Communion of the Body of Christ

[Josiah]

1. So, you didn't read posts 131, 133, 134, 137, 148. Please read these. All the words. Note what words are there and don't insert any that are not there. It's very simple.


2. So, you didn't do the exercise. Try it. I suspect the result will be a good understanding of Real Presence. Real Presence accepts and believes the words THERE rather than deleting them and inserting words NOT there. Simple. Very simple.


3. QUOTE me where I ever said "the elements are the real flesh and blood of Jesus." We all know you can't, my friend, because I never said that. It's hard to have these conversations if what is posted is ignored and all kinds of stuff is imputed that not only was never said but quite contradicted. I suggest you read (or re-read) the posts referenced in point 1. Note what is said. Note what is not. Note that I flat out stated I hold to Real Presence and NOT, N.O.T., either of the 16th century invented dogmas, that of Zwingli AND that of the RCC but rather, instead, I hold to the orginal position, the one all held to for over 1500 years, the one that accepts and believes what Jesus said and Paul penned, the one that means that His body and blood are PRESENT, exists, are there because the meaning of is is is, is has to do with BEING. It has nothing to do with denials, it does not mean change, it does not mean "not," it does not mean "seems like but isn't", does not indicate anything about alchemy or Aristotles' theory of accidents.







QUOTE me where I stated what you claim I did. Quote me stating, "I reject Real Presence and Zwingli's "can't be true so it's not" but I hold to the RCC's postiion of Transubstantiation." QUOTE me saying that. Friend, you state you've read posts 131, 133, 134, 137, 148.... but it's extremely hard for me to believe that when you state things like this, when I flat out stated I REJECT the Catholic position.


I have no nuance. I'm just accepting and believing what Jesus said and Paul penned. Accepting the words - in what they typically mean - every time. No denial. No doubt. No "that can't be true so it must be a symbol". No imposed concepts of alchemy. No imposed philosophies of Aristotle. No nuance. No deletions. No substitutions.


Try the exercise above in post 151. IF you do, I find it hard that you then do not understand Real Presence. Because Real Presence has no nuance, no philosophy, no theories, no explanations. It just accepts and believes the words THERE rather than deleting some and substitiuting others. Simple. Easy. Worked for 100% of Christians for over 1500 years and still works for many today.



Blessings


.

I still have no idea how your conception of real presence is any different from the Roman Catholic Church.

It's explained very simply in posts 131 (and many other places). If you will read the explanations of Real Presence and of Transubstantiation, you will note they are not the same.

1 don't see your argument being made in the text of scripture.

Read posts 131 and 133. The position of Real Presence IS the text of Scripture. That's it, that's all. NO doubting, NO explaining. NO nuance. NO deleting. NO inserting. NO substituting. ALL the words there..... NO words not there. STOP. No eisegesis NO "can't be true so it must be something else." NO imposed theory from alchemy. NO imposed philosophy of Aristotle. JUST THE W0RDS. The words that are THERE (in black and white) and nothing not there. Simple. THA.;T'S the teaching. Nothing added, nothing deleted. It IS the texts, the words - accepted and believed.

This is why I asked you to do the exercise in post 151. But you didn't. IF you had, you'd have the doctrine of Real Presence right there, in black and white.

I cannot follow your train of thought on this subject.

Perhaps that's your problem. There is no train of thought. There are the words. Believed. Perhaps you keep trying to figure out what words I'm denying.... what words I'm giving some weird meaning to.... what words I'm inserting into the text.... what is my "nuance." Friend, the reason you can't follow those is that those don't exist. There's no such thing for you to follow. Just read the words. The words THERE. And believe. You'll have Real Presence, but you'll see the enormous problem with Zwingli and with the RCC's dogma of Transubstantiation. It's not rocket science. It's very simple. For over 1500 years, no one had a problem with it. No one had any trouble understanding it.

 

[Arsenios]

Baptist's focus on this statement in Luke's passage:
"Do this in remembrance of me."

τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν

"This be ye doing unto the remembering of Me."

Were His disciples doing this?

How long were they doing it?

When did they stop?

The imperative verb is in the present tense, with the implicit meaning of: "Keep on doing this..."

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Real Presence means really present in the bread and wine...

Actually, it means that the bread becomes the Body, and the wine the Blood...

And it becomes so through the invocation of God Who changes them,
and in obedience to Christ's commandment:
"Be ye doing this..."

For having given thanks and blessed and broken the Bread He said:
"Take... Eat... This My Body IS..."

Hence the Doctrine of the Real Presence is technically false -

eg - Christ is not "Present IN" the Bread,
but instead the Bread IS the Body of Christ,
Broken for you, for the Remission of Sins...

eg The Bread IS Christ...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Either
it is the actual physical body and blood of Jesus
or
it's symbolic and to be remembered.
Those are the two options.
Which option of those two choices do you accept?
If you have a third option, show how the third option is taught in the text.
If you cannot explain it, I will never understand what you are talking about.

I only see the two possible options in the passage.
If there is a third, alternative,
then teach how it is massaged from the text
because I currently do not see your claim in the text.

I must say that this exchange is a stitch!
You are falling into the fallacy of the false alternative...
The text is simple...

Look...

The Bread IS His Body -
That is what the text says -
Those are Jesus' words...

He does not say the Bread symbolizes His Body if you remember Him...
He does not say His Body is Present in the Bread...
He does say: "Take... Eat... This My Body IS..."
And to His Disciples he commanded: "Feed My Sheep..."
It is Christ feeding His Body to His Sheep through the Hands of His Servants...
He has been doing so for 2000 years...

If you keep insisting that the Bread is not His Body,
then you do not believe Christ's very words...
And any other account is merely human and fallen...

Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

Actually, it means that the bread becomes the Body, and the wine the Blood...

Not necessarily....


NOWHERE did Jesus or Paul so much as mention "change" or "becomes." No mention of "was" or "now" The key word is is. Is means present, reality, existing. It doesn't mean changed.


Of course, the Bible speak of "Bread" and "Wine/cup/fruit of the vine" more AFTER the consecration than BEFORE it - in exactly the identical same way. So, either we need to hold that we are NOT to accept the words in the texts "at face value" (words like "is" "Body" "Blood" "forgiveness") because the words do NOT necessarily mean what they are (and thus - Zwingli's argument is just as valid as any other) OR we need to conclude that bread and wine are just as present after as before. Now, Catholics play that whole "Aristotelian ACCIDENT" game here to try to say "nope, the words do NOT mean what they do but YES they mean what they do - but only if Aristotle was right and of course he was not. But I don't think that's a good road to travel.


Now, as mentioned in post 131, REAL PRESENCE doesn't actually address this... it does not affirm the full, literal physical reality of the Bread and Wine (although Lutherans do) but NOR does it deny that - it simply leaves that issue unaddressed, the whole point being the Body and Blood. IMO (and that of Lutherans), modern post-Trent Catholics teaching that there no bread and wine present (at least in any usual sense, only in the Aristotelian ACCIDENT sense) doesn't invalidate the Sacrament and per se doesn't mean a repudiation of REAL PRESENCE but I agree with Luther: By dogmatically insisting that the words following "is" aren't .... that "IS" means "some IS and some ISN'T" then we've destroyed any textual reason for Real Presence. The ENTIRELY of Real Presence rests on one and only one point: The words mean what they do. INSIST that's false, they do NOT (at times) and then all we have is Joe think these words mean what they do and Bob thinks other words mean what they do, Zwingli becomes as textually valid as Real Presence. The fundamental problem with Transubstantiation (Luther said) is that it makes REAL PRESENCE very questionable, it destroys the basis for REAL PRESENCE. But I'll say again, technically REAL PRESENCE doesn't address the bread and wine so therefore the RCC since Trent is not TECHNICALLY holding to a contradiction. Now, if the East wants to say ACTUAL bread and wine ARE there (no lying in the text) but SOMEHOW there is a mysterious change that in no way makes it less bread and wine - as does so non-dogmatically - then I'd not have a problem; I'd just add that is speculation, conjecture (permissible if not dogmatic).

