Transubstantiation

[Thorin]

A topic of much interest and debate. Even scholars of the church didn't agree with this idea. As much as Catholics want to pooh-pooh those people away and label them Protestants, they were Catholic biblical scholars who loved their church when they found error. They were pious, searching men who I believe truly believed in the validity of the early apostolic church. Were these truths truly promoted by the apostles and was as clear cut as the Catholic church has made it out to be, they wouldn't have said boo about it. IS there validity to this doctrine? Do Catholics really believe this or is it a ritualistic attempt to actualise symbolism to make something more tangible?

Interesting at the Last Supper that Christ said, "This is my body, eat it in remembrance of me". Yet Christ was right there breaking this bread, not dead and in the bread. He said, "Eat in remembrance", much different then, "Eat me in this act". When this service is conducted, Christ's selfless act of love and redemption is to be remembered. This is what Christ was establishing through the symbols, not to establish some sort of theological cannibalistic ritual. Both of these things alone show symbolism. Were Christ meaning to take this literally, it would have been literal.

Really, now How many Catholics truly see the white honey wafer which remains a honey wafer from hand to mouth and fermented wine as actually turning into Christ's body and blood? Heck, birth control and priestly celibacy is being debated and pooh-poohed by Catholics. How are they going to believe something that is real when their eyes and taste buds tell them otherwise? Transubstantiation rests on the faith that the priest's words change it. The priest is only a servant to spread the gospel to a flock, not some Houdini magician. What about those pedopheliac wayward priests? What happened when they were deep in sin and doing the communion service? Did God honestly grant them the power to change such a hallowed wafer? Or did God remove the power and deprive the people?

Way too many questions and inconsistencies when you really get down to the krux of the matter. However, when it is treated as symbolic, the onus to remember and become heart-changed rests with the people, as it did with the disciples, not in any magical transformation of simple bread and wine.

What about the physical nature of it all? Jesus physically and atomically changed the water to wine. The host and Korbel dime-store wine still is the same before and after the priestly blessing. Does it taste different? Why doesn't it change physical substance? Its called symbolism my friends.

I have seen the mundane, ritual of Catholics every Sunday going up and receiving the host without any life changing experience or realisation that they've just eaten the body of Christ. Yet, I have seen deep reflection and honor and reverence in a Protestant communion service. People moved to tears by the realisation of Christ's suffering and sacrifice. Why? They are 'remembering'. How are they less fortunate? Both serve the same purpose: To remember Christ's sacrifice by the very instiution of symbolic representation that He partook of with His disciples.

[Ciryaher]

I could not agree with you more, Thorin. My thoughts on the matter exactly.

[Eriol]

The Eucharist was seen as the body and blood of Christ (not a symbolic meaning, but a material transubstantiation) from the very beginning.

Of course Catholics can eat the Host and be sinners, just as people could touch Christ when he was walking on Palestine and be sinners. Salvation is not "magic". Faith, saving faith, is always required.

But equally, people who touched Christ and went away as unbelievers touched Christ. They did touch Him. That's the point. They did not touch a symbol of Him; they did not touch a ghost. They touched a real man, who happened to be God as well; even if they remained sinners.

By the same token, a Protestant celebration may be imbued with the spirit of Christ, with repentance and saving faith, while a Catholic mass my be filled with cynical hypocrites who do not really believe in anything. But even so, Christ is really, actually, materially in that loaf of bread, and in the cup of wine.

The crux of the matter is the doctrinal question -- is Christ really there? All other considerations of "bad Catholics" and "good Protestants" are secondary.

And really, Thorin, I marvel at how you can read the gospels(especially John 6) in any other context. You, the strict biblical literalist in Genesis, claim that "This is my body" is a metaphor. How come?

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Eriol
And really, Thorin, I marvel at how you can read the gospels(especially John 6) in any other context. You, the strict biblical literalist in Genesis, claim that "This is my body" is a metaphor. How come?
I do because:

1) Jesus wasn't physically present in the bread, he was physically present in body with the disciples holding the bread. Any allusion to physical presence was obviously metaphorical.

2) Christ's physical presence in the bread seems to be a pretty important concept to only be reiterated once in the epistles and only as remembering and "proclaiming the Lord's death until He comes" not in a hallowed reverence for eating Christ's body.

Such a concept, were it true, would be emphasised over and over again in its importance and sanctity for the Christian followers would be doing it continually. Plus the Pharisees would have been having a hissy fit over it, yet there is no hint of controversy like there was over circumcision in Paul's writings over what would seem like to the Pharisees, some sort of spiritual cannibalism of a Jewish heretic.

