This is my body.

[RileyG]

Maybe you don't but I do. It's a spiritual body and a mystery but it is the body of Christ. I guess I kind of feel sorry for you that you neither get the true body or blood of Christ from God but a "symbol."

It is his actual Body and Blood. He didn't say otherwise. You're 100% right. It IS a mystery.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes. 100%. Whole Person. Body and Blood means whole person. Not that we eat his actual face or toes or anything

In the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, used by Eastern Christians, the Eucharist is called a "reasonable" and "unbloody" sacrifice.

Eastern Christian sacramental theology is unique because there was never really a controversy about the Sacrament, whereas western Christianity has tended to develop contrasting views based on different philosophical premises.

 

[RileyG]

In the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, used by Eastern Christians, the Eucharist is called a "reasonable" and "unbloody" sacrifice.

Eastern Christian sacramental theology is unique because there was never really a controversy about the Sacrament, whereas western Christianity has tended to develop contrasting views based on different philosophical premises.

Yes. Very good point. Thank you.

The Eastern Church sees it as a mystery and doesn't try to definite it beyond that. Interesting enough, the Catholic Mass is often referred to as an un-bloody Sacrifice by some Theologians

***(Sacrifice= to make sacred. We see the ONE sacrifice of Christ being re-presented time and time again. NOT THAT Catholics put "Christ back on the cross" every time we celebrate Mass. The liturgy in essence "goes back in time" mystically. Christ was sacrificed once and for all. It cannot be repeated).

 

[RileyG]

The Roman Canon AKA Eucharist Prayer 1 in the Catholic Mass makes more references to the Mass as being a sacrifice and Christ being the pure and spotless victim. Beautiful prayer that should be used more often. Unfortunately, it is sometimes considered "too long." IMO it's not.

 

[rturner76]

It is his actual Body and Blood. He didn't say otherwise. You're 100% right. It IS a mystery.

That's what makes it hard to explain. I still do believe that it is Christ's flesh but the mystery makes me understand why it doesn't taste like human skin.

 

[RileyG]

That's what makes it hard to explain. I still do believe that it is Christ's flesh but the mystery makes me understand why it doesn't taste like human skin.

....it's a mystery For those wondering, The "physical accidents" (smell, taste, texture etc) do not change, but the very substance (What it IS) changes. That's why it doesn't taste like human skin.

 

[rturner76]

....it's a mystery For those wondering, The "physical accidents" (smell, taste, texture etc) do not change, but the very substance (What it IS) changes. That's why it doesn't taste like human skin.

Yes, that's the mystery.

 

[Jipsah]

In noun form it is a derogatory term applied to people who believe in transsubstantiation

Capernaite (plural Capernaites)

1. (Christianity, derogatory, archaic) A believer in transubstantiation.

I have no particular argument against transubstantiation, it may be absolute fact. The fact that the elements are the Body and Blood of our Lord is sufficient.

 

[Jipsah]

Catholics don't believe that people eat pieces of Christ's body, either. Jesus isn't missing any fingers or toes as a result of the Eucharist. Capernaitic feasting is rejected by every Christian denomination.

I'll certainly keep that in mind.

 

[rturner76]

I have no particular argument against transubstantiation, it may be absolute fact. The fact that the elements are the Body and Blood of our Lord is sufficient.

Amen!

 

[RileyG]

I have no particular argument against transubstantiation, it may be absolute fact. The fact that the elements are the Body and Blood of our Lord is sufficient.

Amen!

 

[ViaCrucis]

Do you believe it? Is what you receive at communion what Jesus said it is. Is it "my body" - specifically, is it Jesus' body? Or do you think it "means" something else?

When I went up to the altar this morning to receive the Holy Supper, I ate His body and drank His blood.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

In noun form it is a derogatory term applied to people who believe in transsubstantiation

Capernaite (plural Capernaites)

1. (Christianity, derogatory, archaic) A believer in transubstantiation.

That's the first I've heard that definition. In the Lutheran Confessions Capernaitic refers simply to the misguided notion of those in Capernaum who were disgusted by the fact that Jesus said to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Capernaitic, then, refers to the idea of a "cannibalistic" eating and drinking of Christ. As though Jesus cut off His fingers or arm and we eat that. We, instead, eat and drink Christ--it's His real flesh and real blood, but we aren't butchering Christ like cannibals. That's, as far as I've always understood it, what it was intended to mean. It has nothing to do with Transubstantiation.

From what I can gather from the Lutheran Confessions, the use of this term is used for the purpose of defending belief in the Real Presence against false accusations by the Sacramentarians.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[rturner76]

When I went up to the altar this morning to receive the Holy Supper, I ate His body and drank His blood.

