Transubstantiation

[Jude3b]

During the mass, priests allegedly have the power to supernaturally turn the bread aand wine into the actual and literal body of Jesus Christ.

That is far out..!!!!

[Timothy]

Hi Jude
I tried to teach my cat to ice skate. What a waste of time that was. She kept trying to scratch and bite me.

[Dave]

During the mass, priests allegedly have the power to supernaturally turn the bread aand wine into the actual and literal body of Jesus Christ.

That is far out..!!!!

Why? Justin Martyr didn't seem to think it's 'far out'.

Chapter LXVI.-Of the Eucharist.

And this food is called among us Eu0xaristi/a143 [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.144 For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me,145 this is My body; "and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood; "and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3935_744654

Peace,
Dave

[JasonTE]

How do you know that Justin Martyr believed in transubstantiation? Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, and others believe in a presence of Christ in the eucharist without thereby believing in transubstantiation.

The church fathers held a variety of eucharistic doctrines, including beliefs that contradict the Roman Catholic view, even though the Council of Trent falsely claimed that transubstantiation is the view always held by the Christian church. For documentation of the variety of views held by the fathers, see Philip Schaff's comments in section 69 at:

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch05.htm

And section 95 at:

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm

I also recommend consulting Schaff's footnotes, since the notes cite additional passages from the fathers and cite other scholars confirming Schaff's conclusions.

Jason Engwer

[tizzidale]

Ok, here's a blurb from the OCA website. (http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/orthodox-faith/worship/holy-eucharist.html) explaining the Orthodox position on the Eucharist.

The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ's Body and Blood. If this doctrine were true, when the liturgy is celebrated and holy communion is given, the people would be called merely to think about Jesus and to commune with him "in their hearts." In this way, the eucharist would be reduced to a simple memorial meal of the Lord's last supper, and the union with God through its reception would come only on the level of thought or psychological recollection.

On the other hand, however, the Orthodox tradition does use the term "symbols" for the eucharistic gifts. It calls, the service a "mystery" and the sacrifice of the liturgy a "spiritual and bloodless sacrifice." These terms are used by the holy fathers and the liturgy itself.

The Orthodox Church uses such expressions because in Orthodoxy what is real is not opposed to what is symbolical or mystical or spiritual. On the contrary! In the Orthodox view, all of reality -- the world and man himself -- is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us. Thus, the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God's true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated by the Holy Spirit, we have genuine communion with God through Christ who is himself "the bread of life" (Jn 6:34, 41).

I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh (Jn 6:51).

Thus, the bread of the eucharist is Christ's flesh, and Christ's flesh is the eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one. The word "symbolical" in Orthodox terminology means exactly this: "to bring together into one."

Thus we read the words of the Apostle Paul:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as 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 and drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:23-26).

The mystery of the holy eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. For the eucharist -- and Christ himself -- is indeed a mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is "not of this world." The eucharist -- because it belongs to God's Kingdom -- is truly free from the earth-born "logic" of fallen humanity.

[Dave]

How do you know that Justin Martyr believed in transubstantiation? Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, and others believe in a presence of Christ in the eucharist without thereby believing in transubstantiation.

The church fathers held a variety of eucharistic doctrines, including beliefs that contradict the Roman Catholic view, even though the Council of Trent falsely claimed that transubstantiation is the view always held by the Christian church. For documentation of the variety of views held by the fathers, see Philip Schaff's comments in section 69 at:

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch05.htm

And section 95 at:

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm

I also recommend consulting Schaff's footnotes, since the notes cite additional passages from the fathers and cite other scholars confirming Schaff's conclusions.

Jason Engwer

as scholarly as Schaff is, his biases also tend to filter through.

Luther invented 'consubstantiation' as the notion that Jesus Christ is 'in, around, through' the bread, but that the bread remains bread. A simple quote or two from Cyril of Jerusalem disproves that.

"Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine." "
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,XXII:8(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:152

"Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual Hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed."
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,XXIII:7(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:154

I am not aware of the EO believing any differently, but maybe not in so many words?

