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

[Ethan_Enoch]

If Jesus says it is his Body … why would He have to say what it is not.

In order to believe in Transubstantiation you must satisfy yourself that two assertions are true:

1. After it is consecrated the Eucharist is the body of Jesus.
2. After it is consecrated the Eucharist is not bread.

I have not argued against #1. I am inquiring whether there is any teaching of #2 in Scripture. You seem to be arguing ‘#1 is taught, so we should not expect to find #2.’

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 see how you could characterise anything I have written here as denying anything our Lord said.

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.

Yes, but it was claimed here that Jesus Christ Himself told us the “fact” that the Eucharist is not bread. I see that you demur from that, rightly noting that if He ever taught such a thing it was in a sermon or conversation that the Apostles did not deem sufficiently important to merit recording.

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.

Speak for yourself ncgolf! I don’t think I’m out of Kindergarten!

 

[Ethan_Enoch]

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.

Do you worship man as the Living God? Wouldn’t that be idolatrous? Yet do we not worship a man Who is God, and is still a man?

Why can a man be God and yet be a man, but bread can’t be Jesus without ceasing to be bread?

 

[ncgolf]

In order to believe in Transubstantiation you must satisfy yourself that two assertions are true:

1. After it is consecrated the Eucharist is the body of Jesus.
2. After it is consecrated the Eucharist is not bread.

I have not argued against #1. I am inquiring whether there is any teaching of #2 in Scripture. You seem to be arguing ‘#1 is taught, so we should not expect to find #2.’

Jesus saying … “This is my body”. #2 follows only if #1 substantially happens. Jesus’s word makes it so.

Constubstantiation is what you are describing … that both Jesus and the bread substantially remain together. The Church deemed that teaching heretical. The Church teaches that the substance actually changes … all of it … no bread remains, however, the accidents (outward appearance) to us remain as bread. Only 1 way this can happen … if God does it himself through the power granted through his ministerial priesthood.

The concept of the Real Presence was believed from the beginning … the dogma of Transubstantiation was developed primarily to counter other views … one of those being Constubstantiation.

 

[Ethan_Enoch]

Jesus saying … “This is my body”. #2 follows only if #1 substantially happens. Jesus’s word makes it so.

Why? I don’t understand this argument.

Constubstantiation is what you are describing … that both Jesus and the bread substantially remain together. The Church deemed that teaching heretical. The Church teaches that the substance actually changes … all of it … no bread remains, however, the accidents (outward appearance) to us remain as bread. Only 1 way this can happen … if God does it himself through the power granted through his ministerial priesthood.

The concept of the Real Presence was believed from the beginning … the dogma of Transubstantiation was developed primarily to counter other views … one of those being Constubstantiation.

I see that we’ve come to the ‘the Church says so’ point. You must know that this argument isn’t highly persuasive to non-catholics. It may be satisfactory for you, but for a person who is interested in catholicism and asking for a demonstration, or at least evidence, of its claims it is pretty unsatisfactory.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Why? I don’t understand this argument.

Jesus says, “I am the living bread that came down from Heaven.” Because He said it, we, with eyes of faith, see Him and only Him in the Eucharist.

I see that we’ve come to the ‘the Church says so’ point. You must know that this argument isn’t highly persuasive to non-catholics. It may be satisfactory for you, but for a person who is interested in catholicism and asking for a demonstration, or at least evidence, of its claims it is pretty unsatisfactory.

Have you looked into Eucharistic miracles? At times in history the bread and wine were not only Sacramentally changed, but physically changed as well - usually in response to doubt on the part of the celebrant (priest).

When I was on my journey from Baptist to Catholic, I was told that everything comes down to Authority. Either the Church Jesus founded has the Authority to declare Truth or She doesn’t; and we either submit to that Authority or we do not. The testimony of the Scriptures and the early Church Fathers (who learned this Truth directly from the Apostles, likely before they’d even written down a word of it) declares that the bread and wine are, at the consecration, no longer bread and wine but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. It wasn’t until 1500 years later that it became popular
to say that the bread and wine were BOTH bread and wine AND the Body and Blood of Christ - or worse, that the bread and wine were merely symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ. Neither of these things were taught by the Apostles and both deny the power of God to bring to pass that which He declared in the Upper Room.

