washedagain
Resting in the Palm of His Hand
- Jul 11, 2011
- 880
- 23
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Catholic Eucharist Actual Blood and Body?
- Thread starter 3rdHeaven
- Start date
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 37,696
- 27,091
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
Koinonia, it is fellowship, participation, communion; it is an intimate sharing in the flesh and blood of Christ.
You ignored my specific remarks concerning the Apostle's use of the word koinonia here.
It's not some idle participation where we just reflect on the past; it is a full, deep, intimate sharing in the flesh and blood of Christ which we receive in the bread and the wine.
That's what St. Paul is saying.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
washedagain
Resting in the Palm of His Hand
- Jul 11, 2011
- 880
- 23
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
And you are putting words in Pauls mouth and ignoring what he did say.... He did NOT say
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." - 1 Corinthians 10:16-17
This is what he did say.....
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." - 1 Corinthians 10:16-17
Do you see the difference? you are claiming that Paul said the first... the real scripture is the second.
And there is nothing deep, full or intimate pretending you are eating flesh and drinking blood.
Reflecting on What Jesus did with a contrite heart and a heart of complete gratitude IS deep, full and intimate.
Paul calls the bread, bread and the wine, wine.
We PARTICIPATE by doing THIS in REMEMBRANCE.
Upvote
0
Rhamiel
Member of the Round Table
most christians doSame as Catholics with a little difference.
I'm not buying this at all nether is most Christians
all historic Churches do
the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox do not use the same terms as the Roman Catholics but they do believe that it really becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus
RC EO and OO are the oldest churches
the Anglicans and most Lutherans also believe in that the Eucharist becomes the Body and Blood of Christ in a real way
also these denominations are huge
now denominations that are less then 300 years old tend to think that it is only symbolic, but I just assumed that is because they have had their teachings tainted by modernist thought
Upvote
0
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 37,696
- 27,091
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
I'm not saying that the bread isn't bread or that the wine isn't wine. I'm saying that the bread and wine is the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. I'm not an advocate of Transubstantiation.
Aren't you committing no less an act of eisegesis by reading the koinonial aspect of the Eucharist as "remembrance"?
All the Apostle says is that the bread that we eat is koinonia in the flesh of Jesus, and the cup of blessing that we drink is koinonia in the blood of Jesus.
What does this mean? What does it mean to have koinonia with the flesh and blood of Jesus? What does it mean to share, participate, partake, commune, fellowship with the flesh and blood of Jesus through the act of eating bread and drinking wine?
Even the notion of remembrance, anamnesis, is a far deeper concept than the idea of memorial. Anamnesis definitely is an intimate and deep participation in the Mystery of the Eucharist, because we are partaking in the Reality of Christ who was crucified and risen from the dead--really--by our eating and drinking.
It's not simply mental recall, it's an actual sharing in the reality of the Crucified and Risen Jesus; and it is principally and actually real because Christ is really present. Christ is in the Eucharist, we meet Jesus in the Eucharist, not a symbol or memory of Jesus, but the living Christ, alive and risen and seated at the right hand of the Father.
That's why St. Ignatius could call the Eucharist the medicine of immortality and antidote to death because it is Christ Himself real and actual for us.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 37,696
- 27,091
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
Just to nitpick: all Lutherans believe in the Real Presence. It's an essential teaching of Lutheranism. Luther himself said that he would sooner drink blood with the Pope than mere wine with the Swiss (i.e. Zwingli).
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
Rhamiel
Member of the Round Table
I did not mean to offend, I try not to speak for others and I only spoke for the EO and OO because I know that they are also firm on this teaching, to be honest I have heard differant things from differant Lutherans, but that can be because of bad catichism, a problem my own church has as well
Upvote
0
washedagain
Resting in the Palm of His Hand
- Jul 11, 2011
- 880
- 23
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Yes, I know what you are saying/
Nope. Remembrance means.... drum roll please..... remembrance!
Yes and? Doesn't mean you are eating Him. We are communing with him... it is a form of prayer, a time of reflection specific by eating and drinking. I love how God gave us a physical act of prayer, a specific time of remembrance.
Exactly what it says... To commune with Jesus by remembrance while participating in communion.
