Skip to comments.The Eucharist: The Lord's Supper
Posted on 06/10/2007 4:48:46 AM PDT by markomalley
Roman Catholic Christians share with most Christians the faith that Jesus Christ, on the night he was betrayed, ate a final or last supper with his Apostles. This final meal was also the celebration of the Jewish Passover or Feast of the Unleavened Bread which commemorated the passing over of the Jews from the death in slavery to the Egyptians to life in the Promised Land.
Christians differ in the meaning this Last Supper has to them and the Church today. Catholic Christians together with other historical Christian Churches (e.g., Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Christians, Lutherans, Anglicans and some Episcopalians, etc.) believe the literal words of Jesus - that the bread and wine are truly his body and blood. Other later Christian Churches profess a mere symbolic meaning to the words of Jesus.
The faith of the Catholic Church is based on both a fundamental principle of hermeneutics and the constant faith of the Church from Apostolic times.
The Catholic Church teaches that the first principle of hermeneutics--the science of the translation and interpretation of the Bible--is the literal meaning of the text.
The first writer of the New Testament was the apostle Paul. His Letter to the Corinthians was written as early as 56 AD, earlier than the first Gospel, Mark's, written about 64 AD. Paul was also not an eyewitness to what he wrote but testifies to his source.
The next New Testament text in chronological order would have been Mark's Gospel. Written about 64 AD, in Rome, Mark, not an eyewitness, probably heard the account of the Last Supper he recorded from the Apostle Peter.
The third account of the Last Supper could be Matthew's. Matthew, the tax collector Levi, was an eyewitness to the meal. He was one of the twelve Apostles. Matthew probably wrote his Gospel in the 70's.
Luke's account of the Last Supper, written from the standpoint of a Gentile convert and a non-eyewitness, probably heard the details of the Last Supper from Paul. Luke was a traveling companion of Paul. Luke also wrote in the 70's.
The beloved disciple, John, the last of the New Testament writers, wrote his Gospel in the 90's. John was an eyewitness to the events of the Last Supper (Jn 6:30-68).
Hence Catholic Christian belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist rests upon the literal meaning of the words of the Last Supper as recorded by the Evangelists and Paul.
The uniformity of expression across the first four authors affirms the literalness. Belief in the real presence demands faith--the basis of new life as called for by Christ throughout scripture. But faith in signs conferring what they signify is the basis also for the Incarnation--appearances belying true meaning. The true significance of the real presence is sealed in John's gospel. Five times in different expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of what he means.
The best way a person can make a clear literal point is repetition of the same message in different ways. Jesus did this. Those around him clearly understood what he was saying--cannibalism and the drinking of blood--both forbidden by Mosaic Law.
Had these disciples mistaken the meaning of Jesus' words, Jesus would surely have known and corrected them. He didn't. They had clearly understood his meaning--Jesus' flesh was to be really eaten; his blood to be really drunk.
Non believers often respond that even at the Last Supper, the apostles did not sense that they had flesh in their hands and blood in their cup. But Jesus is God. The creative literalness of the words: "This is my body; this is my blood" must be believed. God cannot lie. And God can turn bread into flesh and wine into blood without the appearances of bread and wine changing.
Medieval philosophers and theologians called this expression of Divine Truth and Creative Power "transubstantiation". Yes, God can change the substance of any created matter while the appearances remain unchanged. And this demands faith.
Paul confirms elsewhere in his letters the reality of the real presence.
The persuasion of the Church from Apostolic times about the objective reality of these words of Christ is clear from many documents.
Irenaeus (Asia Minor, 140 - 202), Tertullian (Rome, 160 - 220), Cyprian (Carthage, 200 - 258) are just a few of the earliest who attest to the objective reality of the words of Christ.
In the Church in Alexandria, Athanasius (293 - 373) and Cyril (376 - 444) equally attest to the literal meaning of the words of Christ at the Last Supper.
In the Church in Palestine, Cyril (Jerusalem, 315 - 387) and Epiphanius (Salamis, 367 - 403) also affirm in their teaching the same reality.
Unanimity is found across the universal church until the 11th century. Berengar (Tours, France, 1000 - 1088) was one of the first to deny the real presence by arguing that Christ is not physically present, but only symbolically.
The Council of Rome (a local council), 1079, taught against Berengar that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ.
