Is the "Real Presence" [catholic Holy Communion" Really REAL?

[Major1]

Absolutely. The same thing happens in the Divine Liturgy today. We start with bread, wine and water which becomes Christ's flesh and blood. We can't go down to the supermarket to buy Christ's flesh and blood.

In LITERAL reality then, to eat the flesh of Christ and drink His blood would in effect make all who did that cannibals. IF you are going to make the process LITERAL flesh and LITERAL blood then that is the reality of what you are believing.

The problem then with that is that the drinking of blood is expressly forbidden all through the Bible.

Genesis 9:4.........
"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."

Leviticus 7:26......
"Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings."

Leviticus 17:10-14 ..........
"And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

Acts 15:28-29..........
"For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."

If the argument is that all of those Old Test. laws do not apply to us today, then notice that even the Gentile Christians after the resurrection of Christ were to abstain from eating blood. If Christ was asking believers to eat His flesh and blood, He would be going against the clear teaching of scripture in numerous places.

How in the world do you explain away such a thing so as to make its practice of doing it acceptable?????

Even in the Scriptures of John 6 which YOU and the RCC use to validate this practice of LITERALY eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking His bllod Christ clearly told them that He was speaking in a spiritual and not a literal sense.

Verse 63 states.........
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." Here, He tells them that the flesh profits nothing and that He is referring to the spirit and not to the flesh.

 

[Albion]

You can post in blue all ya want, Jesus Christ took "Bread" symbolically for his body, case closed, the ECF'S taught the same..

Hmmm. You offer a statement by a Church Father that you think supports your POV...and it turns out that the words actually support mine instead, so you prefer not to read that part of Justin Martyr's belief. Not much here to discuss, then, is there?

 

[Albion]

I respect your understanding and your comments. You are always well versed and speak in a respectful manner and I thank you for that.

I will say to you that it is clearly known that the RCC makes it clear that they take John 6:54..................
"unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you".

When the whole of Scriptures are read we can see that the CONTEXT there is NOT in keeping with rest of the passage. Jesus said several times that the importance of faith in HIM and His coming atoning death, and resurrection for the sins of men and to remember the whole message of the Gospel.

Now then, when we look at the sacraments instituted by the RCC we can see that they convey as sanctifying grace is NOT agreeable with the context of the Bible. The RCC does these things because they want to and not because the Scriptures say to.

Should Christians be baptized after they accept Jesus Christ? YES!
But baptism does not fill us with grace now does it.

Should Christians be involved in the Lord's Supper after they are saved? YES!
But partaking of Communion does not fill us with sanctifying grace now does it?

Should Christians confess our sins after being saved. YES!
But not to a priest, but instead to God and a priest is not God any more than is the Pope.

Having a formal training program and formal acceptance into the church is a good thing to do, but it does not convey saving grace.

Being approved as a church leader is an honorable thing, but it does not result in grace.

Marriage is a wonderful and blessed event in the life of a couple, but it is not the means of how God graces us.

Praying for and with a person who is dying is a godly thing to do – but it does not add grace to our account.

Hello. And 'Thank You.'

I highlighted a few parts of your post that I think will cover most of the issues.

1. I do agree that the RCC tries to tie John 6 to its view of the Lords Supper. However, most of the other churches that believe in Real Presence customarily do not do this. I dont myself.

The main reason the RCC makes as much of John 6 as she does is because it can be made to look like a defense of Transubstantiation, not Real Presence per se. So on this point, I am in agreement with you. You correctly referred to an argument made by the RCC, but I am not in agreement with the RCC there.

2. As for whether the Sacraments convey grace, I believe that they do. That doesn't mean that we are automatically saved by the reception of any of them, or anything else in that vein, but this is grace for daily living.

3. Then you go on to comment on the "Seven Sacraments," so again your reflections are directed at the RCC system of beliefs. Like most other reformed Christians, I believe that there are only two sacraments of the Gospel, Baptism and the Lords Supper. Therefore, I agree with your rejection of five of the ordinances considered to be sacraments by the RCC. They lack the qualities of sacraments and were only declared to be sacraments a few centuries prior to the Reformation, anyway.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

...1. I do agree that the RCC tries to tie John 6 to its view of the Lords Supper. However, most of the other churches that believe in Real Presence customarily do not do this. I dont myself...

