Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If I would have to guess, what you thought as a Protestant what Catholics believed, is not at all what Catholics really believe.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.
I cannot write much right now, but please remember it is not Roman Catholic beliefs that I am promoting here - but rather beliefs of the Church since apostolic times. (I cannot vouch authoritively on RCC beliefs today, though I know it is more defined in the RCC than the Orthodox Church). I have thought through it very thoroughly, and I believe you are misunderstanding some of what we believe. I used to believe what you are promoting and found that it was not accurate Biblically. Consider that you are not the only one who evaluates Scripture closely.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.
The whole problem of the theory of transsubstantiatio, which is wholly foreign to the undivided Church, flows not from the difficulty of accepting the transmutation of matter of the world into supratemporal being but from the difficulty of explaining the transformation of one material into another material within the limits of cosmic being. But no transformation at all occurs, and there is no place for a transformation, for only different things of one and the same natural world, not things that belong to different realms of being, can be transformed. Things that belong to different realms of being can only be transmuted the one into the other, while preserving their own mode of being in their ownrealm. The body of Christ, being manifested in the bread and wine, does not cease being a spiritual body, abiding above this world. And in becoming Christ’s body and blood, which now belong to His supramundane, glorified corporeality, the bread and wine do not lose their being in this world. (pp. 109-110)
That is correct. As a Protestant, I very much misunderstood what Catholics taught.If I would have to guess, what you thought as a Protestant what Catholics believed, is not at all what Catholics really believe.
Amen.That is correct. As a Protestant, I very much misunderstood what Catholics taught.
Which is one reason why I try to point out that we may misunderstand one another, and what one denies may not be what another believes anyway.
In all honesty from my point of view, I don't see it that way. There are way too many Orthodox apologist, who would give Jack Chick a run for his money in mis-characterizing the Catholic Church. This may not be something that Orthodox Christians do in their home countries, but here in the USA I have been really surprised sometimes. In all honesty I see it here way too often, the little small comments, that may not have a place in the thread, but are written anyway. I assume in an attempt to point out that you aren't Catholic, I guess.I'm not sure I have the time to devote to exploring whether Orthodox misunderstand Catholics. Frankly (and please don't take this as an insult) ... overall we don't concern ourselves greatly with comparing our beliefs minutely with others. It is not our place to judge beliefs outside of our Church.
Also, please remember I am not Roman Catholic. I do not follow the theology of the RCC, though some of our theology matches eachother. I am not following Roman Catholic teaching - and what I am promoting is Orthodox teaching.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.
My point in always clarifying that we aren't RCC is due to people assuming often that we have all the same beliefs. No offense intended; I just want it to be clear that we aren't identical in theology, and that we are not just an Eastern version (culturally) of the RCC.Amen.
In all honesty from my point of view, I don't see it that way. There are way too many Orthodox apologist, who would give Jack Chick a run for his money in mis-characterizing the Catholic Church. This may not be something that Orthodox Christians do in their home countries, but here in the USA I have been really surprised sometimes. In all honesty I see it here way too often, the little small comments, that may not have a place in the thread, but are written anyway. I assume in an attempt to point out that you aren't Catholic, I guess.
The quote that you posted really sounds a great deal like what is known as consubstantiation. Interesting.I cannot write much right now, but please remember it is not Roman Catholic beliefs that I am promoting here - but rather beliefs of the Church since apostolic times. (I cannot vouch authoritively on RCC beliefs today, though I know it is more defined in the RCC than the Orthodox Church). I have thought through it very thoroughly, and I believe you are misunderstanding some of what we believe. I used to believe what you are promoting and found that it was not accurate Biblically. Consider that you are not the only one who evaluates Scripture closely.
FTR, we do not adhere to the exact same understanding of transubstantiation. We believe it is a mystery.
ETA: You mentioned "Spirit". Yes, we agree with that, but not with the understanding you promote. Check out this explanation from Sergius Bulgakov. It is not Scripture but it helps explain how we understand the Scripture regarding the Eucharist.
@ViaCrucis @Tigger45 would this match the traditional Lutheran understanding?
