Posted on 05/25/2025 4:05:48 AM PDT by JosephJames
As I’ve noted before, your screen name perfectly describes Roman Catholicism. Rome has to ADSUM to scripture for its theology.
It’s rather comical how Roman Catholics fixate on this verse and ignore the larger context of the passage and its meaning. Roman Catholics are like the unbelieving Jews in this passage. They’ve missed the correct teaching and have fixated on the wrong one. All the while ignoring the accounts of the Lord’s Supper we have in scripture and the clear message of DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME. Not do this for salvation as Rome advocates.
Your opinion and doesn’t agree with God’s Truth or what the Apostles passed down through Christ’s Catholic Church.
Paul disagrees with you and Roman Catholicism.....which means the Lord disagrees with you and Roman Catholicism.
23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
1 Corinthians 11:23-26 NASB
2605 kataggéllō (from 2596 /katá, "according to, down to a point," intensifying aggellō, "declare, announce") – properly, exactly, decisively announce; to herald (proclaim) a message in a definite (binding) way.
There's not one hint of doing this for salvation.
Is the Roman Catholic concept of transubstantiation found in the unanimous writings of the ECFs?
And please don't quote Catholic Answers.
I don’t think you are serious, just anti-Catholic.
Like Purgatory and the Trinity, Transubstantiation is a word that explains the words of Jesus. This is My Body and this is My Blood. You have already admitted that you do not believe. You do not accept the words of Jesus, as “you have no life in you” (John 6:53).
Transubstantiation is the Catholic doctrine that, at the consecration during Mass, the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, even though their appearances (or “accidents”) remain unchanged.
This teaching is rooted in Scripture, especially 1 Corinthians 11:23-29, where St. Paul recounts Jesus saying, “This is my body... This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” The Church understands these words literally, meaning the substance of bread and wine is transformed into Christ’s glorified, resurrected Body and Blood (1 Cor 15:42-44; John 20:27).
The Council of Trent clarified this mystery, affirming that the change is real though not visible (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1376-1377). Thus, the Eucharist is not symbolic but the true presence of Christ.
I do not believe Rome's understanding of the passages in question.
You and all Roman Catholics have to adjust your exegesis mid-stream in John 6.
One part is literal and one part is metaphysical.
I've asked other Roman Catholics if they get hungry or thirsty.
In John 6 He said you wouldn't get hungry or thirsty. RCs try to spiritualize these questions while then turning around and trying to hold to a literal rendering of the remaining passage all the while negating the beginning of the passage where Christ speaks of the necessity of believing in Him.
That's how He opened the discussion with the Jews.
26Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27“Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.” 28Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.
*****
They don't understand what He's saying. They, like Roman Catholicism, thinks He's discussing actual bread. The unbelieving Jews and Roman Catholicism have made the same error.
30So they said to Him, “What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform? 31“Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘HE GAVE THEM BREAD OUT OF HEAVEN TO EAT.’” 32Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33“For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.” 34Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.
*****
In this passage Jesus identifies Himself as the bread of life. He also promises eternal life to those who believe; He will lose none that the Father gives Him...it's a clear statement of the security of the believer...which Roman Catholicism denies.
35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
36“But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39“This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
*****
As noted before Paul recorded exactly what he received from the Lord....and it did not include transubstantiation.
It's not about salvation as one must already be a believer to participate in the Lord's Supper.
We do this to proclaim His death until He comes. The text is crystal clear.
"26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes." 1 Cor 11:26 NASB
I can see that you are having trouble understanding the Gospel about what Jesus says ‘to eat and drink His Body and Blood”. You pick and choose what you want and lack understanding of God’s message.
Earthly food perishes. So they came for earthly food and not the Bread of Life.
If one comes to Jesus as the Bread of life, one will not hunger or thirst for earthly life. Do you think you will be hungry or thirsty in eternal life with God?
Jesus Body and Blood (Divine supernatural life) when eaten and drank worthily leads to eternal life with God. Jesus is speaking literally and sacramentally.
Your comments:
As noted before Paul recorded exactly what he received from the Lord....and it did not include transubstantiation.
It’s not about salvation as one must already be a believer to participate in the Lord’s Supper.
Jesus told us to eat and drink for eternal life (salvation). Paul does not need to repeat it. You reject what Jesus taught and the Apostles shared with Catholics for the last 2000 years.
Jesus told us many things for our salvation:
Sacraments of, Baptism, Confirmation, Confession, Eucharist (Mass), Anointing of Sick, Marriage and Holy Orders.
His Commandments
Die in the state of grace
Belief in all His Words (Truth)
The virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity
Perhaps you should define what you mean by having faith?
This is the only passage with this.
Rome has taken it completely out of context in relation to the rest of the NT.
