Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Real Presence Eucharistic Education and Adoration Association ^ | 6/12/2009 | Real Presence Eucharistic Education and Adoration Association

Posted on 06/13/2009 5:00:57 PM PDT by bdeaner

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-169 next last


Let us pray
to the Lord who gives himself in the Eucharist
that this sacrament may bring us salvation and peace
Lord Jesus Christ,
you gave us the Eucharist
as the memorial of your suffering and death.
May our worship of this sacrament of your body and blood
help us to experience the salvation you won for us
and the peace of the kingdom
where you live with the Father and the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

1 posted on 06/13/2009 5:00:57 PM PDT by bdeaner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bdeaner

bookmark


2 posted on 06/13/2009 5:19:26 PM PDT by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner

I only read the first dozen quotes or so - NONE of which indicate transubstantiation.

Sorry.


3 posted on 06/13/2009 5:28:26 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Maybe you should look a little harder. I'll point out just one of the more obvious and clear ones, from St. Ignatius, among the first dozen quotes.

St. Ignatius:
"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

How much clearer could he be? He doesn't say the Eucharist symbolizes the body of Christ. He said it IS the flesh of Christ.
4 posted on 06/13/2009 5:39:56 PM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner

Great post - a keeper. Thanks. :)

In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists:

“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).


5 posted on 06/13/2009 6:03:52 PM PDT by bronxville
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner

If I say my daughter is the light of my life, do I need to take her with me at night to light the path before me?


6 posted on 06/13/2009 6:05:33 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All

reference marked


7 posted on 06/13/2009 6:06:27 PM PDT by rbmillerjr ("We Are All Socialists Now"........not me, not now, not ever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bronxville

Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.

Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6? For them, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual reality—grace—being conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many Protestants, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided.

One suspects, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how to bring about mankind’s salvation, Fundamentalists would have advised him to adopt a different approach. How much cleaner things would be if spirit never dirtied itself with matter! But God approves of matter—he approves of it because he created it—and he approves of it so much that he comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine, just as he does in the physical form of the Incarnate Christ.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp


8 posted on 06/13/2009 6:06:56 PM PDT by bronxville
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
If I say my daughter is the light of my life, do I need to take her with me at night to light the path before me?

Jesus is not using a metaphor here. When Christ said that His disciples must eat His body and drink His blood, many walked away from Him. If he was just speaking metaphorically, no one would have been shocked enough to walk out on Him.

Why would the Jews scoff at Jesus for using a metaphor, unless He literally meant to eat His Flesh and to drink His Blood?

When you say your daughter is the light of your life, no one walks away from you saying, "You're out of your mind -- you could never use her as a flashlight -- I'm out of here." Of course not, because you are obviously using a metaphor. If Christ was similarly using metaphorical language, then why did many of His disciples abandon Him?

There is clear, Scriptural evidence for the literal interpretation. Look to the context of John 6. When the Jews scoff at Jesus for telling His disciples to eat His Flesh and drink His blod, he responds with a clarification that indicates he is speaking literally and not figuratively:

From John 6:52-53:

“The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man giveus his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.”

The Jews expressed disbelief and admonished Christ--believing He could not really mean what He was saying. Now this would have been an excellent opportunity for Jesus to tell them he was only speaking metaphorically or figuratively and that he should not be taken literally. But no, He does not do that! On the contrary. Instead, He responds to their doubts and mocking by repeated the same thing -- that they are to eat His Flesh and drink His blood -- but now he sharpens and strengthens His language. He tells them that if they do not eat His Flesh and Drink His blood, they will have no life in them. See John 6:53. Why would He say that unless He was speaking literally and not figuratively? Why would He confuse them rather than clarify His intentions? Because clearly He meant that they must ACTUALLY and NOT FIGURATIVELY eat His Flesh and Drink His blood.

This becomes more evident when we consider John 6:54, where the terms in the Bible switch from the word phago, which means "eat," to the word trogo, which means to "chew" or "gnaw." The switch to the latter terminology, again, is a move to an even more literal and less figurative manner of speaking, which again undeniably supports the doctrine of the Real Presence.

In the original Greek text of John 6:23-53, the word "eat" (phago) is used nine different times. But then suddenly, after the Jews express doubt about the literal meaning of His statement and assume He is speaking more metaphorically, He clarifies that He is not at all speaking metaphorically; so that in John 6:54, he uses the stronger, more graphic and less metaphorical term "chew" or gnaw" (trogo).

It can be easily validated that the term trogo was not used figuratively in the Scripture. In Matthew 24:38, the same word, trogo, is used to literally mean, 'to eat.' Same thing in John 13:18.

John 6:54-56- “Whosoever eateth [trogo] my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth [trogo] my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.”

So, the clear Biblical meaning--as the early Church Fathers simply took for granted--is the literal meaning of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Christ is literally present--Body, Soul and Divinity--in the Eucharist.

God bless. :)
9 posted on 06/13/2009 6:46:06 PM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bronxville
In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists

BEAUTIFUL QUOTE!!!

