/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>576464

>But I rarely hear about prot churches "doing it"

Well, we do.. Different churches vary as to how often. It is done in memory of Jesus and His sacrifice for us.

http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/11-24.htm

>>576465

how often? what is it like? curious tbh

>>576464

Do you have a question? This sounds like just a rant.

>>576466

Differs from church to church, but in my experience a plate with small pieces of bread and a tray with small glasses of wine are passed around. The congregation hold on to them. The pastor then reads the part of the Bible where Jesus breaks the bread and says to take in remembrance of him, and the congregation eats the bread. Then the same with the wine. This could be done every week or every month depending on the church.

>>576464

My family's church does it weekly. We practice the sacrament because Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me".

>>576468

>Do you have a question? This sounds like just a rant.

lmao.

>>576472

no rush, this is a slow board

>>576473

can anyone partake, or do they have to be members in good standing who attend regularly? are there any fasting rules?

>>576464

> Matthew 26:26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”

Clearly Christ meant this literally, there’s no way he could have meant anything less than the bread literally becoming his flesh.

> Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

Clearly Jesus was exaggerating here, what he really meant was “feel free to call whoever you want father, especially priests”.

>>576479

>John 10:9

>>576477

>can anyone partake, or do they have to be members in good standing who attend regularly? are there any fasting rules?

Just the rules outlined in the New Testament, really. Nothing extraneous.

>>576627

Can’t tell whether you’re posting that because you agree with me or because you missed my sarcasm. I was pointing out that the absurdity of Catholics suddenly turning into Biblical literalists on a few select verses when the rest of the time they will be willing to bend over backwards to interpret something in a favourable way.

In our traditional prayer book service we do it weekly. The Eucharist is taken kneeling at the front of the Church, with a piece of bread being handed to the recipient by the minister as he says 'The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was broken for you. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for you'

And then the bread is eaten.

Afterwards you're handed the chalice with the wine (or port) and the minister says "The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for you. Drink this in remembrance that Christ's Blood was shed for you and be thankful". And then you take a sip from the cup.

Then once everyone has partaken and we're all back in the pews we say the Lords Prayer together.

In our contemporary evening service (I attend both) we take Communion once every 3 - 4 weeks. It's fairly similar in structure, although the bread is passed out through the pews as are tiny cups with grape juice instead of wine. The words spoken are addressed to the congregation as a whole rather than each person as they take it individually, and so we all eat and drink at the same time.

I tried to be as thorough in my response as possible, and I hope this was helpful. Feel free to ask questions on anything you want clarified or anything else really.

God Bless

>jesus talks in parables his entire ministry

>Catholics interpret "this is my body" to btw guys youre literally eating me lol

>>576802

except we have about 2,000 years of people doing the eucharist every sunday, or do you think Jesus didn't realize this would be the result when He said it?

allow me to the point to the absurdity of people who believe that Jesus Christ did not realize He was setting down a Church that would last 2,000 years, or that would only be understood…properly (???) 1,500 years later (or more) when some claim they know better than the Church of Christ

>>576822

furthermore, allow me to add that suggesting that Jesus Christ didn't know that a 2,000 year old institution would use this to justify the Eucharist more or less calls into doubt the very divinity of Jesus Christ Himself.

>>576822

>allow me to the point to the absurdity of people who believe that Jesus Christ did not realize He was setting down a Church that would last 2,000 years

Roman Catholicism is not anywhere near 2,000 years old

>or that would only be understood…properly (???) 1,500 years later

People did not just start believing the bible 500 years ago

>when some claim they know better than the Church of Christ

The Roman Catholic Church is not Christ's Church

>>576822

>except we have about 2,000 years of people doing the eucharist every sunday, or do you think Jesus didn't realize this would be the result when He said it?

But a lot of protestants take communion every Sunday too. The guy you're responding to was not even talking about how often to take it, he was talking about whether 'flesh' is literal.

>>576830

>The Roman Catholic Church is not Christ's Church

Then what Church did He establish? What happened to it? Did the Roman Church prevail over it? Or did Christ lie, when He said Hell would not prevail over His Church?

>Roman Catholicism is not anywhere near 2,000 years old

who told you this? pastor jim? maybe pastor bob?

>>576832

if flesh was not literal, why take the eucharist? it really is just a Roman Custom if it is not the true flesh of Christ

What is the Eucharist like in Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

I assume it would be taken at every time you have Mass? Is it only taken on the tongue, or in the hand? Or is it up to the Priests digression as to how it is administered?