The bible says nothing about a mystery of the Eucharist. There is no mystery. It is partaking of communion in remembrance of who JEsus is, what JEsus has done and a deep reflection of who we are without him... our transgressions and having a contrite heart and a heart of thanksgiving for all He has done.
There is no mystery to me.
Yes, I understand your position... I disagree.
Yes, Thanksgiving is medicine indeed. Yes, Jesus is real and actual to me too... just not in bread.
Have a good day
Upvote
0
Rhamiel
Member of the Round Table
if he said "plant a tree in remembrance of me" that would not mean that the tree would be fake?
just because we remember Him when we take the Eucharist does not mean it is not really His flesh and blood, it is just we are to remeber Him while we take communion
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
washedagain
Resting in the Palm of His Hand
- Jul 11, 2011
- 880
- 23
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
No, it would be a tree... just like we eat bread and drink wine in remembrance... the tree is still a tree and the bread and wine is still bread and wine. Thanks for assisting in my point!
Didn't say otherwise... my point is you are not eating God.
Upvote
0
cajunhillbilly
Regular Member
I really don't know anyone who thinks we are eating God. The whole point is that we are having a real communion with the Body and Blood of Jesus by faith sacramentally. The Body and Blood of Christ is offered to us sacramentally. That is what even the early Reformers believed.
Upvote
0
washedagain
Resting in the Palm of His Hand
- Jul 11, 2011
- 880
- 23
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
If you are not eating God, what are you doing?
It is your belief that the bread and wine are literally Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity.
EDIT!
Sorry, didn't realize you were not EO or RCC. EO's and RCC do believe they are eating God.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
In all three gospels Jesus refered to the contents of the cup as "fruit of the vine" are you going to tell me Jesus didn't know what was in the cup?.........and early on we see a problem in the church in regards to Lords supper some are getting DRUNK ON THE BLOOD?......or maybe even in the earliest record of the church it was wine symbolically used to remember the Great and Awesome Sacrifical Lamb of God, who poured out His blood as a sacrifice for our sins
Upvote
0
The Two Theories of the Lords Supper
How is Jesus present? Basically they are two views, literal and spiritual.
Augustine taught spiritual, the Catholics introduced transubstantiation which is what we are debating here in this thread.
The doctrine of the Lords Supper became the subject of two controversies in the Western church, especially in France. The first took place in the middle of the ninth century between Paschasius Radbertus and Ratramnus, the other in the middle of the eleventh century between Berengar and Lanfranc. In the second, Pope Hildebrand was implicated, as mediator between Berengar and the orthodox party.
In both cases the conflict was between a materialistic and a spiritualistic conception of the sacrament and its effect. The one was based on a literal, the other on a figurative interpretation of the words of institution, and of the mysterious discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John. The contending parties agreed in the belief that Christ is present in the eucharist as the bread of life to believers; but they differed widely in their conception of the mode of that presence: the one held that Christ was literally and corporeally present and communicated to all communicants through the mouth; the other, that he was spiritually present and spiritually communicated to believers through faith. The transubstantiationists (if we may coin this term) believed that the eucharistic body of Christ was identical with his historical body, and was miraculously created by the priestly consecration of the elements in every sacrifice of the mass; their opponents denied this identity, and regarded the eucharistic body as a symbolical exhibition of his real body once sacrificed on the cross and now glorified in heaven, yet present to the believer with its life-giving virtue and saving power.
We find both these views among the ancient fathers. The realistic and mystical view fell in more easily with the excessive supernaturalism and superstitious piety of the middle age, and triumphed at last both in the Greek and Latin churches; for there is no material difference between them on this dogma. The spiritual theory was backed by the all-powerful authority of St. Augustin in the West, and ably advocated by Ratramnus and Berengar, but had to give way to the prevailing belief in transubstantiation until, in the sixteenth century, the controversy was revived by the Reformers, and resulted in the establishment of three theories: 1) the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation, re-asserted by the Council of Trent; 2) the Lutheran theory of the real presence in the elements, retaining their substance; and 3) the Reformed (Calvinistic) theory of a spiritual real or dynamic presence for believers. In the Roman church (and herein the Greek church fully agrees with her), the doctrine of transubstantiation is closely connected with the doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass, which forms the centre of worship.
