Transubstantiation?

[Verbum_Caro]

yes my question has been answered. I don’t know that I agree, but y’all have answered my question.

but what I’m hearing is this: that the Lord presence is MORE real in this case.
But if the presence is real then the presence is real I don’t see a reason to say that "in this case his presence is More real.

Just to make sure I follow you so far: Are you saying, then, that you can accept in the Eucharist that Christ *is *really present?

As far as your original question being answered, I’m curious about the answer that was given! Why do you think that Catholics believe that only the Body and Blood of Christ is present, and there is no bread or wine?

VC

VC

 

[Church_Militant]

Cobolt, how about quote the proper way or separate your quotes with colour or something. It is not easy to reply back when it’s tough identifying which quote is yours and which isn’t and quite frankly is giving me a headache.

It is found in all biblical writings that do not have the RCC tradition of the Apocryphal text

John 6 is in every New Testament is existence, as are all the scriptures that i have quoted so far.

Furthermore, there are no apocryphal writings in the Catholic Bible. There are 7 Deuterocanonical books which have been included in the Old Testament canon since the earliest councils and discussions of it.

Apocryphal writings would be the Gnostic gospels and such.

Transubstantiation is merely a term that is used for what takes place.

But used only by the traditions added by the RCC

This is without factual basis. I have already cited the scriptures which plainly teach this doctrine that clearly dates to the writings of the apostles in the New Testament.

The term is merely that. A term, which stands for the definition of what the Christian church has always taught occurs in the Eucharist. That did not change until some 500 years ago and that change is a serious error in modern Christian doctrine.

I beg to differ with you, but the New Testament scriptures are pretty much universal among Christians, whether Catholic or not. The fact is that the New Testament IS a “Catholic writing”.

f you accept just your Cathholic Bible it is so…other wise there are many others who transcribed it for the Protestans who did not believe in the RCC adding tradition to God’s scripture…Luther, Wycliffe, Tyndale, King Henry Vlll authorized an English translation in 1553…the Geneva Bible and it was aboard the Mayflower. The King James translates from the Geneva Bible --commissioned 1604-completed 1611 by Oxford, Cambridge and Westminister scholars…including Lancelot Andrews (Preces Privatoe) who began studing Greek at age six…mission was to deliver God’s book unto God’s people in a tongue which they could understand;the Greek Orthodox church by way of Patriarch Constantinople translated Codex Alexandrianus in the 5th century (org. Alexandria, Egypt,from which it gets its name, made in 4th centruy) along with it the Codex Sinaificig, 1 of 50 Greek Bibles commissioned to be copied by Constantine—only fragments from Constantines time exist and they date to the second half of the 1st century according to historian Tacitus, who also says there is a seven yr. gap separating earliest extant copy from the original writings. These all disagreed with what the RCC was doing with scripture

This is historically inaccurate and I prove it so in this article from my blog.
Did the Catholic Church Keep the Bible From Being Translated Into the Vernacular Languages?

This fills in this issue even better. A Deluge of Erroneous Versions

The Catholic Church never changed anything as you allege and you cannot support that from anything but the errant modern teachings of men.

LOOK at the statement by the Council of TrentTrent changed nothing. It affirmed things that had always been taught in the Christian faith. All the changes were the errant doctrines that devolved from the breakaway “reformers”.

When a martyred bishop of the early 2nd century Christian church, who was a direct disciple of the apostle St. John plainly writes that this is what takes place in the Eucharist and that anyone who denies it is a heretic to not even be spoken of, that sort of seals the deal for any question of real Christian interpretation of this.

where is this found? And I don’t mean in the writing of the Apocryphal…support it elsewhere

Go back and look in my post # 76. It’s the quote from the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the church at Smyrna.

So…where do you get your history that tells you anything different?

Teachings in the Bibles that do not pertain to the RCC church Apocryphal writings

Again, there are no apocryphal writings in any Catholic Bibles. By all means show me them if you believe this.

you are the one refusing to see it correctly and accepting what the Church puts into it…All scripture should be read and interpreted as you would other forms of communication–in the most obvious and natural sense- which scripture uses a metaphor, or a gifure of speech, we should interprete it accordingly–example: serpent in the Garden of Eden is a metaphor for Satan; the 'showbread" (bread-or loaf of bread), is a metaphor for the body of Christ.

According to you perhaps, but I have already shown you several places where you apparently accept errant modern teachings and interpretations instead of the plain statements of the Word of God.

The bolded part above is another example. Neither text that you have referenced even implies metaphor. I don’t know what kind of Bible teachers you are studying with but they certainly have you messed up if that is what they are telling you this kind of stuff.

