Does scripture actually teach transubstantiation?

[PC_Master]

maryj> Thanks for refraining from ad hominems, and other generally uncharitable behavior. I only wish everyone else would learn from that (some have been fairly kind – others simply don’t seem to know the meaning of charity).

To All> I have read, and will continue to read, the posts in this thread, in hopes that I’ll see some content which strikes me as correct and convinces me of the point it’s making. I may or may not reply to this thread further, given my busy schedule, so I’d ask that everyone please understand that I’m not silent either because “you’ve won the argument” or because I have no answer to your points – I could rebut many of the posts here, but to do so, I fear, will only waste time by taking us in circles regarding the arguments.

I pray that you all study scripture closely and pray for understanding in this issue. God bless you all.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

God thanks for the Eucharist taught in Your Holy Word!

 

[Tomster]

maryj> Thanks for refraining from ad hominems, and other generally uncharitable behavior. I only wish everyone else would learn from that (some have been fairly kind – others simply don’t seem to know the meaning of charity).

To All> I have read, and will continue to read, the posts in this thread, in hopes that I’ll see some content which strikes me as correct and convinces me of the point it’s making. I may or may not reply to this thread further, given my busy schedule, so I’d ask that everyone please understand that I’m not silent either because “you’ve won the argument” or because I have no answer to your points – I could rebut many of the posts here, but to do so, I fear, will only waste time by taking us in circles regarding the arguments.

I pray that you all study scripture closely and pray for understanding in this issue. God bless you all.

May God bless you too PCM!

“For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.” - 1 Corinthians 10:17

As a result of the union which the partaking of the body and blood of the Lord established between Christ and Christians, the latter are intimately united among themselves; though individual many, they are all one in Christ.

All that partake, etc., i.e., all who eat of the one Eucharistic bread are one mystical bread and one mystical body; in other words, since Christ is really present in this Eucharistic bread all who eat of it are spiritually transformed in Christ, and are thus intimately united to Him and to one another. This could not be, if what we eat were ordinary bread; for in that case it would be converted into our individual substances, instead of we being converted into it. Hence St. Augustine said, personifying this Eucharistic bread: “Nor shall thou change Me into Thee, as thou dost the food of thy flesh: but thou shall be changed into Me.” The real body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is the food and consolidation of His Mystical Body, the Church (cf. Ephesians 1:23; Ephesians 5:20; Colossians 2:19; 1 Corinthians 6:15)

St. Paul wishes to show the Corinthians that as the faithful, by partaking of the table of the Lord, are incorporated in Christ and closely united among one another, so those who partake of the table of idols and assist at idolatrous banquets become, to a certain extent, united to the idols and to those who adore them.

The unity with Christ’s body which St. Paul makes characteristic of all those who eat the Eucharistic bread is a clear proof, not only of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but it is also a refutation of both consubstantiation and impanation; otherwise how could Christians in Ephesus, Corinth and elsewhere be said to partake of one bread while they were so far apart?

 

[CentralFLJames]

May God bless you too PCM!

“For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.” - 1 Corinthians 10:17

As a result of the union which the partaking of the body and blood of the Lord established between Christ and Christians, the latter are intimately united among themselves; though individual many, they are all one in Christ.

All that partake, etc., i.e., all who eat of the one Eucharistic bread are one mystical bread and one mystical body; in other words, since Christ is really present in this Eucharistic bread all who eat of it are spiritually transformed in Christ, and are thus intimately united to Him and to one another. This could not be, if what we eat were ordinary bread; for in that case it would be converted into our individual substances, instead of we being converted into it. Hence St. Augustine said, personifying this Eucharistic bread: “Nor shall thou change Me into Thee, as thou dost the food of thy flesh: but thou shall be changed into Me.” The real body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is the food and consolidation of His Mystical Body, the Church (cf. Ephesians 1:23; Ephesians 5:20; Colossians 2:19; 1 Corinthians 6:15)

St. Paul wishes to show the Corinthians that as the faithful, by partaking of the table of the Lord, are incorporated in Christ and closely united among one another, so those who partake of the table of idols and assist at idolatrous banquets become, to a certain extent, united to the idols and to those who adore them.

The unity with Christ’s body which St. Paul makes characteristic of all those who eat the Eucharistic bread is a clear proof, not only of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but it is also a refutation of both consubstantiation and impanation; otherwise how could Christians in Ephesus, Corinth and elsewhere be said to partake of one bread while they were so far apart?

Also, I take the communion of faithful receiving the Eucharist as real living physical evidence of the Faith of The Church. Only in genuine faith and unity of belief can one receive the Eucharist. It is physical evidence of the Faith of The Church.

