26 July 2005

The Body and the Blood

Christ gave to His Church seven sacraments, visible channels of invisible grace. They are baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony. Of these, the Holy Eucharist is most excellent. This pre-eminence exists because the consecrated bread and wine become the true body and blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. I wrote The Body and the Blood to help explain what the Eucharist is all about and to defend the truth of the Sacrament by examining the Biblical text in light of Church teaching.
You can download The Body and the Blood in Word format by clicking here.
God bless and thank you for visiting Testimony to Truth.

19 Comments:

Blogger David Ketter said...

I downloaded it...haven't had a chance to read it yet though...maybe sometime Sunday I can get some feedback for you.

July 27, 2005 8:58 PM  
Anonymous Jessica said...

I just finished reading it... awesome! You make all of us up here very proud of you! I pray every day that you continue to grow in the Faith, and keep spreading the Truth.

Christ and His Mother be with you,
~Jess

July 28, 2005 1:09 AM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

Thank you both! Thank you for reading it/downloading it ;), the comments, and your prayers. I appreciate it all.

-Jon

July 28, 2005 7:17 PM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

Okay, it has to be postponed until later this week...I got scheduled to work today..crud...

July 31, 2005 3:39 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

That's alright. School starts this Wednesday, but I'll keep up on this.

July 31, 2005 11:51 PM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

Okay....another delay...I have no time at all this week...and I'll be out of internet access all next week....I'll at least get my stuff in by the end of August, capice? Sorry. :(

August 05, 2005 6:28 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

No problem. The beginning of school is here for me and I've been working hard to get way ahead in some classes so I can thin out my load later. ;)

August 06, 2005 9:30 AM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

Well, here goes...

This pre-eminence exists because the consecrated bread and wine become the true body and blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I think that's our primary disagreement...

The Passover...the two sacrifices

I do agree that the connection is vital to understanding the practice - the command of Christ.

He does not say “this represents, but is not.” Something that represents something “is not” what the represented item is; it is the symbol.

Granted, the text does not say that. However, the Aramaic language (which Jesus most certainly was speaking that night - and not the Greek that the Vulgate was translated from [not an an attack on the Vulgate, just a note]) is peculiar in this regard: the word "is" plays an ambiguous part. It can mean "is" literally, symbolically, representative, or even semi-literally. Ironically, all of these interpretations are used throughout the Church. Roman Catholics take it literally. Lutherans and the like take it semi-literally. Reformists take it symbolically and Evangelicals take it representatively. The difference between the symbolic and representative views is that to symbolists, the bread and wine are jus there...nothing more, nothing less. The representative view, however goes beyond symbolism and maintain that Christ ministers through it, although the substance of the elements is not changed (nor is there a mystical presence, in any way).

One very persuasive passage of Scripture in favor of the Real Presence is in John 6.

The problem with this is the fact that Scripture specifically forbids the eating of human flesh and the drinking of any blood. This was given, not only to the Jews, but to ALL mankind in the covanent with Noah in Genesis. Jesus - the fulfillment of the Law - not its destroyer, would not command His followers to violate a universal command that was for the preservation of God's creation.

In recent history, Protestant reformers and ‘rational’ modernists have flatly denied this doctrine.

What I find interesting about this is the fact that I fit in none of the above listed groups. You know as well as I do that I am not a Protestant, nor am I a modernist.

Honestly, I recognize the Body and Blood of Christ in communion (therefore, not guilty of sin in that regard), that does not mean that the bread/wafer and wine/juice become the blood of Christ. If they do, then why does it not TASTE like it?

August 14, 2005 2:04 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

I'm finally on a computer, but I have to wait til a little later to answer. If anyone else wants to put in their ideas, be my guest.

-Jon

August 21, 2005 2:14 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

I think that's our primary disagreement...

Most likely.

I do agree that the connection is vital to understanding the practice - the command of Christ.

Okay. Though you don't see how both are sacrifices, I see.

Ironically, all of these interpretations are used throughout the Church.

Then maybe we should look back to the Church Fathers and see what they thought. Saint Ignatius of Antioch said in the late 1st century or very early 2nd century to the Smyrnaeans,

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again."

St. Ignatius was himself most likely a follower of Sts. Peter and John. What he knew of the Eucharist was what he heard from them. He was about 15 when Peter and Paul were martyred, and lived many years while St. John was preaching. The fact that he is so close to the teaching of the apostles gives much credence to his teaching. Other Fathers that spoke in favor of the Real Presence in the 2nd century are Saints Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria.

