The Eucharist: Real Presence or symbol?

[NA77]

Oh really? The ONLY Church following God’s commandments? Chapter and verse where God commanded people like Ellen G White and countless of others to found their own churches? I am very anxious to read that commandment from God,since you believe the SDA is the ONLY church following God’s commandments.

Well, I believe I wrote that SDA keep the commandments of God and call others to come out of Babylon. The definition of the end time saint is to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus from Revelation 14:12. Jesus says in John 14:15, If ye love me, keep my commandments.

The book of Revelation describes a people that call to others to come out of the apostate churches and other religions of the world to the worship of the true God (Revelation 14). The SDA church is not the only Church following God’s commandments, but they do believe they have a special mission to call others out of religions and churches which do not follow God as He has described in the Bible. Unfortunately, the Catholic church follows a list of commandments which don’t match those given in Exodus 20. So from the definition given from the Bible, it doesn’t match the criteria given as the last day people. See here: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm

God bless,

 

[Nicea325]

Hello Nicea325,

No you are correct, prophets are inspired by the Holy Spirit as well to communicate God’s word. However, the apostle Peter says in 2 Peter 1:19, We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

As the Bible states in Psalm 119:105, Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Yes,but the above verses are not supporting or advocatiing the Bible-Alone.

Clearly the Word of God is the light we live by and which equips us. What other inspired writings by the Holy Spirit are there?

And where does the Bible state the Word of God is binded to the written word ONLY? You forget Christ promised His Church the Advocate and entrusted his Apostles as well.

We must remember the warning in Revelation 22:18-19: For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.Although this passage is specifically talking about the book of Revelation, do you think God would take lightly adding or deleting from other parts of His revealed Truth?

And do you think the founding of thousands of different denominations teaching conflicting teachings is from God? Did God reveal that truth and if so where and when? Chapter and verse…please.

In regards to the many denominations, no doubt many ravenous wolves have come in not sparing the flock (Acts 20:29) and Jesus said if possible even the very elect would be deceived (Matthew 24:24). I believe so many deceptions have entered among the Christian faith, hence the multitude of teachings taking people away from the Bible and Jesus. No Holy Spirit guidance there unfortunately

So in other words,not one man-made church (SDA,Jehovah Witnesses,etc x thousands) was truly founded by Jesus or the Holy Spirit?

 

[Nicea325]

Well, I believe I wrote that SDA keep the commandments of God and call others to come out of Babylon. The definition of the end time saint is to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus from Revelation 14:12. Jesus says in John 14:15, If ye love me, keep my commandments.

The book of Revelation describes a people that call to others to come out of the apostate churches and other religions of the world to the worship of the true God (Revelation 14). The SDA church is not the only Church following God’s commandments, but they do believe they have a special mission to call others out of religions and churches which do not follow God as He has described in the Bible. Unfortunately, the Catholic church follows a list of commandments which don’t match those given in Exodus 20. So from the definition given from the Bible, it doesn’t match the criteria given as the last day people. See here: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm

God bless,

I asked you where is the commandment from God for mere humans to found their own churches?

Unfortunately, the Catholic church follows a list of commandments which don’t match those given in Exodus 20. So from the definition given from the Bible, it doesn’t match the criteria given as the last day people.

No offense,but the above is rather comical. You accuse the CC of not following the list of the 10 commandments from Exodus,but SDA have no scriptural proof or authority to even exist ? Seem a bit ironic to you?

WRONG! Nothing happened to the 10 Commandments It’s just how they divide the commandments, not the actual content

 

[Nicea325]

Hello Nicea325,

The question was whether Catholic Priest celebrating the Mass came first or the New Testament. No doubt Jesus founded the church prior to the NT.

Easy…the Mass-does the Last Supper ring a bell?

 

[joe370]

actually my answer would be that Jesus did not leave His church (those who possess the Spirit)) - with a way to know, with perfect certainty, the truth regarding the Eucharist…if it can’t be achieved individually, then it can’t be achieved collectively.

Thank you for answering the question. What is odd, if you are right, is the fact that God gave His church a way to know, with certainty, the truth about things such as scripture and the Trinity, but not the Eucharist. I’m not buying it.The CC was developing the doctrines of the Trinity and the inerrancy of scripture when formulating the canon of scripture, at the same time the CC was writing about the holy Eucharist, as a sacrifice. You do the math…

 

[NA77]

Yes,but the above verses are not supporting or advocatiing the Bible-Alone.

And where does the Bible state the Word of God is binded to the written word ONLY? You forget Christ promised His Church the Advocate and entrusted his Apostles as well.

