If the body and blood are symbolic respond to this
-
-
New Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 04/22/2012
1 Corinthians 11:27
"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."
''Although Protestant churches teach that the Eucharist is just a symbol of Christ's body and blood, Paul in this verse sets forth the Catholic teaching that Christ is really, truly, and substantially present in the Eucharist. Paul confirms what Jesus taught in John's Gospel, chapter 6. If we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of the unthinkable crime of profaning Christ's body and blood (literally, murdering Christ). This very solemn and powerful teaching drives home the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and leaves little, if any, room for doubt about the Real Presence.''
''An illustration of the application of this verse may be helpful. Some time ago, I was debating a Protestant gentleman at work about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I explained to him that in all three synoptic Gospel accounts of the Last Supper, as well as in Saint Paul's teaching which he received directly from Christ, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and said, "This is my body." In the same manner, he took wine, gave thanks, and said, "This is my blood." Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; and 1 Corinthians 11:21-25. I emphasized that Jesus did not say "This represents my body and blood," or "This is a symbol of my body and blood" (even though there were many verbs in Aramaic for “represent”). I further explained to him that God does not, and cannot, declare something to be without making it so, and challenged him to find a Scripture verse to prove me wrong. He could not.''
''Instead, the Protestant took down a picture of his wife which he had pinned up in his cubicle, gave me the picture, and said, "This is my wife." Then he asked me, "But it is not really her, is it?" He thought he had me cold.''
''I first congratulated him on having such a beautiful spouse. I then pretended to rip up the picture and, after it fell to the ground, pretended to stomp all over it. I made a bit of a scene. He looked at me with an expression of surprise and confusion. I then asked him, "Am I now guilty of profaning your wife's body and blood?"''
''After quite a pause, he responded, "No." I asked him, "Why not?" His mind was obviously reeling, but I don't think he knew where I was going. I jumped in to help him by saying, "I'll tell you why, and it's the point you just made. Because the picture of your wife is just a symbol of her, and not actually her." At this point, he agreed, but was still confused. I then added, "Being guilty of profaning your wife's body and blood by ripping up a picture of her would be an absolute outrage, because you can't profane a symbol, right?" He agreed.''
''I then drove my point home by leaning in close to him and slowly asking, "Then why does Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:27 declare us to be guilty of profaning Christ's body and blood if we receive the Eucharist unworthily? That would be an absolutely unjust penalty if the Eucharist were just a symbol, wouldn't it?" After another long pause it was obvious that my Protestant brother was at a loss for words. All he could do was ask me to give back to him his wife's picture and promised me he would read the verse in its proper context and get back to me. He never did.''
-
-
- -1209reputation
- 6721 Posts
Member since 03/06/2010
Location: United Kingdom
quote:
Originally posted by Kingofkings
1 Corinthians 11:27
"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."
''Although Protestant churches teach that the Eucharist is just a symbol of Christ's body and blood, Paul in this verse sets forth the Catholic teaching that Christ is really, truly, and substantially present in the Eucharist. Paul confirms what Jesus taught in John's Gospel, chapter 6. If we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of the unthinkable crime of profaning Christ's body and blood (literally, murdering Christ). This very solemn and powerful teaching drives home the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and leaves little, if any, room for doubt about the Real Presence.''
''An illustration of the application of this verse may be helpful. Some time ago, I was debating a Protestant gentleman at work about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I explained to him that in all three synoptic Gospel accounts of the Last Supper, as well as in Saint Paul's teaching which he received directly from Christ, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and said, "This is my body." In the same manner, he took wine, gave thanks, and said, "This is my blood." Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; and 1 Corinthians 11:21-25. I emphasized that Jesus did not say "This represents my body and blood," or "This is a symbol of my body and blood" (even though there were many verbs in Aramaic for “represent”). I further explained to him that God does not, and cannot, declare something to be without making it so, and challenged him to find a Scripture verse to prove me wrong. He could not.''
''Instead, the Protestant took down a picture of his wife which he had pinned up in his cubicle, gave me the picture, and said, "This is my wife." Then he asked me, "But it is not really her, is it?" He thought he had me cold.''
