Does the cracker REALLY turn into Jesus' flesh?

This is the precise reason why I haven't converted to Roman Catholicism. I strongly disagree with transubstantiation and can proove to others that their communion wafer is just bread. The Lutheran position of Christ being "in, under, and within" the bread and wine is much more plausible in my eyes, but I haven't investigated that position enough to make any firm decision on it. I did partake at a Lutheran Table once though, and it tasted like normal bread to me. Coming from an SBC background, I am very skeptical of a physical presence.

I'm more open to the Reformed position as I understand it, and I do tend to believe that Holy Communion is more than symbolic.

Diane

Diakoneo said:

I think that I'll just have to worry about making myself worthy, doing some prayer and self-examination at church before I take the Lord's Supper into myself..

1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

Click to expand...

An interesting bit of background on this is that many scholars now think the Lord's Supper was first celebrated in the context of a real meal. In the early days, people would forget that they were participating in an ordinance or a sacrament or whatever one wants to call it, and push and shove to get to the table and eat large quanities of the bread and get drunk on the wine. This is likely, in my view, what St. Paul was talking about when he gave his admonition, not the state of one's conscience. That's why he adds on the end the bit along the lines of "If you're so hungry, eat at home before you come". The idea he seems to be reinforcing is that the Lord's Supper needs to be seen as more than just an everyday meal and treated with reverence and respect. I always thought the examination of conscience deal was mainly a Roman thing... do Baptists generally believe it also?

John

1) The Mass is a resacrifice of Christ - it is "a sacrifice which the sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated..." (Vatican II)

2) Christ present, both His Divinity and humanity, in the elements of the Mass - "Christ is present in a unique way, whole and entire, God and man, substantially and permanently." (Vatican II)

3) The Mass is a part of Salvation - "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross...on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out" (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church)

4) Christ is to be worshipped in the wafer - "The faithful should therefore strive to worship Christ our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament..." (Vatican II)

"If these things were in the Word of God," said Mrs. Lewes, "I would with all my heart receive, believe, and esteem them."
- Reform martyr Joyce Lewes' reasoning as to her refusing the Mass
"If thou wilt believe no more than what is warranted by Scriptures, thou art in a state of damnation!"
- The blasphemous reply of Bishop Bonner, her inquisitor



Ray

Athanasian Creed said:

1) The Mass is a resacrifice of Christ - it is "a sacrifice which the sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated..." (Vatican II)

Click to expand...

This is not representative of our belief, we do not believe in any sort of "resacrifice," there is only one sacrifice. You can ask in OBOB if you would like.

ps139 said:

This is not representative of our belief, we do not believe in any sort of "resacrifice," there is only one sacrifice. You can ask in OBOB if you would like.

Click to expand...

It is called a "bloodless" sacrifice that is made "perpetually present." It must be repeated endlessly.

But Baptists hold as essential and dear the doctrine of the finality of the cross. Word-games about a past act being "perpetually present" yet being accomplished repeatedly are not consistent with Baptist doctrine.

"For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year..."



"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

"And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin."



"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high..."

That's Good News!

For the sake of completeness, it should be pointed out that there is a middle ground between the Lord's Supper as a perpetual sacrifice and the Lord's Supper as a simple memorial meal. Many Christians believe that in the Lord's Supper, the *resurrected* Christ's body and blood are present in a special spiritual way -- thus still leaving Christ's death on the cross as a once and for all atonement for the sins of mankind, never to be repeated, while still maintaining the ancient Christian tradition that Christ manifests himself in a special way when we follow his scriptural command to eat his body and drink his blood.

John

Diakoneo said:

There is a theological concept held by some that at some point during the observance of the Lord's supper the cracker (or wafer, bread etc.) actually becomes the literal flesh, presence, divinity of Jesus. (Literally His body)

I've lately heard this idea promoted in many different churches.. non-denom, full Gospel, "Christian"..

I have never heard that this was believed in a Baptist church. But I'm wondering what your ideas are on the subject. Does the cracker become the literal body of Christ... like His actual flesh? And since the non-Catholic churches don't perform a mass I'm confused as to at which point exactly the transformation takes place.


I would not take this road myself. I believe that the Bible, and sound interpretation show that this is not so. But I'm wondering what all you folks think?

Click to expand...

Only a Catholic or Orthodox priest can consecrate the Host. Other denominations do not have the authority to do so. So in any other denominations the bread and wine do not become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Monica02 said:

Only a Catholic or Orthodox priest can consecrate the Host. Other denominations do not have the authority to do so. So in any other denominations the bread and wine do not become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Click to expand...

