-5 Do you honestly think that Y’shua transubstantiated Himself right there and then ? And one more thing, you have made some real nasty comments- directed at me -is that what happens to somone who eats the flesh of the Son of Man and drinks His blood? Or is that the fruits of Catholicism ? If you cannot conduct yourself in the proper manner I suggest some lessens in how to have meaningful dialogue with another human being.

 

[Nevim]

Who said the Chalice transubstantiates? Tis only the wine that transubstantiates in the chalice.

Where do you get that this is a metaphor?

How can a sin sacrifice be valid unless the sacrfice is eaten?

The question is how do you get it’s literal? Looks like wine, taste like wine, smells like wine, drink enough and you’ll get intoxicated.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

The question is how do you get it’s literal? Looks like wine, taste like wine, smells like wine, drink enough and you’ll get intoxicated.

Yes how do you get the literalness?

 

[NotWorthy]

The question is how do you get it’s literal? Looks like wine, taste like wine, smells like wine, drink enough and you’ll get intoxicated.

John 6, maybe? “Truly, Truly, I say to you, whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood…”

All three of the Synoptic Gospels accounts of the Last Supper, perhaps? “This is my body… This is my blood…”

Or maybe even 1st Corinthians chapter 11? “For whoever eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement upon themself…”

 

[jim1130]

"Nevim:

The question is how do you get it’s literal? Looks like wine, taste like wine, smells like wine, drink enough and you’ll get intoxicated.

Yes how do you get the literalness?

It was literal for 1500 years and then suddenly it becomes a metaphor around 1517? So, for 1500 years people got it wrong and now YOU have it right? Amazing! It is YOUR choice to see it as a metaphor.

The Early Christians would be a good resource for you: therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

 

[FCEGM]

It was literal for 1500 years and then suddenly it becomes a metaphor around 1517? So, for 1500 years people got it wrong and now YOU have it right? Amazing! It is YOUR choice to see it as a metaphor.

The Early Christians would be a good resource for you: therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

From the first Sunday of Pentecost the Church has been reverencing the Eucharist as the Risen Body of Christ. Some here, though, place themselves outside of any Apostolic Church. They are not in the visible Body of the Church of Christ which brought us the Scriptures in the first place. If they do not place faith in the Apostolic Tradition of the Church (and all Apostolic Churches agree on this understanding of the Eucharist) they place their faith in their understanding of the Bible, i.e., in themselves.

It is a command of the Lord: “Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you shall not have life within you.” And, “Take and eat. . .Take and drink” Salvation is not just a matter of hearing the Word, but of consuming the Word Who strengthens us to do His will and to be transformed by grace into He Whom we consume.

In an article by Msgr. Rober Sokolowski in an issue of “Homiletics and Pastoral Review” (Winter, 1997), the author makes some cogent points about Transubstantiation:

. . .to say that in the Eucharist the bread and wine remain what they are but acquire a new signification would contradict the logic of the Incarnation. Christ was not simply a prophet who pointed out the way to the Father; he was the way to the Father. He did not just communicate the truth about God, he was the Word of God. The believer comes to the Father not by the way and the truth that are signified by Christ, but through Christ himself, who is the way, the truth, and the life. Analogously, if the bread and wine were to remain bread and wine, they would point us toward the Death and Resurrection of Christ and toward the Son of God, they would signify him and what he did, but they would not be his presence and the presence of his action among us. The Eucharist would fail to continue, sacramentally, the form of the Incarnation, and we would be deprived of the presence, the bodily presence, of the way, the truth, and the life. The Incarnation would have been withdrawn from the world. . .

. . .Indeed, it is the very material and bodily quality of the Incarnation that calls for Transubstantiation in the Eucharist. If Christ is to be present in the sacrament, he must be present in his divine and human natures, in his soul and body. And if his body is to be present, the bread cannot be. The one thing cannot be two material substances, both bread and a human body, not even the glorified human body of Christ. If it is the one it cannot be the other. The two bodily natures exclude one another, and it is the bodily presence of Christ that is specifically emphasized in the words of consecration. The body of Christ is not with the bread but takes the place of the bread in the change we call Transubstantiation. If we deny this change, we deny the bodily presence of the glorified Christ, and hence we deny the presence of Christ. Without Transubstantiation the sacramental presence of Christ would not occur. [All emph. in original]

 

[VociMike]

The question is how do you get it’s literal? Looks like wine, taste like wine, smells like wine, drink enough and you’ll get intoxicated.

And Jesus looked like a man, smelled like a man, sounded like a man, ate like a man, slept like a man, bled like a man and died like a man. How do you get that He’s God?

 

[CherokeeBrave]

And Jesus looked like a man, smelled like a man, sounded like a man, ate like a man, slept like a man, bled like a man and died like a man. How do you get that He’s God?

How do YOU get it? How do YOU know HE is God?

Eucharist, as it is practiced in the RCC, is entirely of pagan origin. Doesn’t matter how much scripture you cite, you will NOT find it practiced in the Bible the way you do.

