To those who deny the true presence

[Radical]

Hi Workingman, thanks for your reasoned response

Yes the properties of bread and wine do stay. Though their are miracles that do show a literal presence where bread and wine cease to exist.

I have seen the claims for those miracles and the evidence leaves much to be desired…and the miracles are inconsistent with the claims of the CC. (the one claims that the sample is a piece of heart muscle whereas the CC claims that Christ is fully present in each and every bit…the “miracles” create more problems than they hope to solve and are not of a calibre above what non-catholics produce to support their faith).

Brother in the text from the time did not mean blood relations we all know this.

You have greatly overstated this. “Brother” often meant brother and was more rarely used to mean “cousin”. “Brother” was often used in the NT to mean spiritual brother, but 1) “brother” in Matt 12 is used in the context of family blood relations b/c “mother” was used (v 47) to refer to his actual earthly mother and “sisters” was also used; and 2) Jesus’s words are “whoever does the will of my Father in heaven, is my brother and sister and mother”. Surely you are not going to try and tell me that when “mother” is first used in that passage it did not mean a blood relation. So here we have a passage where a literal mother (namely Mary) is referred to and (w/o missing a beat), Jesus says that someone else ** is ** is mother…all whilst his mother remains in plain view.

No rationalizing is necessary due to the words also in the words of institution. Look at Matt 26:26-28; 26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. 27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
How else does one define the word is?

exactly the same as 'is" meant in Matt 12:50…it means “is figuratively”. Mary and his body both remain in plain sight of his respective audiences whilst Jesus announces that something/someone else is his body/mother.

If the words are not literal of his flesh and blood then why in John 6:61 I believe are Jesus disciples leaving if Jesus is only speaking figuratively.

First, they left b/c they didn’t “believe in him”. (see verses 29, 35, 67-69) The author of the gospel seems concerned that his readers would need an explanation as to why Jesus allowed many to depart w/o chasing after them and giving them a full explanation…so he provides the assurance that none left that the Father had enabled. Those that left, were meant to leave. (see vs. 37, 39, 40, 65).

Second, as I have already explained I don’t see the Catholics as actually believing that they gnaw Jesus’s literal flesh. I would call it an “otherworldly eating” b/c they allegedly “eat” w/o any accidents of Jesus’s flesh being present. Please note that although it is not recorded that Jesus ever bothered to explain to those that left that he was only talking figuratively, he also didn’t bother to explain that he was talking about a manner of eating that did not involve any fleshy or bloody “accidents”. Neither my understanding nor your understanding was given to those that departed.

Would Jesus give a command that would be a sin? No. That is a very old view of the Eucharist calling it cannibalism. I don’t even feel that is worth trying to refute. Call it talking out the side of ones mouth if you will.

What I call talking out of both sides of your mouth is your claims that the words are “literal of his flesh and blood” and that cannibalism has no part in it. If you literally eat flesh, then it is cannibalism, but we all know that Jesus’s flesh isn’t literally present (by any untortured definition of “literal”)…and while I am at it, “real bodily presence” is about as dodgy a term as one can find. I wish the doctrine would be called by an accurate term such as “undetectable, but fully functional presence” or “undetectable, but a mysteriously full presence”…or something of that sort. I simply find the words “literal” and “real” to be inaccurate in this case. One final note, I seem to recall reading that the gnostics were also accused of cannibalism…and we all know what they would have thought about a real bodily presence. (I’ll try to find the reference)

 

[Radical]

…I could see the literal words and what I was looking for in response was how can one back up a none literal presence.

If you want any further explanation, please ask…I’ll be happy to deal with any passage from scripture or any bit from an ECF

God bless you.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Anyone who denys the True or Real Presence are Heretics.

St. Ignatius of Antioch sums it all up in his Writings. He was taught by St. John, the Apostle.

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, 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." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

 

[Mannyfit75]

If you want any further explanation, please ask…I’ll be happy to deal with any passage from scripture or any bit from an ECF

God bless you.

Early Church Fathers:

I. Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, 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." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).

“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body…He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: ‘I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,’ which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212).

“For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ…Thus, therefore, in consecrating the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered. For if any one offer wine only, the blood of Christ is dissociated from us; but if the water be alone, the people are dissociated from Christ; but when both are mingled, and are joined with one another by a close union, there is completed a spiritual and heavenly sacrament. Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone, nor wine alone, unless each be mingled with the other; just as, on the other hand, the body of the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone, unless both should be united and joined together and compacted in the mass of one bread; in which very sacrament our people are shown to be made one, so that in like manner as many grains, collected, and ground, and mixed together into one mass, make one bread; so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body, with which our number is joined and united.” Cyprian, To Caeilius, Epistle 62(63):13 (A.D. 253).

