About Mass ?

[Ladonia]

The Mass is the Scriptures come alive! It is the permanent memorial of Christ's sacrifice that transcends time and puts us at the foot of the Cross. "Do this in remembrance of me" Jesus said, and we dutifully comply with His command.

[KiwiChristian]

The Mass is the Scriptures come alive! It is the permanent memorial of Christ's sacrifice that transcends time and puts us at the foot of the Cross. "Do this in remembrance of me" Jesus said, and we dutifully comply with His command.

Rubbish.

Must Christ be continually sacrificed in the mass, or was His blood sacrifice on the cross 100% sufficient to pay for all our sins for ever? In John19:30 Jesus said, "IT IS FINISHED", which in the Greek is "Tetelestai" meaning "to make an END, to ACCOMPLISH, to COMPLETE something, not mearly to end it, but to bring it to perfection or its intended goal."

The rcc says "Christ...commanded that his bloody sacrifice on the Cross should be daily renewed by an unbloody sacrifice of his body and blood in the Mass under the simple elements of bread and wine." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, Pg. 13, Article: "Mass, Sacrifice of"). Jesus NEVER made such a command. If you'll check the references in Matthew 26 and I Corinthians 11, you'll see for yourself that the Lord's Supper is a MEMORIAL and a SHOWING of Christ's death until He comes again. It is not a sacrifice

Rome teaches that the Mass is a continual "sacrifice" of Jesus Christ, but God's word states that Jesus made the FINAL sacrifice on Calvary! This is made perfectly clear in Hebrews 10:10-12:"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God." The mass is unnecessary and unscriptural.

The very record of history, (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian and Hippolytus) which the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches love to quote as authority, proves that before 200 AD, the church viewed the bread and juice as symbols. Conversely, the earliest historical hint of transubstantiation was in the 4th century.

[KiwiChristian]

Why didn't the Apostles ever discuss the Trinity? Look, there was a great many things that Jesus and the Apostles did not discuss, not everything that happened or what they said to each other was written down. Jesus knew that a church would grow from what He started and He would leave a great many things for the coming generations of church leaders and theologians to come to grips with.

What does the mass have to do with the Trinity?!

Why didn't the Apostles ever discuss the Trinity?

Umm, because they already KNEW Jesus was God the son.

[KiwiChristian]

Paul and Barnabas went to Iconium  and while there the following happened: 14 "Now at Iconium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue and spoke in such a way that a great number of both Jews and Greeks believed. 2 But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers.1 3 So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands".  (Acts 14) 

Ummmm, I wonder what were those "signs and wonders" all about? Forgiving some sins perhaps?

ZERO mention of forgiving sins there.

Is YOUR private interpretation of this passage been officially and infallibly approved by the rcc? If not, it is just your GUESS.

Plus, i would NOT call someone saying they are forgiven a "wonder" as there is zero physical evidence. remember Jesus said is it easier to say a person is forgiven or take up your mat and walk?

They did PHYSICAL signs. healings, tongues, etc.

[AVZ]

The Mass is the Scriptures come alive! It is the permanent memorial of Christ's sacrifice that transcends time and puts us at the foot of the Cross. "Do this in remembrance of me" Jesus said, and we dutifully comply with His command.

Nobody has a problem with the mass or even with the Eucharist. The problem arises with the Catholic theology around the Eucharist.
The RCC teaches and confirms that the Eucharist is a real sacrifice.
Consequentially Christ is never finished sacrificing Himself.

Yes, Jesus said "Do this in remembrance of me", but that does not insinuate He needs to be re-sacrificed.
Scripture is however very clear that Christ sacrifice was "once and for all"

Romans 6:10
"The death He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life He lives, He lives to God."

1 Peter 3:18
"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit."

Hebrews 10:12-14
"But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time He waits for his enemies to be made His footstool. For by one sacrifice He has made perfect forever those who are being made holy."

Hebrews 10:10
"And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."


Scripture is very clear that Christ's sacrifice was only required once and once only. That one sacrifice was sufficient for all sin.
The RCC is in grave error to teach that the Eucharist is a real sacrifice and that it is a necessity.



I want to make another point however.
The event you are referring to when Jesus said "Do this in remembrance of me" also was not a real sacrifice!
The bread did not turn into His real flesh, the wine did not turn into His real blood...and a real sacrifice was not made.

Jesus at that time looked forward to His upcoming sacrifice on the cross and set the mode of remembrance for His disciples.
He told them to remember likewise, and He did so with real bread and real wine without transubstantiation.

[Ladonia]

ZERO mention of forgiving sins there.

