Transubstantiation: From Stumbling Block to Cornerstone

The Catholic Thing ^ | 1/21/11 | Francis J. Beckwith

[marshmallow]

The Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is a real stumbling block to some Protestants who are seriously considering Catholicism. It was for me too, until I explored the subject, historically and scripturally. What follows is a summary of my deliberations.

Catholicism holds that bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ when they are consecrated by the priest celebrating the Mass. Oftentimes non-Catholics get hung up on the term transubstantiation, the name for the philosophical theory that the Church maintains best accounts for the change at consecration. The Church’s explanation of transubstantiation was influenced by Aristotle’s distinction between substance and accident.

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), like most philosophers of his time, wanted to account for how things change and yet remain the same. So, for example, a “substance” like an oak tree remains the same while undergoing “accidental” changes. It begins as an acorn and eventually develops roots, a trunk, branches, and leaves. During all these changes, the oak tree remains identical to itself. Its leaves change from green to red and brown, and eventually fall off. But these accidental changes occur while the substance of the tree remains.

On the other hand, if we chopped down the tree and turned into a desk, that would be a substantial change, since the tree would literally cease to be and its parts would be turned into something else, a desk. According to the Church, when the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, the accidents of the bread and wine do not change, but the substance of each changes. So, it looks, tastes, feels, and smells like bread and wine, but it literally has been changed into the body and blood of Christ. That’s transubstantiation.

There are several reasons why it would be a mistake to dismiss transubstantiation simply because of the influence of Aristotle on its formulation. First, Eastern Churches in communion with the Catholic Church rarely employ this Aristotelian language, and yet the Church considers their celebration of the Eucharist perfectly valid. Second, the Catholic Church maintains that the divine liturgies celebrated in the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome (commonly called “Eastern Orthodoxy”) are perfectly valid as well, even though the Eastern Orthodox rarely employ the term transubstantiation. Third, the belief that the bread and wine are literally transformed into Christ’s body and blood predates Aristotle’s influence on the Church’s theology by over 1000 years. For it was not until the thirteenth century, and the ascendancy of St. Thomas Aquinas’ thought, that Aristotle’s categories were employed by the Church in its account of the Eucharist. In fact, when the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) employed the language of substantial change, St. Thomas had not even been born!

It was that third point that I found so compelling and convinced me that the Catholic view of the Eucharist was correct. It did not take long for me to see that Eucharistic realism (as I like to call it) had been uncontroversially embraced deep in Christian history. This is why Protestant historian, J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood.” I found it in many of the works of the Early Church Fathers, including St. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 110), St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 151), St. Cyprian of Carthage, (A. D. 251), First Council of Nicaea (A. D. 325), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (A. D. 350), and St. Augustine of Hippo (A. D. 411) . These are, of course, not the only Early Church writings that address the nature of the Eucharist. But they are representative.

This should, however, not surprise us, given what the Bible says about the Lord’s Supper. When Jesus celebrated the Last Supper with his disciples (Mt. 26:17-30; Mk. 14:12-25; Lk. 22:7-23), which we commemorate at Holy Communion, he referred to it as a Passover meal. He called the bread and wine his body and blood. In several places, Jesus is called the Lamb of God (John 1: 29, 36; I Peter 1:19; Rev. 5:12). Remember, when the lamb is killed for Passover, the meal participants ingest the lamb. Consequently, St. Paul’s severe warnings about partaking in Holy Communion unworthily only make sense in light of Eucharistic realism (I Cor. 10:14-22; I Cor. 11:17-34). He writes: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? . . . Whoever, therefore eats and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” (I Cor. 10:16; 11:27)

In light of all these passages and the fact that Jesus called himself the bread of life (John 6:41-51) and that he said that his followers must “eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood” (John 6:53), the Eucharistic realism of the Early Church, the Eastern Churches (both in and out of communion with Rome), and the pre-Reformation medieval Church (fifth to sixteenth centuries) seems almost unremarkable. So, what first appeared to be a stumbling block was transformed into a cornerstone.

Francis J. Beckwith is Professor of Philosophy and Church-State Studies at Baylor University. He tells the story of his journey from Catholicism to Protestantism and back again in his book, Return to Rome: Confessions of An Evangelical Catholic. He blogs at Return to Rome.

[Quix]

THX THX.

Night night.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I've posted before that simply getting the FACT of your salvation through Jesus Christ to 'sink in' (which is THE work of God!) is enough to make the entire universe explode in your face!

