The Eucharist...

kelly1

Dear all,

I know I've debated this before but I'd would appeal to you to read the agument presented on the site below for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

We Christians owe it to ourselves and God to seek out the truth however unconfortable for us that might be. Nobody likes to change beliefs that they've held dear but growth can only come from change.

My primary reason for starting this thread is my concern over the implications of the following verse in John for those who don't believe that the Eucharist really is our Lord present among us as He promised:

Jn 6:53 "Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life."

Rather than write my own argument, could I ask you please to read the NT section of the following article with an open/fresh mind:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html

I really think this is well worth debating as fully as possible because I think the implications of getting the interpretation of Scripture wrong could be dire.

What if Jesus really is present in the Blessed Sacrament and you missed out on this great Gift to us? It's worth investigating!

God bless,
Noel.

PDN

Noel, you ask questions like this periodically. Then you complain how the non-Catholic Christians on this board are always bashing Catholicism and how unfair it is.

Do you really want us to answer your question honestly? If we do, then will you recognise that we are simply answering a question that you yourself raised?

homer911

There are some things that Christians are entirely agreed on as the things are clearly stated in what is commonly accepted as Biblical cannon. There are some things they will never agree on as they are not clearly explained in the Bible and are subject to interpretation, and people can interpret things differently, even with the full knowledge of scripture in front of them. (1 Corinthians 13 v12 - "For now we see through a mirror dimly..")

Despite their portrayal in the media, Evangelicals do NOT take every word of the Bible literally, there are lots of metaphors in there.

In this case, whether or not Jesus literally becomes the bread and wine, consuming it does not make someone a Christian, as shown in many places in the bible, therefore this is a metaphor and in my understanding is talking about someone becomming part of the body of Christ - his people on earth. If someone becomes part of the body of Christ, through putting their faith in him, they have eternal life...

Whether or not Jesus mixed a metaphor with a real tenet of faith, I will leave to someone more knowledgable..

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

Noel, you ask questions like this periodically. Then you complain how the non-Catholic Christians on this board are always bashing Catholicism and how unfair it is.

Do you really want us to answer your question honestly? If we do, then will you recognise that we are simply answering a question that you yourself raised?

Sorry, I don't see the relevance of your point. There's a difference between an honest debate and unfair anti-catholic bashing don't you think. If you don't want to debate what Jesus meant when He said "This is my body", then fine. What's wrong with challenging people's beliefs?

kelly1

homer911 wrote: »

In this case, whether or not Jesus literally becomes the bread and wine, consuming it does not make someone a Christian, as shown in many places in the bible, therefore this is a metaphor and in my understanding is talking about someone becomming part of the body of Christ - his people on earth. If someone becomes part of the body of Christ, through putting their faith in him, they have eternal life...

Sorry to be pedantic but Jesus doesn't become bread and wine. He converts them into His body and blood.

It is true that eating the Eucharist doesn't make someone Christian but look what John 6:53 says - "Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you". Surely as Christians, we would want to be certain of having "life" within us!? So therefore it becomes vital to know whether Jesus meant "flesh and blood" literally. We know of course that Jesus didn't go chopping His body up and distrubute the parts for His disciples to eat so He must have meant something else. Would you agree that Jesus' teaching was fulfilled at the Last Supper? If you do agree, then how would ordinary bread give us spiritual life? What must be eat to have life within us? Can't be ordinary bread, can it?

O'Coonassa

kelly1 wrote: »

Sorry to be pedantic but Jesus doesn't become bread and wine. He converts them into His body and blood.

In that case how come it still tastes of bread and wine?

prinz

homer911 wrote: »

In this case, whether or not Jesus literally becomes the bread and wine, consuming it does not make someone a Christian, as shown in many places in the bible, therefore this is a metaphor and in my understanding is talking about someone becomming part of the body of Christ - his people on earth. If someone becomes part of the body of Christ, through putting their faith in him, they have eternal life....

+1.

I would see the Eucharist as a reminder of the last supper, and a reminder of the sacrifice that was made on our behalf. Jesus offered the bread and wine up for his friends, as he too would be offered up.... and I see taking the Eucharist as an acceptance of the sacrifice on my behalf and a communion with Jesus, as a friend, as if I too could have shared dinner with Him.

kelly1

prinz wrote: »

+1.

I would see the Eucharist as a reminder of the last supper, and a reminder of the sacrifice that was made on our behalf. Jesus offered the bread and wine up for his friends, as he too would be offered up.... and I see taking the Eucharist as an acceptance of the sacrifice on my behalf and a communion with Jesus, as a friend, as if I too could have shared dinner with Him.

Can I ask you also what you think Jesus meant in John 6:53? Does it not look very litteral to you?

conlonbmw

I cannot believe the rubbish you lot are spouting here.

Humans have evolved from single cell organisms over 1-2 billion of years.
Religon is around 6,000 years give or take and was invented by man after stemming from superstition also invented by man.

How can something man made make you all so stupid.

I challenge everyone in this forum to read critically about your beliefs and try and evaluate them as a sane and logical person would do with evidence.

If after this you still want to believe then at least you have tried to understand.

prinz

conlonbmw wrote: »

I cannot believe the rubbish you lot are spouting here.

Humans have evolved from single cell organisms over 1-2 billion of years.
Religon is around 6,000 years give or take and was invented by man after stemming from superstition also invented by man.

How can something man made make you all so stupid.

I challenge everyone in this forum to read critically about your beliefs and try and evaluate them as a sane and logical person would do with evidence.

If after this you still want to believe then at least you have tried to understand.

Have you not been banned yet? I would challenge you to understand why it is you feel the need to post on every thread on a Christian Forum? Take it elsewhere. Or could it be you're actually looking for something in your own misguided way?

prinz

kelly1 wrote: »

Can I ask you also what you think Jesus meant in John 6:53? Does it not look very litteral to you?

Unless you take part in the communion with Jesus that has been offered to you? Unless you pull up a stool at the top table of the last supper for example, and mass is a reminder of that. It is continuing the flesh and blood metaphor, and reinforcing the message that Jesus called us to accept what he was offering, i.e. bread/His body.

tbh it's something I've always had trouble with growing up in Catholicism. However my view in no way diminshes the utmost reverence and respect I have for the Eucharist, I would accept the Eucharist as if it were a piece of bread or a drink of wine direct from Jesus himself.

kelly1

prinz wrote: »

Unless you take part in the communion with Jesus that has been offered to you? Unless you pull up a stool at the top table of the last supper for example, and mass is a reminder of that. It is continuing the flesh and blood metaphor, and reinforcing the message that Jesus called us to accept what he was offering, i.e. bread/His body.

It's clear from John 6 that Jesus wanted to give us life and that in order to receive this life, we must eat of His flesh which is the Bread of Life.

So which part of the breaking and eating of the bread gives us life? Is it our eating of the bread which prompts Jesus to give us life or is there something in the bread that gives life?

prinz

kelly1 wrote: »

It's clear from John 6 that Jesus wanted to give us life and that in order to receive this life, we must eat of His flesh which is the Bread of Life.

So which part of the breaking and eating of the bread gives us life? Is it our eating of the bread which prompts Jesus to give us life or is there something in the bread that gives life?

It is the solemn accepting of what He has offered us that gives us the life He talked about. Be it accepting He gave his human body as a sacrifice, or accepting His bread, which He used as a metaphor for Himself.

kelly1

prinz wrote: »

It is the solemn accepting of what He has offered us that gives us the life He talked about. Be it accepting He gave his human body as a sacrifice, or accepting His bread, which He used as a metaphor for Himself.

But why must we eat bread to receive this "life"? Why did Jesus make this condition? Doesn't this mean celiacs can't have life within them? It's very clear from John 6:54 that this "life" that Jesus talked about is vitally important.

Why can't we just acknowledge Jesus as our Saviour and not eat the bread?

prinz

kelly1 wrote: »

But why must we eat bread to receive this "life"? Why did Jesus make this condition? Doesn't this mean celiacs can't have life within them? It's very clear from John 6:54 that this "life" that Jesus talked about is vitally important.

I beleive Jesus was talking about himself metaphorically, and we take the Eucharist because Jesus asked us to do that in memory of Him, i.e. to accept the sacrifice and the communion with Him. I feel it is not a prerequisite for us, but just an offering of Jesus to us in a physical form rather than spiritually.It's just a public, very obvious, event that you are accepting Jesus, when you go to Communion.

kelly1 wrote: »

Why can't we just acknowledge Jesus as our Saviour and not eat the bread?

