Does scripture actually teach transubstantiation?

[johnnydigit]

I’m wondering how may out there can truly say that Apologetics was the deciding point when converting to the Catholic Church? Ask a number of converts, and some will say the Church Fathers did it for them, some will say Catholic Mysticism, others Pope John Paul II’s theology, and for others, a kind old and faithful Catholic lady who treated them with deep charity. Where does Apologetics rate on the scale of motivators for each of these people? Who knows. Some accept the Catholic Faith before they ever even know what the word “Apologetics” means. And…some reject the Catholic Faith having heard every single Catholic apologetics argument under the sun. Why is this? The heart has its own reasons as Pascal once said.

I do agree, however, that at a certain point, there is nothing more to be gained by arguing except an increase in animosity.

God bless,
Ut

i would say it was more along the lines of apologetics for me. i’m a young adult revert and was pretty agnostic. i was looking for plain truth among this culture of death. i wanted the cold hard truth about Jesus. i didn’t even know God, so i wouldn’t have bought the mysticism or how most people even describe the faith. you just can’t use the Bible to support the Bible when trying to get through to an agnostic/atheist.

it would be a collection of all these simple and logical truths, plus experience that finally lead me to believe in our Church. the Church Fathers definitely greatly support my acceptance, but definitely not solely.

my guess is you were brought up in the faith, or at least knowing God? i think that’s a key difference between a bulk of people - those who haven’t known God and need to start with logical and practical explanations, versus those who have always known God and can’t figure out the previous people, and vice-versa. (episode of Wife Swap: atheist and Christian family).

 

[qui_est_ce]

Which gospel would you include/exclude ?

Why would I want to do that?

 

[toaslan]

There is the ascension I mentioned this in posts #217 and #210 in this thread.

sorry, Catholic Author, I meant Ascension, not Resurrection… Jesus leads with the literal miracle of the manna, says the Bread of Life is an even greater thing, and then refers to the literal miracle of his coming Ascension. It makes no sense, deliberately and risking the loss of many disciples, to sandwich a purely symbolic concept between two literal miracles.

I would reserve that these signs are what they signify for the bread of life miracle only since the Eucharist is the only one of the sacraments that *is *the grace it imparts. The other signs signify the grace conferred through them and so *effect *and personify are appropriate. Jesus’ explanation that He is the bread, life and spirit is different in this respect than any other miracle He does, and His explanation of His teaching is different than any other explanation throughout all His recorded ministry. Nowhere else in the gospels does He give such an explanation that is as plain as the teaching and remains just as shocking when explained as it does when taught. This is because the teaching and the explanation *are * one and the same just as the grace and the sacrament *are one *and the same.

Agreed!

 

[toaslan]

Catechetics …theology. Granted, they are two different areas; but they cooperate with each other. …when I do theology I must do it as the Church does it… If I were to deviate from that methodoloyg and that tradition, I’m still doing theology, but is it Roman Catholic theology or my own?

Yes, you are right, a Catholic theologian must do theology as the Church does it. I think theology is more of a science; apologetics an art. And, apologists use as first principles the conclusions of theology.
JR:

I am one of those who offered PC good reasons from scripture. I bulleted an entire outline of Johanine Theology and Johanine methodology for him. He remains fixed on his idea that the entire text in John’s sixth chapter is symbollic speech, even after we demonstrated that John does not use the word symbol, but the word sign and how they are different.

Yes, I am still looking forward :bounce: to any response from PC to the vital points that John does not use the word “symbol”, and John means by “sign” something quite other than symbolic. And that, therefore, to assert John6 is symbolic is groundless.

 

[utunumsint]

i would say it was more along the lines of apologetics for me. i’m a young adult revert and was pretty agnostic. i was looking for plain truth among this culture of death. i wanted the cold hard truth about Jesus. i didn’t even know God, so i wouldn’t have bought the mysticism or how most people even describe the faith. you just can’t use the Bible to support the Bible when trying to get through to an agnostic/atheist.

it would be a collection of all these simple and logical truths, plus experience that finally lead me to believe in our Church. the Church Fathers definitely greatly support my acceptance, but definitely not solely.

my guess is you were brought up in the faith, or at least knowing God? i think that’s a key difference between a bulk of people - those who haven’t known God and need to start with logical and practical explanations, versus those who have always known God and can’t figure out the previous people, and vice-versa. (episode of Wife Swap: atheist and Christian family).

