The "eucharist" is unbiblical

[ninja007]

THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY COMMUNION. The R.C.C. believes and teaches that the priest has been given the authority and power by the Lord to change the bread and wine of the communion into the actual, physical body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ:

“When our Lord instituted the blessed Eucharist, He said: ‘Do this for a commemoration of me’ (Luke 22:19), and by these words He gave power and commission to His apostles and their successors to do what He had done - namely, to change bread and wine into His body and blood, and to administer the same to others. It is in the Mass that this change is made - it is made in the name and by the power of Christ. In His name, the priest says: ‘This is my body, this is my blood;’ and in the very same instant in which these words are pronounced, the bread and wine become, by virtue of a divine power, the body and blood of Christ. The appearances, indeed, remain the same as before, but the substance is changed. This is called transubstantiation.”(10)
“If any one shall deny (states the Council of Trent) that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, are truly, really and substantially contained in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, let him be accursed” (Conc. Trid., Sess. 13, de Euchar, can. 1)(11)
“The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, offered on our altars under the appearances of bread and wine, to commemorate and continue the sacrifice of the cross.”(12)
Nowhere is this ever taught in the Bible. In fact, Jesus clearly stated that we are to eat the bread and drink the wine only in remembrance of Him (1 Cor. 11:23-26). The bread and the wine are only symbolic of the body of Christ that was broken for us and His blood that was shed on the cross. The Bible clearly teaches that Christ is not to be offered again - that He gave Himself once as a final and perfect offering on the cross, after which He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven from where He will only return at His second coming (Acts 1:11).

“Nor did He (Jesus) enter heaven to offer Himself again and again …” (Heb. 9:25).
“Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins (This points to the Jewish Old Testament animal sacrifices). But when this Priest (Jesus) had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God” (Heb. 10:11,12) [Explanations added].

“Because by one sacrifice He has made perfect forever those who are being made holy” (Heb. 10:14).

“For Christ died for sins once for all … to bring you to God” (1 Pet. 3:18).

Not only does the Bible teach clearly that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was final and complete, but the Word emphatically warns us not to offer Jesus again:

“… to their loss they are crucifying (offering) the Son of God all over again and subjecting Him to public disgrace” (Heb. 6:6)




http://www.uwitness.net/religion-art...atholic-church

Notice the bolded verses, which clearly teach that Jesus' sacrifice was a one time completed event. Jesus can not and will not come down from Heaven to be offered over and over again, which clearly contradicts Scripture. There is no need or reason to do this anyway- none.

 

[Avatar4321]

you are seriously going to argue that partaking the flesh and blood of Christ in the manner He showed the disciples during the last supper is unbiblical?

I'm sure you could make an argument for transubstantiation, but communion itself? Not likely . Especially since the catholic piece you cited cited the scriptures.

Catholics might be incorrect on some matters but partaking the blood and body of Christ isn't one of them

 

[sameech]

It is a ritual. Some people do communion; others have to tap on a door 13 times before they open it; some have to look for ways to bash religion every day to fill some void in their lives. To each their own.

 

[ninja007]

you are seriously going to argue that partaking the flesh and blood of Christ in the manner He showed the disciples during the last supper is unbiblical?

I'm sure you could make an argument for transubstantiation, but communion itself? Not likely . Especially since the catholic piece you cited cited the scriptures.

Catholics might be incorrect on some matters but partaking the blood and body of Christ isn't one of them

thats the worst one. Jesus is in Heaven. He made a perfect one time sacrifice. A human, sinful Priest cannot call Jesus down from Heaven millions of times a week. There are many other reasons it is a false teaching. It is an unbloody sacrifice, which cannot take away sins, and the dozens of verses proving it was a one time sacrifice. Jesus even talks about it some of the verses I listed in my op.

 

[ninja007]

the "eucharist" was a man made invention in the RCC. Jesus was speaking symbolically at the Last Supper- He was still alive.

 

[saveliberty]

Yet Christ returned to Earth several times after death. You are quite mistaken in your opinion.

 

[Blackrook]

the "eucharist" was a man made invention in the RCC. Jesus was speaking symbolically at the Last Supper- He was still alive.

The priest is reading from the Bible every time he consecrates the host. He is saying Jesus' words, word for word. Are you saying Jesus is a liar?

 

[Avatar4321]

you are seriously going to argue that partaking the flesh and blood of Christ in the manner He showed the disciples during the last supper is unbiblical?

I'm sure you could make an argument for transubstantiation, but communion itself? Not likely . Especially since the catholic piece you cited cited the scriptures.

Catholics might be incorrect on some matters but partaking the blood and body of Christ isn't one of them

thats the worst one. Jesus is in Heaven. He made a perfect one time sacrifice. A human, sinful Priest cannot call Jesus down from Heaven millions of times a week. There are many other reasons it is a false teaching. It is an unbloody sacrifice, which cannot take away sins, and the dozens of verses proving it was a one time sacrifice. Jesus even talks about it some of the verses I listed in my op.

than why did the apostles partake throughout the bible? Why did Paul warn leaders not to allow people to take it unworthily?