I'm sure we can.

Propellerhead

kelly1 wrote: »

Dear all,

I know I've debated this before but I'd would appeal to you to read the agument presented on the site below for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

We Christians owe it to ourselves and God to seek out the truth however unconfortable for us that might be. Nobody likes to change beliefs that they've held dear but growth can only come from change.

My primary reason for starting this thread is my concern over the implications of the following verse in John for those who don't believe that the Eucharist really is our Lord present among us as He promised:

Jn 6:53 "Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life."

Rather than write my own argument, could I ask you please to read the NT section of the following article with an open/fresh mind:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html

I really think this is well worth debating as fully as possible because I think the implications of getting the interpretation of Scripture wrong could be dire.

What if Jesus really is present in the Blessed Sacrament and you missed out on this great Gift to us? It's worth investigating!

God bless,
Noel.

The Anglican/Lutheran theory of consubstantiation is the preaching of the Real Presence in the Holy Communion as well. The major difference is the emphasis on the reception of the Sacrament to receive its benefits. Anglo Catholics also do Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament as well.

"Where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there I Am in the midst of them"

kelly1

prinz wrote: »

I'm sure we can.

which leads to us not having life within us according to verse 54!

Jn 6:54 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.

prinz

kelly1 wrote: »

which leads to us not having life within us according to verse 54!

Jn 6:54 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.

Again, like I have said, IMO it is about accepting the sacrifice and entering a communion with Jesus in your life. I don't see someone who doesn't physically take the Eucharist is Mass as somehow being denied the life that Jesus talks about. Taking the bread and wine at Communion is a physical and public representation of an acceptance which could also be done privately and spiritually.

kelly1

prinz wrote: »

Again, like I have said, IMO it is about accepting the sacrifice and entering a communion with Jesus in your life. I don't see someone who doesn't physically take the Eucharist is Mass as somehow being denied the life that Jesus talks about. Taking the bread and wine at Communion is a physical and public representation of an acceptance which could also be done privately and spiritually.

OK so you think when Jesus said eat He meant accept? I find this interpretation just a bit too contrived. So when Jesus said eat my body (several times), He actually meant eat this bread which represents my body as a symbol of your acceptance of my death on the cross?

I still don't get why someone would eat a symbol of Christ's body in order to remember His Passion and why eating is necessary to symbolize acceptance.
Sounds a bit arbitrary don't you think especially when we can omit the eating of the bread.

prinz

kelly1 wrote: »

OK so you think when Jesus said eat He meant accept? I find this interpretation just a bit too contrived. So when Jesus said eat my body (several times), He actually meant eat this bread which represents my body as a symbol of your acceptance of my death on the cross?.

In breaking the bread he gave some to each of his disciples, and referred to it IMO as his body, as a means of communion between them and himself, i.e. that they could become one. It was a simple physical metaphorical ceremony which he advised them to repeat in his memory, i.e. after death, to commemorate the first real communion of Jesus and man.

kelly1 wrote: »

I still don't get why someone would eat a symbol of Christ's body in order to remember His Passion and why eating is necessary to symbolize acceptance.
Sounds a bit arbitrary don't you think especially when we can omit the eating of the bread.

Because Jesus instructed his followers to do so I already pointed out that I did not think taking the Eucharist was necessary to symbolize acceptance. It is a symbolic act of acceptance, but by no means the only means.

kelly1

prinz wrote: »

Because Jesus instructed his followers to do so I already pointed out that I did not think taking the Eucharist was necessary to symbolize acceptance. It is a symbolic act of acceptance, but by no means the only means.

Sorry, I just don't get the point of Jesus asking us to eat a symbol of His body. It would make sense if He said eat this bread to remind you of my death but why eat a symbol of His body?

Let me try another angle instead. This is taken from the article I linked to at the start:

The Epistles

Acts 20:11 "When Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten…" St. Paul explained clearly what "breaking bread" meant. 1 Cor 10:16 "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the Body of Christ?" St. Paul continued, 1 Cor 11:27 "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." St. Paul in these words confirmed Catholic teaching that the "bread … of the Lord" is truly Christ's Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, and that the "cup of the Lord" is the same substance: "Whoever … eats the bread or drinks the cup … will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord."

St. Paul added, 1 Cor 11:29 "For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the Body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." If we receive the Holy Eucharist without acknowledging, at least in our hearts, that it is His true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, we send ourselves to hell.

How could eating ordinary bread be a profanity and cause a person to be judged accordingly? How could a person actually do this?

mdebets

kelly1 wrote: »

which leads to us not having life within us according to verse 54!

Jn 6:54 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.

According to this quote, you need to eat the bread and drink the wine, yet the normal practice for Catholics is, to only eat the bread at the Eucharist and only the priest drinks wine (I know that has changed slightly in recent times, but I only ever saw one priest who was actually offering the wine). Does this not mean that only the priest has life in himself, but not the ordinary Catholic?

kelly1

mdebets wrote: »

According to this quote, you need to eat the bread and drink the wine, yet the normal practice for Catholics is, to only eat the bread at the Eucharist and only the priest drinks wine (I know that has changed slightly in recent times, but I only ever saw one priest who was actually offering the wine). Does this not mean that only the priest has life in himself, but not the ordinary Catholic?

The Church accepts the consumption of either the Body or the Blood as valid. This is my own view, but since the Host is Jesus in His entirety, it must contain His blood. I believe the Church also teaches the same is true of the Precious Blood.

santing

kelly1 wrote: »

Dear all,

My primary reason for starting this thread is my concern over the implications of the following verse in John for those who don't believe that the Eucharist really is our Lord present among us as He promised:

Jn 6:53 "Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life."

What if Jesus really is present in the Blessed Sacrament and you missed out on this great Gift to us? It's worth investigating!

God bless,
Noel.

What has been missing in the discussion until now is the question if is actually possible that the Lord Jesus talked in John 6 about the memorial meal (the Lord's Supper). The Lord's Supper is instituted at te end of the Lord Jesus life on earth, so it did not exist in John 6. How can then Lord Jesus then point ot it as something very important?
It is also overlooked that the Lord's Supper is not mentioned in John's Gospel at all. Its institution is found in the other Gospels, but in John it is missing. Anything significant in that? Yes, I believe it would be out of character of the Gospel of John to have the memorial meal ... so that's another argument to say that John 6 cannot refer to the Lord's Supper.

At the very end of this discourse the Lord Jesus says:

(Joh 6:63 ESV) It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

With this He indicates that we must understands his words spiritually, it is not the "flesh" the physical He is talking about, it must be spiritually understood.

kelly1 wrote: »

Let me try another angle instead. This is taken from the article I linked to at the start:

The Epistles

Acts 20:11 "When Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten…" St. Paul explained clearly what "breaking bread" meant. 1 Cor 10:16 "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the Body of Christ?" St. Paul continued, 1 Cor 11:27 "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." St. Paul in these words confirmed Catholic teaching that the "bread … of the Lord" is truly Christ's Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, and that the "cup of the Lord" is the same substance: "Whoever … eats the bread or drinks the cup … will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord."

What exactly is it that we break and eat? Is it the Lord's body? No, it is bread according to the Apostle. How do we profane the Lord's body? Well, its similar if I give you a photograph of my wife and tell you "This is my wife." The piece of paper hasn't changed substance, but if you rip it up, I will feel deeply offended.

Lastly, when the Lord Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper ...

Mat 26:26-29 ESV Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." (27) And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you, (28) for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (29) I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

In verse 29 the Lord Jesus refers back to the substance of the cup as "fruit of the vine" again indicating that the subnstance hadn't changed.
The other thing to note here is that this is happening before the actual suffering of the Lord Jesus on the Cross. If the Lord Jesus had offered himself here as a sacrafice for sins, the work at the cross would no longer be needed, as He only offered himself "once" as in very clearly said in the book of Hebrews:

Heb 7:27 ESV He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.

Also, when the Lord Jesus said "This is my body," where was His body? Did He have his body in his hands at that moment?

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

The Church accepts the consumption of either the Body or the Blood as valid. This is my own view, but since the Host is Jesus in His entirety, it must contain His blood. I believe the Church also teaches the same is true of the Precious Blood.

