Catholic Eucharist vs the Bible version - are they the same?

[Thinkingstuff]

I am just pointing out that a lot of Baptists are going to 'notice' that this historic report by Justin Martyr of the an early Communion service does not use the language of bread-changing or the language of confecting the body and soul of Christ or the language of a continued sacrifice.

Actually it does. In layman's terms it says just as we are substantively change so are the bread and wine. Justin uses the term "transmutation" when speaking about this substantive change.

BTW I've been thinking about your comments regarding "that isn't how Baptist see it." I'm wondering if that is an admission that Baptist as well as SDA aren't objectively looking at biblical or historical text but approaching it from an eisegitical stand point? Ie reading into Justin Martyr or the Bible from an already developed theology? The fact is though I as a Baptist I initially disagreed with the Catholic perspective I tried to be intellectually honest enough to be as objective as possible. Like when I read Justin Martyr. I took him for what he said objectively and literally rather than applying to it a pretext.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I am simply observing the point that both cannot be correct. Only one.

AS for "no sacrifice" in the memorial service - even you admit that " It is a simple ceremony which recalls to mind Christ's sacrifice at Calvary. That's pretty much it" - which means that they (and also Adventists) do reference the "once for all" completed sacrifice of Hebrews 10.



That is true. And as 1Cor 5 points out "Christ our passover has BEEN sacrificed" - the once for all sacrifice is mentioned in Hebrews 10 as being "ONE sacrifice" completed at the cross - rather than an ongoing sacrifice.



I think a lot of people would agree that Christ was the Passover Lamb and was slain ON the very day of Passover at the very time when the Passover lamb was to be slain - and was raised on the very day of first fruits.

In the memorial "do this in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19) Christ is not still on the cross - not still being sacrificed - but now an empty cross no longer to be sacrificed - as Hebrews 9 points out "otherwise would he have needed to suffer often".

This is a once for all sacrifice - completed at the cross according to the Bible. "This do in rememberance of Me" is in fact the words of Christ Himself.



I think most people who observe this as a memorial will agree that the bread is eaten in the Passover and in the communion service.



I think all are agreed that Christ is the once for all sacrifice pointed to by the Passover.




Here is where you evidence falls apart.

The statement you are quoting above is not said at Passover nor at the Lord's Supper.

it is said apart from any participation in Passover - and before all of it -- in John 6.

In John 6 Christ said "I AM the bread that came down out of heaven" -- he does not say "some day in the future" you must eat that bread - but He said it was true right then and there - in John 6.

A day when no one bites Christ, not even Peter bites Christ when Christ asks him about his decision.

Because in John 6 Christ clearly points out "The flesh is worthless - it is my Word that has LIFE" John 6:63

A lot of Baptists may well notice this detail, this problem for the Eucharist- as they consider the option of the Eucharist in the Catholic context.


in Christ,

Bob

Yes, a good point, which I also made note of in another thread.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Transsubstantiation is perhaps the most preposterous doctrine which the human mind has been asked to accept. It would signify that on the occasion of the Last Supper in the guest chamber at Jerusalem Christ's person had been present twenty-three-fold at the same instant: He was present before the Apostles in body; every morsel of the bread eaten by the eleven disciples is supposed to have been the living person of Christ, and every sip of wine which they drank is likewise supposed to have been Christ, body and soul, flesh and blood.

It is inconceivable that human beings could invent such an illusion. no man and no spirit can multiply himself. not even God can do so. No one can convert himself into another form and yet remain what he really is. Christ could not sit before His apostles as a man while they were partaking of Him in the shape of bread and wine. Christ could not eat Himself, for He also partook of the bread of which He gave to His disciples. He was eating His own body, according to the Roman Catholic view. There are no words adequate to brand this doctrine as the supreme exhibition of human delusion.

Further, the RCC teaches that the same transsubstantiation is offered daily by its priests and that when they pronounce the words: "This is my body; this is my blood", every crumb of bread and every drop of wine consecrated by them are changed into the person of Christ. On this assumption RC priests presume a power which not even God Himself possesses because not even He can bring about the inherently impossible.

