B
broski234
Guest
He didn’t have to hold it up and say “This becomes My body” because He said, “This IS my body!”
- Status
M
Mickey
Guest
Now that was a rockin’ post!
N
ncgolf
Guest
You are right
… we cannot create but Jesus can … His words are effacious … just like His Father … if God said, “Let there be light” … there was … If Jesus says, “This is my body” then it is … both instances of creative power drawn only upon the word spoken.
P
prodigal-sun
Guest
All this clap trap that you just spewed proves to me that you do not understand Transubstantiation.
Peace!
N
NDfan
Guest
Wiki?? Are you kidding me
Broski just for the record I don’t consult Wiki for anything. I happen to be a graduate of Bible college with a minor in church history. I don’t need something unreliable like wiki.
You didn’t have your facts straight and I quote from post 32:
The substance changes,** but the accidents change**. We don’t have to understand how this truly happens.
If you re-read my post I gave you the benefit of the doubt that it was a typo. But why don’t you read what was discussed at the council of Trent in each of the sessions as you will find some amazing topics. One of them being on the topic of sola scriptura. Not in those words but there was discussion with regard to the sources of revelation from GOD. I won’t get into it here so it doesn’t de-rail the thread.
In the 13th session the council issued a definition on transubstantiation which I quoted for you so you could read what the council stated. Not what I stated. That was taken right from their records. If this is also within wiki somewhere then so be it but that certainly was not my source.
And I’ll ask you do you really understand what the church is trying to say when they define that the substance changes but the accidents don’t? Do you really understand the claim there and fully understand the difference between accident and substance? I see many on these boards claiming wheat and alcohol to be accidents which is quite comical. Perhaps you may want to wiki accidents and substance within Aristotelian physics. There is right where transubstantiation is drawn from.
I’m not a disciple that walks away from Jesus’ teachings. I just walk away from bogus RCC teachings. 2 very different things.
Jesus doesn’t need to use the word symbolic to let us know HE was speaking symbolically. This just goes to show your lack of knowledge of the Passover and Seder meal. Jews while partaking in the Seder meal will eat unleavened bread to SYMBOLIZE the body of the lambs slain prior to the exodus. Why? Because there is no Temple to sacrifice an animal for an atonement offering to GOD. The Jews drink 4 cups of wine during the Seder meal. The 3rd cup is taken after the meal and is called the cup of redemption or cup of remembrance. Sound familiar??
The cup of redemption/remembrance is red wine mixed with warm water to SYMBOLIZE the blood of the lambs slain prior to the exodus. The Jews meditate in this deeply to try and bring the past to the present as if they were experiencing it now.
Christ in taking the 3rd cup of redemption was letting the Apostles know that the cup NOW was the new covenant in HIS blood as the final sacrifical lamb for the atonement of all sins for all mankind. The old covenant is gone. That’s why Christ says this cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this in remembrance of ME. The cup of remembrance is for Christ now. The word Anamnesis in Greek is used there. The covenant is now in Christ’s blood and not the blood of the lambs from the exodus. The cup represents the new covenant. Christ doesn’t say this cup of MY blood. In fact if you read very carefully after HE announces the new covenant HE immediately states and I’ll quote from Matthew 26 verse 29 which is key:
29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Do you know what fruit of the vine is?? Fruit of the vine is a way of referring to wine. So Christ HIMSELF is telling me HE still considers the cup to be a cup of wine even after you say HE consecrated it to blood. Now should I believe your teaching or Christ?? I think that’s an easy one!!
B
broski234
Guest
Because it doesn’t say what you are trying to make it say. I know what the Church teaches about Transubstantiation and it’s that the substance changes while the accidents remain the same, PERIOD!Wiki?? Are you kidding me
Broski just for the record I don’t consult Wiki for anything. I happen to be a graduate of Bible college with a minor in church history. I don’t need something unreliable like wiki.
You didn’t have your facts straight and I quote from post 32:
The substance changes,** but the accidents change**. We don’t have to understand how this truly happens.
