Featured Roman Catholic Mass at Calvin's Church in Geneva!

No, I am not a cannibal.

Are you a symbolic cannibal? Again, If Jesus was speaking symbolically, you have a problem: Jesus is commanding us to eat his flesh and drink his blood symbolically. In other words, He is commanding you to act out symbolically that which you are saying is prohibited by Leviticus.

Land the plane and reconcile this for me.

 

I did. Your question is stupid fallacy. There is no altar. Your belief that the bread and cup is the flesh and blood of your Jesus, is another Jesus and another gospel.

 

No, it's based on your assertions. Your posts are there again for all to see.

And no, you never did answer my question. Here it is again:

If you are communing with and commemorating other believers, why go through the trouble of a ceremony involving bread and wine and not just bring other believers up to the altar and commune and commemorate them live and in person?

Asked another way, if the real presence of Christ is in the believer, why are you using bread and wine and not just using believers during your communion service? Bring them up to the altar (or table or whatever you use) and commune and commemorate them instead of confusing people with bread and wine which apparently are just symbols anyway. If they are just symbols, can't you just have pictures of them and use live believers to commune and commemorate since in them is the real presence?

Incorrect and another flip flop as you even referenced the fact that we have an altar in a previous thread! (Click here)

"We have an altar of our own, and it is not those who carry out the worship of the tabernacle that are qualified to eat its sacrifices. When the high priest takes the blood of beasts with him into the sanctuary, as an offering for sin, the bodies of those beasts have to be burned, away from the camp; and thus it was that Jesus, when he would sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered beyond the city gate. Let us, too, go out to him away from the camp, bearing the ignominy he bore; we have an everlasting city, but not here; our goal is the city that is one day to be. It is through him, then, that we must offer to God a continual sacrifice of praise, the tribute of lips that give thanks to his name." (Heb 13:10-15)

The word "altar" used by the author is thysiastērion, which is a compound word of two Greek words meaning "fixed place of sacrifice."

A rather odd accusation given the fact you are the one arguing for a symbolic Jesus as opposed to one who offers Himself, as He said and as St. Paul taught...

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." - Jesus

"This IS my body...this IS my blood." - Jesus

"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." - St. Paul


"No, it's just a symbol." - You


How does one symbolically offer one's self?

 

No, you are imposing what you what you want my beliefs to be. It is dishonest.

We believe differently on this too. That altar is in Heaven itself. Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 10:10-12. But it would seem this is beyond you.

We do not believe in the same Jesus or gospel, 2 Corinthians 11:3-4. John 6:35-63 has nothing to do with His remembrance He instituted on that Passover.

 

I agree. I believe in an actual altar and an actual Jesus who offers His actual self. I do not believe Jesus offers us a symbol. If He did, it would render salvation, which was gained by His very flesh, merely symbolic as well.

I enjoyed the discussion. I do wish you would have answered my questions though so we could expand on your understanding of the Eucharist, but I totally understand why you choose not to.

Best wishes!

 

Two things. Can you set our two interpretations side by side, showing how they are different? What is your question that you think I did not answer?

 

Sure thing!

We'll start here: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the Body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, all that partake of this bread." (I Corinthians 10:16-17).


Me: This communion is a uniting of the Christian with Jesus Christ Himself.

You: And the word interpreted "communion" meaning fellowship of the believers they being the body of Christ being His church.

There is a big difference. My belief is that in communion, we are receiving the true body and blood of Jesus Christ and are thus united to him in the Eucharist. Your belief is that we are simply fellowshipping with other believers. (Hopefully I did not misrepresent you.)

If you are communing with and commemorating other believers, why go through the trouble of a ceremony involving bread and wine and not just bring other believers up to the altar and commune and commemorate them live and in person?

Asked another way, if the real presence of Christ is in the believer, why are you using bread and wine and not just using believers during your communion service? Bring them up to the altar (or table or whatever you use) and commune and commemorate them instead of confusing people with bread and wine which apparently are just symbols anyway. If they are just symbols, can't you just have pictures of them and use live believers to commune and commemorate since in them is the real presence?

