Communion: Body and Blood or rememberance?

[holeinone]

What's ironic is all their authority derives from the decisions of men- canon and interpretations, et cetera. Sola scriptura being the biggest one and most obvious man-made one.

Made by your own church fathers and then rejected later.

The Church Fathers believed in Sola Scriptura:

"They[heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures...We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith"
- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1

Sola Scriptura !


"I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books [scripture], to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else."
- Jerome (Letter 53:10)

Sola Scriptura !

"There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them."
- Hippolytus, Against Noetus, ch 9

Sola Scriptura !

"For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?"
- Ambrose (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)

Sola Scriptura !

"We use Scripture to answer heresy and preceive that it is power and truth."
- Basil the Great

Sola Scriptura !

“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”
- Gregory of Nyssa (d.ca, 395) “On the Holy Trinity”, NPNF, p. 327

“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.”
- Basil the Great (ca.329–379) On the Holy Spirit, 7.16


Sola Scriptura !

“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.”
- Augustine (354–430) De unitate ecclesiae, 10

Sola Scriptura !

“For our faith rests on the revelation made to the Prophets and Apostles who wrote the canonical books.”
- Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) Summa Theologiae, Question 1, Art. 8

Sola Scriptura!
"For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,--to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages."
- Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9)

Sola Scriptura !

"There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things then the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach these let us learn." (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 9)

Athanasius wrote:

"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture" (De Synodis, 6)

Sola Scriptura !

Cyril of Jerusalem wrote:

"For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures." (Lecture 4:17)




Sola Scriptura !

“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.”
- Augustine (354–430) De unitate ecclesiae, 10

Sola Scriptura !

“For our faith rests on the revelation made to the Prophets and Apostles who wrote the canonical books.”
- Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) Summa Theologiae, Question 1, Art. 8

 

[Lynn73]

John 6 32

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Many times Jesus used physical things to describe the spiritual. He that cometh to me shall never hunger. He can't be talking about physical hunger for physical food, otherwise Christians would never need to eat again. Therefore coming to Him equals eating Him the way He truly meant. He that believeth on me shall never thirst. Likewise this isn't about physical thirst but the spiritual thirst for righteousness. Belieiving equals drinking. It plainly says so. Believing on Him quenches the thirst therefore it's the same thing as drinking Him, the way He really meant.

It can be seen in other areas where symbolism is meant by using physical comparison, why can't it be seen here? Jesus said to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. Did he mean there leaven was spoiled and would make them physically sick? No, the leaven represents their doctrine. And the Scripture, IIRC, actually points this out. And I believed Jesus explained what He meant in John 6:63. But Catholics have their own interpretation of that, of course.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Holeinone:
You have misstated the position of the ECFs regarding scripture. It most decidely not 'sola scriptura.' Nor was it scripture plus tradition. The ECFs described scripture as kanona, or the measure of truth. By it, doctrine is derived and understood.

Holy Tradition is the framework by which we read scripture, and thus understand ourselves, the Church, God, and the world. It is not separate from scripture, for it is found within and emanates from scripture. Scripture is the river of God, and Tradition the banks which ensure that the river flows from and to the Source. The Symbol of faith, known also as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, is an example of river banks which keep our reading of scripture from seeping into the swamp of Arianism.

 

[holeinone]

Strawman- anyone who kneels before the Eucharistic gifts kneels before the Lord they believe to be Present in the gifts.

By definition idolatry is the worship of what the idolater believes is God. So if one believes it is God and it is not the 1st commandment applies

The Jews knelt toward the Ark in the Temple because God said His Presence was there.

Really Catholics say the ark is a type of Mary..

The ark was built by Gods command as a sign God present among His people .


There is no such command to kneel before a wafer

He has said that His Presence is in the bread (This is my Body/Blood).

Did he tell the apostles at that dinner to kneel before that bread?

They were celebrating the passover, Jesus was revealing the passover as a prophetic type.

The passover meal was a REMEMBRANCE of the deliverance of the Jews. Just as the passover was a type of Christ so is the Passover meal.

Jesus was telling them this, and he was telling them NOW instead of the remembrance of the passover, their eyes were opened and the meaning revealed NOW they were to do the mean in remembrance of HIM, of His blood, the blood of the Lamb of God.

If the Reformers, specifically Zwingli and Calvin, the only ones who truly denied the Presence, were wrong, then they are guilty of detracting from the words of God, and can expect the plagues found in Revelation.

Actually Calvin did teach Christ was present in the Lords supper.
He is truly present to those that are His. The miracle is not in the elements, it is Christ present that is the miracle

Transubstantiation is one matter. Claiming that the Church did not have a mandate on what the Eucharist was before the 13th century is proved wrong in the worship and doctrine of te Eastern nd Oriental Orthodox communions.

