Why did He let them walk away?

[mtr01]

michaelp:

Really, this is easy. It is like burning an American flag. You become guilty of everything that America stands for. By burning the flag, being sybolic of all our history and all our values, you are guilty of abuse and violation of those values and that history, even though you did not literally burn those values or history.

The Lord’s supper is holy because of what it represents. Abuse the representation, and you are thus abusing our Lord’s body and blood (i.e. life and atonement), since that is what they stand for.

BTW: Stone: I knew that you were not a girl, sorry about the daughter thing.

Hope this helps,

Michael

Holy Mary, Mother of God, that sounds like a stock answer right out of anti-Catholic school.

Your analogy fails on many levels, the main one being that it could be argued that burning the flag in itself is a symbol of all American history and freedoms and values. That it represents everything that America stands for.

(disclaimer: before anyone jumps on me, that’s not my personal view)

Not to mention that the proper way to dispose of old flags is to burn them…

 

[michaelp]

Holy Mary, Mother of God, that sounds like a stock answer right out of anti-Catholic school.

Your analogy fails on many levels, the main one being that it could be argued that burning the flag in itself is a symbol of all American history and freedoms and values. That it represents everything that America stands for.

(disclaimer: before anyone jumps on me, that’s not my personal view)

Not to mention that the proper way to dispose of old flags is to burn them…

Goodness gracious, Lord have mercy, this sounds like the stock response to the stock response you learn in anti-Protestant school.

Just kidding. I don’t get your response. Just because it could represent that does not in any way make the illustration invalid. Just as the burning of the American flag could represent an anti-American setiment against the values and history of America, so also could the dishonoring of the Lord’s table represent an dishonoring for the life and death of Christ.

No flaws that I can see. Maybe you should go back to the anti-Protestant school and review!

Michael

 

[mtr01]

michaelp:

Goodness gracious, Lord have mercy, this sounds like the stock response to the stock response you learn in anti-Protestant school.

Just kidding. I don’t get your response. Just because it could represent that does not in any way make the illustration invalid. Just as the burning of the American flag could represent an anti-American setiment against the values and history of America, so also could the dishonoring of the Lord’s table represent an dishonoring for the life and death of Christ.

No flaws that I can see. Maybe you should go back to the anti-Protestant school and review!

Michael

You just amplified the weakness in your argument. St. Paul doesn’t say “guilty of dishonoring”, he says “guilty of the body and blood”. I’d say CM’s analogy is much more fitting, for after all St. Paul goes on in verse 29 to say:

“For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the” – symbol of? – no, “the body of the Lord.”

I think it’s pretty easy to discern the difference between the flag of the United States and the country itself, don’t you?

 

[michaelp]

You just amplified the weakness in your argument. St. Paul doesn’t say “guilty of dishonoring”, he says “guilty of the body and blood”.

That is question begging since you must assume that he is not being symbolic. Therefore, this does not make sense.

I’d say CM’s analogy is much more fitting, for after all St. Paul goes on in verse 29 to say:

“For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the” – symbol of? – no, “the body of the Lord.”

Question begging. the point in discussion is if it was symbolic.

Besides all this, all that the analogy proves is that it could be symbolic. Exegetically, it could go either way. That is why we must rely on other Scriptures to clarify. And the Scripture in question, John 6, IMHO, does not help the Transubstantiation view.

Have a great night MT. I know that these issues can get heated because we both believe them and we are passionate about those beliefs, but I am glad that we can have a civil discussion concerning them. I think that it is better to discuss and try to understand each other, than for each side to go into seclusion. My opinion.

Michael
Michael

 

[mtr01]

michaelp:

That is question begging since you must assume that he is not being symbolic. Therefore, this does not make sense.

Question begging. the point in discussion is if it was symbolic.

With all due respect, I don’t think you really know what question begging is. You seem to rely on that “response” quite a bit, and mostly improperly. The question is not whether to be guilty of the body and blood is symbolic, but whether profaning a symbol can make one “guilty of the body and blood” - unless you are trying to change the topic of discussion on me.