I know that all Hosts must be eaten and all wine drunk, because you aren't allowed to waste the literal body and blood of our Lord, but have you ever heard of or witnessed such instances as the Priest overestimated how much wine would be needed, and so needed to drink a relatively large amount and not be able to drive home because he'd be over the legal alcohol limit. (I know this is a silly question but it's something I've always wondered)

>>576839

*discretion

autocorrect

>>576839

>Or is it up to the Priests digression as to how it is administered?

It's up to whomever receives it.

>I know that all Hosts must be eaten and all wine drunk, because you aren't allowed to waste the literal body and blood of our Lord, but have you ever heard of or witnessed such instances as the Priest overestimated how much wine would be needed, and so needed to drink a relatively large amount

There's no time limit on how holy the blood of Christ is, I believe the priest can hold unto it. I may be wrong here, however. In any case, obviously he cannot store it like any drink, unless he's trying affront God.

>>576838

>Then what Church did He establish?

He established a congregation, not an institution.

>>576838

>if flesh was not literal, why take the eucharist? it really is just a Roman Custom if it is not the true flesh of Christ

As he said "this do in remembrance of me". It reminds us of his sacrifice. Symbols are not meaningless, as those who try to claim we think it is "just a symbol" imply.

>>576838

>Did the Roman Church prevail over it?

Nope. Scripture is still here.

>>576866

So, hell has prevailed over the Christ's Church, but we still have scripture.

>>576851

Do what in remembrance of Him? Eat his flesh and drink of the blood transubstantiated and re-presented in the bread/wine, or just eat Ritz and Grape juice "in memory"?

What did the Church do after Christ resurrected? Did they just eat really nice bread, or did they believe they were eating the flesh of Christ? >>576846

>He established a congregation, not an institution.

A single congregation, a single Church, not multiple. Again, show me where he authorized an apostles to organize and found their own Churches.

>>576867

>A single congregation, a single Church, not multiple.

Yes, He has only one people, one body with one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God.

>show me where he authorized an apostles to organize and found their own Churches.

They didn't found their own Churches, they spread Christ's Church and founded local churches to gather in His name.

>>576867

>So, hell has prevailed over the Christ's Church, but we still have scripture.

Nope, you just never managed to wipe it out, scripture or the church that obeys it. Also why do you just read assumptions into everything? You seem to have very little idea what you're even talking about. Capitalizing church and so forth.

>>576867

>Do what in remembrance of Him? Eat his flesh and drink of the blood transubstantiated and re-presented in the bread/wine, or just eat Ritz and Grape juice "in memory"?

You're just being a disrespectful asshole now. Obviously you know we don't believe in transubstantiation, so what point are you making? Protestants use bread and the vast majority use wine (unlike Catholics who do not consume the wine). Yes, it is done "in memory", as Christ said to do.

>>576822

You really didn't address anything I said in my post. My only criticism of Catholics was that they sometimes defend their understanding of the Eucharist as being based on how supposedly obvious Christ's words were (like in OP's image), when in fact if they were to consistently apply that sort of literalist understanding, they would not be calling their priests "father". Of course it would make much more sense to defend the Eucharist from the perspective of church history as you have done, rather than from a selective literalism which makes no sense.

>>576838

> if flesh was not literal, why take the eucharist?

This is absurd. If Christ were only spiritually present in the blood and wine, of course you would still want to take part. The idea that literal transubstantiation is the obvious reading of Christ's words is silly. It can only be obvious if one has already decided that the Catholic church is the true Church of Christ.

Okay. There's three expressions of the Eucharist within protestantism, but unanimously agreed that the eucharist, while very important, doesn't play a role of God's grace like a propitiatory sacrifice.

Physical presence. Typically if solely held by the Lutheran denomination among the protestants. They believe that Christ was literal when He said "ἐστιν my body" to His disciples and that the eucharist is the blood/body of Jesus, however, unlike Catholics, Lutherans (I assume) don't appeal to a priest to "transform" the eucharist into the body of Jesus, rather the eucharist transforms in the mist of the congregation. Similarly to what Jesus said "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them." But they don't believe that eucharist is Christ's body when the wine or/and bread at the store or being produced, which's why they disagree with consubstantiation.

Real (spiritual) presence, the belief that Christ is tied the eucharist but isn't co-existing of it. Calvinists and Anglican groups believe that the eucharist is spiritual food. I personally don't understand much about this theology.

