Luther's Consubstantiation .... or Catholicism's Transubstantiation

[Philthy]

:nope: I said we receive all of Christ in the Eucharist. So did the ECF’s I quoted. BOTH the suffering, abused servant/prophet, son of man … AND, the Glorified, resurrected Lord. To leave out the first aspect of Christ’s humanity … removes the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins.

Yes, the Resurrected, Glorified Christ, Son of God, makes salvation possible, but w/o the sacrifice of Jesus … the Father would not receive us into his Kingdom.

Sorry, but all of the aspects of Christ that you mention have been glorified and exist in a glorified state. That is the discussion we are having. The resurrected Christ, who lived as servant and prophet and who was Crucified, rose three days after his Crucifixion and rose in his glorified state. He remains eternally in this state. When we receive Him in the Eucharist we receive all of these aspects of Him in His current, glorified state. :yup:

 

[Philthy]

:nope: I said we receive all of Christ in the Eucharist. So did the ECF’s I quoted.

Not one ECF says we receive Christ in an unglorified state. You simply misunderstand what they are saying.

BOTH the suffering, abused servant/prophet, son of man … AND, the Glorified, resurrected Lord.

Sorry, but there is only one Christ, and all of Him is in a glorified state. We receive all of Him in the Eucharist, and that is Him in his glorified state.

To leave out the first aspect of Christ’s humanity … removes the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins.

Not an issue because we haven’t left out his first aspect. We simply - and accurately - recognize that first aspect as now being in a glorified state just as all his humanity is.

Yes, the Resurrected, Glorified Christ, Son of God, makes salvation possible, but w/o the sacrifice of Jesus … the Father would not receive us into his Kingdom.

Not an issue. We have not eliminated the sacrifice of Jesus, we have simply maintained that the body that Christ offered on the Cross, that lay in a tomb, that very same body rose on the 3rd day and it was in a new, glorified state. And we maintain that it remains in that glorified state to this day and that when receive Christ’s body in the Eucharist we receive all of Him in that current glorified state. :yup:

Your contention that scientific investigation would reveal a difference between a consecrated and unconsecrated host - the impetus for this discussion - remains an error. I will not cut you an inch of slack on this no matter how many times or ways you intend to circle around it with half truths, ECF misinterpretations or suggestions. As I have mentioned several times,* if* the Church taught what you claim they teach (science can distinguish between consecrated and unconsecrated host) then anti-Catholics would have proven it wrong to discredit the Church. The fact is, however, that no one has done it. And why not? Because the Church *doesn’t *actually teach what you claim She teaches ( that there is a difference discernible to science) and as such their scientific analysis would prove nothing damaging to the Church. Give it up brb…

 

[Philthy]

brb3-

I don’t blame you for doubting my explanations as I have no teaching authority nor special qualifications for this discussion. I did a little google search on “the nature of christ’s presence in the eucharist” and came to this document from Avery Cardinal Dulles, SJ: adoremus.org/0405RealPresence.html
There is some great stuff in it, and I highly recommend reading it for anyone interested in learning more about this great mystery of our faith. Here are some statements from it which add clarification to our discussion. I have edited by adding bolding and have interspersed my own comments into the text (in blue).

         The  Council of Trent spoke also of the process by which this presence of  Christ comes about. It stated that the bread and wine are changed; they  cease to be what they were and become what they were not. The whole  substance of the bread and wine becomes the substance of the body and  blood of Christ and, because Christ cannot be divided, they become also  His soul and His divinity. (DS 1640, 1642) The whole Christ is made  present under each of the two forms.
         **The change that occurs in the consecration at Mass is *sui generis***.  It does not fit into the categories of Aristotle, who believed that  every substantial change involved a change in the appearances or what he  called accidents.

Hint: the “appearances” of the host do not change with the substantial change that occurs at consecration.

When I eat an apple, it loses its perceptible qualities as well as its substance as an apple. It becomes part of me. But in the consecration of bread and wine at Mass, the outward appearances remain unchanged. The Church has coined the term “transubstantiation” to designate the process by which the whole substance, and only the substance, is changed into the substance of Christ’s body and blood. A special word is needed to designate a process that is unique and unparalleled.
In teaching that the species are unchanged, the Church indicates that **the physical and chemical properties remain those of bread and wine. **Not only do they look and weigh the same; they retain the same nutritive value that they had before the consecration.3 It would be futile to try to prove or disprove the real presence by physical experiments, because the presence of Christ is spiritual or sacramental, not physical in the sense of measurable.

