Biblical Support for Sacraments being a vehicle of grace

[lanman87]

How do you know this is not to be taken literally?

How do you know it was not to be taken symbolically? Was the bread, at that moment really His body? Was the wine, at that moment His blood? Or where they symbols of His body and blood?

Jesus often used symbolism and metaphors in His speaking. Why not here?

But even if He was speaking literally, does this show that taking of the Lord’s Supper justifies someone before God?

 

[FollowChrist34]

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.

–Martin Luther

I would suggest that in the first century Christians did not worry about being ‘justified’ anywhere near as much as they did after the Reformation, the 15th century. They did not walk around thinking they were ‘saved by faith’ either, until after the Reformation. I mean nobody, never. Participation in the Eucharist was/is an indispensable part of the practicing the Christian faith - life in Christ. And it was by living in Christ and following his commandments that a Christian attained salvation - then and now. That is what it means to be justified by faith, for that matter. I refer to St. Paul here.

 

[JonNC]

I would suggest that in the first century Christians did not worry about being ‘justified’ anywhere near as much as they did after the Reformation, the 15th century. They did not walk around thinking they were ‘saved by faith’ either, until after the Reformation. I mean nobody, never. Participation in the Eucharist was/is an indispensable part of the practicing the Christian faith - life in Christ. And it was by living in Christ and following his commandments that a Christian attained salvation - then and now. That is what it means to be justified by faith, for that matter. I refer to St. Paul here.

Without turning this into another thread about sola fide , the highlighted part seems to indicate you believe that sola fide and the sacraments are not compatible. If so, I strongly disagree, and would like to hear your thoughts on it.
Unless I misunderstood.

 

[guanophore]

Any or all. If I were to say that Sacraments aren’t a vehicle of grace, how would you defend it from scripture?

Well, the sacramental life of the Church is part of the divine deposit of faith that is not necessarily enumerated in Scripture. Besides that, Catholics don’t feel a need to “defend it from Scripture” because it is part of what we received from the Apostles before the New Testament was written. That being said, there are references in Scripture that might shed some light.

@James817 in post 9 quoted one passage that refers to the annointing of the sick.

Luke 24 ;35 tells the story of how the disciples “recognized Him in the breaking of the bread”. This is a reference to the Eucharist, and His real presence in it.

I’ll admit that I have a problem with this. Mainly because it is ascribing baptism to equal faith. I believe that faith isn’t a statement of belief or but a change in heart given by God. It is that change of heart/trust in Christ by which we are saved. No priest or pastor can change someone’s heart simply by pouring water on them. Baptism without a change in heart and trusting in Christ just gets someone wet. Even 1 Peter 3:21 says Baptism doesn’t save you by the removal of dirt (being cleaned by the water) but by the appeal of a good conscious toward God (what is in your Heart).

Baptism is salvific, and it is always given only in the presence of faith. The two are inseparable from the time of the Apostles.

I agree, no one’s heart is changed by “just pouring water”. It is the circumcusion made without hands, that only the Holy Spirit can do, that changes the heart.

 

[guanophore]

How do you know it was not to be taken symbolically? Was the bread, at that moment really His body? Was the wine, at that moment His blood? Or where they symbols of His body and blood?

Jesus often used symbolism and metaphors in His speaking. Why not here?

Yes, and the early Father’s testify that this is the faith of the Church.

““Christ held Himself in His hands when He gave His Body to His disciples saying: ‘This is My Body.’ No one partakes of this Flesh before he has adored it.”” St. Augustine of Hippo, Bishop, Doctor of the Church, N. Africa, (354-430)

For Catholics, symbolism means that it contains that to which it points. It is not just a sign, like a stop sign on the road, but a “sign” as the ones Jesus did - healed to show that He was God in the Flesh.

Think about it this way, how can someone profane what is not truly present?

“So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.” 1 Cor 11;27

If I only have a metaphor, like a piece of paper, and I stomp on the paper, am I profaning the body and blood? Or whatever else is written on the paper? Many Protestants who do not believe in the Real Presence have come up with other interpretations of this, but none of them can hold up against what the successors of the Apostles wrote in the early years of the Church. Those who did not believe in the Real Presence were considered heretics, period!