AMEN!

"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36

[mitch5501]

"Such simple unclutered faith then...but then He sends us to school...:)"

2 Corinthians 11:3 "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."

Luke 12:32 "Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom."

[Cronos]

by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all 1 Cor 15:28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

It is called: Eucharist, because it is an action of thanksgiving to God. the Greek words eucharistein (Luke 22:19 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. --> 1 Cor 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me)

and eulogein (Mt 26:26 26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” --> Mk 14:22 22 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body) recall the Jewish blessings that proclaim - especially during a meal - God's works: creation, redemption, and sanctification.

9 The Lord's Supper, because of its connection with the supper which the Lord took with his disciples on the eve of his Passion and because it anticipates the wedding feast of the Lamb in the heavenly Jerusalem (1 Cor 11:20 20 So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, --> Rev 19:9 9 Then the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!” And he added, “These are the true words of God.”

The Breaking of Bread, because Jesus used this rite, part of a Jewish meat when as master of the table he blessed and distributed the bread (Mt 14:19 19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. --> Mt 15:36 36 Then he took the seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to the people.)

It is by this action that his disciples will recognize him after his Resurrection (Lk 24:13-35 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight.)

and it is this expression that the first Christians will use to designate their Eucharistic assemblies (Acts 2:42 42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. --> Acts 2:46 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts --> Acts 20:7 7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight. --> Acts 20:11 Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate. After talking until daylight, he left.

by doing so they signified that all who eat the one broken bread, Christ, enter into communion with him and form but one body in him (1 Cor 10:16-17 16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

[Cronos]

This is called The Holy Sacrifice because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. the terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used (as this is the self-same ONE-time Sacrifice of Christ)

• Heb 13:15; ⇒ Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that openly profess his name.
• 1 Pet 25; ⇒ but the word of the Lord endures forever And this is the word that was preached to you
• Ps 116:13, ⇒ I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the LORD.
• Ps 116:17; ⇒ I will sacrifice a thank offering to you and call on the name of the LORD.
• Mal 1:11 My name will be great among the nations, from where the sun rises to where it sets. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the nations,” says the LORD Almighty.
  
  since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

lolol. And it changes daily.

[Cronos]

From the beginning the Church has been faithful to the Lord's command. of the Church of Jerusalem it is written:

They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.... Day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous heart

Acts 2:42-46

[Cronos]

As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:

On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.
The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.
When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.
Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.
When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.
Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.
He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.
When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: 'Amen.'
When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.

The liturgy of the Eucharist unfolds according to a fundamental structure which has been preserved throughout the centuries down to our own day. It displays two great parts that form a fundamental unity:

1. the gathering, the liturgy of the Word, with readings, homily and general intercessions;
2. the liturgy of the Eucharist, with the presentation of the bread and wine, the consecratory thanksgiving, and communion

The liturgy of the Word and liturgy of the Eucharist together form "one single act of worship".

The Eucharistic table set for us is the table both of the Word of God and of the Body of the Lord.

Is this not the same movement as the Paschal meal of the risen Jesus with his disciples? Walking with them he explained the Scriptures to them; sitting with them at table "he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. Lk 24:13-35

On the Road to Emmaus

 ¹³ Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles^[a] from Jerusalem. ¹⁴ They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. ¹⁵ As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; ¹⁶ but they were kept from recognizing him.

 ¹⁷ He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?”

   They stood still, their faces downcast. ¹⁸ One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?”

   ¹⁹ “What things?” he asked.

   “About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. ²⁰ The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; ²¹ but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. ²² In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning ²³ but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. ²⁴ Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.”

 ²⁵ He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! ²⁶ Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” ²⁷ And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

 ²⁸ As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus continued on as if he were going farther. ²⁹ But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.

 ³⁰ When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. ³¹ Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. ³² They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”

 ³³ They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together ³⁴ and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” ³⁵ Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.

[Cronos]

Thanks. I asked: Which words say that there is a re-sacrifice of Christ? None. All that is said is the sacrifice of THE MASS. The offering is the same, that ONE-TIME event

Christ is not offered again and again, but He has already offered Himself once and the mass has THAT one-time sacrifice as it's sacrifice.

Thus, Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes that in the early Church "the Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice. . . . Malachi’s prediction (1:10–11) that the Lord would reject Jewish sacrifices and instead would have "a pure offering" made to him by the Gentiles in every place was seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist. The Didache indeed actually applies the term thusia, or sacrifice, to the Eucharist.

continuing from the same place

"It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, ‘Offer this.’ . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection" (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [Full Reference], 196–7).

