why I believe in the Eucharist

[Giver]

Well your memory is wrong, sorry. I didn't know you were so old!! hehe

Transubstantiation is just a word coined to describe the event.

The doctrine existed from the beginning.

Do you agree with Martin Luther?

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.​

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”​

–Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

As far as I am concerned the Church had gotten way off from the Word of God before the reformation and the theologians such as Luther and Calvin only pulled it further away from the truth. You can say I am wrong that the early church distinguished between a physical change of the bread and wine, or spiritual, but whoever decided such a thing did not get their letter put into the Bible. What was put into the Bible was: (John 6:53-63) ‘how can this man give us his flesh to eat? They said, Jesus replied: ‘I tell you most solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you. Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in him. As I, who am sent by the living father, myself draw life from the Father, so whoever eats me will draw life from me. This is the bread come down from heaven; not like the bread our ancestors ate; they are dead, but anyone who eats this bread will live for ever.’
He taught this doctrine at Capernaum, in the synagogue. After hearing it, many of his followers said, ‘this is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it? Jesus was aware that his followers were complaining about it and said, ‘Does this upset you? What if you should see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before? ‘It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh has nothing to offer. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”

 

[chestertonrules]

As far as I am concerned the Church had gotten way off from the Word of God before the reformation and the theologians such as Luther and Calvin only pulled it further away from the truth. You can say I am wrong that the early church distinguished between a physical change of the bread and wine, or spiritual, but whoever decided such a thing did get their letter put into the Bible. What was put into the Bible was: (John 6:53-63) ‘how can this man give us his flesh to eat? They said, Jesus replied: ‘I tell you most solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you. Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in him. As I, who am sent by the living father, myself draw life from the Father, so whoever eats me will draw life from me. This is the bread come down from heaven; not like the bread our ancestors ate; they are dead, but anyone who eats this bread will live for ever.’
He taught this doctrine at Capernaum, in the synagogue. After hearing it, many of his followers said, ‘this is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it? Jesus was aware that his followers were complaining about it and said, ‘Does this upset you? What if you should see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before? ‘It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh has nothing to offer. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”

What was intolerable about the teaching.

If the meaning was unclear, why didn't Jesus explain what he actually meant to his disciples, as he did on many other occasions?

The meaning was clear, and many couldn't accept it.

You will find no one in the first 1000 years of Christianity(among true Christians) who rejected the belief in the real bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Oh no... what blasphemy! How could you worship a piece of bread?

It's not just a piece of bread. We just take it literally when Christ said, "this is My Body, this is My Blood". I find it strange how so many Protestants take the Bible literally, including Genesis, but take this symbolically. Indeed it is a "hard teaching"!

And how could you think that the priest has power to transubstantiate Christ in the wafer?

It is done by the Holy Spirit. Surely He has the power

I have only read this 7th page of posts, but will look over what others may have said in a moment. But I am sick and tired of this Catholic foolishness.

NathanCGreen, I'd appreciate it if you didn't call our beliefs "Catholic foolishness". If you disagree, then you disagree, but at least show some respect, as we show you.

Have you ever read Alexander Hislop's book, "The Two Babylons"? If not, it is an excellent read. This is a link to read it online for free: http://www.giveshare.org/library/2babylons/index.html

I hope you are enlightened.

No thanks. I've read similar things before.. they sound a whole lot like those documentaries where they attempt to prove that Christianity and the Resurrection were copied from pagan mythology. Should I believe those too?

That's a fair question.

I challenge you to find a single legitimate Christian, ie. not a gnostic or some other group that we all agree was in error, during the first 1000 years of Christianity, who did not believe in the actual bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

and if the entire early church believed in the real presence, then this is also what the Apostles taught.

I am not willing to go back and research your challenge. My memory tells me that transubstantiation was not said to be dogma for a long time.
The Holy Spirit told me that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus. When I asked Jesus about transubstantiation he told me no, that it is spiritual. Now I don’t personally see where it is harmful to believe in transubstantiation. People just need to know that the Eucharist is truly Jesus’ body and blood.

what do you mean when you say that it is 'spiritual'?

