Do you do this?

[Marymog]

@Marymog

I used to do it because at the time I thought is was necessary. Now I don't see it as harmful so as long as a person also understands what the real thing is partakes of the real thing.

Hi sir,

You don't think doing what Jesus told us to do is necessary anymore?

Or is it just not necessary for you? But it is necessary for most other Christians?

I don't know what "real thing is partakes of the real thing" means. Can you explain that meaning to me? Is it in scripture?

You have me VERY confused....

Mary

 

[amadeus]

I do not understand a word you just wrote...I apologize.

You used to participate in communion and you stopped because____________________. (fill in the blank)

In the last paragraph you wrote are you saying that due to Jesus sacrifice on the cross AND the out pouring of the Holy Ghost that we are now really eating the words of God?

We can be, yes.

The bread He offered at the Last Supper as His flesh is not valid anymore?
Mary

For me, no. I cannot speak for you and for others. Only God gives the understanding.

 

[amadeus]

Thank you.

Why doesn't the old man need to participate in communion?

Why is it only the new man that does that?

Curious Mary

The old man is dead spiritually and he is dying naturally. Dead men don't eat or drink of Life.

He is dead spiritually because that is his inheritance from Adam and Eve:

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Gen 2:17

He is dying naturally because that was ours in the flesh from our start:

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" Heb 9:27

The new man is what we have when we have met and received the Life of Jesus. Like a natural baby he has to eat and drink to live, but his food is spiritual: the flesh and blood of Jesus.

 

[amadeus]

Hi sir,

You don't think doing what Jesus told us to do is necessary anymore?

Or is it just not necessary for you? But it is necessary for most other Christians?

I don't know what "real thing is partakes of the real thing" means. Can you explain that meaning to me? Is it in scripture?

You have me VERY confused....

Mary

Sorry! Don't make it complicated. To partake simply means to eat or drink. In this case we are eating the Word of God and we are drinking of the Holy Spirit.

It is necessary for any Christian. The physical communion is only symbolic although you will hear other things from other people on this. A lot of people believe the physical communion is necessary. I do not.

 

[Marymog]

The old man is dead spiritually and he is dying naturally. Dead men don't eat or drink of Life.

He is dead spiritually because that is his inheritance from Adam and Eve:

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Gen 2:17

He is dying naturally because that was ours in the flesh from our start:

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" Heb 9:27

The new man is what we have when we have met and received the Life of Jesus. Like a natural baby he has to eat and drink to live, but his food is spiritual: the flesh and blood of Jesus.

I am so sorry. This makes absolutely ZERO sense to me. Maybe a theologian can understand what you are saying but I can't.

I still don't understand why and "old man" does not have to do what Jesus told him to do. Why is the old man dead spiritually?

You called yourself an old man in a previous post. Does that mean YOU are dead spiritually?? I'm confused...

Everything you are saying has nothing to do with the OP and my questions.....as far as I can tell.

Thank you for your time.

Love, Mary

 

[Helen]

I re-read your post and think I understand what you are saying.

You don't think it is necessary to participate in the actual eating of the bread and drinking of the blood. The Last Supper words and actions that Jesus performed are not actions that we need to perform.

The Last Supper was a "symbolic" act of what we are to do and how we are to receive Him into us?

Did I get it right this time?

Curious Mary

Hi Mary..
This above is the post you wrote back to ScottA
If I had answered your post to me #31 this that you have written here would be much the same as I was going to write.

Bless you...H

 

[ScottA]

I re-read your post and think I understand what you are saying.

You don't think it is necessary to participate in the actual eating of the bread and drinking of the blood. The Last Supper words and actions that Jesus performed are not actions that we need to perform.

The Last Supper was a "symbolic" act of what we are to do and how we are to receive Him into us?

Did I get it right this time?

Curious Mary

We "keep" or "practice" all that He has said - not for our own advantage, but for those to whom it is a witness. In this, we too, lay down our life that we may take it up again. But, as it is with all works, it is not the work that is required, but is rather the proof of who we are in Christ.

 

[amadeus]

I am so sorry. This makes absolutely ZERO sense to me. Maybe a theologian can understand what you are saying but I can't.

I still don't understand why and "old man" does not have to do what Jesus told him to do. Why is the old man dead spiritually?

You called yourself an old man in a previous post. Does that mean YOU are dead spiritually?? I'm confused...

