. . . the Real Presence in the Eucharist or another Jesus another gospel.

[Cow Poke]

I try not to underestimate the ability of others to disagree with me but I am continually surprised! I do believe that the celebration of Eucharist is (or at least can be) a mystical union with Christ and with all believers. Is that what you believe others believe that I do not not? Or something else?

I have used that same expression -- and the objection was that it was a "mystical" situation, and "magic" was making light of it.

[robrecht]

I have used that same expression -- and the objection was that it was a "mystical" situation, and "magic" was making light of it.

I agree that any language of 'magic' is making light of the Eucharist and is disrespectful of Christ's sacrifice and last supper. I don't think 'mystical' is making light of anything. Speaking of magic language, I'm sure you've probably heard that the language of 'hocus pocus' and the campfire song and dance of the Hokey Pokey were derived from the Latin words of consecration Hoc es enim corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur .... Any truth to that?

[Cow Poke]

I agree that any language of 'magic' is making light of the Eucharist and is disrespectful of Christ's sacrifice and last supper. I don't think 'mystical' is making light of anything. Speaking of magic language, I'm sure you've probably heard that the language of 'hocus pocus' and the campfire song and dance of the Hokey Pokey were derived from the Latin words of consecration Hoc es enim corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur .... Any truth to that?

I don't know, but speaking of Hokey Pokey.... the guy who wrote that died last month. They had a HECK of a time getting him in the casket -- they'd get his left leg in, he'd put his left leg out, they'd get his right leg in....

[robrecht]

One need only look at the Jewish ritual that the Eucharist was modeled after to excuse those arguments. Every item in the Shabbat meal had a significance and reference to Messiah. None were actually Him, but all were symbols to point to Him, from the plates to the salt to the bread to the prayers offered. Offending any of these items was akin to offending Messiah Himself.

I was speaking with Joseph Blenkinsopp once regarding the symbolism of the Passover Seder. I mentioned that the egg symbolized the yolk of slavery. He said he would pass over that comment.

[Cow Poke]

I was speaking with Joseph Blenkinsopp once regarding the symbolism of the Passover Seder. I mentioned that the egg symbolized the yolk of slavery. He said he would pass over that comment.

All seriousness aside, I cannot stress how much I believe that the heart and attitude of the believer is a huge part of... I mean, I really don't think the Lord would chide somebody who has the "wrong idea" about the "real presence" as long as they were sincerely coming to the "fellowship of suffering" represented by the "remembrance of Him".

[Bill the Cat]

I FINALLY figured out what 37818 means... type it in a calculator and flip it upside down... Sometimes I worry about myself...

[robrecht]

All seriousness aside, I cannot stress how much I believe that the heart and attitude of the believer is a huge part of... I mean, I really don't think the Lord would chide somebody who has the "wrong idea" about the "real presence" as long as they were sincerely coming to the "fellowship of suffering" represented by the "remembrance of Him".

I agree. That's why I don't think we should fight about the Eucharist. However we try to define or understand it, we should strive to be united in our celebration of faith.

[robrecht]

I finally figured out what 37818 means... Type it in a calculator and flip it upside down... Sometimes i worry about myself...

Bible!!! For some reason, I cant type this in all caps.

[Cow Poke]

I agree. That's why I don't think we should fight about the Eucharist. However we try to define or understand it, we should strive to be united in our celebration of faith.

When somebody talks about weird religious cults, I always like to say "I'm belong to a cult". There's usually stunned silence, as I add "we believe in eating flesh, drinking blood and dead people coming back to life".



Well.... we DO!

[Cow Poke]

Bible!!!

I stand alone on the Word of God, the B-I-B-L-E!

[foudroyant]

That wafer ain't Jesus.

1. Eating is used metaphorically. Jeremiah "ate" God's word (Jeremiah 15:16). In John it refers to the "believing" in the living Word of God (John 6:47). When the Spirit baptizes us into the body of Christ we "drink" of Him (1 Corinthians 12:13).
2. "It is the LORD'S Passover" (Exodus 12:11) - It represents the LORD'S Passover.
3. What's insane is that some people actually worship it.

[TimelessTheist]

That wafer ain't Jesus.

1. Eating is used metaphorically. Jeremiah "ate" God's word (Jeremiah 15:16). In John it refers to the "believing" in the living Word of God (John 6:47). When the Spirit baptizes us into the body of Christ we "drink" of Him (1 Corinthians 12:13).
2. "It is the LORD'S Passover" (Exodus 12:11) - It represents the LORD'S Passover.
3. What's insane is that some people actually worship it.

1) That's seriously the worst comparison I've ever heard. Plus, not to mention that Jesus reiterates that the Eucharist is "his flesh indeed", after his disciples were confused and questioned him about it. Tell me, why wouldn't he elaborate the metaphor to his disciples if they didn't understand it, but instead simply reiterate the supposed metaphor? He did so with the metaphor of the Pharisees and the leavened bread.

2) Yes, however, being a reminder of the Lord's Passover does not exclude transubstantiation in any way, shape, or form.

3) Yes. They are called heretical cults.

[Spartacus]

3) Yes. They are called heretical cults.

Erm... are you sure he's not referring to Eucharistic adoration?

[37818]

So you do or you do not believe that I have created a false dichotomy??? That was my question to you.

The term "dichotomy" means to cut into two parts originally. I was not using the correct meaning base on the definition I cited. My accusation of you using a "false dichotomy" was not the logical "false dichotomy" of opposite ideas. You argued that a "Real Presence" was in both Eucharist and in the Body of Christ. I took that as a "dichotomy" being two parts, holding the first "in [the] Eucharist" as false, therefore a "false dichotomy." Well as far "false dichotomy" fallacy goes, I was using the term incorrectly.

What do you mean by "the believes"? 'The be lievers' perhaps?

Yup, it was a typo. Didn't type the r.

In addition, I'm not sure you are really arguing with me or with some idea in your mind about what you imagine I believe. I do not recall ever saying that the Real Presences (plural) is (or are) in the Eucharst. I do believe that Christ is truly and really present when we celebrate the Eucharist, using the bread and wine as symbols, as Jesus himself did and commanded us to do. I do not believe that a chemical analysis of the consecrated bread and wine would be any different before or after consecration, but I also do not think it would be proper to perform a chemical analysis on consecrated bread and wine. I believe symbols are real, but I do not believe sacraments are magic of some kind.

Again, another typo. The s was not intended.

In the RCC, the belief in the Real Presence when the RCC priest says the right words and pays the correct attention, consecrates the bread and the "wine" it is then the body and blood of God the Son. To the RCC it is a big deal. To me, I'm being nice here in saying, it is utter nonsense. None of it is Biblical. Check out "Eucharist abuses." And it is all based on the error of believing "Real Presence in the Eucharist."

To the RCC it is a quite serious matter: http://www.catholic.com/documents/liturgical-abuses
For more examples: https://www.google.com/#q=eucharist+abuses&safe=active

[37818]

1) . . . that Jesus reiterates that the Eucharist is "his flesh indeed", . . .

Where? When?


The text no where says, . . . τουτο το σωμα μου . . . . But . . . τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου . . . represents. Translated "is." Metaphor.

Even as the text does not say, . . . ο θεος φως . . . . But . . . ο θεος φως εστιν . . . represents. Translated "is." Metaphor.

The text does say, . . . πνευμα ο θεος . . . and not . . . πνευμα ο θεος εστιν. . . . "is" is supplied by the translator. Not metaphor.

[references:
Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 John 1:5; John 4:24 ]