Does scripture actually teach transubstantiation?

[PC_Master]

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.

I wish I could oblige you, but the reality is that to explain the difference would require a rather full exegesis of John’s writings, which is far above and beyond what I have time for. I have no doubt whatsoever that some will uncharitably see this as an inability to respond, and though it is precisely that, it’s only due to a lack of time, not a lack of understanding or a good response.

Meanwhile, I’d like to thank all of you for your contributions. While I don’t agree with all of them, I have found many of them challenging to my thought process, and this has certainly caused me to more clearly define my thoughts and reassess how John wrote about things. Ironically, this has actually confirmed my belief in the symbolism John used, rather than dispelling such.

I truly hope all those involved here will use this conversation as an opportunity to carefully study, and more importantly, to reevaluate, their beliefs, so that we can all continue to grow closer to God.

[qipte]Also, I would like PC to say why we should take “Logos” literally and “sign” symbolically, given JR’s explication.
I don’t believe logos should necessarily be seen literally – though the very idea of logos, being a concept rather than a factual reality, is not easily classifiable in either literal or figurative thought processes. I wish I had more time to clarify this, but I don’t. Sorry folks.

 

[sambos671]

Ok deborahsong here is what I’ve found out on the Eucharist. One of the major and significant difference between the Catholic view and the protestant view of communion lies in the Eucharist. Protestants are for the most part straight forward. The Lutherans believe that the Eucharist contains the Body of Christ but isnot thebody of Christ. Luther didn’t really want to be seperate from the Catholic Church, however, his teachings were not countenanced by it either so he was excluded from fellowship (Excomunicated). For the most part Protestants (and for awhile myself) believe that the bread and the wine (grape juice for most) are symbols representing the breaking of Jesus body and the pouring out of his blood. Interesting in the Passover (sader) three Matzahs are placed in the bag with the middle one broken in half. However, the communion elements are not changed in substanced at all. The Catholic Church believes the Eucharist is none other than the actualbody and blood of Jesus (Yeshua) the Christ (Ha Mashiach or Annointed One). Transubstantiation. So, my investigation was to discover the truth of the matter. Keep in mind the other ancient christian church (Orthodox whether you call them eastern, Russian, or Greek) believe similarily though not quite exactly. Catholics and Orthodox have the longevity argument. Protestant reply to this is that the disciples of Jesus did not believe this and some time after this the teaching was corrupt to include a mystical changing of the elements. My question is: when did this happen? As I read history and christian writings I found myself going further and further back. Finally, I thought why don’t I just jump back to the begining? With Jesus himself and the apostles. The only problem with that is that the credible apostolic writings are already in the New Testiment and there are tons of disagreement over what they said and meant. So whats next? The people the disciples taught! I went to read some of the ealiest christian literature outside of the New Testiment.
Let me start with scripture of the New Testiment that was problematic for my protestant beliefs and then move on to the statement of the Early Church Fathers. To believe that Jesus only meant that the elements of communion were symbols hit a snag with this verse: John 6:53-59 and 66. “Jesus said to them,‘I tell you the truth, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father , so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the Bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna (what is it? direct translation) and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.’ He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernium” “From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him” Why would the disciples leave Jesus? Most protestants would say that they misunderstood Jesus symbolic meaning as him perpetrating canabalism. However, since the communion is just symbolic don’t you think Jesus would have expressed that to them. Instead he says in verse 67 “You do not want to leave me to, do you?” Jesus doesn’t make his statement more palatable. He questions if his disciples will accept it. Jesus seems very clear here about his teaching. I believe those who left understood exactly what Jesus was saying! Another New Testiment verse that is 1 Cor 11:27-30 “Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgement on himself. That is why many amoung you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.” If the elements were just symbols why are they dieing. On principle? Or because, as the text suggest they’ve sinned agains the body and blood of Jesus. Most protestants would emphasize the verses just before and say “but Jesus said in ‘rememberance of me’” They rarely move on to the next verses. Here I would like to point out some other points. First, I’ve quoted from the NIV (New International Version).

