Then my following reply would be accurate:
So discerning the body of Christ for you means an examination of conscience. I.e., “examine myself in regards to my relationships within the Body of Christ… make sure I did not have unconfessed sin against a fellow believer.”
And, again, quite a tortured exegesis of discerning the body to avoid the real presence in Holy Eucharist.
“And, again, quite a tortured exegesis of discerning the body to avoid the real presence in Holy Eucharist.”
If you read I Corinthians 11:17-33 - the entire paragraph and section concerning the abuse of the Lord’s Supper - instead of wresting just a single verse out of that context, you will learn that Paul is writing about exactly what I stated.
BONUS: if you read the paragraph and particularly the individual verse in Greek, you will have additional confirming insight.
aMPU --- did you notice that never was a definition of what "discerning the body" meant from the perspective of your Inquisitor antagonist, until the various sentences and judgments of condemnation (of a most personal nature) were pronounced?
So just what is it (from your perspective) D-fendr, that must be discerned?
Is it when the priest holds up the bread and says to the effect "this is" the body?
If so, then you do well, for that is what is being (or just had been) consecrated.
It was in this, when not taken as important, when considered nothing more than just another piece of bread among all the rest of the meal partaken of, or partaken of before all others (of a local church body) had yet arrived, which communal meal (in Paul's own time) they would be gathered together to share, which was that which Paul was speaking towards, along with quite importantly adding admonition against persons partaking without examining their own selves in light of Christ, (with this last paraphrase/interpretation "in light of Christ" being my own inclusions admittedly exported from sense gained of what be spoken of elsewhere in scripture which would entail additional lengthy documentation -- mind if we skip that additional for now?)
Yet if one is looking for "transubstantiation" there as Paul speaks of "discerning the body" it must be of the metaphysical variety, and that finding of the metaphysical derived from later definitions, imposing those not only upon the texts, but of the earliest centuries church traditions also, for it is difficult to see Christ speaking other than metaphorically-literally in regards to his own then-human form flesh.
He was right in front of them -- not then alluding to doing magic trick of turning his then human flesh into bread -- for the bread was extant and had been itself visible in it's own "form" right in front of them, all along also (the bread did not just suddenly appear out of nowhere) yet instead He was referencing very directly then extant Jewish religious memorial feasts -- showing Himself to be that bread, the manna, and the Lamb of the first Passover also, which itself was presaged by Abraham being directed to offer up Isaac as sacrifice --- and the ram, right at the last possible moment be known as available, provided by God as Abraham had faith God would provide, although as the text leads myself to believe --- Abraham was willing to slay his own son ----- which is what God Himself has fulfilled by having His only begotten die in the place of ourselves, the ransom given for us, given FOR us all, by the One who's own awesome Holiness demands justice and due wages be paid. In Full.
He is the Alpha & the Omega
The one I know of (in English language) as Jesus Christ, He is the one who paid the price, even as he received our own wages due to us for sin, becoming even them (sins) in His own flesh bodily. (2 Corinthians 5:21, Isaiah 53:9)
Is this not discernment enough? Then read on, there is more.
aMPU, I believe, from his own words which I have read upon occasion, here on FR for years now --- likely shares much the same belief as I expressed just now, though may have his own differences with me on this-or-that other, and is likely as not also capable of bringing yet more related information (for the scriptures are quite rich in depth, indeed) as those may come to mind.
Later usages (other than in scripture itself) of the phrase "discernment of the body" (but still in the primitive church, such as in those first decades after the Apostles themselves 'had loosed this mortal coil' of their own earthly existences) towards that same passage could include a speaker referring to those who thought Jesus was just a ghost or something all along --as in Him never living and breathing in actual fleshly form, or the more limited original Arianism which claimed the Risen Christ was not bodily present, walking, breathing, even eating and drinking, but was then as specter.
These errors mixed in, along with lack of discernment of the body of the church and it's teachings, with that particular "lack" being a problem (in Paul's time also) of persons joining in or attending the 'love feasts' as they were then called, as just another meal, which too casual approach neglected the very purpose of the consecration & sharing of bread broken (for us), and that most central feature be one of the "teachings" inclusive as Paul wrote of them -----up to that time in which Paul did so. Later additions to those teachings do not necessarily come under the same category of "discerning the body", even as I do believe (for I have experienced it) a mystical Presence discernible most acutely in one's own spirit -- but so much so there be some bodily "sense" of His Spirit too, all of this concurrent with the taking of communion. Yet--- that is not the only way, time or place of setting which one can commune in spirit with Him, I mention as part of my own personal testimony, which does correspond well with many others touching upon the same things -- as it is written shall be.
Other than my own more "personal" testimony of what I have sensed or discerned upon occasion, if the rest of what I write here as to earliest practices is not believed by yourself --- Bring the (NT) texts. Bring the Didache. Let us see there what is being said -- but spare us much of the rest which comes only much later.
Let us start there, at the beginning, then cleave to the more original understandings primarily, bearing those firmly in mind when or if moving forward to other "sense" of what is or is not being "discerned", unless you would care to share personal testimony as towards your own discernment (or lack thereof) --of the body-- which if this latter condition (your own personal testimony) then never mind me t'all, but preach it brother and testify, sing out and don't let anyone stop you from sharing as to what you yourself may have "discerned".
Otherwise, just what is it which you are talking inquiring about?
Literally the flesh and blood? Well yes, it was written so is therefore literal in that sense, but which as He explained was to be spiritually discerned;
The words [ho rhēma] that I [hos egō] have spoken [laleō] to you [hymeis] are [eimi] spirit [pneuma] and [kai] life [zōē].
ho -
usually rel. who, which, that, also demonstrative this, thatsarx -
flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beastsou
the body
the body of a man
used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship
born of natural generation
the sensuous nature of man, "the animal nature"
no, not; in direct questions expecting an affirmative answerWhat else have you "discerned"?
Have you discerned (like a lucky Lanciano) the wafer turn into soylent green?
Or does the "accident" remain just as it was in appearance, indiscernibly changed in "accident" [species] of it's outward form, yet "transformed" in it's (Aristotlian philosophy defined) "substance" which according to the Council of Trent, the substance spoken of be under the forms of the bread and wine? Do you agree with the description of transubstantiation given at Trent?
What now? Will you tell us that it is the accident [species] which is changed? Not according to Trent my FRiend, for they said there that the accident itself remains unchanged, with [again] the transformation taking place "under the forms of the bread and wine" as compared to changing the otherwise discernible to one's physical senses -- "forms" of the bread and the wine.
See http://www.catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/TheSacraments/Articles/TransubstantiationExplained.aspx and go tell them they are wrong...or not "discerning" well enough to suit yourself, if here as to the immediate above you not agree with me as to what your own ecclesiastical body teaches.
After which you may then again don the Inquisitor's apparel, if you must absolutely insist upon doing so...
Meanwhile, I will wear that mask, cape, gown and tall hat, and subject you to much the same methodology with which you have here hectored aMPU.
So just what are these [below] questions, all about?
Perhaps you could explain why not.
How about you, D-fendr ---
Perhaps you could explain why not.