Why I left Mormonism and didn't become a Protestant --the Eucharist

[Koopa]

Thanks for the clarification. I will start with the institution passages and move on to 1 Corinthians if you are still interested. I am not sure why you think that the last supper passages are so clear. In those passages, Christ held up bread and said, “Take , eat ; this is my body” .

I have seen Catholics here quote that passage and then claim “is” means “is”. On those occasions, I have responded like this:

The “is always means is” argument strikes me as being extremely unsophisticated or …who can’t think of a figure of speech that utilizes “is” in that figurative manner? So let me ask this question:

Why should we take the “is” of “this is my body” to mean “actually is” and not do the same for the “is” in the following verses:

"For whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother.” Matt 12:50

“For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother." Mark 3:35

Why shouldn’t I, (except for a tendency to apply common sense) conclude that the substance of Mary and the other members of Christ’s family are miraculously present behind/under/whatever the accidents of any disciple’s body?

Also, I think your claim that those passages are so very clear has the following difficulties:

a) regarding the cup, Christ said, “But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. “ Christ still referred to the cup as the “fruit of the vine” and not his blood after he had designated it to be his blood. Such is consistent with the cup being (figuratively) his blood, but still literally wine.

b) What is eaten still smells, tastes, feels and looks like bread and, as such, it is still bread. At least, that is what common sense will tell you. In contrast, it seems to me that you must disregard what common sense and your senses would tell you and resort to (questionable) philosophy in order to justify your claim of transubstantiation.

c) I can’t help but notice that the words used by Matthew, Mark and Luke differ slightly from one to the next. As such, it seems that the Spirit’s guidance that was involved in the production of these passages was for the purpose of accurately conveying the idea and not a word for word translation of what was said. Jesus, at the last supper, introduced an act of solemn symbolic meaning and in accordance with the mood of the occasion used few words….and that is what the gospels convey (to me). I don’t know how you could legitimately say that my view here is so impossible that your interpretation of the passages must be the only reasonably possible one.

Well yes, the “is means is” argument is a weak one (until we go into the Greek, as we already have). But that argument has not been made here.

a) Mark 14:25
“But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

That’s very interesting, because “this” is such an important word in the context of your argument. I don’t deny that your translation puts it that way, but mine, NAB, does not contain that word.

Mark 14:25
“Amen, I say to you, I shall not drink again the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

In this sense, Jesus is not so much referring to the cup he is holding, but making the point that he will not taste the fruit of the vine until his work is done; that is, when he has brought about the kingdom of God. This occurs at his death. Indeed, it is only at his last breath that he tastes of the fruit of the vine again.

Mark 16:36-37
One of them ran, soaked a sponge with wine, put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see if Elijah comes to take him down.” Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last.

His comment was not a reference to the substance in the cup, but to his death.

b) Substance and accidents was developed by Aristotle, who is widely believed to be a pretty solid philosopher. We all know that the senses can’t tell us everything. We don’t “sense” the presence of angels, but still they are there.

c) Actually, I would argue the opposite. In all of the accounts of the Lord’s Supper in the synoptic gospels, Jesus says, “This is my body.” If the Holy Spirit were trying to tell us it was symbolic, it would seem that at least one of the texts would make clear Christ’s intentions to introduce a symbolic ordinance (especially in light of his disciples departure! John 6:66), but none of them do so. Of course these things will come down to interpretation, which is why it is so important that we have some higher authority to guide us by some kind of divine protection into the actual truth that God really ordained us to know. We need the infallible counsel of Christ’s Church, otherwise, we must admit that we will never definitively “know” that what we believe is the one truth.

God bless!

 

[Della]

I’ve read the Didache. It doesn’t say anything about the Real Presence.

My point was that the Eucharist was celebrated from earliest times. The term “the Real Presence” merely describes what the Eucharist is. Chapter 9 of the Didache enjoins those receiving the Eucharist thusly:

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”

And why is it “holy” and why must only the baptized be allowed to receive? Because it is the body and blood of Christ as St. Paul taught: I Cor. 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

The only way anyone could read this other than plainly stated has to twist Scripture to fit his own heretical beliefs. Clearly, the Eucharist IS the body and blood of Christ.

