Communion - Lord's Supper - Eucharist

[Josiah]

Jesus picked up bread and wine and said to the Apostles "This IS my body" and "This IS my blood".

Thank you for that bold, stunning affirmation of Position One (Real Presence, the Lutheran view) and showing the complete lack of anything Scriptural for the Position Two (Transubstantiation).



.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Thank you for that bold, stunning affirmation of Position One (Real Presence, the Lutheran view) and showing the complete lack of anything Scriptural for the Position Two (Transubstantiation).

Apparently, you don't understand the difference between Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation.
Allow me to educate you . . .

- Transubstantiation is the belief that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ - under that appearances of bread and wine
- Consubstantiation is the belief that the Body and Blood of Christ are present - ALONG WITH ("Con") the bread and wine.

At the Last Supper - did Jesus say: "This is a piece of bread in which my Body is present"??
OR - did He say - "This IS my Body"?

If the former is true - then He is teaching Consubstantiation.
If the latter is true, however - then He is teaching TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

Not really that difficult to grasp . . .

 

[Josiah]

Transubstantiation is the belief that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ - under that appearances of bread and wine

Right. Essentially, that's the invention of the RC Denomination in the 13th Century and was made its new, unique Eucharistic Dogma in 1551.

And yes, as you've repeatedly shown, it's NOT what Jesus said or Paul penned... and it's not what John 6 indicates. NOWHERE, in any Eucharistic text (add John 6 to this, if you insist) does the word "change" or "transformed" or "not" or "seems" or "appearance" or "Transubstantiation" or "Aristotle" or "accidents" appear. The words are "IS" "BODY" "BLOOD" "BREAD" "WINE" "FORGIVENESS" You know, position #1, "Real Presence" - not Position 2 (Transubstantiation)


See the next post (the op)...



.

 

[Josiah]

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, nothing added or deleted or changed?


- Josiah



.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Right. Essentially, that's the invention of the RC Denomination in the 13th Century and was made its new, unique Eucharistic Dogma in 1551.

And yes, as you've repeatedly shown, it's NOT what Jesus said or Paul penned... and it's not what John 6 indicates. NOWHERE, in any Eucharistic text (add John 6 to this, if you insist) does the word "change" or "transformed" or "not" or "seems" or "appearance" or "Transubstantiation" or "Aristotle" or "accidents" appear. The words are "IS" "BODY" "BLOOD" "BREAD" "WINE" "FORGIVENESS" You know, position #1, "Real Presence" - not Position 2 (Transubstantiation)
See the next post (the op)...

Sooooo, you're NOT going to admit that you didn't understand the difference between TRANsransubstantiation and CONsubstantiation - are you?? That's what I thought.

As for any dates of when a dogma or doctrine was officially defined - as I schooled you on another thread - these things occur usually when there is a challenge to a belief or an outright heresy involved.

For example - the official dogma of the Trinity which is THE most basic tenet of Christianity didn't come out until AFTER the Arian Heresy arose in the 4th century. Does that mean that the Trinity DIDN'T exist until then - or simply that it had not yet been officially defined??

Try being HONEST - for a change . . .

 

[Josiah]

Sooooo,

See post 124 above.

Correct, Transubstantiation comes no earlier than the 12th Century and was made dogma in the 16th.

Correct, IF you bothered to read what Jesus actually SAID and what Paul actually PENNED, you'll notice these words: "Is" "Body" "Blood" "Bread" "Wine" "Forgiveness." And you'll never see these words "Changed" "Transubstantiation" "not" "seems" "Aristotle" "Alchemy" "Appearance" "Accidents". NOTHING to support the unique, new invented Eucharistic dogma of the RC denomination, but yes full support for the position of Real Presence. Since you want to throw John 6 into the mix, that's fine - you won't find the words "changed" "transubstantiation" "not" "seems" "Aristotle" "Alchemy" "appearance" or "accidents" there, either. NOTHING REMOTELY to support the new unique invention of the singular RC denomination (as you keep pointing out).