Blessings to you, and let's hope for a beautiful day to celebrate Corpus Christi this Sunday.
10 posted on 06/13/2009 6:47:34 PM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner
"Jesus is not using a metaphor here. When Christ said that His disciples must eat His body and drink His blood, many walked away from Him. If he was just speaking metaphorically, no one would have been shocked enough to walk out on Him.

Why would the Jews scoff at Jesus for using a metaphor, unless He literally meant to eat His Flesh and to drink His Blood?"

Actually, literally or figuratively, it was a shocking statement. In effect, Jesus was claiming to be God Himself, which would stun any Jew listening. If they had interpreted him literally, they would have replied, "You want us to take knives out and cut your flesh, and eat it? Cut your throat, and drink your blood?!?!"

If meant literally, his statement WOULD have been totally mad, since they would have needed to kill him on the spot.

11 posted on 06/13/2009 6:56:59 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
If meant literally, his statement WOULD have been totally mad, since they would have needed to kill him on the spot.

But they do kill Him, and they kill Him after the celebration of the Last Supper when He offers up His blood and body as the Sacrificial Lamb. In Exodus, the Jews were commanded that, if they were to survive the angel of death's justice upon the first born of Egypt, they not only had to spill the blood of the lamb, they had to eat it whole. And if they could not eat it, to share it with others so they would fully consume the flesh of the lamb.

In the Passover meal, which was celebrated at the Last Supper, four cups of wine are consumed at different points in the meal. The fourth cup is drunken before the lamb is consumed -- and, at the Last Supper, this was the point at which Christ offered Himself up as a Sacrifice. But, at the Supper table, they never drank the fourth cup nor ate the lamb, because Chirst was to become the lamb. Instead they go to Gesthemane, where Chirst is caught and then sacrificed on the cross.

Prior to His death, Christ proclaims His thirst and then drinks the wine -- the 4th cup -- and then he says, "It is finished," and dies, as the Sacrificial Lamb. The lamb is killed. But the angel of death will not pass unless the lamb is eaten -- not figuratively, but literally. The Eucharist fulfills that promise.

Note: This analysis is from Scott Hahn's book The Lamb's Supper. Hahn was a Presbyterian minister who converted to Catholicism and is now a Professor of Religious Studies at Franciscan University. Here is a short version of this analysis in his own words:

THE EUCHARIST AS THE LAMB'S SUPPER

Also see:

THE FOURTH CUP

Hahn's analysis is mind-blowing. I have not done it justice. It is also compelling coming from a Presbyterian minister who knows the Bible better than anyone I've ever seen -- at least anyone who can write and speak as accessibly as he can.

In any case, the Biblical account does seem to be verified by Hahn's analysis -- which validates the NT by reading it through as a fulfillment of salvation history prophetically foreshadowed in Exodus.

The Early Church Fathers also believed in the Real Presence, and while it may be difficult to see in the above passages without studying them closely, some of the passages are more obvious than others, such as the one I quoted.

Here is another one that I think really is a grand slam, in terms of its clear and unambiguous endorsement of the Real Presence -- St. Ignatius. In the context of speaking out against the Docetist heretics, who denied the humanity of Jesus, he wrote this:

"They confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again" (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, 7).

Clearly, St. Ignatius means to show that the flesh of the Eucharist is the equivalent, and not merely a symbol, of the flesh of the Cross.

Another powerful witness is Irenaeus, who was a student of Polycarp. He recalled Polycarp's stories of Apostle John -- which were first hand accounts. When others doubted the resurrection of Jesus, Irenaeus used the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist to prove it! "The Eucharist becomes the body of Chirst," he says (Irenaeus, Against Heresies). That argument would have fallen flat if his contemporaries did not share with Him the assumptions and major premise of the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

In contrast, I invite you to name and cite a single Early Church Father who said the Eucharist should be understood metaphorically rather than literally. I assure you, none can be found.

God bless.
12 posted on 06/13/2009 7:21:52 PM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Any of the quotes above that mention anything about the bread and wine changing into something else is an implicit reference to transubstantiation: the "esse" or "substantia" of the thing is no longer what it was.

On the other hand, find me one Church Father....just one....who gave a refutation of the doctrine even remotely close to the clear language of the Black Rubric of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer:

"It is hereby declared, That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians;)"
You won't find any such refutation.
13 posted on 06/13/2009 7:24:16 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner

John 10:9
I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Which Catholic dogma comes from this verse? Or how about this one:

John 15:5
I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

The fact is, we are told how the local church is to observe the Lord’s Supper in I Corinthians 11 and Luke 22.

Luk 22:19
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

1Co 11:24-26
(24) And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
(25) After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
(26) For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

Very clearly, the Lord’s Supper is to bring us into remembrance. That is what the very scriptures say. Like it says in verse 26, “ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.” It is a picture of his death, and also to bring us into remembrance that He is coming back for his own.

The Catholics have this completely wrong and in fact break scripture by believing they are constantly sacrificing Christ in the Eucharist. Please compare these verses to Catholic tradition.

Heb 10:12-14
(12) But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
(13) From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
(14) For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

I am very sorry to tell you so, but I’ll easily take what the scriptures have clearly put forth over the quotes of the commentators of that same scripture.

Y’all are simply not bring Christ down every eucharist to eat his body and blood. He is sitting on the right hand of the Father, waiting for the time of his return as the conquering Christ.


