Prove Transubtantiation and I will convert

[peary]

1. 
   
   That was fairly condescending regarding the elements.
   
   I have posted the beliefs of the United Methodist Church several times here regarding the Eucharist. You are mistaken about several things. I don’t expect you to be an expert in Methodist beliefs, but do you have to question what I say when I tell you official church standings?
   
   From the official UM statement regarding the Eucharist:
   
   You don’t have to agree. But don’t assume you speak for the United Methodist Church regarding its beliefs when you are misinformed.

1. 
   **It says NOTHING contrary to what I wrote. Again, Methodists reject that Christ is present body, blood, soul, and Divinity in holy communion. They believe that He is there spiritually “in presence” only, that Methodists do not use wine but grape juice, that the bread can be anything from hot dog buns to bakery loaves, and communion is celebrated usually once a month. They have an open communion (meaning anyone can receive), and yes, it cdan be a channel of grace for those receiving.
   
   I don’t pretend to speak for the UMC and I am not an expert on the UMC…but my wife’s mother is and we have attended often over the course of the years, unless they do it differently at different Methodist churches, but from my experience, they follow the same in this regard.**

 

[mangy_dog]

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).

How sad. You seem to be well on your way towards a self-styled form of “awareness of the divine”.

No church, no religion, no magisterium, no tradition, no hierarchy…just you and the bible.

If God gave instructions to make the images of angels over the ark - is the bible contradicting itself?

If Paul told the bretheren to hold to the teachings whether by “word” or by “letter”…does the bible contradict itself?

And your own passage - Matt 13:34 - does the bible or even Jesus contradict Himself?

Why would Jesus allow so many good disciples to walk away on a "mis-understanding?

If Jesus had meant that whole “my body and my blood” as a symbol…why didn’t He go after these guys and say, [hey wait you guys!..I meant that as a symbol…you’re not really going to drink my blood and eat my flesh. That would be crazy, c’mon back]
And if He had meant it as a symbol, why would He turn to His apostles and ask them what they were going to do?
Don’t you think He would’ve (if that was the case) let them “off the hook” and told them those dummies, they didn’t realize I was just talking about a symbol].

The way you are headed my friend - you’ll end up proclaiming a false teaching.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[catholiconce]

This post was taken off another thread where it was off topic.

The Bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus becaus scripture says it does. THE WORD BECOMES FLESH.
No man 1975 years latter (2008-33) can turn mere bread and wine into the body and blood of christ. I was a craddle catholic and always wondered about this. Romans use John 6:53 to claim they are the only ones to have eternal life because of Transubtanianon. John 6: 53 only states that those who partake in his body and blood will have eternal life. We par take in the sacrament because scripture says this is my body this is my blood. The catholic Church did not practice Transubtantiation until latter about 1300 ad. The very Catholic priest that The romans catholics kicked out Father Martin luther brought back the eucharist to the lay people and said mass in German some four hundred years before Vatican II. History has two sides to every story. If you read both sides you can find the truth for yourself.

 

[Mickey]

I don’t pretend to speak for the UMC .

Could have fooled me.

 

[catholiconce]

Thak you for your reply and I respect you and your belief. I was only trying to state mine

 

[peary]

Originally Posted by **iGreg **
John 6:63

*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).**

**It’s really unfortunate that you have come to those conclusions and that you feel so little remorse in leaving the Church. I doubt that you took your Faith seriously since you haven’t the slightest idea of biblical readings that have always been a part of the Liturgy (at least three-to-four every Sunday), and that the Liturgy itself has developed over time FROM Scriptures - at least 98%. Maybe it was very bad catechesis on the part of those who were supposed to be in charge of teaching the Faith to you properly; perhaps your parents did not practice the Faith in your own household. Maybe your parish didn’t have a youth group, or Bible Study, etc. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the lives of the saints, or that it was the Church who gave us the New Testament scriptures and preserved for us the Old Testament writings.

