Why did He let them walk away?

[Mickey]

“After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ’s body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. The He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out. …Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: 'This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood, As you have seen Me do, do you also in My memory. Whenever you are gathered together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My Body, and drink My Blood, a covenant new and old.”,

St Ephraim (350 AD)

 

[mtr01]

Stone:

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.

I gave it a range from 60-150, which are all published estimates. Hence “as early as 60 AD”).

Stone:

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**

You are still stuck in eithor/or mode. Of course Catholics give thanks. As you point out, the word Eucharist means to give thanks. No Catholic denies this. However, the Mass is also a true re-presentation of the sacrifice at Calvary as per my whole discussion of *anamnesis. *Face it, Jesus was not called “the Lamb of God” for nothing - unless you deny that the sacrifice at Calvary was the fulfillment of the Levitical sacrifices. If you can’t see the the connection between Calvary and the Pasch, then there’s really no point in continuing the discussion.

Stone:

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?

Sure, which I think is exactly what you are doing. Go back and look at the last sentence of my quote from the Didache. It refers to Malachi’s prophecy that the Lord would reject the Jewish sacrifices and demand a pure offering (who was that pure offering?) to be made to him by Gentiles in every place. Do you honestly want me to believe that the pure offering was “thanks”?

cont’d…

 

[mtr01]

…cont’d

Perhaps you would be interested in what a non-Catholic doctrinal scholar (JND Kelley) has to say:

“Malachi’s prediction (1:10–11) that the Lord would reject Jewish sacrifices and instead would have “a pure offering” made to him by the Gentiles in every place was seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist. The Didache indeed actually applies the term thusia, or sacrifice, to the Eucharist.”

“It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, ‘Offer this.’ . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines , 196–7).

This is not my reading back of doctrines into an ambiguous test. It is what Christians have believed from the beginning. I could multiply quotes from Clement I, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, *ad nauseam *to demonstrate this. It is only those who would deny the Eucharist and the sacrifice of the Mass who are guilty of reading their novel doctrines back into texts.

Stone:

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.

Of course you won’t agree, you hold on to your novel doctrines and are convinced, contrary to the record of Christian history, that this recent post-Reformation view is correct. There is only one thing you could honestly do if you were to accept the Eucharist, and I doubt you want to embrace the idea.

Stone:

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?

First of all, you are grossly misinformed, because the “cup” is not withheld from anyone. I can partake of the cup 7 days a week if I am able to attend daily Mass. But that’s not the point. The body and blood are contained in their entirety in either species, therefore if there is risk of the cup being profaned by spilling or other considerations, one is not being “shorted” in receiving communion if the cup is not offered, but this is the minority of instances. (I went to a diocesan Chrism Mass with perhaps 2,000 in attendance the other day and the cup was offered).

Now as for why one would refer to it as bread or wine after the consecration, it is simply because they are being refered to according to their accidents, which as I described in my previous post, is completely Biblical (not to mention that it is a direct Biblical quote). As for your final point, since you use “transubstantiation” quite a bit in your posts, I figured you would know what it actually means - the accidents of the bread and wine remain, yet the substance is changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. For educational purposes, I refer you to Pope Paul VI’s Mysterium Fidei.

 

[Mickey]

All Western and Eastern Catholics on this forum should pray for those who have turned their backs and walked away from Christ-- like the disciples. They cling to their distorted thoughts, circular discourse, and psuedo-scholarly revisionist theology. Pray for them. They know not what they do. Pray that the Grace of God will open their hearts and minds. Pray that one day, they too, may be moved to receive the true Body and Blood–Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_3_22.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_3_15.gif

 

[Stone]

mtr01:

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):
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”,

Actually, I said it does not mean “to remind God of Me.”

This all sounds nice in an academic way. But what you’re doing is beginning with a presupposition (i.e., the Eucharist is a sacrifice) and then you commence to build a case for your presupposition linguistically, however completely avoiding the context of the words on which you’re building your case.

The Hebrew word “azkarah” basically means “a reminder,” “remembrance.” It’s from the root word “zakar” which means *“to mark,” *or “to remember.” The Greek word “anamnesis” also means “remembrance” and is correctly translated in the Luke and Corinthian passages, “do this (eat and drink) in remembrance of Me.”