Everything you are saying has nothing to do with the OP and my questions.....as far as I can tell.

Thank you for your time.

Love, Mary

Don't worry about it, Mary. You just hold onto Jesus and he'll give you what you need when you need it.

 

[Marymog]

We "keep" or "practice" all that He has said - not for our own advantage, but for those to whom it is a witness. In this, we too, lay down our life that we may take it up again. But, as it is with all works, it is not the work that is required, but is rather the proof of who we are in Christ.

Thank you Scott.

I have asked the same questions multiple times. You have refused to answer. All you want to do is preach what you believe instead of have a conversation.

Jesus said do this. From the best I can tell from your cryptic responses you don't do what He has told us to do...or maybe you do...I don't know, since you never really answered.

I feel you don't really want to have a conversation....You just want to preach.

I still love you.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Hi Mary..
This above is the post you wrote back to ScottA
If I had answered your post to me #31 this that you have written here would be much the same as I was going to write.

Bless you...H

Thank you BG. I know how you feel. I sometimes struggle for a response and when I see someone else articulate what I am thinking, but I just can't seem to put my thoughts into words, I click the like button. Sometimes I wish I could click it 5 times.

The problem with the "symbolic" theory is that Jesus never said it was symbolic. He said this IS my body/blood and we must eat it. He said it multiple times. He even prefaced it with Truly, truly...... The people who adhere to the symbolic theory are suggesting that Jesus didn't really mean Truly, truly!!! The Christians in scripture never treated it as symbolic. Paul said you bring damnation upon yourself if you don't discern it as THE body/blood of Christ. The 1st century Christians called it Holy and treated it as such. The second century Christians called it Holy and treated it as such. The 21st century Christians call it Holy and treat it as such.

IHS....Mary

 

[Marymog]

Don't worry about it, Mary. You just hold onto Jesus and he'll give you what you need when you need it.

Thank you Amadeus. I'm not worried about IT. I don't need to worry. I do what Jesus told me to do. You are the one who can't explain what you have written. Why would I worry?

I am concerned for those who don't do what Jesus told us to do.....I'm not worried about it.

Love, Mary

 

[amadeus]

Thank you Amadeus. I'm not worried about IT. I don't need to worry. I do what Jesus told me to do. You are the one who can't explain what you have written. Why would I worry?

I am concerned for those who don't do what Jesus told us to do.....I'm not worried about it.

Love, Mary

Oh, I am explaining it and I do understand my explanations. God will explain to you anything that you need if you always trust in Him. He is the only one who has all of the answers to all of the questions.

May God richly bless you as you walk with Him.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

The problem with the "symbolic" theory is that Jesus never said it was symbolic. He said this IS my body/blood and we must eat it. He said it multiple times. He even prefaced it with Truly, truly......

Mary, you are completely ignoring the "New Testament" written in blood.
Who wrote it, and the Old?

1 Corinthians 11:25
[25] After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it , in remembrance of me.


1 Timothy 2:6
[6] Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.


Hebrews 9:16-18
[16] For where a testament is , there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. [17] For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. [18] Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

 

[Wormwood]

The pagan Romans wrongly misunderstood the eating of Christ's body and blood as eating people, which is cannibalism. The error on the part of the pagan Romans shows the early Church took transubstantiation seriously.

kepha,
It was an accusation made to discredit them, as was the accusation that they were Atheists. Should we affirm that the early Christians really didn't believe Jesus was divine since the Romans wrongly misunderstood them as not believing in God because they wouldn't worship idols? My point is simply that using Gentile slander against the early Church is hardly proof of early Christian belief in transubstantiation.

Jesus said it FOUR times.

Can you show me the texts where Jesus says that the elements taken during Eucharist save a person?

The Catholic position is not derived from Aristotle.
First, it's 'philosophy', not 'pagan beliefs'. In antiquity, Aristotle and other philosophers observed, reasoned, and debated on a number of notions in the physical world. Aristotle's thought led him to a way to describe what a thing 'is'. He developed 'categories' to explain and describe things. His notions were picked up by Aquinas, who used the notions of 'substance' and 'accidents' to help describe what happens in the Eucharist. If a non-Christian scientist came up with an explanation of why something happens in the world, would she reject the explanation just because it came from a non-Christian? If so, she better stop using algebra -- it came from Muslims.
Substance is what you see, accidents is what you don't see.
Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 – Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.

