Featured Catholic Eucharist vs the Bible version - are they the same?

This is one of the key problems with the Catholic Eucharist for the non-cradle-catholic. It is obvious that when speaking to the disciples before the cross - every reference to Christ's death was meant to reference a future event and at best could only be had in symbol while one is having communion before the death of Christ.

Christ is not crying out in agony at the last supper - being sacrificed alive as each disciple bites his food. That would be immediately apparent to the baptist considering the Catholic Eucharist idea in Luke 22.

Indeed another huge problem with ignoring the fact that Luke 22 is a reference to the bread as a symbol of Christ's body and instead wildly imagining that the bread is actual human flesh - and Christ's sacrifice is then and then being had.

The catholic term is that it is turned into 'the Body AND SOUL of Christ" by the "powers" of the Priest.

Thus God is being confected by the powers of a priest - powers that cannot be revoked from that priest EVEN though he were to be excommunicated by the church for holding to non-Christian doctrine. He retains the "power" to "confect" the body AND soul of God (for those who believe Jesus was fully God and fully man - and we must include Baptists as among those who believe that Bible doctrine)

It is not a memorial of a once for all sacrifice in the past in Catholic view so it is not "do this in REMEMBERANCE of Me" Luke 22, 1Cor 11, but rather it is recreating the sacrifice so that the Catholic participates IN the sacrifice "Crucifying Christ afresh" as it were notice how Catholic Digest's Fr. Ken Ryan describes it.

[quotethey use the words

I believe that TH has demonstrated without question the struggle that a Baptist would have who looked into the details of what is being claimed in the Eucharist. For that reason I fail to see how the Bible view of it - would have been the compelling argument for Baptist.

Those who turn from the Baptist faith to the Catholic Eucharist have to be doing it "in spite of " the full details in the Bible on this doctrine and not because of them. Rather a partial look into John 6, skimming over a few other texts without heavy focus on detail - and then ... primary reliance on the fact that in the centuries that followed the first century - evidence is increasingly found of a Catholic view of the Eucharist.

in Christ,

Bob

 

And then what was Jesus' solution? To explain the symbol by telling them that literal flesh "is worthless" in this context - they must see that it is the WORD that became flesh (John 1) and that it is the WORD that has life.

Which is of course - the very "next verse" that the Baptist would read as he/she is considering leaving the Baptist view of the Lord's table and possibly accepting the Catholic view.

Jesus argues that the unbelieving ones are missing this point about the literal flesh being worthless and the WORD being that which contains spirit and life. This would have corrected the error of the faithLESS that had left - had they stayed around to hear it.

And this is the part that may well cause that Baptist to no longer assume that the Catholic view may indeed be the right view of John 6.

As a result of the explanation given by Jesus himself - in vs 63 - the faithFUL disciples do not "bite Christ" in John 6.

And yet in Matt 16 Christ still has to reprimand the faithful disciples for taking the symbol of bread too literally and not accepting that it is a symbol for "teaching" in the Matt 16 it is said to be the teaching/doctrine of the Pharisees - but in John 6 Jesus said it is "MY Word".

The Baptist that is considering the change to Catholicism may well notice this detail when reading John 6 and Matt 16.

And he/she may also notice that John 6 is not remotely a Passover service or a communion service no does Christ say in John 6 "some day in the future you must eat my flesh".

in Christ,

Bob

 

Justin uses that when describing his own view.

But when he documents that actual words being used in the liturgy itself - we notice that his view of it is missing - even in his own historic account of it.

Pretty interesting.

I think it is fair to say that most Baptist and Adventists coming to John 6 or 1Cor 11 or Luke 22 would have a similar starting point.

Whether one agrees with their view or not - if the challenge is to present the doctrine from the Bible as a Baptist or Adventist would have understood and - and then to discover if when reading John 6 - they would have thought someone was biting Christ among the faithFUL disciples that did NOT leave, or that this was a communion service being had in John 6, or that in John 6 Christ was really saying "some day in the future you must eat my flesh" is a valid point to be addressed in the context of the Baptist looking for Bible evidence for the Catholic view.

Baptists and Adventists may well be inclined to accept Justin Martyr's account of actual meetings taking place - but highly unlikely that Justin Martyr's own opinions would be accepted as if divinely inspired or infallible - by Baptists or Adventists thus even if he begins to turn to the Catholic POV - it is not by itself sufficient support to change something you find in the Bible. It could just be another point where his opinion is in error.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I too must have missed it.

