Wondering About Faith (Ephesians 2)

[Spockrates]

John 6:66 and a half...
"hey, come back here, I was only speaking figuratively!"

 

[Spockrates]

So continuing with the Lord's Supper, here is the official stand of the catholic church from their catechism.

1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly."225 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

Yes, this is logically sound. If it is correct that all Christ is, is in the bread and all Christ is, is in the wine, then one would not have to consume both to receive all Christ is. One would not receive half of Christ by eating the bread and the other half of him by drinking the wine.

Alternately, one might drink the wine but not eat the bread and still receive all Christ is. Moreover, the amount consumed would not matter--whether a crumb or a mouthful, a drop or several swallows, the result would be the same.

So it is not illogical, but it still might not be actual. The spiritual food and drink might only be symbolic of his body and blood. The question remains: Is spiritual food and drink ever food and drink consumed with one's mouth, or is it always symbolic food and drink not so consumed?

Seems we keep coming back to the same question. No need to answer it more than once. What do you think of spiritual drink? Sometimes literal liquid you consume with your mouth, or never literal liquid?

 

[katiemygirl]

="Spockrates, post: 4260448, member: 56793"]
But is spiritual food actual and literal food, or symbolic and figurative food? Consider the mana that fed the Jewish people for 40 some odd years after they left Egypt: Was it spiritual food or not spiritual food?

We eat the physical bread and drink the physical drink. Both bring spiritual benefits.
I have never seen anyone eating actual flesh and drinking actual blood.

We are spiritually fed in many ways, and it doesn't require physical eating and drinking: praying, reading and studying God's word, singing praises to God, doing good unto others, assembling with the saints feed us spiritually.

Jesus came to give bread from heaven, not the kind their fathers ate. Jesus said He was the bread from heaven.

What was the response of the disciples after what Jesus said in 55-56? They grumbled and said, "Who can listen to it?"

Jesus told them His words were spiritual and life giving.

“The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe” (vv. 63-64).

Imho, Jesus is making it clear that His words are not to be taken literally.

Let me ask you this. The majority of the Protestant world does not believe in transubstantiation. That said, if Jesus is changing bread and fruit of the vine to His flesh and blood, then wouldn't He be changing it in Protestant churches as well? Where in the Scriptures are we told that Jesus does this THROUGH a priest? This claim really bothers me. If you have ever attended a mass, then you have witnessed the priest holding the bread and then the wine in the air, speaking some words, and voila, transubstantiation. Where is the Scriptural authority for such a thing?

Truthfully,if a person wants to believe that Jesus is changing the bread and wine to the actual body and blood of Christ, I really don't think that's a big deal. My gripe is with the priest. There is no Scriptural authority for the priest to do what he does. Nor is there a MASS in the Bible.

 

[katiemygirl]

Yes, this is logically sound. If it is correct that all Christ is, is in the bread and all Christ is, is in the wine, then one would not have to consume both to receive all Christ is. One would not receive half of Christ by eating the bread and the other half of him by drinking the wine.

Alternately, one might drink the wine but not eat the bread and still receive all Christ is. Moreover, the amount consumed would not matter--whether a crumb or a mouthful, a drop or several swallows, the result would be the same.

So it is not illogical, but it still might not be actual. The spiritual food and drink might only be symbolic of his body and blood. The question remains: Is spiritual food and drink ever food and drink consumed with one's mouth, or is it always symbolic food and drink not so consumed?

Seems we keep coming back to the same question. No need to answer it more than once. What do you think of spiritual drink? Sometimes literal liquid you consume with your mouth, or never literal liquid?

And I keep coming back to WHERE is the Scriptural authority for this? It may seem logical to you, but when did Jesus change His directive?

Where do you stand on Scriptural authority?

 

[atpollard]

I am not sure if this has any bearing on the discussion for you, but Jesus was raised Jewish as were the apostles, and the Last Supper 'new ritual' was performed during a feast immediately before Passover.
This is traditionally a Seder ... that was not just any random bread that Jesus was breaking ... that was not just any random cup of wine that Jesus was offering ... for both Jesus and the Apostles, that meal and those items came pre-loaded with a lot of historic and theological meaning and symbolism.
In my opinion, it would be a mistake to completely ignore the remarkable context when attempting to understand the meaning of his words.

