Eucharist Not In The Bible

[Akalyte]

Sola Scriptura is not Biblical. Ah Dont ya just love irony.

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1081774' date='Oct 2 2006, 07:41 AM']
Really? It's not in there?!

[/quote]

Is cattiness required in this forum?

I am trying to ask legitimate questions here. Attempting to goof on me based on your own Protestant straw men is not winning the arguement.


[quote name='Akalyte' post='1081775' date='Oct 2 2006, 07:42 AM']
Sola Scriptura is not Biblical. Ah Dont ya just love irony.
[/quote]

Does that mean your traditions can be counter-scripture?

[homeschoolmom]

Sorry if we sound catty. We just get tired of the same arguments over and over and over...

btw, welcome to phatmass.

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1081770' date='Oct 2 2006, 07:37 AM']

Jesus Christ didn't say "remember me." He said, "do this (turn bread and wine into my true Body and Blood) in rememberence (literally, a "making present" or "re-presenting") of me."
[/quote]

How could he have turned the bread and wine into his body and blood when he was still alive?

The "do this" is breaking bread and remembering.

Jesus was fully human and fully divine at all moments since His conception. If he could call up the dead at the Transfiguration, He could cetainly offer Himself as a "living Sacrafice" to the Father.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1081794' date='Oct 2 2006, 08:00 AM']
How could he have turned the bread and wine into his body and blood when he was still alive?

The "do this" is breaking bread and remembering.
[/quote]
Sola,
I'm a pot-stirrer here, as an ex-catholic, but face the facts. In Scripture, Jesus is saying those exact words during the last supper. I can give you the chapter and verse number if you ask. But let's look at it scientifically.

We have the physics theory that matter and energy are neither created or destroyed. Matter can change into energy and vice-a-versa. As Christians, we believe God created the universe, time, matter, and energy. Makes sensce scientifically since God made the Big Bang fire-cracker and lit it. If God created the universe and has complete power over everthing, what's so hard for Him to change energy to matter and matter to energy in an instant. It only takes His will to do so.

If Jesus is also God, he has the same powers. Also makes sense of how God became man. God can cause His spiritual energy to become electrons and neutrons, etc., and become whatever he wants. Also solves the who virgin conception thing too. Jesus wills his spirit to become matter and look and behave like bread and wine. Jesus' words helps tie everything together symbolically and spiritually. Also note that Jesus was offering his Body and Blood even before the crucifixition, before Jesus was raised from the dead.

Everything seems possible and reasonable now, doesn't it?

[Jaime]

Again (as Soc brought up) take into consideration John 6:51-58.

Here is the perfect opportunity for Christ to clarify himself. Any time he's spoken metaphorically before (and was asked about it) he clarified his position. (Look at the parables)

So Christ had three opportunities to say "Hey guys I'm just speaking metaphorically!" Yet he doesn't. He in fact does the opposite and uses more graphic language. Its clear in this scripture that they were taking him literally. He does this to the point that many people leave.


So we have scriptural evidence that Christ wasn't speaking figuratively. Can you provide scriptural evidence that he was?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1081783' date='Oct 2 2006, 09:49 AM']
Is cattiness required in this forum?

I am trying to ask legitimate questions here. Attempting to goof on me based on your own Protestant straw men is not winning the arguement.
Does that mean your traditions can be counter-scripture?
[/quote]
The cattiness [which I apologize for is because as well] is because we are currently visited by several anti-catholics who engage in straight attack on our beliefs instead of actual conversations.
As to the Eucharist, it means you are using privately interpreted scripture contrary to the first 1600 years of history where the Church has taught and believed that Jesus is present in the Eucharist.
The word rememberance is a lousy translation of what actually happens.
Anamnesis would be the correct term - it means being present at the actual event, so we are present at the timeless sacrifice at Calvery itself. So when we use the inadequate terms "representation" or "remembrance" we are saying it happened only once and we are there. This has been the teaching of the Church since day one " This is my Body, this is my Blood", do this in anamnesis of me. We are there as Salvation occurs.
this is a good link:
[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402sbs.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402sbs.asp[/url]

welcome to phatmass

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1081794' date='Oct 2 2006, 10:00 AM']
How could he have turned the bread and wine into his body and blood when he was still alive?

