The Lord's Supper

[jrose90]

The idea of the bread and wine BEING Christ’s body and blood vs. the idea of the bread and wine REPRESENTING Christ’s blood and body. Which is true and what are the reasoning/references for each?
I’ve heard both, but never really understood how each way of belief came to be, which one was first, why someone changed it, etc. If someone could give me a history lesson along with a theology lesson, I would be incredibly thankful. And I would love for Catholics and non-Catholics alike to answer, so I can hear both sides of the story. If I’m correct, I think Catholicism teaches that it actually becomes the blood and body of Christ, right?
Thank you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The idea of the bread and wine BEING Christ’s body and blood vs. the idea of the bread and wine REPRESENTING Christ’s blood and body. Which is true and what are the reasoning/references for each?

I’ve heard both, but never really understood how each way of belief came to be, which one was first, why someone changed it, etc. If someone could give me a history lesson along with a theology lesson, I would be incredibly thankful. And I would love for Catholics and non-Catholics alike to answer, so I can hear both sides of the story. If I’m correct, I think Catholicism teaches that it actually becomes the blood and body of Christ, right?
Thank you

1. The Catholic Church is the only one (for 2000 years ) believe that the bread and wine transubstantiates into the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
2. Protestants come along some 1500 years later and change this Catholic doctrine with a symbolic emphasis on the bread and wine which remain, but co-habit with Jesus body, and blood. In other words the bread and wine consubstantiates with the body, blood of Jesus Christ.
3. Another non catholic christian new tradition believes that Jesus is only present in a symbolic “spiritual” way not a true presence of Jesus body and blood, but a spiritual presence in a cracker and grape juice, or other forms used to symbolize the Last supper.

Then comes the question of validity of the blessed sacrament and valid holy orders which confects the bread and wine into the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

[davec66]

1. The Catholic Church is the only one (for 2000 years ) believe that the bread and wine transubstantiates into the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
2. Protestants come along some 1500 years later and change this Catholic doctrine with a symbolic emphasis on the bread and wine which remain, but co-habit with Jesus body, and blood. In other words the bread and wine consubstantiates with the body, blood of Jesus Christ.
3. Another non catholic christian new tradition believes that Jesus is only present in a symbolic “spiritual” way not a true presence of Jesus body and blood, but a spiritual presence in a cracker and grape juice, or other forms used to symbolize the Last supper.

Then comes the question of validity of the blessed sacrament and valid holy orders which confects the bread and wine into the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

1. Who says the Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years? Only Catholics. I say Christ establish His church 2000 years ago and it was not the Catholic Church. The Church came up with this transubstantiation because of power. If communion becomes the physical body and blood of Christ just think how powerful that is. If it is symbolic and just bread and juice. It looses all it power. It is all about the Church having power over people.
2. The Reformation movement started to reform the church because of corruption and false teachings so, the change in communion comes out of that need to reform a false teaching.

1. I believe the non Catholic Christian tradition is not new but, the way it was in the 1st century church. It represents the body and blood of Christ. You take it to remember that Christ died once for all our sins. Also, it is an act to proclaim that death and resurrection.

Lastly, here is a part of an article I found in this regard

The Bible tells us:

"By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;
12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God,
13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet.
14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified, (Heb. 10:10-14).

In the Roman Catholic Mass, there is a sacrifice of Christ. In other words, in the ceremonies, is a reenactment and an actual sacrifice of Christ per the Mass. This is an obvious contradiction to the Scriptures which teach us that Christ died once for all and that by the one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. It does not state in the Word of God that the sacrifice of Christ must be repeated in order to forgive us of our sins or somehow help us to maintain our salvation by the infusion of grace. The fact that Christ died once and the sacrifice occurred once, is proof that it is sufficient to cleanse us of our sins. We connect with the sacrifice of Christ by faith, not by a ceremony.

You can read the whole article here

carm.org/transubstantiation

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

1. The Reformation movement started to reform the church because of corruption and false teachings so, the change in communion comes out of that need to reform a false teaching.