You see, we do believe that the bread and wine are still there physically, and are not 'illusions'..So, in that way, the change occurs not on the surface visible level, but on the 'substance' level. Is that also what you mean?

There is also a spiritual part to the Eucharist as well, since it is not just Christ's Body and Blood but His soul and divinity too. So He is present there spiritually, but also substantially.

So I'm wondering what you mean by 'spiritual'.

I also want to say that I know what you mean by "It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh has nothing to offer" etc, but keep in mind that Christ has a real body..it is not an illusion of some kind, it is physical. Just immortal and 'risen'.. so I think when Jesus was saying this, He didn't mean that the physical world ("the flesh") is bad in some way, but simply that it is dead without the spirit, which gives life. Well in the Eucharist, Christ is present there not just in His Body and Blood, but also His soul and divinity..His nature can not be separated from His risen body...and the Holy Spirit is involved.. so saying that He is present there substantially, does not mean there is no spirit, and no 'life', at the same time. Do you see what I mean?

Also, I don't know if it this case we can easily distinguish between the "physical" and the "spiritual", since Christ has a risen body, it is different than ours. It is possible that He is present physically in the Eucharist, but it is spiritual as well. It's probably very complex...

Jesus was only crucified once!

we don't deny this. The Eucharist is NOT a "re-sacrifice", but the original sacrifice on the Cross made present before us.

Peace

monica

 

[Giver]

What was intolerable about the teaching.

If the meaning was unclear, why didn't Jesus explain what he actually meant to his disciples, as he did on many other occasions?

The meaning was clear, and many couldn't accept it.

You will find no one in the first 1000 years of Christianity(among true Christians) who rejected the belief in the real bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

It wasn’t clear, that is why so many of the disciples thought he was asking them to be cannibals, and were not willing to trust Jesus enough to wait around for Jesus’ explanation. It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh has nothing to offer. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”

You keep saying what the early Christians believed the bread and wine physically changed into Jesus’ flesh and blood, but have yet to back it up with any facts.

 

[chestertonrules]

It wasn’t clear, that is why so many of the disciples thought he was asking them to be cannibals, and were not willing to trust Jesus enough to wait around for Jesus’ explanation. It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh has nothing to offer. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”

You keep saying what the early Christians believed the bread and wine physically changed into Jesus’ flesh and blood, but have yet to back it up with any facts.

Are you kidding?

Let's review, and I'll add some more:

circa 150 A.D.: St. Justin Martyr,
First Apology, 66
St. Justin is talking about the Mass, and he has described the consecration and communion. Then he says

We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins annd for regeneration, and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor as common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our flesh and blood is nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnated Jesus.​

circa 350 A.D.: St. Cyril of Jerusalem Catecheses, Lecture 22, ss. 1,3-6,9
(cf. Lecture 19, s. 7; Lecture 23, ss. 20-23)

On the night he was betrayed out Lord Jesus Christ took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples and said: ``Take, eat: this is my body.'' He took the cup, gave thanks and said: ``Take, drink: this is my blood.'' Since Christ himself has declared the bread to be his body, who can have any further doubt? Since he himself has said quite categorically, This is my blood, who would dare to question and say that it is not his blood? Therefore, is is with complete assurance that we receive the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. His body is given to us under the symbol of bread, and his blood is given to us udner the symbol of wine, in order to make us by receiving them one body and one blood with him. Having his body and blood in our members, we become bearers of Christ and sharers, as Saint Peter says, in the divine nature.
​

circa 390 A.D.: St. John Chrysostrom, Homily 46 (commenting on John 6)

Therefore, in order that we may become of His Body, not in desire only, but also in very fact, let us become commingled with that Body. This, in truth, takes place by means of the food which He has given us as a gift, because He desire to prove the love which He has for us. It is for this reason that He shared Himself with us and has brought His Body down to our level, namely, that we might be one with Him as the body is joined with the head. This, in truth is characteristic of those who greatly love. Job, indeed, was implying this when he said of his servants--by whom he was loved with such an excess of love--that they desired to cleave to his flesh. In giving expression to the great love which they possessed, they said: `Who will give us of his flesh that we may be filled?' Moreover, Christ has done even this to spur us on to even greater love. And to show the love He has for us He has made it possible for those who desire, not merely to look upon Him, but even to touch Him and to consume Him and to fix their teeth in His Flesh and to be commingled with Him; in short, to fulfill all their love. Let us, then, come back from that table like lions breathing out fire, thus becoming terrifying to the Devil, and remaining mindful of our Head and of the love which He has shown for us.​

