Logical Problems with Transubstantiation

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnladder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I get a kick out of this thread title every time I read it; “Logical problems with Transubstantiation”

A person who, I assume, believes that God took human form, was both fully man, and fully God. Died and was resurrected. Turned water into wine. Fed multitudes with a few loafs of bread. Walked on water. Healed people. etc etc has “logical” problems with something in the Catholic faith?.. If that is not wanting your cake and to eat it to I don’t know what it 😃

God bless
 
Roman_Catholic said:
I get a kick out of this thread title every time I read it; “Logical problems with Transubstantiation”

A person who, I assume, believes that God took human form, was both fully man, and fully God. Died and was resurrected. Turned water into wine. Fed multitudes with a few loafs of bread. Walked on water. Healed people. etc etc has “logical” problems with something in the Catholic faith?.. If that is not wanting your cake and to eat it to I don’t know what it 😃

God bless
Click to expand...
Well,… I could not have said it any better! 👍
 
Roman_Catholic said:
I get a kick out of this thread title every time I read it; “Logical problems with Transubstantiation”

A person who, I assume, believes that God took human form, was both fully man, and fully God. Died and was resurrected. Turned water into wine. Fed multitudes with a few loafs of bread. Walked on water. Healed people. etc etc has “logical” problems with something in the Catholic faith?.. If that is not wanting your cake and to eat it to I don’t know what it 😃

God bless
Click to expand...
Yes. Since when does a Christian use logic to believe or not believe things that can only be believed by faith
 
Dear johnladder,

Greetings to you and thankyou for your patience. As promised I will now attempt to resond to your questions respecting the Holy Eucharist. Whilst I am not a professional Catholic apologist, prior to my conversion to Catholicism I made an extinsive study of RC doctrine and so I am well aquainted with the points of controversy in the dispute between Rome and the Protestant churches.

By way of reply may I first say that transubstantiation (a rather daunting word), the change in substance of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, is exceedingly difficult for our natural minds to grasp and clearly requires a great deal of faith. However many aspects of Christianity that orthodox Christians appear to have no difficulty in believing transcend reason and must ultimately be received by faith, such as the Incarnation (in which the helpless infant in Bethlehem is God), the Fall of man and Original Sin, the Virgin Birth (in which Christ was conceived without carnal copulation) and the Resurrection, which we will be shortly commemorating at Easter. Transubstantiation may be considered *beyond *reason, but it is not *opposed *to reason; suprarational indeed, but not irrational - much like Christian theology in general.

In St. Luke’s Gospel our Lord says, “This is my body which is given for you” (22: 19). The Protestant position that would interpret these words in a figurative sense (i.e. “this represents my body”) is a strained interpretation; the greek word for “is”, esti, usually has the literal meaning, although it can be used figuratively, as in English. Now if we are to understand this crucial term as “represents”, then why was this not made abundantly clear in the Greek?

That our Lord continued to refer to “this fruit of the vine” after the words of consecration proves absolutely nothing. Thus to deduce from this that no change occured in the elements is to fail to distinguish sustance and qualitities. In every material thing there are two sets of elements quite distinct - substance and qualities. When you say that the wine at the Last Supper did not change its chemical properties, I would respond by remarking that the element of external qualities did not change their chemical properties and no Catholic would maintain otherwise - the outward appearance of wine remained, looked, tasted and smelt the same. However, the substance underlying the external appearance of the wine certainly did and does change in every celebration of the Holy Eucharist. The substance of the bread and wine simply cease to exist, being replaced by the substance of Christ Himself, though the appearances (or qualities) of bread and wine remain to serve as a sort of envelope for the body of Christ. The fact that qualities remain unaltered is a fact of experience with which we are all familiar; the fact that the substance changes is revealed by God and cannot be known in any other way. Yet it is more than sufficiently guaranteed when God says so.

As regards the Sacrifice of the Mass, Jesus offered Himself with the shedding of blood on Calvary. Without that shedding of blood there could be no forgiveness of sin. Yet since the Mass is but an application of Calvary with its shedding of blood there is no real difficulty here. However there is surely a difficulty for one who rejects the Sacrifice of the Mass, for without that there would be no fulfilment of Malachi’s prophecy which manifestly predicted that the Jews would cease to offer to God (as they did in A.D. 70), and that a new and pure sacrifice would be offered to Him in every place by the Gentiles (see Mal. 1: 11). At every celebration of the Mass world-wide this prophecy is finding its fulfillment.

Well I trust that this will be of some help to you johnladder and I hope that you will be at least able to read my reply. If you wish to read a scholarly but approachable defence of the Catholic position on the Holy Eucharist can I recommend the following book:

Not By Bread Alone by Robert Sungenis published by Queenship. (Mr. Sungenis is a Catholic convert from Protestantism).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait
 
Dear johnladder,

Hello once again. may I just respond to your final question regarding as to how Christ’s body can be simultaneously present in Heaven and in all the consecrated Hosts throughout the entire world.

