Replies

“the earliest Christian texts like the Didache show the Mass celebrated in 70 AD in the same way we do now”

Um, no:

Ch 14 “On every Lord’s Day – his special day - come together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure. Anyone at variance with his neighbor must not join you, until they are reconciled, lest your sacrifice be defiled. For it was of this sacrifice that the Lord said, “Always and everywhere offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is marveled at by the nations.”

Ch. 9:5 “Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’”.

The RC doctrine you are committed to via Trent is this:

“If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Second Canon, Thirteenth Session).

Note the many additional concepts in Trent’s Aquinian formulation. Without buying into pagan Greek philosopher Aristotle’s categories of substance and accidence, and then inverting them, you cannot be a Christian. Isn’t that what anathematized means?

And look who’s not talking at all like a transubstantiationist:

“But at the present time, after that the proof of our liberty has shone forth so clearly in the resurrection of our Lord, we are not oppressed with the heavy burden of attending even to those signs which we now understand, but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error.” (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 9, 13).

Let me reiterate what Augustine is saying here:

“Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error.”

So does this mean Augustine is lost? Anathematized? Because his words present a clear contradiction to the Aquinian formula of Trent. Has there been a modification since Trent, that would let Augustine back in? Just curious.

Anyway, back at the Didache, go back to the quotes above and take another look. I didn’t notice any adoration of the host. What of the tabernacle? And do you really see anything here as specific as transubstantiation? Where is the discussion of the priest, or his consecration of the host, or the miraculous swapping out of the corporeal substance of bread and the sweeping in of the corporeal substance of our Lord, all while leaving the freestanding “accidents” of bread and wine in place so as not to be able to verify that any miracle at all has occurred? Where is all that? That seems like a lot to leave out, if your service and their service are really the same. If I have missed it please point it out and I will gladly consider it.

But I won’t hold my breath. Transubstantiation is a doctrine that was unheard of even in the Roman church until invented by Benedictine monk Radbertus in the 9th Century. It was ratified in general terms in 1215 by the 4th Lateran Council, and received the full blessing of pagan Greek philosopher Aristotle at the hand of Aquinas in the 13th Century. From there it was on to the road show known as Trent, with which to disagree is anathema.

Or so Rome alleges.

Happily, Jesus saw things differently:

Luk 10:21-22 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight. [22] All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

So who is wise guys and who is babes? We report. You decide. :)

Peace,

SR

Firstly, it’s not “as Rome alleges” because Lutherans too believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The True presence is also held by the Orthodox and Orientals, i.e. the majority of Christians since apostolic times..

Secondly,

“Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]” (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

Now the sacrifice and the High Priest are the same, the one-time sacrifice of Christ that saved us. 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),was charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin Martyr said this meant , ‘Offer this.’ .

Justin Martyr in fact that to write a defence to the Emperor saying

Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, 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 nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

On what basis can YOU deny the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

John 6:35 “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

John 6:55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

And this is confirmed in Paul's Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16) 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?

How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ"

and 1 Cor 11:27-29 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. How clear can Paul get? "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.

As our Lutheran brothers hold too "He is present in the bread and the wine in such a way that, by virtue of sacramental union, bread and wine are actually His body and blood."