Calling on all Protestants on this forum!

[SirShaun]

Neithan:

You say you believe “the bread is Christ”…

Actually, I said I’m undecided about that, and that it’s not relivant to the discussion. Again, I can argue both sides of that part. What you need to convince me of is that it is no longer bread, then you win both parts.

Neithan:

Do you think there is human flesh in the bread? I hope not. Do you think there is really human blood in the wine? If you are saying that Christ is merely “in, with and under” the bread and wine, and yet he is physically present, what kind of physical presence is this? Is he Consubstantially mixing his human flesh and blood in with bread and wine? How can you reconcile this belief with reason?

As someone who’s undecided for that part, I find it no more or less unreasonable to think that it is partly transformed, completely transformed and maintains the essence of both substances, or completely transformed and maintains only the essence of one substance.

To turn it around, listening to the Catholic Answers call in radio show, I remember a caller asking about a priest who said the blessing of the wine over the bread (or maybe it was the blessing of the bread over the wine… I don’t remember) and whoever was answering that day said it seemed to him that the caller did the right thing in passing up the element because it was not properly changed, though he wasn’t sure.

On two counts, how can you justify this with reason: you say it is God, not the priest, who makes the change. How can you then say that if the priest misspoke, the change was not effected, since the priest doesn’t have the power to make that change anyway? And on count two, how can you justify saying they should pass it up if they’re unsure? If they eat/drink it, and it’s not changed, then they eat/drink bread/wine. If they pass it up, and it is changed, they pass up the body/blood of the Lord! They pass up their chance to take part in it!

These and other such examples I have heard from Catholics at large and on the Catholic Answers call in show make it sound more like pegan magic (where by saying the right words in the right order with our heart right stading in the right place and doing the right thing with the right elements, we can make God do something) than trusting God.

Neithan:

When we say the bread and wine cease to be the substances of bread and wine, we mean that they are no longer what they were. They are no longer that bread and wine that existed before the consecration.

Great. Now I understand what you mean when you say it. (For the record, nothing I haven’t heard and read before, so not enlightening to me, but for others, I’m sure it is very enlightening, so the effort is definately not wasted.)

I also understand the theory of geocentrism, evolution, spontaneous generation, and the Easter Bunny, just as fully. I don’t believe in any of them any more strongly just because I understand them. In fact, the more fully I understand those theories, and how they would need to be applied today, the more convinced I am that they are wrong. The same with transubstatiation. The more I understand it, and how it would need to be applied in practice, the more false it seems. The above is just one of several practical applications of the theory which seem contrary to God’s practice, love, and guidance for us mortals so far. Not that I claim perfect understanding of God’s ways, which is why I pose the question “Is transubstanciation true?” as opposed to the statement, “It is not true.” I’ve been wrong before, I have good reason to believe I’ll be wrong again (but I could be wrong) and am just waiting for evedence that I am wrong on this one.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Exporter:

Here is a protestant site full of live ones.
churchofchristdiscussions.com/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=Textual;action=display;num=1086195442;start=30

Give it a try.

I grew up in that one Is it charitable to scream RUN,RUN they are going to smite you God Bless

 

[Neithan]

Originally posted by SirShaun:
Great. Now I understand what you mean when you say it. (For the record, nothing I haven’t heard and read before, so not enlightening to me, but for others, I’m sure it is very enlightening, so the effort is definately not wasted.)

Good point. No amount of discussion can enlighten you in matters pertaining to faith. Only God can do this by Revelation once the proper foundations (hearing the Word, tested by reason and observation) have been laid.

Not that I claim perfect understanding of God’s ways, which is why I pose the question “Is transubstanciation true?” as opposed to the statement, “It is not true.” I’ve been wrong before, I have good reason to believe I’ll be wrong again (but I could be wrong) and am just waiting for evedence that I am wrong on this one.

Right, no one has perfect understanding, though we must trust that some understanding is attainable, at least partially. So is Transubstantiation true? Well, we must be receptive to the Truth in order to attain understanding. Personally I feel that the pursuit of Truth is one of the primary goals of life. I’m assuming now that we both believe that Truths of pure Faith can be found in the Christian religion, purer and fuller than any other religion now existing. If Transubstantiation is wrong, then the Church is wrong and our understanding of Scripture is wrong, perhaps Scripture was even written incorrectly which then ruins its inerrancy and our entire religion is jeopardized. A very slippery slope entails.

