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

[MoreCoffee]

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.

appearances can be deceiving

 

[psalms 91]

appearances can be deceiving

so can alternative facts

 

[Lamb]

appearances can be deceiving

God gave us eyes to see. He also gave us ears to hear. In communion we see that there is bread and wine and we hear it is His body and blood. Jesus did not say that it ceases to be bread and wine but He does say that is IS His body and blood.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I trust the hearing because it is hearing the word of Jesus. He's truthful. It is his body and it is his blood that is given.

 

[Josiah]

I trust the hearing because it is hearing the word of Jesus. He's truthful. It is his body and it is his blood that is given.

I agree.
That's a good reason to reject the new, unique Eucharistic Dogma of the singular RC Denomination: Transubstantiation.


After all, as you yourself actually admit, Jesus said "IS" not "change" or "from/into" or "alchemy" or "transubstantiation" or "not" or "seems like but isn't" or "Aristotle" or "appears like" or "Accident." He said IS. IS signifies being, reality, presence.


If Pope Francis said, "This is a car" it would be absurd, laughable to dogmatically insist that Pope Francis said that this was once an elephant but someone recited an incantation and applied some alchemy and boom: a Transubstantiation happened that meant the elephant was changed into an automobile - even though Pope Francis went on to talk about an elephant after the incantation (more than before) - but he misspoke, he actually meant that there was an Aristotelian accident of an elephant, what really now is is a car. Absurd, I think non-Catholics (and a whole lot of Catholics who reject this new dogma of their denomination) would say.....


The new, unique RCC dogma all flows from a bunch of medieval Catholic "Scholastics" who never bothered to note what Jesus said and Paul penned.... they THOUGHT the word they used was "change" - they THOUGHT they said "change" over and over and over, as the critical word. If they had a Bible... if they thought it actually mattered (even a bit) what Jesus said and Paul penned.... if anyone in the Catholic Church had a Bible and cared what it said... they would have noticed they never once said "change.' Like you, they would have noticed the word is is. Is. Body. Blood. Bread. Wine. All their self-appointed power to destroy mystery, all their self-appointed power to explain the textual words "change" "is not" "seems like but isn't" "alchemy" "transubstantiation" "converted" "Aristotle" "Accident" would have been laughed at and dismissed the minute someone actually opened a Bible and cared what Jesus actually said and Paul by inspiration penned. Because ALL that is what they mistakenly THOUGHT was there..... they didn't know the word is "is."



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



- Josiah



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Transubstantiation is a word not a dogma.

 

[user1234]

Transubstantiation is a word not a dogma.

We served communion on Good Friday. At least a thousand. Broken pieces of unleavened bread, a little cup of wine for each. Some beautiful scripture reading and and expounding, surrounded by great worship, many tears and joys.

No incantations, no transubstantiations, no consecrations or cosmic equations.
Just a sharing of the memorial of what Jesus did for us on the cross, with the final reminder that that's not the end of the story, because Jesus rose from the grave.

He conquered sin and death for us, and is alive, our Risen Lord and Saviour, and we have received His salvation by God's GRACE through FAITH.

So we're invited back Easter Sunday to hear the continuation of the story.
Meanwhile, we did what Jesus asked us to do, we shared the bread and the wine and by so doing we showed His death was for our sins, (and His resurrection) til He comes again.

Is anyone going to challenge that? Somehow say we did it wrong? That it doesn't count somehow? Is lacking in some way?

I dont care if someone is catholic, baptist, lutheran, episcopal, presby, non-denom, evangelic, pentecostic, charismatic, or some other religion, would anyone like to tell us that what we did was wrong and why? And if it was right, then what is all the 'religionism' about, or why is it deemed necessary by some? All this arguing over bread and wine that should be the reason we unite seems silly and counter-productive to me.

But that's just my opinion, and I guess I have to say that in every post now, IMO, that is, if they're not all being 'ignored' in the first place. (oy vay. ugh. smh)

 

[Josiah]

Transubstantiation is a word not a dogma.

