CCC; Section II; Chapter 1; Article 3; III)

And:

Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. Iii

Scripture given:

First and foremost, I want to point out a following verse to 1 Corinthians 11. It is this:

What does “discerning” mean? I will tell you, not coincidentally, that this is the ONLY use of this specific word(discerning) in the bible with the greek word “diakrino”. Other words have this base greek also, but the word “discerning” is only used twice in the bible and only once in this type of instance.

Looking at the definition:

Diakrino – 1) to separate, make a distinction, discriminate, to prefer

What? To separate? Am I reading this correctly? So this verse is fundamentally telling me to separate the Lord’s body? What are we to separate it from exactly? Could He possibly be speaking of the previous verses of 24 and 25? I completely believe so. This specifically refers to separating the body and blood of Christ from the bread and juice being used during communi*n.

So in conclusion to this specific verse, we can draw something. My words: Whoever takes communi*n, and does it unworthily (I can think of no more unworthy action than to truly believe you are eating Jesus’ physical flesh and drinking His blood). What is the penalty? The Lord says it plainly, “damnation”. This means “judgment” (krima).
Moving along,

Looking in the Old Testament, we see many references to “eating” people.

Lev. 26:29; Deut. 28:53-57; 2 Kings 6:28-29; Jer. 19:9; Lam. 2:20; Lam. 4:10; Ezek. 5:10.

Was this truly referring to physical consumption by oral input , including mastication? No.

What does this word mean?

‘akal (primitive word)

1) to eat, devour, burn up, feed
a) (Qal)
1) to eat (human subject)
2) to eat, devour (of beasts and birds)
3) to devour, consume (of fire)
4) to devour, slay (of sword)
5) to devour, consume, destroy (inanimate subjects - ie, pestilence, drought)
6) to devour (of oppression)

Wow. So many different bases for this one word. So can we faithfully conclude that the word eat could possibly mean “slay” in these portions of scripture. Absolutely. Using the common sense God gave us, I think we can faithfully conclude that this is so.

Also using 1 Cor 11, we can also see something else. What was the purpose of this?

Examine. Again this is the only instance of this word with the greek base of “dokimazo”. It means:

1) to test, examine, prove, scrutinise (to see whether a thing is genuine or not), as metals
2) to recognise as genuine after examination, to approve, deem worthy

This must be a humbling thing indeed. To be faithful to Jesus, and to ourselves, we must examine our moral condition and ask the Lord to reveal to us any unexposed sin in our lives. Remember we are alive for His glorification alone, not our own.

Scofield notes has it this way:

“Self-judgment is not so much the believer's moral condemnation of his own ways or habits, but of himself, for allowing such ways. Self-judgment avoids chastisement. If neglected, the Lord judges, and the result is chastisement, but never condemnation 1 Corinthians 11:32; 2 Samuel 7:14,15; 12:13,14; 1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Timothy 1:20; Hebrews 12:7.”

Will continue more if needed…

Where to begin…

I suppose I shall start by responding directly to your post before I defend the doctrine of transubstantiation.

I. RESPONSE

I believe your entire view is fundamentally flawed. First of all, you must realize that the English translation is used to best approximate the Greek language. So, the word discern means exactly what it does in English: to recognize or comprehend mentally. Discern DOES NOT in any sense mean physically separate in the English language. If the translators thought that this particular usage of diakrino meant to separate or take apart, they would have used that word in the English instead of a word that means to recognize or comprehend mentally.

Which brings us to the point of what the Greek says. The entire phrase in Greek is this:

may (not) diakrino ho (the) somah (Lord’s body) (approximate English of the Greek words).

Now, your definition of diakrino is one of MANY. There are five definitions for the word:

1) to separate, make a distinction, discriminate, to prefer
2) to learn by discrimination, to try, decide 2a) to determine, give judgment, decide a dispute
3) to withdraw from one, desert
4) to separate one's self in a hostile spirit, to oppose, strive with dispute, contend
5) to be at variance with one's self, hesitate, doubt

This is evidenced by the use of the same word, contrary to your belief, in 1 Corinthians 11:31, where diakrino is used yet again, but in the KJV it is translated “judge.” So, the meaning of the word is to be taken in context. And in this context, the writers of the KJV used a word meaning comprehending mentally, which more fits the second definition of diakrinos: to learn by discrimination, to try, decide, or to determine, etc. So, to follow your suit, the verse best states that those who eat or drink unworthily without comprehending mentally (learning by discrimination, determining, etc.) the Lord’s body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is indeed a grave warning.

