Was not 2Corinthians 5:16 Paul's ideal opportunity to teach transubstantiation?

[PJM]

=Bernard Lyons;11943555]Hi Patrick.

We all believe ,that at the “supper”,the disciples of Jesus ,actually heard all his words( in your quoted texts) .But the question I was asking,was ( and is) what did they understand by,and know( believe) in regards the meaning of those words?

“This is my body”( Matt 26:26). “which is broken for you”(1Cor11:24)

If ,as you ( and your Douay counsel) say that “they clearly express” " something entirely new and profound",where is this profundity evidenced in the disciples minds,or witnessed by their intelligence ?( scriptural or otherwise)

Luke 24:24-27 “And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre ,and found it even so as the woman had said:but him they saw not”

“The he said unto them ,O fools,and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things,and to enter into his glory?”

“And beginning at Moses and all the prophets,he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself”

43-46. “And he took it and did eat before them.
And he said unto them,These are the words which I spake unto you,while I was yet with you,that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses,and in the prophets,and in the Psalms,concerning me”

“Then opened he their understanding,that they might understand the scriptures,
And said unto them.Thus it is written,and thus it behoved Christ to suffer,and to rise from the dead the third day”

Patrick ,in his attempt to teach them ( in their understanding ) ,on the night in which he was betrayed ,did Jesus in fact then fail ( to do so) ?
And since you also say he was teaching them a lesson in ‘transubstantiation’ :how could it be without understanding and without the( revealed) knowledge of his death?

With Christ showing forth his death ( in the breaking of the bread": is it not until the (revealed)ministry of Paul an apostle,that on that same night,in which Jesus is seen breaking the bread,Paul shows ( to us) that the bread symbolically represented his broken body?

“Which is broken for you”(1Cor11:24)
“And when he had given thanks,he brake it,and said ,Take eat : this is my body,which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me” (KJV)

For me ,this clearly is the bread ,consistently seen ,both at the supper and after the resurrection ( through the ministry of Paul) being solely used as a metaphor of Christ’s broken body.

The evidence dear friend is staring you [and all of us] in the face.

This Sacrament, and VERY likey, Christanity itself, [whicj like the bible was birthes by todays CC] very likely would not have lasted 2,000 yesrs. As it clearly HAS.

It is in the acceptance and PRACTICE of this most beneficial of ALL graces. Eariler I explained the early Church called the Mass; “The Breaking of the Bread”:

Acts Of Apostles 2:42
And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

And READ the Catholic catechism #1345

file:///C:/Users/Robert/Desktop/Catechism%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church.htm

AND from the early Fathers

EARLY FATHERS ON THE EUCHARIST

The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

Ignatius of Antioch
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 **[A.D. 151]). **

Irenaeus
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32** [A.D. 189]). **

Your position is unsustained; speculation.

God Bless you,
Patrick*

 

[Nicea325]

The evidence dear friend is staring you [and all of us] in the face.

This Sacrament, and VERY likey, Christanity itself, [whicj like the bible was birthes by todays CC] very likely would not have lasted 2,000 yesrs. As it clearly HAS.

It is in the acceptance and PRACTICE of this most beneficial of ALL graces. Eariler I explained the early Church called the Mass; “The Breaking of the Bread”:

Acts Of Apostles 2:42
And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

And READ the Catholic catechism #1345

file:///C:/Users/Robert/Desktop/Catechism%20of%20the%20Catholic%20Church.htm

AND from the early Fathers

EARLY FATHERS ON THE EUCHARIST

The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

Ignatius of Antioch
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 **[A.D. 151]). ***

Irenaeus
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32** [A.D. 189]). **

Your position is unsustained; speculation.

God Bless you,
Patrick

Precisely why after how many weeks, Bernard Lyons has failed miserably to present a single historical document supporting his position. He said it is deeply-historically rooted? Yeah…so rooted no evidence can be presented?

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Mt.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. [29] And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father. [30] And a hymn being said, they went out unto mount Olivet.

DOUAY EXPLANTION [26] This is my body: He does not say, This is the figure of my body, but This is my body. (2 Council of Nice, Act. 6.) Neither does he say in this, or with this is my body; but absolutely, This is my body: which plainly implies transubstantiation.

Lk. 22: 19-21
" And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice,** the new testament in my blood,** which shall be shed for you."

