How do I prove Matt. 24:26 does not contradict Eucharistic Adoration, or transubstantiation?

[Christina79]

Has anyone ever heard an argument against transubstantiation based on: Matthew 24:26 So, if they say to you, ‘Lo, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; if they say, ‘Lo, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it."?

After all, we are saying that Jesus IS truly there. Now, especially if we’re talking of going to the adoration chapel, how can I explain that it really is Jesus there and not appear to contradict this verse that says, “if they say, ‘Lo, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.”

Could someone please advise me as to how I might handle this?

 

[otjm]

Has anyone ever heard an argument against transubstantiation based on: Matthew 24:26 So, if they say to you, ‘Lo, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; if they say, ‘Lo, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it."?

After all, we are saying that Jesus IS truly there. Now, especially if we’re talking of going to the adoration chapel, how can I explain that it really is Jesus there and not appear to contradict this verse that says, “if they say, ‘Lo, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.”

Could someone please advise me as to how I might handle this?

Start with not taking things out of context and assuming that they apply elsewhere.

There is no reason to presume that the text you quote has anything to do with transubstantiation; and other texts in the Gospels specifically do relate to the Eucharist and His presence. The Gospels cannot contradict themselves.

 

[Christina79]

Start with not taking things out of context and assuming that they apply elsewhere.

There is no reason to presume that the text you quote has anything to do with transubstantiation; and other texts in the Gospels specifically do relate to the Eucharist and His presence. The Gospels cannot contradict themselves.

Of course the Gospels cannot contradict themselves. But when your debating with people who already feel sure that Jesus is speaking in a purely spiritual sense about being “the Bread”, plus adding this on top of it. Is there a better explanation to show that this text could NOT possibly relate to the Eucharist and His presence, because at least on a surface level I could see why they might think it is meaning His presence will not be found on Earth until His Parousia.

 

[MarkThompson]

So, if they say to you, ‘Lo, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out;

I guess by extension this part “disproves” the idea that God is everywhere.

 

[Regina_Love]

Has anyone ever heard an argument against transubstantiation based on: Matthew 24:26 So, if they say to you, ‘Lo, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; if they say, ‘Lo, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it."?

After all, we are saying that Jesus IS truly there. Now, especially if we’re talking of going to the adoration chapel, how can I explain that it really is Jesus there and not appear to contradict this verse that says, “if they say, ‘Lo, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.”

Could someone please advise me as to how I might handle this?

It is obvious that this verse is referring to the second coming of Jesus Christ. You won’t have some one tell you, go here, or go there, because it will be soooo huge every one will experience it, “For just as lighting comes from the East and is seen as far as the West, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.” This teaching is not about the Eucharist. They are taking it out of context, and teaching false hoods! They are spreading traditions of man. Ask them to show you where the Bible says that the Eucharist is only symbolic or Spiritual?

1 John 3:16 warns against using scripture out of context: “In them there are some things hard to understand that he ignorant, and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.”

2 Peter 1:20 warns “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,” You should go to those whom God entrusted the Sacred Scriptures to, The Catholic Church, which has the deposit of faith, 4000 years of relationship with God.

1 Tim 3:15 says that The Catholic Church is the “Pillar, and foundation of the truth!” The Church supports, and teaches the truth! She has understood that we must consume Jesus in the Eucharist from the beginning. Jesus repeates this message over, and over, and over! It was the last thing he taught before he died for us! **John 6:53 ** Jesus says if you don’t eat my flesh & drink my blood you won’t have life within you! How can they be saved if they don’t have life? On that page in my bible Jesus repeats his teachings on the Eucharist 8 times! You have to work really hard at rejecting the truth to not see it. 55 "for my flesh is true food, and by blood is true drink."

 

[JRKH]

I guess by extension this part “disproves” the idea that God is everywhere.

Mark - that is a good “comeback”…but I doubt that it would be convincing. But who knows…might cause a person to think a bit.

Of course the Gospels cannot contradict themselves. But when your debating with people who already feel sure that Jesus is speaking in a purely spiritual sense about being “the Bread”, plus adding this on top of it.

The emphasized part above is the key here. Those who are already confident of their position will interpret Scripture to fit their preconceived notion. For these people there is nothing that you would be able to show them.

Is there a better explanation to show that this text could NOT possibly relate to the Eucharist and His presence, because at least on a surface level I could see why they might think it is meaning His presence will not be found on Earth until His Parousia.

Well - there is no “slam dunk” refutation.
The best thing to do is to look at the quote in context. Read though Chapter 24 yourself and get a sense of the whole scene. Verse five says that many will come saying “I am the Christ”…The Eucharist does not stand up and say this. Verse 24 is talking about the false Christs showing great signs and wonders…The Eucharist sits quietly waiting for us. The whole chapter is speaking of “end times” theology.
Then you can look at John 6 and discuss the fact that Jesus did not correct those who left because they took him literally.
You can point to Paul who tells the Corinthians that if they do not correctly discern that this is the true body and blood, they drink judgement on themselves (1 Cor 11:27-29).