Metaphorical essence is something only baptists (maybe evangelicals) tend to believe and it's based on the idea of expression. Since Jesus said to His followers to take the eucharist in memory of Him, entals that the function of the meal is primary to commemorate Christ's life and death thus it doesn't need to be become His actual blood. Plus they'll remind, you that the food and drinks played in the passover sader as symbolism of Israel's suffering and God's rescue during the time in Egypt.

>>576882

The Reformed view is that the bread and wine are symbols representing the body and blood of Christ. Christ is not in, with or under the bread. But they are not mere symbols which do nothing, they are efficacious symbols with a promise, since they depict Christ's passion they at the same time necessarily proclaim it, wherefore Reformed theologians have been pleased to call sacraments the visible word (following Augustine). The eating and drinking of the Supper itself signifies something real, which is spiritual eating of the body and blood of Christ. Those who believe are taken up to heaven by the Holy Spirit where they feed on Christ (which is to say derive spiritual sustenance from the true body and blood of the Word in whom is life). This spiritual eating also happens without the Supper, but in the sacrament the already present bond with the Word is strengthened because He is as present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

I'm not too bothered about consubstantiation and similar concepts deficient understandings of the Eucharist they may be, but memorialism is just ridiculous. Do you really think half of Jesus' disciples would leave disillusioned if what He meant was just "ayyy let's have some bread and wine to remember me by"? (And remember that he had already been accused of being a glutton and a drunkard by the Pharisees at that point so clearly that wasn't the issue.)

Isn't thinking a bit of bread is literally God idolatry?

>but it reaaaaly is God!

Pretty sure that's what every idolator says.

>>576935

Isn't thinking a human man is literally God idolatry?

<God could never be present in a piece of bread though, he only does thistle bushes!

And transubstantiation still has infinitely more scriptural basis than bibolatry.

>>576900

>aint_nobody_got_time_to_read_dat_sheet.jpg

Then don't read it. But OP asked for our beliefs on the Lord's Table.

>>576944

>Isn't thinking a human man is literally God idolatry?

God didn't merely appear to be a human man

>>576944

>the Bible which is God's word and has gotten billions saved isn't Gid but this piece of bread is

Also I don't agree with the KJV is God doctrine but that's more likely to be true than Jesus being a cracker

>>576955

you have to pretend Jesus did not know a 2,000 year old organization would use "this is my flesh" for a 2,000 year old doctrine of the eucharist

the only one who doubts the divinity of Christ is yourself, and others who think like you

>>576871

and One, Holy, Apostolic Church, did He ever say other otherwise? And if so, when?

>>576874

And when did Catholics ever wipe out scripture pastor bob?

>>576875

If you do not believe in transubstantiation, you logically call into the doubt the divinity of Christ. Did Jesus Christ, whom is true God and true man, not know the words He set down would establish this practice? For over 2,000 years? And not even Luther (devil himself) had an issue with it? Answer me.

>>576879

It's only absurd if you think Christ is some sort of double-talker Loki-like God. Did He not know what His apostles, and the apostolic successors would do after He said "Eat of my flesh"?

leavened vs unleavened

I see why Catholics wanting to be more faithful to the custom of the moment in which it was instituted during the Passover season. The use of risen bread rather than truly being implemented solely on the fact that it symbolized the resurrection, may have in reality had to do with gentile converts' unfamiliarity and disregard for Judaic rules in that matter.

>>576955

>What is basic rhetoric

(You)

>>576956

Jesus said that the bread and wine become His Flesh and Blood. We Catholics in a highly controversial move interpret that to mean that the bread and wine become His Flesh and Blood. The Bible was written by dozens of men over millennia and nowhere at all claims to be written by God, much less be God, but was written by righteous saints and breathed into by God.

>>576989

A topic far too much has been made of. The important thing is whether it is validly consecrated, the presence of yeast really is not worth bickering about IMO.

>>576993

see the Anderson vid I posted >>576804

And Jesus is called The Word of God. Also yes scripture does claim to be from God "16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" "21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

>>576839

When we go up for Communion, we lay our hands over our chest, right over left. The Priest first asks us to speak our baptismal name, holds out a bit of the Body and Blood on a spoon, which we swallow, and then says a prayer over us. Then we kiss the chalice, quietly say Isaiah 6:7 to ourselves and eat some consecrated bread and warm wine laid out for us. Note that I'm in the Russian tradition, there are slight differences in the other branches. After the service is through, the Priest takes the unconsumed gifts back into the altar and puts a candle in front of them. The service finishes, and after everyone's kissed the cross he goes back into the altar and consumes the rest. I'm from a 1-Priest Church with no deacon, so he has to do everything himself. I think at Churches with more clergy the gifts are consumed during the concluding parts of the service, but I could be wrong.