"Let us then in everything believe God, and gainsay Him in nothing, though what is said seem to be contrary to our thoughts and senses, but let His word be of higher authority than both reasonings and sight. Thus let us do in the mysteries also, not looking at the things set before us, but keeping in mind His sayings. For His word cannot deceive, but our senses are easily beguiled. That hath never failed, but this in most things goeth wrong. Since then the word saith, 'This is my body,' let us both be persuaded and believe, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ hath given nothing sensible, but though in things sensible yet all to be perceived by the mind. So also in baptism, the gift is bestowed by a sensible thing, that is, by water; but that which is done is perceived by the mind, the birth, I mean, and the renewal. For if thou hadst been incorporeal, He would have delivered thee the incorporeal gifts bare; but because the soul hath been locked up in a body, He delivers thee the things that the mind perceives, in things sensible. How many now say, I would wish to see His form, the mark, His clothes, His shoes. Lo! thou seest Him, Thou touchest Him, thou eatest Him. And thou indeed desirest to see His clothes, but He giveth Himself to thee not to see only, but also to touch and eat and receive within thee."
John Chrysostom,Gospel of Matthew,Homily 82(A.D. 370),in NPNF1,X:495

[tizzidale]

I am not aware of the EO believing any differently, but maybe not in so many words?

You are correct.

[JasonTE]

Dave said:


as scholarly as Schaff is, his biases also tend to filter through

Saying that "Schaff's biases tend to filter through" doesn't refute what he wrote. And, as I said in my earlier post, he cites other scholars agreeing with his conclusions. Philip Schaff isn't the only scholar who thinks that the church fathers held a variety of views of the eucharist. Roman Catholicism claims that transubstantiation is the view always held by the church, but that isn't the conclusion scholarship has reached.


Luther invented 'consubstantiation' as the notion that Jesus Christ is 'in, around, through' the bread, but that the bread remains bread. A simple quote or two from Cyril of Jerusalem disproves that.

How does quoting Cyril of Jerusalem refute Martin Luther? In the same work of Cyril of Jerusalem that you quoted, he also denies that Mary was immaculately conceived and contradicts the Roman Catholic Old Testament canon. Should we conclude, then, that quoting Cyril of Jerusalem on those issues is sufficient to refute what the RCC teaches?

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

[dizzle]

Well now I know why so many of them were futurists I guess.

[Dave]

Dave said:




Saying that "Schaff's biases tend to filter through" doesn't refute what he wrote. And, as I said in my earlier post, he cites other scholars agreeing with his conclusions. Philip Schaff isn't the only scholar who thinks that the church fathers held a variety of views of the eucharist. Roman Catholicism claims that transubstantiation is the view always held by the church, but that isn't the conclusion scholarship has reached.



Yeah, I saw all those scholars he cited. A long list of "reformers". And Schaff didn't really address transubstantiation in any way. He cited 1 ECF, and even then it didn't help your argument, only supported mine. On the other hand I've posted a bunch of ECFs, and I can post plenty more.


How does quoting Cyril of Jerusalem refute Martin Luther? In the same work of Cyril of Jerusalem that you quoted, he also denies that Mary was immaculately conceived and contradicts the Roman Catholic Old Testament canon. Should we conclude, then, that quoting Cyril of Jerusalem on those issues is sufficient to refute what the RCC teaches?

What does any of that have to do with the issue at hand? Are you trying to change tactics here? Switch the focus from the fact that the ECFs taught transubstantiation? Because your argument here has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Let's stick to the topic, okay?

Lutherans: believe in consubstantiation. That is, the bread remains, but Jesus is physically present in, around, through, under the bread.
Catholics and EO: believe in transubstantiation. That is, the bread and wine appear to be bread and wine. Even taste like such. But it is no longer bread and wine. It has become the body and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

And the Catholic view is the one reflected in the writings of the ECFs.

"He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water into wine, akin to blood, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood?"
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,XXII:4(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:152

"Perhaps you will say, 'I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?' And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed...The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: 'This is My Body.' Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks."
Ambrose,On the Mysteries,9:50(A.D. 390-391),in NPNF2,X:324-325

If you disagree, then post some here. Debate via link isn't the best way to do things.

[JasonTE]

Dave said:


Yeah, I saw all those scholars he cited. A long list of "reformers".