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

Ignatius wrote to the Smyrneans around 107 AD, so the disciples would have had to get off track very quickly after the last Gospel was written in about 90 AD. Ignatius, along with Polycarp, was a disciple of the Apostle John.

 

[guanophore]

But even if He was speaking literally, does this show that taking of the Lord’s Supper justifies someone before God?

This is a very important question also. Catholics understand justification differently than most evangelicals. There is a distinction between initial justification that happens in baptism, and the ongoing process of sanctification, or becoming more righteous by God as we grow in Grace. In line with your original question about sacraments being a vehicle of grace, yes, when we partake of the Eucharist we are intimately united with His Life and are conformed to His image.

 

[FollowChrist34]

No, I agree that we are justified/saved by faith, but to my mind this is kind of a technicality. By which I mean it is God’s gift of grace given freely to the accepting believer that justifies or saves the Christian. Not works. But this salvation is not complete at that point; it is not instantaneous; you just now have the capacity/means to be saved; salvation occurs at judgment before God, provided the Christian has lived according to the teachings and practices of the Church, that he has lived his faith in Christ, diminishing his human will in favor of God’s will, following the commandments. Luther is with me on this. Works flow from / witness authentic faith. I believe this process was intended by Christ to play out in his Church. The Christian is in a community of believers, the Church, instituted at Christ’s command by the Apostles. The Church sacraments such as baptism and the Eucharist absolve sin and transmit grace to the Christian to enable him to walk in the Spirit, not the Flesh. The inner man is ever strengthened, the outer man dies. I think if you claim to be a Christian and don’t get baptized or take the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ you are really rolling the dice - it is nothing short of essentially rejecting Christ and his Church, I mean as a path to salvation established by Christ.

 

[JonNC]

No, I agree that we are justified/saved by faith, but to my mind this is kind of a technicality. By which I mean it is God’s gift of grace given freely to the accepting believer that justifies or saves the Christian. Not works. But this salvation is not complete at that point; it is not instantaneous; you just now have the capacity/means to be saved; salvation occurs at judgment before God, provided the Christian has lived according to the teachings and practices of the Church, that he has lived his faith in Christ, diminishing his human will in favor of God’s will, following the commandments. Luther is with me on this. Works flow from / witness authentic faith. I believe this process was intended by Christ to play out in his Church. The Christian is in a community of believers, the Church, instituted at Christ’s command by the Apostles. The Church sacraments such as baptism and the Eucharist absolve sin and transmit grace to the Christian to enable him to walk in the Spirit, not the Flesh. The inner man is ever strengthened, the outer man dies. I think if you claim to be a Christian and don’t get baptized or take the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ you are really rolling the dice - it is nothing short of essentially rejecting Christ and his Church, I mean as a path to salvation established by Christ.

I agree with most of what you say. “Faith alone” as a slogan is misleading. Justification is by grace, through faith, and while I wouldn’t say it’s a technicality, it is simply the way we access it. But grace comes to us through word and sacrament. Faith comes through baptism and hearing the word, forgiveness of sins through the sacraments.
On the highlighted, certainly not being baptized is serious, hence the reason for infant baptism, but I’m not as willing as you to say it’s a role of the dice.

 

[FollowChrist34]

But grace comes to us through word and sacrament. Faith comes through baptism and hearing the word, forgiveness of sins through the sacraments.

On the highlighted, certainly not being baptized is serious, hence the reason for infant baptism, but I’m not as willing as you to say it’s a role of the dice.

Exactly. I agree 100% with the highlighted. I think we basically agree here. The only reason I threw in the part about baptism is that I find it odd to see Protestants all so into getting baptized and then turning around and getting so huffy and offended about the Real Presence in the Eucharist. To me these are both sacraments of equal importance, value. That was really all I was trying to convey there. Rejecting one is just like rejecting the other. And vice versa.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

But grace comes to us through word and sacrament. Faith comes through baptism and hearing the word, forgiveness of sins through the sacraments.

On the highlighted, certainly not being baptized is serious, hence the reason for infant baptism, but I’m not as willing as you to say it’s a role of the dice.

Exactly. I agree 100% with the highlighted. I think we basically agree here. The only reason I threw in the part about baptism is that I find it odd to see Protestants all so into getting baptized and then turning around and getting so huffy and offended about the Real Presence in the Eucharist. To me these are both sacraments of equal importance, value. That was really all I was trying to convey there. Rejecting one is just like rejecting the other. And vice versa.

