The myth of grace-only & easy-believism shattered forever

[BreadOfLife]

Well, in context of what Paul was talking about, that unworthy manner was how they were not eating or drinking at home, but coming to church to seek their fill there for their meals at communion.

1 Corinthians 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 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. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

So in context, that was the unworthy manner that Paul was talking about, and since he reaffirmed for what communion was for, to "do this in remembrance of Me", then yeah.. it is just a symbol, brother.

Wrong.

Paul's statement is about their approach toward the Eucharist when he says:
1 Corinthians 11:27-30
“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.”

This is NOT simply about behavior - but behavior toward the Body and Blood of Christ.
Otherwise - the judgement would NOT be so harsh.

Finally - show me where Christ said at the Last Supper:
"This is a "SYMBOL" of My body" and "This is a "SYMBOL" of my blood."

He didn't say that. He said:
"This IS my Body" and "This IS my blood."

What part of "This IS" do you find difficult to accept??

Hardly. I believe Jesus at His word how to receive the bread of life and that is by coming to & believing in Him. He was not talking about communion here at all but how to receive the bread of life; hence Him, by coming to and believing in Him. That is what He said plainly at the beginning of the topic of the bread of life and that is how He ended it with His disciples by noting how not every one will believe in Him as that one will betray Him namely Judas Iscariot.

But I know that it is on God to cause the increase to help you see the truth in His words in John 6:35 because if He was talking about communion, then for His promise to be true that we would never hunger nor thirst any more, then we would be taking communion only once. So obviously, He was not talking about communion.

Explain to me why the use of "Trogon" instead of "Phagon" in John's Gospel.
While you're at it - explain why Jesus said that His flesh was TRUE FOOD and His blood was TRUE DRINK . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

It wasn't a celibate priest that did that? Is it true that a married priest could not perform the Mass but only communion? If so, it does testify that a celibate priest had done that. If God really had done that, then why say that about a married priest that he can only perform communion?

BTW.. still comes off as an idol.

Not sure where you get your weird ideas but there are married or celibate priests.
In the Eastern Rites of the Church, married priests celebrate Mass and confect the Eucharist.

What are you talking about??

 

[BreadOfLife]

I didn't see what scripture you used.

But I will amply show you the opposite with scripture:

Exo 20:4, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Right there in the ten commandments; which everyone ought to know.

It is a shame that there is such biblical illiteracy in the Catholic Church.

Thank you for PARTIALLY posting the verses.
Here is the ENTIRE commandment - in context:
Exod. 20:3-6
“You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments."

If the Commandment was against simply MAKING images - then God and Moses would have been guilty of violating this Commandment when God told Moses to create 2 Golden Cherubim for the Ark and a Bronze Serpent.

Ummmmm, talk about "Biblical illiteracy" . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

There was no such thing as a Eucharist used back then.....
19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

They were reprimanded for not sharing their memorial "potluck" with the poor.

And this is the most asinine interpretation of all . . .

Paul told them:
1 Corinthians 11:27-30
“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.”

So, for not "sharing their potluck" - they were eating and drinking damnation on themselves??
That's a damnable offense for a Christian?? Eating a potluck dinner??

Give it a rest, already . . .

 

[Truther]

And this is the most asinine interpretation of all . . .

Paul told them:
1 Corinthians 11:27-30
“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.”

So, for not "sharing their potluck" - they were eating and drinking damnation on themselves??
That's a damnable offense for a Christian?? Eating a potluck dinner??

Give it a rest, already . . .

Fact is, the entire passage is about food not a wafer. In verse 33 it speaks of eating, not nibbling.

The RCC turned a 1st century known feast per 1 Cor 11 into a wine tasting and crumb nibbling ritual.

Goofy as a grape

 

[Enow]

Wrong.

Paul's statement is about their approach toward the Eucharist when he says:
1 Corinthians 11:27-30
“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.”

This is NOT simply about behavior - but behavior toward the Body and Blood of Christ.
Otherwise - the judgement would NOT be so harsh.

If you want to skip over the preceding verses for what offense Paul was really talking about, then that will be to your error.