 

[simspt]

Great Story and Welcome Home

I suspect that for a great many people it is this, the Eucharist, that is the biggest reason for their conversion. It is certainly the thing that kept drawing me home.

Peace
James

Yes the Eucharist and the historical and theological continuity the Catholic Church has with the first few generations of Christians that followed Christ’s Apostles.

 

[ERose]

Thanks for the clarification. I will start with the institution passages and move on to 1 Corinthians if you are still interested. I am not sure why you think that the last supper passages are so clear. In those passages, Christ held up bread and said, “Take , eat ; this is my body” .

I have seen Catholics here quote that passage and then claim “is” means “is”. On those occasions, I have responded like this:

The “is always means is” argument strikes me as being extremely unsophisticated or …who can’t think of a figure of speech that utilizes “is” in that figurative manner? So let me ask this question:

Why should we take the “is” of “this is my body” to mean “actually is” and not do the same for the “is” in the following verses:

"For whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother.” Matt 12:50

“For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother." Mark 3:35

Why shouldn’t I, (except for a tendency to apply common sense) conclude that the substance of Mary and the other members of Christ’s family are miraculously present behind/under/whatever the accidents of any disciple’s body?

Also, I think your claim that those passages are so very clear has the following difficulties:

a) regarding the cup, Christ said, “But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. “ Christ still referred to the cup as the “fruit of the vine” and not his blood after he had designated it to be his blood. Such is consistent with the cup being (figuratively) his blood, but still literally wine.

b) What is eaten still smells, tastes, feels and looks like bread and, as such, it is still bread. At least, that is what common sense will tell you. In contrast, it seems to me that you must disregard what common sense and your senses would tell you and resort to (questionable) philosophy in order to justify your claim of transubstantiation.

c) I can’t help but notice that the words used by Matthew, Mark and Luke differ slightly from one to the next. As such, it seems that the Spirit’s guidance that was involved in the production of these passages was for the purpose of accurately conveying the idea and not a word for word translation of what was said. Jesus, at the last supper, introduced an act of solemn symbolic meaning and in accordance with the mood of the occasion used few words….and that is what the gospels convey (to me). I don’t know how you could legitimately say that my view here is so impossible that your interpretation of the passages must be the only reasonably possible one.

So you are saying that you have to mis-interpret them to fully understand them. Nice argument. Never had anyone directly come out and inform of mis-interpretation before mis-interpreting.

 

[JonNC]

It wouldn’t be appropriate for the Non-Catholic Religions section. I’m interested in the response from non-Catholics regarding why they don’t accept the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ. I’d like to know why they think Catholics are wrong about this.

First, I give thanks that you are being blessed in owrd and sacrament in the Catholic Church.

As for the Eucharist, the Catholic Church is not wrong, though I believe it over-describes it with Transubstantiation.

From the Lutheran Confessions:

…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

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

edit No post.

God bless

 

[Radical]

Well, it looks like the standard Catholic assertions, assumptions, ad hominem and appeals to authority have made their anticipated appearance. I guess all is right in the world. I plan to deal with these one at a time and since the OPster believed that the 1 Cor passages were clear in presenting the view of a real bodily presence (RBP), I’ll start there. Two passages are involved, 1 Cor 10 and 1 Cor 11.

1 Cor 10 reads: *Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a **sharing in the blood of Christ ? **Is not the bread which we break a **sharing in the body of Christ ? *17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body ; for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Look at the nation Israel ; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar ? 19 What do I mean then ? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything ? 20 No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God ; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons ; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

WRT the sharing in the body and blood that some think point to a RBP, please note how Paul continues and then applies the “sharing” to the altar where one eats one thing and then shares in another thing. This establishes two things. First, it establishes that, for the sharing Paul envisioned, consumption of the thing one shares in, is not required. Second, it establishes that one can consume one thing (such as mere bread) and share in another (the body of Christ). As such, a RBP is not required b/c a RBP was not part of the Israeli sharing in the altar.