Is YOUR private interpretation of this passage been officially and infallibly approved by the rcc? If not, it is just your GUESS.

Plus, i would NOT call someone saying they are forgiven a "wonder" as there is zero physical evidence. remember Jesus said is it easier to say a person is forgiven or take up your mat and walk?

They did PHYSICAL signs. healings, tongues, etc.

And all you have is YOUR interpretation of things, that's it - nothing more, nothing less. You think you have the right one, but my friend so does everyone. The SDA's think they have it right as do the JW's - everyone thinks they are on the mark. Look, when did your Christian sect pop up - in the 1600's or was it later?

[KiwiChristian]

And all you have is YOUR interpretation of things, that's it - nothing more, nothing less. You think you have the right one, but my friend so does everyone. The SDA's think they have it right as do the JW's - everyone thinks they are on the mark. Look, when did your Christian sect pop up - in the 1600's or was it later?

You presented YOUR interpretation of one passage.

Tell me, has the rcc officially, dogmatically defined/interpretated that passage?

[Ladonia]

Rubbish.

Must Christ be continually sacrificed in the mass, or was His blood sacrifice on the cross 100% sufficient to pay for all our sins for ever? In John19:30 Jesus said, "IT IS FINISHED", which in the Greek is "Tetelestai" meaning "to make an END, to ACCOMPLISH, to COMPLETE something, not mearly to end it, but to bring it to perfection or its intended goal."

The rcc says "Christ...commanded that his bloody sacrifice on the Cross should be daily renewed by an unbloody sacrifice of his body and blood in the Mass under the simple elements of bread and wine." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, Pg. 13, Article: "Mass, Sacrifice of"). Jesus NEVER made such a command. If you'll check the references in Matthew 26 and I Corinthians 11, you'll see for yourself that the Lord's Supper is a MEMORIAL and a SHOWING of Christ's death until He comes again. It is not a sacrifice

Rome teaches that the Mass is a continual "sacrifice" of Jesus Christ, but God's word states that Jesus made the FINAL sacrifice on Calvary! This is made perfectly clear in Hebrews 10:10-12:"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God." The mass is unnecessary and unscriptural.

The very record of history, (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian and Hippolytus) which the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches love to quote as authority, proves that before 200 AD, the church viewed the bread and juice as symbols. Conversely, the earliest historical hint of transubstantiation was in the 4th century.

As you said "rubbish"!  Jesus is nor "continually re-sacrificed", that is not what the RCC teaches. There was but one sacrifice, at one time - that's it.  Like I said, the Mass is the permanent memorial of that sacrifice and the RCC and our Eastern Orthodox brothers have it right. Good grief, what was the point of the "Last Supper" when Jesus told us to imitate what He did in the first place if He did not want us to recreate that moment as part of worship?

Jesus says in 1 Cor 11:26-29: "26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord bin an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself".

This passage shows two things - that the Mass can and should be done often and that the Holy Eucharist is indeed the Body and Blood of our Lord - just like orthodox Christianity teaches. I believe them, not you!

St.Justin Martyr describes the Mass and what happens in it, all the ECF's believed in the "Real Presence" of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. You are wrong in your assertion that this is otherwise.

Transubstatiation was a theological explanation of what takes place. The Eastern Orthodox simple call it "a mystery". Just because we started using the term in the 4th century does not invalidate what we believe. To you it does not happen, so you have no name for it.

The Mass was the premier form of worship from the very beginning. The altar (and thus Jesus's sacrifice) is the focal point of our worship (just like Jesus told us to). Your focal point is the pulpit - big deal. - not an altar in sight. Jesus never said to just preach as worship, He said to do what we do - and we do it!

The Mass is necessary AND scriptural.

[Ladonia]

You presented YOUR interpretation of one passage.

Tell me, has the rcc officially, dogmatically defined/interpretated that passage?

Yes. What is easier - saying one's sins are forgiven or pick up you mat and go home? The miracles are examples of sins being forgiven. Not to discount that there were the one on one forgiveness of sins by the Apostles in a private setting. Just because such things are not specifically mentioned does not mean they did not take place. All the Apostles had to use the lavatory at some point, but they never mentioned that particular thing either.

Look, we believe what the Scriptures tell us, and Jesus did indeed give His appointed clergymen the power to forgive or retain sins. Don't you believe that particular biblical passage?

[AVZ]

As you said "rubbish"!  Jesus is nor "continually re-sacrificed", that is not what the RCC teaches. There was but one sacrifice, at one time - that's it. 

Actually that's not correct.
The RCC teaches that there was one bloody sacrifice on Calvary and there are unbloody sacrifices in the mass. But sacrifices all the same.