There is no need for Baptist pastors to consecrate the host since we don't believe it actually becomes the body and blood of Christ. It is symbolic of what Christ has done for us. We do believe that our pastors have been given authority by God. Communion is a time to re-examine our lives to make sure we don't have any sins unrepentative. It is a time to give thanks for God's mercy and grace towards us.

Fish and Bread said:

For the sake of completeness, it should be pointed out that there is a middle ground between the Lord's Supper as a perpetual sacrifice and the Lord's Supper as a simple memorial meal. Many Christians believe that in the Lord's Supper, the *resurrected* Christ's body and blood are present in a special spiritual way -- thus still leaving Christ's death on the cross as a once and for all atonement for the sins of mankind, never to be repeated, while still maintaining the ancient Christian tradition that Christ manifests himself in a special way when we follow his scriptural command to eat his body and drink his blood.

John

Click to expand...

This is, in a way, the Lutheran belief that I hold to. Jesus' body and blood are present in, with, and under the bread and the wine. However, Lutherans view the Lord's Supper as an actual means of grace where our sins are forgiven.

Infant baptism!!!!!!!!! Just do it.

Real Presence said:

Infant baptism!!!!!!!!! Just do it.

Click to expand...

What testimony does the infant have that the infant would make a public proclamamtion that he is willing to serve Christ?
Unless baby fix giver is a ministry

bleechers said:

It is called a "bloodless" sacrifice that is made "perpetually present." It must be repeated endlessly.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear on the Catholic Church's teachings, here's a small exert that helps explain a little of the roots of the sacrifice of the Mass;

.
.
.
34. Jewish Tradition and the Sacrifice of the Mass
In order to understand the roots of the Mass, we must first realize how deeply connect the New and Old Testaments are; the Old Testament is revealed in the New Testament, and the New Testament is conceiled in the Old.

With that being said, if we look to the Old Testament, we see that the Jews sacrificed animals in atonement for sins and restoration of the soul to grace. When Jesus came, He of course fulfilled the old law by offering Himself as the one perfect sacrifice for mankind. The Jews sacrificed lambs. Jesus is the "Lamb of God" (Jn 1:29). He is the paschal lamb without blemish (Ex 12:5). We find in Ex 12:8,11 that the paschal lamb had to be eaten, for they were to eat those things with which atonement was made (Ex 29:33); Jesus, the Lamb of true atonement, must now also be eaten.

We are commanded by Jesus to eat of His flesh and drink of His blood "in remembrance of" Him. This is not merely a play that we act out as a symbol. Jesus had a purpose for commanding us to do this; that we may receive graces through it; through the continuation of that one sacrifice He made on Calvary, till the fullness of time has passed and all knees have bowed.

Think about the sacrament of baptism; we are commanded to baptize "in water and the spirit" in order to be saved. Baptism is connected with an outward act of submersing in water; Jesus Himself was baptized by John the Baptist; in order that He may unite and commune with the sacrament, He participated in it Himself, and it was only when Jesus was physically baptized, when a miracle happened; the clouds parted and God spoke. There is a profound spiritual connection here in an outward act. Likewise, Communion is connected to the outward act of eating the sacrificial lamb; the Eucharist, which is Christ's flesh and blood, who He Himself also participated in during the last supper, foreshadowing His ultimate sacrifice on the cross.

Some may argue that since Jesus’ sacrifice was one and for all, there is no need for a resacrifice at each Mass. But this demonstrates a misunderstanding of the sacrifice of the Mass. It's not that Christ offers any more sacrifices, but that He continues the same sacrifice that He made on Calvary. He is active with us, and continues to offer Himself in heaven through the same sacrifice; "He has taken his seat at the right hand of the divine Majesty's throne in heaven. There in the sanctuary and the true tabernacle, which the Lord, and not man, has erected, he carries on priestly functions. To this every high priest is appointed--to offer gift and sacrifices” (heb 8:1). Like the Jews in the Old Testament times, it was through the perpetuation of animal sacrifices that atoned for sins and restored the soul to grace. Likewise, it is only through the perpetuation of Christ’s sacrifice that this union between man and God is maintained.

Monica02 said:

Only a Catholic or Orthodox priest can consecrate the Host. Other denominations do not have the authority to do so. So in any other denominations the bread and wine do not become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Click to expand...

After having taken catholic communion hundreds of times, I can tell you that catholic communion doesn't become flesh and blood either. It's just a wafer and some wine or a piece of bread and some wine. That's all it ever is, I have seen it, tasted it, smelled it and digested it, and it is always the same thing, bread and wine.

Rising_Suns said:

... Think about the sacrament of baptism; we are commanded to baptize "in water and the spirit" in order to be saved...

Click to expand...