Specifically, you said “the dishonoring of the Lord’s table could represent an dishonoring for the life and death of Christ.”

I just corrected you by pointing out that St. Paul didn’t say “dishonoring” he said “guilty of the body and blood”. How is that assuming anything?

I then supported my argument that Paul was not speaking sybolically by posting verse 29, and pointing out that he said “discerning the body”, not “discerning the symbol”. In other words I was supporting my argument without assuming the conclusion. Not question begging.

michaelp:

Besides all this, all that the analogy proves is that it could be symbolic. Exegetically, it could go either way. That is why we must rely on other Scriptures to clarify. And the Scripture in question, John 6, IMHO, does not help the Transubstantiation view.

Exegetically, you have failed to show how profaning a symbol could make one guilty of someone’s body and blood as CM so eloquently demonstrated. This is more akin to question begging, for in addition, you have failed to adequated demonstrate that “dishonoring” is the same thing as “being guilty of the body and blood” of someone. If I burn a flag, I may dishonor my country, but would I be guilty of its “body and blood”? If I rip up a picture of your wife or mother, I may dishonor them, but would I be guilty of their body and blood? You have much to demonstrate before your conclusion can be validly accepted.

michaelp:

Have a great night MT. I know that these issues can get heated because we both believe them and we are passionate about those beliefs, but I am glad that we can have a civil discussion concerning them. I think that it is better to discuss and try to understand each other, than for each side to go into seclusion. My opinion.

Michael
Michael

Thank you for the kind words, and may God bless and keep you tonight.

 

[Stone]

Church Militant:

Definition:“exegesis” exegesis n : an explanation or critical interpretation (especially of the Bible)

Very Good.

I’m gonna use smaller fonts for the sake of his royal highness Prince Stone since he uses that as an excuse to ignore valid Biblical discussion and we’re running low on crying towels around here.

I’ll ignore the sarcasm but you have continuously and falsely accused me of this intention. So let me set you straight. When I first posted on this forum it was in the thread Michael P. started asking, by poll, if “Prots” were at all welcome here. And that is where I first encountered you. Although I had read some of your “obese” posts on other threads while exploring the forum. But this thread was where I first began to post, and it was there that I initially told you that I would not reply to messages bearing large fonts. I consider them self-serving and obnoxious (unless you truly do have impaired vision, do you? If so, then I will respond back to you, alone, with “obese” fonts).

Point being: We had not yet even begun to discuss doctrinal/Biblical topics. So your accusation that I have been avoiding your posts so as not to have to answer your “valid” Biblical discussions is completely false. You have been bearing false witness of me and I expect you, a good Catholic man, to confess it next time you enter the booth.

First, I think your idea about wanting to talk about the Bible all the time is a very true statement. I have found that n-Cs will blessed well discuss/argue about anything and do indeed get off on it. Most of it I have come to consider a drastic waste of time, since most are just debate freaks and are really not interested in truth, (except their own version of it).

I don’t know who you hung out with but it obviously wasn’t anyone in my community of believers. Our discussions and studies are never in the form of debates, but an exploration into the depths of God’s magnificent, written Word to the end that we all “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” To His glory (not ours through debating), both now and to the day of eternity" (1 Pet. 3:18). I’m sorry you had such a bad experience, too bad our roads never crossed, I would have invited you into our fellowship.

The thing that you don’t seem to understand is that Catholics (by and large), would rather live it than debate it.

I truly believe you must first understand His Word before you can consistently live it. But I hear what you’re saying - I believe in both. You cannot honestly have one without the other. But you can’t live what you don’t understand, nor can you debate what you don’t understand.

 

[Stone]

Church Militant:

That is why I say that St. Paul’s 1st letter to the Corinthians chapter 11:23-31 is even more relevent and conclusive along with all the last supper passages.

I agree with your assessment of Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians.

One of the most simple and logical points of all this discussion is my point that one cannot become guilty of someone’s body and blood by abusing a mere symbol of them.

