Prove Transubtantiation and I will convert

  • Thread starter Thread starter guanophore
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by 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.*

**The reason why transubstantiation became a theological way of explanation is that, at the time, science as a discipline was beginning to form and questions were being raised as to the accuracy of the Church’s doctrine on the Eucharist. Not only that, it was beginning to be challenged by some theologians in areas of the Church, as well as in protestant thought. I don’t think, actually, that the Church or Aquinas were even interested in empirical observation or a scientific method of explaining the Eucharist, but both were intent on clarifying exactly what was happening in the Eucharist: that Christ was fully present - body, blood, soul, and Divinity - under the outer manifestation of bread and wine which became literally the body and blood of the Lord during Consecration.

This was in response to those who taught (as Luther did) that Christ was fully present only at Communion but ‘left’ as soon as it was over, that the bread and wine reverted back to what they originally were and did not remain Christ’s body and blood. It was also in response to those who only believed that Christ was present merely in a ‘spiritual’ way, not in a bodily way, as well as responding to the theology that it was merely a memorial, nothing more.

In no way does this take away from the supernatural power of God (which protestants seemingly were doing) and it upheld the Church’s position on what exactly constituted the Eucharist. It remained (and still does) a mystery of Faith regardless.**
 
iGreg said:
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.
Indeed, since the last word was penned in the original, the Word of God today is circumscribed by the Bible itself.
Click to expand...
**Good Lord, the Bible does not teach that it interprets itself LOL. And Jesus did not say “I AM a book.” It is the Scripture of the Church and the Church has the moral and spiritual authority to interpret its own Scriptures, not any person or any other organization of people.

If you are honest with yourself, you will check out the website previously given to you. Otherwise, no one can help you - you’ll have to go through the quagmire until you see the light.**
 
I just have a little to say…

Beware of those who sow doubts… for they are like ravening wolves (loosened dogs?:rolleyes: )… always ready to devour even the very elect!!!

Some are happy with their share of bread…

We, Catholics, rejoice in receiving the Christ in the Holy Eucharist!

Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord… and believe in His Church.
Be angry, and sin not… Give not place to the devil.
Ephesians 4:26-27 :mad: + :signofcross:
 
peary said:
Originally Posted by 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.*

**The reason why transubstantiation became a theological way of explanation is that, at the time, science as a discipline was beginning to form and questions were being raised as to the accuracy of the Church’s doctrine on the Eucharist. Not only that, it was beginning to be challenged by some theologians in areas of the Church, as well as in protestant thought. I don’t think, actually, that the Church or Aquinas were even interested in empirical observation or a scientific method of explaining the Eucharist, but both were intent on clarifying exactly what was happening in the Eucharist: that Christ was fully present - body, blood, soul, and Divinity - under the outer manifestation of bread and wine which became literally the body and blood of the Lord during Consecration.

This was in response to those who taught (as Luther did) that Christ was fully present only at Communion but ‘left’ as soon as it was over, that the bread and wine reverted back to what they originally were and did not remain Christ’s body and blood. It was also in response to those who only believed that Christ was present merely in a ‘spiritual’ way, not in a bodily way, as well as responding to the theology that it was merely a memorial, nothing more.

In no way does this take away from the supernatural power of God (which protestants seemingly were doing) and it upheld the Church’s position on what exactly constituted the Eucharist. It remained (and still does) a mystery of Faith regardless.**
Click to expand...
AMEN PEAREY, YOU GOT A WITNESS HERE! I liked your post so much I had to think of way to repost it for others.
 
iGreg said:
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.
Click to expand...
Where does it say this? It doesn’t. Where on earth did the “Holy Table of Contents” in the bible come from? From men who interpreted it, once for all time, under the Spirit. Scripture was given to the church to interpret, so that Christians would not be lead astray. Millions today have indeed been lead astray by just such erroneous, private interpretation.

Thousands of disagreeing denominations prove your assertion to be unsustainable. The Precious Body of Christ has been shattered into almost meaningless pieces using just the method you mention.
Indeed, since the last word was penned in the original, the Word of God today is circumscribed by the Bible itself.
Click to expand...
What original??? The canon of scripture (“bible”) was argued over for centuries, debated and settled by numerous men in councils. So, if it testifies to itself now, why didn’t it then?