For instance, the shewbread in the OT is not a metaphor for the Body of Christ, but a type and foreshadowing of the Eucharistic Real Presence. That shewbread was a sign and symbol of God’s presence in His temple foreshadowing the Real Presence of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as taught in John 6 and 1st Corinthians 11:23-30.

This is not even a Christian doctrine. Nowhere does the Bible say that Christ will return as a mortal man at the second
coming.

I SAID that if you pray him back into your communion as the living body, that he is, then he would have to come back as mortal man BECAUSE in HIS second coming HE will be KING

Catholics have no problem with Christ the King. The rest is not true, but of course you will have missed this aspect of Catholic teaching because of the resurrection. Your allegation is unfounded because you are arguing something that Catholics do not teach. I suggest that you actually read and study what the Church teaches before you decide we are wrong and try to refute it.
(Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

AND SO IS WHAT YOU GO BY WHEN YOU FOLLOW THE RCC TEACHNG. IT IS NOT INFALIABLE EITHER! Totally man made interpretations/traditions added!

1. Don’t shout at me. It’s terribly impolite and if you do it again, I’ll report you to the moderator.

I have yet to see any such thing. Your problems with infallibility are not relevant to this topic. The only point is that instead of the Word of God, you brought me notes from the NIV which even many n-Cs are not very orthodox Christian interpretations. I pointed out what was wrong with the notes. Catholics have no problem with what the Bible says. We disagree with the interpretations of men from people like you and most (but not all) other n-Cs.

It’s called an examination of conscience.

it is an examination of conscience for you BUT God sees us through our hearts

Whatever…You seem to just want to argue. Here again, you don’t even know what you’re talking about though.

we take the bread as the symbol of the body–can you not say that when you dwell upon the reason you are taking the bread/host, that your mind does not picture Christ on the cross and spilling his blood for us sinners? That in essence is what memory/recall and association with the bread is.

Unfortunately for you and all those who disagree with the Eucharist, that is not what the New Testament teaches. Where exactly in the New Testament does it say that communion is symbolic? Show me a passage that says, or even implies that. You can’t because it doesn’t. That symbolism is an errant new wind of doctrine of men that is condemned by the New Testament, the writings of the early church, and church councils.

You do not have to have a magical prayer said and believe ‘magically’ that Christ body is what you are eating. He never said it that way. Study the scripture without the RCC take on it. Let God show you the truth.

1. If you disrespect my Catholic faith like that again I will report you to the moderator because it violates the forum rules. Look 'em up for yourself.
2. There is no “magic” in the Catholic faith.
3. Actually, most of the 6th chapter of John does indeed speak of that Eucharistic Real Presence. To the point where Our Lord makes it a make or break decision for the apostles in verses 67-70. Look it up.
4. I did exactly that. It was the result of anti-Catholic attacks like yours that got me examining what the Bible teaches and comparing it to teachings of the Catholic Church and the n-C faiths that I had been part of and that is exactly why I am Catholic today. Here’s my testimony.

St. Ignatius of Antioch tells us what he learned directly from St. John when he says the following in his letter to the Church in Smyrna.

show us proof other than a letter by way of the Apocrophyal writings that proves this.

There’s nothing apocryphal about Ignatius’ letter, (cited in post 76) and it confirms exactly what St. Paul says in 1st Corinthians 10:16-17 ans 11:23-30. all of that is the very same thing that Catholics believe and teach today. I’ve already showed you all this. If you remain obstinate then your blood be on your own head I guess.

No thanks. I’ll stick with what the Bible actually says

Actually you mean you want to stick with man made addtitions to scripture-----I gave that up for the truth in God’s scripture

Nope, I’ve already shown you that this is not true. The same cannot be said for what you have asserted so far. What you gave up, (if you are saying that at some point you were a Catholic) is the fullness of the truth in exchange for a different gospel.
Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?

 

[VociMike]

Transubstantiation is merely a term that is used for what takes place.

To focus on “transubstantiation” simply as a term is not helpful. The term is tied to a concept. As I asked earlier, do you know what the concept is? Do you understand the concept of transubstantiation? Because if you don’t then there is no point in anybody listening to your ideas about it.

So if you want this discussion to continue, please confirm your understanding of the concept of transubstantiation.

 

[fellowChristian]

Saint Augustine said that the Old is revealed in the New and the New is concealed in the Old.

What does that mean? Well if it’s in the New that means it is somewhere in the Old.
Testament that is.

We look at John 6 Jesus says that He is the bread that fell from heaven. He compares Himself with the Manna that fell from Heaven.

We see that in **Exodus 16 **that Manna fell from heaven. What did the people do with that bread?
They ate it.