14 posted on 06/13/2009 7:24:16 PM PDT by refreshed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kalee

book,ark


15 posted on 06/13/2009 7:29:15 PM PDT by kalee (01/20/13 The end of an error.... Obama even worse than Carter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: refreshed

“I am very sorry to tell you so, but I’ll easily take what the scriptures have clearly put forth over the quotes of the commentators of that same scripture.

Y’all are simply not bring Christ down every eucharist to eat his body and blood. He is sitting on the right hand of the Father, waiting for the time of his return as the conquering Christ.”

I agree. Well put.


16 posted on 06/13/2009 7:30:06 PM PDT by swmobuffalo ("We didn't seek the approval of Code Pink and MoveOn.org before deciding what to do")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner

Thank you for your hard work.


17 posted on 06/13/2009 7:41:54 PM PDT by HighlyOpinionated (Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann in 2012. With Liz Cheney as Secretary of State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: refreshed

Nonsense. Look at those verses you cited and compare them to John 6 again. If you have a Greek NT even better. In John 6, Christ says “my flesh is true (Gr. alethes) food, my blood is true (Gr. alethes) drink.”

That’s a very specific Greek word there. Alethes means “true, genuine, real” as it refers to the substance of a thing. Does Christ say anything similar in John 10 about the door? No He does not. Does He say anything similar in John 15 about the vine? Well, that passage is interesting, because He does say “I am the true vine”. BUT note that it’s a slightly different Greek adjective there. Not alethes but alethine....not true according to substance but rather true according to analogy.

Plus of course, the contexts of the passages are totally different. Do you see people reacting in shock and horror to the specific sayings “I am the door” or “I am the vine”? No evidence of that in the Bible. His audience apparently took those figuratively. But they most certainly did NOT take John 6 figuratively—because He didn’t give them that option. He hammered the point over and over and refused to back down even when they questioned Him on it.


18 posted on 06/13/2009 7:44:02 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bronxville
Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6?

Why do Catholics and Orthodox reject the plain, literal meaning of Genesis 1-11?

19 posted on 06/13/2009 7:47:22 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . Vayiqra' Mosheh leHoshe`a Bin-Nun Yehoshu`a.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HighlyOpinionated
Thank you for your hard work.

You're welcome.
20 posted on 06/13/2009 8:02:56 PM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

Genesis 1 is plain? Hm.

So I’d be able to consult, say, many different authorities in the Talmud and get the same exact opinions on it then, eh? ;)


21 posted on 06/13/2009 8:05:21 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Claud

Your exegesis needs some serious work.

“Alethes means “true, genuine, real”

Of course, you are correct here. However, what you have considered real is the mere physical aspect of it. It is spiritual food and drink, not only more real that physical, but also effective to secure our eternal salvation.

This is very easily proven looking at John 6:32, which has the same Greek word as John 15:1. Thus we see, just comparing scripture with scripture, the “true” bread and the “true” vine are spiritual, not metaphorical and not physical. This is not an argument of metaphorical versus physical. There is another aspect you did not consider and that is the spiritual.

I have yet to see the sacrament the Catholic church performs to change Jesus Christ into a physical vine.

That’s enough of the Greek game though. Comparing scripture with scripture, the obvious meaning of the passage throughout John 6 is that it is speaking of the spiritual effect of the body and blood of Christ, not literal cannibalism. The people were shocked that the man Jesus would claim to be the exclusive way to the Father (due to the fact they were expecting the conquering Christ the first time around). That was a direct slap at the false religion the Jewish faith had become by that time.

It really is not that hard unless you look at scripture through the goggles of men who lived hundreds of years after Christ and put tradition on the same level as scripture in terms of authority.

By the way:

“BUT note that it’s a slightly different Greek adjective there. Not alethes but alethine....not true according to substance but rather true according to analogy.”

John 6 disproves this view in its own text. If the first “true” is mentioned it meant true in substance, Christ changed it to “true according to analogy” in verse 32.


22 posted on 06/13/2009 8:12:16 PM PDT by refreshed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Claud

“So I’d be able to consult, say, many different authorities in the Talmud and get the same exact opinions on it then, eh? ;)”

It would never be wise to consult those who have rejected the “true vine.” They have already shown their lack of spiritual wisdom.


23 posted on 06/13/2009 8:15:14 PM PDT by refreshed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

For one thing, the words of Jesus are those of a man talking to other men. The language of Genesis is that of myth even if it aims to debunk myth


24 posted on 06/13/2009 8:37:25 PM PDT by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: refreshed

Yes, alethinos does occur in John 6:32....referring to an entirely different noun: “the true (by analogy) Bread from heaven”.

And how, pray tell, does that word nullify the use of alethes in 6:55? My body is true (in substance) food my blood is true (in substance) drink.

You can’t just take the first passage and have it conveniently obliterate the meaning of the second. Both usages are in Scripture. Both must be true. Christ was talking analogically in the first instance and literally in the second.

And no, if it’s all the same, I’m not quite done with the Greek game, because for one thing I find it somewhat telling that the Greeks—who presumably know their own language better than you and I do—still believe very strongly that they are consuming the Body and Blood of the Lord and not some mere memorial bread.

