Do We Eat Flesh, Bread, Or What?

[Patrick_Murebil]

The whole of Christ’s passion and death is the Seder meal … come to life … in real time. Jesus did not drink the 4th cup because that would have finished the Seder … but for Jesus it was not time. The sacrifice was not yet complete … read a little further in Matthew … 27:48-50 …

“48 Immediatley one of them ran to get a sponge; he soaked it in wine, and putting it on a reed, gave it to him to drink. 49 But the rest said, “Wait let us see if Elijah comes to save him.” 50 But Jesus cried out again in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit.”

The fourth cup was completed while Jesus was on the cross … completing the Passover … your exegesis misses the Passover completion … and its significance …this is why Christ could die after verse 49. He fufilled in this Passover what was not accomplished in any of the previous Passovers.

Jesus is both priest and victim in this particular Passover.

John 19:28Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” 29A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. 30When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Notice in the account in John 19 that the sponge soaked in the wine vinegar was placed on a stalk of hyssop and lifted to Jesus. Hyssop was what the Hebrews were instructed to use to paint the lambs blood around their doors the night of the Passover in Egypt.

The Lord’s Supper and thus the Eucharist, and the crucifixion can only be understood fully in the context of the Passover feast.

The Passover feast incidently was why they were gathered in the room for the Lord’s Supper, and also was noted as approaching at the beginning of John 6 where Jesus taught that He is the true Bread of Life.

It is important to study the OT passages regarding The Passover, as well as how God sustained His people with manna in the desert as they made their journey to the Holy Land…very important to study!!

God bless all!!!

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Correct I’m admitting that to you. I don’t have a problem with it.

But that’s not what happens. The substance which contains the Gluten still exists. The church admits that. Go ask your priest this weekend if the bread still has gluten in it after consecration. Or if the wine still has alcohol in it after consecration. They most certainly will say yes. If that’s the case then transubstantiation has not happened. Gluten and alcohol are not accidents. Here’s the direct quote from the RCC:

“The substance of the bread and wine** departs** in order to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ”

If that’s the case then the Gluten must be gone. It has to be since Gluten is a substance and needs to cease existence to make room for the substance of Christ.

If the Gluten exists with Christ then we are into Luther’s definition of consubstantiation. You really don’t understand this do you?? You must not and I mean no disrespect but you just can’t get around it.

And where does faith fit into all of this?

God bless all!!!

 

[broski234]

Correct I’m admitting that to you. I don’t have a problem with it.

But that’s not what happens. The substance which contains the Gluten still exists. The church admits that. Go ask your priest this weekend if the bread still has gluten in it after consecration. Or if the wine still has alcohol in it after consecration. They most certainly will say yes. If that’s the case then transubstantiation has not happened. Gluten and alcohol are not accidents. Here’s the direct quote from the RCC:

“The substance of the bread and wine** departs** in order to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ”

If that’s the case then the Gluten must be gone. It has to be since Gluten is a substance and needs to cease existence to make room for the substance of Christ.

If the Gluten exists with Christ then we are into Luther’s definition of consubstantiation. You really don’t understand this do you?? You must not and I mean no disrespect but you just can’t get around it.

Gluten is an accident, not a substance.

 

[NDfan]

Yes, I’m well aware of what the fruit of the vine is.

Had to reduce your quotes to fit on 1 page.

But Broski let’s be clear brother. Jesus says and I’ll quote:

From Matthew: “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this** fruit of the vine **until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Blood of the covenant. Not cup of my blood. Again it’s the third cup of redemption which is red wine and water HE is using here. Then Jesus immediately calls it fruit of the vine which is wine. Why? Because it’s still wine. Please notice Jesus uses the word this. This fruit of the vine. What is this fruit of the vine? The liquid contained in the cup. Fruit of the vine is wine. Hence Jesus is saying** this wine**. Again why does HE still call it wine when you say it’s blood??

From Mark: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Same comments above for Matthew.

From Luke: And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Again the cup represents the covenant. The covenant is in Christ’s blood. It’s not cup of my blood.

Broski if you study Jewish culture thoroughly you will find an interesting practice of 1st century Galilean Jews. When a Jewish man wanted to ask a Jewish woman to marry him, he would pour a glass of red wine and extend it to the woman. The word’s he spoke would be the following: “This cup in my blood is a covenant with you”. He would then hand the cup to the woman who had 2 choices: either to drink from it in which case she accepted his proposal for marriage, or not drink from it and place it down signifying her rejection of the proposal.

Now do you think the woman really ever thought that the cup literally contained the man’s blood? Now I know he’s not Jesus but the point is the same. It’s all about establishing a covenant. the cup is representative of the covenant and the wine symbolizes the blood. What I find most interesting about this is that Christ considers us HIS church to be HIS bride. So when we partake in the cup isn’t that our acceptance of Christ’s proposal to be part of HIS bride the church??

I know this isn’t official church teaching but the parallel is tremendous.

In John 6, He repeats Himself

Thinking that Christ is asking a group of Jews to literally eat HIS flesh and blood is preposterous. You need to stop cherry picking verses from John 6 and read the entire teaching. You will find in earlier verses Jesus says to believe and have eternal life. That the will of the Father’s is that for all who believe in Jesus have eternal life. This occurs in over 20 verses of scripture that we are told that believing leads to eternal life. Now suddenly you want to shift and say it’s eating flesh and blood. Eating flesh and blood is a brash way of teaching them they have to believe in HIM to have eternal life. Christ says earlier in John 6, if you come to me you never go hungry. If you believe you never thirst. Not if you eat flesh and drink blood. Christ later equates believing in HIM with eating HIM. HE’s being figurative. Augustine writes the best sermon on this when he states that if Christ’s words alluded to committing a crime HE surely was speaking figuratively. Augustine states if you believe you have already eaten. Basically what Jesus is saying. John 6 gets so mis-interpreted.

Also, in verse 51, Jesus says that the bread which He will give for the life of the world is His flesh.

This is such an old argument. Of course it wasn’t symbolic. That’s what the gnostics taught. But before Jesus dies HE re-purposed the elements of bread and wine in the Seder meal to symbolize HIS body and blood instead of the lambs from the exodus. We don’t eat Jesus to get eternal life. We believe in HIM.

If you think Jesus is speaking symbolically here when He says that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, then you must also conclude that Jesus’ death on the cross was symbolic

No that’s a terrible argument. If Christ wanted HIS death to be symbolic then HE would have crucified the bread. HIS body was crucified. We eat the bread symbolizing HIS body to remember this sacrifice. Jesus doesn’t say “take this bread and eat, for this is my literal flesh given for you, you must eat it to receive eternal life”. HE says do this in remembrance of HIM. Remembrance of what?? HIS sacrifice. The bread symbolizes HIS body that was literally crucified. You’re trying to argue backwards.

…It wasn’t really Jesus hanging up there…it was symbolic flesh and symbolic blood.

Asked, answered, and explained above.

To walk away from Christ’s Church is not something to be proud of. And by the way, your patronizing me and sarcasm hasn’t gone unnoticed.

Broski I’m not patronizing you so forgive me if that’s what you think. I’m not walking away from Christ’s church because I don’t see Christ’s church as being limited to the RCC.

But let me say this brother, our entire conversation initially revolved around transubstantiation. You really don’t understand what the church teaches here. If you did you would see the contradiction.

I’m fine with saying that somehow through a miracle, Christ is with us at the Lord’s supper every time. In fact I already admit that. But to take it to the level the RCC has and then say no one outside the church can consecrate the bread and wine is much too far. Again my sincere apologies if you thought I was patronizing you.

 

[NDfan]

The whole of Christ’s passion and death is the Seder meal … come to life … in real time. Jesus did not drink the 4th cup because that would have finished the Seder … but for Jesus it was not time. The sacrifice was not yet complete … read a little further in Matthew … 27:48-50 …

“48 Immediatley one of them ran to get a sponge; he soaked it in wine, and putting it on a reed, gave it to him to drink. 49 But the rest said, “Wait let us see if Elijah comes to save him.” 50 But Jesus cried out again in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit.”

The fourth cup was completed while Jesus was on the cross … completing the Passover … your exegesis misses the Passover completion … and its significance …this is why Christ could die after verse 49. He fufilled in this Passover what was not accomplished in any of the previous Passovers.

Jesus is both priest and victim in this particular Passover.

NC no I didn’t miss that. I was only commenting on the elements of the supper as being symbolic. I didn’t even think to comment on the rest. But we don’t get confirmation Jesus drank from the 4th cup. Only that HE was offered it and then died. Do you consider the offering a completion of the 4th cup? What’s interesting is that on the way to the cross Jesus refuses wine initially. I guess what I would ask is what impact does that have on the bread being symbolic or not??

 

[broski234]

Had to reduce your quotes to fit on 1 page.

But Broski let’s be clear brother. Jesus says and I’ll quote:

From Matthew: “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this** fruit of the vine **until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Blood of the covenant. Not cup of my blood. Again it’s the third cup of redemption which is red wine and water HE is using here. Then Jesus immediately calls it fruit of the vine which is wine. Why? Because it’s still wine. Please notice Jesus uses the word this. This fruit of the vine. What is this fruit of the vine? The liquid contained in the cup. Fruit of the vine is wine. Hence Jesus is saying** this wine**. Again why does HE still call it wine when you say it’s blood??

From Mark: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Same comments above for Matthew.

From Luke: And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

-]Again the cup represents the covenant. The covenant is in Christ’s blood. It’s not cup of my blood./-]Wrong.
Broski if you study Jewish culture thoroughly you will find an interesting practice of 1st century Galilean Jews. When a Jewish man wanted to ask a Jewish woman to marry him, he would pour a glass of red wine and extend it to the woman. The word’s he spoke would be the following: “This cup in my blood is a covenant with you”. He would then hand the cup to the woman who had 2 choices: either to drink from it in which case she accepted his proposal for marriage, or not drink from it and place it down signifying her rejection of the proposal.

Now do you think the woman really ever thought that the cup literally contained the man’s blood? Now I know he’s not Jesus but the point is the same. It’s all about establishing a covenant. the cup is representative of the covenant and the wine symbolizes the blood. What I find most interesting about this is that Christ considers us HIS church to be HIS bride. So when we partake in the cup isn’t that our acceptance of Christ’s proposal to be part of HIS bride the church??

I know this isn’t official church teaching but the parallel is tremendous.

Thinking that Christ is asking a group of Jews to literally eat HIS flesh and blood is preposterous. You need to stop cherry picking verses from John 6 and read the entire teaching. You will find in earlier verses Jesus says to believe and have eternal life. That the will of the Father’s is that for all who believe in Jesus have eternal life. This occurs in over 20 verses of scripture that we are told that believing leads to eternal life. Now suddenly you want to shift and say it’s eating flesh and blood. Eating flesh and blood is a brash way of teaching them they have to believe in HIM to have eternal life. Christ says earlier in John 6, if you come to me you never go hungry. If you believe you never thirst. Not if you eat flesh and drink blood. Christ later equates believing in HIM with eating HIM. HE’s being figurative. Augustine writes the best sermon on this when he states that if Christ’s words alluded to committing a crime HE surely was speaking figuratively. Augustine states if you believe you have already eaten. Basically what Jesus is saying. John 6 gets so mis-interpreted.

This is such an old argument. Of course it wasn’t symbolic. That’s what the gnostics taught. But before Jesus dies HE re-purposed the elements of bread and wine in the Seder meal to symbolize HIS body and blood instead of the lambs from the exodus. We don’t eat Jesus to get eternal life. We believe in HIM.

No that’s a terrible argument. If Christ wanted HIS death to be symbolic then HE would have crucified the bread. HIS body was crucified. We eat the bread symbolizing HIS body to remember this sacrifice. Jesus doesn’t say “take this bread and eat, for this is my literal flesh given for you, you must eat it to receive eternal life”. HE says do this in remembrance of HIM. Remembrance of what?? HIS sacrifice. The bread symbolizes HIS body that was literally crucified. You’re trying to argue backwards.

Asked, answered, and explained above.

Broski I’m not patronizing you so forgive me if that’s what you think. I’m not walking away from Christ’s church because I don’t see Christ’s church as being limited to the RCC.

But let me say this brother, our entire conversation initially revolved around transubstantiation. You really don’t understand what the church teaches here. If you did you would see the contradiction.

I’m fine with saying that somehow through a miracle, Christ is with us at the Lord’s supper every time. In fact I already admit that. But to take it to the level the RCC has and then say no one outside the church can consecrate the bread and wine is much too far. Again my sincere apologies if you thought I was patronizing you.

 

[broski234]

I’m fine with saying that somehow through a miracle, Christ is with us at the Lord’s supper every time. In fact I already admit that. But to take it to the level the RCC has and then say no one outside the church can consecrate the bread and wine is much too far. Again my sincere apologies if you thought I was patronizing you.

I think this applies here.
Who says that Jesus’ flesh wasn’t real food at the time He spoke this? You do. Your use of the Principle of Contradiction (something either is, or it isn’t) is rather flawed here. Jesus’ flesh and blood was and is real food and real drink and it is real flesh and real blood, all at the same time. Are you saying it can’t be both flesh and real food at the same time because He didn’t turn into a giant loaf of bread and a giant cup of wine? And, if He had turned into a giant loaf of bread and a giant cup of wine, then it wouldn’t have been His flesh? Again, you simply cannot or will not understand Catholic teaching.

Let me ask you this: When someone is born again, they become a new creation, don’t they? The Bible tells us so. Yet, how can that be since they are the same person? Do they have a new body? No! Do they have a new soul? No! So, how is it they are a new creation? Are they a new creation metaphorically, or actually? Something happens to this person at a metaphysical level that we cannot really explain. They are indeed a new creation, yet, we still see something that looks exactly like the old creation. So, how can it be the new creation and yet still be the old creation at the same time? Under your logic, it can’t happen. However, your logic is limited by your theological tunnel vision. They can look and sound and feel like the old creation, even though they have changed…even though they are actually a new creation.

Now, this is not a perfect analogy, for what I’m about to say, but I hope it gives you some idea that things can change at a level which we cannot see and cannot understand. And, something can still look the same, yet, be different. Transubstantiation. It means that the substance of the bread and wine changes, not the accidents. The “accidents” are how it appears to the senses…the look, the smell, the taste, etc. So, the accidents do not change, but the substance does. No longer is it the substance of bread and wine, but it is now the substance of Jesus Christ. So, the bread and wine change, at some metaphysical level, but they still look the same.

Question: Can God appear to you under any form He chooses? Yes or no?

You are a collection of chemicals…oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, iron, etc. What makes this collection of chemicals a human being? It is because God gives you the substance of a human being. Substance is defined as the essential part of a thing. Forgive me for not being able to give a very good explanation of substance, but I am not a philosopher. It is simply the essential part of what we are. We have human substance. Bread has bread substance. Transubstantiation is the process through which the substance of bread and wine are removed, and replaced with the substance of Jesus Christ. It still looks like bread and wine, but it’s substance is the substance of Christ. Can we understand this fully? Not with finite minds. But, just because we can’t understand it, does that mean it cannot be? If so, then the Trinity cannot be…we can’t fully understand that. No. Again, I ask you, can God not appear to you in any form that He chooses? Can He appear to you as simple bread and wine if He chooses to do so? I believe he can.

Finally, I argue that I can say to you, right now, that my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Why can’t Jesus’ flesh be considered real food and His blood real drink at the moment that He spoke those words? Is a cow, standing out in the pasture, not real food? Well, with your logic, it can’t be. It either has to be a cow, or it has to be food. Well, it is both. It’s flesh is real food, it simply hasn’t yet undergone the process by which we eat it. Same with Christ when He said those words. You are not using reason here, you are using flawed logic which results from your limited understanding of these concepts and your limited understanding of what God can and cannot do.

 

[NDfan]

This is a falsehood. You have a lot of study to do.

No sir I don’t. Show me one ECF from say the 2nd century that uses John 6 to justify transubstantiation. Many later ECFs reference John 6 when speaking of communion, but never relate it to transubstantiation.

You do not understand the doctrine of transubstantiation, or you would not ask this. If you really are interested in this, then you will need to study the Thomistic understanding of accidents.

No Guanophore I completely understand it and am already familiar with Thomistic Theses. Aquinas tried to use Aristotelian physics to explain transubstantiation. The problem he ran into were the objections to the change in substance requiring a change in accidents. He said no that’s not true. Just as Aristotle said a chair could have the accidents of plastic, metal, or wood the underlying substance would still be the chair. Actually that’s not true. A chair is not a substance. It’s made of substances of wood, plastic, or metal. Be that as it may, Aquinas then argued that just as the accidents of bread remain, it has no effect at all on the underlying substance which is Christ.