Be that as it may, I have nothing to offer you. However, if you are truly honest with yourself, you will study the Catholic Faith more closely than what you have done in the past and maybe you will eventually get all the answers you need. Two good websites for you to consider would be

www.catholic.com**

www.scripturecatholic.com

Both will give you a fundamental start on understanding the Faith you so sadly threw out of your life, along with your salvation. Godspeed.*

 

[catholiconce]

Are you sure you were ever Catholic? I would like to know the name of the parish you were baptized in, the date of your baptism and the name of the priest who baptized you. Your post is distinctly suspicious.

I was born in late September of 1964 in Conrad Mt. My family attended both St Micahaels in Conrad and St francis in Valier Mt. I was baptized as an infant. I never really questioned exactly when and where and by who. How would that change anything?
The First Priest I remember a child is Father Charles McCarthy of Saint Michaels in Conrad Mt I was a Roman Catholic until this Fall. I do not have to prove to you or anybody anything. You may question me because of how you define or misunderstand what I said. I never claimed to be the best typist or Proof reader. So please forgive any typo’s I am a little upset and have been through a great deal Thank You

 

[po18guy]

I was born in late September of 1964 in Conrad Mt. My family attended both St Micahaels in Conrad and St francis in Valier Mt. I was baptized as an infant. I never really questioned exactly when and where and by who. How would that change anything?
The First Priest I remember a child is Father Charles McCarthy of Saint Michaels in Conrad Mt I was a Roman Catholic until this Fall. I do not have to prove to you or anybody anything. You may question me because of how you define or misunderstand what I said. I never claimed to be the best typist or Proof reader. So please forgive any typo’s I am a little upset and have been through a great deal Thank You

My inquiry was to iGreg. Have you changed user names? I was incredulous because I have seen other, similar posts (NO allegation here) that were similar and did not appear to have been by someone who was ever Catholic. It was also unusual that someone who left the church out of whatever disagreement would ten come to the forums and become active. That’s all. It’s a street cred thing.

Christ’s peace.

 

[O.S.Luke]

It says NOTHING contrary to what I wrote. Again, Methodists reject that Christ is present body, blood, soul, and Divinity in holy communion. They believe that He is there spiritually “in presence” only

That’s NOT what the document, nor official Methodist statements, says. It says that Christ is really present… and doesn’t pretend to be able to fully explain how. It’s a mystery, and I am content to leave it that way.

that Methodists do not use wine but grape juice, that the bread can be anything from hot dog buns to bakery loaves, and communion is celebrated usually once a month.

Most Methodists do use grape juice. Some use wine. However, it is very clear that plain bread is to be used. And Eucharist is celebrated in UM Churches anywhere from daily to once a month.

They have an open communion (meaning anyone can receive).

This is not correct. Anyone can receive who can answer the following in the affirmative:

*Christ invites to his table all who love him,
who earnestly repent of their sin and seek to live in peace
with one another. Therefore, let us confess our sins before God
and one another… *

Only a Christian can answer that question in the affirmative. It is not an open table, as unbelievers would not be welcome.

I don’t pretend to speak for the UMC and I am not an expert on the UMC…but my wife’s mother is and we have attended often over the course of the years, unless they do it differently at different Methodist churches, but from my experience, they follow the same in this regard.

I would humbly suggest that if you want to pigeonhole another tradition, you need to witness more than just one church or a few members. I was a layperson for 23 years, and have been ordained for the last 20. I have never seen a hot dog bun used at a Eucharist. And half the churches I have served have had weekly celebrations of the Eucharist.

If I were to go by most of the Catholics I know, I would think that Catholics believe in birth control, think priests should be married, and don’t believe in transubstantiation. And if I did, I would of course be wrong.

O+

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

No you don’t.
That is because you are a triumphalist.
It is not wise to assume.

The Orthodox call the Holy Eucharist, “The Mystical Supper”.