In each of the O. T. sacrifice passages where the Hebrew word “azkarah” is used, only a portion of the sacrifice served as the “memorial” to God - i…e, the part that was burnt (sacrificed) and went up before the Lord in smoke. The other portion that was NOT sacrificed (not burnt) was eaten by the priests (see Lev. 6:14-18). It was a way by which the priests personally shared in the blessings of sacrifice, but they were not allowed to share in (eat) the portion that was actually sacrificed (burnt). That was the Lord’s. The apostle Paul alludes to this same thing when He says in 1 Cor. 10:16-18:

“Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ…Look at the nation of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the alter?”

Therefore the “Eucharist” cannot become the actual body and blood of Christ which was sacrificed, or else we could not partake of it. All true believers today are “priests,” and like those O. T. sacrifices, when we eat the bread and drink the cup (corresponding to the non-sacrificed portion of the sacrifice) we “share” in the sacrifice of Christ that took place 2000 years ago in obedience to His command, “do this in remembrance of Me.”

So rather than help your case the Greek and Hebrew words you present, studied in their proper Scriptural context, actually weaken it.

“Malachi’s prediction (1:10–11) that the Lord would reject Jewish sacrifices and instead would have “a pure offering” made to him by the Gentiles in every place was seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist. The Didache indeed actually applies the term thusia, or sacrifice, to the Eucharist.”

This prophecy has absolutely nothing to do with the Eucharist. It’s a prophecy concerning the future Millennial Kingdom when the Gentile nations that enter it at Christ’s 2nd Advent will glorify Him with pure incense and grain offerings. How could one possibly get the “Eucharist” out of this text when it’s specifying incense and grain? That’s quite a stretch to call the Eucharist a “grain” offering.(Matt. 25:31ff).

As for your final point, since you use “transubstantiation” quite a bit in your posts, I figured you would know what it actually means - the accidents of the bread and wine remain, yet the substance is changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

Yes, I have read quite a lot on it, in fact. To be honest I have a hard time accepting this* “accidents”* and “substance” explanation. Since none of this can actually be observed by the senses, it would of necessity require special, Divine revelation. To whom did God give this revelation regarding “accidents” and “substance”? And I must assume it would had to have been one of the Apostles. Such a revelation/information could not be post-Apostolic. Yet I read nothing of this anywhere in the Gospel accounts, the Book of Acts or the Epistles.

 

[Stone]

Mickey:

All Western and Eastern Catholics on this forum should pray for those who have turned their backs and walked away from Christ-- like the disciples. They cling to their distorted thoughts, circular discourse, and psuedo-scholarly revisionist theology. Pray for them. They know not what they do. Pray that the Grace of God will open their hearts and minds. Pray that one day, they too, may be moved to receive the true Body and Blood–Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Mickey, may I ask what the consequences are if I never do? Are they temporal? Eternal? Is my own personal faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ for naught if I neither accept nor participate in the Catholic Mass?

“Felicity” believes that those who “walked away” in Jn. 6 sealed their doom and were destined for hell. Non-Cs cannot participate in your Mass, so I would assume you believe I am eternally damned if I do not convert to Catholicism, is this right?

 

[Terry_Collins]

John 6, discourse on the Bread of Life

The crowd compared the work of Moses on the one hand with its sign or seal, the manna from heaven on the one hand to the work of Jesus,on the other, with the most recent sign the multiplication of the loaves.They seemed to prefer the signs of Moses and disregard what Jesus had done. The question is a reproach to Jesus and sets Him second to Moses. They want to see ‘signs’ at least as great as the manna.

This question has brought them to a crossroad and a choice must be made between the two terms of comparison: Moses and his work on the one hand, Jesus and his ‘kingdom’ on the other. Jesus faces the question squarely: “Amen, Amen I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” Jesus has reversed there thinking, Jesus is greater that Moses as heaven is greater than the earth. Jesus then begins the last part ot the discourse “I am the bread of life…” Now this took place in Capharnaum but not in the synagogue.

There must have been great discussion on what Jesus had said in the city and many for sure wanted to hear clarification of His meaning and the opportunity was offered to Jesus at he next meeting in the synagogue, because the statements which follow were made while he was 'teaching in the synagogue at Capharnaum (6:60). It must be noted that in this second part the term ‘Jews’ were murmuring against Him does not at all suppose that a group of rabid Pharisees had arroived from Judea to give him battle. The term ‘Jews’ as John uses it means in general the countrymen of Jesus who rejected his teaching.

