Eucharist scripture challenge

[bona_fides_1]

cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a044.html

By Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan

Recently, a Gallup poll was taken on Catholic attitudes toward Holy Communion. The poll showed serious confusion among Catholics about one of the most basic beliefs of the Church.

**Only 30 percent of those surveyed believe they are actually receiving the Body and Blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. **

add St Augustine to that list too:
you can read the whole statement in context @
newadvent.org/fathers/1701027.htm

The Jews, therefore, strove among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” They strove, and that among themselves, since they understood not… (Augustine, Tractate 26).

**Therefore ‘it is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing,’ as they understood the flesh, but not so do I give my flesh to be eaten **(Augustine, Tractate 27).

For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: “when ye shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;” certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting (Augustine, Tractate 27).

They understood not who believed not…they were offended through their understanding spiritual things in a carnal sense (Augustine, Tractate 27).

and

It seemed unto them hard that He said, ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:’ they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, ‘This is a hard saying.’ It was they who were hard, not the saying… (Augustine, Psalm 99).

The Gallop poll is irrelevant. There are quite a few people who call themselves Catholic but do not even attend mass. Catholic belief and truth are not a held hostage to a democracy or majority rule or popular opinion.

As for Augustine not believing in real presence… ahem, you do understand that he was a Catholic bishop and doctor of the church yes?


BF

 

[kepha1]

any comments of Augustine?

About 3 or 4 full posts worth.

St. Augustine on the Eucharist

---

Note: Catholics don’t read ECF’s writings, or even official Church documents the way some Protestants read the Bible. One verse theology hasn’t served Protestantism very well and it’s wrong to try and impose the same methodology when quoting the ECF’s. The erroneous conclusions will be easy to refute because they stick out like a sore thumb.

 

[bona_fides_1]

St. Augustine on the Eucharist

Great reference Kepha1 - thanks.
I am able to see some comments in that piece from Catholic theologian Ott that apply in general to all the early fathers and help us get past prior problems I was having in explaining to non-Catholics the lexicon of “symbol” and “sign” not meaning “metaphorical” or “symbolic”. Brian was triggering off the word “symbol” like a hungry fish waiting for bread cast on the waters in the various ECF translations to be evidence for early church belief in "symbolic"presence in opposition to real-presence. But Ott makes it much clearer than my feable attempt accomplished in explaining to non-Catholics that this inconsistent expression in the ECF writings is a result of an evolving Christian-Catholic language expression. Non-Catholics just do not understand the concept of “sacrament” having both a material “symbolic” or sign property as well as a supernatural and spiritual essence since they are not as intimate with it in their daily lives like Catholics are. That is creating an empasse here and proving to be “the stumbling stone” and the sign of contradiction that the Jews fell over too just as prophesied
Romans 9:32-33 Why not? Because they pursued it [righteousness] not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.“just as it is written,” BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”

1 Peter 2 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, “THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,” 8 and, “A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed. 9But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

Luke 2:34-35 And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother: Behold this child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted; 35And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed.
Ludwig Ott states it this way:

(1) The early Fathers were bound by the discipline of the secret, which referred above all to the Eucharist (cf. Origen, In Lev hom 9,10);

(2) The absence of any heretical counter-proposition often resulted in a certain carelessness of expression to which must be added the lack of a developed TERMINOLOGY to distinguish the sacramental mode of existence of Christ’s body from its natural mode of existence once on earth;

(3) The Fathers were concerned to resist a grossly sensual conception of the Eucharistic Banquet and to stress the necessity of the spiritual reception in Faith and in Charity (in contradistinction to the external, merely sacramental reception); passages often refer to the symbolical character of the Eucharist as “THE SIGN OF UNITY” [St. Augustine, Sermon 272; Homilies on John 26:13]; THIS IN NO WISE EXCLUDES the Real Presence. (see Ott, page 377-8)

The word “symbol” is used all through the Catholic Church since we do hold to the original Early Church Father mystical understandings of Christ present in Eucharist. The Church itself, its altar, its Creed etc. are all symbols of our supernatural faith - a faith that transcends mere human estate and understanding. Mere human faith can not save - only supernatural faith can save. The signs we Catholic acknowledge, see and use as instruments of worship & grace in the Catholic Church are evidence which reveal to both the senses and the inner spirit the"real" spiritual-material essences of our faith. Catholicism is much more mystical & spiritually deep than most “average” Catholics even begin to understand. The Church itself is a mystical body by which Catholics commune with the Divine and the divine mysteries daily in our liturgy.

