kepha,
It was an accusation made to discredit them, as was the accusation that they were Atheists. Should we affirm that the early Christians really didn't believe Jesus was divine since the Romans wrongly misunderstood them as not believing in God because they wouldn't worship idols? My point is simply that using Gentile slander against the early Church is hardly proof of early Christian belief in transubstantiation.
The point is the pagan Romans MISTAKENLY BELIEVED the early Christians were cannibals, which is plenty of proof the early Christians believed in the Real Presence.
Can you show me the texts where Jesus says that the elements taken during Eucharist save a person?
Can you proof text where the Bible says everything must be proof text?
John 6:35,41,48,51 – Jesus says
four times “I AM the bread from heaven.” It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.
John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?
How would you answer this question?
John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 – He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and
it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application,
“trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).
John 6:55 – to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh.
It is always literal.
First, I think you confirmed my argument that the rationale behind transubstantiation is based in Aristotilian philosophy. Granted, that does not mean it is wrong. My point is simply that the concept is based in a philosophical perspective of how things are rather than a biblical perspective of what Jesus or the Apostles declared what is happening when we "remember" in this way
It has nothing to do with "biblical perspective". Aristotle was over 300 years before Christ. I'm not going to give a 50 page explanation of how the Church made use of his philosophy that explains accidents and substance.
Second, I think you are overstating your case. 1) If Jesus was literally meaning "this actually is my real body and blood you are about to eat and drink" then how does that apply to Eucharist today? How do you know Jesus wasnt just taking about "this" particular bread and blood Jesus himself was giving his disciples? How can you claim this statement is so literal and yet also claim he was speaking of Eucharist in general? It seems you want the elements Jesus is speaking of to be literally his body and blood, but the "this" to be non-literal speaking of any bread and wine dispensed at any Mass from ages since. It doesn't seem like a very solid hermeneutical approach to me. Its either all literal or all figurative.
The bottom line is you lack faith.
Third, the reason I think Jesus is being figurative is that he is OFTEN figurative (I'm not shouting, just emphasizing :)) when he speaks of his body and blood. Clearly in John 6 he is not asking his listeners to come up and take a bite out of him so they can have life in them. Also, he speaks of "remembrance" when he talks about his body and blood. I would think he would talk more about participation and presence rather than remembrance if he was being literal. Finally, Paul goes on to say in 1 Cor. 11:
“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” (1 Corinthians 11:26, ESV)
The "concept" is not based on Aristotle, it's based on the words of Jesus.
Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 – Jesus says, this
IS my body and blood, Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.
1 Cor. 11:26 – Paul teaches that as often as you eat the bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death. This means that celebrating the Eucharist is proclaiming the Gospel.
1 Cor. 10:21 – Paul’s usage of the phrase “table of the Lord” in celebrating the Eucharist is further evidence that the Eucharist is indeed a sacrifice. The Jews always understood the phrase “table of the Lord” to refer to an altar of sacrifice. See, for example, Lev. 24:6, Ezek. 41:22; 44:16 and Malachi 1:7,12, where the phrase “table of the Lord” in these verses always refers to an altar of sacrifice.
Heb. 13:10,15 – this earthly altar is used in the Mass to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice of praise to God through our eternal Priest, Jesus Christ.
Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 – the Greek phrase is “Touto estin to soma mou.” This phraseology means “this is actually” or “this is really” my body and blood.
Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 – the translation of Jesus’ words of consecration is “touto poieite tan eman anamnasin.” Jesus literally said The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.
In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.
Lev. 24:7 – the word “memorial” in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is “azkarah” which means to actually make present (see Lev. 2:2,9,16;5:12;6:5; Num.5:26 where “azkarah” refers to sacrifices that are currently offered and thus present in time). Jesus’ instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a “memorial offering” demonstrates that the offering of His body and blood is made present in time over and over again.
Num. 10:10 – in this verse, “remembrance” refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus’ command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.
Mal. 1:10-11 – Jesus’ command to his apostles to offer His memorial sacrifice of bread and wine which becomes His body and blood fulfills the prophecy that God would reject the Jewish sacrifices and receive a pure sacrifice offered in every place. This pure sacrifice of Christ is sacramentally re-presented from the rising of the sun to its setting in every place, as Malachi prophesied.
Heb. 9:23 – in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself.
In sum, communion is significant and powerful. Like the Israelites who celebrated Passover and the covenant God made with the Israelites every year, so we too celebrate our Passover and the New Covenant God has made with us as often as we take these elements. God wanted his people to remember, and the language Jesus uses for his disciples mirrors that same call. Yes, I agree Jesus is present, but that doesn't support transubstantiation. Jesus' presence with us is based on his Spirit and his unity with his people. Its not based on a mystical transformation of bread into flesh, etc. Remember the covenant. Remember what God has done. Remember how he has freed you. Remember what makes you separate from the nations of the world. That is what these elements are about, IMO.
You'r correct. It's not based on a mystical transformation.
THE EUCHARIST - Scripture Catholic