[Mrs. Maggott]

From the beginning of the Church and carried on down to today in both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, the belief is that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are in fact the Body and Blood of Christ. That does not mean that the wine is in fact human blood nor that the bread is human flesh in the physical sense. What it means is that Christ has appointed this sacrifice once and for all time, replacing the blood sacrifices of the Temple. Indeed, in an Orthodox Church there cannot be anything on the altar made from an animal (no leather covered Bible).

The Eucharist, however, is a "bloodless" sacrifice, a re-enactment not only of the Last Supper, but of the Crucifixion where Christ's actual Body and Blood were shed to redeem mankind. But it is not a "symbol" in that it merely "represents" that Sacrificial Redemption; it is - in Christ's own words - "My Body" and "My Blood" shed for the life of the World. And if God Himself has declared that bread and wine sanctified in the Eucharistical Sacrifice as His Body and His Blood, then that is exactly what it is!

As far as partaking of the Eucharist unworthily, St. Paul decried those who did so indicating that they were becoming ill and even dying for their blasphemous acts. Can a sinner "take Communion"? I should hope so, since all of us are sinners! Fr. Alexander Schmemann once said that if one received the Sacrament of Penance and immediately turned to receive the Eucharist, in those few micro-seconds, sin would have entered into our hearts because of our fallen nature. We take the Eucharist with the prayer that we do not do so "unto condemnation" but unto eternal life.

[Feanorian]

This is my body, eat it in remembrance of me

Doesnt that say it all? I dont think it matters what the Catholic or Orthodox Church has done for centuries, the bread represents= Christ's Body the blood represents=Christ's Blood

Notice the word represent

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Feanorian
Doesnt that say it all? I dont think it matters what the Catholic or Orthodox Church has done for centuries, the bread represents= Christ's Body the blood represents=Christ's Blood

Notice the word represent

But Christ doesn't say, "This is a representation/symbol of My Body...". He says, "This IS My Body..." and that makes all the difference in the world.

And, forgive me but yes it does matter what the Church has done for centuries. We are speaking of what people did and believed while those who were with Christ were also with them! We are not speaking of some "new" doctrine dreamed up by theologians in the Middle Ages! If those who ate and drank with Christ believed and taught that the Eucharist was in fact His Body and Blood, then what argument can be made to the contrary? Of course, one may argue as a non-Christian that it is not the case since one would not believe that Jesus of Nazarath was the Son of God and capable of redeeming the world with His death and resurrection, but as a believing Christian, to discount the "Real Prescence" of Christ in the Eucharist (as my Catholic friends put it), is to discount Scripture and the written history of the Church from its founding. One may do it, of course, but it flies in the face of all of the evidence - and there is a great deal of it - from Pentecost through the end of the First Millenium.

[Malbeth]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is my body, eat it in remembrance of me
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Doesnt that say it all? I dont think it matters what the Catholic or Orthodox Church has done for centuries, the bread represents= Christ's Body the blood represents=Christ's Blood

Notice the word represent

It does indeed says it all; "this is my body" why do you then assume that this means "this represents my body"?

Regarding Thorin's post:
A topic of much interest and debate. Even scholars of the church didn't agree with this idea. As much as Catholics want to pooh-pooh those people away and label them Protestants, they were Catholic biblical scholars who loved their church when they found error. They were pious, searching men who I believe truly believed in the validity of the early apostolic church. Were these truths truly promoted by the apostles and was as clear cut as the Catholic church has made it out to be, they wouldn't have said boo about it. IS there validity to this doctrine? Do Catholics really believe this or is it a ritualistic attempt to actualise symbolism to make something more tangible?

Well, I think the first thing to do is admit the word "transubstantiation" is relatively speaking a new word in theology (from around the 10th century I think). But transubstantiation is an attempt to explain, using logical categories inherited from Aristotle, what happens in the Mass. The Real (i.e, not symbolycal) Presence of Christ however is alluded from the very beginning, and unanimously.

What about the physical nature of it all? Jesus physically and atomically changed the water to wine. The host and Korbel dime-store wine still is the same before and after the priestly blessing. Does it taste different? Why doesn't it change physical substance? Its called symbolism my friends.

No, it is called transubstantiation:) (the essence changes, the accidents, like taste, atomic structure, etc, remains the same).

The priest is only a servant to spread the gospel to a flock, not some Houdini magician. What about those pedopheliac wayward priests? What happened when they were deep in sin and doing the communion service? Did God honestly grant them the power to change such a hallowed wafer? Or did God remove the power and deprive the people?

