Prove Transubtantiation and I will convert

[Mickey]

Lets take this to a personal level.

Let’s not.

Now you are making more undefined rhetoric about the faith, because you are finding yourself in a box

Now I am the one in the box!?!
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/12/12_1_25.gif

****Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope,

Amen. It does not say, “define yourself into a box”.

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?

If you are asking me how I would respond to an unbeliever about the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, I would say, with a big smile: “It is an awesome and glorious Mystery!!!”

 

[Mickey]

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.

That is an excellent passage on which all Christians should meditate.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Let’s not.
Now I am the one in the box!?!
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/12/12_1_25.gif
Amen. It does not say, “define yourself into a box”.
If you are asking me how I would respond to an unbeliever about the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, I would say, with a big smile: “It is an awesome and glorious Mystery!!!”

How about if they came to you with convincing physical and scientific evidence to disprove your mystery concept, now what do you do? and mind you the evidence is compelling and convincing, and if this gets out, your whole belief on mystery to a physical world mindset can crumble if you cannot defend the Eucharist against the world.

 

[Mickey]

How about if they came to you with convincing physical and scientific evidence to disprove your mystery concept, now what do you do?

I would say, with a big smile: “It is an awesome and glorious Mystery!!!”

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I would say, with a big smile: “It is an awesome and glorious Mystery!!!”

That is why you are Mickey and not the Pope the Vicar of Christ, who is always ready to give an account of our hope, to any one who comes against the teachings of Jesus Christ. Please reread my previous post, I made a minor change.

 

[Mickey]

That is why you are Mickey and not the Pope the Vicar of Christ

And I am happy to be Mickey!

If someone will not believe, nothing that I say, no definition, is going to change their mind. It is the Holy Spirit Who will lead the individual to metanoia.

Years ago, I was a personal witness to a Eucharistic miracle. But an unbeliever, unless moved by the Holy Spirit, will not believe my story. There is no definition in the world that I could propose. That is why it should be understood as the glorious Mystery of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Period.

Peace and blessings

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

And I am happy to be Mickey!

If someone will not believe, nothing that I say, no definition, is going to change their mind. It is the Holy Spirit Who will lead the individual to metanoia.

Years ago, I was a personal witness to a Eucharistic miracle. But an unbeliever, unless moved by the Holy Spirit, will not believe my story. There is no definition in the world that I could propose. That is why it should be understood as the glorious Mystery of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Period.

Peace and blessings

This is all said and done and is respected. But do you believe in the Holy Trinity? If so you follow the definition of the Pope and the church councils that defined the trinity, which is still a mystery, but yet is recognized by all believers by this NEW term trinity. After you and I are dead and gone, Transubstantiation will still be believed just like the Trinity, because the arians where just as against the term definition Trinity as you and others are against the definition Transubstantiation.

Peace Mickey.

 

[Mickey]

This is all said and done and is respected. But do you believe in the Holy Trinity? If so you follow the definition of the Pope and the church councils that defined the trinity, which is still a mystery, but yet is recognized by all believers by this NEW term trinity.

Man, that has been covered soooo many times.

The Trinity is clear and evident in Scripture. Transubstantiation is not.

If that word helps you to believe and explain the great Mystery of the Eucharist, then by all means, use it.

PS–The undivided Church did not view the Pope as some supreme authority over the Council. In fact, the Pope usually sent legates in his place. It was the Council which made decisions(which included the representation of the bishop of Rome).

 

[O.S.Luke]

If we’re going to use the understanding of Transubstantiation as lined out by the Council of Trent, you are going to have some serious problems without utilizing metaphysics; specifically, Aristotelian metaphysics. This is NOT theology, this is philosophy. NOT to say that the Real Presence is philosophy - it isn’t - it is theology - because embracing the Real Presence requires faith. The change is real - and mysterious - thus defying explanation.

At the epiclesis, if one embraces Transubstantiation (which Catholics should do), the substance of bread and wine are replaced by the substance of Jesus’s body and blood (and NOT the accidents of wine and bread). This supposes the following metaphysical givens (these are more clearly enunciated by Kenny Pearce):

1. Everything has a “substance” (matter and form) which is distinct from its “accidents” and “species” (in other words, how it strikes the senses) and in which its accidents inhere.
2. There are some material objects which have no essential properties - i.e., all of their properties can change while their identity remains intact. (such as Christ’s Body and Blood)
3. The identity of material objects over time does not require spatiotemporal (that is, existing in time and space) or causal continuity.