"Transubstantiation, as I have explained, is the process by which one substance, that of the bread or wine, becomes another substance, that of Christ’s body and blood, without any change in its physico-chemical aspects. Trent taught that the term was very apt. (DS 1652) Paul VI, in 1965, said that it was still “fitting and accurate” and, as I have mentioned, found it superior to other terms that had been proposed (MF 46). But the Church is not definitively wedded to any particular vocabulary.

I hope this puts the issue to rest regarding what we should expect to find with any scientific inquiry of a consecrated host. There is no scientific difference between a consecrated and unconsecrated host.
Lets see if we can also make some progress on the question of whether Christ’s glorified vs unglorified presence as well…

Blessings!

ps if this information detracts in any way from your faith or appreciation of receiving Christ in the Eucharist please PM me so that we can discuss further in private as it should not, and not only do I not want to cause you to stumble I hope to build you up in the faith (as iron sharpens iron).

 

[Philthy]

Here’s another article on Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, from the USCCB:
usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/resources-for-the-eucharist/the-real-presence-of-jesus-christ-in-the-sacrament-of-the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm

I did the underlining…

The whole Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine—the glorified Christ who rose from the dead after dying for our sins. This is what the Church means when she speaks of the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist. This presence of Christ in the Eucharist is called “real” not to exclude other types of his presence as if they could not be understood as real (cf. Catechism, no. 1374). The risen Christ is present to his Church in many ways, but most especially through the sacrament of his Body and Blood.

1. 
   *]Does the bread cease to be bread and the wine cease to be wine? Yes. In order for the whole Christ to be present—body, blood, soul, and divinity—the bread and wine cannot remain, but must give way so that his glorified Body and Blood may be present. Thus in the Eucharist the bread ceases to be bread in substance, and becomes the Body of Christ, while the wine ceases to be wine in substance, and becomes the Blood of Christ. As St. Thomas Aquinas observed, Christ is not quoted as saying, " This bread is my body," but " This is my body" ( Summa Theologiae, III q. 78, a. 5).
   
   This is actually question 4 from the article. Please note that the bread and wine must cease to exist as bread and wine (ie their substance) “so that his GLORIFIED Body and Blood may be present”. While this doesn’t directly speak to whether his unglorified B&B are also present, it strongly implies not, because the same situation - Christ’s substantial presence in the Eucharist - whether glorified or unglorified - requires the substance of bread and wine to cease to exist. His unglorified substance would have exactly the same requirement - that the bread and wine cease to exist - as does his glorified substance.The fact that they don’t also mention that the bread and wine need to cease to exist so that Christ’s unglorified B&B can be present gives us a good indication that it is because there is no unglorified presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
   
   Blessings!

 

[brb3]

While this doesn’t directly speak to whether his unglorified B&B are also present, it strongly implies not, because the same situation - Christ’s substantial presence in the Eucharist -

Right … it doesn’t address the unglorified body that was abused by mankind and killed on Cross [the body/blood that Christ, as son of man, shed for us]. That human, body/blood of the Lord’s Supper, that we are to ‘memorialize’ … each time we receive the Eucharist. Christ told his 12 that the Eucharist was his LITERAL Body/Blood … given up for them in death. And, for them to ‘remember’ him, via his sacrificial death for them.

Sorry, …but the EMPHASIS was upon the unglorified, human body/blood shed for them. For you to imply we receive ONLY the glorified, metaphysical ?? ] Body/Blood of Christ of Easter Sunday is not c/w Scriptures or the teaching of the Apostles / ECF’s.

Yes, we get ALL of Christ in the Eucharist … BOTH his human, son of man body/blood, that saw DEATH his death in place of our death ] — which gives us Spiritual Rebirth, AND his resurrected, glorified B/B/S/D [that will give supernatural, resurrection to our earthly, physical bodies … @ the last trump].

 

[Philthy]

Hmmm - that’s not the response I was expecting.

Let’s back up a step and see if you are capable of acknowledging what we can agree on based upon the info I posted from the article.

Do you now acknowledge that scientific examination of a host prior to and then after consecration will reveal no physical change in the host - yes or no?

