10andBOUNCE said:

---

I am willing to listen. What did Paul pass down that is being neglected?

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I am willing to listen. What did Paul pass down that is being neglected?

---

To think Paul would attend a modern non-denominational or Baptist service and recognize it as his own faith is highly dubious.

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I am willing to listen. What did Paul pass down that is being neglected?

---

To think Paul would attend a modern non-denominational or Baptist service and recognize it as his own faith is highly dubious.

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I am willing to listen. What did Paul pass down that is being neglected?

---

To think Paul would attend a modern non-denominational or Baptist service and recognize it as his own faith is highly dubious.

---

Obviously hard to make many judgements from what is on paper, but what would you poke holes at when looking at our own church's liturgical order as it relates to your comment about it being unrecognizable?

1. Call to Worship (solo reading of Ps 99)
2. Pastoral Prayer
3. Confession of Sin (Pastoral comments of common sin we face together)
4. Assurance of Pardon (Pastor transitions to call to repent and turn our eyes on Christ as our hope in the midst of our sin)
5. Sing 2 Hymns
6. Scripture Reading (reading of Ps 96)
7. Sing 2 more Hymns (one includes a short hymn history)
8. Responsive Reading (1 Tim 6)
9. Sermon
10. Hymn to prepare for communion
11. The Lord's Supper
12. Benediction
13. Singing of the Doxology

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I am willing to listen. What did Paul pass down that is being neglected?

---

To think Paul would attend a modern non-denominational or Baptist service and recognize it as his own faith is highly dubious.

---

Obviously hard to make many judgements from what is on paper, but what would you poke holes at when looking at our own church's liturgical order as it relates to your comment about it being unrecognizable?

1. Call to Worship (solo reading of Ps 99)
2. Pastoral Prayer
3. Confession of Sin (Pastoral comments of common sin we face together)
4. Assurance of Pardon (Pastor transitions to call to repent and turn our eyes on Christ as our hope in the midst of our sin)
5. Sing 2 Hymns
6. Scripture Reading (reading of Ps 96)
7. Sing 2 more Hymns (one includes a short hymn history)
8. Responsive Reading (1 Tim 6)
9. Sermon
10. Hymn to prepare for communion
11. The Lord's Supper
12. Benediction
13. Singing of the Doxology

---

I accept what was handed down and the authority that gave it. To 'poke holes' is to treat it as a buffet, which I said it is not. You could completely copy an orthodox service (architecture and all), but without authority and the way of life that comes with being orthodox, it is not the same. Same for Roman Catholic. Same for Anglican. And so on and so forth. It's not simply a matter of form. That's the whole point! That's what's missed with Sola scriptura.

---

Frok said:

---

Paul would recognize the content being preached if the church is teaching the Bible. In general he would recognize;

1) Singing hymns and spiritual songs (much different from his time of course)
2) The Lord's Supper
3) preaching and teaching of the Word

Culturally it will look nothing like his time but Paul would see unity in the Gospel being preached.

---

Frok said:

---

Paul would recognize the content being preached if the church is teaching the Bible. In general he would recognize;

1) Singing hymns and spiritual songs (much different from his time of course)
2) The Lord's Supper
3) preaching and teaching of the Word

Culturally it will look nothing like his time but Paul would see unity in the Gospel being preached.

---

Zobel said:

---

We have an agape feast every Sunday. Don't need to imagine what it was like. Our service has direct continuity to the apostles and you can still see the elements from synagogue practice within it.

And it wasn't and isn't drunken revelry. (Except maybe on Pascha).

Also wasn't at "people's homes" the way that implies. It was at one persons home. Homes in this time were more like compounds - think Ben Hur. There was one church in each city, and it met in one person's home. People have wild imaginations about "house churches".

---

dermdoc said:

---

Zobel said:

---

We have an agape feast every Sunday. Don't need to imagine what it was like. Our service has direct continuity to the apostles and you can still see the elements from synagogue practice within it.

And it wasn't and isn't drunken revelry. (Except maybe on Pascha).