... But I got no dog in this fight, so good luck figuring it out.

 

[Spockrates]

We eat the physical bread and drink the physical drink. Both bring spiritual benefits.
I have never seen anyone eating actual flesh and drinking actual blood.

"The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

(John 3:8)​

I have never seen the Holy Spirit entering a human body, either. But as Christians, I believe we are sometimes called to walk by faith, not by sight. Catholics take Jesus to mean his body and blood are literal food. How it appears to their eyes does not matter to them. What scripture says does.

I think you and I can agree with that premise about the importance of scripture. So we should examine the evidence of the Word of God, not the evidence of our eyes and other senses. It is not impossible for God to transform bread and the fruit of the vine into something different from what it appears to be to our senses. So we need to figure out what the Bible says it actually is. I think you might agree.

We are spiritually fed in many ways, and it doesn't require physical eating and drinking: praying, reading and studying God's word, singing praises to God, doing good unto others, assembling with the saints feed us spiritually.

Jesus came to give bread from heaven, not the kind their fathers ate. Jesus said He was the bread from heaven.

What was the response of the disciples after what Jesus said in 55-56? They grumbled and said, "Who can listen to it?"

Jesus told them His words were spiritual and life giving.

“The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe” (vv. 63-64).

Imho, Jesus is making it clear that His words are not to be taken literally.

What they said, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" What he said, "My words are spirit and they are life." What he does not say: Spiritual words are figures of speech. He also does not say spiritual words are to be taken literally. He does not say either way.

But I hope you will answer my question, which I'll ask again: Is spiritual food and drink never literal food and drink we consume with our mouths?

Let me ask you this. The majority of the Protestant world does not believe in transubstantiation. That said, if Jesus is changing bread and fruit of the vine to His flesh and blood, then wouldn't He be changing it in Protestant churches as well? Where in the Scriptures are we told that Jesus does this THROUGH a priest? This claim really bothers me. If you have ever attended a mass, then you have witnessed the priest holding the bread and then the wine in the air, speaking some words, and voila, transubstantiation. Where is the Scriptural authority for such a thing?

I have spoken to Catholics who say that it is possible God sometimes does transform the bread and wine in Protestant churches.

Truthfully,if a person wants to believe that Jesus is changing the bread and wine to the actual body and blood of Christ, I really don't think that's a big deal. My gripe is with the priest. There is no Scriptural authority for the priest to do what he does. Nor is there a MASS in the Bible.

Yes, but you have already made up your mind. I haven't made up mine. So I may be selfish, but I started this discussion thread to get my own questions answered. Currently, I'm wondering what Jesus meant in John 6:55.



So regarding this verse, I think scripture does show spiritual food and drink is something we can consume with our mouths. Would you like to know why? Or show me why I'm mistaken?

 

[Spockrates]

I am not sure if this has any bearing on the discussion for you, but Jesus was raised Jewish as were the apostles, and the Last Supper 'new ritual' was performed during a feast immediately before Passover.
This is traditionally a Seder ... that was not just any random bread that Jesus was breaking ... that was not just any random cup of wine that Jesus was offering ... for both Jesus and the Apostles, that meal and those items came pre-loaded with a lot of historic and theological meaning and symbolism.
In my opinion, it would be a mistake to completely ignore the remarkable context when attempting to understand the meaning of his words.

... But I got no dog in this fight, so good luck figuring it out.

Yes, I've heard that. Thanks. I'd say Katie's dogs and mine are hunting, instead of fighting. Just trying to figure out whose dogs are barking up the wrong tree!

But if your dog can't hunt, that's OK.

 

[Spockrates]

And I keep coming back to WHERE is the Scriptural authority for this? It may seem logical to you, but when did Jesus change His directive?

Where do you stand on Scriptural authority?

I think scripture is authoritative in the same way state and federal laws are authoritative. Insofar as they are correctly understood, they should be obeyed.

