Christ in the Eucharist (Ecumenical)

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.