The "do this" is breaking bread and remembering.
[/quote]
How could he multiply the loaves and the fishes?

The "do this" is breaking bread and saying, "This is my Body," in such a way that it becomes His Body. Priests do that in rememberence of Jesus Christ even today.

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1081771' date='Oct 2 2006, 09:38 AM']
Note the "do this in REMEMBRANCE of me".

If transubstatiation is occurring here than at best you would have to say that you need Jesus there to break the bread for you. There is nowhere in scripture where this process (and how to perform it) is outlined.

Do I drink wine? I drink a drink made from grapes the same as wine. Do you drink wine with the same alcohol content of the 1st century wine? The same grapes to make the wine?

Do you use bread?
[/quote]
You think Catholics are more scrupulous about legalistic details than they really are.

As for alcohol content, the ancient world had what were called magistri bibendi, masters of the drinking, who would mix different amounts of water with wine based on their own tastes, so the percent by volume wasn't really all that set in stone.

By the way, Jesus is there, acting in and through the priest, who is in Persona Christi. Now, we know that God's word is such that when He says something is, it is. When Christ says, "this is my Body," and tells the priests to do likewise, He means it quite literally. He says so and it is. The priest, sharing in His ministry, says so and it is.

[XIX]

Welcome to Phatmass, Sola!

In light of the fact that Catholics do believe Transubstantiation happens in the Last Supper, I'll offer a pithy answer to your topical question:

1) It would not bother us if the Eucharist wasn't in the Bible, because the Church predates the Bible. The Church created the Bible. The Church almost invented the Bible. So if you are going to compare the two, then you have to go with the Church. Besides, the Church does back up pretty much everything with Scripture.

2) Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible, but "Christ's Church" is in the Bible, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her. If anything, the question becomes whether Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ. As far as I know it's a historical fact that it is founded by Christ.

3) Consubstantiation is not in the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible about using beard as a symbol for Christ. So if you decry the Eucharist on the grounds that it is not in the Bible, then you would also have to give up receiving bread as s symbol.

**Thank you very much for carrying out this debate with Christian charity.

[rkwright]

Welcome Sola!

Its always good to have some actual dialouge between other Christians that is meaningful and not just talking past each other...

There are many other people responding to this thread already so I won't say much, and actually I'm not making any new arguments.

Two people have mentioned already the passage from Cornithians..

[quote]1 Corinthians 11:27-29:
QUOTE
Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.


Pretty strong talk if this is all just symbolism or metaphor![/quote]

This is a pretty good argument that has gone unanswered so far... Sola your comments on this?

[thessalonian]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1081247' date='Oct 1 2006, 09:19 PM']
I believe in the bread and wine being symbolic of Christ's sacrifice. "Do this in remembrance of me".
[/quote]


Hmmm. Searching through my dictionary I don't see the word symbol as any kind of a synonym in the definition of rememberence. So it seems that you have something that is not in the Bible. Nowhere does Jesus say "this is a symbol of my body". In fact he says "This IS my body" and "my flesh IS TRUE FOOD".

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1081794' date='Oct 2 2006, 09:00 AM']
How could he have turned the bread and wine into his body and blood when he was still alive?


[/quote]


Is this God we are talking about? I think so. Would you like to withdraw the question?

[kamiller42]

Welcome Solo! Thank you for bringing forth real debate. This kind of debate helps Catholics better understand their faith rather than shake it. For that, I thank you. I won't add to this debate because I think there are plenty of people already doing a fine job.

[Winchester]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1081771' date='Oct 2 2006, 08:38 AM']
Note the "do this in REMEMBRANCE of me".

