Christian: Real Presence

[sojourner]

What Eucharist?

There is only one Eucharist. The Eucharist.

In any case, I'm not speaking there of the bread and wine. But of the place or time or situation. In other words: i'm speakin of u.

But when we ingest the bread and wine, it becomes part of us -- we become part of it. And we are all part of one Body. When you speak of "me," you also speak of every other believer in every time and place, as well as the bread and wine of the Eucharist, and the Christ that is present therein.

 

[writer]

There is only one Eucharist. The Eucharist.
In the NT, there is no "The Eucharist." Rather, the terms the NT employs are "Lord's Table; Lord's Supper." The words "thanks" or "thanksgiving" are used for many things. As they are normally. There's no limitation, nor special emphatic use, of the word "thanksgiving/Thanksgiving" to that meeting or practice. And never to the bread and wine themselves. Rather the words "bread" and "cup" the Lord and Paul use.
Not that i mind your usin "Eucharist" for the Lord's Table. Not in the least. Pleze don't have that impression.

Merriam-Webster, for instance,
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Eucharist
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/communion+
appears to use "Eucharist" meaning the bread and wine meeting or part of the meeting. Not the bread and/or wine themselves.
But u seem to be using the word equally, or more, to maybe mean specifically the bread and wine in the meeting.
Am i reading u right?

Hence my answers and question to u (and even your own apparent various uses: 104, 111).
When you use "Eucharist" to mean physical bread and wine: no, of course neither are they literally, physically, chemically, Spiritually Christ;
nor do they become Christ;
nor is Christ present in them physically, chemically, literally, or Spiritually.

When u use "Eucharist" to mean a practice derived from the Lord's supper with His disciples in Mt 26; or meeting; or ceremony:
whether the Lord Jesus's experientially present that moment to you (as and in the Spirit): thas depends on where your heart is. Thanks

 

[sojourner]

When I say "Eucharist," I mean the act of the meal in which the bread and wine are an integral part. The Eucharist is the meal, it is our participation in the meal, it is Christ's participation in the meal, it is the expression of unity in the meal, and it is the creatures of bread and wine in the meal, as well as the persons involved in the meal. I believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, because the Eucharist is the highest expression of our unity in Christ. Since it is the bread and wine that we ingest that acts as the "bridge," if you will, between the physical and the spiritual, and that are the focus of the act, then Christ must be truly present in the creatures of bread and wine. I do not believe in transubstantiation -- that the bread and wine become actual flesh and blood. But, I do believe that Christ is truly present in the bread and the wine.

Just as Christ's true presence in me changes me, even though I remain human, Christ's true presence in the bread and wine changes them, even though they remain bread and wine.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In the NT, there is no "The Eucharist."

:spit: :jester3: :clap2:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

From the great and powerful wiki, the mighty oracle of human wisdom:

The word "Eucharist" comes from the Greek noun εuχαριστία (transliterated, "eucharistia"), meaning thanksgiving.[2] This noun or the corresponding verb εuχαριστw (to give thanks) is found in 55 verses of the New Testament. (Εuχαριστέω, the uncontracted form, given in some aids for students, is not used in the New Testament.) Four of these verses[3] recount that Jesus "gave thanks" before presenting to his followers the bread and the wine that he declared to be his body and his blood. The Gospel of John affirms this.[4]

Compare to:

Ephesians 4.4-5

4There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call-- 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

 

[writer]

123 participation in the meal...I believe that Christ is truly present in
i'd say your enjoyment of the Lord's presence, anywhere, including your participation in "the meal," your meal, any meal,'s up to u

creatures of bread and wine in the meal,
personally i'd use the word "creations" to describe bread and wine. Especially since they're not alive

it is the bread and wine that we ingest that acts as the "bridge," if you will, between the physical and the spiritual,
if u mean as a symbol, of the real Mediator between God and man: GodMan;
i concur

then Christ must be truly present in the creatures of bread and wine. I do believe that Christ is truly present in the bread and the wine.
God, Christ, the GodMan's omnipresent. In that way, He's "in" bread and wine just as He's in potatoes and french fries