Just in case you need your memory jogged - here are a few of your posts from this thread - each indicating that you believed that a scientifically verifiable alteration of the physical/chemical composition of the host occurs at consecration:

Post 8
How might a scientist test the two theories ?
Post 21
In case of Transubstantiation… one would not detect either alcohol or wheat, by lab testing.
Post 35
This is the great mystery !! What appears to our senses, is not what is truly present. Thus, at the molecular level, we should not find carbohydrates/etoh/ or vegetable protein … by chemical / physical testing.
Post 42
in the case of the Eucharist, our Church teaches that the accidents remain … even though the molecular substance has been changed !!
Post 50
Accidents are only what our 5 senses tell us is there. What we smell, taste, feel, see, hear. What is going on at the atomic-molecular level is not available to us to witness … w/o the tools of science.
Post 66
Transubstantiation, proposes that there is NO LONGER bread & wine present. The appearance of bread & wine remains … but, their molecular / atomic constitution has been transformed into Christ’s Body/Blood/Soul/Divinity [true presence].

 

[Philthy]

Right … it doesn’t address the unglorified body that was abused by mankind and killed on Cross [the body/blood that Christ, as son of man, shed for us].

Umm, well, actually it does but perhaps you didn’t see it despite the underlining…
The whole Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine—the glorified Christ who rose from the dead after dying for our sins. This is what the Church means when she speaks of the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist.
To sum up: after dying for our sins Christ’s body rose from the dead in a glorified state. In other words the crucified Christ is now glorified. Just as his pre-pubescent body is gone and grew into maturity, his unglorified crucified body is gone and is now in a glorified state. This is what the Chuch means when she speaks of the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist - the glorified Christ. To hold that Christ’s crucified body is somehow received in an unglorified state implies that Christ was not completely glorified and that he has an unglorified and a glorified body.

Sorry, …but the EMPHASIS was upon the unglorified, human body/blood shed for them. For you to imply we receive ONLY the glorified, metaphysical ?? ] Body/Blood of Christ of Easter Sunday is not c/w Scriptures or the teaching of the Apostles / ECF’s.

You are being unreasonable. It is entirely reasonable that we receive the only Christ that there is - Christ in his glorified state. Somehow you’d like to pretend that part of him remains unglorified for you to receive and for you to make sense of the Scriptures, but that is hardly the standard that the rest of us hold.

Yes, we get ALL of Christ in the Eucharist

Yes we do

… BOTH his human, son of man body/blood, that saw DEATH his death in place of our death ] — which gives us Spiritual Rebirth, AND his resurrected, glorified B/B/S/D [that will give supernatural, resurrection to our earthly, physical bodies … @ the last trump].

They are the same body! I don’t understand why you cling to this notion that because Christ’s body has been glorified that we have lost something of his human nature that a glorified body can’t provide. That is completely illogical. His crucified body changed. It is now glorified. We receive his crucified body in it’s current glorified state, and in doing so we get all of Christ that there is.

Blessings!

 

[Philthy]

I have more…from ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/05/14/is-jesus-christ-physically-present-in-the-eucharist/

There are several important truths within the Church’s one dogma on transubstantiation:

1. The substance of the bread and wine are changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ.
2. In the same instant, the soul and Divinity of Christ also become present.
3. Christ is then wholly present, with his whole human nature (body and soul) and His Divine Nature.
4. Christ’s presence is true, real, substantial, and sacramental, but hidden under the appearances of bread and wine.
   5. The body of Christ present in the Eucharist is His glorified body; this is true even of the Eucharist of the Last Supper.

Common errors on transubstantiation:
Error 1. that the substance of bread and wine are changed into the substance of Christ’s soul and Divinity, as well as His body and blood.
Error 2. that the substance of bread and wine are annihilated (return to nothing) and are replaced with the real presence of Christ.
Error 3. that the body of Christ present in the Eucharist at the Last Supper, before His death and resurrection, was not His glorified body.
Error 4. that Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist.