How can you know, from the bible itself, why some writings are included, and some are not? Did Christ teach which books were insprired? No. Did He use a bible? No. Did He write a bible? No. Did He command the writing of a bible? No. If you depend solely on something that Christ never authorized or even mentioned, how can you be sure you are really following Christ?

You have been taught an unorthodox and very recent method of contemplating scripture. And yet, you seem so sure of it. Why are there so many denominations that do not agree? Why didn’t Christ just write and pass out “bibles”? There is a perfect reason.
 
Steadfast said:
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.
Click to expand...
How do you think Catholic teaching is different than this? :confused:
 
thirdn6 said:
I just have a little to say…

Beware of those who sow doubts… for they are like ravening wolves (loosened dogs?:rolleyes: )… always ready to devour even the very elect!!!

Some are happy with their share of bread…

We, Catholics, rejoice in receiving the Christ in the Holy Eucharist!

Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord… and believe in His Church.
Be angry, and sin not… Give not place to the devil.
Ephesians 4:26-27 :mad: + :signofcross:
Click to expand...
AMEN! Whatever happened to obedience? Doesn’t it have something to do with “deny yourself”?
 
guanophore said:
How do you think Catholic teaching is different than this? :confused:
Click to expand...
Steadfast, you’re missing something here?!?!? There is nothing in scripture or the Catholic Church which contradict one another, since the church predates scripture, and produced the NT scripture. However, there are thousands of misinterpretations and misunderstandings that make it appear so. There we will find the problem.
 
The fundamental bottom-line is really quite simple. Bible Christians trust the Bible, Roman Catholics trust the earthly church. The authority is different & the religions are not the same.
 
iGreg said:
The fundamental bottom-line is really quite simple. Bible Christians trust the Bible, Roman Catholics trust the earthly church. The authority is different & the religions are not the same.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forum, iGreg. You are mistaken. Catholics trust the Bible. Catholics wrote the Bible. That is why nothing in it contradicts the Church. Catholics don’t trust the “earthly” Church, we trust the Church founded by Jesus, of which He is the Head, and to whom He gave the Holy Spirit to guide Her into all truth.
 
The Sacred Heart of Jesus in
the Most Blessed Sacrament

A great miracle through Our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament
Fr. Aloysius Ellacuria, C.M.F., founder of the Missionaries of Perpetual Adoration, had a young mother come to him in the early 1970’s, eyes filled with tears, an aching body saturated with cancer, and given little hope to live. He took her into the chapel asking her, “Have you ever asked Our Lord to cure you?” “No,” she replied. "Well he said, “Let us kneel down right here in the front of the Most Blessed Sacrament, and ask Him to cure you. You know Our Lord is really present in the Most Blessed Sacrament; do you believe that?” “Yes,” she promptly replied.
Father continued, “Our Lord is the same as He who walked on this earth 2,000 years ago; and who blessed the sick and healed the sick. Do you believe that He is the same Lord that is living here in this Most Blessed Sacrament?” “Yes, He is,” was her pain filled response. “Well, He cured them and He can cure you.” Together they prayed a series of “Our Father’s, Hail Mary’s and Glory Be’s.” After three of each the woman, startled, said: “Father, I don’t think it is necessary to continue to go on – I feel healed.”
X rays were taken the next day and the doctor, astonished, said: “All the cells that were attacked by cancer are now the cells of a New-born baby.”
This was but one of the many cures Fr. Aloysius witnessed while imploring assistance from Our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament.
 
Steadfast said:
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.

** The words of consecration are not the Priests words. They are the words of Jesus himself, present in his priest thus the doctrine of “persona christi” These sacred mysteries are performed with reverence because Jesus is present in his Words through the priest. I cant go to much into these mysteries, because I will end up writing you a book here. So I hesitate with caution. I will state this though, In the book of Revelations this Mass is revealed there. So to give you a foretaste of what is happening I must tell you this, in the Mass it is heaven on earth. I dont mean this in a descriptive sense, I mean this in a litteral sense. What is taken place in time in the liturgies, is what is happening in the eternals made present in the Mass, with Mary, Angels, Saints, Jesus and his body on earth the Catholic church., By stating this, then maybe you can see these mysteries take place from the eye of a believer.