Hang on a minute. On one hand you keep posting about it all being literal about 'eat my body and drink my blood'. You give no room for symbolism, and take it as essential to take it in its literal sense. Then when someone points out the fact that you do not drink the wine (blood), you say 'well the bread (body) is enough'. You don't see an issue with your 'reasoning' here?

kelly1

santing wrote: »

What has been missing in the discussion until now is the question if is actually possible that the Lord Jesus talked in John 6 about the memorial meal (the Lord's Supper). The Lord's Supper is instituted at te end of the Lord Jesus life on earth, so it did not exist in John 6. How can then Lord Jesus then point ot it as something very important?

I don't see the problem. Jesus talked about what He was going to do at the Last Supper. If this future event wasn't fulfilled in the Last Supper, where else was it fulfilled? Jesus didn't cut off parts of His body and distibute them, did He? Canibals didn't raid His tomb etc.

santing wrote: »

It is also overlooked that the Lord's Supper is not mentioned in John's Gospel at all. Its institution is found in the other Gospels, but in John it is missing. Anything significant in that? Yes, I believe it would be out of character of the Gospel of John to have the memorial meal ... so that's another argument to say that John 6 cannot refer to the Lord's Supper.

It's curious but hardly proof that John 6 doesn't refer to the Last Supper. Are you suggesting that Jesus' exhortations in John 6 were entirely ignored?

santing wrote: »

At the very end of this discourse the Lord Jesus says:
With this He indicates that we must understands his words spiritually, it is not the "flesh" the physical He is talking about, it must be spiritually understood.

In verse 64, Jesus was explaining the point of eating His flesh and blood. It wasn't to be for physical nourishment but for spiritual nourishment. This reiterates what He said about having "life within us". His flesh and blood are merely the vehicle for His soul and divinity.

santing wrote: »

What exactly is it that we break and eat? Is it the Lord's body? No, it is bread according to the Apostle. How do we profane the Lord's body? Well, its similar if I give you a photograph of my wife and tell you "This is my wife." The piece of paper hasn't changed substance, but if you rip it up, I will feel deeply offended.

1 Cor 11:26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 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. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.


Paul is saying there that one must be worthy to partake the in Lord's Supper. But how does someone become worthy to eat and drink bread and wine if that's what they are? How could this make someone guilty of the body and blood or the Lord and deserving judgment? That surely can't apply to a symbol? What's your understanding of "unworthily"?

santing wrote: »

In verse 29 the Lord Jesus refers back to the substance of the cup as "fruit of the vine" again indicating that the subnstance hadn't changed.

I can't explain that.

santing wrote: »

The other thing to note here is that this is happening before the actual suffering of the Lord Jesus on the Cross. If the Lord Jesus had offered himself here as a sacrafice for sins, the work at the cross would no longer be needed, as He only offered himself "once" as in very clearly said in the book of Hebrews:

The sacrifice of Calvary must be eternal in value because we know that people in the Old Testament were saved before the Lord's death although they were temporarily detained in Hades until the Lord resurrection. So the fact that the crucifixion hadn't happened in time, means nothing from and eternal perspective.

santing wrote: »

Also, when the Lord Jesus said "This is my body," where was His body? Did He have his body in his hands at that moment?

All I can say to that is that all things are possible with God. I don't think there are multiple bodies all over the world. I think Christ's body is effectively "spread" very wide but still remains one body. Not sure about this really.

JimiTime wrote: »

Hang on a minute. On one hand you keep posting about it all being literal about 'eat my body and drink my blood'. You give no room for symbolism, and take it as essential to take it in its literal sense. Then when someone points out the fact that you do not drink the wine (blood), you say 'well the bread (body) is enough'. You don't see an issue with your 'reasoning' here?

I already said that Christ's body also contains His blood but I'm not sure how the reverse works. The important thing is not the flesh but the soul/spirit and divinity containted within the flesh and blood.

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

I already said that Christ's body also contains His blood but I'm not sure how the reverse works. The important thing is not the flesh but the soul/spirit and divinity containted within the flesh and blood.

Let me see if I can represent your position here.

1. When Jesus said you must eat my body 'AND' 'drink' my blood, you maintain that this is to be taken literally.

2. You take exception to those who do not take this literally.

3. Even though you take it literally, you don't believe you have to drink his blood, as its all in his flesh anyway.

This really confuses me. So you are saying you must take it literally, but don't worry about the fact that Jesus distinguished quite clearly between the body and the blood. He may have said literally eat AND drink, but we can just eat as flesh has blood in it too.

I really don't get how you find this an acceptable conclusion. If you don't see an issue here I am truly at a loss. Do you really not see an issue here?

kelly1

JimiTime wrote: »

Let me see if I can represent your position here.

1. When Jesus said you must eat my body 'AND' 'drink' my blood, you maintain that this is to be taken literally.

I am emphasising the Jesus' litteral use of the words Body and Blood not whether the Body and Blood must be consumed together. Jesus knows that some of us are celiacs and can receive His body and the some of us are alcoholics and can't drink His blood. I'd hate to be a Caatholic alcoholic celiac though! So I think it must be sufficent to consume either "species". I'll have to research this a bit more.

JimiTime wrote: »

3. Even though you take it literally, you don't believe you have to drink his blood, as its all in his flesh anyway.

Yes, that's my current understanding.

JimiTime wrote: »

This really confuses me. So you are saying you must take it literally, but don't worry about the fact that Jesus distinguished quite clearly between the body and the blood. He may have said literally eat AND drink, but we can just eat as flesh has blood in it too.

It's only a problem if you believe Jesus' body is bloodless.

JimiTime wrote: »

I really don't get how you find this an acceptable conclusion. If you don't see an issue here I am truly at a loss. Do you really not see an issue here?

I've no issue with taking the body alone for the reason I've stated. As for the blood alone, I don't know.

santing

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't see the problem. Jesus talked about what He was going to do at the Last Supper. If this future event wasn't fulfilled in the Last Supper, where else was it fulfilled? Jesus didn't cut off parts of His body and distibute them, did He? Canibals didn't raid His tomb etc.

I don't think the Lord Jesus is exclusively talking about the future here. See for instance verse 57, 58

Joh 6:57-58 ESV As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. (58) This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."

This teaching doesn't imply something unachievable unless another teaching/event first comes true. It is very improbable to think about the Lords Supper here.

kelly1 wrote: »

It's curious but hardly proof that John 6 doesn't refer to the Last Supper. Are you suggesting that Jesus' exhortations in John 6 were entirely ignored?

No, but if John 6 was related to the Last Supper we would have expected to have both teachings in the same Gospel. What we now have is two separate events, given to us in separate Gospels. That is a clear indication that they are not related.

kelly1 wrote: »

In verse 64, Jesus was explaining the point of eating His flesh and blood. It wasn't to be for physical nourishment but for spiritual nourishment. This reiterates what He said about having "life within us". His flesh and blood are merely the vehicle for His soul and divinity.

Hold on, you are mixing spiritual and physical. The problem I have with the mass is that it insist of changing the physical properties of bread in order to give us nourishment. Now you say this nourishment is spiritual only? So I have a physical object giving me spiritual nourishment. Wouldn't it be far more logical that the whole object is spiritual? Is that not what the Lord Jesus says here?
BTW, the RC Catechism states that the Host is also physical nourishment, but totally consumed (i.e. no excrements)

kelly1 wrote: »

1 Cor 11:26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 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. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.


Paul is saying there that one must be worthy to partake the in Lord's Supper. But how does someone become worthy to eat and drink bread and wine if that's what they are? How could this make someone guilty of the body and blood or the Lord and deserving judgment? That surely can't apply to a symbol? What's your understanding of "unworthily"?

Paul isn't saying that someone must be worthy. Who is worthy to fellowship with God? Paul is speaking about a worthy manner, in casu not drunk, but it can be applied more widely than that. Note the three times Paul says "eat bread", not eat the body of Christ. I have highlighted them for you.

kelly1 wrote: »

I can't explain that.

Can you not, or will you not? The Lord Jesus calls the substance of the cup (chalice) after He had offered it to his disciples "fruit of the vine," whereas the RC teaching says it had become blood. Was the Lord Jesus wrong here?

kelly1 wrote: »

The sacrifice of Calvary must be eternal in value because we know that people in the Old Testament were saved before the Lord's death although they were temporarily detained in Hades until the Lord resurrection. So the fact that the crucifixion hadn't happened in time, means nothing from and eternal perspective.

