Does scripture actually teach transubstantiation?

[Catholic_Author]

Thanks, OK, Catholic Author! What you see as a handicap I see as a positive strength. Maybe just two sides of the same coin…funny…

Working with a handicap will make you stronger in other areas. Those who have lost the sense of sight develop a better sense of hearing. We are not contradicting eachother. It is both a handicap and a strengh builder.

 

[Catholic_Author]

I think that refusing to look at one or the other (tradition and scripture) is like trying to tell God how he must reveal himself to us.

Good one CFLJ. Aquinas says that knowledge is both sensed and revealed. By extrapolation… the Eucharist as a sacrament that unites man with heaven will be both something sensed and something requiring revelation… that is, without revelation it is hidden.

 

[toaslan]

"B) His ascension is proof that He is the bread from heaven "
and in the same post
"He is the Bread that came from Heaven if they see Him ascend to heaven, such that His ascension proves that His native home is with the Father, that His spirit is the same as the Father. "

Toaslan, I know you already read these posts because you replied to them.

Dear Catholic Author,

Didn’t you know that sometimes the office of the wise man is simply to repeat the obvious?

Language is a muddy river–sometimes it does take a restatement, or a rearticulation, or a re-emphasis to get across a point. Sometimes points are double and one notices one angle without noticing another, or without fully appreciating **all **the implications.

I am sorry I didn’t fully get it before, CA; but I think I get it now. Feed the birds in little mouthfuls…

And, now don’t be grumpy, did you notice that, well I think so anyway, I took the idea a little farther:

But though Jesus intends Ascension literally, that concept also cannot be understood literally AT THE MOMENT, right? For there is no way the disciples present, including the Twelve, can fully understand this reference to a miraculous Ascension literally at this point in the Discourse…

The reaction to both teachings–that He is the flesh which is the Bread of Life to be eaten, and that He will ascend in glory returning whence He came–both meant literally, both to be accepted in belief without much understanding but unconditionally accepted nevertheless.

These insights are deeper scriptural support for Transubstantiation: Jesus says, take Me literally about all the following things:

I came down from heaven
I am like the Manna only even more real
Eat my flesh
I will return to Heaven whence I came
This teaching is your Life

Hey, CA, don’t take the football and go home–you know I value your thinking!

 

[Catholic_Author]

I submit that limiting is not refusing. It is focusing on one thing, rather than excluding another. There is a positive and a negative way to look at it.

Just an observation… This is a parallel to the ad orientum argument in the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Hey, are you guys all glass-half-full-types? I am feeling like Polyanna, myself, at this point…

The glass is twice as big as it needs to be, which means that God has made the glass (man) exceedingly, abundantly above what it (he) needs to be so that He (God) can fill it with Himself (the Eucharist).

back to scriptural basis for Transubstantiation!

And back to work for me… later gang.

 

[toaslan]

"J:

refusing to look at one or the other (tradition and scripture)

Good one CFLJ

refusing does not equal focusing. To focus on one thing has the side-effect of leaving aside other things for the moment.

 

[Catholic_Author]

And, now don’t be grumpy, did you notice that, well I think so anyway, I took the idea a little farther:

I really like the synopsis / bullet point reduction part. It makes a good rue for the gravy on this meal/topic.

Hey, CA, don’t take the football and go home–you know I value your thinking!

Sorry. You’re right. If the gang gave me the game ball I would make a trophy of it and it wouldn’t be good for anyone. Avarice is a treacherous thing.

 

[Catholic_Author]

Originally Posted by J
refusing to look at one or the other (tradition and scripture)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catholic Author
Good one CFLJ

refusing does not equal focusing. To focus on one thing has the side-effect of leaving aside other things for the moment.

I agreed with the statement objectively. It did not mean that I agreed that it was properly applied to this OP. It also gave me the oppertunity to sneak in some Thomasian philosphy.

 

[toaslan]

I agreed with the statement objectively. It did not mean that I agreed that it was properly applied to this OP. It also gave me the oppertunity to sneak in some Thomasian philosphy.

