Does scripture actually teach transubstantiation?

[guanophore]

Nope. Since belief will save you, belief and baptism, or belief and X, or adding any of a multitude of other things will save you. But only the belief is required.

You know this is not in the Bible, right? And you know it is not what Jesus taught? Or the Apostles?

When Jesus talks about people’s faith saving them, they are always doing, or have done something. It is not “adding other things” it is the “other things” that are the proper and appropriate expression of faith. One of these is eating His Body, and drinking His blood. This is an expression of faith, and that is why it leads to eternal life. Rejecting it, on the other hand, is an expression of disbelief, and that is why those that do will "have no life within’.

It’s very simple. How was circumcision symbolic of the covenant between God and Abraham? How was the passover lamb a symbol of God’s salvation to his people (enduring to the present day)? The entire point of symbols is to use something physical to represent something else which may or may not be physical. Just as a line on a page can be a symbol of a highway, though in reality they are very, very dissimilar, God used many things as symbols of others.

Yes, but the Judeo Christian understanding of symbol is that it also contains that which it represents. The foreskin is actually cut off, not just figurative, and the Lamb is actually slain and eaten, not just the motions thereof. If you read the history of the Jewish memorial sacrifice (do this in memory of me) you will see that the participants all partake of the actual sacrifice.

I actually would draw a line of separation between John 6 and the last supper.

I suppose you have to do this, to support your doctrine, just as you separate faith from the doing, in order to support the doctrine of 'faith alone".

Likewise, Jesus, in creating the New Covenant, saved the world from their sins. Thus, Jesus took a ritual feast well known to be representative of salvation, and gave further symbolism to signify his new salvatory work. Jesus said “do this, as often as you do it, in remembrance of me”. He wished for them to not simply remember God’s salvatory works in Egypt, but also the salvation of the New Covenant.

I think we can all agree on this point, except that the Catholic understanding of symbolism is that Jesus literally fulfilled the prefigurment of the sacrifice, becoming hte lamb, and shedding His blood for the life of the world.

 

[johnnydigit]

why do many Catholics accept this teaching blindly? because they accept the authority of the Catholic Church. not everyone is able to do exegesis. not everyone can even read.

imo, it seems like no matter how deep you dig, the question will eventually lead you to, “who do i trust?” whenever there is an “X or Y” question, with each holding its own weight, you will inevitably choose the non-Catholic answer. which is why i like to insist on the exegesis of Matthew 16, because if you accept it as authority, everything else lines up perfectly.

however, why quibble and waste so much time on things you will never prove or be satisfied with, when you can go straight to the source? go and find out for yourself already. i heard a story suggesting that one spend exactly one hour with the Blessed Sacrament each day for ten continuous days.

if you find it to be false, abandon this pointless thread. if you find something else, well…

 

[Jordan_Francis]

No one. I certainly wouldn’t say that. A miracle of spirit, by definition, would have no physical signs. However, a miracle of the flesh (the bread) cannot possibly be called such without physical evidence.

I think its important to remember that the Church teaches that in the Eucharistic Mystery Christ becomes entierly present. The Eucharist is not a piece of his flesh, but the entire Living Christ becomes the underlying reality of the bread and wine.

This must be seen, as it is said, with the pupil of faith. I think there are important reasons for this. To actually feed off Christ’s Body and Blood in a visible manner without the mediation of the signs would be, I think, particularly problematic to our human senses.

The Eucharist is a participation not only in the Crucified but also Resurrected Christ, it is participation in the flesh to come, the world to come, nature restored and transformed.

So long as we are still in this fallen world I am sure that God has good reasons to veil this mystery with mundane bread and wine.

It might be non-sensical to us, but it is the historic testimony of the Church since the beginning. It is clear that the immediate generation after the Apostles taught this and taught that it had been delivered by the Apostles themselves. To deny this teaching is to believe that the Church of Christ deviated into serious mis-understanding of the most basic and central Christian communal ritual within a single generation.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Well, aside from that I don’t pick-and-choose anything …

I don’t “insist”. However, it doesn’t seem to fit in with what** I know **of Christ’s behavior for him to have performed so many miracles and shown physical evidence, and yet for perhaps the most important miracle, to provide none at all.

