The Eucharist - Consubstantiation? Symbolic? I don't think so

  • Thread starter Thread starter NotWorthy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Interpolated or forgeries. Or just a good example of one of the earliest heretics.
Thank you for asking about my name NotWorthy. It is in the Bible, I am sure you will come up with it.
I understand that was the view back in Calvin’s day. But since then I believe protestants also believe that the first six or seven letters of Ignatius are genuine.

Can you validate your claim that they are interpolations or forgeries?

God bless you,
  • BHM
 
No problem.

An excellent, searchable online Catechism may be found here:

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Hi Teflon 93,

Just added the above website to my super favorities. I tested it out and landed on the Dogma of the Trinity. Mmmmm

Did go to the home page and found that a lot of credit is given to Perpetual Adoration at their Parish. Followed some links on the left and found the great encyclical letter of Pope John Paul II on the Most Holy Eucharist and an excellent explanation of Parish Eucharistic Adoration.

Many thanks and since we also have Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration, you’ll be in my prayers at 2:00 AM on the weekends.

Blessing,
grannymh
 
Many thanks and since we also have Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration, you’ll be in my prayers at 2:00 AM on the weekends.

Blessing,
grannymh
Thank you for this wonderful gift and may God bless you—you’ll be in my prayers at Mass this Sunday.
 
Thanks vey much. I look forward to reading and digesting this - no pun intended. God Bless you for your efforts:thumbsup:
 
Hi, Brownjt,
Jesus was sysign what his father sent him to say - he clould not intepret it. We must partake in the Eucharist - protestant or Catholic…
Jesus Christ is God. As God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, He had the perfect knowledge of the Father’s Will. It was not a matter of intepretation.

In the Holy Eucharist, that Christ insituted on Holy Thursday, and commissioned the Apostles to continue to do this until the end of world, He clearly stated, “Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man…you have no life.” How can we not be literal in this?

Those who eat bread and drink grape juice (or wine) and claim this is just a Memorial Service and not the Body of Christ are not understanding what Christ taught. This is some sort of parody for the not having the Eucharist. Just what is it that you ‘partake’. Again, I encourage you to simply read the words that are there in John 6:
1-) Christ identifies we must eat His Flesh to live,
2-) Christ clarifies His previous statement by repeating these words
3-) Christ is challenged and again repeats the same words
4-) The Jews disblieve, claiming “This is a hard saying…” and walk away
5-) Christ turns to His Apostles and Peter afirms that He is the Messiah - with obvious power to do exactly what He said He would do.
6-) Move forward to the Last Supper in Matt, Mark & Luke - all identify Christ as saying THIS ( the bread ) is My Body. THIS ( the wine ) is my Blood.

What else is there? 🤷

The OT Book of Wisdom is quite strainght forward - wisdom is simply. Christ tells His Apostles to be, “Like little children…” simple. Read the words - they are right there.

God bless. 👍

God bless
 
Hi, Brownjt,

Jesus Christ is God. As God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, He had the perfect knowledge of the Father’s Will. It was not a matter of intepretation.

In the Holy Eucharist, that Christ insituted on Holy Thursday, and commissioned the Apostles to continue to do this until the end of world, He clearly stated, “Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man…you have no life.” How can we not be literal in this?

Those who eat bread and drink grape juice (or wine) and claim this is just a Memorial Service and not the Body of Christ are not understanding what Christ taught. This is some sort of parody for the not having the Eucharist. Just what is it that you ‘partake’. Again, I encourage you to simply read the words that are there in John 6:
1-) Christ identifies we must eat His Flesh to live,
2-) Christ clarifies His previous statement by repeating these words
3-) Christ is challenged and again repeats the same words
4-) The Jews disblieve, claiming “This is a hard saying…” and walk away
5-) Christ turns to His Apostles and Peter afirms that He is the Messiah - with obvious power to do exactly what He said He would do.
6-) Move forward to the Last Supper in Matt, Mark & Luke - all identify Christ as saying THIS ( the bread ) is My Body. THIS ( the wine ) is my Blood.

