Jesus denied transubstantiation

[Orionthehunter]

I’d like to respond to these points of Bibleapologist and his “problems with trusting the ECF’s interpretation of scripture.”

From BA: 1. Just because an ECF was taught by an Apostle does not mean by default they are not Apostate. Remember the Corinthians, they were evangelized by Paul, but they soon had problems that Paul had to rectify.

Catholics don’t claim that writings of ECF’s are infallible. But they are very good at providing context, explanation, and understanding. For them to be apostate, they would have to assert something that is contrary to the Bible. Rather than dismissing them by trying to assess the status of their soul (this is something that is the exclusive perogative of God and which none of us are capable), the burden is on you to articulate how their views are contrary to the Word and the burden is great as they were indisputably personally close to the Apostles and never fell from favor among the Apostles or their immediate successors.

From BA: 2. Although the Bible as we know it was not complete until later, the E’st of CF had the original letters that were written by the Apostles. The ECF’s would have had these letters to review before making their apology’s.

This is not necessarily true. The earliest of the ECF’s may have had access to some letters but in all liklihood very few as they were disseminated widely throughout early Christendom and in some cases only read in the narrowest of local circles because of legal prohibition of the Christian religion.

From BA 3. We have the recorded words of Jesus at our disposal today, we also have the letters of the Apostles (and others), and a record of the Acts of the Apostles. The only reason we would have for submitting completely to the ECF’s is that we are too apathetic to search the scripture for ourselves. Although, as a sincere Christian we have the Holy Spirit to teach us (comparing spiritual things with spiritual), we cannot be taught if we don’t take what He has given us to learn from (the Bible).

I don’t understand this point at all. It isn’t because of apathy that we look to the ECF for context, explanation and understanding of the Word but because of a desire for the full truth.

From BA 4. I can’t be absolutely sure of any ECF’s spiritual condition… whether they were truly born-again or not. If one was not born again, and they interpreted scripture without the help of the Holy Spirit they would undoubtedly miss any spiritual application in that passage.

There is not one single person that you as a mere mortal can be “absolutely sure” of anybody’s spiritual condition. Only God has the ability to see into the soul of another and make this assessment. If this is your test, how can you even rely on the word of any of the Gospel writers?

See Part 2 Below

 

[visavismeyou]

I keep running into the 5,000 word limit But Bibleapologist, I hope I calrified what I was attempting to ask with my third point. Please let me know what you think.

 

[Church_Militant]

1. I can’t be absolutely sure of any ECF’s spiritual condition… whether they were truly born-again or not. If one was not born again, and they interpreted scripture without the help of the Holy Spirit they would undoubtedly miss any spiritual application in that passage.

Well…I can’t be absolutely sure of your own spiritual condition for that matter, John. Nor you mine. Now, if you have read the letter of St. Ignatius we are referring to, as well as the history we have of him, I have to ask if you are willing to assert that this man was likely to have not been born again? Especially since he was discipled by the very apostle who penned that entire discourse by Our Lord on the subject of the rebirth? The man was torn to bits by wild animals for his faith John. Why would he subject himself to that if he could have denied the faith and been free?

I submit that the fruitful evidence is there that he was indeed born again and that he knew St. John well and it was as a result of his knowledge and relationship with the apostle that he took the stern position that he did on those who deny what later came to be known as “transubstantiation”.

1. Since any explication of a truth, or exegesis of a passage that fails to appreciate the spiritual application of that passage or truth is in error, the person that made that error was not being led by the Spirit of God in their study. And since I believe that to be the case with the ECF’s that were quoted here, and the ECF’s that the Catholic Church bases their doctrine on, I cannot reply to those quotes on any other grounds other than… they have missed the spiritual application that I have previously elucidated many times.

You miss one other possibility here John.

That the modern non-Catholic believers might be the ones in the position that you speak of and so then it is their “explication of a truth, or exegesis of a passage that fails to appreciate the spiritual application of that passage or truth” and “is in error”. You can see that the possibility exists, that based upon the verifiable evidence that we have in hand, it is non-Catholic theology that is in error. Not the other way around.

Essentially I am pointing out that your assertion is based upon the presumption that your belief is correct, yet I am pointing out that the preponderance of the evidence makes the oppposite case to be more likely. (No offense intended at all)

When it comes to the ECF’s, I am not dodging their interpretation… I simply refuse to entertain a non-spiritual interpretation of the passage.

I understand that John, and I appreciate your position. I don’t see this as a dodge at all as I believe this is a statement of your sincere belief.