Great comments.
Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Wannano]

FollowChrist34:

JonNC:

But grace comes to us through word and sacrament. Faith comes through baptism and hearing the word, forgiveness of sins through the sacraments.

On the highlighted, certainly not being baptized is serious, hence the reason for infant baptism, but I’m not as willing as you to say it’s a role of the dice.

Exactly. I agree 100% with the highlighted. I think we basically agree here. The only reason I threw in the part about baptism is that I find it odd to see Protestants all so into getting baptized and then turning around and getting so huffy and offended about the Real Presence in the Eucharist. To me these are both sacraments of equal importance, value. That was really all I was trying to convey there. Rejecting one is just like rejecting the other. And vice versa.

Great comments.
Thanks for clarifying.

I am not feeling huffy or offended, just trying to understand it all. Please correct me if I am wrong. The conclusion I come to is that all who speak of Transubstantiation believe in the Real Presence but all who believe in the Real Presence do not necessarily believe in Transubstantiation. Is that accurate?

 

[JonNC]

I am not feeling huffy or offended, just trying to understand it all. Please correct me if I am wrong. The conclusion I come to is that all who speak of Transubstantiation believe in the Real Presence but all who believe in the Real Presence do not necessarily believe in Transubstantiation. Is that accurate?

True. While I think I have a good idea of the intent of the doctrine, and agree that it is a reasonable human expression of the real presence, it isn’t something I use. Is means is.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

I am not feeling huffy or offended, just trying to understand it all. Please correct me if I am wrong. The conclusion I come to is that all who speak of Transubstantiation believe in the Real Presence but all who believe in the Real Presence do not necessarily believe in Transubstantiation. Is that accurate?

True. While I think I have a good idea of the intent of the doctrine, and agree that it is a reasonable human expression of the real presence, it isn’t something I use. Is means is.

Is means is, as in not becomes?

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Wannano:

I am not feeling huffy or offended, just trying to understand it all. Please correct me if I am wrong. The conclusion I come to is that all who speak of Transubstantiation believe in the Real Presence but all who believe in the Real Presence do not necessarily believe in Transubstantiation. Is that accurate?

True. While I think I have a good idea of the intent of the doctrine, and agree that it is a reasonable human expression of the real presence, it isn’t something I use. Is means is.

Is means is, as in not becomes?

There is no scriptural reference. Christ doesn’t say “becomes”, He only says “this is”.
I guess one might argue that it must become to be, and I certainly wouldn’t argue that there is no change.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Correct. Luther believed in consubstantiation but I don’t think that term is the one he liked. The substance of the bread coexists with the substance of Christ. The Eastern Orthodox share this belief and are somewhere between Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation. They wisely stop before trying to fully explain it all. But during liturgy, the bread and wine become the real body and blood of Christ. Even in Transubstantiation the substance or ‘appearance’ of the bread remains bread. Sometimes I wonder how much difference there is here between these different explanations. I also wonder if all the apprehension from nonliturgical Protestants is due to some misunderstanding that some magic is somehow supposed to be transforming the ‘appearance’ of the bread, which is not so, never has been. The bread and wine are still bread and wine to the eye, taste, the senses. We all believe in a Virgin Birth, a Resurrection, an Ascension, Jesus talking to Moses, the Dove descending on Jesus being baptized. There is ample evidence the early Church believed in the Real Presence, East and West. (along with support of Scripture) This was only questioned in the Reformation, relatively recently. I don’t understand on what grounds myself, not to sound huffy and offended. But I do think it is the strangest thing to get upset about, given above, the nature of Christianity, miracles, etc etc. I tend to want to follow the ‘early Church’ not reject it. Especially such a central doctrine.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

JonNC:

Wannano:

I am not feeling huffy or offended, just trying to understand it all. Please correct me if I am wrong. The conclusion I come to is that all who speak of Transubstantiation believe in the Real Presence but all who believe in the Real Presence do not necessarily believe in Transubstantiation. Is that accurate?

True. While I think I have a good idea of the intent of the doctrine, and agree that it is a reasonable human expression of the real presence, it isn’t something I use. Is means is.