So, in conclusion, you have to jump through numerous hoops to try and show that they mean, in those verses and in that context, that we are to separate the Lord’s true body from the bread. The use of the language is an obvious introspection of the partaker, as the use of the same Greek word in verse 31 shows. Not to mention that other definitions of the word fit much better than the one you used.

I see no problem with this and I completely agree. Before we can partake of the Eucharist, we must make sure we are worthy of it. That is, in fact, a Catholic teaching.

Now, because I don’t quite understand your argument about “eat,” I’ll move on and maybe answer it inadvertently in other passages.

II. DEFENSE OF THE EUCHARIST

I find it most intriguing that you completely skipped over one of the most important sections of Scripture regarding the Eucharist: John 6:47-58. You mentioned in passing and left it as it was.

Now, I’ll represent it:

There are so many important parts in this passage. Look at verse 51 through 53 first. Christ says he is the living bread, and that if any man eat of this bread they will gain eternal life, and the bread that He gives is his flesh. Then, what happens? The Jews doubt, just as you do! They say, just like you are saying with no differences at all “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Obviously it is a very, very strange saying, and the Jews were taken aback by it. Was Christ asking them to eat him?

Then, what was his response? Did Christ explain he was being figurative? No, he did no such thing. He reiterated what he said. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” TRUTHFULLY he tells us. He does not back down. In fact, he says the same thing FIVE more times over the next few verses.

Then what happens? Some people murmured amongst themselves, saying “This is a hard saying; who can hear it?” Obviously they were confused and thought Christ wasn’t making sense. Christ then rebukes them and says that his words are life and truth, and asks them if they need to see him ascend into heaven to believe him. And then, many of the disciples left him, because it was too hard a teaching to grasp. He didn’t beckon them back. He displayed his truth before them, and they denied Him.

He then turned to the apostles. He didn’t explain a figurative meaning to his words. He merely asked if they wished to leave as well. And, as Peter seemed to not understand entirely what he has heard, he replied that Christ is the Son of the living God, and that they will follow him.

You see, there is no figurativeness in those statements. In fact, historically, taking those words figuratively would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Nothing hinders our interpreting the first part [John 6:26-48 (51)] metaphorically and understanding by "bread of heaven" Christ Himself as the object of faith, to be received in a figurative sense as a spiritual food by the mouth of faith. Such a figurative explanation of the second part of the discourse (John 6:52-72), however, is not only unusual but absolutely impossible, as even Protestant exegetes (Delitzsch, Kostlin, Keil, Kahnis, and others) readily concede. First of all the whole structure of the discourse of promise demands a literal interpretation of the words: "eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood". For Christ mentions a threefold food in His address, the manna of the past (John 6:31, 32, 49,, 59), the heavenly bread of the present (John 6:32 sq.), and the Bread of Life of the future (John 6:27, 52). Corresponding to the three kinds of food and the three periods, there are as many dispensers — Moses dispensing the manna, the Father nourishing man's faith in the Son of God made flesh, finally Christ giving His own-Flesh and Blood. Although the manna, a type of the Eucharist, was indeed eaten with the mouth, it could not, being a transitory food, ward off death. The second food, that offered by the Heavenly Father, is the bread of heaven, which He dispenses hic et nunc to the Jews for their spiritual nourishment, inasmuch as by reason of the Incarnation He holds up His Son to them as the object of their faith. If, however, the third kind of food, which Christ Himself promises to give only at a future time, is a new refection, differing from the last-named food of faith, it can be none other than His true Flesh and Blood, to be really eaten and drunk in Holy Communi*n. This is why Christ was so ready to use the realistic expression "to chew" (John 6:54, 56, 58: trogein) when speaking of this, His Bread of Life, in addition to the phrase, "to eat" (John 6:51, 53: phagein). Cardinal Bellarmine (De Euchar., I, 3), moreover, calls attention to the fact, and rightly so, that if in Christ's mind the manna was a figure of the Eucharist, the latter must have been something more than merely blessed bread, as otherwise the prototype would not substantially excel the type. The same holds true of the other figures of the Eucharist, as the bread and wine offered by Melchisedech, the loaves of proposition (panes propositionis), the paschal lamb. The impossibility of a figurative interpretation is brought home more forcibly by an analysis of the following text: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:54-56). It is true that even among the Semites, and in Scripture itself, the phrase, "to eat some one's flesh", has a figurative meaning, namely, "to persecute, to bitterly hate some one". If, then, the words of Jesus are to be taken figuratively, it would appear that Christ had promised to His enemies eternal life and a glorious resurrection in recompense for the injuries and persecutions directed against Him. The other phrase, "to drink some one's blood", in Scripture, especially, has no other figurative meaning than that of dire chastisement (cf. Isaiah 49:26; Apocalypse 16:6); but, in the present text, this interpretation is just as impossible here as in the phrase, "to eat some one's flesh". Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.