If large numbers of people suddenly stop receiving The Eucharist or if the current non-stop worship of the mass from east to west each day are broken from a falling away then we will know that the conditions foretold in scripture have been met to usher in the false prophet and anti-Christ.

So the more protestants and other heretics argue against the real presence of Christ in The Eucharist and confuse the faithful the more they do the work of Satan. Satan would like nothing more than to empower these spiritually disordered people to take away the core faith of the Church and seperate us from the protective graces necessary for holding back evil from outright takeover of humanity.

So in an ironic sense those heretics thinking they serve God through challenges to Church Authority and teaching ironically do serve God. But they only do so by contributing to the conditions necessary for God to step in to physically seperate the wheat from the chaff and re-purify God’s Church. Jesus already predicted this in Matthew 7:21-23: “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS (e.g. not accepting the Church’s Authority)."

James

 

[PC_Master]

James> Your lack of charity is disheartening. It’s something I’d advise you pray about, as I will be.

 

[Ignatius]

As it was requested in another thread, I’ve started this to inquire about scriptural references to “the Eucharist”, and whether or not such references actually teach transubstantiation

Transubstantiation is simply the statement that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The concept is every bit as supported by scripture as the Doctrine of the Trinity, another term not found in the Bible, but nontheless an integeral part of the Faith since the very beginning. So, to answer the question - Absolutely - " My body is food indeed, my blood is truely drink". “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you”. Completely unambiguous and as the Church has taught since the very beginning.

Really, I think it’s disingenuously try to divert the discussion into a one about terminology. But that seems to be the tactic chosen by the majority of it’s opponents.

 

[CentralFLJames]

James> Your lack of charity is disheartening. It’s something I’d advise you pray about, as I will be.

PC remove the plank from your own eye brother. I will likewise as an act of charity reciprocate here and advise you to abandon your heretical views. You are contributing to the spread of confusion. You act like you are somehow above personal accountability through some aloof academic detachment or through some self assigned notion of superior objective basis. You have been given strong and convincing evidence of the truth. Yet you have taken a resolute subjective position formed from private opinion while all along feigning a objective manner that has been progressively leaking signs of smug moral superiority and self authority. That’s arrogance and hubris. I’ll pray that you abandon that and substitute it for the clear truth you have been given here.

James

 

[maryj]

James, With all due respect, it’s been 8 days since this thread was started. I believe, in the bigger scheme of things, 8 days isn’t much time,is it, to “abandon heretical views” Keep planting the seeds, and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit. Most, not all, conversions I have ever heard about have taken a lot longer than 8 days. Most times it is very difficult to give up on teachings you have had embedded into your thinking. Let us pray-
Eternal Father, all hearts are in your hands. We beseech you, therefore, in the name of your Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and by the merits of His Precious Blood, have mercy on all sinners and convert them to your love and service.
We pray especially for those whose faith has grown weak and who lack the courage to make a wholehearted return to Holy Mother Church.
Grant them the grace of repentance and the strenght to return to the practice of our faith. May the Precious Blood not be shed in vain for any of our brothers and sisters in Christ. Amen.
submitted respetfully. God Bless

 

[PNEUMA]

John 6:63

I have a couple of questions as to the Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage…

1. If Jesus himself said (verse 63) that the words he’d been speaking were of spiritual significance, rather than fleshly, does that not apply to the whole of the passage? Does it not clearly indicate the symbolism of the passage?
2. If we must take the words of eating his flesh in a literal sense, then must we not also believe that Jesus was speaking literally when he said that his body is (or rather, was at that very moment) the bread from heaven? Should we not believe that his body either held the substance of bread, or took the form of bread? If not, why can one bit be meant symbolically and another not?
3. If it is the spirit that benefits, and not the flesh, then what happens to the physical existence of the bread and wine is of no consequence. In fact, all that matters is the spiritual attachment, not what is physically (in our world of reality, as opposed to spiritual reality) happening. Is this not correct?

In short, why can a symbolic meaning not be seen to fit within the text?

Again, if you answer just basically amounts to “the church says so” there’s no use in saying it, and I respectfully request that you go somewhere else (to another thread, etc) to say such things. I already know what the RCC says on the matter, and I do not concede any authority to that organization – therefore its words and decrees have no meaning to me currently. I’m trying to figure out if there’s even a remote possibility that scripture supports transubstantiation at all. If not, I’ll go on to exploring another belief I have. If there is a possibility, I’ll study further.