It is humiliating to reflect that the commemorative feast of Christs dying love, which should be the closest bond of union between believers, innocently gave rise to the most violent controversies. But the same was the case with the still more important doctrine of Christs Person. Fortunately, the spiritual benefit of the sacrament does not depend upon any particular human theory of the mode of Christs presence, who is ever ready to bless all who love him.
126. The Theory of Paschasius Radbertus
Paschasius Radbertus (from 800 to about 865), a learned, devout and superstitious monk, and afterwards abbot of Corbie or Corvey in France is the first who clearly taught the doctrine of transubstantiation as then believed by many, and afterwards adopted by the Roman Catholic church. He wrote a book on the Body and Blood of the Lord, composed for his disciple Placidus of New Corbie in the year 831, and afterwards reedited it in a more popular form, and dedicated it to the Emperor Charles the Bald, as a Christmas gift (844). He did not employ the term transubstantiation, which came not into use till two centuries later; but he taught the thing, namely, that the substance of bread and wine is effectually changed (efficaciter interius commutatur) into the flesh and blood of Christ, so that after the priestly consecration there is nothing else in the eucharist but the flesh and blood of Christ, although the figure of bread and wine remain to the senses of sight, touch, and taste. The change is brought about by a miracle of the Holy Spirit, who created the body of Christ in the womb of the Virgin without cohabitation, and who by the same almighty power creates from day to day, wherever the mass is celebrated, the same body and blood out of the substance of bread and wine. He emphasizes the identity of the eucharistic body with the body which was born of the Virgin, suffered on the cross, rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven; yet on the other hand he represents the sacramental eating and drinking as a spiritual process by faith. He therefore combines the sensuous and spiritual conceptions. He assumes that the soul of the believer communes with Christ, and that his body receives an imperishable principle of life which culminates at last in the resurrection. He thus understood, like several of the ancient fathers, the words of our Saviour: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day (Joh_6:54).
He supports his doctrine by the words of institution in their literal sense, and by the sixth chapter of John. He appealed also to marvellous stories of the visible appearances of the body and blood of Christ for the removal of doubts or the satisfaction of the pious desire of saints. The bread on the altar, he reports, was often seen in the shape of a lamb or a little child, and when the priest stretched out his hand to break the bread, an angel descended from heaven with a knife, slaughtered the lamb or the child, and let his blood run into a cup!
Such stories were readily believed by the people, and helped to strengthen the doctrine of transubstantiation; as the stories of the appearances of departed souls from purgatory confirmed the belief in purgatory.
The book of Radbert created a great sensation in the West, which
was not yet prepared to accept the doctrine of transubstantiation without a vigorous struggle. Radbert himself admits that some of his contemporaries believed only in a spiritual communion of the soul with Christ, and substituted the mere virtue of his body and blood for the real body and blood, i.e., as he thinks, the figure for the verity, the shadow for the substance.
His opponents appealed chiefly to St. Augustin, who made a distinction between the historical and the eucharistic body of Christ, and between a false material and a true spiritual fruition of his body and blood. In a letter to the monk Frudegard, who quoted several passages of Augustin, Radbert tried to explain them in his sense. For no divine of the Latin church dared openly to contradict the authority of the great African teacher.
How is Jesus present? Basically they are two views, literal and spiritual.
Augustine taught spiritual, the Catholics introduced transubstantiation which is what we are debating here in this thread.
The doctrine of the Lords Supper became the subject of two controversies in the Western church, especially in France. The first took place in the middle of the ninth century between Paschasius Radbertus and Ratramnus, the other in the middle of the eleventh century between Berengar and Lanfranc. In the second, Pope Hildebrand was implicated, as mediator between Berengar and the orthodox party.