Scripture specifically forbids the eating of human flesh and the drinking of any blood.

True, but the ACCIDENTS of the bread and wine remain. Christ is really there, the substance. All I can say right now is that you have to distinguish between the substance and the accidents which are being tasted. Terrible explanation, but it's 12:15 on a Sunday night and I'm tired. Maybe I can get some help there.

You know as well as I do that I am not a Protestant, nor am I a modernist.

Sorry. I see Evangelical groups as conservative protesting Protestants.

If they do, then why does it not TASTE like it?

I'm sorry, but I had to roll my eyes when I heard this one. The accidents of bread and wine remain. That is why they do not taste like flesh and blood. God help us. I have to get out of here and go to sleep.

In Christ,
Jon

August 22, 2005 12:26 AM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

Okay. Though you don't see how both are sacrifices, I see.

Exactly... :P

Then maybe we should look back to the Church Fathers and see what they thought.

Perhaps I'll do that....myself and read the works in context and in entirety.

Other Fathers that spoke in favor of the Real Presence in the 2nd century are Saints Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria.

How about Polycarp? He was John's disciple - very well known...martyred in Pergamum was he not? What are his views on the subject?

"Accidents?" Sorry, my Latin is very underdeveloped (despite two years of it...) and that term makes no sense to me...

Sorry. I see Evangelical groups as conservative protesting Protestants.

I'm afraid you are quite mistaken. Pentecostals are, by definition, evangelical...however there are many that defy the meaning of conservative. And Evangelicals are not Protestant. Jess accepts this fact...(of course, it did require a rather in-depth explanation). The reason we are not Protestants is because we do not have our roots in the Protestant Reformations, but neither do our roots lie in the Traditional Counter-Reformations either. The Evangelical movement emerged from Scripturally-conscious teachers who noted the problems of their day and began to preach the Gospel - irregardless of the established churches...There are other differences, but these are mostly visible ones related to doctrine and practice.

I'm sorry, but I had to roll my eyes when I heard this one.

I think I did that after I posted it....I, too, was tired atthe time and it was just a last-minute thought - actually, it was my 9-year old brother's idea (hope for him after all :P )

In the Blood of our Savior

August 24, 2005 9:56 PM  
Anonymous Jessica said...

Jess accepts this fact...(of course, it did require a rather in-depth explanation).

Heheh... I didn't say I accept that. (At least not that I remember. If I did, then I wasn't being very clear.) Any Christian denomination (non-denominational churches fall in here, since non-denom. has because a denomination itself) who is not in union with Rome, is a protestant - "protestant" meaning "one who protests". ;)

"Accidents?" Sorry, my Latin is very underdeveloped (despite two years of it...) and that term makes no sense to me...

It is not a Latin term. This might help you understand it...

"Transubstantiation: The complete change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood by a validly ordained priest during the consecration at Mass, so that only the accidents of bread and wine remain. While the faith behind the term was already believed in apostolic times, the term itself was a later development. With the Eastern Fathers before the sixth century, the favored expression was meta-ousiosis, "change of being"; the Latin tradition coined the word transubstantiatio, "change of substance," which was incorporated into the creed of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. (...) After transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe; they are sustained in existence by divine power. (Etym. Latin trans- so as to change + substantia, substance; transubstantiatio, change of substance." (Reference: Modern Catholic Dictionary by John A. Hardon, S.J.)

This is another helpful explanation:

"After Jesus Christ had changed the substance of bread and wine into the substance of His Body and Blood, there remained only the appearances of bread and wine.
(...)
The appearances of bread and wine are everything that our sense can perceive of bread and wine, that is, form, color, figure, taste." (Reference: The Catholic Religion: Illustrated and Explained for Child, Adult and Convert by Msgr. J.H. Burbach.)

I have more to say, but it will have to wait until later tonight, or tomorrow. (Dinner has to be finished up, and then I have to go grocery shopping.)

I hope this has helped. :)
In Christ,
Jess :)

August 25, 2005 7:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello! Thanks for helping with the term 'accident.' So what is seen and tasted make up the accidents, while what is really there is something entirely different. Boy, would my TOK teacher have something to say about that...

I can see how you can consider yourself not a Protestant if you define Protestant as a follower of one of the immediate breakaway denominations. Those teachers that you say started the Evangelical movement were part of a Protestant church, right? So they're protesting Protestant and some orthodox teaching.