Well, according to your idea of Priest... we Catholics (and Orthodox I guess) think differently. Notice also that the Catholic idea of a priest is the exact opposite of a Houdini magician. At Mass, an invisible but real change happens. With Houdini, a visible but apparent change happens.

And it is not the priest who changes the bread anyway, it is Christ, using the priest; the priest "puts on" Christ; that is why a sinful priest does have the power to change the wafer into the body and blood of Christ, for God would never deprive the laity of Himself because of the sins of the priesthood.

PS (and we still have not mentioned John 6)

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Feanorian

Notice the word represent

I notice it, and I looked all over the gospel for it ;). I couldn't find it.

I give a huge (huge!!) article of the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Eucharist for you to ponder. If you are hungry for words -- as I usually am :D -- you will find a lot to wonder at here.

Eucharist (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm)

[Ciryaher]

Eriol posted this:

I believe that Protestants, and many Catholics, are missing on that real, physical, material presence of Christ.

This statement directly implies that "you are missing out on something, and I'm not" which, to me, indirectly means "you're doing things wrong, and I'm not". But at any rate...

I have taken communion, but only in a protestant church. Why? Because I'm not Catholic. Non-Catholics (maybe this is something Germanic, because this is the way it is where I lived at the time) are not allowed to take the Eucharest at mass, because they have not had their so-called "First Communion" (which to me is an excuse for a lot of pomp and showering an unappreciative child with presents). I can't count how many times I had to stay behind in the pews while everyone else walked up there. Kinda odd. Then I found out that I didn't have to sit in the pews, but I still couldn't take the Eucharest; I could walk through with my arms crossed over my chest to get a blessing.

I don't care what twisting of phraseology has brought people to think that eating a cracker and drinking wine will in any way bring them closer to Christ. Maybe it will make them think more deeply on the matter, but I could do the same by sitting at home, reading the Bible and weeping for joy because of how much I am loved for someone to let themselves die for my redemption (and I do that).

My point is, eating the "body and blood" symbolized by bread and wine is not a method of salvation, only personal prayer for the forgiveness of one's sins and acceptance of Christ can do that. At best it is a ritual handed down over the generations (like giving gifts at Christmas because gifts were given to baby Jesus) and at worst it is a concoction of the Church during it's harsher days.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Christ mentions in several places that His followers would be required to "eat My Body" and "drink My Blood". The first time he says this, many of his disciples flee in horror! He asks Peter if he, also, will leave to which the foremost Disciple says, in effect, "Where would we go, Lord?" We also have the quote in Scripture, "Unless a man eat My Body and drink My Blood, he has no life in him." None of these references appear to make any mention of a "symbolic" act or else Christ surely would have calmed the fears of his hearers by stating that He was merely speaking symbolically. However, He was not talking about symbols but about the consumption of His actual physical being made present by the Holy Spirit in the elements of bread and wine.

Of course, the presence of the Holy Spirit is essential in that change. Therefore, the prayer at this most holy of moments in the Liturgy in the Orthodox Church is: "And let this bread become the Body of Lord and God and Saviour, Jesus Christ and this wine become the blood of our Lord and God and Saviour Christ, changed by the Holy Spirit" (to which the faithful reply, "Amen, amen, amen!" Then all say the Prayer Before Communion:

I believe O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the living God Who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first. I believe also that this is truly Thine own most pure Body, and that this is truly Thine own most precious Blood. Therefore, I pray Thee: have mercy upon me and forgive my transgressions both voluntary and involuntary, of word and of deed, committed in knowledge or in ignorance. And me me worthy to partake without condemnation of Thy most pure Mysteries, for the remission of my sins and unto life everlasting.

Of Thy Mystical Supper, O son of God, accept me today as a communicant; for I will not speak of Thy Mystery to Thine enemies, neither like Judas will I give Thee a kiss; but like the thief will I confess Thee: Remember me, O Lord, in Thy Kingdom.

May the Communion of Thy most holy Mysteries be neither to my judgment nor my condemnation, but to the healing of soul and body. Amen.

And that is how it is possible to partake of the actual Body and Blood of Christ. Firstly, because He gave it to us to sustain us in our day to day struggles in this world, and secondly - and most importantly - because He demanded that we do so or we have no life within us.