Also wasn't at "people's homes" the way that implies. It was at one persons home. Homes in this time were more like compounds - think Ben Hur. There was one church in each city, and it met in one person's home. People have wild imaginations about "house churches".

---

Thanks, I learned something. My point is it was a time of celebration and fellowship.

---

Frok said:

---

Altar calls are not a requirement; they don't exist in scripture. Some churches do them. We are called to repent and be baptized.

Scripture does not mandate a service order or schedule. It's not about a pastor picking verses, it's about scripture being central and explained rightly.

Scripture states communion (or the Lord's supper) is for believers to be done when you come together. I don't see any restrictions for women.

Bottom line: What matters in a church is truth, faithfulness, and fruit.

---

Quote:

---

scripture being central and explained rightly.

---

Frok said:

---

Altar calls are not a requirement; they don't exist in scripture. Some churches do them. We are called to repent and be baptized.

Scripture does not mandate a service order or schedule. It's not about a pastor picking verses, it's about scripture being central and explained rightly.

Scripture states communion (or the Lord's supper) is for believers to be done when you come together. I don't see any restrictions for women.

Bottom line: What matters in a church is truth, faithfulness, and fruit.

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

scripture being central and explained rightly.

---

where's that in the Bible?

---

Zobel said:

---

For reference here is one of the earliest, if not the earliest, extant descriptions of Sunday worship. By St Justin the Martyr around 155 AD. Someone baptized by St John in his later years would be around 60 years old when this was written, for reference. This is 80-90 years after St Paul and Peter were martyred in Rome. As a way of perspective, St Justin was closer to St Paul in time than, say, the people at South Main or First Baptist in Houston are to their church founders.

Quote:

---

…On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits;

---

---

Zobel said:

---

For reference here is one of the earliest, if not the earliest, extant descriptions of Sunday worship. By St Justin the Martyr around 155 AD. Someone baptized by St John in his later years would be around 60 years old when this was written, for reference. This is 80-90 years after St Paul and Peter were martyred in Rome. As a way of perspective, St Justin was closer to St Paul in time than, say, the people at South Main or First Baptist in Houston are to their church founders.

Quote:

---

…On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

---

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Oreos and milk? Come on now, scripture says bread and wine (fruit of the vine).

---

Thinking about this more, it's worth digging deeper into 1 Corinthians 10: 16-18 to demonstrate just how different what many Protestants call communion is compared to what Paul is describing.

In verses 16-17 Paul makes one of the most explicit Eucharistic statements in all of Scripture. He speaks of the Eucharist, which he illustrates by the cos habberacah the cup of blessing over which thanks were expressed at the conclusion of the Passover. This shows us how the Eucharistic liturgy passed down from the last supper by the apostles who were there is more than a memorial for the sake of recollection, but is an anamnesis, a reliving of the event being recalled. It is also consistent with the fact that the 4th cup of the Passover was skipped at the Last Supper, only to be drank by Jes

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.

The word translated as "participation" ( koinonia) Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.) means fellowship, sharing, communion a real and genuine participation in the thing itself. Paul is
notusing symbolic or metaphorical language. He is saying the cup IS a real participation in the blood of Christ, and the bread IS a real participation in the body of Christ.

All who eat of the one Eucharistic bread are one mystical body since Christ is really present in this Eucharistic bread, all who eat of it are spiritually transformed in Christ and are thus intimately united to Him and to one another.

This could not be true if what we eat were ordinary bread, for in that case it would be converted into our individual substances, instead of us being converted into it. St. Augustine said, personifying this Eucharistic bread: "Nor shalt thou change Me into Thee... but thou shalt be changed into Me." This is the doctrine of the Real Presence long before the Middle Ages, as proclaimed by the Apostle Paul in the first century.

Verse 18: Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar; i.e., they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered to drive home the point that the Eucharist is a rel participation in the body and blood of Christ, not symbolic remembrance.

---

Do alcoholics and celiacs participate in the Eucharist?

I don't disagree with much of what you said; just don't see support that the disciples and Jesus ate His actual flesh and drank His actual blood and that you do today as well.

