Replies

[Paladin] Don’t you realize that you’ve dodged the main point altogether? [Mr Rogers] Haven’t. No one needs to believe in “The Trinity” to be saved.

Perhaps you don't remember your original point? You'd said (in essence), "Please don't tell me that the Catholic Church doesn't create new doctrines; [...] no one formally taught Transubstantiation in 500 A.D.!" I replied, "And no one formally taught the Trinity until at least 325 A.D., and you admit that; so the supposed lateness of the word "transubstantiation" proves nothing". You then went off the tracks and started talking about its necessity for salvation (or lack thereof), which is a completely separate point from the "inventing doctrines" idea.

Now that the topic has been refreshed: could you address the original question (i.e. either offer new evidence that the Church "invents new doctrines", or else retract your statement)?

If they deny the Trinity, they are wrong, but the revelation of God isn’t exactly exhaustive in this area.

It isn't "exactly exhaustive" in numerous areas... including the need for repentance (which I assume you, as a Baptist, think is normative for salvation, yes?); but again, that was light-years from the original point.

In time, a person who studies the scriptures will conclude the Trinity,

(*wry look*) Mm-hmm. Try telling that to the Jews, the Muslims, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, the Unitarian Pentecostals, and others, all of which have members who've studied the Christian Scriptures. The vast majority of Christendom (i.e. Arianism) rejected the Trinity for generations, as well. You (and I) see it as "self-evident" because it's so familiar to us; but it's not called a "mystery" for nothing; it's hardly intuitive, and hardly self-evident.

[Re: John 3]

Jesus is talking about the second birth - a man is born, but he must be born again to enter the Kingdom. He must be “born of water and the Spirit”. Why? “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” The water breaks, and the baby is born. But unless one is born again, of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. It takes TWO births - water and spirit.

:) Sorry for the smile, but... you're the second person to put forth that theory to me, and I really had to struggle to believe that the first fellow was *serious*.

Look... I'll give you full marks for cleverness, but: you're essentially saying that Jesus was being utterly redundant, as a sort of rhetorical flourish. It'd be logically equivalent to saying, "to be saved, you need to exist, and then you need to come to Faith"; no one would argue against it, of course, but it'd be rather pointless to say; it's a tautology. It's like saying, "In order to be an even number, something has to be a number, and then it has to be divisible by two without a remainder." It's true, but the first part isn't worth saying. "Born of water" makes much more sense if you follow what the Apostles and the Early Church *did* with that information: they BAPTIZED. You try to compartmentalize the two (e.g. "born of water" means "coming to Faith", and water Baptism was "just an extra ceremony attached for sentimental/ritualistic reasons"), but that makes a hash out of the "plain sense of Scripture". Jesus commanded us to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Isn't it at least remotely possible, given the "plain sense" of Matthew 28:18-20, that Baptism is a necessary component of *HOW* Jesus expects people to become disciples?

Why set one against the other?

Beyond that: are you unaware of the fact that the early Church was unanimous in disagreeing with you on that point? The Apostles and the Early Church Fathers were all of one mind as to the meaning of the John 3:5 (and similar verses') phrase: water baptism. Nowhere does the Bible limit salvation or "coming into discipleship" to "praying the believer's prayer", or some other variant on "believing on Jesus and being saved". Of *course* that's normative; but that doesn't mean that Baptism is somehow "optional". The latter idea is raw opinion, and the Biblical text doesn't support it at all, above and beyond other (more plausible and historically-supported) options.

So... Jesus said that "being born again of water and the Spirit" was necessary (John 3:5), and Jesus commanded us to Baptize (Matthew 28:18-20), and St. Peter says that Baptism saves us (1 Peter 3:21), and the early Church universally accepted this to mean that the graces of Baptism (normatively bestowed in water Baptism) are absolutely necessary for salvation. Compare that to Mr. Rogers, who disagrees, and interprets it differently. Care to explain why I (or anyone else) should take your interpretation as "the right one"?

The baptism of Jesus is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Of course; with Baptism, the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in one's soul.

As Paul wrote: “Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”

Er... how on earth do you think this applies to the topic at hand? Unless you can point to baptism as a "requirement for salvation" in the Old Law?

That doesn’t mean baptism with water is nothing. I am, after all, a BAPTIST. I believe in following the example we find in Acts, where a believer is baptized with water as soon as water is ready.

But you don't think it's necessary for salvation? The Early Christians did. Heavens, don't you believe the Nicene Creed? "We believe in one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

“36And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 38And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.” - Acts 8

Case in point: doesn't this show the urgency and necessity of Baptism? Why didn't St. Philip say, "Yes, yes, Baptism would be nice, but your believer's prayer is all that's necessary for salvation"? Nothing in Acts 8 suggests anything other than the *requirement* of Baptism; the eunuch obviously thought it was fundamental, yes? And St. Philip didn't contradict him or express surprise, did he? You seem to be "going beyond what is written", in order to arrive at your ideas, here.