In both cases the conflict was between a materialistic and a spiritualistic conception of the sacrament and its effect. The one was based on a literal, the other on a figurative interpretation of the words of institution, and of the mysterious discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John. The contending parties agreed in the belief that Christ is present in the eucharist as the bread of life to believers; but they differed widely in their conception of the mode of that presence: the one held that Christ was literally and corporeally present and communicated to all communicants through the mouth; the other, that he was spiritually present and spiritually communicated to believers through faith. The transubstantiationists (if we may coin this term) believed that the eucharistic body of Christ was identical with his historical body, and was miraculously created by the priestly consecration of the elements in every sacrifice of the mass; their opponents denied this identity, and regarded the eucharistic body as a symbolical exhibition of his real body once sacrificed on the cross and now glorified in heaven, yet present to the believer with its life-giving virtue and saving power.
We find both these views among the ancient fathers. The realistic and mystical view fell in more easily with the excessive supernaturalism and superstitious piety of the middle age, and triumphed at last both in the Greek and Latin churches; for there is no material difference between them on this dogma. The spiritual theory was backed by the all-powerful authority of St. Augustin in the West, and ably advocated by Ratramnus and Berengar, but had to give way to the prevailing belief in transubstantiation until, in the sixteenth century, the controversy was revived by the Reformers, and resulted in the establishment of three theories: 1) the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation, re-asserted by the Council of Trent; 2) the Lutheran theory of the real presence in the elements, retaining their substance; and 3) the Reformed (Calvinistic) theory of a spiritual real or dynamic presence for believers. In the Roman church (and herein the Greek church fully agrees with her), the doctrine of transubstantiation is closely connected with the doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass, which forms the centre of worship.
It is humiliating to reflect that the commemorative feast of Christs dying love, which should be the closest bond of union between believers, innocently gave rise to the most violent controversies. But the same was the case with the still more important doctrine of Christs Person. Fortunately, the spiritual benefit of the sacrament does not depend upon any particular human theory of the mode of Christs presence, who is ever ready to bless all who love him.
126. The Theory of Paschasius Radbertus
Paschasius Radbertus (from 800 to about 865), a learned, devout and superstitious monk, and afterwards abbot of Corbie or Corvey in France is the first who clearly taught the doctrine of transubstantiation as then believed by many, and afterwards adopted by the Roman Catholic church. He wrote a book on the Body and Blood of the Lord, composed for his disciple Placidus of New Corbie in the year 831, and afterwards reedited it in a more popular form, and dedicated it to the Emperor Charles the Bald, as a Christmas gift (844). He did not employ the term transubstantiation, which came not into use till two centuries later; but he taught the thing, namely, that the substance of bread and wine is effectually changed (efficaciter interius commutatur) into the flesh and blood of Christ, so that after the priestly consecration there is nothing else in the eucharist but the flesh and blood of Christ, although the figure of bread and wine remain to the senses of sight, touch, and taste. The change is brought about by a miracle of the Holy Spirit, who created the body of Christ in the womb of the Virgin without cohabitation, and who by the same almighty power creates from day to day, wherever the mass is celebrated, the same body and blood out of the substance of bread and wine. He emphasizes the identity of the eucharistic body with the body which was born of the Virgin, suffered on the cross, rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven; yet on the other hand he represents the sacramental eating and drinking as a spiritual process by faith. He therefore combines the sensuous and spiritual conceptions. He assumes that the soul of the believer communes with Christ, and that his body receives an imperishable principle of life which culminates at last in the resurrection. He thus understood, like several of the ancient fathers, the words of our Saviour: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day (Joh_6:54).
He supports his doctrine by the words of institution in their literal sense, and by the sixth chapter of John. He appealed also to marvellous stories of the visible appearances of the body and blood of Christ for the removal of doubts or the satisfaction of the pious desire of saints. The bread on the altar, he reports, was often seen in the shape of a lamb or a little child, and when the priest stretched out his hand to break the bread, an angel descended from heaven with a knife, slaughtered the lamb or the child, and let his blood run into a cup!
Such stories were readily believed by the people, and helped to strengthen the doctrine of transubstantiation; as the stories of the appearances of departed souls from purgatory confirmed the belief in purgatory.
The book of Radbert created a great sensation in the West, which
was not yet prepared to accept the doctrine of transubstantiation without a vigorous struggle. Radbert himself admits that some of his contemporaries believed only in a spiritual communion of the soul with Christ, and substituted the mere virtue of his body and blood for the real body and blood, i.e., as he thinks, the figure for the verity, the shadow for the substance.
