Communion - Lord's Supper - Eucharist

[epostle1]

Here is a little gift for you, Josiah. Too bad the thread got locked. I was just warming up.
MATT SLICK EXPOSED

 

[Josiah]

THAT IS A LIE.

I refer you to the Catechism of the RC denomination itself, written by the RC denomination itself. # 85 of the 1994 edition of the ever-changing Catechism. What does the RC denomination insist is the only authoritative interpreter of Scripture (and pretty much everything else)? I think if you read what it itself says, it is obvious that it itself indicates that it itself is. Not the Greek Orthodox Church. Not the Presbyterian Church in the USA. Not all churches together. Nope.

Yes, elsewhere, the latest edition of the RCC's Catechism speaks of individual interpretation by persons... but # 85 is the only place it speaks of an "AUTHORITATIVE" interpretation. And it is obvious (and irrefutable) that the RCC here is referring to it itself alone as that "authoritative" interpreter. The RCC itself insisting it itself is the individual interpreter. It's what CCC 85 says.

I'm not "Matt Slick." If you have a disagreement with "Matt Slick" take that up with "Matt Slick."


But that's not the subject of this thread.


- Josiah



.

 

[Josiah]

The topic here is Communion - the Lord's Supper - the Eucharist.

And specifically, which of the 3 common western views since the 16th Century are best affirmations of the words Jesus said and Paul by inspiration penned.

 

[Philip James]

While i might dispute the pictire you paint of #2 , number 2 is not imcompatible with #1,

#2 came about as a result of heretics that watered down 'the real presence'..

Your #1 says the Eucharist is the body and blood of our Lord, #2 says just what that means... If you have an issue with #2 , you have to explain how it is false

Peace!

 

[epostle1]

I refer you to the Catechism of the RC denomination itself, written by the RC denomination itself. # 85 of the 1994 edition of the ever-changing Catechism. What does the RC denomination insist is the only authoritative interpreter of Scripture (and pretty much everything else)? I think if you read what it itself says, it is obvious that it itself indicates that it itself is. Not the Greek Orthodox Church. Not the Presbyterian Church in the USA. Not all churches together. Nope.

Yes, elsewhere, the latest edition of the RCC's Catechism speaks of individual interpretation by persons... but # 85 is the only place it speaks of an "AUTHORITATIVE" interpretation. And it is obvious (and irrefutable) that the RCC here is referring to it itself alone as that "authoritative" interpreter. The RCC itself insisting it itself is the individual interpreter. It's what CCC 85 says.

No, that is not what it says. The CCC cannot be read with a sola scriptura mentality. Ignorant anti-Catholics will isolate one paragraph and ignore context with other related paragraphs, the footnotes with scripture and other documents are ignored, and the link to where the whole page is found is never posted.

I'm not "Matt Slick." If you have a disagreement with "Matt Slick" take that up with "Matt Slick."

You've picked up his lying spirit on the CARM forum.

But that's not the subject of this thread.

- Josiah[/quote]
The real subject of this thread is changing accepted dictionary terms, create a straw man fallacy, and attack Catholicism with lies. That is your subject of this thread. "sole interpreter" doesn't mean what you force it to mean, and I will not follow your rabbit trail 50 times due to your blind prejudice and repetitive lunacy. The catechism is not designed for anti-Catholics to scour it for weapons, forcing it to say what it doesn't say at all. Besides, your knowledge of Catholic teaching and proper use of the catechism is in the toilet. Fishing for poop and holding it up saying, "I'm an expert, look at those stupid Catholics" is the subject of this thread.
Worse, you ignore every one of my posts because you have too much pride to have your fairy tales corrected.

 

[epostle1]

The topic here is Communion - the Lord's Supper - the Eucharist.

And specifically, which of the 3 common western views since the 16th Century are best affirmations of the words Jesus said and Paul by inspiration penned.

Christopher Rasperger’s work published in 1577, lists 200 Interpretations of the Words: "This is My Body". (within a mere 60 years after the Protestant revolt) Which 3 out of 200 are common western views???

