Replies

Your interpretation is just that, your interpretation.

You are in error. Not us, and not the Christians who believed in the Eucharistic Presence from Christ onward.

“Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).

He continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor.”

“Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.”

” Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).

Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66:1–20).”

http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

I feel like I may be beginning to see where Iscool is coming from. We know it involves a disdain or disapproval of anything "religious." I believe it was Iscool who earlier used to write about the good shepherd leading his sheep OUT of the fold. So I'm guessing that he would offer a very fluid interpretation of the "diversity of gifts" passages and would reject their being associated with any office or status, but would consider them functions which now and again so to speak "alighted upon" this or that member of the not empirically defined church. And, it we look at the "this" in As often as ye eat this bread, and take literally the synedoche of "cup" we then have ANY act of eating and drinking as a proper anamnetic event, in which the eating and drinking "represent" all the things which are said about the Eucharist.

This would be a kind of "hidden in plain sight" perception which could not be articulated openly because the person who did so would end up being head of his own sect or order or whatever, in a manner similar to what happened to St. Francis.

So the "fathers" whom we cite just didn't get it. They passed the hidden in plain sight teaching on without understanding it. And in every generation the Spirit informs certain people, illuminating them, giving them knowledge and wisdom about the true faith, which we, sort of like worker bees bringing royal jelly to larvae who will become our queens, service without understanding.

One PROBLEM with this is that, in certain strict versions of this kind of belief, one would have to deny holding it when it was stated all up front and everything as I have done. So I'll never know if I'm right!

we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ,

Try as you might, you can not get this sentence to mean you are supposed to eat the flesh and blood of Jesus...Participate in the body and blood???

“To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious?

Because it's a heart condition...

I wish you guy would quit bringing up Ignatius...Half of the writings attributed to him were proven to be forgeries and the other half are suspected to be forgeries as well...You using Ignatius as an authority is meaningless to me and many, many others...

which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him,

Now this is just being downright dishonest...Jesus did NOT set down any Eucharist prayer for you to turn bread and wine into flesh and blood...