I don’t think you are being honest with yourself.

Note that by the fact that we differ here you are in fact proving that private interpretation is woefully inadequate since virtually everyone here has given you concrete examples; yet you reject them as insufficient.

Again, I do not think it is conducive to learning the truth to insist on holding a private criteria for acceptance of physical evidence in the face of your assertion that you can accept in faith the spiritual change afforded by Baptism. This is an inconsistent mechanism that suggests an objective disorder that makes it ineffective to attempt to make an objective case. The only way I know to breach that is getting in at an emotional level but that has higher risks of alienating you from the truth. I should stop here but I will try another avenue along yet a different line of reason.

According to the teaching of theology a revealed fact can be proved solely by recurrence to the sources of faith, viz. Scripture and Tradition, with which is also bound up the infallible magisterium of the Church. But you won’t let us admit as evidence tradition or authority (which are both all integral through reference in scripture). So with 2 hands tied behind my back I am going to have to learn to talk without benefit of hand signals.

Maybe this is all a matter of pedegree and you need somone closer in mind to your camp to make the case.

To wit: I give you Luther…

1. Note that even Luther, no advocate of the traditional Catholic perspective admitted the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Here are his words:

Luther:

“I am caught, I cannot escape, the text is too forcible” (De Wette, II, 577). The necessity of the natural sense is not based upon the absurd assumption that Christ could not in general have resorted to use of figures, but upon the evident requirement of the case, which demand that He did not, in a matter of such paramount importance, have recourse to meaningless and deceptive metaphors. For figures enhance the clearness of speech only when the figurative meaning is obvious, either from the nature of the case or from the usages of common parlance (e.g. in the case of this synecdoche: “This glass is wine”), Now, neither from the nature of the case nor in common parlance is bread an apt or possible symbol of the human body…
…
Hence the Body given to the Apostles was the self same Body that was crucified on Good Friday, and the Chalice drunk by them, the self same Blood that was shed on the Cross for our sins, Therefore the above-mentioned appositional phrases directly exclude every possibility of a figurative interpretation…

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

[continued from above]

1. Now I will borrow from some approved Catholic doctrine and place it here for your consideration:

2-A Since you insist on a scriptural only basis I think you are really asserting that you trust the pedigree of the gospel writers. So lets show you what they all said and assume that these men of high moral character would never lie (implicit in your insistence on this exclusive source).

The very existence of four distinct narratives of the Last Supper, divided usually into the Petrine (Matthew 26:26 sqq.; Mark 14:22 sqq.) and the double Pauline accounts (Luke 22:19 sq.; 1 Corinthians 11:24 sq.), favors the literal interpretation. In spite of their striking unanimity as regards essentials, the Petrine account is simpler and clearer, whereas Pauline is richer in additional details and more involved in its citation of the words that refer to the Chalice. It is but natural and justifiable to expect that, when four different narrators in different countries and at different times relate the words of Institution to different circles of readers, the occurrence of an unusual figure of speech, as, for instance, that bread is a sign of Christ’s Body, would, somewhere or other, betray itself, either in the difference of word-setting, or in the unequivocal expression of the meaning really intended, or at least in the addition of some such mark as: “He spoke, however, of the sign of His Body.” But nowhere do we discover the slightest ground for a figurative interpretation. If, then, natural, literal interpretation were false, the Scriptural record alone would have to be considered as the cause of a pernicious error in faith and of the grievous crime of rendering Divine homage to bread (artolatria) — a supposition little in harmony with the character of the four Sacred Writers or with the inspiration of the Sacred Text. Moreover, we must not omit the important circumstance, that one of the four narrators has interpreted his own account literally. This is St. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:27 sq.), who, in the most vigorous language, brands the unworthy recipient as “guilty of body and of the blood of the Lord”. There can be no question of a grievous offense against Christ Himself unless we suppose that the true Body and the true Blood of Christ are really present in the Eucharist.
2-B