Both catholic and non-Catholic should search the catechism on “sign” then “symbol” then “eucharist” to get an eye-popping glimpse of the amazingly rich and wonderful spiritual depth present in Catholicism.

Catechism:*
189 The first “profession of faith” is made during Baptism.** The symbol of faith** is first and foremost the baptismal creed. Since Baptism is given “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”, the truths of faith professed during Baptism are articulated in terms of their reference to the three persons of the Holy Trinity.

188 The Greek word symbolon meant half of a broken object, for example, a seal presented as a token of recognition. The broken parts were placed together to verify the bearer’s identity. The symbol of faith [Creed], then, is a sign of recognition and communion between believers. Symbolon also means a gathering, collection or summary. A symbol of faith is a summary of the principal truths of the faith and therefore serves as the first and fundamental point of reference for catechesis.

1327 In brief, the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith: "Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking."

1325 “The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God’s action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit.”
*

BF

 

[Brian_Culliton]

The sign in Catholic theology is usually an observable outward manifestation (e.g. the image of bread or wine or water) that has concrete sensory appearance that points to an underlying spiritual thing or event. So when somone of Catholic culture (e.g. ECFs) says that ‘this bread is the symbol of Jesus’ body’ – they mean it REALLY IS Christ’s body in a supernatural sense. It just appears to the senses as common bread but to the eyes of faith is the actual thing held in strong faith. So it’s called a sign or symbol - the thing perceived that points to the object of desire - The Lamb of God. It is a bridge from physical to spiritual and what makes it possible for mortal flesh to commune with God.

So are the nature of the blessed symbols the body and blood of Christ, or are they by nature still bread and wine, but spiritually Christ’s body and blood?

And how do you explain Origen’s contrasting statement here?

“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.”

Please explain how Origen understood what the Catholic Church later defined as transubstantiation from that statement.

 

[RedBert]

after the consumption of the Eucharist; at what point in the the human digestive system does the bread (wafer) cease to be the body of Christ?

Acts 2: 31 Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.

Psalm 16:10 For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol;
** Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay. **

 

[bona_fides_1]

So are the nature of the blessed symbols the body and blood of Christ, or are they by nature still bread and wine, but spiritually Christ’s body and blood?

Consecrated bread and wine are no longer material bread and wine but are in fact nothing but Christ’s Divine Body and Blood. The substance has changed by Divine action and only appears, tastes and feels to be materially bread and wine.

And how do you explain Origen’s contrasting statement here?

“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.”

Please explain how Origen understood what the Catholic Church later defined as transubstantiation from that statement.

Although Origin is often cited as an Early Church Father he can not be rightfully taken as a Church Father due to his failing one of the tests. Though a pious and saintly man he was found to be a heretic and some of his writings were banned by the early Church. So it is not surprising that some of his citations might lack a complete orthodoxy with respect to full Catholic understanding & teaching about Eucharist.

This particular citation from Origen does not seem to support an entirely orthodox view of real-presence. He most definately properly sees a spiritual component to it by the fact of his reverence to it being consecrated. But he still seems to think there is a real material component to it (apparently more like consubstantiation rather than transubstantiation). So Origin’s views are not taken as wholely catholic and we do not consider him a true early Church Father - but his writings give a good additional historical backdrop perspective of the early Church.

By the way, Origin had many other statements that support real-presence in a more orthodox way:

We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and **this bread BECOMES BY PRAYER A SACRED BODY, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it.(**Against Celsus 8:33)

You see how the ALTARS are no longer sprinkled with the blood of oxen, but consecrated BY THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST. (Homilies on Joshua 2:1)

But if that text (Lev 24:5-9) is taken to refer to the greatness of what is mystically symbolized, then there is a ‘commemoration’ which has an EFFECT OF GREAT PROPITIATORY VALUE. If you apply it to that ‘Bread which came down from heaven and gives life to the world,’ that shewbread which ‘God has offered to us as a means of reconciliation, in virtue of faith, ransoming us with his blood,’ and if you look to that commemoration of which the Lord says, ‘Do this in commemoration of me,’ then you will find that this is the unique commemoration WHICH MAKES GOD PROPITIOUS TO MEN. (Homilies on Leviticus 9)

You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received THE BODY OF THE LORD, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish….how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting HIS BODY? (Homilies on Exodus 13:3)

…now, however, in full view, there is the true food, THE FLESH OF THE WORD OF GOD, as He Himself says: “MY FLESH IS TRULY FOOD, AND MY BLOOD IS TRULY DRINK.” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2)

BF

 

[bona_fides_1]

after the consumption of the Eucharist; at what point in the the human digestive system does the bread (wafer) cease to be the body of Christ?