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.:

I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, [5,2,2] 180 A.D.:

If the body be not saved, then in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His Blood; and neither is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His Blood nor is the Bread which we break the partaking of His Body . . . He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

Origen Homilies on Exodus 13,3:

I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know, when you received the body of the Lord, you reverently exercised every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence. but if you observe such cation in keeping His Body, and properly so, how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting His Body?
​

 

[Giver]

Are you kidding?

Let's review, and I'll add some more:

circa 150 A.D.: St. Justin Martyr,
First Apology, 66
St. Justin is talking about the Mass, and he has described the consecration and communion. Then he says

We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins annd for regeneration, and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor as common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our flesh and blood is nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnated Jesus.​

circa 350 A.D.: St. Cyril of Jerusalem Catecheses, Lecture 22, ss. 1,3-6,9
(cf. Lecture 19, s. 7; Lecture 23, ss. 20-23)

On the night he was betrayed out Lord Jesus Christ took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples and said: ``Take, eat: this is my body.'' He took the cup, gave thanks and said: ``Take, drink: this is my blood.'' Since Christ himself has declared the bread to be his body, who can have any further doubt? Since he himself has said quite categorically, This is my blood, who would dare to question and say that it is not his blood? Therefore, is is with complete assurance that we receive the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. His body is given to us under the symbol of bread, and his blood is given to us udner the symbol of wine, in order to make us by receiving them one body and one blood with him. Having his body and blood in our members, we become bearers of Christ and sharers, as Saint Peter says, in the divine nature.
​

circa 390 A.D.: St. John Chrysostrom, Homily 46 (commenting on John 6)

Therefore, in order that we may become of His Body, not in desire only, but also in very fact, let us become commingled with that Body. This, in truth, takes place by means of the food which He has given us as a gift, because He desire to prove the love which He has for us. It is for this reason that He shared Himself with us and has brought His Body down to our level, namely, that we might be one with Him as the body is joined with the head. This, in truth is characteristic of those who greatly love. Job, indeed, was implying this when he said of his servants--by whom he was loved with such an excess of love--that they desired to cleave to his flesh. In giving expression to the great love which they possessed, they said: `Who will give us of his flesh that we may be filled?' Moreover, Christ has done even this to spur us on to even greater love. And to show the love He has for us He has made it possible for those who desire, not merely to look upon Him, but even to touch Him and to consume Him and to fix their teeth in His Flesh and to be commingled with Him; in short, to fulfill all their love. Let us, then, come back from that table like lions breathing out fire, thus becoming terrifying to the Devil, and remaining mindful of our Head and of the love which He has shown for us.​

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.:

I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, [5,2,2] 180 A.D.:

If the body be not saved, then in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His Blood; and neither is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His Blood nor is the Bread which we break the partaking of His Body . . . He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

Origen Homilies on Exodus 13,3:

I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know, when you received the body of the Lord, you reverently exercised every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence. but if you observe such cation in keeping His Body, and properly so, how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting His Body?
​

I can understand why people believe that the bread and wine physically changes into Jesus’ physical body.

You should notice though, that none of the letters you quoted made it into the Bible. I can’t believe The Holy Spirit would have over looked those letters if he wanted people to believe in Jesus’ physical presence.

It is hard for me personally to disagree with the Catholic Church on this subject. I went to Mass and Communion almost every day up into my forties. I believed in transubstantiation of the Eucharist forever. I even want to believe that now.

Jesus told me the Bible is his written Word. Jesus says in his Word that the Eucharist is spiritual. The Holy Spirit said whenever anyone tells us anything about God we were to ask Jesus if it was right or wrong. I asked Jesus about communion and he told me it was his spiritual body.