---

Great question. Alcoholics can receive the consecrated host alone and that is perfectly fine. Alternatively someone with Celiac's can receive the precious blood alone if communion is offered in both kinds or they can ask for a low gluten host. Catholics are not required to receive in both kinds.

Having said that, according to Canon Law, the bread used for the sacrament must be made solely from wheat and water. This isn't an arbitrary rule it flows directly from Christ's own institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, where He used unleavened bread made from wheat. The bread used in the sacrament of Holy Communion must contain wheat for it to truly become Christ's Body.

This is a matter of valid matter one of the essential conditions for a sacrament to be real. Sacraments require proper matter in order to be valid. You cannot baptize someone by pouring glue over them; you must use water. Using grape jelly instead of oil is not a valid administration of the last rites. In the same way, bread used for the Eucharist must truly be bread.

---

AGC said:

---

Frok said:

---

Altar calls are not a requirement; they don't exist in scripture. Some churches do them. We are called to repent and be baptized.

Scripture does not mandate a service order or schedule. It's not about a pastor picking verses, it's about scripture being central and explained rightly.

Scripture states communion (or the Lord's supper) is for believers to be done when you come together. I don't see any restrictions for women.

Bottom line: What matters in a church is truth, faithfulness, and fruit.

---

What scripture should be read on Easter? The days before Easter? Pentecost? The Ascension? Advent? Christmas? What scripture could be more central to said days than the appropriate passages?

One of the bigger misses here is unity. Lowest common denominator Christianity seeks unity of the loosest and most individual form possible, rather than the highest. That's why you can leave a Baptist church for another down the road and think nothing of it even if they're not related. But is that really the unity Christ longs for? Do we join with heaven in worship (holy holy holy, lord god of hosts), or do we choose not to because we don't feel it, or like it, or want something else?

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Oreos and milk? Come on now, scripture says bread and wine (fruit of the vine).

---

Thinking about this more, it's worth digging deeper into 1 Corinthians 10: 16-18 to demonstrate just how different what many Protestants call communion is compared to what Paul is describing.

In verses 16-17 Paul makes one of the most explicit Eucharistic statements in all of Scripture. He speaks of the Eucharist, which he illustrates by the cos habberacah the cup of blessing over which thanks were expressed at the conclusion of the Passover. This shows us how the Eucharistic liturgy passed down from the last supper by the apostles who were there is more than a memorial for the sake of recollection, but is an anamnesis, a reliving of the event being recalled. It is also consistent with the fact that the 4th cup of the Passover was skipped at the Last Supper, only to be drank by Jes

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.

The word translated as "participation" ( koinonia) Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.) means fellowship, sharing, communion a real and genuine participation in the thing itself. Paul is
notusing symbolic or metaphorical language. He is saying the cup IS a real participation in the blood of Christ, and the bread IS a real participation in the body of Christ.

All who eat of the one Eucharistic bread are one mystical body since Christ is really present in this Eucharistic bread, all who eat of it are spiritually transformed in Christ and are thus intimately united to Him and to one another.

This could not be true if what we eat were ordinary bread, for in that case it would be converted into our individual substances, instead of us being converted into it. St. Augustine said, personifying this Eucharistic bread: "Nor shalt thou change Me into Thee... but thou shalt be changed into Me." This is the doctrine of the Real Presence long before the Middle Ages, as proclaimed by the Apostle Paul in the first century.

Verse 18: Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar; i.e., they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered to drive home the point that the Eucharist is a rel participation in the body and blood of Christ, not symbolic remembrance.

---

Do alcoholics and celiacs participate in the Eucharist?

I don't disagree with much of what you said; just don't see support that the disciples and Jesus ate His actual flesh and drank His actual blood and that you do today as well.

---

Great question. Alcoholics can receive the consecrated host alone and that is perfectly fine. Alternatively someone with Celiac's can receive the precious blood alone if communion is offered in both kinds or they can ask for a low gluten host. Catholics are not required to receive in both kinds.