 

[sambos671]

Second, the Old Testiment has some interesting insites into this matter. Such as Exodus 25:30 The show bread in the tabernacle is also known as the bread of the presence. And again Exodus 24:9-11 "Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Isreal went up and saw the God of Isreal. Under his feet was something like pavement of sapphire, clear as the sky itself. But, God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank" The Leaders of Isreal ate and drank in the presence of God himself. Eusibius would state that it would have been in the presence of Jesus manifested before his birth (Christophony). I think these are pretty good examples beside what Jesus himself said during the last supper of the presence in the Eucharist.
Now the Early Church Fathers statement. Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch during the reign of the Roman emperor Trajan 98-117 Anno Domini (Year of our Lord). Ignatius would have know some of the apostles personally. He too was condemned and on his way to Rome he wrote several letters. Particularily to my argument here is his letter to the Smyrneans where he says: “They even absent themselves from the Eucharist and the public prayers, because they will not admit that the Eucharist is the self-same body of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His goodness afterwards raised up again.” I find that pretty plain. Ignatius believed in the presence of Jesus Christ in the elements of the Eucharist. I find it unlikely that the Apostles taught something different to the leaders of the churches they founded. In fact, for protestant theory to hold the immediate disciples of the Apostles had to change doctrine during a time when a few Apostles were still alive. How likely is that. We would have a letter from Peter, John, or some other that would have been added to the New Testiment saying “No Jesus said it was a symbol” There is nothing like that ever referred to in any writing! The Eucharist being the actual body and blood of Jesus was taught by the Apostles and therefore Jesus himself! The next Father of note (in my studies) is Justin Martyr. In Justin Martyrs First Apology to the emperor Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus he says the following: “This food we call Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for the forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us (through the apostles). For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus. For the apostles in the memoirs composed by them which are called gospels (good news), thus handed down what was commanded them.” Justin is said to have lived between 100-165 AD. Far too close to origin of the apostolic teaching to have been change much. So, my studies show me that on the subject of communion and the Eucharist the Catholic church is correct. I hope this helps out.

 

[tdgesq]

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.

I wouldn’t know since I wasn’t a participant on that thread. My impression was that he is using the term superficially - apart from an adequate understanding of the Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysic. That’s why I asked.

 

[Pani_Rose]

Here is a bit of discussion on it from another forum that I posted
byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=5&Number=129923&Searchpage=1&Main=8176&Words=Eucharist&topic=0&Search=true#Post129923

 

[JReducation]

PC,

Your last post sounds like a “Dear John” letter, as if you’re leaving the thread. Assuming that I’m correct, I wish you well in your search for answers.

That being said, I’ll give you this thought for your journey. They are the words of Francis of Assisi, a man whom most Christians, including Protestants and non-Christians have acclaimed as the Mirror of Perfection.

“I am what I am before God and nothing else.”

Before God we are creatures, not the Creator. We are the beneficiaries of revelation, not its arbiter. We are part of the Mystical Body, not lone rangers.

You are walking a dangerous path, not because you are asking questions, but because you seem to believe that you have both the right question and the answer. You should consider this. What we perceive with the senses is only perceivable by the faculties of the mind which the senses inform.

However, the mind’s faculties are contingent upon an external world which contains other minds, beside your own. To lock yourself in your own mind, is to remove yourself from the answers to your questions one step further,

For a single human mind alone cannot comprehend mystery, as the mind itself is a mystery. Each mind brings a piece of the truth to the plain of existence. Therefore, what God has revealed of his own mind, can only be found in community. While each one of us has a mind, none of us possesses potential to comprehend mystery in isolation from each other. Knowledge of the absolute requires absolute knowledge. Human beings can only reach this level of understanding through communion with each other and union with the Divine.

This is why God in his mercy gave us the Church, so as not to leave us to wade alone through darkness in search of answers to questions that we cannot understand.

I get the impression that you are attempting to define the question, its parameters and the response alone. Epistemologically, reason must be exercised in communion with others to fulfil its true end and reflect its Creator. Even the Creator exists within a community.

