Why can't the bread & wine be the body & blood of the Lord?

[Rens]

What do they mean with: it is in substance the body of Christ? What substance? The physical substance is bread, so the spiritual one? Like in: now faith is the substance of things hoped for?

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a34.htm

Question: Though the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation cannot be proved by the Bible alone, neither can you show that the bread and wine are merely signs of the body and blood of Christ. A literal understanding of Jesus’ words, “This is my body…this is my blood” agrees well with the Catholic doctrine of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist.

[Another reader asked] Jesus' words are plain and clear: This is my body. He does not say, This is a symbol of my body. Why is it that you do not take Christ's words literally like Catholics do?

Answer: Like Evangelicals, Catholics do not take Jesus' words, “This is my body...this is my blood” in a strictly literal sense, for they do not really believe that the bread is Jesus’ body or that the wine is Jesus’ blood. The literal meaning – “This bread is my body; this wine is my blood” -- is a contradiction in terms. Bread is bread, not a human body; wine is wine, not blood. To explain away the obvious empirical facts, clever Catholic theologians have come up with this idea of transubstantiation: What appears to be bread is not bread at all, and though it has all the characteristics of bread, it is in reality (or in substance) the body of Christ! Although this is usually considered a literal interpretation, it is strictly speaking not so.

 

[atpollard]

atpollard, tell me honestly without disembling and without layers of theological paint what you think of this.

The real presence is a mystery like the hypostatic union is a msytery and like the Blessed Trinity is fundamentally mysterious to us. It is believed but understanding it in something approaching scientific detail is not going to happen so the bread tastes and looks like bread (or a wafer if you prefer that name for the unleavened bread used in Catholic Churches of the Roman Rite) and the wine looks like and tastes like wine yet is declared to be the body and the blood of Christ. I remember reading John Calvin's Institutes on the matter and coming away no better informed than if I had not read it. "Spiritually present" is not very meaningful to me. Jesus said "This is my body" and one human sense confirms it, the sense of hearing with which his words are heard, believed, and received as true. Sight, taste, smell, and texture all fail to confirm the Lord's words yet hearing (with child like belief) receives it as true.​

God (all three persons) were "real" before anything in the universe existed and will continue to be "real" long after the universe has ceased to exist. So I do agree that there is a very real mystery at the Communion Table with the bread and the wine, just as there was a deep and profound event and mystery at the Last Supper. I would disagree with those who might think that it is completely symbolic with no supernatural substance to the event (either the Last Supper or the modern Communion). However, I cannot accept that either event is both absolutely physical and literally and our 5 senses simply fail to perceive the actual human flesh (or even the actual glorified post-resurrection flesh) of Christ. That description is the definition of Schizophrenia.

I have not read John Calvin's views on the subject, nor do I particularly care. Calvinism really refers more to soteriology (how one gets saved) and marks me as falling more in agreement with Augustine than Pelagius on that issue.

There are deep and profound spiritual and metaphorical and, yes, even symbolic, truths being conveyed by both the Last Supper and the Communion Table. They are not some stand-alone mystery, but are the heart of what it means to be a Child of God, part of the Bride of Christ, a new creation, and knit together as members of one body with Christ as the head. The excessive focus on literal flesh and blood misses the mark. I cannot even begin to share what it is that you are missing from the context, you are not in a place to listen.

Remember that when Jesus said "this is my blood", from the Greek grammar, we know that "this" could not have been speaking of the wine (the pronoun and noun did not match in gender) but "this" referred to the cup. Scripture confirms as much:

Matthew 26:28 “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
Mark 14:24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.
Luke 22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.
1 Corinthians 11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

So there are scriptural problems with accepting Jesus words as some literal mystery that even Luke and Paul understood as not being about drinking blood but about a cup and a covenant.

