Actually, Maria, we need to start at the very beginning. Show me in any of the Apostolic writings where “transubstantiation” is actually taught. Jesus saying, “this is body” does not prove the doctrine.
Why not? You have a Bible, don’t you. You can compare what I write with what the Biblical text actually says. You remember the Bereans, don’t you? They didn’t run to some “official rabbi” and ask them what they should believe. But they, themselves, examined Paul’s teaching with the Scriptures, believed, and were called even more “noble-minded than those in Thessalonica” for doing so. God will hold you personally accountable, as well. I don’t think He’ll honor the excuse that you’re “Catholic,” therefore you’re obligated to believe only what the “Magesterium” allows. Nobody is called to be “Catholic” or “Protestant” during this Church age, but to believe God’s word concerning His Son.
You do realize that rabbinical Judaism had centuries of traditional teachings which the Jews tenaciously hung on to, as well. And because of that they failed to recognize, or better, refused to accept, the truth when it was given to them. To this day many respond negatively to the Gospel of Christ by simply replying, “we’re Jewish, we don’t believe in Jesus.” I’m sure “being Jewish” will be no excuse when standing before God, but neither will, “I’m Catholic.” I’m not saying you should believe my words, but for one to refuse to believe anything or anybody simply because certain Catholic beliefs might have a long “history,” I think is foolish. No doctrine or tradition is proven by its longevity. Error can endure just as long as truth can. And in this world system, maybe even longer. ALL doctrines and traditions must be honestly examined by the Scriptures. Even Paul, who was very zealous for the traditions of his faith, considered what he achieved in Judaism as "loss for the sake of knowing Christ, even “rubbish” in order to gain Christ (Phil. 3:7-9).
My conclusions are just that - mine. They’re based on my study of the Scriptures. If you think they’re based on the teachings of a particular Protestant denomination, then I’m sorry to disappoint you. Not that I haven’t read the works of various scholars, various theological works and commentaries on the Books of the Bible, but I follow no particular denomination nor the teachings of one particular man. The secret of being able to understand the Scriptures is to first come to the cross of Christ empty handed in order to receive all that God is free to give the believer based on the cross, which includes regeneration by the Holy Spirit (see 1 Cor. 2:12) who illuminates His own written Word to believers. And then come to the study table without any religious bias and preconceived ideas, but only with a desire to learn what God Himself has to say regarding sin, salvation and eternal life through faith in His Son.
Actually, both atheist and heretic were the words used. An atheist because of my emphasis on the humanity of Christ, and a heretic because of my nonliteral interpretation of John six and the words of Christ in the upper room.
Jesus’s own words are the basis of what we believe. What you are saying is Jesus’s own words are not enough? Catholic belief begins with Christ’s own words and great Catholic writers (saints in our world) explaining it to us. Your dismissal of Catholic saint writers as mere men is insulting. We asked but never receive writings from your point of view. By giving a history of what we believe on this subject over time it lends credibililty to our argument. It is not just one man’s opinion. It may be passed over by you as trivial but we present it anyway … and yet you do not do the same. The theology of the Eucharist was in it’s infancy in the years immediately after Christ but the theology matured as years of reflection allowed it to be developed. If you ever become a canonized saint your words would carry greater weight also. If you read any of the ECF’s and even those written in the 20th century the basic dogma of what we believe the Eucharist never has changed. It became more structured and coherent and explainable but never changed in its essence.
Many writings already shown to you teach about the Real Presence of Christ. Transubstantiation is simply an explantation of as exactly as possible, how and what the Real Presence is and isn’t, in order to combat heresy.
I have not dodged anything; it is you who are dodging. As far as mocking, perhaps next time you will consider more carefully what you say.
And what am I really all about, CM?
In your post # 524, you said: “The simple fact is that there is nothing at all in the context of John 6 that it is metaphorical in nature,” and I asked you what the context of John 6 was, and you did not respond to that.
Nor does He say, as bene7 rightly pointed out, “This is become my body.”
The miracle is seen in the changed life, where one turns to the true God from serving idols (1Thess 1:9).
This is a fallacious ad hominem. IOW, if you can’t beat the message, attack the messenger.
