The Bread And Wine

[christcnection1]

Be careful when you try to use church history on this because there is no documentation that outright supports transubstantiation. All we know about the early church is that they worshiped mostly in their homes each week during the agape meal. Communion was observed if you will at the end of their worship and was never preceded by any liturgical practice.

Institution of the Lord’s supper was really the institution of commemorating the new covenant similar to the commemoration of the old covenant in the Seder meal at passover. The 3rd cup of redemption which the Jews drink after their meal was a cup of wine mixed with warm water. This was to symbolize the blood of the lambs that were slain before the exile from Egypt. The Jews also consume the bread as a representation of the body of the lambs. As you know before the destruction of the Temple the Jews actually ate the passover lamb. But since the destruction of the Temple the lamb is represented by the Zeroa on their Seder plate, which of course does not get eaten, and the bread is consumed.

So when Christ took the bread and wine, which we read HE did after their meal alluding to the fact that they were eating their Seder meal, he raised the 3rd cup of wine, that being the cup of redemption and the bread. HIS statement that this is MY body was done to instruct the Apostles that now they commemorate HIS sacrifice as the new covenant which HE then finalized after raising the cup. Remember Jesus didn’t say this cup of my blood, HE stated this cup is the new covenant in MY blood. Meaning not the blood of the Lambs of the passover but that of Christ’s being the final sacrificial Lamb.

PEACE

What I said does not contradict what I have read from the Early Church Fathers. Their perspective is far close to the Catholic perspective versus believing the Body and Blood are symbolic.

I don’t disagree with anything you said. Maybe you just misunderstood my post.

I’m sure you are familiar with these quotes, but I’ll link it for others here:

catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9002frs.asp

 

[NDfan]

Well, why do we need the bread? Are we making sandwiches? Toast? The appearance of bread is all we need so not to offend our disdane for eating human flesh. We need nothing that bread itself offers, as the food we eat is from Heaven.

Ralph by making this statement it appears that you don’t understand the true context of why Christ used the bread. As explained in another post the bread was the symbol for the lambs slain prior to the exile from Egypt. The Jews still partake in the bread and the wine mixed with warm water after the Seder meal to commemorate the old covenant. The Jews actually drink 4 cups of wine during passover. The 3rd cup is the cup of redemption taken right after the meal and symbolizes the blood of the lambs while the bread symbolizes the body of the lambs.

When Christ instituted HIS supper HE told the Apostles that now the bread is HIM and the 3rd cup of redemption is the new covenant in HIS blood. That’s the whole point of communion. To remember Christ’s sacrifice for us. So eliminating the bread eliminates Christ.

 

[ralphinal]

Ralph by making this statement it appears that you don’t understand the true context of why Christ used the bread. As explained in another post the bread was the symbol for the lambs slain prior to the exile from Egypt. The Jews still partake in the bread and the wine mixed with warm water after the Seder meal to commemorate the old covenant. The Jews actually drink 4 cups of wine during passover. The 3rd cup is the cup of redemption taken right after the meal and symbolizes the blood of the lambs while the bread symbolizes the body of the lambs.

When Christ instituted HIS supper HE told the Apostles that now the bread is HIM and the 3rd cup of redemption is the new covenant in HIS blood. That’s the whole point of communion. To remember Christ’s sacrifice for us. So eliminating the bread eliminates Christ.

Oh. I think you miss my point. I am not saying that we do not need the bread prior to consecration. I am saying that once we have Jesus, why do we still need bread?

 

[christcnection1]

I honestly don’t have an opinion though I sense that you think i should and maybe you’re right.

I usually have the common reaction to stories like these whether they are of weeping statues, sandwiches shaped like our Lady or bleeding hosts.

I am turned off by them but when I get off my high horse and think about them I always find myself asking, “Why?”

I hear you when you say that they argue for Transubstantiation. I don’t get the argument at all but then even accepting it, the “why?” won’t go away.

I suppose you’d say that they support transubstantiation so that people would know the truth of the Church’s claim to having the authority to define such things.