However, (and you knew this was coming, I’m sure. ) it is my assertion that what you call “a non-spiritual interpretation of the passage” is possibly your own spiritualization of a message that is plainly stated as meant in the New Testament passages we have been discussing, and that as a result those who reject transubstantiation and assert that Our Lord denied it are actually the ones in error here.

Naturally both of us cannot be correct here and we know it, but just as you are firmly convinced of your asserted beliefs, so also are we Catholics, ours.

I believe that this discussion has been fruitful in searching the scriptures as well as the ECF in pursuit of the absolute truth of this matter, and I sincerely hope that you have gained some insight that you perhaps did not have before, even as I have.

I want to thank you for your charitable and worthwhile dialog with me and hope that if we ever really meet that we can share a meal and fellowship.
May the peace of the Lord be always with you.

 

[visavismeyou]

Part 2
This my friend is a line of thought that amazes me in its arrogance. You a person who has never met an immediate successor of the Apostles claim to be capable to determine they were not “led by the Spirit” and thus instruments of Satan and expect us to substitute your personal divine revelation for theirs? Wow. Secondly, the ignorance to assert that the Church “bases (her) doctrine” on ECF’s is laughable. Church Teaching relies on both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. God can’t lie and won’t lie. His Truth is universal. There is no contradiction between Scripture and Tradition, your unsupported accusations notwithstanding.

quite simply BA Saying you are led by the spirit (in this way) sounds more Gnostic than anything else. Gnostics = wrong by the way.

 

[Pax]

John,

I want to compliment you on your demeanor. It is not easy to handle and defend a position in any discussion where you are the lone ranger. While I completely disagree with your assertions on this subject, I must say that you are a man that knows how to handle himself in Christian charity. You have my admiration on that score.

I want to suggest something to you. I may be wrong but I do not think that you know much about the ECFs. I think it would be worth your while to read their writings. You will find that these men are not heretics. When I first read Ignatius of Antioch’s letters I marvelled at how they resembled the words of Paul the apostle. The message was the same. When I read his letters I also heard the words of John the apostle and the words of our savior Jesus. Never did I read anything that was contrary to scripture.

If you do your homework with an open mind you will see that the early Church was Catholic. The writings of the ECF’s are in some ways the commentaries of the early Church on what they were given directly from the apostles. Reading them is the equivalent of putting dynamite in the house of non-Catholic objections.

Your view and interpretation of John 6 is the most novel thing I have ever read. I do not say this in regards to your belief that Jesus was speaking metaphorically. Lot’s of folks have done that ever since the Reformation. I say this in regards to your statements concerning the psychology and reverse logic that you think Jesus applied in dealing with his disciples. No one has ever posed this gambit that I am aware of. Do you really think that this invention on your part can be true? If your view were true, I think that this would have been mentioned long ago in reference to Jesus words and thinking in John 6 by at least a number of reputable scholars and early churchmen. To my knowledge this is not the case.

Your claims about Jesus “irrational” logic seems crucial to your argument. No one has ever argued that Jesus used “irrational” logic in the discourse. You have asserted that he has done so but there is absolutely nothing in the text to support this. Since this is such a fundamental building block to your argument, it would seem that your position on “irrational” logic needs to have a considerable amount of substantiation. Thus far you have not provided that by way of logic or scripture.

I believe that it was pointed out by Church Militant that your idea of “irrational” logic has been superimposed on the text in order to make the text conform to your interpretation. In biblical circles of hermenuetics and exegesis this is known as “eisegesis.” Please give our arguments some careful thought and be as open minded as possible.

Which is the greater gift? To receive Jesus Christ’s body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist or simply to receive a piece of bread and a cup of wine/grape juice as a symbol? Which of the two will benefit you most? Which would be the greater sign of God’s love for us?

Jesus loves us so much that he allowed himself to be crucified for us. The Father so loves us that he sent his only son to die for us on the cross. The Father and the Son so love us that they sent the Holy Spirit to dwell in us. The Father so loves us that he pours his love into our hearts. Jesus tell us that He is giving us his body and blood as true food and true drink, and he does so because he wants us to be partakers of his divine nature. The Eucharist is the greatest gift that he can give to the elect. He gave himself for us on the cross and he gives himself to us in the Eucharist.

Pray for God’s grace and faith in the Eucharist. The precious body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ in the Eucharist is the source and summit of grace in our Christian walk. This is the fullest expression of God’s love made immediate, intimate, and life giving within us. This faith in Jesus promise is the ultimate test of Christian faith and it is a precious and enormous grace extended by God that enables us to believe and joyously receive the body and blood of our Lord.

 

[St.Eric]

Elvisman,

If I am right about this interpretation of John 6, it would be illogical to believe that the early Church taught transubstantiation.

