Replies

Oh really? How can you receive a "cultural idiom" unworthily?

The same way one could can hypocritically wear phylacteries, signifying faithfulness to God while deceitfulness is in his heart.

" And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the LORD'S law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the LORD brought thee out of Egypt. (Exo 13:9) "

"Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord... not discerning the body of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11, 27‑29). If Christ is only metaphorically present in the Eucharist, communicating unworthily offends indeed His person but not His body and blood.

And which is ignorantly cited by Caths as referring to the Corinthians not recognizing the element as being the body and blood of Christ, but which contextually is not the issue.

The overall context here is the church as the body of Christ, and that what one has liberty to eat or do is restricted by how it will affect others. Thus “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.” (1 Corinthians 10:31-32)

And which is the context in the next chapter, in which Paul reproves Corinthian church for coming together to eat the Lord's supper, as he charges them with not actually doing so because they were eating what is supposed to be a communal meal, the “feast of charity,” (Jude 1:12) independently of each other, so that “in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken,” and thus what they were doing was to “shame them that have not.” (1Co. 11:20-22)

Therefore Paul proceeds to reiterates the words of Christ at the institution of the Lord's supper, ending with “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [kataggellō=preach/declare] the Lord's death till he come.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-26)

For while they were supposed to be showing/declaring the Lord's unselfish sacrificial death for the body by unselfishly sharing food with other members of the body of Christ, whom Christ purchased it with His own sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) instead they were both eating independently and selfishly. And thus were effectively treating other members as lepers, and as if the body was not a body, and as if others were not part of the body for whom Christ died. This lack of effectual recognition is what is being referred to as “not discerning the Lord's body,” that of the body in which the members are to treat each as blood-bought beloved brethren, as Christ did. Because they were presuming to show the Lord's death for the body while acting contrary to it, therefore they were eating this bread and drinking the cup of the Lord unworthily, hypocritically, and were chastised for it, some unto death. (1Co. 11:27-32)

Because this was the case and cause of condemnation — that of not recognizing the nature of the corporate body of Christ in independently selfishly eating — versus not recognizing the elements eaten as being the body of Christ — then the apostle's solution was, “Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.” (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)

And which leads into the next chapter in which Christ-like love is described. Paul himself was asked of the Lord, “why persecutest thou me” (Acts 9:4) as Paul was attacking the church, thus showing His identification with the church.

While silently consuming a piece of bread and a sip of wine as is done today may not be that of ignoring others and their needs, yet it hardly corresponds in form to the communal feast of charity referred to here, and misses how we are to show the Lord's death by this supper, and instead it often results in seeing the Lord's death as simply being for individuals and abstract from the corporate body.

And to “take communion” by yourself (unseen in Scripture) is a contradiction in terms to its manifest description of communion. And the Catholic focus upon the elements which are consumed, and in which service many Catholics see interaction with others as an intrusion, and or with many with hastening to leave the service afterward, misses the meaning even more.

This is confirmed by what the Apostle said earlier: "The chalice of benediction... is it not the communication of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?" (1 Cor 10:16). We cannot communicate in the body and in the blood of Christ in the Eucharist unless they are really there.

As your premise is false so is your conclusion.

In 1 Corinthians 10 the Lord's supper is described as being the communion/fellowship of the blood and the body of Christ through their communal sharing in that meal done in remembrance of Christ's death, not by eating His flesh. For in context the apostle teaches that this fellowship is analogous to the fellowship pagans have with their gods in their commemorative feasts, participation by believers in which the apostle is condemning.

Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:20,21)

Which partaking was not by consuming the transubstantiated flesh of devils, but by taking part in a feast done in dedication to demons. For they which eat of the sacrifices are partakers of the altar, showing union with the object of this feast and each other, and not because the food has been transubstantiated into that of the entity it is offered to.

In both chapters it is the church that as the body of Christ that is the focus, as it was bought by the sacrificial body and blood of Christ, and thus fellowship as per that love they were to show by recognizing each other via that communal "feast of charity," which signified oneness, like as the pagans had fellowship with devils via their dedicatory feasts, not by physically eating the flesh of demons.

Meanwhile,nowhere in the life of the NT church is any priest mentioned as even officiating at the Lord 's supper, much less engaging in a ritual of transubstantiation, and offering the elements as an offering for sin.

Nor are NT pastors ever called priests distinctive from the general priesthood of believers, or charged with officiating at the Lord 's supper, or otherwise even distinctly being involved in distributing food , much less described as Catholic priests ritually effecting a change in the elements as sacerdotal priests, all of which Catholics must read into Scripture.

Instead, the apostles expressed that their ordained function was not serving food but to give themselves "continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word." (Acts 6:4)

In addition, nowhere in the life of the church is the means of obtaining spiritual life and growing in grace said to be by literally physically consuming the Lord Jesus, but spiritual life is obtained by hearing the gospel and truly believing it. (Acts 2:38; 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13)

And it is by preaching the word of grace that pastors foster growing in grace, by drinking "the sincere milk of the word," (1 Pt. 2:2) and ingesting its "meat," (1Co. 3:2; Heb. 5:12,13) being "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up by the word, (Acts 20:32) and with feeding the flock thereby being the primary active function of pastors. (Acts 20:32)

As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: (1 Peter 2:2)

I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. (1 Corinthians 3:2)

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (Acts 20:32)

If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. (1 Timothy 4:6)

That the Lord was charging the apostles with being a distinct class of sacerdotal priests in the gospel accounts is what Catholicism presumes, but which is the very thing that needs to be established in the life of the NT church, but which simply is not manifest, which was a

later development . .

In addition, apart from 1 Corinthians is the absence of any manifest description of the Lord's supper other than breaking of bread in Acts and a "feast of charity" (Jude 1:12) which stands in sharp in contrast to the central supreme preeminence of the Lord's supper as a "the heart and summit of the Christian life...by this sacrifice he pours out the graces of salvation on his Body which is the Church." (CCC 1407) “the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ," (CCC 1415) "a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments," (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) through which “the work of our redemption is carried out,” (CCC 1364) with the offering of which being the primary function of her clergy, and around which all else in Catholicism essentially revolves.