Just as Christ's true presence in me changes me, even though I remain human,
the tri-une God created us, including Sojourner 'n me, in His image, and according to His likeness, uniquely. To be, and az: the triune God's unique "bottles," containers; Genesis 1:26-27; 2:7-9, 16; Jn 11:25; 15:1; 6:57, 63.
A believer born of God, becomes one w/ God and thus "becomes" God to that extent. Both when they experience the 2nd birth (Jn 3:3, 5-6, 15-16; 1:12-13; Rm 8:16, 10; etc); and as they grow in divine life "into the Head" Eph 4:15 "in all things."
Ultimately, and eventually, sooner or later, all God's children regenerated of Him, will be glorified and transfigured in our 3rd part: our human, mortal bodies (Rm 8:23; Philippians 3:21; Ephesians 4:4).
Az Paul wrote: "this mortal will put on immortality," death will be swallowed up in life.
Thus making Jesus Christ "Firstborn among many brothers" in full. Millions of God-men as members of the Body (Eph 4:4) of the One GodMan.
While, just as He is, still remaining, and ever, human.
As one dear brother, Athanasius, in the 300s said truly:
"God became man to make man God"

Christ's true presence in the bread and wine changes them, even though they remain bread and wine.
This's whut i'd (humbly) label "false presence" since Jesus Christ (God) doesn't indwell bread, wine, hamburgers, dogs, anything else as He does His believing, tripartite, creatures made uniquely after His likeness, and in His image.
Thanks

 

[sojourner]

i'd say your enjoyment of the Lord's presence, anywhere, including your participation in "the meal," your meal, any meal,'s up to u

We're not talking about my enjoyment of the presence of Christ. We're talking about the presence of Christ. And whether or not Christ is present in the Eucharist is not up to any individual.

if u mean as a symbol, of the real Mediator between God and man: GodMan;
i concur

I do mean "as a symbol," but I mean more than just that. A sacrament, being an outward and visible sign (in this case, bread and wine) of an inward, spiritual grace, carries not only a symbol of the grace, but the means of that grace, meaning that Christ must be truly present, and it is through our participation that Christ makes himself uniquely availabe to us. Otherwise, that same grace would be available to us anytime we ate a Big Mac. But the sacrament is an intentional act of the Church on behalf of Christ, when the celebrant intentionally invokes the Holy Spirit -- not simply something that "happens" out of whole cloth.

God, Christ, the GodMan's omnipresent. In that way, He's "in" bread and wine just as He's in potatoes and french fries

I concur, but therein, Christ is not uniquely available to us, as he is in the sacraments. We do not "show forth the Lord's death" when we eat french fries, unless those french fries are intentionally made part of the Eucharistic meal.

This's whut i'd (humbly) label "false presence" since Jesus Christ (God) doesn't indwell bread, wine, hamburgers, dogs, anything else as He does His believing, tripartite, creatures made uniquely after His likeness, and in His image.

He does when his Body intentionally invokes his presence in a special way. He does so, because the bread and wine (or whatever may be used) are the physical elements made available to us in the sacrament. Why? Because the Church -- the people -- are uniquely summarized in the loaf and cup. We celebrate our unity when we ingest the unity that is inherent in the consecrated bread and wine.

 

[writer]

127 whether or not Christ is present in the Eucharist is not up to any individual.
To the contrary: God's personal, and apprehendable by faith. Personally. Anytime.
Now that He's become a man; and that man's become the life-giving Spirit (Jn 7:37-39; 1 Cor 15:45; Isa 7:14)


not only a symbol of the grace, but the means of that grace,
To the contrary: the symbol remains the symbol. And it's only in the obedience that there's grace who is the incarnated, crucified, resurrected, and dispensed GodMan

meaning that Christ must be truly present,
Christ is truly, permanently, and personally present inside His believers as the Spirit from the instant they believe into His name (Jn 1:12-13; 3:6; 1 Cor 6:17; 2 Tim 4:22). He has no other presence except His physical one which His believers are waiting and long for (Mt 26:29)


and it is through our participation that Christ makes himself uniquely availabe to us.
To the contrary: "let each man prove himself, and in this way let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup...Test yourselves whether you're in the faith; prove yourselves. Or don't you realize about yourselves that Jesus Christ's in you, unless you're disapproved." This precedes--and the Lord's Supper's based on this.
"You can't drink the Lord's cup and the demons' cup; you can't partake of the Lord's table and of the demons' table," 1 Cor 10:21-22, "Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?"


