The Eucharist: Symbolic, Real Presence, Transubstantiation

[Erose]

I FULLY agree with the Scriptures and with all you said....until the last sentence.

You fully agree with your church's or your personal interpretation of Scripture in these passages. I fully agree with the Catholic view of these Scripture passages because quite honestly they make much more sense than the confusing assertions that you are making since you seem to have a problem explaining what you believe. Rather you just tell me what it is not but not what it is.

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.

As I have already told and explained transubstantiation is NOT an alchemical term so get over your attempts to "shock" with lies and misinformation. They do not work here. All they are showing is how bigoted you are and the last I looked we are here to learn from each other. Do you see me calling your beliefs something they are not? No you do not. I will respect your beliefs even though I don't believe in them, but don't insult and misrepresent mine.

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?

Only to emphasize what it truly is. That is what you are not seeing.

[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.

Yes he uses the terms bread and chalice but only to emphasize to those in Corinth whose belief was waning what this bread and wine that they drink truly is. It is the body and blood of Christ. Eating it unworthily brings judgement on themselfs for not discerning the body and blood of Christ.

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 does the verb "is" tell us? It is leading us to something about the subject. Again as I said before when I tell you that Jackie is a woman. I am identifying her as a woman. If she isn't a woman then either I am lying to you or I am mistaken. What Jesus told us is simple. He took bread and said this IS my Body. Before the IS it was only bread. After the IS it is something else His Body. Pure and simple. No reading into Scripture just taken it at face value. I am not saying you are not, but stop accusing me of doing something that I am not.

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."

Nor did he say that the body and bread are coexisting either did he?

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.

IMO I am to. Honestly the reason why it is so difficult for Catholics is what you are saying doesn't make any sense. I am just being honest here. I truly cannot make sense out of what you are claiming.

Then quote them...

I have quoted them you just don't accept them. When Jesus told the sick you are healed. Where they not healed after He told them they were? When Jesus tells me that this bread He just picked up is His body I believe Him. It is His body. I know that before He picked it up it wasn't His body and now it is. That denotes change.

Nice (and obvious) contradiction.

And a nice endorsement of Zwinglian and Calvin hermeneutics of the Eucharistic texts.

Haven't studied them so I can't comment.

Yes. It's speculation of western, medieval, Catholic "Scholasticism." Inventing a unique Catholic DOGMA.

No invention just establishing an understanding of what we already knew. Just like when the Fathers of Nicea formulated the understanding of what they already knew when it came to the Trinity. I haven't seen you reject the teachings on the Trinity even though philosophical terminology was used in that formulation.

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."

Philosophy is philosophy. You want to reject all philosophy well that if fine for you. But philosophy has been used for a very long time in the Christian church to better understand the revelations given to us by Christ and His Apostles. Philosophy was used to help us understand a little better the Trinity, the Incarnation and nearly every other belief the Christian church holds to. Reason is a attribute given to us by God, but if you don't want to use yours well that is up to you.

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.

Obviously you are not good at leaving well enough alone are you or you wouldn't be baiting people. As I said before the term transubstantiation is a Catholic theological term that as far as I can determine is not used any where else. Aristotle didn't use it. Alchemist didn't use it either. But hey if you want your messiah to be Luther have at it. My messiah is Jesus not Luther and my messiag is better than your messiah.

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.

transmution is defined as change. Check your definitions. I used it on purpose to outline that you don't know as much as you think you do.

And yes the people sensed wine because Jesus turned the water into wine. Couldn't he just as easily gave the water the properties of wine? Isn't He God?

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.

No I don't think that it is. According to your understanding as I understand them is that consubstantion states that in the Eucharist the bread and the body of Christ co-exist likewise with the wine and blood. So according to your beliefs the bread and the body of Christ are occupying the same space with the bread being the dominate substance since that is the only substance you experience physically.

Also as I have pointed out the term "accident" is an accepted philosophical and scientific term and is used as such in the definition of transubstantion. I would even say that how the term is being used is closer to the scientific understanding than the Aristotle understanding.

None of those involve ANYTHING remotely like Transubstaniation or Aristotle's Accidents.....

We will have to agree to disagree.

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)?

