Prove Transubtantiation and I will convert

[Steadfast]

What you said above is what Catholics believe too. You’re Lutheran? Did you know that the Lutheran church met with the Catholic church recently and both agreed that this is what the Catholic church has always taught and the two believe the same thing…all this quibbling was a huge misunderstanding and Lutherans are finally taking our word for it.

I am assuming you’re talking about the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. Yes, I am familiar with it.

My church, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, the second largest Lutheran church in America with 2.6 million members is not a member of the Lutheran World Federation which is the body representing the Lutheran scholars who did sign the document. The leadership of my church has been very vocal in their disapproval of the document.

Ironically enough, the churches of the LWF are also unanimous in their support of divorce and abortion on demand, female clergy and most approve gay marriage.

None of which are supported by my church.

But that’s neither here nor there. The consensus in my church is that the scholars of the LWF who signed the document have slipped their theological moorings and sold the farm.

 

[Believe_85]

I commend you and your church on your moral holdings, but it is too bad you are not willing to take in what Catholics say, process it, compare it to your own beliefs, and find similiarities. Why when we say “We believe xyz” other Christians say “We believe xyz, and you do not”…?

 

[peary]

Works prove faith, faith does works and without works any faith which would claim the name is dead and therefore no faith at all.

This is what Scripture teaches and is quite different than what your church teaches. It remains the central reason why I left.

Irregardless, have you ever taken the time to read the joint declaration on justification between the Catholic Church and Lutheran World Federation in 2000? It explains all of this. That is why it is quite difficult for me to believe that you left the Church due to that issue. There’s a lot more to it, isn’t there?

www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Jun2000/feature2.asp

 

[Steadfast]

Irregardless, have you ever taken the time to read the joint declaration on justification between the Catholic Church and Lutheran World Federation in 2000? It explains all of this. That is why it is quite difficult for me to believe that you left the Church due to that issue. There’s a lot more to it, isn’t there?

www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Jun2000/feature2.asp

I read it shortly after it was released. I remember thinking that the “Lutherans” were not being true to the Reformation and that they were, for all intents and purposes repeating Catholic soteriological principles.

 

[peary]

I read it shortly after it was released. I remember thinking that the “Lutherans” were not being true to the Reformation and that they were, for all intents and purposes repeating Catholic soteriological principles.

It’s all about you, isn’t it?
So, what are the REAL reasons you left the Church?

 

[iGreg]

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life

John 6:63

All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

Matthew 13.34

I notice the replies seemed to steer clear of these verses. Catholic theology is caught in the trap of reading some verses that seem to plainly and literally teach something and ignore the blatant scriptural contradictions to those teachings.

For the record, I absolutely do not consider myself a Roman Catholic anymore. Yes, I was baptized. Had Communion and Confirmation. I also attended Sunday school for many years. Attended Mass up into my teen years.

What made me question Catholicism was one source, the Bible. There are blatant contradictions between the Bible and Catholicism. Such as the making of paintings & statues of Jesus, as well as God the Father, which are openly venerated by Catholics not just within churches but on the alter itself, in blatant contradiction to Exodus 20:4-5:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

That is one example, along with Transubstantiation, which started me on the road to realize the Catholic Church has many non-Biblical teachings. They get around this by placing the earthly church on a par with the Bible (which is the Word of God).

Do not misconstrue what I say to assume I think the Protestant churches of today are anymore Biblical than the Catholic Church. They too have either completely abandoned or are moving swiftly to abandon the Holy Bible as their authority. I have believed for many years now that the earthly Churches of today, of any and all denominations, have abandoned scripture (and therefore abandoned God).

 

[peary]

John 6:63

Matthew 13.34

I notice the replies seemed to steer clear of these verses. Catholic theology is caught in the trap of reading some verses that seem to plainly and literally teach something and ignore the blatant scriptural contradictions to those teachings.

For the record, I absolutely do not consider myself a Roman Catholic anymore. Yes, I was baptized. Had Communion and Confirmation. I also attended Sunday school for many years. Attended Mass up into my teen years.

What made me question Catholicism was one source, the Bible. There are blatant contradictions between the Bible and Catholicism. Such as the making of paintings & statues of Jesus, as well as God the Father, which are openly venerated by Catholics not just within churches but on the alter itself, in blatant contradiction to Exodus 20:4-5:

That is one example, along with Transubstantiation, which started me on the road to realize the Catholic Church has many non-Biblical teachings. They get around this by placing the earthly church on a par with the Bible (which is the Word of God).

Do not misconstrue what I say to assume I think the Protestant churches of today are anymore Biblical than the Catholic Church. They too have either completely abandoned or are moving swiftly to abandon the Holy Bible as their authority. I have believed for many years now that the earthly Churches of today, of any and all denominations, have abandoned scripture (and therefore abandoned God).