''I first congratulated him on having such a beautiful spouse. I then pretended to rip up the picture and, after it fell to the ground, pretended to stomp all over it. I made a bit of a scene. He looked at me with an expression of surprise and confusion. I then asked him, "Am I now guilty of profaning your wife's body and blood?"''
''After quite a pause, he responded, "No." I asked him, "Why not?" His mind was obviously reeling, but I don't think he knew where I was going. I jumped in to help him by saying, "I'll tell you why, and it's the point you just made. Because the picture of your wife is just a symbol of her, and not actually her." At this point, he agreed, but was still confused. I then added, "Being guilty of profaning your wife's body and blood by ripping up a picture of her would be an absolute outrage, because you can't profane a symbol, right?" He agreed.''
''I then drove my point home by leaning in close to him and slowly asking, "Then why does Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:27 declare us to be guilty of profaning Christ's body and blood if we receive the Eucharist unworthily? That would be an absolutely unjust penalty if the Eucharist were just a symbol, wouldn't it?" After another long pause it was obvious that my Protestant brother was at a loss for words. All he could do was ask me to give back to him his wife's picture and promised me he would read the verse in its proper context and get back to me. He never did.''
[1]catholics do eat and drink unworthily,
Just before they partake, They say,
"Lord, I'm not worthy"
What is that if it isn't eating and drinking in an unworthy mannor??.
What catholic are saying is, They don't believe that Jesus's died to make them worthy, So their not discerning the Lord's body.
So they are eating and drinking damnation to themselves.
[2]When Jesus took the dread and said, "This is My body", It wasn't His physical body..WAS IT???. NO..NO.. It was the bread that they eat, Not Jesus.
And Paul is only quoting waht Jesus said.
So the Bible proves the communion bread and wine doesn't become Jesus's actual flesh and blood.
THAT IS JUST A CATHOLIC LIE.
As for,
''Instead, the Protestant took down a picture of his wife which he had pinned up in his cubicle, gave me the picture, and said, "This is my wife." Then he asked me, "But it is not really her, is it?" He thought he had me cold.''
The man was right, But You and the catholics are to dumb to see it.
The communion bread isn't really the body of Jesus, And that mans ilistration was a perfect example.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 06/26/2002
good points kingofkings.. looks like you got g4 all in a tizzy.. what is interesting is how he not only takes the bible out of context but is now taking what catholics say at mass out of context. if there is one thing i've learned is that a person who cannot deal with the straight truth is either an idiot or a liar. g4 has shown both qualities. he's not very bright and he intentionaly bears false witness. if that is what he means by being a christian? well i'm not buyin.
-
-
- -1209reputation
- 6721 Posts
Member since 03/06/2010
Location: United Kingdom
quote:
Originally posted by mikejuli
good points kingofkings.. looks like you got g4 all in a tizzy.. what is interesting is how he not only takes the bible out of context but is now taking what catholics say at mass out of context. if there is one thing i've learned is that a person who cannot deal with the straight truth is either an idiot or a liar. g4 has shown both qualities. he's not very bright and he intentionaly bears false witness. if that is what he means by being a christian? well i'm not buyin.
There you go again, TELLING LIES.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/25/2012
Location: USA
G4Me,
It's unfortuneate how the Reformation has removed Christ from His Church.
Christ created a worldwide Church. Theologically speaking, why would He remain physically absent from it?
Particularly when we know from Sacred Scripture that the Holy Spirit was in the Tabernacle in the desert and in the Holy of Holies.
The Old Testament prefigures the New Testament and the New Testament fulfills the Old.
Is Christ's fulfillment of Sacred Scripture a lie?
Edited by bwellmysoul on 04/24/2012 08:26:50
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
When I speak of Catholic statues or icons or stain glassed windows, I use photographs of loved ones as an example.
I was able to prove to the satisfaction of some missionaries at my door that we did not worship statues as they originally thought, and came to an understand of what was really going on.
But I have never seen the eucharist compared to a photograph before. A photo actually looks like the person, usually. It brings us to remembrance of the person, even after they have passed away. But we don't eat a photograph.
The Eucharist does more than merely represent Christ. He said that the bread HE would give to us was the FLESH that He would give for the world. His gave His Flesh and Blood on the Cross for the sins of the world. It does not get plainer than that. (Although, Jesus did get more graphic than that.)
