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

[po18guy]

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

Step away from the mirror! Argue your case before the Lord, if you are so confident you are correct. We obediently follow the example as set forth by the Apostles, and every generation since. Risk your soul to avoid being Catholic? I will NOT! If you ever experienced the presence of Christ in the Flesh, you would know what we dumb Catholics are talking about. The Eucharist is indeed His flesh, for the life of the world. It is Saint Thomas probing His wounds; it is the Apostle John exclaiming “It is the Lord!” from the boat.

This world has replaced Christ’s Flesh with paper and ink! This is the tragedy of all time. Oh, if you would only open your heart to understand. He has captivated me. I love Him. He in the Flesh is my Lord and my God. Amen!

Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[Lilyflower]

In a local Prison there is always a good attendance at Mass because prisoners who would otherwise be locked up in a cell are allowed out to go to a Church Service.

Our PP was shocked to see Muslims sitting in the pews wearing the Sacred Hosts as monocles, laughing and joking while being grossly irreverent to the Blessed Sacrament. So obviously they did not believe in the Real Presence. If they did not believe, how can they be guilty of any sin of desecration?

Blessings and peace

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

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?

**The Orthodox say that too. **​

Where do you see the CC as doing what you mention ? The RCC is not explaining anything, but describing aspects of something - namely, certain effects of the consecration of the Eucharistic Gifts.** So if you could be more specific, that would be a great help. **

**All created things are inexplicable. What people forget is that things as such are unknowable - only God knows what a pin really is. No man has ever seen one, & no man ever will. Pins can be analysed till Kingdom come, but no amount of data about them will lead to direct knowledge of them. We know things only by their effects - we never see them by direct vision of their beings. Transub’ion does not explain & not try to explain what the gifts are, nor what the consecration is: it speaks only of what happens to them. And what happens is, the conversion of their substance without conversion of their properties. **

In no sense is this an explanation of the reality either of their being or of their conversion - it is a registration of their being & of their conversion. To say that transub’ion gets rid of the mystery is to confuse the reality with the formula for it; which is like confusing the wet stuff we need to drink if we are not to die, with the chemical formula for it. But who complains of chemists for using the formula H2O ? How does that take away for the reality of the experience of drinking water ? The water is not affected.** IMHO,the problems wirth Transub’ion lie elsewhere.**

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.

**That sounds a very strange request from the Church that bothered a great deal about semantics: what was the Arian controversy, if not an argument about semantics ? How did Nicea I deal with it, if not by semantics ? Only someone very naive could be taken in by such an appeal - it was the East, not the West by itself, that had no problems about coming to very specific conclusions about how exactly it was permissible to speak of the Incarnation. So any attempt to pretend that only those nasty rationalist Aristotelianising legalist Latins depend upon semantics is a bluff, nothing more - & it is time for that bluff to be called. **​

**There is nothing wrong with semantics - what words signify matters a great; as the Fathers were well aware. Semantic issues matter to accuracy - as the Councils were not unaware. “Semantics” is in danger of becoming a “worsened word”, like “casuistry” - both are words for very useful & necessary pursuits in the Church. **

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

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

To: JonNc: and other debaters on the word transubstantiation;

**This is wonderful news if all Lutherans believe in the True present as The 2000 year old Catholic Tradition and scripture clearly states. Surprisinglly, not all Lutherans believe in the True Transubstantiated Eucharist as being Literally the body blood, soul and divinity. Lutherans I may be mistaken, believe in consubstantiation? this is not the same as Transubstantiation. For the latter describes the bread and wine a change occurrs from the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. The former term believed by protestants indicate that the bread and wine co habits with the body and blood of Jesus this is not a true discernment of the body of Jesus Christ.

One cant deny Transubstantiation because it states that the bread and wine at the words of God, become literally the body and blood of Jesus, the bread and wine are no longer remaining only to our senses of the flesh, if one truly believes in the True presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Besides the Eucharist has to be confected by a validly ordained Priest from the body of Jesus Christ.