Ultimately though - this matter - like all others - will come down to “interpretation” and “authority”. Ask them how they know that their understanding of a given verse is correct and yours is wrong?
This begins to shift the conversation away from the particular point and into the matter of “Spirit guided” interpretation. They believe that the Holy Spirit is leading them on a true path. You believe the Holy Spirit is leading you on a true path. Each of you are sincere in your love for Christ and do not wish to lead another astray…Yet each one sees something different in Scripture.
How can this be? Is the Holy Spirit a Spirit of confusion? Can he tell you one truth and them another truth?

This is where their argument begins to lose cohesion. Lutherans and Anglicans, that is, fellow protestants, believe in the real presence - though they do not describe it in the same way as the RC does.
So - who is right? Who is truly Spirit led and who is not?

Again - such an approach is not a slam dunk…but you might plant a seed or two.

Peace
James

 

[Christina79]

I guess by extension this part “disproves” the idea that God is everywhere.

I’m pretty sure they might just argue here with the distinction between Persons of the Holy Trinity, but you are right. And I just found in my Scripture reading this morning, just a few chapters later… Matt. 28:20 "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” I think this is pretty good proof for His Presence in the Eucharist too.

It is obvious that this verse is referring to the second coming of Jesus Christ. :yup:

1 John 3:16
2 Peter 1:20
1 Tim 3:15
John 6:53
55 "for my flesh is true food, and by blood is true drink."

Thanks for the references too!

The emphasized part above is the key here. Those who are already confident of their position will interpret Scripture to fit their preconceived notion. For these people there is nothing that you would be able to show them. :sad_yes:

Well - there is no “slam dunk” refutation.
The best thing to do is to look at the quote in context. Read though Chapter 24 yourself and get a sense of the whole scene. Verse five says that many will come saying “I am the Christ”…The Eucharist does not stand up and say this. Verse 24 is talking about the false Christs showing great signs and wonders…The Eucharist sits quietly waiting for us. The whole chapter is speaking of “end times” theology. :clapping:
Then you can look at John 6 and discuss the fact that Jesus did not correct those who left because they took him literally.
You can point to Paul who tells the Corinthians that if they do not correctly discern that this is the true body and blood, they drink judgement on themselves (1 Cor 11:27-29).

Ultimately though - this matter - like all others - will come down to “interpretation” and “authority”. Ask them how they know that their understanding of a given verse is correct and yours is wrong?
This begins to shift the conversation away from the particular point and into the matter of “Spirit guided” interpretation. They believe that the Holy Spirit is leading them on a true path. You believe the Holy Spirit is leading you on a true path. Each of you are sincere in your love for Christ and do not wish to lead another astray…Yet each one sees something different in Scripture.
How can this be? Is the Holy Spirit a Spirit of confusion? Can he tell you one truth and them another truth?

This is where their argument begins to lose cohesion. Lutherans and Anglicans, that is, fellow protestants, believe in the real presence - though they do not describe it in the same way as the RC does.
So - who is right? Who is truly Spirit led and who is not?

Again - such an approach is not a slam dunk…but you might plant a seed or two. :yup:

Of course, I’ve tried explaining that the Holy Spirit would not teach one thing to some and something else to another, but it’s like :banghead:

Thank you all for the great references and explanations too! This is definitely a big help, but of course, in the end it will have to be the Holy Spirit that reveals it to their heart. Thank you!!

One of the biggest difficulties for me lately is trying to explain things when I can’t remember where I saw the references I want to show, and trying to explain how the Spirit speaks to my heart about the truth. It can get so difficult at times, especially with family members who are very much against my conversion. But, I’m SO excited for Easter to get here!! :blushing:

 

[JRKH]

Of course, I’ve tried explaining that the Holy Spirit would not teach one thing to some and something else to another, but it’s like :banghead:

Yes - I understand. This is why these things always come down to “authority”.
With Scripture (guided by the Holy Spirit) being their sole authority - - they cannot prove that your Spirit Led interpretation of Scripture is any less valid than their Spirit Led interpretation of Scripture.

Something that I have always found interesting is that most protestants would have little or no problem if you were becoming - say - Lutheran or Anglican, or Presbyterian, or whatever…
They say - “well we agree on the essentials and the details don’t matter”
If this is the case with your family - perhaps you can pin them down on just what are the “essentials” that matter to salvation.
(Believe in Jesus, Have Faith etc…) Every essential that they can name that would be valid across denominations they agree with - the odds are - the Catholic Church agrees with too.
So - if between protestant communions - details don’t matter so long as they agree on essentials…and the Catholic Church holds to these essentials…What is their problem???