Having said that, according to Canon Law, the bread used for the sacrament must be made solely from wheat and water. This isn't an arbitrary rule it flows directly from Christ's own institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, where He used unleavened bread made from wheat. The bread used in the sacrament of Holy Communion must contain wheat for it to truly become Christ's Body.

This is a matter of valid matter one of the essential conditions for a sacrament to be real. Sacraments require proper matter in order to be valid. You cannot baptize someone by pouring glue over them; you must use water. Using grape jelly instead of oil is not a valid administration of the last rites. In the same way, bread used for the Eucharist must truly be bread.

---

I ask because if it becomes flesh and blood, it wouldn't be alcohol and gluten anymore. I've never understood this - how alcoholics may decline the wine or celiacs decline the bread. It shouldn't hurt either individual if it's no longer alcohol and gluten.

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Oreos and milk? Come on now, scripture says bread and wine (fruit of the vine).

---

Thinking about this more, it's worth digging deeper into 1 Corinthians 10: 16-18 to demonstrate just how different what many Protestants call communion is compared to what Paul is describing.

In verses 16-17 Paul makes one of the most explicit Eucharistic statements in all of Scripture. He speaks of the Eucharist, which he illustrates by the cos habberacah the cup of blessing over which thanks were expressed at the conclusion of the Passover. This shows us how the Eucharistic liturgy passed down from the last supper by the apostles who were there is more than a memorial for the sake of recollection, but is an anamnesis, a reliving of the event being recalled. It is also consistent with the fact that the 4th cup of the Passover was skipped at the Last Supper, only to be drank by Jes

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.

The word translated as "participation" ( koinonia) Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.) means fellowship, sharing, communion a real and genuine participation in the thing itself. Paul is
notusing symbolic or metaphorical language. He is saying the cup IS a real participation in the blood of Christ, and the bread IS a real participation in the body of Christ.

All who eat of the one Eucharistic bread are one mystical body since Christ is really present in this Eucharistic bread, all who eat of it are spiritually transformed in Christ and are thus intimately united to Him and to one another.

This could not be true if what we eat were ordinary bread, for in that case it would be converted into our individual substances, instead of us being converted into it. St. Augustine said, personifying this Eucharistic bread: "Nor shalt thou change Me into Thee... but thou shalt be changed into Me." This is the doctrine of the Real Presence long before the Middle Ages, as proclaimed by the Apostle Paul in the first century.

Verse 18: Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar; i.e., they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered to drive home the point that the Eucharist is a rel participation in the body and blood of Christ, not symbolic remembrance.

---

Do alcoholics and celiacs participate in the Eucharist?

I don't disagree with much of what you said; just don't see support that the disciples and Jesus ate His actual flesh and drank His actual blood and that you do today as well.

---

Great question. Alcoholics can receive the consecrated host alone and that is perfectly fine. Alternatively someone with Celiac's can receive the precious blood alone if communion is offered in both kinds or they can ask for a low gluten host. Catholics are not required to receive in both kinds.

Having said that, according to Canon Law, the bread used for the sacrament must be made solely from wheat and water. This isn't an arbitrary rule it flows directly from Christ's own institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, where He used unleavened bread made from wheat. The bread used in the sacrament of Holy Communion must contain wheat for it to truly become Christ's Body.

This is a matter of valid matter one of the essential conditions for a sacrament to be real. Sacraments require proper matter in order to be valid. You cannot baptize someone by pouring glue over them; you must use water. Using grape jelly instead of oil is not a valid administration of the last rites. In the same way, bread used for the Eucharist must truly be bread.

---

I ask because if it becomes flesh and blood, it wouldn't be alcohol and gluten anymore. I've never understood this - how alcoholics may decline the wine or celiacs decline the bread. It shouldn't hurt either individual if it's no longer alcohol and gluten.

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Zobel said:

---

For reference here is one of the earliest, if not the earliest, extant descriptions of Sunday worship. By St Justin the Martyr around 155 AD. Someone baptized by St John in his later years would be around 60 years old when this was written, for reference. This is 80-90 years after St Paul and Peter were martyred in Rome. As a way of perspective, St Justin was closer to St Paul in time than, say, the people at South Main or First Baptist in Houston are to their church founders.