 

[ncgolf]

Why? I don’t understand this argument.

I see that we’ve come to the ‘the Church says so’ point. You must know that this argument isn’t highly persuasive to non-catholics. It may be satisfactory for you, but for a person who is interested in catholicism and asking for a demonstration, or at least evidence, of its claims it is pretty unsatisfactory.

The dogma is the drama. You will not come to believe through evidence remember blessed are those who believe but have not seen. I have not once in my life seen the substantial changes I have described. I cannot give you eyewitness testimony to its occurance, though I believe it to be true. Scripture does not contradict the dogma of Transubstantiation … saying Jesus did not specifically say there is no bread cannot be used as evidence or even an argument. You cannot introduce non-existing or supposedly missing Scripture as a refutation.

What Scripture denies this? All the early Church took Jesus’s word, “This is my body” for its natural, literal meaning.

You have described and talked about an alternate dogma … Consubstantiation. These two dogmas exist but both cannot be true … they are not compatible. This is not an easy dogma … especially for a non-catholic.

The eating of the Lamb … John refers to Jesus as the Lamb of God and Catholics refer to the consecrated bread as the Lamb of God goes back to the Old Testament. What did Moses tell his people to do before the angel of death came that evening. Slay an unblemished, one year old lamb. Then what … they had to eat it to be passed over … they could not just look at it and achieve the desired result. What happened to the leftovers … they had to be destroyed … burned up. God, even in the earliest portions of salvation history was prepping people for the eating of the Lamb.

Jesus is the unblemished Lamb of God … remember His bones were not broken at the Crucifiction. What must we do then … consume this Lamb.

Is your question a technical one … that being what happens to the bread? Is that the only one?

You are right in one are though … it comes down to authority … whose teachings can you trust … must you trust. Those are not easy ones to answer.

Someone else mentioned Eucharistic Miracles … these have occured over the course of the 2000 year Chuch History … even recently.

 

[guanophore]

Why? I don’t understand this argument.

I see that we’ve come to the ‘the Church says so’ point. You must know that this argument isn’t highly persuasive to non-catholics. It may be satisfactory for you, but for a person who is interested in catholicism and asking for a demonstration, or at least evidence, of its claims it is pretty unsatisfactory.

I think th at this is an element of the faith that defies a 'demonstration" ( unless you attend the Divine Liturgy) and certainly “evidence”. It is a mystery that defies the human sensibilities.

The best evidence I think there is (which I think you have been given, and are saying is non-satisfactory) is that

Jesus said it

The Apostles believed it

Those that followed the Apostles believed and practice it

What Jesus said and did has been faithfully handed down, and those of us who have accepted it still believe and practice as they did.

 

[Ethan_Enoch]

Have you looked into Eucharistic miracles? At times in history the bread and wine were not only Sacramentally changed, but physically changed as well - usually in response to doubt on the part of the celebrant (priest).

No. Did they eat & drink it then?

When I was on my journey from Baptist to Catholic, I was told that everything comes down to Authority. Either the Church Jesus founded has the Authority to declare Truth or She doesn’t; and we either submit to that Authority or we do not. The testimony of the Scriptures and the early Church Fathers (who learned this Truth directly from the Apostles, likely before they’d even written down a word of it) declares that the bread and wine are, at the consecration, no longer bread and wine but the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

You don’t tell me where the Scriptures declare that they are “no longer bread and wine”.

 

[Ethan_Enoch]

The dogma is the drama. You will not come to believe through evidence remember blessed are those who believe but have not seen. I have not once in my life seen the substantial changes I have described. I cannot give you eyewitness testimony to its occurance, though I believe it to be true. Scripture does not contradict the dogma of Transubstantiation … saying Jesus did not specifically say there is no bread cannot be used as evidence or even an argument. You cannot introduce non-existing or supposedly missing Scripture as a refutation.