That is okay to do, and I don't have a problem with that, what I have an issue with and what I will clarify is when my faith becomes mis-characterized in the process. As I corrected above, the Catholic Church has never ever defined HOW the Eucharist becomes the Eucharist. We have defined WHAT happens when the Eucharist becomes the Eucharist, and that definition is perfectly in line with what the Church Fathers taught, i.e. the bread and wine BECOMES the Body and Blood of Christ. No symbolism, not spiritual possession, no existing with the each other side by side; it becomes. That is all that has been officially defined. The thing though that I see here and elsewhere is that the biggest gripe that the Orthodox have with the doctrine of transubstantiation is that they believe it tries to explain how, when it makes no such attempt at all.My point in always clarifying that we aren't RCC is due to people assuming often that we have all the same beliefs. No offense intended; I just want it to be clear that we aren't identical in theology, and that we are not just an Eastern version (culturally) of the RCC.
It does sound similar. That said, it isn't Jesus spiritually present...it is the Body and Blood of Christ, but it is His Body which is now in the spiritual realm. Honestly, the more it is defined, the more likely it is to introduce something we don't believe. I'm not trying to seem like this is a cop-out, but we embrace the mystery often and don't feel that it is good to define it deeply. We do believe it is the Body and Blood of Christ, but I may need someone better at explaining it than me to truly say what we believe. I understand it but have a hard time expressing it in more details. I'll think through it a bit more. Maybe you can help @~Anastasia~?The quote that you posted really sounds a great deal like what is known as consubstantiation. Interesting.
"And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ;It really falls down to the following IMO:
1) Do you believe that the bread and wine BECOME the Body and Blood?
2) Is the Eucharist substantially the Body and Blood of Christ?
If you believe these two statements then you believe in transubstantiation. It is really that simple.
I cannot write much right now, but please remember it is not Roman Catholic beliefs that I am promoting here - but rather beliefs of the Church since apostolic times. (I cannot vouch authoritively on RCC beliefs today, though I know it is more defined in the RCC than the Orthodox Church). I have thought through it very thoroughly, and I believe you are misunderstanding some of what we believe. I used to believe what you are promoting and found that it was not accurate Biblically. Consider that you are not the only one who evaluates Scripture closely.
FTR, we do not adhere to the exact same understanding of transubstantiation. We believe it is a mystery.
ETA: You mentioned "Spirit". Yes, we agree with that, but not with the understanding you promote. Check out this explanation from Sergius Bulgakov. It is not Scripture but it helps explain how we understand the Scripture regarding the Eucharist.
@ViaCrucis @Tigger45 would this match the traditional Lutheran understanding?
Transubstantiation is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines this doctrine in section 1376:"And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ;
and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ;
Changing them by Thy Holy Spirit."
The bread and wine are totally changed into the essence of the Body and Blood of our Lord. It is a change of essence. So, the elements of the Holy Communion continue to appear as bread and wine, but are the "essence" of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, our Lord. Bread and wine do not remain.
It does sound similar. That said, it isn't Jesus spiritually present...it is the Body and Blood of Christ, but it is His Body which is now in the spiritual realm. Honestly, the more it is defined, the more likely it is to introduce something we don't believe. I'm not trying to seem like this is a cop-out, but we embrace the mystery often and don't feel that it is good to define it deeply. We do believe it is the Body and Blood of Christ, but I may need someone better at explaining it than me to truly say what we believe. I understand it but have a hard time expressing it in more details. I'll think through it a bit more. Maybe you can help @~Anastasia~?
Then it would seem that Catholics and Orthodox are in full agreement here. The differences in terminology are the use of the terms "essence" and "substance". I do think the terminology is comparable, and I don't see a conflict here. So hopefully for at least some there is an understanding now here."And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ;
and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ;
Changing them by Thy Holy Spirit."
The bread and wine are totally changed into the essence of the Body and Blood of our Lord. It is a change of essence. So, the elements of the Holy Communion continue to appear as bread and wine, but are the "essence" of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, our Lord. Bread and wine do not remain.
I'm not sure I can help. Yes, the Eucharist IS the Body and blood of Christ. I could possibly answer a few more questions, depending on what they are, but we don't define it much more than that. It is a Mystery.
I will offer that when I first heard discussion of the Catholic teaching when I was a child (remember, a child!) ... I imagined a literal cup filled with literal blood containing literal lumps of flesh, magically transformed. I was horrified! I knew I didn't believe that, and rightly classified it as something non-Christian and magical-type thinking. But of course I learned, this is not what Catholics believe either.