So... the RCC states a new dogma.... defines it with a very, very technical word (from alchemy).... states it dogmatically everywhere..... but it's just a nice long funny word, so many syllables strung together signifying nothing, just 6 sounds that it likes to pronounce for the fun of it but has no meaning? So, there's no change? Just a funny, meaningless, bunch of sounds signifying nothing? So, you are trying to tell us there is no transubstantiation in Catholic teaching (just 6 syllables that don't mean a thing)? There is no transubstantion just a bunch of meaningless, funny sounding syllables? There are no Aristotelian Accidents? Our Catholic teachers all lied yo us when they taught us that Transubstantiation happens and the bread and wine only appear to be such and are actually accidents? All lied because "transubstantiation" is just 6 syllables the RCC dogmatized in 1551 in reaction to Luther cuz it liked to dogmatized fun sounds and long (very technical) words that mean nothing? Ah...... it seems the situation is far worse than I thought.

But I understand why you too want to run from this new, unique Eucharistic Dogma.... I really do. I've found some Catholics do. But the RCC can't undo a dogma - not without admitted it ERRS in DOGMA and its ego and power needs will never let that happen. Sad, I think.



- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Transubstantiation is from Aristotle's philosophy. If alchemists used it they were following Aristotle. The word was not "from alchemy"

 

[MoreCoffee]

We served communion on Good Friday. At least a thousand. Broken pieces of unleavened bread, a little cup of wine for each. Some beautiful scripture reading and and expounding, surrounded by great worship, many tears and joys.

No incantations, no transubstantiations, no consecrations or cosmic equations.
Just a sharing of the memorial of what Jesus did for us on the cross, with the final reminder that that's not the end of the story, because Jesus rose from the grave.

He conquered sin and death for us, and is alive, our Risen Lord and Saviour, and we have received His salvation by God's GRACE through FAITH.

So we're invited back Easter Sunday to hear the continuation of the story.
Meanwhile, we did what Jesus asked us to do, we shared the bread and the wine and by so doing we showed His death was for our sins, (and His resurrection) til He comes again.

Is anyone going to challenge that? Somehow say we did it wrong? That it doesn't count somehow? Is lacking in some way?

I dont care if someone is catholic, baptist, lutheran, episcopal, presby, non-denom, evangelic, pentecostic, charismatic, or some other religion, would anyone like to tell us that what we did was wrong and why? And if it was right, then what is all the 'religionism' about, or why is it deemed necessary by some? All this arguing over bread and wine that should be the reason we unite seems silly and counter-productive to me.

But that's just my opinion, and I guess I have to say that in every post now, IMO, that is, if they're not all being 'ignored' in the first place. (oy vay. ugh. smh)

You had a service with unleavened bread and wine?

 

[user1234]

You had a service with unleavened bread and wine?

Isn't that basically what was shared at the 'Last(Passover)Supper'?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Isn't that basically what was shared at the 'Last(Passover)Supper'?

Alcohol containing wine?

 

[Josiah]

We served communion on Good Friday. At least a thousand. Broken pieces of unleavened bread, a little cup of wine for each. Some beautiful scripture reading and and expounding, surrounded by great worship, many tears and joys.

No incantations, no transubstantiations, no consecrations or cosmic equations.
Just a sharing of the memorial of what Jesus did for us on the cross, with the final reminder that that's not the end of the story, because Jesus rose from the grave.

He conquered sin and death for us, and is alive, our Risen Lord and Saviour, and we have received His salvation by God's GRACE through FAITH.

So we're invited back Easter Sunday to hear the continuation of the story.
Meanwhile, we did what Jesus asked us to do, we shared the bread and the wine and by so doing we showed His death was for our sins, (and His resurrection) til He comes again.

Is anyone going to challenge that? Somehow say we did it wrong? That it doesn't count somehow? Is lacking in some way?

I dont care if someone is catholic, baptist, lutheran, episcopal, presby, non-denom, evangelic, pentecostic, charismatic, or some other religion, would anyone like to tell us that what we did was wrong and why? And if it was right, then what is all the 'religionism' about, or why is it deemed necessary by some? All this arguing over bread and wine that should be the reason we unite seems silly and counter-productive to me.