His opponents appealed chiefly to St. Augustin, who made a distinction between the historical and the eucharistic body of Christ, and between a false material and a true spiritual fruition of his body and blood. In a letter to the monk Frudegard, who quoted several passages of Augustin, Radbert tried to explain them in his sense. For no divine of the Latin church dared openly to contradict the authority of the great African teacher.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
cajunhillbilly
Regular Member
3rdheaven, you just proved my point. The early church has always believed that the Body and Blood of Christ is present in the Eucharist. There has been disagreement on HOW it is present. But the fact of the Real Presence has never been denied, whether seen as "physical" or "spiritual". I prefer the term "sacramental". The "merely memorial" view can not be found before about 300 or 400 years ago amongst the Anabaptists. Thanks for confirming what I have been saying. By the way, my view is somewhere between Luthers and Calvins.
Upvote
0
I never disputed the Catholic Church did, but if you read Augustine (before the Catholic Church) did not and taught it was spiritual, and indeed before then even within the Catholic Church some division existed. You realize that if you believe it is spiritual that goes against the view you are actually eating flesh and drinking blood.
Upvote
0
A
Anoetos
Guest
3d,
The canon of Augustine's works is massive. Cold you tell us where Augustine indicates that the real presence is spiritual rather than physical?
All I could find was this:
Just a point in the right direction wouLd be helpful.
Thanks
The canon of Augustine's works is massive. Cold you tell us where Augustine indicates that the real presence is spiritual rather than physical?
All I could find was this:
Just a point in the right direction wouLd be helpful.
Thanks
Upvote
0
Please allow me some time as I work over nite and am also getting ready for work now. I will provide as much info as I can for all regarding this.
Does any one use e-sword or myWord here?
Does any one use e-sword or myWord here?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Many Reformed Christians hold that Christ's body and blood are not actually present in the Eucharist. The elements are only symbols of the reality, which is spiritual nourishment in Christ.
Catholics and Catholic Lites believe in a physical presence.
As far as Augustine goes, it will take longer because Augustine did not leave a lot of writing on this subject to make it crystal clear what he believed. And the verse used most by every one is this..
But that is not sufficient to actually explain if he means spiritual or physical because both can be actual presence! Notice this line is accompanied by faith which could also be used for spiritual presence.
There is more on Augustine but as I said now is not the best time for me as I am also getting ready to leave for work
Honestly this whole physical thing has been introduced and enforced by mystical Catholics to the extent they will defend it by extraordinary ways including inventing new words and doctrines!
Why does the wine not taste like blood? Or the bread taste like flesh. Well the obvious reason is because it's NOT! However Catholics to satisfy such questions on their infallibility introduced their explanation by the transubstantiation.
It really boils down to this, how is the Lord Present, Spiritually or physically. Are you part taking in this in memory of our Lord, and He is present spiritually, or do you believe He becomes the breed and wine and you are actually eating his flesh and drink his blood? As amazing as this, it is mind boggling how many take it literally!!!!
Catholics and Catholic Lites believe in a physical presence.
As far as Augustine goes, it will take longer because Augustine did not leave a lot of writing on this subject to make it crystal clear what he believed. And the verse used most by every one is this..
But that is not sufficient to actually explain if he means spiritual or physical because both can be actual presence! Notice this line is accompanied by faith which could also be used for spiritual presence.
There is more on Augustine but as I said now is not the best time for me as I am also getting ready to leave for work
Honestly this whole physical thing has been introduced and enforced by mystical Catholics to the extent they will defend it by extraordinary ways including inventing new words and doctrines!
Why does the wine not taste like blood? Or the bread taste like flesh. Well the obvious reason is because it's NOT! However Catholics to satisfy such questions on their infallibility introduced their explanation by the transubstantiation.
It really boils down to this, how is the Lord Present, Spiritually or physically. Are you part taking in this in memory of our Lord, and He is present spiritually, or do you believe He becomes the breed and wine and you are actually eating his flesh and drink his blood? As amazing as this, it is mind boggling how many take it literally!!!!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
