The Eucharist and Transubstantiation (Split from "Protestants do not really believe...")

[Ethan_Enoch]

Why would Paul be so severe in his tone if it just was ordinary bread and wine?

I don’t believe anyone here is proposing that it is just ordinary bread & wine, since that would be obviously contradictary to Scripture.

Some hold that it is bread & wine which symbolises Christ’s body & blood, others believe that it is bread & wine in which He is present.

As far as I can understand Catholics believe that it is not actually bread & wine at all, but is instead Christ’s body & blood, maintaning the accidents of, but not being, bread & wine.

Am I correct?

 

[guanophore]

I don’t believe anyone here is proposing that it is just ordinary bread & wine, since that would be obviously contradictary to Scripture.

Some hold that it is bread & wine which symbolises Christ’s body & blood, others believe that it is bread & wine in which He is present.

As far as I can understand Catholics believe that it is not actually bread & wine at all, but is instead Christ’s body & blood, maintaning the accidents of, but not being, bread & wine.

Am I correct?

Welcome to CAF Ethan. Yes, Catholics believe Jesus meant what He said when He held them up, and told the Apostles, “this is my Body” and “this is my blood”.

 

[Ethan_Enoch]

Thank you.

I have some difficulty with the ‘it’s not bread’ part. If that is the case why does the Apostle refer to it as bread?

“For we, being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of one bread.” 1Co 10:17

"For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.

Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice." 1Co 11:26-28

Are we to take the phrase “let him eat of that bread” literally? Should we when taking communion consider ourselves to be eating bread?

 

[davidv]

Thank you.

I have some difficulty with the ‘it’s not bread’ part. If that is the case why does the Apostle refer to it as bread?

“For we, being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of one bread.” 1Co 10:17

"For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.

Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice." 1Co 11:26-28

Are we to take the phrase “let him eat of that bread” literally? Should we when taking communion consider ourselves to be eating bread?

Seems to me this where “context” comes in. What is the author intending when they use the particular word? What does the translated word mean and how might our 21st century use of it be different? So in the examples above, is the author referring to literal bread or, to the “bread of life”?

 

[guanophore]

Thank you.

I have some difficulty with the ‘it’s not bread’ part. If that is the case why does the Apostle refer to it as bread?

“For we, being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of one bread.” 1Co 10:17

"For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.

Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice." 1Co 11:26-28

Jesus calls HImself the Bread of Life. He calls the bread His flesh. So, in some mysterious way that is beyond human comprehension, the bread is transformed into His flesh.

Are we to take the phrase “let him eat of that bread” literally? Should we when taking communion consider ourselves to be eating bread?

What appears to our senses is bread and wine. What exists in reality and in Spirit is the miracle of Christ giving His life for us on the cross.

 

[Ethan_Enoch]

Seems to me this where “context” comes in. What is the author intending when they use the particular word? What does the translated word mean and how might our 21st century use of it be different? So in the examples above, is the author referring to literal bread or, to the “bread of life”?

Ye-es, I suppose we could decide that every time it’s referred to as His body it’s literal and every time it’s referred to as bread it’s metaphorical. I find that argument somewhat unsatisfactory, but if the context indicated that I would be agreeable.

In the context of the New Testament though, the ‘bread of life’ appears only in John; so I doubt St. Paul is making a reference to that.

In the immediate context it seems to me that “this bread” (v. 26) is obviously referring to v. 23 “the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread,” at which point I think we all agree that bread means bread.

 

[jcrichton]

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Clearly- when Jesus speaks of “coming” “eating” and “drinking” he was speaking spiritually. What he was really saying is that we must BELIEVE on him- but that no one can believe on Him unless it is given unto them by the Father.

This is very plain - not only because Jesus himself explicitly says that he is speaking spiritually- but even Peter said that it was his words that contained eternal life! His message! His gospel!

This is why Peter said: 68 “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that . . .” THAT WHAT? That a Roman priest will possess the power to turn a piece of bread into God? NO! Listen to what Peter understood was to be believed from all of this- 69 “And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.”

