Immaculate Conception

Major1 said:

That is exactly why the Protestant can not partake of the Catholic transubstantiation communion.

Click to expand...

Then you won't partake of the Eucharist in the Lutheran, Anglican or Orthodox Churches, correct? We don't define how it happens, but we do believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.

Luke 22:19 and 1 Corth. 11:24-25.............
"This do in remembrance of Me".

Of course you are free to do as you choose and what I do here is simply show what the BIBLE teaches us and not what the church dogma says.

The Bible teaches that Lord's Supper is not a sacrament, but rather an ordinance given to the Christians who assembled in their churches. No where does the Bible state or imply that there are any sacraments or that any act or ritual that conveys God's grace. There are no sacraments whereby God, through a rite or ceremony, bestows grace to the individual.

Click to expand...

I disagreee that the Bible teaches it is just an ordinance. I know the Scripture behind the "communion is a symbol" view, but I believe it is a limited understanding based off of sections of Scripture- not the entirety of Scripture.

Regarding "This do in remembrance of Me":

I think we all agree that one purpose about the Eucharist is to remember Jesus. That doesn't, however, invalidate a large body of Scripture teaching without apology that it is literally the body and blood of Christ. John 6 is an example. The seriousness of being right with God when partaking is needed because it is the body and blood of Christ,

We (Orthodox) don't know exactly how this happens - and we don't try to come up with an exact explanation. What we do know, however, is that Scripture supports the Eucharist as being the body and blood of Christ. We affirm that wholeheartedly.

Yes, this is our understanding of Scripture, just as your belief is your understanding of Scripture. I do, however, believe what our Lord said in multiple places of Scripture, including John 6:

41 The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” 42 And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”

53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed,and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.

59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Turn Away
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”

61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. 67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?”

68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Click to expand...

Further, anamnesis--remembrance--does not mean simply "to remember" as in, to recall, to recollect. The concept of remembrance as spoken by Jesus in the Last Supper is connected to the concept of remembrance in the Jewish Passover.

When the Jews come together for the Seder to celebrate the Passover they are engaging in an act of anamnesis, remembrance; but by this it means participating in the past, a bringing forward of the past to the present and a joining together of it. Our Jewish friends do not merely say, "Our ancestors were slaves in Egypt" but, "We were slaves in Egypt". One understands themselves as one with those who were brought out of slavery from Egypt, this participation of this Passover brings together past and present in sacred memory.

This is remembrance, anamnesis. "Do this for the remembrance of Me" means that the Supper is more than just a memorial, it is a coming together and joining of the reality of the past with the present: in receiving Christ's body and blood in and under the bread and wine we are ourselves partakers of Christ and His saving work. We receive His broken body and shed blood, we share in the death and resurrection, the life, and Person, and work, and substance of Christ.

By reducing "Do this for the remembrance of Me" to mere memorialism or mental recollection we lessen its significance and reduce the command to receive His body and blood to a mere ritual.

What we have is not mere ritual. We have the self-offering of Christ Himself to us under the mystery of bread and wine; of all which He is and all which He has done. It is all of Christ which we receive here through this Holy and Sacred and Life-Giving Supper. It is nothing less than Jesus Christ Himself, all of Him.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

Further, anamnesis--remembrance--does not mean simply "to remember" as in, to recall, to recollect. The concept of remembrance as spoken by Jesus in the Last Supper is connected to the concept of remembrance in the Jewish Passover.

When the Jews come together for the Seder to celebrate the Passover they are engaging in an act of anamnesis, remembrance; but by this it means participating in the past, a bringing forward of the past to the present and a joining together of it. Our Jewish friends do not merely say, "Our ancestors were slaves in Egypt" but, "We were slaves in Egypt". One understands themselves as one with those who were brought out of slavery from Egypt, this participation of this Passover brings together past and present in sacred memory.

This is remembrance, anamnesis. "Do this for the remembrance of Me" means that the Supper is more than just a memorial, it is a coming together and joining of the reality of the past with the present: in receiving Christ's body and blood in and under the bread and wine we are ourselves partakers of Christ and His saving work. We receive His broken body and shed blood, we share in the death and resurrection, the life, and Person, and work, and substance of Christ.

