G
gabrielhal
Guest
Hi,
According to me,Body is reserved.
According to me,Body is reserved.
- Status
U
ufamtobie
Guest
F
FiberZilla
Guest
People in these forums are generally have heard both sides of the “real presence” debate. For the most part people are going to believe what they want to believe, then adopt the arguement of the side that supports that position.
There is a significant amount of scriptural evidence that suggests that Jesus was not speaking literally about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in John chapter 6. The bread of life discourse in that chapter follows immediately after Jesus fed the five-thousand. It was the next day and the crowd was hungry for physical food.
Jesus was delivering a harsh rebuke to the unbelievers in that crowd who were following him strictly for free lunches and not eternal life that he was offering. The last supper occurred over a year later and had nothing to do with the Bread of Life discourse.
More convincing for me was the fact that later on in the book of Acts in chapter15 at verses 20 and 29, the gentile christians were actually told to abstain from blood. This would go directly against the words of Christ if he was speaking literally about drinking blood and eating flesh.
There is a significant amount of scriptural evidence that suggests that Jesus was not speaking literally about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in John chapter 6. The bread of life discourse in that chapter follows immediately after Jesus fed the five-thousand. It was the next day and the crowd was hungry for physical food.
Jesus was delivering a harsh rebuke to the unbelievers in that crowd who were following him strictly for free lunches and not eternal life that he was offering. The last supper occurred over a year later and had nothing to do with the Bread of Life discourse.
More convincing for me was the fact that later on in the book of Acts in chapter15 at verses 20 and 29, the gentile christians were actually told to abstain from blood. This would go directly against the words of Christ if he was speaking literally about drinking blood and eating flesh.
F
FiberZilla
Guest
Nicodemus didn’t understand Jesus method of teaching either:
**"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” (John 3:4)
Compare:
Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (John 6:52)**
Jesus was obviously not speaking about physical things.
R
ralphinal
Guest
The prohibition in Acts was based on the OT Laws. Do you happen to recall why blood was banned?
It was because blood was said to contain the life of the animal. If that is the case, it actually SUPPORTS Jesus being literal.
T
Tomster
Guest
Actually, it’s not.
In that great breaking away from the supernatural, which occurred in the rise of Protestantism the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist was made the object of the fiercest attack. The career of Protestantism has been like a voyage of a ship without a compass, holding no definite course. Luther at first retained the doctrine of Transubstantiation. The Augsburg Confession presented to Charles V, in 1530, contains this statement: “Concerning the Lord’s Supper they teach, that the Body and Blood of Christ are really present under the appearance of bread and wine, and are distributed to the faithful in the Lord’s Supper, and they condemn those who teach otherwise.” One year later Melancthon struck out the phrase, “under the appearance of bread and wine,” and by this modification he evidently aimed to eliminate the doctrine of the total change of the substance of the bread and wine. In 1540 the Augsburg Confession was changed to the following: “Concerning the Lord’s Supper they teach that with the bread and wine there is truly given the body and blood of Christ to those who partake of the Lord’s Supper.”
This proposition explicitly concedes that the substance of the bread and wine remain in the Eucharist, and hence such theory was termed consubstantiation or companation. The next modification was conceived by Carlstadt. Zwingli and Ecolampadius were the first to propose the theory as a definite thesis supported by arguments. This opinion contemplates a purely spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
There are strange contradictions concerning the Eucharist in the Anglican formulary of belief. The 28th article of the Anglican church teaches that “Transubstantiation can not be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, and overthroweth the nature of a sacrament.” But still it is there stated that “to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of of the body of Christ , and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.” But this is then contradicted by a subsequent statement, “that the body of Christ is given, taken and eaten only after a heavenly and spiritual manner.” At the end of the Communion Service there is a declaration that no act of adoration is intended by the act of kneeling to receive the Lord’s Supper.
I make these statements to introduce the clear and great differences between not only Protestants and Catholics but also between Protestants of differing sects.
G
GKC
Guest
The last quote is the so-called “Black Rubric”, which was inserted in the BCP, without being passed by Convocation.
An interesting exercise is to review the change in the words of Administration,in the 1549, the 1552 and the 1559 Books of Common Prayer. The 1559, combining the two previous sentences, arrived at the via media Elizabeth wanted.
The Articles are not an Anglican formulary of belief, and most certainly not so, in any binding sense, outside the ordinands of the Church of England.
GKC
T
Tomster
Guest
The Eucharistic change is one which transcends sense perception, because what is changed is not the appearances but the substance. The senses of sight, touch, taste and smell reveal in the consecrated elements those properties which are naturally associated with bread and wine; subjected to physical analysis they will present the features of bread and wine; but the substance which is the natural subject of those properties and activities is no longer there: instead there is present the substance of the body and blood of Christ. It can be shown that the Early Church Fathers used various analogies to explain the Eucharistic conversion; but it should be remembered that they are analogies and nothing more. There is no change, whether natural or miraculous, to which transubstantiation can properly be likened; this conversion, according to the Council of Trent, is not only miraculous but unique.
In the substantial changes with which we are familiar in the order of nature there is always a substantial element which remains common to either term; and this is true even of the miraculous conversion of water into wine which Christ operated at the marriage feast of Cana. Moreover, such changes always issue in a reality which is at any rate partially new; thus the food which we eat adds new tissue to our bodies, the wine into which Christ changed the water did not exist previously. But in transubstantiation the whole substance of the bread and wine is changed into the whole substance of the body and blood of Christ; and not into a new body and blood of Christ, but into that same which was born of the Virgin Mary, which suffered and died for us, and which now reigns gloriously in heaven. Rightly, then, does the liturgy call this “the mystery of faith,” for, more than any other miracle, it calls for the unhesitating belief of the human mind in the omnipotence of the Creator, whose hand, having made all things out of nothing, reaches the very roots of being, and therefore can change his creatures at will.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
… nor do Lutherans.