Perhaps this avenue might open some conversation.

But as you say - the Holy Spirit will have to open their hearts.
They will be very blessed to have a good Catholic example in their midst.

Peace
James

 

[Christina79]

Something that I have always found interesting is that most protestants would have little or no problem if you were becoming - say - Lutheran or Anglican, or Presbyterian, or whatever…
They say - “well we agree on the essentials and the details don’t matter”
If this is the case with your family - perhaps you can pin them down on just what are the “essentials” that matter to salvation.
(Believe in Jesus, Have Faith etc…) Every essential that they can name that would be valid across denominations they agree with - the odds are - the Catholic Church agrees with too.
So - if between protestant communions - details don’t matter so long as they agree on essentials…and the Catholic Church holds to these essentials…What is their problem???

Perhaps this avenue might open some conversation.

Unfortunately they don’t think the essentials are the same, really. The beliefs on works and merits and the Sacraments and our sweet Mother Mary’s role in this all just doesn’t settle with them. And, I’m still having a bit of difficulty grasping the issue of salvation completely myself. But, that’s for another thread. Of course, you’re more than welcome to post if you’d like or message me.

I’m just trying to trust that I’ll soon understand those things that are still difficult for me to see from the Catholic perspective. It’s hard working through every doctrine that I’ve been taught my whole life and see how they all fit together in the Catholic faith; but I’ve already seen how many points do fit together in a much more perfect way. I’m very encouraged by it and excited to grow more in my understanding.

Though if I were to pick any other Protestant group that does believe any one of these points, it might be okay enough for them; but put them all together and it just doesn’t sit well. My mom occasionally visits a church that believes you can lose your salvation, yet she can’t understand why I would go to the Catholic church, and often brings up this very point on salvation. And when I had considered joining a Lutheran church, a few years back, she was little concerned, but still fine with it.

I would definitely appreciate your prayers for myself and my family through this time though. Thank you for your support.

 

[JRKH]

Unfortunately they don’t think the essentials are the same, really. The beliefs on works and merits and the Sacraments and our sweet Mother Mary’s role in this all just doesn’t settle with them.

Actually - what you want to do in such a conversation is to find out what they believe are essentials for salvation and see if Catholics believe that…odds are we do. For instance…
Believe in Christ? check
Have faith? Check
Repentance? Check
Baptism? Check

Hopefully such an approach might help them to see that we ARE Christians…

And, I’m still having a bit of difficulty grasping the issue of salvation completely myself. But, that’s for another thread. Of course, you’re more than welcome to post if you’d like or message me.

Well - I don’t know how much help I can really be on this. I prefer a very simple outlook myself. Love and “do unto others…”, is core to living the faith. I figure that is enough to keep me busy (though I’m not very good at it ).

I’m just trying to trust that I’ll soon understand those things that are still difficult for me to see from the Catholic perspective. It’s hard working through every doctrine that I’ve been taught my whole life and see how they all fit together in the Catholic faith; but I’ve already seen how many points do fit together in a much more perfect way. I’m very encouraged by it and excited to grow more in my understanding.

Yes this can be difficult…But be patient. It will come.
On the subject of salvation, I discovered a very good analogy relating to the term Baptism and I think it makes a good illustration on the subject.
The Greek that is translated “baptism” can mean dip or wash…but it can also mean to immerse / soak. The analogy is making pickles. First you wash (baptize) the cucumber in water. It is now clean - but it is still a cucumber. Then you immerse the cucumber in brine and leave it. The brine seeps into the cucumber changing it gradually into a pickle.
“Imputed” Justification is like baptism in water…Infused is like being immersed in the Holy Spirit.
Of course this starts to get into issues of “Sanctification” and that’s where I start to get confused myself…But I just keep slogging along.

Though if I were to pick any other Protestant group that does believe any one of these points, it might be okay enough for them; but put them all together and it just doesn’t sit well. My mom occasionally visits a church that believes you can lose your salvation, yet she can’t understand why I would go to the Catholic church, and often brings up this very point on salvation. And when I had considered joining a Lutheran church, a few years back, she was little concerned, but still fine with it.

Well I would suggest to you mom that - if she is right and you can’t lose your salvation, then she has nothing to worry about no matter where you go.

Bringing them around will definitely be a long and gradual process. But I have confidence that you will manage just fine.

I would definitely appreciate your prayers for myself and my family through this time though. Thank you for your support.

Prayers going forth to you.

Peace
James

 

[Regina_Love]

Christina, I know scripture, but could never find the verses until I went to “Catholic Answers” and ordered their Bible Topic Tabs.