And do you think the founding of thousands of different denominations teaching conflicting teachings is from God? Did God reveal that truth and if so where and when? Chapter and verse…please.

So in other words,not one man-made church (SDA,Jehovah Witnesses,etc x thousands) was truly founded by Jesus or the Holy Spirit?

The title of this discussion is, The Eucharist: Real Presence or symbol? What is interesting is question isn’t whether the teaching is valid. It is definitely in the Bible, Jesus establishes this quite plainly. What is questionable in my mind is the concept of the bread and the wine being Christ’s actual body and blood. No one questions the ordinance. The problem is with the interpretation as the Catholic Church sees the emblems for me and in your case how the Protestant Churches view the bread and wine. What is in the Bible isn’t questioned. It is interpretation that is questioned.

I do believe the verses quoted previously support the Bible alone. In 2 Peter 1:19, the apostle talks about his first hand experience of God the Father verbally honoring Jesus as His only beloved Son. Then Peter proceeds to say that they have a more sure word of prophecy from the Old Testament scriptures that Jesus was in fact the Light of the world. Peter’s personal experience was trumped by revelations from God given previously in Scripture. So the primacy of scriptures is established. This is of course not an exhaustive study, but the point is made.

Secondly, King David says that God’s Word is a light to his path. No doubt God had spoken to King David and sent Prophets to him, but still primacy is given to the scripture.

Lastly, Isaiah 8:20 states, To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. This is in the same vein as the previous verse in Revelation stating that the consequences for modifying God’s word. What are the Law and the Prophets but the record of God’s Holy laws and the messages of His prophets as recorded in the then known scriptures. God does not change (Malachi 3:6). His standard is the same as it was in ancient times, His Word alone is Truth.

In regards to the many denominations, I do not believe this is from God. Some of the denominations have partial truth with error and some have total error. 1 Corinithians 14:33 says, God is not the author of confusion, thus the author of the current confusion must be Satan and man. Satan is working with fervent effort seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8). If the Catholic Church teaches things not within the Bible (indulgences, Priests forgiving sin, purgatory, prayers to Mary, etc) from where is the authority if the Bible specifically states to the law and testimony it must adhere. On what basis is the Catholic Church allowed to make extra biblical teachings?

 

[NA77]

I asked you where is the commandment from God for mere humans to found their own churches?

No offense,but the above is rather comical. You accuse the CC of not following the list of the 10 commandments from Exodus,but SDA have no scriptural proof or authority to even exist ? Seem a bit ironic to you?

WRONG! Nothing happened to the 10 Commandments It’s just how they divide the commandments, not the actual content

Hello Nicea325,

You have asked for a commandment from God authorizing humans to found their own churches. Of course there is none. Christ has founded His Church, however your presumption is that only the Catholic Church fulfills that role. My contention with your question is that you assume Christ’s body is divided or that those who claim to follow Jesus but don’t adhere to Roman Catholic doctrine are invalid. When the disciples asked Jesus if they should forbid a man who was casting out demons in His name, Jesus himself said in Luke 9:50: And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us. History shows that the Roman Catholic Church has gone far beyond simply forbidding others. Where is the authority for that conduct?

In regards to the 10 commandments, there is a missing commandment in the Roman Catholic version. It is the second commandment regarding making and bowing down to images (Exodus 20:4-6). Then to make up for the lack of a commandment the 10th commandment in the list is split into two. Thus you have two commandments regarding coveting a neighbors goods and his wife and no commandment forbidding improper worship.

God bless,

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

**The Eucharist: Real Presence or symbol? **

 

[DENNYINMI]

One of the most important ways that the Old Covenant foreshadows the New Covenant is in its use of the image of the sacrificial lamb. Let’s see how this relates to the Eucharist in Scripture.

First, take a look at Revelation 5. In Revelation 5, there is a scroll with seven seals that nobody can break open and everybody is really upset. In fact John almost begins to cry. In Revelation 5:2, “A strong angel proclaimed with a loud voice, ‘Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?’ And no one in heaven and on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it.” What is the scroll? The word is biblion. Most likely it’s a reference to a covenant document, the New Covenant document that nobody is worthy to break open. “And I wept much, but no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it,” because this scroll would consummate and fulfill the promises of the Old Testament.

“Then one of the elders said to me, ‘Weep not. Lo, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, He has conquered so that He can open the scroll and seven seals.’” You could almost feel the hallelujah rising up from within your soul. The Lion of the tribe of Judah! You turn. You look and John turns to look and what does he see in Revelation 5:6, “And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw,” what? Aslan, the lion? No! David crowned with glory? No! You’d think so, a lion and a king are the words used to describe it. “I turned and I saw a lamb standing, looking as though it had been slain.”

