Eucharist Elements

[sparow]

Change of substance, not the “accidents.”

I do not know much about Catholic teachings, I know they begin with the Law of God abrogated, (the covenant abrogated). The last supper was to do with the Passover and Jesus's role in the Passover. Transubstantiation has nothing to do with the Passover, or the coming out of Egypt and or Sodom and so on.

 

[jas3]

Transubstantiation as a word is not in the KJV, so I assume it is a doctrine of men and therefore the pros and cons are not relevant.

This is a very dangerous hermeneutic. What do you do about the word "Trinity" not being found in the KJV?

 

[RandyPNW]

And thus something spiritual has been reduced to something banal.

There are times when something used for sacred purposes should be treated with respect. Paul used that example, in reverse, in his argument against eating food offered to idols.

The dedicated meat was "sacred" to the pagans, and so eating it sometimes conveyed to those watcing the idea that the eater was participating in their sacred meat. In reality, the eater may consider the element of "meat" to be distinct from its consecration. They were eating *meat,* and not *sacred meat.*

If wine consecrated to the Eucharist is tossed away it appears to some that the wine is being treated in a "banal way," even though the one throwing the excess wine away no longer considers the wine sacred and consecrated to the Eucharist. We all need to be sensitive, I should think?

 

[RandyPNW]

This is a very dangerous hermeneutic. What do you do about the word "Trinity" not being found in the KJV?

You are applying too loose an application to your hermeneutic, or casting too wide a net. Sometimes the lack of a word indicates that a concept is not actually present in a text.

In this case, it is at least arguable that "transubstantiation," meaning conceptually that one substance becomes another, is not in the text. And it isn't. Jesus said the wine represents his blood. It does not say the wine "turns into" his blood. Valid notion, in my view.

On the other hand, you could argue that in saying the wine was his blood Jesus included the concept of transubstantiation. I disagree, but it is valid. The concept, theoretically, is in the text if you assume that Jesus meant to say the wine *becomes* his blood. I just don't believe it is saying that.

 

[RandyPNW]

The word used to describe the last supper means THANKS GIVING, and that is not what Jesus requested. Jesus said, while eating the Passover meal, on the third of seven days of wine and unleavened bread, "remember me" (as the Passover Lamb). The unleavened bread being the anti-thesis of pagan conflation or false doctrine.

Transubstantiation as a word is not in the KJV, so I assume it is a doctrine of men and therefore the pros and cons are not relevant.

I just answered that. The whole issues revolves not around whether the word "transubstantiation" is there, but on whether the *concept* of transubstantiation is there? I don't happen to think it is. Others disagree.

So I believe we simply have to answer the question: Is the concept of *change* from wine to blood in the text? Is it in the text that the wine *becomes* blood?

If not, then it appears that Jesus is simply using object lessons, using the wine for his blood, and the bread for his body so that when the worshiper participates in them he is showing that he lives off of the word of Christ, and not off of the world's fare. We do not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from Christ.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Well the important thing is that for the believer who receives The Blessed Sacrament there can be an intimate and unique encounter with the risen Lord. The Church had to push the limits and come up with a philosophical theory of how it happens and then a theological doctrine that is non negotiable. I just know, and this is not theory, that when I receive the Sacrament, I receive Christ. Now what that ultimately means is another big question. Just as I receive him into me he receives me into himself, and into his fellowship. I then have "eternal life" within me".

But it does not end there at all. More is required of me.. I am commanded and empowered tot live in him and follow his example, making a sacrifice of my own life, dying to myself, taking up my cross. Even the commanded and empowered I still fail at it.

 

[Dan Perez]

This is a very dangerous hermeneutic. What do you do about the word "Trinity" not being found in the KJV?

And in 1 JOHN 5:7 teads For there are three that BEAR record in HEAVEN , The FATHER , the WORD , THE HOLY SPIRIT

can you believe it ONE , TWO and THREE , wow a TRINITY !!

READ verse 8 and 9 !!

Can you find the GREEK word for PREGATORY and the word POPE and what is the GREEK word for CHURCH , it

is ASSEMBLY .

dan p

 

[RileyG]

That is meaningless to me. It's philosophical mumbo jumbo. The idea of a thing is not the thing itself. The idea of a thing is one thing, and the thing itself is another thing. The thing itself is of necessity the substance and the accidents of the thing that define it for what it is.

