Replies

An excellent essay. Paul states clearly in his first letter to the Corinthian converts that flesh and blood will not inherit 'the kingdom'. We read in scripture that the life of the creature is in the blood. The blood is not the life, but the life is carried IN The Blood.

The creature body that Jesus took tot he cross had the life of it carried by the blood He shed for our redemption.

The resurrected body JESUS now occupies no longer has blood carrying the creature life in it. GOD has another way of distributing The Life of the glorified ones throughout their real physical bodies, so the Jesus who catholiciism claims their priests bring down to their altars would not be a body possessing blood for them to consume! There is no continuing sacrifice of Jesus's body and blood because it is no longer a creature body He occupies.

There is no real presence of the Lord Christ in the lie that is the Catholic Mass. BUT Jesus himself told us that where two or more belivers / faithers in Him are gathered in His name, He is there in the midst of them. He is not there to be continually sacrificed in creature body. He is there in a spacetime reality we are not yet equipped to sense. But He is there ... The Lord Christ does not err and He keeps His Promises.

I agree. Another thing that they keep missing or ignoring is that whenever the early leaders of the church talked about Jesus' "presence" in the bread and wine of the "thanksgiving" - aka, eucharist- which is:

late Middle English: from Old French eucariste, based on ecclesiastical Greek eukharistia ‘thanksgiving,’ from Greek eukharistos ‘grateful,’ from eu ‘well’ + kharizesthai ‘offer graciously’ (from kharis ‘grace’)

It was meant to confirm Jesus' own statement that where two or more were gathered together in His name He would be present with them. There was also the issue of arguing against the Gnostics/Docetists who denied Jesus HAD a flesh and blood body. The RCs seem to always leave that out of their discussion and I think the context of why terms were used is important.

One last thing is that these repetitive threads - meant, I think, to propose ONLY the Catholics have it "right" about this subject - seem to leave out the fact that there is no evidence for centuries that the Lord's Supper ordinance was seen as an "offering/sacrifice" or was meant to be for the expiation of sins with consumption being necessary for salvation. When Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. (John 6:52), it was AFTER he had told them:

I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

It has ALWAYS been about faith, believing in Jesus Christ and what He has done for us in saving us from our sins and enabling us to be in heaven with Him. Eating the bread and drinking the wine of the observance of the Lord's Supper is a testimony to the faith we already have and to remind us always of His sacrifice for us. Catholics sure don't have the copyright on that!