Acts 2: 31 Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.

Psalm 16:10 For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol;
** Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay. **

The outward appearance of Eucharist dissolves upon contact with water - this is how a priest disposes of the consecrated Eucharistic bread that has been dropped or mishandled in anyway. At the instant it loses its recognition as Eucharist the Divine presence is gone and whatever grace one is disposed to receive is conveyed. This we can assume generally happens at the moment it is swallowed. If one coughs the eucharist up by accident or sickness (or even by demonic revulsion to Divine presence - not unheard of at all) - the host is secured and retained by the altar servers or Eucharistic ministers or the priests. The priest then disposes of such residual consecrated hosts in the prior prescribed manner (dissolving in a pitcher of pure water and pouring the liquid into a special sink that drains into the the earth on church grounds) since real-presence is retained while it is wholly intact, recognizable and even if a small particle. In the same way the real-presence is maintained indefinitely for hosts not received during the mass (more consecrated than consumed) and interned into the tabernacle for the next daily mass, viaticom/last rites, benediction services (prayer, gospel and pre-consecrated eucharist without ful lmass), administering to the sick and adoration etc.

The divine presence is noted in Catholic Church’s by the small red oil lamp or candle near the tabernacle. Inside a Catholic Church many people will attest that they feel a peaceful presence and hush of solemnity. Some non-Catholics convert merely after visiting a Catholic Church the presence is so notable.

BF

 

[RedBert]

The outward appearance of Eucharist dissolves upon contact with water - this is how a priest disposes of the consecrated Eucharistic bread that has been dropped or mishandled in anyway. At the instant it loses its recognition as Eucharist the Divine presence is gone and whatever grace one is disposed to receive is conveyed. This we can assume generally happens at the moment it is swallowed…

BF

What Scripture reference can you provide for that?

In the Bible, can you provide one other example of any miracle or sign where after a change takes place, the effect is “invisible” ? In other words: where no one can tell from the “before and after” that a miraculous event took place?

 

[bona_fides_1]

What Scripture reference can you provide for that?

In the Bible, can you provide one other example of any miracle or sign where after a change takes place, the effect is “invisible” ? In other words: where no one can tell from the “before and after” that a miraculous event took place?

Are you kidding???
Baptism

BF

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Brian,

Where is your Origen quote taken from?

Thanks,
VC

 

[RedBert]

I asked:

In the Bible, can you provide one other example of any miracle or sign where after a change takes place, the effect is “invisible” ? In other words: where no one can tell from the “before and after” that a miraculous event took place?

Are you kidding???
Baptism

BF

I am serious; now **where in the Bible ** do you can you show me Baptism caused a change that can’t be seen?
BTW : a change of behavior can be seen.

I also asked :where in the Bible can you show me":

The outward appearance of Eucharist dissolves upon contact with water - this is how a priest disposes of the consecrated Eucharistic bread that has been dropped or mishandled in anyway. At the instant it loses its recognition as Eucharist the Divine presence is gone and whatever grace one is disposed to receive is conveyed. This we can assume generally happens at the moment it is swallowed…

 

[bona_fides_1]

I asked:

In the Bible, can you provide one other example of any miracle or sign where after a change takes place, the effect is “invisible” ? In other words: where no one can tell from the “before and after” that a miraculous event took place?

now where in the Bible do you can you show me Baptism caused a change that can’t be seen?
BTW : a change of behavior can be seen.

Oh please red. I am not going to be taken down another off topic rabbit hole abour baptism and sola scriptura.

This is sufficient proof:
1 Tim 3:15 I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
Everything I said was a teaching of the Church which the bible teaches us in the pillar and foundation of truth. Now can you show me in the bible where believing in the bible rather than in Jesus is a requirement for salvation? Can you show me any visible evidence that your reading of the bible and your own unique interpretation of it has “saved you”? Do you have a shred of evidence that a single Protestant who believed in sola scriptura was saved by having faith in the reformers teachings about sola scriptura? Is sola fide now directed to mean by only faith in Protestant theology

Seems rather circular to me don’t you think?

Do you doubt that baptism does not supernaturally mark us for Christ and baptise us into His death and glory and forgive us our sins and clear our consciences & bring an indwelling of the Holy Spirit and sanctify and justify us and clothe us with Christ.? Or do you think baptism only changes us to the degree it gets our hair and body wet on the outside? You are being intellectually lazy red and have not been reading your scriptures with comprehension nor listening to The Church teaching.

Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

Hebrews 10:22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1 Cor. 6:11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed [in baptism], you were **sanctified, you were justified **in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Gal 3:27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Col 2:12 having been **buried with him in baptism **and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Titus 3:5-7 He saved us through the washing of rebirth [baptism] and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

See 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:5, Titus 3:5:

BF

 

[Tomb54]

I am keeping it in context of John 6. He was not talking about eating his flesh physically,but spiritually. Jesus was not a cannibal and he wasn’t going to make us one. That is why the Jewish people left. Like you, they misunderstood him, then he explained to them the words I speak to you is spirit. it is quite simple to understand. But Jesus did say, “My sheep hears my voice.”

Ok how then do people condemn themselves by not perceiving the body and blood in the Eucharist sacrifice if it is only a symbol? How can you eat plain bread and wine unworthily?

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1 Corinthians 11:26-28 KJ

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
1 Corinthians 10:15-17 (in Context) 1 Corinthians 10 (Whole Chapter)
3.1 Corinthians 11:27 KJ

Also why would not the early Christians deny they were eating His Body and drinking His Blood when they were accused of Cannibalism and would die for this belief?
You really need to read the early Church Fathers to see what early Christians actually believed and not what those in the 1500 want to change to fit want they wanted to believe.

 

[bona_fides_1]

Ok how then do people condemn themselves by not perceiving the body and blood in the Eucharist sacrifice if it is only a symbol? How can you eat plain bread and wine unworthily?

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1 Corinthians 11:26-28 KJ

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
1 Corinthians 10:15-17 (in Context) 1 Corinthians 10 (Whole Chapter)
3.1 Corinthians 11:27 KJ

Also why would not the early Christians deny they were eating His Body and drinking His Blood when they were accused of Cannibalism and would die for this belief?

Tom, don’t wait for a reply. hmalley is no longer at CAF. He was banned last week if you notice his status.

BF

 

[Tomb54]

oops sorry did not notice that but the other Protestant can answer too if they would like since I have not seen too many Protestant answer why their believes do not match that of the Early church.on key issues like the Eucharist or the Bishops and church set up and succession of these bishops and how if the Catholic Church got it wrong after it pronounce the Bible that it complied inspired.
If the CC got it wrong after this point like some Protestant have claimed then Jesus lied. Is this possible?

 

[Tomb54]

that answer is weak, it is the same chapter, same conversation. the same context:

he says the word “believe” FIVE TIMES ; how can you not see that is the main point.

He did!
v63 “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life” As you will notice in all other parts of His comments He was saying My Body and My Blood. Here he does not say that but says The Spirit The flesh which is true —> Your flesh counts for nothing because only your spirit gives you eteranl life and His Body and His Blood feeds your spirit when you eat His flesh and His body like he commands you to do. the early Church understood this and believed it as it is stated in the CC
But the problem is
v64 “Yet there are some of** you who do not believe**.”
“For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them** did not believe**…”

Why don’t they believe?
v65 “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

are you suggesting Jesus should have said : hey guys, this is what I really meant? Hmm the Apostles were not enabled by the Father??? Jesus asked the Apostle to believe this same comment without saying He was only talking symbolically?would it had made a difference if the Father had not enabled them?

if this was a reading test:

After reading John 6 in its entirety: What gives eternal life?

(v40&47 or v54)
which one figurative and which one literal?
Which one is in agreement with the rest of the Bible? (hint: see John 3:16, Rom 10 9-10, etc, etc)
which one is in conflict with Old Testament law?

 

[RedBert]

Is the mass a re-sacrifice of Christ?

The claim that Christ is immolated in the Mass.* (immolation - killing or offering as a sacrifice )*
The Vatican Council II Documents of the Roman Catholic Church teach,
“For in the sacrifice of the Mass Our Lord is immolated when ‘he begins to be present sacramentally as the spiritual food of the faithful under the appearances of bread and wine.’
It was for this purpose that Christ entrusted this sacrifice to the [Roman Catholic]
Church, that the faithful might share in it both spiritually, by faith and charity, and sacramentally, through the banquet of Holy Communion. Participation in the Lord’s Supper is always communion with Christ offering himself for us as a sacrifice to the Father.”

-Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, No. 9, Eucharisticum Mysterium,

“If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema.”​

Please explain how the above is not in conflict with the perfect sacrifice that need never be repeated?​

Hebrews 10
10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ** once** for all.
12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.
14because by** one sacrifice** he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
18And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.

Hebrews 9:

25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Although Origin is often cited as an Early Church Father he can not be rightfully taken as a Church Father due to his failing one of the tests. Though a pious and saintly man he was found to be a heretic and some of his writings were banned by the early Church. So it is not surprising that some of his citations might lack a complete orthodoxy with respect to full Catholic understanding & teaching about Eucharist.

