Protestants: The Eucharist Is A Sacrifice

[Benadam]

certainly when the idea of transubstantiation was put forth by one cleric in the 8oo’s, many clerics denounced it (way before the reformation) >it was not till the 13th century that Catholics were held to believe in transubstantiation.

Hi mcq72,
you may not understand how Catholic theology develops. It’s not as if the Eucharist is an idea that emerged out of the human mind or that transubstantiation was whipped up to convince. It’s necessary to understand that the experience of the Eucharist as the Real Presence of Jesus is a reality that requires for various reasons a deeper understanding… Just as St Paul did in the beginning.
St Paul does this because the Real Presence wasn’t being ‘discerned’ or in other words understood. And the need for a deeper understanding was obvious. So he developed doctrine to explain what was being experienced. The same is true of the development of the doctrine of transubstantiation. An explanation to what is experienced by the senses.

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?

another development of doctrine that explains what was experienced.

Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink[h] without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. 30 For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

The Catholic Church develops doctrine out of a need to understand in a deeper way what is already known by the senses. To explain what is experienced.

Transubstantiation isn’t an idea that emerges to form a human construct in order to convince, but an explanation that fulfills a need for deeper understanding of what has been known since the beginning.

 

[susanlo]

Hi mcq72,
you may not understand how Catholic theology develops. It’s not as if the Eucharist is an idea that emerged out of the human mind or that transubstantiation was whipped up to convince. It’s necessary to understand that the experience of the Eucharist as the Real Presence of Jesus is a reality that requires for various reasons a deeper understanding… Just as St Paul did in the beginning.
St Paul does this because the Real Presence wasn’t being ‘discerned’ or in other words understood. And the need for a deeper understanding was obvious. So he developed doctrine to explain what was being experienced. The same is true of the development of the doctrine of transubstantiation. An explanation to what is experienced by the senses.

I find the term “real presence” somewhat confusing. When I researched this term I found that it was developed within Anglicanism as a way to describe the Eucharist while rejecting transubstantiation. Nowadays it means various things to various people. But since the term “real presence” is a term that was first used long after the term transubstantiation was created, the term transubstantiation couldn’t have been used to try and explain the “real presence.” It certainly wasn’t a “doctrine” being taught by Apostle Paul either.

There was a number of controversies over the nature of the Eucharist between the 9th-13th century that resulted in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation being officially accepted in the 13th century. This does not mean that everyone prior to this time believed this way - just that all Catholics had to believe this after the Lateran Council.

 

[mcq72]

Hi AT, understand, we both can cite fathers to make our claim, suffice to say that my take is that indeed there were differing views at differing times about communion. It certainly was not one way or the highway. or my way is right and is from the beginning, is apostolic, and all others wrong etc etc. I can cite many fathers who throw a wrench into some views as surely as you can. After all, we disagree on Writ as to this topic, why not on early father writings…all are logical and have some history behind them…peace

 

[AugustTherese]

, we both can cite fathers to make our claim,

Except that the Church Fathers weren’t Protestants.

suffice to say that my take is that indeed there were differing views at differing times about communion

Can you substantiate that?

. It certainly was not one way or the highway. or my way is right and is from the beginning, is apostolic, and all others wrong etc etc

Were there Protestants in “the beginning”?

. I can cite many fathers who throw a wrench into some views as surely as you can

Be my guest.

 

[Benadam]

Susanlo, thank you so much for that. I didn’t know the history of the terms I was using.

Anglican, well I like the term I don’t know what it meant to the Anglicans but I know what it means to me. Actually what I am calling the, Real Presence and how the reality Im referencing was communicated at earlier times is irrelevant.the people then who experienced the reality and now experience the same reality no matter what it is called.
Really the same for when it became dogma only means there were people who didn’t know the way it had always been known. So a finer point had to be put on it.
Hmmm I just can’t imagine a better term to attach it though.

Thank you for responding to my post and the interesting information.

 

[susanlo]

Susanlo, thank you so much for that. I didn’t know the history of the terms I was using.

