Communion - Lord's Supper - Eucharist

[Josiah]

Let's look carefully at God's Scripture here - very carefully noting what is stated and what is not. Please begin by reading both very carefully.


Matthew 26:26-29

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat, this is my body.' And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying, 'Drink of it all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I will you, I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine again until I drink it with you in my father's kingdom." (see also Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20)


1 Corinthians 11:23-29

The Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats or drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself."



There are three major "schools" in the West...


Real Presence: This view accepts these verses "as is" - with nothing added, deleted, substituted, ignored, explained away and with no pagan philosophies or prescience theories imposed or dogmatized. "Is" = is, every time (Real, present, exists). "Body" = body, every time. "Blood" = blood, every time. That's it. That's all. Body and blood IS... ARE..... thus present, real, there and thus received. While Real Presence technically doesn't mention the bread and wine or deal with that, it doesn't IN ANY SENSE deny such "exists" either - it's just insignificant. This view simply accepts all the words - as is, with no attempt to change some or ignore some or to impose some scientific concept or to "explain" away anything. It understands all this as "MYSTERY." It says only what Jesus and Paul says; questions are welcomed just left unanswered (dogmatically, anyway). THAT it is true is fully embraced; HOW it is true is left alone. This view is currently embraced by Lutherans, as well as some Anglicans and Methodist.


Transubstantiation: First expressed in 1134, first officially mentioned in 1214 and first made dogma exclusively in the individual RC Denomination in 1551, it holds that the word "is" should be replaced by the words "CHANGED and/or CONVERTED and/or TRANSFORMED from one reality to a completely foreign different reality." It then holds that this CHANGE happens via an alchemic transubstantiation (it's a very specific "change"). This, however, caused a problem with the texts which mentions bread and wine AFTER the Consecration (in First Corinthians, MORE than before) in EXACTLY the same way as such is mentioned BEFORE the Consecration. This view thus replaces those words, too. Instead, this view holds that "bread" and "wine" be replaced with, an Aristotelian ACCIDENT or appearance or species of bread and wine but not really or fully bread and wine - rather the 'empty shell' of what is left over after the alchemic transubstantiation. It denies that bread and wine are present in any full, literal, real sense (in spite of what the Bible says). Two pagan ideas are imposed: Transubstantiation and Accidents. Several words are deleted: "Is" "bread" and "wine" (the later two only after the Consecration). This view is the official Eucharistic dogma of the Roman Catholic Church since 1551. No other church holds to it.


Figurative/Symbolic/Memorial Presence: This view holds that the word "is" indicates a figure of speech and that there is a metaphor here. The word "is" in the texts is to be replaced with "symbolizes." It insists and the bread and wine are here made SYMBOLS or FIGURES or memorials of His Body and Blood. Christ is not "present" at all (in any sense other than He always is present), but the bread and wine are now symbols of Christ and His sacrifice. It is often compared to the Old Covenant Passover Meal - a memorial to REMIND us of things. The terms "body" and "blood" so stressed by Jesus and Paul are simply stripped of their USUAL meaning and said to be "symbols" or "figures" or "memorials" of them. "Is" doesn't mean "is" but "a figure of." This view is typically associated with Zwingli and dates back to the 16th Century (thus the newest of the 3 views). This view is now popular among modern American "Evangelicals" and frequently among modern Reformed/Calvinists. While NOT the RCC dogma, it's quite common among Catholics, too.



One might summarize the 3 common views this way:

LUTHERANS: Is.... Body..... Blood..... bread..... wine....... All are true, all are affirmed. It's mystery.

ROMAN CATHOLIC: Body.... Blood..... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the bread and wine actually aren't, they are Aristotelian Accidents instead. It's an alchemic transubstatiation.

EVANGELICALS: Bread.... Wine.... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the Body and Blood actually aren't, they are symbols instead. It's metaphor

It should be noted the Eastern Orthodox have a view somewhat between the Catholic and Lutheran views; it embraces that there is some mysterious, undefined change in the elements (not just in what is present) BUT rejects the RCC Dogma of Transubstantiation because the Orthodox leave the nature and means and character of the change entirely and completely to MYSTERY and insists that this 'change' is unimportant (rather than dogma), their emphasis (like Lutherans) is entirely on the Real Presence of the Body and Blood. Calvin himself personally held to Real Presence but his followers did not. Today, nearly all Reformed are Zwinglian on this and agree with modern Evangelicals.