Hence the Doctrine of the Real Presence is technically false - eg - Christ is not "Present IN" the Bread

Interesting you, as an Orthodox, deny REAL PRESENCE. I was told your position is a grave heresy in your church. Hum. I'm very surprised. But then a LOT of things you convey directly contradict what other Orthodox have told me.... And that's okay.


Read post 311. Nowhere does REAL PRESENCE speak of location. You are confusing the Catholic heresy of consubstantiation (which Lutherans also repudiate) for REAL PRESENCE. REAL PRESENCE holds that His Body and Blood are PRESENT. Nothing about when, where or how (all left alone, all left as MYSTERY). Yes, most speak of "SACRAMENTAL union" e.g. that this Presence is uniquely connected to the SACRAMENT (not the same as His presence everywhere) and to the Elements but nothing is precise or dogmatic. Luther's RARE (3 times in his life) use of "in" and/or "with" and/or "under" where just ways to say He IS PRESENT in the Sacrament. Luther condemned Consubstantiation as the same scholatic speculation as transubstantiation, the same inserting what the Bible never says. Luther taught that Christ IS present - in some unique but full sense, now he 3 times said either IN the Sacrament or WITH the Sacrament or UNDER the Sacrament (not sure any of these words work real well) but rejected any idea of locale. It is the Catholics who dogmatized the idea of locale - inspite of repudiating the very thing they did at Trent.




.

 

[Arsenios]

If Communion is the actual body of Christ
then breaking that bread would be breaking the body of Christ,
making Him suffer eternally!!

"Take... Eat... This is My Body... Broken for you..."

Remember, Rich - He did this the night BEFORE His Body had been broken on the Cross...

Christ Himself broke His Own Body for us...

We only do what He commands us to do...

Which He Himself did before He Suffered...

An ontological Prophesy of His Suffering...

And the Bread IS His Body...


Arsenios

 

[Particular]

τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν

"This be ye doing unto the remembering of Me."

Were His disciples doing this?

How long were they doing it?

When did they stop?

The imperative verb is in the present tense, with the implicit meaning of: "Keep on doing this..."

Arsenios

This seems perfectly fit with the Baptist tradition.

 

[Particular]

I must say that this exchange is a stitch!
You are falling into the fallacy of the false alternative...
The text is simple...

Look...

The Bread IS His Body -
That is what the text says -
Those are Jesus' words...

He does not say the Bread symbolizes His Body if you remember Him...
He does not say His Body is Present in the Bread...
He does say: "Take... Eat... This My Body IS..."
And to His Disciples he commanded: "Feed My Sheep..."
It is Christ feeding His Body to His Sheep through the Hands of His Servants...
He has been doing so for 2000 years...

If you keep insisting that the Bread is not His Body,
then you do not believe Christ's very words...
And any other account is merely human and fallen...

Arsenios

So, Jesus body was made of bread and his blood was actually wine. Simple. Jesus was the original dough boy.

 

[Arsenios]

The key word is "is".

You are starting to sound like Bill Clinton!

"Is" means "present",

No it doesn't... Existence does not specify when or where...

reality, existing.

Slushing these together with "present" is wrong, Josiah...

It doesn't mean changed.

The change came prior:

22:19 - NAS –
And when He had taken some bread
and given thanks
He broke it
and gave it to them, saying,
"This is My body which is given for you;
do this in remembrance of Me."

Without Christ first taking the bread, giving thanks, and breaking it, the bread is just bread...

It is Christ Himself Who changes the Bread to become His Body...

And His Servants only do so by His Command...

His servants are Members of His Body, you see...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

So, Jesus body was made of bread and his blood was actually wine. Simple. Jesus was the original dough boy.

