Dear friend in Christ what are

[JB_Brother_4446]

“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.”

The is the Sacramental blessing on the bread. Partaking of the Sacrament (aka the Lord’s Supper) is a renewal of all the promises we have made with God, us taking upon His name. The bread is a symbol, but it is not a meaningless inert symbol.

It is not a symbol; it is Him!

 

[steido01]

Color me surprised that you even felt you had to point that out. Of course they were separated.

More for the thread’s benefit than yours.

I will say that the wine put in the little micro- shot glasses were poured back into a wine bottle, while the wine in the chalice was poured out on the ground.

I wish less churches used those things. Too much potential for disrespect to be shown.

I thought we bowed out of respect for the Lord’s presence at His Altar, but I guess Eucharistic Adoration works, too.

His Real Presence at the altar. It’s a both/and thing.

 

[PJM]

Before I take it upon myself to answer this question ( speaking only for myself, of course), allow me please to offer my compliments to the CAF staff and posters. Whether one is a Catholic or a Protestant, one is certainly kept on one’s toes as to offer an explanation for the faith that has been given to him/ her. People aren’t allowed to just say, " Some authority says it, I believe it, there’s an end to it," but must render an accounting. I fully respect that and with that being said, let me offer my own Confession’s take on both Transubstantiation and the Real Presence ( with which I fully agree, both personally and Confessionally).

*20] Dr. Luther has also more amply expounded and confirmed this opinion from God’s Word in the Large Catechism, where it is written: What, then, is the Sacrament of the Altar? Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine, which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. 21] And shortly after: It is the ‘Word,’ I say, which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament, so that it is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called. the body and blood of Christ. 22] Again: With this Word you can strengthen your conscience and say: If a hundred thousand devils, together with all fanatics, should rush forward, crying, How can bread and wine be the body and blood of Christ? I know that all spirits and scholars together are not as wise as is the Divine Majesty in His little finger. Now, here stands the Word of Christ: “Take, eat; this is My body. Drink ye all of this; this is the new testament in My blood,” etc. Here we abide, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken. 23] It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word, or regard it without the Word, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive.

24] Hence it is easy to reply to all manner of questions about which at the present time men are disturbed, as, for instance, whether a wicked priest can administer and distribute the Sacrament, and such like other points. For here conclude and reply: Even though a knave take or distribute the Sacrament, he receives the true Sacrament, that is, the true body and blood of Christ, just as truly as he who receives or administers it in the most worthy manner. For it is not founded upon the holiness of men, but upon the Word of God. And as no saint upon earth, yea, no angel in heaven, can change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, so also can no one change or alter it, even though it be abused.

25] For the Word, by which it became a sacrament and was instituted, does not become false because of the person or his unbelief. For He does not say: If you believe or are worthy, you will receive My body and blood, but: “Take, eat and drink; this is My body and blood”; 26] likewise: “Do this” (namely, what I now do, institute, give, and bid you take). That is as much as to say, No matter whether you be worthy or unworthy, you have here His body and blood, by virtue of these words which are added to the bread and wine. This mark and observe well; for upon these words rest all our foundation, protection, and defense against all error and temptation that have ever come or may yet come.* bookofconcord.org/sd-supper.php

Thank you my friend

Unfortunately though ONLY the RCC and the Orthodox Churches are empowered through DIRECT Apostolic Succession {Mt 10:1-8, Mt 16:15-19, Jn 17:17*20 & Mt 28:18-20} to be ABLE to transform ordianet bread into the REAL Body of Jesus, and ordinary wine into the very BLOOD of the Now GLORIFIED Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity ogf thje Risen Jesus Christ. Amen!

God Bless you, this is WHY more than any other reason one should be an In formed practicing Catholic

Patrick.

 

[PJM]

In my understanding, Transubstantiation is a human attempt to understand or explain the mystery of the Real Presence. In my opinion, it falls short.

I prefer to simply call the Real Presence a mysterious Sacramental Union that is beyond any human understanding. Christ’s Body and Blood are made totally and completely present in every possible way - in, with, under, around, over, spiritually, physically, backwards, frontwards.

