He who eats and drinks without recognizing the BODY eats and drinks a judgement on himself

[Gabriel_of_12]

There is a difference between believing in the true presence and transubstantiation: Believing in the true presence can leave one to doubt, and make believing in the true presence to their form of personal belief such as a real symbolic presence among others.

Transubstantiation states emphatically that this consecrated bread is the true body of Jesus Christ, and this consecrated wine is truly the blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ himself.

Now does anyone have any trouble truly believing that the validly consecrated bread and wine are truly present the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. If not, then you believe in transubstantiation.

The reality is Transubstantiation does not guess but states as a matter of fact that the bread and wine are truly the body,blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. And at the same time reveals that although the bread and wine may remain those to our senses of the flesh, but eternally to our souls and spirit, these species of bread and wine are truly the body,blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Transubstantiation does not explain the mystery of the Eucharist away, the Roman Catholic church states that it is an inexhaustable mystery. Again Transubstantiation is for the believer who believes emphatically that the Eucharist is truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. That is Why during the reception of the mysteries the Roman Catholic states “AMEN” yes I believe that this is truly the body and blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Again Transubstantiation is for the believer who emphatically believes in the real true presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, even though their flesh may sense the bread and wine, transubstantiation states these are not, they are truly the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ though they remain bread and wine to our senses.

Transubstantiation helps keep me from falling into judgement by not discerning the body and blood of Jesus Christ truly present in the Eucharist.Transubstantiation helps me believe in the true presence of Jesus Christ that Jesus commands us to partake of , for his body is true food, and blood is true drink, transubstantiation says yes to sacred scripture.

As far as the early church fathers, they all believe in the real true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Because the believe was never contestested among believers, The word Transubstantiation was not needed at this time, for they all believed and described transubstantiation in their catechises or writings without mentioning the word.

Peace be with you

 

[Steadfast]

Transubstantiation was an unnecessary attempt to explain a mystery that, even more unfortunately, became dogma.

 

[thecoach]

There isn’t anything about Transubstantiation here.

Note that the context is Paul’s criticism of the Corinthian church for their divisions.

The word “body” is rich in meaning to Paul. I think his first interest is in addressing the issue of schism in the church. He is referring, first and foremost, to the Body (and Blood) as the Body of Christ, the Church.

So what he is doing is taking the opportunity to use Holy Communion to inculcate real communion among the Corinthian Christians.

I don’t deny that the passage implies an acceptance and belief in the Real Presence, but his point is not to teach that. His point about recognizing and being worthy is about not being in conflict with ones brethren in the church, not about accepting or believing in a particular eucharistic doctrine.

It has been argued that culling Scripture to support this or that pet doctrine without much regard to what it actually means is disrespectful to the Word of God and can involve a violation against the commandment not to take His Name in vain since we are using His Word for something He did not intend.

We should be careful with this. The Bible isn’t a Big List of Apologetic Proofs. It is the Verbum Dei, the very Word of God and we should approach it with reverence and never, ever, impose a meaning upon it, rather, we should let it speak.

We may be surprised at what the Holy Spirit will say to us if we do this.

EXACTLY!

 

[JonNC]

Transubstantiation states emphatically that this consecrated bread is the true body of Jesus Christ, and this consecrated wine is truly the blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ himself.

Gabriel,

And so does the Lutheran belief in “in, with, and under”.

Augsburg Confession
Article X: Of the Lord’s Supper.

1] Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed 2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; **and they reject those that teach otherwise. **

Now does anyone have any trouble truly believing that the validly consecrated bread and wine are truly present the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. If not, then you believe in transubstantiation.

By this you are saying that, by virtue of our confession, Lutherans believe in Transubstantiation, because we believe that the validly consecrated bread and wine are truly the body and blood of Christ.