[Malbeth]

have taken communion, but only in a protestant church. Why? Because I'm not Catholic. Non-Catholics (maybe this is something Germanic, because this is the way it is where I lived at the time) are not allowed to take the Eucharest at mass, because they have not had their so-called "First Communion" (which to me is an excuse for a lot of pomp and showering an unappreciative child with presents). (...) I don't care what twisting of phraseology has brought people to think that eating a cracker and drinking wine will in any way bring them closer to Christ.

This is why you are not allowed to take Communion in a Catholic Church, Ciryaher... you think the Body and Blood of Christ are crackers and wine. Perhaps Catholics and Orthodox are deadly wrong about this, but surely you can see why, believing what we believe, we cannot allow protestants who deny the Real Presence to partake of the Eucharist in our churches.

The First Communion is a ceremony to make it clear that those partaking of the Eucharist truly believe that the bread and wine have become the Body and Blood of Christ.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Frankly, a different understanding of the nature of the Eucharist is not the only reason why at least in the Orthodox Church, we do not permit anyone who is not Orthodox to partake of the sacrament. Communion means just that: that one who partakes is in the "community". Before the Eucharist, one of the things that we do in the Liturgy is recite the Creed. Indeed, aside from the pre-Commuion prayers, it is the only time in the Liturgy that the word "I" is used: "I believe...." All other times, the Community speaks with one voice through the use of the pronoun "we". Recitation of the Creed - "I believe" - puts one within the community of believers and therefore eligible (all other requirements having been met) to receive the Eucharist.

If one cannot recite the Creed and believe it, then one is not an Orthodox Christian even if baptised as one and therefore can't/shouldn't receive the Eucharist. Furthermore, if the priest is aware of this fact - that one is not an Orthodox Christian - he will deny that person the Eucharist should he or she come forth to receive. This has nothing to do with "worthiness" and everything to do with the concept of "Church". Therefore, although Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians have the same understanding of the nature of the sacrament, because the two Churches are not "in communion", a Roman Catholic may not receive in the Orthodox Church either.

[Malbeth]

Good point, I forgot that... just curiosity, but is this Creed the same Creed Catholics recite except for the filioque controversy?

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Malbeth
Good point, I forgot that... just curiosity, but is this Creed the same Creed Catholics recite except for the filioque controversy?
I would say "yes" - remembering the Creed as it was when I was young (and, no, I don't remember President Lincoln!), but things have changed so much today in the Catholic Church that I cannot speak with any authority about just exactly what is said. However, certainly the major stumbling block in the Creed is the difference of opinion concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit (the so-called filioque). But I would have to see the Creed as it is recited today in the Catholic Church to be accurate in my response. Many Catholics I know go back to the old "Apostles' Creed" which treats the procession of the Spirit with the words, "proceeds from the Father and RESTS in the Son" which I believe to be far less problematic than the simple statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son. (My aren't we getting scholarly though! Whooda thunk it??) ;) :p :eek:

[Athelas]

>This is what Christ was establishing through the symbols, not to establish some sort of theological cannibalistic ritual<

From the perspective of someone who does not take communion that way, I must say it has always come across as more than a little macabre and bizarre. Then the same people turn around and accuse Witches and Pagans of doing weird things. People who live in glass churches?

It seems to me that what is essential in this ritual is not whether the cracker and wine really polymorphs into human tissue and blood; it is the transformation that occurs within the communicant, which is entirely spiritual. They are joining with Christ. The means is unimportant, as long as the spiritual goal is reached. If someone needs to believe that it really is the blood and flesh of Jesus, fine. Whatever works.

This reminds me of Alchemy. Those on the exoteric path search for the Philosopher?s Stone, which is reputed to turn lead into gold; but those on the esoteric path seek enlightenment of the soul, which is the real transformation of lead into gold. Those one the exoteric path are still stuck in obsession with symbolism and lesser magic.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I fear if you have a problem with the bread and wine being the actual Body and Blood of Christ, then it is to Christ that you must take your problem since it was He who determined that this would be the way of it. This is what's meant in the Lord's Prayer with "give us this day our daily bread". It doesn't mean the simple "staff of life" - the definition of bread for centuries among men - but, in fact, the "Bread of Life" that is Christ Himself. We partake of Him and in so doing, He becomes a physical part of us, helping to sustain us through our trials.

Interestingly enough, the very pagans whom you mention were operating on Tolkien's understanding of the Great Truths which men know in their hearts but do not translate correctly in their myths. Hence, many pre-Christian pagans understood that they must somehow consume God or one of their gods. Also, remember, the priests of the Temple consumed the animals they sacrificed (except for the blood which was considered "the life" of the animal). The Passover lamb (another name for Christ) was also consumed and, in fact, the Jews were told that whatever was left was to be burned so that the sacrificial meal was complete. In the case of Christ at the Last Supper, He not only gives His Body as food to the faithful, but His Blood (and therefore in the Jewish understanding, His Life) as well.