God Bless you,

Patrick

“That the Lord Jesus the night in which he was betrayed took bread:
And when he had given thanks,he brake it, and said, Take ,eat:this is my body, which is broken for you :thid do in remembrance of me”(1Corinthians 11:24&25)

Patrick a quick question please, in regards to your quoted text in Luke 22:19&20.

In verse 19 “And taking the bread…saying:This is my body, which is given for you”

Please note the tense: “This is my body” “which is given” “for you”

Both are said to be in the present tense.

when we get to the blood in verse 20 , however,the cup ( chalice)with the blood, it appears , is in the present tense ,
But the given for you part ( shed for you) is now in the future tense:

“This is the chalice (cup) the new testament in my blood”(present)
“Which shall be shed for you”( future tense.)Luke22:20.

As my KJV has both in the present tense ,“This cup is the new testament in my blood”

“Which is shed for you” luke22:20 (KJV)

I was wondering why the difference?
To me paul seems to be (1Corinthians 11:24) as well as pointing to the bread (Christ’s body) “is broken”(“for you”) he refers to “this is my body” both present tense?
Bernard

 

[PJM]

=Bernard Lyons;11956042]“That the Lord Jesus the night in which he was betrayed took bread:
And when he had given thanks,he brake it, and said, Take ,eat:this is my body, which is broken for you :thid do in remembrance of me”(1Corinthians 11:24&25)

Patrick a quick question please, in regards to your quoted text in Luke 22:19&20.

In verse 19 “And taking the bread…saying:This is my body, which is given for you”

Please note the tense: “This is my body” “which is given” “for you”

Both are said to be in the present tense.

when we get to the blood in verse 20 , however,the cup ( chalice)with the blood, it appears , is in the present tense ,

But the given for you part ( shed for you) is now in the future tense:

“This is the chalice (cup) the new testament in my blood”(present)
“Which shall be shed for you”( future tense.)Luke22:20.

As my KJV has both in the present tense ,“This cup is the new testament in my blood”

“Which is shed for you” luke22:20 (KJV)

I was wondering why the difference?
To me paul seems to be (1Corinthians 11:24) as well as pointing to the bread (Christ’s body) “is broken”(“for you”) he refers to “this is my body” both present tense?
Bernard

Not being a theologgian, I’m not sure.

An educated Guess is that What Christ was doing was both present and furture Sacramental Holy Communion." Do this for a commemoration of me.’]

I looked in up in Haydocks commentary and he notes that Cf. in reference to the Blood Christ is again prophising His death on the cross.

file:///C:/Users/Robert/Desktop/Haydock’s%20Catholic%20Bible%20Commentary,%201859%20edition…htm

Its too long to cut and paste.

Also heres a site where you can compare two bibles at a time

file:///C:/Users/Robert/Desktop/Online%20Parallel%20Bible%20-%20Compare%20Bible%20Verses%20with%20Different%20Versions,%20Translations.
htm

biblestudytools.com/parallel-bible/passage.aspx?q=Luke+22%3A+19-22&t=rhe&t2=kjv

As for Paul; this takes place AFTER the resurrecttion; so BOTH ARE now “present tense”.

At the last Supper both were BOTH present and furture tense:thumbsup:

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

As for Paul; this takes place AFTER the resurrecttion; so BOTH ARE now “present tense”.

At the last Supper both were BOTH present and furture tense:thumbsup:

God Bless you,

Patrick

Hi Patrick ,thanks for your reply.

That which Paul “received of the Lord” as is seen in 1Corinthians11:23-26, is set forth as an historical account ( of the supper) " That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread"

So although Paul is seen here teaching at Corinth,that is , after the resurrection,the context of the actual words ,I would say,are set prior to the resurrection ,and on the night of the supper itself.

Doesn’t your own Douay verse show ( but not the KJV) this clearly ?

1Corinthians 11:24.“This is my body which shall be delivered for you”

So Paul’s record ( I believe also) is to be seen in the present( tense) yes,but only for those present at the supper.

As to the supper itself : 'both were"-not-"BOTH present and future,tense "as you say.

As I said ,your own Douay verses : Matthew26:28&Luke 22:20 has the blood ( to be shed) in the future tense :
“Shall be shed for”

And has the bread( his body) in the present Luke 22:20:
“Which is given”-broken-“for you”

So only one:the body(or bread) is seen to be in the present tense ; and one ( the blood) is still yet future.( tense)

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Not being a theologgian, I’m not sure.

An educated Guess is that What Christ was doing was both present and furture Sacramental Holy Communion." Do this for a commemoration of me.’]

