Jesus denied transubstantiation

[Church_Militant]

Lukelion,

Do you have any idea how unbelievably heretical that statement is?

John
www.gideonsword.net

Do you have any idea how unbelievably lacking in faith and in opposition to the omnipotence of God l that statement is?

So would be God giving his life for us.
Becoming man for the very purpose mentioned above.
Claiming to be the Son of God.
Rising from the dead.
Feeding 5,000 with 12 loaves and 2 fish.
Healings, raising the dead, and the richness of compassion
Pax tecum,

 

[Lukelion]

Lukelion,

Do you have any idea how unbelievably heretical that statement is?

John
www.gideonsword.net

I should not have kept my statements so short, as grammer and exact definitions seem to be such a sticking point. I fully believe in the Body of Christ under the outward appearance of bread. Hence the bread must have become the Body of Christ, i.e. the former must have been converted into the latter.

I must clarify that I am not a “heretic*”, and do not believe in consubstantiation, that Christ’s Body exists together with the substance of bread

*Heresy, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is a "theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the catholic or Orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox.

Lukelion

 

[bibleapologist]

gardenswithkids,

Absolutely! These verses in particular “When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him…” Luke 24:30-31

While Jesus opened the scriptures for them, their hearts burned (verse 32), but they didn’t recognize Him as He explained scriptures alone; they recognized Jesus in the breaking of the bread. That Bible passage makes the point that disciples can walk with Jesus discussing scriptures, but He might lead them to a place where they can recognize Him in the breaking of the bread. I pray Jesus walks with John the bibleapologist down that road.

In verse 30, when Jesus broke the bread and gave it to them is the exact moment when these disciples were enlightened to the identity of Jesus… your right. And I don’t think it can be denied that this whole event hinged on the breaking and giving of the bread.

But the question comes then, what was it about the bread that caused those people who were previously blinded as to who He was, to suddenly see Jesus for who He was?

It was customary in those days for the head of the household to break the bread. Jesus in this situation, assumed the position of the Head, and broke bread instead of the Head of that household, as was His character… to assume the role of a servant.

Since this was so contrary to custom, it was immediately obvious that this was someone who considered Himself to be a “Headship”. It was this act that enlightened the disciples to who He was, along with the fact that He had been teaching them the scripture before this account, and they remembered that their hearts burned within them while He taught them…

Luk 24:30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed [it], and brake, and gave to them.
Luk 24:31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

That doesn’t have anything to do with transubstantiation.

My teenage daughter had a makeover at a friends house last week on Sunday morning, When I saw her at church that Sunday morning I didn’t recognize her, even though she was right next to me. But when she came up beside me, put her arm around me and hugged me… my eyes were opened, and I knew who she was, because that is what she always does. (That actually happened!)

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Church_Militant]

If there is no real presence in the Eucharist, then how can St.Paul warn us not to take it unworthily lest we become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? That “spiritualization” makes complete nonsense not only of the 6th chapter of John, but of 1st Corinthians 10:16-17 “16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.”

and 11: 23-30

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many inform and weak among you, and many sleep.

Now, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE? Now if I make a symbol of Karl Keating like this symbol here: and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol symbol…like say this: http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/blowup1.gif I may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol of the goodman Karl Keating, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question…of course not! Why? BECAUSE KARL KEATING IS NOT REALLY PRESENT IN THAT SYMBOL is he?
There is the the whole case for why the Eucharist really is the presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ…body and blood, soul and divinity.

Catholics! You have the greatest miracle of all at every Mass that you participate in. BE THERE!
Pax vobiscum,

P.S. To Karl Keating, and the mods: no offense intended

 

[bibleapologist]

*Heresy, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is a "theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the catholic or Orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox.

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…

Tit 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
Tit 3:11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[HailMary]

I think its funny how non-Catholics tackle this issue.

When did people in Church (whatever church you think is the real one, if you even think there is one) start denying the Eucharist? You will find references supporting the Catholic position. Where are yours? I scanned this thread and didn’t see anything definitative that you posted, maybe I missed it. But surely, you can support it with something from early Christian writings. Right?

 

[bibleapologist]

Church Militant,

Now, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE? Now if I make a symbol of Karl Keating like this symbol here: and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol symbol…like say this: I may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol of the goodman Karl Keating, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question…of course not! Why? BECAUSE KARL KEATING IS NOT REALLY PRESENT IN THAT SYMBOL is he?
There is the the whole case for why the Eucharist really is the presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ…body and blood, soul and divinity.

Very good argument. Except that Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 was speaking symbolically of the bread and the wine. The “communion” that Paul was speaking of was not the actual act of eating bread and drinking wine… but Paul was speaking about salvation and becoming a part of the “body of Christ”.

