Conference yukon::christian_v7

Bill,
  Catholics believe that the elements in a communion service, or Eucharist,
are transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ (they are 
transubstantiated).  Many Protestant organizations hold these elements 
to be symbolic of the body and blood of Christ, for remembrance.

  With strong beliefs in this doctrine, it is not uncommon for a church to
deny participation in the ritual, because it is a ritual for the Church
(capital C).  Some church organizations *may* err on the side of "safety"
by allowing only those they know (and in some Protestant churches, this means
ONLY the local congregation) to participate.

  If I were to attend a Catholic service, I would not participate only to
be of no offence, though I feel entitled to communion.  I would not do so,
even if I could do so without anyone knowing I was not a Catholic, for it 
would be dishonest of myself knowing how the Catholic Church teaches.

  The topic of Transubstantiation has been debated in the prior version of
this topic, but I don't think you were looking for a debate, but rather
information.  I hope I have condensed the issue without starting a debate,
myself.

Mark

    Just to add, there are other denominations that hold to the doctrine of
    transubstantiation.  Martin Luther was a staunch proponent.  At one
    (in-)famous meeting with some others to discuss this matter, Martin
    Luther arrived first, took a piece of chalk, inscribed (in Latin)
    "This is my body" on the conference table, and sat behind it with his
    arms folded across his chest.
    
    Mark L.

    Mark is correct in that Catholics believe that the host becomes
    the body and blood of Jesus Christ. When Catholics receive the
    sacrament, the minister presents the host and say's "The Body Of
    Christ." The communicant affirms the belief by saying "Amen." If you
    were to say "Amen," but not believe, it would be dishonest. Also,
    the reception of communion is limited to Catholics because its is a 
    sign of unity in faith. To allow non-Catholics to receive would
    symbolize a unity that does not exist. Also, because Catholics believe
    that Eucharist is the body of Christ, the church wants to do what it 
    can to prevent the possibility of abuse to the host. This is also why
    for many years, the host had to be placed on the tongue and you were
    not allowed to touch it. Today you can receive it in your hand, but as
    abuses have been growing, I see the return to reception of communion
    on the tongue only.

    Jim

    
    
    
    	Yes, I know it's a belief. But did he mean it literally when
    	he said "this is my body"? I have a hard time seeing/feeling
    	that this how he wanted us understand this. Can someone explain
    	why/how it would be taken to this belief.
    
    	Another question on this topic...
    
    	I couple weeks ago I attend a First Baptist service. I really
    	enjoyed the services and felt comfortable with the teachings
    	and people. But I noticed that this was no communion/breaking
    	or bread..... Biblically, should all Christian services have
    	some form of *Last Supper* service no matter what denomination????
    
    
    	Bill

	Bill, 

	We celebrate communion once a month at my church.

	When I attended a Baptist church, they did the same.

	Karen

As Karen said, some of us do not hold communion at every service, so that
may be what occurred when you visited the Baptist church.

Those who take the view that the elements are transubstantiated believe
"This is my body" is to be taken literally; the other take the quote
symbolically.  This has been debated in the previous conference.
Would you like me to dig up the number and way you can read through the
debate?  I'm also sure both sides could summarize (although I thought
Jim explained the Catholic view well) it again.

Are you looking for the reasons the other side (which includes me) 
believe it to be a symbolic ritual?

Mark

>    	Yes, I know it's a belief. But did he mean it literally when
>    	he said "this is my body"? I have a hard time seeing/feeling
>    	that this how he wanted us understand this. Can someone explain
>    	why/how it would be taken to this belief.
    
    Note 322 of ATLANA::CHRISTIAN_V6 contains 259 replies on the topic of
    "the doctrine of transubstantiation".  You will probably find
    representatives from views both for and against there.
    
>    	...But I noticed that this was no communion/breaking
>    	or bread..... Biblically, should all Christian services have
>    	some form of *Last Supper* service no matter what denomination????
    
    Churches vary on their interpretation of how often we should observe
    the Lord's Supper.  Personally, I believe it should be every week
    (Acts 20:7 "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples
    came together to break bread....").  Many churches have adopted a
    monthly schedule (perhaps someone can share the reasoning behind this).
    
    Mark L.

    "Taking bread and giving thanks He broke it and gave it to them,
    saying 'This is my body to be given for you. Do this in remembrance
    of me.'" Luke 22:19

    "During the meal Jesus took bread, blessed it and gave it to His 
     disciples. 'Take this and eat it,' He said, 'this is my body.'"
     Matthew 26:26

    "I received from the Lord what I handed on to you, namely, that the
     Lord Jesus on the night he was betrayed took bread, and after he 
     had given thanks, broke it and said, 'this is my body, which is
     for you. Do this in remembrance of me.'" 1 Corinthians 11:23-24

     Jim 

Matthew 7:3  And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye,
but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
  4  Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of
thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

This is another quote of Jesus, not to be taken as if someone was
carrying a 2x4 in their eye.  It is also referenced in Luke.

So you see the crux of the two arguments in .8 and this note (.9).

Mark

    	
    
    	
    	Thanks all!!
    
    
    	I really don't have the time to sift through V_6 for an answer.
    
    	I can clearly see why it would be symbolic. It's being the *ACCUAL body
    	of Jesus that baffles me. Maybe I should pop into the Catholic file
    	and seek there?... But im afraid I'd only get the same redundant 
    	answers Jim has provided for me. Which still does not seem to help
    	me to see why this is taken so literally..         
    	Or even why Jesus would want us to think this way........How would
        it benifit us as Christian to eat him.. He enter us through our
    	souls. Not through our stomachs....
    
    	Jim,    Can you understand my confusion? And why I feel I am
    		given no clear sensible answer...Or reason to believe
    		our Lord ment for us to take his words that literally.
    
    		Please believe I am not trying to start a bashing topic..
    		I am VERY open minded.. In fact, often too open minded..
    	        But there are SO many roads, and I want to make sure I
    		am reading/understand the right map. And make sure I'm
    		reading it clearly so I can get to where Im headed in
    		a exspeedient manner... ;-)
    
    
    		Bill	
           
    
    
    	
    
    	

>    	Or even why Jesus would want us to think this way........How would
>        it benifit us as Christian to eat him.. He enter us through our
>    	souls. 

As I understand it, the position is that Jesus becomes a part of us through 
this rite of the church (partakers of His flesh) which also separates us
in the strictest of Catholic circles because we (Protestants) do not 
partake of the (literal) flesh and are therefore not part of the Body.
When I say strictest circles, it is because there are Catholic circles,
which I believe goes up to the Pontiff, that believe that there are
Christians outside of the Catholic Church.

If you ever do get a chance to "sift" through the replies, it might
bring a better understanding of the two positions.  You'll likely see
strong proponents on both sides as well as the persons who have a
firm belief but don't get as, er, fired up about the alternate belief.

Mark

    
    
    
    		That sould be "reading the map right" not "the right map"
    
    		Map=Bible
    
    		It just trouble me that so many of us seem to understand
    		it differently. Is there a way this can be avoided????

    RE:9

>Matthew 7:3  And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye,
>but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
>  4  Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of
>thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

>This is another quote of Jesus, not to be taken as if someone was
>carrying a 2x4 in their eye.  It is also referenced in Luke.

>So you see the crux of the two arguments in .8 and this note (.9).

    Well people didn't walk around with wooden beams in their eyes back
    then nor do they today as far as I know. However, the apostles did take the
    bread and eat it and take the cup and drink it. They also repeated the
    act with their followers using the same words. The tradition of
    the last supper was carried on down through the history of the church. 
    

    I don't see the reason for arguing about it here. Bill asked why
    Catholics believe in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I gave
    the scriptural reason Catholics believe it. 
     
    
     Jim

>    I don't see the reason for arguing about it here. Bill asked why
>    Catholics believe in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I gave
>    the scriptural reason Catholics believe it. 

Actually, he asked what we all believe.  And your logic doesn't follow:

>    Well people didn't walk around with wooden beams in their eyes back
>    then nor do they today as far as I know. 

Exactly.

>    However, the apostles did take the
>    bread and eat it and take the cup and drink it. 

Yes.  Bread and wine.

>    They also repeated the
>    act with their followers using the same words. The tradition of
>    the last supper was carried on down through the history of the church. 
 
And you can repeat Matthew 7 and Luke 16 whenever you have need for
speaking to a hypocrite.   The comparison is in the language used, which
holds quite nicely using the argument you put forth.

Mark

    
    
    
    	Did Jesus not say "do this in *MEMORY* of me"????
                                       ------
    	As in partaking in a ritual to remember him by? Out of
    	respect for what he has done for us, by sacrificing his
    	body and blood "so that sins may be forgiven"....?.....

    John 6:47-69
    Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath
    everlasting life.  I am that bread of life.  Your fathers did eat manna
    in the wilderness, and are dead.  This is the bread which cometh down
    from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.  I am the living
    bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he
    shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which
    I will give for the life of the world.  The Jews therefore strove among
    themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?  Then
    Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the
    flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 
    Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal  life; and I
    will raise him up at the last day.  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my
    blood is drink indeed.  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
    dwelleth in me, and I in him.  As the living Father hath sent me, and I
    live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 
    This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did
    eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this  bread shall live for
    ever.  These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in
    Capernaum.  Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this,
    said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?  When Jesus knew in
    himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this
    offend you?  What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he
    was before?  It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth
    nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are
    life.  But there are some of you that believe not.  For Jesus knew from
    the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray
    him.  And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto
    me, except it were given unto him of my Father.  From that time many of
    his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.  Then said Jesus
    unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?  Then Simon Peter answered him,
    Lord, to whom shall we go?  thou hast the words of eternal life.  And
    we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the
    living God. 

    At first glance, some of the verses from the above passage seem to
    support the "literal body and blood" argument.  However, a careful
    reading makes it clear that He is not speaking of a literal consumption
    of His flesh and blood, but an entering into His life through belief. 
    "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the
    words that I speak unto you, they are spirit,  and they are life." 
    
    Mark L.

    
    
    	Yea, and I've yet to see a Christian pluck his eye out.. ;-)

     Hopefully, the inclusion of the Passover Seder prayers for bread and
     wine in the Scripture passage (probably left out because *everybody* to
     whom the Scriptures were originaly written knew them) will shed some
     additional light on this subject. Please consider the Messiah's words
     in the context of the prayer immediately preceding them. A good Seder
     to you, this Passover night. (The extra-Biblical prayers are inclosed
     in square backets "[]" in context. 

        "And as they were eating [the Passover Seder] Y'Shua took bread
         and blessed it [ saying 'Blessed are Thou, O L_RD, our God,
         King of the Universe, who brings for the bread from the
         ground!'] and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said,
         'Take, eat; this is My body'." 


         The He took the cup, and gave thanks, [saying 'Blessed are
         Thou, O L_RD, our God, King of the Universe, Who brings for the
         fruit of the vine (compare John 15:1-11).'] and gave it to
         them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you, for this is My blood
         of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission
         of sins'." 

                                                      Matthew 26:26-28

    RE:14
    Mark, 
           my point was that Jesus used symbolism in describing the
    hypocrite, but in the last supper, he spoke literally and even had 
    the apostles carry out the eating  and drinking of the bread and wine 
    which as he said, were his body and blood. His body can become anything 
    he wants it to be, it need not be biologically human. He could make his 
    body the chair I'm sitting on if it were his will.
 