More here: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

James

 

[pneuma07]

It is but natural and justifiable to expect that, when four different narrators in different countries and at different times relate the words of Institution to different circles of readers, the occurrence of an unusual figure of speech, as, for instance, that bread is a sign of Christ’s Body, would, somewhere or other, betray itself, either in the difference of word-setting, or in the unequivocal expression of the meaning really intended, or at least in the addition of some such mark as: “He spoke, however, of the sign of His Body.” But nowhere do we discover the slightest ground for a figurative interpretation. If, then, natural, literal interpretation were false, the Scriptural record alone would have to be considered as the cause of a pernicious error in faith and of the grievous crime of rendering Divine homage to bread (artolatria)

Good point James. We can add that, lacking any slightest scriptural exposition of what the “real”, non-litteral meaning should be, once rejected the litteral one you are open to a whole fan of possible interpretations of the nature and degree of importance of the bread-breaking and the bread broken by the Lord in the general economy of His message.

I’d add the quoted point to the number of those which, IMHO, among the many important observations offered, deserve maybe the OP’s, and anybody’s, particular attention, so far.

Which can be , always IMHO:

-  The whole consideration of  the eternal Logos  made flesh,

as brilliantly presented by JReducation with its implications.
If once become flesh, the eternal Logos offers Himself under the appearance of bread, which is the most astonishing of these two amazing steps ?

• The manifest centrality of the message of the breaking of the bread since the very day of the Lord’s Resurrection, as per Luke 24, and its continuity in the primitive Church, which is witnessed to by passages such as in Acts 2 and Acts 20.
• The reading of John 6.63, whose presentation as figurative key to the passage has been shown ( or at the very least challenged as) untenable, when the different meaning of “THE flesh” and “MY flesh” are considered.

- The OT passages  which can as a whole be considered the

road leading to the Eucharist.

Even if we had only this - which is not the case - it would certainly be a good scriptural food for thought. Wouldn’t it ?

 

[toaslan]

Even if we had only this - which is not the case - it would certainly be a good scriptural food for thought. Wouldn’t it ?

Yes! Also agree with your summation of some of the top points to be noticed so far, pneuma!

 

[PC_Master]

I have read all of the posts here, but I have no idea when I’ll have any time to address them. At this point, I think I’ve gathered all of the information you guys have to present anyway, and can study and make my own decision from there.

Remember that my goal was not to convince anyone, but to gather information for my own use, and this I seem to have done. Many of you make a somewhat compelling case, but I was disappointed by the lack of explanation as to exactly why or how a symbolic interpretation doesn’t make sense. Sure, there’s a lot of rhetoric, quotes by various people saying that it simply must be a certain way, but this is hardly evidence.

On the one hand, you say that if it was figurative, surely the apostles would have been confused, or there would have been some extra explanation required, or something.

On the other hand, I say that if it was literal, the idea of eating another’s flesh is so alien and foreign to the mind of the Jew (or the Greek, for that matter), that there would have been a great confusion, and many pointed questions asked of Jesus.

The fact is that scripture is unclear on this issue. It can be (as we have all demonstrated) taken in either a literal or a figurative sense with some semblance of sensibility.

There is one question I’d like answered, however. I asked if Jesus should be taken to mean that his body was quite literally bread in John 6.

On response said simply “Yes” without any explanation to clarify this.

On responded oppositely, and demonstrated a symbolic interpretation to be necessary, and why the symbolism worked.

I’d like to hear more on this, and how one could think Jesus literally meant that he was actually bread.

 

[toaslan]

I hope it’s OK if I bring up a new point: I know there is already a lot on the table, but the OP also posted something about maybe he’d heard all Catholics have to bring from the bible by now to support transubstantiation.

But there is more.

