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

[Nickkname]

As far as transubstantiation- the Roman Catholic dogma- being contained in John’s Gospel- I remain unconvinced.

Here is why:

John’s Gospel clearly teaches of the spiritual and metaphorical sense of “eating” and “drinking” as pertaining to the body and blood of Christ.

Please RE-read John 6 and consider carefully that “eating” and “drinking” are synonyms for “coming” and “believing” - as in John 6:34-36: “Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.”

I believe that to extract anything more from this marvelous discourse is damaging to the Scriptures and to the essence of Christ’s sacrifice.

Also we should remember that the gospel of John consistently sets forth a “pattern” if you will, of these same kinds of spiritual and metaphorical truths in similar illustration.

Jesus declared:

I am the bread of life
I am the door
I am the light
I am the shepherd (and we are his sheep)
I am the vine (and we are his branches) etc.

It is strange to me that Rome demands that we interpret “I am the bread of Life” as being Literal-physical, when none of these other statements are interpreted in this fashion.

*I do not assert that the “I am” statements are not Literal, nor do I assert that Jesus’ declaration “I am the bread of Life” is not Literal; I only deny that they are Literal-physical. I am convinced that the statement of Jesus “I am the bread of Life” is indeed Literal, but just like all the other statements- it is Literal-spiritual.

Besides, in my opinion; the spiritual is way more REAL than the physical, and therefore: to a true born again believer in Christ- one who has been translated out of the kingdom of darkness into the spiritual and heavenly Kingdom of God’s dear Son- the spiritual is way more LITERAL.

With all due respect- the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation is purely pagan, and must be dismissed as vain superstition.

If it is a red flag I receive- it is a red flag I receive- the truth must be told- for no one can be saved through a lie- (2 Thes. 2:13).

Here’s the problem with the whole “Jesus spoke metaphorically, not literally” argument: The Jews actually ate the unblemished lamb on Passover. Jesus is actually the Lamb of God.

Now, unless you’re denying that either (a) the Jews ate the lamb on Passover or (b) Jesus is the Lamb of God, than you can’t say Jesus spoke metaphorically instead of literally.

To make the point even clearer, here’s a lesson from Scripture: Jesus said He came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. In light of His words, the Eucharist did not abolish the Passover but fulfilled it; Jesus did not abolish the sacrifce of lambs but fulfilled it in Himself, as He’s the Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world. So, Jesus must have been speaking literally when He told His disciples that they must eat Him, the Lamb of God, in the Eucharist.

And to take a lesson from Judaism: The liturgical celebrations of Judaism, such as Passover, were celebrated for three reasons: in remembrance of what God did for the Jews, in celebration of what God did and will do, and in anticipation for what God will do for the Jews. In regards to the Passover: In rembrance of the Jews’ flight out of Egypt, in celebration of their redemption from the bondage of Egypt, and in anticipation of the universal redemption of man. Now, if Jesus is really the Messiah, and He is the Lamb of God, than how can you say He spoke metaphorically, not literally?

 

[jcrichton]

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?

…since Christ is the Bread of Life and we become one with Him, we, the Church, may be many but are one in Christ. Once the Blessing was made Jesus did not pass about a piece of bread but a piece of His Body… ditto with the Chalice!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Ethan_Enoch]

…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?

I think that most people who think it a symbol do not consider it to be a sacrament, and do not even consider worshipping it.

Do you have an equal objection to the second possibility; would you consider it to be idolatrous or sacreligious to worship it if it were bread, in which Christ were present?

 

[Ethan_Enoch]

…since Christ is the Bread of Life and we become one with Him, we, the Church, may be many but are one in Christ.

If I am reading you correctly, this is in response to 1Co 10:17, and you are arguing that the “one bread” which we “partake of” is not bread, because St. Paul is thinking of Jesus’ sermon in John 6 where He calls Himself “the bread of life”.

I would consider it more likely that it is a reference to the previous verse where he writes, “And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?” (10:16b), referring, I think, obviously to the bread used in communion.

In reference (I think) to 1Co 11:26-28, where the Apostle talks about eating “this bread” you write:

Once the Blessing was made Jesus did not pass about a piece of bread but a piece of His Body… ditto with the Chalice!

I already knew you believed that; what I want to know is how you reconcile your belief that, at the point that it is eaten, it is not bread, with the fact that the Apostle calls it, at that point, “bread” three times in this passage alone.