What else is there? 🤷

The OT Book of Wisdom is quite strainght forward - wisdom is simply. Christ tells His Apostles to be, “Like little children…” simple. Read the words - they are right there.

God bless. 👍

God bless
Please look at the United Methodist website and read about the Holy Eucharist. It is very interesting what it has to say. It is a celebration. They acknowledge that is one of the faith’s “great mysteries” Why would they say that if they believed it was only symbolic? The website states that they do not subscribe to the interpretation of the cathlolic faith, but do acknowledge that the presence of Christ is there - metaphysically. They aslo acknowledge that they need to get back to doing this in a more regular pattern (read about why they only do it quarterly) Which denomination says “symbolic”? I would like to know. I have been a protestant for 50 years and never heard that in my churches and the ones I also attended - episcopalian, baptist, methodist, and pentecostal.

Choose carefully for edification and a frame of reference - but please attend a protestant service sometime. Unfortunately, some many denominations and too many interpretations…
 
Please look at the United Methodist website and read about the Holy Eucharist. It is very interesting what it has to say. It is a celebration. They acknowledge that is one of the faith’s “great mysteries” Why would they say that if they believed it was only symbolic? The website states that they do not subscribe to the interpretation of the cathlolic faith, but do acknowledge that the presence of Christ is there - metaphysically. They aslo acknowledge that they need to get back to doing this in a more regular pattern (read about why they only do it quarterly) Which denomination says “symbolic”? I would like to know. I have been a protestant for 50 years and never heard that in my churches and the ones I also attended - episcopalian, baptist, methodist, and pentecostal.

Choose carefully for edification and a frame of reference - but please attend a protestant service sometime. Unfortunately, some many denominations and too many interpretations…
 
Please look at the United Methodist website and read about the Holy Eucharist. It is very interesting what it has to say. It is a celebration. They acknowledge that is one of the faith’s “great mysteries” Why would they say that if they believed it was only symbolic? The website states that they do not subscribe to the interpretation of the cathlolic faith, but do acknowledge that the presence of Christ is there - metaphysically. They aslo acknowledge that they need to get back to doing this in a more regular pattern (read about why they only do it quarterly) Which denomination says “symbolic”? I would like to know. I have been a protestant for 50 years and never heard that in my churches and the ones I also attended - episcopalian, baptist, methodist, and pentecostal.

Choose carefully for edification and a frame of reference - but
please attend a protestant service sometime. Unfortunately, some many denominations and too many interpretations…
Dear brownjt,

I am very interested in both your post and the website. Please give me the address for the United Methodist website.

Being new, I’m trying to get in step with the language here. I wondered if I should refer to the Catholic Eucharist; however, someone indicated that Eucharist was only a Catholic term. Your post tells me differently.

Being an old granny, I have this gut feeling that something is off base but can’t remember why. The word symbolic was used so much that I didn’t want to question it. Could Memorial be the word I’m looking for?

My experience of edification in a Protestant service is one that can inspire all churches.

This was a Lutheran Church; however, I’m not sure which synod it was. As you know, Protestant churches do not have kneelers. The woman two rows ahead of me had come back from communion and was kneeling sideways on the floor. She was about paraell with the seat so she leaned on it, folding her arms in prayer.

After the service, I told her how wonderful it was to see her kneeling. I don’t remember her exact words but I do remember her smile as she said that she was giving honor and respect to Our Lord. Apparently, this was the tradition when she was young.

Some years ago, I ministered to Protestants in the local hospital. I listened to their desire to have communion services more often in their church. I always relayed this desire to the proper pastor. I also mentioned it to pastors of other denominations. Because the desire to have a closer relationship with Our Savior is not limited to just one denomination.

Since you mentioned that the Methodist website refers to having the Eucharist on a more regular basis, I am relaying the desire of sincere people to have a communion service more often.

