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

[Rightlydivide]

grannymh
You can ask me questions at anytime, if they take some time to answer throughly, I may take awhile to respond but I will check back some.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Dear Pwrlftr,

You are on target.
The Eucharist is why I remain a Catholic even though I have had some serious crisis of faith–including a recent one that brought me close to denying the very existence of God.

Please find chapel or church that has Eucharistic Adoration. Knowing Jesus as you do, there’s no need to explain why sitting before Our Merciful and Loving Lord is like being in heaven.

Actually, some have poetically described being at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is like being in heaven and heaven is continued when the Eucharist is adored outside of Holy Mass.

Keep your focus on Christ because He is longing to be with you in Holy Communion.

Blessings,
grannymh

I was wondering if anyone was paying attention. I have a little over 1,000 posts as an anti-catholic (not the bad kind, just didn’t agree w/ everything) and got all kinds of attention…post that I am converting and nothing but crickets.

Actually, one of the posters here invited me to eucahristic adoration and I took him up on it. He of course lived about 7 states away but I went to my local parish. Met a priest, decided to convert, argued my way out of it, decided to convert, argued my way out of it, decided to convert, moved to Floriday, argued my way out of it, met another priest at eucharistic adoration, and have finally decided to convert.

I think all in all it’s been about a 10 year process.

 

[RobbyS]

1. The Church honors someone who realized it wasn’t symbolic.The Chruch soean’t claim that this guy died for nothing. Hmmmmm…
2. There are those who think Christ is present only during the church service. So why go through the effort to bring it to the elderly if Christ is no longer there?

To the evangelicals, the Lord’s Supper is an occasion for fellowship, so the sharing would be a symbol of membership in the body. And I must say that those evangelicals who share Calvin’s meaning of the Eucharist are not far removed from us.
At least that is what I gather from reading his “Institutes.” But most, I think, believe pretty much as Zwingliu did, that the bread is only a representation. Zwingli, however, as I see him, was very much the rationalist, or nominalist. Which is ironical because rationalism does not mix readily with evangelicalism, which seems to bend toward mysticism.

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh-

On to substance:

You would not argue surely that the sacrifice being prepared at the Last Supper was Christ’s.

The sacrifice was not completed until his death on the Cross, but it began in that room, with Christ and the Apostles.

When we take part in the Mass, we are in that room, just as we are at the foot of the Cross.

Dear Teflon93

Many people prepare for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by meditating, saying the Rosary, or praying from their hearts. In fact, the fifth Luminous Mystery of the Rosary is the Institution of the Eucharist–a most appropriate preparation for Holy Mass.

Sometimes when I listen to your words, it sounds like a meditation in which one places oneself at the scene. However, this is not a topic to discuss in this thread.

Regarding preparation for and completetion of “The Sacrifice” you mentioned above, I suggest rereading texts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, quoted in previous posts. I am also sure that there are more Catechism references than these.

I also suggest reading Bishop Doran’s pastoral letter on the Most Holy Eucharist. www.rockforddiocese.org/bishop or
www.rockforddiocese.org click Meet Bishop Doran and click his pastoral letter.

Please note: I do intend to keep your posts in mind as I further study the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Thank you for offering your personal insights.

Nonetheless, At this point, I have nothing further to offer.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[grannymh]

grannymh
You can ask me questions at anytime, if they take some time to answer throughly, I may take awhile to respond but I will check back some.

Glad to hear from you,

Frist, I’d like to know how I should ask questions. Do I ask by asking how Fundamentalists do such and such? Do I ask by saying: How do you do such and such?

I just don’t want to sound like I am attacking the beliefs of another person. I am looking for both information and a way of operating on your turf.

Solution: I will just give you the questions and you can decide how to answer them – from the Fundamentalist’s position or from your own experience.

1. All I know is that Fundamentalists read the Bible literly. But lots of religious people do that. Could you expand a little on the “literal” policy? For example, do you look to any commentaries for help? When there is discussion about a passage, how is it decided? Or does it need to be decided?

