Jesus denied transubstantiation

[corvidae]

If you felt that I have attacked you by asking how WE should know the Holy Spirit is guiding YOU I apologize.

I was simply trying to point out why Catholics place trust in things other than their own interpretation of scripture, so that you may see why we may not immediately trust you, and so you can know where your opponents in this thread are coming from.

Best Regards
A lone Raven

 

[HailMary]

According to the article I referenced, and the many posts I have added to this thread, I believe people in Church started denying the Eucharist when the Catholic Church started proclaiming it.
John
www.gideonsword.net

Key word, YOU BELIEVE. You will never win the consensus of rational men since your tenuous claim offers zero support

As a New Testament Christian, I don’t base my doctrine or theology on the teachings of a certain sect, or denomination of Christianity… I base my doctrine and theology on the written Word of God… which is what we should all be doing.
John
www.gideonsword.net

How do you qualify this statment? On a paper on wrote (A case for Catholicism) which is attatched to my signature I say the following:

This Church was promised to be infallible; it is the “pillar and foundation of truth”[1 Tim 3:15]. Christ, the Good Shepherd told the first Pope, Peter, to “…feed my sheep”[Jn 21:17]- have you ever stopped and thought about how tough of a command that was? Do you really think anyone could successfully “feed” ALL His sheep without the gift of infallibility [recall the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven]? Jesus promised the bishops of the early Church that he would teach them “everything”[Jn 14:26]. Jesus said to his appointed disciples, "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me "[Luke 10:16]- who are you listening to? [put another way, do you REALLY practice Sola Scriptura or do you have your own “pope”[aka your pastor or yourself!] you listen to every Sunday at your place of worship?]. Jesus said there was to be “…one baptism, one faith” [Ephesians 4:5], a call for UNITY. Only one Church has been be unified throughout the ages and has kept the SACRED TRADITIONS OF THE APOSTLES[2 Thess. 2:14-15].

2 Thess. 2:14-15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

In Christ through His Blessed Mother

 

[Pryority7]

Let’s put all this to rest right now…

Bibleapologist, you are really stretching it as far as it can be stretched. Justin Martyr, Ireneaus…both disciples of the apostle John…who by the way wrote the words in John 6, right? Believed in the Real Presence in the Eurcharist. The quotes were laid out before you and you have chosen to reject these guys as being in opposition to Christ…implying that they taught false doctine…funny how no one opposed their “false doctine” at the time…that’s because there was nothing to be opposed. This was believed by the Church all over until the 1500’s…So on that note you have made it clear that your sincere quest to evangelize us damned Catholics is based on a straw foundation, not one made of stone. (I know…Jesus is the Rock…got it…), but I’m talking about YOUR interpretation of scripture.
I pray that God will remove the scales from YOUR eyes and see the truth for what it is.

Peace,
P7

 

[Lukelion]

Vocimike, truthstalker, HailMary, Lukelion, and Sean Boyle…

Since none of the last posts by any of you are anywhere near the original topic, but only statements to question my character or spiritual condition… I will assume you have no further (name removed by moderator)ut regarding the subject at hand…
John
www.gideonsword.net

I apologise for all uncharitable statements made by me. After I expanded my original statement, you mentioned that [it is dangerous to continue rejecting the truth…][sic]. How can I be corrected if I do not know what the trespass against the truth was?
Was it my belief in the miracle A) Jesus is true God and true Man and/or
B) The body of Christ exists under the outward appearance of bread.

I questioned your motives behind your statement, because I do believe in Transubstantiation, and you do not. But now I will assume your statement to me was concern for my soul. Bibleapologist: for the sake of my soul, please clarify which statement is heretical and will offend my God.

Thank you,
Lukelion

 

[HailMary]

Let’s put all this to rest right now…

Bibleapologist, you are really stretching it as far as it can be stretched. Justin Martyr, Ireneaus…both disciples of the apostle John…who by the way wrote the words in John 6, right? Believed in the Real Presence in the Eurcharist. The quotes were laid out before you and you have chosen to reject these guys as being in opposition to Christ…implying that they taught false doctine…funny how no one opposed their “false doctine” at the time…that’s because there was nothing to be opposed. This was believed by the Church all over until the 1500’s…So on that note you have made it clear that your sincere quest to evangelize us damned Catholics is based on a straw foundation, not one made of stone. (I know…Jesus is the Rock…got it…), but I’m talking about YOUR interpretation of scripture.
I pray that God will remove the scales from YOUR eyes and see the truth for what it is.

Peace,
P7

Since bibleApologist belives:
*As a New Testament Christian, I don’t base my doctrine or theology on the teachings of a certain sect, or denomination of Christianity… I base my doctrine and theology on the written Word of God… which is what we should all be doing. *

No consensus of Fathers or reference otherwise would mean anything to bibleApologist right? Otherwise he would be violating his own grounds of interpreation because those sources we cited are not the " written Word of God" but an extra-biblical source.

