Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Review this later.
Another good one! Thank you! I’m going to send this one to DH. He’s really enjoying the apologetics side of things.
At the Last Supper, Christ says, “This is my body.”
“This is my blood.”
Do this in remembrance of me.”
All the proof I need from the Bible.
An anticipation of a food fight here is a given. The Screeching Swarm just descends on these sorts of things, and nothing good ever comes of it. It does no good to say that debate is always healthy. It isn't, especially when, as the long, sorry history of this forum demonstrates, the subject matter is almost invariably hijacked to at least some degree, sometimes to a level that makes one suppose that a highly predictable scandal of the Faith has ensued. It is not right to subject God, the Saints, or the holy doctrines of the Faith to the nether regions-inspired, printed vomit of The Swarm. The very capable Catholic apologists here have only so many fingers to stick in the dike when too many threads like this go on site uncaucused. Burnout is definitely becoming a problem for some of them. In any event, most have to work, too, and can only jump in as time allows. Caucusing still allows the message to be read by all, yet protects holy things from being dragged through the mud by people who are either ignorant or nefariously motivated. A more clear and apt application of Matthew 7:6 cannot be found.
Proposal: If threads treating to Catholic doctrine that are eligible for caucus status are, in fact, not caucused, then the poster should be willing to field all of the naysayers on his or her own. "You posted it, then you block time all day to defend it." The lack of discernment here sometimes is eye-rollingly distressing. For God's sake, people, let's use some sense and caucus threads whenever the guidelines are met! Let's not subject even the Eucharist to the vile and disingenuous spew from The Screeching Swarm!
Rant /off.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.
Did you notice in the scripture that even after the blessing and consecration of the bread, and just before it is eaten, the bread is still only bread. It's not flesh or body or divinity or soul or spirit or anything else. It's still only bread -- consecrated bread, but bread nonetheless.
I guess Paul and the early church were just not privy to the magic formulae discovered by the Transubstantiationists --
This observation I found particularly brilliant. Scholastic language doesn't come easy to most of us today (myself included), so we don't need to go into a whole philosophical discussion of accidence vs. substance. What we simply need to ascertain is what Christianity has always said that the Eucharist *is*.
Once again, the validity of spiritual truth is inversely proportional to the number of words needed to relate it. ;)
I stopped reading here. Even if that is the correct meaning, that is not "the only possible meaning."
Notice paul DID NOT SAY "is not this cup the blood of Christ? Is not the bread the body of Christ"? He was explicit it is a communion with him. A spiritual union not a physical one .
God always ordered memorials of spiritual events.Alters, towers of rocks, and events like the passover meal. he knew we would forget unless we had reminders.
The Lords supper is a memorial of the life and death of Christ.
Jesus spoke in metaphors and smilies.
Think of all the "I am" teachings of Christ.
You are familiar with John 6, often that scripture is used as a sort of "proof text" for the "real presence".
But as you probably know it is really a chapter on Faith.The subject of bread was raised by a crowd and Jesus rebuked them for that by making the analogy to the bread n the desert.
The other "proof text" of course is the last supper.
In this scripture Jesus was revealing the prophetic nature of the Passover and the Passover meal.
Consider that Jews had a probation against the eating of blood, yet not one disciple asked Jesus what he meant. That is because they understood when he took the APHIKOMEN into his hands, this broken Matzo that had been hidden in a linen wrap, that it was symbolic of HIM.
Matzo has no leaven, leaven is a sign of sin. The Matzo had been broken as His body would be broken .
It was wrapped in linen as He would be, and it be hidden from sight for a time.
This is the exact spot where Jesus proclaimed "This is my body which is given for you." as He held that broken Matzo
The next step of the ritual meal is drinking from the wine-gobletcalled the "Cup of Redemption." That's when Jesus said,
"This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."
The passover meal was a REMEMBRANCE of the deliverance of the Jews. Just as the passover was a type of Christ so is the Passover meal.
Jesus was telling them this, and He was telling them NOW instead of the remembrance of the passover, their eyes were opened and the meaning revealed NOW they were to do the mean in remembrance of HIM, of His blood, the blood of the Lamb of God.
>>Modern scholars believe Jesus died in the year 30 and that Saul was converted early in 37. Some are convinced his conversion was as early as 34. It seems certain that 1 Corinthians was written after the Passover of 57. This means the newly converted Saul, now Paul, was plunged into the infant Church as early as four and not later than seven years after the death of Christ<<
Is that a typo that should have read passover of 37?
Where exactly in scripture did Jesus say bread was his body? He did specifically declare he is the bread of life - which is quite the opposite concept.
John Ch. 6
[33] For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
[35] And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
[48] I am that bread of life.
Yes, but read earlier. The Catholic Mass never talks about other significant scripture in this chapter of John:
61 Jesus was aware that his followers were complaining about it and said, 'Does this disturb you?
62 What if you should see the Son of man ascend to where he was before?
63 'It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh has nothing to offer. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.
64 'But there are some of you who do not believe.' For Jesus knew from the outset who did not believe and who was to betray him.
65 He went on, 'This is why I told you that no one could come to me except by the gift of the Father.'
Jesus makes it clear that his words are spirit and life. How can we interpret this as anything but that the consecration is a spiritual process, not a physical one.
Also, if transubstantiation were an actual conversion of the bread and wine to the body and blood, with Jesus very presence there, how can Jesus, one flesh, be in so many churches (masses) at one time? And doesn't this mean we are sacrificing Jesus again and again, when he told us on the cross that "It is finished"? He only had to be sacrificed once to cover all of man's sins, including the ones that had not even been committed at the time of his death.