Is the Eucharist cannibalism?

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Oh that’s fascinating. And it also has to be extremely annoying from the perspective of the Ukrainian Orthodox, because the Treaty of Brest that created the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth also created what are now the Ukrainian and Ruthenian Greek Catholic Churches, by essentially forcing the Orthodox into communion with Rome, and then this exposed the Western Ukrainians to the Protestant schism.

At least in the US a very large number of Ruthenians led by the likes of St. Alexis Toth joined the Russian Orthodox Church (and are now members of some of the handful of Patriarchal parishes, some are in ROCOR and a large number are in the OCA), and later the ACROD diocese of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

The metropolitan of ACROD, Gregory, was the dean of students when I was at Holy Cross Seminary, and was a huge blessing the first semester I was there. If he had been there my second semester, he might have been able to help keep me there. Sigh.

 

[eleos1954]

Have you consulted a philosophical dictionary on the meaning of substance in Aristotelian philosophy?

Take some time and look at this - ᐅ Aristotle's Substance Theory | Religion Philosophy, Science Philosophy.

Colossians 2:8​

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

 

[eleos1954]

Again, you demonstrate an inability to read these documents correctly based on misunderstanding of terminology and basic definitions (English mainly, much less Latin or Greek). Thus, your attempt (I presume) at trying to use this quote as a sort of "gotcha" isn't going to work...nor is it working. Not to be uncharitable, but this isn't really philosophical stuff here. It's basic human language and reason. Aristotle isn't needed at all at such a most fundamental level, hence even your broadside against philosophy by misusing Col. 2:8 is...with all due respect...rather pointless.

Honestly, I'd back out if I were you, as your position is beginning to fall apart. You do your cause no favors here by persisting. Trust me, I've been in similar situations, and, frankly, humility is the best course here. I certainly won't hold it against you.

Please review my previous responses. Such things are often overlooked in heated debate. I humbly send my feeble blessings; both as an ordained Reader and a lay disciple. +

People can decide what "whole substance" means.

Philosophy is the love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means, is not wisdom from God but wisdom as defined by man.

Wisdom comes from the Word of God .... not man.

I'll rely on God and what is written within there ....we are warned of philosophical teachings of man ..... so I pay attention to it.

I encourage all to study His Word for themselves and seek His wisdom .... not that of mankind.

 

[The Liturgist]

Colossians 2:8​

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

Come now, let us be fair: you brought up the issue of the definition of whole substance, as used in the Scholastic concept of transubstantiation, and the answer happens to be that as defined by Aristotle. Furthermore, Colossians 2:8 is a warning against being taken captive, which is to say, deceived or misled into spiritual delusion by systems of pagan philosophy which contain mystical metaphysical aspects, for example, Gnosticsm and Neo-Platonism, and Kabbalah.

People can decide what "whole substance" means.

If they want to know what the Roman Catholic Scholastic theologians like Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent meant by the phrase, they should listen to what the Catholic Church says it meant, and not assign their own arbitrary definitions to it.

Basically what you are proposing is that we should dictate to the Roman Catholics what their statements of faith mean based on our own arbitrary definitions of the words in those statements, which is absurd.

Philosophy is the love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means, is not wisdom from God but wisdom as defined by man.

That is categorically untrue and a great smear against millions of pious Hebrew and Christian philosophers including the Holy Prophets Moses, David and Solomon, St. Gregory Palamas, Thomas Aquinas, Soren Kierkegaard, St. John of Damascus, the Cappodacians, St. Athanasius, who defined the New Testament canon, that is to say, he promulgated the definitive list in 367 AD of the 27 books that comprise that portion of the written word of God that describe the Incarnation of the living Word of God.

Wisdom comes from the Word of God .... not man.

John 1:1 defines Jesus Christ as the Word of God, in the original Greek, Logos, which among other things means reason (hence the word “Logic”), and this use of Logos is a translation of the Hebrew concept of the Memra, but also happened to coincide with the Platonic idea of the Logos, which St. John the Apostle was explicitly referencing.

And John 1:1-3 does indeed make it clear that the Logos does come from God, being a part of the Trinity, and by Him all things were made, including men. And from our Lord we are granted the capacity for Wisdom, and indeed the Holy Prophet King Solomon prayed to God for Wisdom, and his prayer was granted. God bestows wisdom where appropriate to mankind, and when men blessed with wisdom from God use that wisdom to reasonably study the problems that confront us, for example, the philosophy of law or the philosophy of science, or logic, all of which are essential in the discernment of truth, this is a gift from God, a blessing.

I'll rely on God and what is written within there ....we are warned of philosophical teachings of man ..... so I pay attention to it.

I encourage all to study His Word for themselves and seek His wisdom .... not that of mankind.

The books of the Bible, the written Word, were written by men inspired by God, and describe the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, and quote Him.

And Jesus Christ, in the written Word, in the Gospel according to John, says that to be saved we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. This statement scandalized his Jewish followers, and most of them left Him, because as it says in Scripture, the Wisdom of God is foolishness to Mankind.

 

[coorilose]

@The Liturgist and @dzheremi :

Let's continue here: History of the Malankara Church in India

 

[eleos1954]

Come now, let us be fair: you brought up the issue of the definition of whole substance, as used in the Scholastic concept of transubstantiation, and the answer happens to be that as defined by Aristotle. Furthermore, Colossians 2:8 is a warning against being taken captive, which is to say, deceived or misled into spiritual delusion by systems of pagan philosophy which contain mystical metaphysical aspects, for example, Gnosticsm and Neo-Platonism, and Kabbalah.



If they want to know what the Roman Catholic Scholastic theologians like Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent meant by the phrase, they should listen to what the Catholic Church says it meant, which is basically what Aristotle meant.

Basically what you are proposing is that we should dictate to the Roman Catholics what their statements of faith mean based on our own understanding of the words,

Philosophy is the love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means, is not wisdom from God but wisdom as defined by man.

Wisdom comes from the Word of God .... not man.

I'll rely on God and what is written within there ....we are warned of philosophical teachings of man ..... so I pay attention to it.

I encourage all to study His Word for themselves and seek His wisdom .... not that of mankind.

[/QUOTE]

People can decide what "whole substance" means

I don't dictate anything to anyone ( I promote people studying the Word of God for themselves) .... I do discuss scripture and theologies (what people believe is up to them) .... it is the Catholic church that dictates to the laity what is to be believed.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Colossians 2:8​

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

Clearly not.

 

[The Liturgist]

People can decide what "whole substance" means

I don't dictate anything to anyone ( I promote people studying the Word of God for themselves) .... I do discuss scripture and theologies (what people believe is up to them)
[/quote]

This is unfortunately a fallacious line of reasoning:

If you are debating Roman Catholic theology, if you redefine their theological terminology to what you think it means, for example, “entire substance” when such a doctrine is not meant, then that renders your argument logically moot. I am not Roman Catholic and I could spend hours dissecting what I believe are the central errors which involve the filioque, an over reliance on St. Augustine, the satisfaction theology of Anselm of Canterbury, the Scholastic movement in theology, the suppression of the Gallican, Beneventan and other Western liturgical rites in favor of a modified version of the Roman Rite, the Latinization of Eastern liturgies, the liturgical disaster of Vatican II, etc, but in doing so, I would not disagree with the Roman Catholics concerning what the terminology they use means, because to do so would be to make my argument logically fallacious and therefore pointless.*

For example, I could insist that the Pope signifies in the Roman Catholic Church the same thing the title means in the Greek and Coptic Orthodox churches of Alexandria, where the title was first used to refer to the Patriarch, who in those churches does not have Papal Supremacy, but is simply first among equals, the bishop who presides over the Holy Synod, and indeed is forbidden from celebrating the liturgy outside of his own diocese without the permission of the diocesan bishop. But to do this would make my argument absurd, a true Strawman argument, because in the Roman Catholic Church, the title Pope means something very different: a supreme bishop with universal jurisdiction who has the authority to veto the decisions of any subordinate bishops, to promulgate new doctrine ex cathedra, infallibly, as happened with the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption (the latter in the 1950s).

Likewise, if you are debating Roman Catholic Eucharistic theology, if you choose to ignore the relevant definition of substance because you have an aversion to reading Averroes or Aristotle, you aren’t actually debating Roman Catholic Eucharistic theology, but rather what is a classical Strawman fallacy, in that in applying your own definition to the terminology means you are debating what you think Roman Catholic Eucharistic theology is, without actual knowledge of what their theology is on the matter.

.... it is the Catholic church that dictates to the laity what is to be believed.

This is true not just of the Roman Catholic Church but of the Church Catholic, that is to say, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church confessed in the Nicene Creed, to which all Christians belong. And it has been this way since Christ taught the Disciples, who then, joined by the Holy Apostles Matthias and Paul and several others (for instance, Timothy, James the Just, Addai and Mari, the evangelists Mark and Luke, etc), who spread the doctrine of the Gospel to eager audiences, because people actually do want to learn the faith which promises eternal life.

And regarding the right of the Church to correct errors, the Holy Apostle Paul in Galatians 1:8-9 says “If anyone comes preaching a Gospel other than that we have taught you, let him be anathema.” And indeed people did start preaching false gospels almost immediately: heretical sects and cults such as the Ebionites, Docetists, Gnostics, Marcionites, Manichaens, Sabellians, Arians, etc.

*In practice, I wouldn’t debate the Catholics on these issues because these are minor, and can be resolved through ecumenical discussion, and the Catholics and I share a common outlook on a huge range of issues.

 

[Dan Perez]

Cannibalism implies here the actual chewing, swallowing, and metabolizing of flesh and blood either after or during the killing of a human being; at least, if we stick to definition #1.


Catholics do not do any of this in the Eucharist. Though Christ is substantially present—body, blood, soul and divinity—in the Eucharist, the accidents of bread and wine remain. Here it is important to define terms. When the Church teaches the bread and wine at Mass are transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, we have to understand what this means. The word, transubstantiation, literally means “transformation of the substance.” “Substance” refers to that which makes a thing essentially what it is. Thus, “substance” and “essence” are synonyms. For example, man is essentially comprised of body, soul, intellect, and will. If you remove any one of these, he is no longer a human person. The accidents or accidentals would be things like hair color, eye color, size, weight, etc. One can change any of these and there would be no change in the essence or substance of the person.

In the Eucharist, after the priest consecrates the bread and wine and they are, in fact, transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord, our Lord is then entirely present. Neither bread nor wine remains. However, the accidents of bread and wine (size, weight, taste, texture) do remain. Hence, the essential reason why Catholics are not guilty of cannibalism is the fact that we do not receive our Lord in a cannibalistic form. We receive him in the form of bread and wine. The two are qualitatively different.

To dive a bit deeper into this, I would suggest there are at least six reasons why the Eucharist and cannibalism are qualitatively, or essentially, different things.

1. In cannibalism, the person consumed is, generally speaking, killed. Jesus is not killed. We receive him in his resurrected body and we do not affect him in the least. In fact, he is not changed in the slightest. He changes us! This is far from cannibalism.
2. In cannibalism, only part of the victim is consumed. One does not eat the bones, sinews, etc. In the Eucharist, we consume every bit of the Lord, eyes, hair, blood, bones, etc. But again, I emphasize that we do so under the appearances of bread and wine. This is essentially different than cannibalism, which leads to our next point:
3. In cannibalism, the accidents of blood and flesh are consumed. One must tear flesh, drink blood, etc. In the Eucharist, we only consume the accidents of bread and wine. This is not cannibalism.
4. In cannibalism, one only consumes a body, not a person. The person and the soul of the victim would have departed. In the Eucharist, we consume the entire person of Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity. One cannot separate Christ’s body from his Divine Person. Thus, this is a spiritual communion as well as a physical consuming. We become one with Christ on a mystical level in this sacrament. This is far from cannibalism.
5. In cannibalism, one only receives temporal nourishment that is fleeting. In the Eucharist, we receive the divine life of God through faith and receiving our Lord well-disposed, i.e. we receive everlasting life (cf. John 6:52-55). This is essentially different than cannibalism.
6. In cannibalism, once one eats the flesh of the victim, it is gone forever. In the Eucharist, we can consume him every day and, as mentioned in #1, we do not change him one bit. He remains the same.

Final Thoughts

One always has to be careful when applying terms and concepts to God. Many people miss the mark with regard to the faith because they make the mistake of applying terms in a human way to God who is infinite. We could speak of Mormons who claim God, the Father, has a physical body because the Scriptures speak of God’s “back parts,” in Exodus, or “the hand of Lord,” the “eyes of the Lord,” etc. You’ve probably heard the classic rejoinder to these Mormon claims: “Psalm 91 refers to God’s ‘feathers and wings’. Does this mean God is some sort of bird?”

The error here, of course, is rooted in interpreting texts that were not intended to be used in a strict, literal sense, as if they were. “Back parts” have to mean “back parts,” right?

When it comes to the Trinity, some who deny this essential teaching will claim Christians are teaching God to be “three beings” because we say God is “three persons.” However, person, as it relates to God, does not mean there are three beings. There is an essential difference between “person” as it relates to God, and “person” as it relates to men and angels.

We could cite a litany of examples containing similar problems.

When it gets down to brass tacks, the nay-sayers who reject the Eucharist, and most specifically, those who accuse us Catholics of cannibalism because we say we “consume” the Lord in the Eucharist, body, blood, soul, and divinity, fail to understand what we actually mean by consuming the Lord. They end up objecting just as the unbelieving “Jews” of John 6:52, who said, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

If you are thinking about a cannibalistic blood-meal, he can’t. But if you understand, as Jesus said, “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail, the words I have spoken to you are Spirit and life,” then you understand. The Eucharist represents a miracle confected by the power of the Holy Spirit.

God can do that.

[Are Catholics Cannibals?]

In Matt 26 : 28 are the CATHOLICS Keeping the NEW COVENANT in verse 28 for the remission of sins ?

Then in verse 29 But I say unto you , I WILL NOT / OV is a DISJUNCATIVE PARTICIPLE NEGATIVE which means that Jesus will NOT drink henceforth of this FRUIT of the VINE , until that day when I DRINK it NEW with You , in my Father's Kingdom and it says the RCC is out of step with verse 29 , what say you ??

dan p

 

[Valletta]

In Matt 26 : 28 are the CATHOLICS Keeping the NEW COVENANT in verse 28 for the remission of sins ?

Then in verse 29 But I say unto you , I WILL NOT / OV is a DISJUNCATIVE PARTICIPLE NEGATIVE which means that Jesus will NOT drink henceforth of this FRUIT of the VINE , until that day when I DRINK it NEW with You , in my Father's Kingdom and it says the RCC is out of step with verse 29 , what say you ??

dan p

While on the cross Jesus waited to the very end to drink the fruit of the vine. I don't see what is out of step.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

In Matt 26 : 28 are the CATHOLICS Keeping the NEW COVENANT in verse 28 for the remission of sins ?

Then in verse 29 But I say unto you , I WILL NOT / OV is a DISJUNCATIVE PARTICIPLE NEGATIVE which means that Jesus will NOT drink henceforth of this FRUIT of the VINE , until that day when I DRINK it NEW with You , in my Father's Kingdom and it says the RCC is out of step with verse 29 , what say you ??

dan p

I say, "That's a strange question".

Matthew 26:

26 And while they were still at table, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is my body.​

27 Then he took a cup, and offered thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink, all of you, of this;​

28 for this is my blood, of the new testament, shed for many, to the remission of sins.​

29 And I tell you this, I shall not drink of this fruit of the vine again, until I drink it with you, new wine, in the kingdom of my Father.​

30 And so they sang a hymn, and went out to mount Olivet.​

31 After this, Jesus said to them, To-night you will all lose courage over me; for so it has been written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of his flock will be scattered.​

I cannot see any problem for Catholics in these verses.

 

[The Liturgist]

In Matt 26 : 28 are the CATHOLICS Keeping the NEW COVENANT in verse 28 for the remission of sins ?

Then in verse 29 But I say unto you , I WILL NOT / OV is a DISJUNCATIVE PARTICIPLE NEGATIVE which means that Jesus will NOT drink henceforth of this FRUIT of the VINE , until that day when I DRINK it NEW with You , in my Father's Kingdom and it says the RCC is out of step with verse 29 , what say you ??

dan p

i fear your objection is doubly irrelevant, because firstly, as my Roman Catholic friends have pointed out, in the Eucharist we partake of the Blood of Christ; our Lord does not partake of the Wine, and secondly, the Eucharist did not originate in the Church of Rome but rather was universal throughout the Early Church. Its celebration is mentioned in the first century work of Church Order, the Didache, and the oldest and second oldest Holy Communion services that survive intact and are still in use are the Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril, used by the Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt, which was never under the control of the Roman Catholic Church, and which is attested to in a second century papyrus and a complete fourth century manuscript, and likewise, the second oldest is the Divine Liturgy of the Apostles Addai and Mari, which has also been dated to the second century, and which is the ancient liturgy of the Church of the East, which again, was never under the control of the Roman Catholic Church (although some Eastern Catholic churches, the Chaldean Catholic Church in Baghdad and the Syro Malabar Catholic Church in India, have adopted it, with modifications, since it lacks the Words of Institution in its Eucharistic Prayer, and while Pope Benedict XVI prior to becoming Pope evaluated it and determined it was proper in its original form, historically his predecessors disagreed and most Roman Catholics would be confused, because they (and the Lutherans, and probably most liturgical Protestants) believe the Words of Institution are consecratory and not the rest of, or another part of, the Eucharistic prayer, which is the belief among the Eastern churches.

 

[eleos1954]

Come now, let us be fair: you brought up the issue of the definition of whole substance, as used in the Scholastic concept of transubstantiation, and the answer happens to be that as defined by Aristotle. Furthermore, Colossians 2:8 is a warning against being taken captive, which is to say, deceived or misled into spiritual delusion by systems of pagan philosophy which contain mystical metaphysical aspects, for example, Gnosticsm and Neo-Platonism, and Kabbalah.



If they want to know what the Roman Catholic Scholastic theologians like Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent meant by the phrase, they should listen to what the Catholic Church says it meant, and not assign their own arbitrary definitions to it.

Basically what you are proposing is that we should dictate to the Roman Catholics what their statements of faith mean based on our own arbitrary definitions of the words in those statements, which is absurd.

That is categorically untrue and a great smear against millions of pious Hebrew and Christian philosophers including the Holy Prophets Moses, David and Solomon, St. Gregory Palamas, Thomas Aquinas, Soren Kierkegaard, St. John of Damascus, the Cappodacians, St. Athanasius, who defined the New Testament canon, that is to say, he promulgated the definitive list in 367 AD of the 27 books that comprise that portion of the written word of God that describe the Incarnation of the living Word of God.

Wisdom comes from the Word of God .... not man.

John 1:1 defines Jesus Christ as the Word of God, in the original Greek, Logos, which among other things means reason (hence the word “Logic”), and this use of Logos is a translation of the Hebrew concept of the Memra, but also happened to coincide with the Platonic idea of the Logos, which St. John the Apostle was explicitly referencing.

And John 1:1-3 does indeed make it clear that the Logos does come from God, being a part of the Trinity, and by Him all things were made, including men. And from our Lord we are granted the capacity for Wisdom, and indeed the Holy Prophet King Solomon prayed to God for Wisdom, and his prayer was granted. God bestows wisdom where appropriate to mankind, and when men blessed with wisdom from God use that wisdom to reasonably study the problems that confront us, for example, the philosophy of law or the philosophy of science, or logic, all of which are essential in the discernment of truth, this is a gift from God, a blessing.

The books of the Bible, the written Word, were written by men inspired by God, and describe the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, and quote Him.

And Jesus Christ, in the written Word, in the Gospel according to John, says that to be saved we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. This statement scandalized his Jewish followers, and most of them left Him, because as it says in Scripture, the Wisdom of God is foolishness to Mankind.

The words of philosophers are not inspired from God,

God's Word Gives Wisdom

Deuteronomy 4:6

So keep and do them, for that is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’


Psalm 119:98
Your commandments make me wiser than my enemies,
For they are ever mine.

Psalm 19:7

The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul;
The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

Proverbs 1:4

To give prudence to the naive,
To the youth knowledge and discretion,

Proverbs 4:1

Hear, O sons, the instruction of a father,
And give attention that you may gain understanding,

2 Timothy 3:15

and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Jeremiah 8:9

“The wise men are put to shame,
They are dismayed and caught;
Behold, they have rejected the word of the Lord,
And what kind of wisdom do they have?

From a study of the Scripture we find that reason has its place. Scripture points out that unaided human reason will get us nowhere; we are to reason things out by examining the Scripture. It is the only infallible source of divine truth.

Hebrews 10:10-14

“By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

through faith .... not some religious ritual or practice .... this was the folly of the Jewish clergy of the day .... they trusted in a religious system and works .... many lacked faith.

Romans 10:17​

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It really is Jesus Christ, Living and Incarnate, this is the Crucified and Risen Savior who reigns at the right hand of the Father who will come again to judge the living and the dead.

And no, it is not cannibalism.

In the Lutheran Confessions we explicitly confess,

"We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ are received with the bread and wine, not only spiritually by faith, but also orally; yet not in a Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, heavenly mode, because of the sacramental union; as the words of Christ clearly show, when Christ gives direction to take, eat, and drink, as was also done by the apostles; for it is written Mark 14:23: And they all drank of it. St. Paul likewise says, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? that is: He who eats this bread eats the body of Christ, which also the chief ancient teachers of the Church, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo I, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine, unanimously testify." - Formula of Concord, Article VII.6

That phrase, "yet not in a Capernaitic [mode] is a reference to when in Capernaum our Lord taught that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood and many turned away for "it was a hard saying". That is, we do not rip flesh off the bones of Christ like a cannibal; we receive instead the real flesh and real blood "in a supernatural, heavenly mode, because of the sacramental union". The phrase "sacramental union" is the closest Lutheranism gets to "explaining" the Mystery of the Lord's Supper; by it we speak of an analogy with Christ's Hypostatic Union. There is the one and undivided Person of Jesus Christ, who is at once simultaneously fully God and fully human, without confusion or separation. In the same way, we therefore receive the true flesh and true blood of Jesus "in, with, and under" the bread and the wine. When we eat the bread, we are not eating mere bread, but also receive the real flesh of the Lord; when we drink the wine we are not drinking mere wine, but also receive the real blood of the Lord.

It is really Jesus here, not only in a "spiritual" sense through faith, but actively, personally, and literally. Jesus is really here, the God-Man is actually right here, giving Himself to us--actually and really--in and through the bread and wine of the Supper. So what whoever eats this bread eats Christ's flesh, and whoever drinks this wine drinks His blood. These things are a holy and sacred mystery that can only be comprehended by faith, for the Apostle says the things of God can only be comprehended Spiritually, that is, by the Holy Spirit (who gives us faith).

Faith confesses the body and the blood. But it is not faith that makes it the body and blood; it is God's word that makes it the body and the blood, our Lord having said, "This is My body" and "This is My blood of the New Covenant". It is, therefore, what He says it is, because He says it is. Faith receives the word of God, believing it; and thus accepts what God declares. Jesus says, "This is My body", and while with my senses, and with my reason, and with all my human wisdom I cannot understand it; by faith faith by the grace of the Holy Spirit we say, "Amen".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

It really is Jesus Christ, Living and Incarnate, this is the Crucified and Risen Savior who reigns at the right hand of the Father who will come again to judge the living and the dead.

And no, it is not cannibalism.

In the Lutheran Confessions we explicitly confess,

"We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ are received with the bread and wine, not only spiritually by faith, but also orally; yet not in a Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, heavenly mode, because of the sacramental union; as the words of Christ clearly show, when Christ gives direction to take, eat, and drink, as was also done by the apostles; for it is written Mark 14:23: And they all drank of it. St. Paul likewise says, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? that is: He who eats this bread eats the body of Christ, which also the chief ancient teachers of the Church, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo I, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine, unanimously testify." - Formula of Concord, Article VII.6

That phrase, "yet not in a Capernaitic [mode] is a reference to when in Capernaum our Lord taught that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood and many turned away for "it was a hard saying". That is, we do not rip flesh off the bones of Christ like a cannibal; we receive instead the real flesh and real blood "in a supernatural, heavenly mode, because of the sacramental union". The phrase "sacramental union" is the closest Lutheranism gets to "explaining" the Mystery of the Lord's Supper; by it we speak of an analogy with Christ's Hypostatic Union. There is the one and undivided Person of Jesus Christ, who is at once simultaneously fully God and fully human, without confusion or separation. In the same way, we therefore receive the true flesh and true blood of Jesus "in, with, and under" the bread and the wine. When we eat the bread, we are not eating mere bread, but also receive the real flesh of the Lord; when we drink the wine we are not drinking mere wine, but also receive the real blood of the Lord.

It is really Jesus here, not only in a "spiritual" sense through faith, but actively, personally, and literally. Jesus is really here, the God-Man is actually right here, giving Himself to us--actually and really--in and through the bread and wine of the Supper. So what whoever eats this bread eats Christ's flesh, and whoever drinks this wine drinks His blood. These things are a holy and sacred mystery that can only be comprehended by faith, for the Apostle says the things of God can only be comprehended Spiritually, that is, by the Holy Spirit (who gives us faith).

Faith confesses the body and the blood. But it is not faith that makes it the body and blood; it is God's word that makes it the body and the blood, our Lord having said, "This is My body" and "This is My blood of the New Covenant". It is, therefore, what He says it is, because He says it is. Faith receives the word of God, believing it; and thus accepts what God declares. Jesus says, "This is My body", and while with my senses, and with my reason, and with all my human wisdom I cannot understand it; by faith faith by the grace of the Holy Spirit we say, "Amen".

-CryptoLutheran

Indeed so.

 

[The Liturgist]

The words of philosophers are not inspired from God,

God's Word Gives Wisdom

No one denies that, indeed I would say that Christ, the Word of God, is Wisdom incarnate.

Hebrews 10:10-14

“By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

through faith .... not some religious ritual or practice .... this was the folly of the Jewish clergy of the day .... they trusted in a religious system and works .... many lacked faith.

Romans 10:17​

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Now, what you aren’t getting is who St. Paul was writing those letters to - baptized Christians who partook of the Eucharist. Holy Communion is recognized by Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians to be a sacrament, a mystery and an ordinance instituted by Christ, based on, among other things, 1 Corinthians 11, just as we baptize, because of Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:10-16

 

[eleos1954]

No one denies that, indeed I would say that Christ, the Word of God, is Wisdom incarnate.



Now, what you aren’t getting is who St. Paul was writing those letters to - baptized Christians who partook of the Eucharist. Holy Communion is recognized by Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians to be a sacrament, a mystery and an ordinance instituted by Christ, based on, among other things, 1 Corinthians 11, just as we baptize, because of Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:10-16

It's not about religion ..... it's about relationship with Jesus ... and one forms a relationship with Jesus by spending time with Him .... through prayer and through learning from His written Word that has the power to change the heart.

 

[eleos1954]

No one denies that, indeed I would say that Christ, the Word of God, is Wisdom incarnate.



Now, what you aren’t getting is who St. Paul was writing those letters to - baptized Christians who partook of the Eucharist. Holy Communion is recognized by Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians to be a sacrament, a mystery and an ordinance instituted by Christ, based on, among other things, 1 Corinthians 11, just as we baptize, because of Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:10-16

It's not about religion ..... it's about relationship with Jesus ... and one forms a relationship with Jesus by spending time with Him .... through prayer and through learning from His written Word that has the power to change the heart.

 

[Valletta]

It's not about religion ..... it's about relationship with Jesus ... and one forms a relationship with Jesus by spending time with Him .... through prayer and through learning from His written Word that has the power to change the heart.

And the strongest relationship we can form with Jesus is through the Holy Eucharist:
John 6:53-56 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."

 

[ViaCrucis]

It's not about religion ..... it's about relationship with Jesus ... and one forms a relationship with Jesus by spending time with Him .... through prayer and through learning from His written Word that has the power to change the heart.

We spend time with the Lord as He gives Himself to us freely in Word and Sacrament. Prayer, of course. But the Scriptures, yes. And also in His Supper, where He freely meets us, His very body and blood, this same Jesus who was crucified for us and who rose is here with us--tangibly, solidly, in His own flesh and blood--in the Supper.

That's not philosophy or "religion" (if you want to treat "religion" like a bad word), that's Jesus Christ living and Incarnate, that's Him, His very Person. It doesn't get more personal than that.

-CryptoLutheran