To claim a belief in the True presence of Jesus in the confected Eucharist, one must believe that the bread and wine remain no longer, and is transubstantiated into the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus, Transubstantiation states this emphatically. To believe that this change does not occurr at the words of Jesus, is to deny and not discern the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, leaving one to believe in a symbolic Jesus or a false pretense of the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

I dont doubt anyone’s belief in the true presence when one claims to believe in the true presence. Transubstantiation removes all doubt that the Eucharist is truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Transubstantiation allows the believer to truly discern the true presence of body and blood of Jesus, thus Transubstantiation allows true discernment of the believer in the body and blood soul and divinity of Jesus in his Eucharist.

To not understand or have doubt, or leave your doubt suspended in faith can bring judgment. Transubstantiation removes this doubt, because faith is the evidence of things not seen = meaning, Transubstantiation knows that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Jesus because transubstantiation states emphatically that the bread and wine remain no longer only the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, allowing the believer to have a true discernment of the body and blood in the Eucharist. So Roman Catholics have faith, and the evidence of our faith is knowing ( not just believing) that the consecrated bread and wine are no longer existing in the Eucharist only the true body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Transubstantiation agrees with Jesus when he states this bread is my body, and this wine is my blood. Transubstantiation makes a fact that the true presence of Jesus is real in the present and eternally.

I believe those who refuse the description of Transubstantiation and yet has a belief in the true presence, has issue with the authority or has different belief in the true presence, other than the way Transubstantiation describes the true presence present. To remain that it is a mystery is not discerning the true body and blood, transubstantiation states emphatically the Eucharist is the true presence of our Lord Jesus in the Eucharist because Transubstantiation again states the bread and wine are no longer, only to our senses.

If you have a better way of discerning the true body and blood of Jesus in the bread and wine, lets hear it here; But to claim to mystery is not truly discerning the body and blood of Jesus. Faith is suspended, when Jesus repeats himself, you must eat and drink his body and blood to have eternal life, Paul puts a curse on you if the believer does not discern the body and blood of Jesus as truly present.**

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.

** Yeah, but Luther cannot overrule St. Pauls epistle to the Corinthians, who states to the believer to discern the body and blood of Jesus, or else be accursed, and fall into the judgement for the body and blood of Jesus. So to suspend your disposition of discernment to God, makes you a non believer, Paul states “you” not God is to discern the bread and wine to be truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ. It may be better to be a non believer and not be able to discern the true presence, than to be a believer and refuse the transubstantiated bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus.**

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

Jon

I wish we did agree, unless you can tell me that the bread is changed into the body, and wine into the blood soul divinity of Jesus Christ, we are in agreement, and if so, then we both believe in the true presence of Jesus transubstantiated bread and wine into his body, because the bread and wine are no longer, according to transubstantiation.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.

**SyCarl, I am sorry but they do not contradict, you are misreading the context of both Trent and Irenaeus, Pope Gelastius and Theodret. What makes you think, that the Church would not have disclosed these remarkable accusations you make about a contradiction?

For one, they both totally agree with one another. It is true the consecrated host is transubstantiated into the body and blood of Jesus, and the bread and wine are no longer, Now here comes the statement that makes both commentaries compatible, but the bread and wine remain those to our senses, This implies that the transubstantiation has occurred when the bread and wine are no longer but have transubstantiated into the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus, but to our senses agrees Trent, Irenaeus, Popes Gelastius and Theodret, the bread and wine remain these only to our senses, because what matters is the Spirit that gives life, for the flesh or our senses is of no avail states Jesus.**

I hope this sheds a little light on how Roman Catholics believe as one, and her doctrines never contradict scripture and apostolic Tradition.

Peace be with you.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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

Hisalone I think your comment is off topic here, the context you reference is not the same What St. Paul is handing down to the Corinthian church, you have strayed off ahead of us in context of the scriptures, right now we are on the body and blood that was handed down, not the body of believers.

Being you are so wise to the scripture context can you answer this question for me? The Roman Catholic church is the body of Jesus Christ, why are the believers commanded to eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus Christ? and not non believers?

 

[Harmony1988]

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.

‘Merely’

There are some errors, but it is not extrapolation. Extrapolation is valid, it is the basis for a lot of evidence, scientific and religious.

‘Merely extrapolating’ -

Extrapolating also goes by another name, deduction, which is also necessary and desired.

Try again

 

[Steadfast]

1 Cor. 11 is about division in the church. It is not a prooftext for the Real Presence though the Real Presence is certainly implied.

In it St. Paul uses Holy Communion to illustrate and encourage unity and reparation.

It has nothing at all to say about transubstantiation.