With that aside, it is indeed a hard teaching to understand, but it was Christ instructed us. But, there is further proof of all of this: it was foretold in the Old Testament. In Exodus 12:1-10, the Passover ritual is prescribed.

Passover is of huge significance to the last supper. But notice: the Passover ritual was not complete until the flesh of the lamb was eaten. Not only was the lamb sacrificed to protect the household with its blood, it’s flesh had to be eaten as well. This is the perfect, and prophetic, Old Testament passage in reference to the Eucharist.

Could one be saved on Passover simply by sacrificing the lamb and spreading its blood over the doorway? No. Everything had to be completed, and that included eating the flesh of the lamb.

III. HISTORICAL CONTEXT

I can think of no better way to show you this that by quoting the early church itself. I assume you are already familiar with Ignatius of Antioch, after I described him earlier. He was the disciple of St. John, the Bishop of Antioch, and was alive before the New Testament was even completed. Let us see what he has to say about the Eucharist.

I continue with Justin Martyr, (100-165 a.d.).

I continue with Irenaeus (circa 100-195 a.d.).

I can continue on and on, but I shall stop here at the moment. I can present many such quotes from the early church. In fact, you will not find any early church fathers who deny the real physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Again, I say to you, if you deny all of this history above, it is the same as saying the Church has been in downfall since the last book of the Bible was written, and the Church was never established correctly. These people of whom I quote, they had DIRECT contact with the apostles! Are you going to deny the truth in their teaching?

Again, I tell you, this has taken me several hours to write and has now reached 8 pages. I hope this shows I am not blowing off your questions. I plan on answering them each, when I have time, to the fullest of my capacity to do it justice. Be patient.

Peace to you.

Which is the exact reason I gave the greek definition for "discern" being diakrino, which we will happily disagree on.

The English language of today is irrelevent here. At the time of this translation it most certainly did mean "separate" as part of the definition, but we are not worried about the english are we?

Again, please read all of the context before posting your view. I wil lquote what I said, then elaborate so you may understand it:

Show me anywhere else in the bible where "diakrino" is translated into the english word "discerning". So what I said, was true. I never said the word diakrino was not used at all with any other word, please go back and reread.

With the current usage of the word diakrino, the best definition is "separate" for "discern". The other word usages having the base of diakrino, can correlate to the rest of the definitions, so we must fundamentally disagree here.

I have but one question to ask you in regards to this scripture:

If you were hungry for human flesh, would you eat someone?

In response to the those specific verses(John 6: 51-5 that you believe you are supposed to take literally,

Why do I not see all catholics dragging around a large Romanic torturing device behind them, namely, the cross?:

Luke 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

Or is it up to the person to discern the scriptures when to take something literally as vs. metaphorically?

I'm sorry to put up such a short reply to your question, but I would like to ask a fairly simple question:

If the teaching of Transubstantiation (a term, BTW we we in the East actually don't use, although we believe the same thing) is in error, then how did the very first disciples, who learned from the apostles, teach it?

You see, I was taught as a Fundamentalist that the Church was pure until Constantine brought in pagan elements in the fourth century. Prior to that, I was just sure as I could be that the Church held the very same Fundamentalist teachings I held at Emmanuel Baptist Church in Mechanicsburg PA.

Imagine my shock then when I began to read the Early Fathers and found out that as early as AD 110, St. Irenaeus was teaching quite clearly that the elements of the communi*n became the very Flesh and Blood that was upon the Cross!!

WHERE did he get such an idea, especially if the Church was not corrupted until the fourth century in Rome? The only possible answer is from the apostles themselves.