Catechisms don't produce doctrines, they are elaborations of existing doctrines. Lutherans do the same thing.
Similarly, the Bible doesn't produce a church, the Church produced the Bible.

 

[epostle1]

Patristic Eucharistic Doctrine: Nine Protestant Scholars

Dear friends,

I have been challenged both as to the history of eucharistic doctrine prior to 1517. Therefore, I will cite no less than nine reputable Protestant scholarly sources to back up my contention that there was virtual unanimity of belief in the Real Presence all through that period (note again, I say nothing of transubstantiation, which is the more narrow, particular belief; this has been my argument all along):

1) Otto W. Heick, A History of Christian Thought, vol. 1, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965, 221-222:

• The Post-Apostolic Fathers and . . . almost all the Fathers of the ancient Church . . . impress one with their natural and unconcerned realism. To them the Eucharist was in some sense the body and blood of Christ.

2) Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 3rd edition, revised by Robert T. Handy, New York: Scribners, 1970, 90-91

• By the middle of the 2nd century, the conception of a real presence of Christ in the Supper was wide-spread . . . The essentials of the ‘Catholic’ view were already at hand by 253.

3) Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, A.D. 311-600, revised 5th edition, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, reprinted in 1974, originally 1910, 492, 500, 507:

The doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist was not a subject of theological controversy . . . . till the time of Paschasius Radbert, in the ninth century . . .

In general, this period, . . . was already very strongly inclined toward the doctrine of transubstantiation, and toward the Greek and Roman sacrifice of the mass, which are inseparable in so far as a real sacrifice requires the real presence of the victim……

[Augustine] at the same time holds fast the real presence of Christ in the Supper . . . He was also inclined, with the Oriental fathers, to ascribe a saving virtue to the consecrated elements.

Note: Schaff had just for two pages (pp. 498-500) shown how St. Augustine spoke of symbolism in the Eucharist as well, but he honestly admits that the great Father accepted the Real Presence “at the same time.” This is precisely what I would argue. Catholics have a reasonable explanation for the “symbolic” utterances, which are able to be harmonized with the Real Presence, but Protestants, who maintain that Augustine was a Calvinist or Zwingian in his Eucharistic views must ignore the numerous references to an explicit Real Presence in Augustine, and of course this is objectionable scholarship.

Augustine . . . on the other hand, he calls the celebration of the communion ‘verissimum sacrificium’ of the body of Christ. The church, he says, offers (‘immolat’) to God the sacrifice of thanks in the body of Christ. [City of God, 10,20]

4) J. D. Douglas, editor, The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, revised edition, 1978, 245 [a very hostile source!]:
The Fathers . . . [believed] that the union with Christ given and confirmed in the Supper was as real as that which took place in the incarnation of the Word in human flesh.

5) F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, editors, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd edition, 1983, 475-476, 1221:

That the Eucharist conveyed to the believer the Body and Blood of Christ was universally accepted from the first . . . Even where the elements were spoken of as ‘symbols’ or ‘antitypes’ there was no intention of denying the reality of the Presence in the gifts . . . In the Patristic period there was remarkably little in the way of controversy on the subject . . .

It was also widely held from the first that the Eucharist is in some sense a sacrifice, though here again definition was gradual. The suggestion of sacrifice is contained in much of the NT language . . . the words of institution, ‘covenant,’ ‘memorial,’ ‘poured out,’ all have sacrificial associations. In early post-NT times the constant repudiation of carnal sacrifice and emphasis on life and prayer at Christian worship did not hinder the Eucharist from being described as a sacrifice from the first . . .

From early times the Eucharistic offering was called a sacrifice in virtue of its immediate relation to the sacrifice of Christ.

Berengar is the first Christian of any prominence at all that we know of who denied the Real Presence. In the subsequent period we have the Cathari and Albigensian heresies who did the same, and John Wycliffe, whose view was similar to Calvin’s. Hardly notable exceptions to the extraordinary unanimity of all the other great Christians up to 1517!