Schaff doesn't just cite Protestant scholars. But even as far as he does, why should anybody think that Protestant scholars are unreliable? You've given us no good reason to dismiss Schaff, and you've given us no good reason to dismiss the other scholars he cites.


And Schaff didn't really address transubstantiation in any way. He cited 1 ECF, and even then it didn't help your argument, only supported mine.

Did you read what Schaff wrote? Or are you lying? Or maybe you have a bad memory. I don't know. But anybody who went to the sections of Schaff that I referenced would see that he discusses many patristic sources: The Didache, Irenaeus, Origen, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, Gelasius, etc. He repeatedly quotes the fathers, including passages that contradict transubstantiation.

You dismiss Schaff as unreliable, yet other scholars agree with him about the fathers sometimes contradicting the Roman Catholic view of the eucharist. The Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly cites the same passage Schaff cites from Theodoret and agrees with Schaff that Theodoret is contradicting transubstantiation. The Jesuit scholar Edward Kilmartin cites the same passage Schaff cites from Gelasius, and he agrees with Schaff that transubstantiation is contradicted by Gelasius. Even Roman Catholic scholars disagree with your absurd claim that all of the fathers believed in transubstantiation.


What does any of that have to do with the issue at hand? Are you trying to change tactics here? Switch the focus from the fact that the ECFs taught transubstantiation? Because your argument here has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

The fact that your argument was logically errant isn't relevant? The fact that you don't apply your reasoning consistently isn't relevant? Both are relevant. If the Lutheran view of the eucharist is disproven by quoting Cyril of Jerusalem, then Roman Catholic doctrines can also be disproven by quoting Cyril of Jerusalem. I can understand why you wouldn't want to apply your argument consistently. You want a double standard, since you don't like the implications of your argument when it's applied to your own belief system.

Quoting Cyril of Jerusalem doesn't refute the Lutheran view of the eucharist. The fact that you used such a bad argument in the first place, then refused to retract it when it was shown to be a bad argument, tells us something about how reasonable we can expect you to be.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

[Ric]

During the mass, priests allegedly have the power to supernaturally turn the bread aand wine into the actual and literal body of Jesus Christ.

That is far out..!!!!
Let's see how some of the "Church Fathers" thought about that myth:

"But what need is there to speak of bodies not allotted to be the food of any animal, and destined only for a burial in the earth in honour of nature, since the Maker of the world has not alloted any animal whatsoever as food to those of the same kind, although some others of a different kind serve for food according to nature? If, indeed, they are able to show that the flesh of men was alloted to men for food, there will be nothing to hinder its being according to nature that they should eat one another, just like anything else that is allowed by nature, and nothing to prohibit those who dare to say such things from regaling themselves with the bodies of their dearest friends as delicacies, as being especially suited to them, and to entertain their living friends with the same fare. But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act; and if what is against nature can never pass into nourishment for the limbs and parts requiring it, and what does not pass into nourishment can never become united with that which it is not adapted to nourish,-then can the bodies of men never combine with bodies like themselves, to which this nourishment would be against nature, even though it were to pass many times through their stomach, owing to some most bitter mischance" (Athenagoras; On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8)

"You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, 'Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord's Passion,' although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, 'This day the Lord rose from the dead,' although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had notsome points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood,' in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith." (Augustine; Letter 98:9)


"But He instructed them, and saith unto them, 'It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.' Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth." (Augustine; Expositions on the Psalms, 99:8)