And if you go back and carefully look at the quotations from this thread, you would see that we are not talking solely about men who lived “hundreds of years after Christ”. The Didache was written in the mid-first century. Clement was writing in the mid 90s, and every indication was he was ordained by Peter himself.


25 posted on 06/13/2009 8:47:43 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: refreshed

By “spiritual effect” means, I assume you mean what Calvin meant by it. IAC. the symbolic meaning that Zwingli et all, attached to the Eucharist is a result of the influence of nominalism and a rejection of the realism in which the Catholic doctrine of transubstantialism is usually expressed. My guess is that the Church Fathers wouldn’t have had the slightest idea what either Zwingli or Calvin were talking about as they tried to distance themselves from the Catholic doctrine of the day. They probably wouldn’t have understand what Catholic theologians were getting at, which is why at Trent walks away from a lot of the philosophical word play.


26 posted on 06/13/2009 8:54:13 PM PDT by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: refreshed
It would never be wise to consult those who have rejected the “true vine.” They have already shown their lack of spiritual wisdom.

Oh, I wouldn't go so far as all that. Just because one is wrong on a theological point or two doesn't mean he or she can't contribute to the discussion in other ways. Who do you think taught English-speaking Christians to read and understand Hebrew?

27 posted on 06/13/2009 8:54:38 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
Why do Catholics and Orthodox reject the plain, literal meaning of Genesis 1-11?

Because it is written in a different style than the rest of the Books of the Bible. Genesis is more in the style of Gilgamesh, whereas the Gospels are more in the style of biography. We don't read an ancient creation story and take it the same way we would read a more contemporary biography. Same thing with Genesis and the Gospels.

It should be noted, however, that some Catholics do take it literally, and this is not ruled out either. There is no doctrine in the Church, officially, on how accurate Genesis 1-11 is, if taken literally. But generally the Church teaches that it should not really be read as history or as science, but theologically.

Plus, again, we go back to tradition and look at the early Church Fathers, and they were in dispute on this. Some took it literally, some theologically. St. Augustine, for example, is an early Church Father who argued strongly that it should not be read as a history or science text, but rather as revelatory of theological truths.

St. Augustine (A.D> 354-430) wrote on this topic in his book, The Literal Meaning of Genesis. This quote comes from a translation by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]"

I'm with St. Augustine on this one.
28 posted on 06/13/2009 8:56:09 PM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: All
Just wanted to say thank you to all of you who are contributing to this thread -- especially for your friendly and civil tone, as well as rational style of discourse with careful reference to Scripture. I'm really enjoying this conversation, and expect to learn a lot as it continues to unfold, as I am sure it will.

God bless.
29 posted on 06/13/2009 9:03:23 PM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Claud

Please tell me where you are getting the information on the difference between alethinos and alethes. They appear to come from the same root. I see them being used with the same intent, obviously one being an adverb. Also none of my references make the distinction you have claimed (I admit I may just not have the references you are using).

I read all of the quotes. They do not refer to transubstantiation until the later ones.

I am sorry that I can’t stay on and discuss this at more length. I must add, it is more important to compare scripture with scripture. If you fail to do so, you will not understand the scripture. Jesus Christ was sacrificed once. I’ll stick to it, because once you start playing the
Greek game, you can make the Book say anything you want it to say. Just pick your definitions and your Greek authorities.

I am very much not interested in discussing textual criticism, but simply expressing the excessively clear doctrine that we celebrate the Lord’s Supper as a remembrance until he comes. That’s what the Bible says.


30 posted on 06/13/2009 9:13:03 PM PDT by refreshed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

I honestly don’t know what Calvin’s or Zwingli’s arguments were. If they agree with me, they too must have looked at scripture and read in it plainly that we are not to sacrifice Jesus Christ afresh and we are to celebrate the Lord’s Supper as a remembrance. I wish I could continue later, but I must go soon.


31 posted on 06/13/2009 9:14:56 PM PDT by refreshed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: swmobuffalo
John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. Which Catholic dogma comes from this verse?

Many Catholic teachings can be linked to this verse, including the Catholic teachings on grace. You might be surprised that the Catholic Church agrees with Protestants that we can only be saved by the grace of Christ's sacrifice and only if we put our faith in His sacrifice.

Where we part ways is that Catholics reject the Protestant doctrine of sola fide. Faith alone is not enough. First, you need grace, and then that grace is justified through works, through which we are sanctified.

So, we Catholics fully assimilate and accept the Scripture you cite. But as a Protestant who believes in sola fide, you have a hard time explaining these verses:

Jas. 2:14-26:
What good is it my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?...You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone...faith without deeds is dead.”

Mat. 7:21:
Not everone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Pretty clear cut. Yes, you need faith. But faith without action is not true faith. And neither is possible without grace.

Just look at Obama. He can talk a good game about reducing abortions, but his action speak more loudly than his words.

Same with John 5:15. Yes, of course, Christ is the vine and we are the branches. But try to reconcile this passage with the Protestant notion that faith alone is enough, and you have some problems. If one does not attest to one's faith through action, one is not abiding in Christ, just pretending to. Those branches get cast into the fire.