     
     Jim

    Luke 22.19 says "And HE took bread , gave thanks and broke it, and gave
    it to them, saying 'This is my my body given for you; do this in
    rememberence of me'" and verse 20 says "This is the new covenant in MY
    blood which is poured out for you"  (NIV)
    
    I am very conscious of the fact that we are using versions of scripture
    which have been translated many times from the original and in the
    translations some difficulties in interpretation of cultural,
    metaphorical and literal statements have arisen.
    
    My own views on this are that when we break bread and drink wine  (as
    we do weekly at my own church) we are remembering the sacrifice that
    our Lord made on our behalf and the fact that his body was broken and
    his blood was spilt because of our sins. The elements of bread and wine
    are, in my opinion, symbolic and we are to use these symbols as a focus
    for our rememberence till He comes again in glory.
    
    in HIS name
    
    Bill

    Of course the Lord Jesus has also given the Church evidence that the
    Eucharist is indeed is body and blood throughout its history. Miracles
    of the sacred host turning to human flesh and blood have been documented
    throughout  Church's history and still exist today. 


    Jim 

I find it interesting that those who are typically called
"literalists" believe that this should not be interpreted
literally and those who who are not called literalists
believe that this should be interpreted literally.

Just goes to show that the "literalist" label is a poor
one (in that it is inaccurate, confusing, misleading,
etc.)

Collis

.22 Collis

For those not in the know, Collis is referring to a recent 
exchange between Jim Richard (among others) who debated the literalness
of the Bible in notes 53 and 71.  

re:22

>I find it interesting that those who are typically called
>"literalists" believe that this should not be interpreted
>literally and those who who are not called literalists
>believe that this should be interpreted literally.
>
>Just goes to show that the "literalist" label is a poor
>one (in that it is inaccurate, confusing, misleading,
>etc.)

     It shows that without an understanding of language, tradition and 
     history, literal interpretation by itself is prone to error.
    
    Jim

    Re .21: 
    
    There are documented (in texts of undeniable accuracy) "miracles" where
    pagans turned their staffs into serpents.  There are modern examples of
    "miracles" being performed by new-age "gurus".  As well, God still
    works in miraculous ways today.  But we do not well to seek our
    "proofs" through miracles, especially when God's word provides clarity.
    In John 6 (verses posted earlier), Jesus makes it extremely clear that
    when He spoke of "eating His flesh and drinking His blood", He was not
    speaking literally, or even of the "communion" loaf and cup.
    
    Mark L.

    Re .25
    
>    There are documented (in texts of undeniable accuracy) "miracles" where
>    pagans turned their staffs into serpents.  There are modern examples of
>    "miracles" being performed by new-age "gurus".  

    You mean magicians tricks don't you ? The miracles I'm talking about
    were to give glory to God not man and led many to turn their 
    lives over to God.

    >As well, God still
>    works in miraculous ways today.  But we do not well to seek our
>    "proofs" through miracles, especially when God's word provides clarity.
>    In John 6 (verses posted earlier), Jesus makes it extremely clear that
>    when He spoke of "eating His flesh and drinking His blood", He was not
>    speaking literally, or even of the "communion" loaf and cup.

    All I've read in Scripture and what has been presented here shows that 
    Jesus was clearly  telling his apostles that they were receiving his body 
    and drinking his blood. Being that his apostles carried on the tradition
    and used the words given to them, "this is my body, take it and eat it" 
    and chose to hand it on to their successors gives strong support that  
    the bread and wine become his body and blood. 

    Its all a difference of interpretation from our own points of view. 
    I'm not saying yours is wrong and mine is right, but neither can you 
    say that mine is wrong and yours is correct. We just have to accept
    that in this, we believe differently.

     Jim

>    You mean magicians tricks don't you ? The miracles I'm talking about
>    were to give glory to God not man and led many to turn their 
>    lives over to God.
    
    Was Moses' act doing the same also a "magician's trick"?  No, I am not
    talking about "magicians tricks" of the realm of slight of hand and
    legerdemain (an area where I am prone to invest).  I am talking about
    honest to goodness, miraculous acts.  (The term "magician" in Exodus is
    quite different from what we mean by the term today).
    
>    All I've read in Scripture and what has been presented here shows that 
>    Jesus was clearly  telling his apostles that they were receiving his body 
>    and drinking his blood. 
    
    And I can say just as clearly that it was otherwise.
    
>    Its all a difference of interpretation from our own points of view. 
    
    On this, we clearly agree. :-)
    
    Mark L.

    I believe that Jesus spoke of the symbolisim.  As a youngster I talked
    to my Roman Catholic friends and thought they must be cannibals if they
    believed it  was  actually His body and blood.
    
    In His Love,
    
    Daryl
    

     

    "I received from the Lord what I handed on to you, namely, that the
     Lord Jesus on the night he was betrayed took bread, and after he 
     had given thanks, broke it and said, 'this is my body, which is
     for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way, after supper,
     he took the cup saying, 'this is the new covenant in my blood. Do this
     whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.' Ever time, then, you eat
     this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord
     until he comes ! This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the
     cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the
     Lord. A man should examine himself first; only then should he eat of
     the bread and drink of the cup. He who eats and drinks without
     recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgment on himself.
     1 Corinthians 11:23-29

     Jim 

    There are two views on this subject.  The view held by some (of whom
    Catholics form the largest component) is that we partake of Christ's
    body and blood through the elements of the Lord's Supper.  The view
    held by most evangelical Christians is that Christ was speaking
    symbolically when He said "this is my body", and that there is no
    "mysterious merit" (my term) present in the elements of the Lord's
    Supper, but that we partake of such in obedience to and rememberance of
    Him.  Some verses to consider with regard to the latter view:

    Hebrews 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to
        offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the
        people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

    Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by
        his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having
        obtained eternal redemption for us.

    Hebrews 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the
        high priest entereth into the holy place every year with
        blood of others;
     26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of
        the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he
        appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
    
    Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of
        many; ...

    Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the
        offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

    John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if
        any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the
        bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the
        life of the world.
     54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal
        life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
     55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
     56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in
        me, and I in him.
     63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth
        nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit,
        and they are life.


    The texts from Hebrews make it explicitly clear that the offering of
    Christ was ONCE and ONLY ONCE.  His body, as clearly documented in the
    scriptures, was buried, resurrected, and ascended to heaven.  Our
    "partaking" of His body, as spoken by HIS WORDS in John 6, is not by a
    physical act, but by the working of the spirit as we accept His words
    and the work that was accomplished in our behalf as He gave His body
    and shed His blood in our behalf on the cross.  Part of His words, in
    direct commandment to His disciples as well as revealed again to the
    apostle Paul, is "this do in remembrance of me".  The early believers
    in the book of Acts did so "on the first day of the week", and at times
    "from house to house".

    Mark L.

    RE:30
    Mark,
         the Hebrew verses you quote were speaking to the Hebrew Christians
    who were continuing with the practice of animal sacrifices. Jesus'
    one death broke the hold of sin. It is from this one sacrificial death 
    that the Lord's Supper and hence the Mass draws significance. There is
    no conflict with the Scripture you cite.

    The Lord Jesus commanded us to remember him together by eating and
    drinking his body and blood. Luke 22:19 1 Corinthians 11:25.

    C.S. Lewis said it well, "The command, after all, was 'Take, eat':not
    'Take, understand.'"
     
    Jim

>  the Hebrew verses you quote were speaking to the Hebrew Christians
    
    Well, I could say that the gospel verses were speaking to 12 Jewish
    disciples, but I tend to take them to apply to me as well.  The Hebrews
    verses are part of the New Testament as well, and as well should guide
    our understanding of the scriptures as they apply to our practices
    today.
    
    It is not my intent to enter into an involved debate.  It is my intent
    to convey, as a question was asked, that the Catholic teaching in this
    matter is not that which is the common teaching of evangelical
    Christianity.
    
    Mark L.

It would have been easier had the questioner looked at
this topic in the previous version of the conference.  :-)

Since this topic continues on, I'll add in one issue that
I discovered when celebrating a Passover Sedar (sp.) with
a Christian Jew.

Jews are strictly forbidden from eating (or drinking)
blood.  Jesus fulfilled the *whole* law while He lived
here on earth, including the ceremonial law.  There is no
instance recorded where Jesus encouraged or forced others
to break the law.  (We have no information of Jesus' part
when his disciples "harvested" grain on the Sabbath.)

Because of this, I am convinced that Jesus did not drink
blood during that Passover celebration.  I am also convinced
that He did not serve such to his disciples.

I've never heard a rebuttal (satisfactory or otherwise) to
this point.  I'd be happy to review (even change) my views
if this and other questions could be satisfactorily
resolved.

Collis

	re.33

	Excellent point.

	The note concerning this topic in the previous version resulted
in me quitting it. The replies there (i.e., the tone of them, not so
much the content), bothered me greatly, and frankly the final straw was some 
replies put in by some who share the same belief on this issue that I do (I 
do have a strong belief concerning this). Anyway, I felt God wanted me to 
stop reading, then and there, and I had no idea if I would ever read it again. 
I did not start reading again until a number of months later, when I got a
"sense" that it was O.K. to open this conference, set seen, and start reading 
it again. I've read on and off since then, and  had been out of town for a 
bit, open it up and lo and behold, here it comes again!

	However, it seems like the responses here have been very 
restrained and well done...

	Thanks everyone for keeping your cool so far, I really appreciate 
the restraint presented here, I know it's not easy....please continue to do 
so....thank you, and I admire you all for it!

	Mr. Ouellette, you have been given evidence for both sides.
There is plenty more in the previous version, it you want more. The way to 
sooth a troubled conscience is NOT to put your opinions out there 
(repeatedly) and hope for a bunch of agreement from other people, even if
they are all Christians.  At least, to me, it looks like you want 
enough "agreeable" opinions here to sooth your conscience. If your conscience 
is still troubled after reading all the pros and cons, and you still 
have doubts one way or another, why don't you ask the Lord to direct you? 
Other people's opinions are fine and are often beneficial, but you have your 
own noodle, and Jesus has the same relationship with you that He has with us. 
If you end up relying too much on other people all the time, you end up 
worshipping them and their own interpretations, not God.
If you still have doubts after reading the wisdom here, Read the passages 
referenced, and ask God to help you.


	Bob

| <<< Note 97.35 by GLDOA::SLOMIANY "Commander Data" >>>



| Mr. Ouellette, you have been given evidence for both sides.
| There is plenty more in the previous version, it you want more. The way to
| sooth a troubled conscience is NOT to put your opinions out there
| (repeatedly) and hope for a bunch of agreement from other people, even if
| they are all Christians.  

	Hmmmm.... if we're left WITHOUT opinions then I suppose slavery would
still be intact, right? Remember the tv show Matchgame? They'd always list the
year in the name as well? I can see it now, "Inquisitions 93!" Sorry, opinions
can either help or hurt a situation. I mean, how many times have people in this
file said, "IMO, IMHO, it is my opinion that, my opinion on this is, etc"? Or,
are Christians immune to this....

| At least, to me, it looks like you want enough "agreeable" opinions here to 
| sooth your conscience. 

	I gues we have been reading different notes....

| If your conscience
| is still troubled after reading all the pros and cons, and you still
| have doubts one way or another, why don't you ask the Lord to direct you?