CCC 1367
The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

Again the question comes up, is the Eucharist a real sacrifice or just a representative sacrifice?
The Council of Trent has answered this question:
If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.


So whilst the RCC teaches that the Eucharist is an unbloody sacrifice compared to the bloody sacrifice made by Christ on Calvary, it also teaches that the Eucharist is a true and proper sacrifice of the real flesh and blood of Christ.

[Ladonia]

Actually that's not correct.
The RCC teaches that there was one bloody sacrifice on Calvary and there are unbloody sacrifices in the mass. But sacrifices all the same.

CCC 1367
The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

Again the question comes up, is the Eucharist a real sacrifice or just a representative sacrifice?
The Council of Trent has answered this question:
If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.


So whilst the RCC teaches that the Eucharist is an unbloody sacrifice compared to the bloody sacrifice made by Christ on Calvary, it also teaches that the Eucharist is a true and proper sacrifice of the real flesh and blood of Christ.

The Council of Trent also states in Chapter 1:

"He, therefore, our God and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once on the altar of the cross unto God the Father, by means of his death, there to operate an eternal redemption; nevertheless, because that His priesthood was not to be extinguished by His death, in the last supper, on the night in which He was betrayed, – that He might leave, to His own beloved Spouse the Church, a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be represented, . . . declaring Himself constituted a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech, . . "

Look at it this way, if Jesus's Body and Blood are truly present in the Eucharist, then the sacrifice on the cross also must be present in some sense, since that is where the sacrifice took place, and one can't be separated from the other. One bloody sacrifice - one time only and then the unbloody sacrifice as per Christ's command, the re-presenting of that sacrifice (as often as is done) putting us at the foot of the Cross. This is truly a communion with Him in every sense.

So if i was not clear in my previous post, I believe exactly what the Chruch teaches on this.

[AVZ]

The Council of Trent also states in Chapter 1:

"He, therefore, our God and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once on the altar of the cross unto God the Father, by means of his death, there to operate an eternal redemption; nevertheless, because that His priesthood was not to be extinguished by His death, in the last supper, on the night in which He was betrayed, – that He might leave, to His own beloved Spouse the Church, a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be represented, . . . declaring Himself constituted a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech, . . "

Look at it this way, if Jesus's Body and Blood are truly present in the Eucharist, then the sacrifice on the cross also must be present in some sense, since that is where the sacrifice took place, and one can't be separated from the other. One bloody sacrifice - one time only and then the unbloody sacrifice as per Christ's command, the re-presenting of that sacrifice (as often as is done) putting us at the foot of the Cross. This is truly a communion with Him in every sense.

So if i was not clear in my previous post, I believe exactly what the Chruch teaches on this.

Of course you believe exactly what the RCC teaches, to some extend because you want to and to some extend because you have to.
As Trent defines, if you believe otherwise you are anathema.

But that besides. The question is: Is the Eucharist a real sacrifice.
Trent says it is, and if you say it is not...then you are anathema. That seems to me clear language.

Now the Eucharist is also considered the real flesh and blood of Christ.
So then what is sacrificed during the mass is the real flesh and blood of Christ, although unbloody, it still is a real and proper sacrifice.

You cant interpret it in any other way that the sacrifice of Christ is ongoing in the mass.
The bloody sacrifice was made once, but the unbloody sacrifice of His body and blood continues over and over again for sin.

[soterion]

Ladonia,

The miracles and wonders were given to confirm the message preached, not to confirm sins have been forgiven (Mark 16:20; Hebrews 2:3-4). Forgiveness is the desired result of the combination of preaching and miracles, but it is not a guarantee. Look again at Acts 14. In verse 1 the text tells us that the message was preached in such a manner that many believed; miracles not needed here. In verses 2-4 we find that, in response to the opposition being given by the disbelieving Jews, miracles accompanied the preaching. Even so, the city was divided. Not everybody responded with faith.

Once more, look at Matthew 11:20-24. Most of Jesus' miracles were done in those cities, but few if any responded with repentance. In fact, the text says that those cities did not repent. Look at John 5:36 and 10:25&38. The Jews were told by Jesus to at least believe because of the works (signs and miracles). I think that the vast majority did not and would not believe.

[soterion]

Ladonia,

1 Corinthians 11:26-29 teaches us that an improper observance of the memorial, as is found in verses 18-22 of the same chapter, reflects poorly on our attitude toward the sacrifice Jesus made for us on the cross. This in turn can reveal how poor our regard for Him and how weak our faith in Him may be.

You are right in that it should be observed often. That helps us to stay grounded in the faith as we often consider the love God has for as demonstrated in the cross. We are to contemplate that sacrifice and also contemplate our lives, if we responding appropriately to God's love with faith filled lives.