I disagree and agree with Michael P’s response to you.

For your consideration of the text you reference: 1 Cor. 11:23-31

Paul carefully points out that Jesus, "the night in which He was betrayed, took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it , and said, “This is My body, which is for you (some ancient manuscripts read “which is broken for you”); do this in remembrance of Me.”

The phrase “and had given thanks” is where we get our English word Eucharist; from the Greek* “kai euchuristesas”* (Eng. “and having given thanks”). And therefore the primitive and early church considered it to be a congregational “thank offering.” In reference to God sending His Son for our redemption. It wasn’t until later that it changed from a “thank offering,” which corresponded with it’s Greek etymology, into a "sin-offering, and from a congregational offering into a priest offering. The idea of it being a “sacrifice” rather than a “thank-offering” was a time-developed doctrine. It finds its embryonic beginnings with Cyprian and further developed in the Nicene and post-Nicene fathers - although amidst many obscurities. But not until the close of the 6th century with Gregory the Great was it actually brought to its final settlements.

That fact that Jesus said “this is My body which is for you,” puts the focus not on His body there in the upper room, nor His subsequent glorified body, but the cross itself, where man’s redemption would be procured. And the Greek words “do this” can only mean "perform this action," not “offer this” (sacrifice). Nor can the Greek phrase, “in remembrance of Me” bear the sense “to remind God of Me,” but instead remind ourselves of the death He suffered in order to win our redemption.

Paul gives us the meaning of the sacrament as “proclaiming” (Gr. kataggellete) the Lord’s death until He comes (vs. 26). In other words, the sacrament is itself an acted sermon. The action that “proclaims” His death is eating the bread and drinking of the cup. There’s no idea of “offering” a sacrifice here. And this, Paul says, is only to be done UNTIL He comes. And then even Christ Himself will again “drink of the fruit of vine” (no reference to actual blood) with all true believers in the Kingdom (see Matt. 26: 26-29, in context).

Paul warned the Corinthians that those who “eat the bread” or “drink the cup” (notice he retains the natural elements) in an “unworthy manner shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.” That is, guilty of sin against the body and blood of Christ. That sin being their unworthy manner of participation in the sacrament. In the early Church the Lord’s Supper was preceded by a fellowship meal called the "Agape," or “Love Feast.” It was their conduct at that Love Feast (selfishness and drunkenness, see 1 Cor. 11:20-22, 34) that they brought to the Lord’s Table.

And this is the context of Paul’s rebuke toward them and the reason for his instruction of the sacrament and pointing out their unworthiness.
None of what Paul says to the Corinthians actually teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Now before you fly off the handle and go back to “obese fonts,” remember, I said this was just for your consideration. We’re just sharing thoughts here.

Now it’s very late and this boy’s got to get some sleep.

 

[Church_Militant]

Stone, This is nothing new…it’s the same old same old…heard it all before :yawn: :yawn: This is just more of the same psuedo scholarship that we get all the time. It leaves so much out of context and still chooses to take John 6 figuratively when it is clear that Jesus intended it to be taken that way because He offered no correction or explainantion when Mark’s gospel plainly says that he explained everything to His apostles in private, but he didn’t do that here. If He had we’d have some record of it since He Himself made it a make-or-break issue with the twelve.

You really have offered nothing new to consider, nor anything that makes me in any way doubt what Catholics believe. Your historic evidence is inconclusive since we believe that doctrine developes as we better come to understand it. Case in point being the Catholic church’s defense of the diety of Jesus and the Holy Trinity in the early councils.

It’s mighty strange to me that you late date the Eucharistic doctrines like you do since even our Roman enemies commented that we “eat our god and drown our children” in describing us.

Your late dating of the Eucharist is also weird in light of this qoute from Ignatius of Antioch who penned this in about 107 AD and was a close friend and disciple of St. John the Evangelist as well as a martyr for his Catholic faith (He also gives us the first written use of the name Catholic).