 

[Truthstalker]

Vocimike, truthstalker, HailMary, Lukelion, and Sean Boyle…

Since none of the last posts by any of you are anywhere near the original topic, but only statements to question my character or spiritual condition… I will assume you have no further (name removed by moderator)ut regarding the subject at hand.

You cannot discredit my interpretation of John 6; 1 Cor. 11; or 1 Cor. 10… so you resort to attacking my credibility. That is a very weak way to debate.

I will resume debate this evening if there is anything posted regarding the topic.

John
www.gideonsword.net

I’m pointing out a problem with the precondition to your argument, that is, that you are guided in it by the Holy Spirit, and since we disagree, necessarily we must then be at fault. This is hardly personal but an age-old problem that was resolved in the Catholic Church by an appeal to authority, namely the Pope. This relates to the topic at hand because we are discovering contradictory interpretations of the same material. You say it says “black”, we say it says “white”, so we cannot resolve it, except to declare that “our side” is guided by God and everyone else is wrong. This is a generalization and a problem outside of Catholicism. Someone asked you how you know you are right, and your response is that you are guided by the Holy Spirit. We say the same thing. God not being contradictory, one of us at least is wrong. This is simple logic and not at all a personal attack. If it came out that way I am sorry. If it is an attack it is an attack on everyone.

John 6 can be interpreted as metaphor or literally. Jesus was speaking of Word=bread or Flesh=bread, or both. Catholics argue it was not a one or the other but a both-and. You argue it is the former case exclusively, but you still have not shown how it cannot be the latter. However successfully you argue that Jesus is the Bread of Life, Catholics will agree. But you must also demonstrate that He did not also mean transubstantiation in order to prove your point, and that is that Jesus DENIED transubstantiation. Not that He didn’t say it, but that He DENIED it. That is your thesis, and it is unproven.

 

[bibleapologist]

Here is something I found.

It is an video sermon by a Baptist evangelist. I only watched the first five minutes, but in those first five minutes he makes a pretty good defense for the “symbolism” of the bread.

I could have quoted it here, but I thought you all might like to see the video clip.

It is called “A nail in the house of God”.

John

 

[Orionthehunter]

Vocimike, truthstalker, HailMary, Lukelion, and Sean Boyle…

Since none of the last posts by any of you are anywhere near the original topic, but only statements to question my character or spiritual condition… I will assume you have no further (name removed by moderator)ut regarding the subject at hand.

You cannot discredit my interpretation of John 6; 1 Cor. 11; or 1 Cor. 10… so you resort to attacking my credibility. That is a very weak way to debate.

I will resume debate this evening if there is anything posted regarding the topic.

John
www.gideonsword.net

John, with all do respect, a more accurate moniker would be “Johnapologist”. I read thru every one of your posts and the many responses. So many took great effort to try to present to you their view of the Scripture. They gave great support for their view with backup from the Bible, contemporaries of St. John, and theologians throught history regarding the Real Presence. You ignored them all and relied on your own interpretation which required mental gyrations of great magnitude. Frankly, without knowing more about you and your credentials, they would be morons for substituting all these reputable sources for yours.

 

[corvidae]

I watched the first five minutes too, and I do not understand.

He talks about one Christian who associated everything with scripture, from a lightning bug on. So how does that prove the symbolism?

And then he goes on to talk about how everything has a meaning, but that does not mean the bible is entirely symbolic. He talks about Zaccheus and a sycamore tree, how the sycamore symbolizes sinners. But that does not mean that he did not actually climb a sycamore tree or any tree. It just means that sycamores have deeper meaning.

I see no proving or disproving anything. Just saying that everything in the bible has a meaning and (I am assuming here) that some of it has a literal meaning.

So I do have to ask, why did you even bring this clip up?

A lone Raven

p.s.- I noticed you just posted the same thing on CARM, any particular reason?

 

[LIMolly0721]

bibleapologist,
I haven’t noticed any attacks on your character, just friendly believers pointing out holes in your theory. They are correct in saying that you have not proven what your original post claimed. Furthermore, your basis is on your own personal interpretation of scripture, but scripture itself warns against such interpretations. I don’t have time to look up the exact quote right now, but I’m sure you all know what I’m talking about. Furthermore, the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth, not the Bible alone. The Bible itself says this. (1 Tim. 3:15). You cannot take this to mean “an invisible body of believers”, because we all know many different protestant churches differ on very important doctrines. The Catholic Church existed before the Bible, and nothing in the Bible contradicts Catholic teaching. You put up a good fight, but you did not win this argument.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Truthstalker,

