The supposed impossibility of Holy Communion

[Eric B]

Real Presence means the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

"soul" and "divinity"? Now where did that come from? Is the soul and divinity mentioned in Christ's last supper statement, and Paul's reiteration of it? (wouldn't it require two more elements, even?) I don't even see that in the ECF's. Was that another secret teaching the apostles taught, and everyone kept it hidden until centuries later?
And you still insist nothing developed; it was all taught in its complete detailed form from the beginning?

Paul...says we can sin against the Eucharist (1 Cor 11:23).

No, sin is only against GOD (Christ), not inanimate objects. Again, the sin is in dishonoring Him, and the context was gluttony. You have turned the elements themselves into deity, and by implication, objects of worship, where even dropping crumbes or spilling it is "dishonoring the body and blood of Christ". Tell, me, were those things they use to catch the "accidents" in the NT Church and ECF's as well? They would be if your assertion were true.

Transubstantiation is a developed view of Real Presence, by which the nature of the transformation of the elements of bread and wine is explained, according to more philosophical categories. There were many traces of such a view early on. The Greek Fathers before the sixth century, for example, used the term metaousiosis, which meant "change of being," quite similar to "change of substance."

Now you admit a development! Well, that is what happened with the Real Presence doctrine as well, when you make the move from Ignatius to Justin and Irenaeus, and beyond. The Western Church simply took it further, and the East drew a line and said no more development in the doctrine.
Also, forgot to reiterate, that many other Church historians testify to these developments in Church doctrine. It is not just some Baptist brainstorm.

 

[Eliyahu]

And you all have never answered the fact that at the last Supper, His actual "flesh and blood" were still there, in His Person. So how could the bread and wine be "literally" His flesh and blood.

Eric explained on this issue very well:thumbs:

This is what I wanted to point out too!

When Jesus was at the Last Supper, if He offered the Real Flesh and Real Blood to the disciples, then did He have extra body like Spare-parts?

Would you guys, Transubstantiation or Real Presence defenders answer on this question?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

In regard to my moniker meaning Lamb of God, Agnus Dei I got from a Michael W. Smith song and Third Day song entitled “Agnus Dei”. Agnus Dei is also used in liturgy and a sacramental. Depending on how much longer I’m allowed to stay on BB, I may request the permission of change it.

Anyway, you seem to be critical of a systematic analysis of the Catholic articulation of Transubstantiation but isn't this a bit hypocritical since it was the Scholastic Schoolmen of your own tradition who nurtured such a systematic study of the Christian Mysteries?

If I understand you, I really don’t see it as hypocritical believing in a literal Eucharist and not having philosophical knowledge of it. As a Protestant that is studying Catholicism, hence the Tiber Swim Team Class of ’08 signature, I don’t find having a full systematic understanding of this particular Mystery a prerequisite to reconciling with the Church. As I said the puddle of Christianity is shallow enough for a child to play in, yet deep enough for an elephant to drown in.

Don’t get me wrong though, I defiantly want to dig deeper in this Mystery, but Catholicism is so rich in other Mysteries and Theology, that I find those more intriguing than trying to explain to someone that science can not prove the supernatural.

In fact, isn't it Eastern Orthodox criticism of Roman Catholic Scholasticism which currently 'divides' the 'so called' two-lungs of the apostolic church?

Not that I’m aware of or have studied, for I briefly entertained the idea of embracing Greek Orthodoxy once I decided I could no long remain a typical American Evangelical. The Filioque and the Papacy are the main dividers that I’ve recognized. I maybe wrong, but I believe the Sacrament of the Eucharist is valid within Orthodoxy, but Catholics aren’t encouraged to partake, since Orthodoxy are no longer in communion with Rome (I could be wrong though).

Although I would agree with you that others hold to a Real Presence in the Eucharist I believe you are hedging your argument a bit in your presumption that each are actually 'in agreement' with one another concerning 'exactly' what Real Presence really means.

The Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican and Orthodox believes that the one true Creator God is really, truly, substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine. So as far as they’re concerned they worship the eternal God, not a piece of bread; as with Lutherans, God is now present “in, with, and under” the elements of bread and wine. So in regards to strictly the Real Presence, they are in agreement. Methodist (which I’m currently), don’t care what you believe…

On a side note Luther’s view of the Eucharist was closer to the Catholic view than the Evangelicals of today. Luther even regarded Zwingli, who adopted a symbolic view of the Eucharist, as “damned” and “out of the Church” on those grounds.