Yet that is the book and chapter of those who don't believe in the real presence so that could be why.

 

[Major1]

They all seem to simply re post the efforts of Monsieur Slick, usually without accreditation (what do they say about honor among thieves). It also brings to mind Matt 15:14

The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and The Word of God by James McCarthy

Understanding Four Views on the Lord's Supper edited by John H. Armstrong

Dallas Theological Seminary.....
Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) - Teach Truth. Love Well.

Liberty University Online - Accredited Bible Universities
Ad · www.liberty.edu/Online/Christian
Moody Theological Seminary - Moody Bible Institute
https://www.moody.edu/moody-theological-seminary-chicago

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1958, p. 652.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I found that reading the whole bible through and through, as God Gives Understanding,

reveals all the counterfeits out there, every one that may come up.

God knows all of them, and exposes all of them

in His Word very clearly,
when He gives understanding, even to and for the little children. (uneducated ones, whose angels behold the Father's face continually) (woe to all those who take the light away)

 

[Major1]

Hello. And 'Thank You.'

I highlighted a few parts of your post that I think will cover most of the issues.

1. I do agree that the RCC tries to tie John 6 to its view of the Lords Supper. However, most of the other churches that believe in Real Presence customarily do not do this. I dont myself.

The main reason the RCC makes as much of John 6 as she does is because it can be made to look like a defense of Transubstantiation, not Real Presence per se. So on this point, I am in agreement with you. You correctly referred to an argument made by the RCC, but I am not in agreement with the RCC there.

2. As for whether the Sacraments convey grace, I believe that they do. That doesn't mean that we are automatically saved by the reception of any of them, or anything else in that vein, but this is grace for daily living.

3. Then you go on to comment on the "Seven Sacraments," so again your reflections are directed at the RCC system of beliefs. Like most other reformed Christians, I believe that there are only two sacraments of the Gospel, Baptism and the Lords Supper. Therefore, I agree with your rejection of five of the ordinances considered to be sacraments by the RCC. They lack the qualities of sacraments and were only declared to be sacraments a few centuries prior to the Reformation, anyway.

Well, some days you get the bear, and some days the bear gets you.

1. I am only saying that it is impossible to apply LITERAL understanding to John 6 and then reject LITERAL to Genesis, and Lev. and Acts on drinking blood.
That is "selective exegesis" and it does not even exist in reailty.

2. You said.........
"That doesn't mean that we are automatically saved by the reception of any of them, or anything else in that vein, but this is grace for daily living."

I agree with , "but this is grace for daily living".

However the RCC does in fact teach that they are required for salvation and THAT was my point.

3. Agreed. Baptism and Communion after we are saved and NOT in order to be saved.

I am glad that we agree on more than we disagree on.

 

[Albion]

I would say that CONTEXT says otherwise.

I would also say the commands from God about eating blood says otherwise.

I disagree on the first point, and I dont really find much in the argument that I have seen posted many times here on these forums--that the Jews were prohibited from eating blood.

For one thing, we know that Jesus shocked many traditionalist Hebrews by apparently violating some regulation or other. Here at the Last Supper, for instance, he is changing the meaning of the Passover meal in effect. And then too, it is not literally blood anyway (at least not in my church and some others that do nevertheless affirm the Real Presence).

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I dont really find much in the argument that I have seen posted many times here on these forums--that the Jews were prohibited from eating blood.

For one thing, we know that Jesus shocked many traditionalist Hebrews by apparently violating some regulation or other.

As frequently read,
Jesus broke the contradictory ORAL traditions imposed by UNgodly men (TODAY included).

He never broke a commandment or violated TORAH. Thus it is impossible "blood" would be drank. (or flesh consumed)
except as HE CLARIFIED HIMSELF ---- MY WORDS ARE SPIRIT and THEY ARE LIFE. (not flesh and blood, not carnal and disobedient, not rebellious nor a transgression/sin)

 

[Albion]

Yet that is the book and chapter of those who don't believe in the real presence so that could be why.