What a thing is substantially is not separate from it as an idea. The accidents, in whatever form they take in a substance, define the substance. If the accidents aren't changed in any way at all, neither is the substance changed.

Eh? It’s just how St. Thomas Aquinas described it.

It’s a mystery I accept by faith.

 

[RileyG]

Since there is no change of substance from wine to blood, one is just throwing the remnants of wine away.

Why would something sacred be thrown away?

 

[RandyPNW]

Well the important thing is that for the believer who receives The Blessed Sacrament there can be an intimate and unique encounter with the risen Lord. The Church had to push the limits and come up with a philosophical theory of how it happens and then a theological doctrine that is non negotiable. I just know, and this is not theory, that when I receive the Sacrament, I receive Christ.

But this raises questions: have you not already received Christ prior to receiving the Eucharist? And, do you have to receive Christ repeatedly throughout your life, via the Eucharist?

Are you receiving Christ to be saved? Or, are you just receiving him in an endless series of acts? Wouldn't it rather be that you receive him once initially, and then simply retain him?

Now what that ultimately means is another big question. Just as I receive him into me he receives me into himself, and into his fellowship. I then have "eternal life" within me".

But it does not end there at all. More is required of me.. I am commanded and empowered tot live in him and follow his example, making a sacrifice of my own life, dying to myself, taking up my cross. Even the commanded and empowered I still fail at it.

It depends on what you mean by "receiving Christ?" If you did not receive Eternal Life at the time you "received him," then obviously you still need to receive him for that.

It is true that receiving Christ for Eternal Life requires that we "prove our Salvation" by doing works that befit Salvation. We do not, however, earn our Salvation, but simply prove that we've really received it. My opinion...

 

[RandyPNW]

Eh? It’s just how St. Thomas Aquinas described it.

It’s a mystery I accept by faith.

I know Aquinas and the Catholics rely upon his equation for Transubstantiation. I just don't believe it holds water in reality. It sounds like a rationalization for a doctrine that doesn't require that interpretation.

We can perfectly well retain the spiritual value and benefit from the Eucharaist as a sacrament when we take it symbolically--we do not have to read "become" into the text, indicating the wine *becomes* Jesus' blood.

Jesus is just saying that when we take the wine we are representatively taking his death for us on our behalf so that we live spiritually in him. It is not the act of receiving Christ, but rather, the act of remembering that we've received him. This is, in fact, in the text.

Aquinas retained pagan philosophy in this theological equation, or rationalization. The separation of "idea" of a thing from the "substance" of the thing is not warranted except to the pagan mind, who does not have either God's word or faith in it. It is just running blind, looking for an explanation for something that does not need extraordinary explanation to have mystical meaning.

But the pagans were always looking for something spectacular to explain the universe. Their sense of "ideas" is "way out there." The ideas do not have meaning unless God, by HIs word, puts them into concrete, substantial form. There is no reality apart from their actual *creation.*

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

But this raises questions: have you not already received Christ prior to receiving the Eucharist? And, do you have to receive Christ repeatedly throughout your life, via the Eucharist?

Great questions., Thank you for asking. Christ dwells within us already. In the sacrament he comes in a unique and tangible way. Receiving Christ throughout life in this way is like tangible food for the journey.

Are you receiving Christ to be saved? Or, are you just receiving him in an endless series of acts? Wouldn't it rather be that you receive him once initially, and then simply retain him?

As human beings we benefit by tangible chewable things.

It depends on what you mean by "receiving Christ?" If you did not receive Eternal Life at the time you "received him," then obviously you still need to receive him for that.

It is true that receiving Christ for Eternal Life requires that we "prove our Salvation" by doing works that befit Salvation. We do not, however, earn our Salvation, but simply prove that we've really received it. My opinion...

I agree with that. We do not earn salvation. Bu then neither do we sit by apathetically. We are called and empowered.

 

[RandyPNW]

Great questions., Thank you for asking. Christ dwells within us already. In the sacrament he comes in a unique and tangible way. Receiving Christ throughout life in this way is like tangible food for the journey.