Roman Catholics may protest all they want that this is an unfathomable mystery, a mystery of the faith, but the untruth of this doctrine remains. The word "mystery" can be used to cover any human fallacy. Words are always available, even if they convey no sense.

There is not a shred of evidence anywhere in the New Testament to support this preposterous view. To be a Roman Catholic and to accept such things means one must put his mind aside and scripture aside and blindly accept what he is told by the clerical hierarchy.

 

[BobRyan]

Transsubstantiation is perhaps the most preposterous doctrine which the human mind has been asked to accept. It would signify that on the occasion of the Last Supper in the guest chamber at Jerusalem Christ's person had been present twenty-three-fold at the same instant: He was present before the Apostles in body; every morsel of the bread eaten by the eleven disciples is supposed to have been the living person of Christ, and every sip of wine which they drank is likewise supposed to have been Christ, body and soul, flesh and blood.

It is inconceivable that human beings could invent such an illusion.

This is one of the key problems with the Catholic Eucharist for the non-cradle-catholic. It is obvious that when speaking to the disciples before the cross - every reference to Christ's death was meant to reference a future event and at best could only be had in symbol while one is having communion before the death of Christ.

Christ is not crying out in agony at the last supper - being sacrificed alive as each disciple bites his food. That would be immediately apparent to the baptist considering the Catholic Eucharist idea in Luke 22.

Christ could not eat Himself, for He also partook of the bread of which He gave to His disciples.

Indeed another huge problem with ignoring the fact that Luke 22 is a reference to the bread as a symbol of Christ's body and instead wildly imagining that the bread is actual human flesh - and Christ's sacrifice is then and then being had.

Further, the RCC teaches that the same transsubstantiation is offered daily by its priests and that when they pronounce the words: "This is my body; this is my blood", every crumb of bread and every drop of wine consecrated by them are changed into the person of Christ.

The catholic term is that it is turned into 'the Body AND SOUL of Christ" by the "powers" of the Priest.

Thus God is being confected by the powers of a priest - powers that cannot be revoked from that priest EVEN though he were to be excommunicated by the church for holding to non-Christian doctrine. He retains the "power" to "confect" the body AND soul of God (for those who believe Jesus was fully God and fully man - and we must include Baptists as among those who believe that Bible doctrine)

It is not a memorial of a once for all sacrifice in the past in Catholic view so it is not "do this in REMEMBERANCE of Me" Luke 22, 1Cor 11, but rather it is recreating the sacrifice so that the Catholic participates IN the sacrifice "Crucifying Christ afresh" as it were notice how Catholic Digest's Fr. Ken Ryan describes it.

[quotethey use the words

Answer – By Fr. Ken Ryan

“ in Catholic theology.... The invitation is issued through the New Covenant, and human acceptance of the invitation is properly expressed by membership in the Catholic Church And participation in Christ’s sacrifice of Himself in the Mass. The New Covenant, in its Catholic meaning, is the ordinary way of salvation (getting to heaven)

I believe that TH has demonstrated without question the struggle that a Baptist would have who looked into the details of what is being claimed in the Eucharist. For that reason I fail to see how the Bible view of it - would have been the compelling argument for Baptist.

Those who turn from the Baptist faith to the Catholic Eucharist have to be doing it "in spite of " the full details in the Bible on this doctrine and not because of them. Rather a partial look into John 6, skimming over a few other texts without heavy focus on detail - and then ... primary reliance on the fact that in the centuries that followed the first century - evidence is increasingly found of a Catholic view of the Eucharist.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Transsubstantiation is perhaps the most preposterous doctrine which the human mind has been asked to accept.

Yes this was a problem for Jesus' disciples as well.

When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? - John 6:60-62

They couldn't believe it either because just like you they thought it irrational. So what was their solution?

66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. - John 6:66

The Eucharist is either true or its not. If is true then any other view is not. His disciples decided they just couldn't believe it and so Left following Jesus all together save for Jesus disciples who were to become apostles and one other who did not do the honest thing.