I think you didn't get my question: "If the Lord Jesus had offered himself here as a sacrafice for sins, the work at the cross would no longer be needed, as He only offered himself "once" as in very clearly said in the book of Hebrews." Now if the Lord Jesus had offered Himself here in the Mass - as I understand you RCs read it - than He had already offered Himself once, so He could not do it again (twice) at Calvary. If the Last Supper was the real presence of the Body of the Lord, offered by Christ, than Calvary was either not necessary or not sufficient.

kelly1 wrote: »

All I can say to that is that all things are possible with God. I don't think there are multiple bodies all over the world. I think Christ's body is effectively "spread" very wide but still remains one body. Not sure about this really.

I agree that with God all things are possible. But is it probable that there were two bodies of the Lord Jesus present at the Last Supper?

kelly1 wrote: »

I already said that Christ's body also contains His blood but I'm not sure how the reverse works. The important thing is not the flesh but the soul/spirit and divinity containted within the flesh and blood.

To me this sounds as a very spirtual explanation (sic) of why we are not obeying God and partaking of the Bread and the Wine. The Lord Jesus (and the Apostle Paul repeats it, and Luke narrates it) instructs us to partake of the bread and the cup. You spiritualise the cup away so it becomes one with the bread.

kelly1

santing wrote: »

I don't think the Lord Jesus is exclusively talking about the future here. See for instance verse 57, 58

True but He is in verse 52.

santing wrote: »

This teaching doesn't imply something unachievable unless another teaching/event first comes true. It is very improbable to think about the Lords Supper here.

So if Jesus wasn't referring to the Lord's Supper, what else involving bread/Body/Blood could Jesus have meant?

santing wrote: »

No, but if John 6 was related to the Last Supper we would have expected to have both teachings in the same Gospel. What we now have is two separate events, given to us in separate Gospels. That is a clear indication that they are not related.

I wouldn't go as far as clear indication but it is curious. But again I would ask what is John 6 referring to if not the Last Supper.

santing wrote: »

Hold on, you are mixing spiritual and physical. The problem I have with the mass is that it insist of changing the physical properties of bread in order to give us nourishment. Now you say this nourishment is spiritual only? So I have a physical object giving me spiritual nourishment. Wouldn't it be far more logical that the whole object is spiritual? Is that not what the Lord Jesus says here?

Because the Eucharist is the Risen Jesus in His entirety, it therefore contains His soul and divinity. As I said the body is the vehicle for His soul.

santing wrote: »

BTW, the RC Catechism states that the Host is also physical nourishment, but totally consumed (i.e. no excrements)

Would you happen to have the paragraph number? That would seem to contradict Jn 6:64.

santing wrote: »

Paul isn't saying that someone must be worthy. Who is worthy to fellowship with God? Paul is speaking about a worthy manner, in casu not drunk, but it can be applied more widely than that. Note the three times Paul says "eat bread", not eat the body of Christ. I have highlighted them for you.

Indeed who is worthy? In the Mass we say, "Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed". Being worthy according to the RCC means being in a state of grace. To receive Communion is a state of mortal sin is a serious sacrilege.

santing wrote: »

Can you not, or will you not? The Lord Jesus calls the substance of the cup (chalice) after He had offered it to his disciples "fruit of the vine," whereas the RC teaching says it had become blood. Was the Lord Jesus wrong here?

I can't. But aren't you being a bit selective? Mt 26:28 Mk 14:24 both say "This is my blood" and all 3 synoptic gospels and 1 Corinthians all say "This is my body". BTW, I don't think Jesus ate His body and blood so it would make more sense for Jesus to say "fruit of the vine". Maybe He was talking about unconsecrated wine which He would have drunk at weddings etc?

santing wrote: »

I think you didn't get my question: "If the Lord Jesus had offered himself here as a sacrafice for sins, the work at the cross would no longer be needed, as He only offered himself "once" as in very clearly said in the book of Hebrews." Now if the Lord Jesus had offered Himself here in the Mass - as I understand you RCs read it - than He had already offered Himself once, so He could not do it again (twice) at Calvary. If the Last Supper was the real presence of the Body of the Lord, offered by Christ, than Calvary was either not necessary or not sufficient.

I think the answer to this is that what Christ was offering at the Last Supper was the sacrifice that was to happen the following day which as I said already is eternal. So Christ offered the sacrifice of Calvary before it happened in time and in the Mass the priest offered the sacrifice that happened in the past. But don't quote me, I'm not a theologian!

santing wrote: »

I agree that with God all things are possible. But is it probable that there were two bodies of the Lord Jesus present at the Last Supper?

I answered this already. I believe there is only one body but I'm not sure about that. I don't think it was make sense to have multiple copies of Jesus in different Hosts.

santing wrote: »

To me this sounds as a very spirtual explanation (sic) of why we are not obeying God and partaking of the Bread and the Wine. The Lord Jesus (and the Apostle Paul repeats it, and Luke narrates it) instructs us to partake of the bread and the cup. You spiritualise the cup away so it becomes one with the bread.

It may have something to do with the Church's power to "bind and loose". I don't know. This theological question is beyond my knowledge.

BTW, thanks for taking the time to discuss this and to the other who have replied.

santing

kelly1 wrote: »

santing wrote: »

I don't think the Lord Jesus is exclusively talking about the future here.

True but He is in verse 52.

Verse 50: "so that one may eat" is the Greek Aorist - which means a singular event; you must take this and eat. Once is enough! Doesn't look like continuous enjoyment of the Lord's Supper. Same for verse 51, 53. "If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever." Verse 54,56 changes to the present tense.

kelly1 wrote: »

So if Jesus wasn't referring to the Lord's Supper, what else involving bread/Body/Blood could Jesus have meant?

There are 7 "I am" statements in John's Gospel. “I am the light of the world,” John 8:12. “I am the door (gate) of the sheep,” John 10. “I am the good shepherd,” John 10. “I am the resurrection and the life.” “I am the way, the truth and the light,” John 14 and finally “I am the true vine.” John 15 In each of these seven ‘I am’ statements He reveals a little about His character, His mission, and His nature. He doesn't imply that He is a physical door, light, shepherd etc. These statements need to be understood spiritually. What the Lord Jesus refers to is salvation, which needs a total appreciation of His Person, and is not something we can work for. See http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1313 for a detailed commentary on this passage.

kelly1 wrote: »

Because the Eucharist is the Risen Jesus in His entirety, it therefore contains His soul and divinity. As I said the body is the vehicle for His soul.

So the risen Lord is presented in John 6 and physically present in Matthew 26?

kelly1 wrote: »

Would you happen to have the paragraph number? That would seem to contradict Jn 6:64.

I have a reference, but not to the Catechism: http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a007.html

Q. Is Christ's Body subject to the process of digestion? ("Radio Replies")
A. The substance of Christ's Body is not subject to processes of digestion or to any chemical reactions. The qualities of bread of course behave in there normal way, undergoing a change as they are affected by digestion. Our Lord's substantial presence ceases as these qualities cease to retain those characteristics proper to bread."

kelly1 wrote: »

I can't. But aren't you being a bit selective? Mt 26:28 Mk 14:24 both say "This is my blood" and all 3 synoptic gospels and 1 Corinthians all say "This is my body". BTW, I don't think Jesus ate His body and blood so it would make more sense for Jesus to say "fruit of the vine". Maybe He was talking about unconsecrated wine which He would have drunk at weddings etc?

I don't think I am selective, I have no problem with reference to the (spiritual apprehended) body and blood, or with the physical substance of bread and wine... So I am OK with both Matthew 26:28 and Matthew 26:29. You however have a problem with Matthew 26:29, but selectively ignore it. The same is true for Mark 14(:25) and Luke 22(:18), 1 Cor 10(:17) There is one bread ... for we all partake of the one bread. 1 Cor 10:21 also indicates that we should consider the cup of the Lord to have spiritual qualities rather than physical qualities. 1 Cor 11:23-27 emphasizes again the bread.

kelly1 wrote: »

santing wrote: »

I think you didn't get my question: "If the Lord Jesus had offered himself here as a sacrafice for sins, the work at the cross would no longer be needed, as He only offered himself "once" as in very clearly said in the book of Hebrews." Now if the Lord Jesus had offered Himself here in the Mass - as I understand you RCs read it - than He had already offered Himself once, so He could not do it again (twice) at Calvary. If the Last Supper was the real presence of the Body of the Lord, offered by Christ, than Calvary was either not necessary or not sufficient.

I think the answer to this is that what Christ was offering at the Last Supper was the sacrifice that was to happen the following day which as I said already is eternal. So Christ offered the sacrifice of Calvary before it happened in time and in the Mass the priest offered the sacrifice that happened in the past. But don't quote me, I'm not a theologian!