Quote:

---

…On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

---

---

Excellent!

This raises a great point. Where does the New Testament tell us we should worship on Sunday instead of on the Sabbath?

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Zobel said:

---

For reference here is one of the earliest, if not the earliest, extant descriptions of Sunday worship. By St Justin the Martyr around 155 AD. Someone baptized by St John in his later years would be around 60 years old when this was written, for reference. This is 80-90 years after St Paul and Peter were martyred in Rome. As a way of perspective, St Justin was closer to St Paul in time than, say, the people at South Main or First Baptist in Houston are to their church founders.

Quote:

---

…On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

---

---

Also curious what the context is of this writing by Martyr, which I think is excellent. However I do not take it as authoritative, but certainly very helpful.

---

Quote:

---

But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Oreos and milk? Come on now, scripture says bread and wine (fruit of the vine).

---

Thinking about this more, it's worth digging deeper into 1 Corinthians 10: 16-18 to demonstrate just how different what many Protestants call communion is compared to what Paul is describing.

In verses 16-17 Paul makes one of the most explicit Eucharistic statements in all of Scripture. He speaks of the Eucharist, which he illustrates by the cos habberacah the cup of blessing over which thanks were expressed at the conclusion of the Passover. This shows us how the Eucharistic liturgy passed down from the last supper by the apostles who were there is more than a memorial for the sake of recollection, but is an anamnesis, a reliving of the event being recalled. It is also consistent with the fact that the 4th cup of the Passover was skipped at the Last Supper, only to be drank by Jes

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.

The word translated as "participation" ( koinonia) Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.) means fellowship, sharing, communion a real and genuine participation in the thing itself. Paul is
notusing symbolic or metaphorical language. He is saying the cup IS a real participation in the blood of Christ, and the bread IS a real participation in the body of Christ.

All who eat of the one Eucharistic bread are one mystical body since Christ is really present in this Eucharistic bread, all who eat of it are spiritually transformed in Christ and are thus intimately united to Him and to one another.

This could not be true if what we eat were ordinary bread, for in that case it would be converted into our individual substances, instead of us being converted into it. St. Augustine said, personifying this Eucharistic bread: "Nor shalt thou change Me into Thee... but thou shalt be changed into Me." This is the doctrine of the Real Presence long before the Middle Ages, as proclaimed by the Apostle Paul in the first century.

Verse 18: Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar; i.e., they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered to drive home the point that the Eucharist is a rel participation in the body and blood of Christ, not symbolic remembrance.

---

Do alcoholics and celiacs participate in the Eucharist?

I don't disagree with much of what you said; just don't see support that the disciples and Jesus ate His actual flesh and drank His actual blood and that you do today as well.

---

Great question. Alcoholics can receive the consecrated host alone and that is perfectly fine. Alternatively someone with Celiac's can receive the precious blood alone if communion is offered in both kinds or they can ask for a low gluten host. Catholics are not required to receive in both kinds.

Having said that, according to Canon Law, the bread used for the sacrament must be made solely from wheat and water. This isn't an arbitrary rule it flows directly from Christ's own institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, where He used unleavened bread made from wheat. The bread used in the sacrament of Holy Communion must contain wheat for it to truly become Christ's Body.

This is a matter of valid matter one of the essential conditions for a sacrament to be real. Sacraments require proper matter in order to be valid. You cannot baptize someone by pouring glue over them; you must use water. Using grape jelly instead of oil is not a valid administration of the last rites. In the same way, bread used for the Eucharist must truly be bread.

---

I ask because if it becomes flesh and blood, it wouldn't be alcohol and gluten anymore. I've never understood this - how alcoholics may decline the wine or celiacs decline the bread. It shouldn't hurt either individual if it's no longer alcohol and gluten.

---

If you're willing to go through some Aristotelian metaphysical terms, it's really very simple.