This is not "new" doctrine. It is inherent in the Church from the beginning. The problem lies with our understanding of it, not with the doctrine itself.

[Ciryaher]

Originally posted by Malbeth
This is why you are not allowed to take Communion in a Catholic Church, Ciryaher... you think the Body and Blood of Christ are crackers and wine. Perhaps Catholics and Orthodox are deadly wrong about this, but surely you can see why, believing what we believe, we cannot allow protestants who deny the Real Presence to partake of the Eucharist in our churches.

No, I think that the crackers and wine are exactly what they are: crackers and wine. They are not the body and blood of Christ to me. It is only the thought behind this that give the ceremony any meaning. And frankly, I don't want to take part in hollow ceremonies. I can be close to Christ by devoting my life to him, and I don't have to perform a bunch of Roman polytheistically-influenced rituals to do that.

The First Communion is a ceremony to make it clear that those partaking of the Eucharist truly believe that the bread and wine have become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Frankly: bull. All my cousins who have had their communion couldn't care less about Christ. This is an empty ceremony, just like most of the others in Catholicism which are meant to exercise control over people and blind them with rituals. Naturally a Church that wanted to exclude everyone but the "core believers" would say that "this is the only way to Christ."

[Mrs. Maggott]

What one believes or feels about something does not affect reality. I can believe that a train coming towards me is really an optical illusion, but that will not save me if it is in fact a real train.

When you speak about your cousins' "feelings" about the Eucharist and how that "changed" the nature of that sacrament, what you are speaking about has to do with the current moral ethic of the age, relativism/situationalism which posits truth is different for everyone and what is true for you might not necessarily be so for me. This means that your opinion actually changes reality at least in matters that are founded upon belief. Of course, the train will be real no matter to which moral ethic you ascribe.

Christianity, on the other hand, is based upon a Scriptural ethic which believes in absolute truths quite apart from individual conceptions and belief; that is, what's true is true for me, for you and for everyone else no matter how each of us "feels" or believes about the matter. Furthermore, my disbelief does not change the essence of the Eucharist since that is Ultimate Reality and therefore, the only person in the wrong in that situation is me - however sincerely I might hold to my "dis"belief.

In essence, one cannot change the nature of the Eucharist - that is, being the actual Body and Blood of Christ - by simply refusing to believe in it. Christ made the nature of the Eucharist quite clear and His doctrines were accepted and promulgated in the early Christian Church and remain to this day at least in the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. What I find interesting is that those who profess to be believers so quickly and easily discount Christ's own words in the matter. It would seem that as the Son of God, His words should carry at least some weight especially in regards to the sacrament that He Himself instituted at the Last Supper!

[Ciryaher]

If the Scriptures are absolute truth, then why are the laws of the Old Testament rejected? Are they not as well part of the absolute truth? If they are, then all are wrong but the Messianic Jews.

But at any rate, if I have to take the Eucharest to be a Christian, then that destroys my personal relationship with Christ and I would have to abandon the religion because I do not believe in my spiritual heart that ceremonies are the basis for religion.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
If the Scriptures are absolute truth, then why are the laws of the Old Testament rejected? Are they not as well part of the absolute truth? If they are, then all are wrong but the Messianic Jews.

But at any rate, if I have to take the Eucharest to be a Christian, then that destroys my personal relationship with Christ and I would have to abandon the religion because I do not believe in my spiritual heart that ceremonies are the basis for religion.
You are mixing apples and oranges. The Old Testament is not "rejected", but fulfilled. Christ Himself says that not a "jot or tittle" of the Old Covenant will pass away until it has been fulfilled. In Him, it is.

As for not believing that "ceremonies" are the "basis" of religion, I suggest that you re-read that same Old Testament and note that a great deal of it is taken up with God's explicit instructions as to how He wants to be worshipped and that included a great deal of ceremony! He even gives the receipe for acceptable incense not to mention how to sacrifice animals (pouring the blood upon the altar etc.). And when Aaron's sons decide to "ad lib" and add their own devices to the worship service, God strikes them dead! This doesn't sound as if He was exactly "unconcerned" with the form that our worship of Him would take!