Yes, I was brought up in the faith, but in highschool and University, my faith was tried to the point that I rejected religion because I was never taught the rational basis for my faith. The study of classical philosophy (Plato, Aristotle), theology (Church Fathers, Augustine, and Thomas) and apologetics gave me that rational basis, but my faith was there before that. Now I can look people in the eye and say with faith and intellectual confidence, “I am Catholic” and also provide reasons why.

My point is to say that there was a long journey between where I was there and where I am now. Who knows where our protestant questioners will be two or three years down the line. The task is to identify where they are at in their journey, and understand their limitations/prejudices with as much compassion as we can muster.

We all set up psychological defence mechanisms between us and what would be painful truths if accepted. This means any doubt or objection, no matter how remote, will often be preferable to the obvious truth. Now I’m not preaching relativism in terms of objective truth, but a kind of psychological relativism. For some, the psychological high walls of Jericho must fall with a crash before the light of truth can come in. It is best to understand our own walls, and the walls of others before passing too harsh a judgement.

God bless,
Ut

 

[toaslan]

Friends, Romans, Countrymen! Shall we lend ourselves to the OP, the OP, nothing but the OP?

 

[JReducation]

I’m wondering how may out there can truly say that Apologetics was the deciding point when converting to the Catholic Church? Ask a number of converts, and some will say the Church Fathers did it for them, some will say Catholic Mysticism, others Pope John Paul II’s theology, and for others, a kind old and faithful Catholic lady who treated them with deep charity. Where does Apologetics rate on the scale of motivators for each of these people? Who knows. Some accept the Catholic Faith before they ever even know what the word “Apologetics” means. And…some reject the Catholic Faith having heard every single Catholic apologetics argument under the sun. Why is this? The heart has its own reasons as Pascal once said.

I do agree, however, that at a certain point, there is nothing more to be gained by arguing except an increase in animosity.

God bless,
Ut

Having been born Jewish, with a Catholic father, I already understood the rituals, probably better than most Catholics around me. As a kid, I could actually tell people what part of the Torah this part of the mass came from and in what part of the Talmud they could find an explanation for novenas, etc.

As a kid I remember scolding my father for not wearing a kippa (yarmulke) to church, because even the pope and the local bishops wore them. What I wanted to know was how Catholics had managed to distort Judaism.

My father was very attached to the Capuchin-Franciscans. Though he allowed us to be raised Jewish, as is prescribed by the Torah, he insisted that we attend the Capuchin’s school. I found them to be kind, intelligent, and very prayerful. I couldn’t understand how such good men could follow such a distortion of Judaism.

I never gave Protestantism a second glance; because it was too removed from Judaism. But Catholicism intrigued me. The point that intrigued me the most is precisely the point of this thread. That Catholics believe that a Seder is the centrepiece of their faith, was the most intriguing part of it all.

I began to read the Desert Fathers, Fathers of the Church, the history of Church Councils, not because I attributed any authority to them, but because I wanted to know how they arrived at what I believed to be such outrageous conclusions and such stunning interpretations of our scriptures.

I had double-majored in math and philosophy as an undergraduate. Logic and precision were very important to me and I respected those who could think and speak in such a manner. In my day, the university where I studied called it Fundamental and Systematic Theology, it was all apologetics.

Once I began reading apologetics, I couldn’t let go of it. I went back to school for a graduate degree in theology. By the time I finished, I was converted.

It all began with the logic behind the Eucharist.

 

[Chantillie]

i admit this will sound extremely childish of me… but doesn’t Jesus speak of how you’ll know the tree by it’s fruits?

there have been innumerable miracles surrounding the blessed Eucharist. PROVEN miracles, that science has investigated. (I recall one to do with a priest, having his doubts, asked God to alliviate those inner questions about the Real Presence. When he said mass that day, and broke the bread, blood dripped out. It was investigated by scientists, etc, and found to be human blood, and the story goes on.)

If it wasn’t real, or if it was so wrong to believe the reality of His presence, then why so many amazing miracles? Why would God bless something if it was a lie?

 

[Catholic_Author]

sorry, Catholic Author, I meant Ascension, not Resurrection…

No problem. I thought so…, but it is a happy accident that illustrates that the miracles do not just frame the bread of life discourse but permeate it. Jesus does mention the resurrection throughout the whole of the teaching (v 39, 40, 44, 54). The bread Jesus will give is life and He will raise the believers to that life on the last day. In this way the bread of life is for today and for eternity. Also in this way the bread of life is tied to the body which will be resurrected, or raised. Since it is for the body then it must be more than spiritual it must also be substantive, it must be body as well as spirit.