As for getting a little drunk – you're on the money, it can actually be a problem. The Body and Blood is really that of Christ, but it's a Mystery, and if a Priest prepares too much he can feel a little tipsy afterwards. Especially since everyone's communing on an empty stomach.

>>576888

/thread

>>576925

>Do you really think half of Jesus' disciples would leave disillusioned if

John 6 is not talking about this though. See verse 63. This is all about his words. There are no bread or wine elements even there. Saying there are is just your mistake and error, something you'd like to gloss over.

>>576985

>muh 2,000 years

You've been deceived my friend. Transubstantiation didn't exist until the high middle ages.

>>576993

>Jesus said that the bread and wine become His Flesh and Blood

Calling bread and wine His body and blood is very different from saying it becomes it

Does it actually matter, though?

>>576817

>>jesus talks in parables his entire ministry

but that's wrong

>>576985

> It's only absurd if you think Christ is some sort of double-talker Loki-like God. Did He not know what His apostles, and the apostolic successors would do after He said "Eat of my flesh"?

> Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

So following your own train of thought, when Christ said to call no man father was he being a double-talker? Did he know that Protestants would use it to attack Catholicism? Which is more absurd, Christ meaning the exact opposite of what he said in Matthew 23:9, or Christ referring to consubstantiation or spiritual presence instead of transubstantiation in Matthew 26:26?

>>577138

https://www.catholic.com/tract/call-no-man-father

>>577012

He's talking about the false churches my friend.

>>577091

You've been deceived my friend. Transubstantiation occurred at the Last Supper.

>You've been deceived my friend. Transubstantiation occurred at the Last Supper.

Actually, this made me consider this green-text…

>believe Jesus is the Son of God

>believe Jesus is true God and true Man

>believe He died for our sins and rose again on the third day to everlasting glory

>believe He multiplied bread/fish

>believe He raised the dead

>believe He walked on water

>believe He went to hell, triumphed over death, and returned

…but can't believe He was being serious or telling the truth when He said "This is my flesh"!

Brothers, what's wrong here?

>>577033

>holds out a bit of the Body and Blood on a spoon, which we swallow,

> quietly say Isaiah 6:7 to ourselves and eat some consecrated bread and warm wine laid out for us

So the Body and Blood are separate from the consecrated bread and wine? How does that work, or am I mistake? You're eating two parts of bread/wine?

>>577295

Yes, I’ve read that article a few times, and you failed to respond to my post properly. Maybe the Catholic understanding of Matthew 23:9 is 100% correct, but you have to admit that if that is the case, then Christ was indeed talking in such a way that was easy to misunderstand, including by Protestants, and far, far from literal. Thus you can hardly argue that the only obvious way to read Matthew 26:26 is transubstantiation, and that Christ never said things that could be misunderstood. You have to admit that if you can interpret Matthew 23:9 as arguing for calling priests father, it is if anything far less difficult to interpret Matthew 26:26 as teaching spiritual presence.

>>577302

Are you also a YEC? Or are you not really a Biblical literalist, as I would suspect?

>>577308

The article more than suffices to answer your question, it is merely up to you to accept or not.

As regarding the transubstantiation of the Last Supper, if it was mere parable, why not say so? Why did none of the apostles say so?

> then Christ was indeed talking in such a way that was easy to misunderstand

"This is my flesh", sounds pretty definitive. Perhaps there's a distinction in greek I do not know? Please enlighten me.

>>577302

>…but can't believe He was being serious or telling the truth when He said "This is my flesh"!

>"This is my flesh", sounds pretty definitive.

The only time he said that was in John 6, which was not the last supper.

At the last supper he actually said "this is my body" and "do this in remembrance of me." Two totally different events. The fact you can't even recount the event properly should be enough to show you aren't taking the word seriously.

>>577317

nice, so you admit you believe in transubstantiation?

>>577313

Why won’t you address my comparison of the way Catholics understand Matthew 26:26 and Matthew 23:9? You can’t just turn into a Biblical literalist who thinks that “the Bible is easy to understand” for one verse and then switch gears entirely when the same sort of literal reading for another verse would result in Catholic traditions being a sin. You need to give up the absurd idea that biblical literalism can ever be used to defend Catholicism.

> "This is my flesh", sounds pretty definitive. Perhaps there's a distinction in greek I do not know? Please enlighten me.