Surely they wouldn't corrupt the Gospel, would they?

Just a thought for you, keeping it simple tonight.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed -- more later, din din awaits!!

Well, in other translations (including the Latin Vulgate written by St. Jerome) I am the one who is correct. In fact, most other translations use the word discern instead of judge in verse 31, both using the same word diakrino in the same context. One cannot physically separate onself, can they?

However, if you believe that the KJV is the ONLY translation that is good, then you won't listen to my argument, even if all of hsitory is on my side.

Christ commanded us to partake of his flesh and consume it. He was unrelenting in presenting that to the croawds in John, and he was given two opportunities to explain its "figurativeness." Instead, he reiterated over and over again, using Greek words for "eat" and "chew." He also said "Verily, verily I say unto you." Tell me any other instances in the Bible where he said that and didn't mean it.

This is the inherent problem and it is where Protestants are most hypocritical.

I assume you believe in the literal 6 day creation in Genesis. If you do, how do you know it is to be taken literally and not to be taken as a metaphoric poem about how the world was created?

In Protestantism, who has the authorities to discern scripture? Who has the authority at all? No one. The individuals have the authority in Protestantism. And that's why there are 30,000 denominations or more worldwide, because you all can't agree.

You see, all of the basic argumetns flow back to the authority of the Church. If I can show that the Catholic Church was given the authority by Christ, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But regardless, no, the individual doesn't have the authority to discern scripture. All of what I told is authentic Catholic teaching and doctrine, and it is the doctrine which our entire Church holds and has since the Church began. If my quotes from the early church fathers aren't enough to show that, then there seems little hope in this discussion. You have not commented on them at all anyway, and I'm not sure if you have gotten to them yet.

So, if you disagree with me, then you are admitting that the apostles had it wrong when they passed the teachings of Christ down to their successors, such as Ignatius of Antioch.

I also encourage you to try and find any historical evidence that anyone in the early church believed that the Eucharist wasn't the real physical presence. They used the ACTUAL greek manuscripts themselves and msot of them were taught directly by the apostles. All that you have is your own personal view of some scriptural passages with only your own authority to back it up.

If the disciples and apostles actually believed literally, what Jesus said in those specific words, Lord forgive me for saying this but it has to be said, He never wold have made it to the cross, they would have eaten Him before before that! In fact, they would have eaten Him right then and there.

It is wonderful that we don't have an excuse as the catholic church does, so that I may defend this here. The catholic church likes to strongly claim "one doctrine" and one "unity" in faith, your doctrine can more easily be labeled.

The very institution of the catholic faith was in error from the beginning, it had nothing to do with Peter.

I don't know, maybe he was a cannibal? He probably got it from the Jews, who took everything literally. Notice a lot of the similarity from Pharisees to Catholicism? Just because someone got an idea around the time frame of the apostles existence, does not mean that all ideas came from them, that is pure tunnel vision. Do you not think that at that time, Satan was doing everything within his power to corrupt the minds of individuals so that the church would fail? Of course. Satan had no power over Jesus, and lost the day when Jesus took the worlds' sin upon himself, so what better next step than t oattack the institution of the church, which I am beginning to see he has done a rather good job of it.

To Agent Smith:

Which is censure in itself is it not? The Latin Vulgate(Jerome's Version anyway), was a corrupt paged together farce. He intended it that way to boot. I base nothign off of Jerome's Vulgate. All sites are in error when they claim any finished work from the sources of the minority texts, e.g. Sinatican/Vatican codeces.

I never said the KJV was the ONLY translation that is good, those are your words.

Then I shall take your answer as a "yes", and refer you to my first response to that subject as stated at the top of my post here.

I see no inherent problem, just showing you the fact that the Holy SPirit is needed to be able to have scripture revealed properly.

Absolutely I do, there is no other evidence to show any different that those days were any different than a normal sunup to sundown day.

The Holy Spirit which resides within us.

It is better to right and disagree and go our separate ways than to be wrong and be unified about it. The catholic church excommunicated all of the people with common sense and biblical knowledge that knew this.

Wow, we agree on something, we agree that you cannot show me that the catholic church has the authority to do anything. Ever heard of being under grace and not law? Church "law" has no authority over anyone. That law is written upon christians hearts. When we disobey that law as give nby the Holy Spirit in conscience, we are convicted or punished accordingly.