An example: You might have seen in the national news, lately, that there was a big uproar about a law passed in my home state of Indiana. It was called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Critics of the law say it gives any merchant the right to refuse service to a homosexual. Proponents of the law say it applies only to those businesses providing services for weddings. A Christian caterer, for example should not be forced to serve food at a gay wedding if the business owner believes it would be immoral to do so.

I think you would agree, then that just as laws can be misinterpreted, so too scripture can be misinterpreted. (I'm grateful you have shown me a few misinterpretations of my own!) So how do we handle such misinterpretations? In government, we have the judicial branch to interpret the laws. In the various churches, the governing body decides by vote what the correct interpretation of scripture is. So scriptural authority is only so good as those who have the authority to interpret scripture for us.

Socrates said something similar:

I cannot help but think, Phaedrus that the written word has one fatal flaw in common with a painting: To look at it, it appears to be alive so that it can speak for itself. But if you don't understand what it says and ask it to explain, it offers no help, only repeating the same incomprehensible words over and over again.

Even worse, should someone misunderstand a book and teach others to do the same, the book can do nothing to stop such slander! It instead requires its author to set the record straight. For a book can never defend itself. It needs those who understand her to come to her defense.

(Phaedrus)
​

The same is true of scripture, I think: Should someone misinterpret her, she cannot defend herself. She requires those who properly understand her to come to her defense.

The goal for me is to discover who is defending her correctly and who is slandering her. Now I'm no authority, but if it is true that:

1. Christ is teaching that I need to consume 100% of him to have eternal life
2. Consuming the bread gives me 100% of Christ
3. Consuming the wine gives me 100% of Christ
4. Consuming one or the other gives me 100% of Christ
5. It's consuming 100% of Christ that gives me eternal life, not my obeying the command to consume both​

Then the Conclusion:​

I may consume only the bread and still have eternal life​

So if these premises are true, then the conclusion is shown to be true. To demonstrate the conclusion is false, one must either show one of the premises to be untrue, or show that the premises, though true don't really support the conclusion. That's how logic works. To reason differently is to be illogical. What is illogical is never a good reason to believe.

 

[atpollard]

Yes, I've heard that. Thanks. I'd say Katie's dogs and mine are hunting, instead of fighting. Just trying to figure out whose dogs are barking up the wrong tree!

But if your dog can't hunt, that's OK.

Well, if your dog "ain't never caught a rabbit, then it ain't no friend of mine." (the other King)

 

[Spockrates]

Well, if your dog "ain't never caught a rabbit, then it ain't no friend of mine." (the other King)

LOL! My dogs resemble that remark. But I still admire their dogged determination to keep trying.

 

[atpollard]

But I hope you will answer my question, which I'll ask again: Is spiritual food and drink never literal food and drink we consume with our mouths?

I'd like to wade in with a philosophical rather than scriptural answer ...
"NEVER" is a pretty big word, not one that I would tend to use lightly.
"Spiritual", on the other hand is a word with a pretty specific meaning.

(from Merriam-Webster)

1 : of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal <spiritual needs>
2a : of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs>
2b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>
3: concerned with religious values
4: related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>
5a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena
5b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic
From Middle English, from Anglo-French & Late Latin; Anglo-French espirital, spiritual, from Late Latin spiritualis, from Latin, of breathing, of wind, from spiritus​

So in general, no, 'Spiritual Food and Drink' is not primarily focused on 'literal food and drink we consume with our mouths'.
It is more 'metaphysical' in its focus.
In my opinion, this does not mean that real, physical objects cannot also have a 'spiritual' dimension and power, however it means that the focus is not primarily physical.

As a very practical example, praying over the sick and anointing them with 'holy oil'.
It would be foolish to say that the oil is not a real physical substance ... of course it is a real oil.
It would be equally foolish to say that praying and anointing with 'virtual oil' is the same experience as using real oil.
It would be foolish to claim that the 'holy oil' was literally an oil comprised of liquid 'holy'.
The oil is real, but the focus of the ritual is primarily spiritual (of or pertaining to the spirit realm) rather than a focus on the medicinal properties of perfumed vegetable oil.