Otherwise, that same grace would be available to us anytime we ate a Big Mac.
To the contrary: eatin a Big Mac's not particularly (Mt 26) commanded or ordained by the Lord as His symbol

But the sacrament is an intentional act of the Church on behalf of Christ,
Obedience. Do this in remembrance o' Me.
But in keeping with the matter of demons' cups vs the Lord's, any such act on a ground of sectarianism or division, such as Catholicism's, Orthodoxy's, and denominations' practice, is in fact not the Lord's table. Since Jesus has only one body, one Body. "He who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he doesn't discern the body," 1 Cor 11:29

when the celebrant intentionally invokes the Holy Spirit --
in One Spirit were we all baptized into one Body, and were all given to drink one Spirit. No one can say Jesus Lord! except in the Holy Spirit, 1 Cor 12.
Thanx

 

[athanasius]

Just a heads up. Writer said:

"In the NT, there is no "The Eucharist."

my answer

Yes this is a word that came to be used to refer to the Lords supper. In a like manner we could also say "There is no blessed Holy Trintiy in the NT". But I would bet writer believes in the Trinity as well as he should.

He gets so hung up on words. Not evey word we use to describe theological realities has to come from the bible directly. Were does the bible say that????? Writer would have to agree with me or or esle he would deny the Holy Trinity ,which is a word not found anywhere in the bible.

So eucharist is a term we use to describe the communion service. It goes back to the first and second centuries from those who were taught by the apostles. People like Ignatius of antioch who was a disple of the apostle John himself. Just a heads up.

in Mary's Love,
Athansius

 

[Scott1]

Yes this is a word that came to be used to refer to the Lords supper.

The term eucharist is derived from the Greek word which means "thanksgiving". Jesus himself "gave thanks" at the Last Supper (Luke 22:19, 1 Cor 11:24, Mark 14:23, Matt 26:27.).

So... I would say that the "eucharist" is most certainly in the NT.

Peace,
Scott

 

[sojourner]

To the contrary: God's personal, and apprehendable by faith. Personally. Anytime.

This statement does not refute what it purports to refute. God is personal and apprehendable by faith. But that apprehension is an effect, not a cause. It's the result of discerning the presence of Christ already in the Eucharist -- the apprehension does not cause Christ's presence in the Eucharist.

To the contrary: the symbol remains the symbol. And it's only in the obedience that there's grace who is the incarnated, crucified, resurrected, and dispensed

Where there is no Christ, there is no grace. How can grace be effected through the eating of a meal, where Christ is not present? If the grace is only effecteed through the Christ in us, then why bother to celebrate the meal at all? Why can't we just do that by going to a Nascar race?

Christ established the meal for us as a way to specially re-member the Body. The meal is all of us together, together with Christ, in unity with God. If the sharing of the meal is what effects that re-memberance, then Christ must, of necessity, be the central part of that meal -- the bread and the wine.

Christ is truly, permanently, and personally present inside His believers as the Spirit from the instant they believe into His name (Jn 1:12-13; 3:6; 1 Cor 6:17; 2 Tim 4:22). He has no other presence except His physical one which His believers are waiting and long for (Mt 26:29)

You're contradicting yourself. "Christ is truly present inside his believers, but he has no other presence except his physical one?" Do you hear yourself?