By the 16th century, some Reformers (excluding Luther) also taught that Christ's presence in the Eucharist was only figurative or metaphorical. Since there were other opinions being taught as truth (figurative presence and metaphorical presence) a teaching authority (see Chapter 5) had to be appealed to discern error from the truth. The way of the Church was to follow the model of Acts 15.
The Council of Trent (1545 - 1563) defined the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Eucharist as both the continuing sacrifice of Christ and a real sacrament. The institution of the Eucharist as sacrament was contained in the words "Do this in remembrance of me."
Roman Catholic Christians celebrate the Eucharist in the liturgical act called the Mass. The word Mass comes from the Latin missa ("sent"). It was taken from the formula for dismissing the congregation: Ite missa est ("Go, the Eucharist has been sent forth") referring to the ancient custom of sending consecrated bread from the bishop's Mass to the sick and to the other churches.
The Mass contains two parts: the liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word is a copy of the Jewish synagogue service of the first century: readings from Scripture followed by responses from the congregation often from the Book of Psalms. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is a reenactment of the Last Supper. A celebrant does what Christ did: take bread and wine and say the same words Christ said and then share the now consecrated bread and wine with the congregation.
Roman Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and remain such until the elements are entirely consumed. The Body and Blood not consumed at one Eucharist are reserved for the next celebration of the Eucharist and venerated as the Body and Blood of Jesus.
Roman Catholic Christians take the word of God seriously and seek to remember Christ in the Last Supper "as often as" possible. And in doing this proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
Catholic Christians also believe that there is only one sacrifice, Jesus', but following the command "as often as" to proclaim the death of the Lord, the sacrifice of Christ is made physically present to every Christian in all places in every age. The Eucharist makes the atemporal aphysical actions of Christ's redeeming action truly present to us always and everywhere. This is incarnational.
Following the word of God, Catholics also know that Christ is not and cannot be resacrificed. This has never been the teaching of the Catholic Church.
The constant faith of the Church from the Apostolic Fathers attests to the fact that the Mass was the one Sacrifice of Calvary made present to the faithful.
The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this statement explicitly.
The Roman Catholic Church through history approached her faith life with the clarification of language. That is, she translated the essentials of revealed faith into the vocabulary of living language.
Transubstantiation reflects Roman Catholic faith in the literalness of the words of the Bible.
Jesus (omnipotent God) said: "This is my body; this is my blood." And again Jesus said: "I am the bread of life;" "My flesh is true food; my blood is true drink;" "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood ...;" etc.
Roman Catholics take Jesus at His word: the bread is his body; the wine is his blood.
From the Apostles at the Last Supper until today, the bread and wine of Eucharist looks and feels and tastes like bread and wine in the eating and drinking.
Similar to all of God's Word, faith is essential. Faith in what? In the words of Jesus even though the bread does not look, feel, taste like flesh; even though the wine does not look, feel, taste like blood.
Medieval philosophers and theologians sought simply to label this simple biblical faith: Jesus said that bread is his body and wine is his blood even though it did not appear to change into visible flesh and blood.
Transubstantiation means the substance part of the bread and wine elements changes; but the accidental parts--sight, taste, smell, touch--do not. Catholics believe that since Jesus said it and He is God, he can do it. They believe! "Transubstantiation" merely labels it.
In everyday life, it is not at all uncommon to believe in things man cannot perceive by the senses: wind, electricity, love, peace, etc. All the more when Jesus says it.
Corpus Christi ping! (please pass it on as you see fit)
As a Presbyterian I also believe in the real presence of Christ to the saved at communion as His spiritual presence is as real as a physical one.
Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
I believe that the doctrine of transubstantiation comes from a mis-reading of the Lords words . I think the apostles understood what He was saying but those not present have missed the actual teaching.
The Last Supper was actually the Last “passover “ and the 1st Lords Supper.
Gods intervention to end the slavery of His people by the Egyptians held many types that pointed to Christ’s death .
We see as a prime example the final plague God brought on the Egyptians.
Every 1st born was to die at the hand of Gods avenging angel.
God gave specific orders on how the jews were to be protected from that sword of death.
They were to have a perfect Lamb and to slaughter him. They were to spread the blood of that lamb over the drop posts ( in a shape similar to a cross) When the angel saw that blood he would pass over that home and the people inside were preserved from the plague.
God gave specific instructions on how to eat that Lamb, that passover meal was to be a ritual that would be celebrated in remembrance of the grace and salvation of God for His people.