If one comes to Jesus as the Bread of life, one will not hunger or thirst for earthly life. Do you think you will be hungry or thirsty in eternal life with God?
Now see what you did....you have to read back into the passage what you want it to mean. IF your exegesis is consistent you'd have to answer in the affirmative to my questions of becoming hungry or thirsty.
I notice also you ignored the passage dealing with the necessity of believing in Him....which is very consistent in John and the NT.
In all of the encounters Jesus had with people this is the only one that eating/drinking is mentioned and it was the unbelieving Jews who didn't understand His message.
They, like Rome, believed He was talking about literal eating/drinking....but the overall context of the passage and NT negates that understanding.
IF Rome's understanding of the passage is correct, that would be the consistent message of the NT....yet that is not witnessed in the NT.
When Jesus met the woman at the well, He did not tell her to have the Lord's Supper.
When Peter and the disciples preached at Pentecost they did not instruct them to participate in the Lord's Supper for salvation.
Jesus told us many things for our salvation: Sacraments of, Baptism, Confirmation, Confession, Eucharist (Mass), Anointing of Sick, Marriage and Holy Orders.
Not one of those deals with salvation.
Not. One.
That's Rome's version of things which as demonstrated, is incorrect....IF one reads the NT in context and not isolation as Rome does.
Sorry, I posted to wrong person.
Ealgeone, your claim that the Eucharist is not tied to salvation oversimplifies and misinterprets the biblical texts, ignoring their broader context and related passages.
John 6:51-58 – The Eucharist and Eternal Life: Jesus explicitly connects eating His flesh and drinking His blood to eternal life: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” (John 6:51, NABRE). He continues, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you” (John 6:53). This passage directly ties the Eucharist to salvation, contradicting Eagleone’s assertion that there is “not one hint” of salvific significance. The verb “eat” (Greek: trōgō) in John 6:54-58 denotes literal chewing, emphasizing a real, not symbolic, consumption of Christ’s body and blood.
1 Corinthians 11:27-29 – Unworthy Reception and Judgment: Paul himself underscores the Eucharist’s profound spiritual significance: “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord… For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor 11:27-29, NABRE). If the Eucharist were merely a memorial, unworthy participation would not incur such grave consequences. This implies a real presence of Christ, with salvific implications for those who partake worthily or unworthily.
Luke 22:19-20 and Parallel Accounts: In the Synoptic Gospels (Luke 22:19-20; Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24), Jesus’ words at the Last Supper connect the bread and wine to His body and blood, offered “for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt 26:28). Forgiveness of sins is inherently salvific, directly contradicting your claim.
Broader Biblical context: The Passover context of the Last Supper (Ex 12:1-14) informs the Eucharist. The Passover lamb’s flesh was eaten, and its blood protected Israel from death, prefiguring Christ as the true Paschal Lamb (1 Cor 5:7). The Eucharist, as the fulfillment of the Passover, carries forward this salvific role, not merely a symbolic remembrance.
Your argument ignores explicit biblical texts (John 6, 1 Cor 11:27-29, Matt 26:28) that link the Eucharist to eternal life, forgiveness of sins, and spiritual consequences,misrepresenting Paul’s teaching as purely memorial.
Ealgeone, your reliance on the Greek term kataggellō (“proclaim” in 1 Cor 11:26) to argue that the Eucharist is only a memorial act is linguistically and contextually flawed.
You correctly notes that kataggellō means to “proclaim” or “announce decisively.” However, this does not negate the Eucharist’s salvific role. Proclaiming Christ’s death (1 Cor 11:26) is not merely verbal but a participatory act in the sacrifice itself. The Greek term does not exclude the real presence or salvific effect; it emphasizes the Eucharist’s role in making Christ’s sacrifice present and effective for the faithful.
Your focus on “do this in remembrance of Me” (1 Cor 11:24-25) misunderstands the Greek anamnēsis. In biblical Greek, anamnēsis is not mere mental recollection but a dynamic, liturgical act that makes a past event present. In the Septuagint (LXX), anamnēsis is used for sacrificial offerings (e.g., Lev 24:7), where the memorial offering makes God’s covenant active. Similarly, the Eucharist makes Christ’s sacrifice present, not just remembered, enabling participation in its salvific benefits.
Jesus’ words in 1 Cor 11:24 (“This is my body”) use the verb estin (is), which in Greek denotes a real, substantial identification, not a symbolic one. The absence of any qualifying language (e.g., “this represents”) supports the Catholic view of the Real Presence.
Net net, you misinterpret kataggellō and anamnēsis, ignoring their sacrificial and participatory connotations in biblical and liturgical contexts, and overlooks the straightforward language of “is” in describing the bread as Christ’s body.
