In a “Solemn Profession of Faith” on June 30, 1968, Pope Paul VI declared: “We believe that as the bread and wine consecrated by the Lord at the Last Supper were changed into His Body and His Blood which were to be offered for us on the cross, so the bread and wine consecrated by the priest are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ enthroned gloriously in heaven, and We believe that the mysterious presence of the Lord, under the appearance of those elements which seem to our senses the same after as before the Consecration, is a true, real and substantial presence. . . . This mysterious change is very appropriately called by the Church transubstantiation.” (Official Catholic Teachings—Christ Our Lord, Wilmington, N.C.; 1978, Amanda G. Watlington, p. 411) Do the Holy Scriptures agree with that belief?

It is written in Matthew (26:16-29 Jerusalem Bible) :
"“Now as they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and when he had said the blessing he broke it and gave it to the disciples. ‘Take it and eat;’ he said ‘this is my body.’ Then he took a cup, and when he had returned thanks he gave it to them. ‘Drink all of you from this,’ he said ‘for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, which is to be poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. From now on, I tell you, I shall not drink wine until the day I drink the new wine with you in the kingdom of my Father.’”

What did Jesus mean when he said, “This is my body,” “This is my blood”?
Amaytoi : why ?
Kman : consubstantiation is connected with the teaching of Trinity which is not a Biblical teaching. “Scholars have been puzzled by the apparent mildness of expression on the part of this creed; its failure, for example, to use the word homoousios of the Holy Spirit as consubstantial with the Father and Son.”
IMACATHOLIC2:
It is not hard to see why the Eucharist is viewed as miraculous. The key moment of the ceremony comes during the Eucharistic prayer. At that point, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1353), “the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit” make Jesus’ body and blood “sacramentally present.” The priest, after partaking of the bread and wine, invites the faithful to receive Communion, usually by eating only the bread, or the Host.
The Catholic Church teaches that the bread and the wine are miraculously transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ—a doctrine called transubstantiation. This teaching arose gradually, with the word first being defined and used officially in the 13th century. In the days of the Protestant Reformation, certain aspects of the Catholic Eucharist were called into question. Luther rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation in favor of consubstantiation. The distinction is subtle. Luther taught that the bread and the wine coexist with, rather than transform into, the flesh and blood of Jesus.
So it is logical to say that the teaching of Eucharist and Transubstantiation are more catholic, orthodox and Lutheran teaching than a Biblical teaching because, first, these two words don’t appear in Bible, as the same of Trinity. And second, the teaching of Eucharist and Transubstantiation were created in 13th centery.
You said also:”By the way, the Eastern Catholic, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Lutheran and many Anglican Churches also believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. This is more than half of all Christians in the world”.
You must know that Biblical truth doesn’t depend of the number of the supporters… Jesus said truth would have a little number of supporters as he said:
“Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it” (Matthew 7:13,14).
Truth doesn’t depend on time (2000 years). Some truth knowledge scientists were discovered very recently, while some scientific untruths were supported during millenniums. So, I repeat that the truth does not depend on time.
Regarding the expressions “this is my body” and “this is my blood,” the following is noteworthy: Mo reads, “it means my body,” “this means my blood.” (Italics added.) NW reads similarly. LEF renders the expressions, “this represents my body,” “this represents my blood.” (Italics added.) These renderings agree with what is stated in the context, in verse 29, in various Catholic editions. Kx reads: “I shall not drink of this fruit of the vine again, until I drink it with you, new wine, in the kingdom of my Father.” (Italics added.) CC, NAB, Dy also show Jesus referring to what was in the cup as being “this fruit of the vine,” and that was after Jesus had said, “This is my blood.”
Consider the expressions “this is my body” and “this is my blood” in the light of other vivid language used in the Scriptures. Jesus also said, “I am the light of the world,” “I am the gate of the sheepfold,” “I am the true vine.” (John 8:12; 10:7; 15:1, JB) None of these expressions implied a miraculous transformation, did they?
At 1 Corinthians 11:25 (JB), the apostle Paul wrote concerning the Last Supper and expressed the same ideas in slightly different words. Instead of quoting Jesus as saying regarding the cup, “Drink all of you from this . . . for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant,” he worded it in this way: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” Surely that did not mean that the cup was somehow miraculously transformed into the new covenant. Is it not more reasonable to conclude that what was in the cup represented Jesus’ blood by means of which the new covenant was validated?
Bible : http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/index.htm ; http://www.watchtower.org

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Filed under: All Things Wine

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!