I have been stating is is is. No where in Scripture have I found the statement that taking up the bread He broke the bread and said this is my Body and bread do this in memory of me. This is my blood and wine do this in memory of me. So it seems to me that I am taking Jesus and Paul more literally than you think you are.

God bless.

 

[Erose]

Lutherans embrace mystery. We do NOT regard ourselves as equal to or above God. Questions are good! Speculations are permitted. But just because a speculation makes sense doesn't mean God teaches it or that it's Dogma.

We can agree upon this, but we disagree on what speculation is and isn't.

What I would invite you to do is this: READ the Eucharistic texts. Just READ them. Pay close attention to the words God chose. Consider their typical, usual meaning. THAT is the Lutheran position. It's not rocket science.... Now, does it answer every question that every human might ponder? No. Lutherans don't regard this to be God's problem (or even ours).

I have my friend over and over. I have studied these passages in very much detail from comparing them to the sacrifices of the OT, the passover, bread of the presence, the manna from heaven, how they relate to Christ's death, etc. I simply do not read what you read into them. Even before I became Catholic I did not read into them what you read into them. There is a difference between what you read into them and what I read into them. I believe that Jesus takes the bread and makes it into His body and same with the blood. You believe that the bread and body co-exist or whatever philosophical term you guys use. I just don't buy that. I don't see that in Scripture.

As for our speculations, consider what I posted about the two natures of Christ, and how you regard it heresy to say that the human nature was transubstantiated into the divine nature (so as to deny the reality of his humanity) and that it's also heresy to deny his divine nature and insist that such was transubstantied into His human nature. Scripture is RIGHT when it says Jesus IS God. And Scripture is RIGHT when it says Jesus sIS Man. I'm not "connecting" any dots between the two concepts - only that the approach you give in one might help you with the other.

But you also must consider that the early fathers of the Church used philosophy to help explain the incarnation. When we say that Jesus is one Person in two natures, divine and human, it is a philosophical sentence outlining a theological fact. You cannot through away all philosophy out of Christianity.

But you ARE beginning to understand a point: Lutherans still embrace the concept of mystery. In the words of my Greek Orthodox friend I had in college, "My biggest complaint about the Roman Catholic Church is that it has never learned how to shut up." I wouldn't word it like that, but I DO get it. God is greater than we are. He is not subject to our "box." I have two Catechisms on my desk at home. My Catholic one and my Lutheran one. One has 800 pages in it, the other 12. It's NOT "apples and oranges" - I freely admit, but it does tell you something, lol.

You don't think that we don't understand the concept of Mystery? The doctrine of transubstantation defines what is happening not how. It is in the how that you find mystery. Same with the Incarnation. One person in two natures. The what is defined not the how. The Trinity One God three Persons. The what is defined not the how. Why? We cannot know the how of God for we live in a physical world possessing physical senses.

You are right God is not subject to our box, but He gave us reason for a reason. Theologians use reason to understand the divine revelations better for the more we understand these revelations the more we understand and appreciate God. As Scripture says the Holy Spirit has come to lead us into all truth. Wisdom, knowledge and understanding are three of the gifts outlined by Paul. To not use the gifts He gives us is an affront to Him who gave them to us. Should we take our capacity to be wise, knowledgable, and understanding and bury them? I think not.

In fact if we go off of what you are claiming then one advantage would have been no Protestant revolt. So it wouldn't be all bad.

 

[Mark_Sam]

I won't lie here I am genuine confused here. Am I understanding this correctly that the body and blood of Jesus is present in the bread and wine, but the bread and wine remain? If so how is it present?

To answer your first question; yes. At no point do the bread and wine stop being bread and wine. And the body and blood of Jesus are truly present. So while we are eating bread and drinking wine, we are also eating His body and drinking His blood.

You say that you are confused, which is understandable! We Lutherans do not seek to explain when and how this happens, and what happens.

In one way, one can say that Lutherans are very naïve. In 1 Corinthians 11:24, St. Paul says that the host is Jesus' body. And in 1 Corinthians 11:28, he says that the host is bread. So we just have to believe both.

Dr. Martin Luther says it well:
We do not make Christ's body out of the bread ... Nor do we say that his body comes into existence out of the bread [i.e. impanation]. We say that his body, which long ago was made and came into existence, is present when we say, "This is my body." For Christ commands us to say not, "Let this become my body," or, "Make my body there," but, "This is my body."