 

[Mannyfit75]

II. The Bread and Wine Become Jesus’ Body and Blood

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (A.D. 110-165).

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: ‘I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,’ which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212).

“He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood. In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, ‘Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?’ The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, ‘He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes’–in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood." Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212).

“He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water into wine, akin to blood, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood?” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:4 (c. A.D. 350).

“Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.”” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).

 

[dpgreen]

That’s fair…what baffles me is that Catholics start these threads over and over again. They agressively ask, “How could someone possibly believe that the bread is only a symbol of Christ’s body?” when the fact that the bread remains and no body appears makes the symbolic view the most obvious one. Catholics have a hard enough time getting their own adherents to believe in a Real bodily Presence and yet they are somehow baffled as to how a protestant would understand the Lord’s supper figuratively (when the NT is packed with figures and symbols). They might not agree, but surely they should be able to grasp how a symbolic meaning could be favored by someone else.

Aggressive! You should be on the end of a fundamentalist anti-Catholic who screams that you are going to hell because you are a Catholic. Or go to a home of one who has anti-Catholic propaganda all over its walls.

Perhaps not all Catholics on these forums behave as they should, but I have yet to witness this sort of behaviour. Don’t bite if you don’t enjoy the dialogue

Back to the issue of the real presence. Perhaps we could look at it in a more philosophical manner. If the Catholic Church is wrong about this, then it is REALLY wrong, to the point of leading millions to hell. If, however, the protestant church is wrong, they are not nearly as wrong as the CC is because they claim less. They do not claim something so profound nor require their believers to partake of it.

So, if the CC is wrong, then how has it produced so many holy men and women who believed in the real presence. If these members are part of a church that leads its members to hell, then how is it possible that people like Mother Teresa can live their whole lives in the service of others in the name of Jesus Christ, yet go to hell?

On the other hand, if the protestant church is wrong, then they have merely missed out on a part of Christ’s teaching (albeit the most important one) but have not necessarily sent their members to hell.

Both cannot be right.

Just on the issue of symbolism. Some protestants believe that baptism is merely a symbol, yet we are told that baptism effects forgiveness of sins and gives us the Holy Spirit and saves us. Although we do not actually see our sins forgiven nor do we see the Holy Spirit enter our souls, it literally gives us these gifts. We need the eyes of faith to believe in these mysteries.

To eat someone’s flesh and drink someone’s blood figuratively for a Jew would be asking for someone to bring a curse upon himself. I don’t think Jesus was doing that.

 

[JonNC]

I tend to agree with what Martin Luther believed regarding the Eucharist which is cosubstantiation. This seems to me to be the most supported by Scripture. It simply means that the bread and wine are still bread and wine while also being the body and blood of Jesus. Jesus said that the bread which comes down from Heaven is my flesh. i accept much of it as a mystery simply because we know by Scripture that God’s ways are not our ways.

Justy,
Luther did not teach consubstantiation, nor do Lutherans. We reject consub on a number of fronts.
bookofconcord.org/sd-supper.php

Jon

 

[workingman]

Justy90;5744412]And that’s certainly a fair statement as well. You are correct that there are many a thread here solely created to be a snare instead of cultivating good conversation and dialogue.

All threads have the potential to be a snare depending on what side one looks at it from. Though I think good dialog comes from most though it can get ugly at times.

I don’t think that most Catholics care what Protestants believe and why they believe it. They just fall all over each other trying to be the first one to try and disprove it.

Wow that is a brash ridiculous statement. It may not be completely false but is most certainly not completely true also. If we did not care what Protestants think or believe this section of the forum would not exist. Do not confuse conviction of what one believes as wanting to trip over to prove it false. How is it any different than the numerous threads about Mary and how we worship her and the Saints or works and faith verses faith alone. This shoe can fit on both feet.

It’s redundant, it’s the obvious folly of a falsehood and above all, it’s not the least bit Christianlike or charitable.

So yes I have a belief that it is the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist and some Protestants hold to only a spiritual presence. So the question or statement is uncharitable or unChristian like because one thinks it may be a snare. If one does not like the topic ignore it. So now the true presence is a false hood? Am I understanding you correctly? Earlier you completely agreed with it. I would like to see if this is the case how that was ratonalized. Yes I may try and show it to be false and no it is not a trap. It is a topic that does interest me as former Baptist then a former Lutheran that got me to where I am now.