First, I think you confirmed my argument that the rationale behind transubstantiation is based in Aristotilian philosophy. Granted, that does not mean it is wrong. My point is simply that the concept is based in a philosophical perspective of how things are rather than a biblical perspective of what Jesus or the Apostles declared what is happening when we "remember" in this way.

Second, I think you are overstating your case. 1) If Jesus was literally meaning "this actually is my real body and blood you are about to eat and drink" then how does that apply to Eucharist today? How do you know Jesus wasnt just taking about "this" particular bread and blood Jesus himself was giving his disciples? How can you claim this statement is so literal and yet also claim he was speaking of Eucharist in general? It seems you want the elements Jesus is speaking of to be literally his body and blood, but the "this" to be non-literal speaking of any bread and wine dispensed at any Mass from ages since. It doesn't seem like a very solid hermeneutical approach to me. Its either all literal or all figurative.

Third, the reason I think Jesus is being figurative is that he is OFTEN figurative (I'm not shouting, just emphasizing ) when he speaks of his body and blood. Clearly in John 6 he is not asking his listeners to come up and take a bite out of him so they can have life in them. Also, he speaks of "remembrance" when he talks about his body and blood. I would think he would talk more about participation and presence rather than remembrance if he was being literal. Finally, Paul goes on to say in 1 Cor. 11:
“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” (1 Corinthians 11:26, ESV)
I would think Paul would say, "For as often as you eat this literal body of Jesus and drink his literal blood during Eucharist, you consume the Lord's life until he comes." Seems strange to speak of such a mystical presence as "proclaiming death" or "remembrance" if Paul and Jesus are not being symbolic.

In sum, communion is significant and powerful. Like the Israelites who celebrated Passover and the covenant God made with the Israelites every year, so we too celebrate our Passover and the New Covenant God has made with us as often as we take these elements. God wanted his people to remember, and the language Jesus uses for his disciples mirrors that same call. Yes, I agree Jesus is present, but that doesn't support transubstantiation. Jesus' presence with us is based on his Spirit and his unity with his people. Its not based on a mystical transformation of bread into flesh, etc. Remember the covenant. Remember what God has done. Remember how he has freed you. Remember what makes you separate from the nations of the world. That is what these elements are about, IMO.

 

[Wormwood]

You and @Wormwood said you practice the reception of communion. Why do you practice it?

Personally, I practice it because the early Christians did and Jesus said we should do it to remember him. I do it every week because that is what the early Christians did as well. Communion is near and dear to my heart and is filled with meaning and significance. It reminds me of the sacrifice. It reminds me of the New Covenant that cleanses me. It reminds me that I am part of one body with lots of other people from different races, backgrounds, etc that share this faith and hope with me. It reminds me that I need Jesus every day to sustain me, because man does not live on bread alone. It reminds me that Jesus is coming again and we anticipate that feast with him in the Kingdom of God.

I could go on and on for pages, but you get the point. Like prayer, reading the Bible, praise, etc....these things are significant reminders and ways in which we draw near to God and renew our faith and hope regularly.

 

[Marymog]

Mary, you are completely ignoring the "New Testament" written in blood.
Who wrote it, and the Old?

1 Corinthians 11:25
[25] After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it , in remembrance of me.

1 Timothy 2:6
[6] Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Hebrews 9:16-18
[16] For where a testament is , there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. [17] For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. [18] Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

Hi,

Thank you for your input. I fail to understand how your aforementioned verses from scripture shows that communion is a symbol?

If we continue reading 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 we see that if we eat/drink unworthily we shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord and he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself. How can we eat/drink a symbol unworthily and it bring damnation upon us if it is just a symbol?

BTW....MOST translations and the most ACCURATE translation is "covenant" not "testament".

1 Timothy 2:6 talks about praying and has nothing to do with the Last Supper narrative.

The "first testament (covenant)" spoken of in Hebrews 9:18 that you referenced was about Moses (Exodus 24:8). That passage has NOTHING to do with communion being a symbol.

I would love to continue this conversation with you however I think we should only reference scripture that has to do with communion.