Transubstantiation is in harmony with observation because it explains that the appearances of bread and wine remain, as they do. Transubstantiation is in harmony with reason because we understand that Christ physically assumes bread and wine, he becomes bread and wine, rather than mixing human flesh and blood with normal bread and wine. Because nothing in observation is against this, and our reason can not object to this idea except insofar as we can not physically see it happen, our faith must simply either accept or reject it.

Consubstantiation, in those cases where it expects actual normal human flesh and blood in the bread and wine is contrary to observation and therefore can not be true. If it does not expect normal human flesh and blood in the bread and wine, but Christ is only “partially” present, we have difficulties in reasoning, such as “which crumb, molecule, atom etc. is Christ, and which is merely bread?” “How do we know if we are receiving a crumb, molecule atom etc. which is truly Christ and not merely bread?” Most importantly, Consubstantiation is against Revelation, which is found foremost in Scripture, and states clearly a full presence, rather than a partial (see catholic encyclopaedia’s [article ](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#3<font face=)on Transubstantiation, in particular III, b.)

(Continued)

 

[Neithan]

On two counts, how can you justify this with reason: you say it is God, not the priest, who makes the change. How can you then say that if the priest misspoke, the change was not effected, since the priest doesn’t have the power to make that change anyway? And on count two, how can you justify saying they should pass it up if they’re unsure? If they eat/drink it, and it’s not changed, then they eat/drink bread/wine. If they pass it up, and it is changed, they pass up the body/blood of the Lord! They pass up their chance to take part in it!

Christianity is both a corporeal and spiritual religion. This reflects our existences as human beings. The Angels are pure spirit, but God has given us, his “secondborn” children, material bodies. We have both a physical and spiritual element in all of us. Likewise, all sacraments communicated to us for our salvation (body and spirit) must have both physical and spiritual elements. The physical element in the Eucharist is, obviously, Christ. Yet because the sacrament is effected physically, the consecration, the words spoken, are part of this physical element. If the words are misspoken, then the physical part of the sacrament is not properly instituted.

This would be similar to a Baptism in which the priest says something like “I baptize you…in the Name of the Father, and in the Name of the Son, and in the Name of the Holy Spirit.” Even if the holy water is used, this baptism is invalid. Why? Because the priest misspoke the words, a vital part of the physical element. There is not three names, but one name of God, and three persons. So, in this case, the Baptism is not valid, though the recipient may not know it. God demands the proper physical elements for sacraments to work their spiritual element. This is simply because we are both physical and spiritual, and require both to be done. The physical by the priest, who acts in stead of Christ, and the spiritual done by the Holy Spirit Himself who is present in the Church and comes to us through Christ. Of course only the former can possibly be done incorrectly, in which case the latter, which always follows, can not be effected.

There is no harm done to the innocent Christian if he/she does not realize that the sacrament was not properly instituted. If there is any doubt, then the sacrament is useless anyway, as the spiritual element always requires a firm faith (which is spiritual in nature) for its efficacy.

If Transubstantiation is in harmony with observation, reason and Revelation, and Consubstantiation contradicts any of these, then how can the latter be correct? To accept the former is a “leap of faith” (from reason based on revelation) but that is integral to our Christian religion.

God bless!

 

[O.S.Luke]

I think one problem with transubstantiation is that it uses a rational science to explain a mystery (sacramentum/mysterion). Before T. become dogma, the Church (and most people) were content with the explanation that bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Period. No further explanation needed. When Rationalism become in vogue, all of the sudden the Church had to “explain” the mystery.

Nowadays, for T. to make sense, you need some education in Thomistic/Aristotelian philosophy and science. T., rightly understood, is palatable. But even at that, explaining away a mystery seems a contradiction in terms, and possibly even minimizes the power and mystery of the sacrament.

The Eastern Orthodox, while embracing a dogma about the eucharist that keeps them in communion with Rome, deal with T. by not explaining it - simply embracing the mystery. I think this is a better way to embrace the mystery of the Eucharist and the Real Presence of Christ.