Your dogma contains a negative: ‘The consecrated Eucharist is not bread.’ If this is scriptural we might expect to find it in Scripture.

What Scripture denies this? All the early Church took Jesus’s word, “This is my body” for its natural, literal meaning.

In 1 Corinthians 10:17 & 11:26,27,28 St. Paul calls it bread after consecration.

The eating of the Lamb … John refers to Jesus as the Lamb of God and Catholics refer to the consecrated bread as the Lamb of God goes back to the Old Testament. What did Moses tell his people to do before the angel of death came that evening. Slay an unblemished, one year old lamb. Then what … they had to eat it to be passed over … they could not just look at it and achieve the desired result. What happened to the leftovers … they had to be destroyed … burned up. God, even in the earliest portions of salvation history was prepping people for the eating of the Lamb.
Jesus is the unblemished Lamb of God … remember His bones were not broken at the Crucifiction. What must we do then … consume this Lamb.

But surely that was symbolic?

Is your question a technical one … that being what happens to the bread? Is that the only one?

My fundamental question is: Is the Eucharist still bread after consecration, and what is the evidence either way?

 

[Ethan_Enoch]

I think th at this is an element of the faith that defies a 'demonstration" ( unless you attend the Divine Liturgy) and certainly “evidence”. It is a mystery that defies the human sensibilities.

I’m not looking for physical or scientific evidence; but rather a demonstration of your dogma from Scripture.

The best evidence I think there is (which I think you have been given, and are saying is non-satisfactory) is that

Jesus said it

I cannot help but argue an absence of evidence; Jesus did not say ‘This is not bread.’

The Apostles believed it

Perhaps, but St. Paul, who is the only one to have made any sort of comment on the issue, certainly did not make clear such a belief when he called the consecrated Eucharist “bread” four times in 1 Corinthians.

 

[ncgolf]

Your dogma contains a negative: ‘The consecrated Eucharist is not bread.’ If this is scriptural we might expect to find it in Scripture.

My fundamental question is: Is the Eucharist still bread after consecration, and what is the evidence either way?

Yours is a question of sufficiency. Is the evidence weighted enough in Scripture to support either Transubstantiation or in what you describe, the mixing of both bread and Christ.

The primary weight behind this is Jesus’s own words, “This is my body”. This statement made by Jesus tells us what it is and therefore what it is not. It cannot be anything other than what Christ, himself, says it is. Paul too says don’t eat or drink this bread if you cannot discern what it is.

Below are some quotes from the Early Church Fathers … describing what the early Church believed. The early Church believed as the Apostles did … many in these times knew of or knew someone who knew the apostles … the teachings handed down from the apostles themselves … very early generation Church documentation … is that what you are looking for?

Remember these men were directly involved with what was going on not long after Christ had ascended. These are a link to how the early Church interpreted what we are discussing … this is just a smattering … I know there is much more. My thanks to Mickey(of these threads) for some of the citations below.

These from the Early Church Fathers …
You perhaps say: ‘My bread is usual.’ But the bread is bread before the words of the sacraments; when consecration has been added, from bread it becomes the flesh of Christ. So let us confirm this, how it is possible that what is bread is the body of Christ. By what words, then, is the consecration and by whose expressions? By those of the Lord Jesus. For all the rest that are said in the preceding are said by the priest: praise to God, prayer is offered, there is a petition for the people, for kings, for the rest. When it comes to performing a venerable sacrament, then the priest uses not his own expressions, but he uses the expressions of Christ. Thus the expression of Christ performs this sacrament.
St. Ambrose Of Milan, “The Sacraments” Book 4, Ch.4:14.