The Scriptures ARE the Church’s writings LOL. You cannot read and interpret them divorced from the Church. That makes absolutely no sense. Perhaps studying the combination of the two would make more sense to you. Please check out and read:

www.scripturecatholic.com

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I am astounded that Catholics will so often assume that the Real Presence as it is formulated in the Bible and in the writings of the fathers always necessarily equates to Transubstantiation

**Correction, Not so fast,Steadfast, Catholics do not assume the real presence we know and believe in the real presence. We dont assume the real presence is mentioned in the bible, It is revealed in the bible. Who are you to say Jesus 's words do not mean what he says when Jesus states this is my body, this is my blood. Trasubstantiation agrees with the early Saints teachings on the Eucharist. They describe transubstantiation of the Eucharist without mentioning the word.

The common bread, and wine, trasubstantiated into the body and blood of Jesus Christ remains his body and blood, and the species of bread and wine remain them only to our natural senses, but by the Spirit they are truly his body and blood. Their is not one church father or Saint that will disagree with transubstantiation definition.**

and that they will continue to do so even after having been shown repeatedly that while Transubstantiation is one way of understanding a Real Presence it is by no means clear that even in the majority of the cases this is certainly what is meant.

**I have no clue as to what you are trying to state here?
The Roman Catholic church is in union with the True presence for 2000 years, their is no change in this fundamental belief in the true presence of the Eucharist.

If you can define the Word Transubstantiation better than the Catholic Saints and the doctrine of the Catholic church, then by all means lets hear it?

Sounds like you know better than Jesus and his church about the Eucharist. Can you explain what the true presence is and how this occurrs?

Lutherans may think they believe in the true presence. But they dont have a valid Eucharist, nor do they have a valid priesthood. How can you compare that Lutherans and Catholics believe the same presence?

Peace be with you.**

 

[Steadfast]

It’s all about you, isn’t it?
So, what are the REAL reasons you left the Church?

Wow.

You asked me a question.

I answered it.

And yes, it’s true. I am not a zombie, I searched the Bible diligently, trusted in my baptism and came to conclusions about the nature of religious truth and the church.

If that makes it “all about me” okay. I answered your question, just because you don’t like the answer it doesn’t really leave you any room to reject my response and ask again.

Look here though, your post earlier was presumptuous, and arguably of slanderous intent. I find your assumption that the only reason a person could possibly leave your church because they had a moral problem to be not only inaccurate but indicative of either an uncharitable nature or some pretty deep rooted ignorance.

And that’s why I reported it.

 

[Steadfast]

Gabriel,

You completely misunderstood what I wrote.

I despair.

 

[Steadfast]

Gabe,

Your church teaches that when the Priest says the words, “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood” a change takes place such that the bread and wine no longer exist substantially but are effectively replaced by the realities of Christ’s Body and Blood, leaving only the appearances of bread and wine.

If I am wrong in my understanding that this is what your church teaches, I am open to correction.

You beg the question by an appeal to authority. I am no authority at all and I never claimed to be one.

What I said was that regardless of whether the fathers used or even knew the word “transubstantiation” the very idea cannot be found in what they wrote.

Reams of references were adduced to refute me, every one of which clearly showed that while they believed firmly in the real presence, they did not go so far as to say that the bread and wine cease to exist at the consecration. Quite the contrary in the case of Irenaeus who plainly taught that they remain. And this cessation is the very heart and root of the difference between the Catholic and the Lutheran view and since the fathers did not go into it, there is nothing in them which cannot also bee brought forward as ancient and hallowed support for the Lutheran view as well.

That is what this thread is about. It is not about what I know or even what your church teaches. No one but you so far has questioned my grasp of Catholic sacramental teaching. I believe I have been fair in my representation of it. I believe that I have also been clear that I believe it to be a scholastic fiction as it is usually formulated.

If I am not to be permitted that opinion without denigration as “an authority” (and I can smell the hot tar when you smear me with that brush) then I am not sure what else I can say except that perhaps it would be best for us all to leave the intarwebs entirely and completely refrain from discussion lest we hazard an opinion or a clear statement of belief and fall into the gross heresy of presuming to know something.

I returned to this thread after an absence of a couple weeks because I saw that there had been further discussion. I was not surprised to find that despite my ministrations, the assumption that the fathers were all unanimous in their endorsement of Transubstantiation, just because they clearly believed in the Real Presence to be alive and well.

Which just goes to show, when you’re dealing with zealots, that it is wise to remember that they will never, ever allow the truth to get in the way of a good story.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel,

You completely misunderstood what I wrote.

I despair.

I am sorry, only you can know that. I gave a part of my scripture meditation of the Eucharist post #388, and you posted right after it. I thought you were maybe contrasting my scripture Meditation with nullifying the true presence of our Lord. Maybe that is why part of your comment did not make sense to me. Forgive me?

 

[O.S.Luke]

The Real Presence is an embracing of faith and the supernatural power of God that can transcend logic and permanence. Transubstantiation is an Aristotelian philosophical construct. You can’t “prove” either - because you cannot “prove” a mystery (Real Presence), and empirical observation and scientific method is no help when it comes to Aristotelian/Thomistic thought where T. is concerned.