 

[Rens]

Why not believe both. The wine in the cup is Jesus' blood and the and Jesus will not drink of the fruit of the vine until he that day when I drink it new with you in Jesus' Father's kingdom. The cup contains his blood the future drink will be the fruit of the vine.

because it says this

 

[MoreCoffee]

God (all three persons) were "real" before anything in the universe existed and will continue to be "real" long after the universe has ceased to exist. So I do agree that there is a very real mystery at the Communion Table with the bread and the wine, just as there was a deep and profound event and mystery at the Last Supper. I would disagree with those who might think that it is completely symbolic with no supernatural substance to the event (either the Last Supper or the modern Communion). However, I cannot accept that either event is both absolutely physical and literally and our 5 senses simply fail to perceive the actual human flesh (or even the actual glorified post-resurrection flesh) of Christ. That description is the definition of Schizophrenia.

I have not read John Calvin's views on the subject, nor do I particularly care. Calvinism really refers more to soteriology (how one gets saved) and marks me as falling more in agreement with Augustine than Pelagius on that issue.

There are deep and profound spiritual and metaphorical and, yes, even symbolic, truths being conveyed by both the Last Supper and the Communion Table. They are not some stand-alone mystery, but are the heart of what it means to be a Child of God, part of the Bride of Christ, a new creation, and knit together as members of one body with Christ as the head. The excessive focus on literal flesh and blood misses the mark. I cannot even begin to share what it is that you are missing from the context, you are not in a place to listen.

Remember that when Jesus said "this is my blood", from the Greek grammar, we know that "this" could not have been speaking of the wine (the pronoun and noun did not match in gender) but "this" referred to the cup. Scripture confirms as much:

Matthew 26:28 “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
Mark 14:24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.
Luke 22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.
1 Corinthians 11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

So there are scriptural problems with accepting Jesus words as some literal mystery that even Luke and Paul understood as not being about drinking blood but about a cup and a covenant.

The synoptic gospels and Paul are not the whole story of the Eucharist. John too presents the mystery in the worlds of Jesus when he writes

The next day the crowd that had stayed on the other side of the lake saw that there had been only one boat there. They also saw that Jesus had not got into the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone. Then some boats from Tiberias came near the place where they had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. So when the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum looking for Jesus. When they found him on the other side of the lake, they said to him, 'Rabbi, when did you come here?' Jesus answered them, 'Very truly, I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For it is on him that God the Father has set his seal.' Then they said to him, 'What must we do to perform the works of God?' Jesus answered them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.' So they said to him, 'What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you performing? Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, "He gave them bread from heaven to eat."' Then Jesus said to them, 'Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.' They said to him, 'Sir, give us this bread always.' Jesus said to them, 'I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away; for I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day.' Then the Jews began to complain about him because he said, 'I am the bread that came down from heaven.' They were saying, 'Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, "I have come down from heaven"?' Jesus answered them, 'Do not complain among yourselves. No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, "And they shall all be taught by God." Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.' The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' So Jesus said to them, 'Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live for ever.' He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum. [SUP]John 6:22-59[/SUP]​

But even after John's account of the Lord's teaching some chose not to believe him. John records that

When many of his disciples heard it, they said, 'This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?' But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, 'Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But among you there are some who do not believe.' For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him. And he said, 'For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.' Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. So Jesus asked the twelve, 'Do you also wish to go away?' Simon Peter answered him, 'Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.' Jesus answered them, 'Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil.' He was speaking of Judas son of Simon Iscariot, for he, though one of the twelve, was going to betray him. [SUP]John 6:60-71[/SUP]​

You may not want to read such long quotes and I would not blame you yet daily reading of the holy scriptures is part of my spiritual life and may be part of yours so long passages are not uncommon reading for the faithful. If John's record is faithful (and I believe it is) then Jesus expected his disciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood yet aside from the last supper he never offers them his body and his blood as food. In the last supper however the Lord does offer his body and his blood as food. This is in congruity with the Lord's teaching recorded by John here in chapter six of his gospel.