The Eucharist is spiritual food that last forever. It is not physical food that last forever. Now in what way do you believe it is wrong to believe it isn’t the physical body of Jesus? If some one believes it isn’t will that change what it is?

The Holy Spirit told me I would talk to people about Communion being truly the body and blood of Jesus. I never dreamed I would be talking about it being physical or spiritual.

 

[chestertonrules]

Now you are changing the subject.

Here's what did make it into the bible:

1 Cor 11
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do 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 Lord's death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

Do you know what discerning means? It's important!!

John 6

53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.

Something else for you to consider:

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.


and this:

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

 

[Giver]

Now you are changing the subject.

Here's what did make it into the bible:

1 Cor 11
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do 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 Lord's death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

Do you know what discerning means? It's important!!
Jesus had a physical and spiritual body. He said the flesh (Physical) had nothing to offer.

John 6

53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.

Something else for you to consider:
Now that is interesting you brought that up. I walk in some of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Yes Jesus came in the flesh, died, and rose again from the dead. You see he lives in me.

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
Paul said this before the Holy Spirit had man assemble his Word into the Bible.


and this:

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Yes Paul was talking about the Church that was established by Jesus.

The Roman Catholic Church isn’t that church. (Galatians 1:7-9) “Not that there can be more than one Good News; it is merely that some troublemakers among you want to change the Good News of Christ; and let me warn you that if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one we have already preached to you, whether it by ourselves or an angel from heaven, he is to be condemned. I am only repeating what we told you before; if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one you have already heard, he is to be condemned.”

The Roman Catholic Church really started preaching a different version of the Good News when Constantine the Great coned the church into going to war. It no longer was part of God’s Church.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Jesus had a physical and spiritual body. He said the flesh (Physical) had nothing to offer.

After the Resurrection, was His body physical or spiritual? Was it not physical, and He proved it to the Apostles by eating and drinking?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

hey everyone, please read this: http://www.greatcrusade.org/greatcrusade/Mass/Holy_Mass-Web.htm

 

[MoNiCa4316]

.

 

[Giver]

Concerning the whole discussion on whether Jesus is present 'physically' or 'spiritually' in the Eucharist... Giver, I think that maybe you're defining the words a little differently than I am? What do you think of this:



would you agree with this?

God bless

It is my bedtime but from what I quickly read I could accept that view. I know the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ. When I receive the Eucharist it still taste like bread and wine. Jesus says it is spiritual, and I don’t know if spiritual has any taste.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I'm just wondering Giver, would you agree that in the Eucharist, the 'essence' of it is changed, while the visible characteristics remain the same? essence being "what something is"

maybe we're just using different terminology here

 

[NathanCGreen]

After the Resurrection, was His body physical or spiritual? Was it not physical, and He proved it to the Apostles by eating and drinking?

Jesus' fleshly body was swallowed up by the divine, spiritual body. Basically, the two were combined to form a completely new humanity.

By the way, here is a question for you to ponder... Jesus said that the bread and wine was his flesh and his blood at the last supper, right? Well then, if Jesus was talking about the Catholic mass version, then one would expect the bread he had broken to be his actual body and the wine to be his actual blood... Jesus was not yet crucified, obviously... so how do you explain that one?

The answer is simple, transubstantiation is a false doctrine of hell.

By the way, I am not against honestly deceived Catholics, only the Catholic doctrines and practices which are contrary to sound biblical doctrine.

God bless.

 

[yashualover]

Jesus' fleshly body was swallowed up by the divine, spiritual body. Basically, the two were combined to form a completely new humanity.

By the way, here is a question for you to ponder... Jesus said that the bread and wine was his flesh and his blood at the last supper, right? Well then, if Jesus was talking about the Catholic mass version, then one would expect the bread he had broken to be his actual body and the wine to be his actual blood... Jesus was not yet crucified, obviously... so how do you explain that one?

The answer is simple, transubstantiation is a false doctrine of hell.

By the way, I am not against honestly deceived Catholics, only the Catholic doctrines and practices which are contrary to sound biblical doctrine.

