Problem with Transubstantiation

  • Thread starter Thread starter PaulinePresbytr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PaulinePresbytr

Guest
"I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Matt 26:29

This occurs after Christ tells the apostles to eat his body and drink his blood. This means, that unless you mean to imply that Christ’s blood was made of grapes, that the bread was still substantially bread. This does not mean that the bread did not take the substance of Christ, but it does mean that the substance of bread is still there.
 
PaulinePresbytr said:
"I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Matt 26:29

This occurs after Christ tells the apostles to eat his body and drink his blood. This means, that unless you mean to imply that Christ’s blood was made of grapes, that the bread was still substantially bread. This does not mean that the bread did not take the substance of Christ, but it does mean that the substance of bread is still there.
Click to expand...
“This vine” would seem to indicate something in close proximity, ie Christ himself.
 
Problem with Problem with Transubstantiation:
1 timothy 3:15:
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God,** which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth**.
Click to expand...
Haydock Commentary:
The pillar and ground of the truth. By the promises of Christ to direct his Church by the infallible spirit of truth; (see John xvi. 7. Mat. xxviii. 20. &c. Wi.) and therefore, the Church of the living God can never uphold error, nor bring in corruptions, superstition, or idolatry. Ch. — That the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, is to be conducted by the constant superintendence and guidance of the Holy Spirit into all truth to the consummation of days, every one whose mind is not strangely prejudiced may easily discover in various places of the inspired writings.
Click to expand...
 
PaulinePresbytr said:
"I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Matt 26:29

This occurs after Christ tells the apostles to eat his body and drink his blood. This means, that unless you mean to imply that Christ’s blood was made of grapes, that the bread was still substantially bread. This does not mean that the bread did not take the substance of Christ, but it does mean that the substance of bread is still there.
Click to expand...
Matthew 26:27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

It’s easier to see if a picture is imagined of Jesus holding up the chalice filled with Wine and says “this is my blood”.

When Jesus says it is so, it is so… If Jesus says the wine is his blood, it is his blood who are we to question it? He has the words of everlasting life.

John 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
 
Besides Jesus, i think st paul says it best. “Whosoever eats of the Flesh of the Son of Man or drinks His blood in an unworthy manner, without having properly examined himself, is guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of Our Lord and eats and drinks judgement upon himself.” if the Eucharist is a mere symbol, then why is paul saying we eat and drink judgement upon ourselves if we receive Him in an unworthy manner? seems pretty harsh of a punishment for violating a mere “symbol”… unless of course, as Jesus Himself says, It is indeed the Body of Our Lord
 
PaulinePresbytr said:
"I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Matt 26:29

This occurs after Christ tells the apostles to eat his body and drink his blood. This means, that unless you mean to imply that Christ’s blood was made of grapes, that the bread was still substantially bread. This does not mean that the bread did not take the substance of Christ, but it does mean that the substance of bread is still there.
Click to expand...
Someone who is allergic to gluten will still experience wheat allergies after it becomes the Body of Christ. In the Mass, after the consecration, we say, “When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup…” It is a moot point to bring up Christ’s saying “fruit of the vine”. 🙂

“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.” - St Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of the Apostle John), Epistle to Smyrnaeans, Ch 7

“…being under the guidance of the Comforter, in obedience to the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote which prevents us from dying, but a cleansing remedy driving away evil, that we should live in God through Jesus Christ.” - St Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of the Apostle John), Epistle to the Ephesians, Ch 20

Note: St Ignatius of Antioch was ordained a bishop the year Sts Peter and Paul were martyred (AD 67). St Ignatius died a martyr about (c. AD 108) ten years after the Apostle John passed away.
 
Dr. Scott Hahn presents a very sensible explanation for Matt 26:29.
 
Karen107 said:
Matthew 26:27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

It’s easier to see if a picture is imagined of Jesus holding up the chalice filled with Wine and says “this is my blood”.

When Jesus says it is so, it is so… If Jesus says the wine is his blood, it is his blood who are we to question it? He has the words of everlasting life.

John 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
Click to expand...
The problem is not the wine taking on the substance of Christ, it is the wine losing the substance of wine
 
PaulinePresbytr said:
The problem is not the wine taking on the substance of Christ, it is the wine losing the substance of wine
Click to expand...
If the wine retained it’s substance this would mean that Christ has become consubstantial with the wine. Christ is only consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with man. Christ is not consubstantial with bread and wine. This would be heresy. 🙂
 
PaulinePresbytr said:
The problem is not the wine taking on the substance of Christ, it is the wine losing the substance of wine
Click to expand...
Once the wine is the blood of our Lord, it is no longer wine. It is the blood of our Lord whether it tastes and looks like wine or not, because Jesus said it is so… It is His precious blood…I don’t doubt Jesus because I Iive by faith and not sight and therefore I believe Jesus. Jesus reiterates his teaching here.

John 6:52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

John 6:60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”
 
PaulinePresbytr,

I believe I understand the thrust of your objection, viz. that if Christ refers to “fruit of the vine” after the consecration and “fruit of the vine” means the substance of wine, then the substance of wine must be present after the consecration. Is that a fair restatement?

What do you make of Luke 22:18 which comes before the consecration?

VC
 
PaulinePresbytr said:
The problem is not the wine taking on the substance of Christ, it is the wine losing the substance of wine
Click to expand...
Here you betray your fundamental lack of understanding in the doctrine in the first place. The Eucharistic Blood retains all the accidents (appearance, taste, etc) of wine.

As the accidents remain, it is common to refer to it as “Consecrated Wine” or similar. That is not a denial of the change that occurred but an acknowledgment of the accidents that remain.
 
Zekariya said:
If the wine retained it’s substance this would mean that Christ has become consubstantial with the wine. Christ is only consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with man. Christ is not consubstantial with bread and wine. This would be heresy. 🙂
Click to expand...
he referred to the drink, after referring to it as his blood, as wine, thus it does, according to scripture, retain the substance of wine
 
padrepio_2012 said:
Besides Jesus, i think st paul says it best. “Whosoever eats of the Flesh of the Son of Man or drinks His blood in an unworthy manner, without having properly examined himself, is guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of Our Lord and eats and drinks judgement upon himself.” if the Eucharist is a mere symbol, then why is paul saying we eat and drink judgement upon ourselves if we receive Him in an unworthy manner? seems pretty harsh of a punishment for violating a mere “symbol”… unless of course, as Jesus Himself says, It is indeed the Body of Our Lord
Click to expand...
I am not referring to it as a symbol, I am saying that it retains the substance of the bread and wine, it is consubstantial because that is what the passage above taught
 
PaulinePresbytr said:
I am not referring to it as a symbol, I am saying that it retains the substance of the bread and wine, it is consubstantial because that is what the passage above taught
Click to expand...
It is precisely this kind of misinterpretation that illustrates why we cannot depend on Scripture alone to understand our faith. It is Scripture together with Tradition handed down since the time of the Apostles and interpreted by the Holy Spirit speaking through the Magesterium (i.e. the successors of the Apostles).

Without all those elements, all kinds of errors are bound to creep in.
 
SonCatcher said:
It is precisely this kind of misinterpretation that illustrates why we cannot depend on Scripture alone to understand our faith. It is Scripture together with Tradition handed down since the time of the Apostles and interpreted by the Holy Spirit speaking through the Magesterium (i.e. the successors of the Apostles).

Without all those elements, all kinds of errors are bound to creep in.
Click to expand...
All this of course is contained in scripture. (See 1 Timothy 3:15)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top