Prove Transubtantiation and I will convert

[chet]

Here is rich irony.

No child, not already indoctrinated, would read those fathers and infer from them that the men were teaching that the bread and wine cease to exist, only the appearances of bread and wine remaining.

Steadfast What does Jesus believe about Transubstantiation? Matt.26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19,1 Corinthians 11:24 Jesus is quoted as saying," this is My body" While it is not recorded that they then saw bread be physically turned into hunks of human flesh.They did not record Jesus as saying "My presence is now attached to this bread in a mystical way “Nor did Jesus say this is now both bread and My body” It would seem very clear that those who were present accepted Jesus’ words as fact, even though what they ate appeared to them as bread. He said it was his flesh.That was sufficient for them. [even though they probably didn’t totally understand.] Is it not sufficient for you? It is a scientific fact that things are not always as they seem. For example: Right now as you are sitting in front of your computer screen reading this you may perceive that you are not moving; When in fact you are moving at a very high rate of speed. You are on the Earth, and the Earth is spinning. It is also revolving around the Sun which is also in motion.Do you believe in air? Do you believe in God? Not every reality is sense perceptible. Some things rely on faith.Also how does Luther’s theology fit in with Eucharistic miracles like the one in post #67? And I’m sure you realize that Sola Scriptura and Sola Fida are both unscriptural; But those are topics for other discussions.

 

[Fredrick_Correa]

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

Take a simple example. In the court when a person who has committed murder is brought before the judge, there are arguements for and against. The person is innocent till proved guilty. When the judge pronouces his judgement, that the person is a murderer, the status of the person from innocence becomes a murderer. The word of the judge makes the difference. There is no change in the size or colour of the person who is now pronounced a murderer but he has become a murderer because of the pronouncement of the judge.

In the same manner, there is no physical visual change in the bread and wine immediately after the consecration. But on the word of the priest, it has changed. The command was given by Jesus Himself to His apostles when he said, do this in memory of Me. The apostles obeyed the commandment and passed on the command to the followers They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Acts 2: 42

Fredrick Correa, Nairobi

When wicked men blaspheme thee, I’ll love and Bless thy name!

 

[averheyen]

As for productivity, this discussion should have been very productive for those of you who want to believe that the church currently believes exactly as it always has about the Sacrament and especially that all the fathers believed it too.

But I suspect, and this suspicion is borne of long experience, that just like many another calumny, you won’t let facts get in the way of a good story.

You know Steadfast,

Based upon reading you definition of the real pressance, I really don’t understand why you wouldn’t accept the idea of transubstantion.

It just seems like it’s everything besides the point, you don’t loose any of your viewpoint either way. It doesn’t seem to be a “threat” of “challenge” of any sorts, based upon the way you defined it.

either way, you still believe in the real pressance, why make this such an issue?

Move on. Transubstantion isn’t such a terrible thing. You could just as easily accept it without flowing into anything heretical.

 

[JohnnyReb]

I don’t claim to have a fraction of the theological or apologetic horsepower of most on this thread, but I’ll make a modest post anyway concerning my opinion on the subject.

I believe in the Real Presence and I haven’t the foggiest idea how to explain the mystery. As a Catholic, my faith teaches that the theological explanation is transubstantiation. That teaching is good enough for me. I don’t understand it, nor do I really feel intellectually capable of fully comprehending the mystery.

As to whether the full theological understanding of transubstantiation was contained in the writings of the ECFs, I really couldn’t care less. They clearly taught the Real Presence. For all I know, they didn’t understand exactly how it happened either. I have no problem accepting that the understanding of the Real Presence developed more clearly over time, and in the Catholic tradition, that understanding is Transubstantiation…

I guess I don’t see what all the fuss is about. It seems like a endless argument. Steadfast will continue believing what he believes and the rest of us will believe what our faith tradition teaches.

I can live with that.

Blessings.

I have read this thread and believe you are right. Transubstantiation, whether a later development or not, is taught by the Church as an explaination of how Real Presence occurs, how the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, correct?

Protestants do not accept the teaching authority of the church, and therefore reject any beliefs that the Catholic church teaches that their church does not.

I could be wrong because I am just converting to the Church, but I don’t see a need to get hung up on how the bread and wine are transformed, I just have faith that they are. The Church uses transubstantitation to explain how.

 

[Steadfast]

As Big Daddy Bill said, “It depends on your definition of the word is.” If the bread and wine becomes the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, is there room for bread and wine? “This IS my Body” indicates to me that there is nothing but Christ there. Now, you may see is as meaning “along with” or “includes” or whatever, but that is not what it means to me. Does this match the ECFs? It seems to to me, but I am just a REALTOR from Alabama, and as C-3PO would say, not much of an expert in these matters. “Is” to me is a statement of essence in this matter, and I think that the ECFs would agree.

When God became man did He cease to be God?