IHS....Mary

 

[Marymog]

Personally, I practice it because the early Christians did and Jesus said we should do it to remember him. I do it every week because that is what the early Christians did as well. Communion is near and dear to my heart and is filled with meaning and significance. It reminds me of the sacrifice. It reminds me of the New Covenant that cleanses me. It reminds me that I am part of one body with lots of other people from different races, backgrounds, etc that share this faith and hope with me. It reminds me that I need Jesus every day to sustain me, because man does not live on bread alone. It reminds me that Jesus is coming again and we anticipate that feast with him in the Kingdom of God.

I could go on and on for pages, but you get the point. Like prayer, reading the Bible, praise, etc....these things are significant reminders and ways in which we draw near to God and renew our faith and hope regularly.

Thank you wormwood for your thoughtful input. I agree with you that we need Jesus to sustain us. That is why He said, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Further saying This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” Which means the bread we eat at communion, that came down from heaven, is NOT bread, it is Jesus. If it is just a symbol, it won't sustain us.

1 Cor. 10:16–17 says it is the communion of the blood and body of Christ. Do you believe what the early Christians believed?

The early Christians also called communion Holy. Do you believe what they believed?

Ignatius, a student of the Apostle John, said that the bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup is His blood. Is Ignatius wrong or are the people who believe it is a symbol wrong?

IHS....Mary

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Hi,

Thank you for your input. I fail to understand how your aforementioned verses from scripture shows that communion is a symbol?

If we continue reading 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 we see that if we eat/drink unworthily we shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord and he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself. How can we eat/drink a symbol unworthily and it bring damnation upon us if it is just a symbol?

BTW....MOST translations and the most ACCURATE translation is "covenant" not "testament".

1 Timothy 2:6 talks about praying and has nothing to do with the Last Supper narrative.

The "first testament (covenant)" spoken of in Hebrews 9:18 that you referenced was about Moses (Exodus 24:8). That passage has NOTHING to do with communion being a symbol.

I would love to continue this conversation with you however I think we should only reference scripture that has to do with communion.

IHS....Mary

Mary, I typed out a response yesterday then deleted it. I finally decided to respond today. My hesitation was because I don't think I can explain it any better than Amadeus has.

Covenant or Testament...it all speaks of Christ and points to John 3:16.

The scripture I gave also speaks of Christ, so I don't believe any scripture is irrelevant to a topic. One may hear or see something another doesn't.

Regarding:
1 Corinthians 11:28-31
[28] But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. [30] For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. [31] For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

Wafers or wine can not bring damanation on those that eat or drink of them. I am sorry but I don't believe so. That may make some angry, but for me it is the truth. What can bring damnation is the word of God when read apart from the Spirit. We are to examine ourselves in the light of the truth. We are to judge ourselves and if the Spirit is there. Otherwise, we eat of His body(OT/flesh) and drink of His blood(NT/Spirit), unworthy.

I don't expect you to agree, but that is how I see it until He shows me otherwise.

 

[Marymog]

Regarding:
1 Corinthians 11:28-31
[28] But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. [30] For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. [31] For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

Wafers or wine can not bring damanation on those that eat or drink of them. I am sorry but I don't believe so. That may make some angry, but for me it is the truth. What can bring damnation is the word of God when read apart from the Spirit. We are to examine ourselves in the light of the truth. We are to judge ourselves and if the Spirit is there. Otherwise, we eat of His body(OT/flesh) and drink of His blood(NT/Spirit), unworthy.

I don't expect you to agree, but that is how I see it until He shows me otherwise.

Thank you.

Paul says Wafers or wine CAN bring damanation on those that eat or drink of them in an unworthy manner. I agree with Paul.

The Christians who walked and talked with the apostles agreed with Paul and Jesus. So do I.

It has been believed for 2,000 years. To believe opposite is a 500 year belief.

I don't expect you to agree but that is how scripture sees it, Paul sees it and the Christians who walked with him see it.

Thank you for the lively discussion.

Mary

 

[epostle1]

kepha,
It was an accusation made to discredit them, as was the accusation that they were Atheists. Should we affirm that the early Christians really didn't believe Jesus was divine since the Romans wrongly misunderstood them as not believing in God because they wouldn't worship idols? My point is simply that using Gentile slander against the early Church is hardly proof of early Christian belief in transubstantiation.

The point is the pagan Romans MISTAKENLY BELIEVED the early Christians were cannibals, which is plenty of proof the early Christians believed in the Real Presence.

Can you show me the texts where Jesus says that the elements taken during Eucharist save a person?