To the contrary: "let each man prove himself, and in this way let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup...Test yourselves whether you're in the faith; prove yourselves. Or don't you realize about yourselves that Jesus Christ's in you, unless you're disapproved." This precedes--and the Lord's Supper's based on this.
"You can't drink the Lord's cup and the demons' cup; you can't partake of the Lord's table and of the demons' table," 1 Cor 10:21-22, "Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?" ... But in keeping with the matter of demons' cups vs the Lord's, any such act on a ground of sectarianism or division, such as Catholicism's, Orthodoxy's, and denominations' practice, is in fact not the Lord's table. Since Jesus has only one body, one Body. "He who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he doesn't discern the body," 1 Cor 11:29

If you read the entire section, beginning with 11:17, the division is not with regard to "sectarianism." There was no "sectarianism" when Paul wrote. The division was with regard to folks not eating together, since unity is what the meal is all about. (Besides which, neither the Romans, the orthodox, nor the Anglicans perceive a spirit of "sectarianism" in the Meal. That's why they call themselves "catholic" -- "one -- universal." Sectarianism is only present in protestant groups.)

The Body we are asked to discern is the Body of Christ -- the whole Church met together. That's why the meal is all about unity, and why Christ is necessarily present therein, because Christ creates the unity of the Body.

Obedience. Remembrance. That's why I said that the Eucharist is an intentional act of the Church on behalf of Christ. Because we were told to by Christ.

Otherwise, that same grace would be available to us anytime we ate a Big Mac.
To the contrary: eatin a Big Mac's not commanded or ordained by the Lord as His symbol

That's in agreement with what I said...

when the celebrant intentionally invokes the Holy Spirit --
in One Spirit were we all baptized into one Body, and were all given to drink one Spirit. No one can say Jesus Lord! except in the Holy Spirit, 1 Cor 12.

Once again, does not refute what I said...

 

[writer]

129 we could also say "There is no blessed Holy Trintiy in the NT".
To the contrary: God Father (1), Son (2), and Holy Spirit (3) r not only in the NT;
They're its very structure, source, and pervade it

He gets so hung up on words.
wouldn't call it hang-up. i'd call it "respect"

Not evey word we use to describe theological realities has to come from the bible directly.
The Lord's Table in the NT iz not a "theological reality."
It's a NT commandment and practice and symbol.
In any case, if the gentleman considers Eucharist a theological reality: the word came from the Bible in the sense described in posts 131, 125, and 122

Were does the bible say that?????
Before answering: Did anyone in this thread say the Bible did?

Writer would have to agree with me
i did and do agree w/ that sentence o' yours

or esle he would deny the Holy Trinity ,which is a word not found anywhere in the bible.
To the contrary: the word "Trinity" (though simply meaning "3")
need not be in the Bible, nor even ever used by Christians,
for God the 3-1 to be both True, and in God the 3-1's Scriptures. both NT and O

eucharist is a term we use to describe the communion service.
i don't. Except in discussions often w/ u all.
But in any case, that was a point o' mine to Mr Sojourner, and accordin to the Oxford English dictionary: the term in English haz 2 main definitions in English:
a certain meeting (service); or the bread and wine themselves

It goes back to the first and second centuries from those who were taught by the apostles.
whoever reads the apostles can, and hopefully will, b taught by the apostles

People like Ignatius of antioch who was a disple of the apostle John himself.
likewise, to the extent Writer is: Writer's too


131 God is personal and apprehendable by faith. But that apprehension is an effect, not a cause. It's the result of discerning the presence of Christ already in the Eucharist
To the contrary: God, Jesus Christ, was, and are Persons, and present, and are omnipresent, before, and long before, the Lord established His Supper towards the end of His life, in Matthew 26


-- the apprehension does not cause Christ's presence in the Eucharist.
Christ is not "present" in bread and wine.
He's present, perpetually, in the spirit of all who believe, and who've believed, into Him as God's Only Begotten Son (Jn 3:6, 16).
Thus whether He's present, or experientially present, in a Eucharist meeting, or any meeting, or anytime whatsoever for that matter, to a given person:
iz up to that person and their faith


How can grace be effected through the eating of a meal, where Christ is not present?
By believing into Him or invoking Him.
"Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved," wrote the prophet Joel and the apostle Paul, and spoke the apostle Peter. Which i've also experienced.
Praise Him!


