Christ in the Eucharist (Ecumenical)

Protestant attacks on the Catholic Church often focus on the Eucharist. This demonstrates that opponents of the Church—mainly Evangelicals and Fundamentalists—recognize one of Catholicism’s core doctrines. What’s more, the attacks show that Fundamentalists are not always literalists. This is seen in their interpretation of the key biblical passage, chapter six of John’s Gospel, in which Christ speaks about the sacrament that will be instituted at the Last Supper. This tract examines the last half of that chapter.

John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.

Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at 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" (John 6:53–56).

Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?

On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.

In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).

But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).

This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.

But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do Fundamentalists say?

They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: "Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’" They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 ("I am the door") and John 15:1 ("I am the true vine"). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, "I am the bread of life." "I am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But 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.

For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?

Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing" refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for "symbolic"? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

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.

Anti-Catholics also claim the early Church took this chapter symbolically. Is that so? Let’s see what some early Christians thought, keeping in mind that we can learn much about how Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians.

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).

Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. "I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence" (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).

Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).

In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: "When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).

Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.

Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6? For them, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual reality—grace—being conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many Protestants, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided.

One suspects, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how to bring about mankind’s salvation, Fundamentalists would have advised him to adopt a different approach. How much cleaner things would be if spirit never dirtied itself with matter! But God approves of matter—he approves of it because he created it—and he approves of it so much that he comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine, just as he does in the physical form of the Incarnate Christ.

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004 IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827 permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Well, that is a thoughtful reply and I thank you for it, but still disagree with your conclusion.

Jesus was fully human, but He was also fully divine. He had no need of the food He was offering to those who believe in Him. His point was that He lives because of the Father and we live because of Him.

“My meat is to do the will of Him who sent me and to finish His work.” Jesus’ mission is not the same as ours as only He could accomplish what God willed. And only the Father could sustain Him.

We on the other hand, are to believe in Jesus and follow His commands and one of His commands was to “Do this in remembrance of me.” As Paul wrote, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes again.”

The protestant understanding of the Eucharistic passages might be reasonable were it not for the fact that Paul speaks of eating the bread and drinking the cup not in a figurative or symbolic sense but in a very real sense. And that he would say that one who partakes of that bread and cup unworthily eats and drinks damnation on themselves is clearly in regards to the true presence of Christ in those items. What else would bring about such an eternal punishment?

And why would some of the bread be saved and taken to those who could not come to the Mass? Why not just eat the bread at their house? No, we are told that some of the bread was taken to those brothers and sisters not there.

The letters to the church from Paul, Peter, John and James etc do not spend an inordinate amount of time speaking of the Eucharist because that was the practice of the church and there was no need to speak to it constantly. Everyone comes to church and behaves, it is out in the world that people misbehave and in their every day lives that they need reminding as to how they are to live. The breaking of the bread together was something they did whenever they were together and that is mentioned several times especially in Acts which speaks to the beginnings of the church.

Though there are some exhortations in the letters regarding the Eucharist and how one should comport oneself in church, for the most part, the letters address specific theological and behavioral errors within the communities.

Finally, belief in the real/true presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the ultimate in belief in Christ. As the church says it is the source and the summit of our faith.

Thank you for your consideration but you are not following the argument as regards Jn. 6:57. , That He had no need of the Eucharistic as you describe does not correspond to the analogy, in which Jesus is saying that we live as He did, and which was not by eating physical food.

As far as 1Cor. 11, that is definitely not referring t the elements being the body of Christ, but the church. See here: http://www.peacebyjesus.net/Bible/1Cor._11.html#11 (brief)

As for your attempt to explain the lack of mention of the Lord’s supper and theology behind it in the epistles, by saying there was not need to speak to it constantly as they knew how they were to live, that will not do, as you the reason He wrote was so that they would now how to live, and thus he spend much time on both theology and application.

As for asserting that the breaking of the bread together mentioned in Acts was the Lord’s supper, this was not describing giving out wafers as an expiatory sacrifice officiated by priests, but daily meals.

Thus in regards to the communal breaking of the bread, there was a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. (Acts 6:1) To which the apostles responded, “It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables...But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. “ (Acts 6:2)

In contrast, when some members were being neglected in the “feast of charity,” then Paul chastened them for not recognizing the body of Christ, as they were not recognizing some members as being part of the body, and by so doing he says they actually were not eating the Lord’s supper, though they presumed they were.