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
"There are some in the Church, who not only do not do what is good, but even persecute it, and hate in others what they neglect to do themselves. The sin of these men is not that of infirmity or ignorance, but deliberate willful sin." — Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604)
-
-
New Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 04/22/2012
''[1]catholics do eat and drink unworthily,
Just before they partake, They say,
"Lord, I'm not worthy"
What is that if it isn't eating and drinking in an unworthy mannor??''.
''What catholic are saying is, They don't believe that Jesus's died to make them worthy, So their not discerning the Lord's body.
So they are eating and drinking damnation to themselves.''
''[2]When Jesus took the dread and said, "This is My body", It wasn't His physical body..WAS IT???. NO..NO.. It was the bread that they eat, Not Jesus.
And Paul is only quoting waht Jesus said.
So the Bible proves the communion bread and wine doesn't become Jesus's actual flesh and blood.''
lol there you go again twisting the bible to mean what you want.
Number 1: He is talking about taking the body and blood in a unworthy MANNER.We are all unworthy of the body and blood of Christ. He was talking about the WAY we receive being in a unworthy manner.
Number 2. Jesus is god he can do whatever he want's. He can be everything and anything all at the same time if he want's that includes bread.
When Jesus told his disciples they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood they all left him. Ask yourself why didn't Jesus go after them and tell them NO you have it all wrong i'm talking symbolic not literal. Why couldn't they accept this because they had it right and Jesus let them go because they had it right. Jesus also asks them ''DOES THIS OFFEND YOU?'' Why would Jesus ask them this? Because some of them were offended by what he said. You have to eat my flesh and drink my blood. Everyone there knew what he was talking about. Can you be offended by symbolically eating his flesh and blood? Nope. So why does Jesus ask them ''DOES THIS OFFEND YOU.''Instead of explain to them it's not literal? (Tip: Because he wasn't talking about his body and flesh symbolically that's why.)
-
-
Contact:
Member since 03/26/2010
quote:
Originally posted by mikejuli
good points kingofkings.. looks like you got g4 all in a tizzy.. what is interesting is how he not only takes the bible out of context but is now taking what catholics say at mass out of context. if there is one thing i've learned is that a person who cannot deal with the straight truth is either an idiot or a liar. g4 has shown both qualities. he's not very bright and he intentionaly bears false witness. if that is what he means by being a christian? well i'm not buyin.
Mikejuli,why are you saying this stuff you never answered me on why the priest says before communion "Lord if it be possible let this sacrifice be acceptable unto thee! I could never see what was meant by this one can you?? B3
baby3
-
-
Contact:
Member since 03/26/2010
quote:
Originally posted by bwellmysoul
G4Me,
It's unfortuneate how the Reformation has removed Christ from His Church.
Christ created a worldwide Church. Theologically speaking, why would He remain physically absent from it?
Particularly when we know from Sacred Scripture that the Holy Spirit was in the Tabernacle in the desert and in the Holy of Holies.
The Old Testament prefigures the New Testament and the New Testament fulfills the Old.
Is Christ's fulfillment of Sacred Scripture a lie?
IOf the Catholic church was so very great and without sin why would all of England disown her? Why the King and Queen? They didn't want to b e under the authority of the Pope either.These are very Christian.B3
baby3
-
-
Contact:
Member since 03/26/2010
quote:
Originally posted by bwellmysoul
G4Me,
It's unfortuneate how the Reformation has removed Christ from His Church.
Christ created a worldwide Church. Theologically speaking, why would He remain physically absent from it?
Particularly when we know from Sacred Scripture that the Holy Spirit was in the Tabernacle in the desert and in the Holy of Holies.
The Old Testament prefigures the New Testament and the New Testament fulfills the Old.
Is Christ's fulfillment of Sacred Scripture a lie?
 Jesus did say"This do in remembrance of me" That's why they are under the impression of this symbolic Don't forget there are allot of things that Catholics and Protestants can't even get together on and prove with the bible it can be very confusing if you are reading it different but they still say prayers before the communion in the protestant churches for God to forgive any sins they may have overlooked and then they partake.They know it isn't right to take unworthy.B3
baby3
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
quote:
Originally posted by baby3
quote:
Originally posted by bwellmysoul
G4Me,
It's unfortuneate how the Reformation has removed Christ from His Church.