- Josiah



.

 

[Philip James]

Thanks for sharing, however...in quoting this also from that site with what you had quoted:

What happens when vicars do not have "ordinary jurisdiction" but claiming to have supernatural jurisdiction in taking the place of Christ as the Head of the Church?

from the same site:

Ordinary jurisdiction is that which is permanently bound, by Divine or human law, with a permanent ecclesiastical office. Its possessor is called an ordinary judge. By Divine law the pope has such ordinary jurisdiction for the entire Church and a bishop for his diocese

It testifies that vicars having ordinary jurisdiction whose resignation includes the cessation of their powers. Is that inferring to Jesus Christ resigning from being the Head of the Church for which the Pope is laying claim to?

It refers to the resignation of the vicar! Pope Benedict XVI would be an example of one who resigned the position of Vicar of Christ and thus ceased to have ordinary jurisdiction for the entire Church.

At the same site you refer to, I put in a search for the Vicar of Christ as the Pope and found this....
but the title Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him...

So the phrase "Vicar of Christ" is more than just what you had referred to as vicar, respectively.

No, it is EXACTLY what I referred to as vicar. " In canon law, the representative of a person clothed with ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction"

Thus the Vicar of Christ , carries the authority of Christ, as HIS representative!

In Canada, the Governor General is Queen Elizabeth's representative. They give royal assent to acts of the government, in the Queen's name. They act with her authority... they have 'vicarial power dervived from' her.

It would be hard to draw the line of distinction from the apostle John's warning of those that would seduce others to see them as Christ or in His stead as Head of the Church.

Again, John says nothing of the sort except in your imagination...

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Paul is saying this even after Christ has ascended above. Paul is not giving any leeway for someone else to serve as the Head of the Church.

1 Cor 4:15 Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

Is the father not the head of the household?

Peace!

 

[BreadOfLife]

See post 124 above.

Correct, Transubstantiation comes no earlier than the 12th Century and was made dogma in the 16th.

Correct, IF you bothered to read what Jesus actually SAID and what Paul actually PENNED, you'll notice these words: "Is" "Body" "Blood" "Bread" "Wine" "Forgiveness." And you'll never see these words "Changed" "Transubstantiation" "not" "seems" "Aristotle" "Alchemy" "Appearance" "Accidents". NOTHING to support the unique, new invented Eucharistic dogma of the RC denomination, but yes full support for the position of Real Presence. Since you want to throw John 6 into the mix, that's fine - you won't find the words "changed" "transubstantiation" "not" "seems" "Aristotle" "Alchemy" "appearance" or "accidents" there, either. NOTHING REMOTELY to support the new unique invention of the singular RC denomination (as you keep pointing out).- Josiah

And I already addressed this moronic argument in my last post - which you completely ignored.
Here it is again for your edification . . .

As for any dates of when a dogma or doctrine was officially defined - as I schooled you on another thread - these things occur usually when there is a challenge to a belief or an outright heresy involved.

For example - the official dogma of the Trinity which is THE most basic tenet of Christianity didn't come out until AFTER the Arian Heresy arose in the 4th century. Does that mean that the Trinity DIDN'T exist until then - or simply that it had not yet been officially defined??

As for the "words" not being in Scripture - that is an equally-stupid argument.
The word "Trinity" is not in Scripture - yet it is THE most basic tenet of Christianity.
The word "Incarnation" is not in Scripture - yet it is foundational to Christianity.
ALL of these things are TAUGHT in Scripture - they just aren't mentioned explicitly.

For your information - the word "Bible" is not in the Bible - and neither is the list of Books that make up the Bible. That was provided by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15).

The word "Transubstantiation" is not in Scripture - but the TEACHING is there.
The word "Transubstantiation" is not mentioned by the Early Church Fathers - but the TEACHING is UNANIMOUS.