Which of these "fits" with exactly what Jesus said and Paul penned?


Thank you in advance for the conversation!


- Josiah



.

 

[Windmillcharge]

That the Lords Supper is a mystery, in that we do not fully undestand every nuance of it, is something we should accept.
That we are saved by faith, we do not earn or deserve salvation is something we should bear in mind when we discuss the Lords Supper or Communion etc.

There is no merit gained by attending communion, as merit implies we have attend something.
The real significance is that we contemplate the enormity of the sacrifice that Jesus, willingly made, for us and of our responcibility in him needing to make that sacrifice.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Matthew 26:26-29

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat, this is my body.' And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying, 'Drink of it all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I will you, I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine again until I drink it with you in my father's kingdom." (see also Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20)


1 Corinthians 11:23-29

The Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats or drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself."

Greetings, Josiah. I believe it is metaphor, but the reason the other two views got adopted is because eating of the bread and wine symbolized eating of Christ Himself as the word made flesh (John 6:53-58), and both the Spirit of God and the word of God were indeed dwelling within them during New Testament times. I take the literal bread as just a symbol of the word, but when a congregation was regularly partaking of His genuine word and operating in the things of the Spirit, the presence of God was there in reality, making the taking of communion more than a mere physical act. The presence of God was among them in the act. However, whenever one separates the true word and operating in things of the Spirit from a church's services, the bread they partake of becomes ordinary bread and "communion" of no significance, because the Spirit is no longer present among them in any measurable way.

My feeling is that denominations wanted to make people believe that the presence of God was there every single time communion was taken even when it wasn't any longer, so they adopted doctrines to make people believe it was automatically, and this is where they made their mistake into teaching falsehood.

I'm not sure if that falls entirely into the 3rd category or not. I've never made a habit of discussing this issue, but I'm certainly willing to listen to what you have to say and whatever questions you want to ask.

Blessings in Christ!

 

[Enoch111]

Which of these "fits" with exactly what Jesus said and Paul penned?

The issue of the real presence of Christ is easily resolved by another couple of Scriptures (Mt 18:20;28:20 KJB):

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them...and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.

So Christ is really present in Spirit when Christians gather to worship. But the elements of bread and wine remain unchanged and symbolize the broken body and the shed blood of Christ.

There is a huge difference between the Roman Catholic Mass and the Lord's Supper.

 

[epostle1]

The Miracle of Lanciano is consecrated Bread and Wine turned into real Flesh and real Blood and hasn't decomposed after 1200 years!

Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano

The early Church Fathers are indispensable resources for helping to bridge the gap between our own time and the age of the apostles. Not only do they provide extrabiblical verification of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, they also provide a great deal of insight into what the early Christians believed and how they interpreted Scripture.

Ignatius lived from around A.D. 35 to 107. He was the third bishop of Antioch and tradition records that he was a disciple of the apostle John (cf. The Maryrdom of Ignatius). During the reign of Emperor Trajan, he was taken to Rome and suffered martyrdom there. Along the way he wrote seven letters—one to St. Polycarp of Smyrna, and six others to various churches.

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.
Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 6
​

Here Ignatius equates the Eucharist to the same flesh of Christ that suffered for our sake on the cross. Jesus also uses this literal comparison when he explained,
“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6:51).

Ignatius also explains that the Eucharist must be administered either by a bishop or one of his ordained ministers:

Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.
Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8
Apologetics with St. Ignatius of Antioch | Catholic Answers​

Jesus taught the Apostle John, John handed down this teaching to Ignatius, Ignatius handed down to his ordained what John taught him, and so on. This teaching has not changed in 2000 years because the historic Church does not have the authority to change it.

Eucharist !?

 

[epostle1]

God became man. The Incarnation was the event in salvation history that raised matter to previously unknown heights. All created matter was “good” from the start (Gen 1:25), but was “glorified” by the Incarnation.