If you re-read my post I gave you the benefit of the doubt that it was a typo. But why don’t you read what was discussed at the council of Trent in each of the sessions as you will find some amazing topics. One of them being on the topic of sola scriptura. Not in those words but there was discussion with regard to the sources of revelation from GOD. I won’t get into it here so it doesn’t de-rail the thread.
In the 13th session the council issued a definition on transubstantiation which I quoted for you so you could read what the council stated. Not what I stated. That was taken right from their records. If this is also within wiki somewhere then so be it but that certainly was not my source.
And I’ll ask you do you really understand what the church is trying to say when they define that the substance changes but the accidents don’t? Do you really understand the claim there and fully understand the difference between accident and substance? I see many on these boards claiming wheat and alcohol to be accidents which is quite comical. Perhaps you may want to wiki accidents and substance within Aristotelian physics. There is right where transubstantiation is drawn from.
I’m not a disciple that walks away from Jesus’ teachings. I just walk away from bogus RCC teachings. 2 very different things.
Jesus doesn’t need to use the word symbolic to let us know HE was speaking symbolically. This just goes to show your lack of knowledge of the Passover and Seder meal. Jews while partaking in the Seder meal will eat unleavened bread to SYMBOLIZE the body of the lambs slain prior to the exodus. Why? Because there is no Temple to sacrifice an animal for an atonement offering to GOD. The Jews drink 4 cups of wine during the Seder meal. The 3rd cup is taken after the meal and is called the cup of redemption or cup of remembrance. Sound familiar??
The cup of redemption/remembrance is red wine mixed with warm water to SYMBOLIZE the blood of the lambs slain prior to the exodus. The Jews meditate in this deeply to try and bring the past to the present as if they were experiencing it now.
Christ in taking the 3rd cup of redemption was letting the Apostles know that the cup NOW was the new covenant in HIS blood as the final sacrifical lamb for the atonement of all sins for all mankind. The old covenant is gone. That’s why Christ says this cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this in remembrance of ME. The cup of remembrance is for Christ now. The word Anamnesis in Greek is used there. The covenant is now in Christ’s blood and not the blood of the lambs from the exodus. The cup represents the new covenant. Christ doesn’t say this cup of MY blood. In fact if you read very carefully after HE announces the new covenant HE immediately states and I’ll quote from Matthew 26 verse 29 which is key:
29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Do you know what fruit of the vine is?? Fruit of the vine is a way of referring to wine. So Christ HIMSELF is telling me HE still considers the cup to be a cup of wine even after you say HE consecrated it to blood. Now should I believe your teaching or Christ?? I think that’s an easy one!!
M
Mickey
Guest
N
NDfan
Guest
WRONG!!! Bread and wine are not accidents. You are so obviously uneducated on this. Bread and wine have accidents but they themselves are not accidents. They are elements. Elements have substance and accidents. The substance is the literal material they are made of. The accidents are the outward appearance that let’s your senses know what it is. So the substance of bread is gluten, wheat, flour, salt, yeast etc. etc. etc. The accidents are the color white, the smell of bread, the taste of bread, the feel of bread etc. etc. etc. If the substance changes then the accidents change to reflect what the substance is.
Ok so the substance is changed through a miracle. I never had a problem with that and said it over and over and over and over. Get my point???
BUT the RC church has announced that the substance of wine and bread remain not me. That’s why celiacs which is a bad intestinal intolerance to gluten can’t take the host. Gluten is a protein found in bread and is also a substance of bread. Substance substance substance. Are you getting it yet??
The RC church defines transubstantiation as the change of the whole substance to flesh and blood. Maybe you need to study it very carefully so you know what the teaching really is. You can’t have a change in substance to flesh and blood and then still have the substance of bread and wine. It’s one or the other unless the church is moving to Luther’s view.
If the substance of bread is changed to flesh then there is no gluten
Thomas Aquinas stated that the accidents were maintained by a miracle. This was a response to the opponents of transubstantiation who stated that if the substance changes then the accidents have to change. This is true according to the laws of physics. Aquinas responded to this objection but somehow you don’t seem to know this.