But — I note in passing — anti-Catholics like Dave Hunt will go to the amazing extent of embracing the Albigensians as Christian brothers, in order to find a Christian “church” which runs counter to the Catholic (or Orthodox) Church in this period. These heretics were Manichaean-type dualists who believed that flesh and material creation were evil and that “Christ was an angel with a phantom body who, consequently, did not suffer or rise again.” They rejected the sacraments, hell, the resurrection of the body, and condemned marriage. (Ibid., p.31) Yet Dave Hunt is ready to accept them as Christian brothers before he will offer the right hand of fellowship and the title of “Christian” to a Catholic like myself! A prime example of irrational anti-Catholicism if ever there was one!

6) Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971, 146-147, 166-168, 170, 236-237:

By the date of the Didache [anywhere from about 60 to 160, depending on the scholar]. . . the application of the term ‘sacrifice’ to the Eucharist seems to have been quite natural, together with the identification of the Christian Eucharist as the ‘pure offering’ commanded in Malachi 1:11 . . .

The Christian liturgies were already using similar language about the offering of the prayers, the gifts, and the lives of the worshipers, and probably also about the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass, so that the sacrificial interpretation of the death of Christ never lacked a liturgical frame of reference . . .

. . . It means also that the effort to cross-examine the fathers of the second or third century about where they stood in the controversies of the ninth or sixteenth century is both silly and futile . . .

The theologians did not have adequate concepts within which to formulate a doctrine of the real presence that evidently was already believed by the church even though it was not yet taught by explicit instruction or confessed by creeds . . .

Liturgical evidence suggests an understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, whose relation to the sacrifices of the Old testament was one of archetype to type, and whose relation to the sacrifice of Calvary was one of ‘re-presentation,’ just as the bread of the Eucharist ‘re-presented’ the body of Christ . . . the doctrine of the person of Christ had to be clarified before there could be concepts that could bear the weight of eucharistic teaching . . .

Theodore [c.350-428] set forth the doctrine of the real presence, and even a theory of sacramental transformation of the elements, in highly explicit language . . . the twin ideas of the transformation of the eucharistic elements and the transformation of the communicant ‘At first it is laid upon the altar as a mere bread and wine mixed with water, but by the coming of the Holy Spirit it is transformed into body and blood, and thus it is changed into the power of a spiritual and immortal nourishment.’ [Hom. catech. 16,36] these and similar passages in Theodore are an indication that were so widely held and so firmly established in the thought and language of the church that everyone had to acknowledge them.

7) J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978, 447, provides this statement on the heels of Augustine’s Ennar 98:

• One could multiply texts like these which show Augustine taking for granted the traditional identification of the elements with the sacred body and blood. There can be no doubt that he [Augustine] shared the realism held by almost all of his contemporaries and predecessors.

8) Carl Volz, Faith and Practice in the Early Church, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1983, 107:

• Early Christians were convinced that in some way Christ was actually present in the consecrated elements of bread and wine.

9) Maurice Wiles and Mark Santar, Documents in Early Christian Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge, 1975, 173:

Finally, John Chrysostom and Augustine explore the social connotation of participation in the Eucharist: the body of Christ is not only what lies on the altar, it is also the body of the faithful.

Patristic Eucharistic Doctrine: Nine Protestant Scholars

 

[Josiah]

While i might dispute the pictire you paint of #2 , number 2 is not imcompatible with #1,

#2 came about as a result of heretics that watered down 'the real presence'..

Your #1 says the Eucharist is the body and blood of our Lord, #2 says just what that means... If you have an issue with #2 , you have to explain how it is false

Hi Philip James


I think there are those who desire to hold to BOTH #1 and #2 (both Real Presence AND Transubstantiation). I agree with you, theoretically, this is possible (I've met those who so attempt) but in practice, #2 always replaces #1 (as in the CCC).



Here are MY problems with #2 (Transubstantiation)...