If you want to find where we actually encounter the body and blood of Christ, then look at baptism, not the Eucharist. In Romans 6:3-7 Paul refers to baptism as our old self being crucified together with Christ. The Eucharist is a time for us to examine ourselves, if we are living according to the commitment made to our Lord at baptism.

There is nothing about the purpose of the Eucharist that requires the real presence of the flesh and blood of Jesus in the elements.

[Ladonia]

Of course you believe exactly what the RCC teaches, to some extend because you want to and to some extend because you have to.
As Trent defines, if you believe otherwise you are anathema.

But that besides. The question is: Is the Eucharist a real sacrifice.
Trent says it is, and if you say it is not...then you are anathema. That seems to me clear language.

Now the Eucharist is also considered the real flesh and blood of Christ.
So then what is sacrificed during the mass is the real flesh and blood of Christ, although unbloody, it still is a real and proper sacrifice.

You cant interpret it in any other way that the sacrifice of Christ is ongoing in the mass.
The bloody sacrifice was made once, but the unbloody sacrifice of His body and blood continues over and over again for sin.

I will repeat, if I was not clear in my previous post I believe exactly what the Latin Rite teaches on this. What more do you want?

[Ladonia]

Ladonia,

1 Corinthians 11:26-29 teaches us that an improper observance of the memorial, as is found in verses 18-22 of the same chapter, reflects poorly on our attitude toward the sacrifice Jesus made for us on the cross. This in turn can reveal how poor our regard for Him and how weak our faith in Him may be.

You are right in that it should be observed often. That helps us to stay grounded in the faith as we often consider the love God has for as demonstrated in the cross. We are to contemplate that sacrifice and also contemplate our lives, if we responding appropriately to God's love with faith filled lives.

If you want to find where we actually encounter the body and blood of Christ, then look at baptism, not the Eucharist. In Romans 6:3-7 Paul refers to baptism as our old self being crucified together with Christ. The Eucharist is a time for us to examine ourselves, if we are living according to the commitment made to our Lord at baptism.

There is nothing about the purpose of the Eucharist that requires the real presence of the flesh and blood of Jesus in the elements.

So you believe that we only actually encounter the body and blood of Christ is at Baptism?  Yes, in baptism we are "crucified with Christ" but the Scriptures are clear that is not the only time.  You might say that "there is nothing about the purpose of the Eucharist that requires the real presence" of Jesus and the Eucharist, but that is not what the Scriptures say about it. Nor, is that what the Church has taught about it from the very beginning of the newly emerging Christian Church post the Apostles. The weight of historical Christian truth is on my side in this.

It was only some time way down the line in the 1600's did the falsehood of no "real presence" of Christ in the Holy Eucharist come about, from one man named Zwingli if I remember correctly. You can believe what you want to believe about this, but like our Eastern Orthodox brothers and many other Christians, I will not be swayed to abandon my belief in this most sacred truth.

[AVZ]

I will repeat, if I was not clear in my previous post I believe exactly what the Latin Rite teaches on this. What more do you want?

My apologies, I was side tracked by your statement:
"if Jesus's Body and Blood are truly present in the Eucharist, then the sacrifice on the cross also must be present in some sense, since that is where the sacrifice took place, and one can't be separated from the other. One bloody sacrifice - one time only and then the unbloody sacrifice as per Christ's command, the re-presenting of that sacrifice (as often as is done) putting us at the foot of the Cross. This is truly a communion with Him in every sense."

You made the paragraph provisional to the question IF Jesus's Body and Blood are truly present in the Eucharist.

The point that I am trying to make is that Jesus' body and blood cannot be truly present in the Eucharist, as this would mean the re-sacrifice of Jesus.
I also do not think that if the Eucharist is not the real body and blood of Christ, this would be of any consequence to the reality of the sacrifice made on Calvary.
It simply does not follow that since the sacrifice on Calvary was a real sacrifice, the Eucharist therefore also must be a real sacrifice.

The event on Calvary stands separate from the mode of remembrance.
Remembering and celebrating an event does not necessitate that the physical properties of that event must be present.

Jesus never commanded us to undertake an unbloody sacrifice, He commanded us to eat the bread and drink the wine in remembrance.
In fact, Jesus could never have commanded that the Eucharist had to be an unbloody sacrifice, as at the time He initiated the event it could not have been a sacrifice since He was not sacrificed yet.

If indeed it was a command by Jesus that the Eucharist was an unbloody sacrifice, but a sacrifice all the same, then it would have been a sacrifice also on the night He had the last supper with His disciples. This would of course be impossible because it would mean that Jesus was already sacrificed before He was sacrificed on Calvary.