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God … They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:

Communion in the Body and Blood of Christ …
It is allowed to no one else to participate in that food which we call Eucharist except the one who believes that the things taught by us are true, who has been cleansed in the washing unto rebirth and the forgiveness of sins and who is living according to the way Christ handed on to us. For we do not take these things as ordinary bread or ordinary drink. Just as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh by the word of God and took on flesh and blood for our salvation, so also were we taught that the food, for which thanksgiving has been made through the word of prayer instituted by him, and from which our blood and flesh are nourished after the change, is the flesh of that Jesus who was made flesh. Indeed, the Apostles, in the records left by them which are called gospels, handed on that it was commanded to them in this manner: Jesus, having taken bread and given thanks said, Do this in memory of me, this is my body.'' Likewise, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, This is my blood’’, and he gave it to them alone.
Justin Martyr, Apology, I.66-67, 2nd century:

[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.

You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ… Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine – and thus is His Body confected.
ST. ATHANASIUS (c. 295 - 373 A.D.) (Sermon to the Newly Baptized, from Eutyches)

This too I consider evidence … historical evidence on the interpretation of Scripture from the very beginnings of the Church. There is no mention of a comixing of bread and Christ … in fact it is quite the contrary.

They use the basic suppostion I posed to you … Christ’s words.

The beauty of Catholic doctrine shines here. Scripture supports, history supports and the teaching has been consistent … from the citations above since the year 60. Guanophore suggests the teaching tradition used in this doctrine … and I have citations that support it has not changed in 2000 years. Powerful witness testimony.

Please cite some historical interprative support for the co-mixing, preferably from sources around the same time as those above are cited.

 

[mackbrislawn]

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.

QUOTE]

It is true, the above statements make sense as metaphors. But this statement of Jesus does not:
“For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed.”

His flesh? His blood? Where is the metaphor? One can see how He could say, “I am meat,” or “My words are drink.” But for Him to use His flesh and His blood as metaphors?

 

[mackbrislawn]

Everybody (except the Docetists) accept that Jesus, the Son of God, became flesh. The Incarnation.

Then why is it so hard to believe that Jesus can be incarnate under the appearances of bread and wine?

 

[jcrichton]

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?

I do not presume to understand the mystery of the transubstantiation (a big word to mean “it is as Christ said: this is my Body and this is my Blood”)… once consecrated the bread and wine are not simply bread and wine… yet if it were that Jesus would have said ‘I will come into the bread and wine’ then no, worshiping Christ is all that matters!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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.

I cannot direct you to such Biblical passage as it does not exist. However, applying legalism to the Holy Scriptures has often often lead man astray; there are some who to this very day believe that there is no Triune God, that we will become little gods, that hell does not exist, that since Jesus spoke in parables His miracles did not realy happened, that Jesus did not die on the Cross, that Mary Magdalene became Jesus’ wife, that Christians are called to material wealth, that those who are ill or suffering are sinners and unbelievers, that salvation is “in the bag,” that Christians can sin with impunity, that there are major and minor forms of God, that only sinners need to confess their sins, that Jesus did not realy want the Church to remain One in Him but that myriads of doctrines are one if the claim Jesus as their Head…

Jesus offered His Body and Blood and commanded His Disciples to venerate Him through this particular practice till His Second Coming, the Parusia–when He revealed Himself to Saul, this very specific commandment was taught to St. Paul and he attests to it when he challenges the Church at Corinth to behave according to this very practice… (“is it not the Body of the Lord? …is it not the Blood of the Lord?”)

Did you notice how specific he became? “…is anyone hungry, eat at home!” I can only surmise that St. Paul is reminding them that they are not gathering during the Day of the Lord just to come together at a social event where they are to eat and drink till they pass out… (something that, most likely, was the practice of the pagans–"…eat and drink for tomorrow we die…")

Ours is a different celebration: “…my death till I Come…” This celebration is that of the Passover as we eat the Sacrificial Lamb till the Lord’s Return!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Ethan_Enoch]

Yours is a question of sufficiency. Is the evidence weighted enough in Scripture to support either Transubstantiation or in what you describe, the mixing of both bread and Christ.

