M
michaelp
Guest
Shibboleth said:
Very interesting. This ought to keep things going here for a while.
Michael
- Status
Very interesting. This ought to keep things going here for a while.
Michael
S
SirShaun
Guest
Again, answering the question I’m not asking. I don’t go so far as to say I deny the real presence of the Lord in communion. My protest is not with saying the bread is Christ, it is with saying it is no longer bread. And again, I’m not saying your responce is inadequate for what you’re arguing against. I can argue what you’re arguing from both sides until my head explodes.
I’m a computer man, so I look at it digitally. There are two binary factors in this equation: it is bread or it isn’t, and it is Jesus or it isn’t. That leads to four possibilities: Is bread – is Jesus, Is bread – isn’t Jesus, Isn’t bread – is Jesus, Isn’t bread – Isn’t Jesus.
The only thing everyone agrees on is that the fourth possibility isn’t the right one. That leaves three possibilities. You assert that the correct answer is Isn’t bread – is Jesus. I assert that it Is bread. You don’t have to convince me that it Is Jesus if you can prove it Isn’t bread. The Is/Isn’t Jesus part becomes moot if you can show that it Isn’t bread. If you loose the Isn’t bread fight, you loose, regardless of whether it’s Jesus or not. If you win the Isn’t bread fight, you win. If it isn’t bread, every other part of the arguement is meaningless. Focus on that.
Showing Church Fathers that taught that wouldn’t prove it, but not being able to show Church Fathers that teach that is something that surprises me… especially when I showed two very prominant Church Fathers that go to the far extreem other side: Is bread – Isn’t Jesus. If it were really the teaching of the Church, you’d think someone would have rebuked them for teaching against it.
Good show, Shibboleth.
O
Ozzie
Guest
Shibboleth said:
Well, this should shut this thread down!! It answers dennisknapp’s question in full.
Or else he’s not asking an honest question. I will suppose the latter.
X
Xavier
Guest
The silence is deaffening.Well, this should shut this thread down!! It answers dennisknapp’s question in full.
B
Benadam
Guest
it’s proven using terminology founded on Greek philosophy, specifically Aristotles work who is called by St Thomas Aquinas as " The Philosopher" The Host when consecrated changes into the real Flesh of Christ, it becomes Him fully. The ‘accidents’ which is the term used for the surface that meets the space around the substance, will still appear like bread and this doesn’t change.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Don’t be so sure. I am doing research on these quotes, I am not being silent. They are good quotes and I am putting the needed time into them.Well, this should shut this thread down!! It answers dennisknapp’s question in full.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
I have spent some time doing a little research on the quotes posted by Shibboleth that he got off http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/weedon.htm
And this is my reply:
“The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. St. Athanasius (Against the Heathen, I:3)
“But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic Tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able” St. Athanasius(Festal Letters 2: 29 [A.D. 330]).
“Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.” St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)
“[Paul commands:] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the Traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2: 15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the Tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a Tradition? Seek no further” St. John Chrysostom (Homilies on 2 Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).
And this is my reply:
“The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. St. Athanasius (Against the Heathen, I:3)
“But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic Tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able” St. Athanasius(Festal Letters 2: 29 [A.D. 330]).
“Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.” St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)
“[Paul commands:] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the Traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2: 15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the Tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a Tradition? Seek no further” St. John Chrysostom (Homilies on 2 Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Cont.
“What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.” Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).
“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.” St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16)
“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the Tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce the [Christian] message to a mere term” St. Basil the Great (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).
Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God. St. Augustine (De unitate ecclesiae, chp. 10)
“[Not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic Tradition, as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” St. Augustine (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).
“What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.” Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).
“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.” St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16)
“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the Tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce the [Christian] message to a mere term” St. Basil the Great (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).
Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God. St. Augustine (De unitate ecclesiae, chp. 10)
“[Not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic Tradition, as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” St. Augustine (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Cont.