Yes, philosophy is a good thing, and can explain a lot, like the Trinity. But in the end of the day, the Trinity is still a mystery we cannot fully understand. The same goes with the Eucharist.

In the Divine Service, the priest elevates the bread and proclaims that it is the body of our Lord, given for us, and no confession is greater than that.

... And that's my two cents.

 

[Erose]

To answer your first question; yes. At no point do the bread and wine stop being bread and wine. And the body and blood of Jesus are truly present. So while we are eating bread and drinking wine, we are also eating His body and drinking His blood.

You say that you are confused, which is understandable! We Lutherans do not seek to explain when and how this happens, and what happens.

In one way, one can say that Lutherans are very naïve. In 1 Corinthians 11:24, St. Paul says that the host is Jesus' body. And in 1 Corinthians 11:28, he says that the host is bread. So we just have to believe both.

Dr. Martin Luther says it well:
We do not make Christ's body out of the bread ... Nor do we say that his body comes into existence out of the bread [i.e. impanation]. We say that his body, which long ago was made and came into existence, is present when we say, "This is my body." For Christ commands us to say not, "Let this become my body," or, "Make my body there," but, "This is my body."

Yes, philosophy is a good thing, and can explain a lot, like the Trinity. But in the end of the day, the Trinity is still a mystery we cannot fully understand. The same goes with the Eucharist.

In the Divine Service, the priest elevates the bread and proclaims that it is the body of our Lord, given for us, and no confession is greater than that.

... And that's my two cents.

Thanks for your 2 cents. I believe that I understand where you are coming from and why. I cannot say that I agree with your church's teaching, but thank you for your insite.

Look we Catholics also believe that the Eucharist, Trinity, Incarnation, etc. are mysteries that cannot be fully explained. In the Eucharist the belief of transubstantiation is not a "how" this happens but is a "what" happens. And just how the 1st century Jews challenged Jesus in chapter 6 of John, how can we eat your flesh? Jesus answers simply, when you see the Son of Man going back to where He came from then you will understand. God is God and all things are possible to God and in this we can agree.

God bless.

 

[MrPolo]

Nor did he say that the body and bread are coexisting either did he?

If I may dovetail on your astute observation...

Ironically, Martin Luther insisted that his notion of Christ "in and under" the bread took the Scripture at face value. He based much of this conjecture on Christ having walked through the door in John 20:19,26:

[An uncircumscribed presence] was the mode in which the body of Christ was present when he came out of the closed grave, and came to the disciples through a closed door, as the gospels show. There was no measuring or defining of the space his head or foot occupied when he passed through the stone, yet he certainly had to pass through it. He took up no space, and the stone yielded him no space, but the stone remained stone, as entire and firm as before, and his body remained as large and thick as it was before. But he also was able, when he wished, to let himself be seen circumscribed in given places where he occupied space and his size could be measured. Just so, Christ can be and is in the bread... (Luther, Confession Concerning Christ's Supper, 1528)​

He made similar comments in his document The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. What is really odd is that the text of John 20:19,26 doesn't say anything about Christ passing through the door. It says the door was shut yet Jesus came and stood among them. So it doesn't say Jesus passed through the door. And even if it should be assumed that he did, it does not tell us if the thickness of the door remained or any other of these scientific details that Luther claims is simply taking the text at face value!

More at the article: Substances: Comparing the Catholic and Lutheran Eucharist.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

I FULLY agree with the Scriptures and with all you said....until the last sentence.

I fully agree with the Catholic view of these Scripture passages because quite honestly they make much more sense than the confusing assertions that you are making since you seem to have a problem explaining what you believe.

Again, I agree with what the verses state. I just don't agree with the entirely unfounded additions and deletions of your denomination.

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?

Only to emphasize what it truly is. That is what you are not seeing.

[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the wine, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink this wine 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 wine. [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.

Yes he uses the terms bread and chalice

I think you're missing what you yourself quoted.

Paul states "bread" and "wine" far MORE often after the Consecration than before. You have built your entirely apology on the words meaning what they are - except, of course, that's the opposite of the new RCC Eucharistic dogma.

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 does the verb "is" tell us? .