This particular citation from Origen does not seem to support an entirely orthodox view of real-presence. He most definately properly sees a spiritual component to it by the fact of his reverence to it being consecrated. But he still seems to think there is a real material component to it (apparently more like consubstantiation rather than transubstantiation). So Origin’s views are not taken as wholely catholic and we do not consider him a true early Church Father - but his writings give a good additional historical backdrop perspective of the early Church.

That is certainly a convenient response, but one that is completely unmerited. Unless you can demonstrate that his contemporaries denounced him for his views on the Eucharist, the heretic defense will not fly. Similarly, for his predecessor, Clement of Alexandria, whom you claim to be too ambiguous to understand, and for whom I can produce many praises for his scriptural knowledge, cannot be disregarded.

So far, I have shown that Clement taught that Jesus was speaking metaphorically in the bread of life discourse; you imply that his allegory is ambiguous to properly understand.

I have shown that Origen explained how the elements in the Eucharist celebration have nothing within their own nature that can benefit us spiritually; you say he is a heretic and not considered a church father.

I will have more on this later, but first I would like to continue with the parallel discussion on your understanding of the substance of the consecrated bread and wine.

Consecrated bread and wine are no longer material bread and wine but are in fact nothing but Christ’s Divine Body and Blood. The substance has changed by Divine action and only appears, tastes and feels to be materially bread and wine.

So then you would not agree that the bread, after consecration, consists of two realities, earthy and heavenly?

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Brian,

Where is your Origen quote taken from?

Thanks,
VC

Whoops, it was taken from his Commentary on Matthew chapter 11.

 

[bona_fides_1]

Is the mass a re-sacrifice of Christ?​

Please explain how the above is not in conflict with the perfect sacrifice that need never be repeated?​

Red you are bouncing all over the place on questions this last week. Do you want the truth and want to learn? You seem like you are doing a lot of work to try to disprove Catholic theology. These are old arguments that you present. There is nothing new under the sun that the Catholic Church has not heard before and soundly defeated. Do you doubt that the early church did not offer the Eucharistic sacraments from the earliest times of the Church? The evidence is in the bible if you take the time to read it and comprehend what it says.

How is the above is not in conflict with the perfect sacrifice that need never be repeated?

Well for starters it was never in conflict to start with since the apostles did it!

1 Corinthians 10:16 “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, it it not a participation in the body of Christ?”

How else do you suppose Paul participated in the body and blood of Christ sacrificed on Calvary when he was not even an original apostles and was not present at Calvary as a disciple??? How do you suppose Christians have participated in that same one body and blood of Chrirst for the last 2,000 years after the events on Calvary??? Christians ALWAYS offered the Eucharistic bread in mass up through the Protestant Revolution - some Protestants still do but they don not have a valid apostolic priesthood so can not convert the bread and wine into Eucharist and the Precious Blood.

It is because Christ is Eternal that His one sacrifice is eternally present before God. Christ Himself told us to enter into the memorial of this sacrifice at the Last Supper. This is how the true believer communes with Christ and enters into that same one sacrifice across all of time and participates in the merits of Christ. What you don’t comprehend is that Christ is eternal and the mystical passion at Calvary performed on the Cross are also eternal.

Rather than spend a lot of time giving my own words I am going to just give you the text of a Catholic “scripture only” explanation:
Scripture Catholic - Eucharist:

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#eucharist-IId

Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - the translation of Jesus’ words of consecration is “touto poieite tan eman anamnasin.” Jesus literally said “offer this as my memorial sacrifice.” The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.

In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.

Lev. 24:7 - the word “memorial” in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is “azkarah” which means to actually make present (see Lev. 2:2,9,16;5:12;6:5; Num.5:26 where “azkarah” refers to sacrifices that are currently offered and thus present in time). Jesus’ instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a “memorial offering” demonstrates that the offering of His body and blood is made present in time over and over again.

Num. 10:10 - in this verse, “remembrance” refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus’ command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.

Mal. 1:10-11 - Jesus’ command to his apostles to offer His memorial sacrifice of bread and wine which becomes His body and blood fulfills the prophecy that God would reject the Jewish sacrifices and receive a pure sacrifice offered in every place. This pure sacrifice of Christ is sacramentally re-presented from the rising of the sun to its setting in every place, as Malachi prophesied.

Heb. 9:23 - in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church.** This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself. **

Heb. 9:23 - the Eucharistic sacrifice also fulfills Jer. 33:18 that His kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever, and fulfills Zech. 9:15 that the sons of Zion shall drink blood like wine and be saved.
[continued on next page]

BF