The primary weight behind this is Jesus’s own words, “This is my body”. This statement made by Jesus tells us what it is and therefore what it is not. It cannot be anything other than what Christ, himself, says it is.

So your argument is that something cannot be more than one thing at a time. What about Jesus? Wasn’t He both God & man?

Paul too says don’t eat or drink this bread if you cannot discern what it is.

Don’t eat or drink of what?

 

[ncgolf]

So your argument is that something cannot be more than one thing at a time. What about Jesus? Wasn’t He both God & man?

Technically he was God the Son … who with God the Father and Holy Spirit is God … yet they are 3 distinct persons. God the Son, Jesus, had 2 distinct natures one being fully Divine and 1 being fully human … this is the essence of the Incarnation.

The Eucharist is Jesus, fully and completely, it is what Jesus is … .so the Eucharist contains both natures of Jesus … his full divinity and full humanity. I am saying the Eucharist is Jesus, so if Jesus is both God and Man then the Eucahrist is that … completely. That is why there is no bread … it is completely and fully Jesus.

How humbling it is that the God of all creation, the Eternal God allows himself to be moved through space, chewed and eaten by his created creatures. I must confess that this still blows me away … I still cannot fully get my arms around it. I don’t know if I ever will.

There must be reliable sources, other than yourself, you have access to that explain Consubstantiation … that give you guidance that the coexistance of bread and Christ is the truth. Is not that what you are looking for … the truth of what this bread really is? If you are absolutely positive then why the questions? If you are not positive then you have more work to do … more praying … more reading to do so that you may find and understand the truth.

You will find writings from Catholic sources from about the year 60 to now on the Eucharist. I believe John Paul II called it the source and summit of the Catholic faith. It is what brought me back to the Church. Like others I was a prodigal son but the pull of the Eucharist is strong … is saving … I guess that is why it’s called the Bread of Life.

What was the tagline of that Sci-fi show a few years ago … The truth is out there.

 

[Ethan_Enoch]

Below are some quotes from the Early Church Fathers … describing what the early Church believed. The early Church believed as the Apostles did … many in these times knew of or knew someone who knew the apostles … the teachings handed down from the apostles themselves … very early generation Church documentation … is that what you are looking for?

Remember these men were directly involved with what was going on not long after Christ had ascended. These are a link to how the early Church interpreted what we are discussing … this is just a smattering … I know there is much more. My thanks to Mickey(of these threads) for some of the citations below.

These from the Early Church Fathers …
You perhaps say: ‘My bread is usual.’ But the bread is bread before the words of the sacraments; when consecration has been added, from bread it becomes the flesh of Christ. So let us confirm this, how it is possible that what is bread is the body of Christ. By what words, then, is the consecration and by whose expressions? By those of the Lord Jesus. For all the rest that are said in the preceding are said by the priest: praise to God, prayer is offered, there is a petition for the people, for kings, for the rest. When it comes to performing a venerable sacrament, then the priest uses not his own expressions, but he uses the expressions of Christ. Thus the expression of Christ performs this sacrament.
St. Ambrose Of Milan, “The Sacraments” Book 4, Ch.4:14.

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God … They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:

Communion in the Body and Blood of Christ …
It is allowed to no one else to participate in that food which we call Eucharist except the one who believes that the things taught by us are true, who has been cleansed in the washing unto rebirth and the forgiveness of sins and who is living according to the way Christ handed on to us. For we do not take these things as ordinary bread or ordinary drink. Just as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh by the word of God and took on flesh and blood for our salvation, so also were we taught that the food, for which thanksgiving has been made through the word of prayer instituted by him, and from which our blood and flesh are nourished after the change, is the flesh of that Jesus who was made flesh. Indeed, the Apostles, in the records left by them which are called gospels, handed on that it was commanded to them in this manner: Jesus, having taken bread and given thanks said, Do this in memory of me, this is my body.'' Likewise, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, This is my blood’’, and he gave it to them alone.
Justin Martyr, Apology, I.66-67, 2nd century:

[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.