Here’s some more really good stuff from the same article…
Is Christ’s presence physical? The answer depends on what we mean by the word physical.
Human nature, including the human nature of Christ, has a physical part, the body (or, as we say, body and blood), and a spiritual part, the soul. It would be a heresy to claim that Christ is present in the Eucharist without the physical part of His human nature, or without the spiritual part of His human nature, or without His Divine Nature. So He is physically present in the sense that the physical part of His human nature is wholly present.
However, the physical part of His human nature is glorified. The Eucharist includes both His Divine Nature and His glorified human nature: a glorified soul and a glorified body. Concerning the body of Christ: we do not eat a piece of literal flesh, nor drink a cup of literal blood. We consume the whole Christ, with His glorified human nature united to His Divine Nature.
But the glorified body is still physical; it has not been changed into something spiritual, as if the human nature of Christ would then consist of a spiritual part, the soul, and another spiritual part, like a second soul. The glorified body (even our glorified bodies after the general Resurrection) has abilities, given to it as a gift from God, beyond the physical. Adam and Eve, before the Fall, had preternatural abilities, abilities beyond nature. But this is true for the glorified bodies of the resurrected just to an even greater extent. These glorified bodies are still physical bodies, but they have been transformed to exceed the limits of the merely physical. And such is the case for the glorified body of Christ as well.
How is a glorified body related to molecules, to that which constitutes non-glorified material objects? The answer is a mystery. But the glorified body cannot be unrelated to its non-glorified state; it cannot be unrelated to molecules. (If it were, we could not say ‘body and blood’ to describe the physical part of His human nature in the Eucharist.) For if such were the case, then it would not be a glorified version of the body in life; such a proposition would in effect deny that the general Resurrection is a resurrection, implying instead that the event is the creation of a new body. So the glorified body must still be physical, even in the sense of having some relationship to all that is essential in a physical object (its substance).
And such is the case with the physical presence of the body and blood of Christ (the physical part of the human nature of Christ) in the Eucharist. Since we must by faith believe that Christ is wholly present in the Eucharist, with His whole human nature and His whole Divine Nature, we cannot hold that the physical presence of Christ’s human nature in the Eucharist is anything less than if He were standing, glorified, right in front of us — except that in the Eucharist He is hidden. Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is no less physical than when He returns from Heaven (body, blood, soul, Divinity) in the last days.

 

[brb3]

They are the same body! I don’t understand why you cling to this notion that because Christ’s body has been glorified that we have lost something of his human nature that a glorified body can’t provide. That is completely illogical. His crucified body changed. It is now glorified. We receive his crucified body in it’s current glorified state, and in doing so we get all of Christ that there is.

Yes indeed … we only receive ONE body of Christ.

The same body that Jesus showed to the 10 on Easter Sunday … and the following Sunday to the full 11 [minus Judas]. A glorified body that could move with ease thru solid walls & disappear from view. A body with Substance, yet one that could lack Appearance, whenever Christ desired to withdraw from view. Yet, a human body still marked by nail/spear wounds-scars. This is the B/B/S/D we receive in the Eucharist. The physical body/blood of Calvary, that lay in the tomb, is now glorified and the body Christ ascended to Heaven with.

BOTH / AND … that’s what we receive in the Unified, glorified, Supernatural Christ. BOTH the physical, AND the metaphysical aspects of Christ. John 6 makes this very clear … BOTH the physical & the metaphysical ‘spiritual’ substance of Christ, constitute the REAL PRESENCE. Christ is physically present in the Eucharist … but, he ‘ordinarily’ desires to cloak his appearance from us, letting the ‘former appearances’ of bread/wine remain … to conceal his presence. On rare occasion, he has withdrawn the appearances of bread/wine … and allowed the appearances of flesh/blood to be seen.

 

[brb3]

I have more…from ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/05/14/is-jesus-christ-physically-present-in-the-eucharist/

Common errors on transubstantiation:
1.) Error 1. that the substance of bread and wine are changed into the substance of Christ’s soul and Divinity, as well as His body and blood.

2.) …, including the human nature of Christ, has a physical part, the body (or, as we say, body and blood), and a spiritual part, the soul. It would be a heresy to claim that Christ is present in the Eucharist without the physical part of His human nature, or
… But the glorified body is still physical; it has not been changed into something spiritual,

1.) Why is ERROR #1 above wrong ? This is the teaching of Consubstantiation … which Trent denounced !!!