Now I freely admit that the ordinary human body, subject to the laws of nature, cannot be simultaneously in different places. However, we are talking of no ordiniary body but one united mysteriously to God, Master of nature and its laws. Other bodies are subject to the laws of space, but as regards our Lord’s body the laws of space are submissive, as I am sure you would agree.

Cardinal Newman writes, “Catholics do not see that it is impossible at all, that our Lord should be in Heaven and yet on the Altar; they do not indeed see how it can be, but they do not see why it should not be; there are many things that exist, though we do not know how, - do we know *how *anything exists? - there are many truths which are not less truths because we cannot picture them to ourselvess or conceive them; but at any rate, the Catholic doctrine concerning the Real Presence is not more mysterious than how Almighty God can exist , yet never have come into existence” (*Discourses to Mixed *Congregations, 13, p.266).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

I hope you will be able to read this and my previous post even if you are unable to reply.
 
John Ladder,

Lets look at the evolution of the Bible.

Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo and Josephus’s writings,

Latine Vulgate (1rst Edition)—From Dead Sea Scrolls
Clementine Vulgate (2nd Edition)— From Latin Vulgate (reduced number of linquistic wierdisms)

Douay-Rheims , From Clementine Vulgate (direct translation)

Now then:
—King Henry the VIII, applied for an anullment from the Vatican , and was denied, King Henry the VIII, started killing his wives, because he found himself in a state of perpetual adultery after he married his second wife. King Henry the VIII became very angry at his adultery, and founded a New Church over the Issue, The Anglican Church, the Church of England, Which is why to this day that you do not here passioned pleas against Adultery by Protestantism anywhere, but you will find them in the Roman Catholic Church, and are strictly enforced.

This lead to the King James Version which removed many books, and removed scripture that pointed to the EUCHARIST and LATIN MASS BOTH, as the King was still trying to seperate the two church’s, in the minds of the English people.

This has to be taken into consideration in your argument I believe. Because you are quoting Roman Catholics Bible Scripture, out of a Bible that isn’t used by our Church, and one that has had much Scripture removed, over a personal vendetta between Protestants and Roman Catholics. England literally Burned Catholic Bibles scores of times, because they contain Scripture that points to a Theology that is Catholic. And it was causing widespread agrument in England itself, the King of England Ordered the Roman Catholic Bibles burned in public spectacle…

I think this is an important consideration to make, Your not going to get to Catholic Theology using the King James Bible or any more modern derivative based upon its Scripture, because all Theology in the King James Bible that points to Catholic Theology has been removed.

It is my opinion, that if you are truly trying to come to an intellectually honest position about Transubstantian, that to find that total intellectually honest position , you are going to have to read the Douay-Rheims Bible also. Catholics use an Older Bible then you do.

Catholics will sometimes say, that Catholic Theologians wrote the KJV , and that is somewhat NOT True, if Catholics would have written the KJV then the totality of the Scripture would be in your Bible and it is not. the KJV has been gutted of much Scripture, that Catholics also use.
 
Somehow I think all of these* dear John* letters will be returned to sender.

:rolleyes:
 
BenjaminLumen said:
John Ladder,

Lets look at the evolution of the Bible.

Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo and Josephus’s writings,

Latine Vulgate (1rst Edition)—From Dead Sea Scrolls
Clementine Vulgate (2nd Edition)— From Latin Vulgate (reduced number of linquistic wierdisms)

Douay-Rheims , From Clementine Vulgate (direct translation)

Now then:
—King Henry the VIII, applied for an anullment from the Vatican , and was denied, King Henry the VIII, started killing his wives, because he found himself in a state of perpetual adultery after he married his second wife. King Henry the VIII became very angry at his adultery, and founded a New Church over the Issue, The Anglican Church, the Church of England, Which is why to this day that you do not here passioned pleas against Adultery by Protestantism anywhere, but you will find them in the Roman Catholic Church, and are strictly enforced.

This lead to the King James Version which removed many books, and removed scripture that pointed to the EUCHARIST and LATIN MASS BOTH, as the King was still trying to seperate the two church’s, in the minds of the English people.

This has to be taken into consideration in your argument I believe. Because you are quoting Roman Catholics Bible Scripture, out of a Bible that isn’t used by our Church, and one that has had much Scripture removed, over a personal vendetta between Protestants and Roman Catholics. England literally Burned Catholic Bibles scores of times, because they contain Scripture that points to a Theology that is Catholic. And it was causing widespread agrument in England itself, the King of England Ordered the Roman Catholic Bibles burned in public spectacle…

I think this is an important consideration to make, Your not going to get to Catholic Theology using the King James Bible or any more modern derivative based upon its Scripture, because all Theology in the King James Bible that points to Catholic Theology has been removed.