As human beings we benefit by tangible chewable things.

I agree with that. We do not earn salvation. Bu then neither do we sit by apathetically. We are called and empowered.

I agree that the Eucharist is a tangible benefit in the sense it is a ritual sacrament that we partake in, expressing our continued participation in Christ as our life source. It is not just a memorial meal, but it is also a meal--we remember but we also participate. It is something we continue to do--not just to remember but also to reenact repeatedly.

I don't, however, believe we are receiving Christ repeatedly in the sense of receiving Salvation. It is not a necessary act to do to retain our Salvation. But it is necessary, in our mortal state, to remember clearly what we've chosen and what we need to continually do. Thanks for a pretty good answer...

I'm a little mystified, however, by your sense of Christ coming "in a unique and tangible way." We know he is already here, and is already with and in us. So is this unique coming to us redundant?

I answer that simply by recognizing our need to remember our decision to have initially received him. We need to keep it fresh in our minds by this "tangible act."

We do not receive him "differently" in any substantial sense in the Eucharist. The only difference is that we're acknowledging his presence with us in the act of performing the sacrament.

That is, the sacrament does not add any substantially "different" kind of coming of Christ than if we, for example, prayed, or preached a sermon. We are just helping our memory of the act in itially receiving him, and remembering what he did to save us from our sins.

We can even receive Christ "differently" when we wake in the morning and go to bed at night. We are receiving him in every act we do if we "walk in the Spirit," as we should do.

So how is "receiving Christ in a unique and tangible way" in the Eucharist any different from receiving Christ in other ways that are "tangible," such as receiving a message or gift from another Christian? That also is "tangible."

I'd like to get away from turning a sacrament into what seems to look like a pagan ritual, or a form of religious idolatry. The sacrament of the Eucharist was never intended to turn wine into "blood" for the purpose of making it an act of receiving Salvation, as you fully admit. That appears to be a pantheistic view of God, who becomes one with His creation and gives Himself as bread for us to eat.

So tangibly receiving Christ in this sacrament means what, or for what tangible purpose? In my view, it is purely a ritual designed to help us remember.

 

[RileyG]

I know Aquinas and the Catholics rely upon his equation for Transubstantiation. I just don't believe it holds water in reality. It sounds like a rationalization for a doctrine that doesn't require that interpretation.

We can perfectly well retain the spiritual value and benefit from the Eucharaist as a sacrament when we take it symbolically--we do not have to read "become" into the text, indicating the wine *becomes* Jesus' blood.

Jesus is just saying that when we take the wine we are representatively taking his death for us on our behalf so that we live spiritually in him. It is not the act of receiving Christ, but rather, the act of remembering that we've received him. This is, in fact, in the text.

Aquinas retained pagan philosophy in this theological equation, or rationalization. The separation of "idea" of a thing from the "substance" of the thing is not warranted except to the pagan mind, who does not have either God's word or faith in it. It is just running blind, looking for an explanation for something that does not need extraordinary explanation to have mystical meaning.

But the pagans were always looking for something spectacular to explain the universe. Their sense of "ideas" is "way out there." The ideas do not have meaning unless God, by HIs word, puts them into concrete, substantial form. There is no reality apart from their actual *creation.*

Here’s the thing. How could it be symbolic? Jesus said in John 6 “eat my body, drink my blood.” People were scandalized by it and left him.

St. Justin Martyr and St. Ignatius of Antioch made it clear that the Eucharist is Christ’s true body and true blood.

No one called it symbolic until Calvin came along.

 

[RileyG]

But this raises questions: have you not already received Christ prior to receiving the Eucharist? And, do you have to receive Christ repeatedly throughout your life, via the Eucharist?

Are you receiving Christ to be saved? Or, are you just receiving him in an endless series of acts? Wouldn't it rather be that you receive him once initially, and then simply retain him?

It depends on what you mean by "receiving Christ?" If you did not receive Eternal Life at the time you "received him," then obviously you still need to receive him for that.

It is true that receiving Christ for Eternal Life requires that we "prove our Salvation" by doing works that befit Salvation. We do not, however, earn our Salvation, but simply prove that we've really received it. My opinion...

