Transubstantiation and John 6

[Faithdancer]

In John 6 Jesus initiates both the Eucharist- which is of course the Real Presence- and the New Covenant. "nuff said!

 

[janxharris]

Could anyone confirm that this still holds:

If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it as by a sign or figure, or force, let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, DS 1651)

Jan

 

[po18guy]

When we look at the beginning of John 6, we see that Jesus multiplied the loaves so that the throng could physically eat. Our Lord never used the words “symbolizes” or “represents.” He did not in Matthew 26, Mark 14, or Luke 22. Again, He did not reveal to Paul years later that it was merely symbolic. In fact, Paul wrote the most revealing passages in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 about the absolute importance of the Eucharist. It is a participation in the Body and Blood. Unworthy consumption is eating and drinking damnation unto oneself. Not a hint of symbolism there.

 

[po18guy]

Could anyone confirm that this still holds:

If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it as by a sign or figure, or force, let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, DS 1651)

Jan

Why? What is wrong with it?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Could anyone confirm that this still holds:

If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it as by a sign or figure, or force, let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, DS 1651)

Jan

The whole chapter of John 6 is quite simple and is something protestants constantly seem to overlook. John is juxtaposing believing and eating. The first half of John 6 is about believing in Jesus(belief being the commandment to obey and do all that Jesus teaches and commands), the second half is about “eating” Him in the Eucahrist.

To believe IS to eat, and to eat IS to believe. Because “when we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in Glory!”

Its really quite simple when you remove a certain interpretive lense.

 

[janxharris]

John 6:50-58:
This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

If Jesus meant these words to be literal and applied to the taking of the bread and the wine, why doesn’t he reinforce as much in the three accounts we have of the Last Supper?

Matthew 26:26-28:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 14:22-24:
And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Luke 22:15-20:
And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

If ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.’ are meant literally, then their importance could not and cannot be overstated. For me, Jesus would have said as much at the Last Super - that we ‘must’ take the bread and wine in this way or ‘we would have no life in us’. Jesus does not.

I raise this issue humbly as a follower of Jesus. i am not being deliberately contentious.

Thanks.
Jan

 

[janxharris]

Could anyone confirm that this still holds:

If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it as by a sign or figure, or force, let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, DS 1651)

Jan

I find it quite astonishing that this was established in the first place and all the more astonishing that it still holds. Am I alone in this? Such harsh words.

 

[harrisrose77]

I find it quite astonishing that this was established in the first place and all the more astonishing that it still holds. Am I alone in this? Such harsh words.

What I want to know is, where in the bible does it say that believers can curse anyone!?

 

[harrisrose77]

What I want to know is, where in the bible does it say that believers can curse anyone!?

Romans 8:31-32 says; If god be for us, who can be against us.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I find it quite astonishing that this was established in the first place and all the more astonishing that it still holds. Am I alone in this? Such harsh words.

Its was a vaild Church Council, so yes, it still holds(see Acts 15:28). If you think the words are, in your subjective opinion, “harsh”, maybe that should cause you to re-evaluate your opinion given the seriousness of the matter rather than judge the statement itself.

I used to be where you are now, and then I studied history and the early Church, and there is no way that I waswilling to put my soul on the line under the belief that I might be right or I might be wrong. And if my belief didn’t match that of the early Church, I wasn’t willing to risk my soul on the assumption that all of these men from the first century on got it totally wrong and a couple guys 1500 years after the fact who came up with some new interpretations, stood in direct contradiction against the Church, and had the audacity to say, “I’m right, and all the rest of you are wrong!”

That, to me, is dangerous.

 

[harrisrose77]

Romans 8:31-32 says; If god be for us, who can be against us.

Sorry, that should have been ‘God’

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

What I want to know is, where in the bible does it say that believers can curse anyone!?

1 Tim 3:15
Matt 18:15-18

You forget what Peter pronounced to the couple who thought they could cheat God.

There are others as well.

 

[GraceSofia]

I find it quite astonishing that this was established in the first place and all the more astonishing that it still holds. Am I alone in this? Such harsh words.

I don’t think anathema means what you think it does. It means* cut off.* And it used to be applied to Catholics, Catholics who willfully denied this central belief of the faith.