 

[psalms 91]

The synoptic gospels and Paul are not the whole story of the Eucharist. John too presents the mystery in the worlds of Jesus when he writes

The next day the crowd that had stayed on the other side of the lake saw that there had been only one boat there. They also saw that Jesus had not got into the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone. Then some boats from Tiberias came near the place where they had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. So when the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum looking for Jesus. When they found him on the other side of the lake, they said to him, 'Rabbi, when did you come here?' Jesus answered them, 'Very truly, I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For it is on him that God the Father has set his seal.' Then they said to him, 'What must we do to perform the works of God?' Jesus answered them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.' So they said to him, 'What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you performing? Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, "He gave them bread from heaven to eat."' Then Jesus said to them, 'Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.' They said to him, 'Sir, give us this bread always.' Jesus said to them, 'I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away; for I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day.' Then the Jews began to complain about him because he said, 'I am the bread that came down from heaven.' They were saying, 'Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, "I have come down from heaven"?' Jesus answered them, 'Do not complain among yourselves. No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, "And they shall all be taught by God." Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.' The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' So Jesus said to them, 'Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live for ever.' He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum. [SUP]John 6:22-59[/SUP]​

But even after John's account of the Lord's teaching some chose not to believe him. John records that

When many of his disciples heard it, they said, 'This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?' But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, 'Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But among you there are some who do not believe.' For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him. And he said, 'For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.' Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. So Jesus asked the twelve, 'Do you also wish to go away?' Simon Peter answered him, 'Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.' Jesus answered them, 'Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil.' He was speaking of Judas son of Simon Iscariot, for he, though one of the twelve, was going to betray him. [SUP]John 6:60-71[/SUP]​

You may not want to read such long quotes and I would not blame you yet daily reading of the holy scriptures is part of my spiritual life and may be part of yours so long passages are not uncommon reading for the faithful. If John's record is faithful (and I believe it is) then Jesus expected his disciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood yet aside from the last supper he never offers them his body and his blood as food. In the last supper however the Lord does offer his body and his blood as food. This is in congruity with the Lord's teaching recorded by John here in chapter six of his gospel.

Or else your take is wrong. What I findinteresting is that all the denoms that teach opposite and all the men of God that were produced in those denoms of at least a few that heard from God, seems odd to me that this doctrine is not backed up by other denoms for the most part

 

[MoreCoffee]

Or else your take is wrong. What I findinteresting is that all the denoms that teach opposite and all the men of God that were produced in those denoms of at least a few that heard from God, seems odd to me that this doctrine is not backed up by other denoms for the most part

The denominations are in error to varying degrees that is why they split one from another and all from the Catholic Church. Their errors are in matters like the sacraments, salvation theology, ecclesiology, and so forth. I reject the errors of Protestantism. I also acknowledge that Protestantism teaches many truths. There's no need to condemn Protestants as if they were not Christians. Most believe what they were taught so they are not directly blameworthy for the errors that they believe - having received them from their teachers. No doubt you want to say something similar about Catholics. But regardless of what camp one is in Jesus still said what he said. And it isn't a matter of interpretation to say that Jesus said Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me.

 

[Pedrito]

On Page 2, in Post #12, MoreCoffee stated:

“Jesus offered himself. Hebrews 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.”

Pedrito notes that in the Catholic Enquiry Course offered in Australia (one iteration of it, at least – Imprimatur, Nihil Obstat), it was stated that every time mass was performed, Jesus was offered up to God afresh.

==============================================================================================

In Post 16 on Page 2, reference was made to Jesus’ statement in John 6:53:

“Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you”.

And in Post #26 on Page 3, MoreCoffee quoted the verses which follow:

“54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;
55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.
56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me."
And he could well have added:
“58 This is the Bread which came down from Heaven, not as your fathers ate the manna, and died; he who partakes of this Bread shall live forever.”.

This is a cornerstone of the Roman Catholic transubstantiation dogma.

==================================​

The above has prompted Pedrito to ask a question that has long puzzled him.

How many times?

How many times does a person have to “eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood” to have life in him (her)?

Once? Twice? Annually? Monthly? Weekly? Daily, as is the custom of some?

If not just once only, does the effect fade? How quickly?

What did Jesus Himself say about that? And what can we conclude from Jesus' clarifying statements (or lack of them)?


Aren't those questions indeed both sensible, and perhaps a little puzzling?

 

[Lamb]

Pedrito, Holy Communion is connected to the cross and Jesus' death there for our salvation. Forgiveness that is received in Holy Communion is because of His dying on the cross. How many times would you like to receive Him should be the question. It's all about Jesus.