Hebrews 10:8-14 is a very clear pronouncement from God that when Christ died on the cross, that did away with all other sacrifices --> that is why the mass is the offering of that self-same sacrifice. The Mass is a participation in this one heavenly offering, there is no new sacrifice

And, Hebrews 13:15 15 Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that openly profess his name

Remember that this sacrifice was ONCE, yet it's effects are eternal, Heb 7:25 Therefore he is able to save completely[a] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.,
Heb 9:24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence

[Dr. Eckleburg]

absolutely! to even ask the question, is further proof you have no clue what the Church teaches.

lol. The number of "poorly catechized" Roman Catholics is astounding.

Or maybe it's just expediency due to the pressure of not being able to defend one's faith.

Augustine wrote: "No man, therefore, can have a righteous will, unless, with no foregoing merits, he has received the true, that is, the gratuitous grace from above."

That statement directly contradicts Rome's false doctrine of salvation by good works. Rome has even concocted fantasies such as a "bank of merit" where one person's "merit" can be added to the "merit account" of another person.

Merit. Merit. Merit.

Augustine disagrees.

Here's a very nice short video explanation of...

THE CRUCIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ROMAN CATHOLIC AND BIBLICAL SALVATION

[Quix]

NONSENSE. The Vatican AIWSOTARM is rife with bankrupt values on the part of the vast majority of those claiming to be members. And y'all's appeals to rubberized history, daffynitionaries and rubberized "Bibles" doesn't help convince anyone of anything good.

AS to Christian charity in posting on the FR Rel Forum, The Rabid Clique RC's are the most harshly, fiercely hostile, mean-spirited, spiteful, vengeful, hateful, brittle, thin-skinned, retaliatory, rigid, prickly, !!!DEMANDING!!!, prissy, intolerant, assumptive, personally assaultive, chronically outraged, . . . posters on FR.

=======================================================

Evangelicals versus [Roman] [Roman] Catholics, from various formal studies, spanning 1992 to 2009 (see sources http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html#Sec4 ).

• 
  
  

• 73% (highest) of Pentecostal/Foursquare believers strongly affirm that Christ was sinless on earth, with [Roman] Catholics, Lutherans and Methodists being tied at 33%, and the lowest being among Episcopalians with just 28%
  
  

• 64% of those in Assemblies of God churches (versus only 9% of [Roman] [Roman] Catholics) strongly DISAGREE that if a person is generally good, or does enough good things for others they will earn a place in Heaven [salvation on the basis of merit].
  
  

• 56% of Assemblies of God (versus 17% [Roman] Catholics) Christians strongly DISAGREE that Satan is just a symbol of evil [rather than a real being].
  
  

• Bible Reading: the highest was 75%, by those going to a Pentecostal/Foursquare church who reported they had read the Bible during the past week (besides at church), while the lowest was among [Roman] Catholics at 23.
  
  

• Volunteer church work (during past 7 days): Assemblies of God were highest at 30%, with the lowest going to [Roman] Catholics at 12%.
  
  

• Donating Money (during the last month): Church of Christ churches were the highest at 29%, with Catholics being the lowest at 12%
  
  

• American evangelicals gave four times as much, per person, to churches as did all other church donors in 2001. 88 percent of evangelicals and 73 percent of all Protestants donated to churches.
  
  

• By denomination, 61% of the those associated with an Assemblies of God church said they had shared their faith at least once during the past year, followed by 61% of those who attend a Pentecostal/Foursquare church, and ending 14% among Episcopalians and just 10% among Roman Catholics
  
  

• 25% of Evangelical Christians read the Bible on a daily basis along with 20% of other Protestants. Just 7% of [Roman] Catholics do the same. At the other extreme, 44% of [Roman] Catholics rarely or never read the Bible along with only 7% of Evangelical Christians and 13% of other Protestants.
  
  

• 91% of Evangelical Christians and 63% of other Protestants and 25% of [Roman] Catholics consider themselves to be born again, . . .
  
  

• 44% of Evangelical Christians reflect at least daily on the meaning of Scripture in their lives. 36% of other Protestants and 22% of [Roman] Catholics do the same.
  
  

• 52% of Evangelical Christians have had a meaningful discussion about their faith with a non-Christian during the past month. 28% of other Protestants and 18% of [Roman] Catholics also have held such a discussion.
  