“30Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.” - Acts 16

Right. Repentance and belief are necessary (for those who have actual, personal sin), and Baptism (which saves us, cf. 1 Peter 3:21) is also necessary.

“...when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21Baptism, 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, 22who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.” Notice he says baptism corresponds to the experience of Noah. Water didn’t save Noah from death. It threatened him with death were it not for the Ark.

Going "THROUGH" water saved him and his family from earthly death; just as going THROUGH the waters of Baptism (think "immersion") saves us from eternal death. Noah's rescue through the flood was a "biblical type" of Baptism; just as the bronze serpent (which "saved" people who looked at it) is a biblical "type" of Christ; just as the Ark of the Covenant is a biblical "type" of the Blessed Virgin Mary; and so on. I'm not sure how that could be made more clear.

However, water did save him from the evil of the world, taking him away from the sinful society and destroying it in his life.

At the risk of belabouring a point: you *do* notice that you're going far beyond the "plain sense" of the text, in order to arrive at your hypothesis? It takes a rather long stretch to arrive at your interpretation (which the text does not confirm).

In corresponding manner, as Peter puts it, baptism saves us from the evil of this world, separating us from it.

Think this through: HOW does it save us from the evil of this world? By what mechanism? And what evil do you mean? Bad example? Jesus warned us that scandals will inevitably come (Luke 17:1); and that the Church will contain both wheat and tares (Matth 13:24-30), both good fish and bad (Matthew 13:47-50). Suffering? He warned that we should not hope to escape suffering and persecution in this world (John 16:33, etc.). Your idea of "saving us from the evil of the world" seems to be a distinction without a difference.

It isn’t “a removal of dirt from the body”, but “an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”.

Of course; surely you're aware that the Catholic Church doesn't baptize in an effort to cleanse dirt from the body? If a man believes in Jesus, even without baptism or a full understanding of the Trinity, then like the thief on the cross, he IS saved.

Water Baptism is normative, but there are times when it's not possible (e.g. death, unavailability, etc.). In those cases, such people can be granted (by God) the effects of the Sacrament of Baptism, even if the actual Sacrament is not possible. Consider: what's your "take" on the mentally disabled (or infants who die before reaching the age of reason) who cannot make an act of Faith in Jesus? Are they damned? If "believing on Jesus" is necessary, and they don't make such an act, then they cannot be saved (by your schema), yes? Surely you must admit that God, while normatively working through His Sacraments, is not limited to them... just as God normatively works through the laws of physics/nature, while He isn't limited to them (such as in the case of a physical miracle).

But if we take the example of scripture seriously, when someone converts, we should baptize them right away - not after taking classes, and not waiting for a church service or minister, but right away.

All right. What happens to them if you do not? Is there any ill effect? Any threat to salvation?

You write: “2) Do you, for example, need to eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Our Saviour, Jesus Christ, in order to have life within you? (cf. John 6:53) Or doesn’t the “exact definition” matter? (I would think that it would, frankly; if Protestants are wrong about Jesus meaning “acceptance of His Word”, and not a true consumption of the Holy Eucharist, it would seem to make a difference, yes?)”

Yes we do. What did John write? “35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” So we see that Jesus isn’t referring to the Eucharistic wafer, but coming and believing.

Perhaps you could explain to me how the two ("coming and believing") and receiving the Holy Eucharist (which can only BE received worthily if one "comes and believes" first; see 1 Corinthians 11:27-30) are somehow mutually exclusive? The Catholic Church does not hand out the Blessed Sacrament to anyone, willy-nilly; prior faith (and Baptism) are absolutely required.

“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Yes. So... how does that contradict the Eucharist, and its necessary reception (again, within possible limits; God does not demand the impossible of us, such as in the case of someone who was innocently ignorant of the Eucharist)? See above.

It is an error to take “51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” as referring to Eucharist.

You've stated this as your opinion, already; now, you'll need to prove it, in order to make any headway in this matter.

If it did, we could simply give beggars on the street the wafer & wine, and they would have eternal life.

Nonsense. See above; there's a difference between what's NECESSARY and what's SUFFICIENT. Faith is NECESSARY for salvation, but it is not SUFFICIENT (cf. James 2:24, etc.). Baptism is NECESSARY for salvation, but it is not sufficient. The Holy Eucharist is NECESSARY for salvation, but it is not SUFFICIENT. All of the above can be rendered fruitless by personal sin, subsequent betrayal of the Faith, etc. Knowingly and willfully giving the Holy Eucharist to those who didn't already believe (and who weren't already Baptized) would be a sacrilege, and a grave sin.

