Do We Eat Flesh, Bread, Or What?

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I must admit though the Eucharistic miracle is a difficult one … and I’m Catholic. How can one explain to someone else something we have never seen with our physical bodies. I admit, though I believe, even if I have not seen.

I go back to the upper room … when Thomas was not there … and the disciples were all huddled there. The Lord came to them … and they were full of joy and excited … I am sure they couldn’t wait to share this news with Thomas.

But when Thomas joined them he would not believe … he had to see with his own eyes and hands for him to believe what the others saw.

I believe that is where we all are today … Catholics and non-Catholics … in the upper room waiting for Christ. Some have seen with the eyes of faith but some have not and want more evidence … but we are all there, together, … doubters and believers. I believe an important part of that story is … they were still together … the others did not toss out Thomas for not agreeing … it is only when Christ chose to reveal himself that Thomas did believe. This still happens today.

In the end Thomas indeed did see … and his first words … My Lord and My God … so I will wait until the end of the story.

Exactly. It is a matter of faith. The Church believes it because that is what Jesus told us.

From the catechism:

1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord’s command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion:** “He took bread. . . .” “He took the cup filled with wine. . . .” The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ;** they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,154 fruit of the “work of human hands,” but above all as “fruit of the earth” and “of the vine” - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who “brought out bread and wine,” a prefiguring of her own offering.155

 

[po18guy]

Yes I’m familiar with those verses and no they are not used to defend transubstantiation. No ECF ever used John 6 to defend communion nor to describe communion.

First, “transubstantiation” was only a term arrived at after considerable study and discussion. No human term can come close to accurately describing the magnificence of what has just occurred in the Eucharist. In its own way, it is a microcosm of, and mirrors the creation of the universe. However, instead of matter coming into existence by God’s will, here matter which already exists (bread and wine) is simply changed in substance. If you believe the account of Genesis, transubstantiation should be a snap.

As to defending the Eucharist, they did not immediately have to. Challenges to the Eucharist came later, after many heresies had arisen. Challenges to, and defending the Eucharist are a relatively modern occurrence. Please consider why on earth the Apostles and ECFs practiced the Eucharist. Something moved them not only to practice, but to reverence it.

In the case of the Eleven, they heard Jesus’ words and saw Him consecrate the bread and wine into His Body and Blood. Notice that Jesus did not say “This bread is my body” or “This wine is the cup of my blood” The bread and wine existed only in their accidents. Their substance Jesus had changed into His Body and Blood. He had power over matter (John 13:3), as seen in his restoration of the withered hand (Matthew 12:10, Mark 3:1-3, Luke 6:6-8) and in many other miracles.

And, by direct Divine revelation, Paul, independent of all the others, and never hearing a single word of Christ’s teaching, or witnessing even one of His miracles, practiced the Eucharist with the same reverence (1 Corinthians 11).

On the road to and in Emmaus, the disciples did not recognize Jesus, even when He Divinely revealed prophecy to them. Then, at supper He blessed and broke the bread. Their eyes were opened and they recognized Jesus in the breaking of the bread (Luke 24:30-31). Why only then? That must have been some bread!

Perhaps your problem is with the limited definition that man has placed upon it. God is a profound mystery - beyond the collective understanding of all humans that will ever exist. As with Trinity and other concepts, man has to place not only a name, a human term on them, but also to make an attempt to define what is happening. The Creator of the universe is not subject to the laws of physics, or any other law. He is the Law.

Boil it down to this: regardless of how you name it, define it, believe it, practice it, question it, examine or analyze it, the Eucharist was established for us by Christ, and has been practiced continuously ever since. At some point, Christ requires simple obedience to His commands. Catholics and Orthodox choose to struggle toward obedience, rather than complete understanding. We will never understand the mystery and complexity of God, or of the perfection of His commands.