Jesus Christ is the son of David and the king of the new and heavenly Jerusalem. He is the Lion of the tribe of Judah and He is the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world, as it said elsewhere in Revelation. But here in heaven on the throne of glory, after His crucifixion, His resurrection, His ascension, His enthronement, He still looks like a lamb. He still looks as though He had been slain. Why not clean up the body? Why not wipe away the wounds? Why continue resembling a lamb? Because He’s continuing the Passover offerings, the sacrifice. Not by dying, not by bleeding and not by suffering but by continuing to offer up Himself as the firstborn and as the unblemished lamb, as the perpetual, timeless, everlasting sacrifice of praise to the Father.

And what do the people do? They rejoice and they break out into a song. And what is the song, “Worthy art Thou to take the scroll and to open its seals for Thou was slain.” Past tense, “And by Thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.” And what has He done? He’s become a priest to be sure, but for what purpose? “He has made them a kingdom and priest to our God.” He has made those whom He has saved priests. And what do priests do? They offer sacrifice.

Has Christ’s sacrifice ended all sacrifices? No. Christ’s sacrifice has ended all ineffective, bloody animal sacrifices that never did anything anyway. Now for the first time in history we can really begin to offer sacrifice to God. Romans 12 says, “Offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God.” And it wouldn’t be holy and acceptable except that it’s united to Christ’s perpetual sacrifice. He’s not bleeding. He’s not dying. He’s not suffering, but He is offering a sacrifice as a lamb does, as a priest king does continually, forever.

And that’s what it’s all about. John wouldn’t see a lamb looking as though it had been slain if the whole kit and caboodle was completed and done. Yes, it’s completed and done, but it’s still going on, and it’s going to go on forever in the future.

He is a priest in heaven ministering now in the sanctuary and He’s got something to offer and He’s continually offering it. He’s just not bleeding and dying and suffering any more. He’s not killing any more animals, but He’s continually offering the once-and-for-all-sacrifice which is Himself; but it’s a continual sacrifice. It’s a perpetual offering. He’s not dying, but He’s still offering. That’s exactly what the Catholic Church teaches about the Mass.

Christ, through the Holy Spirit, makes Himself available as the Lamb of God to be consumed continuously. That’s the whole point of the Resurrection, incidentally. The Holy Spirit raises up that body and glorifies it, so supernaturally that body and blood, which is glorified, may be internationally distributed through the elders and priests of the Church, so that all of God’s children can be bound back to the Father in the New Covenant Sacrifice of Christ. He didn’t die again. He’s not bleeding and He’s not suffering. He’s reigning in glory and giving us His own glorified flesh and blood.

Meditation of St Francis of Assisi

Let everyone be struck with fear,
the whole world tremble,
and the heavens exult
when Christ, the Son of the living God,
is present on the altar in the hands of a priest!
O wonderful loftiness
and stupendous dignity!
O sublime humility!
O humble sublimity!
The Lord of the universe,
God and the Son of God,
so humbles Himself
that He hides Himself
for our salvation
under an ordinary piece of bread!
See the humility of God, brothers,
and pour out your hearts before Him!
Humble yourselves that you may be exalted by Him!
Hold back nothing of yourselves for yourselves,
that He Who gives Himself totally to you
may receive you totally!
Detail of St Francis
by BERLINGHIERI, Bonaventura
from Church of San Francesco, Pescia

The Eucharist as the Lambs Supper…Dr. Scott Hahn

 

[DENNYINMI]

St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

“Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.”

-“Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”

-“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

“Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

---

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thes. 2:15)

“And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Tim. 2:2)

www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father

From the Ancients of Old…the Real Presence was never a question…shame.

 

[rinnie]

Hello (name removed by moderator),

Well, perhaps we must agree to disagree. The catechism does state that Christ offered once His sacrifice, and that sacrifice once and for all, eternally, satisfies the demands of the Law. Why then does the catholic priest re-present the sacrifice in the literal and physcial body and blood of Christ?

I do not understand what you are asking. WHY would the Priest re-present the Sacrifice? What you question should be how could the Priest NOT!

Did you not read the words of Christ. What did he tell the Priest to do?

Please read John 6:53-58 How do you expect us to have eternal life if we do not eat and drink the true bread that comes down from heaven? Jesus said he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As my living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.