Further, Paul then contemplated the matter as it related to demons. He stated that one can become a “sharer” with demons establishing that, for the sharing Paul envisioned, a real bodily presence is not required since demons do not have bodies. If that wasn’t enough, Paul also indicated that one could be a partner with demons by eating food sacrificed to idols even though an idol isn’t anything. This again demonstrates that a RBP is not necessary for the partnership Paul envisioned.

 

[Radical]

1 Cor 11 reads: * For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread ; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood ; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.*

WRT the claim that a RBP is required in order for one to be “guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” one needs to look at the explanation as to “why” that would be the case. With the use of “therefore” in verse 27, Paul communicates that the reason for such guilt is disclosed in what he stated earlier. The “therefore” (of verse 27) would most likely refer back to what immediately precedes the “therefore” and that is the fact that the Lord’s Supper proclaims the Lord’s death (verse 26). As such, the guilt follows from it being a proclamation and not b/c a RBP is involved. The only way to get to a possible indication of a RBP is by intentionally skipping past the proclamation aspect of the supper to the words of the institution…and even then the verse does not serve to establish a RBP.

In Hebrews 10: 26-29 it reads

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, … How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Here we see that one can “trample” Jesus underfoot and treat his blood as an unholy thing w/o having any actual physical interaction with Christ’s body or with his blood….and so, obviously a real bodily presence is not required to sin against Christ’s body or his blood. By comparing the two passages we see:

a) in 1 Cor 11 Paul said, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” in the context of the Lord’s Supper

b) In Hebrews 10, to “deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth,” is equated with trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him. In that passage there is no indication that there is one and only one way to “deliberately keep on sinning “ (namely by eating the bread or drinking the cup in an unworthy manner) In fact, there is no indication that the Lord’s Supper is in any way under consideration.

c) Since the Eucharist is the one and only thing claimed to involve a RBP, and since Hebrews 10 does not indicate that the Lord’s Supper is in any way involved, there must be a way to trample the Son of God under foot and to treat Jesus’s blood as an unholy thing w/o having anything to do with a RBP.

d) Further, the consequences described in the two passages for the wrongful actions are different. In 1 Cor 11 eating/drinking in an unworthy manner results in sickness and possibly death. In Hebrews 10, deliberate sinning after knowledge results in damnation. The penalty in Hebrews 10 appears to be the more significant and so “trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him” would appear to be more significant than “profaning the body and blood of the Lord”.

e) An assumption that a RBP must be involved (at 1 Cor 11) b/c the offense is described in such a serious manner fails b/c Hebrews 10 describes a more serious offense against the body (what else would one trample) and against the blood of Christ w/o a RBP being involved.

I agree that if one wanted to read 1 Cor 10 & 11 in a fashion that is consistent with a RBP view, then it is possible to do such….it just isn’t necessary to read those passages in that fashion. Also, for the reasons stated above, those passages most certainly do not prove a RBP

 

[Radical]

Returning to the institution passages, a few comments have been made.

Well yes, the “is means is” argument is a weak one (until we go into the Greek, as we already have).

yeah, it would be good if everyone wanting to make the “is means is” argument was required to produce the opinion of a reputable scholar (competent in ancient Greek) stating that “is my” (esti & mou) can not be used in a figure of speech…but Mark 3:35 kinda negates that possibility.

Regarding Mark 3:35 and its sister passage we heard:

For one thing, those passages are clearly not meant to be taken literally, just by what is being said.

And for those of us who observe that the bread remains bread and that the wine remains wine it is just as clear that “is my body” isn’t meant to be taken literally.

Koopa:

a) Mark 14:25
“But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

That’s very interesting, because “this” is such an important word in the context of your argument. I don’t deny that your translation puts it that way, but mine, NAB, does not contain that word.

