His quotation will be color Red and my response will be color Blue.
"The Communion or the Last Supper of Jesus Christ with His apostles is one of the two Church ordinances stated in the New Testament Bible. But some Churches followed not the exact instruction of Jesus Christ in His Word like the “Partakers” and the “Nature” of it. The Issue of the Partaker is why only the Priest partake the Wine and Nature tackles if whether it is a Transubstantiation or a mere Commemoration of the Death and Resurrection of the Son of God."
To be fair I will response this assumption fairly.
Partaker: Priest Alone?
The Bible never specifies the priest as the “only partaker” of the wine but instead in the general way. Consider the statement “you xxx among yourselves.” of 1 Corinthians 11:24-26; Luke 22:17-20 speaks about all disciples of Christ Jesus.
Yes it is only Ordained Priest alone who have authority to consecrate the Eucharist. It is clearly stated in the Bible that Christ himself is a priest (Hebrew 7:1-21). In which Christ describe as another priest like Melchizedek and from the Order of Melchizedek. It is the duty of the Priest to partake a sacrifice since the time of the Old Covenant. Christ as a fulfillment of the New covenant, obviously Christ holds a Priestly office to hold a sacrifice. Since Christ is a High Priest (Hebrew chap.8) it is the reason that Christ partake his own Body at the Last Supper. And the Apostle who been ordained by Christ follows same instruction, so on to our Priest who follows the Apostolic Succession.
Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church believes on the Transubstantiation Theory which it teaches that the bread and wine will become the actual body and wine of Christ when consecrated by the Priest during Mass, though they still look like and taste the same. Thus, the one partaking the communion are literally eating the body of Christ and drinking the blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation is not a theory but a fact that Christ declared “This is My Body” in 1 Cor 11: 23-30 St. Paul declares that the Bread and Wine will became Body and Blood of Christ and at the passage of Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, Lk 22:19-20. It is been cleared that Christ declared the Bread and Wine as he said “This is My Body”. Transubstantiation is a Christian Doctrine long the time of Christ and Apostles and not a invention of the Catholic Church.
The KJV version in John 6:53 said “verily, verily.” which implies that Jesus’s statement is “literal” and not “figurative” which made one as vampire and cannibal.
Yet the Catholic Theologians erred in this interpretation because the words “verily” never refer to the “literality” of Christ’s statement but on its “reality or veracity”. The NIV translate it “I tell you the truth”. Therefore, the said statement of Christ implies on its “truthfulness” and in no way to mean it literal.
What they wanted to insist that we LITERALLY partake the actual blood and flesh of Jesus because Jesus said Do this in remembrance of me will force us to admit that JEUS, while saying do this kin remembrance of me, is PARTAKING HIS OWN VERY BLOOD AND FLESH which is very ILLOGICAL TO BELIEVE.
Actually the statement above is a “Logical Fallacy”, as a product of error of understanding. Let say the Bread and Wine turns into actual Body and Blood, does it meant that the communion been subjected to cannibalism? No it is not cannibalism whether the Bread and Wine turns into Body and Blood of Christ, The Eucharist remains as Bread in Physical appearance rather than flesh therefore it is not subjected to cannibalism which is eat flesh. The Body and Blood remains Bread and Wine in Physical appearance but it is the actual presence of Christ that makes the Bread and Wine become his Body and Blood. It is not about being Literal but it is a matter of deep understanding and Theological sense. The Transubstantiation is not theory but fact and Mystical works of God. Actually this argument of cannibalism been used by the Roman Pagans, so that it gives a reason to persecute Christians.
Consubstantiation
Martin Luther believes that the bread and wine will become the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ but this only happens to the “faithful believers” who partaken the said Communion. It does not cover to the all partakers. It is the same argument with Catholic Defenders; only that it only stresses to faithful believers.
Clearly a Heretical view of Martin Luther, he attempt to agree and holds the belief that the bread and wine will become the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ, yet simply denying the Transubstantiation. It is clearly that he want a distinction between him and the Catholic Church, it stresses on the presence of the Faithfull believers rather than the presence of Christ that sanctify the Bread and Wine. So therefore it more likely symbolical rather than an “Actual presence of Christ at the Eucharist”, Symbolical is different from the actual presence of the Lord that it can sanctify and heal the soul for those who receive.
