No, we know it is there; we don't know how. As Luther said, "it is what it is".Got it now, Roman Catholics and Orthodox believe the bread and wine are actually gone, and replaced with flesh and blood of Jesus?
The others believe the bread and wine stay, but contains the actual presence of flesh and blood of Jesus?
In Lutheranism, adoration like in the photo above is most rare out side of the context of the Mass; but at least in Churches where this is practiced, Lutherans know that the real presence is accepted and held.My study finds that Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Methodist, Lutherns, all believe the "Actual Body And Blood" are present in the sacrament.
The various denominations have changed the name of their sacrament process, however its appears to be the same concept and belief.
"Transubstantiation" "Real Presence"?
Same thing, different names.
Wikipedia: Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Catholics give adoration to Christ, whom they believe to be really present, in body and blood, soul and divinity, in sacramental bread whose reality has been changed into that of his body.
The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a term used in Christian theology to express the doctrine that Jesus is really or substantially present in the Eucharist, not merely symbolically or metaphorically.
There are a number of different views in the understanding of the meaning of the term "reality" in this context among contemporary Christian confessions which accept it, including the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Church of the East, Lutheranism, Anglicanism and Methodism.[1][2] These differences correspond to literal or figurative interpretations of Christ's Words of Institution, as well as questions related to the concept of realism in the context of the Platonic substance and accident. Efforts at mutual understanding of the range of beliefs by these Churches led in the 1980s to consultations on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry through the World Council of Churches.
By contrast, the doctrine is rejected by Anabaptists.
There's actually a gradation of belief. Lutherans believe what you described; Anglicans believe there is the presence of Christ but only in a spiritual manner, Reformed and Presbyterians believe that we are mystically transported to heaven to be his presence, and then we have the Anabaptists. That's roughly it.Got it now, Roman Catholics and Orthodox believe the bread and wine are actually gone, and replaced with flesh and blood of Jesus?
The others believe the bread and wine stay, but contains the actual presence of flesh and blood of Jesus?
There's actually a gradation of belief. Lutherans believe what you described; Anglicans believe there is the presence of Christ but only in a spiritual manner, Reformed and Presbyterians believe that we are mystically transported to heaven to be his presence, and then we have the Anabaptists. That's roughly it.
A very few Anglicans of the Anglo-Catholic persuasion do, although Transubstantiation has long been considered one of the several Roman Catholic beliefs that even they draw the line against.Some Anglicans do hold Transubstantiation; hence adoration chapels in their Churches; others the Methodist view of spiritual presence; most somewhere in between (At least in Canada).
Never mind, I see this originates with Matt Slick at CARM. If I have the time I will look up the quotes and put them in context, which I am quite confident you haven't done.1.
Athenagoras (133-190) says it is unlawful to partake of the flesh of men.
"But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable."
(Athenagoras, On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8)
2.
Augustine (354-430) says the elements are a resemblance of the actual body and blood. "Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? "
Augustine said regarding John 6:63 says Christ said not to eat the body or blood which you see, referring to Christ saying to the disciples. "But He instructed them, and saith unto them, 'It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.'
Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth." (Augustine, Expositions on the Psalms, 99:8).
Augustine says Christ's words in John 6 about his body and blood are figurative.
This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."--(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24).
3.
Clement of Alexandria (150-215) says the comunion wine is called wine.
"In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, 'Take, drink: this is my blood'--the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word 'shed for many, for the remission of sins'--the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, 'I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.'" (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2:2).
Clement of Alexandria also said the bread and wine were symbols, metaphor. "Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: 'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle."--(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1:6).
4.Eusebius (263-339) Eusebius says the Communion is 'only the bread and wine,' "And the fulfilment of the oracle is truly wondrous, to one who recognizes how our Saviour Jesus the Christ of God even now performs through His ministers even today sacrifices after the manner of Melchizedek's. For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood." (Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3)
Eusebius says the bread and wine are symbol's of Christ's Body. "The words, 'His eyes are cheerful from wine, and his teeth white as milk,' again I think secretly reveal the mysteries of the new Covenant of our Saviour. 'His eyes are cheerful from wine,' seems to me to shew the gladness of the mystic wine which He gave to His disciples, when He said, 'Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.' And, 'His teeth are white as milk,' shew the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, 'And his teeth are white as milk.' This also another prophet has recorded, where he says, 'Sacrifice and offering hast thou not required, but a body hast thou prepared for me.'" (Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1)5
Origen (185-254) says the Bread is bread. He says nothing of a spiritual change. "Now, if 'everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,' even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that 'every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.'" (Origen, On Matthew, 11:14)
6. Tertullian (155-220) says the communion bread represents Christ's body. "Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children; nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the 'beggarly elements' of the Creator." (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 1:14)
Tertullian refers to the communion supper as spiritual words. "He says, it is true, that 'the flesh profiteth nothing;' but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, 'It is the spirit that quickeneth;' and then added, 'The flesh profiteth nothing,'--meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: 'The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.' In a like sense He had previously said: 'He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.' Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before the passage in hand, He had declared His flesh to be 'the bread which cometh down from heaven,' impressing on His hearers constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling."--(Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 37)
7.
Theodoret (393-457) says the elements remain as bread and wine.
"For even after the consecration the mystic symbols [of the eucharist] are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before." (Theodoret, Dialogues, 2)
8.
Theophilus of Antioch (d. 185?) of Antioch denies that Christians eat human flesh. "Nor indeed was there any necessity for my refuting these, except that I see you still in dubiety about the word of the truth. For though yourself prudent, you endure fools gladly. Otherwise you would not have been moved by senseless men to yield yourself to empty words, and to give credit to the prevalent rumor wherewith godless lips falsely accuse us, who are worshippers of God, and are called Christians, alleging that the wives of us all are held in common and made promiscuous use of; and that we even commit incest with our own sisters, and, what is most impious and barbarous of all, that we eat human flesh." (Theophilus to Autolycus, 3:4)
You continue to claim these ECF'S taught that actual flesh and blood were in the sacrament, false!Never mind, I see this originates with Matt Slick at CARM. If I have the time I will look up the quotes and put them in context, which I am quite confident you haven't done.
You still haven't addressed the fact that Polycarp and Ignatius who were discipled by the Apostle John, and Irenaeus who was discipled by Polycarp, held to the real presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the Eucharist.
Never mind, I see this originates with Matt Slick at CARM. If I have the time I will look up the quotes and put them in context, which I am quite confident you haven't done.
You still haven't addressed the fact that Polycarp and Ignatius who were discipled by the Apostle John, and Irenaeus who was discipled by Polycarp, held to the real presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the Eucharist.
Never mind, I see this originates with Matt Slick at CARM. If I have the time I will look up the quotes and put them in context, which I am quite confident you haven't done.
You still haven't addressed the fact that Polycarp and Ignatius who were discipled by the Apostle John, and Irenaeus who was discipled by Polycarp, held to the real presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the Eucharist.
Where did you copy/paste those from?
Do they have links to the texts in question?
I said it in my previous post, so I commend that to you. In short, everyone but Catholics insists that it remains bread and wine. However...
Hundreds of millions of other Christians believe that the bread and wine are not simply bread and wine symbolizing something or other but that the "elements" have been endowed, in some way or other, with the Real Presence of Christ.
I merely wanted to interject that the "either-or" kind of discussion that implies that there is only Transubstantiation or, at the other extreme, Representationalism, is quite wrong.
You've been given citations to which you have not responded.Thats right. That is exactly what all of you do. Make a statement, no context, no validation but when that same thing is done to you.........
Is he not the source of what you posted?The only reason you say " Matt Slick at CARM" is because he has stated the truth and facts and you only have one recourse, deny....deny...deny!
Post #426 you hung the article below on the wall, not one word claims the ECF taught actual blood and flesh, where are your citations?You've been given citations to which you have not responded.
Is he not the source of what you posted?
It is truly unfortunate that they call themselves "Equipping the Saints"; no expression of Christian love towards others (only themselves) only hatred, misinformation and prejudice towards other members of God's Church. CARM.org should not be held up as a Christian organization any more than the Orange Lodge; simply put, I consider them both a cults of hatred.
It is truly unfortunate that they call themselves "Equipping the Saints"; no expression of Christian love towards others (only themselves) only hatred, misinformation and prejudice towards other members of God's Church. CARM.org should not be held up as a Christian organization any more than the Orange Lodge; simply put, I consider them both a cults of hatred.
You've been given citations to which you have not responded.
Is he not the source of what you posted?
I would add, however, that everyone recognizes that memorialist, symbolic nature of the sacrament and the elements themselves. So to say that Representationalism is what the Bible indicates isn't telling us much. The question is whether it is anything more than that as well.I would only say that once extreme, Transubstanciation is actually un-biblical where as the other is what the Bible actuall does say, Representationalism.
That's what Jesus said, however. If he had said "This is a symbol of my body..." I would of course agree with you. But as we both know, he did not.The Bible doesn’t say that the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ, but rather that they are symbols of His sacrifice.
The bible clearly teaches a symbolic representation, as did the early church fathers.I would add, however, that everyone recognizes that memorialist, symbolic nature of the sacrament and the elements themselves. So to say that Representationalism is what the Bible indicates isn't telling us much. The question is whether it is anything more than that as well.
That's what Jesus said, however. If he had said "This is a symbol of my body..." I would of course agree with you. But as we both know, he did not.
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?