Passover vs Eucharist

[Eternally Grateful]

Of course it was and is a symbol. Now if you mean to say only that Christ is present in the Eucharist I won't argue. But we probably mean different things by that. His presence doesn't require the wine to be actual blood or the bread actual flesh.

Yeah, but does that give us everything presented in John 6?

 

[Renniks]

Yeah, but does that give us everything presented in John 6?

I don't think John 6 has anything to do with the Eucharist per say... He's contrasting physical bread with the spiritual bread of partaking of Christ, which is first and foremost salvation. It's also abiding in Christ which certainly includes
Koinonía, that is communion, with him and fellow believers, but it's not only the sacrament.
The full meaning of eucharistic koinonia in the early Catholic Church was, as St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "the Eucharist is the sacrament of the unity of the Church, which results from the fact that many are one in Christ."

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I don't think John 6 has anything to do with the Eucharist per say... He's contrasting physical bread with the spiritual bread of partaking of Christ, which is first and foremost salvation. It's also abiding in Christ which certainly includes
Koinonía, that is communion, with him and fellow believers, but it's not only the sacrament.
The full meaning of eucharistic koinonia in the early Catholic Church was, as St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "the Eucharist is the sacrament of the unity of the Church, which results from the fact that many are one in Christ."

I agree. They are two different things

John 6 is speaking of the food we all should be seeking in order to receive eternal life, The last supper is Jesus taking the rite of Passover and changing it to fit the christian church, Instead of remembering the passover, we remember what it is that gave us eternal life.

Its like one is done in order to receive

the other is done to remember why you received it

 

[Marymog]

Of course it was and is a symbol. Now if you mean to say only that Christ is present in the Eucharist I won't argue. But we probably mean different things by that. His presence doesn't require the wine to be actual blood or the bread actual flesh.

Ummm.....Scripture never said it is a symbol. Paul didn’t teach it as a symbol. The earliest Christian writers never said they took it as a symbol. The symbol teaching was started about 500 years ago.

I completely understand how you see it. Those of us that believe in the real presence take Him at his word when He said This IS my body/blood. I don’t think it is unreasonable to take Him at his word.

 

[Marymog]

I don't think John 6 has anything to do with the Eucharist per say... He's contrasting physical bread with the spiritual bread of partaking of Christ, which is first and foremost salvation. It's also abiding in Christ which certainly includes
Koinonía, that is communion, with him and fellow believers, but it's not only the sacrament.
The full meaning of eucharistic koinonia in the early Catholic Church was, as St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "the Eucharist is the sacrament of the unity of the Church, which results from the fact that many are one in Christ."

Thank you for bringing Aquinas into the conversation ST. THOMAS AQUINAS ON THE EUCHARIST - Crossroads Initiative

 

[Renniks]

Thank you for bringing Aquinas into the conversation ST. THOMAS AQUINAS ON THE EUCHARIST - Crossroads Initiative

Just to clarify, I don't believe that taking Communion is necessary for salvation. I believe it should be part of being the church.

 

[Philip James]

Do me a favor and pray to the Lord for patience.

Thank you. I made sure to do so before responding.

Now seriously…in 100 words or less explain to me how you have one book

Well, the short answer is that it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, that this particular canon of books was scripture, and thus they were collected into 'one' book.
There was of course a process and some debate, but im guessing you're familiar with that. It was the Church in Africa, Carthage I think, that first canonized the list of books we have in our 'one' book today.

and somewhere between 30,000 and 50,000 interpretations.

Well i think there can be good reasons for multiple interpretations of the text,

The thousands of conflicting interpretations ,i believe, are mainly caused by 2 things.

1. Misunderstandings of language and communication.

2. Pride

Then explain to me how that is a good thing.

All things work for the good of those who love God.
It may not be a good thing for those that don't

Bottom line, there is a lot of things about "you" that will determine "your" perspective and understanding of the scriptures.

That makes sense to me.

I think I exceeded your 100 word limit by a smidge... My apologies


Peace!

 

[Grailhunter]

Thank you. I made sure to do so before responding.





Well, the short answer is that it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, that this particular canon of books was scripture, and thus they were collected into 'one' book.
There was of course a process and some debate, but im guessing you're familiar with that. It was the Church in Africa, Carthage I think, that first canonized the list of books we have in our 'one' book today.



Well i think there can be good reasons for multiple interpretations of the text,

The thousands of conflicting interpretations ,i believe, are mainly caused by 2 things.

1. Misunderstandings of language and communication.

2. Pride



All things work for the good of those who love God.
It may not be a good thing for those that don't



That makes sense to me.

I think I exceeded your 100 word limit by a smidge... My apologies


Peace!

Ahh it is a little more than that. But nice of you.

 

[Renniks]

completely understand how you see it. Those of us that believe in the real presence take Him at his word when He said This IS my body/blood. I don’t think it is unreasonable to take Him at his word.

No, I doubt you do. Of course his real presence is there. Jesus also said he was the door, but I don't believe he meant he was made of wood and steel, do you? He's speaking in spiritual terms, not physical terms.
Spiritually we are partaking of Christ.