**The Catholic priest serves as a transmitter of Christ words,

Take and eat; this is my body. Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood

If we believe these words about the bread and wine, we receive Christ’s Spirit and Life**

 

[PC_Master]

James, With all due respect, it’s been 8 days since this thread was started. I believe, in the bigger scheme of things, 8 days isn’t much time,is it, to “abandon heretical views” Keep planting the seeds, and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit. Most, not all, conversions I have ever heard about have taken a lot longer than 8 days. Most times it is very difficult to give up on teachings you have had embedded into your thinking.

This is very true. Thank you for your charity and kindness. It’s far easier to deal with those of differing beliefs when they are willing to meet you where you are and try to help you. Though I still don’t agree with your point of view, I really do appreciate your efforts in this thread – at least your goal seems to be to help answer my question, rather than to defend Roman Catholicism at all costs.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If the defense of the Catholic faith does not answer your questions PC Master then all that should be done is that those who do defend the Catholic faith should just knock off the dust of their sandals.

For if you won’t listen to the church then as Jesus says “you should be treated as a publican and a sinner”.

And yes Jesus did love publicans and sinners but Jesus never spent spent 8 days trying to convince any particular one of them one particular truth.

Exactly how many days have you spent trying to learn the truth of the Catholic faith and how many days have you spent trying to convince others that it is not the truth?

 

[CentralFLJames]

If the defense of the Catholic faith does not answer your questions PC Master then all that should be done is that those who do defend the Catholic faith should just knock off the dust of their sandals.

For if you won’t listen to the church then as Jesus says “you should be treated as a publican and a sinner”.

And yes Jesus did love publicans and sinners but Jesus never spent spent 8 days trying to convince any particular one of them one particular truth.

Exactly how many days have you spent trying to learn the truth of the Catholic faith and how many days have you spent trying to convince others that it is not the truth?

Thanks Jerry for calling the man’s bluff. I saw through the insincerity at about day 4 or 5. This guy’s a committed heretic and is attacking the succession of the pope and many other areas of Church teaching in other forum debates. Insincerity is incongruent with seeking the truth and the concurrent arguments against the church in other areas proves it out.

James

 

[maryj]

This is very true. Thank you for your charity and kindness. It’s far easier to deal with those of differing beliefs when they are willing to meet you where you are and try to help you. Though I still don’t agree with your point of view, I really do appreciate your efforts in this thread – at least your goal seems to be to help answer my question, rather than to defend Roman Catholicism at all costs.

Your welcome. But I gotta say these are not my points of view, per say, they are those of the church, which I completely except. There is not a teaching of the catholic church that I don’t except, and believe in with all my heart, even if I were unable to defend them to anyones satisfaction but my own. As said before, plant the seeds and let the Holy Spirit do the rest. We aren’t all called to be teachers, some of us are called to be students. God Bless.

 

[PC_Master]

Your welcome. But I gotta say these are not my points of view, per say, they are those of the church, which I completely except. There is not a teaching of the catholic church that I don’t except, and believe in with all my heart, even if I were unable to defend them to anyones satisfaction but my own. As said before, plant the seeds and let the Holy Spirit do the rest. We aren’t all called to be teachers, some of us are called to be students. God Bless.

Regardless, if you do happen to come across further insight into the topic I started with, please don’t hesitate to pass it along. I may not agree with it, but I get the feeling you won’t just ignore me and try to shove things down my throat, and that’s a refreshing thing to find.

 

[IgnatiusJReilly]

Regardless, if you do happen to come across further insight into the topic I started with, please don’t hesitate to pass it along. I may not agree with it, but I get the feeling you won’t just ignore me and try to shove things down my throat, and that’s a refreshing thing to find.

PC Master, I’m late to this thread, so apologies if you’ve already heard this, but one added support from Scripture for transubstantiation is John’s Passion. If you line up the dates for Jesus crucifixion in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they don’t line up with John’s dates. pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/john.html

It’s interesting that John has Jesus dying while the lambs are slaughtered for the Passover meal. A major theme of John is that Jesus is the Lamb of God. So, to me, moving the crucifixion to the day of the meal as well as writing what he did in the 6th chapter is at least something in the column of “John believed in transubstantiation”. Remember, too, that the drinking of blood was absolutely against the Jewish law. So, when Jesus says, “Unless you drink my blood”, that’s a big deal. It really doesn’t make sense to me personally why he would ever say “Unless you drink my blood” symbolically. If the blood was just a covering (a la the blood of the lambs at Passover), why do we have to drink it?

Also, if it’s just a symbolic act, why do it at all? It shouldn’t be binding on anybody if it’s just a symbol.

On other thing of note - the nativity stories (or at least one of them) has Jesus being born in a manger which is, of course, a trough where animals eat. Interesting.