"It may be also understood in this way: 'The poor ye will have always with you, but me ye will not have always.' The good may take it also as addressed to themselves, but not so as to be any source of anxiety; for He was speaking of His bodily presence. For in respect of His majesty, His providence, His ineffable and invisible grace, His own words are fulfilled, 'Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world.' But in respect of the flesh He assumed as the Word, in respect of that which He was as the son of the Virgin, of that wherein He was seized by the Jews, nailed to the tree, let down from the cross, enveloped in a shroud, laid in the sepulchre, and manifested in His resurrection, 'ye will not have Him always.' And why? Because in respect of His bodily presence He associated for forty days with His disciples, and then, having brought them forth for the purpose of beholding and not of following Him, He ascended into heaven and is no longer here. He is there, indeed, sitting at the right hand of the Father; and He is here also, having never withdrawn the presence of His glory. In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, 'Me ye will not have always.' In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes." (Augustine; Lectures on the Gospel of John, 50:13)"For when Christ says, 'I am the true vine.' the blood of Christ is assuredly not water, but wine; neither can His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened appear to be in the cup, when in the cup there is no wine whereby the blood of Christ is shown forth, which is declared by the sacrament and testimony of all the Scriptures. For we find in Genesis also, in respect of the sacrament in Noe, this same thing was to them a precursor and figure of the Lord's passion; that he drank wine; that he was drunken; that he was made naked in his household; that he was lying down with his thighs naked and exposed; that the nakedness of the father was observed by his second son, and was told abroad, but was covered by two, the eldest and the youngest; and other matters which it is not necessary to follow out, since this is enough for us to embrace alone, that Noe, setting forth a type of the future truth, did not drink water, but wine, and thus expressed the figure of the passion of the Lord....For who is more a priest of the most high God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered a sacrifice to God the Father, and offered that very same thing which Melchizedek had offered, that is, bread and wine, to wit, His body and blood?...Moreover the Holy Spirit by Solomon shows before the type of the Lord's sacrifice, making mention of the immolated victim, and of the bread and wine, and, moreover, of the altar and of the apostles, and says, 'Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath underlaid her seven pillars; she hath killed her victims; she hath mingled her wine in the chalice; she hath also furnished her table: and she hath sent forth her servants, calling together with a lofty announcement to her cup, saying, Whoso is simple, let him turn to me; and to those that want understanding she hath said, Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled for you.' He declares the wine mingled, that is, he foretells with prophetic voice the cup of the Lord mingled with water and wine, that it may appear that that was done in our Lord's passion which had been before predicted....To which things divine Scripture adds, and says, 'He shall wash His garment in wine, and His clothing in the blood of the grape.' But when the blood of the grape is mentioned, what else is set forth than the wine of the cup of the blood of the Lord?...The treading also, and pressure of the wine-press, is repeatedly dwelt on; because just as the drinking of wine cannot be attained to unless the bunch of grapes be first trodden and pressed, so neither could we drink the blood of Christ unless Christ had first been trampled upon and pressed, and had first drunk the cup of which He should also give believers to drink....In which portion we find that the cup which the Lord offered was mixed, and that that was wine which He called His blood. Whence it appears that the blood of Christ is not offered if there be no wine in the cup...the divine Scripture in the Apocalypse declares that the waters signify the people, saying, 'The waters which thou sawest, upon which the whore sitteth, are peoples and multitudes, and nations of the Gentiles, and tongues,' which we evidently see to be contained also in the sacrament of the cup. For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ. But when the water is mingled in the cup with wine, the people is made one with Christ, and the assembly of believers is associated and conjoined with Him on whom it believes; which association and conjunction of water and wine is so mingled in the Lord's cup, that that mixture cannot any more be separated....But the discipline of all religion and truth is overturned, unless what is spiritually prescribed be faithfully observed; unless indeed any one should fear in the morning sacrifices, lest by the taste of wine he should be redolent of the blood of Christ." (Cyprian; Letter 62:2-7, 62:9, 62:12-13, 62:15)

"Now, if 'everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,' even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that 'every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.'" (Origen; On Matthew, 11:14)


"Will not your [unbelieving] husband know what it is which you secretly taste before taking any food? and if he knows it to be bread, does he not believe it to be that bread which it is said to be?" (Tertullian; To His Wife, 2:5)

"Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, 'It is the spirit that quickeneth;' and then added, 'The flesh profiteth nothing,'--meaning, of course, to the giving of life." (Tertullian; On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)

"Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children; nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the 'beggarly elements' of the Creator." (Tertullian; Against Marcion, 1:14)

"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, 'This is my body,' that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure....In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, 'Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?' The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, 'He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes' -in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood." (Tertullian; Against Marcion, 4:40)

[Jude3b]

Dear Dave (Defender of the faith):

It is far out! Since Roman Catholicism is teaching its members to partake in literal cannibalism, this far out doctrine requires serious examination. Nowhere in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism. In fact God forbids it: "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." (Gen 9:4). "...No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourned among you eat blood." (Lev. 17:12). God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden.