More later...
32 posted on 06/13/2009 9:18:39 PM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Claud

“Oh, I wouldn’t go so far as all that. Just because one is wrong on a theological point or two doesn’t mean he or she can’t contribute to the discussion in other ways. Who do you think taught English-speaking Christians to read and understand Hebrew?”

Learning the language and learning the spiritual meaning behind the text are two different things. A man could learn Hebrew and be an atheist. Yet, you wouldn’t say that an atheistic Hebrew scholar would have a deep understanding of the text just because he could read it flawlessly.

John 14:26


33 posted on 06/13/2009 9:19:17 PM PDT by refreshed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner

I had to respond to a statement you made here that is completely incorrect according to Ephesians 2:8-9.

“Where we part ways is that Catholics reject the Protestant doctrine of sola fide. Faith alone is not enough. First, you need grace, and then that grace is justified through works, through which we are sanctified.”

Not only in Ephesians is this discussed, but also to a great extent in the book of Romans. Here are some verses for you:

Ephesians 2:8-9
(8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
(9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Romans 3:20
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 3:27-28
(27) Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
(28) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Romans 4:2-5
(2) For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
(3) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
(4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
(5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Romans 11:5-6
(5) Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
(6) And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

2 Timothy 1:8-9
(8) Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;
(9) Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

It is arrogance against God to say that we can partially effect our own salvation. We start out dead in our trespasses and sins. Christ, while we were yet sinners, died for us. That is the heart of the “good news.” Romans 10:9 makes it abundantly clear. Also, where Paul says the law was our schoolmaster, teaching us that we aren’t capable of living up to God’s standards. If we are trusting in our own works, none of us are righteous enough. This, again, is clearly taught.


34 posted on 06/13/2009 9:32:15 PM PDT by refreshed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: refreshed
Very clearly, the Lord’s Supper is to bring us into remembrance.

This is the standard Protestant response, if I may -- not to take anything away from it.

The problem is that Protestants typically do not appreciate--per Scripture--that the bread and wine is a sacrifice. The sacrificial nature of the Mass is what seems to be missed. But that is the whole point! That is the whole meaning of salvation history!

David Currie, in Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic points out a passage that has stumped the Evangelicals:

Zech. 14:20, 21:
On that day...all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them.
.

The problem is this: If Jesus' sacrifice is final and complete, no sacrifices should be needed in Jerusalem after the death and Resurrection of Jesus. Right? Yet there is the verse, plain as day, for which there is "no plausible Evangelical explanation," says Curie (p. 45).

If priesthood is no longer needed here on earth, because the need for sacrifices have ended, as Evangelicals argue, then Zechariah would not contain that verse. And yet there it is. The Evangelical perspective does not have an answer. But the Catholic Church does have a Scripture-based answer to that problem.

The answer is simple: Zechariah is referring to the Eucharist! Yes, the Eucharist is foretold in the Old Testament.

Karl Keating, in Catholicism and Fundamentalism, pulls out another problematic verse for Protestants:

Psalm 110:4:
The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.


The very meaning of "priest" is one who offers a sacrifice. And who is this Melchizedek character? He is from Genesis 14:18 -- a priest encountered by Abraham. And what does he offer Abraham? Bread and wine!

Now when did Jesus offer bread and wine as a sacrifice? Obviously, the Last Supper. The logical conclusion: the Last Supper is instituted by Christ as a sacrifice. This is what the Catholics celebrate during the Mass, which is why it is called "The Sacrifice of the Mass."

Within this sacrificial Biblical context, your question can be addressed.

In 1 Corinthians 11:24-25, indeed, Jesus says during the Last Supper, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." But "remembrance" as it is used here does not have quite the meaning you import into it, when understood in context.

In the Greek, this word for "remembrance" has a special connotation. It is used only one other time in the New Testament, in Hebrews 1:3. In this verse, the remembrance is an act of carrying out a sacrifice. "Those sacrifices are an annual reminder [remembrance] of sins." In the OT, the word is only used twice. Each time the word is used it is in reference to a sacrifice! In Lev. 24:7, "Put some incense as a memorial..to be an offering," and in Nb 10:10, "Sound the trumpets over your burn offerings and fellowship offerings, and they will be a memorial for you."

And so, understood in the context of the entire Scriptures as a whole, we can see that this word for "remembrance" is not just about thinking about the past and bringing it to mind. The term has strong sacrificial overtones, and has to do with remembering an event by participating in a sacrifice.

The same idea of remembrance, by the way, can be found in pagan cultures. In Haitian Voodoo, for example, the priest sacrifices an animal, or plants, to the ancestors, in order to remember them. If the ancestor is not remembered with a sacrifice, they are haunted by the ghost of the ancestor who brings bad luck. This notion of remembering via sacrifice is quite common throughout the world, across cultures, and anticipates but falls short of the one true sacrifice of Christ. Christ's sacrifice replaces the necessity of pagan sacrifices, as much as it replaces the sacrifices of the monotheistic Jews.

At Mass, Christ is remembered through the sacrifice which is the Eucharist in which his real presence resides. In the sacrifice of the Mass, the bread is changed into the substance of Chirst's Body, and this occurs by way of a miracle of God. The appearance of the bread and wine remain with all their usual properties. The substance changes, but not the appearance.