Technically, the anathema no longer applies since the 1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC) abolished the canonical penalty of anathema, which was a form of excommunication.

This does not mean that the Church no longer rejects the beliefs that had been anathematized. The formula “let him be anathema” is a traditional expression that ecumenical councils used when making infallible definitions. Therefore, the dropping of the canonical penalty of anathema does not “undo” the infallible definitions expressed in Trent’s canons. An infallible definition, by its very nature, can never be “undone.” The Church still believes and teaches all the definitions Trent issued.

mysticicorporis.livejournal.com/7610.html

 

[janxharris]

What I want to know is, where in the bible does it say that believers can curse anyone!?

In Galations 1:8:
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

This seems to be the model, but I don’t see that any Christian would have a problem with Paul’s words here; but there are many that have a problem with the cursing of ‘The Council of Trent’ in question.

 

[janxharris]

I don’t think anathema means what you think it does. It means* cut off.* And it used to be applied to Catholics, Catholics who willfully denied this central belief of the faith.

Technically, the anathema no longer applies since the 1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC) abolished the canonical penalty of anathema, which was a form of excommunication.

mysticicorporis.livejournal.com/7610.html

Thanks GraceSofia.

 

[bzkoss236]

I find it quite astonishing that this was established in the first place and all the more astonishing that it still holds. Am I alone in this? Such harsh words.

I find it less harsh then the belief that anyone who does not believe in Jesus is immediately designated for hell upon death, leaving no room for the mercy and justice of God.

 

[harrisrose77]

In Galations 1:8:
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

This seems to be the model, but I don’t see that any Christian would have a problem with Paul’s words here; but there are many that have a problem with the cursing of ‘The Council of Trent’ in question.

Thanks for that husband.
Good morning to you. x

 

[po18guy]

I raise this issue humbly as a follower of Jesus. i am not being deliberately contentious. Thanks.
Jan

But, you are likely relying only on the bible. The Church was not founded, and did not grow in the early years, with a bible. In fact, the bible tells us that it is an incomplete record. As well, consider that, years later, Jesus revealed the exact same words of consecration to Paul at his conversion. From the revelation that he received, Paul went on to write very clearly that you could be sick, or even die from unworthy consumption of the Eucharist. Those who were sick or had died were guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Serious, indeed! He wrote that it was a “participation” in the Body and Blood of Christ. Not a symbol, but actual participation. Note also that Paul separated the Eucharist from normal eating and drinking, admonishing those who were eating and drinking to do so at home. Jesus, not once in scripture, ever used words meaning “symbolises” or “represents” Neither is the Eucharist a parable, as parables involved hypothetical persons, places or things. They taught principle. In parables, Jesus said “there was” or “a man had…” or “a man went…”

At the last supper, He said “this is My Body…” which was not an abstract parabolic lesson, but a present actuality.

As well, we cannot and must not divorce John 6 from Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1 Corinthians 10 or 11. They must all be taken together, as well as in the context of consistent Church practice from day1. The practice was well established by the time that Acts was written. What was not well established were the developing doctrines, thus the focus on speeches and the first Church council.

 

[GraceSofia]

St. Paul’s next verse is even stronger: (1: 9) " As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema."

Romans (9:3) is a good example of the “cut off” meaning when he says: “For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren, who are my kinsmen according to the flesh.”

Here are a couple of links for more information about Anathema:

catholicbridge.com/catholic/anathemas.php#Catholicism

ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/are-you-anathema-how-about-your-protestant-friend

However, let’s get back to John and the Real Presence now that we have established how serious it is to understand what the Eucharist is.

 

[po18guy]

In Galations 1:8:
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

This seems to be the model, but I don’t see that any Christian would have a problem with Paul’s words here; but there are many that have a problem with the cursing of ‘The Council of Trent’ in question.

Trent was addressing heresy, so the strong language was entirely appropriate. Look at the wording in the douay-Rheims bible, published just prior to the King James Version (by Catholics exiled from England during the persecution):

Galatians 1:8
Douay-Rheims (1582/1609) 1899 American Edition (DRA)
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Anathema is used 17 times in the Douay-Rheims. Paul is the only one to use it in the New Testament (4 times).