I didn’t think “this” was such an important word for my argument, but since you did and since you went on to build an argument out of the absence of “this” in your NAB, let me simply point out that your NAB translates Matt 26:29 thusly:

*I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father. *

The “this” is there b/c “touvtou tou’” is used. Given that, is there anything left of your argument that is worth salvaging?

b) Substance and accidents was developed by Aristotle, who is widely believed to be a pretty solid philosopher.

Yep, a pretty solid ** ancient Greek** philosopher. One can wonder why you feel it appropriate to refer to a pagan Greek philosopher to explain the meaning of what one Jew said to other Jews….and then, of course, philosophy has been developed in the 2000+ years.

We all know that the senses can’t tell us everything. We don’t “sense” the presence of angels, but still they are there.

…and we don’t claim that they have a real bodily presence either.

c) Actually, I would argue the opposite. In all of the accounts of the Lord’s Supper in the synoptic gospels, Jesus says, “This is my body.” If the Holy Spirit were trying to tell us it was symbolic, it would seem that at least one of the texts would make clear Christ’s intentions to introduce a symbolic ordinance

this is your assumption…another assumption would be that if the Holy Spirit was trying to tell us that a change of substance occurred, then it would seem that at least in one of the texts he would have made it clear that he was introducing a new mode of existence whereby a physical thing (Christ’s body) could be really present w/o being physical present . I don’t see yours as the better assumption.

(especially in light of his disciples departure! John 6:66), but none of them do so.

If you are hoping to use the departure in John 6, you have a problem. In John 6 Christ talked about the requirement to eat his flesh, but he doesn’t just leave it at that. Jesus continued using very graphic words detailing that one must gnaw on his flesh. Gnawing would require the “accidents” of one’s teeth to tear into and rip apart the “accidents” of Christ’s flesh. What Christ described was an act of cannibalism. What Christ didn’t describe is the manner in which you think you eat Christ’s flesh. In your case no gnawing of flesh is involved and it isn’t cannibalistic. As such, on that day no one walked away from a description of the “Catholic manner of (Eucharistic) eating”. The idea of eating bread that had been “transubstantiated” into flesh wasn’t even considered as a possibility on that day.

As such, the disciples that walked away could have understood a) Christ to be requiring a cannibalistic act, or b) Christ to be employing a figure of speech. If they understood it as cannibalism, then it is obvious why they would have walked away. If they understood it as a figure of speech, then it would have been a highly offensive and vulgar figure w/o any obvious meaning. That too, could have caused some to walk away.

Let’s suppose for a minute that you (and the Catholic Church) actually have it right. Why do you think Christ didn’t offer the fullness of truth that day and explain that all he required was “Eucharistic style eating”? It might be b/c (as the author of John makes clear) that those who left hadn’t actually been called by the Father and so no purpose would have been served by Christ trying to win them back. If so, that explanation also serves my understanding and explains why Christ didn’t explain what he meant by his figure of speech.

We need the infallible counsel of Christ’s Church, otherwise, we must admit that we will never definitively “know” that what we believe is the one truth.

Or, we would have to admit that, like Paul, that now we can only see as through a mirror dimly.

God bless!

likewise

 

[Radical]

For another, the Greek word for “is” that is used in the Institution passages is the same as the word for “is” used in the account of Jesus’ baptism, where God says, “this is my beloved Son.” Both instances are presentational and literal, meaning that the one God is presenting actually is his Son, and that the bread and wine presented actually are the body and blood.

there is nothing about “is” by itself that makes its usage presentational and literal

The verses you quote are not even in the same context.

those verses establish beyond any doubt that Jesus used “is my” in a figure of speech…which eliminates any argument that claims Jesus can’t have been speaking figuratively with “this is my body” b/c” “is” must be used in a presentational and literal fashion.

In the case of the Institution narrative, is actually means is.

of course “is” means “is”, but “is” doesn’t explain “how”. The right answer to “how?” is symbolically.