But that's just my opinion, and I guess I have to say that in every post now, IMO, that is, if they're not all being 'ignored' in the first place. (oy vay. ugh. smh)

I'd only say this:


In the 16th Century, two dogmatically made a new premise: that "is" doesn't mean "is" in the texts where Jesus and Paul speak of Communion:

1) The RCC establishes a new dogma that "is" = "changed via the very precise technical physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiaton" It thus essentially denies half of what comes after the "is" (the bread and wine - they aren't, they instead are "Aristotelian Accidents" remaining (deceptively) after the Transubstantiation but only seemingly so. Premise: Is doesn't mean is here.

2) Zwingli established a new dogma that "is" = symbolizes, represents. Thus what follows the "is" (body, blood, bread, wine, forgiveness, etc) well.... aren't (except for the bread and wine - strangely, it IS). Premise: When Jesus and Paul use the word "is" in these texts, is isn't is.

Since the 16th Century when these two new views were dogmatized, each of these new positions has been rebuking, denouncing, ridiculing each other - for denying the wrong things after the "is". Both rebuking the other for denying the WRONG stuff after the "is" when each side claims to be denying the RIGHT stuff after the "is". Both are making the identical premise..... just rejecting different things (and strongly rebuking and ridiculing the other for denying the wrong things instead of denying the right things).

I don't think the post 16th Century RCC or the post 16th followers of Zwingli will ever stop the mutual ridiculing each other ..... but they both fail to realize they are actually making the IDENTICAL point, the SAME premise: Jesus didn't mean what He said, Paul didn't mean what he penned by inspiration.... is don't mean is (well, most of the time) in the texts on Communion.



Now, my OWN view is that in these texts on Communion, is very likely means is. Is. Body, blood, bread, wine, forgiveness. Is. It has to do with reality, presence, existence. If I pointed to my car and said, "This is a Mazda" that would be true, the meaning of is is is. Nearly always. And I think that's probably the best way to accept what Jesus said and Paul penned: the meaning of is is is, as it is 99% of the time. HOW it can be all the things Jesus and Paul say "IS" (body, blood, bread, wine, forgiveness) I don't know, I don't have a clue - and that's okay with me. Jesus chose not to get into the physics of all this, and I'm okay with that (I won't pretend to know what Jesus should have said but didn't). We are told to be stewards of the MYSTERIES of God, not destroyers of such. We have a MYSTERY here - and I'm okay with that. Virtually all Christians were until the 16th Century. But that's my view. I think Jesus and Paul said what they meant and meant what they said.... I have no cause to claim them wrong... but I admit it does leave a bit of a scientific mystery, it leaves some questions for me (with a doctorate in physics)... frankly LOTS of things in the Bible are a mystery (at least to me): doesn't make Scripture wrong and in need of our denying some stuff. IMO.



- Josiah



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Transubstantiation was in use as an explanation of the holy Eucharist several centuries before the 16th.

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]
You know, if you keep on ranting against the RCC, Jesus will probably give you a mansion surrounded by Roman Catholic neighbors.

Sooner or later we will all need to learn to get along (and that the Reformed Baptists were correct about Theology :bible: and the Pentecostals were correct about how to worship) :cheer: ... That was intended as good natured humor.

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]
You know, if you keep on ranting against the RCC, Jesus will probably give you a mansion surrounded by Roman Catholic neighbors.

Sooner or later we will all need to learn to get along (and that the Reformed Baptists were correct about Theology :bible: and the Pentecostals were correct about how to worship) :cheer: ... That was intended as good natured humor.

I've wondered why Josiah does it. It seems like an obsession.