Indeed, since everyone who eats the wafer dies physically, it is wrong to take this as a physical fact, rather than understanding what Jesus meant when he said “I am the bread of life.”

Come, now! You know, full well, that the Church refers to "eternal life", "never dying", etc., as spiritual (i.e. heavenly) life, yes?

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

Keep going:

"53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them." (John 6:53-56)

You might also consult St. Paul on the meaning:

"23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night 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, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

"27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep." (1 Corinthians 11:23-30)

So... to what, exactly, is St. Paul referring, when he speaks of "eating the bread" and "drinking the cup", where eating and drinking the contents unworthily entails sinning against the Body and Blood of the Lord?

You might also check the writings of the Apostles:

"Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: 'Do not give to dogs what is sacred'". (The Didache, Ch. 9:5)

...and the early Church Fathers:

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead." (St. Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of St. Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John the Apostle; from "Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.)

As CS Lewis once put it, the scriptures can be understood by a child, but they are not written primarily for children.

Yes. Care to explain what you're implying, here? I'd rather not guess...

It takes a hard heart to read John 6 and conclude that Jesus was talking about the Eucharist wafer and wine.

With all due respect, friend: this is one of the most arrogant (and illogical) things I've heard you say. Can you not see that an accusation of "hardness of heart" (unless you meant it as an insult, which I assume isn't the case) could be used against anyone, for anything? Would you be convinced if I said the opposite? "It takes a hard heart to read John 6 and conclude that Jesus was not talking about the Eucharist!" Your case isn't made any stronger by this sort of screed.

(N.B. The Precious Blood is no longer "wine"; the wine ceased to exist when it was changed into the Blood of Christ. Thus, Catholics do not refer to the Precious Blood as "wine".")

New doctrine. I used transubstantiation as an example. The doctrine evolved until a new word was needed to describe it, and to define it as essential belief - enough that people were killed for refusing to accept it.

As I pointed out from the Catholic Encyclopedia, ‘sacred tradition’ evolves until it declares what was previously hidden...to put it in very favorable terms. Referring to the Immaculate Conception as an example, it says, “The revealed truth was indeed in the deposit of truth in the Church, but it was not formulated in explicit terms nor even in clearly equivalent terms; it was enveloped in a more general truth (that e.g. of the all-holiness of Mary), the formula of which might be understood in a more or less absolute sense (exemption from all actual sin, exemption even from original sin). On the other hand, this truth (the exemption of Mary from original sin) may seem in at least apparent conflict with other certain truths (universality of original sin, redemption of all by Christ)...Finally scrutinizing with fresh care the deposit of revelation, they there discovered the pious opinion, hitherto concealed, as far as they were concerned in the more general formula, and, not satisfied to hold it as true, they declared it revealed.”

Yep. Although the Apostle Paul said he taught the whole counsel of God, and John said not to run ahead but to abide in their teaching, the Catholic Church “discovered the pious opinion, hitherto concealed”.

Please be frank about it. Admit that it is finding things not taught as truth before.

Mark Shea describes it thus: “Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. That is why the Tradition that does not change can seem to have changed so much. For this common teaching, life and worship is a living thing-a truth which was planted as a mustard seed in first century Jerusalem and which has not ceased growing since-as our Lord prophesied in Mark 4:30-32. The plant doesn’t look like the seed, but it is more mustardy than ever. And this is an entirely biblical pattern, as we discover when we consider the circumcision controversy in Acts 15.”

He argues that Paul taught a seed, and from it the Catholic Church has revealed a grown bush. But Paul and John said they taught the whole counsel of God, not fragments. To abide in it, not to grow it.

Transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception, etc were not revealed by the Apostles.

In his essay “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine”, Cardinal Newman wrote:

“In truth, scanty as the Ante-nicene notices may be of the Papal Supremacy, they are both more numerous and more definite than the adducible testimonies in favour of the Real Presence. The testimonies to the latter are confined to a few passages such as those just quoted. On the other hand, of a passage in St. Justin, Bishop Kaye remarks, “Le Nourry infers that Justin maintained the doctrine of Transubstantiation; it might in my opinion be more plausibly urged in favour of Consubstantiation, since Justin calls the consecrated elements Bread and Wine, though not common bread and wine [Note 22] ... We may therefore conclude that, when he calls them the Body and Blood of Christ, he speaks figuratively.” “Clement,” observes the same author, “says that the Scripture calls wine a mystic symbol of the holy blood ... Clement gives various interpretations of Christ’s expressions in John vi. respecting His flesh and blood; but in no instance does he interpret them literally ... His notion seems to have been that, by partaking of the bread and wine in the Eucharist, the soul of the believer is united to the Spirit, and that by this union the principle of immortality is imparted to the flesh.” [Note 23] “It has been suggested by some,” says Waterland, “that Tertullian understood John vi. merely of faith, or doctrine, or spiritual actions; and it is strenuously denied by others.” After quoting the passage, {25} he adds, “All that one can justly gather from this confused passage is that Tertullian interpreted the bread of life in John vi. of the Word, which he sometimes makes to be vocal, and sometimes substantial, blending the ideas in a very perplexed manner; so that he is no clear authority for construing John vi. of doctrines, &c. All that is certain is that he supposes the Word made flesh, the Word incarnate to be the heavenly bread spoken of in that chapter.” [Note 24] “Origen’s general observation relating to that chapter is, that it must not be literally, but figuratively understood.” [Note 25] Again, “It is plain enough that Eusebius followed Origen in this matter, and that both of them favoured the same mystical or allegorical construction; whether constantly and uniformly I need not say.” [Note 26] I will but add the incidental testimony afforded on a late occasion:—how far the Anglican doctrine of the Eucharist depends on the times before the Nicene Council, how far on the times after it, may be gathered from the circumstance that, when a memorable Sermon [Note 27] was published on the subject, out of about one hundred and forty passages from the Fathers appended in the notes, not in formal proof, but in general illustration, only fifteen were taken from Ante-nicene writers.”

Think for a moment about the very TITLE of his essay: An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

That is what I’m saying - that Catholic doctrine develops. What wasn’t known, now is - according to Catholics. And while I think Newman wrote it prior to becoming a Catholic, consider Shea’s statement: “Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth...”

Those who say the Constitution is a living document don’t do so because they want to abide in it. They do so to escape it. Think about it.

Regarding baptism, you ask, “Why set one against the other?”

Because Jesus was answering Nicodemus. In context:

“Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’”

Born again. Do you doubt that the FIRST birth Jesus is referring to is physical birth? Born again requires the first birth to be physical birth, and Jesus is saying (to a Jew, remember, one of God’s Chosen People) that it isn’t enough to be born a Jew, but you must be born AGAIN.

To suggest Jesus was interjecting water baptism in the middle of a discussion on needing more that physical birth is silly. Water baptism has no role in the discussion.

You must be born again. Physical birth as a Jew won’t suffice, you must also be born again of the Spirit. Two births - physical, and spiritual.

THAT is why I say the water refers to childbirth. It fits in the context of needing two births.

You write: “Going “THROUGH” water saved him and his family from earthly death; just as going THROUGH the waters of Baptism (think “immersion”) saves us from eternal death.”

No. Noah wasn’t saved from death by water. The threat of death WAS the water - a flood, remember? During a flood, water doesn’t save you from death. It DOES force you to go elsewhere. It separated Noah from the evil world.

In like manner, water baptism doesn’t save us from death, but separates us from the world around us be declaring our repentance and decision to be born again as new creations. It saves us FROM THE WORLD.

As for the Eucharist, Newman makes mention of it above. If it is the wafer and wine that truly becomes the blood and flesh of Jesus, and all who partake are saved, then we could give it to street people and save them apart from their will. It takes a hard heart to believe that Jesus, answering a question of the Jews, was instituting the Eucharist (Thanksgiving) and saying it literally becomes his blood and flesh, and saves anyone who partakes.

So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”

35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

40For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

56Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

Jesus is using the miracle of the manna to tell the Jews, in response to their argument, that God HAS sent a sign: Jesus, the Bread of Life. There isn’t a hint of transubstantiation in there...

You might also consult St. Paul on the meaning:

“23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night 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, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

“27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-30)

So... to what, exactly, is St. Paul referring, when he speaks of “eating the bread” and “drinking the cup”, where eating and drinking the contents unworthily entails sinning against the Body and Blood of the Lord?

IN CONTEXT, what you cite follows this:

“17But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, 19for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.”

They are using the Eucharist as an excuse to show off and to get drunk!

And a few paragraphs later Paul writes, “12For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

14For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.”

The Body being sinned against in 1 Corinthians 11 is the Body of Christ - the CHURCH!

They should be doing it thus: “do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me” and “do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Instead of remember Jesus, and giving thanks (eucharist) for what He did, they profane it by getting drunk, showing off and despising their fellow congregants - the Body of Christ. It is a holy time, not a time for drunken behavior. It despises the sacrifice of Jesus, and it despises his body the Church.