Jesus then goes on to proclaim living bread that comes down from heaven and that anyone who eats of it will not die and this bread is His flesh. These Jews had much more reason to be dumfounded by Jesus’ words than Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman to which Jesus had spoken of "born again of the Spirit’ and of water “springing up unto life everlasting”, but these expressions could be taken figuratively, just as the phrase “bread of life.” could be taken also the first time Jesus used it and applies it to himself.
But Jesus did not confine himself to that first time. He came back to the very same expression and, as if to preclude any possible symbolic interpretation, he declared that this bread was “his flesh” given for the life of the world. So specific a definition was not permissable in a metaphorical discourse; when he spoke of his flesh as bread, Jesus was not using a symbol. That is exactly the way his audience in the synagogue at Capharnaujm reasoned, with perfect logic; and they began to argue with one another: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” It was now up to Jesus to define his meaning better and to make it crystal clear whether his words were to be taken as metaphor or as a plain and genuine statement of fact.

And Jesus anwer was ‘crystal clear’. “Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life everlasting and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood, abides in me and I in Him. As the living Father has sent me, and as I live because of the Father, so he who eats me, he also shall live because of me. This is the bread that has come down from heaven; not as your fathers ate the manna and died. He who eats this bread shall live forever.”

What happened next? The audience no longer had the least doubt, nor, in reality, could they have had any. The words they had just heard could be hard indeed, but they could not have been more clear or more precise. It was impossible to find any ambiguity in his words, and in fact the hostile “Jews” did not find any. Even many of His disciples found no ambiguity and thus proclaimed “This is a hard saying. Who can listen to it?” The adjective ‘hard’ here means ‘repugnant’, ‘sickening’, indicating one could not listen to it without a certain feeling of revulsion. Evidently there thoughts suggested something of a cannibal nature (like our misguided protestant brothers).

Continued on the next post

 

[Terry_Collins]

Actually Jesus did not specify the manner in which his flesh was to be eaten and his blood drunk; but even before the possibilityof that very literal interpretation and the ensuing scandal, He did not retreat one inch nor withdraw a single word. Knowing that his disciples were mumuring at this He said to them “does this scandalize you? What then if you should see the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the works that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” Jesus considered this last sentence sufficient to dispel the literal fear of some form of canabalism: his words were spirit and life. But these same words retainded their full literal significance with no metaphorical implications whatever. The indespensible thing was to have faith in Him, and the last confirmation of this faith would be to see the Son of man ascending into heaven, from where he had descended from heaven as the living bread. Those who had faith would see how it was to be that His Body and Blood would be eaten without a shadow of cannibalism.

Even with this explanation many disciples turned back and no longer went with Him. There faith was not strong enough. Jesus then says to the Twelve “Do you wish to go away” and Simon Peter answered “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast words of everlasting life, and we have come to believe and to know that thou art the Holy One of God”. It is not by chance that John aranges His words that the Twelve “believed” and then “knew”.

 

[Mickey]

Stone:

Mickey, may I ask what the consequences are if I never do? Are they temporal? Eternal? Is my own personal faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ for naught if I neither accept nor participate in the Catholic Mass?

“Felicity” believes that those who “walked away” in Jn. 6 sealed their doom and were destined for hell. Non-Cs cannot participate in your Mass, so I would assume you believe I am eternally damned if I do not convert to Catholicism, is this right?

It’s not my place to judge you.

Have a Blessed Pascha!

 

[mtr01]

Stone:

Actually, I said it does not mean “to remind God of Me.”

This all sounds nice in an academic way. But what you’re doing is beginning with a presupposition (i.e., the Eucharist is a sacrifice) and then you commence to build a case for your presupposition linguistically, however completely avoiding the context of the words on which you’re building your case.

Actually Stone, you are 100% absolutely incorrect. What I’m merely pointing out is that the first Christians indeed historically viewed the Mass as a sacrifice, and explaining why. You, in fact, are guilty of what you accuse me of doing. 2000 years after the fact you are trying to build a case denied what was accepted from the very beginning of Christian worship. My appraoch is historical, yours is revisionist…which is why you must rely on linguistics to tery to support your case.