As Pearce notes, the Alexandrian school and Augustinian schools of thoughts would have had serious reservations with #1 and #2; they were Platonist in metaphysical view and transubstantiation would make absolutely no sense - which is NOT to say that they didn’t embrace the Real Presence, because they most certainly DID, as did the early liturgies of the Didache and Justin Martyr.

Now, if you are an Aristotelian or a Thomist, you’re going to have no problems with transubstantiation. This is, however, precisely why the Eastern Church continues to distance itself from using the term transubstantiation - for at least two reasons: (1) it is too “confining”, and (2) Aristoltelian metaphysics comes into conflict when you deal with matters mysterious.

My problem is that I cannot in any stretch of the imagination reconcile the purest definition of a sacrament with Aristotelian metaphysics, because - in my view - to do so means you have to use reason to define a mystery. That is a non sequitur if there ever was one.

Maybe this gets more at the OP - I don’t think the ECF’s would have delineated the Real Presence so much. It’s the Body and Blood of Christ. Period. An outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace.

Science was in vogue when transubstantiation came on the scene. It was, in my opinion, a mistake to embrace a concept that would require so much education in philosophy to fully embrace.

Why not leave the mystery a mystery!! To me, that is a much more powerful statement.

O+

 

[ralphinal]

If we’re going to use the understanding of Transubstantiation as lined out by the Council of Trent, you are going to have some serious problems without utilizing metaphysics; specifically, Aristotelian metaphysics. This is NOT theology, this is philosophy. NOT to say that the Real Presence is philosophy - it isn’t - it is theology - because embracing the Real Presence requires faith. The change is real - and mysterious - thus defying explanation.

At the epiclesis, if one embraces Transubstantiation (which Catholics should do), the substance of bread and wine are replaced by the substance of Jesus’s body and blood (and NOT the accidents of wine and bread). This supposes the following metaphysical givens (these are more clearly enunciated by Kenny Pearce):

1. Everything has a “substance” (matter and form) which is distinct from its “accidents” and “species” (in other words, how it strikes the senses) and in which its accidents inhere.
2. There are some material objects which have no essential properties - i.e., all of their properties can change while their identity remains intact. (such as Christ’s Body and Blood)
3. The identity of material objects over time does not require spatiotemporal (that is, existing in time and space) or causal continuity.

As Pearce notes, the Alexandrian school and Augustinian schools of thoughts would have had serious reservations with #1 and #2; they were Platonist in metaphysical view and transubstantiation would make absolutely no sense - which is NOT to say that they didn’t embrace the Real Presence, because they most certainly DID, as did the early liturgies of the Didache and Justin Martyr.

Now, if you are an Aristotelian or a Thomist, you’re going to have no problems with transubstantiation. This is, however, precisely why the Eastern Church continues to distance itself from using the term transubstantiation - for at least two reasons: (1) it is too “confining”, and (2) Aristoltelian metaphysics comes into conflict when you deal with matters mysterious.

My problem is that I cannot in any stretch of the imagination reconcile the purest definition of a sacrament with Aristotelian metaphysics, because - in my view - to do so means you have to use reason to define a mystery. That is a non sequitur if there ever was one.

Maybe this gets more at the OP - I don’t think the ECF’s would have delineated the Real Presence so much. It’s the Body and Blood of Christ. Period. An outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace.

Science was in vogue when transubstantiation came on the scene. It was, in my opinion, a mistake to embrace a concept that would require so much education in philosophy to fully embrace.

Why not leave the mystery a mystery!! To me, that is a much more powerful statement.

O+

I think, OS, that the answer cannot be found with you. You have an understanding of the Real Presence, even if it is different than mine. We can agree that something happens and that Christ is present. The words are not the keys. Am I mistaken in thinking that the Church moved to the definition to deal with those who did not accept the Real Presence? IN other words, it was to deal with a specific heresy that Christ was not present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Those who are non-Catholic, but understand the Real Presence, may get bogged down with the definition, because the mystery is allowed to remain a mystery.