 

[Josiah]

The word "Transubstantiation" is not in Scripture - but the TEACHING is there.

Wrong.

Perhaps why no one "saw" this in Scripture for over 1,000 years is because the words are: "is" "body" "blood" "bread" "wine" "forgiveness". No one saw anything about "change via the precise technical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents." And the reason is simple: it's not there.

The word "Transubstantiation" is not mentioned by the Early Church Fathers

The teaching was not found by anyone for over 1000 years.... And that's because Jesus and Paul said/wrote NOTHING about "change" "is not" "only seems like" "alchemy" "Aristotle" "accidents" "appearance" The key word is "IS" (present, real, existing) not "changed via the precise technical physics mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents." The RC Denomination, by dogmatically insisting that the meaning of is is not is and what follows the "is" isn't necessarily, not only destroyed any textual reason to believe anything about the Sacrament but opened the door wide for Zwingli to simply fully agree with the RCC (only he dumpted the other half of what follows the "is" - easy because he simply agreed with the RCC that Jesus and Paul mistakenly said "is" when they MEANT something entirely different (the RCC stated He meant to say "CHANGED from one reality to a foreign one via the precise, technical, physics mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and accidents that only appears real.... Zwingli stated that He meant to say, "Symbolizes...." Both destroy the Sacrament by deleting the word "is" and essentially denying much of what follows the "is".



- Josiah



.

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

from the same site:

Ordinary jurisdiction is that which is permanently bound, by Divine or human law, with a permanent ecclesiastical office. Its possessor is called an ordinary judge. By Divine law the pope has such ordinary jurisdiction for the entire Church and a bishop for his diocese

Divine law? The doctrine of the Nicolaitanes is about conquering the laity whereby there is an outside authority of the local church other than Christ when Christ is the only outside authority of that local assembly, because He is the Head of every believer as well as every assembly.

You cannot manage a house if you are not there. Jesus had never resigned His position as Head of the Church for someone to take that position as Vicar.

It refers to the resignation of the vicar! Pope Benedict XVI would be an example of one who resigned the position of Vicar of Christ and thus ceased to have ordinary jurisdiction for the entire Church.

But Christ had never resign His position. For the Church to say so and for that to be legitimate, they need word from Peter, but he has not made any such claim that he took His place. Neither did Paul in his ministry to the Gentiles.

Don't you think that for a Church to claim succession in His stead as Head of the Church that they need to prove that Peter claimed such a position before they do?

No, it is EXACTLY what I referred to as vicar. " In canon law, the representative of a person clothed with ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction"

Thus the Vicar of Christ , carries the authority of Christ, as HIS representative!

Seeing how a lot of Catholicism is not directly taught as such in the N.T., I would have to say they presume much by this authority.

In Canada, the Governor General is Queen Elizabeth's representative. They give royal assent to acts of the government, in the Queen's name. They act with her authority... they have 'vicarial power dervived from' her.

Again, John says nothing of the sort except in your imagination...

1 Cor 4:15 Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

Is the father not the head of the household?

Peace!

The Pope as Vicar guides believers to the Church for obtaining life; NOT to Christ for that life. They are representing the Church & thus themselves.

Yet Jesus had appeared to Paul after His ascension and Paul stated that the Head of every believer is Christ. Paul did not mention Peter. Paul did not mention any one to look to authority to outside of the local assembly except to Christ Himself as the Word of God has final say on everything.

Ephesians 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

No mention of Peter here. As for the order of submission of the wife to the husband...

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

That sets precedent for all local believers in an assembly to be submissive to Christ; and no one else.

Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

Nobody else can fill that position on earth. No way.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Wrong.
Perhaps why no one "saw" this in Scripture for over 1,000 years is because the words are: "is" "body" "blood" "bread" "wine" "forgiveness". No one saw anything about "change via the precise technical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents." And the reason is simple: it's not there.
The teaching was not found by anyone for over 1000 years.... And that's because Jesus and Paul said/wrote NOTHING about "change" "is not" "only seems like" "alchemy" "Aristotle" "accidents" "appearance" The key word is "IS" (present, real, existing) not "changed via the precise technical physics mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents." The RC Denomination, by dogmatically insisting that the meaning of is is not is and what follows the "is" isn't necessarily, not only destroyed any textual reason to believe anything about the Sacrament but opened the door wide for Zwingli to simply fully agree with the RCC (only he dumpted the other half of what follows the "is" - easy because he simply agreed with the RCC that Jesus and Paul mistakenly said "is" when they MEANT something entirely different (the RCC stated He meant to say "CHANGED from one reality to a foreign one via the precise, technical, physics mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and accidents that only appears real.... Zwingli stated that He meant to say, "Symbolizes...." Both destroy the Sacrament by deleting the word "is" and essentially denying much of what follows the "is".
- Josiah

Actually - that's a LIE - and I'll prove it.
Not only did the Early Church teach this truth - they believed it UNANIMOUSLY.
You can't keep making these stupid claims when the weight of historical evidence is against you. . . .

Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus
He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported) how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him? (Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
"And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table" [Proverbs 9:1] . . . refers to his [Christ's] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper] (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

Aphraahat
After having spoken thus at the Last Supper, the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

Theodore
When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, "This is the symbol of my body" but, "This is my body." In the same way when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say. "This is the symbol of my blood," but, "This is my blood," for he wanted us to look upon the Eucharistic elements after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard the elements merely as bread and cup but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

Ambrose of Milan
Perhaps you may be saying, "I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?" It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

Augustine
That bread which you see on the altar having been sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ, That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

What you see is the bread and the chalice, that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith, yet faith does not desire instruction (ibid. 272).

1000 years, indeed.
Consider yourself historically-spanked . . .

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Actually - that's a LIE - and I'll prove it.
Not only did the Early Church teach this truth - they believed it UNANIMOUSLY.
You can't keep making these stupid claims when the weight of historical evidence is against you. . . .

Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus
He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported) how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him? (Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
"And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table" [Proverbs 9:1] . . . refers to his [Christ's] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper] (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

Aphraahat
After having spoken thus at the Last Supper, the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

Theodore
When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, "This is the symbol of my body" but, "This is my body." In the same way when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say. "This is the symbol of my blood," but, "This is my blood," for he wanted us to look upon the Eucharistic elements after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard the elements merely as bread and cup but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

Ambrose of Milan
Perhaps you may be saying, "I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?" It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

Augustine
That bread which you see on the altar having been sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ, That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

What you see is the bread and the chalice, that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith, yet faith does not desire instruction (ibid. 272).

1000 years, indeed.
Consider yourself historically-spanked . . .

Get serious Breadman.
You misquote again.

 

[aspen]

Saturdays are hard because there is no daily Mass and it messes with my routine. Thankfully, it is my time for confession.

 

[Josiah]

Actually - that's a LIE - and I'll prove it.
Not only did the Early Church teach this truth - they believed it UNANIMOUSLY.
You can't keep making these stupid claims when the weight of historical evidence is against you. . . .

Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus
He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported) how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him? (Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
"And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table" [Proverbs 9:1] . . . refers to his [Christ's] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper] (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

Aphraahat
After having spoken thus at the Last Supper, the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

Theodore
When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, "This is the symbol of my body" but, "This is my body." In the same way when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say. "This is the symbol of my blood," but, "This is my blood," for he wanted us to look upon the Eucharistic elements after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard the elements merely as bread and cup but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

Ambrose of Milan
Perhaps you may be saying, "I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?" It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

Augustine
That bread which you see on the altar having been sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ, That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

What you see is the bread and the chalice, that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith, yet faith does not desire instruction (ibid. 272).

1000 years, indeed.
Consider yourself historically-spanked . . .

Correct.

Thanks for proving my point.... Yup, not even one mention of the new Eucharistic dogma of the RCC, Transubstantiation. Yup, they all affirm the Lutheran position of Real Presence, but not one taught Transubstantiation.



.

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

That the Lords Supper is a mystery, in that we do not fully undestand every nuance of it, is something we should accept.
That we are saved by faith, we do not earn or deserve salvation is something we should bear in mind when we discuss the Lords Supper or Communion etc.

There is no merit gained by attending communion, as merit implies we have attend something.
The real significance is that we contemplate the enormity of the sacrifice that Jesus, willingly made, for us and of our responcibility in him needing to make that sacrifice.

There are scripture to help us understand what communion cannot be and that is the Lord repeatedly offering that one time sacrifice for sin to be received again and again in communion.

Hebrews 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

So by looking to Him instead of communion or the Eucharist in the Mass, in how He has saved us is why we do communion in remembrance of Him of what He has done through the body of His death and the blood on the cross and not for anything else.

Colossians 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. 21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled 22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: 23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

The works of catholicism moves Catholics away from the hope of the gospel.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Get serious Breadman.
You misquote again.

Then please enlighten me, Rollo.
Show me WHERE I misquoted anything . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Correct.

Thanks for proving my point.... Yup, not even one mention of the new Eucharistic dogma of the RCC, Transubstantiation. Yup, they all affirm the Lutheran position of Real Presence, but not one taught Transubstantiation..

Uhhhhhh, no.
First, you have to understand the Lutheran position vs. the Catholic position - and it appears that you don't.

The Lutheran position is CONsubstantiation. "Con" comes from the Latin meaning "with". they believe that Jesus is present WITH the bread and wine. THAT is consubstantiation.

Catholics believe in TRANsubstantiation. "Trans" means to completely change. We believe that the bread and wine are changed (transformed) into the body and blood of Christ - leaving only the appearance of bread and wine.

All of the Early Church quotes I presented show a belief in TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
Do your homework . . .

 

[Josiah]

Catholics believe in TRANsubstantiation. "Trans" means to completely change.

Well, the RC denomination teaches that (I don't know too many Catholics who believe it).

But as you've repeatedly proven, NOWHERE did Jesus or Paul speak of anything changing into anything - by means of an alchemic transubstantiation or any other physical means... NOWHERE did Jesus or Paul speak of anything ever being just an "Aristotelian Accident" - not any body, not any bread, not any bread, not any wine, not anything at all. The new dogma the individual RC denomination invented is entirely missing in the Bible (and as you further chose to prove, from early Tradition and the Fathers). See the opening post.

We believe that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ - leaving only the appearance of bread and wine.

The individual RC denomination now teaches that, I agree....

But as you've repeatedly proven, NOWHERE did Jesus or Paul speak of anything changing into anything - by means of an alchemic transubstantiation or any other physical means... NOWHERE did Jesus or Paul speak of anything ever being just an "Aristotelian Accident" - not any body, not any bread, not any bread, not any wine, not anything at all. The dogma the individual RC denomination invented is entirely missing in the Bible (and as you further chose to prove, from early Tradition and the Fathers).

All of the Early Church quotes I presented show a belief in TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

Nope. They all support Real Presence. Not even ONE of them even so much as MENTIONS the specific alchemic process of transubstantiation... not even one of them even MENTIONS anything about Aristotle or his weird (and wrong) philosophical theory of accidents. Oddly, you chose to show they hold to the Lutheran position of Real Presence and not one to Transubstantiation.

See the opening post for the current common views....