Ritual and “physicality” were not abolished by the coming of Christ. Quite the contrary: it was the Incarnation that fully established sacramentalism as a principle in the Christian religion. The latter may be defined as the belief that matter can convey grace. It’s really that simple, at bottom, or in essence. God uses matter both to help us live better lives (sanctification) and to ultimately save us (regeneration and justification), starting with baptism itself.

The atonement or redemption of Christ (His death on the cross for us) was not purely “spiritual.” It was as physical (“sacramental,” if you will) as it could be, as well as spiritual. Protestants often piously refer to “the Blood of Jesus,” and rightly so (see Rev 5:9; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14; Heb 9:12; 1 Pet 1:2; 1 Jn 1:7; etc.). This is explicitly sacramental thinking.

Sacramentalism and the Bible

It was the very suffering of Jesus in the flesh, and the voluntary shedding of His own blood, which constituted the crucial, essential aspect of His work as our Redeemer and Savior. One can’t avoid this: “he was bruised for our iniquities” (Is 53:5).

So it is curious that many appear to possess a pronounced hostility to the sacramental belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, seeing that it flows so straightforwardly from the Incarnation and the Crucifixion itself. This brings to mind an analogy to the Jewish and Muslim disdain for the Incarnation as an unthinkable (impossible?) task for God to undertake. They view the Incarnation in the same way a majority of Protestants regard the Eucharist.

For them, God wouldn’t or couldn’t or shouldn’t become a man (such a thought is blasphemous; unthinkable!). For many (not all) Protestants, God wouldn’t or couldn’t or shouldn’t become substantially, physically, sacramentally present under the outward forms of bread and wine. The dynamic or underlying premise is the same. If Christ could become man, He can surely will to be actually and truly present in what was formerly (and still looks like) bread and wine, once consecrated.

The New Testament is filled with incarnational and sacramental indications: instances of matter conveying grace.
- The Church is the “Body” of Christ (1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22-23; 5:30),
- and marriage (including its physical aspects) is described as a direct parallel to Christ and the Church (Eph 5:22-33; esp. 29-32).
- Jesus even seems to literally equate Himself in some sense with the Church, saying He was “persecuted” by Paul, after the Resurrection (Acts 9:5).

Not only that; in St. Paul’s teaching, one can find a repeated theme of identifying very graphically and literally with Christ and His sufferings (see: 2 Cor 4:10; Phil 2:17; 3:10; 2 Tim 4:6; and above all, Col 1:24).

Matter conveys grace all over the place in Scripture: baptism confers regeneration (Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet 3:21; cf. Mk 16:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 6:11; Titus 3:5). Paul’s “handkerchiefs” healed the sick (Acts 19:12), as did even Peter’s shadow (Acts 5:15), and of course, Jesus’ garment (Mt 9:20-22) and saliva mixed with dirt (Jn 9:5 ff.; Mk 8:22-25), as well as water from the pool of Siloam (Jn 9:7).

Anointing with oil for healing is encouraged (Jas 5:14). We also observe in Scripture the laying on of hands for the purpose of ordination and commissioning (Acts 6:6; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6) to facilitate the initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17-19; 13:3; 19:6), and for healing (Mk 6:5; Lk 13:13; Acts 9:17-18). Even under the old covenant, a dead man was raised simply by coming in contact with the bones of the prophet Elisha (2 Kings 13:21) — which is also one of the direct evidences for the Catholic practice of the veneration of relics (itself an extension of the sacramental principle).

Not ‘magic charms’

Sacramentalism is a “product” of the Incarnation, just as the Church also is. But we must also understand that the sacraments are not “magic charms.” The Church also teaches that one should have the correct “interior disposition” when receiving them. Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ, the great catechist, wrote, in an entry on “Sacramental Dispositions”:

“Condition of soul required for the valid and/or fruitful reception of the sacraments. … In the recipient who has the use of reason is required merely that no obstacles be placed in the way. Such obstacles are a lack of faith or sanctifying grace or of a right intention.”(Modern Catholic Dictionary, Garden City, New York, Doubleday & Company, 1980, 477)​

Likewise, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in its section on ex opere operato (No. 1128), notes: “Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.”

The sacrament of the Eucharist, for example, will not have a positive effect or convey grace if received by a person in mortal sin (see 1 Cor 11:27-30; CCC #1415), and priestly absolution is null and void without the necessary prerequisite of true repentance.

