What real presence views are in line with OT

[benhur]

You would be hard pressed to try and convince a practicing Jew that the Old Passover was mere symbolism when they practice their Passover in the “do this” as a perpetual ordinance from God.

First, thank you for your thoughtful, informative and very compelling posts. It is late and I can only respond to this portion for now. “Mere symbolism” is quite a subjective adjective. It is more than that, but don’t think their elements “change”. The eating of bread and drinking of the passover wine are the elements /symbols the Lord chose for us and not the lamb.

 

[benhur]

As to your take on the real presence, I reply that the fulfillment is always greater than the figure. If the Eucharist were a mere symbol, it would be no fulfillment at all, but a continuation of the Old Law.

Thanks but all views of RP are “thanksgiving” for a fullfillment of all OT figures and all our “thanksgiving/eucharist” is greater than our figure/symbols. …The OT passover was two fold but primarily it’s figures, symbols were representative of a fulfillment that was greater, a deliverance" out of Egypt, yet a foreshadow of things to come. Just like today we have elements for a greater Calvary fulfillment, and also for a greater fulfilling in His second coming. So yes, fulfilling is greater than figure/symbol.

Side note: Your screen name must be a reference to the story by Lew Wallace. The 1959 film with Charleton Heston is still inspiring, if somewhat dated.

Yes, best Christian flick of all time with 10 or 11 academy awards. Quite inspiring despite not needing to show the face of Jesus once.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

… Just like today we have elements for a greater Calvary fulfillment, and also for a greater fulfilling in His second coming. …

That’s true, but to bring things full circle, Calvary did not fulfill the part of the Old Law sacrifices in which the people consumed the slain victim.

 

[Duane1966]

But they are still food according to Ignatius, and not just in appearance. They do not cease to be bread and wine at this juncture in history.buy

How do you view 55-57 as literal when you don’t 58 ? Why can’t you spiritualize all four verses instead of just the one ? ( you will still die if you eat His flesh like our Exodus ancestors,…and everyone lives forever, somewhere )

I do think 58 is literal. But He is talking about 2 different types of bread. The OT bread is just that. Bread. But when He says this is the bread that came down from heaven imagine He is pointing at Himself. (The word came here referring to His conception)

Just like later in the chapter when He says the flesh is of no avail He is obviously talking about our flesh not His.

And just because it is not bread and wine anymore does NOT mean that it is not food. It is the food of His flesh now. Ignatius does not say it stays bread.

 

[benhur]

I do think 58 is literal. But He is talking about 2 different types of bread. The OT bread is just that. Bread. But when He says this is the bread that came down from heaven imagine He is pointing at Himself. (The word came here referring to His conception)

Just like later in the chapter when He says the flesh is of no avail He is obviously talking about our flesh not His.

And just because it is not bread and wine anymore does NOT mean that it is not food. It is the food of His flesh now. Ignatius does not say it stays bread.

Vs58 taken by itself we both understand as a spiritual truth,literally. Of course they are two different breads but two different ways of eating. For some reason we still die if you eat his flesh or bread just as if you ate manna…Ignatius still calls it food though not ordinary,but food nevertheless…for many they trip on your statement that it is not bread and wine anymore.they say if it walks like duck and quacks like a duck…it is duck

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

benhur;12284660]First, thank you for your thoughtful, informative and very compelling posts

.

Your welcome benhur. my posts are not to convert you or reject your view of the Eucharist. My post reflect my 2000 year old Catholic faith to correct any misgivings and misunderstanding’s of my Catholic faith in the Eucharist such as transubstantiation, which appears from your postings that you have a misinformed view of what transubstantiation means when applied to the Catholic Church’s teaching of the RP in the Eucharist.

It is late and I can only respond to this portion for now. “Mere symbolism” is quite a subjective adjective.

But your “mere symbolism” has no place in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ. There never exists any symbolism for Jesus Christ True presence.

A subjective adjective in symbolism never has any substance to adhere from by the senses. Substance is where Transubstantiation gains the real true presence of Jesus true body, blood, soul and divinity.