What is the Catholic Churches sense of culpability for the division of Christendom?

Honestly I’m not sure, I feel that Luther rushed the reforming process and he should’ve given it more time to correct itself. I feel that reading some of his later material, he seemed to regret his actions, in the amount of schism’s his sola scriptura proclamation produced.

In any event, Christ prayed in John 17 (I think it was) that they would be one as He and the Father are one. So the question should be what would Luther’s sense of culpability for the division of Christendom if he’d be alive today?

-

 

[bound]

In regard to my moniker meaning Lamb of God, Agnus Dei I got from a Michael W. Smith song and Third Day song entitled “Agnus Dei”. Agnus Dei is also used in liturgy and a sacramental. Depending on how much longer I’m allowed to stay on BB, I may request the permission of change it.

My commends were mainly to serve as 'a humorous ice-breakers' and not as any real criticism. I hope you read that in my post...

If I understand you, I really don’t see it as hypocritical believing in a literal Eucharist and not having philosophical knowledge of it. As a Protestant that is studying Catholicism, hence the Tiber Swim Team Class of ’08 signature, I don’t find having a full systematic understanding of this particular Mystery a prerequisite to reconciling with the Church. As I said the puddle of Christianity is shallow enough for a child to play in, yet deep enough for an elephant to drown in.

I believe if you do a study of Patristics you might find a certain 'breach' of early Church teaching concerning the Christian Mysteries within Roman Catholic Scholastic Theology which serve to undermine their authenticity.

Don’t get me wrong though, I defiantly want to dig deeper in this Mystery, but Catholicism is so rich in other Mysteries and Theology, that I find those more intriguing than trying to explain to someone that science can not prove the supernatural.

Well, I'd encourage you to widen your net to include early Church Patristics as it is the foundation of all early Church Theology as well as Rome before they replaced it with Scholaticism.

Not that I’m aware of or have studied, for I briefly entertained the idea of embracing Greek Orthodoxy once I decided I could no long remain a typical American Evangelical. The Filioque and the Papacy are the main dividers that I’ve recognized. I maybe wrong, but I believe the Sacrament of the Eucharist is valid within Orthodoxy, but Catholics aren’t encouraged to partake, since Orthodoxy are no longer in communion with Rome (I could be wrong though).

Roman Catholics have to acknowledge Orthodoxy or they would invalidate their own origins...

The Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican and Orthodox believes that the one true Creator God is really, truly, substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine. So as far as they’re concerned they worship the eternal God, not a piece of bread; as with Lutherans, God is now present “in, with, and under” the elements of bread and wine. So in regards to strictly the Real Presence, they are in agreement. Methodist (which I’m currently), don’t care what you believe…

The fact that Roman Catholicism have failed to practice proper 'form' of the Mystery of the Eucharist is Orthodox grounds to reject the validity of said Sacrament. Keep that in mind as you study.

On a side note Luther’s view of the Eucharist was closer to the Catholic view than the Evangelicals of today. Luther even regarded Zwingli, who adopted a symbolic view of the Eucharist, as “damned” and “out of the Church” on those grounds.

Be aware that Orthodoxy also rejects Roman Catholic Form and Practice concerning the Holy Eucharist.

Honestly I’m not sure, I feel that Luther rushed the reforming process and he should’ve given it more time to correct itself. I feel that reading some of his later material, he seemed to regret his actions, in the amount of schism’s his sola scriptura proclamation produced.

The late Pope John Paul II recognized equal culpability in this regard but I question the assertion of 'equality' in the matter. What are your thoughts?

In any event, Christ prayed in John 17 (I think it was) that they would be one as He and the Father are one. So the question should be what would Luther’s sense of culpability for the division of Christendom if he’d be alive today?

Again I believe that late Roman Pontiff to have admitted to 'equal' culpability on both sides. Are you in agreement with him?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Well, I'd encourage you to widen your net to include early Church Patristics as it is the foundation of all early Church Theology as well as Rome before they replaced it with Scholaticism.

Be aware that Orthodoxy also rejects Roman Catholic Form and Practice concerning the Holy Eucharist.

Bound, I knew where you were coming from…no harm done (regarding my Moniker).

I’d love to elaborate more on your questions, for they are more thought provoking than the one's that fill this thread, but this isn’t the topic, but I will make a quick note, b/c I can’t resist.

I regard to the Patristics, I’m currently reading both The History of the Church by Eusebius and Early Christian Writings, both so far have been very informative and it has really solidified my commitment to enter the Church next year.