64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) - John 6:64

Jesus knew that Judas did not believe this teaching which is related to the Eucharist. But rather than being honest and leaving. He stayed on despite the fact he couldn't accept this teaching. But he never came to believe in Jesus' teaching about this matter and his rational lead him to betray Jesus.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Transsubstantiation is perhaps the most preposterous doctrine which the human mind has been asked to accept. It would signify that on the occasion of the Last Supper in the guest chamber at Jerusalem Christ's person had been present twenty-three-fold at the same instant: He was present before the Apostles in body; every morsel of the bread eaten by the eleven disciples is supposed to have been the living person of Christ, and every sip of wine which they drank is likewise supposed to have been Christ, body and soul, flesh and blood.

It is inconceivable that human beings could invent such an illusion. no man and no spirit can multiply himself. not even God can do so. No one can convert himself into another form and yet remain what he really is. Christ could not sit before His apostles as a man while they were partaking of Him in the shape of bread and wine. Christ could not eat Himself, for He also partook of the bread of which He gave to His disciples. He was eating His own body, according to the Roman Catholic view. There are no words adequate to brand this doctrine as the supreme exhibition of human delusion.

Further, the RCC teaches that the same transubstantiation is offered daily by its priests and that when they pronounce the words: "This is my body; this is my blood", every crumb of bread and every drop of wine consecrated by them are changed into the person of Christ. On this assumption RC priests presume a power which not even God Himself possesses because not even He can bring about the inherently impossible.

Roman Catholics may protest all they want that this is an unfathomable mystery, a mystery of the faith, but the untruth of this doctrine remains. The word "mystery" can be used to cover any human fallacy. Words are always available, even if they convey no sense.

There is not a shred of evidence anywhere in the New Testament to support this preposterous view. To be a Roman Catholic and to accept such things means one must put his mind aside and scripture aside and blindly accept what he is told by the clerical hierarchy.

There were many people during His time who could not accept that Jesus was the Son of God in the flesh. Based upon scripture they thought the savior would come as a lion who would come with the goal of destroying the Romans and freeing the Jews. I am not surprised to see that those who read scripture today have such a hard time believing in the real presence in the Eucharist.

“There is not a shred of evidence anywhere in the New Testament to support this preposterous view.”

Hmmm…

Yet it IS explicit in scripture - disciples left Him when He said it. “How can we eat His flesh and drink His blood” they complained. “This is a hard teaching” they said. He didn’t try to stop them when they left in droves... he didn't turn to them and explain this away as a parable with some hidden meaning that was difficult to understand.... he even turned to the apostles asking them if they would leave too because of it.

At the last supper He did not say: This wine and bread are only representative of my upcoming crucifixion as the price for the sins of mankind. No - He said: "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." John 6:55

As TS correctly pointed out, the Church Fathers knew and taught this as it was taught to them coming from the apostles. The Church taught this from the beginning, and even many of the fathers of the reformation - even Luther himself - believed in it. Except for small groups of heretics, this was the teaching up until AFTER the reformation.

I had to ask myself why this was the case - why would God allow His Church to perpetrate a so called false-hood upon Christendom for over 1,500 years? Why would God send millions to Hell because of this “lie”? If He did, then not only is He cruel, but the gates of hell DID prevail against His Church, and Jesus was wrong when He said that. Ultimately, my conclusion was the He was correct and the Eucharist is the real presence in the mass.

I can only speak for myself but, this is why I became a Catholic.

WM

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by Thomas Helwys
Transsubstantiation is perhaps the most preposterous doctrine which the human mind has been asked to accept.

Yes this was a problem for Jesus' disciples as well. They couldn't believe it either because just like you they thought it irrational. So what was their solution?

When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? - John 6:60-62

And then what was Jesus' solution? To explain the symbol by telling them that literal flesh "is worthless" in this context - they must see that it is the WORD that became flesh (John 1) and that it is the WORD that has life.

Which is of course - the very "next verse" that the Baptist would read as he/she is considering leaving the Baptist view of the Lord's table and possibly accepting the Catholic view.

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the FLESH profits NOTHING; the WORDS that I have spoken to you are spirit and ARE LIFE. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”

Jesus argues that the unbelieving ones are missing this point about the literal flesh being worthless and the WORD being that which contains spirit and life. This would have corrected the error of the faithLESS that had left - had they stayed around to hear it.

And this is the part that may well cause that Baptist to no longer assume that the Catholic view may indeed be the right view of John 6.