Yeah, well that was pretty sly, CA. Go Thomas! (sorry if anybody’s heels feel chewed up by this cattle dog…)

 

[PC_Master]

A few observations –

1. The OP was indeed selecting scriptural basis of transubstantiation (or lack thereof). What it was not doing is saying that there is no other evidence to be considered in the whole of the subject. I am (as everyone else no doubt is) aware that there are other early writings to consider when forming a view of this subject. I just happen to like discussing them one piece at a time. Just as I don’t try to swallow the whole of Roman Catholicism all at once, I don’t try to assess the whole picture of transubstantiation all at once. I look at it piece by piece, and then later pull all those pieces together and look at the whole.
2. It’s good character to start a new thread if you have something else to discuss which is off-topic. I did it in starting this thread, and one or two others have done it separating topics from this thread.

In short, if you don’t like my OP and how I’ve chosen to focus it, go somewhere else! It’s bad character to try to destroy this useful topic by bringing in things which were intentionally excluded from the start of this thread. No one is stopping you from creating a thread on the ECF or other basis for transubstantiation. I’ll possibly even join in such a conversation, but it’s unfair, and certainly uncharitable to hijack this thread. And I think it’s against the forum rules too.

Oh, and James, choosing to analyze one bit at a time is not limiting God. God’s truth is present, whether we see it or not. The worst case scenario is that by limiting my course of discussion here, I won’t come to the right conclusion. But remember that I have no intent of staying on this particular focus forever. I will bring in other sources of information…in due time. Insisting that it must all be considered up front simply shows that the case for transubstantiation is very weak – a strong case would demonstrate conclusive proof from almost any set of source material. Scripture doesn’t do that, and so you insist on widening the topic…seemingly for the sake of proving that you’re right?

By the way, had it not been for the intentional focusing of the OP, I doubt we’d have gotten anywhere near as deep in discussion of scripture. Instead, you’d have focused on other areas that you feel have stronger support for your beliefs — not to mention we’d have come back to “the RCC is Christ’s true chruch, and we know it can’t be wrong because of our interpretation of Matthew 16”, which is a thoroughly useless discussion in relation to this topic. “We’re right because we say that Christ said so” is not what I want to discuss.

To all> I’m not sure what you hope to gain by such discussion, but I say again – if you don’t like my OP, don’t contribute! Go elsewhere and start your own thread, but don’t hijack mine. This forum is plenty big enough for threads on a variety of topics, and trying to choke this one out…it’s just not fair.

To toaslan and others who are staying on topic – thank you for your contributions. Please keep them coming. Though I haven’t the time to respond fully as I would like to, I’m reading them with interest.

 

[Catholic_Author]

In short, if you don’t like my OP and how I’ve chosen to focus it, go somewhere else! It’s bad character to try to destroy this useful topic by bringing in things which were intentionally excluded from the start of this thread.
.

PCM, You didn’t mention my name but I indeed made reference to a saint. Actually, my intension was not to destroy this useful topic (and it is useful), it was to try and reconcile the opinions of CFLJ and Toaslan.

All, Allow me one more attempt but without the reference to saints and CF.

Lets use the analogy of the body of Christ, which I presume we all accept is the Church (for the sake of this analogy we can disagree if it is mystical only or both mystical and visible). If the body of Christ has two arms and one of them is Scripture and the other is Tradition, and we use only the scripture arm, the risk is that one arm will develop while the other atrophies. But a single forum thread, which is like one rep in one set of curls, is only half the exercise. The other half is in other threads. Additionally, if someone only participates in the left arm thread but not the right arm thread it is not going to make a considerable difference to the bicep of that one arm… so Christ’s body will not be made grotesque… and those who want to work both biceps at the same time can find the two arm exercise in another thread. So pardon the pun because I am not insulting anyone… but those who want to work with dumbbells should stay and those who want to work with the Olympic bar should find an open spot in the circuit. For now I like the dumbbell routine its a quality rep.