	Maybe he did and this is where He directed him? Now there's a thought.

| Other people's opinions are fine and are often beneficial, but you have your
| own noodle, and Jesus has the same relationship with you that He has with us.
| If you end up relying too much on other people all the time, you end up
| worshipping them and their own interpretations, not God.

	Agreed! 



Glen

    
    .35
    
    Trust me! I take alot of things written here with a grain of salt.
    
    And anyone reading this file without the guidence of the Holy Spirit,
    is in for a head spin.
    
    I truly beleived I could go here for advice from fellow
    ?Christians...And at times I've have felt the erge to express
    and share good loving feeling and expriences, only to be told
    to look in some other version, or that my feeling were wrong..on and
    off line..
    And please don't feed me this we *agreed to disagree* nonsence.:-(
    
    The Lord said he give us power to tread apon serpants and scorpions.
    Some of you people do most of your treading on eachother..
    
    You are soooo wrong about me, it almost brings me to tears...
    Please don't judge me, by expressing what you *think* my
    motives are.
    
    I tired of reaching my hand out to this conference for help and getting my
    hand slapped... On line and off.... :-(
    
    And please Mods if you delete my notes, be considerate and drop me a
    line.          Thankyou....
              
    

.38>

Do not let the few, or the one, dissuade you from the many.

    
    
    You people speak much of Holy Spirit convictions...
    
    Could it be this conference could be one for me and 
    many???
    
    I wonder how Jesus veiws some of the working of this
    conference for a Christian Spiritual growth, with so
    many animus conversations and ambiguous topics

How would you have this conference be laid out to serve us all?

We struggle with this question *all* the time.

Off line, or right here is fine.

    
       >How would you have this conference be laid out to serve us all?
    
    
    
    		Have have no answer to this question Brother..
    		No too sure there is one...
    
    
    	I feel no anger for anyone here, just disapointment and sadness
    	at times....
    
    	Sometime I feel like this is a *member only* conference..
    	With one question to be answered to qualify..
        Q-Are you a Christian?
    	A-Yes I am..                                                       
      REPLY:Prove it!!
    	A-Im doing my best to follow Jesus and understand the Bible..      
      REPLY-Not good enough!! I agree to disagree!!! *IMOHO Your wrong
            cause to interpret things differently...
        A-Well the Holy Spirit told me I was right....
     reply-Too bad, he told me too!! But I understand him better You loose!!

97.42  GYMRAT::OUELLETTE

I've started a note in 104.* about conflicts, and perhaps this is 
another things to address.  When you get more than one person together,
there is going to be a disagreement about something.  Count on it as
much as death and taxes.  (please no puns at this time).

Because of this, and because this is not SOAPBOX for any and all 
subject matter, we come together in this conference with a specific point
of reference: the Bible.

However, we come together also as Christians, followers of Christ, from
backgrounds of every imaginable persuasion, and all either claim Christianity
or want to know about Christianity.  Even with our point of reference,
our basis for discussion, the premise of ths conference, we still run into
disagreements about what the truth of the inerrant text is.  Count on it.

We don't come to debate the veracity of the scriptures, though some have
offered to do so, and we have done so.

We don't come to talk about baking, biking, or book reading, except within
the context of the premise: the Bible truth about Christianity.
So we can be Christian bakers and chit chat about such things, but that's
not the real reason for this conference.

       >How would you have this conference be laid out to serve us all?

The best shot we've come to in answering this question is to measure all
ideas and concepts according to what *the inerrant Bible* has to say.
In stating this, there is going to be conflict.  Count on it.

And so I start a new note in 104.  How do we deal with the conflict between
brothers who are Christians and still disagree, and how do we deal with
the conflict with those who claim Christianity, and conflict with those 
who despise Christianity?

I implore us all to consider how we deal with conflict, and examine
ourselves.  I like to think I can disagree agreeably, but I recognize
that you have an aversion to that sentiment.  So, tell me how to
resolve our differences?  I don't know.  I truly do not know.

Mark

	Bill,

	I apologize if I hurt your feelings, I had no intention of
doing so. It seems like I end up having to apologize for just about everything
I write, I obviously need a lot of maturity in my ability to communicate.
Please forgive me, Bill. If anything, I am trying to build you up, by 
reminding you that while many Christians have a lot of wisdom, including
many in this file, you have a relationship with Jesus, just like they do.
Sometimes people don't think as highly of themselves as Jesus thinks
of them, and they think that the only way they are capable of obtaining wisdom 
is via other people. Anyway, we do have free will, and the final decision on 
topics like this, is your own. I still feel that Jesus needs to sooth your 
mind a bit, and I respectably suggest that you ask Him for some assurance 
here, in whatever way He chooses.

	God bless you brother! 

	Bob

(I ask forgivness for anyone else who I ticked off here)

>Note 97.39                Last supper clarification....                 39 of 44
>TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers"        3 lines   9-APR-1993 14:05
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>.38>
>
>Do not let the few, or the one, dissuade you from the many.
>

	Mark,

	I don't quite understand what you are getting at here. I think
you are referring to my note (?) - could you please explain yourself
a little better here - please use my reply if you feel it's necessary

	Thanks,

	Bob

>Jews are strictly forbidden from eating (or drinking) blood.

The reason for the restriction on eating blood is given in Leviticus 17:
blood is the very life of the creature being sacrificed!

In John 8:53-58, Jesus very clearly states that He gives us His Body and
Blood so that those who eat and drink will have life -- eternal life in
Him.  Jesus taught that there was no other way to have His life than to
do this.  What he taught was in fulfillment of the prohibition on eating
other Blood.  The prohibition existed so that even as we know Jesus is
God, we also know that we must do what He tells us, and that what He tells
us is both shocking and true:  "Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood
abide in me, and I in them... whoever eats me will live because of me."
Only in Jesus is there eternal life; any blood the Jews under the Levitical
law would have previously encountered does nothing for our souls and bodies.

In John 8:66 we learn that many were so horrified by this teaching that
they turned away from Him, for they did not believe He was God.

Nothing in the Bible says that He called those who turned away to come
back by explaining to them that He was just talking figuratively.  Instead,
the Bible says in John 8:67-69 that those who stayed after His difficult
teaching concerning His Body and Blood were those who realized that He was
the Son of the Living God and that he was speaking the words of eternal life.

Those who turned away did so because they did not have the faith we see in
the Holy Twelve, who understood the Reality of the Breaking of Bread and
passed this Apostolic teaching on to and through the Church, a teaching well
documented as being what the earliest Christians believed, a teaching not
seriously challenged until modern times.

Yes, Christians, the Bible tells us that the Real Presence of Christ in
the Eucharist is a difficult but true teaching.  We really, truly, and
spiritually partake of His most Sacred Body and His most Precious Blood
under the physical accidents of Bread and Wine because Jesus said in
Scripture that we must.  God means what He says.

The reality of eternal life is in the spiritual realm which is where the
Body and Blood exist in the Sacrament.  The physical appearance of Bread
and Wine is a transitory thing of this world and will pass away, but the
spiritual reality will remain for ever as we live in Him and He in us.

/john

    .45 Bob Slomiany
    
    Bob, it was not a direct reference to you, but rather an indirect one
    and general statement.  To clarify:
    
    When someone is offended by another, don't let that offense be the
    reason to be offended by all.  The indirect reference is the offense a
    person took to your note, even though you did not mean an offense.  So
    it is less an idea of "being less offensive for Bob" than it is
    "becoming less offended by Bob, the few, or the one."
    
    As one who most often gives offense without meaning to, Bob, the
    indirect reference is to me even more than it is to you.
    
    I'm just trying to say, let's be slow to receive offense because 
    most of the time it is not intended.  And when it is intended, what is
    a good reaction?
    
    Mark

re.46

John,

>In John 8:53-58, Jesus very clearly states that He gives us His Body and
>Blood so that those who eat and drink will have life -- eternal life in
>Him.

	John 8:53-58 doesn't say that. You must mean John 6.

>Nothing in the Bible says that He called those who turned away to come
>back by explaining to them that He was just talking figuratively. 	

	Not true. In John 6:63 Jesus clarifies for the disciples that He was
speaking of the Spirit who gives life and that the flesh profits nothing (that
is the consumption of His physical body). It is accurate to say that He didn't
run after those who left, but for the sake of those who remained He did make
it perfectly clear that it is the Spirit who gives life, not His physical body.

	This eating of His physical body doctrine is yet another veil upon the
hearts of many dear believers to prevent them from experiencing the reality
of enjoying Christ as their moment by moment all-sufficient life supply. We
should eat Him as the Spirit in our spirit every day. 

>Those who turned away did so because they did not have the faith we see in
>the Holy Twelve,

	Which holy twelve? Do you really mean to include Judas?


Ace
	

Ace,

Your statement that one thing is a veil which prevents another has
no basis in fact.

We can partake of both.

/john

>In John 8:53-58 [6:], Jesus very clearly states that He gives us His Body and
>Blood so that those who eat and drink will have life -- eternal life in
>Him.  Jesus taught that there was no other way to have His life than to
>do this.
    
    This is a clear contradiction of the scriptures.  Jesus taught that the
    way to have His life was by *believing* on Him.  The teachings of the
    apostles (for instance, Rom 10:9) also make this extremely clear.
    
    If an unbeliever were to "sneak" into your service and partake of the
    Lord's supper, he would leave no different than when he came in (except
    that God may judge him for being an unworthy partaker).  However, if
    while there, he heard the proclamation of salvation through the atoning
    work of the Lord Jesus on the cross, and believed, he would leave a new
    man.  So, how does eternal life come?
    
    Mark L.

Those who are devoid of a true and lively faith and eat the Sacrament of
the Body and Blood without discerning the Body do so to their own condemnation.

It is by faith that we receive the Body and Blood.  Without faith, there is
no salvation.

/john

re Note 97.33 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> Jews are strictly forbidden from eating (or drinking)
> blood.  Jesus fulfilled the *whole* law while He lived
> here on earth, including the ceremonial law.  There is no
> instance recorded where Jesus encouraged or forced others
> to break the law.  (We have no information of Jesus' part
> when his disciples "harvested" grain on the Sabbath.)
> 
> Because of this, I am convinced that Jesus did not drink
> blood during that Passover celebration.  I am also convinced
> that He did not serve such to his disciples.

        Collis,

        You are usually very logical -- doesn't at least something
        about the above words your wrote trouble you?

        You state that "There is no instance recorded where Jesus ...
        break the law."

        Yet the very subject in dispute here is the interpretation of
        one of Jesus' "recorded instances".  What's more, one of the
        common interpretations in dispute directly contradicts your
        given.

        Perhaps nobody has ever refuted your "logic" because it
        proves nothing in such a case.

        Bob

This topic is one of many that I can't get too excited about either way.  I only
have so much energy to devote to topics in life, so I have wound up with a
simple test to tell whether I should invest energy in a particular issue (which 
I never fully articulated until I started to write this reply):

If my response to both sides of the issue would be the same, then I ignore it.

If the bread and wine truly becomes Christ's body and blood, then I had better
take communion very seriously, and I'd better contemplate the truth of taking
Christ into my body and my self, and literally making Christ a part of me, every
time I partake in communion.

If the sacrament of communion is symbolic but was the one thing Christ told us 
to do to remember him, for the same truth stated above, then my response is 
exactly the same.

So I pretty much don't give it another thought.

Paul

	.47  Mark M.