Your danger lies in your attempt to exercise reason while refuting that of others. Your final statement of the logos is very telling of your intellectual isolation. You would reject the wisdom of John’s mystical experiences, in defence of your own position, instead of contemplating his experience.

A dangerous path, nonetheless, it’s your journey. God bless you.

 

[utunumsint]

I wish I could oblige you, but the reality is that to explain the difference would require a rather full exegesis of John’s writings, which is far above and beyond what I have time for. I have no doubt whatsoever that some will uncharitably see this as an inability to respond, and though it is precisely that, it’s only due to a lack of time, not a lack of understanding or a good response.

Meanwhile, I’d like to thank all of you for your contributions. While I don’t agree with all of them, I have found many of them challenging to my thought process, and this has certainly caused me to more clearly define my thoughts and reassess how John wrote about things. Ironically, this has actually confirmed my belief in the symbolism John used, rather than dispelling such.

I truly hope all those involved here will use this conversation as an opportunity to carefully study, and more importantly, to reevaluate, their beliefs, so that we can all continue to grow closer to God.

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

I don’t believe logos should necessarily be seen literally – though the very idea of logos, being a concept rather than a factual reality, is not easily classifiable in either literal or figurative thought processes. I wish I had more time to clarify this, but I don’t. Sorry folks.

Hi PC,

A dialogue is a two way street, otherwise it is an interrogation. Perhaps when you have more time, you could revisite this thread with your responses so we can learn from your thoughts.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Catholic_Author]

I
Meanwhile, I’d like to thank all of you for your contributions. While I don’t agree with all of them, I have found many of them challenging to my thought process, and this has certainly caused me to more clearly define my thoughts and reassess how John wrote about things. Ironically, this has actually confirmed my belief in the symbolism John used, rather than dispelling such.

PC, it comes from no lack of charity that I express my disappointment with your retreat. You promised us a journey to truth and are leaving before the end of that journey. If you were truly concerned that the truth be known, in charity you would remain. You leave us without any specifics on what exactly I (and the others) have said which you disagree with or where you find my (and other’s) reasoning lacking. You have been gratuitous with a few comments showing you are considering some of the things we say but again you are not specific. If you do not fully disclose your thoughts how is anyone to benefit from them? Your tactic in this forum has already been observed and noted earlier in this thread and your abandonment of this thread seems to confirm it and to expose a motive, which has not been to share truth as you proclaim but to sew seeds of doubt. If this is true I think this tragically backfired since you have left us nothing of substance. Now that is a real irony in a topic about real substance. I do wish you the best in your journey to the truth and will continue to pray that you find a salvation that is more than symbolic.

 

[toaslan]

I don’t believe logos should necessarily be seen literally

this doesn’t even meet, let alone overcome, JR’s presentation.

though the very idea of logos, being a concept rather than a factual reality, is not easily classifiable in either literal or figurative thought processes. I wish I had more time to clarify this, but I don’t.

well, it’s certainly English, but I see no meaning in it.

PC, you only responded to the easier posts; you were silent on those which overturn your system entirely. Your reading makes disconnected hash out of what is a fully integrated organic presentation by John of the center of Jesus’ teachings.

You’re in a closed system, shut up with PC.

Blessings, brother.

 

[toaslan]

Sambo, thank you for lifting over that great material for us. I’m still re-reading it.

 

[to_see]

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

For what its worth…Thank you,- to see

 

[JReducation]

If I had to figure all this stuff out for myself, I’d probably just give up.

I love this. It’s logical.

JR

 

[PC_Master]

A dialogue is a two way street, otherwise it is an interrogation. Perhaps when you have more time, you could revisite this thread with your responses so we can learn from your thoughts.

I’m not sure that I understand your confusion. While I agree it’d be great for me to have the time to explain the overall theology describing all of this, I barely have the time to do this at all.

Seriously, check out my previous posts and you’ll see that I’m not one to shut up about a thread…I just don’t have the time.

PC, it comes from no lack of charity that I express my disappointment with your retreat. You promised us a journey to truth and are leaving before the end of that journey. If you were truly concerned that the truth be known, in charity you would remain.

Incorrect.