1. Like Zwingli's 16th Century invention, it means we disregard the words of the text. "Is" doesn't mean "is' (which nearly always means "is"... real, present, existing, actual). For Zwingli (#3), the replacement is "symbolizes" and for Transubstantiation (#2) it's "changed via a specific process". And two of the things after the Consecration also are rejected (at least fully). For Zwingli (#3) it's the Body and Blood (words are there but the Body and Blood isn't). For Transubstantiation (#2), it's the bread and wine (words are there after the consecration but the bread and wine aren't, at least in any usual or full sense). In my opinion, #2 and #3 are essentially the same: "is" doesn't mean is..... half of what follows it doesn't actually exist. I have a little bit of a problem basing two new Dogmas on a deleting of words in the text and replacing the with others. Especially since no one seemed to have a problem with the words that are there for 1,000 to 1500 years.


2. IMO, Transubstantiation destroys any reason, any basis for Real Presence. If "is" doesn't mean "is"..... if what follows the "is" isn't necessarily.... then there is no TEXTUAL reason to accept that the Eucharist "IS" His Body and Blood. Zwingli's spin becomes equally textual, equally valid.


3. As I understand it, there was NO rejection of Real Presence in the early middle ages when Transubstantiation was first invented by Catholic Scholastics. It was never a "reaction" to heretics. It was, instead, part of a vast movement to make traditional Christian teaching "jibe" with the pop philosophies and prescience ideas of the day - to make it "hip" and modern. Alchemy was all the rage in medieval Europe.... Aristotle's theories were widely accepted as "fact" at the time. And Catholic Scholasticism was very interested in "explaining" the MYSTERIES via pop philosophy and the "science" of the day. Real Presence IS a mystery (in many ways) and Catholic Scholasticism wanted to remove it. By combining the alchemic idea of Transubstantiation with Aristotle's idea of "accidents" they felt they did this. It should be noted that in Luther's time, all this was ONLY a theory, an opinion (although very well established by then) - it was not official, not doctrine or dogma; officially Real Presence was the RCC view (although often with the EOC idea of a mysterious change although not dogmatically). Luther's challenge of it after the Leipzig was completely permitted (and he was never accused of error on that), it becomes the RCC dogma a couple of years AFTER his death (some think as a way to put another nail in his coffin of heresy, albeit retroactively).


Now, as a Lutheran, I absolutely REJOICE that the RCC did not throw the baby out with the bathwater in its attempt to repudiate Luther's embrace of Real Presence. To this day, the RCC affirms that Christ IS present in the Holy Eucharist - and in that I rejoice. THIS is a point where Catholics and Lutherans passionately agree ( as do Orthodox and many Anglicans and some Methodist). Dogmatically throwing out the word "is" and that what follows the "is" therefore is... they at least throw out the largely irrelevant (the bread and wine), Zwingli (accepting the approach of the RCC) throw out the POINT. So while I reject Transubstantiation for the 3 reasons above, I REJOICE that the RCC did not throw out Christ and still (to this day) honors and accepts the Sacrament.



Thank you for the conversation!


A Happy Father's Day to all the other dads here!


- Josiah




.

 

[Philip James]

3. As I understand it, there was NO rejection of Real Presence in the early middle ages when Transubstantiation was first invented by Catholic Scholastic

Hello Josiah,

Here's some info that shows it was indeed due to views that were seen as heretical that led to transubstantiation being affirmed to explain and uphold the Real Presence:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Berengarius of Tours

Also i would recommend Mysterium Fidei (September 3, 1965) | Paul VI

For a better understanding of the Catholic view of the Eucharist.


Peace!

 

[Marymog]

Let's look carefully at God's Scripture here - very carefully noting what is stated and what is not. Please begin by reading both very carefully.


Matthew 26:26-29

"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 the 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 new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I will you, I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine again until I drink it with you in my father's kingdom." (see also Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20)


1 Corinthians 11:23-29

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 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 this 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 anyone who eats or drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself."

There are three major "schools" in the West...

Real Presence: This view accepts these verses "as is" - with nothing added, deleted, substituted, ignored, explained away and with no pagan philosophies or prescience theories imposed or dogmatized. "Is" = is, every time (Real, present, exists). "Body" = body, every time. "Blood" = blood, every time. That's it. That's all. Body and blood IS... ARE..... thus present, real, there and thus received. While Real Presence technically doesn't mention the bread and wine or deal with that, it doesn't IN ANY SENSE deny such "exists" either - it's just insignificant. This view simply accepts all the words - as is, with no attempt to change some or ignore some or to impose some scientific concept or to "explain" away anything. It understands all this as "MYSTERY." It says only what Jesus and Paul says; questions are welcomed just left unanswered (dogmatically, anyway). THAT it is true is fully embraced; HOW it is true is left alone. This view is currently embraced by Lutherans, as well as some Anglicans and Methodist.