2.Is context of a particular passage considered?

1. Is the geography or location of places mentioned considered in relationship to the history of the Jewish people?
2. Does a Fundamentalist connect the dots? What I mean – is there a back and forth between the Hebrew Scriptures and the gospels and epistles? (Since I’m older than dirt, I still use “epistles”. What do you call Acts, Paul etc.?)

An example is that Christ often quotes Isaiah. Is why He chose that particular book considered?

From my own personal point of veiw, the connected dots which refer to the topic of this thread is the relationship between Exodus and John, Chapter 6 as well as the description of the Last Supper in the other three Gospels.

While there are many ways to look at John Chapter 6, one can look at it as Jesus making sure that the Jews realized that He is the [new] Lamb which will be sacrificed to free everyone from their sins, i.e., salvation. Just as the Lamb was part of the process to free the Jews from Egypt.

1. Some Catholic scholars use the term typology. I am still learning about this. I think it means that the Hebrew Scriptures point or direct us to what will happen in the New Testament and the New Testament expains the Hebrew Scriptures. Note: This does not apply to every book and every passage. Eventually, I will find the right definition…

What I am asking, in relation to the above, is do Fundamentalists have any kind of a “system” or “method” for understanding both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament as a unit?

1. There has been discussion about a meal as part of the symbol concept in this thread. What I want to know is what do you call your meal? For example, some religions use Worship Service, Liturgy, etc.
2. It seems that a lot of the religions have an outline for their services. I would like to understand the Fundamentalist outline.
3. You mentioned that you use Paul as your guide. Good choice! I’m guessing that it is 1 Corinthians chapter 11. I would prefer having the actual passages, and any additional ones.
4. Finally, for now, how do you know that Jesus is truly God with Divine power? The reason I ask is that the early Christian Church had to decide if Jesus was truly God.

I’m pretty sure you believe in the Divinity of Christ. However, when I was young, some people were considering Jesus as the greatest prophet among prophets and not necessarily Divine.

You will problay take these questions in sections…

Before I close, I do have a bit of bible scholar humor.
I learned the gospels by listening to them in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I learned the Acts and Paul the same way. It was a lot harder for me, as a child, to follow what was happening in the Hebrew Scriptures. This means that I never did learn chapter and verse.

Some years ago, there was a revival so to speak of reading Scripture. My friends were adapt at remembering where stuff was located.

A couple of us figured that some people were quoting chapter and verse as a “show.” My friend suggested that if I wasn’t sure where some important passage came from, I should say with confidence that it was in 3 Corinthians

When your eyes get crossed from reading all this, focus on Christ.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[Rightlydivide]

1. All I know is that Fundamentalists read the Bible literly. But lots of religious people do that. Could you expand a little on the “literal” policy? For example, do you look to any commentaries for help? When there is discussion about a passage, how is it decided? Or does it need to be decided?

 

[grannymh]

grannymh;4466864:

I am not sure whether I should say hello or good evening to you Rightlydivide.

In any case, thank you. This time you’ve given me some homework. There are some unfamiliar words etc.
First, I’m going to do a little research and thinking and then we can discuss these words.

My agenda is to get to a point where we can discuss the thread’s topic reasonably. This is what I consider is the purpose of these forums. Can you tell that anything regarding the Body and Blood of Christ intrigues me?

Your answers to questions 1, 2, 3, puts us on the same ground.
In my Faith, there are some who are so literal they become limited. Maybe they are afraid of complicated stuff or maybe they don’t want to make the effort to learn. I am not of this group of people. However, I don’t make judgements because I don’t know what is inside these people and what their relationship to God is. They could be doing the best they can, given their circumstances, and that is what Our Lord wants.

Questions 4 and 5 – I need to look up Hermeneutics. I’ve seen the word in some of my “Catholic” readings but never took the time to look it up.

