Eucharist Not In The Bible

[thessalonian]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1081247' date='Oct 1 2006, 09:19 PM']
I believe in the bread and wine being symbolic of Christ's sacrifice. "Do this in remembrance of me".
[/quote]


Hmmm. Searching through my dictionary I don't see the word symbol as any kind of a synonym in the definition of rememberence. So it seems that you have something that is not in the Bible. Nowhere does Jesus say "this is a symbol of my body". In fact he says "This IS my body" and "my flesh IS TRUE FOOD".

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1081794' date='Oct 2 2006, 09:00 AM']
How could he have turned the bread and wine into his body and blood when he was still alive?


[/quote]


Is this God we are talking about? I think so. Would you like to withdraw the question?

[kamiller42]

Welcome Solo! Thank you for bringing forth real debate. This kind of debate helps Catholics better understand their faith rather than shake it. For that, I thank you. I won't add to this debate because I think there are plenty of people already doing a fine job.

[Winchester]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1081771' date='Oct 2 2006, 08:38 AM']
Note the "do this in REMEMBRANCE of me".

If transubstatiation is occurring here than at best you would have to say that you need Jesus there to break the bread for you. There is nowhere in scripture where this process (and how to perform it) is outlined.

Do I drink wine? I drink a drink made from grapes the same as wine. Do you drink wine with the same alcohol content of the 1st century wine? The same grapes to make the wine?

Do you use bread?
[/quote]
I'm dizzy...

He told others to "Do this in remembrance of me." Only the Apostles were present, so you shouldn't be doing anything in remembrance of Him.

So you're saying if I tell someone to toss the torch in remembrance of me that I have to come back to toss it in remembrance of me?

The same logic would apply to your re-creation. You would have to have Christ do the breaking.

Why don't you drink wine? Jesus did.

Yes, we use unleavened bread. It keeps longer.

Before you ask.
No, the priest isn't Jewish.
He doesn't have a bread.
No one dips his in at the same time.
No one runs out in the middle of Mass.

Here's the problem. You've gone to an extreme and thus put yourself in an undefendable position. There are obviously passages we interpret. You should have said we misinterpret those passages rather than saying we had no passages.

Thanks for being so civil.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1081247' date='Oct 1 2006, 08:19 PM']
I believe in the bread and wine being symbolic of Christ's sacrifice. "Do this in remembrance of me".
[/quote]

met·a·phor Pronunciation Key (mt-fôr, -fr)
n.

1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles” or “All the world's a stage” (Shakespeare).
2. One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol: “Hollywood has always been an irresistible, prefabricated metaphor for the crass, the materialistic, the shallow, and the craven” (Neal Gabler).

I don't think that the use of a metaphor necessarily means that what is being spoken of metaphorically is any less "true" or "real" because it has been described using a metaphor. For example, when Jesus says that He is a "door," while He is not made of wood He *is* a portal and in that sense *really* is a door; when He says that He is a "vine," while He is not made of plant matter He *is* a source of "sap," i.e. sustenance, life, and in that sense *really* is a vine. In the definition above, a metaphor is described as a symbol. One excellent description I've heard of the difference between a sign and symbol is that a sign points toward a reality while a symbol participates in the reality to which it points. Certainly, I think it's fair to say that the sacraments fall into the metaphor / symbol category. That is, participation in the sacraments is participation in something real but at a level above or apart from what we perceive in the natural world, i.e. they are supernatural. So while in baptism, for example, we don't *actually* experience physical death, on a metaphorical / symbolic / spiritual level, we *do* participate in Jesus' death and resurrection. It's a metaphor but no less real for being so.

My two cents,
Ken

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='XIX' post='1081884' date='Oct 2 2006, 10:30 AM']
Welcome to Phatmass, Sola!

In light of the fact that Catholics do believe Transubstantiation happens in the Last Supper, I'll offer a pithy answer to your topical question:

1) It would not bother us if the Eucharist wasn't in the Bible, because the Church predates the Bible. The Church created the Bible. The Church almost invented the Bible. So if you are going to compare the two, then you have to go with the Church. Besides, the Church does back up pretty much everything with Scripture.

2) Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible, but "Christ's Church" is in the Bible, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her. If anything, the question becomes whether Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ. As far as I know it's a historical fact that it is founded by Christ.