A substance can not be seen or quantified. The substance of the confected bread and wine by the Word of God cease to exist or are transubstantiated into the real (substance) true presence of Jesus Christ to our Spirit and Soul realized in and from a real substantial faith in the Word of God by believers (Catholics), while the accidents of bread and wine remain as these to our flesh.

When it is the Spirit that gives life while the flesh is of no avail.

It is more than that, but don’t think their elements “change”.

Transubstantiation never suggests that the elements have changed, you have been misinformed greatly and you deserve the Truth.

The essential nature of substance is divine or of the spirit, this appears to be where most non-catholics wrongly interpret the Eucharist from Transubstantiation. Understanding the simplicity of substance and those things of the spirit, will open ones eye to see and gain the ears to hear the scriptures truly as revealed by God the Holy Spirit, who teaches our spirit the true presence of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity in His Eucharist.

All other interpretations of bread and wine that reflect a metaphorical definition from symbolism remains limited which stems from the flesh and a carnal mind that remains in the dust. It never takes faith to believe in symbols, for the symbols reflect the meaning, never the true presence of the substance being revealed in the present.

There is no symbolism when God incarnate reveals, “this is my body, this is my blood”, “eat my flesh and drink my blood”. A symbolism of God’s revelation here, comes from a man made doctrine over 1500 years after the last supper, that removes faith, trust and fear in the Word of God, which grounds faith to mere dust to which the symbols of bread and wine return.

The eating of bread and drinking of the passover wine are the elements /symbols the Lord chose for us and not the lamb.

The Lord chose bread and wine for all ages to consume, what makes Holy remain Holy His presence among His faithful in the sacrificial lamb of God who is Jesus God incarnate who takes away the sin of the world.

Without a true lamb of God and without the true shedding and drinking of blood and eating of the lamb sacrificial flesh, you have no redemption, and no grace and mercy from God for the forgiveness of sins. A symbolic Jesus can never save anyone.

That same Jesus yesterday on the Cross is the same Jesus today in His sacrificial Eucharist for evermore in the New and eternal Covenant of God.

It takes real life blood and flesh to partake of the new covenant of God.

A symbolic bread and wine can never suffice or seal any covenant in God. The Old testament required a real lamb’s blood and consummation of it’s flesh, that same God does not change, for in the New and everlasting covenant a real and true Lamb sent by God the Father to offer His blood and flesh for the forgiveness of our sins. A symbolic bread and wine does not suffice any covenant with God in heaven.

In summary. In the Eucharist celebration we have a Marriage covenant with God and both the bride groom Jesus Christ and His bride the faithful Church are both real persons who are present at the Eucharist in the “I love you”, which never is repeated or recalled to remember each other.

The Marriage supper of the Lamb (see Revelations 19) is celebrated on earth and it is in heaven, this Jesus commands His faithful to celebrate in Him, with Him and from His body and flesh He gives to us, makes us partakers of His divinity and life, which sustains us in all Truth and the grace and strength to withstand evil. Thus the Our Father prayer is made present and realized in the Eucharistic people of faith in thanksgiving.

If you think your celebrating a marriage covenant with God with symbols of crackers, bread and grape juice or water, no marriage never takes place because you believe your bridegroom’s RP body and blood are never present. Thus a symbolic bread and wine is celebrated with out the bridegroom ever being present.

Peace be with you

 

[benhur]

.

Your welcome benhur. my posts are not to convert you or reject your view of the Eucharist. My post reflect my 2000 year old Catholic faith to correct any misgivings and misunderstanding’s of my Catholic faith in the Eucharist such as transubstantiation, which appears from your postings that you have a misinformed view of what transubstantiation means when applied to the Catholic Church’s teaching of the RP in the Eucharist.

But your “mere symbolism” has no place in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ. There never exists any symbolism for Jesus Christ True presence.

A subjective adjective in symbolism never has any substance to adhere from by the senses. Substance is where Transubstantiation gains the real true presence of Jesus true body, blood, soul and divinity.