So I beg your pardon- JESUS CERTAINLY WAS SPEAKING ABOUT BELIEVING IN HIM THE WHOLE TIME.
(Edited for charity)

…so how does this work, you say you believe in Jesus and violá you are saved and you need do nothing more?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Hmmm… speaking as a baptist protestant, to me the act of communion does incorporate a "mystical’ or spiritual element.

My problem with the Catholic position is not that their “definition” may bear some passing similarity in some respects to some pagan practices (which may in fact have been a fore-runner of the 'truth" - pagans also sacrificed animals for example in pre-New Testament times).

I have trouble with the very fact that they make a definition relating to the spiritual aspect in the first place. If this sacrament does contain a spiritual element that involves God, then it could well have infinite spirituality - meaning no human mind, could ever possibly comprehend the full ‘truth’ about its supernatural aspects.

So to me, to say “We alone have the full truth in this particular area” would surely at least verge on the sin of presumption, and perhaps even represent a claim to equality with God ( ie. I understand this as fully as God does).

It seems quite acceptable to me to simply say “my internal witness from the Holy Spirit tells me this act has spiritual significance. What the full nature, extent, depth and eternal implications of this I don’t know, and suspect I probably never will in this life”.

Sometimes simply saying “I don’t know” can be an acceptable response. I don’t always know why God does or allows some things in this world, or how he does it, so I’m quite amenable to the idea that I don’t know everything about the spiritual world either

I’m certainly not going to say “The Catholics are 'wrong” but equally I don’t think they can justify their position that they alone have the final and complete understanding on the matter.

I think its called 'seeing through a glass darkly"

.

…so which apostle said “don’t worry be happy, do whatever you wish cause everyone has a little bit of the Truth?”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

If I can just add to the above - by seeking to dogmatize everything - and in so doing ‘set it in stone’, you can paint yourself into a very awkward corner or cause much spiritual grief to fellow believers. The following little story which I found on a blog about making communion bread illustrates this:

Heres the story and source:

I’m not going to make much comment. I’ve got no idea of how that young girl felt as a result of what occurred .

Maybe she was looking forward to her first communion with joyful anticipation and will for a long time feel some sadness that for her, that ‘special day’ was “spoiled” in some way, no matter what anyone says. Maybe she was just going through the process to keep her parents off her back

Perhaps she wondered why the God she was eager to show her trust in, allowed such a (to her) terrible thing to occur, especially since the night before, she had prayed that all would go well Perhaps not

This is where dogma and certitude can sometimes lead you.
And you put yourself there.

…so the morale is that anyone can offer up to God what they believe they have been taught in dreams?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

True, so to me it is quite wrong to say, "even though I don’t fully understand it I’m going to make a dogma that expresses the understanding that I do have. Then on the basis of that dogma go so far as to use it as a basis for exclusion from even being a christian at all. If you chose to exclude me from being a member of the Catholic Church, I don’t have a problem, from being a member of the catholic church I do…

I understand what you are saying. but this is where we start going round in circles

…could that cirlce be in your own mind?.. the Truth that is fully held is the Truth that was fully Revealed to the Church by the Holy Spirit… the understanding is still that of the Holy Spirit which is given only as He desires it.

Are you suggesting that if you negate the Church’s Authority you can then be the Pillar and Ground of Truth?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

If we take His words literally we end up with cannibalism.

…so Jesus was wrong and the Jews that left Him were right?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Cannibalism is eating the flesh of dead humans. Jesus is not dead!

…most importantly, Jesus is not just mere human!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Are there any passages in the NT that describes the Lord’s supper in this way?

John is the only gospel writer who gives no details of the last supper. If John thought that John 6 was related directly to the supper then why did he not make the connection in his Gospel or other letters?
As you know that Jesus mentions eternal life with “eating” His flesh and yet none of the gospel accounts never mention this.

…are you asking why did the disciples not know everything about God and reveal everything in the Gospels?

…I can recall St. Paul speaking of the Parusia as something just about to happen… later, as the Holy Spirit reveals it He (as well as St. Peter) warn that the Day of the Lord is Coming and that those who believe that it has already come are in error and that those who believe that it will never come are in error–both will perish due to their wrong teachings!