And no my understanding is completely correct.
Nothing is further from the truth and please refrain from issuing judgment on what my teachings have been. I’m not taught to disbelieve in RCC teachings. I know biblical interpretation and church history. Many things Rome teaches are wonderful and pure and can be a lesson to all. But some things are defined wrong and cannot be defended. This is one of them.
No I’m not saying that. Again you are not paying attention to my posts. Of course the gnostics are and were heretical. The gnostics saw the matter of this world as being evil. That’s why they would not partake in the supper. They could not get past the symbolic association of Christ with the evil matter of bread and wine. If they had understood the teaching from Ignatius to be transubstantiation they would have agreed because it fits their theology. That’s what I said. I also said that it’s believed by many good scholars that transubstantiation started with the gnostics and somehow made its way into the RCC. That would make complete sense. Study some church history.
No I’m doing exactly what Christ warned us to do. That we have to be discerning. You can’t just blindly follow something without trying to discern if what you are following comes from Christ or the devil. And I’m not saying transubstantiation comes from the devil. It’s just a bad teaching period!!!
I allow HIM all the time. The difference is I’m not stuck on the teachings of the RCC. Your issue is that you are and would not be willing to ever consider that someone else could even be remotely right. That prevents you from listening to the Spirit because you are listening to the RCC.
PEACE
N
NDfan
Guest
Please tell me why. And do you know what Sola Scriptura is??
B
broski234
Guest
Yes, I’m well aware of what the fruit of the vine is. In Matthew 26, Mark 14, and Luke 22, Jesus says of the bread, “This is My body.” He says of the wine, “This is My blood.” Not “this is symbolic of” or “this represents”. He says “this IS”. In John 6, He repeats Himself like He does nowhere else in Scripture, to emphasize the fact that He expects us to eat His flesh and drink His blood and that His flesh is real food and that His blood is real drink. You are refusing to look at all the facts. First, the Jews took Him literally, verse 52. Second, His disciples took Him literally, verse 60. Third, the Apostles took Him literally, verses 67-69. If everyone who heard Him speak at the time took Him literally, why don’t you 2000 years later?Wiki?? Are you kidding me
I’m not a disciple that walks away from Jesus’ teachings. I just walk away from bogus RCC teachings. 2 very different things.
Jesus doesn’t need to use the word symbolic to let us know HE was speaking symbolically. This just goes to show your lack of knowledge of the Passover and Seder meal. Jews while partaking in the Seder meal will eat unleavened bread to SYMBOLIZE the body of the lambs slain prior to the exodus. Why? Because there is no Temple to sacrifice an animal for an atonement offering to GOD. The Jews drink 4 cups of wine during the Seder meal. The 3rd cup is taken after the meal and is called the cup of redemption or cup of remembrance. Sound familiar??
The cup of redemption/remembrance is red wine mixed with warm water to SYMBOLIZE the blood of the lambs slain prior to the exodus. The Jews meditate in this deeply to try and bring the past to the present as if they were experiencing it now.
Christ in taking the 3rd cup of redemption was letting the Apostles know that the cup NOW was the new covenant in HIS blood as the final sacrifical lamb for the atonement of all sins for all mankind. The old covenant is gone. That’s why Christ says this cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this in remembrance of ME. The cup of remembrance is for Christ now. The word Anamnesis in Greek is used there. The covenant is now in Christ’s blood and not the blood of the lambs from the exodus. The cup represents the new covenant. Christ doesn’t say this cup of MY blood. In fact if you read very carefully after HE announces the new covenant HE immediately states and I’ll quote from Matthew 26 verse 29 which is key:
29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Do you know what fruit of the vine is?? Fruit of the vine is a way of referring to wine. So Christ HIMSELF is telling me HE still considers the cup to be a cup of wine even after you say HE consecrated it to blood. Now should I believe your teaching or Christ?? I think that’s an easy one!!
