Starting a thread on the Lord's Supper for Catholics to read...

You are more than welcome to ask that question on the Catholicism board but weren't we talking about 'all believers' having the power to turn bread into Christs body? [ministerial priesthood?]
No thanks.

Yes all believers are the priesthood and all can bless the eucharist, though not all should.
 
We has others post a bottleneck where everyone that was "calid" had to pass through one individual. And we are talking around the time of the reformation.
Cardinal Ribiba. 95 percent of RC bishops come from him today. Everyone before that, you'll just have to trust the man behind the curtain.
 
Cardinal Ribiba. 95 percent of RC bishops come from him today. Everyone before that, you'll just have to trust the man behind the curtain.
Thank you for that. I didn't recall the person whatsoever. Fun fact, Ribiba (Rebiba, I've encountered this alternative spelling as well) has no known predecessor who laid hands on him.
 
he held the purse, no?
Sure, but what did the others do, that you suspect he did not do? That doesn't negate my assertion.

To add: One could say my last two comments ended the feeding frenzy, but more likely Arch simply had some other responsibilities to attend.
 
Last edited:
?

I am just being obedient to the early church, not what came later (y)
Hi Arch! I'm surprised you don't see the comment with humor as I intended, surely you are aware of teachings that would fit your personal criteria of what came later.
Heres more on why I find it humorous.
The Reformed have a doctrine of grace called perseverance of the saints. So when one of these saints doesn't endure to the end, then that is their response. It informs others they reject the dictrineb that a saint can fall away.

You could be on the singular point. There're likely others you do as well as other points you don't. Neg. Eg. Papacy.

Nic🙂
 
Are you referring to teachings of the Catholic Church that came later?
I suppose I can see where there may be some confusion, I offered two separate contexts, both came later in a mayter of speaking, in the sense of a common understanding of the Reformed which of course is sourced from Scripture, the other example was one of the many later derived doctrines of the Roman catholic church.

Nic:)
 
Proper Christology is paramount. No escaping that because when ones Christology is wrong, such as Roman Catholicism, then the whole of their belief system is wrong.
Since the topic is the Supper it is worth pointing out that in this regard the transubstantiationists and the symbolic folks are both poorly catechized in that they are unwilling to echo the Christian faith. Consequently, they are both in the same boat, the boat called Subjectivism.

No one knowledgeable and interested in a general use accurate translation of Scripture translates the accounts as, "Take and eat. This is the transubstantiated...," or, "Take and eat. This is the symbol..." (For the folks who insert the symbol elsewhere in the passages it still works out the same, subjectivism or egoism pure and simple.)

Paul wrote about that in 1 Corinthians 11, right?
Yes, he did and the context demonstrates the reason why the transubstantiation and symbolic interpretations are demonstrable error.

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.” (1Cor 10:16-17, KJVA)

The Apostle says of the bread and the wine that they are the body and blood of the Lord. He does not say that the bread and the wine are the transubstantiated body and blood, nor does he say that the bread and the wine are symbols of the body and blood of the Lord.

Therefore, according to the Apostle, those that eat and drink to their damnation are those who do not discern the body and blood of the Lord.

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.” (1Cor 11:29, KJVA)

He did not say that those who eat and drink to their damnation are those who do not discern transubstantiation, and he did not say that those who eat and drink to their damnation are those who do not discern the symbols.

The transubstantiationists and the symbolic folks can offer reasons for their misinterpretations but they are figments of imagination rather than based upon Scripture.

By way of example, consider the similar reasoning of the heretics regarding Christ. The one who created all things tells us that He is true man and true God. The heretics, not trusting the word of their Creator, said things like, if He is true man then He can't be and isn't true God, etc.

The reasoning of the heretics ignored, disregarded, or denied the God given perfect immediate context of Scripture and then claimed that they had Scriptural support for their view.
Jesus is referred to, symbolically, as many things we all love and hold dear. The Living Water. The First and the Last. The Great I AM. The Son of God. And when He used cup in some of His teachings and words it wasn't that He was going to drink a cup or His disciples were going to drink the same cup He was, but was referencing His coming sacrifice and their pending martyrdom. Matthew 20:22 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?” “We can,” they answered.
Matthew 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”...42 He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”
The interpretive comments above about Jesus are bizarre. It may be because they do not take into account the mindset of His first listeners whose frame of mind should have been molded by the Scriptures of that day.