Anglican, well I like the term I don’t know what it meant to the Anglicans but I know what it means to me. Actually what I am calling the, Real Presence and how the reality Im referencing was communicated at earlier times is irrelevant.the people then who experienced the reality and now experience the same reality no matter what it is called.
Really the same for when it became dogma only means there were people who didn’t know the way it had always been known. So a finer point had to be put on it.
Hmmm I just can’t imagine a better term to attach it though.

Thank you for responding to my post and the interesting information.

I am curious about how you personally define “Real Presence” if you don’t mind sharing. How does it differ from the definition of transubstantiation?

The question is what did people call their belief before the term real presence and transubstantiation were created? I think if we honestly tried to interpret the early writings we would see a wide range of beliefs that are not completely different to the many different beliefs held today by Christians. The uniformity of belief of the late Middle Ages came from the Lateran Council as a result of varied disagreements by monks and Christians who understood the concept differently in the centuries before the council.

 

[Benadam]

I am curious about how you personally define “Real Presence” if you don’t mind sharing. How does it differ from the definition of transubstantiation?

The question is what did people call their belief before the term real presence and transubstantiation were created? I think if we honestly tried to interpret the early writings we would see a wide range of beliefs that are not completely different to the many different beliefs held today by Christians. The uniformity of belief of the late Middle Ages came from the Lateran Council as a result of varied disagreements by monks and Christians who understood the concept differently in the centuries before the council.

That’s a tuffy and you know it. Real presence:thinking:

I think saying the substance is Jesus but not the accidents falls short of a full definition of the Eucharist for the same reason defining any human person as a substance falls short of defining them as a person. Even though as a philosophical term it includes everything they are in regards of their body and soul.
I think that knowing the Eucharist by the experience of Grace particular to it is what I mean when I say it hasn’t changed since the beginning. Terms, definitions, various teachings about it are not what the Eucharist really is. So for me I treat them as asides. Attempts to inform the intellect.

 

[mcq72]

Except that the Church Fathers weren’t Protestants.

And ??.

Does that mean I can not rely on Isaiah, or rabbinic commentaries on OT cause i am not Jewish ? or that I can not study Britain’s history to seek some foundational truths from her that helped shape the USA ?

And no ,they were not P’s because the CC was more inclusive, with less detailed doctrine/dogma (the N. Creed was what several pages and the Council of Trent decrees how many more pages?)

And there was still nothing that large to “protest” or to greatly schism from yet , as compared to the year 1000 or 1500 (withstanding those with same Christology views).

Lastly , even CC says we stem from CC, that is we then have our roots in CC.

Of course many say why not then just be Catholic , like they were(fathers), and we say why not just listen to these catholics and their viewpoints, even though the magisterium may have later ruled against them.

Can you substantiate that?

Maybe not me right now, but as many threads in the past have shown, the dialogue is substantiated by both sides on this issue endlessly, citing scriptural and historical sources/interpretations.

At times I drop my dogmatism and at least cite the possibility that indeed some may have thought in literal eating by their very own writing, just as others not so literal, more metaphorical, as by their writings,(and some later say both then)

Were there Protestants in “the beginning”?

Again, no, why would there be, for Christians were allowed to simply commune , not having to declare that it be by trans, or consubstantiation , or symbolic or literal. They did need a priest either for it, but for sure a presider. They did not need to go to a confessional to be cleansed before partaking. These were all very much later developments , along with many other evolving doctrine/practices.

Only when folks were told they could not commune as they thought what was apostolic did you have a “protest”.

Be my guest.

Again, not yet for me. Suffice to say I have seen threads that go on endlessly, with both sides having superlative knowledge of a particular father’s writings.

I am pretty sure I can show you nothing new, and vice versa, at least not without extensive dialogue (of course we can both learn but…I suspect we have seen the main writings/quotes.)

Peace

 

[mcq72]

Hi B

Understand. Thank you. May I suggest that sometimes it is both, to understand but also to convince or take a stand. Very often a doctrine or an explanation , such as “T”, is put forth precisely because there is debate or even contrary wise dialogue, and “clarification” is needed. But for sure the clarification states itself as new but of something that is old.