In the 7th chapter of his letter to the Smyrneans he says:

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) 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. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, "

Now this guy wasn’t some random source and though not inspired canon, his writings certainly have more than ample provenance to be indicative of what the church believed at that time. He was, in fact, the bishop of the church in Antioch. Clearly, he was not at all impressed with those who denied the Eucharistic belief that we hold today…why? "because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

So consider that…
Pax vobiscum,

 

[st_felicity]

It is the Year of the Eucharist

Today–HOLY THURSDAY–Is the day that Christ instituted this beautiful sacrament.
From his encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia Poe John Paul II says,

The Upper Room was where this most holy Sacrament was instituted. It is there that Christ took bread, broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying: “Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you” (cf. Mk 26:26; Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24). Then he took the cup of wine and said to them: “Take this, all of you and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all, so that sins may be forgiven” (cf. Mt 14:24; Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25). I am grateful to the Lord Jesus for allowing me to repeat in that same place, in obedience to his command: “Do this in memory of me” (Lk 22:19), the words which he spoke two thousand years ago.

Did the Apostles who took part in the Last Supper understand the meaning of the words spoken by Christ? Perhaps not. Those words would only be fully clear at the end of the* Triduum sacrum*, the time from Thursday evening to Sunday morning. Those days embrace the* myste- rium paschale*; they also embrace the* mysterium eucharisticum*.

Read it all here: catholicculture.org/year_eucharist/eucharist2.cfm

It is my belief that this thread has demonstrated the arguments both for and against belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I know that I have found the preponderance of evidence only solidifies my faith in Christ’s words of John 6 “My flesh is TRUE food; my blood is TRUE drink.”

If you struggle with your faith, as many do, pray fervently in the words of the father of the possessed boy in Matthew 9: 24 “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief” and spend some time with Jesus in reflection on this great Mystery.

If you are Catholic and can commune with God in the Eucharist, thank the Lord for the blessings he has bestowed on you especially this Easter Season. And if you are yet to know Him in this most unique way…LISTEN to His call…do not choose to walk away from what may on the surface appear to be a “hard teaching”…As St. Peter replied to Jesus himself, His are the words of Eternal Life…Jesus waits for you in His Blessed Sacrament*.*

God Bless and Happy Easter Season!

 

[Mickey]

THE OLDEST WELLS GIVE THE CLEAREST WATER.
“Are they [the Eucharistic elements] an image or the truth? If they are an image, what absurdity! You go from blasphemy to blasphemy, like those who step into some sort of mud, and in trying to get across fall with both feet into something even more slippery”
“. . . we confess that the faithful receive the very Body and Blood of Christ, according to the voice of God Himself–why do you talk nonsense as if the sacraments of the truth were mere symbols?” St. Theodore

“In former times God, who is without form or body, could never be depicted. But now when God is seen in the flesh conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see” , and this is not a form of idolatry because, “I do not worship matter; I worship the Creator of matter who became matter for my sake, who willed to take His abode in matter; who worked out my salvation through matter” St. John of Damascus

Further, bread and wine are employed: for God knoweth man’s infirmity: for in general man turns away discontentedly from what is not well-worn by custom: and so with his usual indulgence he performs his supernatural works through familiar objects: and just as, in the case of baptism, since it is man’s custom to wash himself with water and anoint himself with oil, he connected the grace of the Spirit with the oil and the water and made it the water of regeneration, in like manner since it is man’s custom to eat and to drink water and wine, he connected his divinity with these and made them his body and blood in order that we may rise to what is supernatural through what is familiar and natural.
St John** of **Damascus

The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth body united with divinity, not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God’s body and blood. St John** of **Damascus

And now you ask, how the bread became Christ’s body and the wine and water Christ’s blood. And I say unto thee, ‘The Holy Spirit is present and does those things which surpass reason and thought.’ St John****Damascus

BELIEVE AND RECEIVE!

Don’t walk away like the disciples.

Have a Blessed Pascha!