 

[Steadfast]

Hi

I think it is just a fanciful thinking of the Catholic and Non-Catholic Christians. It can never be proved to a secular thinking, in my opinion.

Thanks

With all due respect, “secular thinking” is totally irrelevant.

We’re discussing a miracle.

 

[Steadfast]

Steadfast What does Jesus believe about Transubstantiation? Matt.26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19,1 Corinthians 11:24 Jesus is quoted as saying," this is My body" While it is not recorded that they then saw bread be physically turned into hunks of human flesh.They did not record Jesus as saying "My presence is now attached to this bread in a mystical way “Nor did Jesus say this is now both bread and My body” It would seem very clear that those who were present accepted Jesus’ words as fact, even though what they ate appeared to them as bread. He said it was his flesh.That was sufficient for them. [even though they probably didn’t totally understand.] Is it not sufficient for you? It is a scientific fact that things are not always as they seem. For example: Right now as you are sitting in front of your computer screen reading this you may perceive that you are not moving; When in fact you are moving at a very high rate of speed. You are on the Earth, and the Earth is spinning. It is also revolving around the Sun which is also in motion.Do you believe in air? Do you believe in God? Not every reality is sense perceptible. Some things rely on faith.Also how does Luther’s theology fit in with Eucharistic miracles like the one in post #67? And I’m sure you realize that Sola Scriptura and Sola Fida are both unscriptural; But those are topics for other discussions.

Chet,

Paragraph breaks would be helpful.

You are assuming that bread and wine cannot become the Body and Blood of Christ and remain having done so. This assumption is unnecessary.

Again, when God became man, He did not cease to be God, nor did He always cease to appear as God. His disciples recognized Him.

There is a deep connection between the Eucharist and the Incarnation.

 

[Steadfast]

I have read this thread and believe you are right. Transubstantiation, whether a later development or not, is taught by the Church as an explaination of how Real Presence occurs, how the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, correct?

Protestants do not accept the teaching authority of the church, and therefore reject any beliefs that the Catholic church teaches that their church does not.

I could be wrong because I am just converting to the Church, but I don’t see a need to get hung up on how the bread and wine are transformed, I just have faith that they are. The Church uses transubstantitation to explain how.

This is pretty charitable and I agree with it.

The point for me was that the RCC often claims never to have “changed” her doctrine although since Newman she has learned how to admit “development”.

Now the line between “development” and “change” is very thinly drawn; ask any biologist.

Anyhow, what I am getting at is that even upholding the idea that the church has never changed but only developed doctrine should not necessitate the somewhat cartoonish view of theological history common not just to Catholics but to many of every Christian variety.

It is no offense to your faith to admit that until your church defined her belief in terms that would come to be called “Transubstantiation” (including the idea that the essence of the bread and wine cease only the appearances remaining), it was permissible to hold a less evolved perspective and one which, frankly Lutherans would later have no difficulty embracing.

It wouldn’t make these people Lutherans.

It has been very interesting to me to see you adduce these passages from the father in support of Transubstantiation. Your blind assumption that their belief was identical to that of your church today is very telling about how you view doctrine and its development in the life of the church.

You need to go back to school with Cardinal Newman.

 

[ralphinal]

When God became man did He cease to be God?

True. That is also a unique situation. He was like man in all things but sin. There are special mysteries involved in that as well. Did he have two wills? Two souls? This does get into the hypostatic union, but we should go there at this time. Why does the idea of Transubstantiation bother you so much? Personally, I like it better from a metaphysical standpoint than any other option.

 

[Pier]

When God became man did He cease to be God?

**
No, He did not cease to be God.

& as was noted before, the Bible tells us that at the Last Supper, Christ did the following:

Of the bread He said: This is my Body.

Of the wine He said: This is my Blood.

&

To His disciples He instructed: Do this in memory of me.**

 

[peary]

Rolltide -
i hope your efforts are not in vain. I think what he is actually asking is - if you can ‘prove’ beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus is present in Eucharist - body, blood, soul, and divinity - he’ll sign up for RCIA. Proving that a belief goes back since the beginning of the Church is not is what he wants from us. He wants ‘proof’ that it occurs.

 

[Steadfast]

Rolltide -
i hope your efforts are not in vain. I think what he is actually asking is - if you can ‘prove’ beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus is present in Eucharist - body, blood, soul, and divinity - he’ll sign up for RCIA. Proving that a belief goes back since the beginning of the Church is not is what he wants from us. He wants ‘proof’ that it occurs.

No, there’s no need to prove that. As I’ve said OVER AND OVER AGAIN, I already believe it. I just believe that along with those things bread and wine remain present.

 

[Steadfast]

True. That is also a unique situation. He was like man in all things but sin. There are special mysteries involved in that as well. Did he have two wills? Two souls? This does get into the hypostatic union, but we should go there at this time. Why does the idea of Transubstantiation bother you so much? Personally, I like it better from a metaphysical standpoint than any other option.

And the Eucharist pictures the Incarnation, this is why we speak of a communication of attributes when talking about both of them.

