The Lord's Supper



























=============================================

These are specific passages in the Bible that support the Catholic view of the Lord's Supper.

=============================================

Matthew 26:
26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and 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 shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

=============================================

Argument:
Jesus takes bread, blesses it, and says "this is my body." If you are a typical Protestant, you might have stood up and said, "No, this is only bread!" Or, at least, most Protestants would say that that would be true, even though it contradicts Jesus' words.
But do not try to work your way around the strength this passage. Will you tell me that Christ is present "spiritually" in Holy Communion? For here Jesus contradicts you where He says it is flesh and blood, for "a spirit hath not flesh and bones," (Luke 24:39) but the Eucharist does. So He means what He says: He is present with us bodily in the Eucharist. Just as the Catholic Church teaches.

=============================================
















































=============================================

These are specific passages in the Bible that support the Catholic view of the Lord's Supper.

=============================================

1 Corinthians 10:
16 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?
17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.

=============================================

Argument:
St. Paul could not be clearer in his belief that the Eucharistic bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. He says that the consecrated bread "breaks" like bread, but what is really received is Christ's Body -- that is precisely the Catholic doctrine: the consecrated bread and wine appear as bread and wine, but are really Christ's Body and Blood.

Plus, verse 17 says that there is really one "Bread" present in ALL of the churches worldwide -- not many pieces of bread, but one "Bread" that we all partake of. He doesn't mean that there is one giant loaf; He means that Jesus, the true Bread from heaven, is really present in the pieces of bread that we eat -- and in fact, that they are not many pieces of literal bread, but one "Bread," Jesus Christ.

=============================================

























































These are specific passages in the Bible that support the Catholic view of the Lord's Supper.

=============================================

1 Corinthians 11:
27 whoever eats this bread or drinks the Lord's cup in a way unworthy of the Lord will be guilty for the body and the blood of the Lord.

=============================================

Argument:
If I said you were guilty for the blood of the president, it would mean you had really taken part in his murder -- not that you had just disdained one of his symbols. So, since Paul says that they are guilty for the Body and the Blood of Christ, it means that He must really be there in the bread and wine -- they can't just be symbols for Him, or else they wouldn't really be guilty for His Body and Blood, but only of disdaining a symbol. But Paul also says that in the Lord's Supper we appear to eat bread and wine -- so it's really the Body and Blood of Christ, but it appears to be bread and wine. That is the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation.

=============================================
























































=============================================

These are specific passages in the Bible that support the Catholic view of the Lord's Supper.

=============================================

1 Corinthians 11:
28 A person should examine his conscience and after so doing he may eat of the bread and drink of the chalice,
29 because he that eats and drinks without recognizing the body, eats and drinks to his own condemnation.

=============================================

Argument:
This shows how seriously Paul takes this doctrine. Does any Protestant seriously think he is talking about symbols here? That anyone who doesn't appreciate the symbolism will be condemned? God forbid! Paul's words only make sense if there is something essentially different about this bread than normal bread. It has to have, at the very least, some essential connection to Jesus. It is, in its very essence, the Presence of Christ, for it is absurd to think that he would condemn us for disdaining anything less than Christ's own Body and Blood.

=============================================
























































=============================================

These are specific passages in the Bible that support the Catholic view of the Lord's Supper.

=============================================

John 6:
49 Your fathers ate the manna in the desert, and they died.
50 The bread which I speak of, which comes down from heaven, is such that no one who eats of it will ever die.

=============================================

Argument:
The Catholic Kleist & Lilly translation has a footnote on these verses that brings out something too often overlooked:
"...Jesus compares the giving of his flesh to the giving of the manna, and at the same time contrasts the two; evidently, in both instances there is question of real food."
Otherwise, the contrast would be so abstract as to be simply confusing. What would He mean by comparing His flesh to food, saying that it must be eaten like the manna was eaten, but meaning 'eat' in a completely different way between the first sentence and the second? Moreover, He contrasts it with manna to show that its nature is not bread. "They ate bread," he is saying, "but you must eat me, my flesh."

For a contrast to make sense, there has to be something similar and something different; Catholics say that the similarity is that they are both food, and the difference is that the manna was natural bread whereas the Eucharist is divine. But Protestants, do you not say that there is no difference? That the manna was natural bread and the Lord's Supper is equally ordinary? And thus you make senseless the contrast that Christ here proposes.

=============================================

































=============================================

These are specific passages in the Bible that support the Catholic view of the Lord's Supper.

=============================================

John 6:
52 The Jews then had a violent discussion among themselves. "How," they argued, "can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53 Resuming, therefore, Jesus said to them: "What I tell you is the plain truth: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood is in possession of eternal life; and I will raise him from the dead on the last day;
55 for my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink."

=============================================

Argument:
It is "the plain truth" that Jesus gave us His flesh as "real food" and His blood as "real drink." Protestants usually say that "eating and drinking" His flesh and blood really is a metaphor for believing in Him. So who should we believe? Jesus or the Protestants? How can it be "plainly true," how can His body "really" be food and drink, if He only means it as a metaphor? What's the plain truth in that? Where is the reality in such an obscure figure of speech?
The truth is, the Jews naturally wanted to take Him figuratively, but they couldn't escape the force of His words: "can this man give us his flesh to eat?" they asked, and He basically said yes: "my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink." They asked a literal question. If He responded with a figurative answer, then He was misleading them. He cannot suddenly have taken their literal words and turned them around to mean a figurative metaphor, knowing that they would take it literally, without ceasing to be the Good Teacher that He was. "What man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone?" (Matthew 7:9) What kind of teacher, when asked for a straight answer, would return with a metaphor, confirming their words but changing their meaning, and leaving them in the dark as to His designs?

=============================================
















































=============================================