Alas, God is not always interested in how we as human beings "feel" about things. If He has given specific instructions as to what He finds acceptable in the manner of worship and we truely wish to please Him, then it would seem to me that we should be willing to forego our own judgment on the matter and defer to His. Otherwise, what we actually worship is not so much "God", but our own personal little 'god' whom we set up as an idol, created in our image and subject to our interpretation of what is and is not "acceptable". It is possible to do this, of course. In fact, it's done all the time! But frankly, if one isn't going to worship God on His terms, then why bother with worship at all?

[Ciryaher]

I would agree with you 100%...if I believed that the Bible was intact and in its origina, intended form. However, I have read through the Bible rather thoroughly, and I myself find numerous contradictions. The conclusion that, based upon logic and weighed thought, I have arrived at is that the Bible is riddled with mis-scriptions and falsified additions that slipped in during the corruption of the Church.

I in no way take the Bible as literal truth; I never have, and--until I lose all sense of reason--never will.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
I would agree with you 100%...if I believed that the Bible was intact and in its origina, intended form. However, I have read through the Bible rather thoroughly, and I myself find numerous contradictions. The conclusion that, based upon logic and weighed thought, I have arrived at is that the Bible is riddled with mis-scriptions and falsified additions that slipped in during the corruption of the Church.

I in no way take the Bible as literal truth; I never have, and--until I lose all sense of reason--never will.
Again, you are mixing apples and oranges. I in no way declared the Bible to be "literally" true. The Orthodox Church does not hold with a "literal" translation of the Old Testament. However, the New Testament is something else entirely. It was written by those who were there. I am sure Moses was not present during Creation or any of the other things recounted in Exodus or Deuteronomy or Numbers etc. However, St. John, St. Matthew and Sts. Mark and Luke were present with Christ. And, of course, St. Paul writes to his contemporaries and about contemporary issues. So there can be no question that these things are "allegorical" or representative of anything other than that which they present themselves to be - historically accurate and true.

Has the Church been "corrupted" over the centuries? Certainly! Were that not the case, we would have - as there was in the beginning - ONE Church and not thousands of different "varieties", most of which are the invention of man rather than the Institution of God. However, with the exception of the various translations of Scripture - some of which are more accurate than others - the Bible has remained constant despite these changes. Therefore, reference to Scripture for matters of worship and doctrine is far more accurate and plausible than falling back on how we fallible human beings "feel" about these matters.

[Eriol]

Cir, did you read that link I posted? If you have, what are your quarrels with the doctrinal issue?

I don't really think that "I think that's wrong" is enough to trump Christ's words. In the end, you have to choose whom to trust, your own perception or Christ. Note, there is no contradiction, it is not an "illogical" or "impossible" thing. It is the body of Christ, even though it feels to our senses like bread; it is the blood of Christ, even though it feels to our senses like wine. Or are our senses infallible now?

[Mrs. Maggott]

At the Last Supper, Christ says to the Apostles, "Take, eat, this is My Body which is broken for you and for many for the remission of sins." And after the meal, he takes the Cup and says, "Drink of it, all of you, this is My Blood of the New Covenant which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins. " Thus does The Lord establish the Eucharistical sacrifice once and for all. No animals need be slaughtered any more as a sin offering since Christ becomes the ultimate sin offering. But when He speaks at the Last Supper, He says nothing about "symbols" or bread and wine "representing" His sacrifice. He says, simply, "this IS My Body" and "this IS My Blood". You may accept it or you may reject it, but you cannot "explain it away" by stating that He intended the bread and wine to be merely symbolic.

[Ciryaher]

The article is interesting (though I was rather...unsurprised that it was on a Catholic site) but it didn't give me a definitive answer...maybe I looked over something, but the article seemed to give evidence on both sides.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
At the Last Supper, Christ says to the Apostles, "Take, eat, this is My Body which is broken for you and for many for the remission of sins." And after the meal, he takes the Cup and says, "Drink of it, all of you, this is My Blood of the New Covenant which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins. " Thus does The Lord establish the Eucharistical sacrifice once and for all. No animals need be slaughtered any more as a sin offering since Christ becomes the ultimate sin offering. But when He speaks at the Last Supper, He says nothing about "symbols" or bread and wine "representing" His sacrifice. He says, simply, "this IS My Body" and "this IS My Blood". You may accept it or you may reject it, but you cannot "explain it away" by stating that He intended the bread and wine to be merely symbolic.
Its called "metaphor". We do it all the time. Simile "The sun is LIKE a big ball of fire", but sometimes we use metaphor, "The sun IS a ball of fire". We know that this is what Christ was doing for these two reasons:

1) His intent for the ceremony to begin with and what message he was trying to portray to his disciples as well as the language he used.