This is all the more true of sacramentals (things like holy water, scapulars, blessings, miraculous medals, genuflection, etc.), which depend entirely on the inner state of the one using or receiving them. Intent, sincerity, motivation, piety, and suchlike are all supremely important in the Catholic life.

The scapular will not “work” for a person who neglects the pursuit of righteousness and obedience and views it as a “magic charm” (which is occultic superstition) rather than a Catholic sacramental. A piece of cloth cannot rescind the normal duties of the Catholic life. Nor is God some sort of celestial “vending machine.” He wants our hearts; he wants us — not meaningless outward obedience without the proper interior motivation, in love, and by His grace. Sacraments help us, but we must do our part, too.


http://www.themichigancatholic.org/2014/07/christ-didnt-abolish-ritual-he-perfected-it/

 

[Josiah]

The issue of the real presence of Christ is easily resolved by another couple of Scriptures (Mt 18:20;28:20 KJB):

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them...and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.

So Christ is really present in Spirit when Christians gather to worship. But the elements of bread and wine remain unchanged and symbolize the broken body and the shed blood of Christ.

There is a huge difference between the Roman Catholic Mass and the Lord's Supper.

The third position, invented by Zwingli in the 16th Century.

.

 

[Josiah]

Greetings, Josiah. I believe it is metaphor, but the reason the other two views got adopted is because eating of the bread and wine symbolized eating of Christ Himself as the word made flesh (John 6:53-58), and both the Spirit of God and the word of God were indeed dwelling within them during New Testament times. I take the literal bread as just a symbol of the word, but when a congregation was regularly partaking of His genuine word and operating in the things of the Spirit, the presence of God was there in reality, making the taking of communion more than a mere physical act. The presence of God was among them in the act. However, whenever one separates the true word and operating in things of the Spirit from a church's services, the bread they partake of becomes ordinary bread and "communion" of no significance, because the Spirit is no longer present among them in any measurable way.

My feeling is that denominations wanted to make people believe that the presence of God was there every single time communion was taken even when it wasn't any longer, so they adopted doctrines to make people believe it was automatically, and this is where they made their mistake into teaching falsehood.

I'm not sure if that falls entirely into the 3rd category or not. I've never made a habit of discussing this issue, but I'm certainly willing to listen to what you have to say and whatever questions you want to ask.

Blessings in Christ!

.... and to you.


IMO, it seems that the first position (Real Presence) was universally accepted for over 1000 years until Transubstantiation was first theorized in the West - but even then, that position was meant originally to support Real Presence (explain it, you might say) not replace it. The dogmatic embraces of the Transubstantiation and Metaphor positions are 16th Century actions.

It seems to ME the Real Presence view was accepted very, very early on.... simply because it's what the texts literally say. Early Christians had a MUCH stronger sense of "mystery" than we do today, and so issue like "God is THREE but ONE".... "Jesus is 100% God and also 100% man - always"... etc. were positions they could accept (and leave there) because there was more of a willingness to just accept things - whether it "makes sense" to our human current "sense" of logic or physics or philosophy ... or not. Scholasticism, etc. (movements of the middle ages) attempted to make theology "make sense" and to explain it in terms of the pop philosophies of that day - and we began to invent some of the things that divide Christians to this days ("Transubstantiation" being one of these). But for 1000 years plus, the meaning of "is" was just "is" - a word typically meaning real, present, "there"... and body just meant body, blood just meant blood.... the "how can this be?" left entirely unanswered, left entirely as "mystery." But the affirmation is that Christ IS present, in some special or unique sense (again, HOW left unanswered because Scripture does).


Thanks for the discussion!


- Josiah



.

 

[epostle1]

.... and to you.

IMO, it seems that the first position (Real Presence) was universally accepted for over 1000 years until Transubstantiation was first theorized in the West - but even then, that position was meant originally to support Real Presence (explain it, you might say) not replace it. The dogmatic embraces of the Transubstantiation and Metaphor positions are 16th Century actions.