You’ve become confused about what verse I was talking about, read my post again. I said “Maybe the Catholic understanding of Matthew 23:9 is 100% correct, but you have to admit that if that is the case, then Christ was indeed talking in such a way that was easy to misunderstand, including by Protestants, and far, far from literal”. If you’re a Catholic, you are forced to believe that Christ was talking in an easy to misunderstand way in Matthew 23:9, and that we cannot simply assume that when Christ says something, he must mean it literally.

>>577322

Why would any non-papist believe that? John 6 is talking about his words, see John 6:63. No dinner, no table, no bread or wine in that passage. Now I insist that you stop abusing the word of the Lord for your own prideful use, so learn to quote next time the actual words that were used in the last supper. You are leading people astray here.

>>577323

The article answers all your questions, my knowledge of scripture - or lack of it - does not affect my ultimate salvation. The acceptance of Christ, the forgiveness of my sins, and the Eucharist suffice to enable me to enter Heaven. I have done what Christ requests me to.

Hard to swallow, but true.

>>577323

>You need to give up the absurd idea that biblical literalism can ever be used to defend Catholicism.

All you've done is twist the argument around hither and thither because I said flesh instead of body! Answer my question! What did Christ say in the Greek? Did He mean to say something else?

Christ said He would speak in parable, but would He not say that He was speaking in parable then? For a "ritual" that would become the doctrine of His own Church for 2,000 years?

>>577324

>"Truly, truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you"

The murderer calls another a murderer.

If you're leading people away from the Eucharist, you're leading them astray. You're killing them, do you not see? How are they to receive Life within them? Does this not condemn you?

>>577327

> The article answers all your questions

No anon, the article does not address my main question, which is: how can Catholics ever pretend to be literalists when it comes to Christ’s words? If it is easy to assume that Christ was speaking literally in Matthew 26:26, then it is just as easy to assume that he was speaking literally in Matthew 23:9. My point is that the Bible is actually quite hard to interpret, so I just cannot understand how some Catholics can play dumb and pretend that it is easy to understand Christ’s words. I’m not even saying Catholics are wrong, I’m saying that Catholics can’t defend their doctrines with Protestant-tier literalism.

> All you've done is twist the argument around hither and thither because I said flesh instead of body!

Read through my posts again, I never made any argument about that, and it’s not at all relevant to my main question.

> Answer my question! What did Christ say in the Greek? Did He mean to say something else?

I don’t know anon, I don’t know anything about Greek, and again I’m not sure how it’s relevant to my main question here.

> Christ said He would speak in parable, but would He not say that He was speaking in parable then?

Did Christ always explain exactly what he meant? Obviously not, since Christ did not tell us after Matthew 23:9 that he really meant that it was ok to call priests father.

> For a "ritual" that would become the doctrine of His own Church for 2,000 years?

As I’ve said before, Church history is actually a pretty good argument for the Eucharist. My problem here is ONLY with the strange idea that Christ’s words are easy to understand, and that there’s no way that something which he said, which seems clear, may in fact mean something else.

>>577327

You just quoted John 6 again. That is not the last supper. I see that you are simply continuing to lie in spite of what has just been said. Well, at least I've pointed out this fact for everyone to see. You are here pretending that John 6:53-63 is at the last supper.

>Does this not condemn you?

In John 12:48 it is stated that the word which He has spoken will judge those rejecting it in the last day. Seeing as you have intentionally misquoted His words, in saying that John 6 is the last supper, you will be judged by those things which you have changed. In your recounting to us here. So that's why I sincerely advised you to stop doing so. Now maybe you will be affected by reverse psychology, but I have to tell you no matter what, that that is wrong.

>How are they to receive Life within them?

By receiving the uncorrupted word of God, the same word which you had earlier corrupted here.

God's own words are in fact saving lives, and giving life. See Matthew 4:4, John 6:63, John 12:50. As stated in John 17:17, His word is truth itself. For you to come here to change the truth of that to a lie is therefore highly inadvisable. Please don't do it. I don't care what you call me.

>But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

>It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

>And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

>Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

>He taught me also, and said unto me, Let thine heart retain my words: keep my commandments, and live.

>And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

>So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

>>577331

>No anon, the article does not address my main question, which is: how can Catholics ever pretend to be literalists when it comes to Christ’s words?

The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53Then 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. 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58This 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.

pretty strong argument for literal interpretation; not particularly from catholics as much as Christ Himself, one would think

>I don’t know anon, I don’t know anything about Greek, and again I’m not sure how it’s relevant to my main question here.

you answered my question with another question! read what Christ said above as regarding why Catholics "choose" to be literalists here

>Did Christ always explain exactly what he meant? Obviously not, since Christ did not tell us after Matthew 23:9 that he really meant that it was ok to call priests father.

see above. I'll go even further, He explained the Last Supper even before the Last Supper happened.