1. This is not a retreat as such. I’m not “running away”. This was never about winning a discussion for me anyway, so I don’t see that there’d be any purpose in such a retreat.
2. I promised no one anything. I began, and continue to explore things for my own spiritual benefit. Simply, I’m not here to convince you or provide you with convincing evidence, though you guys do seem to keep saying that’s my goal.
3. I agree that it would be better if I could remain and respond in detail to every post made. I’d love to do so, but I’m a full-time college student with an almost full-time job, and when you add to that mix other family obligations, that leaves a very small amount of time available to answer forum posts.

You leave us without any specifics on what exactly I (and the others) have said which you disagree with or where you find my (and other’s) reasoning lacking…If you do not fully disclose your thoughts how is anyone to benefit from them? Your tactic in this forum has already been observed and noted earlier in this thread and your abandonment of this thread seems to confirm it and to expose a motive, which has not been to share truth as you proclaim but to sew seeds of doubt.

1. Comments such as these wouldn’t seem to further the discussion. What’s the point, except to somehow discredit my arguments by discrediting me? If it somehow makes things clearer to do so, by all means continue, but I don’t know what it is you expect me to do in response, aside from continue arguing, which as I’ve explained I have no time to do.
2. I never suggested others are to benefit from my conclusions, nor would I expect that to happen before I’ve shared them.
3. Claiming that I have an ulterior motive is rather old, and seems to be the habit for anyone who isn’t easily persuaded to follow the standard Roman Catholic thought process. I know that sounds uncharitable, and perhaps it actually is just that, but I cannot help but come to that conclusion. Perhaps (hopefully) I’m wrong.

 

[Catholic_Author]

I’m not sure that I understand your confusion.

PCM,

I am glad to tell you that your points were engaging or I would not have written anything here. Many people have benefited from this discussion, myself included. When I responded to your questions I chose to make a thorough review of Jn 6 and it was certainly worth it. What we all offered (yourself included) took time and effort. That is where my disappointment comes in since we have invested so much and there is more ground to be covered. I really and truly want to know which things you found lacking in faith or reason. Yet I understand your obligations. So, I offer you an act of my contrition by respecting your decision to think about all that has transpired here, as do I. Pax…

 

[JKing]

I love this. It’s logical.

JR

I love it too. Hey, I’m here. However, I could never get past the basic apologies. I’ve never taken any philosophy or theology, but I am enriched by this conversation. The thing that really fascinates me about this thread is PCM’s point of view. Some of our separated brethren have basic misconceptions (worship statues, vain repetitious prayer, confessing to priests, call no man father, etc.) and those are easy to clear up, but PCM seems to be a horse of a different color. He seems to understand the line of reasoning offered by the church to support transubstantiation but just refuses to accept it. It’s like the one post, many posts ago, in which PCM was asked, “What would Jesus have to say for you to accept that he was speaking about really consuming his flesh and blood?” Apparently nothing, because Jesus said just about all he could to convince his audience he was speaking literally. They understood him clearly enough, and left, but not PCM. He’s staying and continuing to try to convince Jesus he was only speaking figuratively.

On behalf of the many lurkers and myself I just want to thank you all for a very enlightening discussion.

J

 

[utunumsint]

I’m not sure that I understand your confusion. While I agree it’d be great for me to have the time to explain the overall theology describing all of this, I barely have the time to do this at all.

Seriously, check out my previous posts and you’ll see that I’m not one to shut up about a thread…I just don’t have the time.

Hey, I understand PCM. I have a two week old baby and a two year old toddler eating up all of my time when I’m not working. I barely have the time to type these sentences.

All I’m asking you is to revisite this thread when you do have the time. Since the posters here have me thoroughly convinced in Transubstantiation, I would like to know how your reasoning works to justify the opposite position.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Catholic_Author]

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

this doesn’t even meet, let alone overcome, JR’s presentation.

Actually, it addresses it head on and it is consistent with PCM’s point of view, which I will not attempt or presume to argue for him. There are only a handful of possibilities.