God bless.

Coud this possibly be what you believe? If not check yourself against the heresy's below.

Apollinarianism​

Apollinarianism was the heresy taught by Apollinaris the Younger, bishop of Laodicea in Syria about 361. He taught that the Logos of God, which became the divine nature of Christ, took the place of the rational human soul of Jesus and that the body of Christ was a glorified form of human nature. In other words, though Jesus was a man, He did not have a human mind but that the mind of Christ was solely divine. Apollinaris taught that the two natures of Christ could not coexist within one person. His solution was to lessen the human nature of Christ.
Apollinarianism was condemned by the Second General Council at Constantinople in 381. This heresy denies the true and complete humanity in the person of Jesus which in turn, can jeopardize the value of the atonement since Jesus is declared to be both God and man to atone. He needed to be God to offer a pure and holy sacrifice of sufficient value and He needed to be a man in order to die for men.
Jesus is completely both God and man. This is known as the Hypostatic Union.​

• "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..." (John 1:1,14).​
• "for Him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form," (Col. 2:9).​

 

[yashualover]

Introduction
Heresy

Heresies
Adoptionism- God granted Jesus powers and then adopted him as a Son.
Albigenses- Reincarnation and two gods: one good and other evil.
Apollinarianism- Jesus divine will overshadowed and replaced the human.
Arianism - Jesus was a lesser, created being.
Docetism- Jesus was divine, but only seemed to be human.
Donatism- Validity of sacraments depends on character of the minister.
Gnosticism - Dualism of good and bad and special knowledge for salvation.
Kenosis - Jesus gave up some divine attributes while on earth.
Modalism - God is one person in three modes.
Monarchianism - God is one person.
Monophysitism- Jesus had only one nature: divine.
Nestorianism - Jesus was two persons.
Patripassionism - The Father suffered on the cross
Pelagianism - Man is unaffected by the fall and can keep all of God's laws.
Socinianism - Denial of the Trinity. Jesus is a deified man.
Subordinationism - The Son is lesser than the Father in essence and or attributes.
Tritheism - the Trinity is really three separate gods.

 

[Giver]

I'm just wondering Giver, would you agree that in the Eucharist, the 'essence' of it is changed, while the visible characteristics remain the same? essence being "what something is"

maybe we're just using different terminology here

NoNiCa I accept most of what you believe about the Eucharist.
To tell you the truth I don’t know what happens to the bread and wine when we partake of the Eucharist. I don’t believe anyone else does either. Jesus is a spiritual being and yes he became human, but when he went back home how did he change? We can’t understand the changes that took place. I believe the theory of consubstantiation, substance coexist, is closer to the truth than transubstantiation. I believe when people start trying to understand God’s ways and why he does things; everything gets distorted. He said we would eat his Body and drink his Blood. OK! Let us leave it at that. Jesus once told me to quit trying to figure him out and just follow him.

Jesus is our friend, and he makes his home in us. We receive spiritual help by eating and drinking his Body and Blood, but why we need spiritual food I don’t know.

I have a hard understanding why we worry about the crumbs that come from the bread. What that bread and wine face inside of us has to be worse than anything on the outside. Being a little picayune about all this now, but there is a reason. I can’t believe Jesus is in the Eucharist like he is in us. Its spiritual food, but I can’t believe it becomes that until we receive it.

I once listened to a Jesuit theologian tell a few hundred people that when a person received Communion they became Jesus. I am the only person that dared to get up to tell him he was wrong. People have become so accustomed to letting someone else do their thinking for them. We all have the Holy Spirit, and we all should listen to him.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Jesus' fleshly body was swallowed up by the divine, spiritual body. Basically, the two were combined to form a completely new humanity.

Christ is fully God and fully Man. 100% of each.

By the way, here is a question for you to ponder... Jesus said that the bread and wine was his flesh and his blood at the last supper, right? Well then, if Jesus was talking about the Catholic mass version, then one would expect the bread he had broken to be his actual body and the wine to be his actual blood... Jesus was not yet crucified, obviously... so how do you explain that one?