Now in the Mass Jesus is celebrating the Wedding feast of the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, with his body on earth The Catholic church.**
**The teachings that Jesus gave to his apostles “Do this in remembrance of me.” is now taking place in time with the eternity.but now in the glorified body of Jesus Christ, Jesus is celebrating the Wedding feast of the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

This is a prefiguremant made present of what is to happen at his second coming. The bride groom comes for his bride, Jesus comes for his church. And what does the bride groom and the bride do on their wedding day celebration, They have a meal, then they consumate their marriage bond how? by marital communion, Jesus recieves us as we recieve him in the Holy Eucharist. I told you I could write a book. I better stop here.

This is why Jesus must make himself present to his bride, because how else could a bride remain faithful to her husband while away. God does not want a repeat of the Harlot of the old covenant. "I am with you always Jesus says to his bride the Church. Now maybe Transubstantiation can begin to make more sense. But there is much more I have not disclosed here. There is much more… so simply put, the bread and wine remain accidents to our natural senses, but the consecrated bread and wine become the body, blood,soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.**
Click to expand...
You beg the question by an appeal to authority. I am no authority at all and I never claimed to be one.

So you dont subscribe to any authority, to interpret Christian teaching?

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.

** This is where I disagreed with you. Let me explain. The early church fathers never heard of the word transubstantiation. In their writings they teach the true presence. Now their belief in the true presence never got contested as it has the past centuries. They taught on the Eucharist for what was handed down to them from the apostles.

Now bear in mind, you could get yourself killed for consuming your God,( the holy eucharist) by the Roman Emperors. So the Church is secretive, and silent about the Eucharist. That is why Oral Tradition along with Sacred Tradition is so important to understanding the scriptures, you get the whole truth that was revealed.

Now the understanding part of the revealed teachings of Jesus and the apostles comes in time, example the Trinity, which gets defined later after the teaching falls under attack first by Arianism. Now the Eucharist which was never doubted for 1500 years. Back to the understanding part. Different fathers, Saints wrote about the Eucharist, they all believed in the true presence. And their understanding did not go against the teachings of the Catholic church, or they will be asked to repent, or be excommunicated.

So you may come across some border line theology, but remember what a saint thinks, or believes may not be the Catholiic churches doctrinal teaching on the subject. So you cannot single out a Catholic Saint that may appear to be saying something different, but it did not go against Church teaching, or the saint or church Dr. or father, would not come down to us as labeled. Look at Origen, man I love his keen insights, but he ended up border line heretic, so I cannot accept his teachings as Gospel, unless the Church tells me so, This is a quote from St. Augustine, who was not a catholic from the begining, but as he learned of the Mysteries, ST. Augustine says of the bible, “If the Catholic church did not say this is the bible, I would not have believed it” What I am trying to say here is that the thoughts of a Saint on the Eucharist does not disagree with the teachings of the church. As these same doctrines in time get more revealing as language changes, the world is now taught to be round not flat no more, we get better understanding of these inexhaustable mysteries of God to each age and generation.

As you may know there was no dispute over the revealed Eucharist, just different explanations from spritual minds trying to understand them with the best they could with what they could. **

To be continued.
 