O+

 

[O.S.Luke]

duplicate post

 

[Benadam]

O.S. Luke:

I think one problem with transubstantiation is that it uses a rational science to explain a mystery (sacramentum/mysterion). Before T. become dogma, the Church (and most people) were content with the explanation that bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Period. No further explanation needed. When Rationalism become in vogue, all of the sudden the Church had to “explain” the mystery.

Nowadays, for T. to make sense, you need some education in Thomistic/Aristotelian philosophy and science. T., rightly understood, is palatable. But even at that, explaining away a mystery seems a contradiction in terms, and possibly even minimizes the power and mystery of the sacrament.

The Eastern Orthodox, while embracing a dogma about the eucharist that keeps them in communion with Rome, deal with T. by not explaining it - simply embracing the mystery. I think this is a better way to embrace the mystery of the Eucharist and the Real Presence of Christ.

O+

Of course you are right, it is a grace. I think it is an experiencial effect of the Sacraments. There is no need to define it when experienced, it’s known for what is. The Church doesn’t feel the need to either untill misunderstanding threatens it’s meaning in a way that becomes scandalous.

 

[Shibboleth]

Booklover:

How True! I sometimes think Protestants are the most unbelieving people on the planet. They only believe what they can understand. I think their whole ideology can be summed up this way: Salvation by Jesus Christ on faith alone and interpreting scriptures any way they like!

I don’t understand this summation at all…

First off Protestants are constantly accused of Interpreting Scriptures any way that they like. Well if you are speaking of Protestant churches then you may have an argument but Protestants people as a whole do not do this.

Most believe and profess exactly what they were taught in Church, be that Pentecostal, Lutheran, Baptist, etc., without much question. Many Catholic individuals do the same. So do they interpret scriptures for themselves? – no they leave that up to their Ministers, Pastors, Reverends, Priest, etc. Do those beliefs differ from Catholic beliefs? - most certainly but they are not really their own interpretations. So one must say that Protestants follow the interpretations that they are taught and Catholic follow the interpretations that they are taught.

Are they unbelieving or the most unbelieving people? Absolutely not, they are firm in their beliefs – want to test this go to a Church of Christ website and chat for a while – they have beliefs that they are very very strong about. Do they disbelieve some Catholic doctrines? – most certainly but disbelieving a doctrine is not the same as unbelieving, else one could say that Catholics are unbelieving because they disbelieve some Protestant doctrine.

So in the end it still comes down to, I am right and you are wrong. We will probably see just this kind of behavior as a few Catholics will come on and say – but they are disbelieving because this is the way that it is and they choose to believe differently. We are the first – 2000 years – etc.

 

[jamesclaude]

dennisknapp:

What are you trying to say?

This is what I hear:

Assertion+Assertion+Assertion=truth.

What is missing is EVIDENCE…

What a TIMELY observation ! ( President Bush uses it quite effectively - over half of our voting population bought it - and believes it ) .

Is all the “stuff” that has been “added” since the Early Church what you refer to as “The Magisterium” ? One thing that keeps me in the Anglican ( Episcopal ) Church is that we don’t have it - and like it that way.

Also, we don’t embrace many “newer” doctrines ( Sacred Heart, etc. If a nun has a dream, does that change everything ? A committee is appointed to decide whether or not it was a “VALID” dream ? )

Some prefer a more primitive catholicism without too many bells and whistles. If you get the basics down proficiently, THEN sweat the small stuff - or let a city full of elderly single men sit around and think it up - for you to believe and do…

Some folks are ready to believe anything. And, some simply aren’t.

Say it and say it and say it - that still doesn’t justify making it so…

I tend to agree with Dennis !

 

[dennisknapp]

jamesclaude:

What a TIMELY observation ! ( President Bush uses it quite effectively - over half of our voting population bought it - and believes it ) .

Is all the “stuff” that has been “added” since the Early Church what you refer to as “The Magisterium” ? One thing that keeps me in the Anglican ( Episcopal ) Church is that we don’t have it - and like it that way.

Also, we don’t embrace many “newer” doctrines ( Sacred Heart, etc. If a nun has a dream, does that change everything ? A committee is appointed to decide whether or not it was a “VALID” dream ? )

Some prefer a more primitive catholicism without too many bells and whistles. If you get the basics down proficiently, THEN sweat the small stuff - or let a city full of elderly single men sit around and think it up - for you to believe and do…

Some folks are ready to believe anything. And, some simply aren’t.