- The fact that He mentions the purpose of his body and blood - the realization of the sacrifice he would do and the forgiveness of sins that the blood would do, implies the symbolism of the whole event. He says, "Take, eat, this is My Body which is broken for you and for many for the remission of sins." And after the meal, he takes the Cup and says, "Drink of it, all of you, this is My Blood of the New Covenant which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins. "

If someone actually came and cut a piece of Christ and ate it, would it make him whole? Was Christ's literal shedding of blood sufficient for cleansing? If someone stood under his pierced side and was covered with the blood, would his sins be literally washed away? No. The concept of blood cleansing is the intent, not his literal blood, the concept of eating his body was to accept the sacrifice that he did by becoming man and flesh and sacrificing himself for us. His language is so symbolic here. His intent was to institute a ceremony that we could remember the greater purpose. To try and make this some sort of physical bodily 'cannibalism' is to take away from the greater meaning of the ceremony to begin with.

2) The lack of emphasis of such an important ritual throughout the NT.

Were this concept true (and what a grand concept it would be), you would think there would be much more emphasis in the NT concerning this. However, it is merely mentioned as a ceremonial remembrance service throughout the NT. Paul goes to umpteenth limits to explain so many concepts of salvation, works, law, grace and obedience that the early Christians were bickering and confused about. Yet there is no explanation of what transubstantiation really was and what Christ's words really meant. If we are puzzling our brains and disagreeing today on this, you can guarantee that a new, sparkling church would have questions that needed answering on this topic. Yet the silence on it is answer enough. It was always a symbolic service.

[Mrs. Maggott]

There is no lack of ritual in the New Testament. We are told in Acts that the Apostles went daily to pray in the Temple (ritual). Christ taught in the synagogues of Israel (ritual again). But the New Testament writers were not interested in speaking about the rituals that were familiar to them, but rather they wished to deal with Jesus of Nazarath, His coming, His teachings and His sacrifical death and redemptive resurrection. But Christ went to the Temple because God had decreed that His worship was essential to a relationship with Him. The fact that not alot is said about it in the New Testament does not change what in fact happened.

As for "similies". Was it a "similie" when Christ said, "Unless you eat of My Body and drink of My Blood, you have no life in you."? I think not. Indeed, when He told His disciples that they would have to eat His flesh and drink His blood, many left Him (as I noted earlier). How easy it would have been for Him to say something to the effect that what He was asking would merely be symbolic or that He was speaking in "similies", but He did no such thing.

The final proof of the fact that He indeed consecrates the bread and wine into His Body and Blood and permits this sacrament to endure into the Age of the Church is the fact that this is exactly what the Church has taught from the beginning. This is no "new" teaching. This is bedrock theological doctrine dating back to Pentecost - and before. Again, you may reject it but you cannot "alter" Scripture to prove your point nor can you conciliate the "bread and wine as symbol" theology with Christ's own words or the doctrines of the Church from Her founding. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

[Mrs. Maggott]

As for speaking about the Last Supper in the N.T.: the Event happens just before the Crucifixion. There is very little time to speak of it therefore since the Gospels end quite soon afterward and there is little opportunity for the Apostles and the Disciples to engage in it. In fact, they probably never understand what Christ has told them to do until Pentecost when the Holy Spirit makes all clear to them. And Paul does speak about the Eucharist. Indeed, he is quite explicit that many of those in the various Churches are partaking unworthily of Christ's Body and Blood and that they are therefore sick and even dying.

The concept of "Transubstantiation" or "Consubstantiation" is theologically difficult to determine or define. Both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches believe that when it is consecrated on the altar during the Liturgy, the bread and wine become - through the action of The Holy Spirit - the actual Body and Blood of Christ. The Western Church has attempted to define this much more completely than the Eastern Church which sees it as a Great Mystery and finds no reason to try to reduce it to concepts which we fallible and frail humans can understand - because, frankly, we can't! If the word Transubstantiation bothers you, the Orthodox Church has no problem if you abandon it - PROVIDING that you do not, at the same time, abandon the understanding that the Eucharist is in fact, Christ's Body and Blood. We Orthodox do not try to "explain" it since that would be impossible. But we do BELIEVE it - and, really, that's all that is necessary.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Thorin
It was always a symbolic service.

No, it wasn't. It only began to be seen as a symbolic service after the Protestant Reformation, and only by Protestants; 15 centuries after Christ. You can't change history with arguments, Thorin.