Transubstantiation: First expressed in 1134, first officially mentioned in 1214 and first made dogma exclusively in the individual RC Denomination in 1551, it holds that the word "is" should be replaced by the words "CHANGED and/or CONVERTED and/or TRANSFORMED from one reality to a completely foreign different reality." It then holds that this CHANGE happens via an alchemic transubstantiation (it's a very specific "change"). This, however, caused a problem with the texts which mentions bread and wine AFTER the Consecration (in First Corinthians, MORE than before) in EXACTLY the same way as such is mentioned BEFORE the Consecration. This view thus replaces those words, too. Instead, this view holds that "bread" and "wine" be replaced with, an Aristotelian ACCIDENT or appearance or species of bread and wine but not really or fully bread and wine - rather the 'empty shell' of what is left over after the alchemic transubstantiation. It denies that bread and wine are present in any full, literal, real sense (in spite of what the Bible says). Two pagan ideas are imposed: Transubstantiation and Accidents. Several words are deleted: "Is" "bread" and "wine" (the later two only after the Consecration). This view is the official Eucharistic dogma of the Roman Catholic Church since 1551. No other church holds to it.

Figurative/Symbolic/Memorial Presence: This view holds that the word "is" indicates a figure of speech and that there is a metaphor here. The word "is" in the texts is to be replaced with "symbolizes." It insists and the bread and wine are here made SYMBOLS or FIGURES or memorials of His Body and Blood. Christ is not "present" at all (in any sense other than He always is present), but the bread and wine are now symbols of Christ and His sacrifice. It is often compared to the Old Covenant Passover Meal - a memorial to REMIND us of things. The terms "body" and "blood" so stressed by Jesus and Paul are simply stripped of their USUAL meaning and said to be "symbols" or "figures" or "memorials" of them. "Is" doesn't mean "is" but "a figure of." This view is typically associated with Zwingli and dates back to the 16th Century (thus the newest of the 3 views). This view is now popular among modern American "Evangelicals" and frequently among modern Reformed/Calvinists. While NOT the RCC dogma, it's quite common among Catholics, too.

One might summarize the 3 common views this way:

LUTHERANS: Is.... Body..... Blood..... bread..... wine....... All are true, all are affirmed. It's mystery.

ROMAN CATHOLIC: Body.... Blood..... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the bread and wine actually aren't, they are Aristotelian Accidents instead. It's an alchemic transubstatiation.

EVANGELICALS: Bread.... Wine.... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the Body and Blood actually aren't, they are symbols instead. It's metaphor

It should be noted the Eastern Orthodox have a view somewhat between the Catholic and Lutheran views; it embraces that there is some mysterious, undefined change in the elements (not just in what is present) BUT rejects the RCC Dogma of Transubstantiation because the Orthodox leave the nature and means and character of the change entirely and completely to MYSTERY and insists that this 'change' is unimportant (rather than dogma), their emphasis (like Lutherans) is entirely on the Real Presence of the Body and Blood. Calvin himself personally held to Real Presence but his followers did not. Today, nearly all Reformed are Zwinglian on this and agree with modern Evangelicals.

Which of these "fits" with exactly what Jesus said and Paul penned?

Thank you in advance for the conversation!

- Josiah

I agree with you. We should carefully look at Gods Scripture....all of it!

In John 6 (known as the Bread of Life discourse) Jesus sets up what he is about to say/do at The Last Supper. The Apostles didn’t understand the Bread of Life discourse but they stuck with him.....some walked away. He revealed to his Apostles (not the disciples) what the BOL discourse meant at The Last Supper. The Apostles later taught the disciples how the BOL discourse was revealed to them by Jesus during The Last Supper and how we can fulfill the BOL discourse by “doing THIS in rememberence of Him”.