Also, in verse 51, Jesus says that the bread which He will give for the life of the world is His flesh. When did He give His flesh for the life of the world? On the cross. Was that symbolic? If you think Jesus is speaking symbolically here when He says that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, then you must also conclude that Jesus’ death on the cross was symbolic…It wasn’t really Jesus hanging up there…it was symbolic flesh and symbolic blood. Jesus is clearly talking about the flesh that He gave for the life of the world. He did that on the cross. So, I ask you, did Jesus give His real flesh and blood for the life of the world, or was it only symbolic flesh and blood?
To walk away from Christ’s Church is not something to be proud of. And by the way, your patronizing me and sarcasm hasn’t gone unnoticed.
N
NDfan
Guest
Too late I read that a long time ago. What’s your point??
Let’s look at this statement:
Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same —
Again if the accidents remain I don’t have a problem and said this over and over again. But accidents are not gluten. Gluten is a substance which is not supposed to exist after consecration because the substance of bread is now flesh. Someone that has celiac disease cannot tolerate gluten. Many celiacs cannot take the host why?? Because it has GLUTEN in it which is a substance. This just shows the church’s ignorance to its own teaching. They’re trying to justify the existence of Gluten because the accidents remain. ACCIDENTS ARE NOT GLUTEN!!!
P
Patrick_Murebil
Guest
Not only are Jesus’ words effacacious…they are effacacious because Jesus is The Word Of God made flesh/man. When God created the world by saying the words “Let there be light”…it was His Word, Jesus Christ, by whom all things were created…John 1.You are right
The Bible is the word of God because it contains God’s inspired words written and documented on paper. Jesus is the True Word of God to which the writings of the Bible point and whose teachings it documents.
But make no mistake about it Jesus Is the True, Real, Word of God…made flesh.
He is the Living Word of God with whom we have a relationship.
No matter how much we read the written word of God, nor how much we memorize the written word of God , nor how much we quote the written word of God…it is still ink on paper. Inspired ink on paper and such a wonderful gift for us to have to read and study and learn from…
But it is The Living, Resurrected, Word of God, Jesus Christ with whom we have that relationship which takes us into life eternal.
And it is the Living Word of God, body, blood, soul, and divinity which gives us life and makes us one with Him and each other when we eat His flesh and drink His blood as He taught and is documented in the word of God the Bible.
What a wonderful gift He gave to us before he left this world…to be so close to Him and become a part of Him through His body and blood given for us. And now we have the assurance the He is with us even to the end of the world!!
It is real because Jesus is real and alive and well, and there is nothing in this world more real than Him.
God bless all!!!
N
ncgolf
Guest
The whole of Christ’s passion and death is the Seder meal … come to life … in real time. Jesus did not drink the 4th cup because that would have finished the Seder … but for Jesus it was not time. The sacrifice was not yet complete … read a little further in Matthew … 27:48-50 …
“48 Immediatley one of them ran to get a sponge; he soaked it in wine, and putting it on a reed, gave it to him to drink. 49 But the rest said, “Wait let us see if Elijah comes to save him.” 50 But Jesus cried out again in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit.”
The fourth cup was completed while Jesus was on the cross … completing the Passover … your exegesis misses the Passover completion … and its significance …this is why Christ could die after verse 49. He fufilled in this Passover what was not accomplished in any of the previous Passovers.
Jesus is both priest and victim in this particular Passover.
N
ncgolf
Guest
You are right … people have relationships with others … people do not have relationships with books.
This relationship can be a physical one … the relationship between the Jesus and the Church is bridgroom and bride … to me this indicates a physical and spiritual union … just like real marriage.
The physcial part is the Eucharist … so missing out on the Eucharist is limiting oneself to only a piece of this marriage imagery … thus this is why I think our seperated brethern still receive much of what Christ offers … but not all.
G
guanophore
Guest
This is a falsehood. You have a lot of study to do.
You do not understand the doctrine of transubstantiation, or you would not ask this. If you really are interested in this, then you will need to study the Thomistic understanding of accidents.