It seems to ME the Real Presence view was accepted very, very early on.... simply because it's what the texts literally say. Early Christians had a MUCH stronger sense of "mystery" than we do today, and so issue like "God is THREE but ONE".... "Jesus is 100% God and also 100% man - always"... etc. were positions they could accept (and leave there) because there was more of a willingness to just accept things - whether it "makes sense" to our human current "sense" of logic or physics or philosophy ... or not. Scholasticism, etc. (movements of the middle ages) attempted to make theology "make sense" and to explain it in terms of the pop philosophies of that day - and we began to invent some of the things that divide Christians to this days ("Transubstantiation" being one of these). But for 1000 years plus, the meaning of "is" was just "is" - a word typically meaning real, present, "there"... and body just meant body, blood just meant blood.... the "how can this be?" left entirely unanswered, left entirely as "mystery." But the affirmation is that Christ IS present, in some special or unique sense (again, HOW left unanswered because Scripture does).
Thanks for the discussion!
- Josiah

"...With the introduction of Luther’s principle of individual interpretation of the Bible in the 16th century, called sola scriptura – “the Bible alone,” passages of Scripture were subjected to outlandish interpretations that bore little relationship to the sacred text and the Christian faith that had been faithfully passed on from Jesus and the apostles for 1,500 years.

One example of the confusion that followed is evidenced in Christopher Rasperger’s work published in 1577, 200 Interpretations of the Words: This is My Body. (within a mere 60 years after the Protestant revolt) Therefore, it is not surprising to find that some contemporary Protestant apologists strive to explain away the clear meaning of the institution narratives.
http://www.scborromeo.org/papers/This is My Body.pdf

 

[Hidden In Him]

.... and to you.

IMO, it seems that the first position (Real Presence) was universally accepted for over 1000 years until Transubstantiation was first theorized in the West - but even then, that position was meant originally to support Real Presence (explain it, you might say) not replace it. The dogmatic embraces of the Transubstantiation and Metaphor positions are 16th Century actions.

It seems to ME the Real Presence view was accepted very, very early on.... simply because it's what the texts literally say. Early Christians had a MUCH stronger sense of "mystery" than we do today, and so issue like "God is THREE but ONE".... "Jesus is 100% God and also 100% man - always"... etc. were positions they could accept (and leave there) because there was more of a willingness to just accept things - whether it "makes sense" to our human current "sense" of logic or physics or philosophy ... or not. Scholasticism, etc. (movements of the middle ages) attempted to make theology "make sense" and to explain it in terms of the pop philosophies of that day - and we began to invent some of the things that divide Christians to this days ("Transubstantiation" being one of these). But for 1000 years plus, the meaning of "is" was just "is" - a word typically meaning real, present, "there"... and body just meant body, blood just meant blood.... the "how can this be?" left entirely unanswered, left entirely as "mystery." But the affirmation is that Christ IS present, in some special or unique sense (again, HOW left unanswered because Scripture does).

Thanks for the discussion!

- Josiah

Ok. I do apparently take a less mystical (maybe not the right word) view and simply attribute the retributions mentioned 1 Corinthians 11:30-32 to the Spirit of God being present in the services rather than in the bread itself, but whenever He is present anywhere I am most certainly happy about it.

Blessings in Christ Jesus, and it's wonderful having you at this site.

 

[Josiah]

"...With the introduction of Luther’s principle of individual interpretation of the Bible in the 16th century

"Individual interpretation" is an insistence of the RC denomination, which dogmatically permits ONE and ONLY ONE to authoritatively interpret anything... what is the ONE that the individual RC Denomination so permits? Yup, itself.

But this thread is not about "interpretation" it's about the Holy Eucharist and the 3 main views of it in the West - one of which is the invention of the RC Denomination in 1551.

We can ask: Which is the 3 views seems to reflect that is specifically stated and what is not in the words of the Eucharistic text?



Thank you for the conversation.


- Josiah



.

 

[Josiah]

Ok. I do apparently take a less mystical (maybe not the right word) view and simply attribute the retributions mentioned 1 Corinthians 11:30-32 to the Spirit of God being present in the services rather than in the bread itself, but whenever He is present anywhere I am most certainly happy about it.

Blessings in Christ Jesus, and it's wonderful having you at this site.

Thank you! And thanks as well for adding your thoughtful perspective....


- Josiah


PS. I'm a newbie.... at the very, very beginning of figuring out the community here.... including who discusses and who doesn't.




.

