A
alphomega
Guest
Do you think this would convince them?
catholicsay.com/bleeding-host-in-poland-confirmed-to-be-the-true-body-and-blood-of-christ/
Probably not…for those who need proof there will never be enough.
- Status
catholicsay.com/bleeding-host-in-poland-confirmed-to-be-the-true-body-and-blood-of-christ/
Probably not…for those who need proof there will never be enough.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Please carefully read and perhaps make a study of the link I posted above. You may find it very informative.
Also, please note that the Bishop of Antioch, St. Ignatius wrote to the church at Smyrna, (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans) and in it he very plainly says the following.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Prayerfully studying that passage should carry any fundamentalist Christian to at least a more high Church protestant position. Because there just seems to be no plausible explanation around it for those who take this symbolic ordinance stance, imo.
But again, the protestant rebuttal is that it wasn’t the communion species that caused people to die, it was the act of disrespecting God. And they point to Acts 5 with Ananias dropping dead for lying to the Holy Spirit.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
I have heard all kinds of things.
1.) Were killing Jesus over and over at the Mass, when Jesus said it was finished on the cross, once and for all…
2.) We are cannibals
3.) It says in the scriptures we are not to drink blood.
4.) Why would it even be necessary when you can have a personal relationship with him through the Word
5.) The Catholic Church is a sacrament grace dispenser and that’s not what God intended for us.
6.) If it were true, why is there no tangible evidence of it in the lives of everyday Catholics? The implication is that they are all deceived, unregenerate people.
7.) If it were true, how come more disciples didn’t write about it in full detail.
Others i cant think of now because I’m tired lol
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Most of the protestants I associate with would say that water Baptism is more of a covenant sign like circumcision. And that there is nothing significant taking place there, no sins forgiven or grace received. They do not believe in infused righteousness they think it’s imputed.
All you have to do if confess Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior and you have the won the race, salvation is attained and nobody, not even yourself, can remove you from His hand John 10
S
steve_b
Guest
When Jesus said, Lk 22:19
**“DO τε] this in memory of me” **
τε* poieō *DO
He gave His apostles at the table the ability to do what He was doing. He ordained them at this point to do what He was instituting, …the Eucharist.
- to make
a) with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.
b)to be the authors of, the cause
c) to make ready, to prepare
d) to produce, bear, shoot forth
e) to acquire, to provide a thing for one’s self
f)to make a thing out of something
g) to (make i.e.) render one anything - to (make i.e.) constitute or appoint one anything, to appoint or ordain one that
- to (make i.e.) declare one anything
h) to put one forth, to lead him out
i)to make one do something - cause one to
j)to be the authors of a thing (to cause, bring about) - to do
a) to act rightly, do well
1)to carry out, to execute
b) to do a thing unto one
1)to do to one
c) with designation of time: to pass, spend
d)to celebrate, keep - to make ready, and so at the same time to institute, the celebration of the passover
e)to perform: to a promise
L:
If Jesus was speaking symbolically in Jn 6: why were His disciples not hearing Him that way? Why were they offended at what Jesus was teaching if they knew it was all sumbolic? Why did they leave Him if it is all sybolic? And seeing that His followers (5000 from the day before) were offended, why didn’t Jesus correct Himself with them so they would stay and not leave Him over some misunderstanding? Why did Jesus let them go and not go after them?
Jesus knew in advance who wouldn’t stay. He knew in advance who wouldn’t accept. Because he knew in advance, those who left, HAD NO FAITH
Jn 6: 64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, …
S
susanlo
Guest
Thank you for the link.
The passage from Ignatius is very interesting to this topic. Certainly in the first 3 centuries it seems Ignatius and Irenaeus have the strongest view of “realism” to the elements from the passages I have read by the theologians at the time.
In the letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius is warning about a group of gnostics called Docetists. earlychristianwritings.com/srawley/smyrnaeans.html
“Christian heresy and one of the earliest Christian sectarian doctrines, affirming that Christ did not have a real or natural body during his life on earth but only an apparent or phantom one… Docetists asserted that Christ was born without any participation of matter and that all the acts and sufferings of his life, including the Crucifixion, were mere appearances.” - britannica.com/topic/Docetism
This is evidenced in his letter by sentences such as:
“For what does any one profit me, if he commends me,** but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body**?”
“For what does it profit, if any one commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not owning Him to be God incarnate? He that does not confess this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death.”
“Unless he believes that Christ Jesus has lived in the flesh, and shall confess His cross and passion, and the blood which He shed for the salvation of the world, he shall not obtain eternal life, whether he be a king, or a priest, or a ruler, or a private person, a master or a servant, a man or a woman.”
“They are ashamed of the cross; they mock at the passion; they make a jest of the resurrection.”
earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-longer.html
With that background in mind, I do not know if his statements: “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes.” if he is saying that these “heretics” are denying that the bread and cup transubstantiate into literal flesh and blood; or if he could mean that the bread and cup do not represent a body because Jesus never had flesh and blood to begin with.