In short, the idea that physically eating Jesus literal body is the “seed of eternal life” and “ultimate in belief in Christ” is not supported by Scripture, and actually takes the focus off what eating the Lord supper is supposed to actualize. It is not a wafer that is incarnating Christ in some way, but the church, and the Lord’s supper is supposed to remember the death of Christ for His church by exampling loving sharing towards each other, which the Corinthians were not doing.

Again, see the link and honestly allow yourself to go wherever the truth may lead. If the Scriptures taught transubstantiation i will still believe it.

<<<>>> Still I disagree with your understanding of that passage. Jesus here is saying that He lives because of the Father and to do the Father's will and we live through Him because of that. The will of the Father for us is to believe in Jesus and accept that His death and resurrection is our salvation. We are not Jesus though He was like us. Jesus however already had divine nature, which we now have because of Him. When we partake in the Eucharist, we are receiving Jesus' divine nature. Unlike regular food which becomes a part of us, we become a part of Jesus when we eat His body and drink His blood. I read your link and I disagree wholeheartedly with its premise. I could accept it if at the Last Supper, Jesus had not held up the bread and the wine and declared them to be His body and the cup of His blood. Jesus, and none of the NT writers ever connect the bread and wine with the body of believers, though Paul does say that the believers are the body of Christ. Note that he does so only after he speaks about the bread and cup which WE BLESS as a sharing in the body and blood of Christ. Paul says after laying this groundwork, NOW you are the body of Christ. It is only after he writes of the partaking of the ONE BREAD and the ONE CUP that we become a part of the body of Christ. So, again I have to disagree with your understanding of these verses. And, I disagree that there is a lace of theological explanation of the Lord's Supper. The times that it is mentioned Paul corrects any misunderstanding and there is no further need to repeat it. You specifically mention Paul's admonition in Corinthians chapter 11 regarding the believers' actions and behaviors at the Lord's supper. What does he say there? He admonishes them because they are bringing food and drink from home and feasting while others have nothing. He says it is not the Lord's supper for they are eating and drinking privately and not as a community. He then reiterates the words of Christ at the Last Supper and tells them they should eat at home if they are hungry. And then he tells them they should be eating together. So we have here Paul describing what the real Lord's Supper should look like. It is not for physical hunger and it should be eaten together with everyone partaking of the same bread and drinking of the same cup. Paul ties it all together and makes it clear that the gathering for the Lord's supper is not just any gathering and the elements of that supper are not just the ordinary food of a meal. In Acts, the complaint of the Grecians against the Jews was not that their widows were being neglected at the breaking of the bread, but in the distribution of food to those in need. We read in Acts how everyone gave what they had to share with others. The Apostles here are not speaking of waiting tables in regards to the Lord's Supper, but rather in the administration of the charitable gifts to the members of the church. That is why they chose deacons to do this work so that they may concentrate on the preaching the Word. Now, I must admit I had never heard the phrase "feasts of charity" and only find it in one passage in Jude, and only then in only a couple translations. Most say love feasts and some say banquets, but feasts of charity is not the most common used here. The letter from Jude is a rather odd one and I don't find the same connection you do to the Lord's Supper. What I see is a warning from St. Jude regarding those who would blaspheme the Lord and not be true partakers of the Lord's Supper but are mockers of the Lord's divinity and majesty and sacrifice. They glory in their own sinfulness as they reject the salvation of the Lord. I don't see where there is any mention of neglect at all. <<>>> I did see the link and again, the truth of Scriptures leads me right back to the Church and belief in the real and true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Scripture absolutely supports the Catholic belief. The elements are all there even if the bread is now a Host or "wafer" as some like to call it. I will have to look for any response in the new year as I have to get ready to celebrate with my husband. I wish you and your family all the best in this coming year. May every blessing of Christ be yours and may you all have peace and good health, and may the love of Christ be with you always.

LOL, yikes is right!

****Still I disagree with your understanding of that passage. Jesus here is saying that He lives because of the Father and to do the Father’s will and we live through Him because of that. ****

The will of the Father for us is to believe in Jesus and accept that His death and resurrection is our salvation. We are not Jesus though He was like us.