Click to expand...

Great point!

I do find it curious that my thread, Clergy Crisis in Catholicism, has been closed for straying off-topic, even though it the vast majority of posts were directed to the topic, but this thread, which has been off-topic for weeks now, continues to roll merrily along.

All4Christ said:

Then you won't partake of the Eucharist in the Lutheran, Anglican or Orthodox Churches, correct? We don't define how it happens, but we do believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.

Click to expand...

Catholics do not define how IT happens either. This is a misconception that is pushed for some odd reason, by Orthodox apologists about the doctrine of transubstantiation. The doctrine itself does not discuss the "how" of the miracle, only "what" happens from the miracle.

bbbbbbb said:

I do find it curious that my thread, Clergy Crisis in Catholicism, has been closed for straying off-topic, even though it the vast majority of posts were directed to the topic, but this thread, which has been off-topic for weeks now, continues to roll merrily along.

Click to expand...

I think your thread was closed because of the anti-Catholics turning it into a "all priests are pedophiles" thread.

Erose said:

Catholics do not define how IT happens either. This is a misconception that is pushed for some odd reason, by Orthodox apologists about the doctrine of transubstantiation. The doctrine itself does not discuss the "how" of the miracle, only "what" happens from the miracle.

Click to expand...

That's only partially true. What you mean to say is that the church doesn't explain how a miracle can have taken place except to say that God has willed it.

On the other hand, however, the church does explain in detail what is necessary for the miracle to occur--what the priest must be and do and what happens at what point and what the bread and wine become, right down to the small specifics. The Orthodox, to my knowledge, don't do much of that at all.

Albion said:

That's only partially true. What you mean to say is that the church doesn't explain how a miracle can have taken place except to say that God has willed it.

On the other hand, however, the church does explain in detail what is necessary for the miracle to occur--what the priest must be and do and what happens at what point and what the bread and wine become, right down to the small specifics. The Orthodox, to my knowledge, don't do much of that at all.

Click to expand...

So what you are saying is what I said was completely true, and not just partially. Again, the Church does not proclaim HOW the bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of the Lord, except by Christ's miraculous power working through His priest.

And yes to my knowledge the Orthodox does explain in detail what is necessary for the miracle to occur. It is repeated in every Divine Liturgy.

Erose said:

So what you are saying is what I said was completely true, and not just partially.

Click to expand...

What I was saying was that "define how" leaves a lot of room for disagreement.

Again, the Church does not proclaim HOW the bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of the Lord, except by Christ's miraculous power working through His priest.

Click to expand...

Well, yes, it does. It certainly explains what it takes for the miracle to occur. That's a very mechanical approach to the event which is unlike the Orthodox approach.

So as for "how," yes, the church does explain "how."

When dealing with Sacraments the Catholic church does speak about matter and form and defines these, as well as, who can minister the Sacraments. But these do not explain the how. Matter is what is used in the Sacrament, i.e. water in baptism, oil in confirmation and anointing the sick, bread and wine in the Eucharist, etc. Form is the means by which the use of said matter becomes a Sacrament, i.e. "I baptize you in the Name of ..."; "This is my Body...This is my Blood"; etc. For a Sacrament to be valid it requires all three components: matter, form and minister. If you are missing one or more, then you don't have a Sacrament. I truly don't see the Orthodox disagreeing with these points. They may have differing wording, but the concepts are there.

Those (concepts) are there, but that's only the beginning. The two communions diverge significantly thereafter.

Albion said:

What I was saying was that "define how" leaves a lot of room for disagreement.

Click to expand...

Huh? Considering the Church doesn't explain "how", nor does it "define how" the bread and wine become our Lord, except by miracle.

Albion said:

Well, yes, it does. It certainly explains what it takes for the miracle to occur. That's a very mechanical approach to the event which is unlike the Orthodox approach.

Click to expand...