 

[Stone]

Church Militant:

It leaves so much out of context and still chooses to take John 6 figuratively when it is clear that Jesus intended it to be taken that way because He offered no correction or explainantion when Mark’s gospel plainly says that he explained everything to His apostles in private, but he didn’t do that here. If He had we’d have some record of it since He Himself made it a make-or-break issue with the twelve.But then how do you account for the fact that in 1 Cor. 11 Paul, who writes some 20 years later, retains the natural elements?

Your historic evidence is inconclusive since we believe that doctrine developes as we better come to understand it. Case in point being the Catholic church’s defense of the diety of Jesus and the Holy Trinity in the early councils.The problem with that historic “development” is that it changed from being a “thansgiving” (from its Greek etymology) to sacrifice. The development of doctrinal clarity of Christ’s deity didn’t change from He being a mere man to being the God-Man. He was presented as God in the Scriptures from the moment they were written. The councils merely recognized this, they made no change.

It’s mighty strange to me that you late date the Eucharistic doctrines like you do since even our Roman enemies commented that we “eat our god and drown our children” in describing us.

It’s called slander. It’s saying something about others that’s not true. Or are you saying that what the Romans said about us was true? I don’t believe we drowned our children and it would be easy to falsely accuse us about the Communion table, based on the figuative language that is used.

In the 7th chapter of his letter to the Smyrneans he says:"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ

,First of all you state, this is not Holy Spirit inspired writing. And secondly, his terminology does not prove he believed in or was teaching transubstantiation here, or that he was not speaking figuratively of who it represents. Like I said in another post, you’d have to talk to Ignatius personally to clear this up. The abstainers obviously were unbelievers and did not believe in the Person of Christ and His work of redemption through the sacrifice of His body on the cross and shed blood for our forgiveness, to which they proclaimed in partaking of the “eucharist” and by which they gave “thanks:” "

which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public," This is unbelief in Christ Himself.

Clearly, he was not at all impressed with those who denied the Eucharistic belief that we hold today…why? "because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ.I think more accurately they “confessed not” belief in what Christ accomplished and what the bread and wine represented. In my consideration, I don’t think one can honestly pour the doctrine of transubstantiaion into his statement.

 

[Mickey]

“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” St Cyril of Jerusalem

Oh children of God, Don’t walk away!

 

[Mickey]

Irenaeus

He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him? (Against Heresies 5:2 A.D. 189]).

Ambrose of Milan

Perhaps you may be saying, “I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?” It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 A.D. 390]).

Augustine

I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know that you have received what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That bread which you see on the altar having been sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ, That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ (Sermons 227 A.D. 411]).

Aphraahat

After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink (Treatises 12:6 A.D. 340]).

---

---

---

Cyprian

The Apostle [Paul] likewise bears witness and says: "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord "*11:27]. But [the impenitent] spurn and despise all these warnings; before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony and at: the hand of the priest . . . they do violence to his body and blood, and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied him (The Lapsed 15:1-3 (A.D. 251]).

OH FAITHFUL FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST–DON’T WALK AWAY!*

 

[mtr01]

Stone:

I agree with your assessment of Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians. I disagree and agree with Michael P’s response to you.

For your consideration of the text you reference: 1 Cor. 11:23-31

Paul carefully points out that Jesus, "the night in which He was betrayed, took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it , and said, “This is My body, which is for you (some ancient manuscripts read “which is broken for you”); do this in remembrance of Me.”

The phrase “and had given thanks” is where we get our English word Eucharist; from the Greek* “kai euchuristesas”* (Eng. “and having given thanks”). And therefore the primitive and early church considered it to be a congregational “thank offering.” In reference to God sending His Son for our redemption. It wasn’t until later that it changed from a “thank offering,” which corresponded with it’s Greek etymology, into a "sin-offering, and from a congregational offering into a priest offering. The idea of it being a “sacrifice” rather than a “thank-offering” was a time-developed doctrine. It finds its embryonic beginnings with Cyprian and further developed in the Nicene and post-Nicene fathers - although amidst many obscurities. But not until the close of the 6th century with Gregory the Great was it actually brought to its final settlements.

