Well what does it state? Let us look at it in more detail along with some of the other passages:
1Cor 11:
[23] For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. [24] And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. [25] In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.
Luke 22:
[19] And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. [20] In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.
John 6:
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. [56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. [60] These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.
In the first two passages it tells us before the "is" that we have bread and wine. After the "is" it tells us we have the body and blood of Jesus. It doesn't say anywhere that this symbolizes my body and blood nor does it say that we are receiving Jesus only spiritually. Jesus uses very explicit language that denotes a change.
I FULLY agree with the Scriptures and with all you said....until the last sentence.
In NO dictionary known to me does the word "is" = has undergone an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind Aristotelian accident(s)." Or even "change." "Is" has to do with being, existence. Not alchemy or ghosts.
And, oddly, you didn't seem to notice that Jesus and Paul both speak of bread and wine AFTER the Consecration (Paul FAR more than before the Consecration). Why the absolute, total shift from literal interpretation to symbolic interpretation? Why this agreement with Zwingli and Calvin that Jesus and Paul are not speaking literally but metaphorically?
When we refer to Jesus, we accept what Scripture says: fully, at face value, nothing added or subtracted. He is the Son (the second person of the Trinity incarnate) AND He is man. BOTH. Never converted into the other, "Is" NEVER meaning an alchemic transubstantiation. Rather BOTH are true. One "nature" we can see and experience physically, the other we cannot - but both are equally true. God BECAME man does not mean God ceased to exist as God underwent a alchemic transubstantiation. God became incarnate in the God/Man Jesus. Is = is. God = God. Man = Man.
What are you receiving when you receive the Eucharist?
Yesterday, as my Lutheran pastor placed the Host on my tongue, his EXACT, verbatim words were, "Josiah - this IS the Body of Christ, broken for you." When the Assistant gave me the Cup, his exact and verbatim words to me were this: "Josiah - this IS the Blood of Christ, shed for you."
Now, Father did NOT say, "Josiah - this sure looks and tastes like bread and if you examined it scientifcally, as you might, haha, it physically is bread, but it's not bread because my words at the Consecration performed the alchemist's dream and transubsubtantiation happens so that the bread converted into the Body of Christ - leaving behind Aristotelian accidents which your body wrongly senses as bread."
Are you receiving His true body?
IMO, I'm receiving what Jesus said and Paul penned.
I honestly don't know WHY that is so very, very, very difficult for modern Catholics.
For me I also accept what Jesus and Paul said. They tell me very explicitly that what was once bread and wine have become trully the body and blood of my Lord and I accept them at their word.
Then quote them...
NOTHING you've offered so far say anything about anything changing into anything. Much less Transubstantiating or any Aristotelian accidents.
All you've done is ignore the word "is" and the words "bread" and "wine" (well, after the Consecration).
As you said before the term "is" denotes existence and as such after the consecration the bread is no longer bread but IS the body of Christ and the wine is no longer wine but IS the blood of Christ. Now obviously when we look at the consecrated host and chalice physically we notice something. They still look, taste, and smell like bread and wine and do not look like human flesh and blood.
Nice (and obvious) contradiction.
And a nice endorsement of Zwinglian and Calvin hermeneutics of the Eucharistic texts.
we determine simply that the host must be Christ's flesh as revealed to us but still looks like bread as our eyes tell us. Substance changed, properties remain the same.
Yes. It's speculation of western, medieval, Catholic "Scholasticism." Inventing a unique Catholic DOGMA.
It's pretty much the same as Zwingli's view and hermeneutic - you guys just don't agree on where Jesus and Paul don't mean what they say and where they do, the same subjecting Jesus and Paul to the same medieval, prescience theories of "physics." And, it seems to me, the same "logic" that lead earlier to speculate that Jesus is EITHER God or Man (explaining away as metaphoric any Scriptures that state the opposite).
I guess the problem that people have with the Eucharist is that of faith.
I agree. Paul and Jesus COULD not mean what they said....
"Is" doesn't mean is. "Bread" doesn't mean bread. "Wine" doesn't mean wine. "Body" doesn't mean body. "Blood" doesn't mean blood. AND they have to subject Jesus and Paul to THEIR pagan philosophies (such as accidents) and pre-science theories (such as transubstantiation). "Jesus CANNOT mean what He said."
IMO, Jesus and Paul likely DID mean what they said/penned. And I'm good leaving well enough alone. Not insisting that they must be subject to pagan, ancient and medieval speculations and that they CANNOT mean what they said/penned. yeah. Probably does have to do with faith.
This is shown in Scripture from "transmuting" the water into wine at the wedding feast of Cana
Bad example. The word in the text is "change." That word is NEVER found in ANY Eucharistic text. And the people sensed WINE - not water.
A better example is the two natures of Christ. He IS God. He IS Man. Yes, "become" is used there (a word NEVER used in any Eucharistic text) but we all accept it doesn't mean "an alchemic transubstantiation happened leaving behind an Aristotelian ACCIDENT." We accept that a mystery is here: He is equally both - even though our senses can only process one of those.
, to changing the "properties" of an axe to allow it to float in water as in 2Kings 6 or making in multiplying the loave and fish.
None of those involve ANYTHING remotely like Transubstaniation or Aristotle's Accidents.....
If you believe he can do all of these things what is so hard in believing in the Eucharist?
The question is yours....
Why doesn't "is" = is? "Bread" = bread? "Wine" = wine? "Body" = body? "Blood" = blood? Why force Jesus and Paul to agree with pagan philosophies, prescience theories and medieval speculations that OBVIOUSLY they never said? Is it a lack of faith? Is it the insistence that God agree with my speculations? Or is it just following Zwingli and Calvin in their "half is/ half isn't" split metaphorical hermeneutic (or maybe they copied the RCC on this)?
Thank you.
May all His Eucharistic blessings be yours....
Pax
- Josiah
.