 

[kepha31]

"The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

(John 3:8)​

I have never seen the Holy Spirit entering a human body, either. But as Christians, I believe we are sometimes called to walk by faith, not by sight. Catholics take Jesus to mean his body and blood are literal food. How it appears to their eyes does not matter to them. What scripture says does.

I think you and I can agree with that premise about the importance of scripture. So we should examine the evidence of the Word of God, not the evidence of our eyes and other senses. It is not impossible for God to transform bread and the fruit of the vine into something different from what it appears to be to our senses. So we need to figure out what the Bible says it actually is. I think you might agree.

What they said, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" What he said, "My words are spirit and they are life." What he does not say: Spiritual words are figures of speech. He also does not say spiritual words are to be taken literally. He does not say either way.

But I hope you will answer my question, which I'll ask again: Is spiritual food and drink never literal food and drink we consume with our mouths?

I have spoken to Catholics who say that it is possible God sometimes does transform the bread and wine in Protestant churches.

Yes, but you have already made up your mind. I haven't made up mine. So I may be selfish, but I started this discussion thread to get my own questions answered. Currently, I'm wondering what Jesus meant in John 6:55.

John 6:55 is a further clarification of what He said in the previous 4 verses, and you could go further back.

Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.

What they said, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" What he said, "My words are spirit and they are life." What he does not say: Spiritual words are figures of speech. He also does not say spiritual words are to be taken literally. He does not say either way.

John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of "spirit versus flesh" to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still "in the flesh."

John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic." As we have seen, the use of "spirit" relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.

Luke 1:37 - with God, nothing is impossible. If we can believe in the incredible reality of the Incarnation, we can certainly believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. God coming to us in elements He created is an extension of the awesome mystery of the Incarnation.

Scripture Catholic - THE EUCHARIST

Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is completely in harmony with the foreshadowing in the Old Testament.

 

[katiemygirl]

I think scripture is authoritative in the same way state and federal laws are authoritative. Insofar as they are correctly understood, they should be obeyed.

An example: You might have seen in the national news, lately, that there was a big uproar about a law passed in my home state of Indiana. It was called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Critics of the law say it gives any merchant the right to refuse service to a homosexual. Proponents of the law say it applies only to those businesses providing services for weddings. A Christian caterer, for example should not be forced to serve food at a gay wedding if the business owner believes it would be immoral to do so.

I think you would agree, then that just as laws can be misinterpreted, so too scripture can be misinterpreted. (I'm grateful you have shown me a few misinterpretations of my own!) So how do we handle such misinterpretations? In government, we have the judicial branch to interpret the laws. In the various churches, the governing body decides by vote what the correct interpretation of scripture is. So scriptural authority is only so good as those who have the authority to interpret scripture for us.

Socrates said something similar:

I cannot help but think, Phaedrus that the written word has one fatal flaw in common with a painting: To look at it, it appears to be alive so that it can speak for itself. But if you don't understand what it says and ask it to explain, it offers no help, only repeating the same incomprehensible words over and over again.

Even worse, should someone misunderstand a book and teach others to do the same, the book can do nothing to stop such slander! It instead requires its author to set the record straight. For a book can never defend itself. It needs those who understand her to come to her defense.

(Phaedrus)
​

The same is true of scripture, I think: Should someone misinterpret her, she cannot defend herself. She requires those who properly understand her to come to her defense.

The goal for me is to discover who is defending her correctly and who is slandering her. Now I'm no authority, but if it is true that:

1. Christ is teaching that I need to consume 100% of him to have eternal life
2. Consuming the bread gives me 100% of Christ
3. Consuming the wine gives me 100% of Christ
4. Consuming one or the other gives me 100% of Christ
5. It's consuming 100% of Christ that gives me eternal life, not my obeying the command to consume both​

Then the Conclusion:​

I may consume only the bread and still have eternal life​

So if these premises are true, then the conclusion is shown to be true. To demonstrate the conclusion is false, one must either show one of the premises to be untrue, or show that the premises, though true don't really support the conclusion. That's how logic works. To reason differently is to be illogical. What is illogical is never a good reason to believe.