In the Aramaic language that Our Lord spoke, to symbolically “eat the flesh” or “drink the blood” of someone meant to persecute and assault him. To see this is true, here are some passages:

Ps 27:2 - (26-2) Whilst the wicked draw near against me, to eat my flesh. My enemies that troubled me, have themselves been weakened, and have fallen.

Isaiah 9:18 - For wickedness is kindled as a fire, it shall devour the brier and the thorn: and shall kindle in the thicket of the forest, and it shall be wrapped up in smoke ascending on high.
9:19 - By the wrath of the Lord of hosts the land is troubled, and the people shall be as fuel for the fire: no man shall spare his brother.
9:20 - And he shall turn to the right hand, and shall be hungry: and shall eat on the left hand, and shall not be filled: every one shall eat the flesh of his own arm: Manasses Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasses, and they together shall be against Juda.

Isaiah 49:26 -And** I will feed thy enemies with their own flesh: and they shall be made drunk with their own blood,** as with new wine: and all flesh shall know, that I am the Lord that save thee, and thy Redeemer the Mighty One of Jacob.

Micah 3:3 - Who have eaten the flesh of my people, and have flayed their skin off them: and have broken, and chopped their bones as for the kettle, and as flesh in the midst of the pot.

2 Sam 23:15 - And David longed, and said: O that some man would get me a drink of the water out of the cistern, that is in Bethlehem, by the gate.
23:16 - And the three valiant men broke through the camp of the Philistines, and drew water out of the cistern of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and brought it to David: but he would not drink, but offered it to the Lord,
23:17 - Saying: The Lord be merciful to me, that I may not do this: shall I drink the blood of these men that went, and the peril of their lives? therefore he would not drink. These things did these three mighty men.

So, if Jesus were speaking symbolically about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, as the OP opines, then what Our Lord really means was **“whoever persecutes and assaults Me will have eternal life.” ** Which, ehem, makes nonsense of the passage.

 

[justinthemartyr]

VERY TRUE, every place in scripture where it speaks of eating someone’s flesh symbolically, it means to persecute and assault(destroy) them.

Was Jesus asking us to all persecute and assault Him in order to attain eternal life?

That would be rediculous. Therefore scripture itself holds transubstantiation as being true, very very true.

I think the loaves and the fish and the water and wine and the manna from heaven are all aspects of the proof of transubstantiation also.

peace, justin

 

[toaslan]

There is one question I’d like answered, however. I asked if Jesus should be taken to mean that his body was quite literally bread in John 6.

On response said simply “Yes” without any explanation to clarify this.

On responded oppositely, and demonstrated a symbolic interpretation to be necessary, and why the symbolism worked.

I’d like to hear more on this, and how one could think Jesus literally meant that he was actually bread.

Let’s see. To creep up on my answer, let me preface: John6 gives the teaching that He is the Bread which is His flesh which we must eat; for those who reject this statement and turn their backs on Him, no further enlightenment on this point is possible.

For those in John6 who professed utter faith in Him by the end of the chapter: they got the reward of faith, for it was revealed to them at the Last Supper that the manner of this eating was unbloody.

It is at the Last Supper that He finally gives Himself as bread to His friends.

In John 6, is He already that bread? Yes and no. Is He right now the Bread of Life to me as I sit here typing? Yes and no. I am not right now receiving the Host on my tongue–but I believe He is really present in the tabernacles of the world, and He is really being made present as bread and wine right now on altars at Mass being said around the world. Further, He who is that heavenly Bread sits right now at the right hand of th Father.

Was He already that bread standing before the crowd at Capernaum? Not in eatable form, anyway.

But what if we remember that the Bread of Life which Catholics believe we receive at Communion is only accidentally bread? If we remember that the Bread of Life is substantially Christ, then we get an answer.

The substantial form which stood before the crowd saying, “I am the Bread of Life,” is the same substance (resurrected, glorified) we receive in Communion. (substance meant classically)

That means that the Bread of Life IS Christ Himself–it never was the wheat/gluten “breadness” of natural bread. In this sense, yes, Christ as he spoke to the crowd was already the Bread of Eternal Life. In the sense of, was He already existing under the appearances of natural bread, then the answer is no.