Do you know why?

Because it is a Mystery.

The Mystery surpasses reason and understanding.

You can keep accusing me of all types of imaginary motives in your triumphalism, but in my heart I hold dear the glorious Mystery of the Mystical Supper. A Mystery that can never be expalined by philosophy.

Peace

**No dont get me wrong Mickey, I dont once doubt your faith in the mystery. In fact I tend to agree with you on the mystery of the Eucharist. I dont even use the word Transubstantiation only when asked what it means.

What I dont understand is why two Catholics who believe in the true Presence, can find a difference over one word Transubstantiation that does not reveal or exhaust the Mystical body of Jesus Christ. Only explains that something mystical happens to the bread and wine when the species are consecrated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

That is why I sense you have a problem with the authority of Rome, in her definition of this mystical union that cannot be explained, Just like when she gave us the Word Trinity.

You know Mickey I agree I am a triumphalist, I have been called worst things, and am probably those to. It is not easy being a fool for Jesus Christ.

Peace be with you **

 

[peary]

Quote:
Originally Posted by peary
*It says NOTHING contrary to what I wrote. Again, Methodists reject that Christ is present body, blood, soul, and Divinity in holy communion. They believe that He is there spiritually “in presence” only *

That’s NOT what the document, nor official Methodist statements, says. It says that Christ is really present… and doesn’t pretend to be able to fully explain how. It’s a mystery, and I am content to leave it that way.

You’ve been ordained for 20 years and you STILL don’t know what your denomination teaches on this? Methodists believe that the change is spiritual. The bread and wine SIGNIFY the body and blood of Christ. ‘Signify’ does not mean present body, blood, soul, and divinity.

**Quote:
that Methodists do not use wine but grape juice, that the bread can be anything from hot dog buns to bakery loaves, and communion is celebrated usually once a month. **

Most Methodists do use grape juice. Some use wine. However, it is very clear that plain bread is to be used. And Eucharist is celebrated in UM Churches anywhere from daily to once a month.

**Quote:
They have an open communion (meaning anyone can receive). **

This is not correct. Anyone can receive who can answer the following in the affirmative:

Christ invites to his table all who love him,
who earnestly repent of their sin and seek to live in peace
with one another. Therefore, let us confess our sins before God
and one another…

Only a Christian can answer that question in the affirmative. It is not an open table, as unbelievers would not be welcome.

Your ritual states: “Christ our Lord invites to his table all who love him, who earnestly repent of their sin and seek to live in peace with one another.” And Methodists practice “open communion” meaning anyone is free to partake of the ‘meal’. Why you are denying this is not understood. As The United Methodist “Book of Worship” puts it, "All who intend to lead a Christian life, together with their children, are invited to receive the bread and cup."

**Quote:
I don’t pretend to speak for the UMC and I am not an expert on the UMC…but my wife’s mother is and we have attended often over the course of the years, unless they do it differently at different Methodist churches, but from my experience, they follow the same in this regard. **

I would humbly suggest that if you want to pigeonhole another tradition, you need to witness more than just one church or a few members. I was a layperson for 23 years, and have been ordained for the last 20. I have never seen a hot dog bun used at a Eucharist. And half the churches I have served have had weekly celebrations of the Eucharist.

If I were to go by most of the Catholics I know, I would think that Catholics believe in birth control, think priests should be married, and don’t believe in transubstantiation. And if I did, I would of course be wrong.

If you have any other concerns, take it up with the pastor:
evumc.org/ I’m sure both of you would have a lively discussion.

 

[Ronald_E]

What I have learned after returning to our beautiful Catholic Faith that Jesus created with His Word is that I left our Catholic Faith at age 18 with a hatred of authority. I returned 40 years later only through the Grace of God.
What I observe with those who left Catholicism and those who have never joined our faith is a hardness in their heart that is very clear in their words. Since receiving Our Lord in the Eucharist I have become very sensitive to hostility separating me from the heart that Jesus gives me in the Eucharist and in Confession.
I have learned that I had no chance of believing Jesus being present in the Eucharist without God’s Grace which resulted in developing a humility of heart that allows the Spirit to reveal Jesus in the Eucharist.