  

• 68% of Evangelical Christians attend a regular Bible Study or participate in some other small-group activity. 47% of other Protestants take part in small groups related to their faith, along with 24% of [Roman] Catholics.
  
  

• 39 percent of [Roman] Catholics affirmed not attending church is a sin, versus 23 percent of Protestants.
  
  

• Weekly Church attendance: Evangelicals showed the highest participation of approx 60 percent (30% more than once a week).
  
  

• Catholics were at 45 percent (9% more than once a week), and Jews 15 percent.
  
  

• The highest percentage of those who strongly agree they have a personal responsibility to share their faith was found among believers in Pentecostal/Foursquare churches (73%)
  
  

• 81% of Pentecostal/Foursquare believers strongly agree that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches , followed by 77% of Assemblies of God believers, and ending with 26% of [Roman] Catholics and 22% of Episcopalians.
  
  

• 54% of Hispanic [Roman] Catholics describe themselves as charismatic Christians. 51%of Hispanic Evangelicals are converts, and 43% are former [Roman] Catholics. 82% of Hispanics cite the desire for a more direct, personal experience with God as the main reason for adopting a new faith. Among those who have become evangelicals, 90% say it was a spiritual search for a more direct, personal experience with God was the main reason that drove their conversion. Negative views of [Roman] Catholicism do not appear to be a major reason for their conversion.
  
  

• Latino Evangelicals are 50% more likely than those who are [Roman] Catholics to identify with the Republican Party, and are significantly more conservative than [Roman] Catholics on social issues, foreign policy issues and even in their attitudes toward the plight of the poor.

• 40% Roman Catholics vs. 41% Non-R.C. see abortion as "morally acceptable";
  
  Sex between unmarried couples: 67% RC vs. 57% Non-RC;
  
  Baby out of wedlock: 61% RC vs. 52% Non-RC;
  
  Homosexual relations: 54% RC vs. 45% Non-RC;
  
  Gambling: 72% RC vs. 59% Non-RC.
  
  

• Committed Roman Catholics (church attendance weekly or almost) versus Non-R.C.: Abortion: 24% R.C. vs. 19% Non-R.C.;
  
  Sex between unmarried couples: 53% RC vs. 30% Non-RC;
  
  Baby out of wedlock: 48% RC vs. 29% Non-RC;
  
  Homosexual relations: 44% RC vs. 21% Non-RC;
  
  Gambling: 67% RC vs. 40% Non-RC;
  
  Divorce: 63% RC; vs. 46% Non-RC;
  
  

• Catholics broke with their Church's teachings more than most other groups, with just six out of 10 [Roman] Catholics affirming that God is "a person with whom people can have a relationship", and three in 10 describing God as an "impersonal force."

• 
  
  

  Only 33% of [Roman] Catholics strongly affirmed that Christ was sinless on earth 88% of [Roman] Catholics believe that they can practice artificial means of birth control and still be considered good [Roman] Catholics.
  
  

• 70 % of all [Roman] Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus [it is, of His death], indicating they do not believe it is Jesus actual body and blood.
  
  

• 
  
  

  Only 30% of [Roman] Catholics said believe they are really and truly receiving the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine.

[Cronos]

Hardly -- unlike some other groups, we Catholics do share. Catholic.com's copyright permission page allows excerpts but requires attribution. They say if the author is not shown, then attribute it to Catholic.com.

And 1096 and 1097 are not taken verbatim.

Here is what is written:

You’ll notice that in the passage quoted the word for begins verse 26 just after the phrase containing the term anamnesis. Verse 26 explains the meaning of doing this in memory. It says that anamnesis involves a proclamation of the Lord’s death in this act of consecration. But how does eating and drinking proclaim the Lord’s death as verse 26 says? Proclaiming a message usually involves preaching, teaching or speaking in some form. But recall the old saying that "actions speak louder than words." I suggest that it is through anamnesis that the Lord’s death is proclaimed. The eucharistic actions of the Church proclaim the Lord’s death by making the Lord present to the worshiping community of faith.

In Greek culture, anamnesis was a term used to denote the movement of an abstract idea into this material world. Plato, for example, used it as one of his key ideas. For him, knowledge was an act of anamnesis, or "remembering," whereby the realities of the world of forms (ideas) came to people in this world. So, anamnesis meant more of a process in which something in another world came to be embodied in this physical world.