Making any sense?

 

[Shiann]

I’d like to hear more on this, and how one could think Jesus literally meant that he was actually bread.

He didn’t mean he was just bread… that would be merely a symbol, he literally meant he was the BREAD OF LIFE… a sign of his DIVINITY and a necessary component of our spritual survival.

Jesus stated: 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.He was speaking to that which you are questioning here. The flesh of his dead body would profit nothing (cannibalism). It is His risen Body which nurishes. And that is what we consume at the Eucharist. The Divine Humanity of God!

 

[PC_Master]

He didn’t mean he was just bread… that would be merely a symbol, he literally meant he was the BREAD OF LIFE… a sign of his DIVINITY and a necessary component of our spritual survival.

Okay, so bread, in this context, is actually a figurative, symbolic term that represents nourishment. I agree with that. But it’s not literally bread. Jesus was describing that he provides spiritual nourishment.

He was speaking to that which you are questioning here. The flesh of his dead body would profit nothing (cannibalism). It is His risen Body which nurishes. And that is what we consume at the Eucharist. The Divine Humanity of God!

Ah, so when he said “the flesh profits nothing” he actually meant “the dead flesh profits nothing, but the living flesh is very useful”? No, this just doesn’t stand up to even the most basic logic.

 

[Shiann]

Okay, so bread, in this context, is actually a figurative, symbolic term that represents nourishment. I agree with that. But it’s not literally bread. Jesus was describing that he provides spiritual nourishment.

Shame on you for putting words in my mouth. Seems you do that even for the writers of the bible…

I said it was a sign. It is a sign.

Ah, so when he said “the flesh profits nothing” he actually meant “the dead flesh profits nothing, but the living flesh is very useful”? No, this just doesn’t stand up to even the most basic logic.

An empty human body (sans Divinity) or one could even say plain ole bread PROFITS NOTHING…

 

[pneuma07]

I hope it’s OK if I bring up a new point:

In the Aramaic language that Our Lord spoke, to symbolically “eat the flesh” or “drink the blood” of someone meant to persecute and assault him. To see this is true, here are some passages: …
So, if Jesus were speaking symbolically about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, as the OP opines, then what Our Lord really means was **“whoever persecutes and assaults Me will have eternal life.” ** Which, ehem, makes nonsense of the passage.

Hi Toaslan ! Consider your new point added to my list of “must be considered” ! ( you certainly mean both Aramaic AND biblical Hebrew).

And consider your exposition in post 150 as subscribed by this poster.

 

[PC_Master]

Though I don’t totally agree with the point being made, Toaslan’s comments do give reason for thought. I’ll definitely be looking into that as time goes on.

I should have mentioned that I found it an intriguing point before, but it’s pretty hard to keep up with all of these posts. Occasionally, it seems I miss responding to something important. My apologies.

Shiann> My intent is not to place words in your mouth. My apologies if I have done so. However, I think you have an inappropriate understanding of what “literal” and “symbolic” mean.

When I look up “bread” in the dictionary ( here’s a link to Dictionary.com’s page on it ), I see that the literal definition would be…
*“a kind of food made of flour or meal that has been mixed with milk or water, made into a dough or batter, with or without yeast or other leavening agent, and baked.”
*An alternate literal definition might be expandable to represent anything which physically nourishes, but even that’s a bit of a stretch. Literally, that which nourishes is called food. Bread is a specific item within the category of food, though symbolically, bread can represent food in general. The Greek word is so specifically related to bread (at least literally) that it is also translated as loaf.

So, when Jesus said “I am the bread of heaven”, unless you’re saying Jesus said he was “a kind of food made of flour or meal that has been mixed with milk or water”, you must concede that he was speaking figuratively or symbolically, and not literally.

Would you agree that an appropriate interpretation of that phrase might be “I am the source of heavenly (spiritual) nourishment”? That is a symbolic interpretation, and not a literal one.

