Eucharistic Miracles

[ASimpleSinner]

and once again, it is only the RC making that claim of validity.

No. The Orthodox do. The Oriental Orthodox do. The Assyrian Orthodox do. Together the Orthodox and the Catholic Church account for some 70% of the Christian world…

No priesthood, no eucharist.

 

[ACbishop]

Furthermore,

Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is “Touto estin to soma mou.” This phraseology means “this is actually” or “this is really” my body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - “touto mou estin to soma.” The statement is “this is really” my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying “this represents (not is) my body and blood.” However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for “represent,” but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for “estin” which means “is.”

Matt. 26:28; Mark. 14:24; Luke 22:20 - Jesus’ use of “poured out” in reference to His blood also emphasizes the reality of its presence.

Exodus 24:8 - Jesus emphasizes the reality of His actual blood being present by using Moses’ statement “blood of the covenant.”

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, “the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ’s body and blood?” Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul’s questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word “koinonia” describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.

1 Cor. 10:18 - in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.

1 Cor. 11:23 - Paul does not explain what he has actually received directly from Christ, except in the case when he teaches about the Eucharist. Here, Paul emphasizes the importance of the Eucharist by telling us he received directly from Jesus instructions on the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the Christian faith.

1 Cor. 11:27-29 - in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#eucharist-IIb

I agree fully that it is the body and blood of Christ but not because it can be magically changed into that by only a Catholic clergy or Orthodox. Jesus said in scripture that where there are two or more gathered in his name, there he will be. I think that applies to Protestants and Catholics alike

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I agree fully that it is the body and blood of Christ but not because it can be magically changed into that by only a Catholic clergy or Orthodox. Jesus said in scripture that where there are two or more gathered in his name, there he will be. I think that applies to Protestants and Catholics alike

He will be, but not necessarily in the Eucharist.

As an Episcopalian, you should be familiar with the theology and concept of Holy Orders.

Do you, as an Episcopalian, hold Eucharist services without ministers?

 

[Mannyfit75]

I agree fully that it is the body and blood of Christ but not because it can be magically changed into that by only a Catholic clergy or Orthodox. Jesus said in scripture that where there are two or more gathered in his name, there he will be. I think that applies to Protestants and Catholics alike

It’s not magical, my friend. It’s supernatural.

magical is summoning demons and spirits…

I also like to add that Jesus said, “My flesh is real food indeed, and my blood is real drink indeed.”

Unfortunately, most of your Evangelical Protestants believe its only symbolic.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

Protestants do not have a valid Eucharist (the real body and blood of Christ) for the following reasons:

1. The Protestant leaders in the 16th century REJECTED FLAT OUT that bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ.
2. Rejecting this doctrine, they rejected explicitly the teaching, held from the beginning of Christianity, that the Christian presbyters had a sacerdotal ministrty. Thus, they explicitly changed their ordinal (ordination rite) to reflect their belief that priests and ministers have no sacerdotal ministry and to express that their intent was NOT to ordain men who had sacerdotal gifts from the Holy Spirit. In other words, they did not intend to pass on the Holy Orders that had been passed down in the Christian East and Christian West since Apostolic times.
3. In other words, they deliberately threw away the power
   to confect a valid eucharist. Some of the poems written by men like John Knox about the eucharist are too vile and horrifying to post, but he referred to the Catholic eucharist as the “cracked and crazed Wafer God” among other blasphemies.

 

[deb1]

could believe that when Yeshus said, “This is my body,” he was literally breaking his own transubstantiated body in his hands … or drinking his blood from the third cup … It is absurdity–yes, either that or outright ignorance.

The Trinity to could be seen as a physical impossibility if you break it apart.

God fathered himself, died while he still existed…

Don’t worry, I believe in the trinity, I am just pointing out that one is not harder to comprehend then the other

 

[deb1]

I don’t deny the Real Presence of Christ at the Eucharist. But I don’t need a Eucharistic miracle to convince me; the Eucharist is a miracle, a mystery, and a means of grace.

That’s enough for me.

I agree with you.

 

[deb1]

“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and this bread, which I will offer so the world may live, is my flesh.”

He says those who eat his flesh will live forever … If he were referring to a physical process by which the bread become his actual, glorified body, then the implication of this passage is immortality of the body, not the soul. Perhaps he is referring to the spiritual sustenance that he daily provides for us …

!

Perhaps I am confusing my past Protestant beliefs with my Catholic ones. So, forgive me if I get this incorrect.

At the end of time, isn’t God supposed to combine our souls with out physical bodies and yet somehow make those bodies perfect?

I always thought that was what the passage was referring to.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I do not believe in transubstantiation because scripture plainly speaks of the Eucharist being both bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ. I also believe that the RC uses the idea of transubstantiation to further its point that they have the real deal only shared by the Orthodox church but no Protestants have it. If transubstantiation was real, the confected bread and wine would contain human DNA.

DNA is part of the accidents of humanity. It is not the substance/essence of humanity.

But, take a look at: therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html