"They said that he who adhered to faith alone was cursed; but he, Paul, shows that he who adhered to faith alone is blessed." - St. John Chrysostom (First Corinthians, Homily 20, PG 61.164)
First off, this is not located in his homily on First Corinthians. It is located in his homily on Galatians chapter three. The full quote is below:
“Further, they were possessed with another apprehension; it was written, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the Law, to do them.” (Deut. xxvii: 26.) And this he removes, with great skill and prudence, turning their argument against themselves, and showing that those who relinquish the Law are not only not cursed, but blessed; and they who keep it, not only not blessed but cursed. They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered . to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed. And how does he prove all this? for it is no common thing which we have promised; wherefore it is necessary to give close attention to what follows. He had already shown this, by referring to the words spoken to the Patriarch, “In thee shall all nations be blessed,” (Gen. xii: 4.) at a time, that is, when Faith existed, not the Law;”
This in now way disagrees with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Nowhere in Catholic teaching is anyone justified by the Law.
CCC states in section 1992, "Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in** Baptism**, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life.”
In this John Chrysostom is agreed:
“No one can enter into the kingdom of heaven except he be regenerated through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink his blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? These [priests] truly are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth that comes through baptism : by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed head [the Mystical Body of Christ]” (The Priesthood 3:5–6 [A.D. 387]).
"They said that he who adhered to faith alone was cursed; but he, Paul, shows that he who adhered to faith alone is blessed." - St. John Chrysostom (First Corinthians, Homily 20, PG 61.164)
First off, this is not located in his homily on First Corinthians. It is located in his homily on Galatians chapter three. The full quote is below:
“Further, they were possessed with another apprehension; it was written, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the Law, to do them.” (Deut. xxvii: 26.) And this he removes, with great skill and prudence, turning their argument against themselves, and showing that those who relinquish the Law are not only not cursed, but blessed; and they who keep it, not only not blessed but cursed. They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered . to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed. And how does he prove all this? for it is no common thing which we have promised; wherefore it is necessary to give close attention to what follows. He had already shown this, by referring to the words spoken to the Patriarch, “In thee shall all nations be blessed,” (Gen. xii: 4.) at a time, that is, when Faith existed, not the Law;”
This in now way disagrees with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Nowhere in Catholic teaching is anyone justified by the Law.
CCC states in section 1992, "Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in** Baptism**, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life.”
In this John Chrysostom is agreed:
“No one can enter into the kingdom of heaven except he be regenerated through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink his blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? These [priests] truly are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth that comes through baptism : by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed head [the Mystical Body of Christ]” (The Priesthood 3:5–6 [A.D. 387]).
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Finally:
"For you believe the faith; why then do you add other things, as if faith were not sufficient to justify? You make yourselves captive, and you subject yourself to the law." - St. John Chrysostom (Epistle to Titus, Homily 3, PG 62.651)
Here is the full quote:
“Ver. 14. “Not giving heed,” he says, “to Jewish fables.”
The Jewish tenets were fables in two ways, because they were imitations, and because the thing was past its season, for such things become fables at last. For when a thing ought not to be done, and being done, is injurious, it is a fable even as it is useless. As then those ought not to be regarded, so neither ought these. For this is not being sound. For if thou believest the Faith, why dost thou add other things, as if the faith were not sufficient to justify? Why dost thou enslave thyself by subjection to the Law? Hast thou no confidence in what thou believest? This is a mark of an unsound and unbelieving mind. For one who is faithful does not doubt, but such an one evidently doubts.”
This again should be taken in context. Chrysostom does not disagree with the historical view on faith as I have stated before.
"For you believe the faith; why then do you add other things, as if faith were not sufficient to justify? You make yourselves captive, and you subject yourself to the law." - St. John Chrysostom (Epistle to Titus, Homily 3, PG 62.651)
Here is the full quote:
“Ver. 14. “Not giving heed,” he says, “to Jewish fables.”
The Jewish tenets were fables in two ways, because they were imitations, and because the thing was past its season, for such things become fables at last. For when a thing ought not to be done, and being done, is injurious, it is a fable even as it is useless. As then those ought not to be regarded, so neither ought these. For this is not being sound. For if thou believest the Faith, why dost thou add other things, as if the faith were not sufficient to justify? Why dost thou enslave thyself by subjection to the Law? Hast thou no confidence in what thou believest? This is a mark of an unsound and unbelieving mind. For one who is faithful does not doubt, but such an one evidently doubts.”