As a result of the explanation given by Jesus himself - in vs 63 - the faithFUL disciples do not "bite Christ" in John 6.

And yet in Matt 16 Christ still has to reprimand the faithful disciples for taking the symbol of bread too literally and not accepting that it is a symbol for "teaching" in the Matt 16 it is said to be the teaching/doctrine of the Pharisees - but in John 6 Jesus said it is "MY Word".

The Baptist that is considering the change to Catholicism may well notice this detail when reading John 6 and Matt 16.

And he/she may also notice that John 6 is not remotely a Passover service or a communion service no does Christ say in John 6 "some day in the future you must eat my flesh".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
I am just pointing out that a lot of Baptists are going to 'notice' that this historic report by Justin Martyr of the an early Communion service does not use the language of bread-changing or the language of confecting the body and soul of Christ or the language of a continued sacrifice.

Actually it does. In layman's terms it says just as we are substantively change so are the bread and wine. Justin uses the term "transmutation" when speaking about this substantive change.

Justin uses that when describing his own view.

But when he documents that actual words being used in the liturgy itself - we notice that his view of it is missing - even in his own historic account of it.

Pretty interesting.

BTW I've been thinking about your comments regarding "that isn't how Baptist see it." I'm wondering if that is an admission that Baptist as well as SDA aren't objectively looking at biblical or historical text but approaching it from an eisegitical stand point?

The fact is though I as a Baptist I initially disagreed with the Catholic perspective I tried to be intellectually honest enough to be as objective as possible.

I think it is fair to say that most Baptist and Adventists coming to John 6 or 1Cor 11 or Luke 22 would have a similar starting point.

Whether one agrees with their view or not - if the challenge is to present the doctrine from the Bible as a Baptist or Adventist would have understood and - and then to discover if when reading John 6 - they would have thought someone was biting Christ among the faithFUL disciples that did NOT leave, or that this was a communion service being had in John 6, or that in John 6 Christ was really saying "some day in the future you must eat my flesh" is a valid point to be addressed in the context of the Baptist looking for Bible evidence for the Catholic view.

Like when I read Justin Martyr. I took him for what he said objectively and literally rather than applying to it a pretext.

Baptists and Adventists may well be inclined to accept Justin Martyr's account of actual meetings taking place - but highly unlikely that Justin Martyr's own opinions would be accepted as if divinely inspired or infallible - by Baptists or Adventists thus even if he begins to turn to the Catholic POV - it is not by itself sufficient support to change something you find in the Bible. It could just be another point where his opinion is in error.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Yes this was a problem for Jesus' disciples as well. They couldn't believe it either because just like you they thought it irrational. So what was their solution? The Eucharist is either true or its not. If is true then any other view is not. His disciples decided they just couldn't believe it and so Left following Jesus all together save for Jesus disciples who were to become apostles and one other who did not do the honest thing. Jesus knew that Judas did not believe this teaching which is related to the Eucharist. But rather than being honest and leaving. He stayed on despite the fact he couldn't accept this teaching. But he never came to believe in Jesus' teaching about this matter and his rational lead him to betray Jesus.

The "Eucharist" may be true, as other denominations call it that but do not hold to transsubstantiation which is patently false.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

There were many people during His time who could not accept that Jesus was the Son of God in the flesh. Based upon scripture they thought the savior would come as a lion who would come with the goal of destroying the Romans and freeing the Jews. I am not surprised to see that those who read scripture today have such a hard time believing in the real presence in the Eucharist.

“There is not a shred of evidence anywhere in the New Testament to support this preposterous view.”

Hmmm…

Yet it IS explicit in scripture - disciples left Him when He said it. “How can we eat His flesh and drink His blood” they complained. “This is a hard teaching” they said. He didn’t try to stop them when they left in droves... he didn't turn to them and explain this away as a parable with some hidden meaning that was difficult to understand.... he even turned to the apostles asking them if they would leave too because of it.

At the last supper He did not say: This wine and bread are only representative of my upcoming crucifixion as the price for the sins of mankind. No - He said: "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." John 6:55

As TS correctly pointed out, the Church Fathers knew and taught this as it was taught to them coming from the apostles. The Church taught this from the beginning, and even many of the fathers of the reformation - even Luther himself - believed in it. Except for small groups of heretics, this was the teaching up until AFTER the reformation.