Jesus however already had divine nature, which we now have because of Him. When we partake in the Eucharist, we are receiving Jesus’ divine nature. Unlike regular food which becomes a part of us, we become a part of Jesus when we eat His body and drink His blood.

I read your link and I disagree wholeheartedly with its premise. I could accept it if at the Last Supper, Jesus had not held up the bread and the wine and declared them to be His body and the cup of His blood.

Jesus, and none of the NT writers ever connect the bread and wine with the body of believers, though Paul does say that the believers are the body of Christ. Note that he does so only after he speaks about the bread and cup which WE BLESS as a sharing in the body and blood of Christ.

Paul says after laying this groundwork, NOW you are the body of Christ. It is only after he writes of the partaking of the ONE BREAD and the ONE CUP that we become a part of the body of Christ.

So, again I have to disagree with your understanding of these verses. And, I disagree that there is a lack of theological explanation of the Lord’s Supper. The times that it is mentioned Paul corrects any misunderstanding and there is no further need to repeat it.

You specifically mention Paul’s admonition in Corinthians chapter 11 regarding the believers’ actions and behaviors at the Lord’s supper. What does he say there?

He admonishes them because they are bringing food and drink from home and feasting while others have nothing. H

e says it is not the Lord’s supper for they are eating and drinking privately and not as a community.

He then reiterates the words of Christ at the Last Supper and tells them they should eat at home if they are hungry. And then he tells them they should be eating together.

So we have here Paul describing what the real Lord’s Supper should look like. It is not for physical hunger and it should be eaten together with everyone partaking of the same bread and drinking of the same cup.

Paul ties it all together and makes it clear that the gathering for the Lord’s supper is not just any gathering and the elements of that supper are not just the ordinary food of a meal.

In Acts, the complaint of the Grecians against the Jews was not that their widows were being neglected at the breaking of the bread, but in the distribution of food to those in need.

We read in Acts how everyone gave what they had to share with others. The Apostles here are not speaking of waiting tables in regards to the Lord’s Supper, but rather in the administration of the charitable gifts to the members of the church. That is why they chose deacons to do this work so that they may concentrate on the preaching the Word.

Now, I must admit I had never heard the phrase “feasts of charity” and only find it in one passage in Jude, and only then in only a couple translations. Most say love feasts and some say banquets, but feasts of charity is not the most common used here.

The letter from Jude is a rather odd one and I don’t find the same connection you do to the Lord’s Supper. What I see is a warning from St. Jude regarding those who would blaspheme the Lord and not be true partakers of the Lord’s Supper but are mockers of the Lord’s divinity and majesty and sacrifice.

They glory in their own sinfulness as they reject the salvation of the Lord. I don’t see where there is any mention of neglect at all.

I did see the link and again, the truth of Scriptures leads me right back to the Church and belief in the real and true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The Scripture absolutely supports the Catholic belief. The elements are all there even if the bread is now a Host or “wafer” as some like to call it.

I wish you and your family all the best in this coming year. May every blessing of Christ be yours and may you all have peace and good health, and may the love of Christ be with you always.

That is far better formatting, however, you are engaging in special pleading in attempting to negate the analogy the Lord made btwn how He lived by the Father and how we live by Him. If it was as you say, then there would be no real analogy.

As for 1 Cor. 11, if you cannot see that what is not being recognized is the body of Christ as the church, due to neglecting the members in the agape feast, then there is hardly much more to say.

Even the church-sanctioned notes in your official NAB Bible recognizes that the sin of was that of a failure to treat other members in a way that corresponded to the sacrificial death of Christ that they were supposed to be remembering:

[11:27] It follows that the only proper way to celebrate the Eucharist is one that corresponds to Jesus’ intention, which fits with the meaning of his command to reproduce his action in the proper spirit. If the Corinthians eat and drink unworthily, i.e., without having grasped and internalized the meaning of his death for them, they will have to answer for the body and blood, i.e., will be guilty of a sin against the Lord himself (cf. 1 Cor 8:12).