	Thanks for the explanation, I thought you were referring to the 
topic being discussed, not the tendency of my replies to get people
upset - I realize how much I need to shake a little salt on my
keyboard before I start typing, although my keys are beginning to stick 
some....Anyway, thank you for the explanation!

Back to reading, if you leave the office for a week you get so far behind!


	Bob

>This eating of His physical body doctrine ...

What doctrine is that?  Those who believe in the Real Presence believe in an
objective, substantial, and Real -- but a spiritual, not a physical, presence.

The physical accidents of Bread and Wine remain.

The spiritual purpose, the True Reality, is what changes.  No longer are
these creatures of Bread and Wine earthly food.  Their spiritual Reality,
their True Substance and Purpose, changes to be Christ's True Body and Blood.

For, as you said, it is in the Spirit, not in the physical world, that we
have True and Everlasting Life.

The change is only effective for those who have Faith in the Gospel, in God,
in Christ, and in his Salvation, brought once and for all upon the Cross.

And even when we cannot be present to receive communion, we believe that we
can receive the benefits of Christ's Passion by faith and desire:

	O most loving Jesus, O most blessed Saviour, come to me,
	I beseech thee, and unite me to thyself.  Possess me
	wholly; let the consuming fire of thy love absorb me,
	and thy presence abide so intimately in me, that it
	will be no longer I that live, but thou who livest in me.  Amen.

From the treatise On the Trinity by Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers [367]

We believe that the Word became flesh and that we receive his flesh in
the Lord's Supper.  How then can we fail to believe that he really
dwells within us?  When he became human, he actually clothed himself
in our flesh, uniting it to himself for ever.  In the sacrament of his
body he actually gives us his own flesh, which he has united to his
divinity.  This is why we are all one, because the Father is in Christ,
and Christ is in us.  He is in us through his flesh and we are in him.
With him we form a unity which is in God.

The manner of our indwelling in him through the sacrament of his body
and blood is evident from the Lord's own words: "This world will see
me no longer but you shall see me.  Because I live you shall live also,
for I am in my Father, you are in me, and I am in you."  If it had
been a question of a mere unity of will, why should he have given us
this explanation of the steps by which it is achieved?  He is in the
Father by reason of his divine nature, we are in him by reason of his
human birth, and he is in us through the mystery of the sacraments.
This, surely, is what he wished us to believe; this is how he wanted
us to understand the perfect unity that is achieved through our
Mediator, who lives in the Father while we live in him, and who, while
living in the Father, lives also in us.  This is how we attain to
unity with the Father.  Christ is in very truth in the Father by his
eternal generation; we are in very truth in Christ, and he likewise
in us.

Christ himself bore witness to the reality of this unity when he said:
"You who eat my flesh and drink my blood live in me and I in you."  No
one will be in Christ unless Christ himself has been in that one.

He had already explained the mystery of this perfect unity when he said:
"As the living Father sent me and I draw life from the Father, so he who
eats my flesh will draw life from me."  We draw life from his flesh just
as he draws life from the Father.  Such comparisons aid our understanding,
since we can grasp a point more easily when we have an analogy.  And the
point is that Christ is the wellspring of our life.  Since we who are in
the flesh have Christ dwelling in us through his flesh, we shall draw
life from him in the same way as he draws life from the Father.

    
    
    	.56
    
    	Thanks John!!
    
    	That last reply has given me clearer undertanding.. :-)

re.56

Thanks John for the clarification. Though I disagree with the conclusion, I 
nevertheless appreciate your explaining the rational and thought behind the
doctrine.

ace

Re:  97.52

  >You state that "There is no instance recorded where Jesus ...
  >break the law."

  >Yet the very subject in dispute here is the interpretation of
  >one of Jesus' "recorded instances".  What's more, one of the
  >common interpretations in dispute directly contradicts...

I've never heard anyone claim that Jesus broke the Law in this
instance (although they certainly could).  Perhaps you would like
to be the first to formally declare this to me?  (Even John did not
claim that Jesus broke the Law.)

  >Perhaps nobody has ever refuted your "logic" because it
  >proves nothing in such a case.

I think that perhaps you are being overly adamant.

I did fail to mention in my brief entry that I believe Scripture
indicates that Jesus in no way violated any of God's Law.  Had He
done so, he would have been imperfect and not have risen from the
dead.  Perhaps this missing link will help to solidify the logic
I presented earlier.

I think that John raises a point worth considering when he says that 
the Law was made for pre-Jesus.  In fact, I think that this is the
only other possible interpretation that takes everything into account.

I find myself disagreeing with John, however, since I find no indication
in Scripture that the Law was fulfilled until after the crucifixion
and God raising Jesus from the dead.  What makes the Last Supper a
time when the Law should have been repealed?  I know of no other Laws
that were repealed (or fulfilled) at this time.   I would not say that it was impossible for 
this to have happened, just that the evidence for this is lacking.

Neither were the Israelites required to drink the blood and eat the flesh of 
the animals that they sacrificed (which would have been consistent with the other
symbolism of the sacrifices).  

Now I can no longer say that it has not been rebutted.  :-)

Collis

I don't know that the Levitical proscription has been lifted.

Prior to Jesus, there was no blood which was acceptable to be consumed.

God's blood, the unique and perfect sacrifice, containing the only perfectly
human and perfectly divine life which will ever exist, became available for
the first time at the Last Supper.

If you partake of any other cup of blood, you partake of the life of
the creature -- with all its imperfections.  Leviticus forbids this.

Yet when you partake of the Cup of Blessing, you receive divine Life,
which is greatly to your benefit if you have Faith.  God commands this.

/john

From the Teachings of the Mysteries by Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem [386]

"Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread,
and when he had given thanks he broke it, and said, `Take, eat, this is my
body'; and having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, `Take, drink,
this is my blood.'"  Since he himself has declared and said of the bread:
"This is my body," who shall dare to doubt any longer?  And since he has
affirmed and said: "This is my blood," who shall ever hesitate, saying
that it is not his blood?

Therefore with fullest assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood
of Christ: for in the figure of bread is given to you his Body, and in the
figure of wine his Blood; that you, by partaking of the Body and Blood of
Christ, might be made of the same body and the same blood with him.  For
thus we come to bear Christ in us, because his Body and Blood are diffused
through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter: "we
become partakers of the divine nature."

Christ on a certain occasion discoursing with the Jews said: "Except you eat
my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you."  Not receiving his
saying spiritually, they were offended, and went backward, supposing that he
was inviting them to eat flesh.

Even under the Old Testament there was shewbread; but this, as it belonged
to the Old Testament, came to an end; but in the New Testament there is the
Bread of heaven, and the Cup of salvation, sanctifying soul and body; for
as the Bread has respect to our body, so is the Word appropriate to our soul.

Contemplate therefore the bread and wine not as bare elements, for they are,
according to the Lord's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; though
sense suggests this to you, let faith steady you.  Judge not the matter from
taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that you have been
vouchsafed the Body and Blood of Christ.

Having learned these things, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread
is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what
seems wine is not wine, thought the taste will have it so, but the Blood
of Christ; and that of this David sang of old, saying: "And bread which
strengthens our heart, and oil to make our face to shine," so I bid you
"strengthen your heart," partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face
of your soul to shine."  And thus having it unveiled by a pure conscience,
may you "behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord," and proceed from
"glory to glory," in Christ Jesus our Lord: -- To whom be honor, and might,
and glory, for ever and ever.

From 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 [ NIV, as are all of the following ]

 "For I received from the LORD what I also passed on to you: The LORD Jesus,
  on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He
  broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in
  remembrance of Me .  In the same way, after supper, He took the cup,
  saying,  'This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this whenever you
  drink it, in remembrance of me.' For whenever you eat this bread and drink
  this cup, you proclaim the LORD's death until He comes. 
  Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup in an unworthy manner
  will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the LORD. A man 
  ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 
  For anyone who eats and drinks without recognising the body and blood of 
  the LORD eats and drinks judgement on himself."

The LORD Jesus instituted this ceremony before the crucifixion, while He
was still in full possession of the body and blood whose sacrifice He was
instructing the disciples - and us - to celebrate.  On that occasion, as
today, real bread and real wine were used.  In Luke 22:20, He describes it
as "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which was poured out for you"

The heart awareness of what these things signify is what sanctifies the 
occasion, and enables our hearts to be fed from His completed work through 
the Spirit.

The verses which then follow from 1 Corinthians stress that :

  A right awareness of the LORD's sacrifice, as we come before Him to 
  remember in accordance with His command  is essential.  To take part 
  casually - as if the occasion is of man's authority instead of God's - 
  is to bring judgement upon oneself.  1 Corinthians 11:27-32 makes it 
  clear that this judgement is His corrective discipline upon the 
  irreverent Christian, who treats the holy as if it were unholy; who fails 
  to open his heart to the solemnity of the LORD's sacrifice as he has been 
  commanded.

Hebrews 9:25-28 reminds us:

 "For Christ ... entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's 
  presence.  Nor did He enter heaven to sacrifice Himself for us again and 
  again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with 
  blood that is not his own.  Then Christ would have had to suffer many 
  times since the creation of the world.  But now He has appeared oncew for 
  all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of 
  Himself.  Just as man is destined to die once, and after that the 
  judgement, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many
  people; and He will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring 
  salvation to those who are eagerly waiuting for Him."

The verses from Hebrews underline that Jesus died only once, and is the
fulfillment of the laws requirements, as per Romans 10:4 - "Christ is the
end of the law".  Although we remember His death 'until He come", even 
there, there is the reminder that He is alive!  As we go through Easter
(which is the way man chooses to remember the events of salvation, not the 
way that God instituted), we may regard Good Friday and Saturday as 'sad' 
days, and Sunday as a day of celebration, but in actual fact, throughout 
those days, Jesus is alive.  We remember His death; we don't take Him 
through it again.

We have a Good Friday service in my church, remembering His death in 
particular, and celebrating communion.  We do not remember it as if it
made every Good Friday a burden, but as a sombre yet joyous recognition of 
what our deliverance cost Him.  As well as what it has bought for us.


2 Peter 1:4 tells us:

 "His divine power has given us everything we need for life and Godliness 
  through our knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and goodness. 
  Through these He has given us His very great and precious promises, so 
  that through them you may participate in the divine nature, and escape the 
  corruption of the world caused by evil desires."

  - we are secure in His hands!


						May God bless...
								Andrew 

    Please read John 6 in its entirety;Malachi 1:11;Exodus 16:15, Last
    Supper Narrative in Matthew, Mark and Luke;Cor. 11:23-27, 1 Cor 10:16,
    Acts 2:42 and Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 11:29
    
    Note:  This is for information and, I hope, helpful.  It is not
    intended to begin a discussion on "transubstantiation," interruption,
    or any thing of that nature.  I am a Roman Catholic and have been
    directed to the particular Scriptures by Rev. Kenneth Roberts.  
    
    Thank you and the Peace of the Risen Lord be with you all!
    
    

    97.63 the word "interruption," is not correct.  It should be
    interpretation - sorry for the typo!
    

From the First Apology of Justin, Martyr [c. 167]

No one may share the eucharist with us unless they believe that what we
teach is true, unless they are washed in the regenerating waters of baptism
for the remission of sins, and unless they live in accordance with the
principles given us by Christ.

We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary
food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Saviour
became a human being of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God,
so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilate for their nourishment
becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own
words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving.