Transubstantiation means that the change is in substance, not appearance. Look, smell, taste, feel, are all appearances.

maybe you could do this for me…could you explain, w/o the use of jargon (and simply and clearly) what exactly makes up the substance of Christ’s body? What is it that becomes present so as to justify the claim of a real bodily presence? What is the substance of Christ’s body. Please, no jargon…just nice easy words that could be understood by an intelligent 10 year old. Thanks.

 

[joe370]

Hey Radical, you said:

;7061356]IIRC, from your posts on a “perpetual virginity” thread, you seem (to me) like a genuine fellow looking for answers. There are a lot of threads on the Eucharist….and I have participated in more than a handful. I think that the Catholics are wrong b/c I think they misunderstand:
a) the institution passages
b) John 6; and
c) Paul’s comments on the Lord’s Supper to the Corinthians.

I also think that the historical record shows that their view was not held by the church at the very start. I’ll let you tell me if you want greater detail wrt any of those matters. Cheers.

Radical, who or what has the authority to decide who is right and who is wrong? Since the bible is a collection of books, like any other book, it needs an authoritative interpreter, and ultimately, interpreting scripture comes down to a question of authority and who has it, which means that anyone and everyone who does so is putting him/herself in a position of authority.

Who, in this divisive world of Christianity, was entrusted with the God given authority, via the guidance of the holy spirit, to interpret scripture infallibly? I know it was NOT entrusted to me or you or anyone else here at this thread, 2000 years ago. Of course we can interpret scripture, but ultimately, we were not entrusted with the divine mission via the guidance of the holy spirit to interpret scripture infallibly. Somebody was, otherwise some of the the doctrinal truths (such as the one you feel that catholics misunderstand) - found within the pages of scripture cannot be known to all. For example, someone is 100% wrong about their interpretation of the Eucharist and someone is 100% right about their interpretation of the Eucharist, and the bible is of no help at all in settling this dispute, so help me find that person or people, in a position of authority, who can settle this dispute once and for all?

Also, could you please provide citations from the historical record of the early church that backs up your claim vis-a-vis the Eucharist?

 

[joe370]

Well, it looks like the standard Catholic assertions, assumptions, ad hominem and appeals to authority have made their anticipated appearance. I guess all is right in the world. I plan to deal with these one at a time and since the OPster believed that the 1 Cor passages were clear in presenting the view of a real bodily presence (RBP), I’ll start there. Two passages are involved, 1 Cor 10 and 1 Cor 11.

Hey radical, if you feel that your interpretation is correct, well, there is nothing wrong with that, in my opinion, but how do you go about convincing others that your authoritative interpretation is not based on ad hominem assumption?

If you are right then it is safe to say that all Christians for the first 1500 years of Christianity, were guilty of Eucharistic idolatry. Is this your belief?

 

[joe370]

Well, it looks like the standard Catholic assertions, assumptions, ad hominem and appeals to authority have made their anticipated appearance. I guess all is right in the world. I plan to deal with these one at a time and since the OPster believed that the 1 Cor passages were clear in presenting the view of a real bodily presence (RBP), I’ll start there. Two passages are involved, 1 Cor 10 and 1 Cor 11.

1 Cor 10 reads: *Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a **sharing in the blood of Christ ? ***Is not the bread which we break a **sharing in the body of Christ ? **17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body ; for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Look at the nation Israel ; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar ? 19 What do I mean then ? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything ? 20 No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God ; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons ; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

WRT the sharing in the body and blood that some think point to a RBP, please note how Paul continues and then applies the “sharing” to the altar where one eats one thing and then shares in another thing. This establishes two things. First, it establishes that, for the sharing Paul envisioned, consumption of the thing one shares in, is not required. Second, it establishes that one can consume one thing (such as mere bread) and share in another (the body of Christ). As such, a RBP is not required b/c a RBP was not part of the Israeli sharing in the altar.