In several miracles the bread and wine literally turn into muscle tissue and blood. There is a whole host of videos on youtube I would recommend. It's incredible and proves that the Eucharist really does change in what it IS ("substance"). But, as a mercy for us, Jesus leaves the appearance and taste of bread and wine (the "accidents") 99.9999999999% of the time for us to consume as a grace for us.

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Oreos and milk? Come on now, scripture says bread and wine (fruit of the vine).

---

Thinking about this more, it's worth digging deeper into 1 Corinthians 10: 16-18 to demonstrate just how different what many Protestants call communion is compared to what Paul is describing.

In verses 16-17 Paul makes one of the most explicit Eucharistic statements in all of Scripture. He speaks of the Eucharist, which he illustrates by the cos habberacah the cup of blessing over which thanks were expressed at the conclusion of the Passover. This shows us how the Eucharistic liturgy passed down from the last supper by the apostles who were there is more than a memorial for the sake of recollection, but is an anamnesis, a reliving of the event being recalled. It is also consistent with the fact that the 4th cup of the Passover was skipped at the Last Supper, only to be drank by Jes

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.

The word translated as "participation" ( koinonia) Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.) means fellowship, sharing, communion a real and genuine participation in the thing itself. Paul is
notusing symbolic or metaphorical language. He is saying the cup IS a real participation in the blood of Christ, and the bread IS a real participation in the body of Christ.

All who eat of the one Eucharistic bread are one mystical body since Christ is really present in this Eucharistic bread, all who eat of it are spiritually transformed in Christ and are thus intimately united to Him and to one another.

This could not be true if what we eat were ordinary bread, for in that case it would be converted into our individual substances, instead of us being converted into it. St. Augustine said, personifying this Eucharistic bread: "Nor shalt thou change Me into Thee... but thou shalt be changed into Me." This is the doctrine of the Real Presence long before the Middle Ages, as proclaimed by the Apostle Paul in the first century.

Verse 18: Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar; i.e., they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered to drive home the point that the Eucharist is a rel participation in the body and blood of Christ, not symbolic remembrance.

---

Do alcoholics and celiacs participate in the Eucharist?

I don't disagree with much of what you said; just don't see support that the disciples and Jesus ate His actual flesh and drank His actual blood and that you do today as well.

---

Great question. Alcoholics can receive the consecrated host alone and that is perfectly fine. Alternatively someone with Celiac's can receive the precious blood alone if communion is offered in both kinds or they can ask for a low gluten host. Catholics are not required to receive in both kinds.

Having said that, according to Canon Law, the bread used for the sacrament must be made solely from wheat and water. This isn't an arbitrary rule it flows directly from Christ's own institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, where He used unleavened bread made from wheat. The bread used in the sacrament of Holy Communion must contain wheat for it to truly become Christ's Body.

This is a matter of valid matter one of the essential conditions for a sacrament to be real. Sacraments require proper matter in order to be valid. You cannot baptize someone by pouring glue over them; you must use water. Using grape jelly instead of oil is not a valid administration of the last rites. In the same way, bread used for the Eucharist must truly be bread.

---

I ask because if it becomes flesh and blood, it wouldn't be alcohol and gluten anymore. I've never understood this - how alcoholics may decline the wine or celiacs decline the bread. It shouldn't hurt either individual if it's no longer alcohol and gluten.

---

If you're willing to go through some Aristotelian metaphysical terms, it's really very simple.

In several miracles the bread and wine literally turn into muscle tissue and blood. There is a whole host of videos on youtube I would recommend. It's incredible and proves that the Eucharist really does change in what it IS ("substance"). But, as a mercy for us, Jesus leaves the appearance and taste of bread and wine (the "accidents") 99.9999999999% of the time for us to consume as a grace for us.

---

I want to make sure I'm understanding…are you saying 99.999999(however many you put)% of the time it really is still bread and wine? And only .000000(however many)1% it actually becomes real flesh and blood?

So people avoid incase it's not one of those rare instances?

Or are you saying it IS flesh and blood but just looks and tastes like bread and wine?

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Oreos and milk? Come on now, scripture says bread and wine (fruit of the vine).