Now, if you were asking me to assent to Catholic teaching, I think it would be only fair to present the whole Catechism on the topic. And as far as I'm aware, from half -remembered reading before, it really is too defined for me to agree.
I was told once that Catholics were pushed to define their faith so minutely partially in response to certain political pressures in the world? I have sympathy for that, and am thankful that we Orthodox never did so. But the end result I think is that we are uncomfortable with some of the teaching on the Eucharist.
Btw, I know apologists can be polemical. And there does exist a need, IMO, to be able to clarify our differences. For inquirers, newly Orthodox, Catholics, and those who may need or want to know in order to understand each other, etc, it is useful to have access to the knowledge so we can understand ourselves and one another.
But no, I've never met an Orthodox layperson or clergy who concerned themselves overmuch. To be honest, most of our parish are cradle Orthodox, and they care so little that not only do they not really know the differences between us and Catholics, they don't even know the differences between us and Protestants, and most assume that Protestant is like a united denomination of sorts, as if all Protestants believed the exact same things. This is why I am often talking to visitors. Others in the parish can explain Orthodoxy MUCH better than I. But they don't even speak the same theological language as non-Orthodox, to be able to understand the question asked, oftentimes.
They generally know that the schism happened, and that Catholics by definition are in communion with the Pope of Rome. And they know Protestants split from Catholics. But they often assume birth or ethnicity is the main difference, along with a more relaxed worship style among Protestants. That is often all they know. (I know, I will get asked questions, and if it involves a Protestant, I ask what kind. I nearly always get a blank look, and they just repeat, "Protestant, Protestant!" It's very difficult to get ideas across.)
Then it would seem that Catholics and Orthodox are in full agreement here. The differences in terminology are the use of the terms "essence" and "substance". I do think the terminology is comparable, and I don't see a conflict here. So hopefully for at least some there is an understanding now here.
You know I would be curious on what Orthodox truly think are the differences between them and Catholics concerning the Eucharist. In my experience normally what I get in response is that "well you Catholics try to explain the "how" of the Eucharist, and for us it is a mystery." But that is about as far as I have seen it go. Perhaps a thread in TT may be something to do.I'm not sure I can help. Yes, the Eucharist IS the Body and blood of Christ. I could possibly answer a few more questions, depending on what they are, but we don't define it much more than that. It is a Mystery.
I will offer that when I first heard discussion of the Catholic teaching when I was a child (remember, a child!) ... I imagined a literal cup filled with literal blood containing literal lumps of flesh, magically transformed. I was horrified! I knew I didn't believe that, and rightly classified it as something non-Christian and magical-type thinking. But of course I learned, this is not what Catholics believe either.
Now, if you were asking me to assent to Catholic teaching, I think it would be only fair to present the whole Catechism on the topic. And as far as I'm aware, from half -remembered reading before, it really is too defined for me to agree.
I was told once that Catholics were pushed to define their faith so minutely partially in response to certain political pressures in the world? I have sympathy for that, and am thankful that we Orthodox never did so. But the end result I think is that we are uncomfortable with some of the teaching on the Eucharist.
Btw, I know apologists can be polemical. And there does exist a need, IMO, to be able to clarify our differences. For inquirers, newly Orthodox, Catholics, and those who may need or want to know in order to understand each other, etc, it is useful to have access to the knowledge so we can understand ourselves and one another.
But no, I've never met an Orthodox layperson or clergy who concerned themselves overmuch. To be honest, most of our parish are cradle Orthodox, and they care so little that not only do they not really know the differences between us and Catholics, they don't even know the differences between us and Protestants, and most assume that Protestant is like a united denomination of sorts, as if all Protestants believed the exact same things. This is why I am often talking to visitors. Others in the parish can explain Orthodoxy MUCH better than I. But they don't even speak the same theological language as non-Orthodox, to be able to understand the question asked, oftentimes.
They generally know that the schism happened, and that Catholics by definition are in communion with the Pope of Rome. And they know Protestants split from Catholics. But they often assume birth or ethnicity is the main difference, along with a more relaxed worship style among Protestants. That is often all they know. (I know, I will get asked questions, and if it involves a Protestant, I ask what kind. I nearly always get a blank look, and they just repeat, "Protestant, Protestant!" It's very difficult to get ideas across.)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?