The reality is Transubstantiation does not guess but states as a matter of fact that the bread and wine are truly the body,blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. And at the same time reveals that although the bread and wine may remain those to our senses of the flesh, but eternally to our souls and spirit, these species of bread and wine are truly the body,blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

We say the exact same thing without using the term Transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation does not explain the mystery of the Eucharist away, the Roman Catholic church states that it is an inexhaustable mystery. Again Transubstantiation is for the believer who believes emphatically that the Eucharist is truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. That is Why during the reception of the mysteries the Roman Catholic states “AMEN” yes I believe that this is truly the body and blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Again Transubstantiation is for the believer who emphatically believes in the real true presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, even though their flesh may sense the bread and wine, transubstantiation states these are not, they are truly the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ though they remain bread and wine to our senses.

Again, Lutherans do, too, without using the term. One exception (highlighted): Luther said he leaves the disposition of the bread and wine to God. It is a mystery,

Transubstantiation helps keep me from falling into judgement by not discerning the body and blood of Jesus Christ truly present in the Eucharist.Transubstantiation helps me believe in the true presence of Jesus Christ that Jesus commands us to partake of , for his body is true food, and blood is true drink, transubstantiation says yes to sacred scripture.

Agreed, without the term. I guess we basically agree.

Jon

 

[Hisalone]

The body which 1 Cor 11 refers to is the body of Christ or those members who make up His body ie the church. The context of the passage is that the Corinthian church was divided between those who had food and those who did not those who ate at their love feast and didnt share with those that could not eat, but were members of the body of Christ and were not discerned by the others as such.
CONTEXT,CONTEXT,CONTEXT

 

[dosdog]

The body which 1 Cor 11 refers to is the body of Christ or those members who make up His body ie the church. The context of the passage is that the Corinthian church was divided between those who had food and those who did not those who ate at their love feast and didnt share with those that could not eat, but were members of the body of Christ and were not discerned by the others as such.
CONTEXT,CONTEXT,CONTEXT

Pretty clear to me

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. 31 But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world. 33 Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If any man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto judgment. And the rest I will set in order, when I come

 

[po18guy]

All this is is you merely extrapolating your interpretation on Paul’s words. What is ironic here is that you want to be so careful to observe the words of Paul, yet when he states alludes such things as in Colossians that the Sabbath day is up to the individual to observe, the church makes non-observance a sin. Also the judgement could be from not gathering in love as Jesus commanded thus giving poor example or something else, such as Annais, and has nothing to do with transubstanation at all. After all, if he reallyy meant this, he probably would have been direct in saying this becomes the body and blood in reality, but he doesnt.

Careful there! It remains in the Ten Commandments. Paul wanted to Lord’s day to be holy. He wasn’t saying “set your own day”. Remember that he was battling new Jewish converts who were torn between the Mosaic law and the dispensation of Christianity.

OK. Forget Paul. What about Jesus going on and on and on in John 6? Tell me when Jesus spoke without Heavenly reason, or superfluously. Read the Greek verb that He used for “eat”. It is more like “gnaw” or “devour”.

Look at the practice of the early church, as reflected in the writings of her martyrs. They universally believed in and practiced the Eucharist. What has been lost since the rebellion? Christ in the Flesh. Gone from non-C, non-Orthodox churches.

Something to ponder.

Christ’s peace.

 

[elvisman]

The views of the early church fathers were really quite varied.

This reference to two realities would seem to be more in line with consubtantiation.

Augustine speaks of the sacrament resembling the reality so that in some manner the bread and wine are the body and blood.

Augustine seems to limit the Real Presence to the faithful. Transubstantiation does not do this. The presence is real no matter who partakes. This also seems to be the view of Ephrem the Syrian.

Pope Gelastius denies that the substance or the nature of the bread cease. This would not be in accordance with transubstantiation.

Theodret says something similar.

So while the fathers definitely seem to believe in the Real Presence it does not appear that their views were all consistent with transubstantiation.