Further, Paul then contemplated the matter as it related to demons. He stated that one can become a “sharer” with demons establishing that, for the sharing Paul envisioned, a real bodily presence is not required since demons do not have bodies. If that wasn’t enough, Paul also indicated that one could be a partner with demons by eating food sacrificed to idols even though an idol isn’t anything. This again demonstrates that a RBP is not necessary for the partnership Paul envisioned.

Here Paul clearly shows that Christians are not to partake of the gentile sacrifice along with the Christian sacrifice, both of which, were eaten. He tells them: No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God ; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons…You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. He is juxtaposing the gentile sacrifice with the Christian sacrifice, and the Eucharist (thanksgiving) - is only a sacrifice if in fact blood is involved. Actually this was critical to my belief in the real presence. I really tried to understand your explanation but no dice. It’s pretty clear. One was not to partake of the gentile sacrifice which was offered to demons, while partaking of the Christian sacrifice which was offered to God. What in the heck were you talking about when you said:

He stated that one can become a “sharer” with demons establishing that, for the sharing Paul envisioned, a real bodily presence is not required since demons do not have bodies.

They became a sharer in demons by eating the sacrifice that was offered to demons, and they were admonished not to do this while eating the Christian sacrifice, which was offered to God.

 

[joe370]

Radical, you said:

there is nothing about “is” by itself that makes its usage presentational and literal

So if you said: this is my car, I could go ahead and take it from you since it wouldn’t literally be your car? LOL…

those verses establish beyond any doubt that Jesus used “is my” in a figure of speech…which eliminates any argument that claims Jesus can’t have been speaking figuratively with “this is my body” b/c” “is” must be used in a presentational and literal fashion.

Beyond any doubt - really? Tell that to all those Christians who disagree with you.

of course “is” means “is”, but “is” doesn’t explain “how”. The right answer to “how?” is symbolically.

Boy, you think Jesus could have made it a little easier for people like yourself by simply including the word symbol at His last supper.

maybe you could do this for me…could you explain, w/o the use of jargon (and simply and clearly) what exactly makes up the substance of Christ’s body? What is it that becomes present so as to justify the claim of a real bodily presence? What is the substance of Christ’s body. Please, no jargon…just nice easy words that could be understood by an intelligent 10 year old. Thanks.

Sure. Here are some nice easy words illustrating what becomes present, that could be understood by an intelligent 10 year old:

He took some bread and gave thanks to God for it. Then he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this to remember me."

Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, ** which is shed for many for the remission of sins.**

How does one shed symbolic blood?

 

[Emily01]

There have been many astounding miracles concerning the Eucharist, yet despite even these the Protestants still obstinately deny our Lord’s body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist – they are essentially denying Him!

 

[SteveVH]

There have been many astounding miracles concerning the Eucharist, yet despite even these the Protestants still obstinately deny our Lord’s body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist – they are essentially denying Him!

Careful when using the word “Protestant”. It covers a lot of denominations but there are Protestants who do believe in the real presence, i.e Lutherans, Anglican, Episcopalian and there may be a few others. Our understanding differs somewhat but they get the idea.

As to the Eucharistic miracles, you are so right. They are astounding. It is amazing to me that the media is not all over something like this but it remains relatively unknown, much like the incorruptible bodies of certain saints.

God bless and welcome to the forum.

 

[SteveVH]

1 Cor 11 reads: * For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread ; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood ; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.*

WRT the claim that a RBP is required in order for one to be “guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” one needs to look at the explanation as to “why” that would be the case. With the use of “therefore” in verse 27, Paul communicates that the reason for such guilt is disclosed in what he stated earlier. The “therefore” (of verse 27) would most likely refer back to what immediately precedes the “therefore” and that is the fact that the Lord’s Supper proclaims the Lord’s death (verse 26). As such, the guilt follows from it being a proclamation and not b/c a RBP is involved. The only way to get to a possible indication of a RBP is by intentionally skipping past the proclamation aspect of the supper to the words of the institution…and even then the verse does not serve to establish a RBP.