A substance can not be seen or quantified. The substance of the confected bread and wine by the Word of God cease to exist or are transubstantiated into the real (substance) true presence of Jesus Christ to our Spirit and Soul realized in and from a real substantial faith in the Word of God by believers (Catholics), while the accidents of bread and wine remain as these to our flesh.

When it is the Spirit that gives life while the flesh is of no avail.

Transubstantiation never suggests that the elements have changed, you have been misinformed greatly and you deserve the Truth.

The essential nature of substance is divine or of the spirit, this appears to be where most non-catholics wrongly interpret the Eucharist from Transubstantiation. Understanding the simplicity of substance and those things of the spirit, will open ones eye to see and gain the ears to hear the scriptures truly as revealed by God the Holy Spirit, who teaches our spirit the true presence of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity in His Eucharist.

All other interpretations of bread and wine that reflect a metaphorical definition from symbolism remains limited which stems from the flesh and a carnal mind that remains in the dust. It never takes faith to believe in symbols, for the symbols reflect the meaning, never the true presence of the substance being revealed in the present.

There is no symbolism when God incarnate reveals, “this is my body, this is my blood”, “eat my flesh and drink my blood”. A symbolism of God’s revelation here, comes from a man made doctrine over 1500 years after the last supper, that removes faith, trust and fear in the Word of God, which grounds faith to mere dust to which the symbols of bread and wine return.

The Lord chose bread and wine for all ages to consume, what makes Holy remain Holy His presence among His faithful in the sacrificial lamb of God who is Jesus God incarnate who takes away the sin of the world.

Without a true lamb of God and without the true shedding and drinking of blood and eating of the lamb sacrificial flesh, you have no redemption, and no grace and mercy from God for the forgiveness of sins. A symbolic Jesus can never save anyone.

That same Jesus yesterday on the Cross is the same Jesus today in His sacrificial Eucharist for evermore in the New and eternal Covenant of God.

It takes real life blood and flesh to partake of the new covenant of God.

A symbolic bread and wine can never suffice or seal any covenant in God. The Old testament required a real lamb’s blood and consummation of it’s flesh, that same God does not change, for in the New and everlasting covenant a real and true Lamb sent by God the Father to offer His blood and flesh for the forgiveness of our sins. A symbolic bread and wine does not suffice any covenant with God in heaven.

In summary. In the Eucharist celebration we have a Marriage covenant with God and both the bride groom Jesus Christ and His bride the faithful Church are both real persons who are present at the Eucharist in the “I love you”, which never is repeated or recalled to remember each other.

The Marriage supper of the Lamb (see Revelations 19) is celebrated on earth and it is in heaven, this Jesus commands His faithful to celebrate in Him, with Him and from His body and flesh He gives to us, makes us partakers of His divinity and life, which sustains us in all Truth and the grace and strength to withstand evil. Thus the Our Father prayer is made present and realized in the Eucharistic people of faith in thanksgiving.

If you think your celebrating a marriage covenant with God with symbols of crackers, bread and grape juice or water, no marriage never takes place because you believe your bridegroom’s RP body and blood are never present. Thus a symbolic bread and wine is celebrated with out the bridegroom ever being present.

Peace be with you

A lot to cover . The OT passover was not for salvation, but a remembrance of a particular salvation from the Egyptians. I would think our ecuharist is not for salvation, but a remembrance and thanksgiving for it. OT Jews and Christians are “saved”, regenerated , born of the spirit by other “methods” and not passover/eucharist rites. So when Jesus speaks of “eating him” and being born of the spirit it is a real eating but by faith, not with teeth and bellies (literal flesh eating) but a spiritual eating.

 

[Duane1966]

A lot to cover . The OT passover was not for salvation, but a remembrance of a particular salvation from the Egyptians. I would think our ecuharist is not for salvation, but a remembrance and thanksgiving for it. OT Jews and Christians are “saved”, regenerated , born of the spirit by other “methods” and not passover/eucharist rites. So when Jesus speaks of “eating him” and being born of the spirit it is a real eating but by faith, not with teeth and bellies (literal flesh eating) but a spiritual eating.

