I am honestly confused about this topic. Didn’t Jesus say: do this in memory of me? That : sounds quite distant from: every time you meet and eat bread and drink wine in my name, it will literally become my flesh and blood. He did equate it to his body and blood, but Jesus also said he was a door, the light, a Shepard… Any guidance or help is appreciated. Any respectful and genuine opinion is welcomed.
Could the the Jewish people eat a representation of the paschal lamb? Or did they have to eat the lamb itself? We know that Jesus is our paschal lamb, so would it not make sense for the members of Christ’s kingdom to be required to eat the paschal lamb (Jesus)? This makes sense if you believe Christianity is the fulfillment of the Jewish religion, and not just the dismissal of it. Another good way to find out what it means is by looking at what the early Christians believed about the Eucharist. Surely they knew the truth. Its important to be humble and not assume that we (2,000 years later) would know what Jesus really meant but the people who were disciples of the Apostles didn’t. May God bless you.
The first answer to this is that Scripture is NOT the only source of doctrine. There are also Oral Traditions handed down to us from the Apostles, and not just the written traditions. These oral traditions are the basis upon which we can accurately interpret the scriptures, because without them, we would end up making conflicting interpretations like the Protestants. Therefore, we need to look at what the Early Church says. The Early Church Fathers are clear that Jesus was being literal when He said “This is My body” and “My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (John 6:55). One of these Church Fathers was St. Ignatius of Antioch, who himself was a 1st century contemporary of the Apostles and is possibly a disciple of St. John the Beloved himself. Notice also that whenever Jesus was speaking metaphorically, He would often explain the literal meanings to His apostles afterwards. But when He said, “The bread that I will give is My flesh,” He did not afterwards explain to His disciples that He was being metaphorical. Instead, Jesus AFFIRMED what He said before by later saying, “My flesh is TRUE FOOD, and my blood is TRUE DRINK.” Therefore, He was being literal. For more about this, I suggest the articles below: www.catholic.com/tract/the-real-presence www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-real-presence-didnt-need-clarification www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/jesus-meant-what-he-said-about-his-body-and-blood
@@markokalcic3113 in a way this kind of makes the case worse. Are we saying that the bread and wine are literally his flesh and blood, but we only share the bread because there is not enough wine to go around? How could the priest drink the wine on behalf of all, but not the bread? Why not dip the bread in wine, as the Orthodox do?
@@whiterose41380 thanks for your message. I’ll follow up on the idea of the paschal lamb. The argument related to the first Christians is a bit hard to buy, as in Acts there is no reference to Christians believing that the Eucharist is the body and blood (yo my knowledge), and the same happens with the letters of St Paul to multiple communities. I will explore Saint Ignatius, as stated by another comment below, but I am not sure how close he really was to Jesus’ time.
This Protestant style of apology is stupid and doesn’t work. Instead of picking and choosing lines from “the Bible”, you should have just read Saint Justin Martyr’s description of the Eucharist in Church liturgy from the 2nd century. Catholics don’t believe in “the Bible”, Catholics believe in the Apostolic succession, the heirs of which gave the world “the Bible” as a help in passing on the true Faith. People who are used to pilpul arguments where they pick and choose Bible passages aren’t convinced when you do the same. They don’t have any response when you show them the historical evidence that the earliest known examples of Christian worship match with what the Catholic Church still teaches today. If you actually talk to heretics who convert, it is almost never because of an argument over Scriptural interpretation. It is because they are introduced to new information they had never been told before.
It is helpful. Everyone comes to the Lord through different paths, and a baseline is necessary. Many Protestants openly care nothing about or deny history, and deny Apostolic Succession entirely.
you'd might guess underpeered by comms. you gotta stay upbeat, upbeat, upbeat. or you'll end up dead meat, dead meat, dead meat. wars abound - less of those would be welcome, evangalism that. probably snowing. underpinning i guess foundings moving around. typically dangerous to be about. best be resting, make faith when its horrid - sing carols at people. walk in snow footsteps.
Don’t get your doctrine from a church that blesses homosexuality. Furthermore, if one takes the honest approach to the scriptures and acknowledges the contexts of all passages mentioned, the “Eucharist” is easily refuted. The Eucharist isn’t needed if one desires to go to heaven. 1 Corinthians 8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
You are very misinformed. The Catholic Church doesn't bless practiced homosexuality but declares it as a grave sin. The recent declaration of the Vatican didn't change this verdict, of course! To your "biblical" refuting of the Holy Eucharist others (here below) have already given an adequate response (@ChevalierdeJohnstone, for example).