 

[Josiah]

So... the RCC states a new dogma.... defines it with a very, very technical word (from alchemy).... states it dogmatically everywhere..... but it's just a nice long funny word, so many syllables strung together signifying nothing, just 6 sounds that it likes to pronounce for the fun of it but has no meaning? So, there's no change? Just a funny, meaningless, bunch of sounds signifying nothing? So, you are trying to tell us there is no transubstantiation in Catholic teaching (just 6 syllables that don't mean a thing)? There is no transubstantion just a bunch of meaningless, funny sounding syllables? There are no Aristotelian Accidents? Our Catholic teachers all lied yo us when they taught us that Transubstantiation happens and the bread and wine only appear to be such and are actually accidents? All lied because "transubstantiation" is just 6 syllables the RCC dogmatized in 1551 in reaction to Luther cuz it liked to dogmatized fun sounds and long (very technical) words that mean nothing? Ah...... it seems the situation is far worse than I thought.

But I understand why you too want to run from this new, unique Eucharistic Dogma.... I really do. I've found some Catholics do. But the RCC can't undo a dogma - not without admitted it ERRS in DOGMA and its ego and power needs will never let that happen. Sad, I think.



- Josiah



.

Transubstantiation is from Aristotle's philosophy. If alchemists used it they were following Aristotle. The word was not "from alchemy"

Yes, Transubstantiation is from alchemy, the very precise, technical word they used for a specific CHANGE. But according to you, the RCC constantly teaches that but it's only chanting 6 syllables for the fun of it, it's just 6 meaningless sounds signifying nothing, too bad the combination actually MEANS something (very, very technical!) because the RCC isn't teaching anything, just having fun with 6 crazy syllables. A sad situation....

See, I have a higher opinion of the RCC than you seem to have. I don't think it's a case of all my Catholic teachers (rather deceptively) chanting syllables that happen to make a very technical word they didn't mean. I think they MEANT it. I think the RCC does, too! It goes on and on and on and on - teaching dogmatically this very technical precise rare word because it MEANS it. No deception..... no just chanting meaningless syllables together.....

I understand why some Catholics who are aware of this new, unique RCC Eucharistic dogma do their best to run away with it. Can't blame them!



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Transubstantiation

by Frank J. Sheed

Besides the Real Presence which faith accepts and delights in, there is the doctrine of transubstantiation, from which we may at least get a glimpse of what happens when the priest consecrates bread and wine, so that they become Christ's body and Christ's blood.

At this stage, we must be content with only the simplest statement of the meaning of, and distinction between substance and accidents, without which we should make nothing at all of transubstantiation. We shall concentrate upon bread, reminding ourselves once again that what is said applies in principle to wine as well.

We look at the bread the priest uses in the Sacrament. It is white, round, soft. The whiteness is not the bread, it is simply a quality that the bread has; the same is true of the roundness and the softness. There is something there that has these and other properties, qualities, attributes- the philosophers call all of them accidents. Whiteness and roundness we see; softness brings in the sense of touch. We might smell bread, and the smell of new bread is wonderful, but once again the smell is not the bread, but simply a property. The something which has the whiteness, the softness, the roundness, has the smell; and if we try another sense, the sense of taste, the same something has that special effect upon our palate.

In other words, whatever the senses perceive-even with the aid of those instruments men are forever inventing to increase the reach of the senses- is always of this same sort, a quality, a property, an attribute; no sense perceives the something which has all these qualities, which is the thing itself. This something is what the philosophers call substance; the rest are accidents which it possesses. Our senses perceive accidents; only the mind knows the substance. This is true of bread, it is true of every created thing. Left to itself, the mind assumes that the substance is that which, in all its past experience, has been found to have that particular group of accidents. But in these two instances, the bread and wine of the Eucharist, the mind is not left to itself. By the revelation of Christ it knows that the substance has been changed, in the one case into the substance of his body, in the other into the substance of his blood.

The senses can no more perceive the new substance resulting from the consecration than they could have perceived the substance there before. We cannot repeat too often that senses can perceive only accidents, and consecration changes only the substance. The accidents remain in their totality-for example, that which was wine and is now Christ's blood still has the smell of wine, the intoxicating power of wine. One is occasionally startled to find some scientist claiming to have put all the resources of his laboratory into testing the consecrated bread; he announces triumphantly that there is no change whatever, no difference between this and any other bread. We could have told him that, without the aid of any instrument. For all that instruments can do is to make contact with the accidents, and it is part of the doctrine of transubstantiation that the accidents undergo no change whatever. If our scientist had announced that he had found a change, that would be really startling and upsetting.