2.) His answer in #2… disputes his earlier theses… :sad_yes:

 

[Philthy]

1.) Why is ERROR #1 above wrong ? This is the teaching of Consubstantiation … which Trent denounced !!!
2.) His answer in #2… disputes his earlier theses… :sad_yes:

This will be an interesting conversation to have after you address my question which preceded it from post 385. It’s good that you are objectively critical of his inconsistency. But are you also prepared to be as objectively critical of your own analysis with respect to what science has to offer on supporting transubstantiation/consubstantiation? Here is the question again from post 385:

Do you now acknowledge that scientific examination of a host prior to and then after consecration will reveal no physical change in the host - yes or no?

Blessings!

 

[brb3]

Post 66
Transubstantiation, proposes that there is NO LONGER bread & wine present. The appearance of bread & wine remains … but, their molecular / atomic constitution has been transformed into Christ’s Body/Blood/Soul/Divinity [true presence].

Yes … I still stand by this. This is the key difference between Transubstantiation & Consubstantiation … the crux of the matter.

The Catholic teaching is the consecrated bread & wine are no more ‘substantially’ present … but, only Christ. The ‘early’ 16th Century Lutheran teaching was that BOTH Christ and the Bread/Wine ‘coexist’, both being ‘substantially’ present. Co-existing together, “as fire & iron are ‘joined’ to make molten-hot iron in sacramental union, yet each remaining unchanged” — per Martin Luther.

Today however, we understand via science, that molten iron has indeed been substantially altered. It is not the same Iron-oxide, but its oxygen has been replaced to various degrees by carbon. The burning fire of coal or natural gas [both consumed by the process], the thermal catalyst causing a percentage of FeOxides molecules to be transitioned to FeC [CarbonSteel], a NEW molecular structure [substance] of superior strength and hardness.

Now, my question to you [and all] …
Wasn't M. Luther's analogy rather ironic, --- using the wrong example to explain his errant idea of 'unchanged /co-existing' hosts of Consubstantiation ?? ... ... His selected example better supporting TRANSUBSTANTIATION, [when examined in light of today's science]. Wasn't Trent really on to something, with modern-day science backing them up against Luther ?

 

[brb3]

1.) *]Does the bread cease to be bread and the wine cease to be wine? Yes. In order for the whole Christ to be present—body, blood, soul, and divinity—the bread and wine cannot remain, but must give way so that his glorified Body and Blood may be present. Thus in the Eucharist the bread ceases to be bread in substance, and becomes the Body of Christ, while the wine ceases to be wine in substance, and becomes the Blood of Christ. As St. Thomas Aquinas observed, Christ is not quoted as saying, " This bread is my body," but " This is my body" ( Summa Theologiae, III q. 78, a. 5).

2.) This is actually question 4 from the article. Please note that the bread and wine must cease to exist as bread and wine (ie their substance) “so that his GLORIFIED Body and Blood may be present”. While this doesn’t directly speak to whether his unglorified B&B are also present, it strongly implies not, …

#1 above … What does that doctrinal statement mean to you a scientist ? Explain to us, in 21st Century, scientific terms, how this is possible ?

#2.) above … Why would Christ ask us to receive him in the Eucharist, stating “DO THIS”, “IN REMEMBRANCE” of his suffering & sacrificial death, if we are not also buried into THAT SAME 'body/blood" death, as we kneel before the altar to receive the ‘son of man’ / LAMB OF GOD that died for us … and yet able to stand again, forgiven of sins, REBORN in newness of life, because we ALSO receive the ‘son of Mary’ / GLORIFIED LORD of Easter Sunday ?

 

[wynnejj]

This whole thread would be turned on its ear, if Jesus Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity were transubstantiated into the Bread & Wine that we receive. We convert bread & wine into our body & blood, who says Jesus can’t convert his body & blood into bread & wine, so that we could convert it into part of the whole of our body & blood. The physical evidence would accord with the Real Presence.

 

[Philthy]

Yes … I still stand by this. This is the key difference between Transubstantiation & Consubstantiation … the crux of the matter.

Im sorry but you either didn’t answer the question I asked, or you did and answered it incorrectly. Let’s try again:

Q1: Do you now acknowledge that scientific examination of a host prior to and then after consecration will reveal no physical change in the host - yes or no?

Yes means you no longer hold that a scientific verifiable change has occurred. It means you agree with the Cardinal when he said: “It would be futile to try to prove or disprove the real presence by physical experiments, because the presence of Christ is spiritual or sacramental, not physical in the sense of measurable.”