In John 19 we read…

**14 It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour.
“Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews. **

Jesus is about to be crucifed while preparation for the Passover is taking place. What do they do at a Passover meal?
They eat it.

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Funny how John calls Jesus a lamb?! What do you do with a lamb?
** You eat it**.

When was the first Passover meal?
In Exodus 12.
What did they have to do?

Old ----------------------------------> New

1.Take unblemished male lamb.----------------------------------------> Jesus

2.The whole assembly of the congregation of Israel is to kill it.------> Crucify Him

3.Take the blood and put it on the two doorposts---------------------------> The cross

4.They shall eat the flesh--------------------------------------------->Eucharist

Eucharist is Greek it means "Thanksgiving"

What do we do at Thanksgiving?

**We eat **.

 

[fellowChristian]

“Transsubstantiatio” is Latin it means “change of one substance to another,”

“Catholic” is Greek it means “Universal”

“Eucharist” is Greek it means “Thanksgiving”

“Credo” is Latin it means “I believe”

“Ave Maria” is Latin it means “Hail Mary”

“Agnus Dei” is Latin it means " Lamb of God"

“Moto proprio” is Latin it means " On one’s own initiative"

“fiancé” is French it means " A man to whom a woman is engaged to be married."

My point?

America was not discovered until after 1492. Which means our language,English, was not spoken like it is today.

So our “english” ears hear “Transubstantiation” but a person speaking Latin would translate it as to its meaning “change of one substance to another,” .

I think its alot easier to say “Transubstantiation” then to to say “change of one substance to another,” Its kind of like a short cut.

The saying “Lost in translation” comes to mind. I guess for me,a hispanic, I don’t see the big deal about Latin or Greek words crossing over into my English.

Do you ever notice names of places that some never even notice like…

"Sacramento " is Latin means “sacrament”

“Corpus Christi” in Texas means “Body of Christ”

“Trinidad” for the word “Trinity”

“Santa Monica” in California, means “Saint Monica”

Just in case you don’t know our Spanish comes from Latin.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Saint Augustine said that the Old is revealed in the New and the New is concealed in the Old.

What does that mean? Well if it’s in the New that means it is somewhere in the Old.
Testament that is.

We look at John 6 Jesus says that He is the bread that fell from heaven. He compares Himself with the Manna that fell from Heaven.

We see that in **Exodus 16 **that Manna fell from heaven. What did the people do with that bread?
They ate it.

In John 19 we read…

**14 It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour.
“Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews. **

Jesus is about to be crucifed while preparation for the Passover is taking place. What do they do at a Passover meal?
They eat it.

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Funny how John calls Jesus a lamb?! What do you do with a lamb?
** You eat it**.

When was the first Passover meal?
In Exodus 12.
What did they have to do?

Old ----------------------------------> New

1.Take unblemished male lamb.----------------------------------------> Jesus

2.The whole assembly of the congregation of Israel is to kill it.------> Crucify Him

3.Take the blood and put it on the two doorposts---------------------------> The cross

4.They shall eat the flesh--------------------------------------------->Eucharist

Eucharist is Greek it means "Thanksgiving"

What do we do at Thanksgiving?

**We eat **.

Man oh man fellowChristian - you absolutely so HAVE IT down to perfection.

Making the connection of cross to the passover doorpost was** superb.** That should also be taken together with the verse (Matthew 7:13) Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. The ONLY way to heaven is through the doorway of Jesus on the cross. We must each take up our own cross. Jesus through the cross is the literal doorway to heaven. It is also a crossroads - a point of decision with Jesus right in the middle of it.

Only the gospel writer John (either the apostle John or his disciple) noticed the significance of the hyssop used to give Jesus a sponge soaked with bitter wine when Jesus said “I Thirst”, drank, uttered “it it finished” then died. Hyssop was the branch prescribed in the Passover law for sprinkling the blood of the lamb (Ex.12:22) from the original ritual.

John 19:29:
“A bowl of sour wine stood there; so they put a sponge full of the vinegar on hyssop and held it to his mouth”.

If non-Catholics can not see the connection with passover and Jesus on the cross then they need to put down their bibles and go home since the whole sola scriptura thing has utterly failed them.

Jesus only drank 3 of the 4 Passover/Seder cups of wine at the last supper in the upper room telling the others: “Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the Kingdom of God” (Mark 14:25). The Cross was Jesus’ triumph and the start of the Kingdom of God. Most people never make the connection that Jesus drank the 4th passover cup of bitter wine on the cross!

More here:
The Hunt for the Fourth Cup By Scott Hahn (former Protestant Minister)

James

 

[JTBT]

Just to make sure I follow you so far: Are you saying, then, that you can accept in the Eucharist that Christ *is *really present?