 

[jcrichton]

I think that most people who think it a symbol do not consider it to be a sacrament, and do not even consider worshipping it.

Do you have an equal objection to the second possibility; would you consider it to be idolatrous or sacreligious to worship it if it were bread, in which Christ were present?

…from your argument it follows that St. Paul is presenting Corinth with a symbol which, if they fail to observe, spiritual death is eminent… so it has the consequences of the First Commandment…

Catholics Believe that Jesus is Present in the Holy Eucharist and in the Wine… hence, it is only logical that we worship Christ and venerate His Body and Blood in the Sacramental Eucharist and Wine; ergo, we worship Christ as He is: God in the Eucharist and Wine (the Bread is my Body; the Wine is my Blood). So it is logical for us that St. Paul should make such acclamations and place such curse on those who willingly desecrate the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcrichton
…since Christ is the Bread of Life and we become one with Him, we, the Church, may be many but are one in Christ.

If I am reading you correctly, this is in response to 1Co 10:17, and you are arguing that the “one bread” which we “partake of” is not bread, because St. Paul is thinking of Jesus’ sermon in John 6 where He calls Himself “the bread of life”.

I would consider it more likely that it is a reference to the previous verse where he writes, “And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?” (10:16b), referring, I think, obviously to the bread used in communion.

We have to understand that St. Paul was not one of Jesus’ disciples… what he knew of the Gospel of Christ was revealed to Him by Christ Himself… so what I suggest to you is that St. Paul understood that when Jesus Blessed the Bread and the Wine (Chalice) He meant what He said: “Bread my Body; Chalise/Wine my Blood.”

St. Paul is not thinking of Jesus’ sermon but the Last Supper! (St. Matthew 26:26-28). He explains it this way:

**23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, 24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. 26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 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. **(1 Corinthians 11:23-27)

St. Paul understands that it does not matter whether one humungous loaf is baked and distributed or whether dozens of loafs are baked and distributed, the bread (one or many) becomes the Body of Christ–which follows that the Believers are one (compare with 1 Corinthians 12:12-27).

In reference (I think) to 1Co 11:26-28, where the Apostle talks about eating “this bread” you write:

Quote:
Once the Blessing was made Jesus did not pass about a piece of bread but a piece of His Body… ditto with the Chalice!

I already knew you believed that; what I want to know is how you reconcile your belief that, at the point that it is eaten, it is not bread, with the fact that the Apostle calls it, at that point, “bread” three times in this passage alone.

It is Jesus Christ who tells us this very fact! The Apostle St. Paul is very aware of this mystery as he demands that Christians acknowledge that they are partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ Jesus and not just gathering to perform a symbolic gesture: 1 Cor 10:16, 21-22; 1 Cor 11:23-27.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[guanophore]

If I am reading you correctly, this is in response to 1Co 10:17, and you are arguing that the “one bread” which we “partake of” is not bread, because St. Paul is thinking of Jesus’ sermon in John 6 where He calls Himself “the bread of life”.

I would consider it more likely that it is a reference to the previous verse where he writes, “And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?” (10:16b), referring, I think, obviously to the bread used in communion.

In reference (I think) to 1Co 11:26-28, where the Apostle talks about eating “this bread” you write:

I already knew you believed that; what I want to know is how you reconcile your belief that, at the point that it is eaten, it is not bread, with the fact that the Apostle calls it, at that point, “bread” three times in this passage alone.

You know, I have never been able to “reconcile” that. It defies my limited reasoning abilities. however, Jesus said “this is My Body”, so even though it appears to look like bread to me, I choose to take His word for it. This way of acting in faith have been very effective for me in all areas of my life. Though I see waves, if I keep my eyes on Him I can walk on the water. I don’t understand it, but that is how it is.

 

[jcrichton]

You know, I have never been able to “reconcile” that. It defies my limited reasoning abilities. however, Jesus said “this is My Body”, so even though it appears to look like bread to me, I choose to take His word for it. This way of acting in faith have been very effective for me in all areas of my life. Though I see waves, if I keep my eyes on Him I can walk on the water. I don’t understand it, but that is how it is.

Hi, guanophore!