Christ created a worldwide Church. Theologically speaking, why would He remain physically absent from it?
Particularly when we know from Sacred Scripture that the Holy Spirit was in the Tabernacle in the desert and in the Holy of Holies.
The Old Testament prefigures the New Testament and the New Testament fulfills the Old.
Is Christ's fulfillment of Sacred Scripture a lie?
IOf the Catholic church was so very great and without sin why would all of England disown her? Why the King and Queen? They didn't want to b e under the authority of the Pope either.These are very Christian.B3
Because the King of England wanted to trade his wife in for a hot younger version and the Pope said NO.
Then the King killed everyone who refused to accept himself as the NEW Head of the Church in Engliand.
That's why.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
"There are some in the Church, who not only do not do what is good, but even persecute it, and hate in others what they neglect to do themselves. The sin of these men is not that of infirmity or ignorance, but deliberate willful sin." — Pope St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604)
-
-
New Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 04/22/2012
The whole point of this thread is. Can you take symbolic bread and wine in a unworthy manner? Then if you do. Be guilty of profaning Christs actual body and blood. How is this possible if he isn't present?
This whole denial of Christs actual presence in the Eucharist is stupid. How is bread and wine even symbolic of Jesus? Jesus didn't say hey guys don't forget me when you eat your crackers and grape juice. Why would he even ordain such a thing. How do crackers and grape juice represent Jesus in anyway.
Forgot this little part. " 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 judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.".
WOW! That's some deadly "symbolic" bread and wine. Silly silly silly how can ordinary bread and wine cause you to physically DIE..... And please don't say it's really out of date lol. He isn't talking about that.
-
-
New Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 04/22/2012
''Jesus did say"This do in remembrance of me" That's why they are under the impression of this symbolic''
Baby3 I know it looks confusing and it's even worse if your brainwashed. There is a big big difference to what they are implying '' do this in remembrance of me'' actually means.
Protestants say he is telling them to remember him by breaking bread and drinking wine. That is a lie set out to confuse people because of what it looks like he said. I'll explain.
Jesus said ''do this (do what? breaking of bread the Eucharist)
IN remembrance of him(A state of mind of remembering) .'' he is saying take the Eucharist IN remembrance. (state of mind of remembering) You take the Eucharist well already IN a state of remembrance of Jesus.
Not the other way around. He never said take the Eucharist TO remember me by. That's what protestants want you to think. You don't break bread to remember Jesus.
You break bread well already IN remembrance of Jesus. That's how Jesus wanted it. Example I start recalling Jesus at the supper and his passion. Well i'm in this state of mind I take the Eucharist. I don't take the Eucharist to reach that state of mind.
''Do this(Eucharist) IN remembrance of me (state of mind of recalling Jesus)'' You take the Eucharist IN a state of remembrance. It's not the other way around. Where you take the Eucharist TOremember
''Do this INremembrance of me.'' I don't know if I got the point across kinda hard to explain sorry.
-
-
Contact:
Member since 03/26/2010
You are right it can be confusing but I think i got the jest of it. While I am remembering Jesus I take the bread,and the cup. If the cup is this important the wine part why do Catholics not do it in the winter time even though they are afraid of catching a cold? How important is the cup to the cold? The outside of the cup is not important it is what is inside right? So why are they stopped in the winter because of a cold when in the spring I could catch Hep B from drinking from the same cup from an infected person or some other dirty thing?
baby3
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 10/13/2007
Location: USA
The Eucharist has so many depths... it's neither merely physical nor eternal. It is both.
The body and blood of Christ can not be separated. I have noticed that if someone is sick or afraid of becoming sick (or inheriting germs), they will receive the bread only and not the blood. This is fine.
"Be good, keep your feet dry, your eyes open, your heart at peace and your soul in the joy of Christ." - Thomas Merton
www.percalamus.com
-
-
Contact:
Member since 03/26/2010
|
|
Subscribe by Email
RSS