@BreadOfLife could probablely articulate it better than me.

Respectfully, Mary

 

[epostle1]

Transubstantiation was first invented by Catholic Scholastics.

No, Josiah. Transubstantiation was invented by God. The term is a development that means the same as when Jesus said FOUR TIMES “I AM the bread from heaven.” FOUR TIMES isn't enough for some people.
John 6:35,41,48,51

transubstantiation (n.)
"change of one substance to another," from Medieval Latin trans(s)ubstantiationem
First recorded in 1530 does not mean invented.
The first recording of the rings of Saturn does not mean the rings of Saturn were invented.

Aristotle lived about 300 years before Christ. His substance theory is popular with philosophers.
Aristotle divides the world into two categories: substances and accidents- substances are the most fundamental.

A substance is a dog, a rock, a planet, a particle and a computer. An accident is something like being white, standing up, kicking that ball or being hit by Tom. It is somewhat helpful to think of substances as nouns and accidents as every other part of language. Nouns are about people, places or things. Substances are people, and things (places just refer to things). Accidents refer to features of substances. They are always the subject and object of the sentence. This gives a good indication of what substances and accidents are.

Aristotle did not prophecy the Eucharist.
Jesus did not borrow from Aristotle; neither did the Church.
Aristotle's Substance Theory came in handy when trying to explain to skeptics how consecrated Bread and Wine can become the Body and Blood of Jesus.
The substance, what is perceived with the senses, remains the same.
The accidents, what is not perceived with the senses, is what comes down from heaven. Jesus does not "change" consecrated Bread and Wine. The new "accidents" already exists.

That may help explain why It is only One Bread, and One Cup. The Eucharist is not multiple little breads and multiple cups. It's all One Bread and One Cup that is miraculously spread out foreshadowed by Jesus feeding the multitude.

It doesn't much faith to believe Jesus fed thousands of hungry people by multiplying 5 loaves and 2 fish. (substance)
It takes supernatural faith to believe Jesus multiplies Himself for the life of the world. (trans-substance = transubstantiation) He didn't feed that crowd with symbols or metaphors. He fed them with substance as a foreshadow of His power to bring the accidents down from heaven in the form of substantial Bread and Wine.

 

[epostle1]

This is for all those Revelation addicts out there:

The Book of Revelation and the Holy Mass​

The Book of Revelation shows us glimpses of the heavenly liturgy – Jesus Christ’s once and for all sacrifice eternally present in heaven. This is why the Church has always incorporated the elements that John saw in the heavenly liturgy into her earthly liturgy, for they are one and the same liturgical action of Jesus Christ our High Priest.

Rev. 1:6, 20:6 – heaven’s identification of the priesthood of the faithful is the same as the Church’s identification on earth.

Rev. 1:10 – John witnesses the heavenly liturgy on Sunday, the Lord’s day, which is a Catholic holy day of obligation for attending Mass on earth.

Rev. 1:12, 2:5 – there are lampstands or Menorahs in heaven. These have always been used in the Holy Mass of the Church on earth.

Rev. 1:13 – Jesus is clothed as High Priest. Our priests also clothe themselves as “alter Christuses” (other Christs) in offering His sacrifice in the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 1:13, 4:4, 6:11, 7:9, 15:6, 19:13-14 – priests wear special vestments in heaven. Our priests also wear special vestments in celebrating the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 2:5,16,21; 3:3; 16:11 – there is a penitential rite in heaven which is also part of the liturgy of the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 2:17 – there is manna in heaven given to the faithful. This is the same as the Eucharistic manna given to the faithful at the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 4:4, 5:14; 11:16, 14:3, 19:4 – there are priests (“presbyteroi”) in heaven. Priests offer sacrifice. Our earthly priests participate with the heavenly priests in offering Jesus’ eternal sacrifice in the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 4:8 – heaven’s liturgical chant “Holy, Holy, Holy” is the same that is used in the liturgy of the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 4:8-11, 5:9-14, 7:10-12, 18:1-8 – the various antiphonal chants in the heavenly liturgy are similar to those used at the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 5:1 – there is a book or scroll of God’s word in heaven. This is reflected in the Liturgy of the Word at the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 5:6 and throughout – heaven’s description of Jesus as the “Lamb” is the same as the description of Jesus as the Lamb of God in the Eucharistic liturgy of the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 5:8, 6:9-11, 8:3-4 – heaven’s emphasis on the intercession of the saints is the same as the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 5:8, 8:3-4 – there is incense in heaven which has always been part of the liturgy of the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 5:14; 7:12; 19:4 – heaven’s concluding liturgical prayer “Amen” is the same as is used at the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 6:9 – the martyrs who are seen under the heavenly altar is similar to the Church’s tradition of keeping relics of saints under the earthly altars.