Stone:

The Hebrew word “azkarah” basically means “a reminder,” “remembrance.” It’s from the root word “zakar” which means *“to mark,” *or “to remember.” The Greek word “anamnesis” also means “remembrance” and is correctly translated in the Luke and Corinthian passages, “do this (eat and drink) in remembrance of Me.”

That’s nice, but you fail to address the fact that *anamnesis *is always used to denote a memorial sacrifice. If the Gospel writers understood it to be merely a remembrance, then they would have used the word they used in other passages to denote a “recalling of mind”, *mnemosunon. *But they didn’t, did they? No, they used the word they used in reference to a memorial sacrifice.

Stone:

In each of the O. T. sacrifice passages where the Hebrew word “azkarah” is used, only a portion of the sacrifice served as the “memorial” to God - i…e, the part that was burnt (sacrificed) and went up before the Lord in smoke. The other portion that was NOT sacrificed (not burnt) was eaten by the priests (see Lev. 6:14-18). It was a way by which the priests personally shared in the blessings of sacrifice, but they were not allowed to share in (eat) the portion that was actually sacrificed (burnt). That was the Lord’s. The apostle Paul alludes to this same thing when He says in 1 Cor. 10:16-18:

“Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ…Look at the nation of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the alter?”

You are changing the question. The fact remains that *azkarah *and anamnesis refer to a sacrifice. The Apostles understood this, and appropriately regarded the Eucharist as a sacrifice, and taught this to their students. Now as for the rest of your argument, it holds no weight. First of all, look at the relation between *azkarah *and bread, specifically in Lev 2. You will see it clearly explained that a portion of the sacrifice was to be offered, while the remnant of the sacrifice was eaten. Thus, what was eaten was part of the sacrifice. Furthermore, you absolutely forget the connection of the sacrifice to the Pasch. In that sacrifice, the lamb without blemish which was sacrificed was eaten completely. Are you denying the connection to the Pasch?

cont’d…

 

[mtr01]

…cont’d

Stone:

Therefore the “Eucharist” cannot become the actual body and blood of Christ which was sacrificed, or else we could not partake of it. All true believers today are “priests,” and like those O. T. sacrifices, when we eat the bread and drink the cup (corresponding to the non-sacrificed portion of the sacrifice) we “share” in the sacrifice of Christ that took place 2000 years ago in obedience to His command, “do this in remembrance of Me.”

Again, you forget about the Pasch. I guess all those poor unfortunate Jews were really eating the sacrifice after all, were they? Again, I have no idea what you mean by “non-sacrificed portion of the sacrifice”, but if you re-read Lev 2, you will see that what the priests ate was indeed the sacrifice. Just as the sacrificed Paschal Lamb was eaten. This is in obedience to his command to “do this as a memorial sacrifice (anamnesis) of me”.

Stone:

So rather than help your case the Greek and Hebrew words you present, studied in their proper Scriptural context, actually weaken it.

Actually, in their proper Scriptural context, they blow your revisionist theology right out of the water.

Stone:

This prophecy has absolutely nothing to do with the Eucharist. It’s a prophecy concerning the future Millennial Kingdom when the Gentile nations that enter it at Christ’s 2nd Advent will glorify Him with pure incense and grain offerings. How could one possibly get the “Eucharist” out of this text when it’s specifying incense and grain? That’s quite a stretch to call the Eucharist a “grain” offering.(Matt. 25:31ff).

That’s only your biased and fallible opinion. Mine, on the other hand, has the weight of being the same as the first Christians, as well as eminent Protestant doctrinal scholars. Why should I take your interpretation as the true one? What authority do you have that I should believe you as opposed to Kelley, or Clement of Rome, or Ignatius of Antioch or Justin Martyr or Irenaeus of Lyons? Think about it, incense and a pure offering (of grain). Hmm, what is the Eucharist before it is consecrated? Grain? Boy, I don’t know how they could possibly connect the Eucharist and grain :whacky:

Stone:

Yes, I have read quite a lot on it, in fact. To be honest I have a hard time accepting this* “accidents”* and “substance” explanation. Since none of this can actually be observed by the senses, it would of necessity require special, Divine revelation. To whom did God give this revelation regarding “accidents” and “substance”? And I must assume it would had to have been one of the Apostles. Such a revelation/information could not be post-Apostolic. Yet I read nothing of this anywhere in the Gospel accounts, the Book of Acts or the Epistles.