In regard to Greek orthodox and Catholicism; I’m faced with a choice, since I cannot see the Church from God’s perspective. I’ve found very good arguments for both Greek Orthodox and Catholicism, but none seem to me anyway, to be absolutely decisive and coercive.

Also, what may seem important to me is probably irrelevant to other people on their own Spiritual Journey. GK Chesterton wrote: The Church is a house with a hundred gates and no two men enter at exactly the same angle.

So with that, I can only rely upon my reason, my intuitions, my gut feelings, my faith, under the grace and mercy of God. If I choose wrongly, may God forgive me, b/c I do this with full intention of furthering and developing my relationship with Christ.

God Bless
-

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, you seem to be arguing from silence, if I understand you. You seem to assume that Peter and the others stayed b/c they understood Jesus, but the text doesn’t say.

The faithLESS disciples explicitly argue IN FAVOR of the interpretation of Christ's teaching being canibalism and show that they reject that teaching.

Christ argues IN FAVOR of taking the meaning for flesh eating symbolically saying EXPLICITLY that eating "Flesh is pointless it is MY WORD that has SPIRIT and LIFE".

Then Peter EXPLICITLY affirms that SAME summary point by Christ "You HAVE the WORDS of LIFE" instead of "we are biting your flesh and THAT is the way we get life".

In John 6 Christ EXPLICITLY refers to the manna that came down out of heaven - and In Deut 8 we are EXPLICITLY told that the spiritual lesson for that is "Man does not LIVE by bread alone but by EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of GOD". -

John even STARTS the entire Gospel of John with "The WORD BECAME flesh and dwelt among us" it is ONE point being made over and over again.

Get it?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eliyahu]

double post

 

[Eliyahu]

In the ancient times and in the Medieval era, Transubstantiation could have been a nicely charming deception to the plain people. The Pagan Priests could cheat the common people by Magic Show!

The priests could have cheated the people by plausible theory then.

As soon as all the medical and/or chemical Laboratories available, they have been changing the theory- Accidents remain, etc. while Substance is still changed to another.

What is the Substance? Then they would say" It is a Mystery!"

Therefore Bible says this:

MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTTH.(Rev 17:5)


Check your Lips and Teeth and let the trace from them be tested at the Lab.

Check the erythrocite counts and Hemoglobin quantity there!

 

[Eliyahu]

One of the questions which were not answered:

Did Jesus offer His Flesh and Blood to His disciples?
If so, He must have offered His extra body and extra blood to the disciples, in addition to His own body, right?

In other words, Disciples had a Bloody Party and Human Meat Party, right?

If Jesus offered the Extra Flesh and Extra Blood of His Real Presence, why didn't He offer such EXTRA Body to the Cross, without need to suffer the pains for Himself?

If Jesus offered the Extra Body to the Disciples, was the Body ( Flesh) cooked or uncooked?
If it was not cooked, it must have been difficult for the disciples to bite, right?:laugh:


If you believe that the Substance is not changed ( as you admit the Accidents remain unchanged which is virtually the same as Substance in Chemistry), you are in the same belief as the Baptists believe the Memorial or Remembrance.

 

[Rooselk]

What I find amazing about this thread is that Christians who could believe in a Trinity that defies all human explanation; in a that God created the world out of nothing; in a virgin birth; in a resurrection from the dead after three days; and all the miracles found in the Bible, suddenly become skeptics and demand a scientific explanation when the Lord says, "this is my body, this is my blood." Let me just say that there are just some truths which God in his own wisdom chooses not to explain to us. Moreover, it is in seeking an explanation for those things that God has chosen not to explain that we sometimes fall into error. For instance, in trying to explain predestination John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius gave us mutually exclusive doctrines that divide the church to this very day. In my view the same is true regarding human explanations of the bread and wine, body and blood at the Lord's Supper. If Jesus Himself says "this is my body, this is my blood" then that should be explanation enough.

 

[Matt Black]

EricB and Bound, am I reading your posts correctly, in that you would accept an Eastern Orthodox view of the Real Presence, but reject the transubstantiation of late medieval scholastic Catholicism?

 

[BobRyan]

Eric explained on this issue very well:thumbs:

This is what I wanted to point out too!

When Jesus was at the Last Supper, if He offered the Real Flesh and Real Blood to the disciples, then did He have extra body like Spare-parts?

Would you guys, Transubstantiation or Real Presence defenders answer on this question?

Indeed no Garden of Gethsemane - no Cross - just the Last Supper where he would have been canibalized.