For your consideration from the *Didache *which may be as ealry as 60 AD:

"Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord’s Day. But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: “In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.”

As you can see, the idea of the sacrifice of the Mass was already recognized as early as 60 AD (no later than 150 AD).

Stone:

That fact that Jesus said “this is My body which is for you,” puts the focus not on His body there in the upper room, nor His subsequent glorified body, but the cross itself, where man’s redemption would be procured. And the Greek words “do this” can only mean "perform this action," not “offer this” (sacrifice). Nor can the Greek phrase, “in remembrance of Me” bear the sense “to remind God of Me,” but instead remind ourselves of the death He suffered in order to win our redemption.

“Do this” is not Greek, it’s English. Anyhow, it is a command. The Master said “do this”, would you do it or not? I don’t think anyone argues the nature of “do this”. The real issue is your faulty interpretation of “in remembrance of me”. Let’s look at the Greek text:

Luk 22:19καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασε καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.

The underlined word is the one in contention. It is anamnesis, which in Latin is translated as “commemoration”, or in English as “remembrance”. What’s so special about this word? In the Septuagint it is used in connection witha memorial sacrifice (Lev 24:7):

Lev 24:7

καὶ ἐπιθήσετε ἐπὶ τὸ θέμα λίβανον καθαρὸν καὶ ἅλα, καὶ ἔσονται εἰς ἄρτους εἰς ἀνάμνησιν προκείμενα τῷ κυρίῳ.

*Anamnesis *is used 4 times in the New Testament including 1 Cor 11:24-25 and Hebrews 10:3 (in reference to a memorial sacrifice).

cont’d…

 

[mtr01]

…cont’d

Furthermore, *anamnesis *is the Greek word used to translate the Hebrew word *azkarah. Azkarah *is used 7 times in the Old Testament in reference to sacrifice (Lev.2:2,9,16; 5:12; 6:15; Num. 5:26). Therefore, it is evident that the use of the word *anamnesis *in the Last Supper denotes the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist. In other words, our Lord was saying “Whenever you do this, do it as a memorial sacrifice of me”. If He meant, as you suggest, “to remind God of me”, or any “remembering”, the more appropriate word would have been either *mnemosunon *(Mt.26: 13; Mk.14:9; Acts 10:4) or even *anamimnesko *(Mk 11:21). Keep also in mind that *anamnesis *is a noun not a verb, which is even more support for equating it with a sacrifice (noun) than “to remember” (verb). I bet you didn’t know that the part of the Mass where the sacrifice is re-presented is called the, you guessed it, anamnesis.

Stone:

Paul gives us the meaning of the sacrament as “proclaiming” (Gr. kataggellete) the Lord’s death until He comes (vs. 26). In other words, the sacrament is itself an acted sermon. The action that “proclaims” His death is eating the bread and drinking of the cup. There’s no idea of “offering” a sacrifice here. And this, Paul says, is only to be done UNTIL He comes. And then even Christ Himself will again “drink of the fruit of vine” (no reference to actual blood) with all true believers in the Kingdom (see Matt. 26: 26-29, in context).

This is only a problem for your theology since it is either/or. For Catholics it is both/and. At the Mass, one of the memorial acclamations (mystery of faith) that we proclaim after the consecration is “When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death Lord Jesus, until you come in glory”. This is no problem for Catholics.

Now as for “fruit of the vine”, we might need a separate thread for that, but before you use that as proof, you need to understand how many cups were “drank” at the Passover meal, how many Jesus drank from, the reference to the cup in Gethsemene, the offering of wine on Calvary, and when he actually drank wine before his death, and what was finished. If you’re not up for that, then I’ll just refer you to Cana and John 2. After the miracle, the wine was still referred to as water, just as the wine made into Christ’s blood was referred to as wine (note that this assumes Matthew’s account is chronologically accurate. If we go by Luke’s account, our Lord says this *before *the consecration, when it was still merely wine)

Stone:

Paul warned the Corinthians that those who “eat the bread” or “drink the cup” (notice he retains the natural elements) in an "unworthy manner shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord." That is, guilty of sin against the body and blood of Christ. That sin being their unworthy manner of participation in the sacrament. In the early Church the Lord’s Supper was preceded by a fellowship meal called the "Agape," or “Love Feast.” It was their conduct at that Love Feast (selfishness and drunkenness, see 1 Cor. 11:20-22, 34) that they brought to the Lord’s Table.