3) Consubstantiation is not in the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible about using beard as a symbol for Christ. So if you decry the Eucharist on the grounds that it is not in the Bible, then you would also have to give up receiving bread as s symbol.

**Thank you very much for carrying out this debate with Christian charity.
[/quote]

At best you can say the church predates the NT. But of course God pre-dates the church so He really is the finally authority.

Since all scripture is “god-breathed” and the same cannot be said of the church then I think the argument of who came first is a bit dicey.

Long before the church was ever formed, God had the plan of salvation in place. His truth existed long before it was ever “breathed out” onto a page (or papyrus).

We should be careful to never elevate a system higher than God.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082013' date='Oct 2 2006, 01:40 PM']Since all scripture is “god-breathed” and the same cannot be said of the church then I think the argument of who came first is a bit dicey.
[/quote]


From the Gospel of John 20:

21Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.


God does a lot of breathing.

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1082004' date='Oct 2 2006, 12:36 PM']
I'm dizzy...

He told others to "Do this in remembrance of me." Only the Apostles were present, so you shouldn't be doing anything in remembrance of Him.

So you're saying if I tell someone to toss the torch in remembrance of me that I have to come back to toss it in remembrance of me?

The same logic would apply to your re-creation. You would have to have Christ do the breaking.

Why don't you drink wine? Jesus did.

Yes, we use unleavened bread. It keeps longer.

Before you ask.
No, the priest isn't Jewish.
He doesn't have a bread.
No one dips his in at the same time.
No one runs out in the middle of Mass.

Here's the problem. You've gone to an extreme and thus put yourself in an undefendable position. There are obviously passages we interpret. You should have said we misinterpret those passages rather than saying we had no passages.

Thanks for being so civil.
[/quote]

I am saying that you misinterpret those passages.

Your leap of faith to go from breaking bread and sharing a meal together to the “real presence” is a huge leap. I am fascinated that you would take John 6 so literally yet dodge the equation of eating his flesh with eternal life and miss all the huge road signs in John 6 that talk about the security of salvation and regeneration.

If you say to toss the torch in remembrance of me then I can toss the torch just as you did. But to say that every time I toss the torch you become part of the torch and because you become part of the torch that allows me to revere the torch and that now throwing the torch is necessary to being joining you in the afterlife…well, that’s quite the leap.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082023' date='Oct 2 2006, 01:48 PM']
Your leap of faith to go from breaking bread and sharing a meal together to the “real presence” is a huge leap.[/quote]
Oh come on. You seem smart enough and honest enough to admit that the Passover was not "a meal" in the sense that dinner is a meal. They were not ejoying enchilladas together, they were participating in the commemoration of a religiously significant event-- being freed from Egypt. The mass is the same way. It's not a pot luck.

[quote]
If you say to toss the torch in remembrance of me then I can toss the torch just as you did. But to say that every time I toss the torch you become part of the torch and because you become part of the torch that allows me to revere the torch and that now throwing the torch is necessary to being joining you in the afterlife…well, that’s quite the leap.
[/quote]
For Winchester to say that-- yes. For God-- no.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1081771' date='Oct 2 2006, 08:38 AM']
There is nowhere in scripture where this process (and how to perform it) is outlined.

[/quote]

perhaps showing that scripture alone can not account for all doctrine and practices of faith?

[cosiegirl]

I’m sorry, but there are just way too many of you to answer back to.

I hope that you will cut Budge some slack as it is virtually impossible to answer back everyone who is coming at you with questions.

I can see how you may misinterpret John 6 and throw in the other passages to confirm your position, but it is still just a misinterpretation. A long history of misinterpretation does not change that.

Jesus did give you the answer to the metaphor. He did not explain how transubstantiation would work (which would have been the perfect time to explain that) but instead he explained the difference between the flesh and spirit.

61But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 62Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."


[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1082032' date='Oct 2 2006, 12:55 PM']
Oh come on. You seem smart enough and honest enough to admit that the Passover was not "a meal" in the sense that dinner is a meal. They were not ejoying enchilladas together, they were participating in the commemoration of a religiously significant event-- being freed from Egypt. The mass is the same way. It's not a pot luck.
For Winchester to say that-- yes. For God-- no.
[/quote]

The Corinthians were sharing meal as is clear from Paul's letter.