Rev. 7:3, 14:1, 22:4 – there is the sign of the cross (“tau”) in heaven. This sign is used during the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 7:9; 14:6 – the catholicity or universality of heaven as God’s family is the essence of the Catholic faith on earth.

Rev. 8:1 – the silent contemplation in heaven is similar to our silent contemplation at the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 8:3, 11:1, 14:18, 16:7 – there is an altar in heaven. But no altar is needed unless a sacrifice is being offered in heaven. This is the same sacrifice that is offered on the altars used in the Holy Masses on earth.

Rev. 11:12 – the phrase “come up here” is similar to the priest’s charge to “lift up your hearts” at the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 12:1-6, 13-17 – heaven’s emphasis on the Blessed Virgin Mary is the same as the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 12:7 – heaven’s emphasis on the Archangel Michael’s intercession is the same as the concluding prayers at the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 14:4 – there are consecrated celibates in heaven, as there are with our Catholic priests and religious on earth.

Rev. 15:7, 16:1-4,8,10,12,17; 21:9 – there are chalices (or bowls) in the heavenly liturgy. This is like the chalices used to offer Christ’s sacrifice in the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 15:3-4 – there is the recitation of the “Gloria” in heaven. This is also recited at the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 15:5 – there is a tent or tabernacle in heaven. Tabernacles are used to store the Eucharist at the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 17, 19:9 – the consummation of the Lamb at heaven’s marriage supper is the same as the Lamb’s supper in the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 19:1,3,4,6 – there is the recitation of the “Alleluia” in heaven. This is also recited at the Holy Mass on earth.
THE EUCHARIST - Scripture Catholic

 

[kit]

Jesus has me at the "do this..." part.

I was raised in a tradition that implied that communion is symbolic, but I find myself to be a Real Presence believer. Im suspicious they are the same thing just experienced at different stages of faith and spiritual formation. If a believer follows Christ to receive Communion, then it will be whatever Christ has made it, no matter the short comings of the believer, imo. Christ is further revealed as He Shepherds us along.

I believe that our human faculties are to be used to seek God, and I can see with my eyes that it is bread and wine. I taste with my tongue that they are bread and wine.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

eating wafers and drinking grape juice is a far cry from a literal interpretation of Scripture
Anyone who does this has to look for a figurative explanation

 

[epostle1]

Jesus has me at the "do this..." part.

I was raised in a tradition that implied that communion is symbolic, but I find myself to be a Real Presence believer. Im suspicious they are the same thing just experienced at different stages of faith and spiritual formation. If a believer follows Christ to receive Communion, then it will be whatever Christ has made it, no matter the short comings of the believer, imo. Christ is further revealed as He Shepherds us along.

I believe that our human faculties are to be used to seek God, and I can see with my eyes that it is bread and wine. I taste with my tongue that they are bread and wine.

Yes, the substance...

 

[Josiah]

I agree with you. We should carefully look at Gods Scripture....all of it!

In John 6 (known as the Bread of Life discourse) Jesus sets up what he is about to say/do at The Last Supper. The Apostles didn’t understand the Bread of Life discourse but they stuck with him.....some walked away. He revealed to his Apostles (not the disciples) what the BOL discourse meant at The Last Supper. The Apostles later taught the disciples how the BOL discourse was revealed to them by Jesus during The Last Supper and how we can fulfill the BOL discourse by “doing THIS in rememberence of Him”.