> My problem here is ONLY with the strange idea that Christ’s words are easy to understand

I mean, Christ argues pretty hard for the eucharist there one would think.

>>577332

But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?

>>577332

>By receiving the uncorrupted word of God, the same word which you had earlier corrupted here

You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

>>577334

Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

(I feel like we keep could just keep this up in a circular way for many days)

Who was it that challenged Christ with scripture again? They were in the desert right…

>>577339

Simon Peter understood John 6:63. The gospel of John says so five verses after it. The question is why did you choose to change the meaning of the passage then? Did you think it will go unnoticed in the end?

>Who was it that challenged Christ with scripture again?

Are you implying yourself to be the Lord Jesus Christ? Or even that the Christ himself never referred to scripture?

>>577333

Look anon, there’s really no point in discussing this any futher until you acknowledge my main argument. Why is the meaning of Matthew 26:26 obvious if Matthew 23:9 isn’t? The Catholic position may be true, but that doesn’t mean it is obvious. A Biblical literalist would read both and come to the conclusion that we literally eat the flesh and blood of Christ in communion, and that we should call no man on Earth father. However, if you consider that by “call no man father” Christ did not literally mean so, we cannot then pretend that it is obvious from the text that Christ literally meant that. Now of course my argument here is basically irrelevant to Catholic doctrine, since Catholicism does not rest on scripture being really obvious and literal all the time. It is relevant to poor quality Catholic apologetics which argue for Biblical literalism when it is convenient.

Didn't Jesus also say "Ye are the salt of the earth"?

We're not literally chunks of salt, though, or rays of light… it's a metaphor.

>>577378

Didn't Jesus also say "stop sinning"?

We're not literally meant to stop sinning, he's just saying something abstract… he's said abstract things once, therefore it always is abstract.

>>577380

Except one of those things is a clear commandment out of the mouth of the Lord.

>>577342

What's more to say? You reject Christ's word; you've become of His disciples that left Him. \\

Doth this scandalize you?

>>577350

ok? it's both? Would Christ not speak both in parable, metaphor, and at times, literalism? There's an entire part of scripture where Christ preaches and reinforces the idea of consuming His body; and, to the only point in the Bible where loses disciples over it.

Or do you argue that Christ losing disciples over it is a misplayed notion of literalism too?

1 Corinthians 11:29

Why would eating a symbol unworthily bring judgement upon you?

Pro-tip: It isn't a symbol

>>577434

Why would it bring judgement? Because you're creeping into God's church that Christ gave the ordinance to be followed by those whom the Father has given him. 2 Peter 2:13, Jude 1:4,12.

>ITT: after having been btfo, the cathotroll shifts to the "hard teaching" verse

>>576464

The key issue here (apart from transubstantiation) is, how important is the commandment of re-enacting the last supper?

trying relativize its significance in any way is an error. I think that the first Christians felt united to Jesus through this act, and that therefore ANY diminution of its importance (however small it may be) is a direct attack on Christ.

Why can't we let context define "is" in Matthew 26:26 instead of Catholic tradition?

>>577630

check the original context (in Greek)

>>577304

Same anon, different IP.

For Communion, we use a special kind of bread that has set prayers read over it as it’s prepared and is stamped with the seal of Christ. Likewise, we only use a certain kind of wine grown from specially blessed fields. Before the Liturgy starts, some of this bread and wine is set apart for Communion, but some is left as it is — blessed but not the Body and Blood. People who have taken Communion will eat some of this blessed bread and wine after they’re finished; the altar servers take what’s left of the wine and drink it in the altar, and the remaining bread is left out to be eaten by everyone in attendance after they’ve kissed the cross. Some people keep it and eat it before they do their morning prayers in the following week.

>Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. (…) I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

In before another weird spinoff denom claims to be following this literally.

>>577614

It is you who have reduced Scripture to circular argument, you demean it by using to deny God what He has proclaimed and left to us.

As to >>577342 and whomever else denies the power of the Eucharist, and the (prime) role it has in our salvation…

But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, arguments, and quarrels about the Law, because these things are pointless and worthless. Reject a divisive man after a first and second admonition, knowing that such a man is corrupt and sinful; he is self-condemned.

I will pray for you, that your sins may be forgiven, and that life of Our Lord may descend onto you, even to the Final Passover in His kingdom.