If the grace is only effecteed through the Christ in us, then why bother to celebrate the meal at all?
Becuz Christ in you said "do this." The same Christ who said so, recorded in the NT


Why can't we just do that by going to a Nascar race?
Celebrate the Lord's Table at a Nascar race? Seems kinda disrepectful or distracted to me. i spose if u want. If u experience the Lord's grace (which is the Lord Himself, Jn 1:14, 17; 2 Tim 4:22; etc), perhaps He'll tell u, or enable u, to go to His Table, or go out preaching Him, instead of spendin your time watchin cars drive in circles

 

[athanasius]

Ok There is definitely something missing from this discussion on the eucharist. Something that without a doubt shows that Jesus really did give us his real corporeal presence in the eucharist. Since no one else is saying it I will.

Jesus is truly, really, corporeally, and substantially present in the eucharist for all. Biblically there is no way that the Lords supper could just be mere bread and wine or mere symbols. Biblically there has to be the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, It has to be his real Body and Blood soul and divinity. Why some might ask. I will explain it to all as my theology and scripture professors explained it to me.

Point A. We know that Jesus comes to fulfill the Law and the prophets(Matt 5:17) and not to abolish them. Jesus fulfilled many types in the old testament. For example People were healed and saved by looking to the bronze Serpent that was raised up in the old testament(Numbers 21:4-9).

The Serpent was a type of Christ and now Jesus fulfills this because everyone who looks to Jesus (who was lifted up on the cross) will be saved and healed(JN 3:14-15). Every fulfillment in the new testament is more powerful and real then its old testament type.

Point B. The bible describes Jesus as a fulfillment of the Passover Lamb.
John makes the most blatant statement “there is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.”(Jn 1:29)

Notice that John is very careful in his Gospel to show us that Jesus really is the fulfillment of the old testament passover lamb. for example:

Notice that none of Jesus bones were to be broken on the cross that the scripture might be fulfilled(Jn 19:36). In (Exodus 12:46) it shows us that the passover lamb is not have any broken bones.

Its also interesting that John notes that Jesus was served sour wine on a hyssop branch when he was on the cross(Jn 19:29). Hyssop was the type of branch that was proscribed for the passover sprinkling of the lambs blood(Ex 12:22). Here John is making direct connection between Jesus and the Passover Lamb. John is showing us Jesus is quite clearly the fulfillment of the passover Lamb.

In the Book of revelation also written by John Jesus is described as the Lamb(Rev 5:6) more than any other title(28 times). Peter describes Jesus as the New testament fulfillment of the Lamb(1 Peter 1:19).

So the bible itself clearly shows Jesus as the new Passover Lamb. and the Eucharist was clearly a passover meal as Jesus himself said(Lk 22:15).
why is all of this important?

Point C.
Remember all new testament fulfillment's were greater and more powerful than their old testament types. In the Old testament the Passover covenant meal was a sacrificial meal where you had to slaughter the lamb and apply its blood to the door post. But if that s all you did , then you wake up with a dead firstborn.

In the is Jewish covenant you also had to do one more thing. You had to commune with that sacrifice. You had to eat the “real flesh” of that lamb(Ex 12:8). If you did not you would not fulfill the Lords command with this covenant. Only then would death then pass over your house.

Even if you hated mutton, you still had to eat the “real flesh” of the Lamb. You could NOT just eat a cookie or mere symbol of the Lamb. If you did that you would wake up with a dead firstborn. You had to eat the real thing! You had to eat the Lamb not just a symbol of the lamb. You couldn’t just merely spiritually eat the lamb. YOu had to really eat its flesh.

This why Jesus in Johns Gospel gives his disciples this teaching. Now Johns Gospels is not talking about the Last supper, that would come much later, but Johns Gospel does show us that Jesus prepares his disciples with his Eucharistic teaching ahead of time so they would understand when it actually came time for the last supper. Notice when Jesus teaches his real presence of the eucharist to the people that it is in the context of the passover(Jn 6:4) and that is not just a coincidence I would suggest.