I’ve read some bizarre notions on this forum but you are right up there. What does proclaiming the Lord’s death have to do with disproving the real presence?

In Hebrews 10: 26-29 it reads

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, … How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Here we see that one can “trample” Jesus underfoot and treat his blood as an unholy thing w/o having any actual physical interaction with Christ’s body or with his blood….and so, obviously a real bodily presence is not required to sin against Christ’s body or his blood.

Obviously? Christ’s presence does not mean that this host contains a finger and that host contains an ear or that host contains some blood. The words you quoted say “who has trampled the Son of God underfoot”. How do you trample Christ’s body and blood without having any physical interaction with him. In this case you would be having an interaction with his body, blood, soul and divinity, the entire person of Christ.

By comparing the two passages we see:

a) in 1 Cor 11 Paul said, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” in the context of the Lord’s Supper

b) In Hebrews 10, to “deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth,” is equated with trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him. In that passage there is no indication that there is one and only one way to “deliberately keep on sinning “ (namely by eating the bread or drinking the cup in an unworthy manner) In fact, there is no indication that the Lord’s Supper is in any way under consideration.

Are you kidding me? No indication of the Lord’s supper? What do you think the "blood of the covenant" means? As for sinning, who claimed that there is “one and only one way to ‘deliberately keep on sinning’”?

c) Since the Eucharist is the one and only thing claimed to involve a RBP, and since Hebrews 10 does not indicate that the Lord’s Supper is in any way involved, there must be a way to trample the Son of God under foot and to treat Jesus’s blood as an unholy thing w/o having anything to do with a RBP.

.

When you begin with a false premise ("does not indicate that the Lord’s Supper is in any way involved), the rest of your statement is necessarily made invalid.

d) Further, the consequences described in the two passages for the wrongful actions are different. In 1 Cor 11 eating/drinking in an unworthy manner results in sickness and possibly death. In Hebrews 10, deliberate sinning after knowledge results in damnation. The penalty in Hebrews 10 appears to be the more significant and so “trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him” would appear to be more significant than “profaning the body and blood of the Lord”.

Who says both can’t happen?

e) An assumption that a RBP must be involved (at 1 Cor 11) b/c the offense is described in such a serious manner fails b/c Hebrews 10 describes a more serious offense against the body (what else would one trample) and against the blood of Christ w/o a RBP being involved.

I agree that if one wanted to read 1 Cor 10 & 11 in a fashion that is consistent with a RBP view, then it is possible to do such….it just isn’t necessary to read those passages in that fashion. Also, for the reasons stated above, those passages most certainly do not prove a RBP

I’m not sure I have ever witnessed such a torture of scripture or of human language and reason. I will pray for you tonight.

God bless.

 

[Catholic20064]

I have to admit that I haven’t seen any arguments here against the Real Presence that really stand up against the evidence of the New Testament. I can’t see why Protestant fundamentalists reject the teaching of the Real Presence other than they don’t want to accept anything that might be identified with what they commonly call Popery.

 

[Radical]

joe370:

Also, could you please provide citations from the historical record of the early church that backs up your claim vis-a-vis the Eucharist?

Sure. It’ll take some time, but I’ll give you a bit of a taste of what I have seen in the ECFs and I’ll start with one that always ruffles a few feathers.

First, as late as the start of the 5th century we find that Augustine of Hippo did not hold to a real bodily presence. The understanding that Augustine did not advocate a real bodily presence (RBP) is derived from the body of his work. It is not an unusual conclusion of biographers of Augustine.

F. van der Meer, in his renowned study Augustine the Bishop, wrote:

It is perfectly true, however, that there is nowhere any indication of any awareness of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, or that he thought very much about this subject or made it the object of devotion; that was alien to the people of that age – at any rate in the West.

In Papal Sin G. Wills (another biographer of Augustine) approvingly cites van der Meer on that point and continues by pointing out that Berrouard thought he could establish that one text in Augustine affirmed a real presence. Wills noted that Kilmartin demonstrated how filmsy Berrouard’s case was.