>>577747

Why can't we let context define "is" in Matthew 26:26 instead of Catholic tradition?

>>577630

>>577810

Don't you have some congressional staffer to feel up, Bill?

>>577725

Ah, that's another good one… What about: I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

Jesus wasn't literally a plant either.

>>576477

>can anyone partake, or do they have to be members in good standing who attend regularly?

I can't speak for other churches, but basically anyone can partake, unless they were/are a member of the church that's having some issues with some more serious sins. IE cheated on your husband? Maybe don't partake for a while and focus on repenting. But even then it's not like we have guys with guns in the back that will shoot you if you partake when you're not supposed to.

>>576816

>grape juice

This is a joke, right?

>>578241

>For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. 32And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

Acts 20. If only all men would listen to Paul today instead of these heretical "successor" wolves. Wolves as he called them, who block and distort his words today, putting their own uninspired words higher, and according them more honor. Glorying in others' flesh, and teaching what they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.

>>578248

St. Paul would not have "corrected" (nor DID he) Christ's teaching of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, do not be fooled.

>>578273

Christ didn't teach it was a propitiatory sacrifice, nor did He command its worship.

>>578283

> command its worship.

"It" being Christ himself you claim he would have issue with us worshiping ?

>>578241

A great falling away that happened immediately upon the Church's foundation ?!

>>578321

>"It" being Christ himself

Unbiblical. The bible says it's bread (1 Corinthians 11:26).

>>577667

thanks so much anon, I've always been interested in how you Orthobros get down

>>578227

Alas, it is no joke

>>578353

What did he mean by this

>>578359

>what did he mean

means grape juice is a sad joke meant for muslims

You would have to be a very good Christian to partake of the last supper every Sunday. I was always taught it took weeks of personal preparation. And I doubt members publicly excuse themselves from that part of the service everytime they feel they haven't owned up to a sinful area in their life

>>585036

This is historically the Orthodox perspective. In fact, it became such a problem in Orthodoxy that there are stories of Divine Liturgy in cathedrals with hundred of people in attendance during which not a single person received communion. If you look at published letters and encyclicals in Orthodoxy throughout the last few hundred years they are full of appeals from bishops to their priests, requesting that they encourage their congregations to receive communion more regularly.

>>576473

Me too bro. It is good to be Catholic.

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but has anyone ever tested Catholic stools for traces of human flesh?

>>585271

>has anyone ever tested Catholic stools for traces of human flesh?

bruh

>>585271

that's blasphemy

>>585378

Why?

>>585937

>(aka: replace the word "door" with the word "Jesus")

Refer to your fourth image

>>585937

>Bible fully supports this

Nope

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.

Also you don't believe verse 47

>>585949

Its still his flesh. Deal with it.

>>585951

It's still a piece of bread. Deal with it

>>585979

>genesis 1

What did rome teach before darwin?

>>586810

also Exodus 20:11

>>586805

Various church fathers had various different interpretations, and it was not considered a matter of Orthodoxy to consider Genesis literal.

>>586828

>various different interpretations

which church fathers disbelieved in a young earth and direct creation by God?

>>586828

This is a modernist meme. Read genesis creation and early man by fr. Seraphim Rose

>>586832

You'll only see two prooftexts, one is a quote from Augustine and the other is from the heretic Origen. But both Augustine's views and Origen's are more complex than the quotes make them seem.

>>586854

It just seems to me that the RCC compromised their beliefs somewhere, and tried to mould scripture to a modern theory rather than the other way around.

>>586856

What do you have against Fr. Rose, anything besides le toll house meme and the fact that he didn't believe Augustine single-handedly caused the schism?

Jesus was crucified on Passover for a reason. Passover celebrates the events of Exodus, its rituals primarily center themselves on the last curse given to the Egyptians, wherein God sent an angel of death that would strike down the firstborn child of every house, UNLESS they sacrificed a lamb, poured its blood over their door, and ate of it. This is reflected within the Gospel - this ritual of the lamb was given as a preview of God's ultimate plan. Jesus is the ultimate sacrificial lamb - we are saved by His blood being spilled for us, and we celebrate this by eating of the lamb; communion.

Christ is not literally a lamb. He symbolizes a sacrificial lamb. What sense does it make to say that the bread literally turns into Christ's body and the wine literally turns into Christ's blood? I've never understood this.