 

[Catholic_Author]

Yes, I am still looking forward :bounce: to any response from PC to the vital points that John does not use the word “symbol”, and John means by “sign” something quite other than symbolic. And that, therefore, to assert John6 is symbolic is groundless.

I second that, but do we have to wait for PC to ask?

 

[tdgesq]

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, as opposed to a more figurative, symbolic meaning.

. . .

Verses 50 through 58 are the ones usually extracted from this clearly symbolic passage to support transubstantiation. But almost as if to preclude this possibility, verse 60 has many questioning the meaning of these words.

Since you want to discover if Scripture matches the Church’s teaching on transubstantiation, perhaps you could explain to us your understanding of transubstantiation. What is the teaching of the Catholic Church in this regard?

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.

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaasssssssse. Spare us the “I’m neutral” platitude. I would be happy to dispel the myth of PC’s supposed “neutrality” at any point during this debate.

 

[JReducation]

I second that, but do we have to wait for PC to ask?

I believe that we’re at the end of a corridor as far as this detail is concerned, Catholic Author. As I have often said, theology is like math. It reaches a point where 2 + 2 = 4. You can’t say anything else, because there is nothing else to be said. So it is with the case of John’s language and the use of such terms as sign and Logos.

They are what they are. John uses the word sign, in Greek. Given the fact that this was both a very intelligent man and a mystic, it would be foolish to assume that he did not know what the word sign meant in Greek philosophy and theology.

He also wrote a very elaborate prologue to his Gospel equating Jesus with the Logos of Greek philosophy; in effect saying that Jesus is the eternal Logos of whom the Greeks spoke. If we take this literally, John is saying that Jesus existed before time, which means that he is divine. Given this assertion in the prologue one can safely believe John when he writes in chapter 6 that Jesus will give a sign of his divinity, his body and blood as bread and wine.

If we attempt to say that John is using all of these Greek words figuratively, here is how it would play itself out. Let’s assume that John does not mean for us to believe that Jesus is literally the Logos. Therefore, Jesus is not literally pre-existent, nor is he the word of God. He symbolizes the Word of God. He symbolizes the meaning of life, instead of BEING the meaning of life.

In which case, if Jesus symbolizes the meaning of life, this leaves a void in cosmology. Who then is the meaning of life? Is there such a thing as the meaning of life? Is there truly a Messiah? Were the Jews correct in asking that Jesus be put to death, because he presented himself as the symbol of the divine, which in Jewish law is a heretical act so serious that it merits capital punishment.

Just for a moment, let’s assume that John’s prologue is symbollic. Jesus is not the eternal Word of the Father. He came into existence at his conception, like all mortals. Therefore, it is logical that he had no divine nature. If he had no divine nature, then it stands to reason that he speaks of his flesh and blood in symbollic terms, that being bread and wine. Then we can safely conclude that the resurrection event was a spiritual experience that the apostles had, where they saw Jesus, not the physical Jesus, but a spectre of Jesus that God allowed them to see.

There is a third possibility here. Let’s assume that the prologue is to be taken literally. Jesus is the eternal Word of the Father. He is pre-existent. He takes human nature at the moment of conception. How do we prove this? We can prove that he is human, because people saw him alive and they saw him die. There are no questions there. But the only evidence that we have of his eternal divine nature is John’s testimony in the Prologue. How do we know that John is right? Afterall, he is using pagan philosophy to drive home his point. In fact, he’s using the same pagan philosophy that he uses in Chapter 6. Once again, John relies on such ancient Greek terms as logos and sign. The question is why should we take logos literally and sign symbollically? They both come from the same gospel writer, the same language, and the same school of metaphysics.

So now we have John in the prologue telling us that the Sign or proof that Jesus is the God-Man is the incarnation of the pre-existent Word of God in Jesus Christ and that we have to accept this like a math problem. But in Chapter 6 Jesus promises another sign, his body and blood as food and drink, but this time, John wants us to ignore the whole Greek thing and interpret sign as symbol.

The ball is now in PC’s court.

Why is the Logos pre-existent and incarnate in Jesus Christ? How do we prove this is physically true or possible? Was John speaking symbollically?

If the Logos is to be taken literally, why shouldn’t we take the word sign literally as the Greeks used it, after all, logos and sign are both Greek concepts that John uses?

