Intinction

[AustinC]

Are you not a baptized Christian? If so then you are also guilty of a "work". Are "works" inherently bad for some reason? I do not understand your line of reasoning.

We don't "perform" anything, we do those things because they are what is required of the Christian.

The obedience of water baptism is in response to the baptism the Holy Spirit performed when He immersed me into Christ Jesus by making me alive with Christ. (Ephesians 2:4-9)
I was not saved by being water baptized.
So doing the works, which God has ordained you to do is prescribed in Ephesians 2:10, but nowhere are any sacraments prescribed as a means of grace and therefore a means of salvation. That is a church tradition added by a false teacher far after the Apostles died. It must be tossed out as it makes salvation out to be by works, apart from grace. It is pure legalism, the very thing the Apostle Paul calls anathema in his letter to the Galatians.

 

[AustinC]

You are being ridiculous here. As usual your interpretation of such things remains widely inaccurate.

No, you are refusing to answer the question. Was Jesus first implementation of communion not effectual since he certainly had not died for the atonement of those whom the Father had given him. Was the bread and wine not his flesh and not his blood that the disciples partook of that first supper?
It is you who made the claim that it couldn't have been until after Jesus died and rose again. Please clarify.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The huge problem is that the works of the RC sacraments remove grace entirely from the equation.
Salvation becomes this process:
Humans perform a sacrament, which is the cause agent that moves God to save them. Humans commit sins, which causes God to reject them. Humans perform a sacrament, which causes God to save them. Humans commit sins, which causes God to reject them. Humans...
That's the circular world of works salvation apart from God's grace. Grace does not have any functional purpose in such a circular pattern. Moreso, the teaching that the sacraments save is anathema to the gospel at every step.
Thus, the traditions of the RCC and OC must be thrown out whenever salvation by works is introduced in their teachings.

Nailed it!

 

[Adonia]

I was not saved by being water baptized.

In a sense you are correct, but we can see what the Scriptures say. "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him". 1 Peter 3:21-22, ESV

Now I never said that Holy Communion by itself saves anyone, nor does my faith tradition. It corresponds to the Scripture I posted above - first the death and resurrection of Christ, then it goes to us and the faith that we have that this is true.

 

[Adonia]

Was the bread and wine not his flesh and not his blood that the disciples partook of that first supper?
It is you who made the claim that it couldn't have been until after Jesus died and rose again.

Where did you get that? All I ever said was first came Calvary and then Holy Communion. I did not preclude the fact that His flesh and blood was there in the elements of bread and wine at the last supper as well as him sitting at the table presiding over the whole thing.

 

[robycop3]

Your interpretation is phony. I will repeat. No blood shed on Calvary, no Holy Communion. One cannot occur without the other.

No, what's phony is the RC "take" on Communion. And Scripture does NOT say Jesus dipped the bread into the drink. And plainly, the bread & drink REPRESENTED what was about to happen to Jesus-He'd have some flesh beaten off Him by whips & would bleed a good deal. And Jesus said, "Do this IN REMEMBRANCE of Me" so people would not only remember His personage, but also remember the ordeal He suffered on OUR behalf.

 

[robycop3]

Where did you get that? All I ever said was first came Calvary and then Holy Communion. I did not preclude the fact that His flesh and blood was there in the elements of bread and wine at the last supper as well as him sitting at the table presiding over the whole thing.

No, He instituted Communion BEFORE He was crucified, as Scripture plainly shows.

 

[AustinC]

No, what's phony is the RC "take" on Communion. And Scripture does NOT say Jesus dipped the bread into the drink. And plainly, the bread & drink REPRESENTED what was about to happen to Jesus-He'd have some flesh beaten off Him by whips & would bleed a good deal. And Jesus said, "Do this IN REMEMBRANCE of Me" so people would not only remember His personage, but also remember the ordeal He suffered on OUR behalf.

...just like the Jews remembered the Passover.
This is why the supper was a sedir meal. It was a change in the Passover remembrance so that all believers would remember Jesus as the lamb that was slain for their redemption.

 

[Adonia]

No, He instituted Communion BEFORE He was crucified, as Scripture plainly shows.

The Last Supper and the Crucifixion are basically part of the same event. The sequence of events does not matter in the least with my contention.

 

[Yeshua1]

This is why I'm a proponent of receiving our Lord under only one species. The entirety of His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity resides under the appearance of the wafer, so why offer the chalice to anyone? It's only an opportunity for desecration and messy handling. Also not a fan of people receiving in their filthy, unconsecrated hands.

The person of jesus is not actually present during the mass!

 

[Yeshua1]

"let us evaluate the whole text, then i will tell you what i think it means, as opposed to what the Church and all Christians have believed since Christ's ascension."

"symbolic" Communion is a novelty that first appeared in the 1600's and really isn't any type of communion at all. The Pastor elevated himself in place of the Risen Lord in the Eucharist.

Jesus told us in John that this was spiritual truth, and the Roman Church made grave heresy of making it physical as in his presense!

