The Eucharist: Symbolic, Real Presence, Transubstantiation

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

The notion that the true Church will be persecuted fits perfectly with the Apostles' teaching in case you didn't notice.

Then you are arguing that Judaism or Mormonism is the True Church? I can think of none who have persecuted less but been persecuted more....


No, the Apostles' Creed mentions NOTHING about persecution and that since the LDS has been horribly persecuted, ergo it is correct and ergo the western, medieval, RCC "Scholastics" theories about the meaning of the word "change" in the Eucharistic texts via two long forgotten pagan concepts is therefore dogmatic fact.

But since you want to talk Eucharist.

It IS the topic what the rules of CF insist we are to discuss. But again, because Judaism has persecuted little but been persecuted MUCH does not indicate to ME that ergo the new, unique, RCC Eucharistic dogma that some western, medieval Catholic "Scholastics" invented is ergo a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of truth. I think we just don't agree on that.

I wonder what you think was given for mankind on the cross. Was it Christ or Christ + common bread?

It was salvation....

I wonder what you think my LUTHERAN pastor means when he places the Host on my tongue with the words, "Josiah - this IS the Body of Christ?"

I wonder what mandates that when Jesus and Paul speak of bread and wine AFTER the Consecration that ergo they must have MEANT (but just forgot to say), "the Aristotelian ACCIDENT of...." and when they said "is" they MEANT to say (just just goofed), "Has undergone an alchemic transubstantiation?" IMO, IF we actually read and consider what Jesus said and Paul penned (rather than substituting words Jesus never said and Paul never penned), this new, unique, medieval RCC Eucharistic Dogma becomes not only moot but entirely baseless - a far cry from a matter of highest certainty. You are required to disagree with me (and regard me as accountable) but to quietly submit to whatever you are told by the RCC and regard it as unaccountable because it's the RCC - I know, so there's no possbility of unity or resolution, but I find the new, unique, Dogma of the RCC not only ENTIRELY baseless and completely moot to anything, but also textually very problematic (again, unless we delete the word 'is' and replace it with the word 'change', then also delete the many times 'bread' and 'wine' are specificly mentioned AFTER the Consecration) and undermines Real Presence since the whole theory is founded on the idea that Jesus and Paul did NOT mean what they said and penned - why in reference to bread and wine but not body and blood? So, it's not only entirely moot to anything, but textually very problematic and serves to place Real Presence into question.









.

 

[MrPolo]

It was salvation....

No, salvation was the result. Not what was given up. "This is my body, which is given for you." Not "This is salvation which is given for you." Nor "This is my body and also bread which is given for you."

I wonder what you think my LUTHERAN pastor means when he places the Host on my tongue with the words, "Josiah - this IS the Body of Christ?"

Does your Lutheran pastor subscribe to Article 7 the Formula of Concord?

In addition to the words of Christ and of St. Paul (the bread in the Lord's Supper 'is true body of Christ' or 'a participation in the body of Christ'), we at times also use the formulas 'under the bread, with the bread, in the bread.' We do this to reject papistic transubstantiation and to indicate the sacramental union between the untransformed substance of the bread and the body of Christ.....so in the Holy Supper the two essences, the natural bread and the true, natural body of Christ, are present together... (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article VII)​

If so, your pastor is saying that here is Jesus' body and also common bread.

And by the way, "Transubstantiation" is no more new then the Trinity was new in the 4th century just because the term homoousios came into use at that time by the Christian Church. This despite the "ousios" language on substance going back to Aristotilean and Platonic thought. The Biblical and early Church, as well as the Church of the Middle Ages, did not adopt CaliforniaJosiah's personal and unique rule, that Greek linguistics are forbidden for use in clarifying theological truths. Let me repeat that. The Biblical and early Church, as well as the Church of the Middle Ages, did not adopt CaliforniaJosiah's personal and unique rule, that Greek linguistics are forbidden for use in clarifying theological truths.

Frankly, neither did Paul, who praised the philosophy of the Greek poets in his own letters. You are expert on Greek philosophical language are you not? You are therefore of course aware that "transsubstantiatio" is the Latin form of the Greek term "metousiosis" which has the same suffix as homousios--the very term used to destroy the Arian heresy.