I am unsure what you mean here, Cassia.

 

[Fidelibus]

Jesus, as He often did, was speaking symbolically. To say He was speaking literally here does not fit with the word pictures He often used. After all, Jesus said He was the Bread of Life. And didn't He say that He was the Door?

Well Maj1, I believe (as does the majority of Christianity) that your understanding of these passages are in error. Something you agreed to as a possibility on post #365. So lets see what your very own KJV of the bible say's:

Matthew 26:26-28- “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. And he took the cup, and gave
thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament,
which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

Mark 14:22-24- “And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to
them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given
thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of
the new testament, which is shed for many.”

Luke 22:19-20- “And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying,
This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup
after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”

As you can see Maj1., even your Protestant translations show that Jesus proclaims the Eucharist to be His body and His blood. There were many ways in Hebrew or Aramaic for Jesus to say “this represents my body,” or “this is a symbol of my body,”but He doesn’t. He says “this is my body” and “this is my blood.”

Then we have 1 Cor.10:16 where it say's:

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”

St. Paul is clear that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Also in 1 Cor. 11:26-29 it say's that to receive the Eucharist unworthily is to sin against the actual Body and Blood of the Lord.

Again, it's plain as day, according to the clear teaching of the Bible, one who receives the Eucharist unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. St. Paul says that a person eats and drinks damnation by receiving the Eucharist without the proper dispositions and discernment. If the Eucharist is as you claim just a piece of bread and some wine taken in memory of Christ, how could one who receives it improperly be found guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? One would obviously not be held guilty of the body and blood of Christ unless the Eucharist is indeed the body and blood of Christ.

Besides the clear biblical evidence shown, the witness of the ancient Church unanimously supports
Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. I realize (and you should too) that history does not support your belief of the Eucharist being symbolic. However, if you were to take the time and study the early Church Fathers (St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, St. Cyril, ect.) you would see that they all believed that the Eucharist "IS" the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and your view of the Eucharist is a very novel view, and was foreign to the entire early Christian Church.

And didn't He say that He was the Door?

If you are trying to connect John 10:9 or John 15:1 with John 6:35, you have a bit of a problem, for there is no connection. In chapters Jn. 10:9 "I am the door" and Jn.15:1 "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

The idea of the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ came into the Catholic Church several hundred years later at the Council of Trent.

Sorry, but facts show otherwise. Transubstantiation is the technical term used to describe what happens when the bread and wine used at Mass are turned into Christ’s actual body and blood. The belief that this occurs has been held from the earliest times. It stems from the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel, the eleventh chapter of 1 Corinthians, and the biblical accounts of the Last Supper. As centuries passed, theologians exercised their reason on the belief to understand more completely how such a thing could happen and what its happening would imply. It was seen that more precise terminology was needed to insure the belief’s integrity. The word "transubstantiation" was finally chosen because it eliminated certain unorthodox interpretations of the doctrine, and the term was formally defined at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. So the use of the technical term was new, but not the doctrine.

But again, if YOU want to accept the words of men over the Word of God, please go right ahead and do so!

No disrespect Maj1, but accepting the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist over yours (as you admitted, could possibly be in error) is an easy decision. To agree with your view would be denying the clear teaching of Jesus Christ and the Bible.

Have a Blessed Lenten Season

 

[Major1]

I disagree on the first point, and I dont really find much in the argument that I have seen posted many times here on these forums--that the Jews were prohibited from eating blood.

For one thing, we know that Jesus shocked many traditionalist Hebrews by apparently violating some regulation or other. Here at the Last Supper, for instance, he is changing the meaning of the Passover meal in effect. And then too, it is not literally blood anyway (at least not in my church and some others that do nevertheless affirm the Real Presence).

Lev. 17:10-14............
“Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood—I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood. 'Any Israelite or any alien living among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, "You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off."

Seems rather self explanatory to me.