The apostles, in their recollections, which are called gospels, handed
down to us what Jesus commanded them to do.  They tell us that he took
bread, gave thanks and said: "Do this in memory of me.  This is my body."
In the same way he took the cup, he gave thanks and said: "This is my
blood."  The Lord gave this command to them alone.  Ever since then we
have constantly reminded one another of these things.  The rich among
us help the poor and we are always united.  For all that we receive we
praise the Creator of the universe through his Son Jesus Christ and
through the Holy Spirit.

On Sunday we have a common assembly of all our members, whether they
live in the city or in the outlying districts.  The recollections of the
apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as there is time.
When the reader has finished, the president of the assembly speaks to us
urging everyone to imitate the examples of virture we have heard in the
readings.  Then we all stand up together and pray.

On the conclusion of our prayer, bread and wine and water are brought
forward.  The president offers prayers and gives thanks as well as
possible, and the people give their assent by saying: "Amen."  The
eucharist is distributed, everyone present communicates, and the
deacons take it to those who are absent.

The wealthy, if they wish, may make a contribution, and they themselves
decide the amount.  The collection is placed in the custody of the
president, who uses it to help the orphans and widows and all who for
any reason are in distress, whether because they are sick, in prison, or
away from home.  In a word, the president takes care of all who are in
need.

We hold our common assembly on Sunday because it is the first day of
the week, the day on which God put darkness and chaos to flight and
created the world, and because on that same day our saviour Jesus Christ
rose from the dead.  For he was crucified on Friday and on Sunday he
appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them the things that
we have passed on for you consideration.

    97.65  Hi John, Much of the information I read in your memos reminded
    me of my own religion.  However, I now see that this is not from my
    beliefs (Catholic).  Not that it is any of my business, but can you
    please tell me what church you attend?  
      

    Can I butt in again, John?
    
    John is Anglican.  To us protestants, it's Catholic with married
    priests.  My apologies for my limited view, but I find it the 
    quickest way to distinguish the two.  Could be the makings of a new
    note!
    
    Mark M.

    Thank you for the quick answer.
    

    Mark, I don't need to prove my faith to you or anyone else and I am not
    going to try.  However, I remember you would not allow me to answer
    someone as I wanted but told me I was admonishing.  I have to tell you
    here there is no need for you to offend people who believe differently
    as you do and that is what you are doing here.  
    
    Peace
      
    
    

    Grace,
    
    Mark is out of the office for a coupla days.. could you possibly call
    me and tell what sounded judgemental to you?
    
    I believe Mark was merely stating his view Anglican versus Catholic..
    had nothing to do with salvation doctrine.  Please call me if you feel
    led.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy [I'm just a phone-call away]

From the Catechitical Instructions of John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople
[407]

If we wish to understand the power of Christ's blood, we should go back to
the ancient account of its prefiguration in Egypt.  "Sacrifice a lamb without
blemish," commanded Moses, "and sprinkle its blood on your doors."  If we
were to ask him what he meant, and how the blood of an irrational beast
could possibly save humans endowed with reason, his answer would be that
the saving power lies not in the blood itself, but in the fact that it is
a sign of the Lord's blood.

If you desire further proof of the power of this blood, remember where it
came from, how it ran down from the cross, flowing from the Master's side.
The gospel records that when Christ was dead, but still hung on the cross,
a soldier came and pierced his side with a lance and immediately there
poured out water and blood.  Now the water was a symbol of baptism, and
the blood of the holy eucharist.  The soldier pierced the Lord's side,
he breached the wall of the sacred temple, and I have found the treasure
and made it my own.  So also with the lamb: the Jews sacrificed the victim
and I have been saved by it.

"There flowed from his side water and blood."  Beloved, do not pass over
this mystery without thought; it has yet another hidden meaning, which I
will explain to you.  I said that water and blood symbolized baptism and
the holy eucharist.  From these two sacraments the Church is born: from
baptism, "the cleansing water that gives rebirth and renewal through the
Holy Spirit," and from the holy eucharist.  Since the symbols of baptism
and the eucharist flowed from his side, it was from his side that Christ
fashioned the Church, as he had fashioned Eve from the side of Adam.
Moses gives a hint of this when he tells the story of the first man and
makes him exclaim: "Bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh!"  As God
then took a rib from Adam's side to fashion a woman, so Christ has given
us blood and water from his side to fashion the Church.  God took the
rib when Adam was in a deep sleep, and in the same way Christ gave us the
blood and water after his own death.

Do you understand, then, how Christ has united his bride to himself and
what food he gives us all to eat?  By one and the same food we are both
brought into being and nourished.  As a woman nourishes her child with
her own blood and milk, so does Christ unceasingly nourish with his own
blood those to whom he himself has given life.

	Most eloquently - and clearly - expressed in Hebrews 9 and 10...

								- Andrew

      Hi,
    
        Hebrews seems to speak of a transition of covenent that prepares
        a people (corporate) to perfectly enter His rest and to to be
        able to inhabit Mount Zion "where every thing that can be shaken
        will be shaken."
    
        Deuteronomy likens the rain as _doctrine_ and the latter rain is
        likened to an OUTPOURING.
    
        Without elaborating anymore, I believe there is a mountain of truth
        and we have gotten our 'picks' perhaps a foot deep.  There's miles
        more to go!
    
        There remains some transition of covenent - some certain fulness
        of believing (and understanding) God's promises and 'unbelieving'
        less and less.  These transition would seem to be radical for the
        latter rain is more powerful than even the former and is tied to
        understanding doctrine.
    
        What is the relevence to this topic?  Among other things, I believe
        that everything is symbol until it is revealed as pure meaning. 
        The blood of Christ (literal, physical) means something in the
        spiritual as does the literal, physical flesh of Christ mean
        something in the spiritual.
    
        We are sitting on a vast number of physical symbols awaiting the
        revelation of symbol revealed.
    
                                                    Tony
    

Me: 97.67

    John is Anglican.  To us protestants, it's Catholic with married
    priests.  My apologies for my limited view, but I find it the 
    quickest way to distinguish the two.  Could be the makings of a new
    note!
    
    Mark M.
--------------------
Grace:  97.68

    Thank you for the quick answer.

Grace: 97.69   

    Mark, I don't need to prove my faith to you or anyone else and I am not
    going to try.  However, I remember you would not allow me to answer
    someone as I wanted but told me I was admonishing.  I have to tell you
    here there is no need for you to offend people who believe differently
    as you do and that is what you are doing here.  
    
    Peace
----------------------

Grace,
  Where is my request to prove your faith?  Where is my insult to Catholicism?
Where is the offense you have taken? Why to you say "peace" when you posture 
a defensive attitude?  John and I have had numerous talks, and lunch together 
and have a good relationship.  Of all the "protestants" in this conference,
do you think me to be one to offend Catholicism and its adherants?  How about
we get to know each other a little better, first?

Mark

From the treatise Against Heresies by Irenaeus, c. 202 A.D.

If our flesh is not saved, then the Lord has not redeemed us with his
blood, the eucharistic chalice does not make us sharers in his blood, and
the bread we break does not make us sharers in his body.  There can be no
blood without veins, flesh and the rest of the human substance, and this
the Word of God actually became: it was with his own blood that he redeemed
us.  As the Apostle says: "In him, through his blood, we have been redeemed,
our sins have been forgiven."

We are his members and we are nourished by creation, which is his gift to
us, for it is he who causes the sun to rise and the rain to fall.  He
declared that the chalice, which comes from his creation, was his blood,
and he makes it the nourishment of our blood.  He affirmed that the bread,
which comes from his creation, was his body, and he makes it the nourishment
of our body.  When the chalice we mix and the bread we bake receive the word
of God, the eucharistic elements become the body and blood of Christ, by
which our bodies live and grow.  How then can it be said that flesh
belonging to the Lord's own body and nourished by his body and blood is
incapable of receiving God's gift of eternal life?  Saint Paul says in his
letter to the Ephesians that "we are members of his body," of his flesh and
bones.  He is not speaking of some spiritual and incorporeal kind of
person, "for spirits do not have flesh and bones."  He is speaking of a
real human body composed of flesh, sinews and bones, nourished by the
chalice of Christ's blood and receiving growth from the bread which is his
body.

The slip of a vine planted in the ground bears fruit at the proper time. 
The grain of wheat falls into the ground and decays only to be raised up
again and multiplied by the Spirit of God who sustains all things.  The
Wisdom of God places these things at the service of human beings and when
they receive God's word they become the eucharist, which is the body and
blood of Christ.  In the same way our bodies, which have been nourished by
the eucharist, will be buried in the earth and will decay, but they will
rise again at the appointed time, for the Word of God will raise them up to
the glory of God the Father.  Then the Father will clothe our mortal nature
in immortality and freely endow our corruptible nature with incorruptibility,
for God's power is shown most perfectly in weakness.

                   Humbly I adore thee,
		    Verity unseen,
                   Who thy glory hidest,
		    'Neath these shadows mean;
                   Lo, to thee surrendered,
                    My whole heart is bowed,
                   Tranced as it beholds thee,
                    Shrined within the cloud.
                   
                   Taste and touch and vision,
                    To discern thee fail;
                   Faith, that comes by hearing,
                    Pierces through the veil.
                   I believe whate'er
                    The Son of God hath told;
                   What the Truth hath spoken,
                    That for truth I hold.                    

From the treatise On the Priesthood by John Chrysostom,
Bishop of Constantinople [407 A.D.]

The work of the priesthood is done on earth, but it is ranked among
heavenly ordinances.  And this is only right, for no human being, no angel,
no archangel, no other created power, but the Paraclete himself ordained
this succession, and persuaded us, while still remaining in the flesh to
represent the ministry of angels.  The priest, therefore, must be as pure
as if standing in heaven itself, in the midst of those powers.

When you see the Lord sacrificed and lying before you, and the High Priest
standing over the sacrifice and praying, and all who partake being tinctured
with that precious blood, can you think that you are still among mortals and
still standing on earth?  Are you not at once transported to heaven, and,
having driven out of your soul every carnal thought, do you not with soul
naked and mind pure look round upon heavenly things?  Oh, the wonder of it!
Oh, the loving-kindness of God to us!  He who sits above with the Father is
at that moment held in our hands, and gives himself to those who wish to
clasp and embrace him -- which they do, all of them, with their eyes.  Do
you think this could be despised? or that it is the kind of thing anyone
can be superior about?

Hi John,

This needs some Biblical clarification... Quoting people is all very well, 
but the ground of our faith is the Word of God.  It would be good to see 
the truth from there, rather than second hand.

For instance ...

� The work of the priesthood is done on earth, 
 "Unlike other priests, He [Jesus] does not need to offer sacrifices day
  after day ... He sacrificed for their sins once for all when He sacrificed
  Himself. "
							Hebrews 7:27

� the Paraclete himself ordained this succession, and persuaded us, while
� still remaining in the flesh to represent the ministry of angels.  

Not sure what 'succession' you refer to here, but the role of angels is 
totally distinct from that of mankind.

 "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will 
  inherit salvation?"
							Hebrews 1:14

� The priest, therefore, must be as pure as if standing in heaven itself, in
� the midst of those powers. 

