Help w/ transubstanciation

[justacloserwalk]

Who TM30? Or Saved Sinner?

TM, couldn’t call savedsinner out, or it would have made him look like a jerk (or maybe that was my job…).

Savedsinner. I could not believe him going on about Swndoll and DTS like he did.
Good grief!
I don’t know too many people who think like that or say they believe it just because so and so said.

In repsonse to the comment that Protestants believe it is symbolic…not all denominations do.

I could give you the list of those that don’t but it is too long. What is more important I would think is YOU believe…

The Holy Spirit has to change hearts and minds and that happens when people have teachable hearts and minds.

People, Jesus Christ is alive, seated at the right hand of the Father…
He is Lord and one day EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Guess what? We will be so busy caught up in worship and adoration to pay attention to what church you came out of.

Barbara

 

[chet]

Theology of transubstantiation
“Substance” here means what something is in itself. (For more on the philosophical concept, see Substance theory.) A hat’s shape is not the hat itself, nor is its color the hat, nor is its size, nor its softness to the touch, nor anything else about it perceptible to the senses. The hat itself (the “substance”) has the shape, the color, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them. While the appearances, which are referred to by the philosophical term accidents, are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not.
When at his Last Supper Jesus said: “This is my body”, what he held in his hands had all the appearances of bread: these “accidents” remained unchanged. However, the Roman Catholic Church believes that, in accordance with what Jesus said, the underlying reality was changed: the “substance” of the bread was converted to that of his body. In other words, it actually was his body, while all the appearances open to the senses or to scientific investigation were still those of bread, exactly as before. The Church holds that the same change of the substance of the bread and of the wine occurs at the consecration of the Eucharist.
The bread is changed into Jesus’ body, but, because Jesus, risen from the dead, is living, not only his body is present, but Jesus as a whole, body and blood, soul and divinity. The same holds for the wine changed into his blood.
In accordance with this belief that Christ is really, truly and substantially present under the remaining appearances of bread and wine, and continues to be present as long as those appearances remain, the Catholic Church preserves the consecrated elements, generally in a church tabernacle, for administering Holy Communion to the sick and dying, and also for the secondary, but still highly prized, purpose of adoring Christ present in the Eucharist.
The Roman Catholic Church considers the doctrine of transubstantiation, which is about what is changed, not about how the change occurs, the best defense against what it sees as the mutually opposed errors of, on the one hand, a merely figurative understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (the change of the substance is real), and, on the other hand, an interpretation that would amount to cannibalistic eating of the flesh and corporal drinking of the blood of Christ (the accidents that remain are real, not an illusion).
(Edited by Moderator to conform with Forum Rules)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

 

[chet]

The Eastern Catholic, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches, along with the Assyrian Church of the East, agree that the bread and wine truly and actually become the body and blood of Christ. They have in general refrained from philosophical speculation, and usually rely on the status of the doctrine as a “mystery,” something known by divine revelation that could not have been arrived at by reason without revelation. Accordingly, they prefer to say too little about the details and remain firmly within Holy Tradition, than to say too much and possibly deviate from the truth. However, they do speak clearly of a “change” “metousiosis” of the bread and wine. During the reign of Henry VIII, the official teaching of the Anglican Church was identical with the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine, in defence of which the king wrote a book for which the Pope rewarded him with the title of Defender of the Faith. Under his son, Edward VI, the Anglican Church accepted a more Protestant theology, and directly opposed transubstantiation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

(Edited by Moderator to conform to Forum Rules)

 

[chet]

In the 9th Century, there arise the first ripples of real controversy. At this time, a French monk named Ratramnus asks in essence, “But how can this be the body and blood of Christ?” He holds that Christ’s body in the Eucharist cannot be the same as Christ’s crucified and risen body because the Eucharistic body cannot be seen or felt. In a word, for Ratramnus, the Real Presence is “spiritual” (and therefore not physical). This line of reasoning inevitably leads Ratramnus (and all those who follow his lead) to increasingly regard the Eucharist as a “mere symbol” of the “true” (meaning “non-physical”) reality rather than as the true body and blood taught by the Apostles. Eventually, his theory is condemned by the Synod of Vercelli, but the controversy continues for two more centuries and Ratramnus is at length championed by Archdeacon Berengar of Tours. In response to this, Pope Gregory VII writes a formal declaration of the Church’s faith (reiterating the biblical and patristic teaching concerning the literalness of the Church’s belief on the point) and requires Berengar to submit to it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratramnus

Edited by Moderator to conform to Forum Rules)

 

[justacloserwalk]

Chet,
You did a great job of explaining this. You know, I believe in the Trinity. It is still a “mystery” and that is what I think of with transubstination…it can be explained but it is still a mystery.