On Page 2, in Post #12, MoreCoffee stated:

“Jesus offered himself. Hebrews 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.”

Pedrito notes that in the Catholic Enquiry Course offered in Australia (one iteration of it, at least – Imprimatur, Nihil Obstat), it was stated that every time mass was performed, Jesus was offered up to God afresh.

==============================================================================================

In Post 16 on Page 2, reference was made to Jesus’ statement in John 6:53:

“Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you”.

And in Post #26 on Page 3, MoreCoffee quoted the verses which follow:

“54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;
55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.
56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me."
And he could well have added:
“58 This is the Bread which came down from Heaven, not as your fathers ate the manna, and died; he who partakes of this Bread shall live forever.”.

This is a cornerstone of the Roman Catholic transubstantiation dogma.

==================================​

The above has prompted Pedrito to ask a question that has long puzzled him.

How many times?

How many times does a person have to “eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood” to have life in him (her)?

Once? Twice? Annually? Monthly? Weekly? Daily, as is the custom of some?

If not just once only, does the effect fade? How quickly?

What did Jesus Himself say about that? And what can we conclude from Jesus' clarifying statements (or lack of them)?


Aren't those questions indeed both sensible, and perhaps a little puzzling?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Jesus is not killed again each time the Holy Eucharist is consecrated. His once for all time sacrifice is re-presented both to God and to the faithful. To God because the faithful need the sacrifice of Christ to wash their sins away - so that they can say "yes" to the question "are you washed in the blood of the Lamb of God" - and to the faithful so that they can be united to the Lord in his death and be in fact washed in the blood of the Lamb of God.

Transubstantiation is not a dogma, it is only a word that is regarded as apt in describing the consecrated host and wine of the holy Eucharist. The aptness of any word depends on it being understood as explanatory. If it stumbles you then it is not apt for you. The way to correct that situation is for you to become well versed in its meaning and accept the truth that the word attempts to explain.

One need not ever partake of holy communion in order to receive saving grace. In fact virtually all of the faithful first receive saving grace and only later receive holy communion. The ordinary order of things for an adult coming to faith in Jesus Christ is to be baptised receive confirmation and then receive holy communion. For the children of the faithful the ordinary order of things is for the child to be baptised and after that receive holy communion. Thus one need not ever receive holy communion in order to receive saving grace from God. Nonetheless it is common Catholic practise to receive communion as often as one is present in the community as it celebrates the Liturgy of the Holy Eucharist. That is weekly (or more often if one attends week day masses) unless one feels unable and unworthy to partake because of sins as yet not confessed and hence s yet not absolved by God.

On Page 2, in Post #12, MoreCoffee stated:

“Jesus offered himself. Hebrews 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.”

Pedrito notes that in the Catholic Enquiry Course offered in Australia (one iteration of it, at least – Imprimatur, Nihil Obstat), it was stated that every time mass was performed, Jesus was offered up to God afresh.

==============================================================================================

In Post 16 on Page 2, reference was made to Jesus’ statement in John 6:53:

“Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you”.

And in Post #26 on Page 3, MoreCoffee quoted the verses which follow:

“54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;
55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.
56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me."
And he could well have added:
“58 This is the Bread which came down from Heaven, not as your fathers ate the manna, and died; he who partakes of this Bread shall live forever.”.

This is a cornerstone of the Roman Catholic transubstantiation dogma.

==================================​

The above has prompted Pedrito to ask a question that has long puzzled him.

How many times?

How many times does a person have to “eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood” to have life in him (her)?

Once? Twice? Annually? Monthly? Weekly? Daily, as is the custom of some?

If not just once only, does the effect fade? How quickly?

What did Jesus Himself say about that? And what can we conclude from Jesus' clarifying statements (or lack of them)?


Aren't those questions indeed both sensible, and perhaps a little puzzling?

 

[Josiah]

What do they mean with: it is in substance the body of Christ? What substance? The physical substance is bread, so the spiritual one? Like in: now faith is the substance of things hoped for?