All those saved by Jesus' blood are 'priests' in the kingdom sense :

 "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a people belonging to 
  God that you may declare His praises of Him Who called you from darkness 
  into light"
							1 Peter 2:9

but in no sense do we stand perfect here:

 "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not 
  in us"
							1 John 1:8

There is special responsiblity for us not to cause others to stumble 
both socially (Romans 14:21) and spiritually :

 "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you 
  know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.  We all stumble in 
  many ways..."
							James 3:1-2

The rest is apparently a personal meditation which is open to different 
degrees of interpretation, which needs much care.

Perhaps I should explain that in England, the rank of Bishop is a 
political one as much as a spiritual one, and the performance of men on 
elevation to this worldly recognition gives cause to beware when one sees 
anything with a Bishop's rank appended to the name.....

							Andrew

Buzz Aldrin was given consecrated elements (in both species) by his
Episcopal priest to take with him to the moon.  Right after touching
down he poured the liquid, which "curled slowly and gracefully" into
the chalice in the one-sixth gravity of the moon.  It is interesting
to know that the very first liquid poured on the moon, and the first
food eaten there, were the Body and Blood of Christ.

/john

 

 Replies 80-89 have been moved to topic 254 "Tolerance"





 Jim your friendly co-mod

From the Treatise On the Mysteries by Ambrose, Bishop of Milan [397 AD]

We see that grace can accomplish more than nature, yet so far we have been
considering instances of what grace can do through a prophet's blessing. 
If the blessing of a human being had power even to change nature, what do
we say of God's action in the consecration itself, in which the very words
of the Lord and Saviour are effective?  If the words of Elijah had power
even to bring down fire from heaven, will not the words of Christ have
power to change the natures of the elements?  You have read that in the
creation of the whole world "he spoke and they came to be; he commanded and
they were created."  If Christ could by speaking create out of nothing what
did not yet exist, can we say that his words are unable to change existing
things into something they previously were not?  It is no lesser feat to
create new natures for things than to change their existing natures.

What need is there for argumentation?  Let us take what happened in the
case of Christ himself and construct the truth of this mystery from the
mystery of the Incarnation.  Did the birth of the Lord Jesus from Mary come
about in the course of nature?  If we look at nature we regularly find that
conception results from the union of man and woman.  It is clear then that
the conception by the Virgin was above and beyond the course of nature. 
And this body that we make present is the body born of the Virgin.  Why do
you expect to find in this case that nature takes its ordinary course in
regard to the body of Christ when the Lord Jesus himself was born of the
Virgin in a manner above and beyond the order of nature?  This is indeed
the true flesh of Christ, which was crucified and buried.  This is then in
truth the sacrament of his flesh.

The Lord Jesus himself declares: "This is my body."  Before the blessing
contained in these words a different thing is named; after the consecration
a body is indicated.  He himself speaks of his blood.  Before the consecration
something else is spoken of; after the consecration blood is designated.  And
you say: "Amen," that is: "It is true."  What the mouth utters, let the mind
acknowledge; what the word says, let the heart ratify.

So the Church, in response to grace so great, exhorts her children, exhorts
her neighbors, to hasten to these mysteries: "Neighbors," she says, "come
and eat; friends, drink and be filled."  In another passage the Holy Spirit
has made clear for you what you are to eat, what you are to drink.  "Taste,"
the prophet says, "and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the one who
trusts in him."  Christ is in that sacrament, for it is the body of Christ.
It is therefore not bodily food but spiritual.  Thus the Apostle, too, says,
speaking of its symbol: "Our ancestors ate spiritual food and drank spiritual
drink."  For the body of God is spiritual; the body of Christ is that of a
divine spirit, for Christ is a spirit.  We read: "The spirit before our face
is Christ the Lord."  And in the letter of Saint Peter we have this: "Christ
died for you."  Finally, it is this food that gives strength to our hearts,
this drink which "gives joy to the heart," as the prophet has written.

Re: .117

> Thank you, Eric, for your beautiful explanation of what the Eucharist means
> to you and to Catholics.  I think you'll find that Protestants will agree
> with nearly all of it.  We DO include that as part of our worship.  . . .
> The only real point of contention I see regarding the eucharist between
> Protestants and Catholics is the oft-discussed question of whether the bread
> and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ.

I appreciate the kind words.  But if you say that Protestants agree with nearly
all of it, you didn't catch the most important part.

We believe the Eucharist _is_ the one Sacrifice of Calvary -- mystically made
present to us again.  As such, it is a true and proper sacrifice: precisely,
the one sacrifice of Christ on the Cross for our sins.

Once you understand that this _is_ the Paschal sacrifice, the issue of the Real
Presence becomes obvious -- secondary, but obvious.  It's not really the
Sacrifice of the Cross if His presence is symbolic.  We're really not partaking
of the flesh of the sacrificed Paschal Lamb of God, as prefigured by the Seder,
if his presence is symbolic.  We're really not truly becoming one flesh, one
blood with God if his presence is symbolic.  We're not really made partakers of
the divine nature (through the Eucharist at least) if his presence is symbolic.
We are not truly binding ourselves to this covenant with God, the sign of which
is Christ's blood in his sacrifice, if his presence is symbolic.

We are not merely calling to mind Christ's death, no more than the Jews even
today merely call to mind the Passover of Exodus.  Like the Jews, we _relive_
the Pasch.  Through the Eucharist, we truly eat this sacrifice of Christ -- the
flesh that was born of Mary and died on the tree for us, because the Passover
sacrifice of Exodus did the Jews no good until they ate the flesh of the Lamb.

Let's add the fact that "Bethlehem" means "House of Bread," and the infant
Christ was placed in a manger: a feeding trough for the creatures.  And let's
again example the Jewish Seder. In the Passover Seder, there is a part where
three cakes of unleavened bread are covered and set aside: the top one
represents Abraham, the middle one his son Isaac, and the third one Jacob.
These three cakes also represent the Holy Trinity.  As Isaac, represented by
the second cake, was the only son "sacrificed" by his Father (the first cake),
so Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity, was sacrificed for our sins.  This
second cake, called the Afikoman, at some point during the Seder is broken and
a part of it hidden, wrapped in a linen napkin.  The Jews believe this
represents the hidden Messiah.  Little do they know how this was fulfilled in
Jesus, the Bread of Life, wrapped in swaddling clothes and hidden in the
manger! It is the job of the youngest toward the end of the Seder to find the
hidden afikoman, and to demand a ransom (of for example candy) for its return.
When he father of the family pays the ransom, the afikoman is returned and
_everyone takes a piece of it and eats it._ It is this Afikoman that Christ
blessed and broke as his own body.  Note that this represents Jesus's
revelation as Messiah, his body broken and crucified on the cross to pay a
ransom for the sins of the world, and then resurrected and made present to
God's family in the Eucharist to be consumed.

All this meaning of the Eucharist I have explained becomes nothing more than a
imaginary game if there is no Real Presence, because if there is no Real
Presence, it's not truly Christ's sacrifice.  But once you understand the
Eucharist as the one sacrifice of Christ, no longer does the Real Presence
become this bizarre, left-field idea, nor does it become an insignificant point
or optional doctrine: it becomes crystal clear, the obvious result of
understanding the Eucharist as sacrifice.

Unless this appears to you as truly scandalous and completely contrary to your
way of thinking, you do not truly understand what I have said and what we
believe.  For if there is one thing that Protestants agree upon, it is the
absolute rejection of the Eucharist as sacrifice.  No Catholic doctrine is more
offensive to Protestants than the concept of the Eucharist as the Sacrifice of
the New Covenant.  Of course, I think this is based on an incomplete
understanding of what we believe, nevertheless it is true. While there are
various Protestants who believe various other strange parts of the Catholic
faith, _none_ believe in the Eucharist as sacrifice, and I assert from personal
experience, what I have told you is complete and utterly incompatible with the
Protestant faith.

St. John Chrysostom (5th century):
"Why does (the Apostle) say, `The bread which we break'? (1 Cor. 10.17).
We can see this during the Eucharist, but not at the cross.  Yet what
He has suffered on the cross, He is suffering for you at this Sacrifice.
He allows himself to be divided, so as to nourish all (participants in
the sacrifice of the Mass.)"

Pope St. Gregory the Great, Dial. IV,58:
"Although He (Christ) who rose from the dead shall die no more - death
no longer has power over Him - still, although He is immortal and His
living form incorruptible, He is being slaughtered for us in this
mysterium of the holy sacrifice.  Because there His body provides
nourishment, His flesh being divided up, His blood pours out - no longer
into the hands of non-believers, but into the mouths of believers."

Eric

Yep Eric, you are right, that's the part I have trouble with. 

I see the bread and wine as symbols of Jesus's body & blood, which were 
broken and shed for us on the cross, but that sacrifice occured at a 
distinct point in human history.  However, what was accomplished through it
(our redemption from sin and eternal death) impacts all time - forwards and 
backwards, and applies to eternity.  Jesus no longer hangs on a cross or lies 
in grave.  He is resurrected as we will be one day, completely whole in 
every respect, and presides in heaven at the right hand of the Father.

When I participate in the Lord's Supper, (or Communion, or the Eucharist or
whatever you want to call it), I am doing is humbling myself, remembering
the price of my sin, remembering who paid that price, and bowing my head and
heart in awe and thanksgiving.  I am reminded that it is not by bread alone
that I live, but by the grace of God, my creator and sustainer and kinsman-
redeemer.  

And I believe that the nourishment that occurs is a spiritual nourishment 
coming from our relationship to the living Jesus who is present with us 
through His Spirit, not through bits of mystical meat and blood.  I know many
Catholics whose friendship I dearly cherish, and I would never argue that 
they are idolators or non-Christian because I can see that they love God and 
have submitted their lives to Him, but whenever I hear this explanation
of the sacrifice on Golgotha happening continuously, and the explanation of
mystically but literally eating the flesh and blood of Jesus, everything 
within me recoils.  The Jesus with whom I speak in prayer is whole and Lord, 
to One to whom I have entrusted my life, though he did suffer and die once, 
though He submitted Himself to death, is now alive and whole and death is in 
submission to Him.

Going back to Jewish traditions for a moment.  Every year the lamb had to be
sacrificed over and over, because it could never permanently pay the price 
for sin.  Jesus, however, because of His perfection and infinity was able to
pay the price once and for all.  The curtain to the Holy of Holies was ripped
open at the time of His death signifying that we all now had access, and the 
temple was destroyed in 70 AD bringing an end to the sacrificial system.  I 
think it is because it is no longer needed.  The price has been paid once and 
for all, permanent atonement has been obtained.  But we do need to remember 
what God has done for us, and so we celebrate the meal of remembrance.

May God bless you and keep you,

Leslie

    Hello Eric!! 
    (saw your letter in the Globe (yesterday?).  Liked it!)
    
    My question revolves around a point Leslie just touched on - 
    
    If it is the same sacrifice, is it occuring again and again?
    Am I, by partaking of the Eucharist, crucifying Him over again?
    
    or am I trying to delve into a region we were not meant to understand?
    :-)
    
    thanks for all your posts, they have been rather informative and
    thought provoking...
    
    peace
    p

    
    
    .119 Great reply , thanks .
    
    
    
       Fonz

>    If it is the same sacrifice, is it occuring again and again?
>    Am I, by partaking of the Eucharist, crucifying Him over again?

No, it is not occurring over and over; it is the same sacrifice which
Christ is presenting to the Father in Heaven, made present and effective
for us today in Word and Sacrament.

The Eastern Orthodox like to express the concept as time and space breaking
through eternity, where we participate in the heavenly banquet, the wedding
feast of the Lamb, where all food is Christ's Body, and all drink is Christ's
Blood.

