1 Cor 11 "this is my body" in communion vs Literal historic accounts

[BobRyan]

Good.
I still disagree on this one. The "memorial" part is right there in the consecration prayer,

1 Cor 11 does not say "for as oft as you do this, you kill me and offer me as sacrifice"

"the sacred and holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving only, or a mere commemoration of the Sacrifice performed on the cross, but also truly a propitiatory Sacrifice, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious to us. If, therefore, with a pure heart, a lively faith, and affected with an inward sorrow for our transgressions, we immolate (kill) and offer this most holy victim"

So you are right in that they are quoting the 1 Cor 11 text saying remembrance - but the meaning they pour into it is - "we kill and offer this most holy victim" in a present sacrifice "by which God IS pleased" by the sacrifice just made as continuation of the one 2000 years ago.

 

[BobRyan]

For the sake of the OP however - I am not primarily trying to argue against the "real presence" or other aspects... the OP is about the more general idea of suggesting that one has to take a text in 1 Cor 11 speaking of the body of Christ as literal -- if you are quoting something in the book of Genesis as being literal.

I just don't see the logic in that argument

 

[concretecamper]

immolate -- kill.

we kill and offer this most holy victim

it also means offer as sacrifice.

The Mass IS the Sacrifice of Calvary. The Church has always taught it, regardless of what else was posted in this thread.

 

[concretecamper]

So you are right in that they are quoting the 1 Cor 11 text saying remembrance - but the meaning they pour into it is - "we kill and offer this most holy victim" in a present sacrifice "by which God IS pleased" by the sacrifice just made as continuation of the one 2000 years ago.

I wouldn't use the word continuation. What happens is Time folds into eternity, eternity folds into time and we are present (along with all the saints) at Calvary. It is a once and for all Sacrifice, as St Paul says.

 

[BobRyan]

I wouldn't use the word continuation. What happens is Time folds into eternity, eternity folds into time

I am sure that is what Paul meant to say in 1 Cor 11..

 

[BobRyan]

it also means offer as sacrifice.
The Mass IS the Sacrifice of Calvary.

that is how I have understood the Catholic teaching on that point.. they don't teach that the mass remembers that sacrifice -- a thanksgiving for that once-for-all-time sacrifice completed 2000 years ago.. but it IS that sacrifice. If you wanted a memorial then you can go home from the mass and then "remember the mass".

 

[ViaCrucis]

At the Marburg Colloquy Luther took chalk to the table and wrote the words hoc est on it. Then covered it with the tablecloth.

On this point Luther would not budge, no matter how many sophistical arguments Zwingli and his group tried to make.

Jesus said "This is", and for Lutherans that settles the matter. No amount of hand waiving, or poor attempts at philosophizing, can change the inviolate word of God.

Verbum Dei manet in aeternum. The word of God is forever.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[concretecamper]

I am sure that is what Paul meant to say in 1 Cor 11..

I dont think that was the message Paul was conveying.

 

[Hmm]

I've never understood why this is a issue. Does it make any difference practically if the bread and wine is the actual flesh and blood of wine or symbolic or Real Presence. It seems to me that it's a purposive act of remembrance and transubstantiation or Real Presence is a non-issue and I struggle to see why God would ask us to believe the impossible over something that doesn't actually matter.

 

[concretecamper]

I've never understood why this is a issue. Does it make any difference practically if the bread and wine is the actual flesh and blood of wine or symbolic or Real Presence. It seems to me that it's a purposive act of remembrance and transubstantiation or Real Presence is a non-issue and I struggle to see why God would ask us to believe the impossible over something that doesn't actually matter.

Paul thinks it is something that actually matters

11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
11:30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you: and many sleep.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I've never understood why this is a issue. Does it make any difference practically if the bread and wine is the actual flesh and blood of wine or symbolic or Real Presence. It seems to me that it's a purposive act of remembrance and transubstantiation or Real Presence is a non-issue and I struggle to see why God would ask us to believe the impossible over something that doesn't actually matter.

If the bread and wine are Christ's flesh and blood, then that means that Christ is truly here, at His Table, and here at His Table is forgiveness, grace, mercy, the very broken body and shed blood of God's Son, by whom we have peace with God, and peace with one another--here is our salvation made evident and solid, real, tangible, right here in these meager gifts of bread and wine.

If the bread and wine are only symbols, then it's a nice religious ritual that can be pleasant I guess, but it doesn't actually do anything or mean anything beyond whatever meaning we ourselves choose to get out of it.

That's not something that "doesn't actually matter". That's something that matters a great deal.

Either the Eucharist is Jesus Christ, or it is not.

If it is Jesus Christ, then it demands the fullness of our honor and respect, for here is Christ come to command our praise and worship and to give us Himself fully.

If it is not Jesus Christ, then, well, it's not.

Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence

"Let all mortal flesh keep silence,
And with fear and trembling stand;
Ponder nothing earthly-minded,
For with blessing in His hand,
Christ our God to earth descendeth,
Our full homage to demand.