…this is where “…if you believe in me… you would obey my commandments…” come into play–it is not enough to reason, as Thomas did, but we must place our Faith in Him: that is to say: we must accept His Word as the final Authority!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Ethan_Enoch]

…from your argument it follows that St. Paul is presenting Corinth with a symbol which, if they fail to observe, spiritual death is eminent… so it has the consequences of the First Commandment…

Catholics Believe that Jesus is Present in the Holy Eucharist and in the Wine… hence, it is only logical that we worship Christ and venerate His Body and Blood in the Sacramental Eucharist and Wine; ergo, we worship Christ as He is: God in the Eucharist and Wine (the Bread is my Body; the Wine is my Blood). So it is logical for us that St. Paul should make such acclamations and place such curse on those who willingly desecrate the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ!

I understand, but you do not believe that the Eucharist is bread. If it were bread, with Christ really present in the bread, would you condemn worshiping it?

 

[Ethan_Enoch]

It is Jesus Christ who tells us this very fact! [that the Eucharist is not bread] The Apostle St. Paul is very aware of this mystery as he demands that Christians acknowledge that they are partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ Jesus and not just gathering to perform a symbolic gesture: 1 Cor 10:16, 21-22; 1 Cor 11:23-27.

I have not been arguing that the Eucharist is a “symbolic gesture”, I have merely been inquiring into whether or not it is bread. Could you direct me to where our Lord tells us that it is not? I know that He said that it is His body, but I am not aware of his commenting on whether it is bread.

 

[Ethan_Enoch]

You know, I have never been able to “reconcile” that. It defies my limited reasoning abilities. however, Jesus said “this is My Body”, so even though it appears to look like bread to me, I choose to take His word for it. This way of acting in faith have been very effective for me in all areas of my life. Though I see waves, if I keep my eyes on Him I can walk on the water. I don’t understand it, but that is how it is.

I commend you for your attitude of faith. Appearances may often deceive but the Lord will never lead us astray. So I agree that the appearance of the Eucharist is not the crucial factor; if Scripture clearly taught that it is not bread, we would then be obliged to accept that in faith, regardless of appearances. If God said it, it is right, no matter how it seems to us.

However, if we are the maintainers of the faith & tradition of the Apostles, I think we should be concerned if we cannot reconcile the writings of St. Paul with one of our beliefs, particularly if that belief (namely, that the Eucharist is not bread) is not to be found anywhere in Scripture.

You accept from Christ that it is His body, can you not accept from St. Paul that it is bread? Can you not accept both?

 

[guanophore]

I have not been arguing that the Eucharist is a “symbolic gesture”, I have merely been inquiring into whether or not it is bread. Could you direct me to where our Lord tells us that it is not? I know that He said that it is His body, but I am not aware of his commenting on whether it is bread.

What He says is “This is my Body”. Jesus gave his flesh for the life of the world. He shed his literal blood. He was physicallly wounded for our transgressions. That was not some “substitute” person as I have heard purported. He did not survive the crucifixion, either, as some here have claimed. He poured out His life on the cross, bearing in His Body our sins.

 

[ncgolf]

I understand, but you do not believe that the Eucharist is bread. If it were bread, with Christ really present in the bread, would you condemn worshiping it?

The bread ceases to exist at the time of consecration, it only appears to us as bread.

During Mass, the priest elevates the host and says … “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world …”. At that time there is no bread … it is only Jesus.

Consider this … if it is not Jesus alone being held above … if it were bread then all 1 billion Catholics would be guilty of idoltory. There are really only 2 options … it is bread and we are idolotors or it is Jesus and we properly reverence that fact and do as Jesus commanded … consume it.

The bread Paul writes of was bread … but once the words of consecration are spoken … read 1 Corinthians 23- 25. Those are the words the effects of consecration so he is speaking of consecrated bread … that is Jesus.

 

[ncgolf]

I have not been arguing that the Eucharist is a “symbolic gesture”, I have merely been inquiring into whether or not it is bread. Could you direct me to where our Lord tells us that it is not? I know that He said that it is His body, but I am not aware of his commenting on whether it is bread.

If Jesus says it is his Body … why would He have to say what it is not. Is His assurance or His words not enough? I remember a bumper sticker saying Jesus said it … I believe it … end of story. Apparently this is not the case here … this must be Jesus said it … I believe most of it. I don’t think a lack of something in the Bible is sufficient to question it. Is Scripture not sufficient? John himself said there is so much more that Jesus said and did that no book could contain all of it.