 

[JonNC]

Gabriel,
You speak so well for your faith. You have caused me to think and pray on this issue. God bless you.

To claim a belief in the True presence of Jesus in the confected Eucharist, one must believe that the bread and wine remain no longer, and is transubstantiated into the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus, Transubstantiation states this emphatically. To believe that this change does not occurr at the words of Jesus, is to deny and not discern the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, leaving one to believe in a symbolic Jesus or a false pretense of the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

I humbly disagree with your assertion that to believe in the true presence, one must believe in Transubstantiation. As Paul writes,
“The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” And also, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.” Does this reference to bread deny the real presence? No! But it does not lead one to believe he believed the bread and wine transubstantiated.
It is not to say that, because you believe in Transubstantiation, you do not beleive in the real presence, or even that you are catagorically wrong. I do not question that you have no doubt that the true body and blood is there. And if transubstantiation takes all doubt from your mind, then it is a blessing to you.
I am simply saying that my faith leaves me no doubt that Christ’s body and blood are truly and substantially present in the Eucharist.

Transubstantiation allows the believer to truly discern the true presence of body and blood of Jesus, thus Transubstantiation allows true discernment of the believer in the body and blood soul and divinity of Jesus in his Eucharist.

Good. But I can say that for millions of Lutherans, what we believe allows the exact same thing.

Yeah, but Luther cannot overrule St. Pauls epistle to the Corinthians, who states to the believer to discern the body and blood of Jesus, or else be accursed, and fall into the judgement for the body and blood of Jesus. So to suspend your disposition of discernment to God, makes you a non believer, Paul states “you” not God is to discern the bread and wine to be truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ

Not what I said. I do not suspend my decernment of the true body and blood, I leave to God’s disposition whether or not what I see, taste and touch is the elements of bread and wine, or just the accidents. If, as you say, it is the accidents, and the bread and wine no longer exist, then I thank God for it, for through these accidents I receive the true and substantial body and blood. If it is as the Lutheran confessions state, then I thank God for it, for then, too, I receive the true and substantial body and blood of Christ.

I wish we did agree, unless you can tell me that the bread is changed into the body, and wine into the blood soul divinity of Jesus Christ, we are in agreement, and if so, then we both believe in the true presence of Jesus transubstantiated bread and wine into his body, because the bread and wine are no longer, according to transubstantiation.

So do I, my friend. Guess we’re not quite there yet.

Jon

 

[SyCarl]

Not what I said. I do not suspend my decernment of the true body and blood, I leave to God’s disposition whether or not what I see, taste and touch is the elements of bread and wine, or just the accidents. If, as you say, it is the accidents, and the bread and wine no longer exist, then I thank God for it, for through these accidents I receive the true and substantial body and blood. If it is as the Lutheran confessions state, then I thank God for it, for then, too, I receive the true and substantial body and blood of Christ.

Jon

I think we agree. God does what He does through the sacrament. It is not necessary for us to know or understand how He does it. If we receive the sacrament in faith we eat an drink Christ in whatever way God causes it to be. We should do what Christ tells us to do and rely on Him to give us what He says we will receive.

 

[elt1956]

**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 ?

From what I have read about Early Church History and the Fathers of the Church, say right after the Crucifixion and then through the first one hundred years afterward, great reverence of the “Sacrifice” was taught by the Apostles to the faithful. In some readings, individual congregants were chastized for not treating the bread with reverence. I have the impression from what I have read, the Apostles ALWAYS considered the bread and wine to BE the body of Christ.

 

[JonNC]

I think we agree. God does what He does through the sacrament. It is not necessary for us to know or understand how He does it. If we receive the sacrament in faith we eat an drink Christ in whatever way God causes it to be. We should do what Christ tells us to do and rely on Him to give us what He says we will receive.

Hi SyCarl,
I would only be concerned with the highlighted part. Scripture is clear that what it is is Christ’s body and blood, truly and substantially present. It is not spiritual or symbolic or a remembrance. Is is is. If you are talking about the bread and wine, there we have agreement. It is not necessary for us to know or understand what he does with them (bread and wine). This is why I am not willing to condemn transub. In the Apology of Augsburg Confession, the writers say: …“the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present and are truly offered with those things that are seen.”

Jon

 

[elvisman]

SyCarl;3722149:

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.