If the same infallible scripture (the Bible) assures us of the promise of the Holy Spirit, and we, upon faith in Christ according to the Word of God recieve that same Holy Spirit and that same Holy Spirit (according to the promise) teaches us a truth that is contradictory to another person or group who also claims the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we can then begin to draw some hypothesis regarding those people…

1. They believed a lie which they thought to be the truth regarding scripture, and never actually received the Holy Spirit.
2. They have once believed, but have been led astray by false teaching. And like Balaam made the decision to fulfil the lusts of the flesh.
3. Or those of the second sort who after being convicted by the Holy Spirit regarding the lie they believed, continue to resist God and refuse repentance regarding the matter and therefore having their conscience seared as with a hot iron…

Do you think maybe the ECF possibly gave heed to seducing spirits? Why do priests forbid to marry? Why do you forbid to eat meat on Friday? Could it be that thier conscience was seared with a “hot iron”?

I am sorry for answering this question as I know it is off topic. To answer this question does qualify my authority to address the original topic though.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Shotgun apologistics! beautiful come back. Oh no, I see you have something in your eye. It’s a wooden plank.

Whats the matter, have you realized that you are the product of the same false teachings that you accused us of being under.

 

[maryalene]

Maryalene,

Are you saying that if a person is properly trained they cannot possibly go into apostacy?

Are you prepared to say that the Catholic Church succeeded in properly training Luther?

I don’t think so. So why should we trust the ECF’s as infallible or (nearly infallible), and not completely trust the original source of this teaching, if it is possible that these men could apostasize?

John
www.gideonsword.net

I suppose I misworded my original question. You asked why people thought Ignatius’s “notion” was better than your “notion.” People responded that John taught Ignatius directly while you are interpreting Scripture 2000 years later. If given the choice, we would rather take the word of someone who heard it “straight from the horse’s mouth,” as it were.

You never responded to those posts, and I was curious if knowing that Ignatius was instructed by John changed your impression of his writings. However, I think I have my answer now. Am I correct in inferring that you believe that John properly trained Ignatius, but that Ignatius rejected what he had been taught?

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Vocimike, truthstalker, HailMary, Lukelion, and Sean Boyle…

Since none of the last posts by any of you are anywhere near the original topic, but only statements to question my character or spiritual condition… I will assume you have no further (name removed by moderator)ut regarding the subject at hand.

You cannot discredit my interpretation of John 6; 1 Cor. 11; or 1 Cor. 10… so you resort to attacking my credibility. That is a very weak way to debate.

I will resume debate this evening if there is anything posted regarding the topic.

John
www.gideonsword.net

My post 211 was following and responding to your lead off topic. I’m sorry if that sidetracked the thinking in any way.

 

[John_Henry]

knowing that Ignatius was instructed by John

I’ve seen a lot of people make claims about various Church fathers having been taught by John in this thread. So far, I count, Ignatius, Justin and Irenaeus. Is this true? I know Polycarp was, and Irenaeus learned from Polycarp. But that Ignatius and Justin were is news to me… Certainly Ignatius knew at least some of the apostles, being the Bishop of Antioch. And he may have been taught by them. But do we know he was taught by John certainly?

Just askin’…

 

[mtr01]

I’ve seen a lot of people make claims about various Church fathers having been taught by John in this thread. So far, I count, Ignatius, Justin and Irenaeus. Is this true? I know Polycarp was, and Irenaeus learned from Polycarp. But that Ignatius and Justin were is news to me… Certainly Ignatius knew at least some of the apostles, being the Bishop of Antioch. And he may have been taught by them. But do we know he was taught by John certainly?

Just askin’…

Yes, Ignatius as well as Polycarp was a pupil of St. John the Apostle. Furthermore, early ecclesiastical writers inform us that Ignatius was consecrated a bishop by the Apostles, and appointed Bishop of Anitioch by Peter himself.

Also there is the legend that Ignatius was the child Our Lord took in his arms in Mark 9:35 (last Sunday’s Gospel reading).

As for Irenaeus, you are correct that he was was a disciple of Polycarp, not John. I do not know under whom Justin the Martyr learned.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Way back in the beginning of this thread, John claimed that transubstantiation was invented by the Catholic Church in 1215. Here is my question: If that is true, why do the Eastern Orthodox Christians believe in the real presence as well, since they predate 1215? What about Coptic Christians?

For what it’s worth, all of us can at least agree that John’s opinion clearly is the minority viewpoint.

 

[Denise_Shae]

This sounds very third-grade… I’d like to start seeing some quotes from ECF’s. Tomorrow I am going to try to look up exactly where Martin Luther talked about all the ECF’s not denying transubstantiation.

Dear visavismeyou,

I find it very interesting, that the same “Theologian” who came up with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther) never denied the True Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.
In fact, he argued against the denial of our Lord’s Real Presence in a famous debate with Huldrych Zwingli.