God Bless you,

Patrick

For ,( the fulfilment ,in respect to) the blood said to be ( " shall be shed for you") yet future;and the body in the present “is given”, does ,as you say,indeed show ," both present and future " tense being used here.( in the Douay )

But what were the disciples of Christ ,sat around the table,supposed to make of this?

As they had no idea of a future tense( and I would say ,even a present tense) in regards to his body(to be broken) ,what is it that they would have had to understand?

That is ,to be in fact: "eating of " his “body” and "drinking of " his “blood”?

For we have here:
(1) Before their eyes ,is his own ,actual body: breaking the bread.

(2)His body ( flesh) being now in the bread. And:

(3)His body ,still to be broken ( at Golgotha )
That is ,three,inter-linking aspects, of his one ,body.

Is it at all possible to comprehend( in the understanding) ,and still penetrate the meaning if they say grasped only one out of three?

Or maybe two of the three?

Or would they need all three?

What thinkest thou?

 

[PJM]

=Bernard Lyons;11961707]Hi Patrick ,thanks for your reply.

That which Paul “received of the Lord” as is seen in 1Corinthians11:23-26, is set forth as an historical account ( of the supper) " That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread"

So although Paul is seen here teaching at Corinth,that is , after the resurrection,the context of the actual words ,I would say,are set prior to the resurrection ,and on the night of the supper itself.

Doesn’t your own Douay verse show ( but not the KJV) this clearly ?

1Corinthians 11:24.“This is my body which shall be delivered for you”

So Paul’s record ( I believe also) is to be seen in the present( tense) yes,but only for those present at the supper.

As to the supper itself : 'both were"-not-"BOTH present and future,tense "as you say.

As I said ,your own Douay verses : Matthew26:28&Luke 22:20 has the blood ( to be shed) in the future tense :
“Shall be shed for”

And has the bread( his body) in the present Luke 22:20:
“Which is given”-broken-“for you”

So only one:the body(or bread) is seen to be in the present tense ; and one ( the blood) is still yet future.( tense)

Bernard,

I just had a Holy Spirit enlightenmet, and NOW understand what your missing:

Here’s a biblical reference for it and then I will add my comments:

Isaiah 55: 6-10
" Seek ye the Lord, while he may be found: call upon him, while he is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unjust man his thoughts, and let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God: for he is bountiful to forgive. For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts. And as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return no more thither, but soak the earth, and water it, and make it to spring, and give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater"

Isaiah 29:16
This thought of yours is perverse: as if the clay should think against the potter, and the work should say to the maker thereof: Thou madest me not: or the thing framed should say to him that fashioned it: Thou understandest not"

Your position my fiend wants to mold God Perfect paln into a mere-mans judgement of it.

Bernard, why did Christ bother to set up His CC and Institute SEVEN Sacra is the Sacraments; ALL a source of grace to aid and direct man’s possible Salvation? The Eucharist is thee GREATEST possible of ALL Graces, because it is; IT IS Jesus Christ Himself in person.

WHY did Christ Institute this particular Sacrament?

John 19: 26-29
"When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. [27] After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own. [28] Afterwards, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, said: I thirst

WHAT DID JESUS THIRST FOR?
Certinly it was more than a human thirst. Each word spoken form the Cross was SHEER AGONY… Jesus DESIRED TO DO MORE; to GIVE MORE;
And that is WHY He gives the World His Mothjer as “our own” and HIMSLEF in Catholic Hioly Communion.

It is foolish in the extreme not to recogonize this. It is the MOST important reason to BE a Catholic! Which I assume [at risk] is why its so important for you to be able to disvredit it.

GOOGLE “Eucharist Miracles”

https://www.google.ca/search?q=euch...vWDI6ryASM4YCICA&ved=0CCcQsAQ&biw=692&bih=433

This site is typical of what you will find.

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Not being a theologgian, I’m not sure.

An educated Guess is that What Christ was doing was both present and furture Sacramental Holy Communion.

God Bless you,

Patrick

Luke 22:19&20 “And he took bread,and gave thanks,and brake it,and gave unto them,saying,This is my body which is given for you:this do in remembrance of me.”

“Likewise also the cup after supper,saying,This cup is the New Testament in my blood,which is shed for you.”