No! NO! NO!
We are NOT commanded to be Baptized in order to be saved. The Gospel doesn't teach this. Jesus had no need of salvation. The theif on the cross is in Heaven, he wasn't baptized.
Jesus said
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
He didn't add "And through baptism" He only said "But by me"
I merely have to CALL upon the NAME of the the LORD to be saved. No works involved there. I merely have to ask for the gift of salvation.
Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
It's NOT how good I am, Jesus said "there is none good"
It's not what I do, say, eat, drink, sprinkle on myself or dunk myself in. None of this is good enough. I am not pure enough to approach God, except that, now, God sees me through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Which is the ONLY attonement from sin. And ALL sin separates us from God. You have to ask Jesus to live in your heart. You can't just put Him there through tradition.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

lambslove said:

After having taken catholic communion hundreds of times, I can tell you that catholic communion doesn't become flesh and blood either. It's just a wafer and some wine or a piece of bread and some wine. That's all it ever is, I have seen it, tasted it, smelled it and digested it, and it is always the same thing, bread and wine.

Click to expand...

I think this was explained previously, but I'd like to re-iterate this again, just to be sure this is understood; in Catholic teaching, the appearance of bread and wine do not change, so naturally it looks like bread, tastes like bread, and smells like bread. But of course we do not believe it is just bread. This is where our faith comes into play.

Blessings,

-Davide

mesue said:

No! NO! NO!
We are NOT commanded to be Baptized in order to be saved. The Gospel doesn't teach this. Jesus had no need of salvation. The theif on the cross is in Heaven, he wasn't baptized.
Jesus said
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
He didn't add "And through baptism" He only said "But by me"
I merely have to CALL upon the NAME of the the LORD to be saved. No works involved there. I merely have to ask for the gift of salvation.
Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
It's NOT how good I am, Jesus said "there is none good"
It's not what I do, say, eat, drink, sprinkle on myself or dunk myself in. None of this is good enough. I am not pure enough to approach God, except that, now, God sees me through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Which is the ONLY attonement from sin. And ALL sin separates us from God. You have to ask Jesus to live in your heart. You can't just put Him there through tradition.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Click to expand...

Mesue,
I do not intend to debate this here, especially since it is not the subject of this thread and I am a guest here. The neccessity of Baptism is a subject that can go on for pages and pages without any real resoution, but if you would like to discuss this in another forum/thread, I'd be happy to stop in.

Blessings,

-Davide

Rising_Suns said:

Mesue,
I do not intend to debate this here, especially since it is not the subject of this thread and I am a guest here. The neccessity of Baptism is a subject that can go on for pages and pages without any real resoution, but if you would like to discuss this in another forum/thread, I'd be happy to stop in.

Blessings,

-Davide

Click to expand...

But, It sorta' does.
See as a Catholic, I was lead to believe that there were certain things I had to do in order to be saved, and even then, my salvation was never really secure.
I had to be Baptized.
I had to go to confession. Because if I didn't
I could not partake in communion.
Those are works. Works are how the Jews gain entry into Heaven. They have to follow all 613 commandments (not just 10) God knew this was impossible. We know that all sin separates us from God. That's why Jesus left His throne in Heaven. To come down here as a Lamb without blemish to atone for our sins.
You see, whether it's communion or baptism, it matters not to a Baptist. When someone connects them to salvation, they both become works, and that's just not what Jesus taught.
If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Christ is not dead and righteousness comes through Him.
My salvation is secure today, and forever, not because of what I have done, but because Jesus loved me and gave His life for me.
He died for you too.

Rising_Suns said:

Again, I do not intend to debate this here with you Mesue, but Christ said what He said. I don't know why He told us to be baptised in water to be saved or to eat His flesh, but I do know that He told us to do this and so it has great meaning to our lives. To say that it doesn't matter if it communion or baptism is to deny the very distinction that Christ made when He commanded us to do these things.

Blessings,

-Davide

Click to expand...

That's my point, He didn't say it.

Without going too far from the OP, much depends on how literal one views scripture. Often times that is what causes division.

It is the same with the real presence. If you take scripture literally, you will have one intrepretation, if you do not, your interpretation will be different. My Baptist friends believe Christ's words to be a metaphor, my Catholic friends believe it to be an explicit command. It is a similiar stance in baptism.

It is diversity within the body of Christ, and if it brings us towards him, such discussions can be a good thing. Otoh, if it creates anger, and hinders the fruits of the spirit, then one should not go there, as there is no answer. If you are literalist, metaphors will not convince you. If you are into historical exegesis, grammactical exegesis will be of little value. The key is the Holy Spirits guidance, and the fruits of the spirit, not the method one chooses to study or interpret the Word.