If transubstatiation is occurring here than at best you would have to say that you need Jesus there to break the bread for you. There is nowhere in scripture where this process (and how to perform it) is outlined.

Do I drink wine? I drink a drink made from grapes the same as wine. Do you drink wine with the same alcohol content of the 1st century wine? The same grapes to make the wine?

Do you use bread?
[/quote]
I'm dizzy...

He told others to "Do this in remembrance of me." Only the Apostles were present, so you shouldn't be doing anything in remembrance of Him.

So you're saying if I tell someone to toss the torch in remembrance of me that I have to come back to toss it in remembrance of me?

The same logic would apply to your re-creation. You would have to have Christ do the breaking.

Why don't you drink wine? Jesus did.

Yes, we use unleavened bread. It keeps longer.

Before you ask.
No, the priest isn't Jewish.
He doesn't have a bread.
No one dips his in at the same time.
No one runs out in the middle of Mass.

Here's the problem. You've gone to an extreme and thus put yourself in an undefendable position. There are obviously passages we interpret. You should have said we misinterpret those passages rather than saying we had no passages.

Thanks for being so civil.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1081247' date='Oct 1 2006, 08:19 PM']
I believe in the bread and wine being symbolic of Christ's sacrifice. "Do this in remembrance of me".
[/quote]

met·a·phor Pronunciation Key (mt-fôr, -fr)
n.

1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles” or “All the world's a stage” (Shakespeare).
2. One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol: “Hollywood has always been an irresistible, prefabricated metaphor for the crass, the materialistic, the shallow, and the craven” (Neal Gabler).

I don't think that the use of a metaphor necessarily means that what is being spoken of metaphorically is any less "true" or "real" because it has been described using a metaphor. For example, when Jesus says that He is a "door," while He is not made of wood He *is* a portal and in that sense *really* is a door; when He says that He is a "vine," while He is not made of plant matter He *is* a source of "sap," i.e. sustenance, life, and in that sense *really* is a vine. In the definition above, a metaphor is described as a symbol. One excellent description I've heard of the difference between a sign and symbol is that a sign points toward a reality while a symbol participates in the reality to which it points. Certainly, I think it's fair to say that the sacraments fall into the metaphor / symbol category. That is, participation in the sacraments is participation in something real but at a level above or apart from what we perceive in the natural world, i.e. they are supernatural. So while in baptism, for example, we don't *actually* experience physical death, on a metaphorical / symbolic / spiritual level, we *do* participate in Jesus' death and resurrection. It's a metaphor but no less real for being so.

My two cents,
Ken

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='XIX' post='1081884' date='Oct 2 2006, 10:30 AM']
Welcome to Phatmass, Sola!

In light of the fact that Catholics do believe Transubstantiation happens in the Last Supper, I'll offer a pithy answer to your topical question:

1) It would not bother us if the Eucharist wasn't in the Bible, because the Church predates the Bible. The Church created the Bible. The Church almost invented the Bible. So if you are going to compare the two, then you have to go with the Church. Besides, the Church does back up pretty much everything with Scripture.

2) Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible, but "Christ's Church" is in the Bible, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her. If anything, the question becomes whether Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ. As far as I know it's a historical fact that it is founded by Christ.

3) Consubstantiation is not in the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible about using beard as a symbol for Christ. So if you decry the Eucharist on the grounds that it is not in the Bible, then you would also have to give up receiving bread as s symbol.

**Thank you very much for carrying out this debate with Christian charity.
[/quote]

At best you can say the church predates the NT. But of course God pre-dates the church so He really is the finally authority.

Since all scripture is “god-breathed” and the same cannot be said of the church then I think the argument of who came first is a bit dicey.

Long before the church was ever formed, God had the plan of salvation in place. His truth existed long before it was ever “breathed out” onto a page (or papyrus).

We should be careful to never elevate a system higher than God.