SyCarl, I am sorry but they do not contradict, you are misreading the context of both Trent and Irenaeus, Pope Gelastius and Theodret. What makes you think, that the Church would not have disclosed these remarkable accusations you make about a contradiction?

For one, they both totally agree with one another. It is true the consecrated host is transubstantiated into the body and blood of Jesus, and the bread and wine are no longer, Now here comes the statement that makes both commentaries compatible, but the bread and wine remain those to our senses, This implies that the transubstantiation has occurred when the bread and wine are no longer but have transubstantiated into the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus, but to our senses agrees Trent, Irenaeus, Popes Gelastius and Theodret, the bread and wine remain these only to our senses, because what matters is the Spirit that gives life, for the flesh or our senses is of no avail states Jesus.

I hope this sheds a little light on how Roman Catholics believe as one, and her doctrines never contradict scripture and apostolic Tradition.

Peace be with you.

Gabriel -
Thank you. You put in more eloquently than I did. :bowdown2:
ESPECIALLY the part about Jesus’ statement that it is the spirit that gives life - the flesh is of no avail (John 6:63). This is really the crux of the whole Bread of Life discourse in John 6.
It’s been a busy weekend!

 

[Lilyflower]

SyCarl;3722149:

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.

**SyCarl, I am sorry but they do not contradict, you are misreading the context of both Trent and Irenaeus, Pope Gelastius and Theodret. What makes you think, that the Church would not have disclosed these remarkable accusations you make about a contradiction?

For one, they both totally agree with one another. It is true the consecrated host is transubstantiated into the body and blood of Jesus, and the bread and wine are no longer, Now here comes the statement that makes both commentaries compatible, but the bread and wine remain those to our senses, This implies that the transubstantiation has occurred when the bread and wine are no longer but have transubstantiated into the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus, but to our senses agrees Trent, Irenaeus, Popes Gelastius and Theodret, the bread and wine remain these only to our senses, because what matters is the Spirit that gives life, for the flesh or our senses is of no avail states Jesus.**

I hope this sheds a little light on how Roman Catholics believe as one, and her doctrines never contradict scripture and apostolic Tradition.

Peace be with you.



Blessings and peace

 

[ufamtobie]

I suggest that the issue is not one of believing in transubstantiation but one of believing that in the Eucharist one receives the true Body and Blood of Christ. It is the “what” and not the “how” that is important.

Speaking as a Lutheran, I believe the Real Presence is a mystery that goes beyond our human understanding. Any attempt to explain how Christ is present in what appears, to our senses, to be bread and wine is futile. We simply accept that Jesus’ words are true – “this is my body,” and “this cup is the new covenant in my blood.” We don’t need to know how it is done. We accept our Lord’s words at face value.

Pastor,

Well, said The Real Presence is a MYSTERY, and a Beautiful Mystery it is.

Being a Pastor, do you preach this to your congragation?

Ufamtobie

 

[Lilyflower]

In a local Prison there is always a good attendance at Mass because prisoners who would otherwise be locked up in a cell are allowed out to go to a Church Service.

Our PP was shocked to see Muslims sitting in the pews wearing the Sacred Hosts as monocles, laughing and joking while being grossly irreverent to the Blessed Sacrament. So obviously they did not believe in the Real Presence. If they did not believe, how can they be guilty of any sin of desecration?

Blessings and peace

I should have pointed out in this contribution that our PP got into serious ‘hot-water’ by refusing Muslims the Sacred Host. The Anglican Chaplin upon asking him if he would refuse the Host to him, he asked the Anglican if he believed in the Real Presence to which the Anglican Chaplain said ‘no’ so our PP said he would therefore refuse the Host to him too! The Anglican Chaplain reported him to the Prison authorities as practicing discrimination. He got into a lot of trouble over that. But he kept to his principles. Eventually, the prison concerned dismissed him as Catholic Chaplain.

The new Chaplain [Priest from a neighbouring parish] did not refuse anyone who presented. This was how he came to see some of the congregation wearing the Blessed Host as monocles and tossing it about in the Chapel.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel,
You speak so well for your faith. You have caused me to think and pray on this issue. God bless you.

God bless you for those kind words. and may the Holy Spirit always guide us to his truth always.