Why this sacrifice? I will refer you, first, to the links to the articles by Scott Hahn, which you can find in a prior post of mine, above. The Lord sacrifices his only Son because no other sacrifice can repair the damage done by original sin in the Garden. And in Revelations, John tells us that Christ continues to persist in the form of the slain lamb, always and forever, a perpetual sacrifice -- a key aspect of Christ's role in the Trinity. And whenever a Mass occurs, that perpetual sacrifice is made manifest again on earth -- which, as in Revelations, is celebrated with joy, for this is the sacrifice that breaks the seal. The only sacrifice that could break the seal.

Of course this is all revealed in Scripture! But the testimony of the early Church Fathers validates it without a shadow of a doubt.

God bless.
35 posted on 06/13/2009 10:20:53 PM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner
The Jews expressed disbelief and admonished Christ--believing He could not really mean what He was saying. Now this would have been an excellent opportunity for Jesus to tell them he was only speaking metaphorically or figuratively and that he should not be taken literally.

You either don't understand the discourse or you don't accept it...You guys always leave out the salient part of the context...

Jesus said He already knew these people would not believe Him...He KNEW these people would not follow Him either way...

Jesus ALWAYS spoke to committed unbelievers in parables...ONLY explaining the parable to His true disciples when in private...

If you know the bible at all, you know that...

36 posted on 06/13/2009 11:10:54 PM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: refreshed

John 10:9 (”I am the door”) and John 15:1 (”I am the true vine”). “I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him.

But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55) - Jesus continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor. Ask any Greek.

LUKE 22

You quoted:
19. And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them saying, “ This is my body, given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

Here’s the next verse for continuity:

20. In the same way, after supper, he took the cup, saying. “This cup is the New Covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

While denying the miracle of the Real Presence of Jesus’ body and blood in the Eucharist, you ignore Jesus’s clear words “This is my body” and “my blood”, and concentrate on the phrase “Do this in remembrance of me” and use it to argue that the Eucharist was only meant to be symbolic. But of course, if we do something in memory of someone, (give a gift, for example) that does not necessarily mean that what we do (or the gift) is not real.

Let’s read some more verses from John where we can see whether they confirm the symbolic, or the Real, view of Communion.

JOHN 6
53 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (I love that hymn)
55 “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
57 “Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 “This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”

Yes, John continues to confirm that Jesus is not speaking symbolically. He’s stating that His flesh and blood are not only real food and real drink, but that His body and blood are necessary to give life. In fact, in the next verse his hearers certainly understood his teaching as we can see from their reaction....

60. On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

And some of them didn’t accept His teaching then, either...

66. From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. Why didn’t Jesus call them back and tell them he was just speaking symbolically? These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways.

But he knew some didn’t believe. (It’s here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) “After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66).

This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they made a mistake in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t Jesus call them back and straighten things out? There were other occasions when there was confusion and Jesus explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). But here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, Jesus didn’t correct Himself. Instead, He repeated Himself for greater emphasis - four times he said they would have “to eat my flesh and drink my blood.”

John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit.

Here’s Paul - still consistent...

1 Corinthians 11

27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Once again, there’s an insistence on the reality of the presence of the body and blood of Jesus in Communion, and a demand that we recognize the sacredness of this sacrament. Yet this seems to be another of those biblical passages that most Protestants completely ignore. Why would Paul instruct them in such a serious way if it were mere wine and bread? Where did Paul hear these Words, from the Apostles, of course...and it continued on via Oral Tradition...via the early Church...

Read above what the Church Fathers believed only 30-40yrs later - they continued to take John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted. We can all learn a lot from how the Holy Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians.

All and all, one can see that the idea that Holy Communion is only symbolic and that the bread and wine of the Eucharist does not become the Real Body and Blood of Jesus, is a totally novel doctrine, newly invented by Protestants.


37 posted on 06/13/2009 11:30:44 PM PDT by bronxville
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Jesus said He already knew these people would not believe Him...He KNEW these people would not follow Him either way...

I don't see how that statement refutes the arguments I've made about re: the real presence. It seems to be a non-sequiter.

True, Jesus is of the triune God. He knew the people would not listen to Him, would not believe Him. But it does not follow, logically, that, therefore, Jesus was speaking figuratively rather than literally when he spoke of eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

Jesus ALWAYS spoke to committed unbelievers in parables...ONLY explaining the parable to His true disciples when in private...

Yes, Jesus often spoke in parables. The parable of the vine, for example. Absolutely. No question about that. But, ironically, the fact that Jesus typically spoke in parables about being the vine and the shepherd, etc., all of which implied his Divinity and role as the Messiah, actually helps to support my arguments. When He is telling a parable, none of the disciples get up in arms and walk away. They KNOW it is metaphor and not to be taken literally. But when he speaks of eating His flesh and eating His body, His disciples and the Jewish authorities respond in a COMPLETELY different way! They are shocked, and many of his followers are so alarmed by what He says, they abandon Him!