Does this make sense?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Man, that has been covered soooo many times.

The Trinity is clear and evident in Scripture. Transubstantiation is not.

If that word helps you to believe and explain the great Mystery of the Eucharist, then by all means, use it.

PS–The undivided Church did not view the Pope as some supreme authority over the Council. In fact, the Pope usually sent legates in his place. It was the Council which made decisions(which included the representation of the bishop of Rome).

**Transubstantiation is evident in scripture, at the last supper, on the road to Emmaus. I can see it , just like the Trinity in scripture, but those of the flesh refuse to see with their eyes. 'Jesus presenting bread to his disciples, they see bread, Jesus says this is my body eat. Transubstantiatioin. Its not the word Mickey its the unbelief against the word. If you have a problem with faith in trasubstantiation from your pride then by all means remain, but dont blast a teaching of the Church which you cant explain from your pride.

Your explanation of the Pope existing in these councils states alot. You refusing to believe if he moved he will get his Head chopped off, and or He was Ill does not justify your claim of his authority in these councils. His delegates prove his presence, and the Emperors recognized his authority as well as the eastern Saints. You again are asserting a Supreme authority when there was none needed, only when it called for it. The Pope steps in with “Thus says the Lord” but this is off topic. Sorry**

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

My,My can Jesus simplify this for you.

“This is my body” Jesus shows bread to the apostles, what do they see? bread of course. To their natural senses it is bread. Jesus states thiis “bread is my body” now what do they see? bread again, very good. Now Jesus states The Spirit gives life WHILE the flesh is of no avail. So now that we see bread according to the flesh it is of no avail, It is the Spirit that gives life, the soul is what sees with the eyes of the Spirit that this is true food and true drink. Transubstantiation explained. To our natural flesh we see common bread, to our Spirit we see Jesus in this same consecrated Eucharist. Getting scientific is what started this explanation , the church states, that the bread and wine remain bread and wine to our Natural senses, but literally become the body,blood soul, divinity of Jesus Christ eternally in the Spirit. Thus simplified Transubstantiation.

 

[justinthemartyr]

Ask God.

Pray and ask God if this is true, and if it is or is not, then to reveal it to you either way. Say this prayer for as long as it takes, and because God is faithful, the answer will be revealed.

peace, Justin

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=O.S. Luke;3474400

So I take it you have no problem recognizing the Eucharist as a Sacrament. Or do you and others have a problem with the term Sacrament when applied to the Eucharis. The Sacrament is a word that comes to us also that gives a definition from the Church, dont tell me you have a problem with Sacrament that describes what it is, and Transubstantiation describes what it does. I dont find the logic of your disagreement other than it stays within the mental parameters of the Flesh, never leaving into the Mysteries, but you prefer mystery, but do not acknowllege the work of the mystery only the word. Unbelievable if you ask me.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=Mickey;3473303

Hey Mickey, There is no problem with referring to the Eucharist as a mystery. Roman Catholics do the same. If you want to call it a Mystery you wont get excommunicated for it.

But when an unbeliever asks you how does this happen, maintaining it to be a mystery is not a problem with the Roman Catholic church.

Tell me do you believe that the bread and wine remain bread and wine after the words of consecration?

do you believe that the consecrated bread and wine become the body and blood to our senses?

Or does the consecrated bread and wine remain the same as bread and wine?

be careful how you answer, because your going to place belief in transubstantiation and not know that you did.

 

[po18guy]

Peary,

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

They did not, however, teach Transubstantiation.

Careful here. You are attempting to prove a negative.

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

This assumption is not supported by their writings. Quite the contrary, my argumentative friend!

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, let’s substitute another theological term for argument’s sake: Trinity. Since the word does not exist in scripture, logic would tend to dictate that sola scripturists must not and do not believe it. Of course, that is a silly argument, since the concept is written of in scripture, even if a suitable name had not yet been applied to it. Nevertheless, many groups today disbelieve the concept, inductively reasoning from scripture.

Your line of argument apparently seeks to “reverse engineer” Christianity. It appears to take various of today’s beliefs (more correctly: doubts) and attempts to inductively reason their origins based on selected examples of prior thought. It either imposes current thoughts upon, or intersperses them within earlier writings and beliefs, attaching to voids in those earlier writings. The intent of this seems to be the justification of today’s doubts.