>>587000

Christ was literally sacrificed. Christ literally turned water to wine and literally rose from the dead and literally multiplied fish and bread to literally feed thousands and said "this is my body" as he was eating and passing around actual bread…he didn't say it while jogging one day randomly during…

>>587029

>literally multiplied fish and bread to literally feed thousands and said "this is my body" as he was eating and passing around actual bread

Nope. There was no bread, table or wine being passed around in John 6. They had already crossed over the sea to Capernaum, see John 6:24. There was no physical bread present there unless it went completely unmentioned, and there certainly wasn't any wine or supper or table in John 6. Maybe you're confusing the Bible again, but it says very clearly in John 6:63 that "my flesh" and "the bread that came down from heaven" is referring to his words.

>>587029

Was Christ literally a lamb, then? Because the entire point of communion, of eating of the flesh of Christ, is that He is supposed to be our sacrificial lamb.

Reading this as literal seems completely out no place, especially of you're applying consistency.

>>587112

Christ was so insistent on the body-bread principle that many onlookers were aghast, saying "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Christ was literally willing to turn away potential members of his flock over this issue. Don't you think this firm insistence means that it's not just a symbol?

>>587235

Read John 6:63.

>Christ was literally willing to turn away potential members of his flock

Mark 4:12.

>>587248

Okay? All I'm seeing here is that Christ, as expected, speaks using veiled words which have deep and mysterious meaning. All of this is extremely consistent with a Catholic or Orthodox piety anyways. Where is the contradiction?

The sacrament of the Eucharist is a deep mystery that is full of inner life. It requires an initiatic understanding, which is why theological barbarians always try to reduce it to scientific schemes or throw it out because it just sounds so absurd.

There are two approaches to the Eucharist. One where plebs think that Christ's human flesh-meat falls onto the earth for people to cannibalize and can be examined under a microscope because, duh-huh, he said it literally. The second approach is one which realizes the significance of Christ's incarnation, and how by partaking of His body, we can become pure and like Him. By eating the Truth, we become like the Truth.

>>576888

Not bad! The most respectable Protestant view I have seen in this thread!

Food for thought: if something signifies something that is spiritually real, how is that not real? Are prayers not real, because they only signify spiritual realities rather than embodying them?

Anyways, this is a fair analysis. However, something that signifies a spiritual reality must embody that spiritual reality, otherwise the signification would not even exist.

>>587259

>By eating the Truth, we become like the Truth.

I think you're on to something. It may be that the truth itself is His words themselves. It may be that the only way to eat his flesh is through his words, and that this passage in John 6 in fact is not in reference to the Lord's Supper at all and only used by carnal people to think it is.

Matthew 4:4

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Proverbs 4:4

He taught me also, and said unto me, Let thine heart retain my words: keep my commandments, and live.

2 Corinthians 4:18

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

John 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.

John 6:68

Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

John 15:7

If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

John 17:17

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Romans 8:5

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

John 4:14

But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

John 4:32-34

But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.

Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?

Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

>>587240

>He is a lamb in the truest sense of the word: innocent, pure, and slaughtered to fulfill the needs of the hungry and unvirtuous

Anon, that's not literally being a lamb. If He was literally a lamb, He would be the animal itself, not something analogous to it.

I'm the same anon, just different IP.

>>587240

Don't worry about responding too much, anon, it's good to have discussions that aren't denominational shitposting.

I like your post. I agree with your post. The issue is that your post is misusing the word "literally." You are saying that Christ was a lamb in spirit - I agree. I agree that the bread and wine represent Christ's body and blood in spirit, they are not literally the physical body and blood of Christ.

>>587235

This is not a good criteria to have when it comes to taking things absolutely literally vs recognizing symbolism. Christ spoke in parables to everyone except to His 12 in private, at some points.

The apostles recognized this when it happened. See John 16:29:

>His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech!

Further, if you apply consistency to this argument, then we have to look at the times that Christ rejected followers and take what He says completely literally. The best example would be Luke 14:25-33:

>Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.

If we apply the criteria you mentioned consistently, then logic follows that Jesus requires you to hate your siblings, your parents, and yourself, and to renounce all you stand for.

As it is written–

Job 34:3

For the ear trieth words, as the mouth tasteth meat.

>this is my body

>It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

John 6:63 KJV

>>576464

Jesus: "Do this in remembrance of me"

"You mean in remembrance of my sin?"

Jesus: "Do this in remembrance of me"

"So it's a literal sacrifice?"

Jesus: "Do this in remembrance of me"

"Alright got it, so it's an ongoing propitiatory sacrifice because your sacrifice on the cross didn't finish anything"

Put a funny meme picture of Jesus here I dunno.