Host turns to human flesh of Jesus’ Heart in the Eucharistic Miracle at Lanciano, Italy
Code: 
In year 700 there was a priest who had doubts of the real presence of Our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament. One day at Mass he prayed that his doubts would be removed. As he said the words Consecration the Host turned into Flesh and the Wine turned into Blood.
What type of Flesh and Blood was it? In 1970 the Holy See ordered a through scientific investigation using spectroscopic analysis, high powered microscopes and advanced medical technology. The most illustrious scientist, Professor Odoardo Linoli, eminent professor in anatomy and pathological and clinical microscopy, headed the investigation and was assisted by Professor Ruggero Bertellie of the University of Sienna. The investigation showed the Host had turned into flesh, into a fine slice of a human heart, and was incorrupt, as though it had just been taken form a heart.
The analyses were conducted with unquestionable scientific precision and were documented with a series of photographs, (these photographs can be seen on the Internet at ([cmns.mnegri.it/en/other_services/miracolo_eucaristico/welcome.html](http://www.cmns.mnegri.it/en/other_services/miracolo_eucaristico/welcome.html)) which were made public by Professor Linoli on March 4, 1971 in the church of the miracle.
Other scientists were asked by the Holy See to verify these findings. When all of the data was accumulated, the scientists were in accord: "Without reservation, this is a slice of tissue from a human heart, as though it had been expertly sliced by a surgeon's scalpel through the center of the heart. And, though subject to decay as all flesh is for 1298 years, it remains incorrupt." These findings were published in September of 1971 in the official newspaper of the Vatican, L’Osservatore Romano.
The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood type: AB uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin. In scientific testing the Blood tested as if it were fresh blood after almost 1300 years.
Various ecclesiastical investigations were conducted since 1574.
 In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy.  Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena assisted him.  The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:
*The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.
*The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
*The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
*In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.
*The Flesh is a “HEART” complete in its essential structure.
*The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood type: AB (Blood type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).
*In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
*In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
*The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.
In conclusion, it may be said that Science, when called upon to testify, has given a certain and thorough response as regards the authenticity of the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, Italy.

these miracles have been clearly stated as such by the Catholic Church and in Science even though science is not necessary.

The Miracle at Lanciano can be still witnessed today and science is dumb founded that the Eucharist has yet to turn to dust.
 
CONTINUED POST Steadfast:

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.

**B]I dont see a conflict here. First the real presence. The bread and wine, does and does not cease to exist. One to our natural senses they are bread and wine.that exists to our natural senses, and the bread and wine become the body,blood,soul and divinity of Jesus christ, ( The Words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life, says Jesus)to our souls the bread and wine cease to exists and become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, that is why Jesus again states to the unbelievers "IT IS THE SPIRIT THAT GIVES LIFE **WHILE THE FLESH IS OF NO AVAIL".Jesus cannot state more emphatically about the Eucharist here. Many think he is talking like a 20th century evangelical in the spirit tense, Jesus knew what he was saying about the Spirit, and he did not mean symbolically he was going to become bread and grape juice./B]

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.

B]I find this strange that you can come to such a conclusion, after reading the early church fathers. Are you reading from them, or trying to read into them? I only see the early church fathers defending the Roman Catholic Eucharist as being the true presence. I dont find a Lutheran view until after the 15th century after the death of Martin Luther. Now if their are still Martin Luthers out there, then yes, these also should believe in the Virgin Mary as Catholics do as well, if not, then they cannot be Martin Lutherans.

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.

I can respect your opinion, but your opinion does not agree with what I believe to be true. And for this you have my deepest respect. From what I have gathered thus far, is the difference understanding of what is meant by Spirit and what is meant by flesh. I believe if you take these two and apply them to the Eucharist, you will see Transubstantiation appear. By the Spirit the bread and wine become the become the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, to the Flesh (our natural senses) they reamain bread and wine. Now if you take this explanation understanding and reread the early church fathers, I believe your going to feel what is in their hearts when they wrote about the Eucharist.

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.

B]That is why I dont pretend to know anything except what Jesus revealed to his Catholic church. I have no opinion, other than my thoughts of what I was taught from God himself.

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.

**B]Your point is well taken and noted. Both you and I can find a word in our comments to agree and disagree. That doesnt mean we should stop communicating. We can both grow from the agreements we disagree on so long as we understand what we are agreeing to disagree on, when agreeing to disagree.

Peace and Joy of the Lord be with you always:) .**
 
Wow…that is HEAVY Artillery! Let me try something simple…I am a simple man…

Do you believe in God, the God of Abraham, etc…???
( I hope, YES!)

Do you believe in His Only Begotten Son, Jesus???
(I hope, YES!)

Do you believe when Jesus said, “This is My Body” … “This is My Blood”, that He was telling the Truth???
(I hope, YES!)