1. Logos and Sign are both literal
2. Logos is literal but Sign is symbolic
3. Logos is symbolic but Sign is literal
   4 Logos and Sign are both symbolic

I think we all agree that 2 & 3 are ruled out because of inconsistencies. That only leaves 1 & 4. The Catholic position is 1 and PCM’s would appear to be 4. We should be willing to hear him out. I, for one, would have liked to hear this argument just the same as I wanted to hear JR’s exposition on sign. On this issue we might ask the same type of question that started this topic but point it in the other direction. Does scripture (particularly John) actually teach that the Eucharist is symbolic? If it does then there should be evidence of this throughout the whole of scripture and the whole of John. There are scholars in this forum who I think are better suited to explore John in this way while I would like to compare John 6 with Ex 16. That John 6 parallels Exodus 16 we can know simply by examining the two writings but even more clear is Jesus’ own words making the comparison. If we are not fair enough to recognize PCM’s approach then these treasures may not be excavated… at least not here.

 

[Pat_53]

Pardon me for jumping in, but no one has mentioned Malachi 1:11. “From east to west a Perfect Offering is made”. This is something all Catholics have heard every time we go to mass. The full verse goes like this … “For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of Host.” KJV. “For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.” NAB. Before and after this the Lord rails against the offerings they (the Jews) are making to Him. But then in the middle of this He gives a prophecy of the Catholic Mass.

“For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same” this means 24-7 all around the word.

“my name shall be great among the Gentiles;” At that time the Gentiles did not know the Lord, so His name was not great to the them. This is telling of a future date.

“and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name,” This is something that Catholics do at Mass.

“and a pure offering.” Well, what is the ONLY pure offering that has been made to God … Jesus Christ death on the cross. But this says that the Gentiles will make this offering to God. Or I should use the word “shall”. This is a much stronger word. If we were offering just a symbol it would not be a Pure Offering.

“for my name shall be great among the Gentiles,” To me this says that the people that offer Jesus in the Eucharist to God will be doing His will.

“saith the Lord of host.”

Catholics seem to be the only ones doing the will of God by offering Jesus the only pure offering to God. I do not think that to offer a waffer that is thought of as just a symbol would be a pure offering. “That” symbolic waffer would not be Jesus so it would not fulfill this prophecy.

Pat

 

[Catholic_Author]

“For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same” this means 24-7 all around the word.

Thank you for adding to the discussion. I would like to emphasize this point… that the circuit of the Sun (Earth really) means more than a global occurrence but an everlasting continuance (or 24-7 as you have put it). This is important because otherwise someone who holds the position of ‘once saved always saved’ could argue that the one-time act of Christ’s crucifixion 2000 years ago satisfies this prophecy. In other words, it could be said that a continuing sacrifice is irrelevant. So yes, in context this scripture means “all day long and everyday”.

Thanks again.

 

[toaslan]

no one has mentioned Malachi 1:1 “From east to west a Perfect Offering is made”. … The full verse … “For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of Host.”… Before and after this the Lord rails against the offerings they (the Jews) are making to Him. But then in the middle of this He gives a prophecy of the Catholic Mass.

“For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same” this means 24-7 all around the word.

“my name shall be great among the Gentiles;” At that time the Gentiles did not know the Lord, so His name was not great to the them. This is telling of a future date.

“and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name,” This is something that Catholics do at Mass.

“and a pure offering.” Well, what is the ONLY pure offering that has been made to God … Jesus Christ death on the cross. But this says that the Gentiles will make this offering to God. Or I should use the word “shall”. This is a much stronger word. If we were offering just a symbol it would not be a Pure Offering.

“for my name shall be great among the Gentiles,” To me this says that the people that offer Jesus in the Eucharist to God will be doing His will.

“saith the Lord of host.”

Catholics seem to be the only ones doing the will of God by offering Jesus the only pure offering to God. I do not think that to offer a waffer that is thought of as just a symbol would be a pure offering. “That” symbolic waffer would not be Jesus so it would not fulfill this prophecy.

ANOTHER support from scripture that scripture actually teaches transubstantiation! For what can be this perfect offering constantly being offered by men to God? bread and juice aren’t perfect…