If that’s why, they seem remarkably ineffective. The only people I know who believe in them are people who are already Catholic…

So, without going down the “satanic deception” road, I am left with my “why?”

If I knew they were miracles from God, and I understood why they necessitate transubstantiation, yes, that would probably change my mind.

But that’s the issue isn’t it? I don’t see any reason to believe that they are miracles from God.

John 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

The same concept applies: miracles from God inspire many people. They may not inspire you to deepen and live your faith, but I know that I would not be a Christian if it were not for the miraculous.

Maybe you’re like the the blessed person Jesus talked about while with Thomas. “Blessed are those who have not seen.” I am happy for you my friend, if you have this kind of faith. Supernatural “evidence” is very important to me, though is far from the whole story.

If Eucharistic miracles are true, the reality behind these events seems to be perfectly in line with the definition of transubstantiation. It doesn’t prove it, but it does support such a viewpoint. The reality behind this kind of miracle does not closely align with the belief that its symbolic, nor does it strongly support a belief in consubstantiation.

Let’s look at this from another angle. Catholics believe that the Blessed Virgin has appeared to countless people throughout the ages, sometimes to individuals, sometimes to the masses. Her message points to her Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Her messages are also in line with Catholic Church teaching. It doesn’t prove Church teaching, but it helps to bolsters our faith in it.

Other “Catholic” miracles could be used as examples.

To more succinctly answer your “why” question is simple. It’s the same answer concerning any miracle from God, as they were from the beginning. True miracles are messages from heaven meant to inspire and meant to affirm something.

This is what Eucharistic miracles do for me. I also believe they are significant events which help those interested in the Catholic faith take that leap of faith. Jesus used miracles to do the same thing to draw others to Him.

Miracles from God are an extraordinary invitation.

 

[NDfan]

I’m sure they will explain, but I took it to mean that if it’s only bread, than essentially the act (whether symbolic or something else) is baseless and meaningless. There would be no practical purpose for Jesus to use such strong language or promote any kind of action.

Okay, let’s say it’s symbolic. What is it supposed to represent? Unity? Sharing? The breaking of Jesus body on the cross? All these points can be addressed far better through other means than using a symbolic loaf of bread or wafers.

Frankly, to me, it seems like a meaningless act that has little or no significance. It’s hard to be inspired by bread alone! (or grape juice for that matter)

I think this is why Protestants do it so rarely: it inspires almost no one. (Especially those who think it’s totally symbolic)

As I replied to Ralph then you are missing the entire point of the bread. The bread does represent Christ as HE states this is MY body. Just because one sees it as symbolic doesn’t change the meaning. Again you need to keep the whole institution of the Lord’s Supper in connection with the passover itself and the Seder meal. The Jews consume the bread because it symbolizes the body of the lambs slain before the exile. The wine thus is a symbol of the lambs’ blood. That’s why the Jews mix it with warm water. The whole point is not to eat just bread and wine but to recall in your mind the events that took place that are symbolized by the bread and wine.

Christ now tells the Apostles that the 3rd cup of redemption is the NEW covenant in HIS blood, and not the blood of the lambs from the exile. Likewise the bread is HIS body and not the body of the lambs from the exile. Doing it in remembrance of Christ doesn’t mean eat the bread so you can consume a literal piece of HIS flesh and blood. It’s done because now we are under the new covenant. Christ wants us to remember that and partaking in HIS supper does just that. That’s why the Greek word Anamnesis is used for remembrance. That’s why Ignatius would meditate in tears for 3 hours after partaking in the Lord’s supper. Because he was so thankful.

Incidentally I don’t agree with the notion of partaking in the Lord’s supper infrequently as many denominations do. They still take their collections each week don’t they

PEACE

 

[christcnection1]

What I said does not contradict what I have read from the Early Church Fathers. Their perspective is far close to the Catholic perspective versus believing the Body and Blood are symbolic.

I don’t disagree with anything you said. Maybe you just misunderstood my post.

I’m sure you are familiar with these quotes, but I’ll link it for others here:

catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9002frs.asp

NDFan,

Clarification on what I said!..