See, the Latin Right simply is not consistent and it requires many explanations that are theologically unsound.
Whilst taking the Eucharist as not being a real sacrifice, and not being the literal flesh and blood of Christ, does not violate any of the theological principles.

[AVZ]

So you believe that we only actually encounter the body and blood of Christ is at Baptism?  Yes, in baptism we are "crucified with Christ" but the Scriptures are clear that is not the only time.  You might say that "there is nothing about the purpose of the Eucharist that requires the real presence" of Jesus and the Eucharist, but that is not what the Scriptures say about it. Nor, is that what the Church has taught about it from the very beginning of the newly emerging Christian Church post the Apostles. The weight of historical Christian truth is on my side in this.

It was only some time way down the line in the 1600's did the falsehood of no "real presence" of Christ in the Holy Eucharist come about, from one man named Zwingli if I remember correctly. You can believe what you want to believe about this, but like our Eastern Orthodox brothers and many other Christians, I will not be swayed to abandon my belief in this most sacred truth.

A correction on this.
Transubstantiation was only defined dogma by the Council of Trent in 1551. Before that time it was a topic of dispute both within and outside the RCC.
As a matter of fact Zwingli argued against transubstantiation around the 1520's some 30 years prior to the dogmatic declaration in 1551.

The historical Christian doctrine for and against transubstantiation has existed throughout the ages, it only became dogmatic "truth" in 1551, 30 years AFTER Zwingli.

[Ladonia]

A correction on this.
Transubstantiation was only defined dogma by the Council of Trent in 1551. Before that time it was a topic of dispute both within and outside the RCC.
As a matter of fact Zwingli argued against transubstantiation around the 1520's some 30 years prior to the dogmatic declaration in 1551.

The historical Christian doctrine for and against transubstantiation has existed throughout the ages, it only became dogmatic "truth" in 1551, 30 years AFTER Zwingli.

Only at the time you citied was it given a name, before that and from the very beginning the belief was there amongst orthodox Christianity.

[Ladonia]

In his book "The Lamb's Supper", former Calvinist minister Scott Hahn brings forth the truth that the Catholic Mass is the Scriptures come alive.

Starting out he wrote: "There I stood, a man incognito, a Protestant minister in plain clothes, slipping into the back of a Catholic chapel in Milwaukee to witness my first Mass....... The Mass, I had been taught, was a ritual that purported tp "resacrifice Christ." So I would remain an observer. I would stay seated with my Bible open beside me."

"As the Mass moved on, however, something hit me. My Bible wasn't just beside me. It was before me in the words of the Mass. One line was from Isaiah, another from the Psalms, another from Paul......... "Hey, can I expalin what's happening from Scripture?......... I remained on the sidelines until I heard the priest pronounce the words of consecration: "This is My body.....This is the cup of My blood." I felt a prayer surge from my heart in a whisper: "My Lord and my God. That's really you!"

"Yet the experience was intensified just a moment later, when I heard the congregation recite: Lamb of God.....Lamb of God.....Lamb of God," and the priest respond, this is the Lamb of God........." as he raised the host".

"In less than a minute, the phrase "Lamb of God" had rung out four times........I immmediately knew where I was. I was in the Book of Revelation where Jesus is called the Lamb no less than twenty-eight times in twenty-two chapters. I was at the marriage feast that John describes at the end of that very last book of the bible. I was before the throne of heaven, where Jesus is hailed forever as the Lamb".

[AVZ]

Only at the time you citied was it given a name, before that and from the very beginning the belief was there amongst orthodox Christianity.

Yes the believe was always there, but the believe that the Eucharist is NOT the flesh and blood was also always there.
Zwingli did not invent a new opinion, the opinion has always existed.

So you cannot claim claim historical authenticity, both believes are historically authentic.

[Ladonia]

My apologies, I was side tracked by your statement:
"if Jesus's Body and Blood are truly present in the Eucharist, then the sacrifice on the cross also must be present in some sense, since that is where the sacrifice took place, and one can't be separated from the other. One bloody sacrifice - one time only and then the unbloody sacrifice as per Christ's command, the re-presenting of that sacrifice (as often as is done) putting us at the foot of the Cross. This is truly a communion with Him in every sense."

You made the paragraph provisional to the question IF Jesus's Body and Blood are truly present in the Eucharist.

The point that I am trying to make is that Jesus' body and blood cannot be truly present in the Eucharist, as this would mean the re-sacrifice of Jesus.
I also do not think that if the Eucharist is not the real body and blood of Christ, this would be of any consequence to the reality of the sacrifice made on Calvary.
It simply does not follow that since the sacrifice on Calvary was a real sacrifice, the Eucharist therefore also must be a real sacrifice.