[Anomaly]

A'ight. The comment that the length of a 'misinterpretation' matters little is not much of an argument. Come up with some other theologians from the first 500 years that disagreed.

Jesus' answer to the metaphor was indicative that Jesus was God in the Flesh which is more stunning that changing his flesh into real food for spiritual nurishment while we are in human (flesh) form. Jesus also says that one needs God's grace to know Jesus spiritually and in the flesh and in the context of the passage, needes God's grace to know Jesus in the Bread.

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1082034' date='Oct 2 2006, 12:57 PM']
perhaps showing that scripture alone can not account for all doctrine and practices of faith?
[/quote]

Did you mean the "not". I'm assuming not.

16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. 2Tim 3:16-17

Competent. Equipped for EVERY good work.

What did Jesus use to rebuff Satan during the temptation? Scripture.
What did Jesus reason from to show the men walking to Emmaus that he was the Messiah? Scripture.
What did the NT writers refer to support the fulfillment of Christ as the predicted Messiah? Scripture.
What is God-breathed? Scripture.


I know you will not accept this, but I'll put it out there anyway.

Jesus held the Word of God it the utmost regard. So should we.

[Anomaly]

What did Satan use to tempt Jesus? Scripture!

[Guest T-Bone]

What did the Jewish Elders use to condem Jesus? Scripture!

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1082050' date='Oct 2 2006, 01:16 PM']
What did Satan use to tempt Jesus? Scripture!
[/quote]

Satan twisted scripture to tempt him.

Wow, what are you trying to say about scripture by that comment.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082048' date='Oct 2 2006, 03:14 PM']
Did you mean the "not". I'm assuming not.

16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. 2Tim 3:16-17

Competent. Equipped for EVERY good work.

What did Jesus use to rebuff Satan during the temptation? Scripture.
What did Jesus reason from to show the men walking to Emmaus that he was the Messiah? Scripture.
What did the NT writers refer to support the fulfillment of Christ as the predicted Messiah? Scripture.
What is God-breathed? Scripture.
I know you will not accept this, but I'll put it out there anyway.

Jesus held the Word of God it the utmost regard. So should we.
[/quote]
The Word of God should be held to the utmost regard. The problem lies in the fact that without Tradition, we have no idea which Scripture is inspired, and which is made up. It is this same Tradition that tells us how the Scriptures are to be interpreted correctly.

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='T-Bone' post='1082051' date='Oct 2 2006, 01:17 PM']
What did the Jewish Elders use to condem Jesus? Scripture!
[/quote]

And did they use scripture approriately to do such a task. Are you saying that they used scripture correctly in what they did?


[quote name='thedude' post='1082094' date='Oct 2 2006, 01:45 PM']
The Word of God should be held to the utmost regard. The problem lies in the fact that without Tradition, we have no idea which Scripture is inspired, and which is made up. It is this same Tradition that tells us how the Scriptures are to be interpreted correctly.
[/quote]

And what tells you that the tradition is correct?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082091' date='Oct 2 2006, 01:44 PM']
Satan twisted scripture to tempt him.

Wow, what are you trying to say about scripture by that comment.
[/quote]
I'm saying what the catholics here aren't afraid of saying and what the protestants are afraid of saying. Scripture can't stand alone without God's participation via various means. Caths and prots just argue what the 'various' means are.

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1082098' date='Oct 2 2006, 01:47 PM']
I'm saying what the catholics here aren't afraid of saying and what the protestants are afraid of saying. Scripture can't stand alone without God's participation via various means. Caths and prots just argue what the 'various' means are.
[/quote]

So if all you had was a Bible and no external contact, you don’t believe you could determine how to be saved?

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082095' date='Oct 2 2006, 12:47 PM']
And did they use scripture approriately to do such a task. Are you saying that they used scripture correctly in what they did?
[/quote]

No they did not. They misused scripture.

[quote]
And what tells you that the tradition is correct?
[/quote]

Scripture came from Tradition. If Tradition is incorrect, so is Scripture.

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082105' date='Oct 2 2006, 12:54 PM']
So if all you had was a Bible and no external contact, you don’t believe you could determine how to be saved?
[/quote]

No, you couldn't. You'd need a teacher to explain things. (Ethiopian Eunuch, anyone?)