And this is the context of Paul’s rebuke toward them and the reason for his instruction of the sacrament and pointing out their unworthiness.
None of what Paul says to the Corinthians actually teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation.

That’s part of the story, but not all. You cannot divorce your interpretation from verse 29, where one comes under judgement for “not discerning the body of Christ”, not the “symbol of Christ”. Furthermore, like Pastor Mike, you truly beg the question that one can sin against a symbol. As for “transubstantiation” (why non-Catholics are obsessed with this word, I can’t figure out), Paul restates Christs’ words even more forcefully: τουτο μου εστιν το σωμα (touto mou estin to soma - literally, this of me is the body). Now, if Paul was referring to a symbol, it would look like this:

this [body] of me is [a symbol of] the body.

That makes no sense. Can a body be the symbol of the body? What does that mean? On the other hand, let’s take a look at the grammar if Paul was writing in the literal sense:

this [body] of me is [literally] the body.

I’ll leave it up to the reader to decide which makes more sense.

 

[mercygate]

Stone:

But then how do you account for the fact that in 1 Cor. 11 Paul, who writes some 20 years later, retains the natural elements? The problem with that historic “development” is that it changed from being a “thansgiving” (from its Greek etymology) to sacrifice. . . . In my consideration, I don’t think one can honestly pour the doctrine of transubstantiaion into his statement.

I am not sure why this is a problem for you. Thanksgiving and sacrifice are not mutually exclusive concepts. And keep in mind that the developed doctrine of transubstantiation is an admittedly later refinement of the doctrine of the Real Presence, which is affirmed by the early Church and attested to in John 6, in the synoptic accounts of the Last Supper, and in I Cor. 11:27 – where Paul states, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” This testifies that the consecrated bread and cup are “the body and blood of the Lord,” since you wouldn’t be guilty of anything if the sacred elements were not the body and blood.

I was further struck the other day by the Eucharistic overtones of Hebrews 10:29, given here in three translations.

Do you not suppose that a much worse punishment is due the man who disdains the Son of God, thinks the covenant-blood by which he was sanctified to be ordinary, and insults the Spirit of grace? Liturgy of the Hours

How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? RSV

Do you not think that a much worse punishment is due the one who has contempt for the Son of God, considers unclean the covenant-blood by which he was consecrated, and insults the spirit of grace? **NAB **(As is often the case, the NAB is a little odd.)

The Eucharistic import of this verse (of which the LOH version is, to my mind, the cleanest translation) is emphasized by the admonition in verse 25 not to “stay away from our assembly.” The assembly on the first day is when the church gathered together to break bread (Acts 20:7).

An indicator that this verse refers to the Eucharist is the word “covenant-blood.” The only place where Jesus himself uses the word “covenant” is at the Last Supper for “my blood of the covenant.” This pointed use, taken together with the priestly and sacrificial imagery thorougout the Letter to the Hebrews, points strongly to belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and also to a belief in the sacrificial aspect of the Sacrament.

I’m sure I’m not the first person to notice this, but** I** never saw it before, and it just about knocked me over.

 

[Church_Militant]

Well Stone…
as usual you’ve disagreed and stated your case. Since this is going nowhere I’m gonna do you the same way you did me.

 

[Stone]

mtr01:

For your consideration from the Didache which may be as ealry as 60 AD: "Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord’s Day. But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: “In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.”

As you can see, the idea of the sacrifice of the Mass was already recognized as early as 60 AD (no later than 150 AD).

Most scholars believe that more likely it was written about 100 AD. Some no earlier than 80, but extending to 120. And one must be careful not to anachronistically pour into an early writing time-developed doctrines.

There are key words in the above quote that must considered: “thanksgiving,” “confessed transgressions,” and “sacrifice.”

As pointed out previously the word “Eucharist” is derived from the Greek “having given thanks” and therefore from earliest times it was considered a “thank offering” in connection with their “remembrance” of Him. Since O.T. times the offering of “thanksgiving” to the Lord was considered a “sacrifice” on the part of the worshipper:

“Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving, And pay your vows to the
Most High;”** Ps. 50:14**

“He who offers a sacrifice of thanksgiving honors Me; And to him who orders his way aright I shall show the salvation of God.”** Ps. 50:23**

"To Thee I shall offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving, And call upon the
name of the Lord. Ps. 116:17

“But I will sacrifice to Thee with the voice of thanksgiving. That which I have vowed I will pay. Salvation is from the Lord.”** Jonah 2:9**

Because of the early date of this writing I believe the confessing of one’s trangressions before participation in the sacrament was like that of Paul’s warning of unworthiness found in 1 Cor. 11. And the “prayer of thanksgiving” was the “sacrifice” the author had in mind. The Didache itself does not present any real doctrinal teaching on the sacrament; there are eucharistic prayers, but no real doctrinal treatment on it. Just because the author employed the word “sacrifice” must one necessarily conclude that he was speaking in the context of catholic doctrine on the eucharist? Is it not easy for someone to inject his own theology into an unexplicit writing?

So I am not yet convinced, and therefore must disagree with you, that the "idea of the sacrifice of the Mass was already recognized as early as 60 AD.

This is only a problem for your theology since it is either/or. For Catholics it is both/and. At the Mass, one of the memorial acclamations (mystery of faith) that we proclaim after the consecration is “When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death Lord Jesus, until you come in glory”. This is no problem for Catholics.

But why would you say “eat this bread and drink this cup” (although the “cup” is withheld from the laity) AFTER the consecration? Are you saying that it is still “both” 100 percent bread AND 100 percent Deity after it is consecrated?

 

[Stone]

mercygate:

I am not sure why this is a problem for you. Thanksgiving and sacrifice are not mutually exclusive concepts. And keep in mind that the developed doctrine of transubstantiation is an admittedly later refinement of the doctrine of the Real Presence, which is affirmed by the early Church and attested to in John 6, in the synoptic accounts of the Last Supper, and in I Cor. 11:27 – where Paul states, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” This testifies that the consecrated bread and cup are “the body and blood of the Lord,” since you wouldn’t be guilty of anything if the sacred elements were not the body and blood.

I agree that thanskgiving and sacrifice are not mutually exclusive. See my post above. I still contend that early church writers (like Ignatius) are not all that clear on the eucharist. There’s really no doctrinal clarity in their writings on this subject. I think we need to stick with divinely inspired writings when building any doctrine.

I was further struck the other day by the Eucharistic overtones of Hebrews 10:29, given here in three translations.

I don’t see “Eucharistic overtones” in the Heb. passages you quote. I believe the author of Hebrews is talking within the context of the cross itself, not the sacrament.

 

[Stone]

Church Militant:

Well Stone…
as usual you’ve disagreed and stated your case. Since this is going nowhere I’m gonna do you the same way you did me.

Why sour grapes?

Hey, at least we can agree on and rejoice together in the true substance behind the Eucharist. The propitiatory and vicarious death of our Lord and His subsequent bodily resurrection, which we’re about to commemorate again this year.

Mike, may I share with you one of my favorite poems for this time of year?

The Boy was twelve.
Now He could stand
With all the other
Men of Israel
At Passover.

He watched the unresisting lamb
Brought to the great bronz altar –
Feet tied, throat cut,
Atoning blood basin - caught
That Israel might be forgiven
And live.

**The Boy stood **
As still as marble
And as pale,
Knowing the Scriptures,
Knowing that He would be
The Lamb

Lorraine Austin

Happy Easter (Good Friday and Resurrection Day)