Prove Transubtantiation and I will convert

  • Thread starter Thread starter guanophore
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peary,

I have never questioned or doubted that the ECFs unanimously believed and taught the Real Presence.

They did not, however, teach Transubstantiation.

This is not because they didn’t use the word, it’s because they were completely unaware of the idea.

The repeated assumption by Catholics here that they did and that there is a one-to-one correspondence between what they believed and what you believe today is cartoonish.
 
Steadfast said:
I have never questioned or doubted that the ECFs unanimously believed and taught the Real Presence.

They did not, however, teach Transubstantiation.

This is not because they didn’t use the word, it’s because they were completely unaware of the idea.
Click to expand...
Correct.
 
Steadfast said:
Peary,

I have never questioned or doubted that the ECFs unanimously believed and taught the Real Presence.

They did not, however, teach Transubstantiation.

This is not because they didn’t use the word, it’s because they were completely unaware of the idea.

The repeated assumption by Catholics here that they did and that there is a one-to-one correspondence between what they believed and what you believe today is cartoonish.
Click to expand...
**There is alot to be said about the ECF’s on the Real presence. What Steadfast has commented here does not in any way disqualify transubstantiation from the ECF’s. Because there was no dispute of the real presence to reveal transubstantiation. Why put a fight where there is none about the real presence. These all believed, with no doubt, did not question the true presence, and like you stated were unanimously were in agreement. Not to mention they taught the true presence.

You are applying late century attacks on the Eucharist to the early church fathers where Christendom never questioned the true presence it was believed as Catholics still believe today.

Trying to find arguments against transubstantiation from the early church fathers is not a reasonable argument, because the early church fathers already accepted the true presence. They did not argue the true presence, only taught it and lived it.

As far as I can see from the ECF’s their belief in the true presence does not disqualify transubstantiation, even though they did not have cause to clarify the true presence it was already believed.

So you have a difference in opinion. The bottom line the ECF’s have a valid Eucharist, and a valid priesthood to properly confect the bread and wine, into the body and blood of Jesus. How this can happen, they believe it to be true and mystical.

When the True presence came under attack, Rome and her Majesterium, gave a definition of transubstantiation to the world intellectuals (science) so that they can understand and come to believe.

Again Transubstantiation does not exhaust the meaning of the Eucharist, it explains what happens to the bread and wine, To the (flesh) human senses. This definition does not conflict with any of the early church fathers, as long as the Spirit aspect of the Eucharist is mentioined which states the bread and wine, consecrated validly becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity. There are two aspects of understanding transubstantiation, one is by the Flesh, bread and wine remain these to our senses. The other is the Spirit, which bread and wine become the body,blood,soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Which do you believe, Roman Catholics believe both. So which are you flesh, or Spirit. If you are Spirit then you accept the 2000 year old Catholic view, if you are flesh then you are on your own.**
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
Rome and her Majesterium, gave a definition of transubstantiation to the world intellectuals (science) so that they can understand and come to believe.
Click to expand...
This is the crux of the problem.

Rome tries to define a glorious Mysteries that cannot be defined.

And in the process She traps Herself in a box. 😦
 
Mickey said:
This is the crux of the problem.

Rome tries to define a glorious Mysteries that cannot be defined.

And in the process She traps Herself in a box. 😦
Click to expand...
Rome does not try to define what she already believes, she is defending the teaching of Jesus Christ, so that the world does not infect his teachings. The Glorious mysteries are still intact and Rome will die first before denying them.

What you assert is not what is happening. The crux of the problem like St. Paul describes is the flesh battling with the Spirit.
Rome is not in a box, this is a figmant of your imagination. Please explain the box? and the trap? there is none,only what you can conjure up from your own mind.

Peace with you Mickey
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
Rome does not try to define what she already believes
Click to expand...
Yes, She does.
Gabriel_of_12 said:
What you assert is not what is happening.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is.
Gabriel_of_12 said:
Please explain the box? and the trap?
Click to expand...
There many examples. The box is the outgrowth of Rome’s legalism. The trap is where she finds Herself after defining Herself into the box. The Real Presence is a prime example. No definition was needed. It is a Mysery with absolutely no possible definition. But Rome felt compelled through scholasticism to come up with “transubstantiation”. Now She finds Herself vainly attempting to explain and define “transubstantiation”.