The event on Calvary stands separate from the mode of remembrance.
Remembering and celebrating an event does not necessitate that the physical properties of that event must be present.

Jesus never commanded us to undertake an unbloody sacrifice, He commanded us to eat the bread and drink the wine in remembrance.
In fact, Jesus could never have commanded that the Eucharist had to be an unbloody sacrifice, as at the time He initiated the event it could not have been a sacrifice since He was not sacrificed yet.

If indeed it was a command by Jesus that the Eucharist was an unbloody sacrifice, but a sacrifice all the same, then it would have been a sacrifice also on the night He had the last supper with His disciples. This would of course be impossible because it would mean that Jesus was already sacrificed before He was sacrificed on Calvary.

See, the Latin Right simply is not consistent and it requires many explanations that are theologically unsound.
Whilst taking the Eucharist as not being a real sacrifice, and not being the literal flesh and blood of Christ, does not violate any of the theological principles.

Jesus said what He said concerning the Eucharist. He said it; the Scriptures confirm it; the Apostles believed it; the Church teaches it; and I have faith that this is true. If not, me and all my brothers and sisters who believe in this orthodox teaching are guilty of the most vile form of idolatry and we will most likely go straight to hell (as there would be getting around that). If on the other hand what we believe is true, than you and like minded believers have rejected the most basic tenant of the Christian faith. All that can be said is that in the end we will all be held to account for our belief's.

[Ladonia]

Yes the believe was always there, but the believe that the Eucharist is NOT the flesh and blood was also always there.
Zwingli did not invent a new opinion, the opinion has always existed.

So you cannot claim claim historical authenticity, both believes are historically authentic.

Only by a very few believers, such a belief was called heretical.  Even the heretic Martin Luther never denied such a thing, but then again, it was not long before the "reformers" were reforming from one another.

[AVZ]

Jesus said what He said concerning the Eucharist. He said it; the Scriptures confirm it; the Apostles believed it; the Church teaches it; and I have faith that this is true. If not, me and all my brothers and sisters who believe in this orthodox teaching are guilty of the most vile form of idolatry and we will most likely go straight to hell (as there would be getting around that). If on the other hand what we believe is true, than you and like minded believers have rejected the most basic tenant of the Christian faith. All that can be said is that in the end we will all be held to account for our belief's.

I think you are getting ahead of yourself.
The scriptures do not confirm transubstantiation and neither do the apostles. Jesus never mentioned it.
Transubstantiation only came in play once the church started to teach it.

And if you were to be objective, you too would conclude that apart from church theology, there is no necessity or compelling reason to believe transubstantiation is true.

[AVZ]

Only by a very few believers, such a belief was called heretical.  Even the heretic Martin Luther never denied such a thing, but then again, it was not long before the "reformers" were reforming from one another.

Luther also believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.
However, the reformation was not about transubstantiation or perpetual virginity, it was about justification.

Nobody has ever counted those in favor and those against, so your claim of only a few is to be proved.
Fact is that the discussion was very much alive, even within the RCC, until 1551

By the way, to be historically correct...it was not called heretical prior to 1551 because it was not dogmatically confirmed before that time.

[soterion]

So you believe that we only actually encounter the body and blood of Christ is at Baptism?  Yes, in baptism we are "crucified with Christ" but the Scriptures are clear that is not the only time. 

1 John 1:7 tells us that as we are walking in the light, the blood of Jesus is cleansing us of all sins.

You might say that "there is nothing about the purpose of the Eucharist that requires the real presence" of Jesus and the Eucharist, but that is not what the Scriptures say about it.

Such as..?

Read the Lord's Supper instituted by Jesus in the gospels. Here is Luke's account:

Luke 22:15-20.
And He said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God."

And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, "Take this and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes."

And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

Regardless of the account you read, when Jesus told them that the bread was His body and the cup was His blood, the bread was not actually flesh nor was the cup actually blood. He was speaking figuratively. What He meant in the gospel accounts is what it still means today. Jesus had not yet even been crucified and He had already applied the symbolic meaning to the bread and cup. That is how we are supposed to apply it now.

As to Jesus' presence in the Eucharist, note that Jesus said He would partake of it when the kingdom comes. I believe it has, and so He is present with the worshipers in the obsrvance, among the them as a participant in the worship.

I really don't put too much stock in what the church believed historically. It can be intersesting reading, but I will not be persuaded to believe something I know to be false just because that belief had some historical adherence.