You are a child...

You will grow...

God bless you little brother...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

This seems perfectly fit with the Baptist tradition.

At least you are a young traditionalist!

How often do you do Communion Services?

Arsenios

 

[Particular]

You are a child...

You will grow...

God bless you little brother...


Arsenios

Thanks for your condescension.

 

[Arsenios]

Nowhere does REAL PRESENCE speak of location.

To be present as a presence cannot avoid location - And in this case the location is "WITHIN" the "ELEMENTS" of bread and wine...

Unavoidable, I say!

The bread, AFTER being Taken and Blessed and Broken BY Christ, then IS His Body...

Just as it is plainly written in the text...


Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

.




Let's very carefully look at the Eucharistic texts, noting carefully the words - what Jesus said and Paul penned, and equally what they did not. What are the words THERE and the ones NOT there?


Matthew 26:26-29

26. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27. Then he took the cup (wine), gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
29. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (wine) from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."


First Corinthians 11:23-29

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night 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, after supper he took the cup (wine), saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this 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 will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
29. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.



There are three basic "takes" on this in modern Western Christianity..... Let's look at the first (the original)....



REAL PRESENCE: Catholic, Lutheran, some Anglicans and Methodists


Real Presence IS:

1. Real Presence accepts the words of Jesus and Paul. Nothing added, nothing deleted, nothing modified. Just accepting and believing what Jesus said and Paul by inspiration penned. Nothing more, nothing less.

2. Real Presence accepts that the meaning of is is is. IS means reality, present. Thus Christ IS really present. "Real Presence." This means that we receive Christ - quite literally, physically.


Real Presence is NOT..

1. Real Presence is not a dogmatic denial of the words "bread" and "wine" AFTER the consecration as if we must take a "half real/half symbolic" split interpretation of the text, mandating that we now have equal opinions about which words mean what they mean and which ones don't. It simply regards the bread and wine as irrelevant. The point of Real Presence is the presence of CHRIST. It's not called, "The Denial of What Paul Wrote" because that's not what it is, it is the AFFIRMATION of what he penned and what Christ said: the body is, the blood is, CHRIST is present. Really. "Real Presence"

2. Real Presence is not a theory about anything or explanation regarding anything. It simply embraces EXACTLY and LITERALLY what Jesus said and Paul penned. The HOW and the physics are left entirely alone (without comment, without theory)

3. Real Presence doesn't teach or deny any "change." The word "change" never appears in any Eucharistic text and thus Real Presence has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Rather, it embraces what it IS - because that does appear in the texts and seems significant. "IS" means is - it has to do be BEING. If I say, This car is a Toyota, that doesn't imply that it was once a cow but the atoms were re-arranged so that now it is a Toyota. If at the Thanksgiving meal, I say "pass the mash potatoes" it doesn't mean that use to be sting beans but the atoms were rearranged via an alchemic action and is now potatoes.... and I don't mean to pass the string beans which reminds me of mashed potatoes. If we accept the words THERE and not insert words NOT there, then any mention of "change" would be at most speculation.

Now, without a doubt, the faith and conviction raises some questions. But Real Presence has always regarded all this to be MYSTERY. How it happens, Why it happens - it doesn't matter. It is believed because Jesus said and Paul so penned by inspiration.

It should be noted that this view is still OFFICIALLY held by the Catholic Church as well, although almost all focus has switched to another view dogmatized in 1551 by that single denomination as a second view (but the earlier, original view STILL id dogma, as well).


Now, this should not be confused with a heresy invention by exactly the same Catholic "Scholastics" that invented Transubstantiation, the heresy of Consubstantiation. Luther wanted to stress that Christ is REALLY PRESENT ... but is that in the identical same sense that He is present say on some moon of Jupiter? NO, He is uniquely present Sacramentally. And so JUST LIKE CATHOLICS FOR CENTURIES BEFORE HIM, he spoke of Christ being IN the Sacrament, WITH the Sacrament. But like all those Catholics before him, Luther did not mean to insist some LOCALE (he too regarded Consubstantiation as heresy.... the RCC would dogmatically LOCATE Christ with Transubstantion but Lutherans never have). "In, with and under" (words most Lutherans hold are not best) ONLY means His presence is unique Sacramentally. Real Presence says nothing about the WHEN or HOW or WHERE - beyond saying it's unique Sacramentally ("in the Sacrament" "with the Sacrament")





Try this exercise....