Bene-
That is not entirely true. As I already mentioned, ECFs spoke graphically and literally regarding the presence of Christ in the Eucharist AND they also used the term Real Presence. On that basis it is only logical to assume a relationship between those descriptions and that term since both attempt to define this unique reality. What is entirely unjustified is to attempt to create a definition for that term that not ONE of them ever uttered: figurative/spiritual/symbolic presence only.
How would underlining “of the Lord” add to the validity of your argument? The context provides us with everything we need to know regarding Paul’s view of Communion. He reiterates Christ’s words “in remembrance of Me,” and then explains that as often as we “eat the BREAD or drink the cup of the Lord” we “PROCLAIM the Lord’s death until He comes.” He says absolutely nothing about sharing in His sacrifice, nor does he even hint to the event being a sacrifice. Paul describes it as a proclamation and memorial of His death, not a participation in it. Such is the notion of mere men, not Paul who was inspired by the Holy Spirit when He wrote to the Corinthians.
And who’s doing that?
Not really. To recognize which writings were divinely inspired does not merit their own writings with the same recognition. The Scriptures are inerrant because they’re theopneustos, “God-breathed,” not because they’re recognized by men as so.
Yes, they are held to be “authentic” by Catholics, but not even Catholics can go so far as to say they’re Holy Spirit inspired writings. Even Catholics must genuflect to this fact. Certainly they have historical value, but they cannot be totally trusted for their theological accuracy. Unless you’re claiming infallibility for the authors, are you? If not, then their theological content must be tested against GOD’S written Word.
You’re mistaken by trying to juxtapose those writing with Scripture. You’re treating and accepting their contents AS Divine revelation, rather than testing their content BY Divine revelation. And that, my friend, is checking your brain at the door. First study what all of us know to be the Divinely inspired N.T. Scriptures, saturate your mind with the divine truths revealed in those writings (that will take you several years), THEN, and ONLY THEN, will you be ready to read, examine and test extra-biblical writing against what God’s immutable, written Word has already revealed and preserved for us concerning “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
How do you reconcile your personal interpretation with 2 Peter 1 20:21. Peter says it is not a matter of personal interpretation but rather humans moved by the Holy Spirit under the influence of God. That is the legacy of our Catholic saints.
Interesting that you mentioned the Bereans because they were not “Sola Scriptura” proponents at all, but rather took the oral tradition of Paul over the scriptures of the OT. This to me would be a statement of the importance of viewing tradition and scripture together, hence the necessity to consider writings of Early Church Fathers (who are able to provide a commentary on what the observed, heard, learned, and participated). The Thessalonians, in contrast, were the “Sola Scriptura” advocates.
Your posts seem to concentrate on Christ’s humanity at the expense of His divinity. He was all God and all man at the same time. Both natures were possesed by Jesus all the time … to their fullest.
You are taking that passage out of context.
No. That is not true. The ECFs were not “under the influence of God” as Peter and his fellows were. Again, Peter said “we,” and not “we, and those who come after us.”
Christ said, “*Your *[God’s] word is truth.” It is pretty simple, really. God has promised to preserve His word, as CM said, “Oh you of little faith.” Trust God; He has preserved His word, which, according to Jesus Himself, is the only sure truth.
Wow! You continue to use the word “transubstantiation” like it is curse word. Settle down Bene. It is a word used to define what has taken place when the bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. It means the same as the mystery of the “Real Presence”. So save your breath my friend. Attacking a word that is used to define a 2000 year old belief, is not going to make your argument any more effective.
Bingo!
So you are saying, for example, that the Holy Spirit has illumined you to interpret Scripture properly, but not St Ignatius? For that matter, since St Ignatius was taught by St John, then St John was not illumined by the Holy Spirit either!
Not at all. Your response to Church Militant was mocking, sarcastic, and derisive. That is not a good example of Christian charity and I would expect that if you continue to post in this fashion, your suspension will justifiably prompt.
If the ECF’s are not theologically accurate, then neither are you. So then, by your reasoning, your interpretation is neither theologically accurate **and **holds no historical value! :bigyikes:
Let us use your reasoning again. First we test the ECF interpretations against God’s written word. Okay? Good. Now let us test your interpretations against God’s written word. Okay? Good. Whose interpreations are more theologically accurate? Do you think that yours is? Why?
Again, we are talking about interpretation here. I will pose the same question to you that I posed to Bene. Why are **your **interpretations more theologically correct than the saints and Church fathers?