That meal prefigured Christ, on the night Jesus was betrayed they celebrated the meal that prefigured His coming .
Christ OUR PASSOVER LAMB would be slain, and many would be saved that were under His blood.
There was a piece of matzo broken into 3 parts.
One pieces was broken and the hidden piece it was wrapped in white linen ( as Christ dead body was in the tomb ) it is called the aphikomen
When the meal is finished the host breaks off olive-size pieces of matzoh from the aphikomen and distributes them to all. They each eat it, in a reverent manner. Sometimes there is a blessing, “In memory of the Passover sacrifice, eaten after one is sated.”
It was at THIS point during the Last Supper Jesus broke the bread and passed bits to His disciples; however, Jesus added the significant words given in Luke 22:19),
Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying,[b] This is my body which is given for you:[/b] this do in remembrance of me.
The symbolic broken matzo wrapped in white linen was the symbolic body of Christ revealed in the passover meal. Jesus was revealing the prophetic nature of the passover and the passover meal.
Consider that Jews had a probation against the eating of blood, yet not one disciple asked Jesus what He meant. That is because they understood when he took the APHIKOMEN into his hands, this broken Matzo that had been hidden in a linen wrap was symbolic of HIM.
Matzo has no leaven, leaven is a sign of sin. Jesus was sinless.
The Matzo had been broken as His body would be broken .
It was wrapped in linen as He would be and be hidden for a time.
This is the exact spot where Jesus proclaimed “This is my body which is given for you.” as he held that broken Matzo
The next step of the ritual meal is drinking from the wine-goblet called the “Cup of Redemption.” That’s when Jesus said,
“This cup is the New Testament (Covenant ) in my blood, which is shed for you.”
The Passover meal was a REMEMBRANCE of the deliverance of the Jews. Just as the passover was a type of Christ so is the Passover meal.
Jesus was telling them this, and He was telling them NOW instead of the remembrance of the passover, their eyes were opened and the meaning revealed NOW they were to do the mean in remembrance of HIM, of His blood, the blood of the Lamb of God.
As He held that bread He was revealing the mystery that the symbolism held.
Think of the words the apostles used
1Cr 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
The broken matzo was a type of Christ, who’s body would be broken for them.
Then in the passover tradition
The host now takes the third cup of wine, “the cup of redemption,” or “the cup of blessing,” and offers the main table grace blessing. (In Jewish tradition, the main blessing comes after the meal.) Then they all drink from the third cup.
“Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you’.”
Here is what the apostles and disciples said at the Lords table
1Cr 10:16 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 communion of the body of Christ?
The were recalling “remembering” the PASSOVER ritual. THEY understood that Jesus was revealing a spiritual truth about the passover being a prophetic meal that prefigured HIM.
The Passover was fulfilled on the day that Christ died, and so from that day forward that meal not longer held a prophetic promise of a future savior, but it was now a remembrance of the completed work of salvation at the cross.
You might want to look into the meaning of “anamnesis”. You do not understand “remembrance” in the proper sense.
Praise God that you believe that as well!
I understand what you are saying about the Passover meal in typology.
One thing to remember, though, is what St. Paul said in 1 Cor 11:29 ("For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.")
And one must remember Jesus' own teaching on the subject
Jhn 6:31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'" Jhn 6:32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. Jhn 6:33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world." Jhn 6:34 They said to him, "Lord, give us this bread always." Jhn 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. Jhn 6:36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. Jhn 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out. Jhn 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; Jhn 6:39 and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. Jhn 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." Jhn 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven." Jhn 6:42 They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" Jhn 6:43 Jesus answered them, "Do not murmur among yourselves. Jhn 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. Jhn 6:46 Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father. Jhn 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. Jhn 6:48 I am the bread of life. Jhn 6:49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. Jhn 6:50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." Jhn 6:52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Jhn 6:53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; Jhn 6:54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. Jhn 6:55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. Jhn 6:56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. Jhn 6:57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. Jhn 6:58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."
He's very explicit there in what he taught...and many of his disciples were disturbed by his teaching and left that day (cf John 6:66). If he were speaking in allegories, why would they have been disturbed?
By the way, do you have a reference for the Matzo being broken into three parts? That is very interesting and I'd like to read up on it more...
As for John 6 this is another misreading. Jesus always taught in symbols and parables. That was the case in John 6
John 6 is a metaphor please read the 6th chapter of John from verse 1 until the end with me .