Let me ask you this po18. If the bread literally becomes Christ then someone who has an allergy to the ingredients should not have to worry about consuming them after consecration correct?? Same for the wine. If someone had an alcohol dependency they wouldn’t have to worry about it being a trigger for them after consecration because the wine ceases to exist correct? Please answer that for me and then maybe you can convert me

Only the Holy Spirit can convert you, by illumination of your intellect. My clumsy words will only fail. It is through grace that we believe. I pray for the grace. For years I struggled without it.

In answer, the “accidents” of bread and wine remain. A woman at my parish is celiac and cannot tolerate the “accidents” of the bread. At communion, she consumes the Blood - such is God’s grace. As to the Blood, one molecule is sufficient, as God can accomplish anything with as much or as little as He desires. The rest is contained within our imperfect faith.

Consider, how many were healed by touching the fringe of Jesus’ garment? (Mark 5:25-29) How many were healed by allowing Peter’s shadow to fall upon them? (Acts 5:15) How can we define or analyze these healings? It is far beyond our comprehension. To me, the Eucharist seems simple by comparison.

In any event, may Christ’s peace be with you always.

 

[prodigal-sun]

Nice trick question! First of all, one cannot “dumb down” Christ’s church to the heretical and erroneous level of “sola scriptura”. It remains a tragedy that so many have been cheated by that man-made doctrine.

Rather, tell me using scripture, where Jesus says His words are symbolic? He does not. So, why do you believe they are symbolic? The majority of his disciples would not walk away from mere symbolism - especially since the symbolism used in the other scriptures you mentioned caused no such loss of disciples. Neither did they walk away from the symbolism used in the parables. Why not? Because mere symbolism does not cause the rejection of an entire belief system.
Sorry. Not my word. Wrong user.Well, John 6 was spoken by Christ, but written by those who listened to Him and practiced the Eucharist. Paul received this same message by direct revelation. They taught the Church. That’s how.

I find it distinctly curious to question the oldest beliefs in Christendom - that which was taught to the Apostles by Christ. I find it equally curious that the newer beliefs, arriving 1,500 to 1,900 years later, are somehow assumed to be correct when they are so remote from the incident. The new beliefs, we are taught by Christ and the Apostles, are the ones which should be suspect.

Well, please give them to the other 29,999 denominations so that we can have Christian unity. “You shall know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16-20) The fruits of “sola scriptura” are division. Either the bible or “sola scriptura” is defective. Your choice.As before, you are WRONG on Catholic belief. If nothing else, your considerable time here should have made you familiar with true Catholic beliefs, not the error that you repeat. Christ said that we have no life in us unless we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. He said that His Flesh and Blood are “real” food and drink. Please explain why Catholics are wrong to believe this.

The “bible”, being an inanimate physical object, tells us nothing without authoritative interpretation. This authority was provided by Christ to His Apostles in the founding of His Church, the living Body of Christ on earth.

Yes, man lives by the Word. The Word made Flesh. Jesus commanded us to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. A hard saying for some (John 6:66).

I note that the devil used “sola scriptura” in his attempt to lead Christ astray. Christ, Who had authority, corrected the evil one as to the words’ true meaning. Words are easily twisted.

AMEN!

Sola Scriptura is the scoorge of Christianity, and the Devil revels in it. No other belief has lead to more disunity or corruption of scripture than this false belief of Sola Scriptura.

The simple fact the God commanded it should be proof enough but so many of Christs Followers still find this teaching hard.

Peace!

 

[prodigal-sun]

Well, to believe this, you’d have to be… ugh…Catholic! I guess that’s what.

Yes, this is what I believe is one of the biggest stumbling blocks for people to believe in the real presence. It boils down to Pride.

Peace!

 

[prodigal-sun]

Yes I’m familiar with those verses and no they are not used to defend transubstantiation. No ECF ever used John 6 to defend communion nor to describe communion.