See Link, below:

[
Colloquy of Marburg (1529) (http://helives.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_helives_archive.html#112476120194176447)

Due to a lack of space, I’ll only paste the info pertinent to this topic:

The Lutherans and Zwinglians agreed on everything, across the board, except one. The interpretation of Christ’s words “this is my body,” (Matt. 26:26) when instituting the Lord’s Supper. On all other aspects of the sacrament (ordinance) they agreed: That Christ commanded it, that it was of profound significance and importance to the spiritual life of the believer, and that is must be approached with great reverence. They agreed the Rome was in grave error in its policy of withholding the cup from the laity. But on the details of the interpretation, they could not agree. Luther held to consubstantiation and Zwingli to a memorial view.

Summarizing these views:

• Transubstantiation(Rome): the elements actually change into the body of blood of Christ.

• Consubstantiation (Luther): There is a corporeal presence of Christ in the elements, although the elements themselves do not change.

• Memorial (Zwingli): Nothing happens to the elements; the Eucharist memorializes Christ’s sacrifice.

helives.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_helives_archive.html#112476120194176447

BTW: (I took this info from a Non-Catholic site so there would be no question of Catholic bias.)

Good luck in your search. If I can get back online, later on, I may join you.

God Bless!

In His Most Sacred ,

Denise

 

[Mr_Jullien]

Way back in the beginning of this thread, John claimed that transubstantiation was invented by the Catholic Church in 1215. Here is my question: If that is true, why do the Eastern Orthodox Christians believe in the real presence as well, since they predate 1215? What about Coptic Christians?

** For what it’s worth, all of us can at least agree that John’s opinion clearly is the minority viewpoint.**

Hey stinkcat,

Pease be with you.

Actually, that’s exactly what it is – an opinion. It’ll never sway the Faith of practicing Catholics, unless those Catholics are very poorly Catechized, or want an excuse to leave the Church.

PAX

Jullien,
Deninitely a :bible1: CATHOLIC

 

[gardenswithkids]

Since bibleApologist belives:
*As a New Testament Christian, I don’t base my doctrine or theology on the teachings of a certain sect, or denomination of Christianity… I base my doctrine and theology on the written Word of God… which is what we should all be doing. *

No consensus of Fathers or reference otherwise would mean anything to bibleApologist right? Otherwise he would be violating his own grounds of interpreation because those sources we cited are not the " written Word of God" but an extra-biblical source.

I think that’s a good observation. Plus, the continued presentation of the writings of the early Church fathers places John (bibleapologist) in the near occassion of sin, as he feels the need to imply the Church fathers are heretics since they disagree with his interpretation of the Bible.

John, I think the Holy Spirit is trying to guide you to proper interpretation of John 6. Read it again, this time open to the possibility that Jesus speaks literally. You wrote you have the Bible and the Holy Spirit to teach you, so use them. Ignore what your baptist preachers and man-made study guides tell you about John 6. Set aside your prejudice and you’ll see no mention of any “symbolism”–that is something your tradition and intellect add to scripture.

 

[adrift]

The word “heretic” is from the greek word “heretick”. The definition of that word is: a person who makes a schismatic decision.

Please don’t use quote definitions which are exclusive to the Catholic Church. The term “heretic” is not just someone who disagrees with the Catholic Church.

You have been given the truth… more than once. According to the scripture it is dangerous to continue rejecting the truth…

John
www.gideonsword.net

.
heresy
“an opinion of private men different from that of the catholick and orthodox church” [Johnson], c.1225, from O.Fr. heresie, from L. hæresis, “school of thought, philosophical sect,” used by Christian writers for “unorthodox sect or doctrine,” from Gk. hairesis “a taking or choosing,” from haireisthai “take, seize,” middle voice of hairein “to choose,” of unknown origin. The Gk. word was used in N.T. in ref. to the Sadducees, Pharisees, and even the Christians, as sects of Judaism, but in Eng. bibles it is usually translated sect. Meaning “religious belief opposed to the orthodox doctrines of the Church” evolved in L.L. in the Dark Ages. Heretic (c.1330) is ult. from Gk. hairetikos “able to choose,” the verbal adj. of hairein

etymonline.com/index.php?search=heretic&searchmode=none

I found it interesting that the original article posted does not mention the following scriputure
Mathew 26:26-29.

26
14 15 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you,
28
for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.
29

This becomes the answer to the question that the Jews asked

John 6:51-52- The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”

THIS IS can hardly be misunderstood except to those hard of heart. Do THIS in memeory of me requires an honest answer that is a truthfull answer of what this is? Jesus has said THIS IS MY BODY. THIS IS MY BLOOD. You will find no scripture that Jesus denied transubstntiation. If you have such scriputre, provide it. Not an interpretation but a direct quote.