I suppose I could qualify my statement by saying those things would be the major differences from the perspective of a Catholic.

 

Gotcha. And I should say the same, except from the other end of the spectrum.

Luke talks about doing it in remembrance of Christ. That is pretty much how I ascribe to it, I do feel you should not do it in a state of anger or in a state of sin. The bible talks about it being eating and drinking death to do it that way. Then again I also think when Christ told Peter on this rock I will build my church he was meaning by Peter's actions and faith, not literally on this rock you are the Pope.

Christ personally told you that was what he meant ?

Many times in the Bible Jesus uses a play on words, You must deny yourself and pick up the cross and follow me. Most parables the same. I can find a lot more if someone wishes.

^So you admit then, that you do indeed pick and choose which parts of the NT you take literally?

I would say transubstantiation and confession are the two primary things that separate the Catholic church from Protestant churches, about 60/40. So in a word, yes.

I agree, we have a hard time with the confession to the Priests. And thats all I gonna say about that.

I agree, we have a hard time with the confession to the Priests. And thats all I gonna say about that.

 

It's somewhat off topic, seeing as this thread pertains to the Eucharist, but the basis of confessing to priests is this:

 

John 20:19-23 On the evening of the first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

 

Christ commissioned his apostles to forgive sins - to actively go out and forgive them. How are sins to be forgiven if they are not confessed? Otherwise there is no way of knowing that there is a sin that requires forgiving in the first place.

I don't think anybody takes the entire Bible literally. Some may claim to do so, but this thread alone shows why that isn't likely to be true.

 

Some may view it as picking and choosing which passages to take literally and which not to, but I think it is up to us as individuals to study God's word and seek his guidance in how to interpret and apply to our lives. That process could certainly involved seeking other opinions and asking them why they view it the way they do.

Isn't this the backbone of what separates Catholicism from the rest of Christianity though?

 

Only if you do not consider those of the Eastern Orthodox faith and the Oriental Orthodox faith to be Christians:lol:

 

I say that half jokingly. All twenty whatever divisions of the Eastern Orthodox faith and the Oriental Orthodox faith have a belief in the Eucharist that is almost identical to that of the Catholic faith. The Easthern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox church and the Catholic Church point to the same scripture references and the writings of the same early church fathers to support their same view of the Eucharist.

 

Along with the scripture references and the writing of the early church fathers, they sometimes (tongue in cheek to a degree) refer to enemies of the early church also, that being the Romans in the first three centuries. If you look at some of the Roman legal writings that have survived from that time frame, one of the many trumpted up charges against the early Christian Myrtars was canabalism. Many of those myrtars went to their death professing among other things, that they ate their Savior's flesh and drank His blood. The pagan Romans obviously didn't understand whose flesh and blood they were referring to.

 

I guess you could also throw in some of the more conservative Synods of Lutheranism into this. I believe they too believe as Martin Luther did in transubstaniation. There is the table that Luther and Zwingli sat at and argued for hours about transubstantiation. Luther took a knife and carved into the table in German, "This is my body". That table is in a museum in Germany.

 

Also, the two options are not transubstantiation and symbolism alone. There is also consubstantiation which is held by Anglicans/Episcapalians and another protestant faith which has slipped my mind. Consubstantiation believes that the Eucharist is both bread and flesh, both wine and blood. I have never studied up on the theology of consubstantiation but that is the basics of the belief.

^So you admit then, that you do indeed pick and choose which parts of the NT you take literally?

 

I did not say that, I don't have a cross in my back yard, Jesus uses that as a play on words. I just read and understands what he means.

It's somewhat off topic, seeing as this thread pertains to the Eucharist, but the basis of confessing to priests is this:

 

John 20:19-23 On the evening of the first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

 

Christ commissioned his apostles to forgive sins - to actively go out and forgive them. How are sins to be forgiven if they are not confessed? Otherwise there is no way of knowing that there is a sin that requires forgiving in the first place.

The Apostels were in the position of being with Christ face to face, there are no more of them. They knew that only God can forgive Sins. Mark 2:7..Jesus was speaking of there responsibility of the Church to declare the Gospel to all the world, so that those who believe in Jesus can find the gift of forgiveness. Matthew 16:19

So I know many of the Christians on here have stated that they believe things because that's what Jesus says in the Bible, etc.

 

My question for the BGP Christian community, is how do you justify taking the stance that the Eucharist is not truly the body and blood of Christ? In the Bible it says, "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." (Matthew 26:26)

 

Just curious as to why this part of the NT is basically overlooked by those Christians who are not Catholic.

I didn't go through and read all of the post, just responding to the original. I am a Methodist and we have communion, special family communion at Christmas and for other special occasions. So as far as your question, we do Believe it is the body of Christ.

This is what I Believe