Eucharistic Theology

I'd rather not cherry-pick based on which parts I'm comfortable with.

The bible only talks about remembering or calling to him when you eat or drink, where do you get the part of worshiping it?

Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

Eucharist IS Christ. Christ is worthy of worship.

Attached: 19577482_247498742421464_3130496471828032141_o.jpg (639x1437, 117.83K)

As a catholic…. lol

America is Godforsaken

OPFW

Attached: Charles the bald.jpg (399x553, 132.1K)

lmao

John 6. Jesus makes it as clear as day. The people ask him outright "Uhhh 'eat your flesh'. That's cannibalism. You're just talking metaphorically, right?" and Jesus responds no, he's talking literally. What was the response?

Some people were so disgusted at the idea that they turned their back on Jesus. There would be no reason to do that if Jesus was talking metaphorically. It's dumb as winnie the pooh to take everything in the Bible literally except the one part where Jesus himself said outright "This is not a metaphor. This is not a parable. You must eat my flesh and drink my blood to have life in you. Literally"

Now that's spicy.

They love to pretend that St. Paul isn't warning us of partaking of the Eucharist unworthily, even onto death.

Yes, he says to eat his body and drink his blood, literally. However how does that mean to put bread into something and treat it as God? That is no longer simply eating bread and drinking blood, you don't even eat the bread in the Eucharist, Or are you guys talking about communion?

The Eucharist is what Protestants call communion, yes. You're talking about Eucharistic Adoration, which is recognizing the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and worshiping him. The Eucharist is his real body, therefore you should show the proper reverence and adoration as you're in the physical presence of Christ himself.

Attached: Winnie the Pooh'd again.png (500x329, 227.44K)

Veneration, bub.
But seriously, why didn't Jesus correct those people when they expressed concern over seeming cannibalism? Why did they leave if He was just talking about metaphorical flesh and blood?

That's another thing I was wondering about. Are there any historical instances of this happening?
From 1 Corinthians 11:

Attached: Microcephaly.jpg (474x353, 19.81K)

It happens every single day. The percentage of Catholics who regularly confess is in the single digits, so I would say the majority accept the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin.

...

I mean the Eucharist causing illness/death in those who partake in a state of mortal sin. I know people take it unworthily; I'm waiting to take even Protestant communion until I get past some habitual sins.

To use old Polish hymn:
The hidden Jesus I ought to worship in The Sacrament,
Give everything to Him, live by His love,
He gives us all of Himself, He lives with us here.
For His divine glory let us devote life to Him.
By faith, you need to humble yours senses and reason,
Because there is no more bread here, It's God, it's my Jesus.

You do not worship bread. There is no bread in Eucharist. Only Christ.

Yeah, no. Read Justin's apology.

As the Psalms prophesied, there will be those among Christ's flock who will sin unto death, yet God will not abandon Him or His flock.

There is no such thing as a Protestant communion, and you're likely sinning if you do take it. It's a mockery of the authentic Eucharist.

I'm not really even Apostolic. I'm technically protestant I guess, but from what I can see the apostolic version of the Eucharist is the one in the Bible.

Dude it's mentioned like three times. Faith alone and creation is literally hundreds

Jesus wasn't a loaf of bread

In the same chapter he also says that youbwill never hunger or thirst again. So can I just not drink water anymore.

This is your brain on baptistery.

Attached: e20.png (400x281, 211.69K)

So when you go potty do you pee out blood?

Attached: 3eef96ad70425e08d7c1562d019ae198a6c63955d9ff3f7d76dbabe3fda0f072.png (250x317, 81.37K)

Also since you seem to take that literally, Jesus said it is his flesh and blood, not it will become his flesh and blood after you eat it. So that would mean Jesus' blood is wine

...

Faith alone is mentioned two times. Once in James and once in Galatians. Both times it says it bulshit but this is not purpose of the thread.

Spiritualy? Yes. Carnally? Also yes if God so wills. See Alexandrina da Costa

And Eucharist in not Bread.

Eucharist is Body and Blood of Christ under species of Bread and Wine. When there is no species there is no Eucharist. When Matter of Sacrament cease to be (it gets decomposed) there is no loger Sacrament.

