17 January, 2010

The sharing of the eucharist discussed with Evangelist Paul

(Evangelist Paul) Sadly, this is yet another area where some folks have completely mis-understood what Jesus was saying.

In 1 Cor. 11 Jesus said, "this do in REMEMBERANCE of me".

Verse 16 even tells us what the Lord's Supper (communion, or whatever else some call it), really is..... "shew the Lord's death till he come"

The Lord's supper was an exercise that Jesus taught to help us remember His broken body, and shed blood for us. We were to do it as often as we thought we needed to until He comes back, in order to remember Him.

That is all it is. When a person is saved, the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit comes and dwells within them. It is this spirit that seals us until the day of redembtion (the Lords return). Any person who is saved, has the Lord in them. They do not have to take a piece of bread or drink any drink in order to do it.

Nowhere in the Bible is the Catholic Church's teaching on this found.

And might I add, anyone who has examined themself to be in the faith may partake of it. Nobody is perfect, we have all sinned. As such, we all stand before the Lord "unclean". But when we have trusted Christ as our Saviour, He washes clean all our sins, and we are now a "new person" in Christ, born again, and a Child of God. As such, we stand before Him "accepted" in Christ. Thus, after confessing and forsaking any known sin in our life, and recognizing what the bread and drink is a picture of, we can all freely partake of the Lord's Supper, just as we can all freely partake of God's Salvation.

(Cristoiglesia) I am afraid that you are one of those who has completely misunderstood what St. Paul was teaching about the Lord’s Supper. Primarily your error can be blamed on your assumption that the word “remembrance” has the same meaning of the word “anamnesis” that was the original source word in the English translation. The problem is that there is no word in English that has the same meaning as the Koine Greek word “anamnesis”. In English “remembrance” means to recall a past event into memory but this is not the meaning of “anamnesis”. “Anamnesis” tells the reader that a miraculous event will occur each time that one practices “anamnesis” that will transcend time and place and is a representation of the same actual event. In this case it is the continuing presentation of the death of our Lord where we are actually present at the foot of the cross with the rest of God’s Church, militant, suffering and triumphant. God gives us the food of everlasting life which is His Body and His Blood. We are not “remembering” anything but are instead present at the one sacrifice for all humanity.

Now you say that the receiving of the Body and the Blood are not necessary for eternal life but such an assumption makes no sense. In John chapter 6 Jesus tells the people gathered in the synagogue in Capernaum that they must eat His Body and drink His blood for eternal life and compares it to the Manna in the desert that sustained the Israelites in the desert. I ask you, would they have lived if they had just remembered that every day that the Lord provided the Manna or was it necessary for them to eat it for their nourishment. Of course, if they had not eaten of the Manna they would have died. Eating of His Body and His Blood is no different. It is not enough to remember what He did for us but to participate in His sacrifice by being present and receiving what Jesus said was His truly real and substantial Body, Blood Soul and Divinity. Jesus called us to action in our participation in His one sacrifice for all. So your claim in opposition to the teaching of our Lord that receiving His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is not necessary must be false and without Scriptural support. Yours is proven nothing more than a doctrine of men in opposition to God’s Word.

St. Paul taught that we should examine ourselves and be in a state of grace before receiving the Blessed Sacrament. He further stated that we are discern (recognize) that what we are receiving is the truly real and substantial Body, Blood Soul and Divinity. St. Paul said that if we did not then we would bring condemnation on ourselves. He emphasized that we may even die as a result of receiving unworthily. So, not having the right understanding could mean not only our physical death but the death of our soul from Christ. In John chapter 6 we learn that we cannot “believe” His hard teaching in our carnal sense but that our belief will only come through our spiritual sense and convicted by the Spirit. He was saying that the receiving of His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is the most precious of gifts and that it is of great profit to our eternal destination. In fact, He says we cannot live eternally in His presence without receiving this gift while properly disposed.

Now certainly there is symbolism involved in the Eucharist celebration. We are drinking with Him the cup of consummation of the Passover which His Blood is representing the saving power of blood as it was when it was spread upon their doorposts by the hyssop branch. We eat His truly real and substantial Body just as the Israelites had to eat the Paschal Lamb to save their first born sons. Even His Words were full of symbolism on the cross. He gave His mother to the Church and under the care of St. John. He asked the Father to forgive us for we are innocent of knowledge. He said “I thirst” so that the fourth cup or the cup of consummation where the bitter wine would be received soaked in a sponge and lifted to His lips on a hyssop branch to introduce His Kingdom. He then said, “it is finished” which meant the Old Covenant and introduced the New Covenant of Grace. However, even though there is much symbolism it does not detract from the commandment of our Lord to share in His sacrifice with spiritual recognition of the reality of His Body and Blood.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph


  1. Well said i belive yoy just expose Evangalist Paul lies

  2. with all due respect, "much thinking hath made thee mad".

    Why do I say this? Because, on the one hand you recognize a certain simplicity in the Savior's teaching regarding the Lord's Supper and then go on to complicate it beyond all reason.

    One of the main problems with Roman Catholic doctines is the fact that there has evidently been a willful abandonment of truth when it comes to whether a statement is to be taken metaphorically, symbolically, or literally.

    Let's be clear. The Lord Jesus Christ never taught cannibalism! When He said "Ye must eat my flesh and drink my blood" it is obvious to honest inquirer that He did not mean that this was to be taken literally any more than when He said "I am the door".

    Nowhere in scripture is the doctrine of transubstantiation taught. It is an invention of the RCC.

  3. I do not know how much training you have had in biblical hermeneutics but the Church has 2000 years of scholarship in understanding Scriptures. Certainly we understand the use of literary genre's like metaphor. We also understand when to recognise metaphor and when to recognise literal teaching. If you read my commentary on John 6 you will find that Jesus made every effort to emphasize His literal teaching even calling the eating of His Body as Gnawing. Those present recognised it also as literal for they would not have left over a metaphor but instead knew that He was telling them that they would be required to give up the familial relationship with their Jewish brethren because drinking blood was forbidden in the Mosaic covenant. Jesus was teaching a new familial relationship that would exist in His kingdom and His Covenant.

    You call those who are obedient to Christ's teaching "cannibals" as did the Jews, the Romans and all the other critics of the early Church. to call a Catholic such a name like that is quite an honor considering so many who were martyred having been so accused.

    Let me ask you this for you to ponder...since Jesus' atoning sacrifice on the Cross was the completion of the passover and the Old Covenant...would it have been sufficient for the Israelites in Egypt to not eat the lamb God ordered them to do? Would their first born sons have lived had they been disobedient?

    Transubstantiation is the only logical and theological conclusion that can be gleaned from Scripture. Then of course, the fact is that the Church has believed from the beginning that they were eating the actual blood and Body of Christ.

    The real reason that the first Protestants to reject the real presence did so is because Protestants realized they had no valid clergy to confect the Eucharist. The heretical teaching comes from Ulrich Zwingli. Luther disagreed with Zwingli adamantly. Calvin acquiesced when he realized that without valid clergy there could be no Eucharist and this forced them into teaching a symbolic interpretation instead of the truth of what Jesus taught which is that we must eat the actual Lamb of God to be saved. God bless!

    In Christ
    Fr. Joseph