I have listened to some of the EWTN programs featuring Scott Hahn. He is the one who introduced me to “connecting the dots”. I’m not sure I would be interested in using typology to prove something. Rather, I would like to use it as a means to add additional meaning to a Bible concept. Food for thought…especially concerning the topic of this thread.

[Rereading the above, I discovered the pun regarding “food”. What fun!]

Also I believe you have used the word presuppositions in at least one of the previous posts. As I read your answers above, I think I am getting a better grasp why previous posts on this thread went astray–which bothered me. It has to do with different presuppositions. Am I right?

Questions 6, 7 and 8. A couple of questions for you. Where does the Lord’s Supper come in your outline? And what passages, chapter and verse, do you recommend for my reading in regard to my interest in your “meal” part,i.e., the Lord’s Supper?

Guess what? I ran across the description “The Lord’s Supper”
in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

Question 9. I thank God for your conversion experience. Praise God forever!

Do you have any questions for me?

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[pneuma07]

I have spent about 10 years thinking about converting and just recently decided to convert. Just recently as in a week or two ago. I am doing one on one classes w/ the parish priest and will be accepted in the church at easter.

One of the strongest, at least in my opinions, arguements the church has is for the eucharist or maybe more precisely, the real presence. In fact, I suppose that is the primary reason I decided to convert.

Hi Pwrlftr !

Thanks for sharing, and also for sharing just in this thread on Eucharist !
Welcome home ! :grouphug:

 

[Bastoune]

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.

Ah then that settles it. Must be true because the infallible fundy, member one of 30,000 other sects which contradict each other, says it’s so.

Actually, even OLDER copies of Ignatius’ writings were discovered and authenticated (dating back to the mid-2nd Century, less than 30 years after he died if I am not mistaken.)

Ignatius’s 7 letters were written on his way to being martyred and have been studied and taught by Church scholars since the early second century (A.D. 107) when they were first written.

If Ignatius were an “early heretic” I am surprised that no one spoke out against him. This routinely occurred during the Church. Introducing a “new doctrine” as did the Arians in the 4th Century, came under heavy attack by the Church – necessitating the Council of Nicaea to deal with the heresy.

And if Ignatius were SO misguided (a man who knew Peter and John) then so much for Christ’s promise to lead the Church into “all truth” and preserve her until the end of the world. He couldn’t even make it last one generation!

Could you provide some evidence that the Eucharist was only “symbolic” – i.e., NOT the true Body and Blood of Christ, as believed by anyone in the Church? (I have had people try to show me quotes by Augustine – since they think that when Augustine mentions “bread and wine” as “symbolon” in Greek, he meant that the Eucharist was symbolic… it turns out that Protestants cut and paste to suit their own agendas and if they actually read or had access to the full writing would discover their own self-deception).

You could read Eusebius of Caesarea’s “History of the Church” for more information. A lot of the documents and letters quoted therein were later destroyed by enemies of the church but preserved in content in this work, when the writings were readily accessible.

Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp all new Apostles. Justin Martyr learned (and converted) through those who had known Peter and Paul. There is more evidence of this than the existence of a man named Christopher Columbus.

 

[Bastoune]

grannymh;4466864:

Great question. Apologists use different methods. I believe that Jesus was truly God based upon my experiences. I was an atheist six years ago. I had a conversion experience, I read the Bible. I believed what it taught and I do believe the Bible teaches that. I was never logically convinced of this teaching. I accepted it once my life completely changed.

When you see questions that you want elaboration on, and I understand that, I will do them one at a time.

The Muslims believe in the Koran and the Mormons in the Book of Mormon, Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Watchtower… basing your beliefs on “my experiences” sounds very shaky and not convincing. Although you cannot exclude your experiences to take you somewhere, people of other faiths claim the same “burning bosom” “certainty” that you do.