As far as your original question being answered, I’m curious about the answer that was given! Why do you think that Catholics believe that only the Body and Blood of Christ is present, and there is no bread or wine?

VC

VC

I can accept that the Lord is present; but I see no reason to say that bread and wine are no longer present. kind of like Christ was fully Human and fully Divine. One didn’t negate the other.

actually when you put it that way I cannot tell you why Cathoics believe that there is no bread or wine.

 

[VociMike]

I can accept that the Lord is present; but I see no reason to say that bread and wine are no longer present. kind of like Christ was fully Human and fully Divine. One didn’t negate the other.

The two situations are not at all similar. Christ did not take on the nature of bread and wine forever. He did not, to repeat what I said earlier, become bread and wine. He is not fully bread and wine in addition to being fully God (and toss fully man into the mix as well).

I’m curious, why is it so apparently important to you that the bread and wine remain? You seem to need to cling to that, and I wonder if you can explain why.

actually when you put it that way I cannot tell you why Cathoics believe that there is no bread or wine.

The Church believes it because she learned it from Christ. She believes it, in other words, because it is true.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I can accept that the Lord is present; but I see no reason to say that bread and wine are no longer present. kind of like Christ was fully Human and fully Divine. One didn’t negate the other.

I know you brought this up before, and Voci Mike gave you a good response, but maybe I can give it a shot too and hopefully show you why this can’t be the case in the Eucharist. But let’s come back to that in a moment and tackle the main question first:

actually when you put it that way I cannot tell you why Cathoics believe that there is no bread or wine.

There are several arguments, and I’ll share a two:.

1.

The primary reason is because of our faith in Christ’s word – for “Truth Himself speaks truly or nothing else is true.” Because Christ said, holding up bread, “This is my Body.” As was pointed out above by mercygate, the crucial word is “this**”. **By saying “this” Christ asserts *a substantial identity *between what He holds in His hand and His true physical actual body. To assert such identity (i.e. “sameness”) between bread and body would be false – because substantial identity means one substance, not two substances. So Christ must be asserting “This (my body) is my body”. Even though it looks like bread, there can’t be any bread because Christ asserts identity between it **and His body.

Just a slight digression here to clarify terms. “Identity” is used in the logical sense of “an assertion that two terms refer to the same thing”. So think of it in terms of “identical” not in terms of “your identity.”

2.

A secondary reason is because Christ ***becomes ***present by virtue of the sacrament. You have to stop and think about this. Christ is not present before and then becomes present after. There are only three ways something can become present where it wasn’t present before: a) by creation, b) by movement, or c) by conversion.a )Christ’s real body can’t become present by creation, since He (body, blood, soul and Divinity) already exist.
b) Christ’s real body can’t become present by motion for two reasons:

1) A body that moves from one place to another ceases to be in the previous place. But Christ is in Heaven “seated at the right hand of the Father” so, if His body were to move as a body moves, then he would leave heaven, which won’t happen until His return in Glory. Therefore Christ is not present by movement.

2)A body that moves from one place to another moves only to *one *other place not to many places at the same time. But Christ is present in the sacrament in many places at the same time, therefore he is not present by movement.

c)Which leaves only conversion.

​

But if Christ becomes present by conversion, then the bread cannot remain present because what gets converted doesn’t remain after a conversion.

---

Now back to that first bit:

kind of like Christ was fully Human and fully Divine. One didn’t negate the other.

You are right that Jesus’ humane nature and Divine natures didn’t negate one another. But God became man, and Christ doesn’t become bread.

It’s a hugely important difference. Because Jesus’ human nature and His Divine nature are united in the Divine Person of the Word, the Word can act with either nature, and we can ascribe all actions (whether human or Divine) to the Divine Person. Thus, in His human nature Jesus hungered, but we can say God hungered. In His human nature Jesus suffered and died, but we can say God died.

In Christ there are two natures in one thing (a person)? But if there are two natures in the Eucharist, where are the two natures? What has the two natures? Would the bread have the nature of bread and the nature of Christ? Absurd! Would Christ have His own nature and the nature of bread? Abhorrent!

For the analogy to work, one thing has to have two natures. And so it seems to me that analogy would break down.