So really what you are saying is that Paul, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and many other ECF got it wrong. You are saying there is no reason to have a celebration of the Eucharist? Because in reality I can remember and be thankful every day without ever going to church.

And you are also saying that all his disciples that walked away did not understand that Jesus was talking about consuming Him spiritually. But it is PRECISELY because they KNEW He was NOT talking about consuming Him only spiritually but also eating His flesh that they walked away.

Also if Jesus is talking only spiritually there is truly no reason for Him to have used the terminology He used, nor even to have a vs. 55. According to your argument (and what you believe) He should have said My words are true food.

 

[benhur]

So really what you are saying is that Paul, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and many other ECF got it wrong. You are saying there is no reason to have a celebration of the Eucharist?

I said no such oxymoron.

Because in reality I can remember and be thankful every day without ever going to church.

Yes. And every day where two or three are gathered they can break bread in remembrance and thanksgiving if they so choose.

And you are also saying that all his disciples that walked away did not understand that Jesus was talking about consuming Him spiritually. But it is PRECISELY because they KNEW He was NOT talking about consuming Him only spiritually but also eating His flesh that they walked away.
Also if Jesus is talking only spiritually there is truly no reason for Him to have used the terminology He used, nor even to have a vs. 55. According to your argument (and what you believe) He should have said My words are true food.

Well, at least you are bringing into the picture eating Him spiritually. We both do not end there. The reality of His words suggest a death to their vision of Messiah, as Throne Sitter , Rome Kicker Outer and Belly Feeder and Miracle Man. The “disciples” that walked away did so for reasons much deeper and beyond that of eating him, just as Jesus went beyond Calvary and mentions His Ascension at the end of the discourse…As far as Jesus words, well Peter did say His words were eternal life (same thing eating Him as food" does)…“You have the words of eternal life”, John 6:68

 

[Duane1966]

Notice what a Protestant historian says in this tract, and please read the whole tract.

catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence

I said no such oxymoron.

If the ECF got the Eucharist wrong (and for most people it is quite clear that they took Jesus’ words literally and not symbolically) then the Spirit has not guided the Church into all truth making Jesus’ a liar. I totally reject that as a possibility. Because the Church taught for 1500 years with only a few dissenters about the Real Presence.

Yes. And every day where two or three are gathered they can break bread in remembrance and thanksgiving if they so choose.

But they cannot have a Eucharist(unless one of them is a priest). Notice what the council of Nicaea I says in the above tract. No one but a priest can offer the Eucharistic sacrifice.

Well, at least you are bringing into the picture eating Him spiritually.

Of course I bring this into the picture. I believe in transubstantiation. I believe every time I receive the Eucharist I receive HIM BBS&D.

We both do not end there. The reality of His words suggest a death to their vision of Messiah, as Throne Sitter , Rome Kicker Outer and Belly Feeder and Miracle Man. The “disciples” that walked away did so for reasons much deeper and beyond that of eating him,

This is a stretch for you. Many of the Jews did think the Messiah was going to be all that you said in the above paragraph. If they believed that was what the Messiah was going to bring why at that late stage of the game would they think Jesus was the Messiah? Was it His teaching on “turn the other cheek?” If a soldier asks you to carry his gear a mile carry it two? Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s? Blest are the peacemakers? Anyone who had a vision of the Messiah like most Jews had I would think would have rejected Jesus as that possibility after just hearing him a few times. So no, they walked away because it was the eating of Him.

just as Jesus went beyond Calvary and mentions His Ascension at the end of the discourse…

If they had believed Jesus’ words were symbolic about eating His flesh, then I guarantee they would have thought He was being symbolic here also. And we all know how symbolic the Ascension turned out to be.

As far as Jesus words, well Peter did say His words were eternal life (same thing eating Him as food" does)…“You have the words of eternal life”, John 6:68

And the Word became Flesh.