Paul further explained this symbolism in verse 17…

1Co 10:17 For we [being] many are one bread, [and] one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

In those days, as in the first Lord’s supper, the bread was “broken” from one loaf. The symbolism is that we as Christians are “one” in Christ… this is symbolized by breaking the bread and each one present takes it. The same with the wine, each Christian would drink from the same cup… symbolizing the unity between those Christians as having a common salvation by the Blood of Christ.

This is easily proven by Paul’s own words in verse 17. “For we being many are one bread”. Here Paul switched the symbolism of the bread from exclusively Christ, to include Christians also, because we are all partakers of that “one” bread (Christ symbolically).

If you were to take v. 17 literally, by the same rules you accept 1 Cor. 11; and John 6 literally, you would have to also claim that by participating in the Lord’s Supper Christians actually become BREAD.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Church_Militant]

Church Militant,

Very good argument. Except that Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 was speaking symbolically of the bread and the wine. The “communion” that Paul was speaking of was not the actual act of eating bread and drinking wine… but Paul was speaking about salvation and becoming a part of the “body of Christ”.

Paul further explained this symbolism in verse 17…

In those days, as in the first Lord’s supper, the bread was “broken” from one loaf. The symbolism is that we as Christians are “one” in Christ… this is symbolized by breaking the bread and each one present takes it. The same with the wine, each Christian would drink from the same cup… symbolizing the unity between those Christians as having a common salvation by the Blood of Christ.

This is easily proven by Paul’s own words in verse 17. “For we being many are one bread”. Here Paul switched the symbolism of the bread from exclusively Christ, to include Christians also, because we are all partakers of that “one” bread (Christ symbolically).

If you were to take v. 17 literally, by the same rules you accept 1 Cor. 11; and John 6 literally, you would have to also claim that by participating in the Lord’s Supper Christians actually become BREAD.

John

Except for some very critical points.

1. St. Paul nowhere states that he believes that the Eucharist is merely symbolic of the body and blood of Christ. That statement is simply not there.
2. St. Paul uses the one bread, he nowhere says “loaf” since it was never a loaf as we think of one. The Jewish Passover meal consisted of unleavened bread, and that was carried down throughout the church. It is significant in that it further points up the broken nature of Christ’s suffering for our sins.
3. There is no merely symbolic unity of believers and nowhere in the Word of God is this taught. This is expressed as a spiritual reality. To teach it as you assert does not reflect what the Word of God plainly tells us.
4. I note with no small dismay that you choose to pull verse 17 out of it’s context and then attempt to make that the proof text for your interpretation when in fact the context simply refutes your premis.
   16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?

St. Paul plainly states the spiritual reality here, (mystical as it is) much the same way that Our Lord does in the 6th chapter of John’s gospel. Your response would parallel that of those who found Our Lord’s words “a hard saying” and ceased following Him because of it.

The context does not support your belief John.
Pax tecum,

 

[bibleapologist]

When did people in Church (whatever church you think is the real one, if you even think there is one) start denying the Eucharist?

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.

The Bible, which is absolutely an accurate historical record of the first Churches of the New Testament, didn’t regard the Lord’s supper as a sacrament, or “eucharistic”. They viewed it as an ordinance commanded by Jesus to be recognized among Christians to “remember” Jesus by.

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

 

[bibleapologist]

Church Militant,

Your response would parallel that of those who found Our Lord’s words “a hard saying” and ceased following Him because of it.

The only problem with that is the fact that I havn’t ceased to follow Jesus… I am not offended with Jesus’ statements at all, and I stand with Peter on His statement…

Joh 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
Joh 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

I am not in unbelief as were the Jews that left Him, and I am also not offended by Jesus words in John 6. So what conclusion can you arrive at my spritual condition then?

The only conclusion left, is that I understand the spiritual implications of the discourse between Jesus and the Jews in John 6, and since I do believe, the strong words by Jesus about His Body and His Blood do not have a negative effect on me.

The “irrational logic” used by Jesus is not irrational to one who believes… only to one who is in unbelief.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Church_Militant]

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.
**

The Bible, which is absolutely an accurate historical record of the first Churches of the New Testament, didn’t regard the Lord’s supper as a sacrament, or “eucharistic”. They viewed it as an ordinance commanded by Jesus to be recognized among Christians to “remember” Jesus by.

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 This may be your position but it is not at all supported by the writings of the those who were discipled into the faith by the apostles (Nor by the New Testament, as I have shown.) Ignatius of Antioch is quite clear on this matter in his letter to the church at Smyrna, and he agrees with the passages that I have cited in my case.

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) 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. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

LINK
I don’t think you can cite anyone prior to this who contested the doctrine and I can cite a great many subsequent ECF who agree with the New Tetsament and Ignatius.
There’s no denial of transubstantiation by Our Lord or by the apostles, nor by the ECF John. It’s simply not there…
Pax tecum,

 

[bibleapologist]

It’s getting late… We will have to continue this tomorrow evening.

Thanks for the discussion Church Militant.