Let me ask you this po18. If the bread literally becomes Christ then someone who has an allergy to the ingredients should not have to worry about consuming them after consecration correct?? Same for the wine. If someone had an alcohol dependency they wouldn’t have to worry about it being a trigger for them after consecration because the wine ceases to exist correct? Please answer that for me and then maybe you can convert me

WRONG! This of course goes against the whole idea of Transsubstantiation. But rasises a valid point, there has been many issues with celiacs taking the host. My nephew was one. Glutton is deadly to him. On his first communion received the host with joy and faith in Jesus. Doesn’t bother him a bit!

Peace!

 

[prodigal-sun]

Yes I’m familiar with those verses and no they are not used to defend transubstantiation. No ECF ever used John 6 to defend communion nor to describe communion.

Let me ask you this po18. If the bread literally becomes Christ then someone who has an allergy to the ingredients should not have to worry about consuming them after consecration correct?? Same for the wine. If someone had an alcohol dependency they wouldn’t have to worry about it being a trigger for them after consecration because the wine ceases to exist correct? Please answer that for me and then maybe you can **convert me **

I pray for the conversion of all hearts especially or fellow christians. No one can convert except for the Holy Spirit, that is why I believe he lead you here. I believe he wants you to soften your heart and mind so that you too can partake in the Eucharist as God has commanded.

Peace to you and God bless!

 

[po18guy]

AMEN!

Sola Scriptura is the scoorge of Christianity, and the Devil revels in it. No other belief has lead to more disunity or corruption of scripture than this false belief of Sola Scriptura.

The simple fact the God commanded it should be proof enough but so many of Christs Followers still find this teaching hard.

Peace!

As to the “solas” I have but two questions:

1. Does the Holy Spirit unite?
2. Does the demon divide?

Play “Jeopardy” music here…

 

[Zooey]

This is what this little Methodist girl believes…and I know that even my Catholic brothers & sisters in Christ’s love won’t agree with me, but OP asked, and this is my answer:
Every time the Lord’s Supper is celebrated, every time, the words of consecration are spoken, even when they are spoken by a Protestant minister who doesn’t believe in anything remotely like the Real Presence…
Every single time someone like the OP receives Holy Communion, he receives the actual Body & Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Except,precisely because OP (&company) do not believe…Our Lord is:crying: crucified afresh. Every single time, it is as though the Roman soldiers were :crying: flogging the Flesh from His Body all over again.
That is what a :crying: sad and, I’m sorry, but a :sad_yes: wicked thing it is, to receive without discerning the Body of Our Precious Lord.

 

[cfrancis]

Point of order:

The Bible gives us principles by which to go for deciding what a specific text means. What Bible principles/hermeneutics can you share that would enlighten us on HOW Catholics decided that the “flesh” in Jo.6 was literally Jesus’ flesh and that we eat it to gain eternal life?

How does the Bible tell us to decide if a given text is symbolic or not? What principles are we to go by?

You bait us by saying the Bible sets forth its own hermeneutical principles, but then you switch on us, jumping to your interpretation of God’s written Word. Which brings us to…

Below are a few texts which show clearly that God’s Word is our necessary food, and that we are to “eat” of it regularly:

The “Word of The Lord;” (Bible) fittingly describes itself as “food” for the soul:

your assertion that “Word of the Lord” refers specifically and uniquely to the Bible, a claim the Bible does not make.

 

[Soutane]

Yes I’m familiar with those verses and no they are not used to defend transubstantiation. No ECF ever used John 6 to defend communion nor to describe communion.

Let me ask you this po18. If the bread literally becomes Christ then someone who has an allergy to the ingredients should not have to worry about consuming them after consecration correct?? Same for the wine. If someone had an alcohol dependency they wouldn’t have to worry about it being a trigger for them after consecration because the wine ceases to exist correct? Please answer that for me and then maybe you can convert me

The accidents remain.The wheat and the alcohol.Interestingly I am a former practising alcoholic who has been sober for thirteen years.I would NEVER dare have even a sip of an alcoholic beverage as I treasure my sobriety.
I have had the Precious Blood and have never had any subsequent alcohol cravings God works in mysterious ways

 

[NDfan]

NDfan;4736850:

Yes I’m familiar with those verses and no they are not used to defend transubstantiation. No ECF ever used John 6 to defend communion nor to describe communion.