King of kings, yet born of Mary,
As of old on earth He stood,
Lord of lords, in human vesture,
In the body and the blood;
He will give to all the faithful
His own self for heav'nly food.

Rank on rank the host of heaven
Spreads its vanguard on the way,
As the Light of light descendeth
From the realms of endless day,
That the pow'rs of hell may vanish
As the darkness clears away.

At His feet the six-winged seraph,
Cherubim with sleepless eye,
Veil their faces to the presence,
As with ceaseless voice they cry:
'Alleluia, Alleluia,
Alleluia, Lord Most High!'"

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

Well in the dark ages Christians were being killed for all sorts of things including not praying to Mary or having a Bible in their own language that they could read.

That’s actually not true. In the dark ages, most literate people in the jurisdiction of the Roman church could read Latin, and furthermore, vernacular Bibles were available to a great many Christians (Slavonic-speaking Christians, including Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, Carpatho-Rusyns, Bulgarians, Serbians, Dalmatians, Czechs), Romanians, Georgians, Armenian, Assyrians, Maronites and other Syriac speakers, such as the Indian Orthodox, Ethiopians, Copts, Arabic-speaking Christians, and others).

 

[The Liturgist]

Does it make any difference practically if the bread and wine is the actual flesh and blood of wine or symbolic or Real Presence.

Yes, absolutely. We see this reflected in the approach Anglicans, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and Assyrians take with regards to the handling of the Eucharist.

 

[BobRyan]

I wouldn't use the word continuation. What happens is Time folds into eternity, eternity folds into time

I am sure that is what Paul meant to say in 1 Cor 11..

I dont think that was the message Paul was conveying.

well... who am I to argue?

 

[BobRyan]

That’s actually not true. In the dark ages, most literate people in the jurisdiction of the Roman church could read Latin, and furthermore, vernacular Bibles were available to a great many Christians (Slavonic-speaking Christians, including Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, Carpatho-Rusyns, Bulgarians, Serbians, Dalmatians, Czechs), Romanians, Georgians, Armenian, Assyrians, Maronites and other Syriac speakers, such as the Indian Orthodox, Ethiopians, Copts, Arabic-speaking Christians, and others).

hmm. German, French, English etc seem to be missing from your list and the Bible was on list of "forbidden books" in Europe.

I am pretty sure there were plenty of English, German and French peasants that could not read latin books.

 

[The Liturgist]

hmm. German, French, English etc seem to be missing from your list

That’s because until much later, in the middle ages, literare Germans, French and English speakers primarily read and wrote in Latin. Indeed, Latin was the lingua franca for scientific literature well into the 18th century.

and the Bible was on list of "forbidden books" in Europe.

No, it wasn’t; on the contrary, it was one of the most widely owned and distributed books at the time, along with the Primer, which contained the prayer service of the First Hour, known as Prime, and was used to teach people how to read, and the Psalter.

Many wealthy people were still illiterate and thus had illuminated manuscripts of the Bible, of the Psalms (the Psalter) and of the Gospel, and some illuminated liturgical Gospels are quite famous, for example, the Latin Book of Kells and the Syriac Rabbula Gospel.

 

[Dkh587]

It is against the law of God to drink blood, and also, the Jerusalem Council taught the converting Gentiles to abstain from blood.

The disciples walked away thought he was speaking literally, just like many people here. Ironic...

 

[The Liturgist]

It is against the law of God to drink blood, and also, the Jerusalem Council taught the converting Gentiles to abstain from blood.

The disciples walked away thought he was speaking literally, just like many people here. Ironic...

The blood of our Lord is a special case. Indeed, a compelling argument could be made that the prohibition on consuming the blood of animals is that such an act seems inappropriate for those who the Lord has commanded to drink His precious, life-giving and sin-remitting Blood. This explains, and provides a strong rationale for, this particular law.

 

[lsume]

Since this topic keeps popping up on the Genesis thread -- I vote that it gets its own focus and space.

1. Everyone might agree that just because one text uses a symbol - does not mean all texts are symbolic.

2. There are allegories - like the one in Judges where "the trees go out to elect a king" - and nobody is all that challenged when reading that text. Judges 9:8

3. 1 Cor 11 "do this in remembrance of Me" makes it a memorial does it not?

1 Cor 11
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

Jer 31:31-33 "THIS is the New Covenant"

Hebrews 8:6-12 "THIS is the New Covenant"

John 10: 7 So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep

John 15: 5 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.

I believe that everyone who is visited by Christ for being born again has The Same Teacher. In John 6, Christ Tells the crowd that they must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. At that mandate, many stopped following Christ. He was Saying that we must read The Word of God which Christ was made flesh and be filled with The Holy Spirit Christ’s Life Blood.

 

[Jipsah]

Paul thinks it is something that actually matters

11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
11:30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you: and many sleep.

Always seemed to me that if would be difficult to discern the Body of the Lord if it wasn't there in the first place. Anyway, I don't think those verses are in the Authorized SDA Version of the Bible.