Take the two texts above. Search for the exact words below. When you find them, EMBOLDEN the word. Once done, COUNT the number of times the word appears BEFORE the conscration and AFTER the consecration.
Look at the result. You will see the doctrine of REAL PRESENCE.

BREAD
WINE/CUP/FRUIT OF THE VINE
IS
BODY
BLOOD
CHANGE
BECOME
WAS
NOW
APPEARS
ACCIDENT
ALCHEMY
TRANSUBSTANTIATION
SYMBOLIZE
SEEMS
NOT


Which words appear? Which do not?
Of those that appear, how many times do each appear before the Consecration and which appear after the consecration and how many times?

IF our stance is to accept what is stated but not what is not, do we hold that SOMETIMES the words mean what they mean but SOMETIMES they don't, in which case is our stance to accept what is stated but not what is not? Are we simply left to conflicting opinions as to which words mean what they state and which don't?





.
.

 

[Arsenios]

Thanks for your condescension.

We are all children...

And you WILL grow...

God will see to it...

Your remark was childish, as you may agree...

Or you may not...

Christ said the Bread which He had Taken and Blessed and Broken IS His Body...

Are YOU a Member of His Body?

Have you been Taken by Christ?

Have you been Blessed by Christ?

Have you been Broken by Christ?

He did NOT say His Body is bread...

But that Bread which He Takes, Blesses and Breaks IS His Body...

You will grow, my Brother...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

.




Let's very carefully look at the Eucharistic texts, noting carefully the words - what Jesus said and Paul penned, and equally what they did not. What are the words THERE and the ones NOT there?


Matthew 26:26-29

26. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27. Then he took the cup (wine), gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
29. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (wine) from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."


First Corinthians 11:23-29

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night 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, after supper he took the cup (wine), saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this 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 will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
29. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.



There are three basic "takes" on this in modern Western Christianity..... Let's look at the first (the original)....



REAL PRESENCE: Catholic, Lutheran, some Anglicans and Methodists


Real Presence IS:

1. Real Presence accepts the words of Jesus and Paul. Nothing added, nothing deleted, nothing modified. Just accepting and believing what Jesus said and Paul by inspiration penned. Nothing more, nothing less.

2. Real Presence accepts that the meaning of is is is. IS means reality, present. Thus Christ IS really present. "Real Presence." This means that we receive Christ - quite literally, physically.


Real Presence is NOT..

1. Real Presence is not a dogmatic denial of the words "bread" and "wine" AFTER the consecration as if we must take a "half real/half symbolic" split interpretation of the text, mandating that we now have equal opinions about which words mean what they mean and which ones don't. It simply regards the bread and wine as irrelevant. The point of Real Presence is the presence of CHRIST. It's not called, "The Denial of What Paul Wrote" because that's not what it is, it is the AFFIRMATION of what he penned and what Christ said: the body is, the blood is, CHRIST is present. Really. "Real Presence"

2. Real Presence is not a theory about anything or explanation regarding anything. It simply embraces EXACTLY and LITERALLY what Jesus said and Paul penned. The HOW and the physics are left entirely alone (without comment, without theory)

3. Real Presence doesn't teach or deny any "change." The word "change" never appears in any Eucharistic text and thus Real Presence has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Rather, it embraces what it IS - because that does appear in the texts and seems significant. "IS" means is - it has to do be BEING. If I say, This car is a Toyota, that doesn't imply that it was once a cow but the atoms were re-arranged so that now it is a Toyota. If at the Thanksgiving meal, I say "pass the mash potatoes" it doesn't mean that use to be sting beans but the atoms were rearranged via an alchemic action and is now potatoes.... and I don't mean to pass the string beans which reminds me of mashed potatoes. If we accept the words THERE and not insert words NOT there, then any mention of "change" would be at most speculation.