I loved the first paragraph quote of Thomas Aquinas, so thanks for sharing that.
It is spiritual food.

 

[Philip James]

Ahh it is a little more than that. But nice of you.

Of course! But you limited my response

Peace!

 

[Philip James]

Of course his real presence is there. Jesus also said he was the door, but I don't believe he meant he was made of wood and steel, do you?

Hello Renniks!

Jesus never held up a door and said 'this is me'...

You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace be with you!

 

[Grailhunter]

Of course! But you limited my response

Peace!

lol

 

[Renniks]

Hello Renniks!

Jesus never held up a door and said 'this is me'...

You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace be with you!

I already do come to the wedding feast.
Shalom to you as well.

 

[Marymog]

Just to clarify, I don't believe that taking Communion is necessary for salvation. I believe it should be part of being the church.

Ok....thank you. It should be noted that Aquinas, whom you didn’t fully quote in regard to this subject, disagrees with you. Also he was not part of the early Catholic Church since he lived in the 13th century. However he did agree with the ECF’s about the real presence in the Eucharist.

 

[Marymog]

No, I doubt you do. Of course his real presence is there. Jesus also said he was the door, but I don't believe he meant he was made of wood and steel, do you? He's speaking in spiritual terms, not physical terms.
Spiritually we are partaking of Christ.

I loved the first paragraph quote of Thomas Aquinas, so thanks for sharing that.
It is spiritual food.

Thank you. I don’t understand how you can say his real presence is in the Eucharist but then also say it’s a symbol. Confusing for sure.

I could go into how the door or vine or salt of the earth analogies are not the same but you have accepted the 500 year teaching of man instead of the 2000 year teaching of the church. Also it is funny you quote Aquinas but he believes opposite of what u believe

 

[Webers_Home]

.
● 1Cor 10:16-17 . . Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks
a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a
participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are
many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

The bread that the Lord broke on the night of his last supper represented his
crucified body; and whenever I partake of communion's broken bread, it
tells whoever is watching that not only did Jesus go to the cross for my sins;
but that I was with him.

● Rom 6:2-4 . . Don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ
Jesus were baptized into his death?

● Gal 2:20 . . I am crucified with Christ

Were there a communion service for his resurrection; I'd partake of that one
too; but the Lord didn't specify a communion service for that purpose; the
communion service for his death is all there is.

● 1Cor 11:23-24 . .The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took
bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my
body, which is for you."

The "my body" that the Lord spoke of wasn't his resurrected glorified body,
rather; his soon-to-be crucified body; i.e. his natural, mortal body.

● 1Cor 11:26. . . For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you
proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

FAQ: Why is it that the Catholics use processed wafers instead of eating
bread from a broken loaf like the Lord instructed?

A: John Q and Jane Doe pew-warmer don't take their orders directly from
Christ. His instructions are trickled down to them via the hierarchy, by whom
his instructions undergo quite a bit of editing and revision; with a measure
of sophistry and commentary thrown in. In other words: John Q and Jane
Doe are sold "fake news" so to speak.

FAQ: But couldn't they read the Bible?

A: John Q and Jane Doe may read the Holy Bible on their own; but must
interpret any doctrines they derive from Scripture in accordance with Rome
and with Tradition.

"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." (CCC 85)
_

 

[Renniks]

Also it is funny you quote Aquinas but he believes opposite of what u believe

Is it really the opposite? Or just a different perspective? Should we assume that we learned nothing new after a certain stage of church history?

 

[Marymog]

Is it really the opposite? Or just a different perspective? Should we assume that we learned nothing new after a certain stage of church history?

Hi Renniks,

YES, completely opposite!! No, not a different perspective!! The Church has learned many new things throughout the years but the truth doesn’t change. The truth has been rejected, but it hasn’t changed.

The truth is Jesus told us what we must do when he said we must eat his body. He then showed us how to do it when he said “This IS my body”. Paul calls reception of the Eucharist “a participation in the blood of Christ” and “a participation in the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 10:16–17). He warns his readers, “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. . . . For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself”

The truth is ALL of the Apostolic Fathers and ECF’s believed and practiced EXACTLY what Jesus and Paul taught.

The truth is The Church has been teaching this same truth for 2,000 years. It was about 500 years ago it became popular to reject the truth of the real presence.

The truth is The person YOU tried to use to support your theory, Thomas Aquinas, repeats the teachings of Jesus, Paul, Apostolic and Early Church Fathers and he taught completely opposite of what you believe. You should have picked someone else to quote.

The Blessed Eucharist is the perfect Sacrament of the Lord's Passion, since It contains Christ Himself and his Passion. Thomas Aquinas.

It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And therefore Christ’s flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which are the more commonly used by men, namely, bread and wine.” Thomas Aquinas

Respectfully......Mary

 

[Renniks]

Hi Renniks,

YES, completely opposite!! No, not a different perspective!! The Church has learned many new things throughout the years but the truth doesn’t change. The truth has been rejected, but it hasn’t changed.