The box—and the trap.
 
peary said:
FAITH is a gift from God, just as grace is. You can’t ‘do’ Faith and you can’t ‘get’ Faith.
Click to expand...
Amen. An unbelieving world needs the grace of God, which is given as a free gift, so that we may hold dear to our faith in the Holy Trinity. An unbelieving world does** not** need a pile of scholastic definitions from Rome. 😉
 
Mickey said:
Amen. An unbelieving world needs the grace of God, which is given as a free gift, so that we may hold dear to our faith in the Holy Trinity. An unbelieving world does** not** need a pile of scholastic definitions from Rome. 😉
Click to expand...
Clarification in the areas of both Faith and morals needs to be made, else you fall into the errors of protestantism.
 
peary said:
Clarification in the areas of both Faith and morals needs to be made, else you fall into the errors of protestantism.
Click to expand...
The “Real Presence” cannot be clarified by scholastic definitions. It is not definable. To attempt otherwise is to fall into legalism.
 
Mickey said:
The “Real Presence” cannot be clarified by scholastic definitions. It is not definable. To attempt otherwise is to fall into legalism.
Click to expand...
It is a theological definition, not a scholastic one. Also, your use of the term ‘legalism’ to define a theological concept is error-prone and misleading.
 
peary said:
It is a theological definition, not a scholastic one. Also, your use of the term ‘legalism’ to define a theological concept is error-prone and misleading.
Click to expand...
The Real Presence of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist** is** theology. The legalistic definition using the term “transubstantiation” is not theology.
 
Mickey said:
The Real Presence of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist** is** theology. The legalistic definition using the term “transubstantiation” is not theology.
Click to expand...
Transubstantiation is a philosophical concept in an Aristotelian mindset. If one is schooled in such, it’s not a bad term. If one is NOT schooled in such, it’s probably confusing and does more harm than good. But it’s not theology - it’s philosophy.
 
Mickey said:
Yes, She does.
Yes, it is.
There many examples. The box is the outgrowth of Rome’s legalism. The trap is where she finds Herself after defining Herself into the box. The Real Presence is a prime example. No definition was needed. It is a Mysery with absolutely no possible definition. But Rome felt compelled through scholasticism to come up with “transubstantiation”. Now She finds Herself vainly attempting to explain and define “transubstantiation”.

The box—and the trap.
Click to expand...
Lets take this to a personal level. Before that, I want to clarify your misunderstanding. Rome has not exhausted the definition of the Eucharist ok, lets be done with that. Transubstantiation does not exhaust the meaning of the Eucharist.

I have no clue of legalism you are refering to. Now you are making more undefined rhetoric about the faith, because you are finding yourself in a box with this argument that has no presidence of your accusing it to be when it is not.

Mickey here is the personal note, The Roman Catholic church in her definition to the world was obeying sacred scripture. And here is the scripture she obeyed to:

1 Peter 3: Now who is going to harm you if you are enthusiastic for what is good?
14
But even if you should suffer because of righteousness, blessed are you. Do not be afraid or terrified with fear of them,
15
but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts.** Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, **
16
but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame.
17
For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that be the will of God, than for doing evil.

How about you Mickey can you give an answer to your hope, when asked by the world to define your ridiculous belief in the presence of Jesus? Or do you have one?
 
Mickey said:
The Real Presence of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist** is** theology.

The Real Presence of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist is FAITH.

The legalistic definition using the term “transubstantiation” is not theology.
Click to expand...
The definition using the term ‘transubstantiaion’ is THEOLOGY, and has always been a theological concept.
 
peary said:
The definition using the term ‘transubstantiaion’ is THEOLOGY, and has always been a theological concept.
Click to expand...
The world gets more fiestier as time goes on, now we have Philosophical, Legalism, Aristotelian attached to Transubstantiation and denied that it isn’t a theological concept definition.

What next? Now I get the sense of why Jesus let his unbelieving disciples leave his ministry and go back into the world to their former way of living.

I have to post this scripture because it pertains here:

Matthew 13:13b…, because ‘they look but do not see and hear but do not listen or understand.’
14
Isaiah’s prophecy is fulfilled in them, which says: ‘You shall indeed hear but not understand you shall indeed look but never see.
15
Gross is the heart of this people, they will hardly hear with their ears, they have closed their eyes, lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted, and I heal them.’
16
7 "But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear.
17
Amen, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top