Jesus preformed a miracle where thousands were fed bread. He then went away from the crowd.
The crowd followed him, but not because they sought Christ as teacher or Savior, not because they knew he was the Christ, but because they wanted to get their stomachs full of bread.
Read the rebuke of Christ to them
Jhn 6:25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
Jhn 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
It was then He began to teach that they were looking for a miracle that would fill their stomachs ( as did the nation of Israel in the desert) and not for His presence or teaching. They only wanted their temporal needs met.
Jhn 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
Jhn 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Jhn 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Jesus laid out that salvation was by FAITH, and that Faith was a work of the Father
Then then decided to put Christ to a test ...Give us PROOF. It was THEY that brought up the manna (bread) Not Christ
Jhn 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
Jhn 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
Jesus clarified where salvation comes from;
Jhn 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven
He was pointing out that the "bread from heaven " that kept their fathers only gave them physical life.. HE on the other hands was sent from the Father to give them eternal spiritual life.
They did not "get it" they were looking for REAL bread to give them physical life as had happened in the desert, they were looking for tangible bread like manna, justy as they were looking for an earthly savior not a divine salvation.
Jhn 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
Jesus then patiently explained to them that His flesh is life for the world.. His crucified body was what was going to bring eternal life, not a temporal one
Jhn 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Jhn 6:36 But I said unto you,That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
Jhn 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Jhn 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Jhn 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
The entire message is on salvation by faith .
The listeners did not get it , they were hung up on another point .
Jhn 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
Jhn 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
Notice the focus of the crowd was not on Him being the BREAD or eating Him but that He said he came down from heaven ( a claim of divinity )
Jhn 6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
Jhn 6:48 I am that bread of life.
Jhn 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
Jhn 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
Jhn 6:51 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 here declares that the manna was a TYPE of Christ.. The manna gave physical life, His flesh is for the eternal life of men
Jhn 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?
Jhn 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Jhn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. Jhn 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Jhn 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Jhn 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Keep in mind He had already taught at some length that He that believed on Him would be saved. He has already taught that the man that is taught by the Father comes to him and are saved. So to interpret this as other than a metaphor of being saved by His soon to be broken body and his shed blood, by internalizing the fact of the atonement in faith is not a good reading and it is not the understood by the new church
This is from jamison
"Here, for the first time in this high discourse, our Lord explicitly introduces His sacrificial death--for only rationalists can doubt this not only as that which constitutes Him the Bread of life to men, but as THAT very element IN HIM WHICH POSSESSES THE LIFE-GIVING VIRTUE.--"From this time we hear no more (in this discourse) of "Bread"; this figure is dropped, and the reality takes its place" [STIER].
Jhn 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
Jhn 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
If they were offended at that, he was saying wait until you hear the rest
Jhn 6:62 [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Jhn 6:66 From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
They did not like hearing that salvation had to be given them and much like the manna in the desert, it was totally a gift of the Father. They could not do anything on their own to earn it, they only had access to it by faith ( remember the Jews could only gather enough manna for the one days meals, and for 2 days on the day before the sabbath, they had to have faith in God to provide what was necessary for their life) . The idea that salvation was all of God and not found in law keeping was blasphemy to the law oriented Jews that felt their salvation was based on their will, their law keeping etc
To make an attempt to make this a teaching on the Lords supper misses the mark. Christ was still alive and in His flesh and he was, by your reckoning , telling them to do something they could not do because the Lords Supper had not been instituted yet,it is a spiritual eating and drinking that is here spoken of, not a sacramental.
This was clearly a metaphorical teaching to Jews looking for a Physical savior like Moses, and for physical bread to meet their physical hunger. Jesus always used symbols that the Jews understood to make spiritual points.
While I agree that there is figure used here regarding physical bread satisfying physical hunger, I believe the end is that the figure stops at that point. The spiritual bread satisfies the spiritual hunger that is in each of us. It nourishes us and gives us the spiritual strength to walk as children of God in a dark and perverse world.