But we have another whole topic on this; it's topic 97.

/john

>    Hello Eric!! 
>     (saw your letter in the Globe (yesterday?).  Liked it!)

Wow! Great! (I refuse to subscribe to the Globe, and so I didn't know they
published it.  I submitted that one electronically :-)
decwrl::"[email protected]".)
    
>    If it is the same sacrifice, is it occuring again and again?
>    Am I, by partaking of the Eucharist, crucifying Him over again?

No -- that is precisely what it is not.    

That is why I emphasized that it is the ONE sacrifice of Christ.  Christ died
once for all, and offered himself once for all -- what we do in the Eucharist
is enter into that one sacrifice, make that one sacrifice present again, so
that we can participate in it.

You see, it is necessary for someone who sacrifices to participate in that
sacrifice in some way, usually by eating the sacrificed meat, although at least
by being present for the sacrifice.  Jesus died and was sacrificed once for all
on the Cross for us: but how do we, 2,000 years later, participate in that one
sacrifice?  The answer is, through the Eucharist.  We are, in a way,
transported back to Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, so that we might both be
personally present for it and eat of the flesh of the sacrificed Lamb.

Leslie was disturbed by the concept of Christ being continually sacrificed:
this is not really what it means, although it is true that Christ's one
finished sacrifice transcends all time.  If you'd like an analogy, think of the
Catholic Mass as opening up a wormhole in the fabric of space-time, reaching
through the fourth dimension to Calvary, so that each one of us may repeatedly,
for all our sins as we commit them throughout our life, both be present for
Christ's sacrifice and bind ourselves in the new covenant of Christ's blood, as
a man and woman bind themselves to a covenant through marriage.  The Eucharist
is like repeating your wedding vows, in fact: it is, for Catholics, how we
repeatedly commit our lives to Christ and say, yes, I accept the cleansing
blood of Jesus over my sins, yes, I accept the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross
for my sins, and yes, I reaffirm the covenant we have with the Father through
the death of Christ.  Do Catholics accept the sacrifice on the Cross for the
remission of their sins?  Most definitely: at every Eucharist! Do we believe in
the cleansing power of the Blood?  Certainly, in fact, we drink the blood of
Christ! (Blood in Scripture represents life (Deuter. 12:23).  This is why
through the blood of Jesus we receive life. The Jews were forbidden to drink
blood because it contained the life of the animal: so now we drink the blood of
Christ, which is eternal life.)  Do we accept Jesus into our hearts? Yes, and
into our mouths, throats, and tummies as well!

.119    
> and the explanation of mystically but literally eating the flesh and blood 
> of Jesus, everything within me recoils ...

Well, this is exactly the reaction the people had to Jesus's words in John 6.
The recoiled and said, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Jesus did
not say, "No, I am speaking figuratively."  In fact, he repeated himself more
strongly.  Some of his disciples left him and followed him no more.  Did he
call them back and explain to them they misunderstood? No.  Again, he even eggs
his faithful disciples on: Does this offend you? Will you leave me, too?  They
don't pretend to understand: but they say, "Lord, to whom else will we go? You
have the words of eternal life."  They remain not because they finally
understand he is speaking figuratively, but because as hard as they thought
this teaching was (v. 60), they knew who Jesus was and that there was no where
else to turn. (Why would the teaching be such "a hard teaching" if they
understood him to be merely speaking figuratively?  Why would so many disciples
leave, never to follow Jesus again, if Jesus were merely repeating what he had
been saying all along, that they must believe in him and come to him?)

Note that Jesus gives this bread of life discourse right after the multi-
plication of loaves and fishes, a type of the Eucharist.  Note, also, how
Jesus's first miracle was the Wedding Feast of Cana: where he transformed water
into wine.  This Wedding Feast prefigures the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, which
we believe the Eucharist is a foretaste of.  If Christ could transform water
into wine at Cana, surely he would transform wine into blood at our Wedding
Feast.  If he could multiply bread and meat, he can provide his flesh which he
gave for the life of the world for us.

[to be continued . . .]

[continued]
Also note when Christ was resurrected, he appeared to his disciples -- who did
not recognize him -- and gave them the miraculous catch of fish (John 21).  At
this miracle, they finally recognized Jesus, who then sat down and ate with
them.  Also see Luke 24:30, when the disciples again saw Jesus but did not
recognize him.  But when Jesus took bread and gave thanks, he "was recognized
by them when he broke the bread." (Luke 24:35) Both of these are symbols of the
Eucharist: where Jesus miraculously provides the fish (and all of you know,
"fish" in Greek is an acronym for Jesus himself) and eating at table with them,
and where they recognize him in the breaking of the bread.

And again: Hebrews says that Jesus is a "priest forever in the order of
Melchizidek."  Well, what did Melchizidek do?  He offered bread and wine in
sacrifice for Abraham!  (Hmmm, interesting: Abraham, who offered his only Son
to God and is a type of the Father.)  So, too, does Christ now offer his
sacrifice for us through the forms of bread and wine.  Melchizidek's offering
was a prefigurement of the Eucharist.

When I see so many beautiful types and prefigurements of the Eucharist in
Scripture, when I see so many of Jesus's parables as signs of this wonderful
sacrament, and when I read the writings of St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, a
disciple of St. John the Evangelist himself, who tells us explicitly and
without apology that an orthodox Christian believes the Eucharist is the flesh
of Christ which is born of Mary and the flesh that died for us on the Cross,
and since there is no Scriptural evidence whatsoever to contradict the concept
of the Real Presence, I find it impossible to _disbelieve_ in the idea of the
Real Presence!

> The curtain to the Holy of Holies was ripped open at the time of His death
> signifying that we all now had access . . .

Yes, and what did we gain access to? 1) The place of sacrifice from which the
atonement flowed; 2) The place where the manna from Exodus was stored. (Hebrews
9:4) Our "access" to the Holy of Holies is now by the Eucharist, where all the
faithful can come and receive from the Holy of Holies through the liturgy the
Body and Blood of Christ, the blood which "cleanse[s] our consciences from acts
that lead to death" (Hebrews 9:14).  The manna symbolizes the Eucharist which
we now receive from this tabernacle, feeding us in the desert of sin on our
journey after being freed from bondage to Satan.

> and the temple was destroyed in 70 AD bringing an end to the sacrificial
> system.

Not an end of the sacrificial system, a fulfillment of the Old Testament: Jesus
came to fulfill the Law, not to abolish it.  The sacrificial system of the Old
Covenant has ended, but the New Covenant has taken its place.  Through the New
Covenant of the Eucharist ("the blood of the new and everlasting covenant," as
Christ said at the Last Supper), we repeatedly receive this once-for-all,
perfect, finished sacrifice at the hands of Christ.

> The price has been paid once and for all, permanent atonement has been 
> obtained.

Most definitely.  But now that Christ has won your atonement, by what means do
you personally receive it and apply it to your sins?  Paul says through the
blood of Christ.  Well, maybe he was speaking literally! Now that Christ has
established this covenant in his blood, how do you enter into this new
covenant?  We believe Christ established the Eucharist as the sacramental means
by which we personally receive this atonement, through the blood of Jesus made
present for us.  (Note that it is not the _only_ means; this atonement is also
received through the other sacraments, and can also be received in other ways,
but this is the primary means Christ established to receive His atonement, and
it is a gift of Him to us.)

What our Church has taught dating back centuries to the Synod in Constanti-
nople (Jan. 1156-May 1157) is this:

"Today's sacrifice is like that offered once by the Once-begotten Incarnate
Word; it is offered by him (now as then), since it is one and the same
sacrifice."

The Council of Trent affirmed this mystery: "In the sacrifice of the mass,
Christ's sacrifice on the cross is made present, its memory is celebrated, and
its saving power is applied."

Glory be to God,
Eric

    Replies .91 to .97 above were moved here from topic 276, as they belong
    to the subject already discussed in this topic.
    
    Mark L. co-mod

Well, given that this has been moved to an appropriate topic, I guess I no
longer have to forbear :-)

Concerning the issue of the Old Testament sacrificial cult. I can now reply
with the words of St. Irenaeus in his work, Against Heresies:

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4, 18, 2, 180 A.D.:

"Sacrifice as such as not been reprobated.  There were sacrifices then,
sacrifices among the people; and there are sacrifices now, sacrifices in the
Church.  Only the kind has been changed; for now the sacrifice is offered not
by slaves but by free men."

Now I shall produce even more excellent explanations from the early saints
themselves.

St. Cyprian of Carthage, the Lord's Prayer, 252 A.D., chapter 18

As the prayer proceeds, we ask and say: 'Give us this day our daily bread.' 
This can be understood both spiritually and simply, because either 
understanding is of profit in divine usefulness for salvation. For Christ 
is the bread of life and the bread here is of all, but is ours. And as we 
say 'Our Father,' because He is the Father of those who understand and 
believe, so too we say 'our Bread,' because Christ is the bread of those of 
us who attain to His body. Moreover, we ask that this bread be given daily, 
lest we, who are in Christ and receive the Eucharist daily as food of 
salvation, with the intervention of some more grievous sin, while we are 
shut off and as non-communicants are kept from the heavenly bread, be 
separated from the body of Christ as He Himself declares, saying: 'I am the 
bread of life which came down from heaven. If any man eat of my bread he 
shall live forever. Moreover, the bread that I shall give is my flesh for 
the life of the world.' Since then He says that, if anyone eats of His 
bread, he lives forever, as it is manifest that they live who attain to His 
body and receive the Eucharist by right of communion, so on the other hand 
we must fear and pray lest anyone, while he is cut off and separated from 
the body of Christ, remain apart from salvation, as He Himself threatens, 
saying: 'Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, 
you shall not have life in you.' And so we petition that our bread, that is 
Christ, be given us daily, so that we, who abide and live in Christ, may 
not withdraw from His sanctification and body.

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 180 A.D., 4,17,5:

Again, giving counsel to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits from
among His creatures, not as if He needed them, but so that they themselves
might be neither unfruitful nor ungrateful, He took from among creation that
which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ``This is My Body.'' The cup likewise,
which is from among the creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His
Blood.  
   He taught the the new sacrifice of the New Covenant, of which Malachi, one
of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: ```You do not do my will,'
says the Lord Almighty, `and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For
from the rising of the sun to its setting My name is glorified among the
gentiles, and in every place incense is offer to My name, and a pure sacrifice;
for great is My name among the gentiles,' says the Lord Almighty.''  (Mal
1:11). By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to
make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to
Him, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the gentiles.''

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4, 18, 5, 180 A.D.:

For thanksgiving is consistent with our opinion; and the Eucharist confirms our
opinion.  For we offer to Him those things which are His, declaring in a fit
manner the gift and the acceptance of flesh and spirit.  For as the bread from
the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but the
Eucharist, consistent of two elements, earthly and heavenly, so also our
bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible but have the
hope of resurrection into eternity.

St. Cyprian wrote to the Ephesians circa 258 A.D:

"The priest who imitates that which Christ did, truly takes the place of
Christ, and offers there in the Church a true and perfect sacrifice to God the
Father."

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Romans, 7, 110 A.D.:

I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the
flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of
David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is
incorruptible love and eternal life.

Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Discourses (A.D. 350):

The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the
adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been
made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ
...  Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they
are, according to the Master's declaration, the body and blood of Christ.
Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm.  Do
not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not
doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ ...
[Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even
though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the
apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, ... partake
of that bread as something spiritual and put a cheerful face on your soul.