QUOTE]

“Wherefore to those who partake worthily with faith, it is for the remission of sins and for life everlasting and for the safeguarding of soul and body; but to those who partake unworthily without faith, it is for chastisement and punishment, just as also the death of the Lord became to those who believe life and incorruption for the enjoyment of eternal blessedness, while to those who do not believe and to the murderers of the Lord it is for everlasting chastisement and punishment. The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, ‘This is My body,’ not, this is a figure of My body: and ‘My blood,’ not, a figure of My blood. And on a previous occasion He had said to the Jews, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. And again, He that eateth Me, shall live."

John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4:13 (A.D. 743).

St. Basil the Great
“To communicate each day and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ is good and beneficial; for He says quite plainly:** ‘He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.’** Who can doubt that to share continually in life is the same thing as having life abundantly? We ourselves communicate four times each week, on Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday; and on other days if there is a commemoration of any saint.”

-“Letter to a Patrician Lady Caesaria” [93] ca. 372 A.D.

ST. HILARY OF POITERS

“When we speak of the reality of Christ’s nature being in us, we would be speaking foolishly and impiously - had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says:** ‘My Flesh is truly Food, and My Blood is truly Drink. He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in him.’ **As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly the Flesh and it is truly Blood. And These Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not true? Let those who deny that Jesus Christ is true God be free to find these things untrue. But He Himself is in us through the flesh and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God.”

St. Clement of Alexandria

“The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse.** ‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ **The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!”,

-“The Instructor of the Children” [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D… ,

St. Ignatius

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,** because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ**, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

I had to cut some quotes out. Lost space.

But Chester this proves nothing. I said no ECF ever used John 6 to support transubstantiation. Even in these quotes the authors do not imply they are consecrating the hosts.

Interesting you would quote Ignatius again. Let me explain something to you. The gnostics in case you don’t know did not believe Jesus was a real man. Why? Because they believed that all matter of this earth was evil and that Christ would never become a man. HE would have been sinful and evil.

Many gnostics refrained from eating and drinking anything because they viewed it as putting evil into their bodies. Others abused it with the thought that if it was evil abuse the heck out of it. So many became gluttons. But one thing is for sure, the gnostics did not partake in the Lord’s supper, but not because they denied transubstantiation. It was because they denied a symbolic view of the Eucharist. They claimed that evil elements of this world could never represent Christ. Now if Ignatius was preaching Transubstantiation and the literal change in substance the gnostics would have agreed. This would have fit with their theology that what we see is not necessarily real. We see bread but it isn’t it’s the Lord’s flesh. We see wine but it isn’t it’s the Lord’s blood. Just like we saw a man dying on the cross that was supposed to be Jesus in human flesh. But it wasn’t. They would have been happy to participate in the Eucharist under the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Point of fact many scholars believe transubstantiation started in the gnostic community. It’s very interesting and quite fitting to their theology.

 

[broski234]

Broski I can clarify. The church defined the real presence as transubstantiation at the council of trent. The RC claimed that the WHOLE substance of the bread and wine changed to Jesus flesh and blood but that the accidents which are the outward appearance remained. Now according to Aristotelian physics from which transubstantiation is derived we know that the accidents of an element have to inhere to a substance. Meaning that the accidents of wine let’s say which is the color red, the smell and taste of alcohol and tannins, the appearance etc. have to inhere to the substance the accidents represent. Opponents of transubstantiation objected to this definition for the eucharist claiming that if the substance changes to Christ’s flesh and blood then the accidents have to as well. But the accidents of flesh and blood would be different than those of bread and wine. To refute this Thomas Aquinas who understood Aristotelian physics claimed that the accidents were self contained through a miracle.

