W
WatchfulPilgrim
Guest
I worded that wrong. I meant to ask, Can you prove, from the text, that the reason they stayed was b/c they believed His words literally?
The meaning of verse 57 of John 6 (Catholics & Protestants)
- Status
W
WatchfulPilgrim
Guest
So how did the church before this time get along without this doctrine? For over 1,000 years there may have been people who simply came to communion with faith in God and didn’t know a thing about whether or not the bread and wine are actually transformed and all the other details… Were they damned and had no way of knowing it? What was to come of these people? If not, then does it matter today what people believe about it? Isn’t it enough for people to approach the Lord’s Table with humility, faith and reverence?**. . . :coffeeread: . . .
Transubstantiation*****- Wikipedia***
Part of the series on Communion, also known as “The Eucharist”, “The Lord’s Supper”, “Divine Liturgy” or “Sacrament”
In Roman Catholic theology, transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) means the change, in the Eucharist, of the substance (what the thing is in itself - see “Roman Catholic theology of transubstantiation”, below) of wheat bread and grape wine into the substance of the **Body and Blood **(respectively)[1] of Jesus, while all that is accessible to the senses (the species or appearances) remains as before.[2][3][4]
Some Greek Orthodox Church confessions of faith use the term “transubstantiation” (metousiosis), but most Orthodox Christian traditions play down the term itself, and the notions of “substance” and “accidents”, while adhering to the holy mystery that bread and wine become the** body and blood of Christ** during a valid Divine Liturgy. Other terms such as “trans-elementation” (μεταστοιχείωσις metastoicheiosis) and “re-ordination” (μεταρρύθμισις metarrhythmisis) are more common among the Orthodox.
The earliest known use of the term “transubstantiation” to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ was by Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours (died 1133), in the eleventh century and by the end of the twelfth century the term was in widespread use.[5] In 1215, the Fourth Council of the Lateran spoke of the bread and wine as “transubstantiated” into the body and blood of Christ: "His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God’s power, into his body and blood".6] …
The Council of Trent in its thirteenth session ending October 11, 1551, defined transubstantiation as **“that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining **– which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation”.[9] This council officially approved use of the term “transubstantiation” to express the Catholic Church’s teaching on the subject of the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist,[10] with the aim of safeguarding Christ’s presence as a literal truth, while emphasizing the fact that there is no change in the empirical appearances of the bread and wine.[11] …
(end of Part 1). . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Blessed Lord Jesus+
. . . thank you Blessed Virgin Mary+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+
J
Jesus_123
Guest
:coffeeread: (Part 2 of Transubstantiation)
In Roman Catholic Theology
- Wikipedia
**“Substance” here means what something is in itself. **(For more on the philosophical concept, see Substance theory.) A hat’s shape is not the hat itself, nor is its colour, size, softness to the touch, nor anything else about it perceptible to the senses. The hat itself (the “substance”) has the shape, the color, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them.[13] While the appearances, which are referred to by the philosophical term accidents, are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not. …[14]
When at his Last Supper, Jesus said: “This is my body”,[17] what he held in his hands still had all the appearances of bread: these “accidents” remained unchanged. However, the Roman Catholic Church believes that, when Jesus made that declaration,[18] the underlying reality (the “substance”) of the bread was converted to that of his body. In other words, it actually was **his **body, while all the appearances open to the senses or to scientific investigation were still those of bread, exactly as before. The Catholic Church holds that the same change of the substance of the bread and of the wine occurs at the consecration of the Eucharist[19] when the words are spoken "This is my body … this is **my **blood." In Orthodox confessions, the change is said to take place during the Epiklesis.
Believing that Christ is risen from the dead and is alive, the Catholic Church holds that when the bread is changed into** his **body, not only his body is present, but **Christ **as a whole is present (i.e. body and blood, soul and divinity.) The same holds for the wine changed into his blood.[20] This belief goes beyond the doctrine of transubstantiation, which directly concerns only the transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.
In accordance with this belief that **Christ **is really, truly and substantially present under the remaining appearances of bread and wine, and continues to be present as long as those appearances remain, the Catholic Church preserves the consecrated elements, generally in a church tabernacle, for administering Holy Communion to the sick and dying, and also for the secondary, but still highly prized, purpose of adoring Christ present in the Eucharist. …
In the arguments which characterised the relationship between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism in the 16th century, the Council of Trent declared subject to the ecclesiastical penalty of anathema anyone who: “denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue” and anyone who “saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the **whole **substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood - the species only of the bread and wine remaining - which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation, let him be anathema.”[9]
Protestant denominations have not generally subscribed to belief in transubstantiation or consubstantiation.