 

[Duane1966]

I said no such oxymoron.

If the ECF got the Eucharist wrong (and for most people it is quite clear that they took Jesus’ words literally and not symbolically), and the Church subsequently taught for the next 1500 years about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist with only a few dissenters, then the Spirit has not guided the Church into all truth making Jesus a liar. I totally reject that as a possibility. So once again if it is just a symbol why bother? And if it is just a symbol why did Paul say “discern the body before receiving?”

Yes. And every day where two or three are gathered they can break bread in remembrance and thanksgiving if they so choose.

But they cannot have a Eucharist(unless one of them is a priest). Notice what the council of Nicaea I says in the above tract. No one but a priest can offer the Eucharistic sacrifice.

Well, at least you are bringing into the picture eating Him spiritually.

Of course I bring this into the picture. I believe in transubstantiation. I believe every time I receive the Eucharist I receive HIM BBS&D.

We both do not end there. The reality of His words suggest a death to their vision of Messiah, as Throne Sitter , Rome Kicker Outer and Belly Feeder and Miracle Man. The “disciples” that walked away did so for reasons much deeper and beyond that of eating him,

This is a stretch for you. Many of the Jews did think the Messiah was going to be all that you said in the above paragraph. If they believed that was what the Messiah was going to bring, why at that late stage of the game would they think Jesus was the Messiah? Was it His teaching on “turn the other cheek?” If a soldier asks you to carry his gear a mile carry it two? Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s? Blest are the peacemakers? Anyone who had a vision of the Messiah like most Jews had I would think would have rejected Jesus as that possibility after just hearing him a few times. So no, they walked away because it was the eating of Him.

just as Jesus went beyond Calvary and mentions His Ascension at the end of the discourse…

If they had believed Jesus’ words were symbolic about eating His flesh, then I guarantee they would have thought He was being symbolic here also. And we all know how symbolic the Ascension turned out to be.

As far as Jesus words, well Peter did say His words were eternal life (same thing eating Him as food" does)…“You have the words of eternal life”, John 6:68

And the Word became Flesh.

 

[SJacob7]

I said no such oxymoron. Yes. And every day where two or three are gathered they can break bread in remembrance and thanksgiving if they so choose.
Well, at least you are bringing into the picture eating Him spiritually. We both do not end there. The reality of His words suggest a death to their vision of Messiah, as Throne Sitter , Rome Kicker Outer and Belly Feeder and Miracle Man. The “disciples” that walked away did so for reasons much deeper and beyond that of eating him, just as Jesus went beyond Calvary and mentions His Ascension at the end of the discourse…As far as Jesus words, well Peter did say His words were eternal life (same thing eating Him as food" does)…“You have the words of eternal life”, John 6:68

Also, to add to your point benhur, John 1:14 ‘The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.’

I feel we need to ‘eat’ his word…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

benhur;12289478]A lot to cover . The OT passover was not for salvation, but a remembrance of a particular salvation from the Egyptians

The OT consummation of the lamb Passover Saved the first born Hebrews from certain death, which foreshadowed the NT lamb of God at Passover who gives eternal life to those who believe and consume the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

. I would think our ecuharist is not for salvation, but a remembrance and thanksgiving for it.

Your thinking is a new invention from the 18th century, it is not supported by both the OT and NT covenant of God.

Baptism “saves you now” that is biblical, yet it is to those baptized who obey Jesus command to eat His flesh and drink His blood, so that we might have eternal life.

Baptism saves now, but it is the Eucharist that we are promised eternal life. For no one goes to the Father except through the Son. No one enters eternal life without the Son’s body, blood, soul and divinity which the Catholic Church proclaims His death and resurrection (salvation) in the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist.

I have much to say on this subject of salvation, it would suffice to say your theology is something new and it comes from the carnal mind of men which displays a picture on the wall (symbolism) is not real and does not allow the full grace and full Truth of God to enter our baptized humanity (tabernacle of the Holy Spirit), when only the RP of Jesus can do so at His command of Word “take eat this is my body, take drink this is my blood in the new and ever lasting covenant”.