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a34.htm

Question: Though the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation cannot be proved by the Bible alone, neither can you show that the bread and wine are merely signs of the body and blood of Christ. A literal understanding of Jesus’ words, “This is my body…this is my blood” agrees well with the Catholic doctrine of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist.

[Another reader asked] Jesus' words are plain and clear: This is my body. He does not say, This is a symbol of my body. Why is it that you do not take Christ's words literally like Catholics do?

Answer: Like Evangelicals, Catholics do not take Jesus' words, “This is my body...this is my blood” in a strictly literal sense, for they do not really believe that the bread is Jesus’ body or that the wine is Jesus’ blood. The literal meaning – “This bread is my body; this wine is my blood” -- is a contradiction in terms. Bread is bread, not a human body; wine is wine, not blood. To explain away the obvious empirical facts, clever Catholic theologians have come up with this idea of transubstantiation: What appears to be bread is not bread at all, and though it has all the characteristics of bread, it is in reality (or in substance) the body of Christ! Although this is usually considered a literal interpretation, it is strictly speaking not so.

There are more than just two views: Transubstantiation and Metaphoric symbol.


See http://www.christianityhaven.com/sh...an-quot-is-quot-Catholic-Lutheran-Evangelical


There is a third view ( the only view for over 1500 years, universally accepted by ALL Christians until the 16th Century with the RCC and Zwingli dogmatized the other two ) that simply accepts exactly what Jesus said and Paul penned. All of it. No deletions, no insertions, no doubts, no denials, no spins. The meaning of is is is. The bread is. The wine is. The Body is. The Blood is. Is. It means exists, present, real. In this view (called Real Presence now) leaves all the questions, all the physics, all the issues of "how" and "when" alone - referring to such as "mystery" with no need to subject Jesus and Paul to OUR current new thinking, OUR theories, OUR philosophies, OUR (likely wrong) ideas of physics, OUR doubts, OUR thoughts of what can't be.


True: the two new dogmas - invented by Zwingli and the RCC - do not accept what Jesus said and Paul penned. The RCC essentially rejects the bread and wine, Zwinglians essentially reject the body and blood. The RCC deletes "is" and replaces it with "undergoing an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind Aristotelian accidents." Zwinglians delete "is" and replaces it with "a metaphoric symbol for" (but only in the case of the body and blood, not the bread and wine). These alterations, deletions and insertions were absent for 1500 years of Christianity when all Christians simply accepted what Jesus said and Paul penned - with no spins, no doubts, no deletions, no additions.



Pax Christi


- Josiah



.

 

[Rens]

There are more than just two views: Transubstantiation and Metaphoric symbol.


See http://www.christianityhaven.com/sh...an-quot-is-quot-Catholic-Lutheran-Evangelical


There is a third view ( the only view for over 1500 years, universally accepted by ALL Christians until the 16th Century with the RCC and Zwingli dogmatized the other two ) that simply accepts exactly what Jesus said and Paul penned. All of it. No deletions, no insertions, no doubts, no denials, no spins. The meaning of is is is. The bread is. The wine is. The Body is. The Blood is. Is. It means exists, present, real. In this view (called Real Presence now) leaves all the questions, all the physics, all the issues of "how" and "when" alone - referring to such as "mystery" with no need to subject Jesus and Paul to OUR current new thinking, OUR theories, OUR philosophies, OUR (likely wrong) ideas of physics, OUR doubts, OUR thoughts of what can't be.


True: the two new dogmas - invented by Zwingli and the RCC - do not accept what Jesus said and Paul penned. The RCC essentially rejects the bread and wine, Zwinglians essentially reject the body and blood. The RCC deletes "is" and replaces it with "undergoing an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind Aristotelian accidents." Zwinglians delete "is" and replaces it with "a metaphoric symbol for" (but only in the case of the body and blood, not the bread and wine). These alterations, deletions and insertions were absent for 1500 years of Christianity when all Christians simply accepted what Jesus said and Paul penned - with no spins, no doubts, no deletions, no additions.



Pax Christi


- Josiah



.