* [11:28] Examine himself: the Greek word is similar to that for “approved” in 1 Cor 11:19, which means “having been tested and found true.” The self-testing required for proper eating involves discerning the body (1 Cor 11:29), which, from the context, must mean understanding the sense of Jesus’ death (1 Cor 11:26), perceiving the imperative to unity that follows from the fact that Jesus gives himself to all and requires us to repeat his sacrifice in the same spirit (1 Cor 11:18–25). http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/11

As for the

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread, “ (1 Corinthians 10:16-17)

you err in supposing this is referring to ingesting the Lord, as instead the principle he refers to is that of communal fellowship with that which is sacrificed to, thus his words which follow,

“But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 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)

Obviously the pagans were not eating the flesh of demons, but their religious communion signified fellowship with the object of it.

As for the cup we bless, that is simply a practice for meals,(Mt. 14:19; Mk. 6:41; 8:7; Lk. 9:16), and the focus in 1Cor. 11 is definitely not on the elements, but the people, and remembering the Lord’s death by seeking to love as He did, who died for the church, the body of Christ. (Acts 20:28) .

And nowhere does the Holy Spirit teach that only after
partaking of the elements do believers become a part of the body of Christ, which is heretical. Souls are baptized into the body of Christ at conversion, (1Cor. 12:13) and effectually express that in the Lord’s supper

****you are engaging in special pleading in attempting to negate the analogy the Lord made btwn how He lived by the Father and how we live by Him. If it was as you say, then there would be no real analogy.****

It does not negate the analogy in the least. It fits, Jesus’ lives by the Father and we live by Jesus. That does not equate to Jesus eating of the Father’s flesh and nowhere there does Jesus say that. The Father is the source of Jesus’ earthly/human life and Jesus is the source of our eternal/heavenly life. It is the same as when Jesus asks them if they can drink from the same cup as He in one passage and then tells them they will suffer because of Him in another.

Our missions are different. Jesus’ was to do the will of the Father, which for Him, was to suffer death for the redemption of all. Ours is to believe in Jesus and share that Good News with the world. Though we are truly adopted sons and daughters of God through Christ, we only share in the divine nature that Jesus gives to us in the Eucharist. We do not have a divine nature in the same way that Jesus has His.

*****As for 1 Cor. 11, if you cannot see that what is not being recognized is the body of Christ as the church, due to neglecting the members in the agape feast, then there is hardly much more to say.*****

***** [11:28] Examine himself: the Greek word is similar to that for “approved” in 1 Cor 11:19, which means “having been tested and found true.” The self-testing required for proper eating involves discerning the body (1 Cor 11:29), which, from the context, must mean understanding the sense of Jesus’ death (1 Cor 11:26), perceiving the imperative to unity that follows from the fact that Jesus gives himself to all and requires us to repeat his sacrifice in the same spirit (1 Cor 11:18–25). http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/11*****

You are over simplifying the passage, ignoring the rest of it and focusing solely on that one verse which you use to support your erroneous understanding of the Lord’s Supper.
The entire passage is a treatise on how the Lord’s Supper is to be celebrated, the true meaning of that communal meal and how to comport oneself at that meal with regards to ourselves and each other.

The Lord’s Supper is not just any meal, it is the partaking of the one loaf and the one cup. People coming together for that supper should not be bringing a feast for themselves while others have nothing. It is not a admonition regarding charity, but unity and sharing in the one loaf and the one cup regardless of one’s personal circumstances.

****Obviously the pagans were not eating the flesh of demons, but their religious communion signified fellowship with the object of it.****

True enough, but then, the demons are not Jesus and cannot give themselves to their followers to eat. Jesus is the High Priest who offers the sacrifice and the sacrifice which is offered. He can be both because He is God.

The demons cannot do so and the sacrifice offered at their tables is not one that is an everlasting covenant, but one that is in vain because it is an earthly sacrifice offered to demons and not God.

Paul is not saying that those who eat at the table of devils is eating the flesh of devils, he is saying that one cannot be in communion with devils and with God.

****And nowhere does the Holy Spirit teach that only after
partaking of the elements do believers become a part of the body of Christ, which is heretical. Souls are baptized into the body of Christ at conversion, (1Cor. 12:13) and effectually express that in the Lord’s supper*****

Well, that is not what I said and maybe you should reread what I did say which you cannot dispute. And that is that Jesus never once calls His followers His body. Paul does that and only then after showing that we are ONE BODY because Jesus is one and we are one in Him, and only then after his discourse on the one loaf and one cup as Paul says in 1 Cor 10.

Paul is speaking theologically here of the efficacious nature of the Lord’s Supper in sustaining the unity of the Church.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.