It is interesting that the “movement” which is given the credit for starting the reformation did not list the Real Presence as on of those “false teachings” that you referred to. How much reading on the Lutheran (and Luther’s) position of the Lord’s Supper have you done?

bookofconcord.org/

Happy reading

1. I believe the non Catholic Christian tradition is not new but, the way it was in the 1st century church. It represents the body and blood of Christ. You take it to remember that Christ died once for all our sins. Also, it is an act to proclaim that death and resurrection.

Hmmm you would have your self an interesting theory if only there was a such thing as the “non-Catholic tradition” on communion. There are “traditions” within non-Catholic churches ranging from symbolic to (depending on the Anglican) Transubstantiation.

Lastly, here is a part of an article I found in this regard

The Bible tells us:

Amen to what the Bible says!

In the Roman Catholic Mass, there is a sacrifice of Christ. In other words, in the ceremonies, is a reenactment and an actual sacrifice of Christ per the Mass.

This is incorrect. Please do some reading if you wish to understand the Catholic position.

This is an obvious contradiction to the Scriptures which teach us that Christ died once for all and that by the one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

It would be if what you presented was the Catholic teaching on the matter. Since it was not, I am not concerned with any “contradiction” you think there is.

You can read the whole article here

carm.org/transubstantiation

No thanks.

God bless you

 

[JonNC]

It is interesting that the “movement” which is given the credit for starting the reformation did not list the Real Presence as on of those “false teachings” that you referred to. How much reading on the Lutheran (and Luther’s) position of the Lord’s Supper have you done?

bookofconcord.org/

Thanks, R_C.

Here you are, Dave.

we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh.

Jon

EDIT: Here is the link: bookofconcord.org/defense_8_holysupper.php

 

[Anna_Scott]

1. Who says the Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years? Only Catholics. I say Christ establish His church 2000 years ago and it was not the Catholic Church. The Church came up with this transubstantiation because of power. If communion becomes the physical body and blood of Christ just think how powerful that is. If it is symbolic and just bread and juice. It looses all it power. It is all about the Church having power over people.
2. The Reformation movement started to reform the church because of corruption and false teachings so, the change in communion comes out of that need to reform a false teaching.

1. I believe the non Catholic Christian tradition is not new but, the way it was in the 1st century church. It represents the body and blood of Christ. You take it to remember that Christ died once for all our sins. Also, it is an act to proclaim that death and resurrection.

Lastly, here is a part of an article I found in this regard

The Bible tells us:

"By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;
12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God,
13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet.
14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified, (Heb. 10:10-14).

In the Roman Catholic Mass, there is a sacrifice of Christ. In other words, in the ceremonies, is a reenactment and an actual sacrifice of Christ per the Mass. This is an obvious contradiction to the Scriptures which teach us that Christ died once for all and that by the one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. It does not state in the Word of God that the sacrifice of Christ must be repeated in order to forgive us of our sins or somehow help us to maintain our salvation by the infusion of grace. The fact that Christ died once and the sacrifice occurred once, is proof that it is sufficient to cleanse us of our sins. We connect with the sacrifice of Christ by faith, not by a ceremony.

You can read the whole article here

carm.org/transubstantiation

davec66,

I just asked people to cut you some slack on another thread, since you are new to the forums; and then I find you posting links to anti-Catholic websites. You have many obvious false assumptions about Catholicism. At least consider what Catholics tell you about their faith.

 

[ZDHayden]

1. Who says the Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years? Only Catholics.
   …
   You can read the whole article here

carm.org/transubstantiation

Also secular history says that the Catholic Church was the ONLY form of Christianity until Martin Luther’s reformation.

As for CARM . . . I wouldn’t touch that site with a 10 ft. pole and a gallon of hand sanitizer, at least, not without wearing a gas mask. I say this from experience.

There are more references to the bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Christ in the New Testament than there are references to the Trinity.

There are also mentions of the Eucharist as it is taught by the Catholic Church back in 155 AD: “For not as common food or drink do we receive these, but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation” – Justin Martyr. (Full quotation at youtube.com/watch?v=2J_bamuM_4k&playnext=1&videos=LKbBS9ZsC5o)