I read your post more thoroughly and I am mistaken. There is a lot here that we as Catholics would probably disagree with. I can get into specifics when I have more time.

This was my bad!

 

[christcnection1]

As I replied to Ralph then you are missing the entire point of the bread. The bread does represent Christ as HE states this is MY body. Just because one sees it as symbolic doesn’t change the meaning. Again you need to keep the whole institution of the Lord’s Supper in connection with the passover itself and the Seder meal. The Jews consume the bread because it symbolizes the body of the lambs slain before the exile. The wine thus is a symbol of the lambs’ blood. That’s why the Jews mix it with warm water. The whole point is not to eat just bread and wine but to recall in your mind the events that took place that are symbolized by the bread and wine.

Christ now tells the Apostles that the 3rd cup of redemption is the NEW covenant in HIS blood, and not the blood of the lambs from the exile. Likewise the bread is HIS body and not the body of the lambs from the exile. Doing it in remembrance of Christ doesn’t mean eat the bread so you can consume a literal piece of HIS flesh and blood. It’s done because now we are under the new covenant. Christ wants us to remember that and partaking in HIS supper does just that. That’s why the Greek word Anamnesis is used for remembrance. That’s why Ignatius would meditate in tears for 3 hours after partaking in the Lord’s supper. Because he was so thankful.

Incidentally I don’t agree with the notion of partaking in the Lord’s supper infrequently as many denominations do. They still take their collections each week don’t they

PEACE

Although I disagree with some of your points, I am glad you have a greater appreciation for this than most Protestants. I will be happy to participate in this thread when I have additional time.

Peace to you too…

 

[NDfan]

What I said does not contradict what I have read from the Early Church Fathers. Their perspective is far close to the Catholic perspective versus believing the Body and Blood are symbolic.

I don’t disagree with anything you said. Maybe you just misunderstood my post.

I’m sure you are familiar with these quotes, but I’ll link it for others here:

catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9002frs.asp

Yes I’m familiar with the quotes you are referencing. Forgive me if I did misunderstand. But also keep in mind that the quotes you are using can sometimes get misconstrued. If we read the entire passage from which many of the quotes came we will see that it takes on a different meaning. Remember the ECFs were battling many heretics, more specifically Irenaeus and the lovely Marcion and all the gnostics. The heretics had different views of Christ so for them to participate in communion would be in some ways contradictory to their beliefs. That’s why we see the quote that they do not partake in communion because they deny that it is the body and blood of Christ. It’s not that they deny transubstantiation, they deny the whole purpose of the supper period. Remember Marcion only accepted the Gospel of Luke and then proceeded to re-write portions of that. So any reference to the Lord’s supper would not be accepted.

PEACE

 

[NDfan]

Oh. I think you miss my point. I am not saying that we do not need the bread prior to consecration. I am saying that once we have Jesus, why do we still need bread?

Well remember that the doctrine of transubstantiation states the bread and wine cease to exist. So technically under your belief the bread and wine don’t exist even though they look, smell and taste like bread and wine.

 

[NDfan]

Although I disagree with some of your points, I am glad you have a greater appreciation for this than most Protestants. I will be happy to participate in this thread when I have additional time.

Peace to you too…

Look forward to it

 

[ralphinal]

Well remember that the doctrine of transubstantiation states the bread and wine cease to exist. So technically under your belief the bread and wine don’t exist even though they look, smell and taste like bread and wine.

Correct and I like it that way

 

[liberalcatholic]

I would suggest that the biggest problem that Protestants have with the Eucharist is the priesthood.

Protestants don’t believe in the priesthood. They don’t believe that a priest acts in persona Christi (person of Christ). So, when the priest holds the bread and says “This is my body”, the Protestants think this is blasphamy.

(You should hear the Protestants freak out when a priest says “I absolve you of your sins” )

Yes, well the bread and wine is still Jesus’ body and blood, not the priests… And Jesus gave his Apostles the power to forgive sin and to heal and that power has been handed down through the church, though it is not them healing and forgiving sins, but Jesus… I still can’t find a logical arguement here.