So, I disagree that Jesus' tendency to talk in parables implies that when He spoke of His Body and Blood, He was also speaking metaphorically. On the contrary, His prior use of metaphor in the parables provides a clear contrast which allows us to see that, when He IS speaking literally, His listeners respond in a way that is fundamentally different from when He spoke metaphorically. This validates my argument.
38 posted on 06/13/2009 11:43:57 PM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner
The fourth cup is drunken before the lamb is consumed -- and, at the Last Supper, this was the point at which Christ offered Himself up as a Sacrifice. But, at the Supper table, they never drank the fourth cup nor ate the lamb,

Again, we are faced with believing God, or believing you and your religion...

Luk 22:8 And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.

The passover meal is a lamb...Jesus said to go prepare the meal that we may eat...

Luk 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

Jesus planned on eating a rack of ribs and maybe a little leg with mint sauce before his Crucifixion...If there was no food, it wasn't the Last Supper, eh???

Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

As they were eating, Jesus broke the bread...What were they eating, a wet burrito??? They weren't eating the bread...Of course they were eating a lamb at the last Passover Meal...

Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Must have been the 5th cup of wine...What did they do, skip the 4th cup???

Of course they ate the passover meal...I'll take Jesus' word for it every time especially when it contradicts the false teaching of your religion...

39 posted on 06/13/2009 11:44:02 PM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

You either don’t understand the discourse or you don’t accept it...You guys always leave out the salient part of the context...

Jesus said He already knew these people would not believe Him...He KNEW these people would not follow Him either way...

Jesus ALWAYS spoke to committed unbelievers in parables...ONLY explaining the parable to His true disciples when in private...

If you know the bible at all, you know that...

In context - John 6:30 - took place at the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that “our ancestors ate manna in the desert.” Could Jesus top that?

He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. “Give us this bread always,” they said. Jesus replied, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.” At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.

Then Jesus first repeated what he said, and then He summarized:

“‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51–52).

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. Jesus yet again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: “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 you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).

Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct “misunderstandings,” for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?

On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was NO effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.

In John 6:60 we read: “Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’” These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).

But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) “After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66).


40 posted on 06/13/2009 11:47:51 PM PDT by bronxville
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: bronxville
“After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66).

I never realized that verse was 666! Number of the beast!

Revelations 13:18:
Here is wisdom. He who has understanding, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. His number is six hundred sixty-six.

41 posted on 06/14/2009 12:02:33 AM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Before I address your post on Scott Hahn's analysis of "the fourth cup" from the Passover's Seder Meal, I should mention, first, that Hahn was a Presbyterian minister who converted to Catholicism, based purely on Scripture. He came to believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist, and this insight re: the fourth cup was a pivotal insight for him that eventually led him to give up his day job and become a Catholic. The sacrifice of his profession as a minister should not be taken lightly. He did not have the option of becoming a priest, because he was already married. Of course, his biography gives him credibility, but does not prove his points.

Second, Hahn's "fourth cup" analysis is not an official doctrine or teaching of the Church. It is possible that Hahn's analysis could be found to be lacking in some way, but that would have no bearing on the Church's doctrine of the Real Presence. The Real Presence does not stand or fall on Hahn's analysis here. However, IF Hahn's analysis is shown to be valid--and I am quite convinced of it's validity, personally--then it surely provides a very strong and compelling additional validity to the Church's doctrine on the Real Presence. It is important to be clear on this point. You can refute Hahn's argument, potentially anyway, and that does not topple the Church's doctrine of the Real Presence, which is not at all based on Hahn's interesting but compelling analysis.

The third point: As I said, I cannot do justice to Hahn's analysis here. He has written an entire book, which is incredibly researched and very clear in the steps of his analysis, which draws upon the entire Scriptures. So, if you criticize my points, realize that this is essentially a straw man, and that you should read Hahn first before thinking you have trumped his analysis. Hahn is miles above me when it comes to knowledge of the Scriptures. I won't pretend to be able to represent him here -- that would be arrogant and frankly stupid.

With that said, it helps if you want to understand Hahn to have a look at the Passover's Seder Meal, and the traditional way the meal is prepared and served. First of all, there are five elements of the meal: the lamb, unleavened bread, bitter herbs, green herbs, haroseth, and wine. Each has a special significance.

The four cups of wine used in the Seder symbolize four distinct promises made by God as told in Exodus 6:6-7. These are traditionally referred to as follows: Cup of Sanctification, Cup of Deliverance, Cup of Redemption, and Cup of Restoration.

During His early Passover Seder with His Disciples, Jesus drank the first two cups in a traditional way. There is the dipping of the hand in the dish -- which is a washing of the hands -- and then eating the bitter herbs and an egg -- and then the third cup, the Cup of Redemption, is when the bread is traditionally eaten. This is the point at which Jesus says, "This is my blood", etc. So Jesus does eat the meal, but he stops at the third cup. Instead of having the lamb -- there is no mention of eating the lamb in the Scriptures -- and drinking the fourth cup, Jesus told his disciples that He would not drink the fourth cup, the Cup of Restoration, but promises to do with with them in the coming Kingdown (Matt 26:29).