Edward Kilmartin S.J. is a scholar who viewed the Antiochene school as a main source of the somatic real presence (influencing both Ambrose and Hillary). He contrasted this with Augustine, whose “Neoplatonic theology prevented him from interpreting the sacraments as more than signs pointing to a spiritual reality.”

I have discussed Augustine’s position on the Eucharist at length in these forums (in a number of threads). The predictable response from the Catholics is that someone will link to some “Augustine believed in the Real Presence” blogs…others will do the usual copy and paste job (of what, on the surface, look like passages that support a RBP) …a fellow by the name of Pneuma07 is an exception to rule and will present a good analysis. What seems to be lost on most Catholic posters is that van der Meer, Wills and Kilmartin will have actually read and studied Sermons 227 and 272, Expositions on the Psalms 98/99 and 33/34 and yet, they still have concluded that Augustine was not an advocate of a somatic real presence. The Catholics posters should ask themselves how these scholars (who have studied Augustine) could have missed what seems so obvious to the Catholic poster. Could it be that the Catholic poster has let his bias cloud his understanding? In any event, for my purposes, I only need to show the OPster why I believe that the Catholic are wrong in holding to a RBP. I can take comfort in the knowledge that accomplished Catholic (I think all 3 are catholic) scholars side with me in holding that Augustine didn’t support a RBP. For all those who want to claim that the Church has always believed in a RBP, it is more than a little problematic to find that at ca. 400 AD the RBP “was alien to the people of that age – at any rate in the West.”

 

[Radical]

Two passages that are difficult for the RBP side to deal with are:

(in On Christian Doctrine BK III):* “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.*

Augustine is instructing his audience (and us) as to how we should eat the flesh of Christ. He sees two alternatives: A literal eating that would be a crime and is therefore to be avoided and the correct figurative manner of eating. Your transubstantial interpretation is not even considered.
.
(in On Christian Doctrine BK III p.13):*…as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. He, however, who does not understand what a sign signifies, but yet knows that it is a sign, is not in bondage. And it is better even to be in bondage to unknown but useful signs than, by interpreting them wrongly, to draw the neck from under the yoke of bondage only to insert it in the coils of error. *

1. Augustine refers to the Eucharist
2. He then says that to take the signs (bread and wine) for the things that are signified by them (body and blood of Christ) is error. Pretty clear.

There also seems to be a strong tendency among the RBP crowd to think that any mention of sacrifice means that the author must have had a RBP in mind. The ECFs consistently envisioned prayers as being a pure sacrifice. In ]iThe City of God Augustine speaks of sacrifice as follows:
A sacrifice, therefore, is the visible sacrament or sacred sign of an invisible sacrifice. Hence that penitent in the psalm, or it may be the Psalmist himself, entreating God to be merciful to his sins, says, If You desired sacrifice, I would give it: You delight not in whole burnt-offerings. The sacrifice of God is a broken heart: a heart contrite and humble God will not despise. Observe how, in the very words in which he is expressing God’s refusal of sacrifice, he shows that God requires sacrifice. He does not desire the sacrifice of a slaughtered beast, but He desires the sacrifice of a contrite heart. Thus, that sacrifice which he says God does not wish, is the symbol of the sacrifice which God does wish.

Note that the sacrifice that God wants is a broken heart….that sacrifice does not require a RBP? Here is more from that same chapter:

And so, when it is written, I desire mercy rather than sacrifice, Hosea 6:6 nothing else is meant than that one sacrifice is preferred to another; for that which in common speech is called sacrifice is only the symbol of the true sacrifice. Now mercy is the true sacrifice, and therefore it is said, as I have just quoted, with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

Regarding this bit from chapter 20;

Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him.

Kindly note his description of the Eucharist as a sacramental sign of the actual sacrifice and that the Church offers herself in it. Yet again, I don’t see anything necessitating a RP. For Augustine it is the Church (aka the body of Christ) that is offered on the Eucharistic altar and not the other body of Christ that is present through transubstantiation.