 

[workingman]

Radical, Thank you for your responses. I would like to take this opportunity to give some beliefs and teachings from the ECF.

Saint Ignatius of Antioch,
“I am God’s grain, and I am being ground by the teeth of wild beasts in order that I may be found [to be] pure bread for Christ. My love has been crucified, and there is in me no fire of material love, but rather a living water, speaking in me and saying within me, ‘Come to the Father.’ I take no pleasure in corruptible food or in the delights of this life. I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who is the seed of David; and for drink I want his Blood which is incorruptible love”

Does the bread of God reference not come from John 6:33?

Look also at 1Corinthians 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. 18 Behold Israel according to the flesh: are not they, that eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar? 19 What then? Do I say, that what is offered in sacrifice to idols, is any thing? Or, that the idol is any thing? 20 But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.

Also their is St. Justin Martyr, For we do not receive these as common bread and common drink; but just as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have learned that the food over which thanks has been given by the prayer of the word which comes from him, and by which are blood and flesh are nourished through a change, is the Flesh and Blood of the same incarnate Jesus."

Also for Biblical verses from 1 Cor 11: 23-27; 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.

Note the direct reference to his literal body and the stern warning in 27 about partaking of the Eucharist unworthily. If it were just a symbol would it need to care such a warning? I don’t think so.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Mystagogic Catechesis, a series of sermons dated to the late 4th century In the Old Covenant there were loaves of proposition [the bread of the presence], but they being of the Old Covenant, have come to an end. In the New Covenant there is a heavenly bread and a cup of salvation that sanctify the body and soul. For as the bread exists for the body, so the Word is in harmony with the soul. Therefore, do not consider them as bare bread and wine; for according to the declaration of the Master, they are Body and Blood. If even the senses suggest this to you [viz. that they are only bread and wine], let faith reassure you. Do not judge the reality by taste but, having full assurance from faith, realize that you have been judged worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ."

What is your take on or refutation of these teachings and verses. Yes I also know as a Protestant you may not hold the same view of ECF that Catholics do but I feel that they carry some weight.

 

[Justy90]

Justy,
Luther did not teach consubstantiation, nor do Lutherans. We reject consub on a number of fronts.
bookofconcord.org/sd-supper.php

Jon

Really?? Please explain more.

 

[JonNC]

Really?? Please explain more.

Briefly, Consub is a blending of the body and bread, blood and wine, creating in each a new substance. Ths is not what we believe. Here’s a link to some quotes about the Lutheran view of consubstantiation, and what we actually believe.

blogstuhl.blogspot.com/2008/05/lutherans-deny-consubstantiation.html

Jon

 

[Radical]

Radical, Thank you for your responses. I would like to take this opportunity to give some beliefs and teachings from the ECF.

please do…I’ll restrict my responses to dealing with a paragraph or two (from your post) at a time

Saint Ignatius of Antioch,
“I am God’s grain, and I am being ground by the teeth of wild beasts in order that I may be found [to be] pure bread for Christ. My love has been crucified, and there is in me no fire of material love, but rather a living water, speaking in me and saying within me, ‘Come to the Father.’ I take no pleasure in corruptible food or in the delights of this life. I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who is the seed of David; and for drink I want his Blood which is incorruptible love”

Does the bread of God reference not come from John 6:33?

I think it does…which doesn’t help you (IMHO). You are right to note that I would view the ECFs differently than do you. Unless Ignatius is forming his opinion on some bit of apostolic teaching that is not available today, I don’t see how he is in any better position than we are today to say what Jesus meant in John 6. (I am aware of the alleged connection to John through Polycarp…but that connection is far from certain. One only has to look at the spurious longer recension (of Ignatius’s letters) to see that the people of that day weren’t above making false calims to enhance the authority of their view). In any event, even if that connection did exist look how figurative Ignatius is in what he says in these 4 sentences.
He is “God’s grain” and “pure bread”. His love has been “crucified” and “living water” speaks within him and Jesus’s blood is “incorruptible love.” There is more that is to be understood non-literally, than literally in those sentences. As such, why would we understand that Ignatius was applying Jesus’s words literally when he said, “I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ”?

Btw, I like the picture…you look like a bit of a lumberjack and that’s OK…which causes me to wonder, do you sleep all night and do you work all day?