 

I accidentally posted my reply in the middle of your quote so I am reposting.

We literally eat the bread and drink the wine which represents the body and blood of Christ.

He was speaking of his body that would be crushed and his blood that would be shed for the new covenant. That has not yet happened at the time of the supper so the elements can only be symbolic. Otherwise we are left with some questions that require evidence as to your claims of the supper being a literal partaking of the body and blood that had not yet been literally sacrificed.

1-If Christ literally gave the apostles his body and blood to eat while he was literally in their presence, what part of his body did he give them?

2- How did he give them his blood while he was literally in their presence? Did he put a nail in his hand and pour out a cup?

3- Christ was literally alive, his body was present and his blood was in it. Are you claiming he had extra flesh and blood somewhere that was not in his literal body? If not, where did the elements come from?

4- What did/does his flesh taste like since you say you literally eat it? Does it taste like lamb since he is called the lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world? Does it taste like lion since he is called the lion of Judah? Or were the phrases symbolic? You are making the claim so you should be able to tell us.

5- What does the blood taste like since you say it is literal? I have never partaken of the wine and thought, "That tastes like blood. If you and the multitude of catholic priests would be honest, you have never thought that either.

6- Since Christ is represented by the lamb of the sacrifice, was Christ literally sacrificed every time a lamb was slain for the offering, or was it symbolic?

These are a few questions that I believe are valid given the statements you and Cathode are presenting.

You have not answered my previous question. Please do so since you demand 37818 do so.

 

I would also like to thank you for correcting your post of 1 Cor 11:25-29 where you were using or instead of and. The use of and clearly shows that the church at Corinth was using both elements of the bread and the wine.

 

One key difference. The fellowship includes Christ who causes the believers to be one bread with Him in order to be Christ's body, His church to commemorate His finished work on the cross. It being a remembrance of His body broken and blood shed to bring about the New Covenant. That is the reason it is done. Hebrews 10:10-12, Hebrews 13:10.
Without Christ's finished work, there is no fellowship. 1 John 5:9-13.

 

Your original question badly misrepresents the view. It cannot be taken as an honest question, even if you think it was.

 

Our Catholic teaching that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus, not bread and wine, is clearly taught in the Bible and throughout the 2,000-year tradition of the Church

The teaching of Jesus in the sixth chapter of John's Gospel is very clear: "Amen, amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you do not have life within you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food and My blood is true drink. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood remains in Me and I in him" (John 6:53-56).

John goes on to say that, even though many disciples would not accept this teaching and went away, Jesus did not attempt to bring them back by saying He was only speaking symbolically

The early Church took this teaching seriously. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Saint Paul says, "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the Body and Blood of the Lord... for anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgement on himself." (1 Corinthians 11:27, 29) Paul's statement makes sense only if the bread and wine have become the real Body and Blood of Christ.

How does this change take place? It happens during the eucharistic prayer of the Mass.

At that time, the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, as the Church has always taught. Although they still look like bread and wine, they have, by divine power, actually changed into His Body and Blood. How can we know this? It requires faith. It is a mystery which, like love, we will never fully understand. The Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, His death and Resurrection are other mysteries which, along with the Eucharist, we will never fully comprehend in this life.
Catholic teaching on the Eucharist gives great inspiration and strength to believers. Jesus is really present and, under the appearance of food, nourishes us for our journey through life.

Our evangelical friends speak often and correctly of the need for a personal relationship with the Lord. What more personal relationship is there than to be nourished by the Body and Blood of Jesus, than receiving Him with love and devotion? And, since the Eucharist takes place in the context of a community meal, we are also united with our brothers and sisters of the faith. To make the presence of Jesus only a "symbolic" one is, therefore, to strip the eucharistic celebration of its true meaning.