I hear what you say, but for a non RC this borders blasphemy... (Now when will this law be signed!) Christ is only offered once for all

Heb 9:25-26 ESV Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, (26) for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

A repetition of the same sacrifice cuts at the heart of the gospel. See also Rom 6:10, Hebr 9:12, Heb 10:10-14

Heb 10:10-14 ESV And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (11) And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. (12) But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, (13) waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. (14) For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

kelly1 wrote: »

santing wrote: »

But is it probable that there were two bodies of the Lord Jesus present at the Last Supper?

I answered this already. I believe there is only one body but I'm not sure about that. I don't think it was make sense to have multiple copies of Jesus in different Hosts.

I also don't think it make sense to have the physical Lord Jesus presenting a second copy of His real body to the disciples. As for a spiritual body of Christ, the Bible speaks clear about that, that is the Church, i.e. all Christians.

kelly1 wrote: »

santing wrote: »

To me this sounds as a very spirtual explanation (sic) of why we are not obeying God and partaking of the Bread and the Wine. The Lord Jesus (and the Apostle Paul repeats it, and Luke narrates it) instructs us to partake of the bread and the cup. You spiritualise the cup away so it becomes one with the bread.

It may have something to do with the Church's power to "bind and loose". I don't know. This theological question is beyond my knowledge.

I don't understand how binding and loosening comes into play here? Please explain further!

kelly1 wrote: »

BTW, thanks for taking the time to discuss this and to the other who have replied.

Thanks for your honest discussion.

kelly1

Thanks Santing, you asked me a few questions to which I have no answer (as yet). I'm researching and will revert ASAP.

BTW, this debate to me is not about I'm right, you're wrong. I believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and I'd like people to honestly examine Scripture and conclude whether a literal or symbolic meaning is intended. To me the symbolic interpretation involves too much contortion and disconnectedness to be correct.

God bless,
Noel.

EDIT: Here's a theological article explaining the validity of either kind of Communion - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section2
And here's one giving the history of Communion practices as regards both vs either - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm
EDIT2: More info here: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/Christ.htm

santing

kelly1 wrote: »

EDIT: Here's a theological article explaining the validity of either kind of Communion - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section2
And here's one giving the history of Communion practices as regards both vs either - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm
EDIT2: More info here: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/Christ.htm

That's a lot of reading! Do you want these articles to be included in this discussion?
For the reference, we need to decide what is literal and what is symbolic in the following cases - I have put my interpretation next to it:

• Partaking of both bread and cup Literal
• Eating of body of Lord Jesus Symbolic
• Drinking of blood Symbolic
• It (the lamb) is the Lord's Passover Exodus 12:11 Symbolic
• The blood shall be a sign for you Exodus 12:13 Literal
• When I see the blood, I will pass over you Exodus 12:13 Literal
• Take, eat Mat 26:26 Literal
• Jesus broke bread Mat 26:26 Literal
• This is my body Mat 26:26 Symbolic
• He took a cup Mat 26:27 Literal
• Drink of it, all of you Mat 26:27 Literal
• This is my blood Mat 26:27 Symbolic
• Which is poured out Mat 26:27 Symbolic
• for the forgiveness of sins Mat 26:27 Literal
• This fruit of the vine Mat 26:28 Literal
• This cup Mat 26:39 Symbolic
• unless I drink it Mat 26:42 Symbolic
• Gathering to break bread Acts Literal
• eat this bread and drink this cup 1 Cor 11:26 Literal
• Proclaim the Lord's death 1 Cor 11:26 Literal
• the cup … a participation in the blood of Christ 1 Cor 10:16 Symbolic
• the bread that we break 1 Cor 10:16 Literal
• a participation in the body of Christ 1 Cor 10:16 Symbolic
• There is one bread 1 Cor 10:17 Literal
• we who are many are one body 1 Cor 10:17 Symbolic
• we all partake of the one bread 1 Cor 10:17 Literal

• I AM the bread of life John 6 Symbolic
• I AM the living bread John 6:51 Symbolic
• I AM the light of the world John 8:12 Symbolic
• I AM the door of the sheep John 10:7 Symbolic
• I AM the good shepherd John 10:11 Symbolic
• I AM the resurrection and the life John 11:25 Symbolic
• I AM the way, the truth and the life John 14:6 Symbolic
• I AM the true vine John 15:1 Symbolic

It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh is no help at all John 6:63
We once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer 2 Cor 5:16

kelly1

santing wrote: »

Verse 50: "so that one may eat" is the Greek Aorist - which means a singular event; you must take this and eat. Once is enough! Doesn't look like continuous enjoyment of the Lord's Supper.

I don't know Greek so I can't dispute that but the Douay translation is:

"50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die."

I don't see how this precludes multiple eatings and so it could still be the Lord's Supper which is celebrated multiple times.

santing wrote: »

Same for verse 51, 53. "If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever." Verse 54,56 changes to the present tense.

Is it not the present continuous tense which doesn't mean a particular time but could be now or any time in the future? What is you point?

santing wrote: »

There are 7 "I am" statements in John's Gospel. “I am the light of the world,” John 8:12. “I am the door (gate) of the sheep,” John 10. “I am the good shepherd,” John 10. “I am the resurrection and the life.” “I am the way, the truth and the light,” John 14 and finally “I am the true vine.” John 15 In each of these seven ‘I am’ statements He reveals a little about His character, His mission, and His nature. He doesn't imply that He is a physical door, light, shepherd etc. These statements need to be understood spiritually. What the Lord Jesus refers to is salvation, which needs a total appreciation of His Person, and is not something we can work for. See http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1313 for a detailed commentary on this passage.

In verse 41, Jesus says "am the living bread which came down from heaven". Like the examples above Jesus is using a metaphor. Jesus was a pains to point out that He meant His literal flesh and blood:

52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

54 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.

55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

6 times Jesus said it! His disciples didn't leave Him when He said "I am the door" or "I am the vine". In this case a load of His disciples walked away in disgust. Jesus made no attempt to show that He was speaking figuratively.

67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. 68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? 69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 70 And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

The above shows that the apostles were baffled too but they remained steadfast in their faith in Jesus even though they couldn't make any sense of what He was saying. It's clear as day that Jesus meant His read flesh and blood. Jesus also explained that it's not the flesh that has value but the spirit contained witin the flesh.

santing wrote: »

So the risen Lord is presented in John 6 and physically present in Matthew 26?

OK, you got me there I can only assume that the normal/unrisen Jesus was present in the Eucharist at the Last Supper.

I have a reference, but not to the Catechism: http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a007.html

santing wrote: »

1 Cor 10(:17) There is one bread ... for we all partake of the onebread

Interesting that you should point this out because I don't see how millions of people all over the world can partake in one bread. If that bread is Jesus, then yes, it becomes possible.

santing wrote: »

I hear what you say, but for a non RC this borders blasphemy... (Now when will this law be signed!) Christ is only offered once for all A repetition of the same sacrifice cuts at the heart of the gospel. See also Rom 6:10, Hebr 9:12, Heb 10:10-14

No, it's not blasphemy at all. Christ did indeed die once upon the cross never to die again but that doesn't prevent the priest from re-offering this one sacrifice to the Father in atonement for our sins.

santing wrote: »

I also don't think it make sense to have the physical Lord Jesus presenting a second copy of His real body to the disciples. As for a spiritual body of Christ, the Bible speaks clear about that, that is the Church, i.e. all Christians.

Like I said already there is one body of Christ and having multiple Eucharists doesn't mean having multiple copies of Jesus. His body is "distributed or spread out" for want of better words.

santing wrote: »

I don't understand how binding and loosening comes into play here? Please explain further!

The Church has the God-given authority to decide what matters of mortality, liturgy, rubrics etc as shown in Matthew 16. Here Jesus spoke to Peter individually:

Matt 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Jesus said the same thing to the apostles collectively in Matthew 18.

So if the Church dogmatically defines (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) that Communion under either species is valid, then that decision will be ratified in Heaven.

BTW that article I linked to provides a very solid argument for the Real Presence and I would encourage you to read it. Would be good to hear your view on it.

God bless,
Noel.

kelly1

Can I throw out 2 simple questions to the floor?

1. Why did Christ use bread to symbolize His body?

2. Why must we eat a symbol of Christ's body?

Thanks,
Noel.

santing

Hi Noel,

I have been away this weekend with my son to a Father/Son weekend organised by Scripture Union - It was great fun and a good way to spend some serious time together. So that's why I am a bit late in repsonding...