-CryptoLutheran

Awesome! I think Lutherans also have the belief in the transformation of the bread and wine. Are you also getting the blood? My Parish hasn't given the blod since COVID and while I am still grateful and feel satisfied with the body, I wouldn't mind a sip of the blood. I used to go to an AME Church who had tiny little shots of grape juice. I wonder why if there is something in Catholic dogma that only permits the sharing of the goblet.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Awesome! I think Lutherans also have the belief in the transformation of the bread and wine. Are you also getting the blood? My Parish hasn't given the blod since COVID and while I am still grateful and feel satisfied with the body, I wouldn't mind a sip of the blood. I used to go to an AME Church who had tiny little shots of grape juice. I wonder why if there is something in Catholic dogma that only permits the sharing of the goblet.

Lutherans place a strong emphasis on the mystery of the Sacrament, so we try to avoid offering any explanation beyond saying that the bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ. The closest we get to an explanation is what is called the Sacramental Union. We don't say the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine through a change in the substance (though, we don't technically deny that this might happen either, we just refuse to claim it does or must happen); but rather speak of receiving the body and blood of Christ "in, with, and under" the bread and wine. It's bread and wine, but by the word and promise of Christ that it is His body and blood it indeed truly is His body and blood. How this can be is an unknowable mystery, but since Jesus says so, it is so. Not a symbol of His body and blood, not a token sign, or anything like that; but His real, actual, true, literal body and blood.

We haven't returned to using the common cup in the Eucharist at my church, so when we go up to the altar rail we receive those little individual cups more common in some other Protestant traditions. I would like to see a return to the use of the common cup, but I understand the reasoning for having not returned to it yet.

For a time we weren't even going up to the altar, but would go up and take pre-packaged wine/hosts back to our seats in the pews. A return to going up to the altar to receive was only several months ago. So I suspect that we will return to the use of the common cup eventually.

Unlike in Catholicism where reception in one kind has been normative in the past. Lutheranism, historically, maintained reception of the Eucharist sub utraque specie, "under both kinds". That Christ gave both bread and wine for His Church, and thus the Faithful should receive both bread and wine. This was largely what we would call being in statu confessionis, in a state of confession. Because, at the time of Luther, only priests and bishops could receive the Cup, the laity only permitted to receive the bread. Nevertheless this was a major contention of the Evangelical Reformers, and has remained an important part of how Lutherans celebrate the Sacrament of the Altar.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[rturner76]

it is so. Not a symbol of His body and blood, not a token sign, or anything like that; but His real, actual, true, literal body and blood.

That is what I like about your church. I was actually baptized in a Lutheran Church which was in the tradition of WELS. I went to the school and I couldn't reconcile the Trinity at the time in Luther's Catechism. I saw it as polytheism. They excused me from the class and instead of being confirmed, I asked the Pastor to baptize me. He was educated in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew so he would tell us about how the passage in the Bible was originally written and how it can be translated I had been "saved" in an AME church through the laying on of hands and making a public profession of faith.at that time but I hadn't received a water baptism. I had my baptism confirmed by the Catholic as they said Lutheran baptism was valid. I always in both churches looked forward to communion. It was and still is my absolute favorite part of my worship life. What I love about the tradition I am in now (Roman) is that one can receive it every day depending on what one's chosen Parish offers. It was once a month at the AME church and I just didn't feel like it was enough.

For a time we weren't even going up to the altar, but would go up and take pre-packaged wine/hosts back to our seats in the pews. A return to going up to the altar to receive was only several months ago. So I suspect that we will return to the use of the common cup eventually.

I went to a church a few times where the ushers brought communion to everyone where they sat. It wasn't bad but I like the idea of one getting on their knees or at least going up to the alter for the offering.

at the time of Luther, only priests and bishops could receive the Cup, the laity only permitted to receive the bread.

That practice seems to have reemerged in the RCC since COVID at least in my area. I don't know if it's like that everywhere. I does make me wonder why they don't just pass out the little cups but li. I like the idea of sharing the chalice like Jesus did with his disciples.

 

[Dan Perez]

I do believe that Jesus is the gate. Is that not what he said? I see nothing of "literal gate" in the passage, do you?

As I wrote earlier , that Jesus would NOT drink , the fruit of the vine , until he was with them in his Fathers kingdom , Matt 2629

That kingdom will be the 1000nn reign of CHRIST .

And this is the NEW COVENANT which is not YET in operation , PERIOD .

And Christ's blood was presented in the HOLY of HOLYS in Heb 9:15 .

And this Lords SUPPER is for Israel ONLY .

The fruit of the vine had to be used as in Lev 10says not to eat an BLOOD .

dan p

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That kingdom will be the 1000nn reign of CHRIST .

God's kingdom, the one that to which saint Peter has the keys, is eternal rather than a mere 1000 year kingdom.

 

[prodromos]

God's kingdom, the one that to which saint Peter has the keys, is eternal rather than a mere 1000 year kingdom.

St Peter, the Apostles, and all their successors.

 

[rturner76]

And this is the NEW COVENANT which is not YET in operation , PERIOD .

I thought that belief that the Messiah has come was the covenant, made with the blood and body of Christ.