Context of 1 Corinthians 11: Paul’s discussion of the Eucharist occurs in a corrective context, addressing abuses in the Corinthian community (1 Cor 11:17-22). His emphasis on “remembrance” and “proclaiming” does not exclude the Real Presence or salvific effect but focuses on proper participation. The subsequent warning about unworthy reception (1 Cor 11:27-29) confirms the Eucharist’s sacred and salvific nature, as it involves encountering Christ Himself.
Paul’s Sacrificial Theology: Paul describes the Eucharist as a participation (koinōnia) in Christ’s body and blood (1 Cor 10:16-17): “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” The term koinōnia implies a real, transformative union with Christ, not a mere symbol, and is linked to salvation through unity with Christ’s sacrifice.
Harmony with Other Scriptures: you excerpt ie isolate 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 from related passages (John 6, Luke 22, Matt 26, Heb 10:19-25). Hebrews, for instance, describes believers entering the sanctuary “by the blood of Jesus” (Heb 10:19), which Catholic theology connects to the Eucharist as the means of accessing Christ’s sacrifice. A holistic exegesis integrates these texts, showing the Eucharist as a salvific act of communion with Christ.
By focusing solely on 1 Cor 11:23-26 and the term kataggellō, Eagleone cherry-picks evidence, ignoring verses in the same chapter (1 Cor 11:27-29) and elsewhere (John 6, 1 Cor 10:16) that affirm the Eucharist’s deeper significance. This selective approach distorts the biblical witness.
This is hiw he excerpts the Bible
The Catholic Church does not claim that every doctrine, including transubstantiation, requires explicit, verbatim agreement from all ECFs. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 88) and Vatican II (Dei Verbum 8) teach that the Magisterium interprets Scripture and Tradition, guided by the Holy Spirit, to articulate doctrines. “Unanimous consent” refers to the moral unanimity of the Fathers on matters of faith and morals, not a requirement for identical terminology or fully developed theological formulations in every Father’s writings. As Vincent of Lérins (5th century) noted in his Commonitorium (2.5), the Church holds to “that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all” (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus).
ECFs consistently teach that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ, involving a real transformation of the bread and wine. Below is a survey of key Fathers, demonstrating their alignment with the concept underlying transubstantiation.
Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD):
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7:1: “The Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius explicitly identifies the Eucharist as Christ’s flesh, not a symbol, and connects it to His redemptive sacrifice. His warning against those who “abstain from the Eucharist… because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior” (Smyrnaeans 6:2) implies a real transformation, as a mere symbol would not provoke such controversy.
Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD):
First Apology 66: “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these… but the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word… is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” Justin describes a change in the bread and wine, such that they are no longer “common” but Christ’s body and blood, aligning with the concept of a substantial transformation.
Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180 AD):
Against Heresies 4.18.5: “When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God, and the Eucharist becomes the body of Christ… our bodies, being nourished by it, are deposited in the earth and will rise again in due time.” Irenaeus explicitly states that the bread and wine “become” Christ’s body through the Eucharistic prayer, a clear precursor to transubstantiation. He further ties this to salvation, as the Eucharist nourishes believers for resurrection.
Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350 AD):
Catechetical Lectures 22.6: “Under the appearance of bread and wine, you taste the body and blood of Christ.” Cyril uses language akin to “accidents” (appearance) versus substance, teaching that the bread and wine are truly Christ’s body and blood after consecration, consistent with transubstantiation’s core idea.
Ambrose of Milan (c. 390 AD):
On the Mysteries 9.50-52: “Before the words of Christ, it is bread; when the words of Christ have been added, it is the body of Christ… Before the consecration, it was not the body of Christ, but after the consecration, I say to you that it is now the body of Christ.” Ambrose explicitly describes a change in the substance of the bread, directly supporting the concept of transubstantiation.
John Chrysostom (c. 400 AD):
Homilies on 1 Corinthians 24.4: “The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? He did not say ‘participation’ in a sign, but in the body itself.” Chrysostom affirms the Real Presence and rejects a merely symbolic view, emphasizing the reality of Christ’s body in the Eucharist.
Augustine of Hippo (c. 400 AD):
Sermon 272: “What you see is bread and a cup; this is what your eyes report to you. But what your faith demands is that the bread is the body of Christ and the cup is the blood of Christ.” While Augustine often uses symbolic language, he affirms the Real Presence, noting that faith perceives the true substance (Christ’s body) beneath the appearances. In City of God 21.25, he connects the Eucharist to Christ’s sacrifice, implying a transformative reality.
Other Fathers: Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus 2.2), Gregory of Nyssa (Great Catechism 37), and Cyril of Alexandria (Commentary on Matthew 26.27) similarly affirm the Eucharist as Christ’s true body and blood, often describing a change in the elements through consecration.
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.