Blessings,
grannymh
 
Hi, brownjt,

While I am not trying to ‘kill discussion’ - please note this entire focus has been on what Christ said (and repeated and repeated) about what it takes for us to live (“Unless you eat my Flesh… you have no life” as found in John 6.)

Not to put too fine a point on this - but, you have again not addressed this key element - and the only one I have invited you to speak about.

Christ was not a philosopher - He is the Son of God. Reducing His words to a metaphysical discourse - erodite though it may seem - misses the point. “Celebrating” metaphysical sophistication rather then loving the Word of God - by actually doing what Christ commands us - misses the point, in my opinion.

If we simply look at the meaning of any symbol we see that it points to a reality outside of itself. The bread and wine can easily be seen as symbols of food - but, wouldn’t it be easier to see them as food in and of themselves? The Consecrated Bread and Wine are not symbols of Christ - this is Jesus Christ: the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Mary’s Son - the Son of God. And, how can such be the case? Not by metaphysics - but by the very Word of God…literally.

If one tries to compare the infinite with the finite - God Himself with a metaphysical symbol - one comes up painfully lacking in content.

God bless,
 
Dear brownjt,

I am very interested in both your post and the website. Please give me the address for the United Methodist website.

Being new, I’m trying to get in step with the language here. I wondered if I should refer to the Catholic Eucharist; however, someone indicated that Eucharist was only a Catholic term. Your post tells me differently.

Being an old granny, I have this gut feeling that something is off base but can’t remember why. The word symbolic was used so much that I didn’t want to question it. Could Memorial be the word I’m looking for?

My experience of edification in a Protestant service is one that can inspire all churches.

This was a Lutheran Church; however, I’m not sure which synod it was. As you know, Protestant churches do not have kneelers. The woman two rows ahead of me had come back from communion and was kneeling sideways on the floor. She was about paraell with the seat so she leaned on it, folding her arms in prayer.

After the service, I told her how wonderful it was to see her kneeling. I don’t remember her exact words but I do remember her smile as she said that she was giving honor and respect to Our Lord. Apparently, this was the tradition when she was young.

Some years ago, I ministered to Protestants in the local hospital. I listened to their desire to have communion services more often in their church. I always relayed this desire to the proper pastor. I also mentioned it to pastors of other denominations. Because the desire to have a closer relationship with Our Savior is not limited to just one denomination.

Since you mentioned that the Methodist website refers to having the Eucharist on a more regular basis, I am relaying the desire of sincere people to have a communion service more often.

Blessings,
grannymh
Thanks for that. Yes, I was a “kneeler” as well growing up. Everytime, we walked down to the aisle and went into the pews, we “genuflected” (?) and bowed to show reverence to “the presence of Christ” at the altar. So I would like all to take note. Pentecostals practically never even sit - most of the time moving and standing. They hold their hands up to feel “the presence of the Lord”. Being a conservative, I was not comfortable, but when I did this it was like their was electrcity in the air. Now I put thse into quotes, but at least in these services, the actual presence of Christ" was acknowledged as well. I will do some research today 🙂
 
