Within the Christian worldview, denying Eucharistic realism is probably the most indefensible commonly held position out there right now. This is a commonly held belief, being the majority view among Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Charismatic and Non Denominationals. Catholics and Orthodox unequivocally affirm realism, Lutherans and Anglicans do to a lesser extent. Reformed/Calvinists are somewhere in between. The denial of this position is often called "Memorialism", while we will refer to Eucharistic realism as held by Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans and most Anglicans as "Realism".In the Bible we see several passages referring to the Eucharist.In Matthew 26:26-28 we read:"...Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood..."We see similar in Mark and Luke as well as 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. Note he states plainly: this is my body. Nowhere is it stated that this is a metaphor. Memorialists have to merely ascertain that this is true without evidence.In John 6:53-56, we read:"...Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."Once again, plainly stated realism, with no evidence of a metaphor.Finally, 1 Corinthians 11:27-29:"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."Paul also warns of people who have partaken unworthily dying. This is difficult to reconcile with a memorialist view.
>>18531738In conclusion: we have multiple bible verses affirming Eucharistic realism. There is nowhere that this is shown to be a metaphor. The bible itself points strongly to realism. To back this up, we look at the early church testimony.First the Didache. This does not itself weigh strongly on realism vs memorialism directly, but it does point to the Eucharist being a sacrifice:"And on the Lord's own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure... For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice"Next we look at Ignatius of Antioch, who died between 107-110 AD and was himself a direct disciple of the apostle John. He writes:"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.""I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ... and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life."Next we read from Justin Martyr, describing Christianity to Roman Emperor, dated to 155:157 AD:"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word... is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."Finally we have Iranaeus, who wrote:"...declaring the cup, a part of creation, to be His own blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies."
>>18531739n summary, we have the bible itself strongly affirming Eucharistic realism. Then we have the didache, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr and Iraenaeus all affirming Eucharistic realism in the 2nd century AD. We have a complete absence of memorialism in the 2nd century AD. We have an almost complete absence of Memorialism from 200 AD to 1500 AD, outside of fringe heretics. Finally in the 16th century we have Zwingli who advocates Memorialism, but even then it is a fringe view strongly condemned by Luther. Only a couple of centuries later, largely in America, do we see widespread memorialism.To believe memorialism, you have to believe without evidence that all the verses describing the Eucharist are mere metaphors. You have to believe that the early Church universally got it wrong, and the Church continue to get it wrong until almost 2000 later. That is an indefensible view, especially in light of the Church being the pillar and ground of truth, which the gates of hades will not prevail against
>>18531740>To believe memorialism, you have to believe without evidence that all the verses describing the Eucharist are mere metaphors. You have to believe that the early Church universally got it wrong, and the Church continue to get it wrong until almost 2000 later. That is an indefensible view, especially in light of the Church being the pillar and ground of truth, which the gates of hades will not prevail againstMore like Rome corrupted the true gospel that Baptists preserved under centuries of persecution Retvrn to trvth
>'bread' = industrially-produced wafers>to this day the catholic church doesn't have a definitive opinion on whether the laity are allowed to partake in the communion wine or notmuh eucharist muhfugga
>>18531801>'bread' = industrially-produced wafersWhy does that matter? Jesus said the bread and wine is His flesh and blood. No reason to believe that the bread being produced on a wide scale is incapable of being His blood.>to this day the catholic church doesn't have a definitive opinion on whether the laity are allowed to partake in the communion wine or notIt is permitted. Whether or not individual Churches choose to distribute the cup to the laity is up to them.
>>18531861Reducing the bread to sliver-thin wafers and restricting the wine to the clergy out of dull economic pragmatism undermines the histrionic shrieking about how sacred the eucharist a little bit
>>18531916Doesn't even matter, this thread is about Eucharistic realism, which is fully embraced by both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as well as Oriental Orthodoxy, as well as mostly embraced by Lutheranism, Anglicanism and partially embraced by Calvinists. Do you actually have any arguments in favour of Memorialism? I'm guessing not, because it's an indefensible position.
>>18531796This. OP can never answer the Johnnthe Favorite question because he knows when it’s time for John to die, Jesus Christ will already be back fighting form him and we will all be behind him in resurrected immortal incorruptible bodies without need for his Eucharist. Jesus won’t even take part eating the Lord’s Supper till he comes back after he blows them up. We are victoriously already his real body and blood, by grace through faith alone. Already in him and him in us. Not because the wife didn’t make it back to dinner on time.
>>18531969>Do you actually have any arguments in favour of Memorialism? I'm guessing not, because it's an indefensible position.The Bible: Do this in memory of me2000 years of popery destroyed
>>18532451You can do something in remembrance of him while it also being literally his body and blood. And indeed - that is the case.>>18532079>>18531796Nothing about "Rome" - the universal Church, from Rome to Greece to Egypt all had the same view: the Eucharist is real. This was a universal view from the beginning until Ulrich Zwingli.
>>18532596>while it also being literally his body and blood. And indeed - that is the case.and you can also do it without that literally being the caseYou only need it to be so so that you can argue your priests have magical powers of transmutation that nobody else has
>>18532761>and you can also do it without that literally being the caseGlad that you accept that it being done in Remembrance does NOT contradict it also being literally the body and blood of Christ! What that conceded, you now have zero arguments. Many bible verses affirming realism, none contradicting realism. Universal belief held by all from the beginning of the Church until Zwingli that realism is true and memorialism is heretical.
>>18531738If you don't recognize why bread and wine are fruits of the Spirit then you're only performing vain rituals.
>>18531738>Note he states plainly: this is my body. Nowhere is it stated that this is a metaphor. Memorialists have to merely ascertain that this is true without evidence.I am not a memorialist, I am a Calvinist, and the words of institution are clearly symbolic. The fact you have to defend a literalist interpretation with completely empty arguments like “it doesn’t say it’s a metaphor”, as though when people speak in metaphor they always declare “what I’m about to say is a metaphor” shows its weakness. The evidence that Christ is speaking metaphorically is taken 1. From the full words of institution which, as it is here, is often not quoted by those advancing a local presence in the sacrament, for Christ did not say “This is my body”, but “This is my body, which is broken for you” showing that the sacrament represents Christ as He was dead and dying and points us to the cross, which is also how Paul interprets it (1 Cor. 11:26) 2. The general language of sacraments throughout scripture, which often have the name of the thing signified given to them eg “This will be my covenant with you, all your males shall be circumcised” which cannot tolerate a literal interpretation since a physical wound cannot be identical to an abstract thing like a covenant. I don’t have time to reply to the rest but might do so later.
>>18531738So what OP is saying any time you eat bread during Eucharistic you are eating a real part of Jesus. This in turn means that there are people who ate part of Jesus' penis.