Just to clarify dumbbell does not in anyway imply that anyone here is stupid. It means the weight can be used independently on a single arm, which in this analogy means scripture only.

I hope we all find that analogy acceptable and let’s move forward please.

Thanks.

 

[CentralFLJames]

**Oh, and James, choosing to analyze one bit at a time is not limiting God. God’s truth is present, whether we see it or not. **. **But remember that I have no intent of staying on this particular focus forever. **

In keeping with the essential fundamentals of charitable two-way dialog I am taking any personally directed comments (meant charitably or not) as an explicit invitation to momentarily divert to either agree or disagree.

You are correct - I don’t think any Christian would imagine it possible to limit God. I hope you didn’t really think me or anyone here thought that? Take it in trust that it was the matter of you missing the truth by the selection of method that I was concerned about here.

So I am quite encouraged that you are admitting to fallibility and signaling that it’s possible you could come to the wrong conclusion as a consequence of the taking the wrong approach. That improves my confidence in your objectivity somewhat more so than before. But I am equally as pleased that in the future you intend to look critically at other avenues to this same topic in some other threads - you never previously announced that intention. This greatly improves my confidence that you are seeking the truth and will find it since others will be more inclined to take the personal time to help you get to it.

But I think you are in the extreme fringe minority view if you think that the scripture-only case for transubstantiation is a weak one. Just saying “it is weak” does not make it so. A strawman poll of your peers right now would probably show a much different opinion - not that truth is ever held hostage to a majority win nor guaranteed even when attaining full consensus (we could all very well be idiots - so why trust ourselves?). In any perception of truth - there is a subjective confidence interval which is traditionally taken that defines what is “reasonable”. In pondering all this I keep unintentionally bumping into Pilot’s disturbing statement at Jesus’ trial - “What is Truth?”.

So, I think the great majority here would agree that an extremely compelling case for real presence has been made beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt. At least its been made to the same order of magnitude of precision as the objective trust of scripture itself. But as I have stated previously I think you are doomed to be forced to differ by your insistence on an arbitrarily higher objective standard that exceeds the objective reliability (e.g. not faith based) of the source of scripture itself. Yet we all know that the men who wrote “scripture” are not themselves objective witnesses. It’s almost a shame that an antagonistic eyewitness source such as Judas was not available in scripture to ratify what was said at the last supper. In fact seeing how God often uses evil in a way to extract a greater good I almost would have expected God to have given us such a source. One thing is clear though - the men who assembled scripture did so through the efforts of judgment, prayer, and faith that God would reveal inspired works from spurious works. In light of this subjectivity The unanswered question remains “what warrants your double standard” in establishing the limits of “reasonable doubt”? Maybe if we knew this “we” could see the truth that has been presented as a “better truth”.

If you had a background in information theory (ref.Shannon’s Theorem) you would know that you can never over-sample information to extract more signal than is actually available. In practice its always less that perfect due to the presence of “noise” (e.g signal to noise ratio). In this discussion context “noise” could be: transcription errors, possibility for embellished accounts by well meaning or malicious scribes/pseudo-writers or by deliberately removed canonical sources, publishing errors, reader’s comprehension and semantic range, overhasty removal of works considered uninspired or heretical or inclusion of “dubious” works into cannon etc. Hopefully you see my point. I only say this to reinforce and drive home my observation that we should harmonize the standards for accepting truth to the same objective standard present in scripture itself.

So I dare anyone to say that the bible itself was written and put together with an objective process by men who had no interest or hopes in the Christian message. Scripture is hardly an objective standard. So why hold up a more severe objective standard on “real presence” when the source itself is not as objective? That’s like trying to find a perfect natural pearl in the center of a cut and polished diamond while being blinded by the sparkle of sunlight reflecting off a thousand facets. It might be possible but its not too likely one will find it.