The only way that you will ever be able to accept the apostolic teaching on this point is if you can accept that it is an ineffible mystery that defies the human abilitie to reason. this is why Jesus said when He was talking about it in Jn 6 that “the flesh is of no avail”. One cannot possibly grasp how the bread and wine become His Body and Blood.Please answer that for me and then maybe you can convert me
With all due respect for my Latin brethren who are prone to trying, it is a Divine Mystery, and will always remain so.
S
Shiann
Guest
This is wrong.
The accidents can change without the substance changing.
Substances can exist without accidents.
Accidents must inhibit a substance to ‘exist’.
Bread is bread wether I toast it, tear it into bread cubes, soak it on water or whatever I can do to change the accidents of it.
With transubstantiation, the bread CEASES to be bread and becomes the Divinity of Christ while retaining the accidents of bread.
Same with the wine.
ALL the perceivable, measurable, tangible aspects of these things are all accidents.
The IS of something never changes- and that is the substnace.
please cite your source.
Wrong. Gluten is an accident of the bread. DNA is an accident of the bread.
N
ncgolf
Guest
That only means words fail us … but we can still perceive it … and like those in the upper room when Thomas finally showed up … we can’t help telling others … it’s just genetic.
N
NDfan
Guest
Prodigal I understand it just fine. It’s your ignorance that is getting in your own way.
But let’s look at how the church defines transubstantiation. The following are taken right from New Advent.
*"Transubstantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another — the **accidents *remaining the same — just as would be the case if wood were miraculously converted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood."
*“The consequence of Transubstantiation, as a conversion of the total substance, is the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, is the express doctrine of the Church (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII)”
“The substance of the bread and wine departs in order to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ”*
So right here the church is admitting that the underlying substance literally departs to make room for the substance of Christ’s flesh and blood. This would include Gluten as Gluten is a substance. Are you getting this yet?? Probably not as I’m sure you’ll tell me that New Advent now does not speak for the church. I also see the church referencing the council of trent, session let’s see now would that be XIII? I think so. Seems I had my facts just fine.
But the problem with this definition is that the church errors when it states that the accidents stay the same. Why do they error? Because the laws of physics state that the accidents have to inhere to the substance and be reflective of the substance. Thoma Aquinas fixes this by stating that in transubstantiation the accidents of bread and wine are held by a miracle. Again I quote from New Advent on Aquinas’ response to this very objection:
With* St. Thomas Aquinas** (III:77:1), that the idea is to be rejected as unbecoming, as though the Body of Christ, in addition to its own accidents, should also assume those of bread and wine. The most that may be said is, that from the Eucharistic Body proceeds a miraculous sustaining power, which supports the appearances bereft of their natural substances and preserves them from collapse.*
Hmm so Aquinas understands that the accidents SHOULD change but claims it to be a miracle.
Well now what do we have left. Certainly not a lot of clap trap since it all came from an RCC site.
Once again to re-iterate if the substance departs from the bread and wine then no gluten exists hence a celiac should have no problem with taking the host. BUT THEY DO. The church admits that the substance of bread and wine are still there. Guess why??? They have to because it’s a liability issue. DID YOU KNOW THAT?? If someone mentioned they had a deadly allergy to gluten or wheat and consulted with a priest about the Eucharist the priest would tell them that it is true bread and wine.
N
NDfan
Guest
Correct I’m admitting that to you. I don’t have a problem with it.
But that’s not what happens. The substance which contains the Gluten still exists. The church admits that. Go ask your priest this weekend if the bread still has gluten in it after consecration. Or if the wine still has alcohol in it after consecration. They most certainly will say yes. If that’s the case then transubstantiation has not happened. Gluten and alcohol are not accidents. Here’s the direct quote from the RCC:
“The substance of the bread and wine** departs** in order to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ”
If that’s the case then the Gluten must be gone. It has to be since Gluten is a substance and needs to cease existence to make room for the substance of Christ.
If the Gluten exists with Christ then we are into Luther’s definition of consubstantiation. You really don’t understand this do you?? You must not and I mean no disrespect but you just can’t get around it.
N
NDfan
Guest
Milligan. And no I’m not trying to be uncharitable.
- Status