Apparently you do not understand transustantiation.
If you take the consecrated body abd blood of our Lord to a laboratory, you will not find blood cells under the microscope. Neither will you see flesh or meat. The Church has never taught this. That is why it is called the Sacrifice of Jesus in an “unbloody manner”.

**To say that Jesus is PHYSICALLY present is different than saying he is really and truly present. **None of the writings you mentioned deny transubstantiation. They are explanations of what transubstantiation is.

 

[elvisman]

Elvisman,
The EO do not believe in transubstantiation. Do they not have the real presence?
I know this is the Catholic expression of the real presence, just as “in, with, and under” is the Lutheran expression. Both of these are merely human expressions of the mystery of the real presence. And it is, in fact, a mystery.

Jon

**The Eastern Orthodox do not accept the word ‘transubstantiation.’ They do not accept the notions of ‘substance’ or ‘accidents.’ Semantics. They don’t like the words, but they do, in fact believe in what we call “Transubstantiation”. ****They do hold that the consecrated elements of the eucharist are the Body and Blood of Christ. That is said to be acceptable to Rome. **

The Anglicans hold precisely the same view; that is said to be unacceptable to Rome because they do not have valid Apostolic succession.

 

[Hisalone]

Pretty clear to me

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. 31 But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world. 33 Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If any man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto judgment. And the rest I will set in order, when I come

practice–nor do the churches of God.

**17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not! **

How do you eat and drink unworthily?
By having divisions amoung you.
Pretty clear to me!

 

[dosdog]

practice–nor do the churches of God.

**17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not! **

How do you eat and drink unworthily?
By having divisions amoung you.
Pretty clear to me!

16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread. 18 Behold Israel according to the flesh: are not they, that eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar? 19 What then? Do I say, that what is offered in sacrifice to idols, is any thing? Or, that the idol is any thing? 20 But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.

 

[SyCarl]

Apparently you do not understand transustantiation.
**If you take the consecrated body abd blood of our Lord to a laboratory, you will not **find blood cells under the microscope. Neither will you see flesh or meat. The Church has never taught this. That is why it is called the Sacrifice of Jesus in an “unbloody manner”.

I do understand what is meant by transubstantiation but for certainty I will quote wrote from the Council of Trent.

CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth 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; let him be anathema.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html

**To say that Jesus is PHYSICALLY **present is different than saying he is really and truly present. None of the writings you mentioned deny transubstantiation. They are explanations of what transubstantiation is.

According to Trent the whole substance of the bread becomes the body and the whole substance of the wine becomes the blood. Only the species, or as the Aristotelian metaphysics used would say, the accidents, remain. Trent specifically denies that any substance of the bread or wine remains.

In the quotes I gave Irenaeus says that two realities exist. Pope Gelastius and Theodret say that the substance of the bread still remains. These views directly contradict what Trent says.

Ephrem says those without faith only receive ordinary bread. How is that consistent with the entire substance being converted. Augustine also says it is received by belief and that the elements bear some points of likeness to the body and blood and that they are in a certain manner the body and blood. Again how is this consistent with the whole substance being changed.

 

[dosdog]

I do understand what is meant by transubstantiation but for certainty I will quote wrote from the Council of Trent.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html

According to Trent the whole substance of the bread becomes the body and the whole substance of the wine becomes the blood. Only the species, or as the Aristotelian metaphysics used would say, the accidents, remain. Trent specifically denies that any substance of the bread or wine remains.

In the quotes I gave Irenaeus says that two realities exist. Pope Gelastius and Theodret say that the substance of the bread still remains. These views directly contradict what Trent says.

Ephrem says those without faith only receive ordinary bread. How is that consistent with the entire substance being converted. Augustine also says it is received by belief and that the elements bear some points of likeness to the body and blood and that they are in a certain manner the body and blood. Again how is this consistent with the whole substance being changed.