 

[Blackrook]

Most Protestant churches have a celebration of the Last Supper, so ninja is really on shaky ground with this one.

 

[sameech]

Most Protestant churches have a celebration of the Last Supper, so ninja is really on shaky ground with this one.

Not really. People are conditioned to read and interpret the Bible in the context of church as an institution, but the writings of the Bible clearly indicate that it is in fellowship, not in the 4 walls of a church that Jesus' message lives.

 

[ninja007]

Yet Christ returned to Earth several times after death. You are quite mistaken in your opinion.

and He was in a physical body. He hasn't been back since after the 40 days.

 

[ninja007]

Most Protestant churches have a celebration of the Last Supper, so ninja is really on shaky ground with this one.

yes as a MEMORIAM ONLY.

 

[ninja007]

the "eucharist" was a man made invention in the RCC. Jesus was speaking symbolically at the Last Supper- He was still alive.

The priest is reading from the Bible every time he consecrates the host. He is saying Jesus' words, word for word. Are you saying Jesus is a liar?

DO THIS IN memory OF ME.

 

[ninja007]

Roman Catholicism teaches that once Christ is present in a state of victimhood upon the altar, He then offers Himself to God the Father by the hands of the priest and in union with the Church (1354,1357).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

the "eucharist" was a man made invention in the RCC. Jesus was speaking symbolically at the Last Supper- He was still alive.

Obviously you're unaware of the fact that your inane and ridiculous tirade against the Catholic Church succeeds in only reinforcing the warranted perception that you and your fellow theists are incapable of respecting other faiths, and that Christians are for the most part arrogant and intolerant.

 

[ninja007]

In the real sacrifice, blood came from His body. Not so in the MASS- It is separate, as when He Gave the illustration at the Passover before He died. But the Catholic church persists the Mass is “a true and proper sacrifice, not symbolic of another actual event , but the actual “sacrifice of the Eucharist” (Council of Trent session 22 teachings and canons on the most holy sacrifice of the mass chpt.1)

 

[Avatar4321]

Most Protestant churches have a celebration of the Last Supper, so ninja is really on shaky ground with this one.

yes as a MEMORIAM ONLY.

so you've just conceded the point. What is the point of this ridiculous thread?

 

[ninja007]

Most Protestant churches have a celebration of the Last Supper, so ninja is really on shaky ground with this one.

yes as a MEMORIAM ONLY.

so you've just conceded the point. What is the point of this ridiculous thread?

NO- RC's believe its a real presence, transubstantiation.

Is the bread and wine actually the body and blood of Jesus Eucharist Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

 

[ninja007]

In 1 John.4:2-3 - “Every Spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God” this means only once he incarnated. John is writing after the resurrection In Greek this denotes a continuous action from the past continuing through to the future. In other words, the same body that Jesus took at the incarnation is the same body He resurrected in and dwells in forever. He does not become many little wafers or bodies, being called down from heaven by a priest to be ingested and come out the digestive track (I’m sorry to be so descriptive) He came in the flesh only once he rose in the flesh and continues in a flesh body throughout eternity. He doesn’t put His power or grace in inanimate objects. Grace comes from the person of the Father and Jesus Christ just as the scripture states. Catholics need to trust in God’s word to have the truth, not in their Catechism or traditions.

 

[turzovka]

the "eucharist" was a man made invention in the RCC. Jesus was speaking symbolically at the Last Supper- He was still alive.

Jesus (God) not capable of sharing Himself? Not able to be in two or more places at once?

Most protestants clutch he Bible as the be all and end all of God's messages to mankind. Of course this is absolutely untrue, but for the sake of Protestantism let's say that it is. Then my question is how can you dance around the sixth chapter of John? You know that Jesus was being literal, NOT SYMBOLIC, when he spoke of the absolute importance of partaking in eating his flesh and drinking his blood. If it were meant to be symbolic it would have been understood that way. But as Scripture said, many Jews and others were totally turned off by that teaching and abandoned him on the spot. Because they knew he meant it literally.

You might also want to research how many Eucharistic miracles there are that have manifested a supernatural presence. St. Catherine of Siena lived on Holy Communion only for the last four years of her life. Either she was a saint or the work of the devil (and woe to them who call the works of the Holy Spirit to be that of the evil one.)

Jesus gave certain disciples of his only, to have the authority to forgive sins or hold them bound. Does that trouble you as well? He also made clear of the authority of thee Church he established. I give THEE the keys of the kingdom. Whatsoever you hold bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven!

All kinds of authority there to interpret and to rule. You really need not spend too much of your valued time on earth trying to discredit Catholicism. The harvest is great but the laborers are few.