When Jesus said, "Take, eat: this is my body," He was not suggesting that they reach out and begin eating His literal body. To even suggest such is ridiculour. He was speaking spiritually about what He was about to accomplish on the cross. Observing the Lord's Supper is a remembrance (I Cor. 11:25 and Luke 22:19) of Christ's work at Calvary, not a reenactment.

Dave, you call yourself "the defender of the faith" - Please define "the faith"
for me. Thank you.

Sincerely, Jude 3b

[Ric]

Dear Dave (Defender of the faith):

It is far out! Since Roman Catholicism is teaching its members to partake in literal cannibalism, this far out doctrine requires serious examination. Nowhere in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism. In fact God forbids it: "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." (Gen 9:4). "...No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourned among you eat blood." (Lev. 17:12). God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden.

When Jesus said, "Take, eat: this is my body," He was not suggesting that they reach out and begin eating His literal body. To even suggest such is ridiculour. He was speaking spiritually about what He was about to accomplish on the cross. Observing the Lord's Supper is a remembrance (I Cor. 11:25 and Luke 22:19) of Christ's work at Calvary, not a reenactment.

Dave, you call yourself "the defender of the faith" - Please define "the faith"
for me. Thank you.

Sincerely, Jude 3b
:bump:

[Jude3b]

Why does the Roman Catholic church deliberately take one verse of Scripture out of context and build a doctrine the Bible obviously does not teach?

[Jude3b]

Why would the Roman Catholic church rather have us eating God than placing our faith in Him?

[Jude3b]

"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life..." (John 6:40)

[BibleMan]

During the mass, priests allegedly have the power to supernaturally turn the bread aand wine into the actual and literal body of Jesus Christ.

That is far out..!!!!


Takes a lot of faith in Catholicism to buy that one!

[Joe Gofish]

During the mass, priests allegedly have the power to supernaturally turn the bread aand wine into the actual and literal body of Jesus Christ.

That is far out..!!!!

John 6:4,11-14 - on the eve of the Passover, Jesus performs the miracle of multiplying the loaves. This was prophesied in the Old Testament (e.g., 2 Kings4:43), and foreshadows the infinite heavenly bread which is Him.

Matt. 14:19, 15:36; Mark 6:41, 8:6; Luke 9:16 - these passages are additional accounts of the multiplication miracles. This points to the Eucharist.

Matt. 16:12 - in this verse, Jesus explains His metaphorical use of the term "bread." In John 6, He eliminates any metaphorical possibilities.

John 6:4 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.

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 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this "new" bread which must be consumed.

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?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

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.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of "spirit versus flesh" to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still "in the flesh."

[Zguy28]

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.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of "spirit versus flesh" to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still "in the flesh."
First,
the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "eat my flesh and drink my blood," describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith.
you see, what Clement was onto here is that just as we may say "drink deeply of the Word of God" (referring to reading and meditating on Scripture) so should we remember Jesus in the Eucharist. Bread that's been blessed is not His literal body, its in rememberence of His sacrifice of His body and blood which gave us spiritual life just as food gives us physical life.

Second, to say that it is His literal flesh and blood is to bring the Lord Jesus down from Heaven. He is ascended! He is sitting at His Father's right hand; how can He be here on earth? The day He returns to earth will be at the second advent. Would you really want to dishonor our Lord by claiming to be able to compel Him to descend? I sure wouldn't.

[Joe Gofish]

During the mass, priests allegedly have the power to supernaturally turn the bread aand wine into the actual and literal body of Jesus Christ.

That is far out..!!!!

Again we can see this person does not know what he is talking about,Priests have no power only the power that they get from Our Lord,it was Christ that said THIS IS MY BODY,THIS IS MY BLOOD.
ARE YOU SAYING JESUS DOES NOT KNOW WHAT HE IS SAYING ? Jude be careful

[Joe Gofish]

During the mass, priests allegedly have the power to supernaturally turn the bread aand wine into the actual and literal body of Jesus Christ.