Now, without a doubt, the faith and conviction raises some questions. But Real Presence has always regarded all this to be MYSTERY. How it happens, Why it happens - it doesn't matter. It is believed because Jesus said and Paul so penned by inspiration.

It should be noted that this view is still OFFICIALLY held by the Catholic Church as well, although almost all focus has switched to another view dogmatized in 1551 by that single denomination as a second view (but the earlier, original view STILL id dogma, as well).


Now, this should not be confused with a heresy invention by exactly the same Catholic "Scholastics" that invented Transubstantiation, the heresy of Consubstantiation. Luther wanted to stress that Christ is REALLY PRESENT ... but is that in the identical same sense that He is present say on some moon of Jupiter? NO, He is uniquely present Sacramentally. And so JUST LIKE CATHOLICS FOR CENTURIES BEFORE HIM, he spoke of Christ being IN the Sacrament, WITH the Sacrament. But like all those Catholics before him, Luther did not mean to insist some LOCALE (he too regarded Consubstantiation as heresy.... the RCC would dogmatically LOCATE Christ with Transubstantion but Lutherans never have). "In, with and under" (words most Lutherans hold are not best) ONLY means His presence is unique Sacramentally. Real Presence says nothing about the WHEN or HOW or WHERE - beyond saying it's unique Sacramentally ("in the Sacrament" "with the Sacrament")





Try this exercise....

Take the two texts above. Search for the exact words before. When you find them, EMBOLDEN the word. Once done, COUNT the number of times the word appears BEFORE the conscration and AFTER the consecration.
Look at the result. You will see the doctrine of REAL PRESENCE.

BREAD
WINE/CUP/FRUIT OF THE VINE
IS
BODY
BLOOD
CHANGE
BECOME
WAS
NOW
APPEARS
ACCIDENT
ALCHEMY
TRANSUBSTANTIATION
SYMBOLIZE
SEEMS
NOT


Which words appear? Which do not? Of those that appear, how many times do each appear before the Consecration and which appear after the consecration and how many times? IF our stance is to accept what is stated but not what is not, do we hold that SOMETIMES the words mean what they mean but SOMETIMES they don't, in which case is our stance to accept what is stated but not what is not? Are we simply left to conflicting opinions as to which words mean what they state and which don't?





.
.

Thank you for keeping my fly out of your ointment!


Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

TRANSUBSTANTIATION: Catholic Church (First in the 9th Century, Dogma since 1551)


This is a separate Eucharistic dogma of the individual Roman Catholic Church (alone), officially and dogmatically since 1551.

The Mystery of Real Presence does raise some questions (unanswered by Scripture). All regarded these as just that - questions (and irrelevant ones at that), until western Roman Catholic "Scholasticism" arose in the middle ages. It was focused on combining Christian thought with secular ideas - in the hopes of making Christianity more intellectual and even more to explain away some of its mysteries. It eventually came up with several theories about the Eucharist. One of these was "Transubstantiation."

Although no one claims there's any biblical confirmation of this, and while all admit it lacks any ecumenical or historic embrace, it should be noted that there are a FEW snippets from RCC
"Fathers" that speak of "change." But, while Lutherans and others are comfortable with that word, it doesn't imply any transubstantiation.

"Transubstantiation" is a very precise, technical term from alchemy. You'll recall from high school chemistry class that alchemy was the dream that, via incantations and the use of chemicals and herbs, fundamental substance (we'll call such elements) may be transformed from one to entirely others (lead to gold was the typical objective). These western, medieval, Catholic "Scholastics" theorized that the Consecration is an alchemic transubstantiation.