A priest has doubts about the Real Presence; however, when he consecrates the Host it transforms into flesh and blood. This miracle has undergone extensive scientific examination and can only be explained as a miracle. The flesh is actually cardiac tissue which contains arterioles, veins, and nerve fibers. The blood type as in all other approved Eucharistic miracles is type AB! Histological micrographs are shown.

Physician Tells of Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano - (Zenit)
zenit.org/article-12933?l=english

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Anyone who does not believe that Jesus “IS COME” in the flesh in the present tense in the Eucharist is anti-christ!

 

[Hisalone]

Anyone who does not believe that Jesus “IS COME” in the flesh in the present tense in the Eucharist is anti-christ!

What a massive distortion and twisting and self interpretation of scripture.

 

[dosdog]

What a massive distortion and twisting and self interpretation of scripture.

Luke 16 31 And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.

A priest has doubts about the Real Presence; however, when he consecrates the Host it transforms into flesh and blood. This miracle has undergone extensive scientific examination and can only be explained as a miracle. The flesh is actually cardiac tissue which contains arterioles, veins, and nerve fibers. The blood type as in all other approved Eucharistic miracles is type AB! Histological micrographs are shown.

Physician Tells of Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano - (Zenit)
zenit.org/article-12933?l=english

 

[JonNC]

The Eastern Orthodox do not accept the word ‘transubstantiation.’ They do not accept the notions of ‘substance’ or ‘accidents.’ Semantics. They don’t like the words, but they do, in fact believe in what we call “Transubstantiation”. They do hold that the consecrated elements of the eucharist are the Body and Blood of Christ. That is said to be acceptable to Rome.

The Anglicans hold precisely the same view; that is said to be unacceptable to Rome because they do not have valid Apostolic succession.

Elvisman,
Anglicans holding verying views on the real presence, and the disagreement on valid orders aside, the thrust of the thread has been, in part, on the semantics.

Besides the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation has always been to decribe it as a mystery.

You’ve hit here on my problem with transubstantiation. It seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable, scripturally supportable, though certainly not conclusive human expression of the real presence, and it came about at a time when the Church had to defend the belief in the real presence from some who denied it. That said, my concern is that the CC has made a human explanation of the inexplicable (the mystery) into doctrine. If it is a mystery, why not accept it as a mystery, and leave it alone?
On the other hand, I direct the same question to my own Lutheran Church. “In, with, and under” seems a perfectly reasonable, scripturally supportable, though certainly not conclusive human expression of the real presence. But why make it doctrine? If it is a mystery, why not accept it as a mystery, and leave it alone?

Maybe the EO has the right idea, leave the semantics out of it. It is a mystery, leave it alone.

Without transubstantiation, there is no presence - real or otherwise - unless you refer to consubstantiation which is not what the ECFs believed in.

If you mean by consubstantiation “in, with and under”, some of the quotes provided in this thread seem to indicate that, perhaps they did believe that more than the accidents remain. But my guess is that they cared much more about the true presence of the body and blood, and very little about the disposition of the bread and wine, something we both can probably agree on.

Jon

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

1 Corinthians 11: 27 This means that whoever eats and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord.

St. Paul, states above if we eat Our Lord flesh and drink his blood unworthily we sin against God. St. Paul, clearly believes in Transubstantiation.

St. Paul, goes on to say: 1 Corinthians 11: 28 A man should examine himself first; only then should eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

Now why would St. Paul say this? BeCause St. Paul, truely believes in Transubstantiation. Many Catholics before recieving the Body and Blood of Christ Examine themselves such as going to confession asking Jesus to pardon their sins.

St. Paul, goes on to say: 1 Corinthians 11: 29 He who eats and drinks Without RECOGNIZING the BODY eats and drinks a judgement on himself.

Many Protestants, and some socalled Catholics eat and drink **Without RECOGNIZING the BODY. **Thus bringing Judgement on his or herself.

If St. Paul, thought that the Holy Eucharist was only a symbol and not the real Presence Of Our Lord, he would of not put much thought into it, Stating in these Bible verse that one has to examine themselves, or they who eat and drink without recognizing the BODY eats and Drinks JUDGEMENT to himself.