Yes.
No one hold this opinion
No. "This is my Blood" He said while holding Chalice of Wine. Wine become his Blood. Spices remained substance changed.

Truly, this is the peak of baptist theological thinking, everyone

Attached: nuns.jpg (480x404 53.54 KB, 89.43K)

Speaking about the Eucharistic Adoration, then it wouldn't fit with "This is My body, which is for you, do this in remembrance of Me.”.

I used to be catholic, I've been to Eucharistic Adoration services, and have felt a strange presence from it, but there is no way to tell it what i am in front of is Jesus/God. With the utmost respect to my catholic brothers, I'm not saying there is no possibility of it being Christ, but there is no objective way to tell that that is God. If am wrong than may God show me the truth.

I'd like to make a small Orthodox correction.

In the "big picture of the things" Illness and even death happen for the benefit of those who partake unworthily. Therefore, if someone is "weak", then God can decide to forgive him even if he partakes in a state of mortal sin. On the other hand, to someone who participates regularly in the Church services and fights against sin all the time, God can punish him with illness even if he partakes with a very small unrepentant sin. This is so because "the Lord disciplines those he loves" (Proverb 3:12).

Consider the following:

Ask satanists and jews if they think transubstantiation is real. You think it's a coincidence they steal consecrated hosts from Catholic churches?
Heard one satanist say if you put 10 host in front of him, he could clearly tell which one is consecrated.

Attached: lu4488010204-2.jpg (720x521, 65.18K)

Sauce on the stealing pls.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_desecration

Desecration during a Black Mass

It's become easy for them to steal hosts since so many priests give communion on the hand nowadays.

Just google it, it's common knowledge they do this
google.com/search?client=opera&q=satanists stealing hosts&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

The objective way to tell that the Eucharist is Christ is the authoritative teaching of the Church on this matter, as it is for any other matter of faith.

You haven't rejected Catholicism because you have independently come to a conclusion contrary to the teaching of the Church, no you've rejected it the moment you decided that the Church was not authoritative and you could believe contrary to it's teachings.

Attached: 86fc2a31769872796cc239622be660117b0cf83d8ea8ebba9ecea8d6b6a0aa2d.jpg (960x719, 147.68K)

How? If this is body of Christ then it's worthy of adoration.

8ch.net/christian/res/670892.html

1 Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

So is what was inside Jesus wine? If he was literal when he said wine was his blood then he has wine inside of him. Same with was his flesh bread.

>8ch.net/christian/res/670892.html
And nothing about faith alone here.
Since in this sacrament, after the change, something remains the same, namely, the accidents of the bread, some of expressions may be admitted by way of similitude, namely, that "bread is the body of Christ," or, "bread will be the body of Christ," or "the body of Christ is made of bread"; provided that by the word "bread" is not understood the substance of bread, but in general "that which is contained under the species of bread," under which species there is first contained the substance of bread, and afterwards the body of Christ.
Non sequiturs. If he was literal that there is his blood in his cup then it was his blood since he is God. It does not follow that blood in his veins was wine. It does follow that wine was transubstantiated into his blood since species remided.

Per St. Augustine, Psalm 88 has the promise and the prophecy that the sacraments and presence of the Lord within the authentic Catholic Church of Jesus Christ will remain inviolate despite the reprobates:

" He shall cry out to me: Thou art my father: my God, and the support of my salvation.
28 And I will make him my firstborn, high above the kings of the earth.
29 I will keep my mercy for him for ever: and my covenant faithful to him.
30 And I will make his seed to endure for evermore: and his throne as the days of heaven.

31 And if his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments:
32 If they profane my justices: and keep not my commandments:
33 I will visit their iniquities with a rod: and their sins with stripes.
34 But my mercy I will not take away from him: nor will I suffer my truth to fail."

emphasis on lines 32-34

The Hebrew and Greek translations of the word Church in the bible means an assembly of people, Why do you believe in an official church?

Specifically speaking about the Eucharist Adoration. Because that's doing more than eating bread and remembering him, you're worshiping it, - for better or worse - it's doing something beyond what the passage says.

That's a pretty compelling evedence for the Eucharist, thank you and saved.