Since the Bible was exclusively preserved, passed on and canonized by the Catholic Church, you can never be sure that the Church didn’t just doctor up things to fit her own agenda, as the anti-Catholics assert. One thing is for sure: she wouldn’t teach anything contrary to Scripture. She chose what went into it to begin with.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/2CANONS.htm

 

[jackthelutheran]

I that might be a misrepresentation of consubstantiation. Luther thought that the body and blood of Jesus Christ were physically present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. He was operating under the philosophical assumptions of Augustine, who was more of a Platonist. The dogma of Transubstantiation was formulated under influence from Aristotelian philosophy, like many of the medieval scholastics were (Aquinas etc.). When the Fourth Lateran Council made a distinction between essence and substance, Luther decided to make things less complicated by declaring that the visible vessel of the body and blood of Christ was physically present because it looks that way. But he also asserted that Jesus was physically present because he said so. Besides, being Lutheran, my pastor will bring deacons to consume the leftovers of the wine, and puts the bread into the soil outside the church. It’s not that we’re irreverent about it.

Jack the Lutheran

 

[Teflon93]

Besides, being Lutheran, my pastor will bring deacons to consume the leftovers of the wine, and puts the bread into the soil outside the church. It’s not that we’re irreverent about it.

Jack the Lutheran

And why are the leftovers consumed and the bread inhumed?

Why not throw them in the trash, as RightlyDivide’s and many other communities do?

 

[Bastoune]

The dogma of Transubstantiation was formulated under influence from Aristotelian philosophy, like many of the medieval scholastics were (Aquinas etc.).

Actually, that’s not so:

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3

First of all the term “transubstantiation” is a term used to explain a mystery already clearly defined as dogma in Catholic theology: that the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

“Transubstantiation” means "change of substance. But the “how” of something remains a mystery as the Sacraments are rightly referred to (especially in Eastern Catholic theology) as “mysteries.”

It’s interesting to note that St. Francois de Sales criticized both Luther and Calvin’s erroneous views on the Eucharist because both of them (who didn’t agree with each other – even though they both thought the Scriptures were “so clear”) were actually basing their theologies on the LATIN VULGATE translation and not the original Greek, to which the Catholic Church, and the evangelist de Sales, appealed. (I can’t find the quote but it’s in his “CATHOLIC CONTROVERSY” work.)

Read also, “THE CRISIS OF AUTHORITY IN THE REFORMATION” by Kenneth J. Howell, Ph.D, which you can find if you scroll down in this pdf:

chnetwork.org/journals/authority.pdf

That article discusses how the Eucharist made it impossible for Protestants to ever unite about anything.

 

[artist3189]

A Bible can remain. It does not go stale.
A cross can remain.
What are you going to do with leftover bread? We do not believe the “accidents” change into something it is not. So whats it going to be frig, trash, or sewer?

Then, as a Bible believing Christan, and I take you as an honest one, please explain what St. Paul means here, exactly. Is this an interpolation. I have a feeling it reads fairly similar in the book that you clutch to your breast every night.

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. *Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” *26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, *you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. *27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12
28
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.
30
That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.
31
If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment;
32
but since we are judged by (the) Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

A mere symbol can do all that? You are misguided, and not being honest in your heart. You know perfectly well what is going on here. Either the book that you hold so dear is lying to you, or you’re refusing to allow the truth to unfold inside you. Maybe that is why you spend so much time on this site. Is it to refute Catholics, or to be convinced? What does St Paul think, his understanding is that of the early church. Regardless of how you try to spin the early writings, the evidence is overwhelming. They understood that the Eucharist WAS the real presence. Your denial underscores your claim as a Bible Christian, as a false one. You cant pick and choose, or can you?

 

[brownjt]

Rightlydivide;4451440:

I’ll tell you what they do, having seen them do it in the Pentecostal Church of God I used to attend, and in the Presbyterian community I used to attend.

They throw them in the garbage.

That is an act which has symbolism too.