 

[CoboltBlue]

Guy! This is the best I have ever heard preached on this. Pastor has been in the Holy Lands studying —

The gospels were actually written after Galatians,
Look at Gal. 1:10-11 -12 “Now am I trying to win the favor of men or of God? Do I seek to please men? If I were still seeking popularity with men, I should not be a bond servant of Christ (the Messiah). 11 For I want you to know, brethren, that the Gospel which was proclaimed and made know by me is not man’s gospel [a human invention according to or patterned after any human standard].12 For indeed I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but [it came to me] through a [direct] revelation [given] by Jesus Christ (the Messiah).”
verse 16 "To reveal (unveil, disclose) His Son within me sto that I might proclaim Him among the Gentiles (the non Jewish wold) is the glad tidings (Gospel), immediately I did not confer with flesh and blood [did not consult or counsel with any frail human being or communicate with anyone].

3 years Paul spends in Jerusalem–in Arabia
He is given the Ordiance /revelation of how Jesus wants the communion to be taught.
Oridiances --of which there are two in what Paul has been given–to to “receive” the message and to “deliver” the message.
RECEIVE---------rabbi words
DELIVERED rabbi’s passed them on ( rabbi’s received this from the delivered Lord). Paul received the Gal. message listed above…
These teachings also preceeded Matt. 26:29; Mark 23:25; Luke 22:14-23; and Acts 22:14-23.

1 Corn. 11:23 “For I received from the Lord that which also I
delivered to you…”
Back to verses 17-22 with explination: the Lord’s Supper was celebrated (Agape flowing); it was a huge feast that lasted a long time. The society was mixed racially and financially with the rich seated separate from the poor .Many were drunk by the end of the meal. But this was the time for the celebration of the very solumn receiving of the Lords Supper…Paul has been admonishing them for their behavior and being intoxidated and yet wanting to receive the Lords Supper.+they had divisionism, gorging with food for hours, discriminating against the poor, and drunkenness–factions).
*Verse 28 and 29 Paul says, Let a man [thoroughly] examine himself, and [only when he as done] so should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discriminating and recognizing with due appreciation that [it is Christ’s] body, eats and drinks a sentence (a verdict of judgement) upon himself. 30 That [careless and unworthy participation] +REMEMBER THEY HAD BEEN EATING AND DRINKING FOR HOURS+ is the reason many of you are weak and sickly, and quite enough of you have fallen into the sleep of death. ++ Holy Spirit is directing this self inflicted judgement upon oneself that bring the illness and death…this is not a final judgement.

The revelation (0rdiances) Paul received is that Jesus was setting forth a new covenant the old one became obsolete in Heb. 8:13… Verse 24, 1 Corn. And when He had given thanks, He broke [it] and said; Take, eat This is My body, which is broken for you. Do this to call me [affectionately] to remembrance…+here we look at the word 'broken" . Christ’s body was broken ( Greek-) on the cross (OT) so we are looking back at the gift Jesus gave us through the cross…the bread broken…his body broken. …we look back until he comes again.Body of the Messiah.
The cup verse 25 ,he took the cup also, saying, This cup is the new covenant [ratified and established] in My blood.Do this, as often as you drink [it], to call Me [affectionatley] to remembrance.
The cup which had represented the lamb’s blood smeard on the doorposts at Passover, now comes to represent the blood of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ.,+blood is the sign of a new covenant
It was institiuded by Jesus. Blood–we look forward to his coming.

Heb. 10:11 "And every priest stand ministering daily and offering, repeadtedly the same sacrifice, which can never take away sin. But this Man, oafter He had offered same sacrifice for sins forever, sat tdown at the right hand of God. Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus.

Jesus underscord the fact that the bread, which had represented the Exodu in the Pasover meal, now represents the body of Christ , the Messiah.

 

[mercygate]

Guy! This is the best I have ever heard preached on this. Pastor has been in the Holy Lands studying —

The gospels were actually written after Galatians,
Look at Gal. 1:10-11 -12 “Now am I trying to win the favor of men or of God? Do I seek to please men? If I were still seeking popularity with men, I should not be a bond servant of Christ (the Messiah). 11 For I want you to know, brethren, that the Gospel which was proclaimed and made know by me is not man’s gospel [a human invention according to or patterned after any human standard].12 For indeed I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but [it came to me] through a [direct] revelation [given] by Jesus Christ (the Messiah).”
verse 16 "To reveal (unveil, disclose) His Son within me sto that I might proclaim Him among the Gentiles (the non Jewish wold) is the glad tidings (Gospel), immediately I did not confer with flesh and blood [did not consult or counsel with any frail human being or communicate with anyone].

3 years Paul spends in Jerusalem–in Arabia
He is given the Ordiance /revelation of how Jesus wants the communion to be taught.
Oridiances --of which there are two in what Paul has been given–to to “receive” the message and to “deliver” the message.
RECEIVE---------rabbi words
DELIVERED rabbi’s passed them on ( rabbi’s received this from the delivered Lord). Paul received the Gal. message listed above…
These teachings also preceeded Matt. 26:29; Mark 23:25; Luke 22:14-23; and Acts 22:14-23.