But St. Paul also calls the Body and Blood, “Bread and Wine,” so we cannot pretend they disappear (that’s where Transubstantiation falls short). So without creating a third substance, without co-mingling, without impanation and without consubstantiatial eating, we mysteriously consume what is transformed into the true Body and Blood of Christ.

In short, it’s best to know What is present and What it does than to try to explain how it comes to be. Let the Word work.

Thank you

From Father Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary

TRANSUBSTANTIATION. The complete change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood by a validly ordained priest during the consecration at Mass, so that only the accidents of bread and wine remain. While the faith behind the term was already believed in apostolic times, the term itself was a later development. With the Eastern Fathers before the sixth century, the favored expression was meta-ousiosis “change of being”; the Latin tradition coined the word transubstantiatio, “change of substance,” which was incorporated into the creed of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The Council of Trent, in defining the “wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and the whole substance of the wine into the blood” of Christ, added “which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation” (Denzinger 1652). After transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe; they are sustained in existence by divine power. (Etym. Latin trans-, so as to change + substantia, substance: transubstantiatio, change of substance. End Quote

God Bless you

PJM

 

[PJM]

(I’m taking this is an interfaith question)
In the Lord’s Supper, the bread is blessed, and thus becomes blessed bread. It does not become flesh. We take this bread in remembrance of Him and renew our covenants.

Thank you, and you are completey CORRECT for you and for the many protestant faiths.

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[Padres1969]

Thank you, and you are completey CORRECT for you and for the many protestant faiths.

God Bless you

Patrick

Jane’s not Protestant, she’s Mormon

 

[PJM]

The dogma of Transubstantiation is a Catholic response abuses and denials of the sacrament of the altar.

It’s a bit lacking as some aspects of our faith are true mysteries - but if understood as a bulwark against heresy, then it’s good for Catholics.

Lutherans tend to prefer to say that the mystery is indeed a mystery. Though we do teach various ways of understanding the eucharist, we don’t make the explanation itself a dogma.

OK

As the OP i guess I got waht I asked for.

BUT please be specific in your charges, so that we MIGHT be able to respond.

While disagreeing with you, I Do respect your views IF and WHN factually supported, and not simply your churches matra.

God Bless you my friend

Patrick {PJM}

 

[jane_doe]

Thank you, and you are completey CORRECT for you and for the many protestant faiths.

To my knowledge I don’t know any Protestant faiths which believe the Lord’s Supper is not literally flesh but also believe it does do something sacramentally (this is the LDS belief). Do you know any?

 

[PJM]

Jane’s not Protestant, she’s Mormon

Thanks, I knew that

 

[Padres1969]

Please share with us your understanding of Transubstantiation as it relates to the Doctrine of the “Real Presence”

here is the Catholic understanding:

“TRANSUBSTANTIATION. The complete change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood by a validly ordained priest during the consecration at Mass, so that only the accidents of bread and wine remain. While the faith behind the term was already believed in apostolic times, the term itself was a later development. With the Eastern Fathers before the sixth century, the favored expression was meta-ousiosis “change of being”; the Latin tradition coined the word transubstantiatio, “change of substance,” which was incorporated into the creed of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The Council of Trent, in defining the “wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and the whole substance of the wine into the blood” of Christ, added “which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation” (Denzinger 1652). After transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe; they are sustained in existence by divine power. (Etym. Latin trans-, so as to change + substantia, substance: transubstantiatio, change of substance.)”** From Father Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary
**

God Bless you

Patrick

Transubstantiation is the Catholic explanation (and indeed some non-Catholics as well) of the mechanism through which Christ is wholly and truly present in the Holy Eucharist during and after the blessing and confection of the bread and wine. Where in the bread and wine are completely replaced by the body and blood of Christ and only retain the appearance of their previous substance.

It is a very specific explanation of the mechanism of Christ becoming present in communion, but it’s not one typically shared by most other churches, at least not in such specificity. Most Christian Churches, both those that the RCC sees as validly confecting the Eucharist such as the Orthodox, and those the RCC does not see as confecting valid Eucharist, do not delve into quite so specific an explanation. For example the Orthodox, while agreeing that the bread and wine become the body and blood, do not subscribe to Transubstantiation and refer to the change as a Sacred Mystery. The Lutherans have a slightly modified view believing the bread and wine remain present in some manner along side the actual body and blood of the lord and prefer to think of it more generally as a Sacred Union. My own church, with our view that we do have Apostolic Succession despite the Pope Leo’s Apostolicae curae, also believes the Body and Blood of the lord are wholly and completely present in the Eucharist, but don’t even delve into the “how” that Transubstantiation attempts to explain preferring simply to say the Real Presence of the Lord is there and leave it at that not seeing the mechanism as being the point and again also being a mystery beyond human understanding and comprehension.

 

[PJM]

To my knowledge I don’t know any Protestant faiths which believe the Lord’s Supper is not literally flesh but also believe it does do something sacramentally (this is the LDS belief). Do you know any?

I’ve read your statement 4 times and am not sure I comprehend it?

Maybe it’s my lifelong Catholicism, and I can’t disconnect the two:shrug:

While some {Lutherans for example may choose {WHY is a profound question} to dissociate a professed belief, I presume on the grounds that we Catholics term and classify it as a Sacrament instituted By Christ???, and they simply do not wish to be identified with something soooo CATHOLIC??? is mysterious.

IF its REALLY God, then how can one NOT be affected if received licitly, validly and knowingly:shrug:

God Bless you

PJM

 

[PJM]

Transubstantiation is the Catholic explanation (and indeed some non-Catholics as well) of the mechanism through which Christ is wholly and truly present in the Holy Eucharist during and after the blessing and confection of the bread and wine. Where in the bread and wine are completely replaced by the body and blood of Christ and only retain the appearance of their previous substance.

It is a very specific explanation of the mechanism of Christ becoming present in communion, but it’s not one typically shared by most other churches, at least not in such specificity. Most Christian Churches, both those that the RCC sees as validly confecting the Eucharist such as the Orthodox, and those the RCC does not see as confecting valid Eucharist, do not delve into quite so specific an explanation. For example the Orthodox, while agreeing that the bread and wine become the body and blood, do not subscribe to Transubstantiation and refer to the change as a Sacred Mystery. The Lutherans have a slightly modified view believing the bread and wine remain present in some manner along side the actual body and blood of the lord and prefer to think of it more generally as a Sacred Union. My own church also believes the Body and Blood of the lord are wholly and completely present in the Eucharist, but don’t even delve into the “how” that Transubstantiation attempts to explain preferring simply to say the Real Presence of the Lord is there and leave it at that not seeing the mechanism as being of great importance and again a mystery beyond human understanding and comprehension.

Thank you for sharing this:thumbsup:

 

[Padres1969]

To my knowledge I don’t know any Protestant faiths which believe the Lord’s Supper is not literally flesh but also believe it does do something sacramentally (this is the LDS belief). Do you know any?

I’m a bit confused at your statement. Are you saying you don’t know of any Protestants that don’t believe the bread and wine become flesh but do believe it does something sacramentally? If so that’s an easy to dissuade notion as many in the more reformed family don’t believe the Body and Blood become the actual body and blood of Christ but who do believe a change occurs to the bread and wine during communion (with Christ being present spiritually in the bread and wine), and which give communion a sacramental nature. For example the Presbyterian Church and the United Church of Christ take this view.

 

[steido01]

To my knowledge I don’t know any Protestant faiths which believe the Lord’s Supper is not literally flesh but also believe it does do something sacramentally (this is the LDS belief). Do you know any?

Some Calvinists believe in what is jokingly called the “Real Absence.” They consider Christ to be present, but only spiritually, as a memorial. That is not in accordance with Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans and other Christians who hold to orthodox views.

While some {Lutherans for example may choose {WHY is a profound question} to dissociate a professed belief, I presume on the grounds that we Catholics term and classify it as a Sacrament instituted By Christ???, and they simply do not wish to be identified with something soooo CATHOLIC??? is mysterious.

You presume incorrectly. Lutherans consider the Lord’s Supper to truly be a Sacrament and therefore instituted by Christ. Lutherans also profess Christ to be truly present in the Bread and the Wine. Lutherans just decline to try saying how this happens because it is a mystery. Has nothing to do with being “too Catholic.”