OT Jews and Christians are “saved”, regenerated , born of the spirit by other “methods” and not passover/eucharist rites

What other method? There is only one method by which one can be saved and that is baptism in the blessed Trinity this is biblical. Faith alone as per James Epistle “does not save you”.

Baptism is for the non-believer, the Eucharist is for the believer and is promised eternal life to Passover from this world into eternal life in Jesus Christ.

. So when Jesus speaks of “eating him” and being born of the spirit it is a real eating but by faith, not with teeth and bellies (literal flesh eating) but a spiritual eating.

Your new theology escapes the biblical practices and teachings of the two revealed sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist.

Born of the Spirit comes by way of baptism see John 1;3-5 which saves you now.
The Eucharist the real presence of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity is what covenant’s the baptized to Passover from this life into eternal life. That is why no one goes to the Father except through the Son.

The Son gives us His body and blood Eucharistien (thanksgiving) to consume into our soul so that we become son’s in the Son of God in order to enter the Father’s eternal presence in heaven.

There is no such thing as a symbolic Spirit. When you take symbols of bread and grape juice, there is no Spirit in these to enter communion with God here on earth nor in heaven. We need a RP Spirit a RP Jesus in Him and through Him to worship God in Spirit and Truth. Jesus revealed this to the Samaritan Woman at the well, remember? (see John 4)

Peace be with you

 

[benhur]

But they cannot have a Eucharist(unless one of them is a priest). Notice what the council of Nicaea I says in the above tract. No one but a priest can offer the Eucharistic sacrifice.

Does it say that ? No, but perhaps inferred. Elders, and bishops can administer. Says nothing about priests. Nicea says that a deacon can not administer to a “superior”-elder/bishop. Seems like some pecking order crept into church as in this, “Furthermore, let not the deacons sit among the elders, for that is contrary to canon and order.” Sounds like Corinthian ego of who sits where and who eats what that Paul chided blossomed. Sounds yukky.

 

[benhur]

If they believed that was what the Messiah was going to bring, why at that late stage of the game would they think Jesus was the Messiah?

Sorry, but I think you are mistaken by saying John 6 was “late stage”. Actually I am not sure when it would be placed during our Lord’s three and half year ministry. I would venture early on, within first year. Not sure.

 

[benhur]

The OT consummation of the lamb Passover Saved the first born Hebrews from certain death,

Yes but subsequent Passovers down to today do not save a Jew from any such thing anymore

which foreshadowed the NT lamb of God at Passover

Right we are saved by faith in Calvary once for new life and not again every eucharist time. But we do remember our past “salvation” at eucharist ,of when we first believed, were born again, which can only happen once, jut as the Exodus Jew was saved only once from the last “plague”.

 

[benhur]

Baptism is for the non-believer,

I know what you mean, usually baptism is before eucharisting. Just that technically baptism is also only for the believer. A non-believer is not and should not be baptized.

 

[Duane1966]

Also, to add to your point benhur, John 1:14 ‘The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.’

I feel we need to ‘eat’ his word…

Sorry, but I think you are mistaken by saying John 6 was “late stage”. Actually I am not sure when it would be placed during our Lord’s three and half year ministers. I would venture early on, within first year. Not sure.

Every timeline of Jesus’ ministry I have looked at puts the “Bread of Life” discourse either near the end of His second year of ministry (about 20 % of the timelines) or midway through the third year. So again most of His disciples that walked away would not have believed He was the Messiah anyway.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

benhur;12295104]Yes but subsequent Passovers down to today do not save a Jew from any such thing anymoreRight

Wrong; Again your new man made theology misses the divine act of the Passover and why God placed the Passover by divine Law to remain a perpetual RITE. Divine RITES is what non-Catholic Christians have replaced with sola fide and sola scriptura man made doctrines that are contrary to the divine Rites revealed and commanded by God and His Son Jesus.