The truth is Jesus told us what we must do when he said we must eat his body. He then showed us how to do it when he said “This IS my body”. Paul calls reception of the Eucharist “a participation in the blood of Christ” and “a participation in the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 10:16–17). He warns his readers, “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. . . . For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself”

The truth is ALL of the Apostolic Fathers and ECF’s believed and practiced EXACTLY what Jesus and Paul taught.

The truth is The Church has been teaching this same truth for 2,000 years. It was about 500 years ago it became popular to reject the truth of the real presence.

The truth is The person YOU tried to use to support your theory, Thomas Aquinas, repeats the teachings of Jesus, Paul, Apostolic and Early Church Fathers and he taught completely opposite of what you believe. You should have picked someone else to quote.

The Blessed Eucharist is the perfect Sacrament of the Lord's Passion, since It contains Christ Himself and his Passion. Thomas Aquinas.

It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And therefore Christ’s flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which are the more commonly used by men, namely, bread and wine.” Thomas Aquinas

Respectfully......Mary

Thomas says that it's bread and wine, not literally blood and flesh, just as I've been saying. I already said I believe Christ is present. I really don't know who you are arguing with. Do you believe that if someone has never taken Eucharist, he is condemned to hell? That isn't biblical. If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth you will be saved.

 

[Randy Kluth]

.
The passage below is deliberately misquoted.

"The supper shall be a sign for you, in the houses where you are; and when I
see you eating, I will pass over you, and no plague shall fall upon you to
destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt." (Ex 12:13)

No, that's not right. The angel of death didn't look inside their houses to see
whether people were eating the lamb from whence the blood came to mark
the door posts of their homes. The angel looked for only one thing, and one
thing only: the blood itself.

"The blood shall be a sign for you, upon the houses where you are; and
when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague shall fall upon you
to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt."

The lesson is that the meal had no power to protect the people from losing
their eldest sons that night. The eating in fact was, and is, strictly
commemorative.

"This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to
The Lord; throughout your generations you shall observe it as an ordinance
for ever." (Ex 12:14)

Another lesson is that the bloody part of the first passover's procedure had
no lasting value. No, it was for their sons' protection just that one night in
Egypt, and no other; which is the very reason I insist that the original
passover is obsolete because blood on door posts ceased protecting Israel's
eldest sons after that, viz: the original passover was time-sensitive, i.e. it
provided the Jews a narrow window of opportunity that if missed, didn't offer
a second. In other words; good intentions were to no avail. Had the blood
not been where and when required; it would've been just too bad.

Another lesson is that the Jews didn't include the lamb's blood in their meal
that night. Instead of eating the blood, they drained it from the animal and
used it to mark their door posts. That was in compliance with the post-Flood
law of God that prohibits using animal blood for food.

"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the
green plants, I give you everything. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life,
that is, its blood." (Gen 9:3-4)

FAQ: That passage probably shouldn't be appropriated to prove it's wrong
to eat human blood. It's clearly limited to animals. (cf. Lev 7:26-27)
_

You are apparently trying to distinguish and remove any connection between the Lord's Supper and the Passover? And I would agree in some ways, and maybe not in other ways. Sorry, I'm late getting to this thread, and haven't been party to any of the comments thus far.

The Lord's Supper clearly began on Passover. That establishes an OT connection, but not a NT connection. This took place under the Law, and therefore, bears no resemblance to NT practice.

However, the Lord's Supper was given by Jesus to be trans-dispensational. It was to be practiced also in the NT era, although obviously without any connection to observing the Law. Whatever Passover was meant to accomplish under the Law, it did not accomplish the same thing in the NT era.

Observing the Passover was not time-sensitive entirely. Yes, its original observance was in coming out of Egypt. But under the Law of Moses, it was to be practiced every year.

So what did Passover mean once Israel had escaped from Egypt? It became a reminder of how God saw the blood, along with their obedience in the feast, to give them sanction on the destruction of the 1st-born.

The obedience in the matter of the meal was as important as the blood, because it enabled God to look on the blood as a genuine act of obedience. Without the meal the blood was *not* an act of obedience. The meal was required along with the placement of blood on the doorposts. The obedience in having the meal enabled the placement of blood, which then God saw to give them sanction.

All this observance over the years reminded Israel that God sees blood as an atonement for sin, when proper obedience supplements this offering of blood. It informs Israel that their sin is responsible for suffering and death, incurring divine judgment and disbarment from the Kingdom of heaven. Offering blood is just a way of confessing this sin, to show a willingness to repent of it, and to be cleansed by God for eventual reunion with God in heaven.

That's what the Lord's Supper is, as well. It can no longer be called Passover, because it is now a NT practice. It is not done under the Law to obtain God's favor and redemption. Having been reconciled with God by the blood of Jesus we now enjoy the feast without the animal's blood. We now only have symbols of both the blood and the body of Jesus, showing our participation in him when we became Christians and as we continue to live for him.