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't know Greek so I can't dispute that but the Douay translation is:

Although I do know Greek, I am not a Greek scholar. It is good that there are very good resource on the interent, for instance the NET Bible. On that page are several translations of John 6:50. The KJV translation has references to the Greek original based on Strong's numbers. for instance, under may eat it lists <5315> and <5632>. Hovering over these numbers give you the meaning: <5315> of the word "eat" and <5632> of the tense.

Strong's Number wrote:

Tense - Aorist
The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations.
The events described by the aorist tense are classified into a number of categories by grammarians. The most common of these include a view of the action as having begun from a certain point ("inceptive aorist"), or having ended at a certain point ("cumulative aorist"), or merely existing at a certain point ("punctiliar aorist"). The categorization of other cases can be found in Greek reference grammars.
The English reader need not concern himself with most of these finer points concerning the aorist tense, since in most cases they cannot be rendered accurately in English translation, being fine points of Greek exegesis only. The common practice of rendering an aorist by a simple English past tense should suffice in most cases.

I quote this at lenght as it is a great resource for non Greek Scholars to still understand what the Greek is saying! This aorist tense is e.g. used in
Joh 6:45 ESV "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me"

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't see how this precludes multiple eatings and so it could still be the Lord's Supper which is celebrated multiple times.
.....
Is it not the present continuous tense which doesn't mean a particular time but could be now or any time in the future? What is you point?

My point is that from verse 50 - 53 the Lord Jesus uses a verb tense that can best be translated with "if anyone ever eats ... he will live forever." It doesn't preclude multiple eatings, but it doesn't require it. This is important, as the teaching of the Lord Jesus must be consistent! So if in these verse a once off appreciation is in view, than it cannot be applied to the Lord's Supper that must/can be eaten frequently. That seems to be accepted by the article you referenced: "Nothing hinders our interpreting the first part [John 6:26-48 (51)] metaphorically and understanding by "bread of heaven" Christ Himself as the object of faith, to be received in a figurative sense as a spiritual food by the mouth of faith."
If you agree with this article, than we have established that the Lord Jesus offers metaphorical bread that is sufficient for obtaining eternal life - by faith. This is consistent with the opening remark:

Joh 6:40 ESV For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

It is inconsistent that the Lord Jesus would then go on and add a new condition, namely that only if we partake of the Supper that we will have eternal life. How are the Saints of the Old Testatment saved in that case? They are saved because they believed.

kelly1 wrote: »

In verse 41, Jesus says "am the living bread which came down from heaven". Like the examples above Jesus is using a metaphor. Jesus was a pains to point out that He meant His literal flesh and blood: ... 6 times Jesus said it!

It is indeed a metaphor, which means not the real thing. The Lord Jesus finishes it in verse 63:

Joh 6:63 ESV It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

What does the Lord Jesus say here? It is not the flesh bit you have to concentrate on, the flesh is no help at all. It is the Spirit who gives life, not physical eating. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. The problem with the Jews was that they came for food, and the Lord Jesus didn't want to satisfy their natural cravings, but offers them eternal life, through faith in Him. Not through eating His flesh, but through the Spirit, through looking on the Son. Verse 63 is a very clear statement that we need to apprehed this passage Spiritually.

kelly1 wrote: »

His disciples didn't leave Him when He said "I am the door" or "I am the vine". In this case a load of His disciples walked away in disgust. Jesus made no attempt to show that He was speaking figuratively.

In John 8 "I am the light" the Lord Jesus went on to say:

Joh 8:58-59 ESV Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." (59) So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

Same for chapter 10: "I am the door"

Joh 10:19-21 ESV There was again a division among the Jews because of these words. (20) Many of them said, "He has a demon, and is insane; why listen to him?" (21) Others said, "These are not the words of one who is oppressed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?"

All the "I am" sayings emphasize the divinity of the Lord Jesus, and were therefore unacceptable to the Jews.

kelly1 wrote: »

The above shows that the apostles were baffled too but they remained steadfast in their faith in Jesus even though they couldn't make any sense of what He was saying.

The apostles stayed because they had understood what the Lord Jesus said:

Joh 6:68 ESV Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life,

Peter as spokesman for the others indicated that he stayed for the words of eternal life, a clear reference to verse 63. See my explanation above!

kelly1 wrote: »

It's clear as day that Jesus meant His read flesh and blood. Jesus also explained that it's not the flesh that has value but the spirit contained witin the flesh.

No, its not clear at all. And if according to you the flesh has no value, than we are again speaking about a spiritual apprehension, not about the physical act itself.

kelly1 wrote: »

OK, you got me there I can only assume that the normal/unrisen Jesus was present in the Eucharist at the Last Supper.

Well, I think that settles it then... If the institution of the Last Supper was different than the repetitions in acts, than what were the Apostles celebrating in Acts? If during the institution the unrisen Jesus was present in the bread, how can we now change it to the risen Jesus? That has a total different meaning! (Although it fails me what the meaning of the institution would be in this case!)

kelly1 wrote: »

Interesting that you should point this out because I don't see how millions of people all over the world can partake in one bread. If that bread is Jesus, then yes, it becomes possible.

Not really, because in the mass you have millions of pieces separate bread that somehow become one person. You don't have one bread. When I celebrate the Lord's Supper, we do have one bread of which all take part, which is in accordance to the bread the Lord Jesus took during the Passover celebration. This one bread represents indeed the spiritual unity of all Christians. It is not celebrate the same in all Churches though, and we do not regard the physical elements as important, it is the spiritual connection, the worship and thanksgiving that is important to us!

kelly1 wrote: »

No, it's not blasphemy at all. Christ did indeed die once upon the cross never to die again but that doesn't prevent the priest from re-offering this one sacrifice to the Father in atonement for our sins.

It may not be blasphemy for a Roman Catholic, but if re-offering is not Biblical then a repetition of Calvary is nullifying Christ work. The ROman Catholic Mass is a serious obstacle.

kelly1 wrote: »

The Church has the God-given authority to decide what matters of mortality, liturgy, rubrics etc as shown in Matthew 16. Here Jesus spoke to Peter individually:
...
Jesus said the same thing to the apostles collectively in Matthew 18.

So if the Church dogmatically defines (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) that Communion under either species is valid, then that decision will be ratified in Heaven.

I think this will lead to another discussion! But suffice it that Peter immediately went out to "bind" the Lord Jesus in not accepting Calvary (Matthew 16:19), so there are limits to its application. One limit is clearly that the Church can never nullify the written Word of God. But that is exactly what this looks like.

kelly1 wrote: »

BTW that article I linked to provides a very solid argument for the Real Presence and I would encourage you to read it. Would be good to hear your view on it.

I have referenced it briefly above. The historical viewpoint in this article is quite tainted. The Christians in the first centuries weren't clearcut on this subject. I enclose a few paragraphs from Philip Schaff's (1819 – 1893) Church History:

Philip_Schaff wrote:

[Book 2, Chapter 5 $65]
Justin Martyr, at the close of his larger Apology, describes the public worship more particularly, as it was conducted about the year 140. After giving a full account of baptism and the holy Supper, to which we shall refer again, he continues:
“On Sunday a meeting of all, who live in the cities and villages, is held, and a section from the Memoirs of the Apostles (the Gospels) and the writings of the Prophets (the Old Testament) is read, as long as the time permits. When the reader has finished, the president, in a discourse, gives all exhortation to the imitation of these noble things. After this we all rise in common prayer. At the close of the prayer, as we have before described, bread and wine with water are brought. The president offers prayer and thanks for them, according to the power given him, and the congregation responds the Amen. Then the consecrated elements are distributed to each one, and partaken, and are carried by the deacons to the houses of the absent. The wealthy and the willing then give contributions according to their free will, and this collection is deposited with the president, who therewith supplies orphans and widows, poor and needy, prisoners and strangers, and takes care of all who are in want. We assemble in common on Sunday because this is the first day, on which God created the world and the light, and because Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples.”
Here, reading of the Scriptures, preaching (and that as an episcopal function), prayer, and communion, plainly appear as the regular parts of the Sunday worship; all descending, no doubt, from the apostolic age. Song is not expressly mentioned here, but elsewhere. The communion is not yet clearly separated from the other parts of worship. But this was done towards the end of the second century.
Continue ...
Upon this followed the idea of the self-sacrifice of the worshipper himself, the sacrifice of renewed self-consecration to Christ in return for his sacrifice on the cross, and also the sacrifice of charity to the poor. Down to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the eucharistic elements were presented as a thank-offering by the members of the congregation themselves, and the remnants went to the clergy and he poor. In these gifts the people yielded themselves as a priestly race and a living thank-offering to God, to whom they owed all the blessings alike of providence and of grace. In later times the priest alone offered the sacrifice. But even the Roman Missal retains a recollection of the ancient custom in the plural form, “We offer,” and in the sentence: “All you, both brethren and sisters, pray that my sacrifice and your sacrifice, which is equally yours as well as mine, may be meat for the Lord.”
This subjective offering of the whole congregation on the ground of the objective atoning sacrifice of Christ is the real centre of the ancient Christian worship, and particularly of the communion. It thus differed both from the later Catholic mass, which has changed the thank-offering into a sin-offering, the congregational offering into a priest offering; and from the common Protestant cultus, which, in opposition to the Roman mass, has almost entirely banished the idea of sacrifice from the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, except in the customary offerings for the poor.
The writers of the second century keep strictly within the limits of the notion of a congregational thank-offering. Thus Justin says expressly, prayers and thanksgivings alone are the true and acceptable sacrifices, which the Christians offer. Irenaeus has been brought as a witness for the Roman doctrine, only on the ground of a false reading. The African fathers, in the third century, who elsewhere incline to the symbolical interpretation of the words of institution, are the first to approach on this point the later Roman Catholic idea of a sin-offering; especially Cyprian, the steadfast advocate of priesthood and of episcopal authority. The ideas of priesthood, sacrifice, and altar, are intimately connected, and a Judaizing or paganizing conception of one must extend to all.