I had to ask myself why this was the case - why would God allow His Church to perpetrate a so called false-hood upon Christendom for over 1,500 years? Why would God send millions to Hell because of this “lie”? If He did, then not only is He cruel, but the gates of hell DID prevail against His Church, and Jesus was wrong when He said that. Ultimately, my conclusion was the He was correct and the Eucharist is the real presence in the mass.

I can only speak for myself but, this is why I became a Catholic.

WM

Luther and others believed in "Real Presence", but not transsubstantiation. So, your contention is not correct. Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Anglicans believe in Real Presence and although they differ among themselves over their definition of that, none of them believe in transsubstantiation, except for a few Anglo-Catholic Anglicans. Even the EOC doesn't define it as transsubstantiation. So, that is another innovation of the RCC.

If you and others were looking for the original "Catholic" church, you should have gone with the EOC. It has not added the innovations that Rome has.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

And then what was Jesus' solution? To explain the symbol by telling them that literal flesh "is worthless" in this context - they must see that it is the WORD that became flesh (John 1) and that it is the WORD that has life.

Which is of course - the very "next verse" that the Baptist would read as he/she is considering leaving the Baptist view of the Lord's table and possibly accepting the Catholic view.

Jesus argues that the unbelieving ones are missing this point about the literal flesh being worthless and the WORD being that which contains spirit and life. This would have corrected the error of the faithLESS that had left - had they stayed around to hear it.

in Christ,

Bob

I actually explained that in another post though I don't remember which one but I will review it again here so that there is understanding. However, in that post I mentioned Socrates Caverns to explain the ancient understanding of spiritual vs. material reality. You said.

To explain the symbol by telling them that literal flesh "is worthless" in this context

The problem is if you read the verse the context isn't saying that it is symbolism but that the reason it can be done is spiritual and not according to the flesh. This is what Jesus says.

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

The imagery which Jesus uses to explain his meaning takes them right back to Torah specifically Genesis which accounts the creation of man this way

then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. 8

God formed man but based on matter man was just a body and had no life. It wasn't until God breathed into man the spirit which made him alive. It is the spirit that gives life. It is the spirit that is the reality not the matter which we experience. Therefore Jesus is clearly indicating that it is the Spiritual reality of his breath, word that makes it real. Not the material properties itself. Then I referenced CS Lewis explaining the reality of the Spirit being more substantial than the reality of matter or the flesh which flesh in the bible often is used to express decay, and death. The spirit makes it forever. That is clearly the context. The issue you have as all moderns is when you think of spirit you think of insubstantial. But everything in the Universe is based upon the Word of Jesus Christ who spoke it into being therefore the spirit defines reality not the matter. Knowing some history you would understand this is how the ancients viewed things. Thus Jesus says its really true because is spirit which makes alive. Note to support this Jesus said previously while explaining it to the larger crowd

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

And he connected it to the reality based on the spiritual when he said

Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

And then what was Jesus' solution? To explain the symbol by telling them that literal flesh "is worthless" in this context - they must see that it is the WORD that became flesh (John 1) and that it is the WORD that has life.

Which is of course - the very "next verse" that the Baptist would read as he/she is considering leaving the Baptist view of the Lord's table and possibly accepting the Catholic view.

Jesus argues that the unbelieving ones are missing this point about the literal flesh being worthless and the WORD being that which contains spirit and life. This would have corrected the error of the faithLESS that had left - had they stayed around to hear it.

And this is the part that may well cause that Baptist to no longer assume that the Catholic view may indeed be the right view of John 6.

As a result of the explanation given by Jesus himself - in vs 63 - the faithFUL disciples do not "bite Christ" in John 6.

And yet in Matt 16 Christ still has to reprimand the faithful disciples for taking the symbol of bread too literally and not accepting that it is a symbol for "teaching" in the Matt 16 it is said to be the teaching/doctrine of the Pharisees - but in John 6 Jesus said it is "MY Word".

The Baptist that is considering the change to Catholicism may well notice this detail when reading John 6 and Matt 16.