 

[workingman]

Radical;5749431]please do…I’ll restrict my responses to dealing with a paragraph or two (from your post) at a time

What ever works best for you

I think it does…which doesn’t help you (IMHO). You are right to note that I would view the ECFs differently than do you. Unless Ignatius is forming his opinion on some bit of apostolic teaching that is not available today, I don’t see how he is in any better position than we are today to say what Jesus meant in John 6. (I am aware of the alleged connection to John through Polycarp…but that connection is far from certain. One only has to look at the spurious longer recension (of Ignatius’s letters) to see that the people of that day weren’t above making false calims to enhance the authority of their view). In any event, even if that connection did exist look how figurative Ignatius is in what he says in these 4 sentences.
He is “God’s grain” and “pure bread”. His love has been “crucified” and “living water” speaks within him and Jesus’s blood is “incorruptible love.” There is more that is to be understood non-literally, than literally in those sentences. As such, why would we understand that Ignatius was applying Jesus’s words literally when he said, “I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ”?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. yes people of any era can make false clams. Christian and none alike. Yes their is much figurative language in what Ignatius says but at the same time is it all that figurative? After all it is love that allowed the crucifiction to go forward. God’s love for his creation is what allowed the crucifition to go forth. Jesus blood I think can be interpreted easily as being incorruptible love. Jesus blood is incorruptible before it is spilled and most certainly after it is spilled. I can’t think of where but I am sure that Jesus is refered to as the living water.

Btw, I like the picture…you look like a bit of a lumberjack and that’s OK…which causes me to wonder, do you sleep all night and do you work all day?

Thanks. Sleep we don’t need no stinking sleep. Three kids see to that.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Protestants should do some studies on the earliest Christian liturgies…

It is a real work to determine that which was intended to be subjective, and that which is considered objective. That is where you should delve into early Christian history…the Great Heresy was denying the Body and Blood in the Eucharist. To protect the sacrament, the Eucharist was named ‘The Secret’. Check out the art work of the first 300 years…most hidden…

Consider that Christ was placed in an animal feeder at birth, and the precursor from the Old Testament, the manna from heaven…

 

[Radical]

God’s love for his creation is what allowed the crucifition to go forth. Jesus blood I think can be interpreted easily as being incorruptible love.

agreed, but it is a figurative interpretation nonetheless. Love is an immatreial thing and blood is a material thing. One is not the other except in a figurative sense.

Look also at 1Corinthians 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. 18 Behold Israel according to the flesh: are not they, that eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar? 19 What then? Do I say, that what is offered in sacrifice to idols, is any thing? Or, that the idol is any thing? 20 But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.

First, I think verse 17 is better translated as:

*Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. *

The body of the Lord is the Church in that verse and it is the unified body b/c its members partake in one loaf of bread (it is still bread), and not b/c each member eats of a transubstantiated bread (now body). Verse 16 then is easily understood in a figurative fashion. Further, if one can be a partaker with devils (when no RP exists in that sacrifice), then one can be a partaker with the “body of the Lord” when no RP exists in the Eucharist.

Also for Biblical verses from 1 Cor 11: 23-27; 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.

Note the direct reference to his literal body and the stern warning in 27 about partaking of the Eucharist unworthily. If it were just a symbol would it need to care such a warning? I don’t think so.

Look again at verse 27…it starts with “Therefore”. The reason for the “therefore” is in verse 26. Eating and drinking is a proclamation of the death of the Lord (when his blood was poured out and when his body was given for us). It is b/c the eating is a proclamation of our Lord’s death that it must be done in a worthy manner…and not b/c one is eating transubstantiated bread or wine.

 

[Hisalone]

The Protestants should do some studies on the earliest Christian liturgies…

It is a real work to determine that which was intended to be subjective, and that which is considered objective. That is where you should delve into early Christian history…the Great Heresy was denying the Body and Blood in the Eucharist. To protect the sacrament, the Eucharist was named ‘The Secret’. Check out the art work of the first 300 years…most hidden…

Consider that Christ was placed in an animal feeder at birth, and the precursor from the Old Testament, the manna from heaven…

You are aware the eucharist was part of the love feast in NT times I assume?

 

[workingman]

Radical,
Look again at verse 27…it starts with “Therefore”. The reason for the “therefore” is in verse 26. Eating and drinking is a proclamation of the death of the Lord (when his blood was poured out and when his body was given for us). It is b/c the eating is a proclamation of our Lord’s death that it must be done in a worthy manner…and not b/c one is eating transubstantiated bread or wine.

1Cor. 26-27; 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.