This again should be taken in context. Chrysostom does not disagree with the historical view on faith as I have stated before.
S
Shibboleth
Guest
Good quotes also…
Your original question was, I believe, is there any proof or reason to believe that the Early Church held Protestant views. I gave you proof of that… that they did indeed exists. You give examples of quotes that are indeed helpful. First let me say that none of them contradict the Solas that I set forth as understood by the early protestants - the later interpretations of them perhaps but not as they were originally intended.
Second, outside of these quotes we do see the Church Fathers refuting and rebutting now held Protestant beliefs. Why is this? Because people in the Early Church held just such beliefs. You don’t try to refute things that are not being exhibited or spoken of…
For instance I don’t say coital relations with aliens from outer space is wrong, because it isn’t a problem.
We see the Church Fathers talking about the need for Infant Baptism, arguing against a fractured Church where Bishops have their own domain, we see them talking about things outside of scripture that should be headed. Why? Because people in the early Church were arguing against Infant Baptism, arguing against a Supreme Pontiff, arguing against Sacred Tradition, etc.
These views did not come into being in the 1500’s.
But let me say a few things. Sola Scriptura as originally intended means little more than Scripture is the Supreme measure against all things - if something contradicts scripture than it is wrong. We see direct reference to this in my quotes. Do we see other things like the need for Tradition - sure but I am not and Luther was not against Tradition as long as it didn’t contradict scripture. Now, a Catholic might state that the Catholic Church doesn’t hold anything that is contrary to scripture. Perhaps, certainly in the time of Luther the Church was doing things that were contrary to Scripture and that is more or less what he originally was upset about. He never wanted schism.
Sola Fide is another situation where it has been warped over time and misconceptions exist between groups. The Joint Doctrine of Justification has helped the differing groups realize that we are not all that much in disagreement. If one compares the Protestant view of Sola Scriptura in the Joint Doctrine of Justification against the quotes provided by you and I you will see that these views did indeed exist in the Early Church.
I spoke of this on another thread but I would like to start a group where once a week we read one of the Documents of the Church fathers and then discuss it in detail - it would take some time and effort but I think that it would be more beneficial to people such as you and I that are frustrated with dealing with the tired questions of “Why did he kiss the Koran”, “Is the Muslim God the same as the Christian God ”, “Luther ripped books from the Bible” etc.
I do hope that you will participate.
Your original question was, I believe, is there any proof or reason to believe that the Early Church held Protestant views. I gave you proof of that… that they did indeed exists. You give examples of quotes that are indeed helpful. First let me say that none of them contradict the Solas that I set forth as understood by the early protestants - the later interpretations of them perhaps but not as they were originally intended.
Second, outside of these quotes we do see the Church Fathers refuting and rebutting now held Protestant beliefs. Why is this? Because people in the Early Church held just such beliefs. You don’t try to refute things that are not being exhibited or spoken of…
For instance I don’t say coital relations with aliens from outer space is wrong, because it isn’t a problem.
We see the Church Fathers talking about the need for Infant Baptism, arguing against a fractured Church where Bishops have their own domain, we see them talking about things outside of scripture that should be headed. Why? Because people in the early Church were arguing against Infant Baptism, arguing against a Supreme Pontiff, arguing against Sacred Tradition, etc.
These views did not come into being in the 1500’s.
But let me say a few things. Sola Scriptura as originally intended means little more than Scripture is the Supreme measure against all things - if something contradicts scripture than it is wrong. We see direct reference to this in my quotes. Do we see other things like the need for Tradition - sure but I am not and Luther was not against Tradition as long as it didn’t contradict scripture. Now, a Catholic might state that the Catholic Church doesn’t hold anything that is contrary to scripture. Perhaps, certainly in the time of Luther the Church was doing things that were contrary to Scripture and that is more or less what he originally was upset about. He never wanted schism.