And he/she may also notice that John 6 is not remotely a Passover service or a communion service no does Christ say in John 6 "some day in the future you must eat my flesh".

in Christ,

Bob

Your analysis is excellent.

 

[BobRyan]

And then what was Jesus' solution? To explain the symbol by telling them that literal flesh "is worthless" in this context - they must see that it is the WORD that became flesh (John 1) and that it is the WORD that has life.

Which is of course - the very "next verse" that the Baptist would read as he/she is considering leaving the Baptist view of the Lord's table and possibly accepting the Catholic view.

Jesus argues that the unbelieving ones are missing this point about the literal flesh being worthless and the WORD being that which contains spirit and life. This would have corrected the error of the faithLESS that had left - had they stayed around to hear it.

I actually explained that in another post though I don't remember which one

I too must have missed it.

but I will review it again here so that there is understanding. However, in that post I mentioned Socrates Caverns to explain the ancient understanding of spiritual vs. material reality.

To address the John 6 point above I think it will pay to do what we both know that such a Baptist would do - look at the details in John 6 , and when we do that - the ones I bring up about John 6 not being a communion service, a not even the faithful disciples are biting Christ - the ones that stay, the ones that accept the John 6:63 statement about literal flesh being worthless.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
To explain the symbol by telling them that literal flesh "is worthless" in this context


Quote:
63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the FLESH profits NOTHING; the WORDS that I have spoken to you are spirit and ARE LIFE. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”
Jesus argues that the unbelieving ones are missing this point about the literal flesh being worthless and the WORD being that which contains spirit and life. This would have corrected the error of the faithLESS that had left - had they stayed around to hear it.

And this is the part that may well cause that Baptist to no longer assume that the Catholic view may indeed be the right view of John 6.

As a result of the explanation given by Jesus himself - in vs 63 - the faithFUL disciples do not "bite Christ" in John 6.

And yet in Matt 16 Christ still has to reprimand the faithful disciples for taking the symbol of bread too literally and not accepting that it is a symbol for "teaching" in the Matt 16 it is said to be the teaching/doctrine of the Pharisees - but in John 6 Jesus said it is "MY Word".

The Baptist that is considering the change to Catholicism may well notice this detail when reading John 6 and Matt 16.

And he/she may also notice that John 6 is not remotely a Passover service or a communion service no does Christ say in John 6 "some day in the future you must eat my flesh".

The problem is if you read the verse the context isn't saying that it is symbolism but that the reason it can be done is spiritual and not according to the flesh. This is what Jesus says. The imagery which Jesus uses to explain his meaning takes them right back to Torah specifically Genesis which accounts the creation of man

Almost the WHOLE of John 6 about the bread and life and eating flesh is a reference to Deut 8 in John 6 -not sure why you are jumping to Genesis 1.

In Deut 8 - the lesson of manna - of bread the comes down out of heaven, the WORD of God - the key to LIFE.

3 He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord (NASB)

3 So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord.(NKJV)


Now let's look at this same bread from heaven as "the WORD" that gives LIFE idea in the book of John.




John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.


The exact SAME theme of the WORD that becomes flesh - that comes down out of heaven - that gives LIFE - is expanded in John 6 with BOTH the Jews and Christ referencing back to the lesson of MANNA in the O.T. Impossible to miss.


John 6

31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.’”
32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.
33 For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.”
34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”
35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.

38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.


41 Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.”
42 They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?”

47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
48I am the bread of life.
49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
50 This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
51I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.” 52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”
53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life,

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
64 But there are some of you who do not believe

 

[Zenas]

There is not a shred of evidence anywhere in the New Testament to support this preposterous view. To be a Roman Catholic and to accept such things means one must put his mind aside and scripture aside and blindly accept what he is told by the clerical hierarchy.

There is quite a bit of scripture to support it. My personal favorite is 1 Corinthians 10:17:

Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.