And yet I find your crusade against the formulation of the Trinity in the 4th century totally absent. When in fact you could use your exact same language argument against Transubstantiation against the Christians who formulated the Trinity. Let me repeat that. Josiah could use his exact same language argument against Transubstantiation against the Christians who formulated the Trinity.

And why don't you do this? Perhaps because in the Lutheran Book of Concord cites early councils in referring to Christ's persons as "substinces" and the Trinity as follows:

"that the same is truly God and truly man, consisting of a rational soul and a body; that He is consubstantial with the Father as regards the deity, and that the same is consubstantial with us according to the humanity" (Book of Concord, Appendix: Testimonies)​

In other words, Josiah has 2 options:

1. Admit that the Lutheran Church teaches new and unique dogmas coming out of 4th century Greek philosophy and therefore abandon the Lutheran Church. Or...
2. Admit that there are no philosophical concepts, especially of Greek origin, that are de facto forbidden for use in clarifications in the Christian Church. Therefore the Catholic use of Transubstantiation cannot be rejected, as I Josiah have faultily attempted to argue for years, on the basis of the term's Greek origin.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

No, salvation was the result. Not what was given up. "This is my body, which is given for you." Not "This is salvation which is given for you." Nor "This is my body and also bread which is given for you."

Okay, now how does that substantiate that Jesus didn't mean "is" but rather "an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind Aristotelian accidents?"

your pastor is saying that here is Jesus' body and also common bread.

What is said is what I said is said: "Josiah - this IS the Body of our Lord, given for you."

But you're right, he does not then continue, "I don't deny what Jesus said and Paul penned; I don't deny the existence of the bread." If I gave you a new laptop computer and said, "Here - this is a new HP Pavilion dv7 computer" I would not thereby be denying that there's a nice cardboard box there too (especially if I specifically mentioned the cardboard box MORE OFTEN than i mentioned the computer), it's just that the cardboard box isn't the gift and isn't the point. But yes, you're right - if I handed it to you and said, "this is a new HP Pavilion dv7 computer, given for you" that would not, specially, DENY that I'm handing you the box, too. I'm not sure why that matters to you (isn't JESUS the point, not wheat and water?) but you seem to missing the point: Where did Jesus or Paul so much as even MENTION change? Where is the key word "change" that we need to decide what is meant by that specific word in the text, placed so importantly? Why do Jesus and Paul mean "Body" and "Blood" when they say those words AFTER the Consecration but don't mean "bread" and "wine" which they used MORE OFTEN after than before, what is the textual basis for this symbolic, unliteral interpretation of two words while insisting all the other words are literal? Why this deleting of the word "is" (which signifies existence) and then inserting the word instead "change" and then coming up with all this remarkable speculation using long forgotten pagan ideas about what might be meant by that word "change?"






.

 

[Zeek]

Finally, you might want to pick at your friends' brains to get to the real heart of the matter. Too often, there is some peripheral problem they have with the Church which results in their eagerness to believe various myths advanced by the ignorant. .

Thanks for your answer MP....I will leave it there for the moment as it is off subject....but I have been watching the Catholic channel again tonight, and just ordered the book 'Hail Holy Queen' by Scott Hahn as it seems he was saying much the same as I heard the night before, but this time I will read it first hand and look more thoroughly at what is being stated, and if I am some how being delusional, as I am certainly perplexed.

I will also ask a friend who is a Pastor and former Catholic to fill me in on a few salient points of why he left the RCC and what he thinks about Mariology, salvation by faith alone, and transubstantiation.

All the best. Zazal

 

[MrPolo]

an alchemic transubstantiation

I see you continue to use the term alchemy. This tells us that you do not know how the term "substance" is meant in Transubstantiation or Homoousios for that matter. As I have told you multiple times, alchemy involves empirical change (like turning lead into gold). Transubstantiation is at an unobservable ontological level perceptible only by faith. The bread becomes His body ontologically, not empirically or alchemically.

So because you continue to use the term "alchemic" renders you unfit for this discussion. There can be none if you don't even understand the subject from the start.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So because you continue to use the term "alchemic" renders you unfit for this discussion. There can be none if you don't even understand the subject from the start.