If St. Paul, Thought that the Eucharist was only a Symbol and not the Real Presence why did he say: 1 Corinthians 11: 30 That is why so many among you are sick and dying.

People wake up and believe in Transubstantiation. If not you will be bringing Judgement onto yourselves.

Ufamtobie

**Sorry to say this - but: the text is compatible with denials of the RC dogma, & affirmations of anything from the Zwinglian to the Anglican views on the Eucharist. **​

**A sin against one’s neighbour is a sin against God. It does not follow that one’s neighbour is God Himself. So with the Eucharist: one can fail to discern the Lord’s Body without there being any implication that He is Present in the Eucharist - it can be a token of His Presence in the Church, without itself being anything more than a token. Besides, what Catholics call Transub’ion is often not Transub’ion but a misunderstanding of it; what Catholic is obliged to defend a misunderstanding of it ? **

**In Luke 10.16, to refuse the Apostles’ preaching is not a refusal to heed them - it is a refusal to heed Christ, which is a refusal to heed His Father. No one imagines the Apostles were Christ Himself. If an offence against His servants is an offence against Him - why must the Eucharist be any more than a token ? It is the means of recognising His Body, but is not itself His Body. **

On this reading, St. Paul is talking not about what the Eucharist is, but, **about what its function is. Trans’ion is a much later idea, which was first expressed by using Aristotelian categories, in the 12th century. The Apostle does not use them - he is influenced by Stoicism; not by Aristotle. Even if the idea is in agreement with this passage, the Apostle is not talking about it. If we fail to recognise this (surely rather obvious ?) fact, we will only make Catholicism look ridiculous by not admitting what is true . **

**If it is a token, such an idea agrees better with several OT ideas than with the ideas current in “popular” Catholicism. One of the problems with the latter is that it far too often ignores almost all aspects of the Eucharist: especially the OT aspects of it. ****And this greatly impoverishes our appreciation of the Eucharist. There is so much more to the Eucharist than its being a sacrifice or than transub’ion; as V2 makes clear. **

The Eucharist is two things, of many that are spoken of in the OT - it is:

• a sign
• an acted parable
  **OT signs are often very ordinary things in their nature, through which God makes His Presence known - the “sign” of the young woman is a well-known example. As for acted parables - these are acts by which the Prophets acted out what was to come, so that it might come; enacting it symbolically, was a means to make it take place. The Book of Jeremiah contains several examples of this. **

**As Jesus is the greatest of the Prophets, it seems likely that His re-fashioning of the Passover meal into what came to be the Eucharist makes it a sign of His Presence, & an effctive sign of the coming of the Kingship of God in Him: where He is acknowledged as Lord, the Kingdom of His Father is present. This is compatible with the Catholic doctrine regarding what the Eucharistic gifts are, after their consecration - but it does not require or imply that doctrine. And it has one advantage the Catholic doctrine lacks - it reads the texts about the Eucharist without forgetting that they come from the first-century Semitic & Greek Levant, rather than from the Latin West in the thirteenth century; it is an historical approach - not a dogmatic one. **

BTW - the Apostle calls the Church the Body of Christ: in view of the context of that chapter in that letter to that church, “failing to discern the body” probably has as much to with discerning the **Church as with any ideas of what the Eucharist is. ****Transub’ion may be true - but the words of the Apostle’s are no proof of it; the text is open to other **interpretations. Those who find them convincing will not be impressed by any argument that refuses to consider them. Whom do we harm but ourselves, if we refuse to take other interpretations seriously ?

 

[fbl9]

if i eat a token how can i be judged by a token unless that “token” is the judge Himself. a symbol can not judge one only the the judge Himself can judge someone.

 

[fbl9]

How do you eat and drink unworthily?
By having divisions amoung you.
Pretty clear to me!and yea are the one divided