We know the bread and wine are simply that when placed on the altar--bread and wine. St. Paul tells us here, and elsewhere as well, that when we eat and drink it, it is the body of Christ. Somewhere in between there has to be a change in the substance. Ergo, transubstantiation.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Luther and others believed in "Real Presence", but not transsubstantiation. So, your contention is not correct. Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Anglicans believe in Real Presence and although they differ among themselves over their definition of that, none of them believe in transsubstantiation, except for a few Anglo-Catholic Anglicans. Even the EOC doesn't define it as transsubstantiation. So, that is another innovation of the RCC.

If you and others were looking for the original "Catholic" church, you should have gone with the EOC. It has not added the innovations that Rome has.

Interesting... Do you believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist?

WM

 

[BobRyan]

There is quite a bit of scripture to support it. My personal favorite is 1 Corinthians 10:17:
We know the bread and wine are simply that when placed on the altar--bread and wine. St. Paul tells us here, and elsewhere as well, that when we eat and drink it, it is the body of Christ. Somewhere in between there has to be a change in the substance. Ergo, transubstantiation.

1Ccr 10:17 says nothing at all about the body and soul of Christ being confected in the Mass. Yet this is the teaching of the RCC.

By contrast Heb 6:6 speaks of the sacrifice of Christ this way
"6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame."

I doubt that the Catholics are thinking that this is what they are doing in the mass. But here we see Christ "crucified again" - if we take that literally then we make a little catholic-priest out of each person that is in the error described in Heb 6:6 - because we give the "powers" to make Christ return to the point of crucifixion.

If on the other hand you are willing to admit that this "crucify again" language is not at all intended to mean a literal placing of Christ on the cross - or at all repeating the sacrifice -- then your entire argument along those lines appears to end.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Zenas]

1Ccr 10:17 says nothing at all about the body and soul of Christ being confected in the Mass. Yet this is the teaching of the RCC.

I will repeat what I said in Post 55 because you must not have read it: We know the bread and wine are simply that when placed on the altar--bread and wine. St. Paul tells us here, and elsewhere as well, that when we eat and drink it, it is the body of Christ. Somewhere in between there has to be a change in the substance. Ergo, transubstantiation.

 

[BobRyan]

I will repeat what I said in Post 55 because you must not have read it: We know the bread and wine are simply that when placed on the altar--bread and wine. St. Paul tells us here, and elsewhere as well, that when we eat and drink it, it is the body of Christ. Somewhere in between there has to be a change in the substance. Ergo, transubstantiation.

Paul never says that the bread and wine "turn into something else" in all of scripture. I think we both know that - which is why there is no text for it in your discussion. By contrast the RCC claims to be able to confect the "body and soul of Christ" in the Eucharist with "powers" that do not leave the priest even if he should be excommunicated. A claim found nowhere in the Bible - as I am sure you will agree.

That was my only point in response to your claim.

As for All of use being literally one physical body - I think we all know that this is not true in a literal sense -

1 Cor 10:17 "For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread" NKJV
1 Cor 10:17 "17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." KJV

In 1 Cor 12 Paul speaks of one as an eye or an ear - and we know of course that this statement "all one body" where some are "eyes" and some "ears" is all symbolic.

And we cannot insert words into Paul's mouth by mere inference because doing so causes a problem in the case of Heb 6:6.

If you take a minute to read the first 2 or 3 posts on this thread you will discover that the purpose is to present evidence (Bible evidence being the most direct) in favor of the Catholic Eucharist for a Baptist that may be considering the Catholic Eucharist as an option - or to provide the Bible evidence that the Bible contradicts the claims made in this regard by the Catholic Church. In either case - since the Catholics on this board all claim to be former Baptists - and since a number have said that the evidence in favor of the Catholic Eucharist was the tipping point for them as Baptists - I thought this would be a good experiment - to see just what that Baptist-oriented evidence is.

I consider your evidence to fit that category - however it is unclear why your argument is so far from what we find in the KJV and NKJV for 1Cor 10:17. In fact 1Cor 10:17 appears to entirely undo your argument since none of us really believe that we are transmutated or transubstantiatiated into all being literally one physical body during the communion service. 1Cor 10:17 is therefore forcing all of us to admit to the symbolic nature of the claim.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Interesting... Do you believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist?

WM

Not the way you and probably most would define it. I would say my views come closest to the Anabaptists and........ (shhhhh,don't tell anyone).... Calvin.