Just my 2 cents as a party in the middle
Ron

Just a random question for everyone. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me like the doctrine of transubstantiation should be easy to prove, assuming it is true. Not to sound irreverent or blasphemous (well...I am a physics student), but couldn't one simply perform a chemical analysis on a sample of a communion wafer over which has been blessed by a priest in valid apostolic succession?

Maybe my suggestion sounds simplistic, but the Catholic Church is making quite a specific claim when they say that the communion elements physically transform into flesh and blood. In fact, the claim is so specific that unlike most spiritual doctrines, it can be tested. Science can't prove or disprove that Yahweh is a Trinity, or that the blood of Christ saves us from our sins. Nor can science tell us that Christ is sovereign over all creation, and that he subjects all things to himself. But proving that a wafer and a cup of wine turn into flesh and blood? That's a question science can answer. And while I as of yet have no evidence to substantiate any hypothesis, my guess is that the answer wouldn't favor Catholic doctrine.

Ultimately, the testability of transubstantiation is real problem with the doctrine. It's not a spiritual or religious doctrine; it's a physical doctrine. Transubstantiation makes a specific claim about the way the universe works, and that claim contradicts our observations. Had the Roman Catholic Church taken a doctrine of consubstantiation (that Christ is present under the elements), or had priests been instructed to say "let this be for you the body and blood of Christ", then the Church would be making a theological claim. But it isn't. Catholic doctrine claims that a wafer and a cup of wine truly, physically transform into the chemical compounds of flesh and blood.

But the astute Catholic might attribute transubstantiation to the mysteries of God. Yet surely the mysteries of God ought to be spiritual rather than physical. If God causes even the physical world to be shrouded in mystery, then how can we trust our eyes? If we can't trust our eyes, how can we trust our Bibles? Other mysteries, such as the Trinity, are theological positions. I don't see why the mystery of transubstantiation alone should be physical in nature.

What claim does religion have in the field of natural sciences? For that matter, why is science relevant to our salvation? It is not relevant, which is why the doctrine of transubstantiation seems so peculiar to me. What theological advantage does transubstantiation have over consubstantiation? Does it matter that the communion elements physically transform into other compounds? "This is my body" isn't sufficient evidence to prove that the bread turns into flesh. After all, Jesus himself said that he spoke in riddles. For that matter, Saint Paul also referred to the church as the body of Christ. Since we saints are the church, does that mean that true believers are physically transformed into Christ's flesh? If so, I wonder why the Catholics are selective in taking the Bible literally. I would think that of all Scripture, the epistles should be taken the most literally.

Now, it's true that Christianity does make a few physical claims, the chiefest of which are the virgin birth and the resurrection. Yet for both of these doctrines, witnesses are provided. Saints Matthew and Luke record the virgin birth based on the testimony of Mary, and the truth of the resurrection is attested to by over five hundred witnesses. We're all Christians, here, and we all affirm the truth of the Scriptures and the credibility of its authors. No credible person (whose credibility is accepted by Catholics and non-Catholics) has witnessed transubstantiation.

Having said all that, I want to mention that I mean no contempt towards Catholics. I love Catholic Christians as brothers in Christ Jesus, and I don't intend to diminish your faith. But for the reasons I've mentioned, the doctrine of transubstantiation doesn't make logical sense to me. So I would like to know how you reconcile this doctrine with Scripture and reason.

arunma said:

Not to sound irreverent or blasphemous (well...I am a physics student), but couldn't one simply perform a chemical analysis on a sample of a communion wafer over which has been blessed by a priest in valid apostolic succession?.

Click to expand...

No. As has been mentioned in this thread, the Church does not teach that the bread and wine change in any observable phsyical form or appearence. If one were to perform a chemical analysis on the bread and wine, it will still be bread and wine, since the "accidents" remain (i.e., taste, smell, appearence, and even chemical makeup). What *does* change is the substance of the bread and wine into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ our Lord. What appears as mere bread and wine is actually the flesh and blood of Jesus, and this can only be proven through an act of God on the heart. Science cannot "test" Transubstantioation, however there have been a couple rare cases of the Host actually turning into flesh, but I have not done enough research on them to really verify how authentic these claims are.

Ultimately, the testability of transubstantiation is real problem with the doctrine. It's not a spiritual or religious doctrine; it's a physical doctrine. Transubstantiation makes a specific claim about the way the universe works, and that claim contradicts our observations.

Click to expand...

If you only limit God to what you can emprically observe, then all you will be left with is an empty faith. God created the laws of the universe. He could, of course, bend those laws if He so chose to, just as easily as Christ raised the dead to life and performed countless other miracles.

Blessings,

-Davide