As already stated, the Roman Catholic Church insists that the “accidents” that remain are real. In the sacrament these are the signs of the reality that they efficaciously signify.[23] And by definition sacraments are **“efficacious signs of grace, instituted by **Christ ****and entrusted to the Catholic Church, by which **divine life **is dispensed to us.”[24]
. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Dear Lord our Saviour+
. . . thank you Blessed Virgin Mary+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+
. . . thank You Dear Lord our Saviour+
. . . thank you Blessed Virgin Mary+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+
T
TimothyH
Guest
The doctrine of the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist was firmly established for many centirues prior. Anyone can look up the writings of the Early Church Fathers and other extrabiblical authors, not to prove that the doctrine was true, but to clearly see that it was believed by the earliest Christian communites. Justin Martyr wrote about it as early as 120AD.
For reference, see The First Apology of Jusin Martyr, CHAPTER LXVI – OF THE EUCHARIST at earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html. This is just one example of many writings which can be referenced.
Doctrines of the Catholic faith are not expressed defiinatively as dogma unitl they are challenged sufficiently so as to warrant them being made so. Several priests and religious had been arguing about the manner in which the change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ took place, how it actually happened and such. There were also direct challenges to the doctrine itself from some outside of the Church. This is why the doctrine was clearly explained in no uncertain terms by the Council of Trent.
But the belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist predates the council of Trent and goes back to the earliest Christian coummunities. If the doctrine itself is not provable, then the belief in the doctrine very early in Christianity is. That the doctrine was believed by early Christians far prior to the Council of Trent is fact.
-Tim-
A
AlwaysCurious
Guest
Actually all we need is to understand that the Early Church Fathers were in a much better position to understand and convey the truth of apostolic teaching than anyone else. When I find them essentially unified and emphatic about something (e.g. the Real Presence), I tend to give that more credence than the opinion of critics looking back from 2,000 years away.
So if the disciples understood Jesus to be speaking metaphorically, then either they were royally bad teachers when it came to their direct theological heirs, or else those same leaders nonsensically made up a doctrine that was a 180 degree turn-around from the truth. And then most of them went off to be martyred for what they had to know was a lie. Sorry, no dice.
You don’t have to believe the ECFs were infallible to benefit from their witness.
W
WatchfulPilgrim
Guest
I do see that the preponderance of ECF writings seem to support belief in the Real Presence, however, not all do, and some are up for interpretation. Augustine, for example, has written several things - some of which seem to support the RP and some of which seem to support a figurative understanding of John 6.
Call me stubborn for concentrating on the minority of writings that don’t seem to support today’s Catholic teaching, but I also realize that the writings of the ECF are not infallible, and I do think it is important to acknowledge that there was some diversity of opinion regarding it.
T
TimothyH
Guest
I would challenge anyone to produce an early Christian writing which states, or even alludes to communion not containing the real presence of Jesus.
There is a critical mass (no pun intended
) of Early Christian writings in favor of belief in the real presence while there is an absence of anything to substantiate (pun intended 
) belief in a purely spiritual or symbolic communion among the earlist Christain communites.In the face of overwhelming consensus among the earlist Christan pastors, it is absurd to conclude that every single one of them misunderstood what Jesus was saying, misunderstood what those who had heard what Jesus had said, or that they misinterpreted the Bible while not one of them got it right.
It amazes me how some are willing to listen to modern pastors yet unwilling to listen to pastors from the past.
-Tim-
T
Tomster
Guest
It is obvious from the text that they believed His words literally because the other disciples who did not believe His words literally walked away.
Verses 54 through 59, and there is no reason to believe that our Lord was making a metaphorical statement here, is offering the disciples His Life. Quite an attractive proposal for the Apostles don’t you think?
In verses 54 and 55 our Lord threatens the loss of eternal life to those who do not eat His flesh and drink His blood. It is a principle of common sense that laws entailing severe sanctions should be expressed in clear language. Otherwise violators would hardly be culpable. Our Lord in these verses lays down a law having dire sanctions and so wished to be understood literally.
In verses 54, 55, 57 Christ distinguishes between eating His flesh and drinking His blood. It is difficult to find a reason for this distinction if He merely wished to inculcate the necessity of faith in Himself.
Our Savior compares (v 59) the eating of His flesh with the eating of manna by the forefathers of the Jews. The consuming of manna, however, was a literal eating of that substance. Hence, according to the normal way of using language, we would expect the eating of Christ’s flesh to be a literal, not metaphorical eating.