John

 

[Church_Militant]

Church Militant,

The only problem with that is the fact that I havn’t ceased to follow Jesus… I am not offended with Jesus’ statements at all, and I stand with Peter on His statement…

I am not in unbelief as were the Jews that left Him, and I am also not offended by Jesus words in John 6. So what conclusion can you arrive at my spritual condition then?

The only conclusion left, is that I understand the spiritual implications of the discourse between Jesus and the Jews in John 6, and since I do believe, the strong words by Jesus about His Body and His Blood do not have a negative effect on me.

The “irrational logic” used by Jesus is not irrational to one who believes… only to one who is in unbelief.

John

I made no assertion concerning your spiritual condition John, I merely point out that like the people in John 6 you take a position that this is too hard a saying for you to believe. The state of your soul is between you and the Almighty.

My point is that you may still be a follower of Christ, but you may also be in error.
Pax tecum,

 

[Church_Militant]

It’s getting late… We will have to continue this tomorrow evening.

Thanks for the discussion Church Militant.

John

You’re quite welcome!
May the Holy Spirit guide us always in charity and knowledge of His truth.
Pax tecum,

 

[homewardbound]

You have shown nothing in your prolix to scripturally refute my arguments, except to reiterate that this is what the Catholic Church teaches…

Really? Cause I’ve read some pretty convincing scriptural backup for the belief in transubstantiation throughout this whole thread.

Just wanted to point that out in case you didn’t read them.

I see how thinking its symbolic can make more sense to our mere human minds. I’ve come to know though that I am not to limit God only to things that my mind can comprehend. He is not limited to human intellect and so that is why when I read His words I believe them without trying to twist them into a meaning that makes logical sense. Religion itself does not make logical sense.

Anyway, I’m not getting into this anymore because 1.) I hate religious debate and 2.) I’m not educated enough on every view and belief on this topic in order to give it a fair response in entirety

I wish you, the OP, the best and thank you for this topic because threads like this are full of great scripture verses and such.

Take care

 

[Montalban]

Awesome post! Besides Holy Scripture, how could you be any clearer from what the early Church believed. Praise God!

Thank you for the comments
:tiphat:

The early church sources completely undermine Protestant propaganda that the RCC made this stuff up in the 1200s

 

[Stephen_C]

OK, I give… How does this dis-prove Transsubstantiation?

It does not. He discounts the ECF’s completely. He cannot support his claim that Jesus denied transubstantiation though the bible either. But somehow he is right and we (Catholic’s) are wrong. I guess he has come here to show us the error’s of our way’s and to save us? So far he has called us unsaved group of non-christians, and heretic’s. But has yet as I can see provided any proof for it. He keeps dancing around in circles.

 

[Odell]

Odell,

You do realize that all of those things are Old Testament items, that were “shadows of things to come” (Col. 2:17). By imitating the truths these things once symbolized (shadowed), the Catholic Church has diverted men’s belief from the those truths and caused them to trust an imitation.

The altar symbolized the truth of the sacrifice of the Lamb of God.
The candles symbolized the Holy Spirit’s presence.
The incense symbolized the prayers of God’s people.
Priests in robes symbolized the High Priest Jesus Christ who ever lives to make intercession for us.
The bread of manna symbolized the Word of God (made flesh John 1:14)
Bowls and chalices of Rev. 16 represent judgment on the earth (I don’t get your comparison there)
And the wedding feast is something that is “going” to take place when we who are saved are taken from this earth and are united with our “husbandman” (Christ). (Matt. 25:1-13; Matt. 22:2-14)

John
www.gideonsword.net

no where does it say symbolize agin you are adding words to scripture. John says these are things he saw in heaven. He did not see symbols. John says he see’s an angel standing by an altar. He did not say he saw an angel standing by “the truth of the sacrafice of the Lamb of God.”

(Heb 12:22) "NO your have approached Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the HEAVENLY jerusalem, and countles angels in A FESTAL GATHERING."!!!

this is the mass in heaven a FESATL GATEHERING.

(Heb 12:23) He sees the gathering of the firstborn in (Rev:14:4) He sees gathering of firstfruits. Please tell me how this is a symbol?

 

[thistle]

no where does it say symbolize agin you are adding words to scripture. John says these are things he saw in heaven. He did not see symbols. John says he see’s an angel standing by an altar. He did not say he saw an angel standing by “the truth of the sacrafice of the Lamb of God.”

(Heb 12:22) "NO your have approached Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the HEAVENLY jerusalem, and countles angels in A FESTAL GATHERING."!!!

this is the mass in heaven a FESATL GATEHERING.

(Heb 12:23) He sees the gathering of the firstborn in (Rev:14:4) He sees gathering of firstfruits. Please tell me how this is a symbol?

The OP has to add words which are not in scripture to support his ludicrous private interpretation!

 

[Church_Militant]

Hey guys…regardless as to whether we agree or disagree with BA’s beliefs, let’s please remain charitable and deal with the doctrine in question and not assert personal remarks like this.
BA has not done this to us so far as I have seen.
Pax Domini sit semper vobsicum