 

[Randy_Carson]

PC Master, I’m late to this thread, so apologies if you’ve already heard this, but one added support from Scripture for transubstantiation is John’s Passion. If you line up the dates for Jesus crucifixion in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they don’t line up with John’s dates. pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/john.html

It’s interesting that John has Jesus dying while the lambs are slaughtered for the Passover meal. A major theme of John is that Jesus is the Lamb of God. So, to me, moving the crucifixion to the day of the meal as well as writing what he did in the 6th chapter is at least something in the column of “John believed in transubstantiation”. Remember, too, that the drinking of blood was absolutely against the Jewish law. So, when Jesus says, “Unless you drink my blood”, that’s a big deal. It really doesn’t make sense to me personally why he would ever say “Unless you drink my blood” symbolically. If the blood was just a covering (a la the blood of the lambs at Passover), why do we have to drink it?

Also, if it’s just a symbolic act, why do it at all? It shouldn’t be binding on anybody if it’s just a symbol.

On other thing of note - the nativity stories (or at least one of them) has Jesus being born in a manger which is, of course, a trough where animals eat. Interesting.

Darn that John!

There he goes again…tying Jesus directly to the Passover in a manner that supports a literal understanding of eating Jesus’ body and blood…

Jeepers, John had 50 years to think about it…if only he had chosen his words more carefully when he wrote John 6, this whole “transubstantiation” thing could have been avoided completely.

 

[JReducation]

THIS IS NONSENSE!!!

Everyone who knows something about John the Evangelist knows that he used Greek philosophy and his own mystical experience to teach the Good News.

To say that John’s reference to Jesus’ body and blood is symbolic when John uses the Greek word for “evidence” or “sign” rather than the Greek word for “symbol” is idiotic. John was not a stupid man. If he says that it is evidence, THEN HE MEANT EVIDENCE. Stop putting words into his mouth.

In his Prologue John also says that Jesus Christ existed before he was born, even before time. Was this symbollic language? How can you exist before you’re conceived? How you exist before time? Why would human beings with any brains accept this?

If any Protestant accepts John’s Prologue, than stop debating about Chapter 6. In John’s Prologue the writer calls Jesus the Logos. The Logos was an old Greek word. The Greeks used it long before Jesus came around. Logos = meaning of Life or word that gives Life.

John said that this Logos that the Greeks had believed in for centuries was Jesus Christ, but the Greeks simply did not know it. He also says that Jesus existed before the beginning of time. However, we know that Jesus was born in a specific place at a specific point in history.

Why the heck do Protestants not dispute that Jesus was the Logos?
Why not dispute that he existed before time?
Why not dispute that everything was created through him?
Why not dispute that the same Logos that existed before time became flesh and was born of Mary? What physical proof do we have?
What biblical proof do we have that the Greek Logos and Jesus Christ are the same?

Why don’t Protestants deny or dispute that the Logos is merely a symbolic term that John uses?

How convenient to accept that the Prologue is true and chapter six is symbolic? This is nonsense. You either accept that John is telling you the truth from beginning to end or write him off as a myth writer from beginning to end.

I can’t believe that there are Catholics here who are debating this silly point. IF JESUS IS IN FACT THE LOGOS, WITHOUT DEBATE AND WITHOUT EXPLANATIONS, WHY CAN’T HE BE PHYSICALLY BREAD AND WINE TOO?

Of all the dumb arguments that I have ever read on these threads, this one takes the cake. John uses a term to open his gospel that cannot be proven and that is contrary to human understanding, a pre-existent word that takes on human flesh. His intent is to prove that Jesus is the Son of God. Every Catholic and Protestant accepts that Jesus is the Logos, without question and that he existed before he was born.

Then accept the rest of John’s assertions too, the Eucharist is also a proof that Jesus is the Son of God.

If you want to allege that John is speaking figuratively in Chapter 6, then prove that Jesus existed before he was born and that he was the Logos of which the Greeks spoke in their philosophy. Also, prove that John is speaking literally in the prologue and not symbolically.

What baffles me the most is that Catholics can’t see through this silly nonsense. I became a Catholic because I thought them to be the more logical Christians. When I see Catholics who can’t see through this very basic Protestant selectivity I’m in shock.

If you can believe that Jesus existed before he was conceived, then why can’t you believe that he can change bread and wine inot his body and blood? How many people to you know that predate their own conception?
As to the Protestant argument, either prove the Logos, or drop the Eucharistic argument and get a good night’s sleep.

 

[guanophore]

Thanks Jerry for calling the man’s bluff. I saw through the insincerity at about day 4 or 5. This guy’s a committed heretic and is attacking the succession of the pope and many other areas of Church teaching in other forum debates. Insincerity is incongruent with seeking the truth and the concurrent arguments against the church in other areas proves it out.

James

No, James, PC Master does not qualify as a heretic. In order to be classified as a heretic, a person must know the truth, then willfully reject it. PC Master was obviously taught error from the beginning, and nurtured in anti-catholic hostility.

 

[JReducation]

If the defense of the Catholic faith does not answer your questions PC Master then all that should be done is that those who do defend the Catholic faith should just knock off the dust of their sandals.

For if you won’t listen to the church then as Jesus says “you should be treated as a publican and a sinner”.

And yes Jesus did love publicans and sinners but Jesus never spent spent 8 days trying to convince any particular one of them one particular truth.

Exactly how many days have you spent trying to learn the truth of the Catholic faith and how many days have you spent trying to convince others that it is not the truth?

I just want to piggy-back on what you have said. I have given PC a great deal of historical information on how John wrote his Gospel and what words mean in John’s Gospel. PC has ignored every one of those posts. Go back and check for yourself.

This tells me that I’m dealing with someone who is not interested in real scholarship, but in debating. This is why I posted that THIS IS NONSENSE.

Has anyone here noticed that the Catholic Church does not debate? Observe, that even on such serious issues as abortion, the Church does not debate. It states its position. If someone challenges that position, the Church restates it. There is never a debate.

You will never find theologians, deacons, priests, bishops or other well trained Catholics engaged in debates with non-believers. They only debate in university classrooms.

The reason for this unspoken policy has to do with the dignity of Catholicism. You must protect the Church’s dignity. To stoop to the level of debate that is less than scholarly is beneath the dignity of the Church.

We observe this in the Gospels. Jesus did not engage in debates. He had many conversations with non-believers. He made his point. He didn’t stand around and waste time. His attitude was “take it or leave it.”

In a simplistic way of looking at him, he was kind of cocky, but I say that in a good sense.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Of all the dumb arguments that I have ever read on these threads, this one takes the cake. John uses a term to open his gospel that cannot be proven and that is contrary to human understanding, a pre-existent word that takes on human flesh. His intent is to prove that Jesus is the Son of God. Every Catholic and Protestant accepts that Jesus is the Logos, without question and that he existed before he was born.
Then accept the rest of John’s assertions too, the Eucharist is also a proof that Jesus is the Son of God.

If you want to allege that John is speaking figuratively in Chapter 6, then prove that Jesus existed before he was born and that he was the Logos of which the Greeks spoke in their philosophy. Also, prove that John is speaking literally in the prologue and not symbolically.

What baffles me the most is that Catholics can’t see through this silly nonsense. I became a Catholic because I thought them to be the more logical Christians. When I see Catholics who can’t see through this very basic Protestant selectivity I’m in shock.

If you can believe that Jesus existed before he was conceived, then why can’t you believe that he can change bread and wine inot his body and blood? How many people to you know that predate their own conception?
As to the Protestant argument, either prove the Logos, or drop the Eucharistic argument and get a good night’s sleep.

Well said JR. This observation, a repeated observation that a number of us have made in other ways, proves one thing. It proves lack of sincerity in seeking the truth and accepting the answers labouriously given. As I have said a protestant has to go well out of their way to not believe if they can accept the balance of the others things in faith (baptism, the many examples prefiguring Christ and Eucharist as pascal lamb, atonement of sin, bread of life etc.). The common pattern of disbelief follows purely around the things that exist outside of scripture - and those are human fabricated doctrinal differences that exist between protestantism and Catholicism. Those here who argue against a real presence can not do so by means of scholarship in scripture. So the tenacity to hold to their tenuous and erroneous position must extend from something else. I say its simple “pride” in the feelings of false freedom in being free from the authority of the Catholic Church to privately interpret scripture in a way that makes them comfortable. This is self defeating and it might as well be a freedom to fashion a rope by which to hang oneself with. It is more than disordered for some here to demand physical proofs of various things while they also hold true similar truths “in faith” - it is spiritual obstinacy. Christ does not call us to pick and choose the parts of truth that are good for us. He wants us to eat it all for it is written: Luke 4:4 That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Take the word bread here as real bread and the term word as logos and we have a recognition that we must consume every bit if what God has revealed to us through His Son Jesus - The Logos made flesh - the Bread of Life.

The defensive circular arguments used by those obstinately holding to unbelief in the face of a preponderance of truth are clear markers of defense and a fear of the truth - not a sincerity in receiving the truth.

One can not come into eternal life by consuming one’s own fear or through an insincere faith but only by consuming the bread of life and every word of God.

James