Why would John use the word sign, if he knew what it meant in his cultural context? Why didn’t he use the word symbol? They had such a word in ancient Greek.

If the Logos can become flesh and blood at the incarnation, why can’t he also become bread and wine? Is the Logos in the Prologue different from the Jesus in Chapter 6?

The Logos was pre-existent, everything was created through him. Every law of physicas was created through him. Every law of biology too. According to biology, it is impossible for a living organism to have two natures. A living organism can’t be both animal and vegetable. It’s either or. Yet, Jesus is both the Logos and Human, according to John. Therefore, if he can override the laws of genetics and biology, to become incarnate, why can’t he override the same laws to offer his body and blood as food and drink?

**Let’s begin with one question. Why does John use the Greek term sign instead of symbol? **

I would like PC to begin his next post with the response to this question. Forget the symbol stuff. Explain, why the term sign?

 

[toaslan]

I would be happy to dispel the myth of PC’s supposed “neutrality” at any point during this debate.

tdgesq, you seem to have met PC before around the fora; and you are not the only one. I (and no doubt others) am a little familiar with his mode; and I am expecting any day now a post from him saying that, sadly, though he asked a very good question of supposedly well-educated Catholics, he never got any good answers, only blind Catholic polemics, with some gratuitious uncharity thrown in.

Guys, that’s OK. I hope you all don’t mind my taking a moment to respectfully offer another adjustment to this thread. For one thing, this topic is worth discussing in and of itself. It is just a great topic, with or without PC. And without PC, we have no opposition–and human beings learn by opposition. His opposition is much more tempered and better grounded than some fundamentalists who bounce in here rattling some shiny verses thinking to sweep all Catholic ignorance before them.

His public profile says “Protestant mostly.” I don’t see that as a pretense of neutrality.

Finally, a poster’s motives are not accessible to discernment. Posts may seem disingenous, unresponsive or glaringly selective. We can call attention to such, true; but we cannot see into each other’s hearts; let us try to take people’s posts at face value and deal with the issues on their own terms without bothering with motives beyond our ken.

I say this with respect for PC and all posters here–and with thanks to all for the rich harvest this OP has generated thus far for my benefit.

 

[toaslan]

**Let’s begin with one question. Why does John use the Greek term sign instead of symbol? **

I would like PC to begin his next post with the response to this question. Forget the symbol stuff. Explain, why the term sign?

I also would like PC to begin his next post explaining why John uses the Greek “sign” instead of the word "symbol, " if John was speaking purely symbolically.

Also, I would like PC to say why we should take “Logos” literally and “sign” symbolically, given JR’s explication.

This speaks directly to the OP, and to PC’s assertion that John6 is to be taken symbolically.

 

[johnnydigit]

Yes, I was brought up in the faith, but in highschool and University, my faith was tried to the point that I rejected religion because I was never taught the rational basis for my faith. The study of classical philosophy (Plato, Aristotle), theology (Church Fathers, Augustine, and Thomas) and apologetics gave me that rational basis, but my faith was there before that. Now I can look people in the eye and say with faith and intellectual confidence, “I am Catholic” and also provide reasons why.

My point is to say that there was a long journey between where I was there and where I am now. Who knows where our protestant questioners will be two or three years down the line. The task is to identify where they are at in their journey, and understand their limitations/prejudices with as much compassion as we can muster.

We all set up psychological defence mechanisms between us and what would be painful truths if accepted. This means any doubt or objection, no matter how remote, will often be preferable to the obvious truth. Now I’m not preaching relativism in terms of objective truth, but a kind of psychological relativism. For some, the psychological high walls of Jericho must fall with a crash before the light of truth can come in. It is best to understand our own walls, and the walls of others before passing too harsh a judgement.

God bless,
Ut

most definitely. my strategy to apologetics emphasizes getting to know the individual first as well. and compassion x 100.

i found that i can relate best to others who similarly followed my agnostic/atheistic path as well, and fill in where others seemingly cannot. yep, we’re all called…

 

[tdgesq]

For one thing, this topic is worth discussing in and of itself. It is just a great topic, with or without PC.

I agree. That’s why I asked his understanding of transubstantiation in the RCC; a prerequisite to any comparison with Scripture.

Finally, a poster’s motives are not accessible to discernment. Posts may seem disingenous, unresponsive or glaringly selective. We can call attention to such, true; but we cannot see into each other’s hearts; let us try to take people’s posts at face value and deal with the issues on their own terms without bothering with motives beyond our ken.