…further, it was only some years after Jesus’ Ascension that the Way became known as the Christians… why did the Gospels not reveal this? Why should we second guess the Holy Spirit?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

If you are right then, what the apostles thought that they not only had Jesus sitting in front of them but He was now a piece of bread. In other words they must have thought that Jesus now had 2 phyiscal bodies. Correct?

Even here there are major problems if we take this saying literally. In the entire Scriptures there is no place i can think of where it is said that bread = human body. Secondly, we know that there has been no changes in the nature of the bread. If you had some physical evidence that there was a change then you might have something. But the fact is there is none.
It is best to understand that Jesus was not speaking literally but figuatively as He did on many many occasions.

Quote:justasking4
John is the only gospel writer who gives no details of the last supper. If John thought that John 6 was related directly to the supper then why did he not make the connection in his Gospel or other letters?

You make some good points. However, since John makes no connection with the chapter 6 and his supper account he certainly did not believe that the supper account was the expression of what he wrote in chapter 6 of his gospel.

True. However he does again mention that eternal life is found in Christ with no mention of the supper.

This weakens the case that John meant John 6 to be taken literally and physically eating Christ.

i don’t think later they found it hard to accept that John 6 has nothing to do with the supper accounts.

…so when Christ tells His disciples that He is in the Father and that the Father is in Him and that He and the Father are One and that to see Him is to see the Father… He was wrong?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

It’s almost laughable to see Non-Believers in the Real Presence making their argument here. Many times, they are refuted by Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which we Catholics hold to be the Word of God.

…I know what you mean; it is almost an exercise in futility… nonetheless, I hope that through such exchanges they open their hearts and minds to the Holy Spirit and allow Him to convict them of the Truth!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Justasking4,
Have you examined my admittedly lengthy post above? One of the most important pieces of evidence in favor of the Real Presence is the fact that virtually every early Christian account outside of the Bible refers to it! At the very least, we can be sure that the belief dates to the first generation of Christians…

…actually, to the Apostles themselves, as St. Paul speaks of the actual accounts of the Church at Corinth!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Here is what a Greek scholar says how the word “body” is used in this passage:
The word só̄ma is used symbolically of Christ’s body. On the night on which He was betrayed, the Lord Jesus, in instituting the memorial feast of the sacrifice of His body and the shedding of His blood, said of the bread which He took and broke and gave to His disciples, “this is My body” (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24). Similarly Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, says of the bread which is broken at the Lord’s Supper, “Is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). Then in 1 Cor. 11:27 he describes the person who eats the memorial bread unworthily as “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” and says that a man eats and drinks judgment unto himself “if he discern not the body” (a.t. [1 Cor. 11:29]). Those who partake of the elements of the Lord’s Supper must recognize the reality which they signify.
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) (G4983).

…what?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I don’t think that’s a good way to figure out what Paul’s saying.

The epistle to the Corinthians is an inspired writing, and in its context, it’s not difficult to understand that the chiding is for the mistreatment of some believers by other believers (vv17-22); therefore, the “body” that’s not being rightly discerned is the church, and not the “body and blood” of Christ remembered.

…so they would eat and drink the church not the Body and Blood of Christ?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Answering the former question, in context the body not being rightly discerned is the church, as demonstrated in Paul’s scolding some in the church for the mistreatment of others in the church (vv17-22).

To your latter question, whether the church supported real presence or not, has no bearing on the context of 1 Cor 11.

…are you not confusing two seperate issues?

St. Paul does admonishes their behavior but he stipulates that that behavior is due to their ignorance of the Body and Blood of Christ!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I don’t believe anyone here is proposing that it is just ordinary bread & wine, since that would be obviously contradictary to Scripture.

Some hold that it is bread & wine which symbolises Christ’s body & blood, others believe that it is bread & wine in which He is present.

As far as I can understand Catholics believe that it is not actually bread & wine at all, but is instead Christ’s body & blood, maintaning the accidents of, but not being, bread & wine.

Am I correct?

…the problem with “symbolic” is that that would mean that Paul desires to constitute a symbol into a divinity or sacramental… would that then not mean that there would be worship of a symbol and not of God?

Maran atha!

Angel