Once again, and know I harp on this a lot, but please read your history, especially the early church fathers and how the apostles passed the priesthood down to and through them.
Protestant by definition means “protest”. The Church was in turmoil over something we Americans don’t have-- the Church and Politics were thoroughly mixed in Christian Europe.
The corruption (by men’s lust for power and money) was trying to be “reformed” by Martin Luther. He kept what he thought was true, but in breaking from the Roman Church, he broke the line and began a splintering process that still continues today.
The “mainline” Protestant churches, such as Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, kept much of the Catholic trappings, like a hierarchy (“bishops”), stained glass windows, architecture, a pulpit, --art and music, which I think connect us to God in a wonderful way–etc.
The groups that splintered from them, such as Puritans, Congregational, Quakers, etc wanted to get rid of all the “trappings that stunk of Rome” and made churches that were plain to the point of being baren. They kept a steeple, but Quakers have no ministers, some have no music or art at all.
Further splintering in America led to what we have now, megachurches with One Minister (no hierarchy) no one to oversee what any sub-minister is doing, and people so hungry for Jesus that they wave their hands in the air trying to locate his Spirirt, like satelite dishes aiming for a signal.
They don’t believe in the Pope, but they start their own churches and consequently each has a Pope, of sorts.
MY POINT is that some churches have a watered down version of Catholcism that can be traced back to these splits over dogma, faith, liturgical rituals, rites, prayers, and mostly Tradition, which was when they threw out the baby with the bathwater, because we Catholics have a Sacred Tradition that dates back to the Jews, and Jesus was a Jew.
We have both Scripture and Tradition through which the Holy Spirit guides us.
Removing tradition, and “rituals” is not a good idea. As humans, we connect with one another through tradition and we like rituals in the sense that we know what will happen next. We generally prefer order over chaos. ( My Protestant friend who complained about our rituals had a “traditional wedding”. I just looked at her sideways and said, “That sounds like a tradition and a ritual”. She asked for “Here Comes the Bride” and I sadly informed her that the song is from the opera Lohengrin and was based on a pagan wedding.)
The splinters of splinters have preaching as the main focus of their services. The problem with that is the preacher gets all the glory, and disagreements, ego problems and so forth crop up.
As for corruption, I think televangelists who can reach many people, easily fall into corruption through the same old things, Money and Power.
Historically, of course, we have the Counter Reformation, when Rome answered Luther et al, and saints, such as St Francis deSales who did extensive “pamphleting” and thus brought many Presbyterians back into the fold.
CHRIST IS LITERALLY, not symbolically, PRESENT in our churches. Our liturgy keeps us orderly. We don’t shout Amen or start speaking in tongues when moved to do so. CHRIST IS STILL PHYSICALLY PRESENT on earth, as His Father sent him.
When a Protestant corners me and asks “Have you taken Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior?” I aswer “Yes! In His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, through the Eucharist. You can’t get more personal than that!”
I again will refer you to some books which may help. A Concise History of the Catholic Church by Thomas Bokenkotter is a good place to start for history.
Hilaire Belloc’s series on Church History is excellent.
No Price Too High, by Deacon Alex Jones is a wonderful testimony of a man searching and learning and bringing his congregation into the Catholic Church, and what a struggle he had!
Scott Hahn’s testimony Rome Sweet Home is truly ‘sweet’, but his deep faith and intellect, his intense suffering along with his wife, Kimberly, is absolutely one of the best books on my list.
In fact, I would recommend the latter two first before you delve into the deeper histories.
God bless you on your Faith Journeys! God bless all of us as we become closer to Him, through his Son and the Holy Spirit.
 
The Father granted Jesus Christ, His divine Son, all power and authority; and Jesus Christ granted all this Paternal power and authority to Peter and the Apostles. What is bound on Earth is bound in Heaven. What is loosed on Earth is loosed in Heaven, including the forgiveness of sins and the granting of indulgences, the loosening of temporal punishment. Usurpers may claim to wield this divinely-delegated power and authority, teaching and disciplining, binding and loosing. It is about as valid as a spectator in the stands claiming to make an out for catching a homerun fly ball. No Peter, no Church. Jesus delegated it, I obey Him and that settles it.
 
The Father granted Jesus Christ, His divine Son, all power and authority; and Jesus Christ granted all this Paternal power and authority to Peter and the Apostles. What is bound on Earth is bound in Heaven. What is loosed on Earth is loosed in Heaven, including the forgiveness of sins and the granting of indulgences, the loosening of temporal punishment. Usurpers may claim to wield this divinely-delegated power and authority, teaching and disciplining, binding and loosing. It is about as valid as a spectator in the stands claiming to make an out for catching a homerun fly ball. No Peter, no Church. Jesus delegated it, I obey Him and that settles it.
Well stated, and not nearly as verbose as I tend to be!
Thank you.
 