This doctrine that bread and wine change into the true body and blood of Christ is called TRANSUBSTANTIATION, It is the latin word that simply means the true being of bread and wine becomes the true being of Jesus Christ truly present on the altar.

Why in the world would Jesus say that if he do not eat the true flesh of Man you have no life in you, if he did not have a way of getting it to us?

Why would Jesus say this IS the Bread that comes down from heaven DO THIS.

Because it comes down to this. Either the Eucharist is the true bread that comes down from heaven, as Jesus said it was, and he gave the Priest the Authority to DO THIS with by the Power of the Holy Spirit, or you are right and the Church is wrong and we have no life in us.

So according to your interpretation Jesus told us to eat the bread of life but he made it impossible for us to get, so we shall all die, and none of us will have eternal life in Christ, Correct? And if there is no way for us to obtain this bread from heaven what is the Priest’s supposed to DO then, when he says DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME? What do you say the Priest is doing, and what is his POINT in DOING THIS?

 

[rinnie]

actually my answer would be that Jesus did not leave His church (those who possess the Spirit)) - with a way to know, with perfect certainty, the truth regarding the Eucharist…if it can’t be achieved individually, then it can’t be achieved collectively.

Okay then why does the bible Say the Church is the Pilar of all truth. Because you are saying that the Individual is the Pilar of all truth which is in direct conflict with scripture in 2 ways.

First scripture says the Church not the individual, and second the bible says no scripure can be interpretated by the mind of Man. For Man does not have the mind of God.

So could you explain this scripture to me. Matt 28:20 TEACHING THEM to observe ALL that I have COMMANDED YOU. And behold I am with YOU until the end of age.

Now who is THEM? Are you trying to say that we are to teach the Church, or could Matt. be right and the Church is to teach us.

Now if you are correct and the Church is wrong, why do WE have different ideas about what Scripture teaches, but the Church has one Meaning?

Could it be possibly that scripture is correct and the Church is to teach, or you are correct and we have different truths?

And if you are corrrect, then how can the Holy Spirit tells me one thing, you another, and the Church something different? The Holy Spriit would have to have different truths also then Correct? ANd how could this be possible? It COULD NOT! Because scripture tells us the ADVOCATE the Holy Spirit will lead the Church not man. So you have to show me scripture where the CHURCH is NOT the Pilar of all truth and the INDIVIDUAL is.

I will be looking forward to this scriptureopcorn:

 

[elvisman]

actually my answer would be that Jesus did not leave His church (those who possess the Spirit)) - with a way to know, with perfect certainty, the truth regarding the Eucharist…if it can’t be achieved individually, then it can’t be achieved collectively.

First of all – the Church consists of those who are obedient to its authority.

---

Secondly, the truth regarding the Eucharist IS known with as much certainty as it can be. That being said – NO matter of faith can be known with “perfect” certainty because it requires a level of faith to understand it in the first place. This goes for ANY essential Christian doctrine.

---

In the Bread of Life Discourse, Jesus stated emphatically (emphasis, mine):
John 6:63-65
***“It is the spirit *that gives life, while the flesh (of man) is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. **
And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father."

---

The truth of the Real Presence cannot be held by those to whom it has not been granted.

 

[pablope]

Hello pablope,

Well, in the early Church was there a distinction between New Testament and Old Testament? The scriptures included everything inspired by the Holy Spirit (the Old Testament as we know it today). Even the apostle Peter references the apostle Paul’s writings as scipture (see 2 Peter 3:15-16). So even though it was not labeled tas the NT, the scriptures came first.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass actually predates the first book of the NT by about 30 years (+/-). So the Apostles and their successors had believed in the Eucharist as the RP prior to anything being written. Keep in mind that it was Catholics who wrote the NT books and it was them who put it together and sanctified the Canon as you know it today.

Catholics have been believing in the RP since time of Pentecost.

So, my question to you is, why would the earliest Catholics, the NT writers, the Catholics of today and those who put the CCC be contradicting each other, which you seem to imply?

 

[Radical]

Thank you for answering the question. What is odd, if you are right, is the fact that God gave His church a way to know, with certainty, the truth about things such as scripture and the Trinity, but not the Eucharist. I’m not buying it.The CC was developing the doctrines of the Trinity and the inerrancy of scripture when formulating the canon of scripture, at the same time the CC was writing about the holy Eucharist, as a sacrifice. You do the math…

we have done the math…and you agreed that, individually we can not know with perfect certainty that our (respective) understanding WRT the Eucharist is absolutely correct. That agreement was based on the limitations of our fallible minds…so my question is how can the Church, (which “thinks” only through its indvidual members) arrive at a pefect certainty when its constituent individuals can’t? It is like admitting that each of a thousand individuals don’t know how to get to Moosejaw Sask., but then thinking that if those 1000 individuals all met together they would, by means of such a meeting, then know the way.