And although you can prove through recorded history that the CC has indeed taught transubstantiation since 1215ad, you cannot prove that it was a practice of the “true Church” at any point in history… neither would it matter if they did… it still would not negate the truth.

John
www.gideonsword.net

A). A practice or belief does not require defining when everyone takes it for granted as being true. Only when suffcient numbers of persons call it into question do we see a formal definition promulgated.
B). I can prove that the RCC has indeed taught the principle of the true presence much sooner than 1215AD. How about 109AD? As taught by an apostle of John, yeah, that’s right. The John- the apostle of Christ.
C.) sorry if this has been brought up before, I assume it has. Even so, it should underscore the fact that the earliest Christians have beleived in the true presences. St. Paul even taught it in 1st Corinthians. Check out my signature.

St. Ignatius of Anitoch- a letter to the Smyrnaeans (about 109 AD)

Chapter VII.-Let Us Stand Aloof from Such Heretics.

They 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. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of 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. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

 

[JPrejean]

Jesus in this verse (not taken out of it’s context) denies transubstantiation.

No, He doesn’t. He denies that “the flesh” profits anything, which clearly means a disordered, carnal focus on created things (exactly what the Jews in question had). Belief in transubstantiation is spiritual, not carnal, because the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity is made present in a substantial manner, not a carnal manner. Same reason that the Eucharistic sacrifice isn’t recrucifying Christ.

FWIW, I happen to agree with you that what Christ is rebutting here is the carnal understanding of the Jewish religion and the Messiah. Unfortunately for your argument, that doesn’t have a thing to do with the Catholic belief in transubstantiation.

 

[HailMary]

I’ve never met a protestant who had difficulty with Ezekiel 3:1:
Son of man, he then said to me, feed your belly and fill your stomach with this scroll I am giving you. I ate it, and it was as sweet as honey in my mouth.

But it seems as thou when it comes to the the Eucharist they cringe. Why? Isn’t recieving the Lord easier or at least more realistic than eating a scroll? Why is it so easy to believe that Ezekiel actually ate a scroll versus Jesus in the Eucharist?

Likewise in Rev 10:9-11 we read:
So I went to the angel and asked him to give me the little scroll. He said to me, “Take it and eat it. It will turn your stomach sour, but in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey.” I took the little scroll from the angel’s hand and ate it. It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour."

Again, I’ve never met anyone that has difficulty with the fact that the consumption of this scroll can be taken literalistically.

God Bless

 

[lak611]

magicsilence,

That is fine for the Catholics on this thread, as the Early Catholic Church Fathers are your authority. I defend the Bible, if Justin Martyr or anyone else opposed that… they oppose Christ.

John
www.gideonsword.net

The canon of the Bible was not decided until the 4th century, so prior to that the Early Church Fathers and their oral tradition are what kept Christianity going. After all, there were lots of writings about Jesus at that time. If it wasn’t for those Early Church Fathers, we might be deceived into believing the so-called “Gospel of Judas” right now! The Church has existed since Pentecost, but the Bible as we know it did not come about until over 300 years later.

 

[Odell]

John I would like your interpritation of this passage.

(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.

also keep in mind John a is called up in spirit and sees a Lamb standing at Moint Zion (Rev14:1)

do you notice the similiarities. both see a new Jerusalem, a new Zion, the dwelling place of the Lord, both see angels and Jesus, the lamb whose blood takes away the sins of the world. and they see a FEAST and a gathering of firstborn or firstfruits.

they are seeing the Mass.

 

[Magicsilence]

Hi John.

I have a “friend”.

He read the bible, and concluded that Jesus was being literal about his flesh and his blood.

What reason do i have to trust you over him?

Peace and God Bless.

 

[montanaman]

Hi John.

I have a “friend”.

He read the bible, and concluded that Jesus was being literal about his flesh and his blood.

What reason do i have to trust you over him?

Peace and God Bless.

My wife always thought it was silly to think “This is my body” really means “This doesn’t mean this is my body,” or “This represents my teachings…”

She’s now Catholic, of course.

 

[corvidae]

John,
I would like to apologize if any of my posts were offensive or just seemed like I got louder the more frustrated I got.

I am very new to online apologetics, and I am used to face to face apologetics, and typically in those, both sides can become fairly heated.

So again, I apologize if I have offended.

A lone Raven

 

[valient_Lucy]

Here is my position on that. I completely understand your (and others) consulting the ECF’s on the subject, and quoting them here. I understand the logic behind it too… If there seems to be a passage that is unclear from scripture, consult those who were closest to the source. That makes perfect sense to me.

But, here are my problems with trusting the ECF’s interpretation of scripture.