Say it and say it and say it - that still doesn’t justify making it so…

I tend to agree with Dennis !

But all you are doing is making assertions. Where is the evidence?

 

[SirShaun]

Neithan:

Right, no one has perfect understanding, though we must trust that some understanding is attainable, at least partially. So is Transubstantiation true? Well, we must be receptive to the Truth in order to attain understanding. Personally I feel that the pursuit of Truth is one of the primary goals of life. I’m assuming now that we both believe that Truths of pure Faith can be found in the Christian religion, purer and fuller than any other religion now existing. If Transubstantiation is wrong, then the Church is wrong and our understanding of Scripture is wrong, perhaps Scripture was even written incorrectly which then ruins its inerrancy and our entire religion is jeopardized. A very slippery slope entails.

I disagree. If Transubstantiation is false, the only thing in jeopardy is the inerrancy of the Roman Catholic Church. Thousands of clear thinking, intelegent individuals have studdied the Scriptures for years, building their interpretations upon the interpretations of other intelegent individuals who had studdied the Scriptures before them, without the need for transubstantiation. Augustine, Tertullian, and my Baptist friends all see it as a symbol. The Lutherens believe in the Real Presence of Christ, without believing in Transubstantiation. The Eastern Orthodox believe in the Real Presence, without going to any further details.

Neithan:

Consubstantiation, in those cases where it expects actual normal human flesh and blood in the bread and wine is contrary to observation and therefore can not be true.

Now, this doesn’t even make sense if you’re trying to argue for Transubstantiation not conflicting with observation. If it is possible for something that is wholey changed from one substance to another to maintain the appearance of the first, how much more so something that is only partly changed?

But to put your transubstantiation to the same standard you are putting their consubstantiation, what external evedence (for you are obviously looking for external evedence from them that there is real blood and flesh) is there that the whole thing is changed? (Again, an honest question. I’m not saying there is no evedence, I’m asking what evedence there is, because I honestly haven’t heard one way or the other.)

Now, if there is no external evedence, and if you’re right, the reason is obvious: the appearance is not changed, according to your own theory. But again, I ask, which is more plausable: that something that is entirely something new has the same appearance, or something which is partly changed?

I remember when I was young, there was a hill that had rocks that grew quarts crystals. That is a change in the structure of the rock. Some of them had crystals in them, and some didn’t, but we couldn’t tell which were which until we had broken them open, because not the whole rock was changed. A rock hound may have had a way to tell, but we were kids. It was easy to hide the change from us, because it was only a partial change. Had it been a whole change, it would have been far harder to hide it.

So, at that, I’d say either both, or neither, contradict observation, depending on how you decide to term the expected observation.

dennisknapp:

Assertion+Assertion+Assertion=truth

I’m starting to feel the same way here… you all assert that the doctrines I pointed to were not taught in the early church, but no one has come forward to show that the quotes I gave were condemned by any of their contemporaries. And even from among those three doctrines, all the comments I have had have been focused on one. Maybe the point of papal fallibility isn’t so easily disproven? or that Mary was concieved in original sin the same as the rest of us? And these two are items in which the rest of Christondom is more firmly united against the Roman Catholic Church than the one you are argueing, winning those two would have a much greater impact than transubstantiation.

 

[dennisknapp]

SirShaun:

I’m starting to feel the same way here… you all assert that the doctrines I pointed to were not taught in the early church, but no one has come forward to show that the quotes I gave were condemned by any of their contemporaries. And even from among those three doctrines, all the comments I have had have been focused on one. Maybe the point of papal fallibility isn’t so easily disproven? or that Mary was concieved in original sin the same as the rest of us? And these two are items in which the rest of Christondom is more firmly united against the Roman Catholic Church than the one you are argueing, winning those two would have a much greater impact than transubstantiation.

Pope Clement I

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us *, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (*Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

 

[dennisknapp]

Cont.

Ignatius of Antioch

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (*Letter to the Romans *1:1 [A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

Dionysius of Corinth

“For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying” (*Letter to Pope Soter *in Eusebius, *Church History *4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).