That a reality is here. Except that your entire new dogma is based on denying the very words of the Eucharistic texts. You want to stress taking the texts at face value, literally - only the dogma is the opposite.

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."


.

Nor did he say that the body and bread are coexisting either did he?

He didn't dogmatically deny ANYTHING that Jesus stated or Paul penned. Our position is not about denying.

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.

Honestly the reason why it is so difficult for Catholics is what you are saying doesn't make any sense. I am just being honest here. I truly cannot make sense out of what you are claiming.

It's VERY simple. We claim that what Jesus said and Paul penned is true. NOTHING added (such as Transubstantiation or Accidents), NOTHING removed (such as all the references to bread and wine AFTER the Consecration). "Is" = is. That's it, that's all EVERY time in the texts. "Bread" = bread. That's it, that's all, EVERY time in the texts. "Wine" = wine. That's it, that's all, EVERY time in the texts. "Body" = body. That's it, that's all, EVERY time in the texts. "Blood" = blood. That's it, that's alll EVERY time in the texts. No alchemy. No pagan philosophies. Nothing added. Nothing removed. No medieval speculations. No imposed prescience misconceptions. Pretty simple, huh?

For me I also accept what Jesus and Paul said. They 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...

I have quoted them you just don't accept them

Um, no. Not at all.


You quoted NOTHING... absolutely nothing whatsoever... that says anything became anything. You've not quoted anyone who mentioned "become" or "change" or "convert" or "transubstantiated" or "Aristotelian accidents." All you've done is quote the Lutheran position.

That denotes change.

Jesus said no such thing. Paul penned no such thing. If either had, you would have quoted them. Look, IF Jesus never mentioned the bread and wine AFTER the consecration, IF Paul did not mention the bread and wine over and over AFTER the consecration, your speculation MIGHT at least be possible - but such is not the case, as you admit. What you've done is joined the Zwinglian and Calvinist Protestants in insisting on the same "half is/half isn't" "half literal/half not" totally arbitrary, totally unfounded interpretation. And it accomplishes NOTHING - except to agree with those Protestants that Jesus and Paul don't mean what they say in the Eucharistic texts.

Yes. It's speculation of western, medieval, Catholic "Scholasticism." Inventing a unique Catholic DOGMA.


.

No invention just establishing an understanding of what we already knew.

... then when did the OOC and EOC change their position? Neither of them teaches the RCC Eucharistic dogma. And haven't for as long as either has records.

I agree. Denial of what the texts say may be a faith problem. This idea that 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."

Philosophy is philosophy.

Yup. If you are calling this unique, western, medieval bit of speculation of Catholic Scholasticism "philosophy" - well, that's up to you. It's textually unfounded. It has only one theological implication - to align the modern RCC with Zwingli and Calvin by insisting Jesus and Paul did not mean what they said/penned in the Eucharistic texts.

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.


.

< staff edit > < staff edit >

.

< staff edit >

Bad example. The word in that text is "change." That word is NEVER found in ANY Eucharistic text. And the people sensed WINE - not water.


.

transmution is defined as change.


.

....and it's not found in ANY Eucharistic text.

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.


.

So according to your beliefs the bread and the body of Christ are occupying the same space with the bread being the dominate substance since that is the only substance you experience physically.

I never said any such thing. And you know it.







.

 

[Erose]

Again, I agree with what the verses state. I just don't agree with the entirely unfounded additions and deletions of your denomination.

I think you're missing what you yourself quoted.

I think that I am not so here we are at an impasse.

Paul states "bread" and "wine" far MORE often after the Consecration than before. You have built your entirely apology on the words meaning what they are - except, of course, that's the opposite of the new RCC Eucharistic dogma.

Nearly everytime after the consecration that Paul refers to the bread or wine it is to affirm that it is the body or blood.

[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.

Vs 26 is the only exception in this passage but vs 27 partake unworthily the bread and chalice you are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Vs 28 & 29 emphasizes what is said in 27. I'm not saying you can't refer to the body of the Lord after consecration as the Bread which we as Catholic do very often and is also done in the book of Acts, but we do this knowing that the Bread we speak of is the Bread from Heaven, the new Manna, the New Bread of the Presence, the Sacred Meal, etc. All of these are used in our theology as in reference to John 6.