Is means is, as in not becomes?

There is no scriptural reference. Christ doesn’t say “becomes”, He only says “this is”.
I guess one might argue that it must become to be, and I certainly wouldn’t argue that there is no change.

To be fair though, would you not say that most who do not see Transubstantiation probably do not propose that there is a change? Recently I asked the local United Church of Canada minister how that church sees it. His answer is that while God is present in the bread and wine there is no change in it.

 

[Wannano]

Correct. Luther believed in consubstantiation but I don’t think that term is the one he liked. The substance of the bread coexists with the substance of Christ. The Eastern Orthodox share this belief and are somewhere between Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation. They wisely stop before trying to fully explain it all. But during liturgy, the bread and wine become the real body and blood of Christ. Even in Transubstantiation the substance or ‘appearance’ of the bread remains bread. Sometimes I wonder how much difference there is here between these different explanations. I also wonder if all the apprehension from nonliturgical Protestants is due to some misunderstanding that some magic is somehow supposed to be transforming the ‘appearrance’ of the bread, which is not so, never has been. The bread and wine are still bread and wine to the eye, taste, the senses. We all believe in a Virgin Birth, a Resurrection, an Ascension, Jesus talking to Moses, the Dove descending on Jesus being baptized. There is ample evidence the early Church believed in the Real Presence, East and West. This was only questioned in the Reformation, relatively recently. I don’t understand on what grounds myself, not to sound huffy and offended. But I do think it is the strangest thing to get upset about, given above, the nature of Christianity, miracles, etc etc. I tend to want to follow the ‘early Church’ not reject it. Especially such a central doctrine.

I appreciate this answer. Not knowing how to highlite some of your post I will quote the sentence I really like. “Sometimes I wonder how much difference there is here between these different explanations.”

Is it fair to ask if there can be possibility that the Real Presence of the early church was not Transubstantiation?

 

[FollowChrist34]

Is it fair to ask if there can be possibility that the Real Presence of the early church was not Transubstantiation?

Yes, that is a fair question. The early Church did not define the Real Presence as ‘Transubstantiation.’ This came about in the RCC in the Middle Ages (was it later?) under the (perhaps excessive) influence of scholasticism. Martin Luther and the Eastern Orthodox both reject the doctrine of Transubstantiation (with some huff and offense) - again they both believe in the Real Presence, as did the early Church by all indications - I’ll toss Scriptural support in here too. The odd thing is, when I really seriously prayerfully examine their explanations/writings (Luther and/or EO), I honestly don’t see too much difference between 'Real Presence" and ‘Transubstantiation.’ I get the part about how people should not be forced to believe in Transubstantiation as a doctrine per se. I accept that. But I don’t want to go too far there, because I personally see so little significant difference in the positions of the Churches that profess Real Presence. I leave it to mystery. How it happens I mean, but I believe in the Real Presence. I certainly don’t toss it out for good. That would impoverish the Church for me beyond belief. It is a central doctrine to the faith.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Is it fair to ask if there can be possibility that the Real Presence of the early church was not Transubstantiation?

Yes, that is a fair question. The early Church did not define the Real Presence as ‘Transubstantiation.’ This came about in the RCC in the Middle Ages (was it later?) under the (perhaps excessive) influence of scholasticism. Martin Luther and the Eastern Orthodox both reject the doctrine of Transubstantiation (with some huff and offense) - again they both believe in the Real Presence, as did the early Church by all indications - I’ll toss Scriptural support in here too. The odd thing is, when I really seriously prayerfully examine their explanations/writings (Luther and/or EO), I honestly don’t see too much difference between 'Real Presence" and ‘Transubstantiation.’ I get the part about how people should not be forced to believe in Transubstantiation as a doctrine per se. I accept that. But I don’t want to go too far there, because I personally see so little significant difference in the positions of the Churches that profess Real Presence. I leave it to mystery. How it happens I mean, but I believe in the Real Presence. I certainly don’t toss it out for good. That would impoverish the Church for me beyond belief. It is a central doctrine to the faith.

So is it possible, is there is any chance that Transubstantiation was a stumbling block to understanding the Real Presence in the minds of those who adopted a more symbolic concept?

 

[FollowChrist34]

I don’t think so. The symbolic part came later, even later than the scholastics.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html#bible