You may exit conversations and topics for any or no reason....

The word "transubstantiation" comes from alchemy, as I learned both in Chemistry and from my Catholic teachers. But that aside, it is an attempt by WESTERN, medieval, RCC "scholatics" to embrace pagan philosophical concepts (long forgotten) in reference to the word "change" in the Eucharistic texts - to give credence to the word "change." I suspect it was meant just to be a possible theory, but it took on some official standing in 1215 and then was made dogma a bit after Luther's death.


Yup. You may exit any discussion anytime you feel the need or sense it best or just want to. No problem.





.

 

[tsr]

There are some very excellent threads on this subject which one can go on and on. Now I was raised Catholic lived and breath doctrine. I was a altar boy and at one point in my life entertained thoughts of become a priest. Now.....to the point of the Eucharist, I firmly believe when you receive communion its in remembrance of what the Lord did at the Last Supper. The Lord is in your heart and soul at that moment. Do I believe Th's host is actually the Lord physically.....no I don't but again that is my opinion only

 

[Zeek]

There are some very excellent threads on this subject which one can go on and on. Now I was raised Catholic lived and breath doctrine. I was a altar boy and at one point in my life entertained thoughts of become a priest. Now.....to the point of the Eucharist, I firmly believe when you receive communion its in remembrance of what the Lord did at the Last Supper. The Lord is in your heart and soul at that moment. Do I believe Th's host is actually the Lord physically.....no I don't but again that is my opinion only

Hi tsr...thats an interesting comment. When you say it is your opinion, what is the reasoning behind your opinion? In other words for me to see the worth of your opinion, it would be helpful to see how you arrived at it and how valid your opinion is.

Yep, I can see that this sort of subject can go on and on...that's not a bad thing, sometimes somebody throws something up that really causes one to reflect...and sometimes even dig deeper than before.

 

[patricius79]

You may exit conversations and topics for any or no reason....

The word "transubstantiation" comes from alchemy, as I learned both in Chemistry and from my Catholic teachers. But that aside, it is an attempt by WESTERN, medieval, RCC "scholatics" to embrace pagan philosophical concepts (long forgotten) in reference to the word "change" in the Eucharistic texts - to give credence to the word "change.".

I don't know about some of that.

I do know that the early Church unanimously interpreted the Lord's Supper to be the one and only Sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Rom 12:1, 1 Cor 11:24,29, Heb 10:10), and that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

e.g. Augustine, Athanasius, Gregory Nyssen, Ambrose, Jerome, etc

 

[Ortho_Cat]

There are some very excellent threads on this subject which one can go on and on. Now I was raised Catholic lived and breath doctrine. I was a altar boy and at one point in my life entertained thoughts of become a priest. Now.....to the point of the Eucharist, I firmly believe when you receive communion its in remembrance of what the Lord did at the Last Supper. The Lord is in your heart and soul at that moment. Do I believe Th's host is actually the Lord physically.....no I don't but again that is my opinion only

on what basis did you come to this conclusion?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.



Transubstantiation: the new, unique Eucharistic Dogma of the RCC


As pure denominational speculation, I don't have much of an "issue" with it. (Heck, I'm not above theorizing on occasion myself).


Except that:

1) It is entirely moot.

2) It is entirely baseless textually, biblically.

3) It embraces the same "split half is/half isn't" non-literal approach that Zwingli could copy and many Protestants embrace today (odd how Catholics rebuke Zwinglian Protestants for doing what they did first)

4) It undermines Real Presence by insisting Jesus and Paul could not have meant what they said/wrote.

5) It subjects theology to pagan philosophies - which, as it turned out - weren't well founded and have been long ago abandoned. Nothin' the RCC can do about that, they made all that dogma (which cannot be changed or abandoned).

IMO, the RCC should have left WELL ENOUGH alone..... If it had, it would not find itself all alone with a unique DOGMA and with the 5 issues I raised above.





.