 

[jane_doe]

I’ve read your statement 4 times and am not sure I comprehend it?

Maybe it’s my lifelong Catholicism, and I can’t disconnect the two:shrug:

No worries, I’m happy to rephrase.

Catholics believe that the Lord’s Supper has a sacramental effect on the partaker, correct?
LDS likewise believe that the Lord’s Supper has a sacramental effect on partaker. In fact we call it “the Sacrament” and our worship services “Sacrament Meeting” for this purpose.

Does this mean that LDS believe bread turns into flesh? No But it is still the Sacrament. I find that the idea that LDS believe something is sacramental but not flesh confuses many lifelong Catholics.

 

[LutheranScholar]

Some Calvinists believe in what is jokingly called the “Real Absence.” They consider Christ to be present, but only spiritually, as a memorial. That is not in accordance with Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans and other Christians who hold to orthodox views.

Yes, exactly. We share the same apostolic view as do our Christian brethren in those other bodies, that Jesus meant what he said and there was ***nothing *figurative about His Statements during the Institution of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. It’s nothing the churches do, it’s what God does, through the words of Christ, as His Body and Blood are in, with and under the Bread and the Wine.

You presume incorrectly.** Lutherans consider the Lord’s Supper to truly be a Sacrament and therefore instituted by Christ. Lutherans also profess Christ to be truly present in the Bread and the Wine. **Lutherans just decline to try saying how this happens because it is a mystery. Has nothing to do with being “too Catholic.”

Indeed. We use the sign of the Holy Cross, too and those other touches of Apostolic Christian tradition that we inherited from the early Christian Church. We don’t presume to have the Knowledge of God and we are content to let a mystery be a mystery. God speaks forgiveness to us through the words of Holy Absolution spoken by the minister and we don’t ask the hows or wherefores of that, either.

 

[PJM]

What is blessed bread? Is this blessing on the bread at the Lord’s Supper the same blessing that you ask for over your food at normal mealtimes?

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by jane_doe
(I’m taking this is an interfaith question)
In the Lord’s Supper, the bread is blessed, and thus becomes blessed bread. It does not become flesh. We take this bread in remembrance of Him and renew our covenants. end quote

What is blessed bread? Is this blessing on the bread at the Lord’s Supper the same blessing that you ask for over your food at normal mealtimes?

Old Testament:
1 King 21:4
And the priest answered David, saying: I have no common bread at hand, but only holybread, if the young men be clean, especially from women
Jewish Tradition post the building of the Ark of the Covenant was to bake daily and place on the Altar in the Sanctuary 12 loafs of “holy bread” each day which “only the priest can eat.
1 King 21:6
The priest therefore gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there, but only the loaves of proposition, which had been taken away from before the face of the Lord, that hot loaves might be set up
This was a precursor to the Eucharist following the Feast of unleavened Bread {Exo 12:7} & Passover.
As to jane….doe and her view, HOW thane does one explain:
Jn 6:47-58 {Douay Bible}

[47**]Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life

. [48] I am the bread of life**. [49] Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead.** [50]** This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.**

[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven[THE NOW RISEN GLORIFIED BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY OF JESUS}. [52] **If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54]Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

{Douay explanation} [54] Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood: To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me

& 1st Cor 11:23-30
[23]** For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you,** that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. [24] And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat:** this is my body**, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. [25] In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the New Testament** in my blood:** this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27]** Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.** {means die spiritually}

**
{Question} HOW can a person cendem themsleves for just eating wha is only bread & wine?}**

Then Jane and other doubters please GOOGLE Eucharistic Miracles
God Bless you,

Do “you” presume that GOD “All good things perfected” CANNOT do this? How litle faith you have. Pray much!

PJM

 

[PJM]

I don’t know what the PNCC is but there other 23 BRANCHES of the RCC all holding the SAME faith beliefs and valid practices:thumbsup:

Thanks

PJM

 

[GKC]

I don’t refute it as instantly as I was once wont to do.

 

[PJM]

Thank you! Appreciate the information:thumbsup:

God Bless you

Patrick