.........................
"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."
"Again, you want a scriptural reference to practices that are determined not by the scripture but by the Church."
First, it was you explaining your eisogesis technique to determine what a passage means by what your church taught. That was your actual practice for determing what "the plain meaning of scripture" is...
Now, you explain that the Lord's Supper isn't about what Christ commanded believers to do, but what your denomination says believers should do.
"The Eucharist is celebrated, for sure, both with bread and the wine as both are consecrated and transubstantiate."
Keep insisting on it long enough, maybe you will see some actual, physical body parts or actual physical blood.
"However it is entirely possible to receive communion in one element alone."
And yet Christ never commanded this, nor allowed for it, nor did the Apostles in their practice.
"Some consider wine -- as in its physiological effect wine is still wine -- inappropriate for children, or for alcoholics;"
And yet, despite children being present in NT times, this was never practiced or described in the Holy Scriptures.
"some are intolerant to wheat, for wheat physiologically remains wheat."
Oh, my gosh!!! And God didn't think of this!!! Yet he commanded every believer to use bread and wine. Galactic oversight!!
"Also some churches simply do not have enough ministers of the Holy Communion to give both species, -- how do you propose a single priest to give both?"
Happens in our church every time. Not sure what the issue is elsewhere."I went to one church, Roman Rite, in Sacramento that was so crowded that the communion was given routinely only in bread, and the wine was consumed by the priest only."
That may explain bad behavior in the priestly class...
"The fact is, Paul mentions the Real Presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist in these verses."
He doesn't mention physical presence."Even if he mentions that in the middle of talking of something else, it is still evidence of his belief."
That has nothing to do with his argument in the paragraph - except to say that judging yourself worthy for such a participation requires judging your relationships with the body of believers."But, of course, to make a sacramental reference in the middle of ecclesiological discussion is entirely normal for a Catholic."
Yes. Ulmost uncontrollable.
"That a Protestant sees it as if it were out of context only demonstrates how remote Protestantism is from authentic Christianity taught by the apostles."
Good for a laugh.
"Christ did not build the Church on an island. He built it on the two elements most commonly found everywhere: bread and wine."
Too bad for Eskimos! Too bad for islanders! Too bad for prisoners in China! According to your argument, they are not part of the body of Christ.
"That some distant and unlikely circumstance can be imagined when those are not available does not alter what St. Paul taught in Corinth where finding bread and wine was not a problem. "
You've yet to approach what Paul taught... but your post was very funny and enlightening. For this I thank you. I laughed out loud, which is always a wonderful thing in human experience.
I stand by my post. You repeated your earlier talking points without refuting mine. The main point remains that St. Paul makes reference to the physical body of Christ on the cross, which means that he, St. Paul, had Catholic views on the nature of the Eucharist. You are left pondering why Pauline ecclesiology brings up the sacraments of the Church; Protestant set of superstitions of course is not capable of explaining that.
One thing your brought up anew: situations exist when people cannot come to Communion because they live too far from any church, or due to the shortage of priests, or due to oppression. The Church still asks them to come to church once a year, preferably on Easter. Physical inability to do so is of course not a sin, so long as reasonable effort to come to confession and to Mass is made. If there is no such effort, and physical possibility exists, yes, that would end up excommunicating the Catholic who isolates himself.