Respectfully, Mary

Hi, Mary


IMO, John 6 could be seen as a GREAT affirmation of position #1 (Real Presence) - and would seem to undermine both positions #2 (Transubstantiation) and # 3 (Metaphoric/symbolic).

My "problem" with that (and why I didn't use it in the OP) is that it is not clearly about the topic. The Sacrament is never mentioned in John at all (and certainly not in this chapter). And while John's Gospel isn't always chronological, it does SEEM that the context of John 6 is years before Communion came into existence, before Jesus established it... so IF Jesus says these words long before Communion existed, it would be odd (some would even say misleading and confusing) for Jesus to be talking about a topic in which His audience could have no possible way of remotely understanding. It would be a bit like me discussing some invention of physics that wouldn't be made for years later.

But yes, IF we accept that John 6 is a Eucharistic text (and I question that), yes, it is good support for Real Presence (position #1) and would be good to use to reject #2 (Transubstantiation) and # 3 (Symbolic).


Thank you for the conversation!


- Josiah



.

 

[Josiah]

epostle1,

No, Josiah. Transubstantiation was invented by God. The term is a development that means the same as when Jesus said FOUR TIMES “I AM the bread from heaven.” FOUR TIMES isn't enough for some people.John 6:35,41,48,51

No. "Am" is the verb "is." Is it not the verb "changed via the specific process of Transubstantiation from one reality to an entirely different one." "I AM" is grammatically the same as "He IS" not "he was one thing but a specific type of change happened and that first reality CHANGED into an entirely different reality- leaving behind only an Aristotelian Accident."


You might want to read the texts in the opening post. You'll note that the words "change" "convert" "becomes" never appear. The key words are IS, BODY, BLOOD, BREAD, WINE, FORGIVENESS.


Thank you for the discussion.


- Josiah



.

 

[epostle1]

In order to receive the Real Thing, you either are Catholic, or you are called by God to become Catholic. It's not being called by thunderous sermons or convincing arguments. Listen to the still, small Voice.

Exodus 12:43-45; Ezek. 44:9 – no one outside the “family of God” shall eat the lamb. Non-Catholics should not partake of the Eucharist until they are in full communion with the Church.

Lots of non-Catholics partake anyway, but they shouldn't because it's rude. It's not because our rules make us exclusivists, communion means in union with the whole Church, as well as in union with those present.

1 Cor. 11:27-29 – in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

1 Cor. 11:30 – this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin results in actual physical consequences to our bodies.

1 Cor. 11:27-30 – thus, if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of literally murdering the body of Christ, and risking physical consequences to our bodies. This is overwhelming evidence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are unjust penalties if the Eucharist is just a symbol.

 

[epostle1]

No.

How did God answer Moses when he asked God what His name is?

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.

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.

1 Cor. 11:24 – the same translation is used by Paul – “touto mou estin to soma.” The statement is “this is really” my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 – to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying “this represents (not is) my body and blood.” However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for “represent,” but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for “estin” which means “is.”

Thank you for the discussion.

 

[Josiah]

How did God answer Moses when he asked God what His name is?

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.

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.

1 Cor. 11:24 – the same translation is used by Paul – “touto mou estin to soma.” The statement is “this is really” my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 – to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying “this represents (not is) my body and blood.” However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for “represent,” but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for “estin” which means “is.”

Thank you for those powerful affirmations of position #1 (Real Presence) and for showing the weakness of position #2 (Transubstantiation) and # 3 (Symbol).

I agree with you: the verb is "IS" not "changed from one reality to a foreign one via the specific mechanism of a transubstantiation leaving behind Aristotelian Accidents." I agree, the meaning of is is is, not "changed" (Position #2) or "is not" (position # 3). Personally, I believe the meaning of bread, wine, body, blood and forgiveness is bread,wine, body, blood and forgiveness. It's why I reject positions #2 and #3.

But the issue here is more simple: Which of the 3 common Western views seems to be most in line with the WORDS ON THE PAGE that Jesus said and Paul penned?


Thank you for the discussion


- Josiah


.