As to Paul, you may know that there are different interpretations, that communion reality does not have to be explained by transubstantiation. Certainly Paul was not putting forth "T’’ doctrine but rather pointing out Christians acting very unChristlike toward one another, and that during the ceremony remembering His goodness and love towards us…that is, not discerning the Body at Calvary (not in the element but represented by), not to mention the body of Christ , that is the church , one another …double edge.

 

[mcq72]

Terms, definitions, various teachings about it are not what the Eucharist really is.

Hi B have enjoyed your dialogue with S.

May I ad that for me eucharist first and foremost means “thanksgiving”…that was the thrust of the remembrance…that was the term that stuck at the beginning…not sure I like taking what we all agree on, thanksgiving for Calvary, to arguing over the reality of the elements chosen to remember Him by at Calvary. Would like to dismiss that such a simple, humble beginning of "thanksgiving’’ can be made “deeper” by any further interpretation.

Peace

 

[AugustTherese]

That is a ton of speculation and opinions without citing anything.

 

[mcq72]

That is a ton of speculation and opinions without citing anything.

And??

A ton of opinion, speculation and some citing will not change me. Would it change you ?

If we were on the old CAF site I could cite a few of those said threads, but alas I don’t think they exist anymore…not sure if any carried over.

 

[AugustTherese]

And??

A ton of opinion, speculation and some citing will not change me. Would it change you ?

Maybe, perhaps not. But, arguing against something without any evidence would not help “change” me.

 

[mcq72]

Ok…at this point I can only testify what I believe based on writ and history…the same writ and history you have.

If i have not cited much I have not argued much.

I have only read the Father’s up to about 130 AD and Augustine’s Confessions. I have also googled debated topic and then try to read differing views from different sites, not too mention countless hours on CAF. I have notes on many fathers suggesting my points.

peace

 

[adf417]

And there was still nothing that large to “protest” or to greatly schism from yet , as compared to the year 1000 or 1500 (withstanding those with same Christology views).

Me think you havent read much about Docetism, Arianism, Manichaeism, Donatism or the many other early church heresies.

Peace!!!

 

[susanlo]

That’s a tuffy and you know it. Real presence:thinking:

I think saying the substance is Jesus but not the accidents falls short of a full definition of the Eucharist for the same reason defining any human person as a substance falls short of defining them as a person. Even though as a philosophical term it includes everything they are in regards of their body and soul.
I think that knowing the Eucharist by the experience of Grace particular to it is what I mean when I say it hasn’t changed since the beginning. Terms, definitions, various teachings about it are not what the Eucharist really is. So for me I treat them as asides. Attempts to inform the intellect.

Your first paragraph sounds similar to the definition of transubstantiation.
I think that most all Christians are in agreement with the bolded definition in the second paragraph. I don’t know if that is how many people define the real presence. It seems to have many different definitions. Thanks for sharing your understanding.

 

[joeybaggz]

"And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” - Luke 22:19

is that a Greek translation of Christ’s words, spoken in ancient Aramaic?? After all, it is logical to think that Christ would have spoken to his chosen twelve in their native language, which was ancient Aramaic.

 

[mcq72]

Again, maybe I worded it wrong, but at least one of those has differing Christological view (Arianism), of which I also put forth as an exception to my statement…but yes,could learn about those heresies…again these heresies were at times “allowed”(of corse not being part of the church) by civil and church authorities, unlike Luthers followers after a certain civil decree

 

[Benadam]

Your first paragraph sounds similar to the definition of transubstantiation.

I think that most all Christians are in agreement with the bolded definition in the second paragraph. I don’t know if that is how many people define the real presence. It seems to have many different definitions. Thanks for sharing your understanding.

yup, transubstantiation is what I meant. I probably sound arrogant saying this but, I believe there are few Christians who have experienced consciously the Grace of the Eucharist. At least not one that can authentically claim transubstantiation. Perhaps psychological ascent or emotional bliss.
That few would define it that way is evident that few experience it that way. Since the Grace particular to the Eucharist is really Jesus.

 

[mcq72]

Aramaic knowledge is nice for further insight, but not to go beyond the sharper, inspired Greek.