 

[datgnat]

I have a curious question that may have been answered between pages three and seven (I should utilize the search function more often.) Before asking it, know that I don't have anything against communion and I know that it can be very faith building. That being said, I would like to know which scriptures you believe support the idea of the Eucharist (other than Malachi [not talking about the Eucharist there]) as a mandated churchwide mode of worship.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I have a curious question that may have been answered between pages three and seven (I should utilize the search function more often.) Before asking it, know that I don't have anything against communion and I know that it can be very faith building. That being said, I would like to know which scriptures you believe support the idea of the Eucharist (other than Malachi [not talking about the Eucharist there]) as a mandated churchwide mode of worship.

Sorry; I'm not sure I understand your question....

Perhaps THIS helps. Yes - it seems from very early on (some HINTS even in the NT), the Eucharist was a part (it seems important) part of the Worship Service. I can ONLY theorize and speculate why (and such is not worthy of taking up space here), but I suspect it has at least something to do with Jesus' statement, "Do this often....." (of course, that need not mean every week or every worship service). But perhaps I'm entirely missing your point.



Thank you!


- Josiah





.

 

[datgnat]

Yeah. I don't believe it's a necessary part of worship either. In any case, I hold to the opinion that the Eucharist is only a spiritual representation of Christ's body as something of a faith metaphor. Actually consuming the flesh of Christ in a strange symbolic act of cannabilistic gastro-intestinal sublimation of holiness seems to be simply a creation of mankind. The bread in the situation of communion is simply a placeholder that gives our flesh and eyes something substatial to focus on to bring our carnal man into a parallel with our spirit man who takes in the love of Christ's sacrifice. That's the only way I can picture the Eucharist as edifying and not just plain strange.

 

[patricius79]

1 Cor 11:

23 11 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Offer this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12 28 A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself. 30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. 31 If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment; 32 but since we are judged by (the) Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1 Cor 11:

23 11 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Offer this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12 28 A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself. 30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying. 31 If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment; 32 but since we are judged by (the) Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

I agree. NOTHING to support the unique Catholic Eucharistic dogma.





.

 

[patricius79]

I agree. NOTHING to support the unique Catholic Eucharistic dogma

.

it's not unique the Catholic Church. the EO councils repeatedly and explicitly confirmed the doctrine of Transubstantiation, just like the Eastern fathers testify that that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ


ST. ATHANASIUS (c. 295 - 373 A.D.)
You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ....Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine -- and thus is His Body confected. (Sermon to the Newly Baptized, from Eutyches)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

it's not unique the Catholic Church.

It is ENTIRELY absent from the Scriptural reference you gave.
(frustrating how you ENTIRELY ignore what's posted and keep running off in new directions - IMPOSSIBLE to have a conversation this way!).

Go to any official Orthodox website. Ask if they teach, as dogma, what the Catholic Church does in what The Catholic Church calls "Transubstiation." Get it from them (instead of your denomination) - it will open your eyes on that point.

But I remain: You quoted a verse. It says NOTHING, NOTHING WHATSOEVER, to remotely support the Eucharistic Dogma of your denomination. Your ignoring of that point perhaps suggests even you agree.





.

 

[patricius79]

It is ENTIRELY absent from the Scriptural reference you gave.
.

it is no more absent from the literal text than the other interpretations of 1 Cor 11.

The Orthodox Confession of 1640:

"Christ is now in heaven only and not on earth after that manner of the flesh wherein He bore it and lived in it when He was on earth; but after the sacramental manner, whereby He is present in the Holy Eucharist, the same Son of God, God and Man, is also on earth by way of TRANSUBSTANTIATION [kata metousiosis]. For the SUBSTANCE of the bread is changed into the SUBSTANCE of His holy body, and the SUBSTANCE of the wine into the SUBSTANCE of His precious blood.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

it is no more absent from the literal text than the other interpretations of 1 Cor 11.

Try again, then. Show that 1 Cor. 11 teaches the unique RCC Eucharistic Dogma of Transubstantiation.

The Orthodox Confession of 1640:

Yup, I understand that 3 times in the history of the EO, it used the Greek word that the RCC translates to "transubstantiation." Now, that's entirely - completely - unrelated to what I posted. What I posted is to go to some official ORTHODOX site (you keep going to those of your denomination), and ASK if the EO teaches, as dogma, what the RCC does in its teaching of "Transubstantiation." Do it. It will open your eyes.






.