And please show me in the Bible while you’re at it where Christ bids us commemorate him with grape juice, which did not exist until Welch perfected pasteurization in the 1830s.

Give me a break - southern baptists and methodists do not bring alcohol into church - neither do Mormons. You cannot get to heaven through bread and wine alone - UNTIL you have spritiually acceptd Christ as the living bread and wine - through the Holy Spirit…

 

[Teflon93]

Teflon93;4451545:

Give me a break - southern baptists and methodists do not bring alcohol into church - neither do Mormons. You cannot get to heaven through bread and wine alone - UNTIL you have spritiually acceptd Christ as the living bread and wine - through the Holy Spirit…

And what is the Scriptural reference fo why Southern Baptists, Methodists, and Mormons do not bring alcohol into their services?

Christ’s commands may be found in John 6 among other places.

 

[brownjt]

Then, as a Bible believing Christan, and I take you as an honest one, please explain what St. Paul means here, exactly. Is this an interpolation. I have a feeling it reads fairly similar in the book that you clutch to your breast every night.

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. *Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” *26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, *you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. *27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12
28
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.
30
That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.
31
If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment;
32
but since we are judged by (the) Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

A mere symbol can do all that? You are misguided, and not being honest in your heart. You know perfectly well what is going on here. Either the book that you hold so dear is lying to you, or you’re refusing to allow the truth to unfold inside you. Maybe that is why you spend so much time on this site. Is it to refute Catholics, or to be convinced? What does St Paul think, his understanding is that of the early church. Regardless of how you try to spin the early writings, the evidence is overwhelming. They understood that the Eucharist WAS the real presence. Your denial underscores your claim as a Bible Christian, as a false one. You cant pick and choose, or can you?

His book is the Bible - the sacred scriptures are FIRST among equals when it compares to sacred traditions - ask the priest…Real Prescense as the eucharsit is one of the “Mysteries” . Many mainline denominations believe it is a real prescence - metaphysically and spiritually, though. No one actually knows. Jesus gave us His word before he left and provided us the Holy Spirit after he departed. All we interpret should be done with this in mind. All things Jesus taught in his parables and lessons were on several levels at once - not always literal - go look at his parables and see…The bottom-line is we must participate in the Eucharist (Lord’s Supper, etc) - as long we we do that come to a mood of discerning ourselves etc like Paul - it matters a whit what honest godly men honestly disagree about…

 

[brownjt]

brownjt;4470781:

And what is the Scriptural reference fo why Southern Baptists, Methodists, and Mormons do not bring alcohol into their services?

Christ’s commands may be found in John 6 among other places.

purely cultural - look at e previous entry.

 

[Teflon93]

Teflon93;4470824:

purely cultural - look at e previous entry.

You are correct, although it is difficult to find Southern Baptists in particular who will admit it.

Both Methodism and Fundamentalism arose within the temperance movement. Welch, the man who invented the pasteurization process which made grape juice sustainable, was a devout Methodist.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The Lords Supper being brought to a nursing home is done by many denominations and churches who believe it is symbolic
wordandway.org/article.php?ww_article_id=32

True, but he wasn’t using that quote to refute the churches who believe it is symbolic. He was using that quote only to refute those who believe consubstantiation, which teaches that there is a Real Presence but that the Body and Blood are present in, with, and under the bread and wine. In addition, consubstantiation maintains that the Body and Blood are not present after the service.

It is for that reason, I think, that it wouldn’t make sense to bring communion to nursing homes/hospitals if your denomination believes in consubstantiation. That would mean that those at church are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, while the people at the nursing home/hospital are only receiving bread and wine.

Of course, there could be ways out of this dilemma. For all I know, maybe there are Lutheran churches who bring communion to hospitals and such.

They would either have to acknowledge that what they’re bringing is only bread and wine, unlike at their service, or they could maintain that the Body and Blood don’t depart until all who intend to receive (even if they’re in a nursing home rather than the church) have done so.

Just some thoughts.