Or was that supposed to have happened in John 6 long BEFORE Passion week when I said "I AM the BREAD that CAME down from heaven"

 

[Agnus_Dei]

When Jesus was at the Last Supper, if He offered the Real Flesh and Real Blood to the disciples, then did He have extra body like Spare-parts?

Would you guys, Transubstantiation or Real Presence defenders answer on this question?

Uhhh..question...How can God be in two different places at one time? Or better yet, how did Christ multiply a few fish and loaves of bread to feed 5,000?
-

 

[Eliyahu]

Uhhh..question...How can God be in two different places at one time? Or better yet, how did Christ multiply a few fish and loaves of bread to feed 5,000?
-

Thanks for your answer.

So, are you saying that the extra body was offered to the disciples indeed?

Are you saying that Disciples ate the Uncooked Human Flesh and Human Blood at the Last Supper?

Please remember that God prohibited eating any Blood. Read this:

Leviticus 17:
10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. 12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.

14 Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

Your clarification will be greatly appreciated.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Thanks for your answer.

For your information that wasn't an answer...it was a question...care to tackle it?
-

 

[Eliyahu]

For your information that wasn't an answer...it was a question...care to tackle it?
-

I do understand that you indicated all the miracles are possible.
But there is a rule in the working of God and Jesus Christ.
The Law clearly mention that no one can eat the Blood, and the more important Law is that Sinner must die, otherwise he or she must be redeemed by another life. Therefore Jesus died at the Cross.
Blood belongs to God.

How can you assert that disciples drank the Blood despite the Law?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I do understand that you indicated all the miracles are possible.
But there is a rule in the working of God and Jesus Christ.
The Law clearly mention that no one can eat the Blood, and the more important Law is that Sinner must die, otherwise he or she must be redeemed by another life. Therefore Jesus died at the Cross.
Blood belongs to God.

How can you assert that disciples drank the Blood despite the Law?

Re-read John 6 and notice how those in the temple where asking Jesus…How can this man give us his flesh to eat? You’re right there with those that doubted and where offended at what Christ was saying.

Would you have left Christ with the other disciples? Or would you have stayed, even though Christ’s teaching was difficult to understand?

Anyway, in regard to Leviticus and the forbidding of drinking blood, Christ fulfilled the Law of God…The blood is the life as Genesis 9:4 taught the Jews and the life of a creature belongs to God. Hence the Jews were to pour out the blood onto the earth, not because it was too vile, but because it was too sacred. They were to seek their life, not from any creature, but from God Himself.

Now we see Jesus, who is the Life (John 14:6), comes and commands those to drink His Blood (Matthew 26:27-28). His is the blood we not only may, but according to Christ Himself in John 6, must drink if we are to have life in us (John 6:53). It is the reality of which all other blood is an image (Hebrews 9).
-

 

[Eliyahu]

Re-read John 6 and notice how those in the temple where asking Jesus…How can this man give us his flesh to eat? You’re right there with those that doubted and where offended at what Christ was saying.

Would you have left Christ with the other disciples? Or would you have stayed, even though Christ’s teaching was difficult to understand?

Anyway, in regard to Leviticus and the forbidding of drinking blood, Christ fulfilled the Law of God…The blood is the life as Genesis 9:4 taught the Jews and the life of a creature belongs to God. Hence the Jews were to pour out the blood onto the earth, not because it was too vile, but because it was too sacred. They were to seek their life, not from any creature, but from God Himself.

Now we see Jesus, who is the Life (John 14:6), comes and commands those to drink His Blood (Matthew 26:27-28). His is the blood we not only may, but according to Christ Himself in John 6, must drink if we are to have life in us (John 6:53). It is the reality of which all other blood is an image (Hebrews 9).
-

Oh! Dear!

You are trying to confess that Roman Catholics are cut off from the people of God! Your confession may be quite correct!

Jesus didn't mean that one should drink His Blood physically, but by believing in the Blood and Death of Jesus Christ with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, which means the Being Born Again by Holy Spirit.

So, you believe that Disciples had a Blood and Human meat Party?

Oh, Scary Religion!

 

[Eliyahu]

Why did the disciples prohibited eating Blood even after the Cross?

Why didn't they mention any exception to this?

Acts 15:

29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.


Roman Catholic drinks Blood every week!, which is different from the True Christian Believers are doing, the Remembrance of what Jesus has done already at the Cross!

 

[Eliyahu]

Agnus,

Was the Human Flesh Meat uncooked and too much tough to eat? Otherwise it might be still a bread.