You see, for us simple folk, this is proof positive, it’s a SLAM DUNK - period. Now, there were/are other disciples, who when listening found/find this teaching too hard…AND LEFT/LEAVE,(carefully read John 6:66 - the anti-christs - hummm, never saw that, really…) and Jesus, turning to His TRUE disciples asked, (John 6:67) “and you (whoever you are) do you want to leave me too?” Now, carefully read John 6:68-69…AND BELIEVE! Not for the sake of argument or proof, but for the sake of LOVE who IS TRUTH (the Great I AM)…and your love for Him. Heck, if He told me ANYTHING…I’d believe it…it’s neat to be a simpleton for Jesus…He NEVER betrays you in your simpletoness…He just continues to LOVE through TRUTH…our job is to BELIEVE!

Now, try reading those verses in Chapter 6 (starting at about 25 all the way over to 70) of John…The apostle of love…what do you read & understand? (More importantly what does the Holy Spirit call out to you that it means…) for the Father calls through His Spirit…(listen carefully to verse 65…right before the anti-christs leave in 66). Now, if you are Spirit filled, then you are being called!!! Does Jesus waffle and say, “This is a representation or a symbol (etcetera) of My Body, of My Blood…??” Nope, He just states a simple 🙂 fact, THIS IS MY BODY. Believe it or not??

So Brother, this is substance we are speaking of, I believe is NOT something to be proved, it is something to be BELIEVED. He has already proved it…last Sunday…do you believe in the Resurrection?? Hopefully yes, did you see it? No…Neither have I, but we believe. There was no problem with Transubstantiation (Sp??) in the early church, in fact Paul told the folks…paraphrasing here: “hey, this ain’t no party…eat at home, when you come here it is to remember Him in the substance changing from Bread and Wine to His Body and Blood…got it??” They did, and we never had a problem one…till some fine folks (Mr. Luther et al) threw out the Baby Jesus (their belief in Transubstantiation) with the Bath water (all the yuck that was truly putrid in the church at that time…the church is never without sin, changes DO need to be made along the way, but VERY carefully), so to speak, in their efforts to make the (ir) church better.

And so, as Jesus asked Thomas, the bottom line is: “Do You Believe?” AND NOT whether I have convinced you…for this is a matter of life and death…it is the very essence of our Christian faith…Pleeeeeassse read and hear Jesus in John 6:53 - 58.
 
iGreg said:
The fundamental bottom-line is really quite simple. Bible Christians trust the Bible, Roman Catholics trust the earthly church. The authority is different & the religions are not the same.
Click to expand...
The “earthly church” both wrote and compiled the bible. The book is inseparable from the church, which is Christ’s mystical body with Him as its head. If you adhere to the recent and novel concept of sola scriptura, you can sound as though you worship the bible.

I choose to be Christ-centered rather than bible-centered, as the bible is just the Cliff Notes version of Christ. There is so much more to Christ. I wanted more. I got more. More scripture. More Tradition. The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ! Amen! Alleluia!
 
I think when someone just wants to use the word “transubstantiation” they are trying to make things more complicated than they really are and are using excuses not to want to believe or excuses not to agree.

We don’t have to understand it, we just have to believe it. Peter believed it but he had no idea what Jesus was talking about. But Peter & the other Apostles didn’t leave the way the others did when they knew Jesus meant literally to eat His body & drink His blood. Jesus did not stop them from walking away.

Jesus Christ in the Eucharist - The Real Presence
 
iGreg said:
The fundamental bottom-line is really quite simple. Bible Christians trust the Bible, Roman Catholics trust the earthly church. The authority is different & the religions are not the same.
Click to expand...
Catholics are Bible Christians. But we do not believe in Sola Scriptura. The Bible doesn’t even believe in Sola Scriptura.

15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and
hold fast to the traditions that you were
taught, either by an oral statement or by
a letter of ours.
2 Thes 2:15

Matthew 18:15-20

1 Tim 3:15

The “earthly” Church was established by Jesus Christ. It is His Kindom here on earth. When the Mass is prayed it is the same worship that is taking place up in Heaven as we speak. It’s all there in Sacred Scripture. Just turn to the Book of Revelation.

The Church was here long before the Bible was compiled.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top