What is present is the belief that Jesus is truly and substantially present in the Eucharist. This “is” my body, this “is” my blood. From the Apostles through the Church Fathers, through Trent and even today, this belief has been constant for the vast, vast majority of Christians. Heck, even the early Martyrs gladly were put to death rather than miss partaking of the Eucharist. What transubstantiation is is a developed explanation of how Christ becomes substantially present.

As for your difficulty in believing it, well you know what, it takes faith precisely because we can’t see the change with our senses. This truly is your problem, like the disciples who walked away from our Lord because it was a hard saying. They left rather than have faith in our Lord’s words. However, there are documented Eucharistic miracles, such as the host that actually became heart tissue after consecration, or the bleeding host from Venezuela (the blood was determined to be human by DNA tests, and there is readily available video of it bleeding here). These miracles occured for people just like you.

 

[Stone]

Mickey:

It’s not my place to judge you.

Have a Blessed Pascha!

Do you agree or disagree with “Felicity” that those who walked away sealed their doom?

 

[st_felicity]

Stone:

Do you agree or disagree with “Felicity” that those who walked away sealed their doom?

Actually–I said, by quoting the Scripture–

**
****it says they “no longer accompanied Him.” I believe the Bible when it says “no longer”–that means, not again, left, did not ever take up their cross and “follow Him”. ****
But, yeah…I guess if they don’t walk with Christ–their doom is sealed…so…

Stone–only God knows your heart and why you do not follow the teachings of the Church He founded and protected from the gates of Hell and why you do not believe in His presence in the Eucharist. Perhaps there is something that mitigates your culpability–perhaps not. That is for God to judge. **

 

[Stone]

mtr01:

Actually Stone, you are 100% absolutely incorrect. What I’m merely pointing out is that the first Christians indeed historically viewed the Mass as a sacrifice,

But this assertion has been proven wrong, even by the name they attached to it, “Eucharist,” from the Greek, “having given thanks.” It began early as a “thank offering,” and not until later did it take it actually take on the concept of a “sacrifice.”

That’s nice, but you fail to address the fact that anamnesis is always used to denote a memorial sacrifice. If the Gospel writers understood it to be merely a remembrance, then they would have used the word they used in other passages to denote a “recalling of mind”, mnemosunon. But they didn’t, did they? No, they used the word they used in reference to a memorial sacrifice.

That’s the verb form. “Anamnesis” is a noun and for this reason is translated “in remembrance” and not “remember Me” In the institution of the Lord’s Supper Christ is not using it in a way that means “in memory of Me”; but the attached “ana,” meaning “up,” means an affectionate calling of the Person Himself to mind. It wasn’t just body and blood up there on the cross, but the PERSON of Jesus Christ Himself. Essentially He is saying, “do this” (eat and drink) with Me in mind.

The Apostles understood this, and appropriately regarded the Eucharist as a sacrifice, and taught this to their students.

Where did the Apostles teach the “Eucharist?” It’s really not a Biblical term. It was formed from the Greek “and giving thanks,” but the Apostles did not use the term in Scripture. As pointed out before, if any sacrifice was attached to the term early on it was a “sacrifice of thanksgiving.” The idea of a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice and the elements transubstantiating came later. May I ask why you believe it’s important for me to accept your doctrine of the Eucharist?

"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.”

Can you show me where Christ actually spoke this last statement? It’s not a part of Scripture which are Holy Spirit inspired. It does not sound like the humble character of Christ to boast, “for I am a great King.” You seem to accept this on the same level as Scripture, and that Christ actually spoke those words. Do you?

Are you denying the connection to the Pasch?

The only connection is that Jesus instituted the sacrament after the Passover meal (which belongs to the Jews). Jesus is the fulfillment of the Passover Lamb, but the sacrament itself is connected to the New Covenant in His blood. And is to be celebrated only until He comes.

 

[Stone]

mrt01:

but if you re-read Lev 2, you will see that what the priests ate was indeed the sacrifice.