No means you still hold that a scientifically verifiable change has occurred and that you believe the Cardinal erred in the statement above.

I just want to be clear. So what is your answer to Q1 above?

 

[Philthy]

Today however, we understand via science, that molten iron has indeed been substantially altered. It is not the same Iron-oxide, but its oxygen has been replaced to various degrees by carbon. The burning fire of coal or natural gas [both consumed by the process], the thermal catalyst causing a percentage of FeOxides molecules to be transitioned to FeC [CarbonSteel], a NEW molecular structure [substance] of superior strength and hardness

.
Transubstantiation is unique. It has no comparison in nature. Your attempted comparison of the “substantially altered” iron has nothing - as in zero - to do with what happens in the Eucharist. You continue to attempt to import a scientific understanding of substance into the Church’s theological understanding of substance with respect to the Eucharist. It simply doesnt work. Until you are prepared to deal with that it will be very difficult to discuss this issue.

Now, my question to you [and all] …
Wasn’t M. Luther’s analogy rather ironic, — using the wrong example to explain his errant idea of ‘unchanged /co-existing’ hosts of Consubstantiation ?? … … His selected example better supporting TRANSUBSTANTIATION, [when examined in light of today’s science]. Wasn’t Trent really on to something, with modern-day science backing them up against Luther ?

Luther’s example seems irrelevant. His example does nothing to support transubstantiation because the substantial change in transubstantiation has nothing - as in zero - to do with what happens at the atomic level.

Would you please carefully read the whole artical by Cardinal Dulles?

 

[brb3]

It means you agree with the Cardinal when he said: “It would be futile to try to prove or disprove the real presence by physical experiments, because the presence of Christ is spiritual or sacramental, not physical in the sense of measurable.”

No … I think the Cardinal mispoke in several instances. But, its a long article. You need to scan it, and insert it into this Thread … so we can examine it. W/O his precise language in front of us … we can’t give it proper examination.

For example … I’ve problems with paragraphs 11 & 12.
Paragraphs 14, 24, 27, & 30 are interesting … and deserve our attention too.

 

[brb3]

.

1.) Luther’s example seems irrelevant.

2.) transubstantiation has nothing - as in zero - to do with what happens at the atomic level.

1 ---- :nope: Nope, its a key component to the Thread’s examination …

2— IYO, … admit you could be wrong Has the Church Dogmatically defined it in such scientific terms ? :nope:

Your Cardinal Dulles admits the Church reserves right to change their opinion at some later date … yet Trent says they can’t.

 

[thenobes]

brb,

It’s quite simple.

Whatever matter Christ extends His Soul to must become His Body and Blood, because the Soul is the animating principle of the matter of the Body. And since His Soul is glorified, so is His Body, and it can have appearances that an ordinary body may not have, such as the appearance of bread and wine.

This explanation satisfies me, and I haven’t seen how it contradicts either science or the Church’s teachings.

peace
steve

 

[brb3]

1.) It’s quite simple.

2.) whatever matter Christ extends His Soul to must become His Body and Blood, because the Soul is the animating principle of the matter of the Body. And since His Soul is glorified, so is His Body, and it can have appearances that an ordinary body may not have, such as the appearance of bread and wine.

#1 — Well, simple for you to say … HA ! But, a scientist knows creation is incredibly complex, precise, and utterly impossible by chance alone. The calculus of Math, the odds of Probability … preclude our Universe from happening w/o intelligent design.

#2 – Paul, in Colossians 1:15-2, summarizes Christ’s TOTAL DOMININON [omniPRESENCE, omniPOTENT, omniSCIENCE ] over all matter / substances / life / appearances.

He [Christ] is the IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE God, the FIRST-BORN OF ALL CREATION; for IN HIM ALL THINGS WERE CREATED, in heaven and on earth, VISIBLE & INVISIBLE, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities — ALL THINGS WERE CREATED THRU HIM and FOR HIM. He is BEFORE ALL THINGS, and IN HIM ALL THINGS HOLD TOGETHER. He is the HEAD OF THE BODY, THE CHURCH; he is the beginning, the FIRST-BORN FROM THE DEAD, that in EVERYTHING HE MIGHT BE PRE-EMINENT. For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace BY THE BLOOD OF HIS CROSS.
And, you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in His BODY OF FLESH BY HIS DEATH, in order to present you blameless and irreproachable before him, provided …