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

[continued from prior post]

So, it would be utter folly to attempt to reach a full 100% consensus through strength of persuasion. In any human activity there is always the risk that a contrarian would play the role of spoiler just to make himself feel relevant or by simply lacking the wherewithal to grasp what has been presented. Ever served on a jury?

Right now I’d say that only 1 or 2 remain in the super-minority opinion against real presence and hold out for a higher standard of proof. That is a high confidence with perhaps at least 2 sigmas of standard deviation of the thread participants. Including lurkers who consent through silence and we push into the 3-4 sigma certainty by pushing the outliers further into left field). We should note here that a single “Doubting Thomas” spoiler prevented the apostles themselves from forming a consensus about Jesus’ resurrection; but that did not defeat the fact of the matter of the resurrection.

**The beautiful scriptural symmetry present in the accounts of Jesus’ Incarnation (God’s Word becoming flesh, manna from heaven, the Bread of Life come down from heaven) and the Word returning to God at the Ascension makes it impossible to refute that the “Word” (the Logos) is God in the physical person of Jesus. If the Word can become flesh through a human transubstantiation operating through human cooperation and consent (Mary’s consent to the incarnation) then why can not the Word become the real presence in the Eucharist through the cooperative work of humans (bread and wine worked by human hands) consenting to trust in partnership with the Divine promise to become the Bread of Life?

The only physical thing we have remaining on earth that we can point to and hold in our hand and rightfully call Emmanuel (“God is with us”) is the Eucharist that is offered up daily to God around the world in Christ’s Church. That presence is also in each member who is in full communion with The Church . Either God is with us or He is not. If you believe in scripture where would you say Jesus is? I say I see him at least each Sunday in Mass when I meet Him in the Eucharist and when I shake the hand of fellow Catholics during the sign of peace or interact with them in normal life.**

Peace Be With You,
James

 

[PC_Master]

Well, regarding the majority – I don’t think that matters, both for the fact that the majority can be wrong, and for the very fact that this is a Roman Catholic forum. I would expect that those who have been raised to believe that transubstantiation is true would be more plentiful here, and that many who don’t believe in it would never step foot in a place like this in the first place. Therefore, we should not only not be surprised, but in fact should expect to see that the majority will end up favoring a Roman Catholic perspective. It’s not evidence for or against – it simply is.

 

[Catholic_Author]

Though we are limited to scripture in this thread, such that we can have none of the CF, it is the CF that established the canon of scripture. So it is inescapable that the CF will be involved since nothing that we come up with will have not passed before their eyes. In light of this fact is it still possible to show that scripture alone teaches transubstantiation?

I mean, even if we prove that scripture does teach transubstantiation that teaching will be something that the CF recognized and therefore endorsed. So no matter what, the CF will have had their hands in it. In light of this fact, I do not think that it is possible to conclude anything about scripture apart from CF, even if all we consider is scripture. Sorry PCM but I think the ground rules of the OP have forced this exercise into a corner. I now think the fruition of this thread is futility.

 

[toaslan]

James, sometimes I feel a little desperate reading your posts because they present to me as an onslaught of wording and extra information; I simply don’t know what to do with so much. However, I am appreciating your tone. Now, I for one, would be served by your stripping your posts down to meat–which I found here:

The beautiful scriptural symmetry present in the accounts of

–Jesus’ Incarnation (God’s Word becoming flesh),
–manna from heaven,
–the Bread of Life come down from heaven)
–and the Word returning to God at the Ascension

makes it impossible to refute that the “Word” (the Logos) is God in the physical person of Jesus.

I would say that this symmetry lends itself to the idea that the Word is God in the Incarnate Jesus, yes.

James:

If the Word can become flesh through…human cooperation…then why can not the Word become the real presence in the Eucharist through the cooperative work of humans (bread and wine worked by human hands) …

No reason here why not. You’re arguing from symmetry again, right.

But the possibility, even reasonablness of transubstantiation is not at issue on this thread, in my understanding. Why not? Because I have read PC say that he doesn’t scorn the idea of transubstantiation–he just does not see in scripture that what we term transubstantiation is in fact a reality, iow, he doesn’t see that God chose to do things through transubstantiation.

And, of course, he can’t see it if he reads as symbolic all references to My Flesh - your bread - to be chewed/gnawed/eaten - for Eternal Life.

I see PC reading the Bread of Life Discourse as a sort of a hiccough on the part of Jesus. I see PC isolating Jesus’ close-packed references to the literal Manna, the literal Resurrection, and the literal Ascension from each other, because he is isolating them from what Jesus places among them–the teaching about the Flesh which is Bread to be Eaten for Eternal Life. I see PC making a disjointed detour into symbolism in order to “spiritualize” the most concrete flesh in the world, the Flesh which, hung on the Cross, saves us.

(I put spiritualize in quotes, because a non-Catholic tendency here is to substitute the word “spiritualize” for the word “symbolize”, and that is a bankrupt effort. Why bankrupt? Because first, what is spirit is just as real as what is material, in fact more so and; second, “spirit” does not mean purely symbolic anywhere in the bible. To be straightforward about “My words are spirit and life,” one has to take these points into account.)

James:

The only physical thing we have remaining on earth that we can point to and hold in our hand and rightfully call Emmanuel (“God is with us”) is the Eucharist…

Another scriptural connection in support of transubstantiation–good work, James! The word Emmanual does mean “God With Us”, and, hmmm, how ‘bout we take God, I don’t know, literally when translating that word too? We Catholics who aren’t interested in the written word of God? What is it with us, that we’re goin’ around here trying to take God literally…

I digress. If God is Literally With Us–if Emmanual is Literally true–well, that’s just another symmetry between scripture and transubstantiation!

 

[toaslan]

Insisting that it must all be considered up front simply shows that the case for transubstantiation is very weak…

not necessarily, PC. Such insistence might logically rise from several positions about the case in scripture for transubstantiation:
A-there is no case
B–the case can be both made and unmade
C–the case is strong, but inconclusive

Because Catholics know that the whole bible is inconclusive without the right interpretation, we naturally seek interpretation on biblical points from the only place on earth guaranteed not to interpret the bible wrongly.

That, you well know, is really why there is such a tide toward broadening any scripture-only discussion–not because anybody is anti-scripture, or fears scripture doesn’t support the Catholic view–it’s because the numerous bible citations presented on this thread are finally just as inconclusive as is all Written Tradition without interpretation from the Verbal Tradition.

a strong case would demonstrate conclusive proof from almost any set of source material. Scripture doesn’t do that, and so you insist on widening the topic…seemingly for the sake of proving that you’re right?

No, it’s because by the nature of the things we are handling here, the OP cannot finally conclude anything in a broader arena–it can only conclude ONE thing–that there is basis in scripture for transubstantiation. That is a good focus, and a good thing to find out–there just is more to say.

By the way, had it not been for the intentional focusing of the OP, I doubt we’d have gotten anywhere near as deep in discussion of scripture.

true–thank you again for a good, solid OP.

you’d have focused on other areas that you feel have stronger support for your beliefs

see, that’s not a fair construction, PC–you are ignoring possibility C above.

if you don’t like my OP, don’t contribute!

They really like it, they’re just being grumpy…

…contributions. Please keep them coming. Though I haven’t the time to respond fully as I would like to, I’m reading them with interest.

Good! Thanks again to each and every poster here for all the good work, good points well made, patience with each other, etc. I have to be absent for some days now, but hope to see more good scriptural basis for transubstantiation laid out for my delectation (that’s for you, James) when I return.

Yours in Him.

 

[Catholic_Author]

(I put spiritualize in quotes, because a non-Catholic tendency here is to substitute the word “spiritualize” for the word “symbolize”, and that is a bankrupt effort. Why bankrupt? Because first, what is spirit is just as real as what is material, in fact more so and; second, “spirit” does not mean purely symbolic anywhere in the bible. To be straightforward about “My words are spirit and life,” one has to take these points into account.)

I’m glad we are back to this point again.

1.) Jesus pairs spirit with life on purpose. He is saying that the two are synonymous. Does anyone disagree here?

2.) Spirit is real because we know life is real. That is we trust our senses and cognition are reflecting the world God gave us. Does anyone disagree here? (I hope not. I really don’t want to go down the slippery slope of modern philosophy.)

3.) If we take spirit to have a symbolic meaning we must in the interest of fairness take life to be symbolic. How is this so? Would a symbolic life have any value… enough to make it Jesus’ mission… enough to make it worth coming to Earth in the the flesh Himself? If His purpose was to give us symbolic spirit and symbolic life, why then did He not come into the world Himself in a symbolic way?

4.) Therefore He came in the flesh to give the world His flesh. He did that on the cross and He did that at the last supper and He is refering in Jn 6 to both of these as one gift of his flesh.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

When the Douay Rheims in Matthew 6:11 says in the Our Father or Lord’s prayer “Supersubstantial bread” doesn’t that necessarily PROVE that Jesus Christ taught of the Eucharistic bread as being one of SUBSTANCE?

Most Protestants say that Substance is only an invention of philosopy–if Jesus knew of it and taught it–

Doesn’t that PROVE that the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation–of changing of the SUBSTANCES of the bread and Wine–that that concept does have a foundation in the very teachings of our Lord about the lord’s prayer.

I believe that Both “Daily Bread” in Luke and and “Supersubstantial Bread” in Matthew are both correct translations and that the infinite God that we worship is capable of using a word that can have more than one meaning at once!

Look folks–Jesus taught of supersubstantial bread in the Lord’s prayer.

The truth of that refutes All the symbolic Hogwash teachings of the Protestants on the Eucharist!

Give us this day our supersubstantial bread!

The early christians BEFORE the gospels were written easily understood Both the daily conotation and the supersubstantial conotation because they

Did partake of the Eucharist daily!

And yes it was Jesus!

And no it wasn’t grape juice and crackers!

All the people in Hell don’t believe in the Eucharist or transubstantiation either!

 

[Miner3]

I stumbled upon this discussion and I would like to comment on the futility of this marathon exercise.

The invite of this thread was to prove transubstantiation by scripture authority alone. After a mound of postings, it appears that the result is inconclusive and no opinions changed by the participants. The very nature of the written word, regardless of translation, is a variety of interpretations. This is especially true when the topic is approached from opposite points of view.

What would be the result of a similar exercise where the participants use a topic that they already agree upon? For instance, can the Trinity be proven by scripture alone? Could the dual nature of Christ, true God and true man, be conclusively shown in the Bible alone?

To restrict the authority even more, could we prove that the Gentiles are to be among the saved, using the Gospels alone? After all, Paul was only given his authority to preach to the Gentiles by the church. I submit that Jesus made it clear that He was here to save the Jews and only later did Paul convince Peter to bind the church to this new teaching. In fact, where did Jesus say to expand the scriptures at all? He told them to “teach” not write.

I’m sure that those involved in this thread get valuable practice in partially supporting their beliefs with reference to sacred scripture. We see in the thousands of Christian denominations a wide variety of interpretations of truth. The fact that the Bible churches cannot agree gives us proof that scripture alone cannot be the final uniting authority.

If the initiator of this thread is actually open to truth, he would not force a false assumption of teaching authority on participants. He is obviously intelligent and could find the biblical references and church teaching from another source. I can only guess that this method feeds the need to debate on a slanted table. I am encouraged that the bait of scripture only was and is not a source of doubt for the church faithful.

 

[toaslan]

The invite of this thread was to prove transubstantiation by scripture authority alone.

You are quite wrong about what this thread is about. If you want to know what we are doing here, read the OP carefully. Then look at what you wrote above.

When you assume, you make a-- out of u and me. Thanks a lot.