Eric

Those of you who find this doctrine of the Real Presence hard to stomach <arg
arg!> are right: "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" (John 6:60).
And, "Yet there are some of you who do not believe." (John 6:64) Jesus was
referring to Judas here: that is, Judas rejected Christ and fell away precisely
because he refused to believe in Jesus's words here.  He found it a hard
saying, and refused to believe it.

"From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."
(v. 66)

It has been said that Jesus was speaking figuratively because he said, "Does
this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.  The words I have spoken
to you are Spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not
believe."

So here we have Jesus saying, "Eat my flesh, but you'll find it's a waste of
time," right?  "The flesh counts for nothing" they argue.  No, Jesus's point
here is revealed by what he says, "Does this offend you?"  His disciples were
still in the flesh: they found this hard to believe, offensive, because they
were in the flesh, and no one can believe this doctrine when he relies on his
flesh, the natural man.  But Jesus rebukes them for their disbelief in this
great mystery: "What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!",
that is, if you think this is cannot happen, wait until you see me ascending
into heaven! (How amazing could this be if, as some say, Jesus was merely
reiterating what he was saying all along, we must believe in him and come to
him to have life?) In order to understand it, we must ignore our fleshly
thinking and rely on the Spirit, and believe the words of Jesus, the words
which bring eternal life, and the words which can only be accepted by the
spiritual man.  Those who walk in the flesh ("Yet there are some of you who do
not believe"), such as Judas to whom Christ was referring, cannot believe these
words of life.

IMHO, the question is _not_, why believe in the Real Presence, but, by what
evidence do you reject it?  I have proved to you why we must believe it. I have
demonstrated that the early Christians most emphatically taught the doctrine.
It is overwhelmingly supported by Scripture, as I have demonstrated, prefigured
in many ways. There is not a single Scripture which convincingly refutes it.
It was even believed by the early Reformers.  There is no proof that the early
Christians ever even countenanced the current evangelical point of view.  There
is no proof the Apostles held the contrary point of view.  St. Ignatius, bishop
of Antioch and disciple of St. John the Evangelist, even said in 110 A.D. that
those who deny it are heterodox and "perishing in their disputes."  Strong
words indeed, but it should really make us think: Do we have any justifiable
reason for insisting that the early Christians did _not_ believe this doctrine,
and did _not_ consider it basic to the Christian faith?

Let us not cling to the unprofitable flesh and continue to say, "I refuse to
believe it because it is a hard teaching," for Jesus had absolutely no sympathy
for those who thought so. Let us not cling to the traditions of men, but
believe the words of Scripture, the right interpretation of which is clearly
explained by the teachings of the early Christians, and wrong opinions clearly
refuted by the same.  For there is only one truth, one faith, one teaching of
Christ, and there is no minor harm done to our souls if Christ indeed taught
this doctrine and we in our flesh refuse to believe it.

Eric

  97.99 has been set hidden pending moderator discussion.





  Jim

    Eric,
    
    What I have to say regarding my (contrary) view has already been written
    earlier in this topic.  I see no need to repeat the discussion.
    
    Mark L.

Thanks for your detailed reply Eric.  I view the John passage differently
from the way you do, and perhaps will try to delineate it for you a bit
later as I really want to concentrate on finishing Ruth right now.  I did
read back through this topic, and most points on either side have been 
pretty much covered so its probably not urgent to go through it all again
right now.

Leslie

> Thanks for your detailed reply Eric.  I view the John passage differently
> from the way you do . . .

What counts is not how we interpret or personally understand the Scriptures,
but what the Apostles taught and what they meant when they wrote the
Scriptures.

The arguments of the contrary nature are based on human reasoning and personal
interpretation, but we must seek to discover what the Apostles taught rather
than what Scripture might possibly admit.  And what the Apostles taught is
clearly and unequivocally explained by the earliest of Christian writers, and
they admitted no diversity of opinions on the matter.

But, alas, without realizing that Scripture alone is insufficient to know the
truth, it is not possible to find any sort of common ground on which we may
agree.

Eric

My views are not based solely on personal thoughts Eric, but on study of
the text's context and in conjunction with other Biblical texts, both from 
the O.T. and N.T.  I read and listen to what Biblical scholars who have 
placed their faith in YHWY and in Y'shua have to say, I look up referenced 
texts, and I pray about it, and ponder on it.  I am not hasty in my decisions 
about the meaning of anything, and can be pesuaded that I am wrong about 
something IF it is shown that the idea being presented is consistent with
the rest of the Word of God and with God's character and law.

Be patient with me, eh ?, and let me write down what my views are before
coming to conclusions about how they are founded.  I will put them in, but
it may be a little while before I can get to it, and though I dare say you 
may disagree with them because you and I come from different pre-suppositions,
I hope you will see that my thinking is not founded on purely subjective,
wishful thinking, but is based on careful consideration of what God has said
through the Scriptures.

Cheers .... and I look forward to meeting you tonight.

Leslie

I _would_ like to say that I'm being intentionally and excessively obnoxious to
prove a point -- I realize that your views, Leslie, and many people's views are
very honestly arrived at after much study and prayer, and I don't want to dis-
count that.

But I think that in the process of all of the Biblical study and hermeneutics
and Greek language study and everything else, we can't see the forest through
the trees.  What is the ultimate source of our Christian faith?  Is it the
Bible?  Or is it the gospel preached by Christ through the Apostles, and
revealed to us in the Bible?

Did the Apostles preach the truth, and then commit that truth to writing in
the Scriptures, or did the Apostles go into some sort of trance, write the
Scriptures, then read what they wrote and preach from there? In other words,
did Christ entrust the truth to the Apostles through the Holy Spirit, who
preached that truth and expressed that truth in the Scriptures, or did Christ
reveal all his truth to us merely by dictating the Scriptures to the sacred 
authors, and leave it up to us to figure it out?

This is crucial, because in one case, the true and authentic meaning of
Scripture was known at one time by the church without question, and in the
other case, we have always been as clueless as to the true meaning of Scripture
as we are now.

I assert that that the Apostles possessed the full truth of the Christian
Gospel, all that Christ deigned to reveal publically to us, and that what the
Apostles preached and taught was without doctrinal error.  And that the truth
we seek is not merely the truth that we understand Scripture to be revealing,
but rather that truth preached by the Apostles and which they intended when
they wrote Scripture.

The Bible, of course, is our means our determining what the Apostles taught.
Yet not everyone interprets Scripture in the same way, and there are a number
of honest people and churches which regard their beliefs as Scriptural, yet
nevertheless such people arrive at conflicting answers about what Scripture
teaches.  It is evident that Scripture, although inspired and infallible, is,
as we understand it, ambiguous, and we need a means of determining what 
interpretion of Scripture was taught by the Apostles.  If many sincere,
studious, and prayerful people nevertheless disagree on the teaching of 
Scripture, how can we know the truth which Christ promised to reveal to us and
bring to remembrance when we needed it?  If Christ taught the truth, how can we
know that truth if everyone disagrees over what in fact Scripture teaches?

Eric

>>The Bible, of course, is our means our determining what the Apostles taught.

Exactly !  And so we study the Bible, Old and New Testament both.  We seek to 
know as much possible about the culture within which and to whom the prophets,
apostles, and the other writers of scripture originally wrote.  And most of
all we pray, asking God to help us understand His truths and to correct our
misunderstandings.

We may not always arrive at the exact truth, as obviously, there are many 
different interpretations and we can obviously see that some interpretations 
contradict others so they cannot all be right.  So we discuss these things,
further seeking to understand.  But as we discuss them, we must continue to
remember that God is sovereign, we are not, and He loves all His people.  I'm 
not sure why we don't all arrive at the same conclusions, but I'm sure that 
in the fullness of time, our understanding will be opened and we will have 
final, definate and clear answers from Y'Shua, Himself.  

In the meantime, we have a responsibilty to love mercy and walk humbly with 
our God, being obedient to Him as best we can.

Leslie

At the forty-first meeting of ARC/USA, on January 6, 1994, having in mind the
significant agreement on the Eucharist represented by "The Final Report" of
the Anglican/Roman Catholic International Commission and responding to the
request in the "Vatican Response to the ARCIC-I Final Report" for clarification,
we wish as the official representatives of our two Churches in the United
States to make together the following affirmations:

1. We affirm that in the Eucharist the Church, doing what Christ commanded his
apostles to do at the Last Supper, makes present the sacrifice of Calvary.  We
understand this to mean that when the Church is gathered in worship, it is
empowered by the Holy Spirit to make Christ present and to receive all the
benefits of his sacrifice.

2. We affirm that God has given the Eucharist to the Church as a means through
which all the atoning work of Christ on the Cross is proclaimed and made
present with all its effects in the life of the Church.  His work includes
"that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of
the whole world."  (cf. Art. 31 BCP, p. 874).  Thus the propitiatory effect of
Christ's one sacrifice applies in the Eucharistic celebration to both the
living and the dead, including a particular dead person.

3. We affirm that Christ in the Eucharist makes himself present sacramentally
and truly when under the species of bread and wine these earthly realities
are changed into the reality of his body and blood.  In English the terms
"substance", "substantial" and "substantially" have such physical and
material overtones that we, adhering to the Final Report, have substituted
the word "truly" for the word "substantially" in the clarification requested
by the Vatican Response.  However, we affirm the reality of the change by
consecration as being independent of the subjective disposition of the
worshippers.

4. Both our Churches affirm that after the Eucharistic celebration the body
and blood of Christ may be reserved for the communion of the sick, "or of
others who for weighty cause could not be present at the celebration." (BCP,
p. 408-409).  Although the American Book of Common Prayer directs that any
consecrated bread and wine not reserved for this purpose should be consumed
at the end of the service, American Episcopalians recognize that many of our
own Church members practice the adoration of Christ in the reserved sacrament.
We acknowledge this practice as an extension of the worship of Jesus Christ
present at the Eucharistic celebration.

5. We affirm that only a validly ordained priest can be the minister who, in
the person of Christ, brings into being the sacrament of the Eucharist and
offers sacramentally the redemptive sacrifice of Christ which God offers us.

As the Vatican Response has already recorded the notable progress toward
consensus represented by The Final Report in respect of Eucharistic doctrine,
in the light of these five affirmations, ARC/USA records its conclusion that
the Eucharistic sacrifice is not an issue that divides our two Churches.

	+ Frank T. Griswold, Bishop of Chicago, Episcopal Co-Chair of ARC/USA

	+ John J. Snyder, Bishop of Saint Augustine, Roman Catholic Co-Chair
	  of ARC/USA

	+ Joseph Gossman, Bishop of Raleigh

January 6-7, 1994	 Subscribed unanimously by all ARC/USA members present
Del Ray Beach, Florida	 at the forty-first meeting.

Hi John,

I'm not familiar with the body who you quote as making these affirmations, 
'ARC/USA' - an American branch of 'ARC' (or is the 'A' for American) ?

							Andrew

>I'm not familiar with the body who you quote as making these affirmations, 
>'ARC/USA' - an American branch of 'ARC' (or is the 'A' for American) ?

ARCIC is the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission; ARC/USA
are those members of the Commission from the USA.

The International Commission published a report about ten years ago,
on which the Vatican requested several clarifications.  This affirmation
is part of the process of producing clarifications.

/john