1 Corn. 11:23 “For I received from the Lord that which also I
delivered to you…”
Back to verses 17-22 with explination: the Lord’s Supper was celebrated (Agape flowing); it was a huge feast that lasted a long time. The society was mixed racially and financially with the rich seated separate from the poor .Many were drunk by the end of the meal. But this was the time for the celebration of the very solumn receiving of the Lords Supper…Paul has been admonishing them for their behavior and being intoxidated and yet wanting to receive the Lords Supper.+they had divisionism, gorging with food for hours, discriminating against the poor, and drunkenness–factions).
*Verse 28 and 29 Paul says, Let a man [thoroughly] examine himself, and [only when he as done] so should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discriminating and recognizing with due appreciation that [it is Christ’s] body, eats and drinks a sentence (a verdict of judgement) upon himself. 30 That [careless and unworthy participation] +REMEMBER THEY HAD BEEN EATING AND DRINKING FOR HOURS+ is the reason many of you are weak and sickly, and quite enough of you have fallen into the sleep of death. ++ Holy Spirit is directing this self inflicted judgement upon oneself that bring the illness and death…this is not a final judgement.

The revelation (0rdiances) Paul received is that Jesus was setting forth a new covenant the old one became obsolete in Heb. 8:13… Verse 24, 1 Corn. And when He had given thanks, He broke [it] and said; Take, eat This is My body, which is broken for you. Do this to call me [affectionately] to remembrance…+here we look at the word 'broken" . Christ’s body was broken ( Greek-) on the cross (OT) so we are looking back at the gift Jesus gave us through the cross…the bread broken…his body broken. …we look back until he comes again.Body of the Messiah.
The cup verse 25 ,he took the cup also, saying, This cup is the new covenant [ratified and established] in My blood.Do this, as often as you drink [it], to call Me [affectionatley] to remembrance.
The cup which had represented the lamb’s blood smeard on the doorposts at Passover, now comes to represent the blood of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ.,+blood is the sign of a new covenant
It was institiuded by Jesus. Blood–we look forward to his coming.

Heb. 10:11 "And every priest stand ministering daily and offering, repeadtedly the same sacrifice, which can never take away sin. But this Man, oafter He had offered same sacrifice for sins forever, sat tdown at the right hand of God. Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus.

Jesus underscord the fact that the bread, which had represented the Exodu in the Pasover meal, now represents the body of Christ , the Messiah.

Are you suggesting that Paul’s personal revelation contradicts the synoptic Gospels and the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John? Are you suggesting that the Mass represents a “repeated sacrifice”?

Do I understand you correctly?

 

[CentralFLJames]

…

The revelation (0rdiances) Paul received is that Jesus was setting forth a new covenant the old one became obsolete in Heb. 8:13… Verse 24, 1 Corn. And when He had given thanks, He broke [it] and said; Take, eat This is My body, which is broken for you. Do this to call me [affectionately] to remembrance…+here we look at the word 'broken" . Christ’s body was broken ( Greek-) on the cross (OT) so we are looking back at the gift Jesus gave us through the cross…the bread broken…his body broken. …we look back until he comes again.Body of the Messiah.
The cup verse 25 ,he took the cup also, saying, This cup is the new covenant [ratified and established] in My blood.Do this, as often as you drink [it], to call Me [affectionatley] to remembrance.
The cup which had represented the lamb’s blood smeard on the doorposts at Passover, now comes to represent the blood of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ.,+blood is the sign of a new covenant
It was institiuded by Jesus. Blood–we look forward to his coming.

Heb. 10:11 "And every priest stand ministering daily and offering, repeadtedly the same sacrifice, which can never take away sin. But this Man, oafter He had offered same sacrifice for sins forever, sat tdown at the right hand of God. Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus.

Jesus underscord the fact that the bread, which had represented the Exodu in the Pasover meal, now represents the body of Christ , the Messiah.

Most of the errors coming out of Protestantism are all similar in form. One of these errors is a consistent and arbitrary pattern of embracing “either/or” thinking and interpretation. But actions in scripture are rarely an either/or thing. Scripture is timeless and integrates old with new in a seamless way and nearly always relates to multiple things to cross ratify scripture. There are also many core beliefs in Protestantism that arise from simple fallacies in reason and logic that all come from secular perspectives - usually of the form “anti-authority” which is literally the spirit of the age. This is why having the linkage to apostolic teaching is necessary in this modern time to get a contextual link.