We discern motives all the time from individual past conduct. This is not wrong, nor is it unusual, especially where there is a clear pattern that emerges. This will be the fourth time around for me - each time with an opening similar to:

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.

Catholic posters should be wary.

With that, I am also interested in the answer to JR’s question.

 

[toaslan]

That’s why I asked his understanding of transubstantiation in the RCC; a prerequisite to any comparison with Scripture.

If you remember, td, the Original Post said he was starting this thread because he was asked to separate this topic out of another thread. That other thread was “What is the Substance That Changes in Transubstantiation?”

It was a long thread. It went over what the Church means by “Substance” as opposed to “Accident”; what She means by “appearances”; what exactly is “breadness” and “wineness” and what of them, if any, remains after Consecration; how accidents inhere in substances, all such questions. If you look over that thread, you will see that PC understands better than many Catholics what the Church means by Transubstantiation. He does not, however, understand “substance” and “accident” as we understand them in Transubstantiation–he seems without the classical background to populate those Aristotelian terms, and instead seeks to apply the common or popular senses to them.

Just thought you’d like to know PC is clear, with the above caveat, on what Catholicism teaches about Transubstantiation. He just rejects it. So I would submit that he’s as good to go as any non-C can be for the topic of this thread.

 

[sambos671]

On this matter of the Eucharist I think I make a good reply on the Early Church fathers thread 1/26/08.

 

[JKing]

I’m curious JKing,- please define “Faith” for me.

This whole thing started with PCM asking a simple question,“Does scripture actually teach transubstantiation?” PCM wants scriptural proof for this transubstantiation. Thomas wanted proof too. He would not accept first hand, eye witness accounts on our risen Lord.

Most of us in this century are forced to have faith, - faith in Him. There is no “proof” like what Jesus did for Thomas. Christianity is based on faith!

I can tell by your comments that you have such great faith in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist that to you this is absolutely real,- beyond faith. God bless you. I too am a strong believer in this faith based reality. I am a Protestant who hopes to be a Catholic in due time. I choose this based solely on faith, suported by prayer and reason.

God bless you JKing.

Faith: Both a gift of God and a human act by which the believer gives personal adherence to God who invites his response, and freely assents to the whole truth that God has revealed. It is this revelation of God which the Church proposes for our belief, and which we profess in the Creed, celebrate in the sacraments, live by right conduct that fulfills the twofold commandment of charity (as specified in the ten commandments), and respond to in our prayer of faith. Faith is both a theological virtue given by God as grace, and an obligation which flows from the first commandment of God. (Catechism of the Catholic Church Glossary, pp 878-879)

As I said, faith has no bearing on whether or not Transubstantiation occurs at the consecration. I accept that it occurs because the Church proposes for me to accept it. I do not believe it because it is proven in scripture. I do not believe it because the early church fathers taught it. I do not believe it because of warm fuzzy feelings. I do not believe it because I understand it. I believe it because I have accepted the authority of the Church and I accept ALL that she proposes for my belief.

Intellectually, I accept the Church because I cannot believe that Christ would be so foolish or cruel to leave us to figure it out for ourselves with an incomplete written record. So, having accepted the Church, I seek to learn all that she proposes and give my intellectual assent to it. Then–and only then–do I attempt to understand it for myself. Faith preceeds understanding.

On a personal note, it sounds so arrogant and actually kind of silly, for someone (like the OP) to say he will evaluate the evidence and decide for himself whether the Catholic Church is right. No disrespect intended. I just would never presume such a thing. When I read the lives of the great saints of history, how they dedicated their lives to the study of these truths, how many of them gave their lives in defense of them, I could never question. I just listen, try to understand as best I can, and accept it as it is handed on to me through the generations from Christ himself.

I’m sure this sounds very strange to someone with a protestant faith tradition, but that, I think is the root of all of our disputes. Like a medieval knight, I have found a king worth serving and I bend my knee and promise my life. I don’t have to understand, I only need to know that he wills a thing and I’ll give my life for it. My faith is not in doctrines, it is in Holy Mother Church, the Bride of Christ. I bend my knee and I profess my everlasting loyalty even unto death. If I had to figure all this stuff out for myself, I’d probably just give up.

For what its worth.

J

 

[toaslan]

On this matter of the Eucharist I think I make a good reply on the Early Church fathers thread 1/26/08.

I looked at your two posts on this subject there: they are very dense, and I think most of the points have their echo already on this thread, but why don’t you copy your great Eucharist material over here for us?