I will have to respectfully disagree. The therefore would not be nec if it was just a symbol. If it were a symbol only then one might be guilty of braking what if we are just talking symbolism. There would be nothing to be guilty of. Because if it is only symbolism then we are only guilty of eating mere bread and drinking mere wine. With out the true literal presence their is nothing to be guilty of. The bread and wine without the literal true presence are just unleavened bread and plain old fermented grapes.

 

[Zundrah]

=KathleenGee;5753819]The Protestants should do some studies on the earliest Christian liturgies…

Totally, shoudn’t we all?

It is a real work to determine that which was intended to be subjective, and that which is considered objective. That is where you should delve into early Christian history…the Great Heresy was denying the Body and Blood in the Eucharist.

Ah, that was certainly not heresy, my friend!

To protect the sacrament, the Eucharist was named ‘The Secret’. Check out the art work of the first 300 years…most hidden…

And so it should have been hidden…

Consider that Christ was placed in an animal feeder at birth, and the precursor from the Old Testament, the manna from heaven…

And indeed he was that holy bread from heaven, the bread that never perishes. Jesus was our life long lasting manna. “Anyone who believe in me (this bread) shall have eternal life.”

Jesus clearly refers to him self as food, that should be **consumed **by us.

This is unfortunately why people confuse his saying with that of the lamb sacrifice back in Egypt at the time of the pass over (it’s flesh had to be eaten).

That is not what he meant! Why do you think that!? This is getting so exhausting…

We do not have to consume bread and wine asumming that it is his body and blood!
We just have to accept his death as our gift (bread) from heaven! He has already done it, it is finished. The need for sacraments is over… just accept his salvation for you and live…

God Bless you all, so much. And stop worrying…

xxXx zundrah xXxx

 

[Radical]

I will have to respectfully disagree. The therefore would not be nec if it was just a symbol.

It seems to me that you are declaring how God must view the death of his Son and all things associated with it. The Lord’s supper is a proclamation of Christ’s death. You seem to be saying that God couldn’t possibly be offended by someone treating that proclamation with disrespect. I think it is obvious that such disrespect would cause offense.

The bread and wine without the literal true presence are just unleavened bread and plain old fermented grapes.

You have a very low opinion of symbols. Tell me this. If I came to your State and went to its capital and took that mere piece of clothe (called the stars and stripes) and on the steps of your capital building lit that mere rag on fire or used it to wipe the toilets in that building clean, would any of your countrymen take offense or would they realize no offense is possible b/c I was handling a mere symbol? …and if a symbol of the USA (not exactly a spotless nation) is to be given due respect, how much more respect should be given to the symbols of the ultimate sacrifice by God himself?

 

[workingman]

Radical;5757853]It seems to me that you are declaring how God must view the death of his Son and all things associated with it. The Lord’s supper is a proclamation of Christ’s death. You seem to be saying that God couldn’t possibly be offended by someone treating that proclamation with disrespect. I think it is obvious that such disrespect would cause offense.

I would not declare how God would view anything. Though that may be how it ended up coming out. Something neither you or I have a place to do. The fact that the Lord’s Supper aka the Holy Eucharist is a proclamation does not change what it is and it is called it by Christ. Pick any of the Gospels on the Last Supper and they will all read almost completely identical. The key being This** IS **my body take and eat this IS my blood take and drink. I did not quote any specific verse directly and all the Gospels are worded this way. How else could is be used except in the literal.

You have a very low opinion of symbols. Tell me this. If I came to your State and went to its capital and took that mere piece of clothe (called the stars and stripes) and on the steps of your capital building lit that mere rag on fire or used it to wipe the toilets in that building clean, would any of your countrymen take offense or would they realize no offense is possible b/c I was handling a mere symbol? …and if a symbol of the USA (not exactly a spotless nation) is to be given due respect, how much more respect should be given to the symbols of the ultimate sacrifice by God himself?

I do hold a low opinion of symbols. Why? Symbols are used to invoke a emotional response just like I am about to give. I must say I do like your analogy of the flag as it is one I have personal fought for. It is though weather I like it or not a persons right in this country to do exactly as you described. My reaction is not Christian (sudden death) like just like my reaction is not Christian like to those who disrespect the Eucharist the literal body and blood of Christ (Sudden death). Now this still does not prove that the Eucharist is a symbol. Nor does my reaction prove a high value of symbols. If I lived elsewhere it would be the same reaction. I would give my life for God, Country, and Family wright or wrong. It is where I call home that I would defend. God bless.