So you are saying that in Orthodox tradition that if you used chocolate cake and grape juice for the components used, it would be okay for the Eucharist? I doubt this very seriously. Any Orthodox please correct me, but I do believe that a priest or bishop is required to say the Sacred Words of institution, and unleaven bread and wine of the grape vine, as well as the appropiate Sacred Words are used. Nothing different than what has been set down by Catholicism.

Albion said:

So as for "how," yes, the church does explain "how."

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. There isn't a single definition of transubstantiation that claims the "how" except by a divine miracle.

Erose said:

So you are saying that in Orthodox tradition that if you used chocolate cake and grape juice for the components used, it would be okay for the Eucharist?

Click to expand...

Of course I am not saying that. "I am saying" what I wrote in the previous several posts.

Albion said:

Those (concepts) are there, but that's only the beginning. The two communions diverge significantly thereafter.

Click to expand...

You are going to have to prove what you are claiming here. Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

The definition of transubstantiation is quite simple. It states that the substances of the bread and wine becomes the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, and yet the accidents (properties) of bread and wine remain unchanged. That is it, nothing more and nothing less than that. There is no how the miracle occurs. The Church teaches that how this happens is a divine mystery.

Albion said:

Of course I am not saying that. "I am saying" what I wrote in the previous several posts.

Click to expand...

Then let us just agree that you are climbing a tree you can't get down from then.

Erose said:

You are going to have to prove what you are claiming here. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. .

Click to expand...

It's true...and you've had an Orthodox Christian vouch for it as well. If you want to know more about this matter, you can easily educate yourself about it with just a little research.

All4Christ said:

Then you won't partake of the Eucharist in the Lutheran, Anglican or Orthodox Churches, correct? We don't define how it happens, but we do believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.



I disagreee that the Bible teaches it is just an ordinance. I know the Scripture behind the "communion is a symbol" view, but I believe it is a limited understanding based off of sections of Scripture- not the entirety of Scripture.

Regarding "This do in remembrance of Me":

I think we all agree that one purpose about the Eucharist is to remember Jesus. That doesn't, however, invalidate a large body of Scripture teaching without apology that it is literally the body and blood of Christ. John 6 is an example. The seriousness of being right with God when partaking is needed because it is the body and blood of Christ,

We (Orthodox) don't know exactly how this happens - and we don't try to come up with an exact explanation. What we do know, however, is that Scripture supports the Eucharist as being the body and blood of Christ. We affirm that wholeheartedly.

Yes, this is our understanding of Scripture, just as your belief is your understanding of Scripture. I do, however, believe what our Lord said in multiple places of Scripture, including John 6:

Click to expand...

I can not agree with you that the Scriptures teach us that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Jesus. You are welcome to believe whatever you choose to believe but IMO it is Catholic dogma you are following and not the Bible.

Nowhere in scripture do we find this teaching. We see scriptures refer to the elements as the body and blood, but we also see Jesus clearly stating that the words He was speaking were spiritual words when talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood:

John 6:63......
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are SPIRIT and are life,".

He did not say they were literal words; that is, He did not say that they were His actual body and blood.

After The institution of the communion supper, both the elements were still referred to as bread and wine. Matthew 26:26-29.....................

"And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom,".

Consider that after Jesus said, "This is my blood," in Matt. 26:28, he said............... "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Fathers kingdom,"

Why would Jesus speak figuratively of His blood as "the fruit of the vine" if it was his literal blood? He called it wine.

Then please consider the fact that there is no indication in the Biblical accounts of the Last Supper that the disciples thought that the bread and wine changed into the actual body and blood of Christ. Are we to believe that the disciples who were sitting right there with Jesus actually thought that what Jesus was holding in his hands was his literal body and blood? There is no indication that they thought this.


The Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist requires the participant to eat human flesh and drink human blood. Remember, Roman Catholicism teaches that the bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. Essentially, this amounts to cannibalism. What does the Scripture say concerning this?

"For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off," (Lev. 17:14).

Notice that the scripture says that you are not to eat the blood of any flesh. It would certainly appear that the Roman Catholic view is in contradiction to the Old Testament scripture since it advocates the eating of the blood of Christ. To the RCC it is not just symbolic; it is the actual eating and drinking of the body of Christ.