Oh, and as for “signs” – a sign is merely that which conveys a meaning. These signs can be either literal or symbolic – it is the meaning conveyed which is important, not the manner in which the conveyance happens. In this case, I assume you’re speaking of signs as things which convey the truth of Christ’s divinity and person, right? Assuming that we want to rule out parables and “sayings” as signs, we’re left with physical actions which demonstrate or otherwise convey a truth. When Christ fed the 5000, it was a physical sign – a “proof” of his divinity. The same is true for all of his other miracles.

So, how exactly is the passage in John 6 (Jesus’ words about the bread of life and so forth) a “sign”? And, do you take these words as literal, symbolic, or some combination of the two?

 

[jgmes2001]

Jesus said he is the path to life - did Jesus literally become a road?

Jesus said he was the Good Shepherd- did he ever herd real sheep?

Jesus said he was the light, was he literally illumination?

Jesus said he was a vine, was he actually a plant?

Jesus said he was a door, but was he REALLY?

Jesus said life giving water, did he literally become water?

Jesus said he was the bridegroom, was he literally one?

Jesus spoke in parables. “Take this all of you and eat of it, this is my body which shall be given up for you. Eat this in memory of me.” You can’t say the figurative meaning to this?!

 

[CentralFLJames]

Jesus said he is the path to life - did Jesus literally become a road?

Jesus said he was the Good Shepherd- did he ever herd real sheep?

Jesus said he was the light, was he literally illumination?

Jesus said he was a vine, was he actually a plant?

Jesus said he was a door, but was he REALLY?

Jesus said life giving water, did he literally become water?

Jesus said he was the bridegroom, was he literally one?

Jesus spoke in parables. “Take this all of you and eat of it, this is my body which shall be given up for you. Eat this in memory of me.” You can’t say the figurative meaning to this?!

LOL, what I see is someone’s sockpupet coming late into a 156 post threat and a posting history of 1 or the late arrival of the light Calvary.

James

 

[toaslan]

Toaslan’s comments do give reason for thought. I’ll definitely be looking into that

oh good.

as for “signs” – a sign is merely that which conveys a meaning.

Definition Time. What is a sign? I see two different meanings impacting us on this thread.

The signs John reports to us are not, for example, like traffic stop-signs. A stop sign is a symbol of “stoppage.” It tells us we should/must stop. It does not, however, create or personify “stoppage.” We can run the sign, risking the accident or ticket.

A sign like John’s talking about is the kind of sign which effects/is what it signifies. If the stop sign were John’s kind of sign, it would be a cement wall across the road with the letters S-T-O-P engraved on it. Now, that would be stoppage.

The sign of God, which is the Bread of Life, IS God.

This sign is both literal and symbolic.

The Bread of Life is literally Christ Himself, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity

AND

The Bread of Life symbolizes eternal nourishment.

As Pax posted, "The events that precede the discourse on the bread of life are miracles/signs and they are as follows:
–Jesus changes the water into wine at the marriage feast of Cana.
–Jesus works the miracle of the loaves and fishes and thus feeds the multitudes.
–Jesus then walks on water.

When Our Lord walked on water, the act conveyed the message that He had the power of God over nature. The act also WAS God in the midst of ruling nature.

 

[PC_Master]

LOL, what I see is someone’s sockpupet coming late into a 156 post threat and a posting history of 1 or the late arrival of the light Calvary.

James

That’s an interesting theory – but it has nothing to do with me. Remember, I’m here to gain information for my own benefit – I have no preconceptions that I’ll actually “win” an argument here. In fact, I’m quite certain I won’t, just as if a Roman Catholic went to a Baptist forum. Thus, if my goal is not to win, and if I don’t expect to win, there seems to be no reason for me to have a “sock puppet”.

Besides, the grammar and sentence structure just isn’t my style.

Regardless, the point he’s making is pretty much the same one I made before – Jesus spoke figuratively and symbolically on many occasions, using the very same words “I am the [insert something here]”. Each time it was symbolic of some spiritual truth.