The first Passover was a foreshadowing of the salvific act of God for the Jew first and then for all in the last supper which fulfilled the perpetual law of Passover to an eternal law of Passover that remains and practiced in the Catholic Church for the last 2000 years to today unchanged by both first century practicing Jews who became the mystical body of Christ realized in today’s Catholic Church perpetual Eucharist.

we are saved by faith in Calvary once for new life and not again every eucharist time.

Wrong, we are save by the blood and sacrifice of Jesus Christ the lamb of God who takes away the sin of world (the crucifixion) in order to be saved. Faith can never save anyone. Satan believes in Jesus and the Father and these demons are forever damned.

That crucifixion of the new covenant Passover lamb is to be consumed by the believer by divine law and command to consume the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Faith alone does not save anyone. It takes an act of God in our presence in order for one to be saved, and that is celebrated in the Eucharist after salvation is gained by the baptism in the Holy Trinity =God.

But we do remember our past “salvation” at eucharist ,of when we first believed, were born again, which can only happen once, jut as the Exodus Jew was saved only once from the last “plague”.

Recalling a past event does not save anyone. Living in that past event made present by divine providence saves all peoples in all ages, that is what the OT Passover celebrated and foreshadowed the Eucharist RP of the true Passover Lamb which is commanded by divine law to consume in order to be given eternal life in the Son of God.

A recalling of a historical event does nothing for those who are perishing in the present. God calls all of these to Marriage feast in Lamb’s Supper the Eucharist.

Keep in mind the Eucharist is a Marriage covenant between God and the believer, when both the bride and the bride groom enter the apocalypse or unveiling of each ones real presence to one another this is Eucharist celebrated on earth as it is in heaven.

Your symbolic or remembering of a last supper, never engages the divine presence of this eternal Marriage feast of the Lamb and His bride.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

benhur;12295110]I know what you mean, usually baptism is before eucharisting. Just that technically baptism is also only for the believer.

NO, that is not what I mean nor what Jesus reveals to His original apostles who handed down to us and recorded the divine sacramental (rite) economy in the new testament.

Nothing unclean or unholy can go before God’s presence, let me emphasize here God’s presence not His divine Essence, which appears to be your ground misunderstanding of the real presence of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity in His Eucharist which are never man’s symbols of bread and drink.

A valid Baptism in the most holy Trinity removes all sin and any punishment of sin, it is by this virtue of holiness from the baptismal waters that makes us clean and able to enter the real presence of Jesus Christ in His Eucharist. A baptized Christian who has committed a mortal sin, requires that sacrament of reconciliation which Jesus gives to His Church after Jesus resurrected in commissioning and sending His apostles to baptize and the power to forgive sin, when Jesus breathed upon His apostles the power of the Holy Spirit to be with them always to forgive sin in the ministry of reconciliation.

A non-believer is not and should not be baptized.

If what you believe is true, then Jesus died for nothing.

Baptism is the open veil to God for which non-believers are to enter into the eternal Kingdom of God.

The divine sacrament of baptism is for non-believers who come to first believe in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. In this baptism the unbeliever is made a son in the Son of God, made holy and acceptable to enter God’s real presence in His Eucharist as a mature Christian armed and confirmed in the Holy Spirit.

The Christian who partakes of the divinity of Christ in His Eucharist are no longer on the milk from baptism. The Eucharist is the meat of the gospel in which Mature Christians partake of.

The Essence of God has never come down to our humanity, for God to do so all will die. Yet it is the presence of God as revealed in the OT rock, ark of the covenant, Passover, Shekinah cloud, fire in the desert, that all point to the Word becoming flesh and who makes a perpetual rite of God’s presence an eternal perpetual existing presence in His Eucharist.

God’s presence is never revealed in ones emotion who subscribes from a faith only presence. Man does not make God’s presence present, only the Word of God, the incarnate Jesus who is God reveals His true and real presence in His Eucharist to His bride the mystical body of Christ in the Catholic Church.

peace be with you