 

[Willie T]

I think there is tremendous power in Communion, while I believe a piece of bread is just a piece of bread.

 

[BreadOfLife]

"Individual interpretation" is an insistence of the RC denomination, which dogmatically permits ONE and ONLY ONE to authoritatively interpret anything... what is the ONE that the individual RC Denomination so permits? Yup, itself.

But this thread is not about "interpretation" it's about the Holy Eucharist and the 3 main views of it in the West - one of which is the invention of the RC Denomination in 1551.

We can ask: Which is the 3 views seems to reflect that is specifically stated and what is not in the words of the Eucharistic text?

Thank you for the conversation.
- Josiah

Before I respond to your false statement regarding the year 1551 - can you tell me what the "RC Denomination" is?
What does it mean and where did you get this terminology?

I asked you about this on another thread and you couldn't give me an answer.

 

[Josiah]

Before I respond to your false statement regarding the year 1551 - can you tell me what the "RC Denomination" is?

You repudiated and mocked one designating self alone as the authoritative interpreter.

Here's what your denomination insists in the 1994 latest edition of the Catechism of it itself about this:

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome

.

The RCC itself wrote this. And to what is it giving this "task of giving an authentic interpretation?" To the Greek Orthodox Church? To the Prebyterian Church in the USA? Perhaps to the Bishops of the Anglican Communion? Or does the RCC go to very, very great lengths that it means it itself alone, exclusively?


See the opening post for the 3 major views. The question is simple: Which of the 3 most clearly states what Jesus and Paul do in the written words of the text?


Thank you for the conversation... And may all the Eucharistic blessings be yours....


- Josiah



.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You repudiated and mocked one designating self alone as the authoritative interpreter.

Here's what your denomination insists in the 1994 latest edition of the Catechism of it itself about this:

The RCC itself wrote this. And to what is it giving this "task of giving an authentic interpretation?" To the Greek Orthodox Church? To the Prebyterian Church in the USA? Perhaps to the Bishops of the Anglican Communion? Or does the RCC go to very, very great lengths that it means it itself alone, exclusively?

See the opening post for the 3 major views. The question is simple: Which of the 3 most clearly states what Jesus and Paul do in the written words of the text?

Thank you for the conversation... And may all the Eucharistic blessings be yours....

- Josiah

Hmmmmm, I don't understand why this is such a difficult task for you.

Let me ask you AGAIN:
Can you tell me what the "RC Denomination" is? What does it mean and where did you get this terminology?

Please, just answer the question so we can get to your false claims about the year 1551.
Thanks.

 

[Josiah]

Bread of life, see post 15

 

[epostle1]

"Individual interpretation" is an insistence of the RC denomination, which dogmatically permits ONE and ONLY ONE to authoritatively interpret anything... what is the ONE that the individual RC Denomination so permits? Yup, itself.

THAT IS A LIE.

But this thread is not about "interpretation" it's about the Holy Eucharist and the 3 main views of it in the West - one of which is the invention of the RC Denomination in 1551.

THAT IS ANOTHER LIE.

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. wikipedia

 

[epostle1]

Bread of life, see post 15

Post 15 is stupid and an abuse of the catechism. If the Catholic Church is not the sole interpreter of scripture ACCORDING TO CATHOLIC TEACHING, then the Lutheran Church has no right to be the sole interpreter for its catechism. Being the sole interpreter does not mean nobody else can interpret. Dichotomous thinking is all too prevalent in Protestantism. Anybody can interpret scripture, and there are boundaries and guidelines just like the Baptists, Calvinist, Methodists etc. If a Calvinist professor started teaching Arminian theology, he would soon be out of a job. I doubt that will put a dent in your rigid preconceptions.

But I notice you drastically changed the topic because you are unable to find any changes to any given essential truths. I will not spoon feed you a list. If you are unable or refuse to back up your lies and false charges, go ahead and embarrass yourself. BTW, changing the meaning of "denomination" to make it fit your preconceptions is also stupid and dishonest.

​

 

[epostle1]

The doctrine of "Alchemic Transubstantiation" was invented by the illustrious theology professor Dr. J. Idioto Ph.D. (Piled Higher and Deeper) in 2019, as found in his encyclical Taurus Excretum, on his web site www.iamanidiot.com