 

[Yeshua1]

The Christian way does not consist of believing or doing but one thing. The Scriptures tell us that we must also be baptised to receive salvation, do they not? First comes the belief that Jesus shed his blood for us (having faith) then the rest of the scriptural exhortations and commands of what must be done follows.

We receive salvation by Grace alone thru faith alone!

 

[Yeshua1]

What an absolutely foolish retort. You are dissing the Holy Spirit here, so I would be careful if I were you. Without his blood shed on Calvary there would be no Holy Communion and that is what we who follow orthodox Christian teachings believe.

We are saved by his death and resurrection, received thru faith alone, and not by mass, water baptism, and Sacraments!

 

[Adonia]

No, what's phony is the RC "take" on Communion. And Scripture does NOT say Jesus dipped the bread into the drink. And plainly, the bread & drink REPRESENTED what was about to happen to Jesus-He'd have some flesh beaten off Him by whips & would bleed a good deal. And Jesus said, "Do this IN REMEMBRANCE of Me" so people would not only remember His personage, but also remember the ordeal He suffered on OUR behalf.

What's phony is your rejection of Holy Communion as exemplified by orthodox Christianity. No where in the history of Christianity was Holy Communion taught as you guys started teaching it for over 1500 years, so why should anyone believe your Johnny- come- lately take on the issue? I certainly don't, as millions upon millions of other Christians don't either, so I am in good and solid company.

 

[AustinC]

What's phony is your rejection of Holy Communion as exemplified by orthodox Christianity. No where in the history of Christianity was Holy Communion taught as you guys started teaching it for over 1500 years, so why should anyone believe your Johnny- come- lately take on the issue? I certainly don't, as millions upon millions of other Christians don't either, so I am in good and solid company.

Well...other than in the Bible...where we see communion is never tied to it being a means of salvation.
The only place we see that is in a non-biblical tradition that has replaced grace with legalistic works in order to be saved.
Thus, all person's who read the Bible and hold it as authoritative over and above denominational tradition realize that the idea of merited salvation by virtue of the sacraments is a lie from hell that must be rejected and repudiated.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

The RCC belief that the elements, wine and wafer, represent the actual blood and body of Christ. Therefore, by ingesting them, are they engaged in cannibalism? (apologize if this was addressed earlier)

 

[RCommando]

The RCC belief that the elements, wine and wafer, represent the actual blood and body of Christ. Therefore, by ingesting them, are they engaged in cannibalism? (apologize if this was addressed earlier)

Is Receiving the Eucharist Cannibalism?

 

[Wesley Briggman]

Is Receiving the Eucharist Cannibalism?

Based on RCC doctrine, yes.

What is the Catholic sacrament of Holy Eucharist? | GotQuestions.org
“…according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366, "The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit." The catechism continues in paragraph 1367:

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner . . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

The Roman Catholic Church believes that the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist become the actual body and blood of Jesus. They attempt to support their system of thought with passages such as John 6:32-58; Matthew 26:26; Luke 22:17-23; and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. In A.D. 1551, the Counsel of Trent officially stated, "By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation" (Session XIII, chapter IV; cf. canon II).

RCC hocus pocus to defend against the charge of cannibalism:
Are Catholics Cannibals?
In the Eucharist, after the priest consecrates the bread and wine and they are, in fact, transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord, our Lord is then entirely present. Neither bread nor wine remains. However, the accidents of bread and wine (size, weight, taste, texture) do remain. Hence, the essential reason why Catholics are not guilty of cannibalism is the fact that we do not receive our Lord in a cannibalistic form. We receive him in the form of bread and wine. The two are qualitatively different.

 

[Adonia]

Based on RCC doctrine, yes.

Don't be ridiculous. Even if it is (which it isn't) this is all sanctioned by Jesus Christ, God Incarnate on this earth. "This is my body" and "this is my blood" he said as recorded in the Holy Writ - case closed!

Now go back to your faux communion with your grape juice and crackers and leave us in peace to practice the Christian faith as we have come to know it.

 

[RCommando]

Based on RCC doctrine, yes.

What is the Catholic sacrament of Holy Eucharist? | GotQuestions.org
“…according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366, "The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit." The catechism continues in paragraph 1367:

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner . . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

The Roman Catholic Church believes that the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist become the actual body and blood of Jesus. They attempt to support their system of thought with passages such as John 6:32-58; Matthew 26:26; Luke 22:17-23; and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. In A.D. 1551, the Counsel of Trent officially stated, "By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation" (Session XIII, chapter IV; cf. canon II).

RCC hocus pocus to defend against the charge of cannibalism:
Are Catholics Cannibals?
In the Eucharist, after the priest consecrates the bread and wine and they are, in fact, transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord, our Lord is then entirely present. Neither bread nor wine remains. However, the accidents of bread and wine (size, weight, taste, texture) do remain. Hence, the essential reason why Catholics are not guilty of cannibalism is the fact that we do not receive our Lord in a cannibalistic form. We receive him in the form of bread and wine. The two are qualitatively different.

Is this supposed to be news to me?

I'm sorry this is a hard teaching that is difficult for you to accept. I will follow Christ's Words and teachings, and St. Paul's, and the whole of Christian tradition over your personal interpretation.