.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well, the RC denomination teaches that (I don't know too many Catholics who believe it).
But as you've repeatedly proven, NOWHERE did Jesus or Paul speak of anything changing into anything - by means of an alchemic transubstantiation or any other physical means... NOWHERE did Jesus or Paul speak of anything ever being just an "Aristotelian Accident" - not any body, not any bread, not any bread, not any wine, not anything at all. The new dogma the individual RC denomination invented is entirely missing in the Bible (and as you further chose to prove, from early Tradition and the Fathers). See the opening post.

The individual RC denomination now teaches that, I agree....

But as you've repeatedly proven, NOWHERE did Jesus or Paul speak of anything changing into anything - by means of an alchemic transubstantiation or any other physical means... NOWHERE did Jesus or Paul speak of anything ever being just an "Aristotelian Accident" - not any body, not any bread, not any bread, not any wine, not anything at all. The dogma the individual RC denomination invented is entirely missing in the Bible (and as you further chose to prove, from early Tradition and the Fathers).

Nope. They all support Real Presence. Not even ONE of them even so much as MENTIONS the specific alchemic process of transubstantiation... not even one of them even MENTIONS anything about Aristotle or his weird (and wrong) philosophical theory of accidents. Oddly, you chose to show they hold to the Lutheran position of Real Presence and not one to Transubstantiation.

See the opening post for the current common views....

Just when I thought your posts couldn't get any more moronic - you post this drivel.

NOWHERE does the Church teach that there is an "alchemic" change to the forms of bread and wine. As a matter of fact - if you look at the Eucharist under a microscope, you will find the properties of bread and wine.
As for your "Aristotlian" nonsense - The Church doesn't base its doctrines on Aristotle, so your entire point is moot.

Finally - the quotes I presented from the Early Church Fathers speak not ONLY of the Real Presence - but of the TRANSFORMATION of the elements from bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

As I educated you earlier - the word "Transubstantiation" came later - as did "Incarnation" and "Trinity" - and "BIBLE" . . .

 

[Josiah]

NOWHERE does the Church teach that there is an "alchemic" change to the forms of bread and wine.

True, the church doesn't but the RC denomination does.... as dogma since 1551.


No, it doesn't hold that the "forms" change, it reaches that the bread and wine CHANGE - via the precise, technical, physical mechanism of an alchemic "transubstantiation" (the very word it uses for this "change" comes from alchemy; there are several Latin words for "change" that the RC does NOT use, it uses the very technical, specific word from alchemy).


Jesus and Paul (and the ECF) said "IS". Not "CHANGED from one reality to a foreign one via the precise, technical physical mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian accidents."


Jesus and Paul (and the ECF) said "IS' 'BODY' 'BLOOD' 'FORGIVENESS." NOT "is not" "seems like but isn't" "Just the chemical properties of" "change" "alchemy" "transubstantiation" "Aristotle" "accidents" IF you actually read what Jesus said and Paul penned, you'll see Real Presence but NOTHING about this weird, medieval, RC invention of Transubstantiation. Nothing. And you keep proving it.

As a matter of fact - if you look at the Eucharist under a microscope, you will find the properties of bread and wine.
As for your "Aristotlian" nonsense - The Church doesn't base its doctrines on Aristotle, so your entire point is moot.

When you make up your mind, let us know. "Properties" is simply a MUCH more simple and modern word for "accidents." Aristotle held that the "properties" (if you prefer the more generic and modern word) of reality can exist after the reality has ceased to exist. This is what those medieval RC denomination "Scholastics" claimed is the case after the Consecration - we have Aristotelian ACCIDENTS. I realize the RCC has tended to not use the words "Aristotle" or "accidents" since Vatican II (preferring the word "appearances") but the dogma IS that this alchemic transubstantiation leaves behind a MIXTURE of reality (the RC says the Body and Blood are really real) and Aristotelian Accidents (the bread and wine only have the "properties" - if you prefer that far less technical word - of bread and wine).

I can understand why you feel the need to RUN from the new invention of your denomination, but it is what it is. And yes, you are right, the Scriptures all teach Real Presence but never your denomination's medieval nonsense.




.