I humbly disagree with your assertion that to believe in the true presence, one must believe in Transubstantiation. As Paul writes,

My intention was not for one to believe in the word Trans. My comment was to explain that if one believes in the true presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist, with the definition of the word Trans. that the bread and wine are no longer, only the body, blood soul and divinity of Our Dear Lord Jesus, and that those accidents remain those to our senses. This is what Transubstantiation is explaining. My comment is for those who believe this occcurs in the confected Bread and wine, then this is transubstantiation whether one accepts the term or not. But if they believe this change occurs, then one believes in transubstantiation and not know it.

“The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” And also, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.” Does this reference to bread deny the real presence? No! But it does not lead one to believe he believed the bread and wine transubstantiated.

** The participation in the body of Christ and the cup with the proclamation of the death of our Lord until he comes, deals with the great mysteries of what takes place at this banquet. I agree Paul is not emphasizing directly the doctrine of the true presence as Jesus does in John 6…Paul is stating indirectly during the Mass at what takes place at communion, that the bread IS a participation in the body of Christ. Transubstantiation is never mentioned is already believed by these early Christians that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus.**

I do not question that you have no doubt that the true body and blood is there. And if transubstantiation takes all doubt from your mind, then it is a blessing to you.
I am simply saying that my faith leaves me no doubt that Christ’s body and blood are truly and substantially present in the Eucharist.

** Please dont take my commentary as to force one into believing in the word Trans. that one does not believe in the True presence. What I hope to be discussing here, is HOW do we believe Jesus is present in his Eucharist? Either symbolically, Not at all, consubstantially, (Christ co habits the elements), or Transubstantiation where Christ is truly present, and the bread and wine are no longer, just Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity. And if there is another belief than these I am interested in hearing how others view the true presence.**

What I find in the highest regards to your comments is that you do not count my belief as false. I hope I have not offended you in explaining how I come to the conclusion of the word Trans. and the scriptures context explaining the true presence., and pay you much respect for your belief.

Not what I said. I do not suspend my decernment of the true body and blood, I leave to God’s disposition whether or not what I see, taste and touch is the elements of bread and wine, or just the accidents. If, as you say, it is the accidents, and the bread and wine no longer exist, then I thank God for it, for through these accidents I receive the true and substantial body and blood. If it is as the Lutheran confessions state, then I thank God for it, for then, too, I receive the true and substantial body and blood of Christ.

I praise God for your faith in the true substantial presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the question is how do we believe Jesus is present? Then comes the question of validity? I think if we look at the various views of the true presence, without prejudice or convictions of ones tradition, we can excercise our freewill to accept God how he wills to reveal himself to us. I for one accept the view Totally body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus, not because of the word transubstantiation this helps my flesh graduate into the mysteries, but because Jesus States and Commands that he is present in the Eucharist.

So do I, my friend. Guess we’re not quite there yet.

Jon

**I exhalt in your faith of Jesus truly present, and then I am saddened because it is suggested we believe Jesus is present in the Eucharist by different means. I dont judge anyones belief on the true presence, I am just disclosing my beliefs in the true presence.

What I can mention here is I believe as the apostles did, and the early church fathers from antiquity in the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. My understanding of transubstantiation allows me in faith to accept Jesus teachings to eat his body and drink his blood, and grow in knowledge of Jesus, That takes me into the mystical body of Jesus Chrirst the Paul is talking about in 1Corinthians above.

Jon God bless you, and may the peace of our Lord Jesus be with you.**

 

[Lilyflower]

I think we agree. God does what He does through the sacrament. It is not necessary for us to know or understand how He does it. If we receive the sacrament in faith we eat an drink Christ in whatever way God causes it to be. We should do what Christ tells us to do and rely on Him to give us what He says we will receive.

Blessings and peace

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12;3723127:

Gabriel -

Thank you. You put in more eloquently than I did. :bowdown2:
ESPECIALLY the part about Jesus’ statement that it is the spirit that gives life - the flesh is of no avail (John 6:63). This is really the crux of the whole Bread of Life discourse in John 6.
It’s been a busy weekend!

Thanks elvisman,it nice to know I am not alone on these belief’s, because to some, what we are talking about eating flesh and drinking blood, taken out of context and into the litteral, we may get arrested as did our forefathers.

thanks for sharing elvisman, Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12;3723127:

Blessings and peace

Hi Lilyflower, and also with you