Sola Fide is another situation where it has been warped over time and misconceptions exist between groups. The Joint Doctrine of Justification has helped the differing groups realize that we are not all that much in disagreement. If one compares the Protestant view of Sola Scriptura in the Joint Doctrine of Justification against the quotes provided by you and I you will see that these views did indeed exist in the Early Church.
I spoke of this on another thread but I would like to start a group where once a week we read one of the Documents of the Church fathers and then discuss it in detail - it would take some time and effort but I think that it would be more beneficial to people such as you and I that are frustrated with dealing with the tired questions of “Why did he kiss the Koran”, “Is the Muslim God the same as the Christian God ”, “Luther ripped books from the Bible” etc.
I do hope that you will participate.
M
michaelp
Guest
Shibboleth, I am in. Just let me know the details when you get them worked out. I think it would be nice to get some gracious people from all traditions of Christianity involved.
Michael
D
dennisknapp
Guest
You did provide quotes that when taken in context do not teach what most Protestants today regard as sola scriptura and sola fide. Whether or not Luther had a more traditional view or not is not the issue. What of those who call themselves Baptists, “Bible Chirstian.” and others who claim to ONLY base their beliefs on Scripture ALONE?
And if what you are saying is true then sola scriptura and sola fide do not truly exist–if you are in agreement with the early Church.
I would love to participate in a discussion.
N
Neithan
Guest
The question here is tricky, the language is misguiding you. Is it bread? No. Is it bread? Yes. Both of these are correct answers! The question should be about what kind of bread are we talking about? Transubstantiation is a brilliant doctrine, a brilliant way of understanding the mystery of the Eucharist. Its brilliance can be hard to grasp sometimes though, and a large part of this (and in fact a large part of all theological disagreements) is the confusion of terminology, words and their meanings in different contexts. You say you believe “the bread is Christ”, it would be more accurate to say Christ is the bread.
It is clear from Scripture that Christ describes himself as bread. He is the bread of Life. Therefore yes, the Eucharist is bread and wine (but NOT vice versa). Unfortunately, Luther was confused about the understanding of this, and although he recognized that the key to it was its relation to Christ’s physical incarnation, in his confusion he reversed the presence of Christ.
Now, Lutherans have superimposed Christ’s incarnation into human flesh onto his incarnation in the bread and wine. This may seem correct, but it is not so simply explained. Christ’s Divinity is Consubstantial with his Physical Incarnation, but his Physical Incarnation is *NOT *Consubstantial with his human form. Christ’s humanity is fully Christ, he is not merely “in, with and under” human flesh, he IS that human flesh. His human form IS his Incarnation. Just as the eucharistic bread IS his Incarnation.
To say that Christ’s physical presence in the flesh is not human flesh is silly. To say that the Christ’s physical presence in the bread is not bread is likewise impossible. I have a question for the Lutherans, if it is not entirely bread, what is it? Do you think there is human flesh in the bread? I hope not. Do you think there is really human blood in the wine? If you are saying that Christ is merely “in, with and under” the bread and wine, and yet he is physically present, what kind of physical presence is this? Is he Consubstantially mixing his human flesh and blood in with bread and wine? How can you reconcile this belief with reason?
When we say the bread and wine cease to be the substances of bread and wine, we mean that they are no longer what they were. They are no longer that bread and wine that existed before the consecration. After consecration, Christ physically assumes this bread and wine. He *physically *becomes this bread and wine, just as he physically became human. Why do you insist that some of the bread is only bread? What part is Christ then? How do you know which crumb is Christ and which is merely the bread? The Church insists that Christ IS every crumb of bread, and every drop of wine, not partially, but fully. He is the bread. He *is *the wine.