Jesus said the Scriptures testify of Him so a good example is Jesus being the first and last. It is a proclamation of deity. Jesus isn't saying the first and the last symbolize Him, or I symbolize the first and the last, etc.

You are welcome to believe that. I do not believe when He broke bread and gave the cup the disciples were literally eating His flesh nor drinking His blood. As Passover was a memorial of the flight from Egypt Jesus used that memorial to create the new one, the memorial, remembrance of His sacrifice and like the Passover meal that uses food to represent their trials Jesus used the bread and wine as a representation of what He would go through, what He would accomplish, how He would accomplish, our salvation on the cross.
The Passover was only the type. The antitype, Christ for you, is greater, is the reality.
Everyone that I know of in the fellowship I belong to understand and believe that Jesus is God and man, the creator. Also, we do not hold that the bread and wine is actually Him but used to symbolize what He accomplished for us on the cross. I am not divisive over this and only seek to understand your understanding but that does not change the challenge of understanding what Jesus did at the Last Supper. Was it literal. Was it symbolic. This is such a deep theological question, not unlike predestination, Melchizedek and other mysteries of God. I would not let our differences to keep me from fellowshipping with you though. You are a brother in the Lord as Bonnie is a sister in Him, and I am grateful for that.

Thanks BJ.
Just because you mentioned it, and because there will be a difference with RCs and others, predestination is simple and straightforward when considered according to the immediate context of Scripture.

An easy demonstration of this is in the book of Romans because Paul is laying out the common faith to Christians who he has never met. The Apostle places predestination after what He has done for the Christians at Rome. In other words, it is placed as a comfort to the Christians from the Savior who saves.

Peace.
 
Last edited:
Since the topic is the Supper it is worth pointing out that in this regard the transubstantiationists and the symbolic folks are both poorly catechized in that they are unwilling to echo the Christian faith. Consequently, they are both in the same boat, the boat called Subjectivism.

No one knowledgeable and interested in a general use accurate translation of Scripture translates the accounts as, "Take and eat. This is the transubstantiated...," or, "Take and eat. This is the symbol..." (For the folks who insert the symbol elsewhere in the passages it still works out the same, subjectivism or egoism pure and simple.)


Yes, he did and the context demonstrates the reason why the transubstantiation and symbolic interpretations are demonstrable error.

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.” (1Cor 10:16-17, KJVA)

The Apostle says of the bread and the wine that they are the body and blood of the Lord. He does not say that the bread and the wine are the transubstantiated body and blood, nor does he say that the bread and the wine are symbols of the body and blood of the Lord.

Therefore, according to the Apostle, those that eat and drink to their damnation are those who do not discern the body and blood of the Lord.

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.” (1Cor 11:29, KJVA)

He did not say that those who eat and drink to their damnation are those who do not discern transubstantiation, and he did not say that those who eat and drink to their damnation are those who do not discern the symbols.

The transubstantiationists and the symbolic folks can offer reasons for their misinterpretations but they are figments of imagination rather than based upon Scripture.

By way of example, consider the similar reasoning of the heretics regarding Christ. The one who created all things tells us that He is true man and true God. The heretics, not trusting the word of their Creator, said things like, if He is true man then He can't be and isn't true God, etc.

The reasoning of the heretics ignored, disregarded, or denied the God given perfect immediate context of Scripture and then claimed that they had Scriptural support for their view.


The interpretive comments above about Jesus are bizarre. It may be because they do not take into account the mindset of His first listeners whose frame of mind should have been molded by the Scriptures of that day.

Jesus said the Scriptures testify of Him so a good example is Jesus being the first and last. It is a proclamation of deity. Jesus isn't saying the first and the last symbolize Him, or I symbolize the first and the last, etc.


The Passover was only the type. The antitype, Christ for you, is greater, is the reality.

Just because you mentioned it, and because there will be a difference with RCs and others, predestination is simple and straightforward when considered according to the immediate context of Scripture.

An easy demonstration of this is in the book of Romans because Paul is laying out the common faith to Christians who he has never met. The Apostle places predestination after what He has done for the Christians at Rome. In other words, it is placed as a comfort to the Christians from the Savior who saves.

Peace.
Does taking communion as a Lutheran save you or as an Evangelical save the Evangelical? No. We are saved by grace, through faith and not of works. You spend a large amount of time trying to impose your understanding of Communion on me and as an uncatecized I am certain, beyond any doubt, irrespective of whether you believe communion as you do or I believe communion as I do, neither invalidates our salvation and your continued adamant declarations only divides us, one from the other.
 
Back
Top