Yes, that is the basis for the catholic church's reasoning for silencing the Word of God for som many years, and controlling it's people.

Please show scripture showing that an idividula has no way of interpreting scripture. I give you the entire 3rd chapter of 2nd Timothy to read, it concerns this entire thread.

What those early church leaders did with the information given them was between them and the Holy SPirit. I find it hard to believe, especially since the bible makes no mention of them(e.g. Ignatius and Polycarp) inspirationally speaking, that their words were gospel truth. The bible does not contain any of their letters/epistles, so we can faithfully conclude, that although they were both martyred for the christian cause, their letters were not inspired for the Holy Scriptures. They, just like all of the other early local church fathers, were just that. They were the beginning the church age, instituting the local churches. The institution of the catholic church was no different.

Again, I repeat, the fact that the apostles and disciples themselves didn't eat Him right thewn and their is perfect evidence.

This post was last modified: Wed Mar 05, 2008 07:27 PM by Jim.

bump

Hi Jim

I have been lurking with some interest.

I am intrigued by this part of your post.

You are correct in saying that this Fathers letters do not figure in the New Testament Canon. How do you know that they don't appear in the Canon? How and who did establish that Canon? Clearly the the early Church settled what constitutes the Canon. These fathers of early church and those for the next several generations established the Canon. How do we know that the Canon is correct and inspired? The Word does not tell us what is to be included in the Canon. Nor does the Word give us a criteria to be able to judge what constitutes an inspired book or letter, worthy to include in the Canon.

Both you and I are reliant on the Early Church for what constitutes our Canon. If as you suggest above the early fathers had it wrong on practice, why should I even except the New Testament?

I am puzzled how on the onehand you can accept the early fathers, some of whom were disciples of the apostles, had it wrong on the practice of faith yet had it right on the New Testament.

I then totally retract my use of the word "canon". that certainly is synonymous with the Catholic Church and not a wise term to use.

What I should have said was that they do not appear in the New Testament, and since as such, therefore are not inspired.

Thank you very much for pointing that out. that negates my earlier post about "canon". I do not know what is, or is not "canon" in the Catholic Church.

I think I may have confused you using the term "canon". So I will explain what I meant.

The apostles are the ones who were inspired by God to write the letters/epistles and books of the New Testament. Autographs by disciples were not included in the New Testament, I am hoping you do not think they should have been. Autographs by the disciples served to reinforce the autographs by the apostles, but were not inspired.

Hopefully this clarifies my standing.

Jim

I will rephrase my qusetion; How do you know that they don't appear in the New Testament?

In fact you can replace my use of the word Canon with New Testament. They are one and the same thing.

I am not quite sure what you are asking but I will venture a guess that we are speaking of any letters to the churches already spoken to by the apostles?

The answer is simple. The bible we have today was completed in it's entirety by 96 A.D. I was told earlier by someone, I can't remember who, that the oldest book was 1st or 2nd John, but that is simply not true. The preceived dates for those books were around 90 A.D. The book of Revelation is considered to be dated around 96 A.D. All letters after that are simply not included in the New Testament.


We are getting way off of the subject here. We are supposed to be talking about the Eucharist.

And by the way, when I say entirety, I mean that the last of the books that would ever be part of the New Testament, was completed by this date. I did not mean that all of the books together were formed into an entire binding together.

just wanted to clarify that.

Fair enough Jim my question out of context of the original post does not make much sense. My point is a simple one. The letters of Polycarp or Cyril are not in the New Testament. Agreed

But how do we know that they are not. Because we have an established New Testament. A New Testament that was compiled my those early Church Fathers. That is the point, the contents of the New Testament was established by the Church Fathers.

The very same Church Fathers which you think had it wrong on practice of Christianity, ie Eucharist. If as you propose they were so misguided on the practice how can we sure that they are correct when comes to compiling the books of the New Testament.

Afterall the New Testament does not tell us what is to be included in the New Testament. Nor does the New Testament give us a criteria to be able to judge what constitutes an inspired book or letter, worthy to be included within the New Testament.

My conclusion is a simple we have to rely on the Apostolic authority of the Early Church to declare the Books and Letters of New Testament as the inspired word of God. This very same fathers which gave us the New Testament believed in the Eucharist.

Jim I am the guest who has posted. I didn't realise I hadn't logged in