Yes. The Eucharist is a means of grace as is Baptism and the rest of the sacraments. Many liturgical Churches do not accept once saved, always saved.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I agree that the Eucharist is a tangible benefit in the sense it is a ritual sacrament that we partake in, expressing our continued participation in Christ as our life source. It is not just a memorial meal, but it is also a meal--we remember but we also participate. It is something we continue to do--not just to remember but also to reenact repeatedly.

I don't, however, believe we are receiving Christ repeatedly in the sense of receiving Salvation. It is not a necessary act to do to retain our Salvation. But it is necessary, in our mortal state, to remember clearly what we've chosen and what we need to continually do. Thanks for a pretty good answer...

I'm a little mystified, however, by your sense of Christ coming "in a unique and tangible way." We know he is already here, and is already with and in us. So is this unique coming to us redundant?

I answer that simply by recognizing our need to remember our decision to have initially received him. We need to keep it fresh in our minds by this "tangible act."

We do not receive him "differently" in any substantial sense in the Eucharist. The only difference is that we're acknowledging his presence with us in the act of performing the sacrament.

Ok, on the same page here.

That is, the sacrament does not add any substantially "different" kind of coming of Christ than if we, for example, prayed, or preached a sermon. We are just helping our memory of the act in itially receiving him, and remembering what he did to save us from our sins.

Interesting that you use the word "substantially". This is where the Catholic position is unique. A substantial change is what makes it a sacrament.

We can even receive Christ "differently" when we wake in the morning and go to bed at night. We are receiving him in every act we do if we "walk in the Spirit," as we should do.

So how is "receiving Christ in a unique and tangible way" in the Eucharist any different from receiving Christ in other ways that are "tangible," such as receiving a message or gift from another Christian? That also is "tangible."

Receiving a message or gift from another Christian is indirect. While filled with grace it is not quite the same as Christ himself present.

I'd like to get away from turning a sacrament into what seems to look like a pagan ritual, or a form of religious idolatry. The sacrament of the Eucharist was never intended to turn wine into "blood" for the purpose of making it an act of receiving Salvation, as you fully admit.

It is a celebration of salvation. Not a new receiving of salvation. So why do the Gospels make such a big deal about eating his flesh and drinking his blood? Jesus seems pretty emphatic and unflinching. Does he not? Even as he lost followers.
John 6:22-59
Matthew 26:26-30
Mark 14:22-26
Luke 22:14-20

That appears to be a pantheistic view of God, who becomes one with His creation and gives Himself as bread for us to eat.

Pantheism is actually not even close. The question of God's presence in creation requires more discussion. God s both transcendent and immanent.

So tangibly receiving Christ in this sacrament means what, or for what tangible purpose? In my view, it is purely a ritual designed to help us remember.

Even among Catholics I often ask, "What do we mean by 'real presence'? as opposed to what? not quite real?

It indeed helps us to remember. But it also does something much deeper than the mind.
Receiving the Eucharist provides spiritual strength Some may think it is purely psychological.
I believe it is much more, a tangible encounter with the risen Christ.
It engages the soul in a qualitative mystical union that other earthy encounters cannot provided.

 

[RandyPNW]

Here’s the thing. How could it be symbolic? Jesus said in John 6 “eat my body, drink my blood.” People were scandalized by it and left him.

St. Justin Martyr and St. Ignatius of Antioch made it clear that the Eucharist is Christ’s true body and true blood.

No one called it symbolic until Calvin came along.

I'm not sure that's true. It may be that people just naturally assumed that the Eucharist was symbolic with an active participation in it. One does not, for example, have to explain that saying a man is a fruitcake means that he is "spymbolically" looking like a crazy person. It is a metaphor quite simply.

And Jesus' use of the bread and wine, and saying it is his body and blood, is also obviously symbolic and requires no explanation. That is, it didn't need explanation until the established Church got old and began to become hardened in its sacraments and rituals, dignyifying it as the only proper Church organization in the world.

That's when the wine started to be "transformed" into blood--of course, not with a real substantial change at all. Just the "accidents."

Of course, this meant that the only "true Church," ie the Catholic Church, is the only real source of our participation in Christ's "true presence." Otherwise, it is pure symbolism, and those who try to copy the rite are "pretenders."