That is far out..!!!!
This is just a lot of bad info,the priests never had any power,its the words of Our Lord,This is MY body and this is MY blood,remember it is Our Lord that makes the bread His body.
Please read all of John 6 and see what Our Lord is saying

[Shazard]

Why? Justin Martyr didn't seem to think it's 'far out'.

Chapter LXVI.-Of the Eucharist.

And this food is called among us Eu0xaristi/a143 [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.144 For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me,145 this is My body; "and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood; "and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3935_744654

Peace,
Dave


So here is this nice place of Justin Martyr about the issue. He compares nature of bread and wine becoming flesh and blood of Christ with Logos becoming Flesh. Here is that point of difference of RCC and Lutherans. Lutherans believe and teach that just like Logos becoming Flesh didn't stoped ever to be Logos, so bread becoming flesh of Christ does not stop being bread (the same with wine). RCC believes that bread stops being bred, but it is not what Justin Martyr teaches, as I see that he believes (and I guess RCC too) that Logos did not stop being Logos when it became flesh.

But there is another question, what does it matter if bred stops being bred or keeps being bread? Important is that we eat real flesh and blood of Lord. Why RCC has no problem believieng that Christ has dual nature, but reject believing that bread and wine can have this dual nature too? We ourselves are dualnature creatures, so just like to get flame you need material element of flame carrier, you need material element of wine as carring Christs blood. To detect that bread is bread and wine is wine I can by my natural flesh, and as far as I taste them they do not change their nature. But to know that it is Blood and Flesh of Lord we know it only from the Word of God which itself IS reality. So I don't see issues with Lutheran approach that bread is still bread and is flesh, and wine is wine and blood. Why it is SO important for RCC to remove nature of bread and wine from the sacrament.

[Joe Gofish]

During the mass, priests allegedly have the power to supernaturally turn the bread aand wine into the actual and literal body of Jesus Christ.

That is far out..!!!!

tHAT IS FAR OUT,jUDE3B WHY DO YOU PUT LIMITS ON oUR lORD ?
Rom. 12:1 - some Protestants argue that the Eucharist is not really the sacrifice of Christ, but a symbolic offering, because the Lord's blood is not shed (Heb. 9:22). However, Paul instructs us to present ourselves as a "living sacrifice" to God. This verse demonstrates that not all sacrifices are bloody and result in death (for example, see the wave offerings of Aaron in Num. 8:11,13,15,21 which were unbloody sacrifices). The Eucharistic sacrifice is unbloody and lifegiving, the supreme and sacramental wave offering of Christ, mysteriously presented in a sacramental way, but nevertheless the one actual and eternal sacrifice of Christ. Moreover, our bodies cannot be a holy sacrifice unless they are united with Christ's sacrifice made present on the altar of the Holy Mass.

1 Cor. 10:16 - "the cup of blessing" or Third cup makes present the actual paschal sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb who was slain.

1 Cor. 10:18 - Paul indicates that what is eaten from the altar has been sacrificed, and we become partners with victim. What Catholic priests offer from the altar has indeed been sacrificed, our Lord Jesus, the paschal Lamb.

1 Cor. 10:20 - Paul further compares the sacrifices of pagans to the Eucharistic sacrifice - both are sacrifices, but one is offered to God. This proves that the memorial offering of Christ is a sacrifice.

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.

[Joe Gofish]

During the mass, priests allegedly have the power to supernaturally turn the bread aand wine into the actual and literal body of Jesus Christ.

That is far out..!!!!

Catholics believe that their Holy Communion, the Blessed Eucharist, is the actual Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, because that is what Christ said It was: ``This is my body... This is my blood'' (Matt. 26:26-28; see also Luke 22:19-20 and Mark 14:22-24); because that is what Christ said they must receive in order to have eternal life: ``. . . Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you...'' (John 6:48-52; 54-56); and because that is what the Apostles believed: ``The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?'' (1 Cor. 10:16). ``Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.'' (1 Cor. 11:27-29). Also, Catholics believe that Holy Communion is the actual Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ because that is what all Christians believed until the advent of Protestantism in the 16th century.