I think we will all get it perfectly when we are in the Prescence of our Lord and Savior.
Until then I am going to keep my eyes focused on Jesus and stay repented up and prayed up.

Aren’t we blessed to have one another to help us on the journey? I sure am. Thanks again,
Barbara

 

[Church_Militant]

Chet,
You did a great job of explaining this. You know, I believe in the Trinity. It is still a “mystery” and that is what I think of with transubstantiation…it can be explained but it is still a mystery.

I think we will all get it perfectly when we are in the Presence of our Lord and Savior.
Until then I am going to keep my eyes focused on Jesus and stay repented up and prayed up.

Aren’t we blessed to have one another to help us on the journey? I sure am. Thanks again,
Barbara

Hi Barbara,

This scriptural teaching is one of the most powerful reasons that I am Catholic. My testimony.
Welcome to CAF!

 

[nettythorpe]

John 6:63
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
This means symbolic, plain and simple.
My pastor says that it is symbolic. And my pastor learned from someone who held a doctorate when he went to seminary, so he should know what he is talking about.

Jesus would’t want us to argue about our beliefs. It all comes down to our individual faith and who taught us what, and what their faith is. Your Pastor, I’m sure, is a very clever person but you must believe what your faith tells you to believe, with the guidence of the Holy Spirit… and I know what I am talking about because my husband is an Evangelical Christian. As I am a Catholic we often have forums of our own. This is the reason why I am on this thread, to help me explain to him the concept of transubstanciation. He believes the bread and wine/body and blood of our Lord is symbolic. Our youngest daughter is now preparing for her first Holy Communion and her Catechist explains this wonderful mystery as ‘The life of Christ’.

 

[justinthemartyr]

Jesus would’t want us to argue about our beliefs. It all comes down to our individual faith and who taught us what, and what their faith is. Your Pastor, I’m sure, is a very clever person but you must believe what your faith tells you to believe, with the guidence of the Holy Spirit… and I know what I am talking about because my husband is an Evangelical Christian. As I am a Catholic we often have forums of our own. This is the reason why I am on this thread, to help me explain to him the concept of transubstanciation. He believes the bread and wine/body and blood of our Lord is symbolic. Our youngest daughter is now preparing for her first Holy Communion and her Catechist explains this wonderful mystery as ‘The life of Christ’.

I find it interesting that in scripture, Jesus spends more time on this subject (eucharist) than any other.

I had to ask myself as a Protestant Christian, that in the few things Jesus said in Sacred Scripture, why in the world would He spend so much time on this topic if it were just a symbolic non issue?

He wouldn’'t.

 

[justacloserwalk]

As an Orthodox Christian I believe the same as you-Jesus Christ is 100 percent present. However, Orthodox don’t say how, just that He is and it is a Mystery.

I used to be one of those “it is just symbolic” Evangelical Protestants but not any longer.
They can have their grape juice and crackers.

Barbara

 

[NotWorthy]

Since when does “Spirit” equal “Symbolic”.

Have I been praying to the Holy Symbolic all these years?!?!

 

[Montydew]

Jesus is speaking symbolically here, and the only people that believed him to be speaking literally are the ones that left him, for they knew that God prohibits the drinking of blood.
If Jesus had been speaking literally here, he would have explained it to his followers just like he does in many other places in scripture. The Church fathers also believed the way I do, because they all talk about the “spiritual” real presence of the bread and wine. They did not believe that it really was his blood and body in a real sense but in a spiritual sense, just like scripture tells us: where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst.

Oh really?