Finally - show me where Christ said at the Last Supper:
"This is a "SYMBOL" of My body" and "This is a "SYMBOL" of my blood."

He didn't say that. He said:
"This IS my Body" and "This IS my blood."

What part of "This IS" do you find difficult to accept??

Because He said it to "do this in remembrance of Me" for why it is symbolic. It is a Catholic saying that if anyone says to do that only in remembrance of Him, it is anathema. And yet that is what Jesus said for you to take that as symbolic and not literal in remembrance of Him.

Explain

to me why the use of "Trogon" instead of "Phagon" in John's Gospel.
While you're at it - explain why Jesus said that His flesh was TRUE FOOD and His blood was TRUE DRINK . . .

You probably have a Bible version that is derived from Alexandrian manuscripts that has been subjected to poetic licensing.

This site shares the Greek along with the verses in English.

HTML Bible Index - King James Version - Strongs Concordance - Frames Version

In John 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

If you click on each word in Greek, you get a variety of definitions for how they interpret that verse. I did notice the Greek word alethos for adverb for truly which I do not see in that verse bit the message is there by the use of the word "indeed".

However, since many of these definitions can apply the flesh and blood as figuratively and not just literally, I doubt you & I can settle this dispute just by singling out that verse.

What I will say is that the Jews have been ignoring Jesus when He did answer them on how to receive this bread of life which is to come to & believe in Him and He keeps pointing out how they were not receiving this bread of life because of them not believing in Him.

So I believe we will continue to be at an impasse because you are not reading the whole subject in context for why you keep seeing only the Catholic interpretation of that verse but not the verse in context.

Did the Jews ask Jesus to give them that bread of life which comes down from Heaven? Yes. So why didn't He simply break bread and pass around the cup of wine then? Because He was not talking about communion but how to be saved by believing in Him.

So you are stuck in that same mentality as those Jews were in thinking this bread of life is something to consume like manna in order to have eternal life.

 

[Truther]

Should always read the verses in context, brother, to know what Paul is talking about as opposing how you are applying that verse out of context to mean.

Contextually, it is about food, not crumbs, correct?

 

[Truther]

Not when it is transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ by GOD Himself.

Jesus is a wafer and wine?

Who makes Jesus for mass?

Wonder bread and Joseph Gallo?

 

[Enow]

Not sure where you get your weird ideas but there are married or celibate priests.
In the Eastern Rites of the Church, married priests celebrate Mass and confect the Eucharist.

What are you talking about??

StackPath

>>> "Francis has said he will write a document based on the outcome of the October 2019 synod of bishops on the Amazon. A majority of bishops at the meeting called for the ordination of married men to address the priest shortage in the Amazon, where the faithful can go months without having a Mass.

Francis has expressed sympathy with the Amazonian plight, though it is not clear how he will come down on the issue. While he has long reaffirmed the gift of a celibate priesthood in the Latin rite church, he has stressed that celibacy is a tradition, not doctrine, and therefore can change.

Speaking to reporters last January en route home from Panama, he noted that theologians had debated pastoral reasons to allow for an exception in a particular place. But he said his decision at that time was to say “no.” "<<<

So they were not able to get an ordination of married men to perform the Mass for the "faithful" in Amazon. This is not where I had picked up this Catholic saying. It was stated plainly somewhere else but right now, I cannot find it. Seems like that article report of keeping that silent about that "doctrine" / tradition might be why I am having trouble finding on the internet now.

Anyway, from what I had picked up, only a celibate priest can only perform the Mass as if that enables them to confect the bread into an Eucharist.

Which still comes off as saying they have power to make the bread into becoming the Eucharist. So it is kind of hard to see God's hand in it when credit is given to the priest for being celibate originally and apparently still believed as such but kept in silence now?

 

[Enow]

Contextually, it is about food, not crumbs, correct?

Well, if we really want to get into it... don't they always start it off by breaking the bread and passing it around? Do they not drink from the cup and pass that around? Kind of hard to get a feats out of that without robbing someone of taking a piece of the bread and a sip of that cup, right?