Have you read that article I linked here?

In addition to Mrs. Maggott's arguments, there are these (from that article, if I'm not mistaken):

-- the word used in the original Greek is roughly equivalent to gnash; a much cruder, literal word than "eat". Christ said, in effect, "unless you chew my Body...". Crude metaphor, eh?

-- the expression "eat my body" was an insult. It was the equivalent of a very hard insult. If Christ's words were to be taken metaphorically, it would mean "unless you insult me, you won't get to Heaven".

-- not surprisingly, the expression "drink my blood" was not a nice thing to say, either. Note -- I'm not using other documents to state that; the meaning of these expressions is documented in the Bible, in the Old Testament. I won't post quotes because they are in that article.

Of course, all of these observations are quite unnecessary, since the Eucharist was always considered as the Body of Christ, from the very beginning, unanimously. And this is not the verdict of Eriol; it is the verdict of many scholars, including Protestant scholars. At the site of that link you'll find that.

You can't change history with arguments.

[Ciryaher]

This is from an article by Craig L. Blomberg, Distinguished Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary:

The abiding theological insights of Smith's work are the emphases on the ubiquity of the banquet model and its probable influence on Jesus and Paul. Even in our quite different cultures today, there are ways, often precisely within the context of leisurely meals, to recover the intimacy, fellowship, friendship, worship, instruction, and the social equality that early Christianity stressed at table. It is important to recognize how much of these values were lost when the Christian Eucharist, already by the second century, began to be divorced from its original context of the agape meal or love feast, as Jude depicts it. Few branches of Christianity today anywhere on the theological spectrum come close to embracing the rich significance of apostolic dining practice. Our churches desperately need creative change in this arena.

Entire article here: http://www.denverseminary.edu/dj/articles03/0200/0206.php


From Christopher S. Mackay, University of Alberta:

Sinister Misunderstandings:
The pagans interpreted certain Christian practices along the lines of various secret rites in certain pagan cults. The Eucharist was taken to be cannibalism. The love feasts (agape) of the early Christians in which they celebrated their metaphorical brotherhood in Christ was taken to be a form of incest. Even though these accusations were not true, they turn up surprisingly often in pagan views on the Christians in the first two centuries.

Entire article here:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~csmackay/CLASS_110/Christianity.html

--------------------------------

This indicates, to me, that the modern version of the Eucharist (which is defined as "thanksgiving") is not what it originally was, and came about from a Romanization or Greek influence. I understand that Christ was telling those with him that the bread was his "body" and the wine his "blood", in order that they would remember his sacrifice...but Christ doesn't preach this to the masses. If he didn't preach it to the masses, how can you assume that he meant for it to be used by the masses?

[Eriol]

Hmmm... I've read both articles. The first is basically an explanation of what exactly Paul was advising against in Corinthians; the second is a general analysis of Christianity and its impact on Roman society. As your quote from the second article shows, Cir, "pagans thought the Eucharist was cannibalism", but "this accusation was not true". (Your quote).

In other words, I see nothing at all bearing on the question.

As for "the modern version of the Eucharist", I don't know what that is; and I rather keep the version that Christ taught us to keep, thank you...

;)

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Ciryaher


This indicates, to me, that the modern version of the Eucharist (which is defined as "thanksgiving") is not what it originally was, and came about from a Romanization or Greek influence. I understand that Christ was telling those with him that the bread was his "body" and the wine his "blood", in order that they would remember his sacrifice...but Christ doesn't preach this to the masses. If he didn't preach it to the masses, how can you assume that he meant for it to be used by the masses?
"The masses" are the very people whom Christ told his Apostles and disciples (remember there were some 125 people in the upper room at Pentecost, not just the 11 remaining Apostles) to go out and baptize in His Name and bring into the Church. The central sacrament of the Church is the Eucharist. Therefore, whatever He taught the Apostles at the Last Supper was intended for "the masses".

As for the charge of "cannibalism" that was leveled against the early Church - and the refutation of that charge: yes, the bread and wine are in fact the Body and Blood of Christ. However, that is a "spiritual reality" rather than a physical one. In other words, the bread and wine still taste like bread and wine and if one takes a piece from the Chalice (as did Isaac Asimov), a "scientific" analysis would show them to be bread and wine - hence, there could be no "cannibalism". On the other hand, stories of Eucharistical bread taken by evil persons who wished to use them in obscene rites have indicated that in some instances, the bread did indeed become Flesh, so it is possible that what is a "spiritual reality" can also become a more mundane physical reality under certain circumstances.