In other words, it's the old ploy--"we're the real McCoy, and everybody else's act is an artificial simulation, or a symbolic act presenting itself as if it is the real thing."For the real thing, people must receive the Eucharist through the Catholic Church--you know, the one with "real, and not artificial, blood."

People were scandalized only because Jesus implied His Deity, or his Divine authority, in this sacrament, simply by saying that people in "eating him" are participating in Divine spirituality.

I don't think anybody really believed that he was transforming the bread into his flesh, nor that people should eat this bread as if it had been somehow mystically transformed into his flesh. They likely understood perfectly well that he was claiming to be one with God, administering God's presence in the act of human cooperation with his word.

I know this sounds a bit rude to the "Catholics," but I am on the side of any Christian Church that uplifts the Lord Jesus. I just believe we are neglecting things if we don't address them. We need to be honest with our thoughts if we really care about one another.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Of course, this meant that the only "true Church," ie the Catholic Church, is the only real source of our participation in Christ's "true presence." Otherwise, it is pure symbolism, and those who try to copy the rite are "pretenders."

It is easy then to see why those who are not Catholic must reject such a teaching.

People were scandalized only because Jesus implied His Deity, or his Divine authority, in this sacrament, simply by saying that people in "eating him" are participating in Divine spirituality.

That is only your speculation. The text seems clear that people took him literally and thought he was nutz.
John 6:60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

 

[RileyG]

I'm not sure that's true. It may be that people just naturally assumed that the Eucharist was symbolic with an active participation in it. One does not, for example, have to explain that saying a man is a fruitcake means that he is "spymbolically" looking like a crazy person. It is a metaphor quite simply.

And Jesus' use of the bread and wine, and saying it is his body and blood, is also obviously symbolic and requires no explanation. That is, it didn't need explanation until the established Church got old and began to become hardened in its sacraments and rituals, dignyifying it as the only proper Church organization in the world.

That's when the wine started to be "transformed" into blood--of course, not with a real substantial change at all. Just the "accidents."

Of course, this meant that the only "true Church," ie the Catholic Church, is the only real source of our participation in Christ's "true presence." Otherwise, it is pure symbolism, and those who try to copy the rite are "pretenders."

In other words, it's the old ploy--"we're the real McCoy, and everybody else's act is an artificial simulation, or a symbolic act presenting itself as if it is the real thing."For the real thing, people must receive the Eucharist through the Catholic Church--you know, the one with "real, and not artificial, blood."

People were scandalized only because Jesus implied His Deity, or his Divine authority, in this sacrament, simply by saying that people in "eating him" are participating in Divine spirituality.

I don't think anybody really believed that he was transforming the bread into his flesh, nor that people should eat this bread as if it had been somehow mystically transformed into his flesh. They likely understood perfectly well that he was claiming to be one with God, administering God's presence in the act of human cooperation with his word.

I know this sounds a bit rude to the "Catholics," but I am on the side of any Christian Church that uplifts the Lord Jesus. I just believe we are neglecting things if we don't address them. We need to be honest with our thoughts if we really care about one another.

The problem is no Churches believed the Eucharist was symbolic until the reformation. All the apostolic Churches believe in the real presence in Holy Communion, and the early Church fathers affirm that.

 

[RandyPNW]

The problem is no Churches believed the Eucharist was symbolic until the reformation. All the apostolic Churches believe in the real presence in Holy Communion, and the early Church fathers affirm that.

I respectfully feel that you're oversimplifying and skewing this. As I said, nobody would suggest something is symbolic if it is *obviously so.* So the only time they would have to bring it up would be when the Church got old and exclusive, denying any other church rights unless it is done under the umbrella of the Catholic Church, where the wine is "really" turned into Jesus' blood.

It would always be said that Jesus' presence honored the performance of a ceremony, or sacrament, that he himself recommended! Of course his presence was there. It did not mean people had to eat the bread to digest his presence! That would be a form of Pantheism, confusing God with material elements. And God forbade, in the 10 Commandments, making sacred images God from common elements, like rock, wood, or metal. He is most certainly not "transformed bread and wine!"