So as the congregation got bigger, they had to find a way to make sure everyone gets a share when holding communion in remembrance of Him.

So can't be a feast when communion was held after the Passover feast. That might be why you think the two are the same thing, but it is not.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Fact is, the entire passage is about food not a wafer. In verse 33 it speaks of eating, not nibbling.

The RCC turned a 1st century known feast per 1 Cor 11 into a wine tasting and crumb nibbling ritual.

Goofy as a grape

And that's exactly what I would expect a Biblical illiterate like yourself to say.

Tell me - which part of “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" do you NOT understand?

 

[Enow]

And that's exactly what I would expect a Biblical illiterate like yourself to say.

Tell me - which part of “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" do you NOT understand?

Why can't you take that in context? Read about the unworthy manner below for why Paul was chastening them for because he mentioned it.

1 Corinthians 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

That was the unworthy manner Paul was speaking about. Then he had to remind them what communion was for.

1 Corinthians 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 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. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Then he pointed out the consequence for continuing in that unworthy manner they were doing before.

1 Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 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.

 

[BreadOfLife]

If you want to skip over the preceding verses for what offense Paul was really talking about, then that will be to your error.

You need to read ALL of it - NOT just that one part.
That's why you're confused . . .

Because He said it to "do this in remembrance of Me" for why it is symbolic. It is a Catholic saying that if anyone says to do that only in remembrance of Him, it is anathema. And yet that is what Jesus said for you to take that as symbolic and not literal in remembrance of Him.

That's a poor understanding of a "remembrance."
What would you automatically assume that a remembrance is always a mere "symbol".

When my daughter was in school - her class created a memorial to "remember" the 911 victims.
They actually CREATED something - it wasn't merely "symbolic".

Last year, some local kids were selling flowers in "remembrance" of our fallen soldiers on Memorial day.
Another case of an ACTION that is not simply a "symbol".

You have a warped sense of "remembrance" . . .

You probably have a Bible version that is derived from Alexandrian manuscripts that has been subjected to poetic licensing.

This site shares the Greek along with the verses in English.

HTML Bible Index - King James Version - Strongs Concordance - Frames Version

In John 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

If you click on each word in Greek, you get a variety of definitions for how they interpret that verse. I did notice the Greek word alethos for adverb for truly which I do not see in that verse bit the message is there by the use of the word "indeed".

However, since many of these definitions can apply the flesh and blood as figuratively and not just literally, I doubt you & I can settle this dispute just by singling out that verse.

What I will say is that the Jews have been ignoring Jesus when He did answer them on how to receive this bread of life which is to come to & believe in Him and He keeps pointing out how they were not receiving this bread of life because of them not believing in Him.

So I believe we will continue to be at an impasse because you are not reading the whole subject in context for why you keep seeing only the Catholic interpretation of that verse but not the verse in context.

Did the Jews ask Jesus to give them that bread of life which comes down from Heaven? Yes. So why didn't He simply break bread and pass around the cup of wine then? Because He was not talking about communion but how to be saved by believing in Him.

So you are stuck in that same mentality as those Jews were in thinking this bread of life is something to consume like manna in order to have eternal life.

You could just as easily ask, "Why didn't Jesus just drop dead right there and atone for the sins of the world?
Tha answer to BOTH questions is: The time had NOT yet come.

Besides - verse 66 says explicitly that "... MANY of His disciples left him that day and returned to their former way of life" - because they could not handle what He was telling them. Did He explain to them that it was all just "symbolic"?? NO.
He turned to the Twelve and said, "Do you ALSO want to leave?"

Jesus always explained to His inner circle when something was symbolic and they didn't understand. NOT in this case, however.
WHY is that??

 

[BreadOfLife]

Why can't you take that in context? Read about the unworthy manner below for why Paul was chastening them for because he mentioned it.

1 Corinthians 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

That was the unworthy manner Paul was speaking about. Then he had to remind them what communion was for.

1 Corinthians 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 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. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Then he pointed out the consequence for continuing in that unworthy manner they were doing before.

1 Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 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.