 

[Radical]

First of all – the Church consists of those who are obedient to its authority.

well I guess we’ll disagree on that…tis a little outside the subject of the thread

Secondly, the truth regarding the Eucharist IS known with as much certainty as it can be. That being said – NO matter of faith can be known with “perfect” certainty because it requires a level of faith to understand it in the first place. This goes for ANY essential Christian doctrine.

my goodness Elvis! we agree on something

The truth of the Real Presence cannot be held by those to whom it has not been granted.

Christ’s statement seemed to pertain more to who had been drawn to him by the Father (and who therefore believed that he was the Son) than to who would receive the true understanding of the real presence (the Lord’s supper and a real presence not even being described in John 6)…as such, I am not prepared to conclude that Catholics lack a understanding of the truth WRT the Eucharist (real presence) b/c they haven’t been drawn to Christ (most I know are thusly drawn) …it seems being drawn to Christ doesn’t necessitate a correct understanding WRT Eucharist

 

[elvisman]

well I guess we’ll disagree on that…tis a little outside the subject of the thread

Ummm . . . I only brought it up because of your broader definition of “Church” . . .**

my goodness Elvis! we agree on something

I’d like to think so.

Christ’s statement seemed to pertain more to who had been drawn to him by the Father (and who therefore believed that he was the Son) than to who would receive the true understanding of the real presence (the Lord’s supper and a real presence not even being described in John 6)…as such, I am not prepared to conclude that Catholics lack a understanding of the truth WRT the Eucharist (real presence) b/c they haven’t been drawn to Christ (most I know are thusly drawn) …it seems being drawn to Christ doesn’t necessitate a correct understanding WRT Eucharist

That is an inaccurate interpretation of the discourse because, you aren’t reading it in context.
Let’s look at the next 2 verses:
John 6:66-67 (my emphasis in parentheses)**
As a result of this (what Jesus just said), many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?"

---

This is the final nail in the coffin of the Real Presence Nay-sayers. Jesus doesn’t explain this doctrine any further. He simply asks his Apostles if they ALSO want to take off and run. Jesus KNEW it sounded shocking to them (John 6:61) but he also know that they HAD to make the decision of whether or not to believe him. That’s why verse 71 speaks of Judas who, like the others who left, DIDN’T believe.

 

[DENNYINMI]

Paul juxtaposes the eating of drinking of pagan sacrifices to the eating and drinking of the Eucharist. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16). If Paul is being literal in describing the partaking of pagan sacrifices, how much more so is he speaking literally in reference to the Eucharist. Read under the lens of the understanding of the prohibition of pagan practices for the Jews phrases such as the one above, what Paul is trying to say becomes clearer, “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons” (1 Corinthians 10:21). It is unfortunate that so many Christians believe that the Eucharist is only symbolic, because the full import of what Paul is saying here will be inevitably missed. The pagans did not believe their ritual was symbolic, and neither does Paul for the Christian ritual. Listen to his warning,

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died" (1 Corinthians 11:27-30).

Here in the book of Corinthians Paul is making the vital connection that is the root of Christ’s fulfillment of the prohibition of the consumption of blood. If one sees the Eucharist as only symbolic then Jesus’ discourse and Paul’s argument will not make sense. The prohibition of the consumption of blood finds its specific fulfillment in the Eucharist, in Christ’s giving of his very body and blood for us to eat and drink.
www.catholicculture.org…Bryce Andrew Sibley…

The REAL reason, IMO the Jews “walked” away from Our Lord, was their understanding of the OT…understanding Leviticus 7:27 would have meant spiritual death for the Jew, insomuch as “drinking” blood…BUT, Christ does not spend one moment “explaining” himself…hmmm…

What we believe can only be believed through FAITH!

 

[JonNC]

Let’s look at the next 2 verses:
John 6:66-67* (my emphasis in parentheses)*
As a result of this (what Jesus just said), many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”

I know its off topic, but I find Peter’s response to this in John 6:68-69 so incredible.

***Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” ***

Jon

 

[wisdomseeker]

I know its off topic, but I find Peter’s response to this in John 6:68-69 so incredible.

***Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” ***

Jon

I love this Passage also. I see St Peter speaking for the whole body. To whom shall WE… And WE have believed…