The fourth cup is the culmination of the meal when the leader is to say, "It is finished." The meal is not complete until He as the lamb Himself is sacrificed on the Cross and still not complete until His Body and Blood are consumed, as the Lord on the Passover demanded. Just as the lamb's blood provides redemption for the Jews from the Angel of Death, Christ's blood now redeems us and give us eternal life -- but, just as the Jews were commanded to do at Passover, we must eat the lamb. This is the meaning of the Eucharist -- the Sacrifice of the Mass in which Christ's Body and Blood -- His Body, Soul and Divinity -- is consumed so, abiding in Him, we may receive eternal life.
42 posted on 06/14/2009 1:16:45 AM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: refreshed

They are indeed from the same root. But here’s a few commentaries that draw the distinction:

http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/bible/vines/get_defn.pl?num=3090
Note: “Alethinos is related to alethes as form to contents or substances; alethes denotes the reality of the thing, alethinos defines the relation of the conception to the thing to which it corresponds = genuine” (Cremer). “

http://bible.cc/hebrews/8-2.htm
“Greek “alethinos” (used here) is opposed to that which does not fulfil its idea, as for instance, a type; “alethes,” to that which is untrue and unreal, as a lie. The measure of alethes is reality; that of alethinos, ideality. In alethes the idea corresponds to the thing; in alethinos, the thing to the idea [Kalmis in Alford].”

http://books.google.com/books?id=qbsCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=alethes+true+substance&source=bl&ots=aoJ2dcXoTj&sig=618eN8-thT5XCWWMKVk3a8Z9ZUo&hl=en&ei=W8s0SqqDJJ6MtgfwvZCnCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4
“In Greek the distinction is clearly indicated by the use of two words, alethes true and alethinos very, which are never used indiscriminately. The word translated in our version is alethinos, and should be rendered very, for it indicates the contrast not between the true and the false—but between the imperfect and the perfect, between the shadowy and the substantial, the type and the archetype, the highest ideal, and a subordinate realization of partial anticipation.”

You are 100% right that the Bible says the Eucharistic meal is a remembrance. But where does it say it is *only* a remembrance? Where does it say that it is a remembrance without an underlying reality?

So let’s compare Scripture with Scripture. The accounts of the Last Supper say “This is my body”—and even Martin Luther scornfully disagreed with those who would substitute the word “represents” for the word “is”. Then we have 1 Cor 11: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” We have the very literal passages in John 6.

And there are no passages that prove the contrary.


43 posted on 06/14/2009 4:09:56 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Claud
Genesis 1 is plain? Hm.

So I’d be able to consult, say, many different authorities in the Talmud and get the same exact opinions on it then, eh? ;)

I said Genesis 1-11, meaning that these chapters relate events that actually happened to people who actually existed. Most Catholics (especially the clergy and theologians) believe that this is didactic mythology adapted from Mesopotamian and Canaanite religion.

Once again, if it weren't for the fact that fundamentalists don't accept it, Catholics would have probably jettisoned the literal interpretation of John 6 decades ago.

44 posted on 06/14/2009 8:22:37 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . Vayiqra' Mosheh leHoshe`a Bin-Nun Yehoshu`a.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS; Ethan Clive Osgoode
For one thing, the words of Jesus are those of a man talking to other men. The language of Genesis is that of myth even if it aims to debunk myth

I rest my case.

You don't believe the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt either, do you?

45 posted on 06/14/2009 8:27:02 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . Vayiqra' Mosheh leHoshe`a Bin-Nun Yehoshu`a.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner

Then you obviously can’t believe in transubstantiation either, since it also violates the immutable “laws of nature.”


46 posted on 06/14/2009 8:31:43 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . Vayiqra' Mosheh leHoshe`a Bin-Nun Yehoshu`a.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
For one thing, the words of Jesus are those of a man talking to other men. The language of Genesis is that of myth even if it aims to debunk myth

PS: The article at the head of this thread invokes the church fathers for the literal interpretation of John 6. If the church fathers were wrong about Genesis 1-11 and subject to correction by "new knowledge," then certainly they are subject to correction on all matters and not just some.

47 posted on 06/14/2009 8:35:14 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . Vayiqra' Mosheh leHoshe`a Bin-Nun Yehoshu`a.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bronxville
"All and all, one can see that the idea that Holy Communion is only symbolic and that the bread and wine of the Eucharist does not become the Real Body and Blood of Jesus, is a totally novel doctrine, newly invented by Protestants."

I've never experienced a communion where the bread and wine became The Real Body and Blood of Jesus. Does it taste like beef?

Jesus - the Other White Meat?

If not, then the significance is spiritual, which aligns with the Protestant position.

48 posted on 06/14/2009 8:42:44 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: bronxville; Mr Rogers
"All and all, one can see that the idea that Holy Communion is only symbolic and that the bread and wine of the Eucharist does not become the Real Body and Blood of Jesus, is a totally novel doctrine, newly invented by Protestants."

It is well established in the OT as well as the NT that human flesh and blood are not to be consumed...Certainly not a modern idea...

49 posted on 06/14/2009 11:19:07 AM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: bdeaner

You can argue the verses from James out of context all you want. Because of my faith I have works. If I didnt’ have faith I’d have no works.

The more later part can wait. Indefinitely.


50 posted on 06/14/2009 11:27:59 AM PDT by swmobuffalo ("We didn't seek the approval of Code Pink and MoveOn.org before deciding what to do")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-169 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson