So? Is Paul a poor writer? Confused? He inserts the reference to the Eucharist as true presence of sacrifice of Christ because it is a fact, and he mentions it as a fact.
The second reference includes no mention at all of His Blood
So? There are six references to the bread and wine pairs. There is a reference to showing the death that is done using a bread and wine. Christ's body contains blood. The Eucharist can be in bread alone. This is not a significant distinction and it does nto enhance your point anyway.
To make the argument you’ve made denies treating the entire unit as a single thought
It is polyphonic. Let us say you and I discuss table manners: how to hold a fork, how to use napkins, etc. In the middle of that conversation I remark: "That cantaloupe is overripe". Now, you get to either believe me or not believe me about the cantaloupe, but you don't get to say that I did not mention the cantaloupe being overripe as a fact. So it is with this passage: St. Paul speaks about an ecclesiological issue of mutual charity and in it he matter-of-factly inserts a sacramental issue. Why? Since I believe St. Paul to speak without error, I conclude: because proper ecclesiology is proper sacramentology. You cannot have a body of believers without having a Eucharist making it so. That is the Catholic teaching and the passage matches it perfectly.
” So? Is Paul a poor writer? Confused? He inserts the reference to the Eucharist as true presence of sacrifice of Christ because it is a fact, and he mentions it as a fact. “
No, Paul forms an argument. He does not drop in facts for no reason.
“So? There are six references to the bread and wine pairs. There is a reference to showing the death that is done using a bread and wine. Christ’s body contains blood. The Eucharist can be in bread alone. This is not a significant distinction and it does nto enhance your point anyway. “
I don’t remember seeing a passage of Scripture ever that indicated the Lord’s Supper was celebrated without both elements of unleavened bread and wine. Please refresh my memory of that passage. It is late after driving home from a very distant city and perhaps my mind is spent. Thanks in advance for providing it.
“This is not a significant distinction and it does nto enhance your point anyway.”
My point is irrelevant, as is yours. God’s Words through Paul are all that counts. God leaves out the blood in the second instance for a reason, not because He is forgetful. It isn’t there. He chose for it to not be there. It’s absence is necessary, since there is no local assembly of the body and blood of Christ. It is the local body of Christ.
“In the middle of that conversation I remark: “That cantaloupe is overripe””
It appears you believe Paul has a very short attention span! OR that God stutteringly remembers things to insert in case He forgot to put them in somewhere else. Or perhaps that you have a low view of Scripture and what inspiration means. Or perhaps that you are unfamiliar with hermeneutics. Or a combination?
“You cannot have a body of believers without having a Eucharist making it so.”
SURE you can. Theoretically, a ship with 12 crew gets shipwrecked on an island. One is a believer. He shares Christ with the crew. Five believe. These 5 plus the original one form a local body of Christ. Unfortunately, there is no bread or wine on the island. They remain a local expression of the body of Christ. They worship together, pray, fellowship, bear one another’s burdens, etc.
“That is the Catholic teaching and the passage matches it perfectly.”
And you just demonstrated eisogesis as your primary approach to Scripture. Thank you for finally coming clean. Not that I didn’t see it already. Hopefully, now everyone else will as well. You found an idea you wanted to find. Unfortunately, it isn’t there.
Best.