Once again, and know I harp on this a lot, but please read your history, especially the early church fathers and how the apostles passed the priesthood down to and through them.
Protestant by definition means “protest”. The Church was in turmoil over something we Americans don’t have-- the Church and Politics were thoroughly mixed in Christian Europe.
The corruption (by men’s lust for power and money) was trying to be “reformed” by Martin Luther. He kept what he thought was true, but in breaking from the Roman Church, he broke the line and began a splintering process that still continues today.
The “mainline” Protestant churches, such as Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, kept much of the Catholic trappings, like a hierarchy (“bishops”), stained glass windows, architecture, a pulpit, --art and music, which I think connect us to God in a wonderful way–etc.
The groups that splintered from them, such as Puritans, Congregational, Quakers, etc wanted to get rid of all the “trappings that stunk of Rome” and made churches that were plain to the point of being baren. They kept a steeple, but Quakers have no ministers, some have no music or art at all.
Further splintering in America led to what we have now, megachurches with One Minister (no hierarchy) no one to oversee what any sub-minister is doing, and people so hungry for Jesus that they wave their hands in the air trying to locate his Spirirt, like satelite dishes aiming for a signal.
They don’t believe in the Pope, but they start their own churches and consequently each has a Pope, of sorts.
MY POINT is that some churches have a watered down version of Catholcism that can be traced back to these splits over dogma, faith, liturgical rituals, rites, prayers, and mostly Tradition, which was when they threw out the baby with the bathwater, because we Catholics have a Sacred Tradition that dates back to the Jews, and Jesus was a Jew.
We have both Scripture and Tradition through which the Holy Spirit guides us.
Removing tradition, and “rituals” is not a good idea. As humans, we connect with one another through tradition and we like rituals in the sense that we know what will happen next. We generally prefer order over chaos. ( My Protestant friend who complained about our rituals had a “traditional wedding”. I just looked at her sideways and said, “That sounds like a tradition and a ritual”. She asked for “Here Comes the Bride” and I sadly informed her that the song is from the opera Lohengrin and was based on a pagan wedding.)
The splinters of splinters have preaching as the main focus of their services. The problem with that is the preacher gets all the glory, and disagreements, ego problems and so forth crop up.
As for corruption, I think televangelists who can reach many people, easily fall into corruption through the same old things, Money and Power.
Historically, of course, we have the Counter Reformation, when Rome answered Luther et al, and saints, such as St Francis deSales who did extensive “pamphleting” and thus brought many Presbyterians back into the fold.
CHRIST IS LITERALLY, not symbolically, PRESENT in our churches. Our liturgy keeps us orderly. We don’t shout Amen or start speaking in tongues when moved to do so. CHRIST IS STILL PHYSICALLY PRESENT on earth, as His Father sent him.
When a Protestant corners me and asks “Have you taken Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior?” I aswer “Yes! In His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, through the Eucharist. You can’t get more personal than that!”
I again will refer you to some books which may help. A Concise History of the Catholic Church by Thomas Bokenkotter is a good place to start for history.
Hilaire Belloc’s series on Church History is excellent.
No Price Too High, by Deacon Alex Jones is a wonderful testimony of a man searching and learning and bringing his congregation into the Catholic Church, and what a struggle he had!
Scott Hahn’s testimony Rome Sweet Home is truly ‘sweet’, but his deep faith and intellect, his intense suffering along with his wife, Kimberly, is absolutely one of the best books on my list.
In fact, I would recommend the latter two first before you delve into the deeper histories.
God bless you on your Faith Journeys! God bless all of us as we become closer to Him, through his Son and the Holy Spirit.
The protestant mailine churches = the ones I have been a member of and attended for many mnay years - to include some very old and prestigious ones in Boston, do not say “symbolically”. This seems to be an urban catholic legend - even my wonderful catholic neighbors who are my sponsor for RCIA even say that.

Christ is as real and personal for you as he is for the pentecostal, baptist, and other deniminations that follow what the New Testament said about accepting Christas their personal savior. I do hope that they get beyond some of the things you mentioned and bring back some of the sacred traditions of the church.
 