[Ladonia]

1 John 1:7 tells us that as we are walking in the light, the blood of Jesus is cleansing us of all sins.

Such as..?

Read the Lord's Supper instituted by Jesus in the gospels. Here is Luke's account:

Luke 22:15-20.
And He said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God."

And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, "Take this and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes."

And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

Regardless of the account you read, when Jesus told them that the bread was His body and the cup was His blood, the bread was not actually flesh nor was the cup actually blood. He was speaking figuratively. What He meant in the gospel accounts is what it still means today. Jesus had not yet even been crucified and He had already applied the symbolic meaning to the bread and cup. That is how we are supposed to apply it now.

As to Jesus' presence in the Eucharist, note that Jesus said He would partake of it when the kingdom comes. I believe it has, and so He is present with the worshipers in the obsrvance, among the them as a participant in the worship.

I really don't put too much stock in what the church believed historically. It can be intersesting reading, but I will not be persuaded to believe something I know to be false just because that belief had some historical adherence.

Mere symbolism? What was the point of Him leaving this to us as His permanent memorial? I will take your saying that "Jesus had not yet been crucified....." and finish by saying ...and He had already implied the real presence meaning to the bread and cup. How many times do we need to read "This IS my body" and "This is my blood"? Such an easy thing to have faith in, sort of like having faith that a young Jewish woman was indeed impregnated by the Holy Spirit, or perhaps that was a "figurative" account too?  We each have our belief on this and in the spirit of Christ I can respect your heartfelt opinion on this issue.

[soterion]

Mere symbolism? What was the point of Him leaving this to us as His permanent memorial? I will take your saying that "Jesus had not yet been crucified....." and finish by saying ...and He had already implied the real presence meaning to the bread and cup. How many times do we need to read "This IS my body" and "This is my blood"? Such an easy thing to have faith in, sort of like having faith that a young Jewish woman was indeed impregnated by the Holy Spirit, or perhaps that was a "figurative" account too?  We each have our belief on this and in the spirit of Christ I can respect your heartfelt opinion on this issue.

Okay. It sounds like you are done with this and I can understand that. I will post here and now for the sake of any others reading, as well as for you if you care to still respond.

While Jesus was still with His apostles, and before He was crucified, He instituted the Lord's Supper and said, "This is my body" and, "This is my blood." The Lord's Supper is aimed at remembering the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins, His body pierced and His blood shed for us.

The point is that He instituted it with the words, "This is..." He didn't say, "This represents..." However, since He was there with them, "This is..." means, "This represents..." It has to. If not, then the bread and the cup became His flesh and blood while He was right there with them, before His body was pierced and before His blood was shed. Unless anybody wants to say that His flesh and blood were literally in the elements while He was passing those elements, then it has to be understood figuratively.

Since "This is..." has to be understood figuratively on that occassion, when the Lord's Supper was instituted, it can and should still be understood thusly from then on. Nothing in scripture tells us otherwise...nothing. In fact, since He said He will partake of it in the kingdom, then He is partaking of those elements transformed into His own flesh and blood. Who wants to believe it?

Not me. I'll stick to what scripture actually says about it. Btw, scripture teaches that a young Jewish woman (a virgin, in fact) was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. Scripture teaches it as a literal event and I believe it.

[KiwiChristian]

While Jesus was still with His apostles, and before He was crucified, He instituted the Lord's Supper and said, "This is my body" and, "This is my blood." The Lord's Supper is aimed at remembering the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins, His body pierced and His blood shed for us.

The point is that He instituted it with the words, "This is..." He didn't say, "This represents..."

I AM the door
I AM the light

[Ladonia]

I AM the door
I AM the light

Not the same at all. This was Jesus's body and blood to His body and blood, an issue far to important concerning the salvation narrative to be beating around the bush.  Your example was Him comparing Himself to inanimate objects, this time was different. He said it and He meant what He said, and this time there would be no doubt about what he wanted the faithful to believe - straight and direct.

[Ladonia]

The point is that He instituted it with the words, "This is..." He didn't say, "This represents..." However, since He was there with them, "This is..." means, "This represents..." It has to. If not, then the bread and the cup became His flesh and blood while He was right there with them, before His body was pierced and before His blood was shed. Unless anybody wants to say that His flesh and blood were literally in the elements while He was passing those elements, then it has to be understood figuratively

I would like to engage you on one point here. Please elaborate further on why you say that because Christ was right there at the Last Supper that the "Real  Presence" could not have existed in the elements of the bread and wine. Are you saying that the crucifixion and resurrection needed to have taken place, and on that basis the possibility of the "Real Presence" is forever moot?