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God … They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

They did not think the same way as you do because they knew the truth.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:
If the body be not saved, then in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His Blood; and neither is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His Blood nor is the Bread which we break the partaking of His Body . . . He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

What was the that about the early fathers thinking like you?
Cannibalism is a sin, but a sin is any failure to conform to god’s moral law. If the drinking of the blood of christ is incorporated into the law of our creator, then it is not viewed as cannibalism. Therefore, it is not sin.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Oh really?

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God … They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

They did not think the same way as you do because they knew the truth.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:
If the body be not saved, then in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His Blood; and neither is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His Blood nor is the Bread which we break the partaking of His Body . . . He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

What was the that about the early fathers thinking like you?
Cannibalism is a sin, but a sin is any failure to conform to god’s moral law. If the drinking of the blood of christ is incorporated into the law of our creator, then it is not viewed as cannibalism. Therefore, it is not sin.

SavedSinner is correct. Your response lacks contextual support in my opinion.

Here is something I put together a few years ago from my research on the subject:

The Eucharist in the Ante-Nicene Church

 

[Mickey]

Here is something I put together a few years ago from my research on the subject:

Indeed, St Ignatius wrote against the Docetists. The Docetists believed that Jesus’ body was an illusion–as was his crucifixion. They believed he did not physically die because he was a pure spirit (incorporeal).

St Ignatius writes:
“They [the docetists] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist** to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ,** which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes”.

Since the Docetists believed that Jesus’ Body was an illusion, they could not accept the fact that the bread and wine used in the Eucharist were the actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ (The Real Presence).

Now we have Mr Culliton saying this on his blog:
“It is utterly criminal what the catholic apologists have done to the compassionate work of Ignatius…Attempts to use Ignatius’ words here to support transubstantiation are nothing short of ridiculous…It is incomprehensible to think that anyone could ignore the obvious context of this letter (or any of Ignatius’ letters) just to promote their agenda”.

It is uttely criminal and blasphemous that Brian has attempted to twist the true meaning of St Ignatius’ words in an attempt to deny the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. Brian’s attempt is nothing short of ridiculous. In an effort to promote his agenda, he has twisted the context of St Ignatius’ letter. Brian’s relatively recent and innovative reformed false teaching denies the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. And here is the irony…Brian’s teaching reeks of the Docetism that he tries to use to discredit St Ignatius!!!

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Indeed, St Ignatius wrote against the Docetists. The Docetists believed that Jesus’ body was an illusion–as was his crucifixion. They believed he did not physically die because he was a pure spirit (incorporeal).

St Ignatius writes:
“They [the docetists] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist** to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ,** which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes”.

Since the Docetists believed that Jesus’ Body was an illusion, they could not accept the fact that the bread and wine used in the Eucharist were the actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ (The Real Presence).

Now we have Mr Culliton saying this on his blog:
“It is utterly criminal what the catholic apologists have done to the compassionate work of Ignatius…Attempts to use Ignatius’ words here to support transubstantiation are nothing short of ridiculous…It is incomprehensible to think that anyone could ignore the obvious context of this letter (or any of Ignatius’ letters) just to promote their agenda”.

It is uttely criminal and blasphemous that Brian has attempted to twist the true meaning of St Ignatius’ words in an attempt to deny the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. Brian’s attempt is nothing short of ridiculous. In an effort to promote his agenda, he has twisted the context of St Ignatius’ letter. Brian’s relatively recent and innovative reformed false teaching denies the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. And here is the irony…Brian’s teaching reeks of the Docetism that he tries to use to discredit St Ignatius!!!

The issue is that there are those who emphatically assert that the quote you mentioned is undeniable proof of transubstantiation; it is not. The Docetists did not abstain from the Eucharist because they didn’t believe it was the literal body and blood of Christ; they abstained because they denied He came in the flesh.

I understand your presupposition, but by insisting that Ignatius proves what you believe, you are ignoring not only the context of his letters but also the greater context of the early church writings in general.

 

[Mickey]

The issue is that there are those who emphatically assert that the quote you mentioned is undeniable proof of transubstantiation;

It is you who have the wrong context. Transubstantiation is a philosophical term that the Latin Catholics are fond of using. St Ignatius letter is telling us that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ. He is telling us that it is the true Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. And there is nothing you can say or twist to change that. Sorry Brian.

 

[mikeledes]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=329772

God Bless,
Michael