Hi, brownjt,

I think we are off-track:
The protestant mailine churches = the ones I have been a member of and attended for many mnay years - to include some very old and prestigious ones in Boston, do not say “symbolically”.

Christ is as real and personal for you as he is for the pentecostal, baptist, and other deniminations that follow what the New Testament said about accepting Christas their personal savior.
So, here are two straight-forward questions:

1.) If ‘they’ do not say, ‘symbolically’ - just what do ‘they’ say?

2.) This thread is about the Eucharist - and do you acknowledge a real difference between the bread and wine BEFORE and Consecration and the Bread and Wine AFTER the Consecration?

The focus is not on Christ being our personal Savior - this is simply not the topic.

To the best of my knowledge, Pentecostals, Baptists, and other non-Catholic denominations see the Eucharist as some type of a ‘memorial’ or a ‘commeration’ of the Last Supper. Catholics acknowledge that AFTER the Consecration, Christ (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) is physically present under the appearance of common bread and wine.

This is the essence of the Catholic Belief in the Eurhcarist.

And…I am really looking forward to your responses…🙂

God bless,
 
Hi, brownjt,

I think we are off-track:

So, here are two straight-forward questions:

1.) If ‘they’ do not say, ‘symbolically’ - just what do ‘they’ say?

2.) This thread is about the Eucharist - and do you acknowledge a real difference between the bread and wine BEFORE and Consecration and the Bread and Wine AFTER the Consecration?

The focus is not on Christ being our personal Savior - this is simply not the topic.

To the best of my knowledge, Pentecostals, Baptists, and other non-Catholic denominations see the Eucharist as some type of a ‘memorial’ or a ‘commeration’ of the Last Supper. Catholics acknowledge that AFTER the Consecration, Christ (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) is physically present under the appearance of common bread and wine.

This is the essence of the Catholic Belief in the Eurhcarist.

And…I am really looking forward to your responses…🙂

God bless,
I do accept and believe in what you say about the consecration of the Bread and Wine and will appreciate it even more when we get to that section of the CCC during RCIA and when I can partake of it after my confirmation. 🙂

By the way, the reason I am attending RCIA is strengthened by what I am learning on these threads. I am not challenging just researching. I know what the Bible says: I think it is clear what Jesus meant in John 6 (?) about the Bread and Wine and Flesh and Blood. I received a lengthy reply from Teflon93 with an excerpt from the CCC - which i will read and “digest” - no pun intended 🙂

Here are some excerpts of what the Methodists say - they try to cut it both ways. …Unfortunately, the methodists only partake in their Holy Communion quarterly - why? because they did not have enough ordained priests to administer it in the frontier days! Also, in fact, they do stress the rememberance MORE than in their services, than what they describe below. It is a very nice decription of what the Holy Communion should mean to a Methodist, but it really not practiced this way - in just my experience with the Methodist Church. 🙂 They nothing about what happens to the Bread and Wine and when. notice.
(UMC Website)

"…As early as the Emmaus experience on the day of Resurrection, recorded in Luke 24:13-35, Christians recognized the **presence of Jesus Christ **in the breaking of bread. The traditional Jewish practice of taking bread, blessing and thanking God, and breaking and sharing the bread took on new meaning for them. When followers of Christ gathered in Jesus’ name, the breaking of bread and sharing of the cup was a means of remembering his life, death, and resurrection and of encountering the living Christ. They experienced afresh the presence of their risen Lord and received sustenance for their lives as disciples. As the church organized itself, this custom of Eucharist became the characteristic ritual of the community and the central act of its worship.