Yes I had no idea what they meant with that, but yes it could be the substance, you also apply the Blood to fight demons, so it could be in it. No idea but it doesn't sound weird. His body though still makes no sense to me. We are His body. Is are are? But just the fact that it doesnt make sense to me, doesnt say much.
Heidi Baker once had a vision. There were so many orphan kids. She said: we cant feed them all. Then Jesus took flesh with blood from His body, gave it to her, she gave it to an orphan kid and it changed to bread and wine. He said: I died so there would always be enough.

 

[Lamb]

 

[Josiah]

no passage in the holy scriptures of the new testament say that the bread and the wine represent Jesus' body and blood

Equally, no passage in holy scripture of the new testament says that the bread and wine changed or converted or undergo an alchemic transubstantiation either. And none says that 'bread' and 'wine' mentioned AFTER the consecration aren't really bread and wine but rather Aristotelian Accidents.

Catholics, IMO, are the LAST ONES ON EARTH that can point to Scripture here. The entire premise of medieval Catholic speculation (now DOGMA) that the critical word "CHANGE" in the Eucharistic texts mandates that it itself alone thus tell God and us - dogmatically - all about this word "CHANGE" - when "CHANGE" happens... who makes the "CHANGE" happen... what wrong prescience theory is going on in this "CHANGE" ... and what results from this "CHANGE" that makes Jesus and Paul wrong to refer to 'bread' and 'wine." The reality is: that word never once appears. No more than "represent" appears. You seem to notice that the word some Zwinglians obsess over isn't there..... but don't equally notice the word the RC Denomination obsesses over equally isn' t there.

They do not believe what Jesus said

This is why the de fide Dogma of Transubstantion should be rejected.... Jesus said "is" not "change." Jesus said "is" "body" "blood" "bread" "wine".... NOT "changed" "from/into" "NOT" "Transubstantiation" "Aristotle" "Alchemy" "Accident" He also never said "symbolizes" "represent". Funny how you notice the words some Zwinglians based their Dogma on are missing.... but don't equally notice that the words the RC Denomination bases it's unique new dogma on are equally missing. Your condemndation/rebuke of Zwingians applies equally to your own denomination here.



CH discussion of various views of Communion: http://www.christianityhaven.com/s...an-quot-is-quot-Catholic-Lutheran-Evangelical




Thank you.


- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

There are four passages that state that the bread IS the body of Christ and that the wine IS his blood of the new covenant.

 

[user1234]

Jesus is alive forevermore. He is King of kings and Lord of lords.
By God's grace, through FAITH in the Lord Jesus Christ, we are saved.

Faith in who He IS.
Faith that He died for our sins.
Faith that He rose from the grave.

By grace. Through faith. Not of works which we do.
It's by the works that JESUS did.
Salvation is the gift of God, received by faith.

Hallelujah, thank you Jesus!
Thanks be unto God for His unspeakable GIFT!
May He bless each and everyone of us, and every reader here,
with the gift of His salvation today!

 

[Josiah]

There are four passages that state that the bread IS the body of Christ and that the wine IS his blood of the new covenant.

Correct. And NONE that state "change" or "not" or "from/into" or "transubstantiation" or "alchemy" or "Aristotle" or "ACCIDENT". Is means present, real, exist - not "undergoing a change that is the precise alchemic transubstantiation that leaves behind only Aristotelian ACCIDENTS." I think your comment does an excellent job of destroying your own denomination's new, unique Eucharistic Dogma of 1551 known as "Transubstantiation."

And yes, it also says "bread" and "wine" AFTER the Consecration (more often than before). Since the RC Denomination since 1551 now uniquely and dogmatically insists that what is stated AFTER the Consecration is not to be believed, not to be accepted (at least not fully or physically), then it also destoyed any reason to accept that Body and Blood exist... after all, if neither Jesus or Paul MEANT to say "bread" and "wine" after the Consecration (and such aren't fully there - only the Aristotelian ACCIDENT of such) then there's no reason to accept that Body and Blood are there after the Consecration. Zwingli and the RC Denomination BOTH take dogmatic stances in the 16th Century: "is" does not mean "is" - what Jesus and Paul should have said is "Changed via the precise, technical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation" (dogmatically insists the RCC) or "symbolizes or represents or is a metaphor for" (dogmatically insists Zwinglians). Both then need to dismiss what is stated AFTER the Consecration - the RCC needs to dismiss all those references to bread and wine (Can' t actually fully MEAN that!), Zwingli needs to dismiss all the references to body and blood (Can't actually fully MEAN that!). Same boat.