I’ve read some of the posts here and how you slap one another on the back with scripture, I suppose fondly hoping you make the eucharist true. Doesn’t work that way. You do NOT ingest the real Christ in a biscuit and vino only to digest HIM and work HIM out through peristalsis.

As a symbolic activity, communion is entirely biblical. As eucharist, it is never.

mtc.org/eucharst.html
The doctrine of transubstantiation does not date back to the Last Supper as is supposed. It was a controverted topic for many centuries before officially becoming an article of faith, which means that it is essential to salvation according to the Roman Catholic Church. The idea of a corporal presence was vaguely held by some, such as Ambrose, but it was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine monk, published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine of transubstantiation. Even then, for almost another four hundred years, theological war was waged over this teaching by bishops and people alike until at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D., it was officially defined and canonized as a dogma.

Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practiced by pagan religions.​

The internet is filled with material exposing your error. From early church fathers to modern scholars. Christ is symbolically in the bread and wine to be remembered that way.

 

[mikeledes]

The doctrine of transubstantiation does not date back to the Last Supper as is supposed. It was a controverted topic for many centuries before officially becoming an article of faith, which means that it is essential to salvation according to the Roman Catholic Church. The idea of a corporal presence was vaguely held by some, such as Ambrose, but it was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine monk, published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine of transubstantiation. Even then, for almost another four hundred years, theological war was waged over this teaching by bishops and people alike until at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D., it was officially defined and canonized as a dogma.

The Trinity and the Hypostatic Union were also subjects of dispute among Christians and it took the Councils of Nicaea and Ephesus - both several centuries after the apostolic age - in order to settle the issue. The New Testament canon was also a matter of dispute, particularly the Book of Revelation, and that was settled over 300 years after the apostolic age.

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

John 6:51-66 clearly defends the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. When Jesus speaks figuratively, either He or the Evangelist clearly explain what He meant (John 2:19 - 21, 3:3-5, 4:32-34, 6:70-71, 7:37-39, 8:31-34, 10:1-14, 11:11-14, 12:32-33, 13:10-11, 21:18-19, 22-23). These verses are just a few examples. If Jesus was speaking figuratively in John 6, then we would expect, based on clear patterns in the Bible, that He would explain what He meant. Instead, when the Jews asked how He could give His flesh to eat, he REAFFIRMED their literal interpretation. In addition, he allowed many of His disciples to leave because of this teaching.

You might say that verse 63 explains what He meant. Actually, it doesn’t. In verse 63, Jesus is merely affirming the origin and objective of His words. What he said comes from God (i.e. “spirit”) and they are life-giving (i.e. “life”).

In addition, the flesh referred to in verse 63 is not talking about the flesh of Jesus Christ. Anyone who says that it is is adhering to the Gnostic and Docetist heresies. To say that the flesh of Jesus does not avail is to deny the incarnation and the crucfixion. The flesh here is referring to the “sinful nature” (John 3:6, 8:15, Galatians 5:16-26). Those who are in the flesh cannot accept the things of God. Those led by the Spirit submit to God’s will, no matter how ridiculous, illogical, or odd God’s command may appear to the human intellect.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mrs_abbott]

Thanks Joshua.
So far as I’m concerned…a church without the miracle of the Eucharist isn’t worth going to. Say whatever you will, these passages are very clear as is the literalness of Jesus statements in John 6. Without the Eucharist, there IS NO CHURCH!

Gloria in Excelsis Deo!

I think that’s why I was never able to leave the Church. No other Church has what the Catholic Church has, when it comes to the Eucharist.

 

[NotWorthy]

The question is how do you get it’s literal? Looks like wine, taste like wine, smells like wine, drink enough and you’ll get intoxicated.

By the Way, Welcome Nevim!!! :clapping:

Did you get tired of CARM or are you just visiting?

 

[The_Augustinian]

I’ve read some of the posts here and how you slap one another on the back with scripture, I suppose fondly hoping you make the eucharist true. Doesn’t work that way. You do NOT ingest the real Christ in a biscuit and vino only to digest HIM and work HIM out through peristalsis.

Perhaps I shouldn’t play “moderator” here, but you’re being incredibly rude. Claiming we eat Christ in a “biscuit” is one step away from talking about the “death cookie” or somesuch nonsense. If you wish to last in these forums for long, you should start learning some manners.

Anyway, you claim that the “early church fathers” believed that the Eucharist is symbolic. There’s another thread going on taking passages from St. Augustine clearly saying that Jesus gave us His flesh in the Eucharist. This wikipedia article is also very informative. At any rate, it is nontopical, because this thread has to do with Scriptural support for the Eucharist.

To get back on track, St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians writes: “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.” It’s pretty clear to me that these aren’t just symbols. If I burned a picture of President Bush, I wouldn’t be guilty of assassination!

 

[NotWorthy]

If I burned a picture of President Bush, I wouldn’t be guilty of assassination!

Yeah, but you would probably be getting a friendly visit by a bunch of men in dark suits and sunglasses…