Why is a theology built on what Jesus said so difficult. If Jesus spoke the truth then it is our duty to understand that truth … no matter how difficult it seems. I think we still do not understand fully what the Eucharist is … in the Theology of the Eucharist we are probably in the 3rd grade.

 

[justasking4]

The bread ceases to exist at the time of consecration, it only appears to us as bread.

During Mass, the priest elevates the host and says … “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world …”. At that time there is no bread … it is only Jesus.

Consider this … if it is not Jesus alone being held above … if it were bread then all 1 billion Catholics would be guilty of idoltory. There are really only 2 options … it is bread and we are idolotors or it is Jesus and we properly reverence that fact and do as Jesus commanded … consume it.

The bread Paul writes of was bread … but once the words of consecration are spoken … read 1 Corinthians 23- 25. Those are the words the effects of consecration so he is speaking of consecrated bread … that is Jesus.

What was the nature of physical body that Jesus had in the Gospels?

 

[Ethan_Enoch]

What He says is “This is my Body”. Jesus gave his flesh for the life of the world. He shed his literal blood. He was physicallly wounded for our transgressions. That was not some “substitute” person as I have heard purported. He did not survive the crucifixion, either, as some here have claimed. He poured out His life on the cross, bearing in His Body our sins.

Amen. I have no disagreement with any of this, but it does not answer my question.

 

[Ethan_Enoch]

The bread ceases to exist at the time of consecration, it only appears to us as bread.

During Mass, the priest elevates the host and says … “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world …”. At that time there is no bread … it is only Jesus.

Consider this … if it is not Jesus alone being held above … if it were bread then all 1 billion Catholics would be guilty of idoltory. There are really only 2 options … it is bread and we are idolotors or it is Jesus and we properly reverence that fact and do as Jesus commanded … consume it.

Why are there only two options? Why can’t it be both bread & Jesus?

A person might say ‘There are only two options…Jesus is a man and we are idolaters, or Jesus is God and we properly reverence that fact &c., &c.’

You & I reject this. It is a false dichotomy. Jesus is fully God & fully man. Can we not consider a similar attitude to the Eucharist i.e. It’s not one or the other, but both?

The bread Paul writes of was bread … but once the words of consecration are spoken … read 1 Corinthians 23- 25. Those are the words the effects of consecration so he is speaking of consecrated bread … that is Jesus.

But if “[t]he bread ceases to exist at the time of consecration” then “consecrated bread” does not exist, right? Because as soon as it’s consecrated, it’s not bread.

 

[guanophore]

What was the nature of physical body that Jesus had in the Gospels?

I understand your attempt to reason your way thru this, ja4, but I don’t think it will work. Jesus physical Body is now in heaven, where He is seated at the right hand of God. Contrary to the thinking of Pagan Rome, Catholics are not cannibals (they accused Catholics of eating their god and drowning their babies). We do consume the body and blood of Christ, and we do baptize infants, just as we did in the first century, but it is under the appearance of bread and wine.

I don’t think reason avails humanity much on this point. In fact, in John 6, during the Bread of Life discourse, He was very clear that the carnal mind avails nothing in regard to the Eucharist. It is, like many things, an article of faith.

" And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” Mark 14:22-25

We believe it because He said it, not because we can understand it rationallly.

 

[ncgolf]

What was the nature of physical body that Jesus had in the Gospels?

The physical body Jesus had was fully human … it is only after the Resurrection was that physcial body fully glorified. Jesus was able to reach the disciples even though the door was locked and when the 2 disciples recognized Jesus in the road to Emmaus account he simply vanished. Same physcial body but somehow different, somehow less constrained.

 

[ncgolf]

Why are there only two options? Why can’t it be both bread & Jesus?

A person might say ‘There are only two options…Jesus is a man and we are idolaters, or Jesus is God and we properly reverence that fact &c., &c.’

You & I reject this. It is a false dichotomy. Jesus is fully God & fully man. Can we not consider a similar attitude to the Eucharist i.e. It’s not one or the other, but both?

But if “[t]he bread ceases to exist at the time of consecration” then “consecrated bread” does not exist, right? Because as soon as it’s consecrated, it’s not bread.

If it is both then I would be worshipping bread, I do not worship bread as the Living God. Both bread and Jesus would render it a symbolic gesture … no need to worry about what it is.

Both would be like seeing a picture of Jesus and saying that was Jesus … except for the paper it is printed on.