Patrick regarding your 'educated Guess ’ on why in your quoted verses (Luke 20:19-21)
Only the bread ,in the context of the supper itself,is recorded( in the Douay NT) as being in the present tense: “This is my body which is given for you”.( So at the supper)

Whereas the blood( of the cup) is said to be yet set in the future:“This is the chalice,the new testament in my blood ,which shall be shed for you”
(which is identical to your other verse quoted:Matt26:28 “shall be shed”)

Not being a theologian either, I too,will make an 'educated Guess".

To have both ( the bread “is given” and the blood “is shed”) recorded in the present tense : at the supper,( Like the KJV)
his disciples yet void of understanding :would make the cross out of their (his disciples) reach.
Not yet happened in fact :this would allow for only a symbolic representation( in the bread and wine) and interpretation thereby.

To have both in the future( tense) would also,I believe,for much the same reason,make the supper ,as it has already been established,out of the reach of the cross.

Could this be the reason why ( in the Douay) we see your verse recorded so?

For me ,believing a KJV,interpretation ,having the blood at the cross( at Golgotha) and the body(the bread) “is given” ,at the supper,is to exclude a whole Christ from either(place)

As I said this is only also,an “educated Guess” but in the absence of a post,resurrection supper, do we see ( here) one foot at the supper; and one at Golgotha ?

As a former Roman Catholic I still affirm my own standing to be not inconsistent by having both feet on the earth( at the “last supper”) and both my feet ascended ( with him) to heaven,after the resurrection: when the symbols became fact.

 

[PJM]

=Bernard Lyons

SORRY to have deleated your comments, but because space is limiyed I had no other choice. I DID read you post.

There is an Infallible rule for RIGHT understanding of the bible [caps for emphasis, not shouting]

Never-EVER
Can, may or DOES
One
Verse, psaage or teaching
Have the Power or authority
To
Void, invalidate or override
ANOTHER
Verse, passage or teaching:thumbsup:
were this even the slighest possibility[ITS NOT], it would render the entire bible as worthless to know or LEARN ones faith.

Dear Bernard,

Now that I understand your position, I am in a better position to refute it. I must admit that your position is one I have never encountered before.

You hold that the Real Presence is “Truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ” but that it was intended only for the Apostles at “the Last Supper.”

In Mt. 10: 1-8 we find God giving His Divine Powers to the 12 Apostles. [Space prohibits me printing each verse I shall use] Jn.17:18 & 20:21 as well as Mt. 28: 18 each affirm this transfer of Power and Authority. The Mandate given there is to go “only to the Jews.” But in Mk 16: 14-15 & Mt. 28: 16-20 it is expanded to the “whole world.”

When the Apostles asked Christ to “teach us to pray” Lk 11: 2-3 “And he said to them: When you pray, say: Father, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. [3] Give us this day our daily bread.”

The reference to “bread” here is BOTH daily substance & The Eucharist.
haydock1859.tripod.com/id75.html

I’d like to point out the self-identifying words Christ chooses to use: Exo 3: 14 “God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you.”

Let’s look at John Six in its entirety for clues

1. The entire Bread of Life Discourse is to the Multitude + the Apostles
2. “And Jesus took the loaves: and when he had given thanks, he distributed to them that were set down. In like manner also of the fishes, as much as they would. And when they were filled, he said to his disciples: Gather up the fragments that remain, lest they be lost. They gathered up therefore, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above to them that had eaten.”

The 12 baskets that remained represented for the Jews “their entire world” as everyone else was heathens.

1. Then Jesus walks on water to the apostles and identifies Himself: “ v 20 But he saith to them: It is I; be not afraid” *
2. V24: “When therefore the multitude saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they took shipping, and came to Capharnaum, seeking for Jesus”
3. V26-27 “ Jesus answered them, and said: Amen, amen I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting,”
4. V29 “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent”
5. V32 “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”
6. V34-35 “ They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. 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” “Bread cannot requite thirst. “Thirst” here means seek God and His salvation.
7. V44 “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” ONLY GOD can grant right understanding. TURN to Him.
8. V50 “This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.”
9. V51 “I am the living bread which came down from heaven”
10. V55 “He [ALL] that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day”
11. V59 “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 forever”
12. V67-70 “After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God”

Clearly and indispuitably, the BREAD of Life discourse is intended by God for all of humanoity [conditionally of course]

Eph. 4: 1-7
"With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace One body [MEANS JUST ONE CHURCH] and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling One Lord, one faith,[ONLY ONE POSSIBLE SET OF TRUE FAITH-BELIEFS] one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.*** But to every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the giving of Christ.***

Until and UNLESS one turns to the One True God, who can and DOES have just One true set of faith beliefs; RIGHT understanding is impossible to attain

John 10:16 “And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd”

Eph. 2:19-20 “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [SINGULAR] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

Your in my thoughts and prayers,

Patrick*

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Luke 22:19&20 “And he took bread,and gave thanks,and brake it,and gave unto them,saying,This is my body which is given for you:this do in remembrance of me.”