To address the John 6 point above I think it will pay to do what we both know that such a Baptist would do - look at the details in John 6 , and when we do that - the ones I bring up about John 6 not being a communion service, a not even the faithful disciples are biting Christ - the ones that stay, the ones that accept the John 6:63 statement about literal flesh being worthless.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Originally Posted by BobRyan
To explain the symbol by telling them that literal flesh "is worthless" in this context


Quote:
63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the FLESH profits NOTHING; the WORDS that I have spoken to you are spirit and ARE LIFE. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”
Jesus argues that the unbelieving ones are missing this point about the literal flesh being worthless and the WORD being that which contains spirit and life. This would have corrected the error of the faithLESS that had left - had they stayed around to hear it.

And this is the part that may well cause that Baptist to no longer assume that the Catholic view may indeed be the right view of John 6.

As a result of the explanation given by Jesus himself - in vs 63 - the faithFUL disciples do not "bite Christ" in John 6.

And yet in Matt 16 Christ still has to reprimand the faithful disciples for taking the symbol of bread too literally and not accepting that it is a symbol for "teaching" in the Matt 16 it is said to be the teaching/doctrine of the Pharisees - but in John 6 Jesus said it is "MY Word".

The Baptist that is considering the change to Catholicism may well notice this detail when reading John 6 and Matt 16.

And he/she may also notice that John 6 is not remotely a Passover service or a communion service no does Christ say in John 6 "some day in the future you must eat my flesh".

Almost the WHOLE of John 6 about the bread and life and eating flesh is a reference to Deut 8 in John 6 -not sure why you are jumping to Genesis 1.

In Deut 8 - the lesson of manna - of bread the comes down out of heaven, the WORD of God - the key to LIFE.

3 He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord (NASB)

3 So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord.(NKJV)


Now let's look at this same bread from heaven as "the WORD" that gives LIFE idea in the book of John.




John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.


The exact SAME theme of the WORD that becomes flesh - that comes down out of heaven - that gives LIFE - is expanded in John 6 with BOTH the Jews and Christ referencing back to the lesson of MANNA in the O.T. Impossible to miss.


John 6

31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.’”
32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.
33 For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.”
34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”
35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.

38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.


41 Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.”
42 They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?”

47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
48I am the bread of life.
49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
50 This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
51I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.” 52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”
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 yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life,

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
64 But there are some of you who do not believe

 

1Ccr 10:17 says nothing at all about the body and soul of Christ being confected in the Mass. Yet this is the teaching of the RCC.

By contrast Heb 6:6 speaks of the sacrifice of Christ this way
"6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame."

I doubt that the Catholics are thinking that this is what they are doing in the mass. But here we see Christ "crucified again" - if we take that literally then we make a little catholic-priest out of each person that is in the error described in Heb 6:6 - because we give the "powers" to make Christ return to the point of crucifixion.

If on the other hand you are willing to admit that this "crucify again" language is not at all intended to mean a literal placing of Christ on the cross - or at all repeating the sacrifice -- then your entire argument along those lines appears to end.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Paul never says that the bread and wine "turn into something else" in all of scripture. I think we both know that - which is why there is no text for it in your discussion. By contrast the RCC claims to be able to confect the "body and soul of Christ" in the Eucharist with "powers" that do not leave the priest even if he should be excommunicated. A claim found nowhere in the Bible - as I am sure you will agree.

That was my only point in response to your claim.

As for All of use being literally one physical body - I think we all know that this is not true in a literal sense -

1 Cor 10:17 "For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread" NKJV
1 Cor 10:17 "17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." KJV

In 1 Cor 12 Paul speaks of one as an eye or an ear - and we know of course that this statement "all one body" where some are "eyes" and some "ears" is all symbolic.

And we cannot insert words into Paul's mouth by mere inference because doing so causes a problem in the case of Heb 6:6.

If you take a minute to read the first 2 or 3 posts on this thread you will discover that the purpose is to present evidence (Bible evidence being the most direct) in favor of the Catholic Eucharist for a Baptist that may be considering the Catholic Eucharist as an option - or to provide the Bible evidence that the Bible contradicts the claims made in this regard by the Catholic Church. In either case - since the Catholics on this board all claim to be former Baptists - and since a number have said that the evidence in favor of the Catholic Eucharist was the tipping point for them as Baptists - I thought this would be a good experiment - to see just what that Baptist-oriented evidence is.

I consider your evidence to fit that category - however it is unclear why your argument is so far from what we find in the KJV and NKJV for 1Cor 10:17. In fact 1Cor 10:17 appears to entirely undo your argument since none of us really believe that we are transmutated or transubstantiatiated into all being literally one physical body during the communion service. 1Cor 10:17 is therefore forcing all of us to admit to the symbolic nature of the claim.

in Christ,

Bob