What stands out here is that the idea of a sin-offering is a very late one, before it was a thanks-giving that was offered (We would still do that in my Church). It is also clear that everyone took part in both cup and bread, and the elements were not so sacred that they could be taken home for later consumption, or for consumption by sick people.

santing

kelly1 wrote: »

Can I throw out 2 simple questions to the floor?

1. Why did Christ use bread to symbolize His body?

2. Why must we eat a symbol of Christ's body?

Thanks,
Noel.

In John 6 the symbol flows forth out of the earlier miracle and the request of the Jews for more bread, their rejection of the Lord Jesus as authority (30,31) and the reference to Manna (31). The bread symbolises here not just his body, but the appreciation of Him as a person.
The Old Testament has several references to sacred bread, for instance the offering in Leviticus 2 and 6(:16). These offerings speak of the work of the Lord Jesus. The bread at the Passover was actually the first day of eating unleavened bread (Ex 12:17-20), and again unleavened bread speaks of the sinless life of the Saviour. During the Passover, a remebrance feast, the Lord Jesus changed the meaning into remembering no longer the salvation out of Egypt, but the rembrance of the salvation our Saviour wrought. He used symbols that were already available in the Passover celebration.

santing

Hi Noel,

I have done some further thinking on this subject ... probably making it harder to reply!
The Lord’s Supper and Mass


The Bible teaches:

• In regards to Christ sacrificial priesthood that “He sat down” opposite to the OT priests who daily stood at God’s service, offering sacrifices. Christ is at rest because His sacrificial work is finished after a single sacrifice for sins. (Heb 10:11,12)
• That Christ doesn’t offer Himself often (Heb 9:25,26)
• That there is no longer any offering for sin (Heb 10:18)
• That without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins (Heb 9:22)
• That peace (with God) is made by the blood of his cross (Col 1:20)
• Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (Gal 3:13)
• Christ rose from the grave with a resurrection body, with which He – as man – entered heaven. The resurrection body is different from the body He had during his life on earth and his suffering at Calvary.

In relation to the Mass, when (and how) is Christ actually sacrificed during the Mass?


As far as I understand in the RC “sacrifice” of Mass

• Christ does not die
• Christ is not made sin for us (2 Cor 5:21)
• Christ does not bear our sins (Isaiah 53:12, Heb 9:28)
• There is no shedding of blood (unbloody) – and therefore no forgiveness of sins or peace with God.
• Christ does not become a curse – so there is no redemption from the curse of the law
• Is both sacrificial memorial of Christ and his Body; is the presence of Christ, and makes present the sacrifice of the cross. [Now how can something be both a memorial and the thing itself?] [Catechism 1358]
• The blood is present in the “bread” and the flesh is present in the cup. – it is inconsistent to say that the blood is in the body and shed out of the body also.
• Is a sacrifice to God – would God otherwise forget Christ’s work at Calvary?

John 6


Reasons why John 6 does not speak about the Lord’s Supper.

1. In John 6 the Lord’s Supper was not yet instituted. It is not logical to assume that the Lord Jesus gives detailed teaching about something that could not be known, was only being instituted in the future.
2. In John’s Gospel the institution of the Lord’s Supper is not mentioned. This means that the Lord’s Supper does not fit the character of this gospel. It would be highly unlikely that something that isn’t mentioned in this Gospel is still at detail explained!
3. The institution of the Lord’s Supper was a private, intimate occasion of close disciples. The teaching in John 6 is addressed to a large crowd that followed him for the wrong reasons.
4. John 6:33-51 is seen by all parties as having a spiritual application
   For instance: John 6:49-50 ESV Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. (50) This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
   These are parallel verses; the first speaks of physical eating of physical manna and physical dead. The second speaks of spiritual eating of spiritual bread and not dying a spiritual dead
5. John 6:47 links eternal life with believing in the Lord Jesus, not with an act of eating of doing anything. Eternal life is always associated with individual faith, see for instance:

   • Joh 3:16 ESV "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
   • Joh 3:36 ESV Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
   • Joh 5:24 ESV Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
   • Joh 5:39-40 ESV You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, (40) yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.
   • Joh 6:35-36 ESV Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. (36) But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.
   • Joh 6:47 ESV Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
   • Joh 10:27-28 ESV My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. (28) I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
   • Joh 11:25-26 ESV Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, (26) and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?"
   • Joh 20:30-31 ESV Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; (31) but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
   • 1Jn 5:13 ESV I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

6. The 7 “I AM” statements in John are all metaphorical and often provocative, the “I am the bread of life” is no exception.
7. John 6:51, 53 uses the Greek Aorist, indicating a single act, an act done once. It means that if anyone eats of the bread only once eating it produces a life changing experience, a repetition is not necessary.
8. If John 6:53-58 is taking to apply to the RC Mass, it would mean that eating of the Mass will produce eternal life, and not eating thereof means no eternal life. This is of course not taught by RCC. There is more required in order to have certainty of Eternal Life in the RCC tradition. But this prompts me to ask the age old question to you: “What must I do to be saved?”
9. John 6:63 says that the application is spiritual, not physical. This is agreed by e.g. Augustine. See exposition on Ps. 4 [On Psalm 98:9]: "Give a spiritual meaning to what I have said. You are not to eat this body which you see, nor to drink the blood which they who crucify Me are to spill. It is a mystery that I put before you: in its spiritual sense it will quicken you; but the flesh profiteth nothing."

Use of ‘This is’
The words “This is my body” do not necessarily ask for a literal interpretation. There are several occasions in the Bible where this type of construction is plainly metaphorical:

• Gen 41:26-27 ESV The seven good cows are seven years, and the seven good ears are seven years; the dreams are one. (27) The seven lean and ugly cows that came up after them are seven years, and the seven empty ears blighted by the east wind are also seven years of famine.
• Eze 37:11 ESV Then he said to me, "Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. Behold, they say, 'Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are indeed cut off.'
• Mat 5:13-14 ESV "You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet. (14) "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.
• Mat 13:38-39 ESV The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, (39) and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels.
• Rev 1:20 ESV As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
• Rev 17:9 ESV This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated;

Does the Eucharist contain the Suffering Body of Christ or the Glorified Body of Christ? And the same for the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Is it suppose to be the Suffering body or the glorified body when the Lord Jesus said: “This is my body” At the Passover meal, the Lord Jesus could not present his body broken for you with his blood poured out, while at the same time being present pre-suffering at the table. Similarly, the Lord Jesus is now in Heaven, no more subject to dead, pain, separated from sin, glorified, glorious. Can our Saviour in Glory at the same time have a broken body with his blood poured out?

Mat 26 Douay-Rheims / Vulgate For this is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
And Catechism 1412 The essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine, on which the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper: "This is my body which will be given up for you
Shall be shed, will be given. This is future tense, meaning that Christ did not institute an offering here, but a forward looking type to an offering at best.

