DT reattacks the Eucharist

Accusations à la Hochhuth's The Deputy · Mainly on Waldensians and Crusades · DT reattacks the Eucharist

I publish

in a new subthread, the link to previous, and later do excuses for the quality in the first hours of publication.

But the interesting thing is, DT is very keen on re-pretending the Eucharist is unbiblical:

DT

Hans-George Lundahl,
1. Christ didn't correct those who objected to his "you must eat my flesh" message either because they needed to chew off at least a finger or because (as scripture says) he knew what was in man".

I think the evidence heavy on the side of " he knew...".

No one ever actually ate any of his flesh...despite being told they must! No one ever claimed to until many years after his crucifixion. "They needed to eat some of him" is ridicoulous!

2. Communication is a two way street Mr. High & Mighty Sr.

3. If the disciples who left Jeshua were right in thinking that he taught that they would be needing to ACTUALLY eat his flesh why do we not read of anyone doing so?

Christ himself called the cup "this fruit of the vine" AFTER declaring it was the NT in his blood, so they didn't drink actual blood! Your claims contradict scripture!

4. The RCC agrees that the OT ceremonies were representative of spiritual realities but deny that the paschal cup & bread are because their fake transubstantiation is meaningless if they admit it! They were long representative parts of the paschal meal, what ground is there to claim anything different when Christ declared that they should be partaken of in REMEMBRANCE of his crucifixion?

None!

If your claim were true then man could forgo repenting, forgo living righteuosnesly and forgo believing in Christ and merely eat a wafer to be saved!

(Because your church demands literal eating of flesh AND drinking of his blood but doesn't even give the cup except to "priests"! Claiming the blood is in the bread ...even though Christ gave the bread AND the cup!) So, eat the wafer &:you are a "partaker of Christ"!

Ridiculous! (& refuted by scripture!)

That voodoo keeps looking like more & more DOODOO all the time!

Ridiculous fable piled on previous ridiculous fable! How can a seemingly intelligent man like you "buy" that malarky???

WHY would you buy that instead of biblical doctrine?

Partaking of Christ is a SPIRITUAL requirement and reality, not a physical one!

Christ died ONCE then sat down...waiting now for his enemies to be made his footstool.

His sacrafice does not need to be repeated and the claimed "making it present" repeat via the Mass makes a mockery of "biblical salvation via his one time sacrifice".

C'mon Hans you are smarter than that!

Hans Georg Lundahl

DT, //1. Christ didn't correct those who objected to his "you must eat my flesh" message either because they needed to chew off at least a finger or because (as scripture says) he knew what was in man". //

// I think the evidence heavy on the side of " he knew...". //

// No one ever actually ate any of his flesh...despite being told they must! No one ever claimed to until many years after his crucifixion. "They needed to eat some of him" is ridicoulous! //

Correction on the Catholic theology : no Catholic thinks we need to eat OF Christ's flesh. All of it is present in each small piece of what can be perceived as bread.

You are, like those Jews, adding a notion of cannibalism.

Whatever Christ knew, He was at that point communicating and giving some a last chance.

// 2. Communication is a two way street Mr. High & Mighty Sr. //

Certainly. But in this case, on your view, a metaphor had been mistaken for a literal thing, and in cases of mistake, one would normally try to correct them.

// 3. If the disciples who left Jeshua were right in thinking that he taught that they would be needing to ACTUALLY eat his flesh why do we not read of anyone doing so? //

In Corinthians 11 we see St. Paul talking of actually doing so.

// Christ himself called the cup "this fruit of the vine" AFTER declaring it was the NT in his blood, so they didn't drink actual blood! Your claims contradict scripture! //

You seem to be referring to the account by St. Matthew, on which Challoner commented:

[29] "Fruit of the vine": These words, by the account of St. Luke 26: 22. 18, were not spoken of the sacramental cup, but of the wine that was drunk with the paschal lamb. Though the sacramental cup might also be called the fruit of the vine, because it was consecrated from wine, and retains the likeness, and all the accidents or qualities of wine.

Objection dismissed.

// 4. The RCC agrees that the OT ceremonies were representative of spiritual realities but deny that the paschal cup & bread are //

We deny that the paschal cup and bread Christ began with are identic to the sacrament of the New Covenant.

See Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Get it - of the New Testament!

// because their fake transubstantiation is meaningless if they admit it! //

What we do not admit is Christ both starting and ending with only a Jewish paschal meal. He started with one and added a new sacrament from two materials in it.

// They were long representative parts of the paschal meal, //

Of the Old Testament, which commemorated the Exodus from Egypt, which was a shadow of what Christ was to accomplish.

// what ground is there to claim anything different when Christ declared that they should be partaken of in REMEMBRANCE of his crucifixion? //

The very idea of remembering the Crucifixion places His institution outside the immediate context of the OT Seder.

Remembrance does not exclude what is being remembered also being there.

// If your claim were true then man could forgo repenting, forgo living righteuosnesly and forgo believing in Christ and merely eat a wafer to be saved! //

No, since someone who took of the sacrament without repentance of sins known, and without the intent of living righteously and without belief, would make himself CULPABLE of the Body and Blood of Christ. The sacrament he would take would be a true sacrament, but it would not save him any more than touching Christ saved those who hammered the nails in His hands.

// Because your church demands literal eating of flesh AND drinking of his blood but doesn't even give the cup except to "priests"! Claiming the blood is in the bread ...even though Christ gave the bread AND the cup! //

In the crucifixion, Christ's Blood was separated from His Body. In His heavenly glory, His Blood flows in His Body. This means, anyone who communicates under one species only, partakes of both Body and Blood, because we partake of the risen Christ. But in the Consecration, His death is shown forth.

The twelve to whom He gave the cup were all the first bishops of the Catholic Church, that is, its highest clergy (there is a dispute if Judas was still in the room when this happened, so, twelve or eleven).

// So, eat the wafer &:you are a "partaker of Christ"! //

Partaker if believing and repenting of any sins known, robber if unbeliever or unrepentant.

// That voodoo keeps looking like more & more DOODOO all the time! //

Sorry, but namecalling won't cut it.

// Ridiculous fable piled on previous ridiculous fable! How can a seemingly intelligent man like you "buy" that malarky??? //

Sorry, but namecalling won't cut it.

// WHY would you buy that instead of biblical doctrine? //

I am not buying your parodies of Catholic doctrine, but I am buying Catholic doctrine, since it is Biblical.

// Partaking of Christ is a SPIRITUAL requirement and reality, not a physical one! //

The requirement is both spiritual and physical. The reality also.

// Christ died ONCE then sat down...waiting now for his enemies to be made his footstool. //

Even so, His death is made present on our altars.

// His sacrafice does not need to be repeated and the claimed "making it present" repeat via the Mass makes a mockery of "biblical salvation via his one time sacrifice". //

Where in the Bible do you find the words "biblical salvation via his one time sacrifice"?

It's your interpretation of what the Bible says, not its actual words.

And unlike yours, the Catholic one was around in St. Ambrose, around 400 AD.

As to your final point, flattery won't cut it either.

DT

Hans-Georg Lundahl , so laughable I won't respond point by point.

What you do is what the Catholic Church has been doing for 1600 years...talking out of both sides of your mouth. "His flesh and blood had to be eaten!" and "no one ate it because that's not what he meant!"

"Everything was symbolic!" and "the bread & wine are not!"

"The wine LITERALLY becomes his blood!" & " It is an unbloody sacrifice!"

"We must have the bread & the cup!" And " it's ok for only the Priest to have the cup!"

"His one sacrifise is sufficient!" And " We make it present again and again but aren't repeating it!"

You can buy that all you want...AND act shocked when such tomfoolery is rejected by biblical Christians...but you should never expect the rejection of your church to change without that changing. It's not biblical.

Hans Georg Lundahl

I am not acting shocked, and you cannot pin point the RCC to 1600 years only.

You pretend we say "everything was symbolic" when we don't.

It's easy to "diagnose" contradictions and tomfoolery if you get to say what the other guy has said, even if it isn't the least accurate.

As I go through previous, I'll have to grant you one point : Christ took His seat. We partake of Christ risen, seated in Heaven. Or standing, on occasion.

But even there He is "like one slain". Apocalypse 5:6.