There is no reason to believe that if Christ is both God and man that in the Eucharist we don’t receive both the bread and wine as well as the Body and Blood.

Because the Lord’s Supper IS the Gospel. It is God coming to us in an earthly agency to save us.

 

[JohnnyReb]

This is pretty charitable and I agree with it.

The point for me was that the RCC often claims never to have “changed” her doctrine although since Newman she has learned how to admit “development”.

Now the line between “development” and “change” is very thinly drawn; ask any biologist.

Anyhow, what I am getting at is that even upholding the idea that the church has never changed but only developed doctrine should not necessitate the somewhat cartoonish view of theological history common not just to Catholics but to many of every Christian variety.

It is no offense to your faith to admit that until your church defined her belief in terms that would come to be called “Transubstantiation” (including the idea that the essence of the bread and wine cease only the appearances remaining), it was permissible to hold a less evolved perspective and one which, frankly Lutherans would later have no difficulty embracing.

It wouldn’t make these people Lutherans.

If I asked you, prove from the writings of the ECFs that they would reject the idea of transubstantiation if presented with it, could you do it? Not likely.

The beginning of this thread challenges Catholics to prove transubstantiation. I think others have done a fine job in showing how the doctrine is proven or at the very least, does not contradict the teachings of the ECFs.

The Lutheran view may not contradict the ECFs either, but could you prove that the ECFs clearly taught the Lutheran view (not that it is just compatible with the teachings of the ECFs). I doubt it. The Lutheran view represents a theological development (or at least an interpretation of the ECFs teachings) in the doctrine of real presence as much as the Catholic view does.

It has been very interesting to me to see you adduce these passages from the father in support of Transubstantiation. Your blind assumption that their belief was identical to that of your church today is very telling about how you view doctrine and its development in the life of the church.

You need to go back to school with Cardinal Newman.

Well as I point out above, my assumptions, or those of any Catholic, are no more blind than yours.

 

[eliasaph99]

When God became man did He cease to be God?

That is hardly a comparison to the discussion.

God is spirit. Spirit has a wholly different existence than matter and we have very little idea as to the rules under which it operates.

On the other hand, bread is matter. If the bread becomes flesh, it is not bread any longer because flesh and bread are both matter. The only thing which there is to be changed is the matter. Bread does not have a spirit of breadness about it which is changed into a spirit of fleshness.

There is a change from one to the other and the first ceases to be. This is how matter behaves.

 

[peary]

But Irenaeus had heretical belief about the Eucharist. Wasn’t he then excommunicatus per laetae sententiae?

Oh, REALLY?

**“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]). **

**“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2). **

That doesn’t sound heretical to me!

 

[chet]

No, there’s no need to prove that. As I’ve said OVER AND OVER AGAIN, I already believe it. I just believe that along with those things bread and wine remain present.

The question is which theological development is correct Catholics or Lutherans or someone else’s. It’s a question of whose doctrine is the Holy Spirit protecting from error.

John 16:12-14 ** "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.** But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you.

Acts 1:1-2 The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after **He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles **whom He had chosen.

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.’ [Mathew 16:17-19] And again He says to him after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet** He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. ** Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord.** If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” ****St. Cyprian, AD 251 ** **The Unity of the Catholic Church **

The Catholic church was established by Christs Authority:The Lutheran Church by Luthers Authority.Whom should I trust?

 

[paarsurrey]

John 16:12-14 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you.

Hi

I think my Catholic and Non-Catholic Christians friends won’t mind, we Muslims believe that the above “Spirit of truth” is Muhammad. Muhammad received revelation from GodAllahYHWh; every chapter of Quran (except one) starts with the words "In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful ", so Muhammad did not speak from himself , he spoke what he heard from GodAllahYHWH, that is what we Muslims understand from John 16:12-14 .

Thanks

 

[chet]

Hi

I think my Catholic and Non-Catholic Christians friends won’t mind, we Muslims believe that the above “Spirit of truth” is Muhammad. Muhammad received revelation from GodAllahYHWh; every chapter of Quran (except one) starts with the words "In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful ", so Muhammad did not speak from himself , he spoke what he heard from GodAllahYHWH, that is what we Muslims understand from John 16:12-14 .

Thanks

paarsurrey The Bible tell us that the Holy Spirit Spoke to the Apostles after Jesus rose from the dead speaking to them what Jesus wanted them to know.John 16:12-14

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you.

**

Acts 1:1-2 The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus

began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the Apostles whom He had chosen.

**paarsurrey Your understanding is totally contradicts the historical facts contained is the Holy Scripture! Not to mention your totally off topic.

 

[JohnnyReb]

The question is which theological development is correct Catholics or Lutherans or someone else’s. It’s a question of whose doctrine is the Holy Spirit protecting from error. The Catholic church was established by Christs Authority:The Lutheran Church by Luthers Authority.Whom should I trust?

Exactly.