The accidents, then, remain; but not, of course, as accidents of Christ's body. It is not his body which has the whiteness and the roundness and the softness. The accidents once held in existence by the substance of bread, and those others once held in existence by the substance of wine, are now held in existence solely by God's will to maintain them.

What of Christ's body, now sacramentally present? We must leave the philosophy of this for a later stage in our study. All we shall say here is that his body is wholly present, though not (so St. Thomas among others tells us) extended in space. One further element in the doctrine of the Real Presence needs to be stated: Christ's body remains in the communicant as long as the accidents remain themselves. Where, in the normal action of our bodily processes, they are so changed as to be no longer accidents of bread or accidents of wine, the Real Presence in us of Christ's own individual body ceases. But we live on in his Mystical Body.

This very sketchy outline of the doctrine of transubstantiation is almost pathetic. But like so much in this book, what is here is only a beginning; you have the rest of life before you.

 

[Josiah]

[
Sooner or later we will all need to learn to get along (and that the Reformed Baptists were correct about Theology :bible: and the Pentecostals were correct about how to worship) :cheer: ... That was intended as good natured humor.

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]


I request you read and consider the following points, before we both stop hijacking the thread and return to the issue before us....


1. I disagree with Catholics and their denomination on EXACTLY the same things and to EXACTLY the same degree that they disagree with me and my denomination. I think if you took the time to read all the discussions here, going back a couple of years, this would be clear.


2. If you read my posts in this thread and in the other thread on this that I started, it will be obvious I have no "rant" - I've simply pointed out there are THREE basic views in modern, western Christianity. While I HAVE (on occasion) stated which I agree with (and why).. and while some modern "Evangelicals" have done the same, actually our resident Catholic has pretty much run and dodged the Catholic view (actually, he typically tries to align himself with Real Presence and insist that Transubstantiation is just 6 meaningless syllables signifying nothing; a position he's trying to convey again here in this thread).


3. Most of my family is Catholic...... I get along GREAT with Catholics, generally. My position on Catholicism and Catholics is far, far, far more positive than MoreCoffee's view of me. Indeed, I have often posted my very clear position on Catholicism, the Catholic Church and Catholics (I've done it at several sites) - lots of very positive, embracing things. But not ONE - not even ONE of those positive things - has MoreCoffee been willing to return to me. That was the case of most Catholics at other sites, too. I think the "anti" perhaps works the other way around.... Note that long ago, I embraced our resident Catholic and officially made him one of my friends, but it has never been returned. It's just ONE indication of the reality at work here.


4. I have no intention of posting that I think Pope Francis is conditionally infallible or that Muhammed was God's prophet or that Joseph Smith reestablished the Church of Christ just to be nice and to promote PC and to prepare for us sharing heaven together (as is politically corrrect to say). I don't tell Catholics or Muslims or Mormons they are wrong.... but I don't agree with them either. There are many things I admire about Mormons or Catholics or _____________, but that doesn't mean ERGO in order to be nice and to get along, I have to wink at everything. I'm not a relativist.


If you want to discuss this more, I recommend you PM me.


Blessings!


- Josiah

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I trust the hearing because it is hearing the word of Jesus. He's truthful. It is his body and it is his blood that is given.

This is true. But at no point does it cease to be bread and wine. I've not tasted human flesh, so I've nothing to compare it to. But I've (inadvertently) pricked my finger and stuck it in my mouth to stop it hurting. Blood has a rather distinctive taste. So does communion wine. If the 'accidents' were to become (only) the blood and body of Christ, He would be more than able to make them so. But He has chosen to maintain the property of bread and wine, while His body and blood also equally present
I take Christ at His word that His body and blood are present, just as much as the bread and wine.