I could not find anything by St. Polycarp on the Eucharist, for or against. Though St. Irenaeus was a disciple of St. Polycarp, and as noted, he defended the Real Presence in what later was defined as transubstantiation.

lol. Don't worry about that last thing. I had a feeling you hadn't heard about the difference between 'substance' and 'accidents'. You really should read the Apostolic Fathers, the Didache, and other writings of Early Church Fathers. I've found them consistent with current Church teaching. And a Catholic would say "Duh" to that since they know that the Church has always taught the teachings of Christ, handed down through apostolic succession. But you should really read them. I gotta go, and I don't know when I'll be back on, so see you later.

In Christ,
Jon

p.s. This is WebTv, so I appear as Anonymous. 8-|

August 25, 2005 9:03 PM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

Heheh... I didn't say I accept that.

Well, forgive my misinterpretation of "Oh, I get it now" when I explained it almost 2 years ago (wow, time flies!).

Any Christian denomination (non-denominational churches fall in here, since non-denom. has because a denomination itself) who is not in union with Rome, is a protestant - "protestant" meaning "one who protests".

Does that include your "schismatic" Orthodox? Because, last I checked, they are not in union with Rome. Let me give you the Evangelical understanding of the terms "Protestant" and "Orthodox" (or Traditional):

Protestant: Anyone who adheres, or belongs to, the congregations formed in reaction to the later years of the Roman Catholic Church - mainly with the intent to reform it (i.e., Calvinistic churches, Zwinglian churches, Lutheran [not denom.] churches, Wesleyan [not denom.] churches, etc.)

Orthodox: Anyone who adheres, or belongs to, a congregation with traditional liturgy, ancient traditions, a peculiar devotion to them, and a hierarchical leadership (i.e., Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican Church, etc.).

Accidents...

I understood the concept of transubstantiation (as well as the Latin behind THAT term) but was unfamiliar with "accidents." So, basically, the power, the nature of the Body and the Blood, correct?

more later...

August 25, 2005 10:51 PM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

Those teachers that you say started the Evangelical movement were part of a Protestant church, right? So they're protesting Protestant and some orthodox teaching.

What church you were raised in does not define who you are...For instance, Jon, you are being raised in an Evangelical church but, by belief, are an ardent traditional Catholic. Are you "protesting" Evangelical Christianity? Not really...

And a Catholic would say "Duh" to that since they know that the Church has always taught the teachings of Christ...

And you know, of course, I dispute the idea...but that's another discussion for another time.

August 26, 2005 11:41 AM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

Does that include your "schismatic" Orthodox?

I'll let Jess speak for herself here, but I think that those Orthodox churches are not considered 'denominations'. They are viewed as churches. Though I guess they're still protestant, though with a lower case p. I'm not speaking for the Church here, though. This is just what I think I've heard.

So, basically, the power, the nature of the Body and the Blood, correct?

If you're saying anything short of Christ's complete body actually being in every particle, it's not what the Church believes. The accidents are like what God allows to be seen and tasted. What is really there in substance is Christ. That's the way I can see it.

What church... Are you "protesting" Evangelical Christianity? Not really...

Well, considering they're still protesting the Catholic church, yes they are still protestant. But yes, I am protesting Evangelical teaching that protests Catholic teaching. So if someone asked myself or say a Lutheran, if we were to go by your definition, who was going to become a Catholic if they were at the time a Protestant, they would say no. If we were to go by the definition that Evangelicals in an attempt to go by the Bible, protested Protestantism and Catholicism, I don't see the need for any disagreement. ;)

And you know, of course, I dispute the idea...but that's another discussion for another time.

Of course. ;) I knew you'd say that, and that "And a Catholic would say..." was my way of saying that.

August 27, 2005 8:20 PM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

If we were to go by the definition that Evangelicals in an attempt to go by the Bible, protested Protestantism and Catholicism, I don't see the need for any disagreement.

It's not a matter of protesting any of them...honestly, it's the Evangelicals that seek spiritual unity more than either of the other groups (they mostly seek ecumenical unity...VISIBLE unity). The only thing Evangelicals share in common with the other two historically is the Early Church...and all Christian denominations/movements share that.

August 29, 2005 9:48 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Knox said...

Well if you want to put the emphasis on the few agreements, yeah. Yep, all Christians have common history in the Early Church, and it got more diverse as groups broke off from the Church.

September 04, 2005 3:55 AM  
Blogger David Ketter said...

and it got more diverse as groups broke off from the Church.

Denominations and movements might break off but ALL of them did...including Rome. Only those who are believers in spirit yet remain within the Body of Christ.

September 05, 2005 3:46 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home