F
fbl9
Guest
St.Paul certainly beleived in the real presence…1Corinthians23-33. Which was written approx 6yrs BEFORE Acts of the Apostle’s was written.
- Status
C
codebilly
Guest
Look at the Covenant God made with Noah, his sons and the animal kingdom. (see Gen 9:12)
Gen 9:5 says And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man
This accounting is the remembrance of God’s covenant anytime Noah or his sons took a life including the animals. Therefore, no Jew could eat meat without such an accounting as is evidenced by the passages you quote.
There was one day of mandatory meat eating for Jews wherein they would have to kill the spotless lamb. You know the day.
So the rite of the priests was to slaughter the lamb in remembrance of the Covenant. That was the way.
Now Jesus comes and does away with the Old Covenant and establish a New Covenant of no slaughter, but rather one of Bread and Wine. He says THis IS MY BODY and BLOOD … because He knows in establishing the New Covenant He surrendered, sacrifices His real Body and Blood … that is, His mortal life. Judas would betray Jesus for this act … the establishment of a New Covenant. This was the “evidence” the Pharisees sought that would be compelling enough to have Jesus crucified.
Now it can NEVER be said that this offering at the table is indifferent the Jesus’ actual sacrifice and His Covenant.
The Ministers of the remembrance of His Covenant carrying out the Rite of His Covenant are His priests.
It is that clear and nothing can be read into it. His Apostolic successors are the ministers of the Everlasting Covenant and the Mystery of His Sacrifice on the Altar.
Think of the dilemma for Jewish priests after Jesus’ death. They were to account for any human bloodshed. They were to account for any animal bloodshed … They were to account for this by way of some sacrifice.
What sacrifice would be possible or conceivable to account for the blood of Jesus!???
J
jmcrae
Guest
Because Jesus was very clear that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to receive salvation. (John 6:54)
One of the reasons the Church has had to limit the number of times a person can go to Mass in a day is because of those who think that receiving more Holy Communion is like receiving more Jesus, and thus, more salvation. I know lots of people who go to Mass as often as they are legally allowed to, because they want “more grace.”
(This is probably also the reason that Holy Communion is distributed in small wafers rather than big chunks of bread, nowadays.)
I am sure this is not a new problem for the Church - human nature has not changed just because of scientific and technological progress. It seems likely that St. Paul was dealing with the same sort of people at his Masses, as well.
Stephen168
New member
And you honestly believe that?
But maybe for the purposes of this game you are playing, you might.
R
ron77nyc
Guest
Drinking the blood of Christ was not always done at Mass. Before Vatican II only the priest drank from the chalice.
C
codebilly
Guest
Well it’s clear that there were those not believing in the real presence … and there were some believing. So it looks like Paul had to admonish those not fully comprehending the teaching of Jesus.
J
jmcrae
Guest
The body and the blood are united under each of the species. This reunification happens at the end of the Agnus Dei, when the priest drops a piece of the wafer into the chalice. If you receive the wafer only, you are receiving both Christ’s blood and Christ’s flesh, alive - Body and Blood, Soul, and Divinity.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
What chapter?
J
jmcrae
Guest
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Is that really such a difficult concept for you? Do you honestly believe that everyone is born with a complete set of beliefs on every question and that they simply change them from time to time?
Is Stephen the only one having this problem or am I really saying something novel here?
J
jmcrae
Guest
The Apostles were not born on Pentecost Sunday. They had been hearing Christ’s teachings and participating in His Sacraments for at least three years. The core beliefs of the Catholic faith were already there, in seed form. Over time they developed into doctrinal and theological statements, but they did not change. If St. Peter were to be transported to the modern age, he would recognize his own thoughts and his own beliefs reflected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. He would say, “I hadn’t thought of phrasing it like that, but yes - this is what Jesus was telling us to do and to believe.”
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Cradle Catholic with 12 years of Catholic school (nuns and monks, not church lady ccd). We didn’t crack Bibles much. But at least I know how to give a complete citation.
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.
33So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.
And when I come I will give further directions.
Yeah, we looked at this one earlier. It does not suggest Real Presence anymore than Protestant services. It’s consistent with a symbolic interpretation.
F
fbl9
Guest
The first epistle of St.Paul to the Corithians11:23-33…
R
ron77nyc
Guest
It is very possible to say they did not have any thought about the real presence. Here is what they required of the gentiles:
Acts 15:28 “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:
29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.”
This is a long way from today’s catechism.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
All very interesting speculation. But before we change the subject, do you understand my original point about the third possibility of not having formed an opinion on a claim or do I need to explain if further for you?
F
fbl9
Guest
When was the last time you read scripture saying that bread will JUDGE you?Not any bread but more specifcally THIS BREAD…
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Thank you. I was begining to feel like I was in a Twilight episode.
1
1beleevr
Guest
I am only labeled as a Protestant because I am not a catholic,mormon,Jew,etc.,etc,., and I don’t defend any religion; I defend the Cross, where it all started!!! When Jesus said,“It is finished”, it was the beginning of our opportunity for a personal relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ! I believe that religion(yuck!) began in the Garden of Eden, after Adam and his mate(not named Eve until after the fall Gen:3:20) fell to the enemy’s temptation! They had to find a way to return to God, not realizing that He already had a plan in place. And they were not so much ashamed of their physical nakedness, as they were of their spiritual nakedness! Ever since, mankind has tried to set up a plan to get back to God, usually based in the law, which none of us can keep! Jesus stated,"For I came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it! His death on the Cross delivered us from the slavery of sin, and covered us with grace. Hallelujah:thumbsup:
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
I don’t read that there. Granted, Paul was not an English speaker but this passage does not convey a Real Presence-only meaning.
If this is the key passage of this issue then perhaps a closer inspection of the original Greek would be in order.
Clearly Paul means to instruct a reverential attitude toward the ritual but beyond that it is unclear (to me at least) that he is thinking, much less teaching, Real Presence.
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
This is not as cut and dried as some might think, regardless of one’s view on the Real Presence. There was no chalice nor paten there when Jesus spoke those words, so Jesus could not have meant that when speaking to these people. They couldn’t say “Oh, he means the plate and cup next to Him” as the could during the Last Supper.
The only Body of Christ the people could see was the one that was standing, sweating breathing and speaking in front of them. Since no one, not even the disciples that stayed with Him grabbed an arm or leg, they knew He meant something else on that day besides literally eating His flesh.
So it’s not as clear as it might seem when you read back into the narrative.
- Status