 

[Steadfast]

See, this is what they do:

They ask why you left and then when you tell them, they correct you and tell you that really you were stupid, ignorant, lazy or just not paying attention…

Priceless…

 

[Ronald_E]

Steadfast,
I do not know if you were replying to my response. If you were it doesn’t appear that you so. I spoke of hostility that influenced my leaving and my observation of hostility in others who had also left Catholicism. Grace is what softened my heart and brought me back. I hope you were not responding to my comment because I said nothing that would relate to your response.

 

[Mickey]

Only explains that something mystical happens

My point exactly! There is no need for a strange word which tries to explain the Mystery through philosophy.

That is why I sense you have a problem with the authority of Rome

My authority is Jesus Christ. The bishops of the Holy Orthodox Church offer guidance. Do not assume that I have a problem with authority because I do not recognize the Pope of Rome as the supreme ruler of the universal Church.

It is not easy being a fool for Jesus Christ.

LOL. I do not think you would be a Fool for Christ if you knew about the Holy Fools. There is a good book about St Andrew the Fool for Christ. The Russian word for the Holy Fool is “Urodivoi”.

 

[Ronald_E]

I am entering this conversation without invitation. I hope this is ok. Mickey, I am curious as to why you do not recognize the Pope as being in the position of authority over the Church? What would be the problem?
Secondly, what is the problem with the term transubstantiation? If there is a problem with the Pope’s position in the Church and a certain word used to describe a divine mystery it seems to divide our faith and weaken the unity of love that Jesus prayed that we would have as He and the Father in Heaven have. It seems that the smallest conflict results in the loss of the perfect love that Jesus sacrificed His life for in order for us to see that we must give up every thing that divides us. The smallest, most insignificant point of conflict is used to create friction and thus we are caught in our own thinking and lose the humility that Jesus wants us to have.

 

[Mickey]

Mickey, I am curious as to why you do not recognize the Pope as being in the position of authority over the Church? What would be the problem?

The early undivided Church did not view the Pope of Rome as the supreme infallible ruler of the universal Church. This dogma was innovated by the Ultramontanists and defined by Pius IX in 1870.

But this is way off topic and if you do a seach you will see my participation in many papal threads.

Secondly, what is the problem with the term transubstantiation?

I have said a number of times now, if this word helps you, then run with it. Personally, the philosophical implications of the word detracts from the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist.

If there is a problem with the Pope’s position in the Church and a certain word used to describe a divine mystery it seems to divide our faith and weaken the unity of love that Jesus prayed that we would have as He and the Father in Heaven have.

John 17 is one of my favorite passages of Sacred Scripture.

Sadly Ron, there are many issues which divide Roman Catholicism and Holy Orthodoxy. Yet there is also much in common.

May the Holy Spirit heal the schism one day.

 

[Steadfast]

My response was in reference to Peary’s (and others’) consistent reduction of explanations as to why someone stopped being Catholic to implications of ignorance, laziness and immorality.

 

[Harpazo]

My response was in reference to Peary’s (and others’) consistent reduction of explanations as to why someone stopped being Catholic to implications of ignorance, laziness and immorality.

What other explanations could there be? If one possessed one of those three vices, they could very well be lead out of the Holy Catholic Church.

Al-Masih Qam!

Andrew

 

[peary]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steadfast
*My response was in reference to Peary’s (and others’) consistent reduction of explanations as to why someone stopped being Catholic to implications of ignorance, laziness and immorality. *

What other explanations could there be? If one possessed one of those three vices, they could very well be lead out of the Holy Catholic Church.

Al-Masih Qam!

Andrew

:clapping: