The Eucharist: Symbolic, Real Presence, Transubstantiation

[Schroeder]

The real presence of Christ is in you....not in the Wine or Bread

rom 8:9-10

The problem with the Eucherist is that you will not find that word anywhere in the Bible....but worse still the Cup has been made into a Symbol of Idolatry.

It comes from the days when people where taught that you had to go to Church, you had to partake in the Eucherist....or you where not saved, or you would lose your salvation.

It was a control measure of a mostly illiterate population, to get them to come in the Church doors and put money in the collection plate.

The Bible was on the Banned Books list, and anybody who dared argue was labelled a heretic and burned at the Stake....anybody found with a copy of the Scriptures was burned at the Stake....then their house was burned to be sure any hidden copies burned with the House.

These so called representatives of Christ had a free hand to preach anything they liked......the Satanic hand print is all over this Churches history.

hebrew 9:10

People have wised up, most people can read Bibles for themselves now, they have learned that....God sees the heart....

All religiouse ceremony and tradition goes into the dust bin of History with that relisation.

acts 10:43 with 11:15-16 then 15:8-11

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ subscribes

 

[Athanasias]

Wow that spirit driven guys info looks like a real hoot. Sounds like he has been reading way too much jack chick and not nearly enough actually Catholic theology and Church history. Hey this will be fun if I can dialog with him.

 

[Schroeder]

.


Let's very carefully look at the Eucharistic texts, noting carefully the words - what Jesus said and Paul penned, and equally what they did not.



Real Presence is:

1. Real Presence accepts the words of Jesus and Paul. Nothing added, nothing substracted.

Ill just start by saying you messed up right off saying euchariest "TEXT" So you already predetermined what the passages are saying. already out of context. second saying accepting the words of...., nothing added, BUT BUT you insert (wine) in the verses, again predetermined interprtation of verses. HOW do you understand it if you already predetermined its point or message.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Wow that spirit driven guys info looks like a real hoot. Sounds like he has been reading way too much jack chick and not nearly enough actually Catholic theology and Church history. Hey this will be fun if I can dialog with him.

Twould indeed!

 

[Christos Anesti]

What we do NOT say (dogmatically, anyway) is that the bread and wine have undergone an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind Aristotelian accidents.

I see your point. This definition seems to enshrine certain philosophical concepts regarding "essence" vs "accidents" and the connection between the two. It goes beyond merely explaining the Eucharist and makes a statement about reality in general. I guess the question would be - are those statements about reality correct? Is there even such a thing "in reality" as Aristotelean "accidents" that relate to "essence" in such a manner described? I know the Greek word metaousious (meaning "change in substance") was given as a synonym for the term and it has an long history of use but was it ever defined using the Aristotelean distinction that the RC dogma of "transubstantiation" is based on and is that what the Fathers who used it were trying to get at? I'm not sure myself. It seems above my educational level and pay grade

I found this on a webpage and thought it was informative:

The strongest word used by the Greek Fathers, identical in meaning to transubstantiation, was metaousious, meaning “change in substance.” Other such words were metaballein (“to change&#8221 used by Cyril and Theodore; metabebletai (“to change or transform&#8221 used by Cyril; metapoiein (“to alter&#8221 used by Gregory of Nyssa and John Damascene; methistesin (“to transmute&#8221 used by Cyril; metastoicheioun (“transelemented&#8221 used by Gregory of Nyssa; metarruthmizein (“to change the form or fashion&#8221 used by Chrysostom; metaskeuaxein (“to transform or disguise&#8221 used by Chrysostom. The Latin Father had five such words in common usage: transmutare, transformare, transfigurare, transfundere, and convertere

.

 

[Christos Anesti]

transfigurare <-I kind of like this Latin word. It is the true transfiguration of the matter of the Bread and Wine making it Body and Blood, true Eucharist.

 

[Jeronimomoulia]

Eucharist is the sacrament of the Body of Christ; the effect is becoming more a member of Christ; but eucharist, as any other sacrament, is a help, not a condiction for salvation.

By example, Cornelio was not even baptized when received the Holy Gost; Everyone undestand that if Cornelio dead before baptism he would go to heaven, like every heathen with Christ (obedience to God) in his heart.

So eucharist is a help to becoming more a member of Christ; it is a religious act, but it is not neccesary; baptism makes men members of Christ, and eucharist breeds them with more communion, but the main food for christians is not eucharist, it is the Word of God; which is Christ itself: studing Bible breeds christian more than eucharist, that is also a signal of the listening of the Word of God in Bible; in fact, Christianity is the religion of the Word (Christ).

 

[Jeronimomoulia]

Maybe Eucharist is just a suitable symbol of the Sacrifice of Christ, a religious act that joins togheter to christians in a single body, remembering that the Word of God is the main food for christians, even for all human, that the Body of Christ was born in Calvary due to the sacrifice of the Lamb.

If Eucharist was a sacrament, it would´nt produce holiness, because christian catholics are not more holy that protestant christians: it would cause maybe theologial abstraction to become able for achieving all the thruth, but we see catholics kneeling down before a criature, violating the second commandement of the holy law of God, in compliance with the bible: "boasting about being wise, they become fools"

 

[Tangible]

The Real Presence in the Eucharist is not about so much about sanctification, but more about justification. When by faith we receive the true body and blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins according to scripture, that is exactly what we receive - the forgiveness of sins. Forgiveness of sins does not occur outside of justification and salvation.

Justification is both a once-and-for-all AND a continually occurring gift of God.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

The problem with the Eucherist is that you will not find that word anywhere in the Bible....but worse still the Cup has been made into a Symbol of Idolatry.

Not true.

"&#954;&#945;&#8054; &#955;&#945;&#946;&#8060;&#957; &#964;&#8056; &#960;&#959;&#964;&#8053;&#961;&#953;&#959;&#957; &#954;&#945;&#8054; &#949;&#8016;&#967;&#945;&#961;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#8053;&#963;&#945;&#962; &#7956;&#948;&#969;&#954;&#949;&#957; &#945;&#8016;&#964;&#959;&#8150;&#962; &#955;&#8051;&#947;&#969;&#957;, &#928;&#8055;&#949;&#964;&#949; &#7952;&#958; &#945;&#8016;&#964;&#959;&#8166; &#960;&#8049;&#957;&#964;&#949;&#962;" - Matthew 26:27

The traditional terms used of the Sacrament have biblical support. Eucharist in this case. From Paul's writings we call it Communion (English translation of &#954;&#959;&#953;&#957;&#969;&#957;&#8055;&#945; used in 1 Corinthians 10:16) and also the Lord's Table (&#964;&#961;&#945;&#960;&#8051;&#950;&#951;&#962; &#954;&#965;&#961;&#8055;&#959;&#965; in 1 Corinthians 10:21).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What we do NOT say (dogmatically, anyway) is that the bread and wine have undergone an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind Aristotelian accidents.

I see your point. This definition seems to enshrine certain philosophical concepts regarding "essence" vs "accidents" and the connection between the two. It goes beyond merely explaining the Eucharist and makes a statement about reality in general.

I agree.





.

 

[JohntheTheologian]

Might we employ Aristotle's 'substance' and 'accidents' as a device of linguistic criticism? What I mean is, instead of focusing on the words and formulae used to describe transubstantiation, let's look at the positive content of its truth-claim.

The substance of the doctrine seems to be a claim which can be expressed as follows:

1. The consecrated elements are the body and blood of Christ.
2. The consecrated elements appear (to human sense-perception) to retain the outward characteristics of bread and wine.

I can't see transubstantiation as claiming any more than that. The terminology employed may be woefully outdated and resting upon philosophical assumptions foreign to modern thought, but the actual positive content of the doctrine is just an affirmation of the Real Presence.

 

[Zeek]

Might we employ Aristotle's 'substance' and 'accidents' as a device of linguistic criticism? What I mean is, instead of focusing on the words and formulae used to describe transubstantiation, let's look at the positive content of its truth-claim.

The substance of the doctrine seems to be a claim which can be expressed as follows:

1. The consecrated elements are the body and blood of Christ.
2. The consecrated elements appear (to human sense-perception) to retain the outward characteristics of bread and wine.

I can't see transubstantiation as claiming any more than that. The terminology employed may be woefully outdated and resting upon philosophical assumptions foreign to modern thought, but the actual positive content of the doctrine is just an affirmation of the Real Presence.

The problem as I see it with presenting transubstantiation is that it requires from the participants something that was not required at the inauguration of this institution, and in doing so obfuscates the simplicity of remembering that Jesus died for our sins, and we are bonded together through the unity of the Holy Ghost because we share in that sacrifice....and that His blood ratified a newer Covenant for us, Jew and Gentile.

Unfortunately communion as it now is, has been used as a means of isolating Believers from each other, and in many instances if you do not subscribe to a particular denomination, you are disqualified from taking it...ostensibly this is done for the sake of those that might take communion in an unworthy fashion, but in reality it again adds an element that was never there in the first place...the criteria being simply...if you love the L-rd and recognise the Body you participate, making sure you have no unconfessed sin...(although personally I don't really believe taking the bread and the wine should be divorced from the meal.)

 

[MrPolo]

1. The consecrated elements are the body and blood of Christ.
2. The consecrated elements appear (to human sense-perception) to retain the outward characteristics of bread and wine.

I can't see transubstantiation as claiming any more than that.

You've grasped the theology JohntheTheologian. That's what it means. There are even a number of Orthodox who have no problem with the term because of what you've identified.

 

[MrPolo]

in doing so obfuscates the simplicity of remembering that Jesus died for our sins

Recognizing that the bread is Christ's body which was given up for us takes away from remembering Christ's sacrifice when he gave his body on the Cross for us? Says who?

And may I point out that your rule of "they didn't believe it in exactly these terms the first time around" can be used to reject the Trinity, Incarnation, Biblical Canon, etc.... It's not a sound rule.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The problem as I see it with presenting transubstantiation is...

What I see in this new, unique RCC dogma is that it is entirely moot and biblically baseless.

As pure human speculation - it's probably okay (which is probably all the medieval inventors of it intended). But then why is it binding, divisive DOGMA?





.

 

[Zeek]

Recognizing that the bread is Christ's body which was given up for us takes away from remembering Christ's sacrifice when he gave his body on the Cross for us? Says who?

That is not the point I was making...I can safely say I recognise the bread as the body of Messiah into whose sacrifice we are united...but what you mean by those words and what I mean are different...I don't believe it undergoes some mystical transformation into the actual flesh of Jesus, which I believe Catholics are required to believe and confess.


So if I come and worship amongst Catholics, I can take communion if I so desire?

And may I point out that your rule of "they didn't believe it in exactly these terms the first time around" can be used to reject the Trinity, Incarnation, Biblical Canon, etc.... It's not a sound rule.

Not really. I wasn't making a 'rule' out of it, merely pointing out that clear biblical evidence should be more persuasive than some traditions that have got in the way of sound doctrine.

 

[alphonsus12]

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]...ostensibly this is done for the sake of those that might take communion in an unworthy fashion, but in reality it again adds an element that was never there in the first place[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

Greetings!

I realize this post already has been responded to, but I just had a few questions. I take issue with this part of what you said. Biblicaly speaking how can we say what the elements on early worship were? The most we get is that the believers came together and broke bread, which leads into what you said about
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]...if you love the L-rd and recognise the Body you participate, making sure you have no unconfessed sin...[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

This was true however during the writing of the New Testament the Apostles were still alive, and if you followed their teaching you were numbered among the believers. However after they died you began to see divisions occurring within the Church, and some of these divisions (ie gnosticism, arianism, etc.) clearly perverted the nature of the Faith, and were indeed sinful. Other schisms occurred later (RC/E. Orthodox, RC/Protestant, Protestant/Protestant) to the point where the understanding of the body of the Lord and the understanding of confessing your sins means different things to different elements, then yes I would say it would be good to protect individuals from eating and drinking judgment upon themselves. Most of the churches that have such rules about receiving Communion do so because within their faith tradition, because it is the Body and Blood of Christ, and Paul was quite serious about improperly receiving. Assume for a second you had discerned incorrectly in discerning, and you actually were receiving the physical Body and Blood, even though you had not properly discerned it? 1 Cor 11:29 is something those of us who believe in the Real Presence take quite seriously. It is not to exclude others, although that is the sad side effect of division within the Church, however the safety of the souls of our brethren who don't agree with us is more important than others feeling excluded. We don't wish to see further division within the Church, but this is a sad reminder of the divisions we have.

God Bless

[/FONT]

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


This new, unique RCC Eucharistic dogma (Transubstantiation) is the result of a LOT of medieval "Scholastic" speculation on the possible meaning of the word "CHANGE" in the Eucharistic texts - LOTS of speculation on what that word "CHANGE" means - and then the application of two (long forgotten) pagan philosophies (transubstantiation and accidents) to "explain" what is meant by the word "CHANGE" in the Eucharistic texts.

Oddly, in all that speculation, no one noticed. The word never once appears in any Eucharistic text.







.