I dont want to reject something from the Bible just because my little human mind can't comprehend it. Are not all things possible with God? Are not His ways not our ways? Really sometimes I think that people deny the real presence because it's too hard to understand, so they think it can't be true. They reject it because it's a Mystery outside of human understanding. Yet, it's straight out of the Bible. It puzzles me how evangelicals take everything in the Bible literally, but this.

I'll try to explain how I see it though. The crucifixion and the Resurrection were real events, but they affected all of eternity. Not just the future, but the past, as well. During Mass, we are participating in heavenly worship and are spiritually taken back to Calvary. It is in a way a timeless event. The first Mass (the Last Supper) was exactly like this too. The Apostles were eating and drinking Christ's Body and Blood which would be shed for them on the Cross, in the future. If you want Biblical evidence...remember how in Revelations, it talks about the Lamb, "looking as if it had been slain"? The crucifixion is an event that affected all of eternity.

The answer is simple, transubstantiation is a false doctrine of hell.

because you can not understand it?

NoNiCa I accept most of what you believe about the Eucharist.
To tell you the truth I don’t know what happens to the bread and wine when we partake of the Eucharist. I don’t believe anyone else does either. Jesus is a spiritual being and yes he became human, but when he went back home how did he change? We can’t understand the changes that took place. I believe the theory of consubstantiation, substance coexist, is closer to the truth than transubstantiation. I believe when people start trying to understand God’s ways and why he does things; everything gets distorted. He said we would eat his Body and drink his Blood. OK! Let us leave it at that. Jesus once told me to quit trying to figure him out and just follow him.

I see what you mean thanks for your reply. I think that in transubstantiation, there is still a "co-existing" of Christ's Body and Blood and the bread and wine in a way, since the bread and wine are still real and not illusions. The elements are however changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, on some sort of level (which I can't understand yet..) and when we receive the Eucharist, we are receiving Christ into ourselves, in something which was previously just bread. It is no longer bread in essence, although it is on the outside. I guess that is all that I can really say about this... I know that sometimes it might seem like Catholics think they have it all figured out, but the Catholic church also teaches that the Eucharist is a mystery, and well it is probably too advanced for us to understand fully. We can receive some knowledge through revelation, but that is about it. We can't really apply logic to the Eucharist, because if we do, we would end up with it being merely symbolic...I think that Zwingli's argument is very logical yet I believe it is false.

I'm not sure what you mean about Jesus 'changing' when He went back to heaven...hmm...I've always believed that He still has a physical body, although of course it is risen and different from ours. Maybe "risen" means that it is also a spiritual body in a way. But it is still a body, and Jesus is not only a Spirit. That is important because if He never rose from the dead physically, then we would not be able to either (as Apostle Paul says in the Bible)

Jesus is our friend, and he makes his home in us. We receive spiritual help by eating and drinking his Body and Blood, but why we need spiritual food I don’t know.

I have a hard understanding why we worry about the crumbs that come from the bread. What that bread and wine face inside of us has to be worse than anything on the outside.

I can agree with what you're basically saying here.. as to why we need the Eucharist, I've heard it described as the "medicine of immortality". Christ said that if we eat His flesh and drink His blood we would have life in us. Through the Eucharist, we partake of His eternal life, and thus participate in the mystery of salvation.

Being a little picayune about all this now, but there is a reason. I can’t believe Jesus is in the Eucharist like he is in us. Its spiritual food, but I can’t believe it becomes that until we receive it.

I see that a little differently..I believe that the Eucharist is really, objectively Christ's Body and Blood, on its own. We eat it to receive Him into ourselves. But it's Him from the moment the Holy Spirit transforms it.

I once listened to a Jesuit theologian tell a few hundred people that when a person received Communion they became Jesus. I am the only person that dared to get up to tell him he was wrong. People have become so accustomed to letting someone else do their thinking for them. We all have the Holy Spirit, and we all should listen to him.

I think that maybe it was just rather bad phrasing on his part... of course it's not like we become Jesus, but He is 'in' us at that moment, and the Eucharist helps us in sanctification or "theosis": becoming more like Christ...