“Math 26 ESV (28) for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." How is the blood poured out during Mass? How was it poured out during the institution, seeing that the Lord Jesus took a cup that was already poured in before the Passover meal.

"This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood." Which is it, is it changed into the New Covenant or is it changed into blood?

Can a priest get drunk from drinking the “Blood of Christ”? Apparently the Corinthians could (1 Cor 10), or was it wine that they drunk?

After the transubstantiation the following prayer is said:
“Lord God, we ask you to receive us and be pleased with the sacrifice we offer you with humble and contrite hearts” Can there be any doubt about the sacrifice? Isn’t it Christ being offered?

In all ancient liturgies transubstantiation is done through the invocation of the Holy Spirit. This doesn’t seem to be part of the RCC liturgy (I checked the 1970 Missal)? Cf 1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood.

How strong is your confiction of the Eucharist? Would you say "amen" to the Canon's of the Concily of Trent? The Council of Trent is still an authoritive source of RC faith. The last RC Catechism contains 87 references to this council!
For instance

[13]CANON VIII.-lf any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.
[21]CANON III.--If any one denieth, that Christ whole and entire -the fountain and author of all graces--is received under the one species of bread; because that-as some falsely assert--He is not received, according to the institution of Christ himself, under both species; let him be anathema.

See http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.htm

kelly1

Thanks again Santing. I'll catch up as soon as I get a chance. You're not making this easy for me I see

God bless,
Noel.

santing

kelly1 wrote: »

You're not making this easy for me I see

God bless,
Noel.

I know - kind of got carried away by the subject. And then I haven't researched fully the "evidence" of the so-called fathers. But as (I) expected the evidence of the Church Fathers is confusing and inconsistent, so I decided to keep focused at Scripture, RC Catechism and current practice.

kelly1

Hello, sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

santing wrote: »

My point is that from verse 50 - 53 the Lord Jesus uses a verb tense that can best be translated with "if anyone ever eats ... he will live forever." It doesn't preclude multiple eatings, but it doesn't require it. This is important, as the teaching of the Lord Jesus must be consistent! So if in these verse a once off appreciation is in view, than it cannot be applied to the Lord's Supper that must/can be eaten frequently.

A the Last Supper, Jesus said do this in memory of me but I don't believe He told us how often we must do it! BTW, I'm not claiming that the Eucharist is necessary for salvation. What I am saying is that it somehow strengthen divine life within us.

santing wrote: »

That seems to be accepted by the article you referenced: "Nothing hinders our interpreting the first part [John 6:26-48 (51)] metaphorically and understanding by "bread of heaven" Christ Himself as the object of faith, to be received in a figurative sense as a spiritual food by the mouth of faith."
If you agree with this article, than we have established that the Lord Jesus offers metaphorical bread that is sufficient for obtaining eternal life - by faith.

The article makes the point that the first part of the discourse can be taken figuratively but not the 2nd part - "Such a figurative explanation of the second part of the discourse (John 6:52-72), however, is not only unusual but absolutely impossible...". Why did you skip that bit?

santing wrote: »

It is inconsistent that the Lord Jesus would then go on and add a new condition, namely that only if we partake of the Supper that we will have eternal life. How are the Saints of the Old Testatment saved in that case? They are saved because they believed.

I'd glad you made this point because I now realize that we have a misunderstanding. I'm not saying that the Eucharist is necessary for salvation but that it imparts grace and unites us with Jesus in a special way and helps us to avoid sin. See the 2nd part of this short article for more details.

santing wrote: »

It is indeed a metaphor, which means not the real thing. The Lord Jesus finishes it in verse 63:

What does the Lord Jesus say here? It is not the flesh bit you have to concentrate on, the flesh is no help at all. It is the Spirit who gives life, not physical eating. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. The problem with the Jews was that they came for food, and the Lord Jesus didn't want to satisfy their natural cravings, but offers them eternal life, through faith in Him. Not through eating His flesh, but through the Spirit, through looking on the Son. Verse 63 is a very clear statement that we need to apprehed this passage Spiritually.

I partially agree with you. The Jews were no doubt confused and bewildered at what Jesus was saying. First of all they didn't accept that Jesus was the Son of God and equal with the Father and second they didn't therefore understand that Jesus wasn't just offering His flesh and blood, but His entire Person which is an inseperable hypostatic union. His flesh and blood therefore convey His divine Spirit. That therefore is the value of eating His flesh because flesh alone only feeds the body.

santing wrote: »

The apostles stayed because they had understood what the Lord Jesus said: Peter as spokesman for the others indicated that he stayed for the words of eternal life, a clear reference to verse 63. See my explanation above!

Again I have to disagree. In verse 63 Jesus explained that the Spirit gives life and later in verse 66 many of His disciples deserted Him! I think verse 69 shows that they had faith in what Jesus said even though they didn't yet understand what He meant.

santing wrote: »

No, its not clear at all. And if according to you the flesh has no value, than we are again speaking about a spiritual apprehension, not about the physical act itself.

At this point I'm not sure it's worth continuing this debate because it's crystal clear to me from verses 51 to 56 that Jesus was talking about His real flesh and blood. And above I've explained that the flesh itself is not what's important. I don't claim to fully understand what happens when we receive Holy Communion but it's must be different different from the grace that saves I think. The puprose of Holy Communion I think is to make us more Christ-like.

santing wrote: »

Well, I think that settles it then... If the institution of the Last Supper was different than the repetitions in acts, than what were the Apostles celebrating in Acts? If during the institution the unrisen Jesus was present in the bread, how can we now change it to the risen Jesus? That has a total different meaning! (Although it fails me what the meaning of the institution would be in this case!)

Like I said I'm not sure which body is present in the Eucharist, risen or "normal". I need to research this. But in any case, as we have well established, it's not the flesh inself which helps us, but the Spirit contained therein!

santing wrote: »

It may not be blasphemy for a Roman Catholic, but if re-offering is not Biblical then a repetition of Calvary is nullifying Christ work. The ROman Catholic Mass is a serious obstacle.

I though I'd made it clear that the Mass isn't a repetition of Calvary? The Mass offers the one and only eternal sacrifice of the Cross again and again to the Father. Each time we offer this one sacrifice, it appeases the wrath of God and obtains mercy for us.

santing wrote: »

I have referenced it briefly above. The historical viewpoint in this article is quite tainted.

Is there anything in particular in the article that you can immediately refute? I thought it was quite good...

santing wrote: »

The Christians in the first centuries weren't clearcut on this subject. I enclose a few paragraphs from Philip Schaff's (1819 – 1893) Church History:
..........
What stands out here is that the idea of a sin-offering is a very late one, before it was a thanks-giving that was offered (We would still do that in my Church). It is also clear that everyone took part in both cup and bread, and the elements were not so sacred that they could be taken home for later consumption, or for consumption by sick people.

I've no idea where he's getting this stuff! Why don't you read what the Church Fathers had to say about the Real Presence here?

Clemens

Now I don't know whether this question has been discussed here earlier or not, I just became a member of boards.ie, but how is the official doctrine of the Church of Ireland about the Lord's Supper?

In the 39 Articles you can read about the Lord's Supper in article 28. Here I find, among others, this passage:

The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

At first it looks to me as if this would be contradictory to the real presence, but I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Why?
In 1996 the Church of Ireland signed the Porvoo Agreement and thereby also entered the Porvoo Communion of churches that recognise each others eucharists. Other churches of this communion are mostly Lutheran. According to the teaching of these churches the Lord Jesus is really present at the Lord's Supper, as the wine becomes the blood of Christ and the bread becomes the body of Christ. This was taught already by Luther, Melanchton and other early Lutheran theologians, and has been taught ever since.

Now the Porvoo Agreement, which the Church of Ireland and Church of England have signed, states that

We believe that the body and blood of Christ are truly present, distributed and received under the forms of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper (Eucharist). In this way we receive the body and blood of Christ, crucified and risen, and in him the forgiveness of sins and all other benefits of his passion. The eucharistic memorial is no mere calling to mind of a past event or of its significance, but the Church's effectual proclamation of God's mighty acts. Although we are unable to offer to God a worthy sacrifice, Christ unites us with himself in his self-offering to the Father, the one, full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice which he has offered for us all. In the eucharist God himself acts, giving life to the body of Christ and renewing each member. Celebrating the eucharist, the church is reconstituted and nourished, strengthened in faith and hope, in witness and service in daily life. Here we already have a foretaste of the eternal joy of God's Kingdom. (Common Agreement chapter III § 32 h)

Sounds good to me. What do you think?