I am not trying to prove that Ignatius could not have believed in transubstantiation, but that we can’t be confident that he did. JND Kelly calls Cyril of Jerusalem (350AD) the “pioneer of the conversion doctrine.” He later mentions Ambrose in his “Mysteries” (390AD) bringing the conversion idea to the west. I am not a scholarly theologian, but from the collection of writings regarding the Eucharist from the first 500 years, that seems to be about right. Augustine came after Ambrose and Cyril and seemed to say that it is a “figure” and a “mere physical likeness” as I quoted above. It is certain that the idea of the conversion did eventually win over in time. It would be wrong to assert that EVERYONE agreed on this in the beginning.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Greetings,
A protestant rebuttal for that is that Jesus speaks figuratively and does not make a habit of correcting himself whether people misunderstand or not:
John 2:19-22New International Version (NIV)
E
Eric_Magus
Guest
Transubstantiation is a form of Ceremonial Magic. Magic involves three elements: The Spell, the Ritual, and the condition of the Performer. The Magical nature of the Mass is clear: A Priest, properly consecrated, takes on the Person of the god (Christ in this case, in other religions other gods are involved). He performs a specific ritual and speaks a spell, that is, a set form of words which are automatically effective to fulfill the desired result. This type of Magic is called “Theurgy”, that is “Divine Work”, and is for purely spiritual purposes. most other forms of Magic are Thaumaturgy, Wonder-working, and are done to obtain results of a more material nature (physical healing or cursing, money-making etc.) The fact that the Catholic church does not use the words “Magic” or “Theurgy” does not change the obvious nature of the rites.
Because it’s later Catholics who have become nitpicky over terminology, while St. Paul’s example, and indeed, the liturgies of the Church (lex orandi, lex credendi) have had no issues referring to the Eucharist as bread and the Precious Blood as wine or cup, any more than it has any issues saying the sun rises.
It’s the language of appearances, and is perfectly acceptable to use especially in a pinch.
W
Wesrock
Guest
This just seems like a rather weak argument. The continued tradition from those times is that there was a real transformation. There’s no reason, when reading further back to when they were less descriptive, that anything different was meant. Especially when there was so much concern and stress of not innovating and sticking to what was directly handed down.
But it’s not just Ignatius and Irenaeus. We have Saint Justin Martyr, too. I’d hardly consider his testimony weak.
W
Wesrock
Guest
It’s not as if the scriptures and Ignatius’ and Irenaeus’ letters were found in a vacuum and from this the Real Presence was derived. We have men, who were taught by other men, who were taught by other men, who, going back, were taught by the apostles, only a few generations removed. There’s a real handing down of teaching between living men, which is so much more than what was written down and still survives. And the written records don’t contradict. I don’t see how we could be misinterpreting Ignatius’ position, when it states the same thing his successors said, and given the living handing on of teachings and education that occurred. It’s not an innovation based on a misunderstanding of Ignatius’ letters or anything, as if those existed in a vacuum and were found hundreds of years later and doctrine was derived from it.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Another common Protestant objection - Transubstantiation violates Levitical law:
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
And the Didache which doesn’t exactly resemble a Baptist document, referring to the Eucharist as “spiritual food and drink”
S
SJacob7
Guest
I’ve heard this objection before but don’t know how to defend it. Could you explain how it doesn’t violate the law? Thanks.
W
Wannano
Guest
I thought I had read some time ago that transubstantiation itself was not formulated and practiced for several/many years after Christ and the Apostles. Am I wrong on that?
I think I am correct that the Real Presence is seen as reality by some without Transubstantiation, am I wrong on that?
W
Wesrock
Guest
Note thay it’s not called an abomination. The blood contains the life. It’s the blood that is poured out as an offerring on God’s altar.
Now, Jesus came to give us life, no? He is the way to eternal life. If the life is in the blood, and Jesus directs us to drink HIS blood to have eternal life . . . Well, it just follows, no? God shares himself with is so that we may LIVE. It’s the New Covenant of his blood. The prohibition then points to this new covenant communion with God and being alive in him.
Also, just have to add, I hope all the Protestants who cite this objection insist on earing all their meats well done.
C
clem456
Guest
Do they take literally “and the Word became flesh”? That’s a tough one.
This is the seemingly preposterous claim that God took on material form with a human body.
Really? I don’t think that was meant to be taken literally…
Yet a basic Christian belief is that Christ could be seen, touched, heard, shed blood, died a real human death etc… Apparently God has the power to be who he is, in whatever form he wills, even a physical form that is present to us.
And even more preposterous is: his dead body animated and rose from the dead.
Talk about making one’s self present!
W
Wesrock
Guest
This is the issue. There seems to be a common thread in objections to Catholic things. People note that clerical celibacy came into being over 1,000 years after Christ, but miss that clerical sexual continence is an ancient apostolic tradition going back to the early church. Or that the Marian dogmas of the Assumption and Immaculate conception were stated in the 19th and 20th centuries, but again, are beliefs going back to the early Church and are similar on the same teachings (we can nuance the IC a little bit) of the Orthodox church). Or Purgatory supposedly wasn’t developed until a thousand years later, but miss that the early Church did believe in prayers that helped the dead and even the suffering of the faithful dead who were not damned but apparently weren’t in heaven either, but that the martyrs were made perfect through their earthly suffering and went straight to heaven.
Not to take us off topic, mind. The consistent teaching has been that we eat the flesh and blood under the appearance of bread and wine. Transubstantiation may be a formal, metaphysical statement, articulated in a certain way that clarifies what is this does and does not entail, but it’s not like the central teaching of it is anything new. It’s point of fact central to Christian life.
S
susanlo
Guest
“Spiritual food and drink” and literal flesh and blood aren’t exactly synonyms. I don’t know if any group denies the spirituality of the Eucharist. Why else would it be done? I don’t know if that terminology makes a clear distinction of the understanding of the physical substance of the elements by those writing the Didache.
- Status