Peace

monica

 

[Giver]

Christ is fully God and fully Man. 100% of each.



I dont want to reject something from the Bible just because my little human mind can't comprehend it. Are not all things possible with God? Are not His ways not our ways? Really sometimes I think that people deny the real presence because it's too hard to understand, so they think it can't be true. They reject it because it's a Mystery outside of human understanding. Yet, it's straight out of the Bible. It puzzles me how evangelicals take everything in the Bible literally, but this.

I'll try to explain how I see it though. The crucifixion and the Resurrection were real events, but they affected all of eternity. Not just the future, but the past, as well. During Mass, we are participating in heavenly worship and are spiritually taken back to Calvary. It is in a way a timeless event. The first Mass (the Last Supper) was exactly like this too. The Apostles were eating and drinking Christ's Body and Blood which would be shed for them on the Cross, in the future. If you want Biblical evidence...remember how in Revelations, it talks about the Lamb, "looking as if it had been slain"? The crucifixion is an event that affected all of eternity.



because you can not understand it?



I see what you mean thanks for your reply. I think that in transubstantiation, there is still a "co-existing" of Christ's Body and Blood and the bread and wine in a way, since the bread and wine are still real and not illusions. The elements are however changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, on some sort of level (which I can't understand yet..) and when we receive the Eucharist, we are receiving Christ into ourselves, in something which was previously just bread. It is no longer bread in essence, although it is on the outside. I guess that is all that I can really say about this... I know that sometimes it might seem like Catholics think they have it all figured out, but the Catholic church also teaches that the Eucharist is a mystery, and well it is probably too advanced for us to understand fully. We can receive some knowledge through revelation, but that is about it. We can't really apply logic to the Eucharist, because if we do, we would end up with it being merely symbolic...I think that Zwingli's argument is very logical yet I believe it is false.

I'm not sure what you mean about Jesus 'changing' when He went back to heaven...hmm...I've always believed that He still has a physical body, although of course it is risen and different from ours. Maybe "risen" means that it is also a spiritual body in a way. But it is still a body, and Jesus is not only a Spirit. That is important because if He never rose from the dead physically, then we would not be able to either (as Apostle Paul says in the Bible)



I can agree with what you're basically saying here.. as to why we need the Eucharist, I've heard it described as the "medicine of immortality". Christ said that if we eat His flesh and drink His blood we would have life in us. Through the Eucharist, we partake of His eternal life, and thus participate in the mystery of salvation.



I see that a little differently..I believe that the Eucharist is really, objectively Christ's Body and Blood, on its own. We eat it to receive Him into ourselves. But it's Him from the moment the Holy Spirit transforms it.



I think that maybe it was just rather bad phrasing on his part... of course it's not like we become Jesus, but He is 'in' us at that moment, and the Eucharist helps us in sanctification or "theosis": becoming more like Christ...

Peace

monica

I don’t think the differences between your beliefs and mine are big enough to concern our selves with. The Holy Spirit has confirmed to me that The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus. Jesus told me it is spiritual. It is the Holy Spirit’s job to teach people what they need to know, not mine.

I will say though that the Jesuit theologian meant we became Jesus when we received Communion. I challenged him and he thought about it for a time, and said no we do become Jesus. When I shared this with my wife she laughed and said I should have asked him how it lasted? It sounds like a Mormon theology to me.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I don’t think the differences between your beliefs and mine are big enough to concern our selves with. The Holy Spirit has confirmed to me that The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus. Jesus told me it is spiritual. It is the Holy Spirit’s job to teach people what they need to know, not mine.

oki the Holy Spirit has also confirmed to me that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus.. as for the 'spiritual' part, I think it's 'substantial' or 'essential', but maybe we're talking about the same thing here!! Maybe we are just using words differently. I'll pray about it all may God lead us to all truth.

I will say though that the Jesuit theologian meant we became Jesus when we received Communion. I challenged him and he thought about it for a time, and said no we do become Jesus. When I shared this with my wife she laughed and said I should have asked him how it lasted? It sounds like a Mormon theology to me.

haha