Over the centuries, various understandings and practices of Holy Communion have developed. Roman Catholicism teaches that the substance of bread and wine are changed (although not visibly) into the actual body and blood of Christ (sometimes called transubstantiation). **Protestant Reformers in the sixteenth century rejected this teaching but had diverse ideas among themselves. Lutherans maintain that Christ’s body and blood are **truly present in and with the elements of bread and wine **in the celebration **(sometimes erroneously called corporeal presence or consubstantiation). Ulrich Zwingli, a Swiss reformer, taught that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial or reminder of Christ’s sacrifice, an affirmation of faith, and a sign of Christian fellowship. Although his name may be unfamiliar, **Zwingli’s views are widely shared today, especially within evangelical churches. Denominations in the Reformed tradition, following John Calvin, maintain that although Christ’s body is in heaven, when Holy Communion is received with true faith, the power of the Holy Spirit nourishes those who partake. **The Church of England affirmed a somewhat similar view in its Catechism and Articles of Religion. These understandings (stated here very simplistically) suggest the range of ideas that were available to John and Charles Wesley and the early Methodists.

** Holy Communion is regarded by Protestants as a sacrament**. That is, it’s an act of worship ordained by Christ and is a means of grace. This does not mean that we become any more worthy of God’s grace by taking part in Communion. Rather, we open ourselves to the divine love that’s already there; we become more ready to receive that love and to respond to it.

But Communion is not a memorial service for a dead Jesus. It’s not a time to wallow in our own guilt. It’s a time to celebrate the Resurrection, to recognize and give thanks for the Risen Christ. The bread and wine represent the living presence of Christ among us—though we do not claim, as some denominations do, that they become Christ’s body and blood.

In Communion we also celebrate the final victory of Christ. We anticipate God’s coming reign, God’s future for this world and all creation. As Jesus said, “I tell you, I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Matthew 26:29).

In the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper, in the fellowship of Christian friends gathered at his table, we find the nourishment we need for the tasks of discipleship ahead…’’

Thanks for all of your knowledge and patience with me. God Bless You all.
 
Hi, brownjt,

Thank you for your response.

You certainly are right about being indecisive:
Here is what the Methodists say - they try to cut it both ways.

With all of the quotes given, John 6 is conspicuous by its absence. This to me is more telling as to intent.

Best wishes with your RCIA program.

Tom
 
The protestant mailine churches = the ones I have been a member of and attended for many mnay years - to include some very old and prestigious ones in Boston, do not say “symbolically”. This seems to be an urban catholic legend - even my wonderful catholic neighbors who are my sponsor for RCIA even say that.

Christ is as real and personal for you as he is for the pentecostal, baptist, and other deniminations that follow what the New Testament said about accepting Christas their personal savior. I do hope that they get beyond some of the things you mentioned and bring back some of the sacred traditions of the church.

As an add-on, thank you very much for this information. It has been a blessing and foundational for all of you to patiently explain and clarify the views of the church of whihc I aspire to become a member in.
 
Consubstantiation
tt=76
This heretical doctrine is an attempt to hold the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist without admitting Transubstantiation. According to it, the substance of Christ’s Body exists together with the substance of bread, and in like manner the substance of His Blood together with the substance of wine. Hence the word Consubstantiation. How the two substances can coexist is variously explained. The most subtle theory is that, just as God the Son took to Himself a human body without in any way destroying its substance, so does He in the Blessed Sacrament assume the nature of bread. Hence the theory is also called “Impanation”, a term founded on the analogy of Incarnation
:mad: :mad
Sorry, but that’s what the apostolic and Patristic Church believed. St. Irenaeus clearly said that after consecration there are two substances in both the consecrated bread and wine, in the bread- ordinary bread and the body of Christ, and in the wine- ordinary wine and the blood of Christ. If you have a problem with this, argue with St. Irenaeus.
 
Sorry, but that’s what the apostolic and Patristic Church believed. St. Irenaeus clearly said that after consecration there are two substances in both the consecrated bread and wine, in the bread- ordinary bread and the body of Christ, and in the wine- ordinary wine and the blood of Christ. If you have a problem with this, argue with St. Irenaeus.
Please give St. Irenaeus’ complete quote, i.e., besides the two phrases in the quotation marks.

Please give the source of quote, i.e., where you found it. Also the context and the quote’s date.

Thank you for your kindness in providing this information.

Blessings,
grannymh
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top