“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement” (ibid., 4:23:11).

 

[dennisknapp]

Cont.

The Martyrs of Lyons

“And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches” (Eusebius, *Church History *5:3:4 [A.D. 312])

“And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’” (ibid., 5:4:1–2).

Irenaeus

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

 

[dennisknapp]

Cont.

Augustine

“There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]” (*Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” *5 [A.D. 397]).

“[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” (*Sermons *131:10 [A.D. 411]).

 

[dennisknapp]

And Mary:

Justin Martyr

“[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied ‘Be it done unto me according to your word’ [Luke 1:38]” (*Dialogue with Trypho the Jew *100 [A.D. 155]).

 

[dennisknapp]

Cont.

Irenaeus

“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband—for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply—having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith” (*Against Heresies *3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

"The Lord then was manifestly coming to his own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation that is supported by himself. He was making a recapitulation of that disobedience that had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience that was upon a tree . Furthermore, the original deception was to be done away with—the deception by which that virgin Eve (who was already espoused to a man) was unhappily misled. That this was to be overturned was happily announced through means of the truth by the angel to the Virgin Mary (who was also [espoused] to a man). . . . So if Eve disobeyed God, yet Mary was persuaded to be obedient to God. In this way, the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin. Virginal disobedience has been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way, the sin of the first created man received amendment by the correction of the First-Begotten" (ibid., 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

 

[dennisknapp]

Cont.

Ephraim the Syrian

“You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?” (*Nisibene Hymns *27:8 [A.D. 361]).

Ambrose of Milan

“Mary’s life should be for you a pictorial image of virginity. Her life is like a mirror reflecting the face of chastity and the form of virtue. Therein you may find a model for your own life . . . showing what to improve, what to imitate, what to hold fast to” (*The Virgins *2:2:6 [A.D. 377]).

“The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater [to teach by example] than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose? What more chaste than she who bore a body without contact with another body? For why should I speak of her other virtues? She was a virgin not only in body but also in mind, who stained the sincerity of its disposition by no guile, who was humble in heart, grave in speech, prudent in mind, sparing of words, studious in reading, resting her hope not on uncertain riches, but on the prayer of the poor, intent on work, modest in discourse; wont to seek not man but God as the judge of her thoughts, to injure no one, to have goodwill towards all, to rise up before her elders, not to envy her equals, to avoid boastfulness, to follow reason, to love virtue. When did she pain her parents even by a look? When did she disagree with her neighbors? When did she despise the lowly? When did she avoid the needy?” (ibid., 2:2:7).

“Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a virgin not only undefiled, but a virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin” (*Commentary on Psalm 118:*22–30 [A.D. 387]).

 

[dennisknapp]

cont.

Augustine

“Our Lord . . . was not averse to males, for he took the form of a male, nor to females, for of a female he was born. Besides, there is a great mystery here: that just as death comes to us through a woman, life is born to us through a woman; that the devil, defeated, would be tormented by each nature, feminine and masculine, as he had taken delight in the defection of both” (*Christian Combat *22:24 [A.D. 396]).

“That one woman is both mother and virgin, not in spirit only but even in body. In spirit she is mother, not of our head, who is our Savior himself—of whom all, even she herself, are rightly called children of the bridegroom—but plainly she is the mother of us who are his members, because by love she has cooperated so that the faithful, who are the members of that head, might be born in the Church. In body, indeed, she is the Mother of that very head” (*Holy Virginity *6:6 [A.D. 401]).

…

**“Having excepted the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?—so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer?” (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

 

[dennisknapp]

SirShaun:

I disagree. If Transubstantiation is false, the only thing in jeopardy is the inerrancy of the Roman Catholic Church. Thousands of clear thinking, intelegent individuals have studdied the Scriptures for years, building their interpretations upon the interpretations of other intelegent individuals who had studdied the Scriptures before them, **without the need for transubstantiation. Augustine, Tertullian, and my Baptist friends all see it as a symbol./**QUOTE]

No, this is what they believed:

Tertullian

"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (*The Resurrection of the Dead *8 [A.D. 210]).

Augustine

"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (*Explanations of the Psalms *33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (*Sermons *227 [A.D. 411]).

…
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).