John again is showing us how Jesus really is a fulfillment of the Passover lamb. He tells us that he is our food and we need to have a living faith in him(Just like Jews were supposed to have a living faith in Yahweh for the passover).

Then Jesus begins to teach us that this bread he will give us IS his Flesh and Blood(Jn 6:48-58) and we must partake of it. In other words we must take part int he new passover covenant by eating our Lamb just like the Jews of their time did.

Only Jesus makes one important distinction. We are not to just rip his flesh off his body. That would be gross. The flesh of itself profits nothing as Christ taught. But rather he will give us this flesh and blood in a supernatural sense in the eucharist, a corporeal , real supernatural presence.

It would be both his body and blood and his soul and divinity. The eucharist would be not just the flesh and blood of Jesus but the whole Christ ( flesh and blood and spirit and life as we see Jesus teach in ***Jn 6:63*****).

Then when we look to the Last supper when the apostles hear Jesus say “this IS my Body(Mat 26:26)” the apostle now understood what he meant in John 6. They now saw him as the fulfillment of the Lamb(Jn 1:29) and this supper as the New covenant Passover(Lk 22:15) meal. They knew had to eat the Lamb. They couldn’t just eat a symbol of the Lamb. They had to eat the real thing. And so do we in a supernatural sacramental sense.

Point D. This is something that has always been taught. The direct successors of the apostles like St Ignatius of Antioch in the year 110 Ad who was schooled by John the Apostle himself said that only heretics stay away from the eucharist because they deny that it is the actual real flesh and blood of of Jesus.

You are hard pressed to find anyone who did not teach this real presence in the first 800 years of the church. Even protestant historians like JND Kelly admit this was a unanimous teaching in the early church.

Point E People who attack this doctrine often do not know what ot do when they are shown the eucharistic miracles. There are many miracles where the bread and wine haver changes to visible flesh and blood for us to see. These are signs from God that confirm this true biblical teaching. These miracles can be seen and have been tested by science, Again just another stumper for our friends who may want to ignore these things.

So we Catholics have many many reasons scritpure, History, and miracles on why we believe the eucharist is really Jesus Body and Blood soul and divinity and NOT just mere bread and wine. I hope that helps.
God bless,
Athanasius

 

[sojourner]

Great post. Somehow, I had never made the connection between the eating of the passover lamb and the eating of the Paschal Lamb.

 

[writer]

131 Christ established the meal for us as a way to specially re-member the Body.
doubtless. Tho His exact words were "remembrance of Me." Tho since u appear to think the Bible's faulty, perhaps u dispute that

If the sharing of the meal is what effects that re-memberance, then Christ must, of necessity, be the central part of that meal -- the bread and the wine.
2 contrary: Paul wrote "Remember Jesus Christ" (2 Tim 2:8) also apart from any context of the Lord's Supper.
In addition, the physical Christ ascended 40 days after His resurrrection (Ac 1:3, 9-11). Promised to come back physically at the end of this age. To the Mount of Olives. As He mentioned at His Table (Lk 22:18). Not come back b4.
Bread and wine didn't turn into Him; nor did He turn into, or come back physically and hide inside, a nonhuman form: bread and wine. Such a teaching's both unnecessary, farcical, sad, and deceitful.
Lastly, the central part of any Christian gathering, including His Supper, is Him, and in His Body, the church. Which is what wine and bread symbolizes