Read it again, what they ate and what was sacrificed (burnt) were separated. They did not eat of the portion that was sacrificed (burnt). In your “Eucharist” Mass you claim to eat what is sacrificed. In the Passover meal they didn’t eat the blood, but in your “Eucharist” you do. By eating the roasted lamb they appropriated the death that delivered them from bondage. It was a “shadow,” a “prefiguring” of Christ. It looked forward to His sacrificial death which delivers us from the bondage of our sins. When we eat the bread we appropriate His death and our deliverance from judgment (Jn. 5:24). And when we drink the wine we appropriate the shedding of His blood by which He inaugurated the New Covenant in which we have the forgiveness of ALL sins. And just as the angel of death “passed over” those homes that were under the blood of the paschal lamb, diverting judgment from being executed there, even so divine judgment is diverted and not executed toward us who are under the New Covenant in His blood. That’s what “remembrance” means. There’s no command to re-present His sacrifice, nor is there a need. What He did He did once for all.

"For the death that He died, He died to sin, once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God (Rom. 6:10)

“…who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself” (Heb. 7:27).

“…and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12).

“By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10).

“For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit” (1 Pet. 3:18)

This truly is your problem, like the disciples who walked away from our Lord because it was a hard saying.

“This is My body” is not a hard “saying” for me. Yours is a hard “interpretation” for me. They walked away, I believe, because they interpreted Him wrongly. Likewise, I cannot accept your Mass because I believe you also interpret Him wrongly.

However, there are documented Eucharistic miracles, such as the host that actually became heart tissue after consecration, or the bleeding host from Venezuela (the blood was determined to be human by DNA tests, and there is readily available video of it bleeding here). These miracles occured for people just like you.

Well, when you actually see it happen, please send me a private e-mail. It would have to be His actual heart tissue, so is His glorified body now missing some heart tissue? You do realize that Jesus’ resurrected, glorified body is the same body that died, right? Or are you talking some sort of “stem cell” or “cloning” miracle" taking place there??

Do you believe those reports?

 

[Stone]

st_felicity:

Actually–I said, by quoting the Scripture–

But, yeah…I guess if they don’t walk with Christ–their doom is sealed…so…

Then based on your logic my doom is sealed as well, right? Mickey equates not believing and partaking in the Catholic Eucharist with those who "walked away. And you deemed them doomed.

**Stone–only God knows your heart and why you do not follow the teachings of the Church He founded and protected from the gates of Hell and why you do not believe in His presence in the Eucharist. Perhaps there is something that mitigates your culpability–perhaps not. That is for God to judge. **

I am not commanded to follow any church. But Jesus does command to “follow Me,” and “believe in Me.” This I do to the best of my ability and help from the Holy Spirit who indwells me and regenerated me. I don’t believe Christ “founded” any church. I believe He is “building” His Church to this very day. And I know and rejoice that I am part of it, and at the proper time I will be taken up with it.

I don’t understand “Perhaps there is something that mitigates your culpability.” I have no guilt.

 

[Church_Militant]

Stone:

Then based on your logic my doom is sealed as well, right? Mickey equates not believing and partaking in the Catholic Eucharist with those who "walked away. And you deemed them doomed.I am not commanded to follow any church. But Jesus does command to “follow Me,” and “believe in Me.” This I do to the best of my ability and help from the Holy Spirit who indwells me and regenerated me. I don’t believe Christ “founded” any church. I believe He is “building” His Church to this very day. And I know and rejoice that I am part of it, and at the proper time I will be taken up with it.

I don’t understand “Perhaps there is something that mitigates your culpability.” I have no guilt.

That’s right…you don’t understand. Catholics do not insist that you believe what we believe and your lack of insight and faith is just that. We are not the ones on your religious website seeking to disparage the teachings of your faith. You have heard our answers…you reject them. We have given you simple scriptural answers that you reject. You have nothing more to offer but debate. A waste of time. Are you through now?
What you believe is between you and God

 

[mtr01]

Stone:

Read it again, what they ate and what was sacrificed (burnt) were separated. They did not eat of the portion that was sacrificed (burnt).

Stone, you need to read it again. It says take a part of the sacrifice and burn it, it doesn’t say take part of the offering and burn it as a sacrifice. Your novel interpretation doesn’t work.

