Catholic Eucharist Actual Blood and Body?

[3rdHeaven]

Well, that statement that most Christians take it figuratively is not correct. There are more Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians than all of the rest of us put together; add to that us Lutherans (the largest group of Christians outside of the RCC and Orthodox communions); add in the Anglicans, another very large communion; plus Old Catholics, Moravians, independent Orthodox, Waldensians and I'm sure I missed a few others.

Those who hold a figurative, symbolic view of the Eucharist are in a very small minority indeed.

Had you said "most Christian Denominations", you would be correct.

Lutherans and other Catholic Lites, RC and EO sure. But when i said most I mean actual Protestants and reformers. Not Catholic Lites

Are you also on the look out for wolves in sheep clothing?

 

[xfisherman]

I am Anglican, not Roman Catholic. I believe the bread and wine to be sacramentally the Body and Blood of Christ, as do the Lutherans, some Methodists, and the Eastern Orthodox. It is NOT pagan, but the teaching of the ancient church. Read the early chruch fathers.

By the way I love the hymn On Christ the Solid Rock I Stand that you qoute in your signature.

Hi cajunhilbility,I just cut and pasted the original post no.1,I am an ex-Anglican and was one for 57 yrs.Pretty long time,last 5 yrs converted to holiness pentecostal.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Lutherans and other Catholic Lites, RC and EO sure. But when i said most I mean actual Protestants and reformers. Not Catholic Lites

Are you also on the look out for wolves in sheep clothing?

As to the first part, we're not that light; but I get what you mean.

As to the second, always!

 

[cajunhillbilly]

Lutherans and other Catholic Lites, RC and EO sure. But when i said most I mean actual Protestants and reformers. Not Catholic Lites

Are you also on the look out for wolves in sheep clothing?

This is a joke. Most of the original Protestant reformers believed that in a much higher view of the Sacraments, including the Reformed. Read the original Protestant confessions of faith. The Belgic, the Augusburgh, etc. The Protestant and Reformed did NOT deny the real Presence of Christ. That came several generations later. They just disagreed on how He is present in the Lord's Supper. Gee.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

How many knew that the Catholics believe the bread and wine they get at the Eucharist is said to be transubstantiated (changed in substance) into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, Lord and God.

Just about everyone knows this; the RCC makes no secret of it.

This really sounds pagan to me. Is it over the top to any one else? They really think they are drinking Jesus actual blood and eating His flesh!

Pagan; nope... it's the most orthodox view of the sacrament, always has been, always will be.

I believe many Roman Catholics are ignorant of their church teachings and don't know that the church believe in the Bible verses regarding the flesh and blood as literal.They cannot go back and undo their teachings,it would turn their church upside down.So they just have to continue saying its true blood and true flesh.

Ignorant? How so? This belief is revealed in Scripture, has been taught by the ECFs, it is taught by the Church catholic to this day.

The wording of the RC, Lutheran and Anglican Mass and that of the Divine Liturgies of the numerous Orthodox Churches leave no question as to what the Church has/does believe and teach; it is also taught from the pulpit of these various Churches. In our Lutheran Churches it is taught through the Catechism to Children in Sunday School and in Catechism class prior to Confirmation to both young and old.

While there may be some members of these Churches who deny this teaching; they still know what the official teaching is. Ignorant; I don't think so.

They don't take literal meaning for Jesus brothers and sisters,why do they take one verse as literal and another all kind of meaning which are distorted are given? Shouldn't it all be treated the same.

Let's turn this around; you take the meaning of Jesus' brothers and sisters literally; why do you not take the verses regarding the Eucharist literally as well; while holding up "Sola Scriptura" for all to see?

BTW, we do take "literally" the ambiguity of the verses you refer to; some of those "brothers" are mentioned elsewhere in Scripture as being "sons" of persons other than Sts. Mary and Joseph, and nowhere does Scripture tell us that any of them are sons and daughters of Mary and Joseph. To state such is speculation at best.

Verses which speak of the Eucharist are not ambiguous in any way; there are no "disclaimers" added or implied; nor are there any to be found elsewhere in Scripture.

 

[elahmine]

John 6:30-33,48-51 (NRSV)
30 So they said to him, "What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you performing? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.' " 32 Then Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

 

[xfisherman]

Just about everyone knows this; the RCC makes no secret of it.

Pagan; nope... it's the most orthodox view of the sacrament, always has been, always will be.

Ignorant? How so? This belief is revealed in Scripture, has been taught by the ECFs, it is taught by the Church catholic to this day.

The wording of the RC, Lutheran and Anglican Mass and that of the Divine Liturgies of the numerous Orthodox Churches leave no question as to what the Church has/does believe and teach; it is also taught from the pulpit of these various Churches. In our Lutheran Churches it is taught through the Catechism to Children in Sunday School and in Catechism class prior to Confirmation to both young and old.

While there may be some members of these Churches who deny this teaching; they still know what the official teaching is. Ignorant; I don't think so.


Let's turn this around; you take the meaning of Jesus' brothers and sisters literally; why do you not take the verses regarding the Eucharist literally as well; while holding up "Sola Scriptura" for all to see?

BTW, we do take "literally" the ambiguity of the verses you refer to; some of those "brothers" are mentioned elsewhere in Scripture as being "sons" of persons other than Sts. Mary and Joseph, and nowhere does Scripture tell us that any of them are sons and daughters of Mary and Joseph. To state such is speculation at best.