 

[Major1]

Well Maj1, I believe (as does the majority of Christianity) that your understanding of these passages are in error. Something you agreed to as a possibility on post #365. So lets see what your very own KJV of the bible say's:



As you can see Maj1., even your Protestant translations show that Jesus proclaims the Eucharist to be His body and His blood. There were many ways in Hebrew or Aramaic for Jesus to say “this represents my body,” or “this is a symbol of my body,”but He doesn’t. He says “this is my body” and “this is my blood.”

Then we have 1 Cor.10:16 where it say's:



St. Paul is clear that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Also in 1 Cor. 11:26-29 it say's that to receive the Eucharist unworthily is to sin against the actual Body and Blood of the Lord.

Again, it's plain as day, according to the clear teaching of the Bible, one who receives the Eucharist unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. St. Paul says that a person eats and drinks damnation by receiving the Eucharist without the proper dispositions and discernment. If the Eucharist is as you claim just a piece of bread and some wine taken in memory of Christ, how could one who receives it improperly be found guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? One would obviously not be held guilty of the body and blood of Christ unless the Eucharist is indeed the body and blood of Christ.

Besides the clear biblical evidence shown, the witness of the ancient Church unanimously supports
Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. I realize (and you should too) that history does not support your belief of the Eucharist being symbolic. However, if you were to take the time and study the early Church Fathers (St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, St. Cyril, ect.) you would see that they all believed that the Eucharist "IS" the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and your view of the Eucharist is a very novel view, and was foreign to the entire early Christian Church.




If you are trying to connect John 10:9 or John 15:1 with John 6:35, you have a bit of a problem, for there is no connection. In chapters Jn. 10:9 "I am the door" and Jn.15:1 "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).



Sorry, but facts show otherwise. Transubstantiation is the technical term used to describe what happens when the bread and wine used at Mass are turned into Christ’s actual body and blood. The belief that this occurs has been held from the earliest times. It stems from the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel, the eleventh chapter of 1 Corinthians, and the biblical accounts of the Last Supper. As centuries passed, theologians exercised their reason on the belief to understand more completely how such a thing could happen and what its happening would imply. It was seen that more precise terminology was needed to insure the belief’s integrity. The word "transubstantiation" was finally chosen because it eliminated certain unorthodox interpretations of the doctrine, and the term was formally defined at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. So the use of the technical term was new, but not the doctrine.



No disrespect Maj1, but accepting the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist over yours (as you admitted, could possibly be in error) is an easy decision. To agree with your view would be denying the clear teaching of Jesus Christ and the Bible.

Have a Blessed Lenten Season

LOL............You are still making comments to me that look like I am some kind of authority figure.

You actually said..........
"No disrespect Maj1, but accepting the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist over yours (as you admitted, could possibly be in error) is an easy decision. To agree with your view would be denying the clear teaching of Jesus Christ and the Bible."

Lets be clear. #1. I do not care what you do my friend.

#2. I do not care if the whole world disagrees with me. I only read the Bible, pray about it and study it and if you and the rest of the world disagree with me, WONDERFUL!!!!

I have NO authority over anyone!
It is YOUR choice.
It is my choice.

The facts are that there is NO Biblical Scriptures that substantiate Transubstaciation.

It is strictly a RCC concoction and nothing more.

Your comment that ALL the ECF's supported Transubstantiation is false to say the least.
That is began in the gospel of John 6 is also false.

"Some" church fathers believed in the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist; others considered the elements as signs of the body and blood of Christ, and that His presence is spiritual.

The monk, Paschasius Radbertus was the first to formulate the doctrine of transubstantiation in the ninth century. He was opposed by Ratranmus, a contemporary monk at the monastery of Corbie.

Ratranmus wrote..........
"The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a figurative sense" (De corpore et sanguine Christi).

This controversy between two Catholic monks shows that both views were present in the Catholic church at least up to the eleventh century. The debate continued until the thirteenth century when the final decision was taken by the Lateran Council in 1215.

Eventually Radbertus was canonized while Ratranmus' work was placed on the index of forbidden books. The Doctor of the Church, Duns Scotus, admits that transubstantiation was not an article of faith before that the thirteenth century.
Church Fathers and Transubstantiation

 

[Albion]

Then we have 1 Cor.10:16 where it say's:



St. Paul is clear that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Also in 1 Cor. 11:26-

I believe in the Real Presence, but Pauls words there point in the opposite direction, if anything. You cite a verse in which he says that the sacrament is a participation in the blood of Christ.