… I don’t have a clue. This new, unique dogma of The Catholic Church seems to be theologically moot, baseless in terms of Scripture and Tradition, and hermeneutically problematic. All this pure speculation about the possible meaning of words that don’t once appear in any Eucharistic texts seems like an amazing waste of time and only serves to deter from the doctrine of Real Presence.Why does that need further explanation? Indeed, can it be further explained?
.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Wrong. The Doctrine of Real Presence is embraced passionately by Lutherans, all the Eastern Orthodox communities and all the Oriental Orthodox communites. The 1551 dogma of Transubstantiation, however, is entirely unique to The Catholic Church alone.
.
T
Tomster
Guest
Sorry A.J. Transubstantiation was believed by the Church well before 1551 A.D.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
No - there was belief, misbelief, and argument, and while the term was used at the Fourth Lateran Council, there was wide debate on the issue (read up on the Lollardy Movement) but it did not become dogma until Trent. Was there widespread belief in the Real Presence? Absolutely. Widespread belief as delineated by Thomism and Aristotelianism? Hardly. There wasn’t even unified belief as to which concepts to embrace. Metousiosis or metabole? Perhaps metastoicheiosis? Or even metarrhythmisis?
If you see how the Eastern Church handled this, they never even addressed the concept of substance/accidents; that is, how the eucharistic elements changed into another substance, but rather viewed the bread and wine as something that embodied and transfigured the “change” into the humanity and divinity of Christ. It is the Body and Blood of Christ. Period.
That ought to be good enough, but of course it’s not. We Westerners think we have to know it all - even when it comes to the unknowable and mysterious.
T
Tomster
Guest
On the subject of epistomology, “how do you know what you know”, you get an “F” here, A.J.
“For instance, transubstantiation is usually assigned to the Fourth Lateran Council, held in 1215 A.D. (not 1551 A.D.). This, say Fundamentalists, was when the doctrine was “invented”. Wrong. This was when the technical term “transubstantiation” was settled on as the right term to use to describe the doctrine of the Real Presence, which, in the writings of the Fathers of the Church, can be be shown to antedate Constantine’s reign. In fact, the doctrine can be proved from John 6. So, the year 1215 A.D. does concern transubstantiation, but it is not the date when the doctrine underlying the term was first believed.”
Special thanks to Karl Keating for the above paragraph from his book “Catholicism and Fundamentalism”, page 155, paragraph # 2.
This leads me to wonder. A.J., where are you getting your information from and whose oral/written tradition are you passing off on these message boards?
T
Tomster
Guest
Since we are on the topic and, as you say, Lutherans passionately embrace the Doctrine of the Real Presence, which, by the way, I do not doubt, could you please tell us Catholics how the sacrament is confected in the Lutheran tradition? Do Lutheran ministers have valid orders to confect the sacrament? Is a valid, sacrificing priesthood to be found in Lutheranism? Or, are all Lutherans, ministers and laity, empowered to perform the rite? If all are empowered to confect the sacrament, “the priesthood of laity”, what is the special function of Lutheran ministers that separates them from the laity?
T
Tomster
Guest
The Council of Trent did not formulate a new doctrine on the Eucharist; it simply gave a precise authentic declaration of that faith which had always been in the Catholic Church.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Everything from the Catholic perspective is political - a matter of POWER…
We beleive that the Mystery is real because of the Promise. It’s the action and promise of God that makes it the Sacrament of His Body and Blood. It has absolutely nothing to do with being ordained by someone ordained in The Catholic Church (you might notice that Scripture says nothing about The Catholic Church or any other denomination), nothing with any hocus pocus, it’s not man. It’s God.
.
T
Tomster
Guest
How would you respond to another Protestant who does not believe in the Real Presence?
T
Tomster
Guest
“Hocus pocus” - please define.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Josiah:
.
"For instance, transubstantiation is usually assigned to the Fourth Lateran Council, held in 1215 A.D. (not 1551 A.D.). This, say Fundamentalists, was when the doctrine was “invented”. Wrong.
- I stated that the doctrine of Real Presence is embraced by Lutherans, as well as The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox - correcting a statement that only The Catholic Church embraced this.
- I didn’t say it was first embraced at Trent. You really need to read what you quote. My Catholic teachers taught me it was declared Dogma at the Council of Trent. If they were all wrong, and you can document that, I’d appreciate the correction because, you see, I don’t have the ego or power-needs to regard myself alone as infallible/unaccountable. If the Fourth Lateran Council officially declared it specifically as DOGMA, then quote that and I’ll stand corrected. My Catholic teachers taught me that it’s status is unclear at that Council
- If you’d actually read what you quote, you’ll notice I never said this unique teaching of The Catholic Church was invented at Trent. Ideas embraced officially by The Catholic Church always have a long history, generally going back many centuries - being declared dogma is the last step in something that often has taken centuries. My Catholic teachers taught me that while SOME spoke of a certain “change” and there’s a quote or two about “converting,” Transubstantiation was one of many theories developed by western, medieval Catholic Scholastics, going back perhaps as far as the 9th century. The other theories eventually faded, but Transubstantiation - very controversal at first and highly debated - eventually caught on in the west. By the 13th century, it was largely taught (but again, it’s status was evidently unclear). It was made dogma in 1551, after Luther’s death, and thus made another basis to anathematize him since he did not regard this medieval speculation to be dogma.
.
- Status