Paul to the Corinthians in chapter 11, verses 23-28

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

27 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.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

Did Jesus or did He not command that His disciples

1. Drink the cup in remembrance of me?
2. Examine yourselves when you eat the bread and drink the cup?
3. Show My death every time you drink the cup.

Your focus seems to be on the idea that you can get the spiritual benefits by taking only the bread. The Scriptures say no such thing. The catholic church says this, not Jesus. You base your conclusion on catholic logic. Yet, you outright ignore Jesus' command to "Drink the cup in remembrance of Me." You seem to be saying it's perfectly fine to not drink the cup even though Jesus said to do exactly that.

This is what I mean by Scriptural authority. There is NONE for not serving the cup. The catholic church contradicts Jesus when they don't serve the cup. I don't know how you can say otherwise, or accept such a practice.

Something for you to consider:

Jesus said, "Why call me Lord and not do as I say?" (Luke 6:46)

 

[katiemygirl]

"Spockrates, post: 4260739, member: 56793"
I think scripture is authoritative in the same way state and federal laws are authoritative. Insofar as they are correctly understood, they should be obeyed.

How else can Jesus' command to eat the bread and drink the cup be understood? Can we at least agree that Jesus commanded we eat the bread and drink the cup?

I think we'll have to move the discussion to private messaging. Do you mind?

 

[Spockrates]

I'd like to wade in with a philosophical rather than scriptural answer ...
"NEVER" is a pretty big word, not one that I would tend to use lightly.
"Spiritual", on the other hand is a word with a pretty specific meaning.

(from Merriam-Webster)

1 : of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal <spiritual needs>
2a : of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs>
2b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>
3: concerned with religious values
4: related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>
5a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena
5b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic
From Middle English, from Anglo-French & Late Latin; Anglo-French espirital, spiritual, from Late Latin spiritualis, from Latin, of breathing, of wind, from spiritus​

So in general, no, 'Spiritual Food and Drink' is not primarily focused on 'literal food and drink we consume with our mouths'.
It is more 'metaphysical' in its focus.
In my opinion, this does not mean that real, physical objects cannot also have a 'spiritual' dimension and power, however it means that the focus is not primarily physical.

As a very practical example, praying over the sick and anointing them with 'holy oil'.
It would be foolish to say that the oil is not a real physical substance ... of course it is a real oil.
It would be equally foolish to say that praying and anointing with 'virtual oil' is the same experience as using real oil.
It would be foolish to claim that the 'holy oil' was literally an oil comprised of liquid 'holy'.
The oil is real, but the focus of the ritual is primarily spiritual (of or pertaining to the spirit realm) rather than a focus on the medicinal properties of perfumed vegetable oil.

I believe a Catholic would say (1) and (2) apply to the bread and wine. It consists of the spirit, for it is the Son of God and God is spirit (1). Since it is God, it is sacred (2).

Once at a Catholic forum, I asked if they believed God was a loaf of bread. There was outrage and I received a warning from a moderator and that another comment like that would get me permanently banned. To mock the Eucharist is to mock God, they explained to me.

So I'd say the bread and wine is extremely sacred to Catholics. Many of their churches have what they call adoration chapels, where parish members may go and pray in the presence of the bread and wine, which they believe to be God.

But regarding scriptural evidence that spiritual food is that which one can consume with her mouth, I have a biblical passage in mind, if you care to consider it with me.

 

[katiemygirl]

"Spockrates, post: 4261453, member: 56793"]
But regarding scriptural evidence that spiritual food is that which one can consume with her mouth, I have a biblical passage in mind, if you care to consider it with me.

I doubt anyone would deny that taking the Lord's Supper is taking spiritual food and drink.

I Cor. 10
10 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.

Notice: They ALL ate and they ALL drank of the spiritual Rock that was Christ.

So were the Jews actually drinking Christ or is this metaphorical language?

 

[Spockrates]

How else can Jesus' command to eat the bread and drink the cup be understood? Can we at least agree that Jesus commanded we eat the bread and drink the cup?