You're contradicting yourself. "Christ is truly present inside his believers, but he has no other presence except his physical one?" Do you hear yourself?
lemme kindly tri to help u read myself. Better.
"Except" means except. "Other" = other.
Christ is both Spirit (2 Cor 3:17; Lk 24:31; Jn 14:18, 20, 23; 20:19; 6:56, 63),
and body (Lk 24:39-43, 23-24; Jn 20:19-20, 27, 29).
In resurrection, the "last Adam," Jesus Christ, both raised bodily (Jn 2:19) and, also, became "life-giving Spirit" (1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:17; Jn 7:39).
Now He has 2 forms.
Not 2 Christs.
1 Christ.
In 2, simultaneous forms.
Hence, as, and in, the Holy Spirit, Christ's real presence's inside His believers' and receivers' human spirit (Jn 3:6; 1 Cor 6:17; Rm 8:16).
If u believe the apostles' teaching. The Bible.
His only OTHER presence (He haz no other presence EXCEPT) iz:
His physical presence. Him in His own human body. Christ really present seated at the right hand of His Father God in the third heavens.
Christ duz not have a third, bread and wine, body. Such a teaching's both unncessary, distracting, false, idolatrous, comical, and even blasphemous. Especially where it leads to bowing down to 'n worshipping bread and wine.
Thanx

 

[sojourner]

Tho since u appear to think the Bible's faulty, perhaps u dispute that

Such a teaching's both unnecessary, farcical, sad, and deceitful.

The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is both Biblical and honorable, and it is a deep Truth to those such as me, who find much renewal and strength in the celebration of the meal. To say that the Christ we findtruly present in the Eucharist is "unnecessary, sad and deceitful" is the height of mean-spiritedness and probably blasphemous.

Thank you for poisoning a beautiful act in such a way.

 

[Scott1]

Thank you for poisoning a beautiful act in such a way.

Amen... what a sad way to look at things.

Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity... Christ with us in body AND spirit... what a glorious gift from God.

 

[sojourner]

These people have never prayed, nor known the power of the Chaplet of Divine Mercy.

 

[athanasius]

Amen! The Chaplet of divine Mercy is powerful indeed. I love that devotion. The Pope fixed divine mercy sunday as the week after easter. St Sr Faustina was a great saint and our Lord gave her this powerful gift.

I prayed the prayers that Our Lord gave Sr Faustina for a couple of friends of mine for the grace of conversion back to the Catholic Church. And all of them by the grace of Christ came back home to the Catholic faith stregtended and more devout than ever.

Christ still does miracles through his Church. Amen!

 

[writer]

131 If you read the entire section, beginning with 11:17, the division is not with regard to "sectarianism"
To the contrary: "I hear that divisions exist among you...even be parties among you, that those who are approved may become manifest among you," 1 Cor 11:18-19


There was no "sectarianism" when Paul wrote
To the contrary, sorry to say: "I hear that divisions exist among you...even be parties among you, that those who are approved may become manifest among you," 1 Cor 11:18-19.
"I beseech you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you...for it's been made clear to me concerning you, my brothers, by those of the household of Chloe, that there are strifes among you. Now I mean this, that each of you says, I'm of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ," 1 Cor 1:10-12


The division was with regard to folks not eating together, since unity is what the meal is all about.
Based on Paul's writing above, the divisions were not only w/ regard to folks not eating together

Besides which, neither the Romans, the orthodox, nor the Anglicans perceive a spirit of "sectarianism" in the Meal.
i perceive blatant sectarianism in the very names "Romanism," "Orthodoxy (as a title of excluding others)," and "Anglican."
Az do these groups themselves. Eg Catholicism prohibits its members from eating of Anglicanism's Meal

That's why they call themselves "catholic" -- "one -- universal."
Makes sense. Catholic Anglicanism, Catholic Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholic

Sectarianism is only present in protestant groups.
To the contrary: Roman Catholicism split from Eastern Orthodoxy formally haf a millenium before Martin Luther.
Additionally, Henry the 8th, Roman Catholicism's Defender Of The Faith for his mindless writings against Luther, is the political source and cause of Anglicanism.
Mebbe he formed Anglicanism cuz he was one with the Pope.
Lastly, Roman Catholicism excommunicated Martin Luther first. Not vice versa.
Then gave him its label: Protestant

the meal is all about unity, and why Christ is necessarily present therein, because Christ creates the unity of the Body.
To the contrary: Christ's present in His believers, and His genuine presence in His believers is a prerequisite to their participation, b4 the Table meeting.
Nor does Christ have a second, nonhuman, nor dead, nor deceitful, nor unnecessary, nor distracting embodiment