A reverse chronology can be very misleading, since it runs counter to the development of doctrine based on thought. Time runs forward, and man’s knowledge and beliefs follow, based on a development of understanding. As this same development of understanding lead to the term “trinity”, so did this development lead to the term “transsubstantiation”.

The early church fathers had similar arguments, as they encountered such non-belief in their missionary travels. Know this: many Christians appear to be comfortable with less faith, less belief than the early church. I ask my brother and sister Christians no to criticize those whose beliefs are more profound than theirs - rather, that they seek to understand them. Then, they may make an informed decision.

Easter blessings.

 

[Steadfast]

The idea that something can appear to be one thing but really be another was never a part of any theology before the scholastics got hold of Aristotle.

And even he, when he was formulating these ideas (accidens as distinct from essens), never suggested that they could be phenomenologically separated. This came from his thinking on the nature of things, on what constituted reality, universals, etc.

If a thing had the accidens or appearance of bread, it was not necessarily the essential bread which was an ideal or even an idea, but at the same time that appearance could never be separated from the essence it represented as a completely different thing.

When the church appropriated his language, they did not appropriate his thinking. He wasn’t defining distinct and separable phenomena, he was giving names to things in themselves and things as we encounter them.

Very abstruse, I know, but it’s true nonetheless.

This doesn’t mean that the bread and wine don’t cease to be bread and wine at the consecration but it does mean that the guy who came up with the language used to describe this would have been completely befuddled by the misappropriation of his terms.

The incarnational idea is essential here for making sense of all this. We must ask if the Incarnation is properly shown in all this and with Transubstantiation we would have to conclude (if we are fair) that it does not.

When God, in Christ, became man, He did not cease being God, He is both God and man. In the same way the terrestrial and the divine attributes are, in the sacrament, joined so that both Body and bread, Blood and wine are present. This way not only is the Incarnation properly published but God’s commonality with us, His coming to us in mercy and grace, not as Someone Completely Other, but as one of us, is also displayed.

 

[Steadfast]

Po,

It’s really much simpler than all that.

Again, I don’t care if the word can be found.

The idea isn’t there.

The idea that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood is there. But the idea that they bread and wine cease to exist and only His Body and Blood remain is unknown to them and doesn’t even show a shadow until Cyril.

I do not deny that it is a development, I simply deny that it can be found and drawn from their writings without the importation of alien philosophical ideas.

 

[O.S.Luke]

My,My can Jesus simplify this for you.

“This is my body” Jesus shows bread to the apostles, what do they see? bread of course. To their natural senses it is bread. Jesus states thiis “bread is my body” now what do they see? bread again, very good. Now Jesus states The Spirit gives life WHILE the flesh is of no avail. So now that we see bread according to the flesh it is of no avail, It is the Spirit that gives life, the soul is what sees with the eyes of the Spirit that this is true food and true drink. Transubstantiation explained. To our natural flesh we see common bread, to our Spirit we see Jesus in this same consecrated Eucharist. Getting scientific is what started this explanation , the church states, that the bread and wine remain bread and wine to our Natural senses, but literally become the body,blood soul, divinity of Jesus Christ eternally in the Spirit. Thus simplified Transubstantiation.

I think I would actually agree with what you say if you are trying to define the Real Presence. But I am not sure that the Magisterium would agree with you on your simplified definition of transubstantiation. The problem is - you CAN’T simplify it as you have.

As far as the Real Presence, it is simple enough for me. It is bread and wine… AND it is the Body and Blood of Christ. Both/ands are not an impossibility in a supernatural event. ALL celebrations of the Eucharist are miracles… by the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread and wine become Christ’s Body and Blood.

O+

 

[iGreg]

Catholics are Bible Christians. But we do not believe in Sola Scriptura. The Bible doesn’t even believe in Sola Scriptura.

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.

The Bible does indeed teach Sola Scriptura.

“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]

The earthly churches are are not the eternal church of Christ, they and everything else in this universe is doomed to fire, see II Peter 3:10:

“But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”
[2 Peter 3:10 - KJV]

The eternal church is not buildings or earthly organizations, it is the eternal spiritual church of all believers who ever lived.