That a reality is here. Except that your entire new dogma is based on denying the very words of the Eucharistic texts. You want to stress taking the texts at face value, literally - only the dogma is the opposite.

No it does not deny the words of the Eucharisitic text. You have tried to prove that point but nobody is taking that proof as legitimate. Our doctine is what happens in Scripture defined. It is that simple. Nothing new nothing different.

He didn't dogmatically deny ANYTHING that Jesus stated or Paul penned. Our position is not about denying.

Neither is ours.

It's VERY simple. We claim that what Jesus said and Paul penned is true. NOTHING added (such as Transubstantiation or Accidents), NOTHING removed (such as all the references to bread and wine AFTER the Consecration). "Is" = is. That's it, that's all EVERY time in the texts. "Bread" = bread. That's it, that's all, EVERY time in the texts. "Wine" = wine. That's it, that's all, EVERY time in the texts. "Body" = body. That's it, that's all, EVERY time in the texts. "Blood" = blood. That's it, that's alll EVERY time in the texts. No alchemy. No pagan philosophies. Nothing added. Nothing removed. No medieval speculations. No imposed prescience misconceptions. Pretty simple, huh?

Like I said before your weak attempt to attach our faith to alchemy is fruitless. Until you show me where in alchemy the term transubstantiation is used, you are being insulting only.

You quoted NOTHING... absolutely nothing whatsoever... that says anything became anything. You've not quoted anyone who mentioned "become" or "change" or "convert" or "transubstantiated" or "Aristotelian accidents." All you've done is quote the Lutheran position.

Yes I did, you just don't accept the interpretation of Scripture but rather try to read into it something else entirely.

... then when did the OOC and EOC change their position? Neither of them teaches the RCC Eucharistic dogma. And haven't for as long as either has records.

You have already asked them in this thread and what did they tell you. In their liturgy they worship the Eucharist after its consecration just like we do for in both traditions we believe that the Eucharist is Jesus. In their liturgy and ours we say something very similar to each other, but what we do in the Catholic church is that the priest lifts high the Eucharist and says "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the World". The liturgy of St. James uses these words: "Behold the Lamb of God, the Son of the Father, that takes away the sin of the world, sacrificed for the life and salvation of the world."

Yup. If you are calling this unique, western, medieval bit of speculation of Catholic Scholasticism "philosophy" - well, that's up to you. It's textually unfounded. It has only one theological implication - to align the modern RCC with Zwingli and Calvin by insisting Jesus and Paul did not mean what they said/penned in the Eucharistic texts.

I doubt very seriously that the Catholic theologians had in mind aligning to people that didn't even exist yet when this teaching was initially defined. Unless you believe that the Catholic church theologians have the gift of seeing the future.

What that flame has to do with anything in this discussion, I don't know.

< staff edit > < staff edit > < staff edit >

I never said any such thing. And you know it.

So you are saying that I am reading out of your assertions more than you are saying? Very interesting that you think that since you are so good at doing it yourself.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

I think you're missing what you yourself quoted.

I think that I am not so here we are at an impasse.

Perhaps. Do or do you not notice the words "bread" and "wine" AFTER the Consecration? If you don't, then yes - we are at an impasse.... If you do, then the "ball" is in your court to explain why you have so totally abandoned your whole point about taking the Eucharistic texts literally, "at full value?" Why the RCC joined the Zwinglian and Calvinist Protestants in basing the entire dogma on the point that Jesus and Paul did not mean what they said - and what textually, contextually suggests that you join Zwingli and Calvin in this arbitrary "split" interpretation.

Paul states "bread" and "wine" far MORE often after the Consecration than before. You have built your entirely apology on the words meaning what they are - except, of course, that's the opposite of the new RCC Eucharistic dogma.

.

[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the wine, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the wine 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 wine. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

Yup. Why do you insist that "body" = body and "blood" = blood because we are to take all this literally, fully, "at face value" but then make a 180, a complete reversal, contradicting the entire apologetic to say, "The real point here is that Paul does NOT mean what he penned by inspiration, "bread" does mean bread but it doesn't mean that, "wine" means wine but it doesn't mean that."