The Body and Blood of Christ is… the Body of Blood of Christ. Period. No explanation needed… or for that matter, is even possible. To explain the mystery is to take away the mystery.

O+

 

[Steadfast]

I am sorry, only you can know that. I gave a part of my scripture meditation of the Eucharist post #388, and you posted right after it. I thought you were maybe contrasting my scripture Meditation with nullifying the true presence of our Lord. Maybe that is why part of your comment did not make sense to me. Forgive me?

There is nothing to forgive, broseph. Unlike others here, I never really got the sense that you were saying anything you’d said for any reason other than that you had misunderstood me.

 

[Steadfast]

The Real Presence is an embracing of faith and the supernatural power of God that can transcend logic and permanence. Transubstantiation is an Aristotelian philosophical construct. You can’t “prove” either - because you cannot “prove” a mystery (Real Presence), and empirical observation and scientific method is no help when it comes to Aristotelian/Thomistic thought where T. is concerned.

The Body and Blood of Christ is… the Body of Blood of Christ. Period. No explanation needed… or for that matter, is even possible. To explain the mystery is to take away the mystery.

O+

A note of clarity.

Much needed and much appreciated.

But my point was not really to have T empirically and unequivocally “proven” (despite the OP’s claim) so much as to have it demonstrated from the writings of the ECFs.

 

[po18guy]

How anyone can exchange the Eucharist (true, real presence of Christ) for protestantism is beyond me.

I try to place myself in these people’s minds and …it scares me to my soul to even think of being without the Eucharist.

You’ve walked away from the Eucharist - Jesus Himself - and now you call yourself protestant christian?..you have nothing.

How sad.

Amen! Luther made sure that he left taking the Eucharist along. He absolutely believed in it. And, it *was *the Eucharist until that generation of validly ordained priests died out.

No Eucharist, No Christ.

Again, many love the concept of Christ. It’s the reality they have trouble with.

 

[peary]

Wow.

You asked me a question.

I answered it.

And yes, it’s true. I am not a zombie, I searched the Bible diligently, trusted in my baptism and came to conclusions about the nature of religious truth and the church.

If that makes it “all about me” okay. I answered your question, just because you don’t like the answer it doesn’t really leave you any room to reject my response and ask again.

Look here though, your post earlier was presumptuous, and arguably of slanderous intent. I find your assumption that the only reason a person could possibly leave your church because they had a moral problem to be not only inaccurate but indicative of either an uncharitable nature or some pretty deep rooted ignorance.

And that’s why I reported it.

**You can report all you want LOL. There was nothing slanderous in my intent or what I typed, whatever that is supposed to mean. However, you are the one who has written publically that I possess an uncharitable nature and that I am ignorant. Never once did I EVER refer to you in such demeaning terms, yet you do this to me. What you seemingly accuse in others is what you have inside yourself, otherwise you wouldn’t perceive it that way.
That you have no desire to discuss the real reasons of your leaving the Church leads me to doubt that you are even Catholic to begin with.

And your apology is accepted.**

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

There is nothing to forgive, broseph. Unlike others here, I never really got the sense that you were saying anything you’d said for any reason other than that you had misunderstood me.

it must be getting late, because I still dont understand you?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Real Presence is an embracing of faith and the supernatural power of God that can transcend logic and permanence. Transubstantiation is an Aristotelian philosophical construct. You can’t “prove” either - because you cannot “prove” a mystery (Real Presence), and empirical observation and scientific method is no help when it comes to Aristotelian/Thomistic thought where T. is concerned.

The Body and Blood of Christ is… the Body of Blood of Christ. Period. No explanation needed… or for that matter, is even possible. To explain the mystery is to take away the mystery.

O+

O.S.Luke, lets be simple here. Transubstantiation does not claim to explain the mystical body of Jesus christ away or exhaust its mystery.

Transubstantiation explains only that the bread and the wine remain these accidents to our natural senses, but are truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ to our eternal souls in the Holy Spirit. And these accidents remain the body, blood, soul and divinity in the consecrated Host (Eucharist), Jesus does not cease to exist in the host, only after the consumption of the believer.

So your claim is false. Transubstantiation does not try and explain away the mystery of the mystical body of Jesus Christ. Only what takes place to the accidents of bread and wine at the words of Jesus christ.

 

[iGreg]

The Scriptures ARE the Church’s writings LOL. You cannot read and interpret them divorced from the Church. That makes absolutely no sense. Perhaps studying the combination of the two would make more sense to you. Please check out and read:

www.scripturecatholic.com

The Bible itself teaches that it interprets itself and is not of any private interpretation, which means me, any person, or any organization of men.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
[2 Peter 1:20-21 - KJV]

Indeed, since the last word was penned in the original, the Word of God today is circumscribed by the Bible itself.

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
[Revelation 22:18-19 - KJV]