(Continued)
N
Neithan
Guest
The bread and wine maintain their appearances, there is no visible change in them. This is why we explain them as “accidents.” The bread keeps its appearance that it had before Christ physically became it. It is no longer that bread, it is Christ, but it still looks like that bread. Christ’s human flesh has no “accident” because there was never a time in which it developed an appearance without Christ’s physical presence. Christ was always his human form from the moment of conception. To say that Christ is merely present “in, with and under” His human flesh is similar to the Docetic heresy, that Christ merely physically “possessed” the body of a mere man. Yet this is exactly what Lutherans do with the Eucharist, they insist that Christ “possesses” the bread with his presence, rather than fully becomes the bread itself.
The key to understanding transubstantiation is indeed Christ’s physical presence in his human flesh, and his physical presence in the bread and wine, however, neither of these is consubstantial (like Christ’s divinity with his humanity). Christ is not “in, with and under” the form of mere human flesh, he IS human flesh! Christ is not “in, with and under” the eucharistic bread and wine, he IS the bread and wine! You see? The miracle is that Christ is physically incarnating himself as bread and wine in the sacrifice of the mass. Therefore, the bread and wine are His very body and blood. Christ’s human flesh and blood are not *consubstantiated *with bread and wine, that is, human flesh and blood are not mixed with mere bread and wine. Rather, Christ’s human flesh and blood are transubstantiated into bread and wine. Christ IS bread and wine.
Here is a simple summary comparison between Luther’s view and the orthodox view of physical presence in the communion: Luther saw the bread as possessing Christ’s body. The Church teaches that Christ’s body IS the bread. If Christ is the bread, it can no longer be mere bread, just as Christ’s human flesh is not (and never was) merely human flesh. They are both Christ’s physical incarnation.
Phew! I hope that helps a bit! Sorry for all the repetition. I just really want to re-iterate the simple fact that the Eucharist physically is Christ. It doesn’t have Christ or contain Christ. It is Christ.
Pax Christi
The key to understanding transubstantiation is indeed Christ’s physical presence in his human flesh, and his physical presence in the bread and wine, however, neither of these is consubstantial (like Christ’s divinity with his humanity). Christ is not “in, with and under” the form of mere human flesh, he IS human flesh! Christ is not “in, with and under” the eucharistic bread and wine, he IS the bread and wine! You see? The miracle is that Christ is physically incarnating himself as bread and wine in the sacrifice of the mass. Therefore, the bread and wine are His very body and blood. Christ’s human flesh and blood are not *consubstantiated *with bread and wine, that is, human flesh and blood are not mixed with mere bread and wine. Rather, Christ’s human flesh and blood are transubstantiated into bread and wine. Christ IS bread and wine.
Here is a simple summary comparison between Luther’s view and the orthodox view of physical presence in the communion: Luther saw the bread as possessing Christ’s body. The Church teaches that Christ’s body IS the bread. If Christ is the bread, it can no longer be mere bread, just as Christ’s human flesh is not (and never was) merely human flesh. They are both Christ’s physical incarnation.
Phew! I hope that helps a bit! Sorry for all the repetition. I just really want to re-iterate the simple fact that the Eucharist physically is Christ. It doesn’t have Christ or contain Christ. It is Christ.
Pax Christi
S
SPOKENWORD
Guest
If you understood the Mystery of the Eucharist ,then it wouldnt be a Mystery would it? Supernatural can only be seen with supernatural eyes. 
N
Neithan
Guest
True words SPOKENWORD writes. The thing is, Transubstantiation explains what happens. How the Eucharist happens is and always will be a mystery.
B
Booklover
Guest
By what authority do you claim to know more about scriptures than the Church does? You know more than an institution that’s been around for over 2000 years??
What, do you have God’s email address and fax number?
B
Booklover
Guest
How True! I sometimes think Protestants are the most unbelieving people on the planet. They only believe what they can understand. I think their whole ideology can be summed up this way: Salvation by Jesus Christ on faith alone and interpreting scriptures any way they like!If you understood the Mystery of the Eucharist ,then it wouldnt be a Mystery would it? Supernatural can only be seen with supernatural eyes.
K
Katholikos
Guest
That’s a perfect summary description of Protestantism.
(BTW, Spokenword has told us that he left the Catholic Church and became a Protestant because he got his feelings hurt. Go figure.)
JMJ Jay
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!
- Status