I am giving you the dated that Pope Innocence declared transubstantiation a dogma of the church 1215. before then one was free to deny or believe as one wished

Sounds like the American Catholics have been secularized.


There is no doubt that Iraneus, Justin Martyr and Augustine believed the bread and wine to be much more than a memorial.

Augustine believed in a eucharistic presence, but he defined that presence in a way that contradicts transubstantiation.

"You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, 'Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord's Passion,' although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, 'This day the Lord rose from the dead,' although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had notsome points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood,' in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith." (Letter 98:9)

Augustine compares communion to a holy day in that it has some similarities to what it symbolizes, but it isn't the same thing.

 

[holeinone]

Holeinone:
You have misstated the position of the ECFs regarding scripture. It most decidely not 'sola scriptura.' Nor was it scripture plus tradition. The ECFs described scripture as kanona, or the measure of truth. By it, doctrine is derived and understood.

Holy Tradition is the framework by which we read scripture, and thus understand ourselves, the Church, God, and the world. It is not separate from scripture, for it is found within and emanates from scripture. Scripture is the river of God, and Tradition the banks which ensure that the river flows from and to the Source. The Symbol of faith, known also as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, is an example of river banks which keep our reading of scripture from seeping into the swamp of Arianism.

I quote you decide.

They are saying that all the tradition should have a scriptural basis, as a Protestant I agree

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

By definition idolatry is the worship of what the idolater believes is God. So if one believes it is God and it is not the 1st commandment applies

Perhaps you missed that word 'present.' Since we believe He is present, we are no more idloatrous than were the prostrate Jews who believed God to be present in the Ark.

Really Catholics say the ark is a type of Mary..

And what has this to do with me or my statement?

There is no such command to kneel before a wafer

Same strawman as before- people don't kneel before a 'wafer'- they kneel before God.

Did he tell the apostles at that dinner to kneel before that bread?

Same strawman, pointless question.

They were celebrating the passover, Jesus was revealing the passover as a prophetic type.

Of a far greater reality, yes.

The passover meal was a REMEMBRANCE of the deliverance of the Jews. Just as the passover was a type of Christ so is the Passover meal.

Yes, and we eat our thanksgiving at the Eucharist meal. Your point?

Jesus was telling them this, and he was telling them NOW instead of the remembrance of the passover, their eyes were opened and the meaning revealed NOW they were to do the mean in remembrance of HIM, of His blood, the blood of the Lamb of God.

I'm not sure why you think this is an argument against His presence in the meal.

Actually Calvin did teach Christ was present in the Lords supper.
He is truly present to those that are His. The miracle is not in the elements, it is Christ present that is the miracle

And that is denial of His presence, favoring gnosticism on one hand and humanism on the other.

This was the equal and opposite error of Rome, who foolishly posed scholastic answers to unanswerable questions. (Rome has since made its more mystical understanding come to the fore again).

I am giving you the dated that Pope Innocence declared transubstantiation a dogma of the church 1215. before then one was free to deny or believe as one wished

No, every one was not free to deny or believe as they wished- it's just that human definition wasn't superimposed over mystical, experiential doctrine.

Augustine believed in a eucharistic presence, but he defined that presence in a way that contradicts transubstantiation.

"You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, 'Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord's Passion,' although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, 'This day the Lord rose from the dead,' although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had notsome points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood,' in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith." (Letter 98:9)

Augustine compares communion to a holy day in that it has some similarities to what it symbolizes, but it isn't the same thing.

Here Augustine undertakes the task of explaining the unexplainable. Insodoing, he uses an analogy which is easily misunderstood and frequently misapplied- as you have aptly demonstrated.

Here is the prayer of consecration (epiklesis, actually) from the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. It states well, mystically, the Orthodox view of Presence:

Once again we offer to You this spiritual worship without the shedding of blood, and we ask, pray, and entreat You: send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here presented.
And make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ.(amen)
And that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Your Christ.
(amen)
Changing them by Your Holy Spirit.
(amen, amen, amen)
So that they may be to those who partake of them for vigilance of soul, forgiveness of sins, communion of Your Holy Spirit, fulfillment of the kingdom of heaven, confidence before You, and not in judgment or condemnation. Again, we offer this spiritual worship for those who repose in the faith, forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, ascetics, and for every righteous spirit made perfect in faith.
Note well that this is termed "spiritual worship"- yet that does not in any sense preclude the real, physical presence. Jesus in His Incarantion was (and is) Tripartite- like us- including physical matter.
He comes to us spiritually and physically, undivided, and unmixed. The wine tastes like wine, the bread tastes like bread- but He is in it- Truly.