You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ… Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine – and thus is His Body confected.
ST. ATHANASIUS (c. 295 - 373 A.D.) (Sermon to the Newly Baptized, from Eutyches)

This too I consider evidence … historical evidence on the interpretation of Scripture from the very beginnings of the Church. There is no mention of a comixing of bread and Christ … in fact it is quite the contrary.

In none of your quotes are we told explicitly that it is not bread. Indeed, to say it is not ordinary bread or usual bread seems to imply that it is bread, extraordinary & unusual bread.

Or take St. Ambrose:

“So let us confirm this, how it is possible that what **is bread **is the body of Christ.”

How does his saying that it “is bread” contradict the notion that it is bread?

 

[ncgolf]

In none of your quotes are we told explicitly that it is not bread. Indeed, to say it is not ordinary bread or usual bread seems to imply that it is bread, extraordinary & unusual bread.

Or take St. Ambrose:

“So let us confirm this, how it is possible that what **is bread **is the body of Christ.”

How does his saying that it “is bread” contradict the notion that it is bread?

‘My bread is usual.’ But the bread is bread before the words of the sacraments; when consecration has been added, **from bread it becomes the flesh of Christ. **

"then the priest uses not his own expressions, but he uses the expressions of Christ"

Ambrose states this cannot be by mere men’s words but by Christ’s … Christ’s words that “This is my body”. This was not the quote to nitpick … Ambrose is quite clear.

You can persist on wondering why Jesus left out that it is not bread … but the argument is weak … it is not unreasonable what Catholics believe … it is backed by Christ’s own words.

I do not understand why you persist in disbelieving something because Scripture is supposedly lacking a piece of evidence? You have to reconcile what is there … that is all we have?

You can believe what you want … no one here will stop you but if you believe it then believe it with good, sound biblical reasoning. Have ground to stand on … history should support you … church history should support you … IMO Jesus forgetting to tell us what the bread is not does not qualify.

If Jesus had said “This is my body and by the way the bread will cease to exist” … wouldn’t change much. Everyone there would have seen the bread still looked like, smelled like, felt like and tasted like bread … maybe a few more would understand but I dont see how those words change the essence of what happens. You would still have to believe it.

Write me a Scripture verse as Jesus would have had to state it so you could believe it. Remember the bread would look like, smell like, feel like and taste like bread. In your verse make sure you make clear the bread is gone only Jesus remains.

 

[Ethan_Enoch]

‘My bread is usual.’ But the bread is bread before the words of the sacraments; when consecration has been added, **from bread it becomes the flesh of Christ. **

"then the priest uses not his own expressions, but he uses the expressions of Christ"

Ambrose states this cannot be by mere men’s words but by Christ’s … Christ’s words that “This is my body”. This was not the quote to nitpick … Ambrose is quite clear.

You can persist on wondering why Jesus left out that it is not bread … but the argument is weak … it is not unreasonable what Catholics believe … it is backed by Christ’s own words.

I do not understand why you persist in disbelieving something because Scripture is supposedly lacking a piece of evidence? You have to reconcile what is there … that is all we have?

You can believe what you want … no one here will stop you but if you believe it then believe it with good, sound biblical reasoning. Have ground to stand on … history should support you … church history should support you … IMO Jesus forgetting to tell us what the bread is not does not qualify.

If Jesus had said “This is my body and by the way the bread will cease to exist” … wouldn’t change much. Everyone there would have seen the bread still looked like, smelled like, felt like and tasted like bread … maybe a few more would understand but I dont see how those words change the essence of what happens. You would still have to believe it.

Write me a Scripture verse as Jesus would have had to state it so you could believe it. Remember the bread would look like, smell like, feel like and taste like bread. In your verse make sure you make clear the bread is gone only Jesus remains.

If Christ had said " This is no longer bread; it is My body." I would believe it. I don’t think that how the bread looks, tastes, &c. would be that much of an issue because Jesus doesn’t lie.