1. Just because an ECF was taught by an Apostle does not mean by default they are not Apostate. Remember the Corinthians, they were evangelized by Paul, but they soon had problems that Paul had to rectify.

There is a difference between “having problems” and “becoming completly apostate.” After all, didn’t Jesus promise that the Holy Spirit would guide us to all truth? Why do you believe that the Holy Spirit is capable of guiding you to the truth but completly incompetent when it comes to the Early Christians?

1. We have the recorded words of Jesus at our disposal today, we also have the letters of the Apostles (and others), and a record of the Acts of the Apostles. The only reason we would have for submitting completely to the ECF’s is that we are too apathetic to search the scripture for ourselves. Although, as a sincere Christian we have the Holy Spirit to teach us (comparing spiritual things with spiritual), we cannot be taught if we don’t take what He has given us to learn from (the Bible).

Charles Spurgeon once said, “We are very interested to hear what the Holy Spirit says to us, but we are completly disinterested to hear what the Holy Spirit says to others.” An individual Christian does not have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit, and listening to the insights to other Christians does not mean that we do not care what the Bible says, or that we do not read Scripture and pray about it for ourselves. (I dare you to find any Catholic who reads the Early Church Fathers but does not read Scripture.) As for the spiritual condition of the Early Church Fathers, many of them (St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, Polycarp, etc…) died terrible deaths at the hands of the Romans rather than deny Christ. Even Protestants acknowledge this. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, (A Protestant book that documented martyrs during the Reformation) describes Polycarp. "Brought before the Tribunal and the crowd, Polycarp refused to deny Christ, although the proconsul begged him,‘Consider yourself and have pity on your great age. Reproach Christ and I will release you.’ Polycarp replied, “Eighty-six years I have served Him, and He has never once wronged me. How can I blaspheme my King, who saved me?’”
Is this the language and actions of a man who has not been born-again?
.

1. Since any explication of a truth, or exegesis of a passage that fails to appreciate the spiritual application of that passage or truth is in error, the person that made that error was not being led by the Spirit of God in their study. And since I believe that to be the case with the ECF’s that were quoted here, and the ECF’s that the Catholic Church bases their doctrine on, I cannot reply to those quotes on any other grounds other than… they have missed the spiritual application that I have previously elucidated many times.

When it comes to the ECF’s, I am not dodging their interpretation… I simply refuse to entertain a non-spiritual interpretation of the passage.

John
www.gideonsword.net

The logic in this quote is very poor. “They don’t agree with my interpretation, therefore they must be wrong.” (It’s also just not very humble.) Also, you say “spiritual” as though spiritual is a synonym for metaphore. Spiritual does not mean metaphore, or “not real.” By that logic, the Holy Spirit is a Holy Symbol, and not a reality.
You hit the nail right on the head when you said, “I refuse to believe in a non spiritual (or non-symbolic) interpretation of the passage.” Good exegesis of Scripture means that we read the Scripture to see what it says. We do not twist Scripture to fit our preconceived notions of how God acts or what Jesus really meant. It is very dangerous to approach Scripture with the idea that it must match our expectations, and mean what we think it should means, or what we want it to mean.
Which does lead to a good question. Why do you WANT the Eucharist to be symbolic, and not something more?

 

[adrift]

visavismeyou,

You caught me! That title was designed to be an attention grabber to incite debate. But it was in no way farcical as Jesus did deny transubstantiation by His inexorable elucidation of the truth and the spiritual application of His teaching.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Mathew 26:26-29.

Quote:
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

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

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.

 

[ssejllenrad]

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

Questioning your credibility is an integral part of the debate. You know why? Because you say that your interpratation is guided by the Holy Spirit. You must first prove your credibility in this so that your arguments could be accepted as premise to the ongoing debate.

The problem is, you accept your arguments as premises, saying others believe a lie and all that stuff. Truth is, you cannot do that on debates. Something that is yet to be proven should not be used to prove an argument.

Here should be the flow. Prove you’re guided by the Holy Spirit (not by your interpreations since those are yet to be proven) so you can prove your interpretations are correct. Then your arguments woulde be accepted. THAT IS LOGIC! Not going in a loop.

I’m sorry if I’m a bit offensive. I’m just tired of you making your arguments as your premises.

 

[bibleapologist]

Church Militant,

1. It’s fairly unrealistic to assert that an ECF might’ve fallen into apostasy.
   a) Ignatius was a bishop of the church and suffered martyrdom for the faith. These are not the marks of an apostate.
   b) Since his writings align with the plain sense of the New Testament and the beliefs of the rest of Christianity for the following 1900 years I submit there is really no evidence of apostasy
   c) The Corinthian church did not fall into apostasy. Just immorality and divisions. There is a pretty big difference and so I think they are not a good example to use to support your case there.