So it surely does not amount to this--

Again, it's plain as day, according to the clear teaching of the Bible....

 

[Major1]

I believe in the Real Presence, but Pauls words there point in the opposite direction, if anything. You cite a verse in which he says that the sacrament is a participation in the blood of Christ.

So it surely does not amount to this--

I believe what he is saying is called either "wishful thinking" or "exaggeration".

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT


Folks, flaming, as in insulting the other viewpoint needs to stop. Read the Statement of Purpose for this forum.

Also, if you are copying and then pasting from another site, the link to that site needs to be added to the post. The site rules include:
​

• Quoted portions of any work should not exceed 20% of the total work. Materials owned by the Associated Press must be quoted using only one sentence. All quoted copyrighted material must be linked to the web page from which it was taken. Do not violate the copyrights of others or promote another work as your own.

 

[Major1]

Lev. 17:10-14............
“Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood—I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood. 'Any Israelite or any alien living among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, "You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off."

Seems rather self explanatory to me.

Ooops.

 

[Truth7t7]

LOL............You are still making comments to me that look like I am some kind of authority figure.

You actually said..........
"No disrespect Maj1, but accepting the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist over yours (as you admitted, could possibly be in error) is an easy decision. To agree with your view would be denying the clear teaching of Jesus Christ and the Bible."

Lets be clear. #1. I do not care what you do my friend.

#2. I do not care if the whole world disagrees with me. I only read the Bible, pray about it and study it and if you and the rest of the world disagree with me, WONDERFUL!!!!

I have NO authority over anyone!
It is YOUR choice.
It is my choice.

The facts are that there is NO Biblical Scriptures that substantiate Transubstaciation.

It is strictly a RCC concoction and nothing more.

Your comment that ALL the ECF's supported Transubstantiation is false to say the least.
That is began in the gospel of John 6 is also false.

"Some" church fathers believed in the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist; others considered the elements as signs of the body and blood of Christ, and that His presence is spiritual.

The monk, Paschasius Radbertus was the first to formulate the doctrine of transubstantiation in the ninth century. He was opposed by Ratranmus, a contemporary monk at the monastery of Corbie.

Ratranmus wrote..........
"The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a figurative sense" (De corpore et sanguine Christi).

This controversy between two Catholic monks shows that both views were present in the Catholic church at least up to the eleventh century. The debate continued until the thirteenth century when the final decision was taken by the Lateran Council in 1215.

Eventually Radbertus was canonized while Ratranmus' work was placed on the index of forbidden books. The Doctor of the Church, Duns Scotus, admits that transubstantiation was not an article of faith before that the thirteenth century.
Church Fathers and Transubstantiation

Wow it wasn't a doctrine of the church until the 13th century?

Seeing that many claim salvation is seen in eating the waffer God, what did the church do prior to this doctrine?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I am unsure what you mean here, Cassia.

I have given several rundowns of John 6 that are every bit as substantial for as against real presence from John 6 and it's only been recently that the RCC have been using it to counter that distinction. But here's another aspect too...

His work as redeemer

John 6:35
Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.​

His flesh is life. As the lamb of God He feeds and redeems, before the fall as the tree of life he was just for feeding on. Then in dying for us He gave His flesh so that we could have life. Blood is also necessary for redemption. Separating the flesh and blood John 6:54 clearly means His death.

John 6:47
Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.
John 1:12
Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—​

John 6:56 is the resurrected life of those who believe in Him.
By eating (gaining our edification from ) we are taking Him in as nourishment for the new creation for the new way of life.

John 14:19-20
Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.​

John 6:62 involves His ascension which followed redemption as proof His work had been completed.

Hebrews 1:3b
... After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.​

Wherefore He is the life-giving spirit John 6:63 who gives life and speaks in spirit and life.

1 Corinthians 15:45
So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.​

As the life-giving spirit He is the life supply. Receiving (believing) Him as the crucified and resurrected savior, the lifegiving Spirit comes into us to impart eternal life. We receive (believe) the Lord Jesus but we get the Holy Spirit who gives us life.

Communion in the way of breaking of bread was the way in which the earliest church recognized Jesus, as exemplified by the couple of disciples at Emmuas. Communion is recognition of Jesus Christ within the revealed Word of God, symbolically, in spirit and truth.

 

[Major1]

Well Maj1, I believe (as does the majority of Christianity) that your understanding of these passages are in error. Something you agreed to as a possibility on post #365. So lets see what your very own KJV of the bible say's:



As you can see Maj1., even your Protestant translations show that Jesus proclaims the Eucharist to be His body and His blood. There were many ways in Hebrew or Aramaic for Jesus to say “this represents my body,” or “this is a symbol of my body,”but He doesn’t. He says “this is my body” and “this is my blood.”

Then we have 1 Cor.10:16 where it say's:



St. Paul is clear that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Also in 1 Cor. 11:26-29 it say's that to receive the Eucharist unworthily is to sin against the actual Body and Blood of the Lord.

Again, it's plain as day, according to the clear teaching of the Bible, one who receives the Eucharist unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. St. Paul says that a person eats and drinks damnation by receiving the Eucharist without the proper dispositions and discernment. If the Eucharist is as you claim just a piece of bread and some wine taken in memory of Christ, how could one who receives it improperly be found guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? One would obviously not be held guilty of the body and blood of Christ unless the Eucharist is indeed the body and blood of Christ.

Besides the clear biblical evidence shown, the witness of the ancient Church unanimously supports
Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. I realize (and you should too) that history does not support your belief of the Eucharist being symbolic. However, if you were to take the time and study the early Church Fathers (St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, St. Cyril, ect.) you would see that they all believed that the Eucharist "IS" the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and your view of the Eucharist is a very novel view, and was foreign to the entire early Christian Church.




If you are trying to connect John 10:9 or John 15:1 with John 6:35, you have a bit of a problem, for there is no connection. In chapters Jn. 10:9 "I am the door" and Jn.15:1 "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).



Sorry, but facts show otherwise. Transubstantiation is the technical term used to describe what happens when the bread and wine used at Mass are turned into Christ’s actual body and blood. The belief that this occurs has been held from the earliest times. It stems from the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel, the eleventh chapter of 1 Corinthians, and the biblical accounts of the Last Supper. As centuries passed, theologians exercised their reason on the belief to understand more completely how such a thing could happen and what its happening would imply. It was seen that more precise terminology was needed to insure the belief’s integrity. The word "transubstantiation" was finally chosen because it eliminated certain unorthodox interpretations of the doctrine, and the term was formally defined at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. So the use of the technical term was new, but not the doctrine.



No disrespect Maj1, but accepting the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist over yours (as you admitted, could possibly be in error) is an easy decision. To agree with your view would be denying the clear teaching of Jesus Christ and the Bible.

Have a Blessed Lenten Season

My dear friend. I know from our past conversations that you are a well entrenched RCC member.

Good for you. You have learned their doctrine at the expense of everything else and you represent the RCC well, if not incorrectly.

Having said that, I am sure that you are aware
The catholic church teaches that there are seven sacraments, according to YOUR catechism. They go so far as to say that these sacraments are necessary for salvation:

“There are seven sacraments in the Church: Baptism, Confirmation or Chrismation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony.” Pg. 289, #1113

“The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.” Pg. 292, #1129.

How then can you as a catholic say that obeying the sacraments assures salvation? The Bible says:

~Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

If the sacraments are to be obeyed, and if the sacraments are of God, then they would be found in the Bible. They are not found there but instead, they are recorded in the traditions of men, the catholic church’s sacred tradition and magisterium – attempting to reach God through religion. But God cannot be reached in this manner. There is nothing we can do in this flesh that will ever please God. We can only reach God through salvation in Jesus Christ and after doing so, we receive the Holy Spirit of God and can now say that we can truly worship God with the same obedience that Abel worshipped God with his sacrifice – because we are covered by the Perfect Sacrifice, Jesus Christ and His blood!
The Sacraments Do Not Save