Being drunk or withholding fro the poor when you have enough to share - those are SINS.
You are NOT to receive the Body and Blood of Christ if you are in a state of grave sin. THIS is why Paul told them that they were eating and drinking DAMNATION on themselves and had to answer to the Body anfd Blood of Christ.

If you don't believe me about the Eucharist - listen to one of your own. The Evangelical Pastor, Francis Chan has now come to the realization that the Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ:

 

[BreadOfLife]

StackPath

>>> "Francis has said he will write a document based on the outcome of the October 2019 synod of bishops on the Amazon. A majority of bishops at the meeting called for the ordination of married men to address the priest shortage in the Amazon, where the faithful can go months without having a Mass.

Francis has expressed sympathy with the Amazonian plight, though it is not clear how he will come down on the issue. While he has long reaffirmed the gift of a celibate priesthood in the Latin rite church, he has stressed that celibacy is a tradition, not doctrine, and therefore can change.

Speaking to reporters last January en route home from Panama, he noted that theologians had debated pastoral reasons to allow for an exception in a particular place. But he said his decision at that time was to say “no.” "<<<

So they were not able to get an ordination of married men to perform the Mass for the "faithful" in Amazon. This is not where I had picked up this Catholic saying. It was stated plainly somewhere else but right now, I cannot find it. Seems like that article report of keeping that silent about that "doctrine" / tradition might be why I am having trouble finding on the internet now.

Anyway, from what I had picked up, only a celibate priest can only perform the Mass as if that enables them to confect the bread into an Eucharist.

Which still comes off as saying they have power to make the bread into becoming the Eucharist. So it is kind of hard to see God's hand in it when credit is given to the priest for being celibate originally and apparently still believed as such but kept in silence now?

It is the HOLY SPIRIT who transubstantiates the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.
The Priest is the instrument - but he does NOT do this on his own.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus is a wafer and wine?
Who makes Jesus for mass?
Wonder bread and Joseph Gallo?

No - who said he was, Einstein?

Do you really have children??
YIKES!!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Contextually, it is about food, not crumbs, correct?

I'm surprised you could spell "contextually" - let alone, understand what it means . . .

 

[Enow]

You need to read ALL of it - NOT just that one part.
That's why you're confused . . .

That's a poor understanding of a "remembrance."
What would you automatically assume that a remembrance is always a mere "symbol".

When my daughter was in school - her class created a memorial to "remember" the 911 victims.
They actually CREATED something - it wasn't merely "symbolic".

Last year, some local kids were selling flowers in "remembrance" of our fallen soldiers on Memorial day.
Another case of an ACTION that is not simply a "symbol".

You have a warped sense of "remembrance" . . .

You could just as easily ask, "Why didn't Jesus just drop dead right there and atone for the sins of the world?
Tha answer to BOTH questions is: The time had NOT yet come.

Besides - verse 66 says explicitly that "... MANY of His disciples left him that day and returned to their former way of life" - because they could not handle what He was telling them. Did He explain to them that it was all just "symbolic"?? NO.
He turned to the Twelve and said, "Do you ALSO want to leave?"

Jesus always explained to His inner circle when something was symbolic and they didn't understand. NOT in this case, however.
WHY is that??

Then explain why He never held communion when the Jews had asked for it at the first and finally towards the end for the remaining disciples? How hard is that? But He wasn't talking about communion, so there.

 

[Enow]

It is the HOLY SPIRIT who transubstantiates the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.
The Priest is the instrument - but he does NOT do this on his own.

If God does it, then it should not matter if the priest is married or not, right?

But I put this question to you; if the Mass is making the one time sacrifice for sins present again to be received again, does that not make the blood of the Covenant on par with the blood of goats and bulls that it bears repeating to receive again as if the first Mass was not good enough?

That is why I believe Hebrews 10 th chapter is rebuking everything the Mass stands for.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Then explain why He never held communion when the Jews had asked for it at the first and finally towards the end for the remaining disciples? How hard is that? But He wasn't talking about communion, so there.

The time hadn't come yet.

As I stated before - I could just as easily ask YOU to explain why He didn't drop dead and atone for the sins of the world at some earlier point.
SAME answer: Because the time had NOT yet come.