You stick these little tabs on the bottom of your Bible pages. The topics are arranged by color. for example Pope/St Peter are white tabs, Trinity/Holy Spirit are yellow, Eucharist is lavendar, Faith plus works is pink, Baptism is blue, Mary & saints, are black…plus more.

It helps so much to have these proofs right at you finger tips! It’s awesome!

 

[paperwight66]

Christina, I know scripture, but could never find the verses until I went to “Catholic Answers” and ordered their Bible Topic Tabs.

You stick these little tabs on the bottom of your Bible pages. The topics are arranged by color. for example Pope/St Peter are white tabs, Trinity/Holy Spirit are yellow, Eucharist is lavendar, Faith plus works is pink, Baptism is blue, Mary & saints, are black…plus more.

It helps so much to have these proofs right at you finger tips! It’s awesome!

They sound useful Tell us more how they work. Are you given a list of verses to attach the tabs to, or do you have to work them out for yourself?

 

[Christina79]

Well I would suggest to you mom that - if she is right and you can’t lose your salvation, then she has nothing to worry about no matter where you go.

Bringing them around will definitely be a long and gradual process. But I have confidence that you will manage just fine.

Prayers going forth to you.

Thank you for the thoughts you gave on salvation and how to better explain it to others. Someone else in my family did tell her that if I was saved the Baptist way, then I’ll still be saved… which in a way seems to help her feel better, but not when it comes to my children and teaching them the Catholic faith. In any case, I’m sure God will work it all out. Thank you so much for your prayers!!

Christina, I know scripture, but could never find the verses until I went to “Catholic Answers” and ordered their Bible Topic Tabs.

You stick these little tabs on the bottom of your Bible pages. The topics are arranged by color. for example Pope/St Peter are white tabs, Trinity/Holy Spirit are yellow, Eucharist is lavendar, Faith plus works is pink, Baptism is blue, Mary & saints, are black…plus more.

It helps so much to have these proofs right at you finger tips! It’s awesome!

Thanks! I’ll definitely be looking those up!

 

[curtishouse30]

Has anyone ever heard an argument against transubstantiation based on: Matthew 24:26 So, if they say to you, ‘Lo, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; if they say, ‘Lo, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it."?

After all, we are saying that Jesus IS truly there. Now, especially if we’re talking of going to the adoration chapel, how can I explain that it really is Jesus there and not appear to contradict this verse that says, “if they say, ‘Lo, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.”

Could someone please advise me as to how I might handle this?

It’s all about context. The passage is referring to the Second Coming of Christ. You would think relying on Sola Scriptura they would know the Bible a bit more than that. If one takes a singular out-of-context Bible verse, they can pretty much get it to mean anything. I guess that’s why they have thousands upon thousands of denominations with every single Protestant turning into their own Pope.

 

[FAB]

Has anyone ever heard an argument against transubstantiation based on: Matthew 24:26 So, if they say to you, ‘Lo, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; if they say, ‘Lo, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it."?

After all, we are saying that Jesus IS truly there. Now, especially if we’re talking of going to the adoration chapel, how can I explain that it really is Jesus there and not appear to contradict this verse that says, “if they say, ‘Lo, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.”

Could someone please advise me as to how I might handle this?

Christina,
I see by your profile that you are in RCIA and was raised Baptist. I could tell from your question the protestant part you are leaving to be in Christ’s Church.
In Mathew he is warning against false prophets who might be declaring His second coming and leading people away from the truth. Indeed we have seen such things happen over and over again.
This has nothing to do with the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Christ told us, this is my body and this is my blood, and unless we partake in them we cannot have enternal life.
Protestants try to explain away this message and the fact that it is Christ’s own Body and Blood we take in the eucharist. I suspect that in the back of your mind you are still wrestling with messages that you were raised with. As Christ said, you cannot but new wine into old wine sacks, likewise, your new faith requires a new mind of understanding.
Welcome home.
Peace,
DCNFAB

 

[eonporter]

Of course the Gospels cannot contradict themselves. But when your debating with people who already feel sure that Jesus is speaking in a purely spiritual sense about being “the Bread”, plus adding this on top of it. Is there a better explanation to show that this text could NOT possibly relate to the Eucharist and His presence, because at least on a surface level I could see why they might think it is meaning His presence will not be found on Earth until His Parousia.

Well, despite of reading the whole text and pointing out that the meaning is very, very clear - for there is no indication it is about transubstantiation indeed - you might want to take a look to what christians who where close to apostles believed in the first place.

Show them Justin Martyr’s remarks in 150 AD about how catholics would not take the consecrated wine and bread as “common food”, for example. It is very clear that transubstantiation is an authentic apostolic teaching, while the other interpretations have no historical basis whatsoever.