As a Lutheran, honesty requires me to say that this can also be applied to Luther’s “in, with, and under”. Perhaps the Orthodox have it right. It is a mystery.
Jon
- Status
Jon
S
steve_b
Guest
Jon,
Brkn1 was associating the consistant teaching of the Church with what pagans do also to validate their idolotry.
And THAT is what prompted me to say what I did. But it is NOT just an off the cuff remark. The pope wrote a clarification on this just in case people were getting fuzzy on the realities.
From Domnus Jesus
- Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
The 1st example are the Orthodox, the 2nd are Protesatants
Steve,
I see what you are saying in response to the previous poster. Perhaps I jumped the gun a little. And I also understand the Catholic Church’s position on our Eucharist. But I would also like to point to future hope between our communions. I lifted this quote by (then) Cardinal Ratzinger from:
usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml
Jon
Edit: Oh, and Steve, I apologize to you for jumping the gun.
T
TomaszA
Guest
Peace O.S. Luke,
If you say Jesus is really present, how is this so when the bread still looks like bread? The Transubstantiation at least offers a reasonable explanation, though it in no way decreases the mystery! Although the accidents remain the same, the substance is transformed into the whole Christ! This is a marvelous mystery!
Philosophy is the handmaid of Theology!
God bless,
Tomasz
We believe in the Real Presence as well, but there is nothing wrong with trying to understand what we believe.
If you say Jesus is really present, how is this so when the bread still looks like bread? The Transubstantiation at least offers a reasonable explanation, though it in no way decreases the mystery! Although the accidents remain the same, the substance is transformed into the whole Christ! This is a marvelous mystery!
Philosophy is the handmaid of Theology!
God bless,
Tomasz
B
brkn1
Guest
There is quite a difference between the memory of a past event in your mind and the actual event. You are not really present, time-wise and physically, in the memory, although what took place might be very real and the results of that event could be just as effectual. There are disturbing implications to the idea of reverse time travel that you bring to the table. It really does smack of a made-up by man interpretation to fit an incorrect interpretation. That is where many cults go off into some outlandish understandings of Scripture.
S
steve_b
Guest
:tiphat: no problem, brother.
F
Fisher
Guest
This said, I will answer what Jesus meant when He said we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Let’s turn to John Chapter 6 in our Bibles and go through it. The eternal Word will leave no doubt as to its meaning.
JOHN 6, VERSES 1 THROUGH 21
In this first part of the chapter Jesus feeds 5,000 people with just five barley loaves and two little fish.
JOHN 6, VERSES 22 THROUGH 25
The following day, the people went looking for Jesus.
JOHN 6, VERSES 26 THROUGH 27
When the people found Jesus, He told them that they didn’t look for Him because of the miracle they had just experienced. They came looking for Him because they wanted some more food (v. 26). Then He told them not to labour for the meat that perishes but for the meat which would give them everlasting life. Jesus said He would give to them.
JOHN 6, VERSES 28 THROUGH 29
Then the people said, “What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?”
Jesus’ response in v. 29 is very important to understand…
“This is the work of God, that ye
BELIEVE on him whom he hath sent.”
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
Peace be with you, Tomasz.
My short answer would be that supernatural events, such as the Real Presence, do not adhere to an either/or logic. Bread and wine become Jesus’ body and blood. Again, to go Thomistic and Aristotelian on what happens at the epiclesis of the Eucharist is, in my estimation, an attempt to demystify the miracle of Christ’s presence. It’s the wrong approach, in my opinion.
If I ever swam across a river, it would be the Bosphorus, not the Tiber. I think a mystery should be a mystery.
O+
T
TomaszA
Guest
And with your spirit, O.S. Luke,
There is nothing wrong with clarifying doctrine. The seven ecumenical councils shared by East and West did just that. Defining the relationship of the Son and Father as being “one in substance” does not take the mystery out of the Trinity, it helps further understanding and protects the deposit of faith. The same is true for the Transubstantiation.
Many are quick to deny it, but what is the Transubstantiation? Most probably believe what the doctrine states without knowing it! When Jesus took the bread and said, “This is my Body,” the bread still looked, tasted, smelled, and felt like bread. To use an Aristotelian phrase, the accidents remained the same. But if the appearance/accidents remained, what changed? Using another Aristotelian phrase, the substance transformed into the Body of Christ. Now what believer in the Real Presence would deny that the appearance of bread and wine remain while an actual transformation takes place on a substantial level?
Furthermore, who can say the mystery is taken out? It’s beyond reason and senses to say that the substance transforms while accidents remain! Only a miracle could be responsible for something so incomprehensible!
The mystery is intact and what we believe is defended, since doctrines opposing the Transubstantiation are the result of lack of faith. Luther didn’t possess the faith to say the whole substance becomes Christ, instead he could see only bread so he proposed consubstantiation!
The Transubstantiation is known as Metousiosis in the East. Like the West they believe the substance (ousia) is transformed where as the accidents (sumbebekota) remain unchanged.
For more read here: bringyou.to/apologetics/num31.htm
God bless,
Tomasz
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
Just one comment - Luther NEVER said the word “consubstantiation.” And since I am from the Anglican/Methodist branch, the Real Presence has never been an issue or needed to be explained.
As far as the East, they have ALWAYS resisted any explanation. For the East, using Aristotelian logic is a non sequitur when it comes to matters sacramental. Sacraments, as supernatural sign/actions, are necessarily a “both/and” rather than an “either/or.”
I was under the impression from my studies in sacramental theology that the Eastern church rejected Roman terminology, and rejected metousiosis in favor of metabole or even metastoicheiosis. In short, less about substance, and more about essence.
That was a long time ago. I could be wrong.
Pax vobiscum.
O+
As far as the East, they have ALWAYS resisted any explanation. For the East, using Aristotelian logic is a non sequitur when it comes to matters sacramental. Sacraments, as supernatural sign/actions, are necessarily a “both/and” rather than an “either/or.”
I was under the impression from my studies in sacramental theology that the Eastern church rejected Roman terminology, and rejected metousiosis in favor of metabole or even metastoicheiosis. In short, less about substance, and more about essence.
That was a long time ago. I could be wrong.
Pax vobiscum.
O+
B
brkn1
Guest
The precedence which speaks against any “offering sacrifice” coming out of the remembrance of Jesus’ love and His one Sacrifice, through the breaking of bread in communion, is found in Genesis chapter 4.
v. 3 “And in the process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.”
God did not have respect unto Cain’s offering.
The bread and wine speak of the fruit of the ground, which was rejected as an offering.
There is a serious biblical inconsistency, if your incorrect interpretation of “do” as offering in sacrifice were true. Such offerings were rejected from the very beginning of Scripture.
v. 3 “And in the process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.”
God did not have respect unto Cain’s offering.
The bread and wine speak of the fruit of the ground, which was rejected as an offering.
There is a serious biblical inconsistency, if your incorrect interpretation of “do” as offering in sacrifice were true. Such offerings were rejected from the very beginning of Scripture.
O
onenow1
Guest
=onenow1 Jesus took bread and blesed it, Jesus is God and blessed the bread. The offering of the Lamb of God, at the Last Supper, His own Body and blood. Has it ever occured to you there was no lamb meat offered only the Lamb of God at the Last Supper. Matt. 26: 26-28
Peace,onenow1
B
brkn1
Guest
The one Sacrifice at Calvary had not happened yet, so it is quite a stretch to say that the Last Supper was “the offering of the Lamb of God”. You must be talking about a “pre-offering” or some such man-made invention.=onenow1 Jesus took bread and blesed it, Jesus is God and blessed the bread. The offering of the Lamb of God, at the Last Supper, His own Body and blood. Has it ever occured to you there was no lamb meat offered only the Lamb of God at the Last Supper. Matt. 26: 26-28
Peace,onenow1
You still have not explained the biblical inconsistency of sacrificial offering that I pointed out. A “fruit of the ground” offering was rejected by God from the very beginning of Scripture.
O
onenow1
Guest
=onenow1, No ! This was Jesus command at the last supper, " Do This In Memory of Me." And wouldn’t you know it he used bread and wine, work of human hands. :yup:
Peace,onenow1
T
TomaszA
Guest
Peace Brkn1,
**
The Sacrificial character of the Last Supper:**
Hebrews 10:3
“And you shall put pure frankincense with each row, that it may go with the bread as a MEMORIAL portion [anamnesis] to be OFFERED by fire to the Lord”
Leviticus 24:7
“On the day of your gladness…you shall blow over your burnt OFFERINGS and over the SACRIFICES of your peace OFFERINGS; they shall serve you for REMEMBRANCE (anamnesis) before your God”
Numbers 10:10
It’s obvious what we have here is a sacrifice. As to the objection that we can’t offer bread and wine, the answer is simple: it’s the Body and Blood of Christ that is offered. Furthermore, it’s a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy that the Messiah will institute a Priesthood in the Order of Melchizedek (See Genesis 14:18, Psalm 110:4, Malachi 1:11**)**.
It’s clear Jesus is the High Priest who established the order of Melchizedek, which lives on through His Church until this very day.
My friend, there is no inconsistency. The words of the Last Supper are clearly sacrificial, the fulfillment of prophecy, and reveal the Real Presence of Christ.
**
The Sacrificial character of the Last Supper:**
- The expressions, “This is my Body which is offered up for you” and “This is my Blood which will be shed for you” are biblical sacrificial terms which indicate a true and proper sacrifice.
- The fact that the Body is separate from the Blood symbolically represents the bloody sacrifice of the Cross in a bloodless manner, for on the Cross the blood of Christ was separated from His body.
- Furthermore Christ designates His Blood “The Blood of the Covenant” which is synonymous with the blood of sacrifice (see Exodus 24:8).
- The phrase “Do this in remembrance of Me” also carries a sacrificial tone. The word** “Do” (POIEIN)** is used about seventy times in the Bible in reference to offering sacrifice. Here is an example:
- The word “Remembrance” (ANAMNESIS) occurs only EIGHT times in the NT and OT, and SEVEN out of those eight times it is used in a sacrificial context.
Hebrews 10:3
“And you shall put pure frankincense with each row, that it may go with the bread as a MEMORIAL portion [anamnesis] to be OFFERED by fire to the Lord”
Leviticus 24:7
“On the day of your gladness…you shall blow over your burnt OFFERINGS and over the SACRIFICES of your peace OFFERINGS; they shall serve you for REMEMBRANCE (anamnesis) before your God”
Numbers 10:10
It’s obvious what we have here is a sacrifice. As to the objection that we can’t offer bread and wine, the answer is simple: it’s the Body and Blood of Christ that is offered. Furthermore, it’s a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy that the Messiah will institute a Priesthood in the Order of Melchizedek (See Genesis 14:18, Psalm 110:4, Malachi 1:11**)**.
It’s clear Jesus is the High Priest who established the order of Melchizedek, which lives on through His Church until this very day.
B
brkn1
Guest
Hi TomaszA,
I carefully read your post, but there does not seem to be any explanation for the biblical fact that no offering for sin involved sacrificing the fruit of the ground, which God rejected of Cain’s attempt to do so.
All biblical offering for sin required the shedding of blood, which pointed toward the Messiah, Who would shed His Blood to redeem us.
The use of the fruit of the ground (bread and wine) would contradict God’s prescribed method of always using the shedding of blood, if the breaking of bread in memory of Jesus’ one Sacrifice, was also an actual sacrifice and not the memorial that Jesus called it.
Your understanding would mean that Cain was “on the right track”, which Scripture rejects. Cain was just inventing his own way and his “offering” was outright rejected by God.
T
TomaszA
Guest
Peace brkn1,
Now getting back to offering bread, this was actually very common. In fact, I did a basic search by typing “bread” in a Bible search engine and numerous passages came up indicating bread, grain, and drink offerings were made to God. So immediately we know that God does not reject all offerings that aren’t animal. Let’s look at a couple of passages:
"You shall take fine flour and bake twelve loaves from it; two tenths of an ephah shall be in each loaf. And you shall set them in two piles, six in a pile, on the table of pure gold before the LORD. And you shall put pure frankincense on each pile, that it may go with the bread as a memorial portion as a food offering to the LORD.
Leviticus 24:5-7
“'The priest is to present them before the LORD and make the sin offering and the burnt offering. He is to present the basket of unleavened bread and is to sacrifice the ram as a fellowship offering to the LORD, together with its grain offering and drink offering.”
Numbers 6:16-17
These are only two examples, there are many. But what I also did in my last post is to show that the Bible prophecies a new order of Priests in the order of Melchizedek. Melchizedek was a priest that offered bread and wine to God. This offering is a type of the sacrifice at Mass. The main difference is that at Mass it’s the Body and Blood of Christ that is offered under the appearance of bread and wine. This priesthood obviously exists in the Catholic Church, but I’m not sure how Protestants would explain it’s absence from their denominations!
So we see there is no contradiction here, and as I went over, Jesus’ words at the last supper are sacrificial. Sacrifices often served as a “remembrance” for something so this in no ways contradicts the reality of what’s occurring. I’m sorry, but the Protestant position is simply untenable.
God bless,
Tomasz
God rejected Cain’s offering, though it’s not clear why, nor is it indicated that this was an offering to remit sin. The fact is grain, bread, and drink were often offered to God! But before I get to that, I want to reemphasize the point that Priests are not offering mere bread and wine, but in fact the Body and Blood of Christ! I know Protestants like to quote “Do this in remembrance of Me” (which doesn’t contradict the Real Presence) they neglect the statement immediately before it where Jesus says, **“This is My Body.” ** So there is no contradiction in saying Jesus is really present on the Altar, as well as saying Mass is a remembrance of the objective sacrifice (Christ on the Cross 2000 years ago!).
Now getting back to offering bread, this was actually very common. In fact, I did a basic search by typing “bread” in a Bible search engine and numerous passages came up indicating bread, grain, and drink offerings were made to God. So immediately we know that God does not reject all offerings that aren’t animal. Let’s look at a couple of passages:
"You shall take fine flour and bake twelve loaves from it; two tenths of an ephah shall be in each loaf. And you shall set them in two piles, six in a pile, on the table of pure gold before the LORD. And you shall put pure frankincense on each pile, that it may go with the bread as a memorial portion as a food offering to the LORD.
Leviticus 24:5-7
“'The priest is to present them before the LORD and make the sin offering and the burnt offering. He is to present the basket of unleavened bread and is to sacrifice the ram as a fellowship offering to the LORD, together with its grain offering and drink offering.”
Numbers 6:16-17
These are only two examples, there are many. But what I also did in my last post is to show that the Bible prophecies a new order of Priests in the order of Melchizedek. Melchizedek was a priest that offered bread and wine to God. This offering is a type of the sacrifice at Mass. The main difference is that at Mass it’s the Body and Blood of Christ that is offered under the appearance of bread and wine. This priesthood obviously exists in the Catholic Church, but I’m not sure how Protestants would explain it’s absence from their denominations!
So we see there is no contradiction here, and as I went over, Jesus’ words at the last supper are sacrificial. Sacrifices often served as a “remembrance” for something so this in no ways contradicts the reality of what’s occurring. I’m sorry, but the Protestant position is simply untenable.
God bless,
Tomasz
B
brkn1
Guest
Your two examples are not sin offerings as you incorrectly suggest.
God accepts other offerings, but you will find no offering for sin in the Bible that does not have the shedding of blood in it. A “bloodless sacrifice” would be disqualified as a sin-offering by that criteria. The mass claims that venial sin gets remitted.
Cain must have been offering the fruit of the field in place of God’s prescribed sacrifice of a lamb, which Abel correctly offered, That would explain why Cain’s invented offering was rejected by God. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission (of sin).
God accepts other offerings, but you will find no offering for sin in the Bible that does not have the shedding of blood in it. A “bloodless sacrifice” would be disqualified as a sin-offering by that criteria. The mass claims that venial sin gets remitted.
Cain must have been offering the fruit of the field in place of God’s prescribed sacrifice of a lamb, which Abel correctly offered, That would explain why Cain’s invented offering was rejected by God. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission (of sin).
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
What “Protestant position” are you referring to?
- Status