So here one really must consider that the the actions of the last supper are not an either/or thing. The events in the upper room and on the cross are a remembrance - but not JUST a remembrance. It is a new covenant but its not JUST a new covenant - nor is it consummated until He drinks the 4th Seder cup and proclaims “it is consummated” or “it is finished”. YES, it IS all thee things BUT its ALSO SIMULTANIOUSLY real presence of Christ through body, blood, soul and divinity. This is the only way that ALL last supper accounts in scripture (and all the OT prefiguring and the NT fish-and-loaves miracle) reconcile themselves. MAN COULD NOT HAVE INVENTED THIS - its too complex and too integrative for any human to have dreamt this stuff up. The Catholic Church has it 100% right on what is going on at the last supper.

So, the breaking and blessing of bread at the last supper is NOT JUST a memorial by the disciples of Christ memorializing CHRIST, It is ALSO a forward PARTICIPATION in Christ’s sacrifice and bonding with Christ as well as (for us) a backward looking PARTICIPATION in Christ’s sacrifice. That timelessness implies the divine aspects of the meal. Christ too as the SON of GOD is ALSO giving an occasion for HIS remembrance of human camaraderie and HIS friendship with HIS apostles. It’s not just a unidirectional thing Catholics do as a memorial - its bi-direction remembrance (Man to God and God to Man). But when God remembers He puts Himself through the body, blood soul and divinity right there with us (Emanuel) in real presence.

One other thing. A lot of people do not make the connection in the OT what to a Jew living in Pharaoh’s kingdom to put the blood of the pascal lamb on the door posts over one’s living space. This was an open declaration of contempt for Pharaoh and their lives were on the line for it! So, it was not only a covenant it was a supreme act of faith and commitment to God. Sure the lamb’s blood would be spilt. But in the morning if God did not do as He promised everyone of those Jews who marked their home in blood were dead men.

The ancient Jews completely trusted God to deliver them. They knew that God had intended to kill Egypt’s first born. Can you imagine the fear and contempt this would have caused against the Jews afterwords? Once a Jew marked his home there was no going back - it was a life and death decision. Clearly, there would have been the risk of retribution from just the sudden huge loss of choice lambs from Pharaoh’s kingdom that the Jews probably tended to as slaves. No, the Jews marked their houses with the blood of the lamb and put it all on the line knowing they were marked men if God did not come through.

James

 

[JTBT]

I’m curious, why is it so apparently important to you that the bread and wine remain? You seem to need to cling to that, and I wonder if you can explain why.

In Christ there are two natures in one thing (a person)? But if there are two natures in the Eucharist, where are the two natures? What has the two natures? Would the bread have the nature of bread and the nature of Christ? Absurd! Would Christ have His own nature and the nature of bread? Abhorrent!

For the analogy to work, one thing has to have two natures. And so it seems to me that analogy would break down.

OK I did a little recon, and guess what **mercygate **hit the nail on the head; I agree witht he Lutherans on this one, they reject the term Transubstantiation and the term Consubstantiation, andy they call it Sacramental union. and … I can agree with that.

 

[CoboltBlue]

++++++++++++
Most of the errors coming out of RCC are all similar in form. One of these errors is a consistent and arbitrary pattern of embracing “either/or” thinking and interpretation. But actions in scripture are rarely an either/or thing. Scripture is timeless and integrates old with new in a seamless way and nearly always relates to multiple things to cross ratify scripture. There are also many core beliefs in RCC that arise from Out right denial of scripture and adding their own "traditions to it, fallacies in reason and logic that all come from Mortal men who sit themselves above God’s word- usually of the form (the RCC knows more than God and we are adding to his word since he can’t possbile know it all and we need our traditons and dogmas to keep people tied to our apron strings) “anti-authority” (Pope authority and not God’s!) Who are you trying to kid?! which is literally the spirit of the age. This is why having the linkage to apostolic (This is why NO one has to be tied to a “church” and moral men who call themselves infaliable) teaching is necessary in this modern time to get a contextual link The Catholic Church has it 100% right on what is going on at the last supper.The Catholic church and the people they keep bound to it may be very surprised one day to find out that they actually did have it wrong AND GOD WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG!
colboltblue

 

[fellowChristian]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

The presence of Christ by the power of his word and the Holy Spirit

**1373 **
“Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us,” is present in many ways to his Church:197 in his word, in his Church’s prayer, "where two or three are gathered in my name,"198 in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned,199 in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But "he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species."200

**1374 **
The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."202 "This presence is called ‘real’—by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."203

**1375 **
It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

It is **not man **that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.204
And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ’s word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.205

1376
The **Council of Trent **summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because **Christ our Redeemer said **that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206