Verses which speak of the Eucharist are not ambiguous in any way; there are no "disclaimers" added or implied; nor are there any to be found elsewhere in Scripture.

post deleted

 

[3rdHeaven]

No, Jesus referenced the bread to His body because He also referenced Himself the Bread of Life that came down from Heaven as in Moses. He referenced the wine to the blood He would shed for us and asked us to remember Him when we do this in His memory. But as expected a lot of people it seems to take it literally and give it no thought to what He could have been meaning. They go further by injecting a new science in this to explain why the bread doesn't taste like flesh and the wine doesn't taste like blood. They call it transsubstantition. Apparently Jesus wanted to disguise the taste of His flesh and blood for us.

Every thing makes sense if you simply read it the way Jesus meant it, figuratively!

 

[Incariol]

It is adorable the way some people seem to be threatened by transubstantiation.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

General Theology Statement of Purpose

II. No flaming opposing theological views

The General Theology forum is for discussing and debating the various theological doctrines of the Christian faith. All member's who participate in GT are self-identified Christians through adherence to the Christian Forums' Statement of Faith and the Trinitarian nature of God. It is expected that people who post in GT will respect all members of the Christian faith.

• Always remember that you are first and foremost brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of your theological differences and viewpoints.
• When speaking about well-known, revered and highly regarded past or present leaders, theologians, saints (living or deceased) of other Nicene Christian denominations, please show a measure of respect. These public religious figures are respected by the members who belong to those denominations. Please avoid using inflammatory words or phrases in reference to these public religious figures. *see examples below*
• It is permissible to discuss biblical/historical topics that may include inflammatory words or phrases as long as the usage of these words does not specifically flame any CF recognized Nicene group or denomination or insinuate that they are not Christians. Please use these words and phrases with caution. *see examples below*
  • Examples of inflammatory words/phrases (including but not limited to): idolaters, false/different/other gospel, false prophet, false doctrine, heretics, blasphemers, evil, sheep in wolves clothing, different God, antichrists, Antichrist, cannibalism/cannibal (concerning Eucharist), Judaizer.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

Plus they have no concept of what a sacrament is. It is a sign and seal of the covenant of God with us. As such there is a sacramental union of the sign and that which it signifies. The bread and wine are signs of the Body and Blood, and through the sacramental union of the sign and what the sign points to, makes the Body and Blood present to us and we truly receive the Body and Blood of Christ when we partake of the bread and wine. There are many ways to explain that. Transubstantiation and consubstantiation are just two ways the believers have sought to explain this mystery. Like the EO, I like to say it is a mystery and leave it at that. NONE of the early Protestant theologians, with maybe the exception of Zwingli, denied the Real Presence. And even Zwingli may have believed in it in some spiritual sense. So todays "evangelicals" are not even following the early Reformers.

 

[elahmine]

No, Jesus referenced the bread to His body because He also referenced Himself the Bread of Life that came down from Heaven as in Moses. He referenced the wine to the blood He would shed for us and asked us to remember Him when we do this in His memory. But as expected a lot of people it seems to take it literally and give it no thought to what He could have been meaning. They go further by injecting a new science in this to explain why the bread doesn't taste like flesh and the wine doesn't taste like blood. They call it transsubstantition. Apparently Jesus wanted to disguise the taste of His flesh and blood for us.

Every thing makes sense if you simply read it the way Jesus meant it, figuratively!

1. If people have put enough thought into the real presence to take it so seriously and to try to figure out how to describe, obviously they put a lot of thought into it.

2. Everything makes sense if you simply read it the way Jesus meant it, not figuratively.

 

[Living in the Light]

This is really easy and also shows the problem with literalism. I think Jesus performed the Last Supper as a symbol to internalize his teachings and love.

 

[xfisherman]

<Staff Edit>General Theology Statement of Purpose <Staff Edit>

Post deleted,thank you.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Post deleted,thank you.

You are most welcome, and thank you for doing so. I've deleted my reference to it as well, and edited out my post and your reference to it.

Now, back to the programming in process...

Mark

 

[Anoetos]

You're aware, of course, that the expression "wolves in sheep's clothing" is not from the Bible, right?

That said, literalists may defend themselves by saying that, often, when Jesus uses a word to describe something else, as for example, when He says that He is a door or a vine or a shepherd, in His work, He actually is those things, though not, perhaps in an objectively physiological sense.

I don't think taking the words literally is the problem. The problem with the doctrine of transubstantiation, I think, is that on the one hand it does not take into account, or makes nonsense of the fact that Jesus's Body is at the right hand of God and being a physical body, is not ubiquitous and on the other hand, resorts to a mutilation of Aristotle to force a disconnect between the appearance and essence of things, a revision which Aristotle's philosophy never recognized and which he actually argues against.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

again if seen sacramentally it makes sense that you can refer to the bread and wine as the Body and Blood of Christ, since there is a sacramental union between the sign and what it signifies. Doesn't involve Aristole or supposed cannibalism. And those who reject the Eucharist as the Sacrament of the Body and Blood insist on literalism on such things as interpreting prophecy, which is hard to understand no matter how you take it.

 

[Anoetos]

No, it's definitely not cannibalism. our Lord told us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. In the Sacrament we do this. The conflict is over how it is that we do it.

 

[simonpeter]

So which one is it, finally - transubstantiation or consubstantiation?

 

[hedrick]

The interesting thing about the Biblical argument is that doesn't settle the question. I think Jesus meant "is" figuratively. However just about every view except that Catholic works fine with a figurative reading of Jesus' words. I see the bread and wine as visible signs showing the actual presence of Christ's body and blood. "This is my body" is figurative, because the bread isn't fully equated with Jesus' body. But the bread is the visible sign of the presence of his body. Luther himself took "this is my body" quite literally, but I think even the Lutheran view of the real presence is also compatible with seeing the words as non-literal.