Stone:

In your “Eucharist” Mass you claim to eat what is sacrificed. In the Passover meal they didn’t eat the blood, but in your “Eucharist” you do. By eating the roasted lamb they appropriated the death that delivered them from bondage. It was a “shadow,” a “prefiguring” of Christ. It looked forward to His sacrificial death which delivers us from the bondage of our sins. When we eat the bread we appropriate His death and our deliverance from judgment (Jn. 5:24). And when we drink the wine we appropriate the shedding of His blood by which He inaugurated the New Covenant in which we have the forgiveness of ALL sins. And just as the angel of death “passed over” those homes that were under the blood of the paschal lamb, diverting judgment from being executed there, even so divine judgment is diverted and not executed toward us who are under the New Covenant in His blood. That’s what “remembrance” means. There’s no command to re-present His sacrifice, nor is there a need. What He did He did once for all.

Hey, if you want to dispute our Lords own words “Drink, this is my blood”, then go right ahead. However, I don’t think you’ll get a sympathetic ear from those who actually trust in his words, though. However, yet again, the weight of scholarly and historical evidence completely contradicts your revisionist theology. You have absolutely no credible evidence that the Apostle’s could not have understood *anamnesis *to mean “do this as a memorial sacrifice” (which they did, and taught to their pupils"), nor given an explanation as to why *mnemosunon *wasn’t used if it was just a “recalling to mind” that our Lord commanded. Your attempt to read back your post-Reformation denial of the Eucharist in the text is transparent.

"For the death that He died, He died to sin, once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God (Rom. 6:10)

…]

“For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit” (1 Pet. 3:18)

This is all well and good, Catholics believe this also, and do nothing to contradict it.

“This is My body” is not a hard “saying” for me. Yours is a hard “interpretation” for me. They walked away, I believe, because they interpreted Him wrongly. Likewise, I cannot accept your Mass because I believe you also interpret Him wrongly.Well, when you actually see it happen, please send me a private e-mail. It would have to be His actual heart tissue, so is His glorified body now missing some heart tissue? You do realize that Jesus’ resurrected, glorified body is the same body that died, right? Or are you talking some sort of “stem cell” or “cloning” miracle" taking place there??

It’s not just my interpretation. As I said before, it is the interpretation of the Apostles, who taught it to their pupils who became bishops, who have passed it on from the beginning of Christianity to this very day. If you want to contradict Apostolic teaching, go right ahead. Heck, you even contradicts the teaching and belief of the Fathers of the Reformation as Luther and Calvin believed that Christ was substantially present in the Eucharist. So yes, I believe that you find “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you” is a hard saying, and would have left our Lord with the other faithless disciples (and I guarantee that you cannot present a compelling case that the disciples who left misinterpreted our Lord).

As for the miracles, what can I say, I provided you with a link where you can see a host actually bleeding. I bet you didn’t even bother to look at it. I guess all the witnesses who saw it were liars, hmm? I personally don’t put limits on what God can do, sorry to hear that you do. Your question is basically “how can he do that?”…sounds an awful lot like “how can this man give us his body to eat?” to me.

Stone:

Do you believe those reports?

The ones that were investigated by the Vatican and approved I do.

Happy Easter!

 

[Stone]

Church Militant:

That’s right…you don’t understand. Catholics do not insist that you believe what we believe and your lack of insight and faith is just that. We are not the ones on your religious website seeking to disparage the teachings of your faith. You have heard our answers…you reject them. We have given you simple scriptural answers that you reject. You have nothing more to offer but debate. A waste of time. Are you through now?
What you believe is between you and God

But do you insist we don’t talk about it? It was a Catholic who brought up the question, “why did they walk away?” in reference to Jn. six which is one of the most important passages of Scripture concerning the Mass. When the question was asked, was it just for the Catholic point of view? Is it not good to get other opinions? From all I’ve read these discussions actually increase and seem to confirm the Catholic’s faith, not discourage it.

You’re knowledgeabe in Catholic doctrine. May I ask you, do you equate me with those who walked away and supposedly sealed their doom?

 

[Stone]

mtr01:

As for the miracles, what can I say, I provided you with a link where you can see a host actually bleeding. I bet you didn’t even bother to look at it. I guess all the witnesses who saw it were liars, hmm? I personally don’t put limits on what God can do, sorry to hear that you do. Your question is basically “how can he do that?”…sounds an awful lot like “how can this man give us his body to eat?” to me.Happy Easter!

Sure I watched the video. I cannot deny or confirm what is reported on it, I wasn’t there. But I also can’t accept their interpretation since one cannot prove it was Christ’s blood. My faith doesn’t rest on “miracles” or men’s interpretation of them.

Is this one approved by the Vatican?

Happy Easter to you too.