**1377 **
The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.207

**1378 **
Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession."208

**1379 **
The tabernacle was first intended for the reservation of the Eucharist in a worthy place so that it could be brought to the sick and those absent, outside of Mass. As faith in the real presence of Christ in his Eucharist deepened, the Church became conscious of the meaning of silent adoration of the Lord present under the Eucharistic species. It is for this reason that the tabernacle should be located in an especially worthy place in the church and should be constructed in such a way that it emphasizes and manifests the truth of the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

**1380 **
It is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present to his Church in this unique way. Since Christ was about to take his departure from his own in his visible form, he wanted to give us his sacramental presence; since he was about to offer himself on the cross to save us, he wanted us to have the memorial of the love with which he loved us "to the end,"209 even to the giving of his life. In his Eucharistic presence he remains mysteriously in our midst as the one who loved us and gave himself up for us,210 and he remains under signs that express and communicate this love:

The Church and the world have a great need for Eucharistic worship. Jesus awaits us in this sacrament of love. Let us not refuse the time to go to meet him in adoration, in contemplation full of faith, and open to making amends for the serious offenses and crimes of the world. Let our adoration never cease.211

**
1381 **
"That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that ‘cannot be apprehended by the senses,’ says St. Thomas,** ‘but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.’ **For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 (‘This is my body which is given for you.’), **St. Cyril says: ‘Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.’"212

Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore
Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,
See, Lord, at thy service low lies here a heart
Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.

Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived;
How says trusty hearing? that shall be believed;
What God’s Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth himself speaks truly or there’s nothing true.213**

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt1art3.htm#206

 

[CentralFLJames]

++++++++++++
Most of the errors coming out of RCC are all similar in form. One of these errors is a consistent and arbitrary pattern of embracing “either/or” thinking and interpretation. But actions in scripture are rarely an either/or thing. Scripture is timeless and integrates old with new in a seamless way and nearly always relates to multiple things to cross ratify scripture. There are also many core beliefs in RCC that arise from Out right denial of scripture and adding their own "traditions to it, fallacies in reason and logic that all come from Mortal men who sit themselves above God’s word- usually of the form (the RCC knows more than God and we are adding to his word since he can’t possbile know it all and we need our traditons and dogmas to keep people tied to our apron strings) “anti-authority” (Pope authority and not God’s!) Who are you trying to kid?! which is literally the spirit of the age. This is why having the linkage to apostolic (This is why NO one has to be tied to a “church” and moral men who call themselves infaliable) teaching is necessary in this modern time to get a contextual link The Catholic Church has it 100% right on what is going on at the last supper.The Catholic church and the people they keep bound to it may be very surprised one day to find out that they actually did have it wrong AND GOD WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG!
colboltblue

If you can’t even competently quote what I said using computer assisted tools that can easily do it for you with a click tell me just why am I supposed to pay you any ear for thinking you are God?

What utter arrogance and anti-Catholic spew. What are you doing here in these forums?

James

 

[fellowChristian]

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, **wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” **

Written by Saint Ignatius of Antioch, a Catholic bishop, in his Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (around the year c. A.D. 110).

The Catholic Church is 2000 years old and founded by Jesus Himself.
How old is your church?

Every denomination can trace its roots back to the Catholic Church.
Try it I dare you.

Lutheran

Who founded it?

Martin Luther c.1517 ad.

What was he before that?

Catholic

Who founded it?

Jesus the Christ c. 33 a.d.

 

[fellowChristian]

Baptist

Who founded it?

John Smith &
Thomas Hewys c.1609

What were they before that?

Anglicans aka Church of England

Who founded it?

King Henry viii c. 1534

What was he before that?

Catholic

Who founded it?

Jesus the Christ c.33 a.d.

 

[fellowChristian]

Where do we look for truth?
The Church

**1 Corinthians 12:28 **
**Some people God has designated in the church **to be, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues.

**1 Timothy 3:15 **
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

** But Which Church?**

A: Catholic Church - c.**33ad. **

B: Orthodox Churches - 10 - 12 different churches - 1054 ad.

C: Protestant Denominations - 25,000 + denominations - after 1517 ad.

Know this first of all that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation.
-** 2 Peter 1:20**

The Three Possibilities Regarding Christianity

A. Jesus established more than one church

B. Jesus established an invisible, abstract, spiritual church in which all believers, regardless of denomination, are members. In this church, either:
(1) Doctrine does not matter, or
(2) Conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable.

C. Jesus established one Church, which is visible and in which doctrine matters and does not conflict. This church contains the fullness of truth as revealed by God; all others have partial truth, at best.

** a b or c? **

Jesus prayed, ? And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one??
- John 17:22