Now of course this is an easy way to dismiss any critics but certainly doesn’t match transubstantiation. If transubstantiation really takes place then any substances that would cause harm to someone like an alcoholic, or someone who is allergic to say wheat would be rendered harmless. Why? Because if the substance really changes then the alcohol and wheat and whatever substances that make up bread and wine would also cease to exist. But the church does not teach this. The church teaches that the substances of bread and wine stay intact. Almost similar to Martin Luther’s teaching. So if an alcoholic goes to a Catholic Church and says hey I’m worried about drinking the wine because it’s a trigger for me, the church will say do not partake in the cup. But wait a minute if transubstantiation really takes place then there is no worry. The substance of alcohol is gone and the only thing left is the accidents of the color red, the smell of alcohol, etc.

But alas this is not what the teaching is. So contrary to what the Council of Trent defined and what Thomas Aquinas argued, which is the whole substance changes, the church today says it doesn’t. Therefore it cannot be transubstantiation. If there’s no transubstantiation then we have just plain bread and wine. Now in the mid-20th century, some Roman Catholic theologians interpreted it as referring to a change of meaning rather than a change of substance. Meaning that when you consume the bread and wine what does it mean. But in 1965 Paul VI called for the retention of the original dogma so that went by the wayside. Currently the vatican is considering changing to the term transignification. We’ll see what happens.

To set the record straight I believe in the real presence just not transubstantiation.

PEACE

ND,
The first thing I would tell you was that Transubstantiation was not defined at the Council of Trent. You need to get your facts straight. The Council of Trent wasn't until the 16th Century. Transubstantiation was defined in the 12th or 13th Century. It was an already held belief by the Church. The only reason it was formally defined was because someone challenged this belief on how it happens. Not that it doesn't happen! Second, you may want to look up what the Church does say on the definition of Transubstantiation. The substance changes, but the accidents change. We don't have to understand how this truly happens. That's why we have faith. It's one of the beautiful mysteries of the faith. Who are you to question how the Lord makes this happen? Would you have questioned Him on how multiplied the loaves and fishes? We don't know exactly how He did it. We just know anything is possible with God.

 

[NDfan]

First, “transubstantiation” was only a term arrived at after considerable study and discussion. No human term can come close to accurately describing the magnificence of what has just occurred in the Eucharist. In its own way, it is a microcosm of, and mirrors the creation of the universe. However, instead of matter coming into existence by God’s will, here matter which already exists (bread and wine) is simply changed in substance. If you believe the account of Genesis, transubstantiation should be a snap.

Ha do to be 2 posts. Sorry

Not quite my brother. I believe matter coming into existence by GOD at HIS command for sure. But then that matter would have a substance we can define. With the Lord’s Supper we have matter that already exists and has a substance defined as bread and wine. If the substance is changed to flesh and blood then the substance of bread and wine do not exist anymore. Correct? Only the accidents are retained through a miracle. So great. That means then someone who has an allergy to wheat or is an alcoholic does not have to worry anymore because GOD has changed the substance. Just like I believe the Genesis account I surely can believe GOD can handle simple bread and wine right? Absolutely.

But now here’s the problem. What happens when we examine the consecrated bread and wine? What is the substance? It’s still bread and wine. But wait you just got done saying GOD changes the substance to flesh and blood. So why is it bread and wine. The accidents have nothing to do with it because the accidents don’t carry the substance. So that means someone is wrong. Either GOD is not doing what you say HE is doing, or the church misunderstands what they thought HE was going to do. There’s just no way around this. If the substance is still bread and wine then no transubstantiation has taken place. Hence the teaching is wrong.

As to defending the Eucharist, they did not immediately have to. Challenges to the Eucharist came later, after many heresies had arisen. Challenges to, and defending the Eucharist are a relatively modern occurrence. Please consider why on earth the Apostles and ECFs practiced the Eucharist. Something moved them not only to practice, but to reverence it.