[KiwiChristian]

And all you have is YOUR interpretation of things, that's it - nothing more, nothing less. You think you have the right one, but my friend so does everyone. The SDA's think they have it right as do the JW's - everyone thinks they are on the mark. Look, when did your Christian sect pop up - in the 1600's or was it later?

So, you ADMIT what you gave was just YOUR private interpretation?

[KiwiChristian]

Not the same at all. This was Jesus's body and blood to His body and blood, an issue far to important concerning the salvation narrative to be beating around the bush.  Your example was Him comparing Himself to inanimate objects, this time was different. He said it and He meant what He said, and this time there would be no doubt about what he wanted the faithful to believe - straight and direct.

ABSOLUTELY the same.

I AM the door.

I AM, the WHOLE of Jesus.

Obviously Jesus words, "this is my body" should be taken symbolically because it falls within a long list of symbolic statements Christ said:

"I am the bread," (John 6:41), "I am the vine," (John 15:5), "I am the door," (John 10:7,9), "I am the good shepherd,"(John 10:11,12), "You are the world the salt, (Matthew 5:13), "You are the light of the world. (Matthew 5:14)

[Ladonia]

ABSOLUTELY the same.

I AM the door.

I AM, the WHOLE of Jesus.

Obviously Jesus words, "this is my body" should be taken symbolically because it falls within a long list of symbolic statements Christ said:

"I am the bread," (John 6:41), "I am the vine," (John 15:5), "I am the door," (John 10:7,9), "I am the good shepherd,"(John 10:11,12), "You are the world the salt, (Matthew 5:13), "You are the light of the world. (Matthew 5:14)

Yeah, it was so obvious it took like 1600 years to come to that conclusion. 

[soterion]

Ladonia,

It seems that one of the problems, if not the problem, has to be whether we can understand Jesus use of the phrase, "This is..." symbolically, or if it has to be understood literally.

The Bible is chock full of figurative language and symbolisms. KiwiChristian posted some. Obviously, the phrases, "You are..." and "I am..." can and should be understood figuratively in those contexts. A person invites a look at a picture of a loved one and says, "This is my sister." Obviously, it is a picture of the sister, not the person herself. The phrase, "This is..." as used by Jesus, can be understood and used the same way in the context of instituting the Lord's Supper.

The Eucharist was instituted at the same time as another memorial meal, the Passover. The Passover was observed as a reminder of the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage. In the same way, the Eucharist was set up to be observed as a reminder of our deliverance from bondage to sin through the sacrifice of Christ.

The Passover was observed yearly, while the event that inaugurated it, the passing over of the destroyer to strike the firstborn of those who had not applied the blood, occurred just once. In the same way, while the Lord's Supper is observed often, the event that inaugurated it, the crucifixion of our Lord, occurred just once. Inasmuch as the destroyer is not still passing over the houses like he did back then, looking for lambs' blood on door posts, Jesus is not repeatedly being crucified; His flesh and blood are not continually being offered.

They are memorials meant to hearken the partakers back to the inaugurating events. The only thing more important than the emblems being used are the hearts of those partaking. I believe partaking of the Eucharist will have no meaningful application to the partaker if he or she is not eating and drinking with humility and thanksgiving to God in heart and mind.

One question we ought to ask ourselves is, "What would the disciples being served the Passover by Jesus have understood when He said, "This is my body" and "This is my blood"? Would they have taken the phrases literally to mean they were literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood? I have to seriously doubt it. Was Jesus partaking of His own flesh and blood then? I have to seriously doubt it.

Jesus was using metaphors to describe the significance of partaking of the unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. It does bear great significance, to the extent that we take seriously and fully appreciate the sacrifice Jesus made for us. The inaugurating event, Christ's one time sacrifice, and our heartfelt response to that event, is what gives meaning and significance to the Lord's Supper.

Please elaborate further on why you say that because Christ was right there at the Last Supper that the "Real  Presence" could not have existed in the elements of the bread and wine. Are you saying that the crucifixion and resurrection needed to have taken place, and on that basis the possibility of the "Real Presence" is forever moot?

Jesus was right there. How much more "Real Presence" can you get than that? Also, Jesus said He would partake with the believes during their/our partaking. How much more Real Presence can you get than His being among His worshipers during worship?

Jesus has ascended into heaven to be seated at the right hand of God. I personally do not believe He occupies the same kind of physical body that He did while He was here during His ministry. We are not going to experience a "Real Presence" beyond what He had promised His disciples during the Lord's Supper, concerning His partaking with them. Obviously, I would think, that presence is spiritual. We are not going to experience a physical presence of any shape, kind, or form until the Second Coming.