Memorialization
This doctrine is Scriptural which teaches that the bread and wine are “mere symbols” to remind and aid the believers in observing both the first and second coming of Christ. The teaching that the priest can turn the bread into the actual flesh of Jesus and the wine into the actual blood of Christ during the Eucharist is not taught in the Bible and thus makes every partaker as cannibals and vampires.
Dr Isidro said, “According to this teaching, during the Eucharist, Jesus goes through another “act of sacrifice”. But the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus suffered only once and therefore doesn’t need to die again. He died once according to Hebrews 7:24-27; 9:12, 24-25; and 10:11-12.”
This Memorialization theory is supported by 1 Corinthians 11:24-26 and Luke 22:18-19 by the statement “do this in remembrance of me”. That is an Ordinance for the Church to do.
The Memorialization is a theory and it is purely deferent to the Catholicism’s Eucharistic Celebration. The Memorialization is just a show or it doesn’t take importance to the Salvation. We Catholics celebrate the Eucharist with a High reverence (Adoration) as it the presence of Christ at the Eucharist that died for the sins of mankind. Yes Christ died once but we celebrate his mystery of death and resurrection, The Eucharistic Celebration is the highest form of prayer, so how about Memorialization of Protestant? Clearly it is just a memorialization rather than a highest form of prayer like Catholic does. Lifting the Sacrifice as like Christ did and his Apostles and so to our Priest, again it is fallacy to say it is cannibalism because Christ did that, Apostle did it again passed on to our Priest. It’s more likely that 1 Corinthians 11:24-26 supports the Eucharistic Celebration rather than memorialization. Why? Because St. Paul takes importance to the Bread which is Christ the Bread of Life, to those who eat his Body the soul shall be healed. The statement “do this in remembrance of me” is not just a memorial but it is a instruction that he leaves to his Apostles to celebrate the supper of the Lamb.
Memorialization
This doctrine is Scriptural which teaches that the bread and wine are “mere symbols” to remind and aid the believers in observing both the first and second coming of Christ. The teaching that the priest can turn the bread into the actual flesh of Jesus and the wine into the actual blood of Christ during the Eucharist is not taught in the Bible and thus makes every partaker as cannibals and vampires.
Dr Isidro said, “According to this teaching, during the Eucharist, Jesus goes through another “act of sacrifice”. But the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus suffered only once and therefore doesn’t need to die again. He died once according to Hebrews 7:24-27; 9:12, 24-25; and 10:11-12.”
This Memorialization theory is supported by 1 Corinthians 11:24-26 and Luke 22:18-19 by the statement “do this in remembrance of me”. That is an Ordinance for the Church to do.
The Memorialization is a theory and it is purely deferent to the Catholicism’s Eucharistic Celebration. The Memorialization is just a show or it doesn’t take importance to the Salvation. We Catholics celebrate the Eucharist with a High reverence (Adoration) as it the presence of Christ at the Eucharist that died for the sins of mankind. Yes Christ died once but we celebrate his mystery of death and resurrection, The Eucharistic Celebration is the highest form of prayer, so how about Memorialization of Protestant? Clearly it is just a memorialization rather than a highest form of prayer like Catholic does. Lifting the Sacrifice as like Christ did and his Apostles and so to our Priest, again it is fallacy to say it is cannibalism because Christ did that, Apostle did it again passed on to our Priest. It’s more likely that 1 Corinthians 11:24-26 supports the Eucharistic Celebration rather than memorialization. Why? Because St. Paul takes importance to the Bread which is Christ the Bread of Life, to those who eat his Body the soul shall be healed. The statement “do this in remembrance of me” is not just a memorial but it is a instruction that he leaves to his Apostles to celebrate the supper of the Lamb.
I guest he forgot this verse "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" 1 Corinthians 11:27 even St. Paul calls it a sacrilege because he believe the Christ present on the Eucharist not as a symbol.
Christ as High Priest instituted his Body along with his Apostles
No comments:
Post a Comment