Yes and I do too. It’s the most sacred thing we do in our worship. Agree 100%. But challenging the Eucharist is not a recent thing as you say. The Gnostics challenged the Eucharist. Why? Because they didn’t believe that bread and wine could ever symbolize Jesus. Why? Because they believed all matter in this world was evil and evil could never symbolize Christ. Had the gnostics understood the teaching to be a change literally in substance they would have agreed and rejoiced at partaking in the supper. As mentioned to chester the doctrine of transubstantiation fits right in with gnostic theology and many believe it was they who started this practice.

In the case of the Eleven, they heard Jesus’ words and saw Him consecrate the bread and wine into His Body and Blood. Notice that Jesus did not say “This bread is my body” or “This wine is the cup of my blood” The bread and wine existed only in their accidents. Their substance Jesus had changed into His Body and Blood. He had power over matter (John 13:3), as seen in his restoration of the withered hand (Matthew 12:10, Mark 3:1-3, Luke 6:6-8) and in many other miracles.

Ok fine Jesus changed their substance. Then if the substance changes then why does Jesus refer to the cup as the fruit of the vine? Fruit of the vine means wine. Jesus says HE will not drink this fruit of the vine again with the Apostles until new in GOD’s Kingdom. So Jesus is saying HE is going to drink wine and still refers to the substance as being wine even after you claim HE consecrated it. Don’t you see the problem here??

If the substance really changes then an alcoholic would have no problem with partaking in the cup. Yet the Priest would caution you not to because there is wine in the glass. But that can’t be if the substance has changed. It’s simple science. And don’t think GOD is not a scientist. HE’s the ultimate scientist and would have to be to create the universe.

 

[NDfan]

Contd.

And, by direct Divine revelation, Paul, independent of all the others, and never hearing a single word of Christ’s teaching, or witnessing even one of His miracles, practiced the Eucharist with the same reverence (1 Corinthians 11).

Yes but Paul calls it a loaf even after the supposed consecration. Why doesn’t he say flesh??

On the road to and in Emmaus, the disciples did not recognize Jesus, even when He Divinely revealed prophecy to them. Then, at supper He blessed and broke the bread. Their eyes were opened and they recognized Jesus in the breaking of the bread (Luke 24:30-31). Why only then? That must have been some bread!

But they didn’t eat the bread yet did they? It wasn’t eating it that opened their eyes. It was the act of Christ breaking the bread and handing it to them. The bread itself did nothing. It was Christ.

Perhaps your problem is with the limited definition that man has placed upon it. God is a profound mystery - beyond the collective understanding of all humans that will ever exist. As with Trinity and other concepts, man has to place not only a name, a human term on them, but also to make an attempt to define what is happening. The Creator of the universe is not subject to the laws of physics, or any other law. He is the Law.

No GOD is not confined by physics I would agree. But GOD gave us physics and the church uses it to describe the supper. We can’t play games here. The church locked themselves into a corner by doing this. If we just say that Christ is present somehow when we partake of the supper then that would be fine. But no the RC had to take it a step further and define the doctrine of transubstantiation at Trent. Then issue a decree that no one outside the RC had a valid Priesthood to consecrate the elements. Yet we are all called to a Holy Priesthood.

Boil it down to this: regardless of how you name it, define it, believe it, practice it, question it, examine or analyze it, the Eucharist was established for us by Christ, and has been practiced continuously ever since. At some point, Christ requires simple obedience to His commands. Catholics and Orthodox choose to struggle toward obedience, rather than complete understanding. We will never understand the mystery and complexity of God, or of the perfection of His commands.