The type of the manna in the desert was a foreshadowing of partaking in the Eucharist. The type of the passover lamb was a foreshadowing of us partaking in Christ's passover. The manna truly, not figuratively, came down from heaven. The children of Israel literally partook of the lamb, not figuratively. Christ is the true bread from heaven. Christ is the true Lamb of God, the firstborn male born without spot or blemish. He is our passover. And, according to Rev 5:6, his sacrifice having happened once, is, in a sense, ongoing ("I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain," -- slain lambs aren't usually standing after their slaying is done). If you take a look at Rev 13:8 (depending upon the translation), it reveals the nature of this one sacrifice very explicitly (the Greek says, ἀρνίου τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου -- of the lamb that was slain before the foundation of the cosmos).
So rather than being a simple metaphor, I do believe that the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ (while keeping their accidents, of course). And I do believe that consumption of that Body and Blood is partaking in the literal passover of the Lord and is as necessary for my spiritual well-being as participation in the passover was for the physical safety of Israel as they escaped to Egypt or the physical strengthening of Israel as they ate the manna in the desert.
Having said that, I am truly thankful that are positions on the issue are not nearly as divergent as I'd feared.
Thank you for posting this. I have never heard the Passover being presented in this way. May I ask what your source is so I can learn more?
When I began to recognize that the Truth of Scripture conflicts with the teachings of the RCC, I began my journey toward the righteousness that comes only through the blood of Christ. I found the RCC eucharist, with its funky idea of transubstantiation, the single, most difficult doctrine to jettison.
If on the “peter was the first pope” doctrine rests the authority of the RCC, then the false doctrine of the “eucharist” is where their power resides. By controlling the sacrifice of the Lord through their man-made priesthood, they purport to dispense Christ’s atoning sacrifice according to their own whim.
The freedom from the tyranny of man is one of the greatest gifts Christ brought us through His sacrifice. No man controls or dispenses God’s love. It is available for “all who call upon Him” (Romans 10:12). No more is there a need for an earthly priesthood, as we have “a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Hebrews 2:17).
I thank the good Lord that He has shown me “a more perfect way”, and has led me “from darkness into His marvelous light”! I pray that those who remain in the shackles of that man-made institution will also find the journey to the promised land.
I tell you what, I read your response and reject it out of hand. That’s once. Please say it one more time and then take a break and read your Bible.
I suggest Titus 3:10, Rom 16:17-18, I Tim 6:3-6:6, Matt 10:11-15 and I Cor 5:5.
And then, if you are a real Bible believer and not simply a troll, follow the directions in the Book.
Indeed Christ's "presence" is real. And he is present always.
and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. (Matthew 28:20 ASV)
Not once a week. Not only when someone conjures him up in some mystical ritual.
Present and real.
Opinions expressed above are those of the poster and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Free Republic, the Religion Moderator, the poster's church, or God.
Woohoo! Thanks Mark.
Feast Hymns/Sequence (late, but worth it), in case anyone needs them:
I’ve read and understood. I am convinced that the Lord established His remembrance, that it is a sacred remembrance, and that we ought not take it lightly.
The concept of transubstantiation is not just irrational and non-Scriptural, it goes against the basic freedoms given to all men by Christ. It does nothing more than give power to men; setting one class apart from the rest; enabling the tyranny of a select few over all the rest. It replaces the free gift of God to all who are in Christ Jesus with the work of a select few administered and dispensed to those who grovel before them.
I will take the Lord’s Supper with my fellow Believers in solemn remembrance of His sacrifice, just as He instituted. I will not trade His blessings for the chains of the bondage of men.
Titus 3:10, Rom 16:17-18, I Tim 6:3-6:6, Matt 10:11-15 and I Cor 5:5.
Please feel free to act scripturally and follow the above scriptures....
From G363; recollection: - remembrance (again).
We also remember that the Jews ate the Passover Lamb.
I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, but I will assert again the non-Scriptural basis of the RCC eucharist. It has more in common with sorcery than with the Bible.
Think about it, a select group of hand-picked priests control a key religious symbol by performing an incantation complete with a magic spell. The object of this incantation magically, but not apparently or even measurably, changes into another substance that holds sway over the eternal souls of all people.
This is not an ordinance of God, but a control method of men.
If you actually read the scriptures I cited -- twice -- mind you, you'd see what you, as a Bible-believing Christian, should do about those of us, like us Catholics, who persist in speaking (or posting) heresy (at least in your opinion).
So you've done your Biblical duty. Any more posting on this thread by you is going against scripture.
Or do you not really believe that the Bible is the Word of God???
Or is it that you only feel obliged to follow the scriptures that you 'feel like' following at one point in time???