“Likewise also the cup after supper,saying,This cup is the New Testament in my blood,which is shed for you.”

Patrick regarding your 'educated Guess ’ on why in your quoted verses (Luke 20:19-21)
Only the bread ,in the context of the supper itself,is recorded( in the Douay NT) as being in the present tense: “This is my body which is given for you”.( So at the supper)

Whereas the blood( of the cup) is said to be yet set in the future:“This is the chalice,the new testament in my blood ,which shall be shed for you”
(which is identical to your other verse quoted:Matt26:28 “shall be shed”)

Not being a theologian either, I too,will make an 'educated Guess".

To have both ( the bread “is given” and the blood “is shed”) recorded in the present tense : at the supper,( Like the KJV)
his disciples yet void of understanding :would make the cross out of their (his disciples) reach.
Not yet happened in fact :this would allow for only a symbolic representation( in the bread and wine) and interpretation thereby.

To have both in the future( tense) would also,I believe,for much the same reason,make the supper ,as it has already been established,out of the reach of the cross.

Could this be the reason why ( in the Douay) we see your verse recorded so?

For me ,believing a KJV,interpretation ,having the blood at the cross( at Golgotha) and the body(the bread) “is given” ,at the supper,is to exclude a whole Christ from either(place)

As I said this is only also,an “educated Guess” but in the absence of a post,resurrection supper, do we see ( here) one foot at the supper; and one at Golgotha ?

As a former Roman Catholic I still affirm my own standing to be not inconsistent by having both feet on the earth( at the “last supper”) and both my feet ascended ( with him) to heaven,after the resurrection: when the symbols became fact.

'You hold that the Real Presence is “Truly the Body,Blood,Soul and Divinity of Christ”
But that it was only intended for the Apostles at the “Last Supper”.

Hi Patrick, I have selected the above quote from your last post ,as it seems to be the foundation that supports that which ,in subsequence ,follows on from it.

My apologies to anyone who is confused as to the intended significance and meaning in my Last post( seen above).
It has been my contention throughout this thread: the disciples Jesus ,sat around (at the supper) had no insight into his coming in way of sacrificial death( at the cross).
For me then ,it was impossible that they could be ( in the bread) “eating his flesh” literally at the supper.
As this supper is the basis and foundation for that which I was as a RC,instructed ,and taught to accept,that is ,its continuation as a literal ( or RP) eating of his “flesh” in the bread (through the Mass)
Then it has been my stated assertion that my foundation( and example)
rooted in the “Last” supper also,to be consistent, must be seen in the light of ‘symbolic’ representation,that is figures of the true; and that throughout “ye do shew the Lord’s death till he comes”

My comments regarding both feet at the supper,were my using the figures of my feet,to assert my own belief that both Christ’s body and his blood ,where at the supper, " given " and “shed” in the present tense ( seen in KJV) But more importantly for me:both of his feet are seen here ,not his body( one foot) at the Supper and his blood ( “shall be shed”) the other foot at Golgotha.

My feet being with him at the ascension simply was my underlying belief in “the election of God” : having paid the price for my sins on the cross, the figures ,being established as fact,
He left this world having guaranteed ,in my own time, that which I believe,I constantly enjoy: that is a present " eating " his “body” and drinking of that “cup”

Finally regarding " in the absence of a post resurrection supper"

I believe that the ( Douay) RC practice of the RP, would have been better served or justified by Jesus teaching his apostles ,after the resurrection and waiting until then to establish a " memorial.

Hope this clears up any confusion. Thanks Bernard.

 

[PJM]

=Bernard Lyons;11969710]'You hold that the Real Presence is “Truly the Body,Blood,Soul and Divinity of Christ”
But that it was only intended for the Apostles at the “Last Supper”.

Hi Patrick, I have selected the above quote from your last post ,as it seems to be the foundation that supports that which ,in subsequence ,follows on from it.