Yes, I agree. One must obey Christ, but perhaps only as far as she is able? You see? I think there is a difference between following the letter of the law and following the spirit of the law--including not only the commandments of the Old Testament but also the commandments of Christ.

Notice that one of the sources you quoted says it is better if one consumes both the bread and wine, but it is OK to consume just the bread. I guess the question to ask is: If it is better, then why let someone do worse? Why not require the better and forbid the worse? Isn't doing worse a sin?

It's a good question. Having a love of history, I think I have the answer. I'll try to be brief:

I am a Christian living in England in the Middle Ages. The Protestant Revolution has not happened, yet, and there is no Church of England, so I am Catholic. I know Christ commands me to eat the bread and drink the wine. But I'm gravely concerned, because there is no wine to drink. There is plenty of beer, ale and mead as wheat and barley grow in abundance. But the climate in England is not favorable to sustaining vineyards.

Now the kings of England could import wine, but they are at constant war with France, and cannot get the wine from there, and it is too expensive to import it from Italy or Spain. Were the kings to spent all the gold they had, they simply would not be able to obtain enough wine for every Christian to get a sip once a week.

So what do I do? I guess I ask my priest, who asks his bishop, who asks the Cardinals at Rome what to do. Their answer: It is better if you can drink wine, but if you can't, do not fear. God knows your heart and will not count that against you. So I am relieved that I am told it is not a sin to fail to follow the letter of Christ's command as long as I do my best to follow the spirit of his command. Though I am not required to drink wine, I will if it becomes available to me.

 

[katiemygirl]

Yes, I agree. One must obey Christ, but perhaps only as far as she is able? You see? I think there is a difference between following the letter of the law and following the spirit of the law--including not only the commandments of the Old Testament but also the commandments of Christ.

Notice that one of the sources you quoted says it is better if one consumes both the bread and wine, but it is OK to consume just the bread. I guess the question to ask is: If it is better, then why let someone do worse? Why not require the better and forbid the worse? Isn't doing worse a sin?

It's a good question. Having a love of history, I think I have the answer. I'll try to be brief:

I am a Christian living in England in the Middle Ages. The Protestant Revolution has not happened, yet, and there is no Church of England, so I am Catholic. I know Christ commands me to eat the bread and drink the wine. But I'm gravely concerned, because there is no wine to drink. There is plenty of beer, ale and mead as wheat and barley grow in abundance. But the climate in England is not favorable to sustaining vineyards.

Now the kings of England could import wine, but they are at constant war with France, and cannot get the wine from there, and it is too expensive to import it from Italy or Spain. Were the kings to spent all the gold they had, they simply would not be able to obtain enough wine for every Christian to get a sip once a week.

So what do I do? I guess I ask my priest, who asks his bishop, who asks the Cardinals at Rome what to do. Their answer: It is better if you can drink wine, but if you can't, do not fear. God knows your heart and will not count that against you. So I am relieved that I am told it is not a sin to fail to follow the letter of Christ's command as long as I do my best to follow the spirit of his command.

So what is the excuse now?

You see, there have been many contradictions to God's word over the years by the catholic church. Not serving the fruit of the vine is but one.

This is what caused me to leave, their contradictions. I put God's word above the teachings of men. I want the truth and nothing but.

 

[Spockrates]

I doubt anyone would deny that taking the Lord's Supper is taking spiritual food and drink.

I Cor. 10
10 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.

Notice: They ALL ate and they ALL drank of the spiritual Rock that was Christ.

So were the Jews actually drinking Christ or is this metaphorical language?

Great minds think alike! Or have the same God reminding them. 1 Corinthians 10 was the passage I had in mind. Isn't Paul saying the literal water that came from the rock Moses struck, which the Jeswish people drank, was spiritual drink?

 

[katiemygirl]

Great minds think alike! Or have the same God reminding them. 1 Corinthians 10 was the passage I had in mind. Isn't Paul saying the literal water that came from the rock Moses struck, which the Jeswish people drank, was spiritual drink?

He was. I couldn't agree more. Eating the bread and drinking the fruit of the vine is spiritual food and drink. I've never doubted that. Spiritual food though comes in many forms. When I hear a good sermon, I am being spiritually fed.