You said................
"What we do know, however, is that Scripture supports the Eucharist as being the body and blood of Christ. We affirm that wholeheartedly"..

Wonderful. However, have you thought this through thoroughly?????
Your interpretation of the Eucharist requires the participant to eat human flesh and drink human blood. Remember, Roman Catholicism teaches that the bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. Essentially, whether you will admit it, or not, this amounts to cannibalism. BUT, What does the Scripture say concerning this?

Leviticus 17:14.....................
"For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off," .

Notice that the scripture says that you are not to eat the blood of any flesh. It would certainly appear that the view your are advocating is in contradiction to the Old Testament scripture since it advocates the eating of the blood of Christ. To the RCC it is not just symbolic; it is the actual eating and drinking of the body of Christ.

Major1 said:

I can not agree with you that the Scriptures teach us that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Jesus. You are welcome to believe whatever you choose to believe but IMO it is Catholic dogma you are following and not the Bible.

Nowhere in scripture do we find this teaching. We see scriptures refer to the elements as the body and blood, but we also see Jesus clearly stating that the words He was speaking were spiritual words when talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood:

John 6:63......
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are SPIRIT and are life,".

He did not say they were literal words; that is, He did not say that they were His actual body and blood.

After The institution of the communion supper, both the elements were still referred to as bread and wine. Matthew 26:26-29.....................

"And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom,".

Consider that after Jesus said, "This is my blood," in Matt. 26:28, he said............... "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Fathers kingdom,"

Why would Jesus speak figuratively of His blood as "the fruit of the vine" if it was his literal blood? He called it wine.

Then please consider the fact that there is no indication in the Biblical accounts of the Last Supper that the disciples thought that the bread and wine changed into the actual body and blood of Christ. Are we to believe that the disciples who were sitting right there with Jesus actually thought that what Jesus was holding in his hands was his literal body and blood? There is no indication that they thought this.


The Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist requires the participant to eat human flesh and drink human blood. Remember, Roman Catholicism teaches that the bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. Essentially, this amounts to cannibalism. What does the Scripture say concerning this?

"For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off," (Lev. 17:14).

Notice that the scripture says that you are not to eat the blood of any flesh. It would certainly appear that the Roman Catholic view is in contradiction to the Old Testament scripture since it advocates the eating of the blood of Christ. To the RCC it is not just symbolic; it is the actual eating and drinking of the body of Christ.

You said................
"What we do know, however, is that Scripture supports the Eucharist as being the body and blood of Christ. We affirm that wholeheartedly"..

Wonderful. However, have you thought this through thoroughly?????
Your interpretation of the Eucharist requires the participant to eat human flesh and drink human blood. Remember, Roman Catholicism teaches that the bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. Essentially, whether you will admit it, or not, this amounts to cannibalism. BUT, What does the Scripture say concerning this?

Leviticus 17:14.....................
"For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off," .

Notice that the scripture says that you are not to eat the blood of any flesh. It would certainly appear that the view your are advocating is in contradiction to the Old Testament scripture since it advocates the eating of the blood of Christ. To the RCC it is not just symbolic; it is the actual eating and drinking of the body of Christ.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to speak for what actual Catholic teaching may be on this, but this may be the point where we Orthodox depart that was just being discussed.

But it is not something invented by Rome that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ. However, we may misunderstand each other (maybe) because we are talking about different things when we say "Body and blood". I know that what I thought Catholics believed when I was a Protestant, is NOT AT ALL what Orthodox believe.

Major1 said:

I can not agree with you that the Scriptures teach us that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Jesus. You are welcome to believe whatever you choose to believe but IMO it is Catholic dogma you are following and not the Bible.

Click to expand...

You are, I assume, referring to Transubstantiation. If so, I wish you would make that part of these responses.

Albion said:

It's true...and you've had an Orthodox Christian vouch for it as well. If you want to know more about this matter, you can easily educate yourself about it with just a little research.

Click to expand...

What I seen and what I was commenting on was the fact that the OC in question, displayed a misunderstanding of the Catholic faith. The same misunderstanding that you are currently displaying.