The Corinthians lived in a Greek culture and it would have been natural for them to understand anamnesis as describing this transfer from the heavenly world to the material world. Even more importantly, if Jesus used Hebrew or Aramaic at the Last Supper, Paul (or whoever first translated the words of consecration into Greek) chose the term anamnesis. By doing so, he was allowing that anamnesis could have the meaning that Greek-speaking people associated with that term, namely, a transfer from the heavenly world to this earthly, material world.

Remember that Paul was a Jewish Pharisee (cf. Phil. 3:5), and very possibly a rabbi (cf. Acts 22:2) before his conversion. All this means that when he used anamnesis, he may have used it with a Hebrew meaning as well as a Greek one. The Hebrew word for "memorial" is zikaron and it has a similar connotation to anamnesis in Greek culture. It is more than mental recollection. The celebration of the Passover was believed to involve a participation in the original exodus from Egypt. The purpose of this being an annual and perpetual event for the children of Israel was that every generation could experience the liberation from slavery that the first generation in Egypt had experienced. Thus, zikaron connotes a participation in an event of the past rather than simply a mental recollection of that event.

Whether you approach this question from the Greek or Hebrew side, the result supports the notion of the Real Presence. When Paul quotes Jesus as saying eis ten emen anamnesin, he understands the meaning both in Greek and Hebrew senses. When Jesus said, "do this eis ten emen anamensin," he was not saying to simply remember him. He was telling his twelve apostles to perform the same actions that he did in order to bring the reality of him back to this world.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

to the Jews of the day, their beliefs were thousands of years old and Jesus and His Apostles teachings were brand new. Absolute Truth but brand new.

Great point! That calls for the line my husband likes to hear best...

"You're right! I never thought of it that way before." 8~)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You lifted whole sentences. Anyone can read that for themselves.

And regardless of the permission granted, you still did NOT attribute your excerpts as you yourself now admit is required.

Are you incapable of writing original thoughts?

[Cronos]

can say what about the effects of inter-dimensional space on the flow of time as it is compressed around event --> because God exists outside this inter-dimensional space and time.

God does not exist in time -- do you agree with this?

As seen in revelation, the ONE-time event of Christ's sacrifice that happened ONCE in our history time-line, is seen quite differently in heaven which is OUTSIDE our timeline.

Just as this is the heavenly sacrifice which corresponds to the ONE-time event.

Let's see if I can simplify it:

• Christ's death happened once in our past. The sacrifice is done, it will not be repeated
• God exists outside time, as does heaven
• The mass is the participation in the same heavenly offering, the same sacrifice

[Cronos]

hmm... you've quoted wrongly.

Doctrine says that the precious blood of Christ is salvific and eucharistic. Christ's sacrifice on the cross is salvific sacrifice. The eucharist is a participation in this salvific sacrifice.

You, boatbums, do believe that Christ's sacrifice on the cross was salvific, right? That a person's eternal state of their soul rely on acknowledging this, right? By this sacrifice, He pours out the graces of salvation.

[Cronos]

Caww -- where exactly have you read anywhere saying the "re-Sacrifice of Christ"? This is a false statement

Christ's sacrifice is the same in each mass, wherever, whenever. All we do is repeat the offering of THE MASS, the renewal of the celebration, the commemoration, the remembrance, the celebration of the ONE-TIME sacrifice. Christ is not offered again and again, but He has already offered Himself once and the mass has THAT one-time sacrifice as it's sacrifice.

The belief that Christ is there in bread and wine is shared by Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Copts, Armenians etc. -- this is NOT a remembrance (you are correct on that), this IS Christ.

Yet, the eucharist is NOT a re-sacrifice of Christ, this is participation in that ONE sacrifice of Christ which happened in the past and which God sees in heaven as shown in Revelation.

It may be hard for you to accept this -- it was also hard for the Roman pagans to believe this, hence Justin Martyr who wrote in his First Apology (A.D. 151) to the pagan Emperor "The food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus."

[Cronos]

From catholic.com

From the time of Nero (d. A.D. 68), the Christian faith was treated by the civil authorities as an unlawful religion, and Christians were slandered by pagan propagandists as atheists who took part in cannibal feasts and indulged in sexual promiscuity

[Cronos]

RM —> “Are you incapable” —> personal abuse.

[Cronos]

And, it's so well put here to refute any OPC cultist Christ in the Eucharist

Or better yet to quote from The bible

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 So then, 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 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.

This corresponds with what Martin Luther said

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture?

Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies?

What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men.

Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.