Believe it or not I’m in agreement with you on this. So then again don’t create a doctrine that can’t be supported. Leave it alone and stop telling Non-RC folks that they don’t have a valid Eucharist. The RCC has no right to do this. Only Christ can decide where HE will make HIMSELF present. And HE gives us a clue when HE states where 2 or 3 are gathered in MY name I am there among you. Yet the RCC wants to put a box around Jesus and say HE is only within their churches because only they have valid holy orders and only they can consecrate hosts. If Jesus wants to be in the bread we use on Sundays then I’m sure HE is. We struggle just as much on obedience as the RCC and Orthodox churches.

Only the Holy Spirit can convert you, by illumination of your intellect. My clumsy words will only fail. It is through grace that we believe. I pray for the grace. For years I struggled without it.

Well after being in the RCC for over 40 years the Spirit led me to a new church. I pray all the time for just guidance. GOD help me with your guidance please. Why is the spirit not leading me back to the RCC??

In answer, the “accidents” of bread and wine remain. A woman at my parish is celiac and cannot tolerate the “accidents” of the bread. At communion, she consumes the Blood - such is God’s grace. As to the Blood, one molecule is sufficient, as God can accomplish anything with as much or as little as He desires. The rest is contained within our imperfect faith.

Well then if the substance is truly changed then she should have no problem. But here you go she can’t because the substance remains. Hence it’s not flesh it’s bread. Sorry my brother but accidents of bread cannot cause a problem for a celiac. She has to ingest the bread for it to affect her. You simply can’t ingest accidents. Don’t you think that if Christ really wanted us to eat HIS literal flesh that this celiac would not have a problem with the bread? Of course. Because the substance would truly be gone and only flesh would remain. Accidents can’t affect a celiac, they can’t make you drunk, they can’t give you an allergic reaction etc. etc. Again I will ask this as I have before. If you take an antibiotic for an infection but Jesus changes the substance to sugar will the infection still be healed? No of course not. The accidents of an antibiotic cannot heal the infection. The body needs the substance .

Consider, how many were healed by touching the fringe of Jesus’ garment? (Mark 5:25-29) How many were healed by allowing Peter’s shadow to fall upon them? (Acts 5:15) How can we define or analyze these healings? It is far beyond our comprehension. To me, the Eucharist seems simple by comparison.

In any event, may Christ’s peace be with you always.

This is apples and oranges. Jesus had healing power and so did Peter. Through the spirit. What does that have to do with the substance of bread and wine? Again if the substance really changed then the bread would be gone. That would be easy to believe if it really happened. But it doesn’t. We still have bread and that’s the problem. You’re asking me to believe a false teaching.

PEACE Brother.

 

[NDfan]

WRONG! This of course goes against the whole idea of Transsubstantiation. But rasises a valid point, there has been many issues with celiacs taking the host. My nephew was one. Glutton is deadly to him. On his first communion received the host with joy and faith in Jesus. Doesn’t bother him a bit!

Peace!

Wrong? Goes against the idea of transubstantiation? No sir it certainly does not. If celiacs have a problem with the host that means the substance has not changed. And I think you meant Gluten which is the protein found in bread which (HELLO) is part of the substance. Glutton is a different word.

If the substance has changed which according to transubstantiation it does, then the gluten ceases to exist. Gluten is not contained in the accidents. It seems you don’t even understand your own teaching. Do you really know what transubstantiation is? Seems you called me wrong then went on to validate my point. As far as your son being OK perhaps the hosts at your church are made without Gluten. That is possible you know. Check into it and let me know. I’d be curious on this one. If he’s really sensitive to Gluten and Gluten is in your hosts then he could be affected. If not then perhaps he’s not as sensitive as you think.

 

[NDfan]

I pray for the conversion of all hearts especially or fellow christians. No one can convert except for the Holy Spirit, that is why I believe he lead you here. I believe he wants you to soften your heart and mind so that you too can partake in the Eucharist as God has commanded.

Peace to you and God bless!

Well to be honest Prodigal I’ve been here for about a year and I’m driven further away from the RCC. Was there for 40 years when I felt I was led somewhere else. I pray all the time for guidance and understanding. The more I pray then more I seem to be secure where I am. Incidentally I do partake in the Eucharist every week.