Nibba wat

When the priest give you the blood of Christ to drink is what's in the cup actual human blood or wine? If it's wine then if you take that as literally being Christ's blood then you believe that the stuff in his veins was wine

Nobody believes Christ's body is bread or His blood is wine; we believe that the appearance and accidentals of both bread and wine are leftover, but it is the true Presence of Jesus Christ, as He told His disciples at the last supper, and literally prophesied dozens of times in the OT and NT.

It all comes to this: Do you have faith in Jesus Christ? The Apostles believed and taught in the divine Eucharist, and perpetuated the belief that those who know and do not partake, shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven:

Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

The Church acknowledges that in inculpable ignorance, there are those who will enter Heaven having never taken communion on Earth, but they shall take communion in Heaven.

Well when you get the wine to drink is it Jesus' literal blood?

The only apostle thatvtalked about it was Paul.

Good job not posting the next verse
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
If you take that as taking communion then you only would have to do it once and you're saved forever.
Whatvhe probably means by itbis like in verse 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

After consecration, yes.

Yes, because those are the epistles we have left to us, do you need more Apostle's words to believe? Every ancient (authentic) church practiced the Eucharist.

And where does Christ say this? Where is OSAS ever taught, even in regards to sacraments? The fight against sin will not end until we are dead, then we are judged.

Then why did Christ allow the disciples to leave? Why did St. Paul say that condemnation is in whomever eats and drinks and does not believe? All for a parable? You believe this, truly?

This is a common misunderstanding. The matter of the bread and wine does not change, the substance does.

I'm not a protestant and I don't affiliate with modern denominations because of 1 corinthians 1:12-13 and 1 corinthians 3:3-7. But here's the truth out of the Bible so that you can take the part in john 6 literally. Jesus is supposed to be at the right hand of God until His enemies are made His footstool i.e hebrews 1:3. Which means his literal physical flesh and blood can't be upon earth or it would make Him not sitting at the right hand of God. So that's why john 6:55,63
1 corinthians 10:1-4
and hebrews 5:13-14
Jesus's flesh being meat indeed and us being told to eat it while His words are spirit and are life has everything to do with hebrews 5:14's strong meat compared to the word of righteousness in hebrews 5:12-13. Especially so if you compare these posts >>674190 against this

Uh, you know Jesus is God right? You think it's impossible for God to be in two places at once?

No, I didn't say that. I said that Jesus, the flesh and Spirit image of God, is sitting at the right hand of God the father until His enemies are made His footstool as said in hebrews 1:3
If Jesus isn't sitting at the right hand of God then revelation has started as for Jesus to return for His day, the day of the Lord. To suggest otherwise is to deny hebrews 1:3 or that revelation isn't going to happen, both of which would make you a liar.

To clarify me going on about sitting at the right hand of God see psalms 110:1
Jesus, the Lord, sat at the right hand of God, the LORD, after ascending to heaven in the end of the books of matthew, mark, luke, and john, as recorded by hebrews 1:3.

True. He also exists in the Eucharist, as he made very clear in John 6.

Jesus' words are spirit they are life, the flesh profiteth nothing. Which means no amount of eating physical food is going to do your spirit any good. That's why you eat spiritual food, the Word of God that speaks the word of righteousness/word of God.

Yackety yak, you can talk all you want, the Lord has shown us many times the real presence is a thing. It's completely ridiculous to even argue about it.

You seem to imply that revelation is happening for Jesus to have come back to earth as not sitting at the right hand of God. But very very clearly revelation 6:11 has not happened as a pre-requisite for revelation. So i'm going to believe the word of God over your witness as stated in 1 john 5:9
Thou art a liar, or the people providing said witness are liars, and what God says in His word the Bible is true.

Depriving yourself of the True Presence of Jesus Christ is bad, using Sacred Scripture to justify it is worse. Repent before it's too late.

Eucharist is eating bread in only two senses. First is that spices of bread remained in sacrament. But objectively speaking there is no bread here since substance of bread is no longer here - only Christ. Second is that Christ is Living Bread. That's the only two senses in which Eucharist is bread.
And I ask again - if Eucharist is Christ under what pretext he is not worthy of adoration? Is Latria not to be ofered to God only and always?

And nothing about faith alone here.