In our time, saying that God is in it "spiritually" means that matter remains unchanged. This was not Augustine's position, nor is it ours. HOW that matter is changed is a mystery. WHY it is is a given- He renews even our bodies, our physicality, which is the Temple of His Holy Spirit.

 

[mesue]

...
He has said that His Presence is in the bread (This is my Body/Blood).


...

Jesus said

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

and

Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Matthew 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

But He also said

John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

and

John 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

What do you do with doors and vines?

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Jesus said

and

But He also said

and

What do you do with doors and vines?

You go through the Door, unless you wish to be damned, and you dwell in the Vine, unless you wish to be cast off and burnt.
Any other questions?

 

[mesue]

You go through the Door, unless you wish to be damned, and you dwell in the Vine, unless you wish to be cast off and burnt.
Any other questions?

You treat bread and wine like they are Jesus because Jesus says He is.
He also said He is a door and a vine. Do you treat doors and vines like they are Jesus? Is there some sort of ceremony for this in your church?

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

You treat bread and wine like they are Jesus because Jesus says He is.

No- you have inserted your view into this:
"like they are" is nominalist statement that smacks of empty ritual and superstition.
We treat the Body and Blood as reverently as we can. We treat bread and wine like what it is.

He also said He is a door and a vine. Do you treat doors and vines like they are Jesus? Is there some sort of ceremony for this in your church?

No, we treat doors as entrances. We have no vines or ficus plants in our temple.

Nonethless, we abide in the Vine and go through the door.

 

[mesue]

No- you have inserted your view into this:
"like they are" is nominalist statement that smacks of empty ritual and superstition.
We treat the Body and Blood as reverently as we can. We treat bread and wine like what it is.

Now, either Jesus is in the bread or not.
You said
[QUOTE=Rdr Iakovos] He has said that His Presence is in the bread (This is my Body/Blood). [/quote]

You have ceremonies that involve sarcasm in your church, or is that something you reserve for fellowship here?

I was sincerely asking a question based on what I know Jesus says in the Bible. I was not my intention to be sarcastic. I just wanted issues clarified. If you view my seeking as sarcastic then perhaps you should not be the one to answer my questions.
My point is, my Bible teaches me that I am the temple. Jesus is in me. Jesus is not in food. That would mean that I would have to seek salvation on a regular basis. My salvation is finished. Jesus said "It is finished" "Once, for all" My salvation happened once for all of my life and into eternity. I celebrate the Lord's Supper because I celebrate His work done for me at the Cross of Calvary. Because I owe my life to Him.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Now, either Jesus is in the bread or not.

I was very clear: Jesus is in the bread and wine- it is not "like He is." We treat bread and wine as bread and wine until we have prayed over them.

I was sincerely asking a question based on what I know Jesus says in the Bible. I was not my intention to be sarcastic. I just wanted issues clarified. If you view my seeking as sarcastic then perhaps you should not be the one to answer my questions.

Thank you for clarifying.

My point is, my Bible teaches me that I am the temple. Jesus is in me. Jesus is not in food.

The bible teaches that you are the Temple. Why do you not make this a figure? I agree, you are the Temple. But if we examine you scientifically, you remain food (for worms, like me). You have no appearance of change, and we cannot prove that you have changed- yet, by faith, because it is written (the Body says amen), you believe this, without making it a figure of speech, but literal.

Jesus said this is my Body. Paul quotes Jesus saying this. Scriptures tell us that we are the Temple. Is Jesus literally the Door? Yes! Is He every door? NO. Is He literally the Vine? YES! Is He every Vine? No. Is He present in the bread and wine? YES! Is He present in all bread and wine- only at a certain level (since He fillest all things)- so, again, no.

Ask yourself if you REALLY believe He is in you. I will agree with your answer.

That would mean that I would have to seek salvation on a regular basis. My salvation is finished. Jesus said "It is finished" "Once, for all" My salvation happened once for all of my life and into eternity. I celebrate the Lord's Supper because I celebrate His work done for me at the Cross of Calvary. Because I owe my life to Him.

You are conflating multiple issues. His Presence in and at the Cup is not a salvation issue in the manner you are referring to. Prayer is an ongoing salvation issue, inasmuch as the Holy Scriptures speak of salvation as something much more encompasssing than a stamped ticket to heaven. Salvation is healing, life, repentance, recovery, growth...in short, life IN CHRIST.

 

[mesue]

Ask yourself if you REALLY believe He is in you. I will agree with your answer.


...