---

Thinking about this more, it's worth digging deeper into 1 Corinthians 10: 16-18 to demonstrate just how different what many Protestants call communion is compared to what Paul is describing.

In verses 16-17 Paul makes one of the most explicit Eucharistic statements in all of Scripture. He speaks of the Eucharist, which he illustrates by the cos habberacah the cup of blessing over which thanks were expressed at the conclusion of the Passover. This shows us how the Eucharistic liturgy passed down from the last supper by the apostles who were there is more than a memorial for the sake of recollection, but is an anamnesis, a reliving of the event being recalled. It is also consistent with the fact that the 4th cup of the Passover was skipped at the Last Supper, only to be drank by Jes

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.

The word translated as "participation" ( koinonia) Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.) means fellowship, sharing, communion a real and genuine participation in the thing itself. Paul is
notusing symbolic or metaphorical language. He is saying the cup IS a real participation in the blood of Christ, and the bread IS a real participation in the body of Christ.

All who eat of the one Eucharistic bread are one mystical body since Christ is really present in this Eucharistic bread, all who eat of it are spiritually transformed in Christ and are thus intimately united to Him and to one another.

This could not be true if what we eat were ordinary bread, for in that case it would be converted into our individual substances, instead of us being converted into it. St. Augustine said, personifying this Eucharistic bread: "Nor shalt thou change Me into Thee... but thou shalt be changed into Me." This is the doctrine of the Real Presence long before the Middle Ages, as proclaimed by the Apostle Paul in the first century.

Verse 18: Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar; i.e., they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered to drive home the point that the Eucharist is a rel participation in the body and blood of Christ, not symbolic remembrance.

---

Do alcoholics and celiacs participate in the Eucharist?

I don't disagree with much of what you said; just don't see support that the disciples and Jesus ate His actual flesh and drank His actual blood and that you do today as well.

---

Great question. Alcoholics can receive the consecrated host alone and that is perfectly fine. Alternatively someone with Celiac's can receive the precious blood alone if communion is offered in both kinds or they can ask for a low gluten host. Catholics are not required to receive in both kinds.

Having said that, according to Canon Law, the bread used for the sacrament must be made solely from wheat and water. This isn't an arbitrary rule it flows directly from Christ's own institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, where He used unleavened bread made from wheat. The bread used in the sacrament of Holy Communion must contain wheat for it to truly become Christ's Body.

This is a matter of valid matter one of the essential conditions for a sacrament to be real. Sacraments require proper matter in order to be valid. You cannot baptize someone by pouring glue over them; you must use water. Using grape jelly instead of oil is not a valid administration of the last rites. In the same way, bread used for the Eucharist must truly be bread.

---

I ask because if it becomes flesh and blood, it wouldn't be alcohol and gluten anymore. I've never understood this - how alcoholics may decline the wine or celiacs decline the bread. It shouldn't hurt either individual if it's no longer alcohol and gluten.

---

If you're willing to go through some Aristotelian metaphysical terms, it's really very simple.

In several miracles the bread and wine literally turn into muscle tissue and blood. There is a whole host of videos on youtube I would recommend. It's incredible and proves that the Eucharist really does change in what it IS ("substance"). But, as a mercy for us, Jesus leaves the appearance and taste of bread and wine (the "accidents") 99.9999999999% of the time for us to consume as a grace for us.

---

I want to make sure I'm understanding…are you saying 99.999999(however many you put)% of the time it really is still bread and wine? And only .000000(however many)1% it actually becomes real flesh and blood?

So people avoid incase it's not one of those rare instances?

Or are you saying it IS flesh and blood but just looks and tastes like bread and wine?

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Oreos and milk? Come on now, scripture says bread and wine (fruit of the vine).

---

Thinking about this more, it's worth digging deeper into 1 Corinthians 10: 16-18 to demonstrate just how different what many Protestants call communion is compared to what Paul is describing.