This, however, caused a bit of a problem! Because, in alchemy, the transubstantiated substance normally would have the properties of the NEW substance, and one of the "questions" of Real Presense is why it still has the properties of bread and wine. Here these western, medival Catholic theorists turned to another pop idea of the day: Accidents. This came hook, line and sinker from Aristotle. He theorized that substance could have properties (he called them "accidents" - it's a very precise term for his theory) that are entirely unrelated to the substance. Sometimes called "ghost physics," the one part of his theory of "accidents" seemed especially useful to these medieval Catholic theorists. He stated that properties of one thing could CONTINUE after the actual causative substannce ceased. His example was lightening. Seeing the connection between lightening and thunder, but knowing nothing of wave physics, he taught that the SOUND of lightening continues long after the lightening ceased to exist: this is an "accident." This, then , is what we have in the Eucharist: ACCIDENTS of bread and wine (since, in transubstantiation, bread and wine no longer exist in any real physics sense - it was transubstantiated). No one claims that this has any biblical confirmation or that the RCC
"father" referenced Aristotle's Accidents - even as pure theoretical pious opinion.

In Catholicism, there are TWO dogmas vis-a-vis the Eucharist: Real Presence and Transubstantiation. The later was first suggested in the 9th century and made dogma in 1551 (a bit after Luther's death), some say in order to anathematize Luther on the Eucharist since he did not affirm such. Luther regarded it as abiblical, textually problemmatic and unnecessary.


From The Catholic Encyclopedia:

The doctrine of transubstantiation was a controversial question for centuries before it received final adoption. It was Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine monk (786-860), who first theorized transubstantiation by the changing of the elements into the "body and blood of Christ." From the publishing of his treatise in A. D. 831 until the fourth Lateran Council in A. D. 1215, many fierce verbal battles were fought by the bishops against the teaching of Paschasius. - The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. ii, p. 518, Art. "Paschasius Radbertus;" / 6. Samuel Edgar. Tenth complete American edition, p. 405.



Lutheran Reaction:


This was not dogma in Luther's time (he died before it was made so) and he was far from alone in not "buying" it. But it WAS a very common teaching, especially since the 13th Century. It was invented ONLY as a POSSIBLE "explanation" to eliminate the mystery and questions of Real Presence by employing the popular pre-science ideas of the early Middle Ages (all wrong, of course); how to use alchemy and Aristotle's then popular philosophy of Accidents to explain away the mystery of Real Presence. The Schastics came up with other theories too but this one 'stuck." AS PURE SPECULATION (even a commonly taught one), it wasn't every problematic. Luther's focus was not on the RCC but on Zwingli. But Luther did reject this theory (only later made Dogma)

Luther's objection was the the entirely of the REAL PRESENCE position (see post 174) is that we accept the words of the texts - fully, "at face value." All the words there.... none of the words not there..... all meaning what they do. This is Luther's point with Zwingli, too; IF we repudiate a 1500 year old universal faith simply because the words do NOT mean what they mean.... and words NOT THERE become the foundation for some new dogma ... then REAL PRESENCE becomes untenable; the whole foundation of the faith is utterly destroyed. Why should "is" means "is" if it means "changed?" Why should Body and Blood after the Consecration mean body and blood if the words bread and wine don't mean bread and wine? To Luther, the whole doctrine - for 1500 years - was founded on one thing: ALL the words THERE mean exactly what they mean; don't substitute any words not there. Destroy that - and the whole doctrine collapses, and we are just left with "what words are improper, which other words are better?" Luther admitted REAL PRESENCE leaves us with a lot of unanswered questions and mystery but Luther was okay with that.




- Josish




.

 

[Particular]

We are all children...

And you WILL grow...

God will see to it...

Your remark was childish, as you may agree...

Or you may not...

Christ said the Bread which He had Taken and Blessed and Broken IS His Body...

Are YOU a Member of His Body?

Have you been Taken by Christ?

Have you been Blessed by Christ?

Have you been Broken by Christ?

He did NOT say His Body is bread...