Can you proof text where the Bible says everything must be proof text?
John 6:35,41,48,51 – Jesus says four times “I AM the bread from heaven.” It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.
John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?
How would you answer this question?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 – He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 – to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.

First, I think you confirmed my argument that the rationale behind transubstantiation is based in Aristotilian philosophy. Granted, that does not mean it is wrong. My point is simply that the concept is based in a philosophical perspective of how things are rather than a biblical perspective of what Jesus or the Apostles declared what is happening when we "remember" in this way

It has nothing to do with "biblical perspective". Aristotle was over 300 years before Christ. I'm not going to give a 50 page explanation of how the Church made use of his philosophy that explains accidents and substance.

Second, I think you are overstating your case. 1) If Jesus was literally meaning "this actually is my real body and blood you are about to eat and drink" then how does that apply to Eucharist today? How do you know Jesus wasnt just taking about "this" particular bread and blood Jesus himself was giving his disciples? How can you claim this statement is so literal and yet also claim he was speaking of Eucharist in general? It seems you want the elements Jesus is speaking of to be literally his body and blood, but the "this" to be non-literal speaking of any bread and wine dispensed at any Mass from ages since. It doesn't seem like a very solid hermeneutical approach to me. Its either all literal or all figurative.

The bottom line is you lack faith.

Third, the reason I think Jesus is being figurative is that he is OFTEN figurative (I'm not shouting, just emphasizing ) when he speaks of his body and blood. Clearly in John 6 he is not asking his listeners to come up and take a bite out of him so they can have life in them. Also, he speaks of "remembrance" when he talks about his body and blood. I would think he would talk more about participation and presence rather than remembrance if he was being literal. Finally, Paul goes on to say in 1 Cor. 11:
“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” (1 Corinthians 11:26, ESV)

The "concept" is not based on Aristotle, it's based on the words of Jesus.
Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 – Jesus says, this IS my body and blood, Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.
1 Cor. 11:26 – Paul teaches that as often as you eat the bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death. This means that celebrating the Eucharist is proclaiming the Gospel.

1 Cor. 10:21 – Paul’s usage of the phrase “table of the Lord” in celebrating the Eucharist is further evidence that the Eucharist is indeed a sacrifice. The Jews always understood the phrase “table of the Lord” to refer to an altar of sacrifice. See, for example, Lev. 24:6, Ezek. 41:22; 44:16 and Malachi 1:7,12, where the phrase “table of the Lord” in these verses always refers to an altar of sacrifice.

Heb. 13:10,15 – this earthly altar is used in the Mass to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice of praise to God through our eternal Priest, Jesus Christ.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 – the Greek phrase is “Touto estin to soma mou.” This phraseology means “this is actually” or “this is really” my body and blood.

Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 – the translation of Jesus’ words of consecration is “touto poieite tan eman anamnasin.” Jesus literally said The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.

In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.

Lev. 24:7 – the word “memorial” in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is “azkarah” which means to actually make present (see Lev. 2:2,9,16;5:12;6:5; Num.5:26 where “azkarah” refers to sacrifices that are currently offered and thus present in time). Jesus’ instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a “memorial offering” demonstrates that the offering of His body and blood is made present in time over and over again.

Num. 10:10 – in this verse, “remembrance” refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus’ command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.

Mal. 1:10-11 – Jesus’ command to his apostles to offer His memorial sacrifice of bread and wine which becomes His body and blood fulfills the prophecy that God would reject the Jewish sacrifices and receive a pure sacrifice offered in every place. This pure sacrifice of Christ is sacramentally re-presented from the rising of the sun to its setting in every place, as Malachi prophesied.

Heb. 9:23 – in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself.

In sum, communion is significant and powerful. Like the Israelites who celebrated Passover and the covenant God made with the Israelites every year, so we too celebrate our Passover and the New Covenant God has made with us as often as we take these elements. God wanted his people to remember, and the language Jesus uses for his disciples mirrors that same call. Yes, I agree Jesus is present, but that doesn't support transubstantiation. Jesus' presence with us is based on his Spirit and his unity with his people. Its not based on a mystical transformation of bread into flesh, etc. Remember the covenant. Remember what God has done. Remember how he has freed you. Remember what makes you separate from the nations of the world. That is what these elements are about, IMO.

You'r correct. It's not based on a mystical transformation.

THE EUCHARIST - Scripture Catholic