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Since the bread and the wine are, after consecration, the body and blood of the Lord and are bread and wine before the consecration one is justified to speak of a change. But if the word "change" troubles you then do not use it. Simply rejoice in the affirmation that the bread is the body of Christ and the wine is his blood as the scriptures say.

 

[atpollard]

There are four passages that state that the bread IS the body of Christ and that the wine IS his blood of the new covenant.

Which verses in what translation are you looking at?

(I am not looking to jump into this fight, but when I did a word search I found that the translation mattered a lot in how the two verses I locate on Matthew and Mark were worded, and there is a verse in Luke that appears to say something very different in some translations. So I just wanted to start with the same verses that you are looking at.)

[PS. When I checked an interlinear for the word "is" to see what Greek word was being used, the word appears in the interlinear but is not listed in the Concordance as appearing in that verse and I had trouble locating it in the actual Greek text. Before I bother an expert on Greek, I want to get a better handle on what it is that I am looking for. You really can't argue the English meaning of "is" to get to the meaning of the original Greek. Catholic, Lutheran or Baptist. Only the Greek can define the original Greek.]

 

[MoreCoffee]

Which verses in what translation are you looking at?

(I am not looking to jump into this fight, but when I did a word search I found that the translation mattered a lot in how the two verses I locate on Matthew and Mark were worded, and there is a verse in Luke that appears to say something very different in some translations. So I just wanted to start with the same verses that you are looking at.)

[PS. When I checked an interlinear for the word "is" to see what Greek word was being used, the word appears in the interlinear but is not listed in the Concordance as appearing in that verse and I had trouble locating it in the actual Greek text. Before I bother an expert on Greek, I want to get a better handle on what it is that I am looking for. You really can't argue the English meaning of "is" to get to the meaning of the original Greek. Catholic, Lutheran or Baptist. Only the Greek can define the original Greek.]

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."
Matthew 26:26-29 RSV

And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 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 14:22-25 RSV

And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, "Take this, and divide it among yourselves; for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." And he took bread, and when he had 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." And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. But behold the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. For the Son of man goes as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!" And they began to question one another, which of them it was that would do this.
Luke 22:14-23 RSV

But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you meet together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 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." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 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. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another-- if any one is hungry, let him eat at home--lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come.
1 Corinthians 11:17-34 RSV

᾿Εσθιόντων δὲ αὐτῶν λαβὼν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς τὸν ἄρτον καὶ εὐλογήσας ἔκλασε καὶ ἐδίδου τοῖς μαθηταῖς καὶ εἶπε· λάβετε φάγετε· τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου. καὶ λαβὼν τὸ ποτήριον καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· πίετε ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες· τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ αἶμά μου τὸ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυνόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπ᾿ ἄρτι ἐκ τούτου τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ὅταν αὐτὸ πίνω μεθ᾿ ὑμῶν καινὸν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ πατρός μου. Matthew 26:26-29 Greek NT

ἐστί
estí; pres. act. indic. 3d person sing. of eimí (G1510), to be. He (she, it) is. (The Complete Word Study Dictionary © 1992 By AMG International, Inc. Chattanooga, TN 37422, U.S.A. Revised edition, 1993)

 

[Lamb]

Since the bread and the wine are, after consecration, the body and blood of the Lord and are bread and wine before the consecration one is justified to speak of a change. But if the word "change" troubles you then do not use it. Simply rejoice in the affirmation that the bread is the body of Christ and the wine is his blood as the scriptures say.

Yet you see bread and wine after the consecration so even though they are the body and blood, they are still the bread and wine as well.