And why is denying what Jesus said and Paul penned SO very,very important to the modern RCC as to become the new Catholic Eucharistic Dogma? Why is it SO important - of the highest, greatest importance possible, dogma - to deny what the Eucharistic texts state, what Jesus said and Paul by inspiration penned? Why endorse the Zwinglian and Calvinist point that the Eucharistic texts are not to be taken literally?

That a reality is here. Except that your entire new dogma is based on denying the very words of the Eucharistic texts. You want to stress taking the texts at face value, literally - only the dogma is the opposite.



He didn't dogmatically deny ANYTHING that Jesus stated or Paul penned. Our position is not about denying.



It's VERY simple. We claim that what Jesus said and Paul penned is true. NOTHING added (such as Transubstantiation or Accidents), NOTHING removed (such as all the references to bread and wine AFTER the Consecration). "Is" = is. That's it, that's all EVERY time in the texts. "Bread" = bread. That's it, that's all, EVERY time in the texts. "Wine" = wine. That's it, that's all, EVERY time in the texts. "Body" = body. That's it, that's all, EVERY time in the texts. "Blood" = blood. That's it, that's alll EVERY time in the texts. No alchemy. No pagan philosophies. Nothing added. Nothing removed. No medieval speculations. No imposed prescience misconceptions. Pretty simple, huh?



You quoted NOTHING... absolutely nothing whatsoever... that says anything became anything. You've not quoted anyone who mentioned "become" or "change" or "convert" or "transubstantiated" or "Aristotelian accidents." All you've done is quote the Lutheran position.




... then when did the OOC and EOC change their position? Neither of them teaches the RCC Eucharistic dogma. And haven't for as long as either has records.


.

In their liturgy and ours we say something very similar to each other

Yes, as is ours. But NO denomintion on the planet shares the RCC's dogma of Transubstantiation.


YOUR point was that it has "always" been taught. Then you need to explain where and when the EOC and OOC officially abandoned it. I think it FAR more likely that every one of my Catholic teachers are correct: the is a western, Catholic, medieval concept developed by Catholic Scholasticism.

Yup. If you are calling this unique, western, medieval bit of speculation of Catholic Scholasticism "philosophy" - well, that's up to you. It's textually unfounded. It has only one theological implication - to align the modern RCC with Zwingli and Calvin by insisting Jesus and Paul did not mean what they said/penned in the Eucharistic texts.


.

< staff edit > < staff edit >

.

 

[Tangible]

.

 

[Erose]

Perhaps. Do or do you not notice the words "bread" and "wine" AFTER the Consecration? If you don't, then yes - we are at an impasse.... If you do, then the "ball" is in your court to explain why you have so totally abandoned your whole point about taking the Eucharistic texts literally, "at full value?" Why the RCC joined the Zwinglian and Calvinist Protestants in basing the entire dogma on the point that Jesus and Paul did not mean what they said - and what textually, contextually suggests that you join Zwingli and Calvin in this arbitrary "split" interpretation.

Yes I did notice them and I explained that in my last post. Do you read what you quote first?

Yup. Why do you insist that "body" = body and "blood" = blood because we are to take all this literally, fully, "at face value" but then make a 180, a complete reversal, contradicting the entire apologetic to say, "The real point here is that Paul does NOT mean what he penned by inspiration, "bread" does mean bread but it doesn't mean that, "wine" means wine but it doesn't mean that."

I insist because that is what it is. After the consecration of the Eucharist the body and blood of Jesus Christ is present in the form of bread and wine. It is simple as that. Nothing added or subtracted. The doctrine of transubstantiation states this simply. Before consecration we have only bread and wine nothing out of the ordinary. After consecration we have the body and blood of Christ. Something out of the ordinary and is supernatural. That is what I and my church believes.

And why is denying what Jesus said and Paul penned SO very,very important to the modern RCC as to become the new Catholic Eucharistic Dogma? Why is it SO important - of the highest, greatest importance possible, dogma - to deny what the Eucharistic texts state, what Jesus said and Paul by inspiration penned?

I haven't denied what they have said. I have denied what you are trying to claim they said. No where in those passages does it say that the substance of bread and body of Christ co-exist. No where. It simply states that the bread once consecrated is the body of Christ.

Why endorse the Zwinglian and Calvinist point that the Eucharistic texts are not to be taken literally? [/quote] The church cannot endorse the teachings of people that hadn't existed yet. Like I told you in the previous post, our theologians do not have the ability to read the future.