Finally, Christ was already demanding faith in Himself. His promise, therefore, to give men His body and blood, cannot refer to this faith, since it is to be verified in the future only.
T
Tomster
Guest
There are those who enjoy having their ears tickled. The idea of being your own particular interpreter of Scripture, and history for that matter, has sadly blinded many people over the past five hundred years.I would challenge anyone to produce an early Christian writing which states, or even alludes to communion not containing the real presence of Jesus.
There is a critical mass (no pun intended
In the face of overwhelming consensus among the earlist Christan pastors, it is absurd to conclude that every single one of them misunderstood what Jesus was saying, misunderstood what those who had heard what Jesus had said, or that they misinterpreted the Bible while not one of them got it right.
It amazes me how some are willing to listen to modern pastors yet unwilling to listen to pastors from the past.
-Tim-
T
Tomster
Guest
Exactly!
A whole course could be taught regarding the ECFs and the Most Blessed Sacrament.
Such notable ECFs and Church documents are:
Ambrose of Milan
Ambrosiater
Aphraates the Persian Sage
Apollos
Apostolic Constitutions
Athanasius
Augustine
and straight through to:
Serapion
Tertullian
Theodore of Mopsuestia
Theodoret of Cyrus
M
Muze
Guest
Unless, of course, it didn’t really come up until after the apostles were gone… And the first ones to deal with it got it wrong…
And that became tradition…
True. But we also need to treat them as we would any fallible source.
T
Tomster
Guest
The same way Rome considered the ECFs as fallible men. Then Rome, after review, gave its O.K. to their teachings.
Sacred Tradition - It’s a beautiful thing!
M
Muze
Guest
It’s still fallible.
W
WatchfulPilgrim
Guest
Not so obvious really. But I’ve already explained that I see the possibility that those who left were carnal-minded, as Jesus points out by the fact that they were looking for Him b/c they had just been (literally) fed by Jesus.
He made the same distinction here:
The apostles could not have drawn an association between Jesus’ words and the bread and wine since this had not happened yet. Doubtful they clearly understood just what Jesus meant by these things. It is in reflecting back that these words make sense. Flesh could mean Jesus’ incarnation and blood His sacrifice - things that take faith to believe. So again I see this can be an issue of faith.
Jesus did not always use a “normal way of using language” - He often spoke in parables, and did not always explain the deeper meaning of His words (example: raising the temple in 3 days).
Jesus is showing them their carnal-mindedness. Furthermore, He is drawing a distinction between the OT manna and the more perfect “food” (Jesus) which the manna foreshadowed.
Agreed. See my example above about the Incarnation and His sacrifice. Also:
Jesus is God, come down from heaven (Incarnation) and giving life to the world (sacrifice). And as you said, not all of this has happened yet. So even the apostles are left wondering what exactly Jesus mean by all of this.
This is why I maintain that they stayed with Jesus b/c, although they did not fully understand the meaning of His words, they believed in Him fully and trusted that His words had a deep, spiritual meaning. Conversely, those who left did so b/c they were carnally-minded (with full bellies) and not spiritually minded (trusting that Jesus’ words had deep,spiritual meaning). They were still only thinking about how Jesus had provided for them physically (loaves and fishes), and weren’t followers of Jesus b/c of anything spiritual that He could provide them with.
T
Tomster
Guest
Just like your personal judgment against fellow Protestants who have gotten sola sciptura all wrong I suppose.
M
Muze
Guest
Might help if you knew what sola scriptura was.
E
ESMDHokie77
Guest
why is it that this isn’t the first time that I’ve heard that ‘only scripture’ doesn’t mean ‘only scripture’? What a poorly named doctrine!
T
Tomster
Guest
You’re saying that to a Catholic? Protestants can’t even figure out what it means. Puhleeese!
T
Tomster
Guest
Typical, so very typical.
Here is your dilemma Muze. A professed, fallible Protestant who is proclaiming what is fallible and what is infallible. A professed Protestant whose spiritual forefathers have infallibly (???) proclaimed him to be totally corrupt.
Tell us how this can be Muze.
T
Tomster
Guest
If I may add to your statement: “Fallible, man-made doctrine” if such a thing could exist. In order for something to be a true doctrine it must be infallible. Protestants themselves will deny that they have the power to declare anything infallible except of course for the Bible. And even then they couldn’t get it right when they, how shall we say, misplaced a few books.
- Status