But that Bread which He Takes, Blesses and Breaks IS His Body...

You will grow, my Brother...


Arsenios

Again, thank you for your condescension.

 

[Particular]

If we take the word of God literally, regarding communion, either the bread becomes human flesh or Jesus body was bread, not human flesh. And the wine becomes human blood or Jesus blood was wine.

That is the literal interpretation of "is."

Anything else cannot be a literal interpretation of the passages on communion.

 

[Josiah]

If we take the word of God literally, regarding communion, either the bread becomes human flesh or Jesus body was bread, not human flesh. And the wine becomes human blood or Jesus blood was wine.

Let's look at the words here...

Matthew 26:26-29

26. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27. Then he took the cup (wine), gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
29. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (wine) from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."


First Corinthians 11:23-29

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night 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, after supper he took the cup (wine), saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this 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 will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
29. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.



Try this exercise....

Take the two texts above. Search for the exact words before. When you find them, EMBOLDEN the word. Once done, COUNT the number of times the word appears BEFORE the conscration and AFTER the consecration.
Look at the result. You will see the doctrine of REAL PRESENCE.

BREAD
WINE/CUP/FRUIT OF THE VINE
IS
BODY
BLOOD
CHANGE
BECOME
WAS
NOW
APPEARS
ACCIDENT
ALCHEMY
TRANSUBSTANTIATION
SYMBOLIZE
SEEMS
NOT


Which words appear? Which do not? Of those that appear, how many times do each appear before the Consecration and which appear after the consecration and how many times? IF our stance is to accept what is stated but not what is not, do we hold that SOMETIMES the words mean what they mean but SOMETIMES they don't, in which case is our stance to accept what is stated but not what is not? Are we simply left to conflicting opinions as to which words mean what they state and which don't?

And consider, if the words mean what they do, then what about the references to bread (2) and wine (3) and blood (3) and body (4) AFTER the consecration? IF you accept that body and blood ARE (body 4 times after the consecration, blood 3 times) why reject that bread and wine ARE (bread - 2 after the consecration, wine 3 times)? Would it be deceptive of Jesus and Paul to speak of things that no longer exist?

That is the literal interpretation of "is."

Quote from any dictionary of your choice. Show the definition of "IS" - transformed from one reality into a completely different reality. I've looked at a number of dictionaries... and while there are a lot of meanings to "is", the meaning you insist MUST be the one meant here doesn't exist. As even an option. IS typically has to do with reality, presence, existence.

Now, IF Jesus and Paul spoke of ONLY bread and wine BEFORE the "IS" and ONLY body and blood AFTER - we might have a hermenautics issue here; I'd still argue that "is" means is and not "undergone an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind an indistinguishable mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accident" but I agree, your pure speculation would be textually POSSIBLE, just not in any sense at all supported by the text. Thing is: Bread and wine are mentioned AFTER the consecration. Five times. Less than the 7 times Body and Blood are mentioned but all 4 are mentioned. So, you seem to have Jesus and Paul being sloppy at best and more likely deceptive.


And you have another textual problem, too. Jesus says THIS bread..... THIS wine.... He does not say, "THIS was bread..." He does not say "THIS was wine." He doesn't say "THIS FORMALLY BREAD...." The THIS points to the realities stated: BREAD and WINE. Now, it seems textual that the "IS" is referring not to the bread and wine but to the Body and Blood - but in any case, it would be sloppy or deceptive to say THIS bread if it wasn't bread. THIS wine if it wasn't wine. REAL PRESENCE is not about denying anything.... not about dogmatically declaring Jesus and Paul spoke sloppy at best and likely deceptively, it's just about affirming the IS - and IS means there's a reality present. Is it ONLY the bread and wine? Or even significantly the bread and wine? Nope, doens't seem to be the point (although bread and wine are mentioned 5 times after the "is"), no CHRIST seems to be the point. Christ IS present..... somehow "connected" to the Sacrament, the bread and wine.





.