 

[Hisalone]

Yes, well the bread and wine is still Jesus’ body and blood, not the priests… And Jesus gave his Apostles the power to forgive sin and to heal and that power has been handed down through the church, though it is not them healing and forgiving sins, but Jesus… I still can’t find a logical arguement here.

Dont agree with Charlie here.
Protestants I know believe in the priesthood of all believers.

For me scripture doesnt support. —do not address this point we go around and around on it. the horse is beaten to death.

I will say that it would have been much better that if it was left that it is a mystery and not try to explain it as transubstansiation.
Also “eucharistic miracles” do nothing for me. I can show you Buddhist and Hindu “miracles”

 

[liberalcatholic]

Oh. I think you miss my point. I am not saying that we do not need the bread prior to consecration. I am saying that once we have Jesus, why do we still need bread?

We need the bread because Jesus said to eat of it as often as we come together, in rememberence of him. We live in a sinful world and we either live by sin or die by sin. Paul said everyday he dies to his sinful nature. Jesus made it possible for us maintain our lives through him. The Eucherist is there so that when we die to our sins Jesus can become alive in us. It is possible to be almost completely void of sin, but if one does not have Jesus what will be left of him? Jesus died so that we could live free from sin which does not only kill the body but our soul. We are forgiven if we can accept it, he sent his apostles and deciples to affirm this. How much happier we can be if we hear it from them and believe in those that he has sent.

 

[cazayoux]

Well, why do we need the bread? Are we making sandwiches? Toast? The appearance of bread is all we need so not to offend our disdane for eating human flesh. We need nothing that bread itself offers, as the food we eat is from Heaven.

Covenants have always been closely connected with a meal.
As well, the passover event and meal has quite a bit of typology that points to Christianity and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

The bread and wine brought to the altar is actually brought by the people.
This is also in reference to the Melchizedek sacrifice of bread and wine.
While the people bring the bread and wine to the altar, it is still God that provides the lamb via the consecration.
This isn’t a new sacrifice of the lamb, either, it’s a participation in that one sacrifice on Calvary.

michel

 

[ralphinal]

Covenants have always been closely connected with a meal.
As well, the passover event and meal has quite a bit of typology that points to Christianity and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

The bread and wine brought to the altar is actually brought by the people.
This is also in reference to the Melchizedek sacrifice of bread and wine.
While the people bring the bread and wine to the altar, it is still God that provides the lamb via the consecration.
This isn’t a new sacrifice of the lamb, either, it’s a participation in that one sacrifice on Calvary.

michel

Correct.

It seems to me to be perfect symetry. We provide bread and wine through the use of God’s creation. God then takes it and replaces it with the one Perfect Sacrifice: the Lamb of GOd who takes away the sins of the world.

 

[JonNC]

I guess for those of us who believe in the real presence, couldn’t we all say we really don’t care what happens to the bread and wine. It is the Body and Blood of Christ that is important. Whether we talk accidents, or we say “that which is seen, the bread and wine”, we receive the Body and Blood of Christ are truly and substantially present.
Therefore, to me, transubstantiation is a reasonable human description, as reasonable as “in, with, and under”. Clearly, it is a mystery, and we should accept it as such.

Jon

 

[ralphinal]

I guess for those of us who believe in the real presence, couldn’t we all say we really don’t care what happens to the bread and wine. It is the Body and Blood of Christ that is important. Whether we talk accidents, or we say “that which is seen, the bread and wine”, we receive the Body and Blood of Christ are truly and substantially present.
Therefore, to me, transubstantiation is a reasonable human description, as reasonable as “in, with, and under”. Clearly, it is a mystery, and we should accept it as such.

Jon

No problem. Although I will say that Catholics should believe what we are supposed to believe. Same with Lutherans, et al.

 

[JonNC]

No problem. Although I will say that Catholics should believe what we are supposed to believe. Same with Lutherans, et al.

Yeah, but it could open the door for closer understanding, perhaps.

Jon

 

[ralphinal]

Yeah, but it could open the door for closer understanding, perhaps.

Jon

Perhaps. IT is one reason on here that I tend to say Real Presence instead of Transubstantiation.