It is my opinion, that if you are truly trying to come to an intellectually honest position about Transubstantian, that to find that total intellectually honest position , you are going to have to read the Douay-Rheims Bible also. Catholics use an Older Bible then you do.

Catholics will sometimes say, that Catholic Theologians wrote the KJV , and that is somewhat NOT True, if Catholics would have written the KJV then the totality of the Scripture would be in your Bible and it is not. the KJV has been gutted of much Scripture, that Catholics also use.
Click to expand...
First, the original translations of the KJV had the Deuterocannon in them.

Second, the only thing removed from later versions is the Old Testament Deuterocannon.

What, in the Deuterocannon, talks about the Latin Mass or the Eucharist?

If the Catholic Bible states that Latin Mass is a requisite then why has the Catholic Church introduced vernacular Mass?

Basically, the entire premise of this post is incorrect.
 
johnladder said:
How is his flesh and blood—from one finite body—to be so finely distributed to suit this purpose? Or does each parish only receive a portion of Jesus flesh and blood? Which portions?
Click to expand...
Take a mirror, have a good look into it…yes it’s you whole and entire.

Break it…then take each piece and look into it…yes it’s you whole and entire…so don’t say it’s impossible to break the bread and everyone receiving Jesus.

I believe the feeding of the 5,000 can be linked to the Mass, whilst many faiths can’t accept the Mass, they do believe in the feeding of the 5,000.
 
This guy is sure getting a lot of Dear John letters. How much rejection can one guy take?

😉
 
Your literal interpretation of “fruit of the vine” before and after doesn’t hold much water when you look at what Christ said and did after the Last Supper.

First, it’s crucial to understand the CONTEXT and CONNECTION of the Last Supper.

The CONTEXT was Passover. Passover celebrates God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt, killing all firstborn sons, and sparing those who sacrificed a LAMB without blemish or broken bones and EATEN. Jesus fulfills the old covenant in himself as a holy sacrifice for our sins.

Are you familiar with the Jewish Passover? (Haggadah?) Jesus, (as a Jew) and all his apostles would have been VERY familiar with it. The structure of the seder meal was already set and formalized by that time, and divided into FOUR parts.
  1. It begins with the first cup of wine being blessed, followed by the bitter herbs (represents bitterness of Egyptian slavery)
  2. Narrative of the Passover, followed by Psalm 113, followed by drinking second cup of wine.
  3. Main meal of lamb and unleavened bread, then the third cup of wine known literally as the “cup of blessing”. (Paul refers to this as the Eucharist in 1 Cor 10:16:* The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?*
  4. The climax of passover, singing the “Great Hallel”, (psalm 114-18) and drinking the fourth cup of “consummation”.
All of this took place in the last supper, EXCEPT number 4. This arises a problem, omitting the most crucial part of the ritual. It was obviously deliberate. They finished the passover with the last part, they “Sung a Hymn and went out to the Mount of Olives” (Mk 14:26). This would have been a deviation to the Apostles and all who celebrate passover. Jesus missing that last point was ON PURPOSE, and answers your literal interpretation of

“And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said ‘Take this and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.’”

Look at what Jesus did and said next. He goes into the Garden of Gethsmane and prays, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt”. In two other gospels he prays to take away 'this cup’. If that’s taken literally, what’s so hard about not drinking a cup of wine? Because it’s not wine. It’s his blood, his sacrifice, and his death. The Fourth Cup of the “Fruit of the Vine” is killing God’s only Son and spilling his blood.

This is seen later in the Passion, where Jesus is walking up Calvary “The offered him wine mingled with Myrrh, but he did not take it.” It wasn’t the hour of his kingdom. Then Jesus dies with "sponge full of vinegar on hyssop. When Jesus recieved the vinegar he said, “It is finished; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit”. (JN 19-28-30)

Scott Hahn argues that “IT” is the passover that Jesus began in the upper room, and marked by Jesus drinking the sour vinegar, the fourth cup. The fulfillment was Jesus’s completion of the New Covenant Passover. The hour of his crucifixion was the the hour of his kingdom, where he drank of the fruit of the vine. The crucification is CONNECTED to the EUCHARIST, only in the Catholic Faith. Jesus didn’t finish Passover until Calvary, Calvary begins with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist ended on Calvary. Jesus is the lamb of God, and we receive his sacrifice EVERY SINGLE MASS 🙂

Also, how do you dispute John 6:53-56 ??

Jesus uses the strongest language to show his REAL presence in the Eucharist. At Pentecost he gave that power to his Church to give it to all her sheep. That’s why they call it a “perpetual sacrifice.”

Jesus is ressurected and glorified in Heaven. But Jesus perfect offering of himself continues FOREVER. His priesthood is permenant and to “continue forever” (Heb 7:24)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top