I don't have to ask, I already know the answer. Yes, Jesus really lives in me. With ever fiber of my being I know this as I know my own name. Not because of something I ate, but because of His grace.

Galatains 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

He gave Himself once, and for all of my life and into eternity.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I don't have to ask, I already know the answer. Yes, Jesus really lives in me. With ever fiber of my being I know this as I know my own name. Not because of something I ate, but because of His grace.

He gave Himself once, and for all of my life and into eternity.

I am very pleased to hear that you truly, deeply believe His testimony.

It is true that He gave Himself once and for all. Yet you and I go back for more of Him every day, do we not?

I think you may have posted this last bit thinking that I am making an argument that we re-sacrifice Christ on the altar or something. This is simply not our theology. We sacrifice our thanksgiving, which He transforms into Him. We then- mystically- feast upon His gift to us. We can do this as a figure, as in chewing on the words of the Word, or we can do this physically, by obeying Him with our bodies, by receiving loil with laying on of hands, by receiving His Eucharist,and by countless other ways.
Regards
Iakovos

 

[holeinone]

I am very pleased to hear that you truly, deeply believe His testimony.

It is true that He gave Himself once and for all. Yet you and I go back for more of Him every day, do we not?

I think you may have posted this last bit thinking that I am making an argument that we re-sacrifice Christ on the altar or something. This is simply not our theology. We sacrifice our thanksgiving, which He transforms into Him. We then- mystically- feast upon His gift to us. We can do this as a figure, as in chewing on the words of the Word, or we can do this physically, by obeying Him with our bodies, by receiving loil with laying on of hands, by receiving His Eucharist,and by countless other ways.
Regards
Iakovos

The Roman church does re-sacrifice him, would you say you do not agree with this?

From a Catholic Catechism

262. Q. When and where are the bread and wine changed into the body and blood of Christ?

A. The bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ at the Consecration in the Mass.

263. Q. What is the Mass?

A. The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ.

264. Q. What is a sacrifice?

A. A sacrifice is the offering of an object by a priest to God alone, and the consuming of it to acknowledge that He is the Creator and Lord of all things.

265. Q. Is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the Cross?

A. The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross.


Baltimore Catechism

 

[Melethiel]

the same sacrifice as that of the Cross?

Not that I agree with them, but witness the bolded part.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

The Roman church does re-sacrifice him, would you say you do not agree with this?

From a Catholic Catechism

262. Q. When and where are the bread and wine changed into the body and blood of Christ?

A. The bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ at the Consecration in the Mass.

263. Q. What is the Mass?

A. The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ.

264. Q. What is a sacrifice?

A. A sacrifice is the offering of an object by a priest to God alone, and the consuming of it to acknowledge that He is the Creator and Lord of all things.

265. Q. Is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the Cross?

A. The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross.


Baltimore Catechism

Why are you asking me about the theology of Rome? This thread is about Body and Blood, or rememberance. I have, in my flawed way, witnessed to an Orthodox view on the matter. Perhaps you can simply respond to my post, as to whether you agree with it or not.

 

[onwave]

>The Eucharist doesn't become the Body of Christ because we partake of it, but rather it is we who are what we eat. We are confirmed in being Christ's body by partaking of His Body.<

We are the Body of Christ. The bread and wine become the Body and Blood when we, through the priest, accept that bread and wine as Christ's Body and Blood. If the Church, Christ's Body, does not accept a loaf of bread and cup of wine as such, they never will be the Body and Blood of Christ.

So, yes we are individually confirmed and united to the Body and Blood of Christ through our partaking of the elements. As a whole, however, outside the Church's celebration of the Eucharist, bread and wine are merely bread and wine.

So, I am not wrong when I say it is we, the Body of Christ, who change the elements into the Body/Blood of Christ.

I'll say it again clearly, if the Body does not accept a particular loaf of bread and cup as part of her being, it IS NOT Christ's Body and Blood.

 

[onwave]

The Church is the Body of Christ. She will be resurrected. She is His Bride and she is one with Christ.

If you cannot honor the physical Bride of Christ, you cannot possibly honor Christ, for they are one.

The elements are shared among the members of the Bride. If these elements are the physical bond of communion between the members, then indeed these elements are Christ's elements.

The bread and wine belong to Christ. The Church belongs to Christ - physically. Who can deny this?

It is the spirit of anti-christ to deny that the elements of communion belong to Christ's Body. How can you deny that the elements we share belong to Christ's Body?

Who do your elements belong to if not to Christ's Body?

 

[onwave]

When a male and female have physical communion, part of the male becomes part of the female. This is a type. Christ and His Church are one and the Eucharist is a time and place where Christ communes with His Bride both physically and spiritually.