In verses 16-17 Paul makes one of the most explicit Eucharistic statements in all of Scripture. He speaks of the Eucharist, which he illustrates by the cos habberacah the cup of blessing over which thanks were expressed at the conclusion of the Passover. This shows us how the Eucharistic liturgy passed down from the last supper by the apostles who were there is more than a memorial for the sake of recollection, but is an anamnesis, a reliving of the event being recalled. It is also consistent with the fact that the 4th cup of the Passover was skipped at the Last Supper, only to be drank by Jes

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.

The word translated as "participation" ( koinonia) Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered.) means fellowship, sharing, communion a real and genuine participation in the thing itself. Paul is
notusing symbolic or metaphorical language. He is saying the cup IS a real participation in the blood of Christ, and the bread IS a real participation in the body of Christ.

All who eat of the one Eucharistic bread are one mystical body since Christ is really present in this Eucharistic bread, all who eat of it are spiritually transformed in Christ and are thus intimately united to Him and to one another.

This could not be true if what we eat were ordinary bread, for in that case it would be converted into our individual substances, instead of us being converted into it. St. Augustine said, personifying this Eucharistic bread: "Nor shalt thou change Me into Thee... but thou shalt be changed into Me." This is the doctrine of the Real Presence long before the Middle Ages, as proclaimed by the Apostle Paul in the first century.

Verse 18: Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?

Paul draws on the example of Israel to make his argument concrete. Those who ate the sacrificial meals in the Old Testament participated in the altar; i.e., they entered into real communion with what was being offered. This is not mere symbol or commemoration. Paul uses Israel's own practice as proof that eating a sacred meal creates real spiritual participation in what is being offered to drive home the point that the Eucharist is a rel participation in the body and blood of Christ, not symbolic remembrance.

---

Do alcoholics and celiacs participate in the Eucharist?

I don't disagree with much of what you said; just don't see support that the disciples and Jesus ate His actual flesh and drank His actual blood and that you do today as well.

---

Great question. Alcoholics can receive the consecrated host alone and that is perfectly fine. Alternatively someone with Celiac's can receive the precious blood alone if communion is offered in both kinds or they can ask for a low gluten host. Catholics are not required to receive in both kinds.

Having said that, according to Canon Law, the bread used for the sacrament must be made solely from wheat and water. This isn't an arbitrary rule it flows directly from Christ's own institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, where He used unleavened bread made from wheat. The bread used in the sacrament of Holy Communion must contain wheat for it to truly become Christ's Body.

This is a matter of valid matter one of the essential conditions for a sacrament to be real. Sacraments require proper matter in order to be valid. You cannot baptize someone by pouring glue over them; you must use water. Using grape jelly instead of oil is not a valid administration of the last rites. In the same way, bread used for the Eucharist must truly be bread.

---

I ask because if it becomes flesh and blood, it wouldn't be alcohol and gluten anymore. I've never understood this - how alcoholics may decline the wine or celiacs decline the bread. It shouldn't hurt either individual if it's no longer alcohol and gluten.

---

If you're willing to go through some Aristotelian metaphysical terms, it's really very simple.

In several miracles the bread and wine literally turn into muscle tissue and blood. There is a whole host of videos on youtube I would recommend. It's incredible and proves that the Eucharist really does change in what it IS ("substance"). But, as a mercy for us, Jesus leaves the appearance and taste of bread and wine (the "accidents") 99.9999999999% of the time for us to consume as a grace for us.

---

I want to make sure I'm understanding…are you saying 99.999999(however many you put)% of the time it really is still bread and wine? And only .000000(however many)1% it actually becomes real flesh and blood?

So people avoid incase it's not one of those rare instances?

Or are you saying it IS flesh and blood but just looks and tastes like bread and wine?

---

The bolded. The metaphysical term for what something looks and taste like, etc are called the "accidents". What it IS is called the "substance". The accidents stay the same, but the substance changes into Jesus. Hence, transubstantiation. Who you ARE (a unique human person named what you are) is witnessed by you and the rest of the world by your accidents (what you look like). People can change our accidents, but we can't change our substance.

We see Justin Martyr and Irenaeus defending the real presence in the bread and wine in the 2nd century. We first have the "why does it still taste like bread and wine" explained by Ambrose of Milan a little later. It goes back to the beginning of Christianity.

---