Now here’s the problem Aquinas ran into. His opponents argued that flesh and blood are not made out of bread and wine. A chair can be made of wood and plastic but flesh is not made of bread. Therefore if you have accidents of bread and wine you can’t have a substance of flesh and blood. The church taught a complete departure of the substance of bread and wine to make room for the substance of Christ’s flesh and blood. So Aquinas stated that the accidents of bread and wine were held in place by a miracle. He had no choice as this would be the only plausible argument.

But gluten is not an accident. It is a protein which would have it’s own accidents. The same for alcohol. It’s a substance which when abused is called substance abuse. Not accident abuse.

So sorry guanophore, as much as you may think I am uneducated on this I really do know what I am talking about. You just can’t get around the notion that the substances of bread and wine exist in communion. The only other explanation is if we say Christ joined HIS substances with the substances of bread and wine while retaining the accidents of bread and wine. But then that is basically what Luther taught.

If you don’t believe that then we’re back to symbolism or some sort of spiritual presence. Spiritual presence is what I have always believed. Even when in the Catholic church and I know plenty of current Roman Catholics today that see communion as symbolic and spiritual.

The only way that you will ever be able to accept the apostolic teaching on this point is if you can accept that it is an ineffible mystery that defies the human abilitie to reason. this is why Jesus said when He was talking about it in Jn 6 that “the flesh is of no avail”. One cannot possibly grasp how the bread and wine become His Body and Blood.

That’s not what Jesus was referring to in John 6. HE meant literally eating a man’s flesh is of no avail. Jesus knew the Jews were still stuck on the notion that they had to eat HIM. The spirit gives life not the flesh. That’s why we believe. That’s why Jesus earlier in John 6 told us that HE who believes in HIM has eternal life and that the will of HIS Father is for those who believe in HIM to inherit or receive eternal life. Jesus says if you come to me you shall never go hungry. If you believe you shall never thirst. GOD’s will is not to eat Jesus flesh and blood. Jesus later in John 6 equates eating HIS flesh and blood with believing in HIM. But the Jews could not get past the eating flesh part because they knew it was a crime. They knew the Messiah would never ask them to perform such a heinous act. The problem is they didn’t realize the messiah wasn’t asking this. HE simply was asking them to believe in HIM. Albeit through a very brash teaching.

Augustine wrote about this is his sermon on John 6. Saying if you believe you have already eaten. Augustine comments that if Christ’s words are suggestive of a crime then HE must be speaking figuratively. This in reference to the section in John 6 regarding eating flesh and blood.

With all due respect for my Latin brethren who are prone to trying, it is a Divine Mystery, and will always remain so.

Divine Mystery Christ is my brother.

PEACE

 

[broski234]

No sir I don’t. Show me one ECF from say the 2nd century that uses John 6 to justify transubstantiation. Many later ECFs reference John 6 when speaking of communion, but never relate it to transubstantiation.

I gave you one. St. Justin Martyr:

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”

Did you read that? Not as “common” bread and “common” drink do we receive these [the consecrated bread and wine]. Should I believe a famous Christian apologist of the 2nd century, or you, 2000 years later? By the way, did you catch that word - ”transmutation?” Hmm. I wonder what that’s all about? And, here we see that the Christians of the 2nd century believed that the bread and wine, after being blessed, were indeed the flesh and blood of “that Jesus who was made flesh.” Looks like you need to read the Early Church Fathers.

 

[NDfan]

This is wrong.

The accidents can change without the substance changing.

No they cannot. The accidents are reflective of the substance. You are back to the chair example of Aristotle. The chair is not the substance. The chair is made of the substances of wood or plastic or whatever. But you can’t change the accidents of a banana to those of an orange and still have a banana. You can try to merge them but they can’t be replaced. The very requirement of the accident to inhere to the substance prevents it from changing without the substance changing. Unless as Aquinas states it happens by a miracle.

Substances can exist without accidents.

Name one please.

Accidents must inhibit a substance to ‘exist’.

Accidents must inhere to a substance to exist yes. But the accidents will reflect what the substance is plain and simple.

Bread is bread wether I toast it, tear it into bread cubes, soak it on water or whatever I can do to change the accidents of it.

You won’t change the accidents of the bread. The accidents will remain. They may be hard to recognize but they will still be there. Let’s say you soak it. You hand it to someone who says “what’s this?” You say what do you think. So they look at it, smell it, feel it and say I don’t know I can’t recognize it. Then they taste it and say hmm no taste. Did the accidents change or did you distort them? You distorted them because they are now mixed with accidents of the water. But they are still there. And guess what you still have the substance of bread but now mixed with water. But you can’t then change the substance of bread and wine to flesh and blood and keep the same accidents. The accidents will inhere to the substance. If Christ held the accidents of bread and wine in place then so be it. But then the substance would be that of flesh and blood.

In that case the substance of flesh and blood cannot contain the substances of bread and wine. Especially if you state that the substance of bread and wine depart completely to make room for the substance of flesh and blood. This is what the church teaches. Yet if you test the bread it still has gluten in it after the consecration. Either it still is bread or Christ merged HIS substance with the bread. But again that is not what the church teaches. It’s what Luther taught.

With transubstantiation, the bread CEASES to be bread and becomes the Divinity of Christ while retaining the accidents of bread.

Same with the wine.

ALL the perceivable, measurable, tangible aspects of these things are all accidents.
The IS of something never changes- and that is the substnace.

Yes exactly. I don’t disagree and have said that many times. But the substance would not be bread and wine. The church pronounces them to be gone completely. Yet for some reason alcohol and gluten, substances of bread and wine still exist. How do you explain this??

please cite your source.

Go ask your priest this weekend or tonight and tell me what he says. Please do so.

Please also tell me why celiacs have trouble with the host. Because the substance of gluten is still in the host.

Wrong. Gluten is an accident of the bread. DNA is an accident of the bread.

Are you kidding me?? Gluten is not an accident. DNA is not an accident. They are both substances with their own accidents. This is your problem. You are badly misinformed or terribly educated. Alcohol is a substance. That’s why we call it substance abuse.

Here’s the definition of gluten:

the tough, viscid, nitrogenous **substance **remaining when the flour of wheat or other grain is washed to remove the starch.

Please notice the word substance.

 

[NDfan]

And where does faith fit into all of this?

God bless all!!!

Oh Patrick now you are speaking my heart. I prefer to just leave it at that. Let’s just say the bread and wine are Jesus body and blood and leave the rest to Faith brother. The bread and wine are HIS body and blood sacrificed on the cross. Period end of story. Let’s not worry about any details. But that’s not what the church has done. They’ve gone too far with this definition and pronounce others not part of the church to be receiving an invalid Eucharist. Only Christ will decide where HE goes and who HE resides in.

PEACE

 

[NDfan]

Gluten is an accident, not a substance.

Oh broski you are so wrong on this. This is your problem brother. Again not patronizing you.

Gluten is not an accident it is a substance. So is alcohol which is why we call it substance abuse. Again I will post the definition of gluten:

gluten - the tough, viscid, nitrogenous substance remaining when the flour of wheat or other grain is washed to remove the starch.

Please notice the word substance. The elements that make up something are the substances. Substances combined make wine and bread. The accidents are red, soft, wet etc. etc. The outward things your senses pick up on. Your senses don’t pick up on gluten. They would pick up on the accidents of gluten.

 

[Radical]

NDfan,

Broski if you study Jewish culture thoroughly you will find an interesting practice of 1st century Galilean Jews. When a Jewish man wanted to ask a Jewish woman to marry him, he would pour a glass of red wine and extend it to the woman. The word’s he spoke would be the following: “This cup in my blood is a covenant with you”. He would then hand the cup to the woman who had 2 choices: either to drink from it in which case she accepted his proposal for marriage, or not drink from it and place it down signifying her rejection of the proposal.

Do you have a source handy for this? …it would be a useful bit of information in arguing that a symbolic understanding would be the natural and obvious one (wrt Jesus’s words at the Last Supper)

 

[NDfan]

I think this applies here.
Who says that Jesus’ flesh wasn’t real food at the time He spoke this? You do.

Broski I do brother but you are arguing backwards. Jesus can do whatever HE wants. We both know that. HIS flesh as real food is us believing that HE sacrificed HIS flesh for us. Not real food as physically eating it. That’s why HE gave us the bread. To symbolize HIS body. If HE resides in the bread then it’s spiritually. Not according to transubstantiation.

Let me ask you this: When someone is born again,

Absolutely through Baptism and repentance of sin they are born into Christ.

Yet, how can that be since they are the same person? Do they have a new body?

But we are not claiming a substance change underneath. We are claiming a spiritual change through Baptism. It’s not the same thing. We are a new creature spiritually. This may result in our outward actions being different and more Christ-like. But our internal substances of DNA, Blood, bones etc. are still the same.

Now, this is not a perfect analogy, for what I’m about to say, but I hope it

I think I answered this above.

Transubstantiation. It means that the substance of the bread and wine changes, not the accidents.

Yes we agree. But brother you don’t understand the basics of what a substance is. Again not being patronizing. But you claim gluten is an accident. It is not. It is a substance and it still exists even after you claim the bread has changed completely. How can that be??? Either there was no change or Christ merged HIMSELF with the substances of the bread. But the church does not preach a merging. They teach a complete departure of the substances of bread and wine. Therefore the Gluten has to be gone. Again in Matthew 26, Christ says THIS Fruit of the Vine. Fruit of the vine is wine. So Christ is saying this wine referring to the liquid in the cup. This after you propose HE consecrated it to blood.

Question: Can God appear to you under any form He chooses? Yes or no?

Yes and HE did to Moses as we both know in the burning bush. Now did GOD become the bush or did HE merge HIMSELF into the bush??

You are a collection of chemicals…oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, iron, etc.

No brother. Listen carefully. This is where you are getting terribly confused. Oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, iron etc. are all substances. Period!!! They are not accidents. Not yelling here just being emphatic. GOD took all these substances and merged them together to create the human body. But each substance of oxygen, nitrogen etc. have their own accidents.

Bread has bread substance.

Yes which gluten is one. Salt is another. Yeast is another. The accidents of bread are white, soft etc. You are terribly confusing substances with accidents. If you get past this you will see the error with transubstantiation as the church defines it.

Transubstantiation is the process through which the substance of bread and wine are removed,

And again I have no issue with saying that transubstantiation takes place. Somehow you keep missing this so please pay attention to me here. I believe transubstantiation is a possibility. I don’t worry about explaining it. It just happens right? Right.

But unfortunately it doesn’t according to the way the church defines it. If the substance of bread and wine are completely departed, which according to the RCC they are, then gluten a substance of bread cannot still be present in the bread. It has to be gone. Unless Christ merged HIMSELF with the bread. But that’s not the teaching.

Again, I ask you, can God not appear to you in any form that He chooses?

Yes I answered this already. HE could appear as a pen But if you say HE completely replaces the substance of the pen by consecration of the priest, then the substances of the pen must be gone leaving only GOD. Right?

I’m not disputing the fact that GOD can appear as bread. Somehow you are getting stuck on this.

Finally, I argue that I can say to you, right now, that my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Yes it is and I can be a cannibal and eat you.

Why can’t Jesus’ flesh be considered real food and His blood real drink at the moment that He spoke those words?

Again I didn’t say HE couldn’t. But Jesus doesn’t teach HE changes the bread into HIMSELF. Jesus tells us that believing in HIM is what GOD commands in order to receive eternal life. Your flesh gives only short term nourishment. That’s Jesus’ point at the end of John 6. The flesh profits nothing. It’s the spirit that gives life. Jesus uses the bread symbolically for us to proclaim HIS death. The cup of wine represents HIS blood which is the new covenant.

Is a cow, standing out in the pasture, not real food? Well, with your logic, it can’t be.

This is kind of funny sorry. But this is so backwards. A cow IS food. It’s not a matter of changing it into food it already is.

Now here’s a question I want you to answer. If the substance of the cow is changed to the substance of a chicken, are you still eating a cow??? If Jesus somehow held the accidents of a cow in place you would still think you are eating a cow. But if we tested the meat it would be the substance of a chicken wouldn’t it. Of course. It would be white meat as opposed to red meat. Both still food but different foods. This is where your argument is too shallow and too simplified. It doesn’t relate to transubstantiation. I don’t question that the change can take place. I question IF it did. Big difference. If the change takes place then the substance is different.

 

[Radical]

Gluten is an accident, not a substance.

Please clarify this for me. If the molecules of the bread are accidents and if all the aspects of the bread that we can detect with our senses are also accidents, then what is left that is the substance of the bread? Is it merely the concept or idea of what IS bread? In your understanding of transubstantiation is it that the idea of bread has been replaced with the idea of Jesus’s body? If so, sounds alot like a symbolistic understanding. What is there that changes from bread to body so as to make your view not one of symbolism?

 

[Always_For_Him]

Sola Scriptura does not divide. People divide period. The problem is many don’t even understand the notion of sola scriptura and attribute it the cause of the divisions. That’s not the case at all and has nothing to do with it. The division is caused by private interpretation which has nothing to do with SS.

How could you possibly say that Sola Scriptura does not divide? It most certainly does. It divides Jesus’ One Truth into however many different denominational meanings that are created by personal interpretation - thousands! That is not the unity that Christ wanted. He established His Church, put the Apostles in charge with His Authority to bind and to loose, and promised to guide and protect His Church. He established unity - ONE Church. Sola Scriptura was a Luther invention in the 1500’s. As you can see, the devil is having a blast with Sola Scriptura.

 

[NDfan]

I gave you one. St. Justin Martyr:

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”

Did you read that? Not as “common” bread and “common” drink do we receive these [the consecrated bread and wine]. Should I believe a famous Christian apologist of the 2nd century, or you, 2000 years later? By the way, did you catch that word - ”transmutation?” Hmm. I wonder what that’s all about? And, here we see that the Christians of the 2nd century believed that the bread and wine, after being blessed, were indeed the flesh and blood of “that Jesus who was made flesh.” Looks like you need to read the Early Church Fathers.

Broski I asked you to show me an ECF from the 2nd century that used John 6 as a reference point for the justification of transubstantiation. This isn’t one. And Martyr is not an Apostle so he can’t speak authoritatively. The RCC certainly does not consider all ECFs to be infallible. Many ECFs have said things the church disagrees with.

Let’s look at Augustine. He believed in pre-destination. He’s aligned closer to calvin than Roman Catholicism. Yet the church holds him in high regard. Not because of this though.

Martyr may have believed in some change in the bread and wine. I don’t have a problem with that and never ever said I did. What I’m saying is that the change is not happening according to the way the RCC defined it at Trent. Whether it be transmutation or transubstantiation. You seem to get stuck on the fact that because some Christian said something 1900 years ago it’s true. As if the time frame somehow justifies it. Martyr had no contact with Christ and no contact with any Apostles. 2000 years ago people thought the world was flat. Is it??

Martyr may not have meant transmutation the way the church today defines transubstantiation.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I will come back to this topic soon, and when I do I will try to clarify the Catholic position on why they think the “flesh” in John 6 is “literal” and that they eat “the literal flesh of Christ” at their Mass. I will say that we do not partake of His “divine nature” by literally eating the guy. Most of you know that this is my position. I will try to clarify this view as well in future posts here.

Jesus did not apologise for offending anyone who said they could not listen to Him speaking like that.

When Jesus called Himself a lamb, they understood it was symbolic.
When Jesus said He was the Light, they understood the symbol.
When Jesus said many times in symbolic terms the play on words - they didn’t think it was bad.

BUT when Jesus said in the Greek translation [BTW] to chew on His flesh [literally] they walked away because they UNDERSTOOD He was not kidding nor was He using symbolism.

Jesus turned to His Apostles and said ‘WIll you leave me as well??’

Jesus didnt turn to them and say ‘I was not speaking literally…’
No He said it literally, and He meant what He said.

Since Jesus is 100% Man 100% God when we recieve Him - we recieve His entirity because He is not divided into parts [See Arian heresies - Also Maricon and Nestorian]

And not only did He say this and also affirm this by His next words and actions - BUT also the earliest teachers of the Church also said this.

See First Apology by St Justin Martyr. Circa 130 AD.

 

[NDfan]

NDfan, Do you have a source handy for this? …it would be a useful bit of information in arguing that a symbolic understanding would be the natural and obvious one (wrt Jesus’s words at the Last Supper)

Radical yes I do. I’ll get it for you. I need to run. Been chatting with my brother broski too long now. Not that I don’t love it. I just need to get home to my wife and daughter. Will be back though.

PEACE

 

[Stephen168]

Broski I asked you to show me an ECF from the 2nd century that used John 6 as a reference point for the justification of transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation and the ‘Real Presence of Christ’ in the Eucharist are not the same thing.