Yes, as is ours. But NO denomintion on the planet shares the RCC's dogma of Transubstantiation.

I disagree. As I have said before there have been more than one Orthodox on this thread state that their belief is much closer to ours than yours. As far as I know only some Lutherans not all believe what you believe. You are not in the majority my friend.

YOUR point was that it has "always" been taught. Then you need to explain where and when the EOC and OOC officially abandoned it. I think it FAR more likely that every one of my Catholic teachers are correct: the is a western, Catholic, medieval concept developed by Catholic Scholasticism.

Yes it has always been taught and I do not believe that either the EOC or OOC have abandoned it. They have not officially defined it as we had to in the 12th century due to heresy and reaffirm it in the 16th century to combat the fallacies of the Protestants.

<Staff Edit> I have to say that you guys are much more closer to the truth than many of your modern Protestant brothers and I think God that at least you accept that Jesus is present in the Eucharist, which is alot more than other Protestant faiths do. But I am not willing to read into these passages you theology. I take Jesus and Paul for their word. Before consecration bread and wine. After consecration the Divine Body and Blood of Christ, which I receive every Sunday.

<Staff Edit>

 

[Standing Up]

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)

Could you provide the actual link to the actual writing from Athanasius please?

PS. Would you agree the Levites referred to are the NT priests?

 

[Hisbygrace]

MOD HAT ON
Thread has undergone a slight cleanup. If you find your post(s) have been edited or removed it is because they were part of the cleanup. I would also like to remind everyone of the following rule, which can be viewed here: Sitewide Rules

Flaming and Harassment
&#9679; Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.
&#9679; If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button. Do not report another member out of spite.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Rick Otto]

The only mystery I see in the eucharist is how anyone could ever take it to have been meant literaly instead of figuratively.

 

[Tangible]

Rom 16:25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages 26 but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith&#8212; 27 to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.

 

[patricius79]

The only mystery I see in the eucharist is how anyone could ever take it to have been meant literaly instead of figuratively.

indeed the whole early Church did

I believe that "this is my body" is literal because the Passover is the context of Jn 6 (Jn 6:4) and because of Jesus's emphatic repetition
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." 52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?" 53 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. 54 Whoever gnaws 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever graws my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The only mystery I see in the eucharist is how anyone could ever take it to have been meant literaly instead of figuratively.

Rick, please don't think I'm picking on you, but if this is to be taken figuratively, then should not everything Christ said be taken that way? ...And if that's the case, then how are we to believe that He said anything litterally, ever?

 

[Rick Otto]

indeed the whole early Church did
I believe that "this is my body" is literal because the Passover is the context of Jn 6 (Jn 6:4) and because of Jesus's emphatic repetition

Why wouldn't He simply use articulate iteration instead of emphatic repitition? Emphatic repitition is not explanation. And no one can speak for "the whole" early church on anything except rhetoricaly. Most believers had enough on their plate with the incarnation & the crucifixtion. And then like now, not all were on the same page in lock step on all doctrines. To presume so seems entirely unrealistic to me.

 

[Rick Otto]

Rick, please don't think I'm picking on you, but if this is to be taken figuratively, then should not everything Christ said be taken that way? ...And if that's the case, then how are we to believe that He said anything litterally, ever?

There is no reason to force all of anyone's words into either category regardless of context.
All you have to do to sort it out is familiarize yourself with both figurative & literal speech. For example, the definition of metaphor instantly identifies the eucharistic expressions as that figure of speech - metaphor.
It doesn't even make any sense to take it literaly unless you make yourself believe a miracle happens, & even then the miracle itself is miraculously made undetectable!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

There is no reason to force all of anyone's words into either category regardless of context.
All you have to do to sort it out is familiarize yourself with both figurative & literal speech. For example, the definition of metaphor instantly identifies the eucharistic expressions as that figure of speech - metaphor.
It doesn't even make any sense to take it literaly unless you make yourself believe a miracle happens, & even then the miracle itself is miraculously made undetectable!

Re; the highlighted part!

Indeed it is, so... it comes down to faith!

Sola Fide!

 

[Rick Otto]

Re; the highlighted part!

Indeed it is, so... it comes down to faith!

Sola Fide!

blinded faith