My apologies to anyone who is confused as to the intended significance and meaning in my Last post( seen above).
It has been my contention throughout this thread: the disciples Jesus ,sat around (at the supper) had no insight into his coming in way of sacrificial death( at the cross).
For me then ,it was impossible that they could be ( in the bread) “eating his flesh” literally at the supper.
As this supper is the basis and foundation for that which I was as a RC,instructed ,and taught to accept,that is ,its continuation as a literal ( or RP) eating of his “flesh” in the bread (through the Mass)
Then it has been my stated assertion that my foundation( and example)
rooted in the “Last” supper also,to be consistent, must be seen in the light of ‘symbolic’ representation,that is figures of the true; and that throughout “ye do shew the Lord’s death till he comes”

My comments regarding both feet at the supper,were my using the figures of my feet,to assert my own belief that both Christ’s body and his blood ,where at the supper, " given " and “shed” in the present tense ( seen in KJV) But more importantly for me:both of his feet are seen here ,not his body( one foot) at the Supper and his blood ( “shall be shed”) the other foot at Golgotha.

My feet being with him at the ascension simply was my underlying belief in “the election of God” : having paid the price for my sins on the cross, the figures ,being established as fact,
He left this world having guaranteed ,in my own time, that which I believe,I constantly enjoy: that is a present " eating " his “body” and drinking of that “cup”

Finally regarding " in the absence of a post resurrection supper"

I believe that the ( Douay) RC practice of the RP, would have been better served or justified by Jesus teaching his apostles ,after the resurrection and waiting until then to establish a " memorial.

Hope this clears up any confusion. Thanks Bernard.

Bernard, my friend,

Just because God PERMITS you to have your own opinion dies not me he accepts it or is OK with it.

You, like all of us will be JUDGED on what God makes POSSIBLE for you to know; NOT what we choose to acept or reject.

Your in my thoughts and praise

Patrick

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Greetings…

Why the KJV? Just personal preference? Nothing personal, or doctrinal.

I’m perplexed; one would think you would have read St. Paul’s letters more closely, and noticed when he speaks of “the flesh” and “the spirit” he does not mean so in the sense of not knowing physical flesh. When Paul says “the flesh”, he does not mean the same thing as Shylock the Jew in “The Merchant of Venice”.

The flesh is the world - the way natural, faithless human beings see things. The Spirit that gives life is the Spirit we receive at Baptism, which God Himself grants us so we may see the world as He sees it. So Our Lord says, after stressing that we eat His Flesh so many times, “the flesh is of no avail; the Spirit gives life, and these words are spirit and life”.

And then they left. Why was that, if He had meant the reasonable symbolism you propose?

Hi TarkanAttila ,indeed Paul the apostle in his ‘letters’ speaks on this subject considerably. Galatians 5:16-17 for example.
You are also correct in regards 2Corinthians 5:16 and " Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh" does, I agree ,include ’ flesh 'as , or in a fleshly manner.
But for me ,this is to be seen in the immediate context of verse 12,

“For we commend not ourselves again to you ,but give you occasion to glory on our behalf,that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance,and not in heart”(KJV)

As you will know, Paul in both of his letters to the saints at Corinth,is asserting his own (God Given) apostleship.Including almost 3 chapters at the end of the second letter,in which he is seen to be in much labour ,convincing those who should have remained faithful ,as ‘sons’ to their(spiritual) father.(see 2Cor 12:11)

I therefore would claim that the apostle in 1Cor 5:12, is still addressing the same issue when he is giving them ‘somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance’
This then for me ,being the context of ’ we know no man after the flesh’ or according to those ‘which glory in appearance’,
Is not Paul ( in 1Corinthians5:16 ) given them an unanswerable argument ?
" yea,though we have known Christ after the flesh" 'yet now henceforth know we him no more"

Paul is therefore, for their benefit, boosting of his earthly(and heavenly) acquaintance ,with the risen Christ. So unless you claim that this was only of or in a fleshly manner,and that either Paul or Christ where then ’ glorying in appearance ’ :it was of necessity ,a spiritual (and physical-knowing) knowledge that Paul means by

“yea though we have known Christ after the flesh”

Regarding your other point in John 6 .Those who walked away from Christ Jesus,after hearing his words,could not have understood them ( as I do) as being only spiritual,or as you say,they would not have left.But for me,they also could not have understood( from your position) a RP,meaning either,or they might have remained also.
The only certain answer for me,is that they believed him to be a cannobil,and very much like
He who thought he must of necessity crawl back into his mothers womb : to be ‘born a knew’