Although It is fairly unrealistic that an ECF might have fallen into apostacy, it is not out of the question. There have been many throughout history who (according to the Catholic Church) were heretics that were martyred for their beliefs. I might have used the wrong word there… Apostacy might have been a strong word, I should have used heresy, or “submitted to false teaching”.

I have to disagree with your statement here as well John. I have and do diligently study the Word of God and I refer to the ECF as a simple check as to whether I read a given passage with the same Holy Spirit inspired thinking that they do. As I pointed out above, (and in my other Eucharistic posts and threads) Ignatius was close with John and John authored the 6th chapter of his gospel. Who would have had better access to the meanings that St. John intended than he?

I agree with your study habits, I too study scripture and many times check other sources against my interpretation. But, when I find that another source differs in their interpretation I do not by default accept that interpretation on the grounds of their credentials. I do however see that kind of discrepancy as a topic that is in need of extensive study; and before I reach a conclusion in the matter I pray, read other sources, and study the scripture (sometimes for hours at a time).

I have not taken this topic lightly, nor do I believe I have failed to study the topic extensively. I have read some of the ECF’s, commentaries, books on the subject… and in light of the scripture I cannot morally accept that Jesus taught transubstantiation… or consubstantiation.

I do appreciate your reasoning ability, and your logic… and it sounds like we both take the same approach to studying the truth. We just need to figure out why we disagree .

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[NotWorthy]

Church Militant,
Although It is fairly unrealistic that an ECF might have fallen into apostacy, it is not out of the question. There have been many throughout history who (according to the Catholic Church) were heretics that were martyred for their beliefs. I might have used the wrong word there… Apostacy might have been a strong word, I should have used heresy, or “submitted to false teaching”.

This had happened in the past. We know that Tertullian and (I believe) Origen, both of whom we’ve acquired invaluable church teaching from, went into Apostacy.

How do we know that? Because when they tried to teach something that was against Church Teaching, they were soundly chastised by their peers.

The Early Church, however, held Ignatius and Ireneaus letters (the ones that we’ve addressed on this issue) in high regard, even considering some of them for the NT Canon. This does not sound like strange and new doctrine introduced by these people. It sounds like doctrine that was in line with what the Early Church had already been teaching.

 

[valient_Lucy]

I realize this will be a controversial topic. But I hope it will be a fruitful one that will lead to a clearer interpretation of the truth.

To save forum space, I have written my arguments in article form and published them to my website…
You can view it here.

I am looking forward to kind, and charitable conversation.

John
www.gideonsword.net

I read the posting at the website.
In what way is Jesus like the manna in the desert? Why would the Jews require another sign at this point, since Jesus had just fed the crowd of 5,000 with merely five loaves of bread and two fish? Why does “spirit” in the passage mean “symbolic?” Are there other Biblical passages in which the word “spirit” means “symbolic?” How exactly does a Christian “symbolically” eat the flesh of Chrsit? Where else in the Bible does Jesus confirm that to believe in Jesus is to “eat” him?

 

[visavismeyou]

I do appreciate your reasoning ability, and your logic… and it sounds like we both take the same approach to studying the truth. We just need to figure out why we disagree .

John
www.gideonsword.net

I have a challenge to you John, this may end up being a challenge to the Catholic Church too, please let me know the validity of this statement. What is the difference between Christ’s Spiritual body and Christ’s physical body? What I mean is Christ was/is 100% God (God has no actual physical being, God is, theoritically, a being, spirit, rather than a person.) and 100% man (flesh/blood in the way that I am composed of flesh and blood).

Thus when Christ speaks of “Eat my flesh, drink my blood” how are we wrong when we say “He means that literally”. I find that if you, John, say “Jesus meant this to be spiritual” then you are correct, but we are also correct when we say “Jesus meant his whole body (spirit and physical)” and since he was 100% of each we are more correct whereas you are only half correct John. Jesus spoke about his entire body, the spiritual aspect as well as the physical aspect. We must take the physical bread/wine, bless it, in a practice consistant with His teaching at the last supper, and then it becomes 100% the bread/wine of life (spiritually as well as physically) and Christ’s presence is there in that Bread and Wine.

Otherwise why would Christ have said “Do this in rememberance of me”? Why would he have given such an instruction if we were going to only be eating regular bread and drinking regular wine? Unimportant bread and unimportant wine at Mass makes no sense.

Hope that this thread is starting to come to summary phase as it is rather extensive and exhaustive.