PEACE

 

[fatimadotorg4tr]

Regarding the prior post:

Transubstantiation was not dogmatically defined as a reuqired belief of Catholics until 1215 AD at the Second (?) Lateran Council under Pope Innocent III.

True that the council didn’t initiate the doctrine. It’s interesting that there was still discussion on the subject however in the thirteenth century which required a dogmatic decree.

While I don’t want to get off-track, y’all might want to investigate the issue of how Jesus Christ who came to fulfill the Law would violate the Law by commanding us to drink blood which is prohitbited in the Law. Consider Mark 14:23-25 “23And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. 25Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” Do you see it? He takes the cup, says it is the blood of the New Testament and THEN calls it what it is “the fruit of the vine” which he would not drink until… In this is it not clear that his intent is NOT transubstantiation ?

Elsewhere:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=300315&page=10

… I’ve posted some links to sermons that deal directly with this issue. Faith cometh through hearing, so listen and see if it comes to you as it did to me – as a gift by God’s grace, and not by my own will or any act of man (to include ministrations of the priestly office.)

 

[NDfan]

As to the “solas” I have but two questions:

1. Does the Holy Spirit unite?
2. Does the demon divide?

Play “Jeopardy” music here…

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.

 

[NDfan]

The accidents remain.The wheat and the alcohol.Interestingly I am a former practising alcoholic who has been sober for thirteen years.I would NEVER dare have even a sip of an alcoholic beverage as I treasure my sobriety.
I have had the Precious Blood and have never had any subsequent alcohol cravings God works in mysterious ways

Soutane congrats. But let’s be clear on 2 things. 1. The wheat and alcohol are not accidents. Where did you learn this?? They are substances period. and 2. Just because you can sip a little wine at church doesn’t mean the substance of alcohol is not there. To the contrary I see this as Jesus protecting you so you CAN drink the wine symbolizing HIS body. If you tell me that a little sip of alcohol is a trigger for you to binge drink then let’s have the substance of the wine checked. If it’s not wine then the alcohol would be gone explaining your ability to partake in the cup. But if the alcohol is there then the substance is not changed hence an even greater miracle.

This doesn’t prove transubstantiation at all sorry. But I’m delighted for you that you can partake in the cup.

PEACE

 

[NDfan]

ND,

The first thing I would tell you was that Transubstantiation was not defined at the Council of Trent.  You need to get your facts straight.  The Council of Trent wasn't until the 16th Century.  Transubstantiation was defined in the 12th or 13th Century.

Ahh don’t need to get my facts straight. The council of Trent issued a statement on Transubstantiation in the 13th session and I quote:

The Council of Trent defined transubstantiation as “that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation”,

I never said they developed the doctrine as yes it already existed.

It was an already held belief by the Church. The only reason it was formally defined was because someone challenged this belief on how it happens. Not that it doesn’t happen! Second, you may want to look up what the Church does say on the definition of Transubstantiation. The substance changes, but the accidents change.

Never said anyone challenged the fact that it didn’t happen. Stop putting words in my mouth or post to be correct.

And I have looked it up. The substance changes but the accidents don’t. Check your facts unless it’s a typo. You say the accidents change. They most certainly don’t

We don’t have to understand how this truly happens. That’s why we have faith. It’s one of the beautiful mysteries of the faith. Who are you to question how the Lord makes this happen? Would you have questioned Him on how multiplied the loaves and fishes? We don’t know exactly how He did it. We just know anything is possible with God.

Yes brother agree 100%. So let’s stop defining it and let it be. I don’t question Christ on anything. I question the RCC. 2 different things. Don’t use physics to support your claim. If the substance changes then the bread no longer exists. If the bread no longer exists then if we test it after consecration it would be flesh. But that’s not the case so perhaps Christ wasn’t telling us HE changes it. Maybe you should stop putting words into Jesus’ mouth.

PEACE