Prove Transubtantiation and I will convert

[peary]

Peary,

With all due respect, we aren’t arguing about whether or how your church came to espouse transubstantiation as its approved theory for explaining the Real Presence.

No one is denying that that is your church’s definition.

What is at question is whether the ECF’s taught it. They do not seem to have done so.

I have made no secret of the fact that I think Transubstantiation properly so called is an unnecessary importation of philosophical terms into what is, after all, a mystery. Mysteries require no explanation.

That’s why we call them mysteries.

Good. Then WHY BOTHER DISCUSSING IT AT ALL?

 

[chet]

Originally Posted by Steadfast View Post
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 always comes back to that for us, doesn’t it?

The question of authority.

Needless to say, I reject your authority, and, frankly, you’re pretty sad defenders of its claims.

You’ve certainly said nothing in this thread that would incline me to change my mind about it.

You were asked to prove that the ECF’s taught Transubstantiation, you failed and when this was pointed out you went all girly and the burden shifting, histrionics and appeals to controverted authority were on.

Pathetic.

Originally Posted by Steadfast

It always comes back to that for us, doesn’t it?

The question of authority.

Needless to say, I reject your authority, and, frankly, you’re pretty sad defenders of its claims.

You’ve certainly said nothing in this thread that would incline me to change my mind about it.

                                                                        Steadfast you said your self that both Catholics and Lutherans look at the same ECF's writings and interpret it to say what we've each been taught it says.                                                      Because no ECF's say that it remains bread but Jesus is added to it!

In the same way the terrestrial elements communicate of the divine attributes in the Eucharist.The analogy is as perfect as analogies get.

                                                                            Unless you can show that is what the ECF's consistently taught, then you will have to concede that your view is a theological development not taught by the ECF's.                                      So if that is true than 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?                                       Originally Posted by Steadfast

Needless to say, I reject your authority,

As all true Protestants should! Because if you didn’t,you would become what your sure is wrong! Catholic!“

I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”** Martin Luther to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519 Written More than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses! quoted in The Facts about Luther, 356**

 

[vocatio]

I appreciate the theological rhetoric, however, it is not necessary to be a theologian to see very clearly from scriptures that the true presence of Christ is taught. The ECF’s just carried on that same belief. John 6 would be enough. Most Protestants crucify this scripture to mean something comepletely non-scriptural and take other scripture out of context and derive conclusions incorrectly from words that do not mean what they claim. It’s what I call black liners or high lighters.

Getting away from all the good arguemtnets, I’ll just jump to this point. Not believing in the real presence in essence is a denial of the divinity of Christ…even if it is not meant to be so because Jesus clearly said/implied/meant it to be as such… Have you ever wondered where the rumor that the early fear of Christians were that they are canibals? That’s because of the “Lord’s Supper” … or better the Eucharist. But I as well as many Catholics and apostolic churches pray for those that just are blinded by their own concupicence. I took a walk on the dark side of the Protestant lack of belief in the real presence for over 17 years. That would be true in an ecclesial community but not a Church with valid ordinations. Sorry… but no bone for this argument. I think that if you open your heart to truly trying to understand and realize the truth your life would change in ways that would blow you away with real sanctifying grace. Scott Hahn has really some of the best arguments that point this stuff out. But he is not the inventor of it. He just sort of resurected it in the midst of chaos.

 

[chet]

I appreciate the theological rhetoric, however, it is not necessary to be a theologian to see very clearly from scriptures that the true presence of Christ is taught. The ECF’s just carried on that same belief. John 6 would be enough. Most Protestants crucify this scripture to mean something completely non-scriptural and take other scripture out of context and derive conclusions incorrectly from words that do not mean what they claim.

Vocatio, Steadfast is not denying,The real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist! He believes that it remains bread but Jesus is just added to it! "In the same way the terrestrial elements communicate of the divine attributes in the Eucharist." He just denies the Catholic term transubstantiation:And its definition as what actually happens at the consecration.But what is clear is that his definition and understanding have less Biblical and ECF support than the Catholic understanding.

 

[chet]

Originally Posted by Steadfast View Post
It always comes back to that for us, doesn’t it?

The question of authority.

Needless to say, I reject your authority, and, frankly, you’re pretty sad defenders of its claims.

You’ve certainly said nothing in this thread that would incline me to change my mind about it.

You were asked to prove that the ECF’s taught Transubstantiation, you failed and when this was pointed out you went all girly and the burden shifting, histrionics and appeals to controverted authority were on.

Pathetic.

Steadfast, I’m sorry if my rational offended you.I see that authority is a touchy subject with you.It really doesn’t bother me If you need some one to vent at.Since you wouldn’t except all the evidence put before you as conclusive.Than it only makes sense to approach the discussion from other relevant angles of reason.[that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.]

 

[Steadfast]

Good. Then WHY BOTHER DISCUSSING IT AT ALL?

I DON’T KNOW, I DIDN’T START THE THREAD.

 

[Steadfast]

Chet,

You’re reducing my view.

You are telling me what I believe.

This is uncharitable.

Lutherans do not believe that Christ is merely “added to” the bread and wine.

As I have said repeatedly, REPEATEDLY, the bread and wine BECOME the Body and Blood of Jesus but that the ensuing claim of Transubstantiation goes beyond both what is materially necessary and what any of the fathers (with the exception of Cyril) say on the matter when it insists that the bread and wine at this point cease to exist, only their appearances remaining.

Oh, and one more thing about evidence?

Neither you nor any of the Catholics in this discussion have given any which shows that the fathers taught and believed in Transubstantiation and repeated claims that they did will not make it so.

 

[JohnnyReb]

It always comes back to that for us, doesn’t it?

The question of authority.

Needless to say, I reject your authority, and, frankly, you’re pretty sad defenders of its claims.

You’ve certainly said nothing in this thread that would incline me to change my mind about it.

You were asked to prove that the ECF’s taught Transubstantiation, you failed and when this was pointed out you went all girly and the burden shifting, histrionics and appeals to controverted authority were on.

Pathetic.

There is nothing that could be said that would change your mind about authority claims. Your mind is made up. Your mind was made up about the ECFs from the time you began discussing the topic. Nothing that a Catholic apologist could say would change your mind about the ECFs teachings.

 

[ralphinal]

What would the advantage be of the bread and wine remaining? What would the advantage be of transubstantiation?

 

[elvisman]

No, that’s not what I’m looking for.

Iron Monkey has given me what I’m looking for but it appears to have been a minority opinion from somewhat late. This is good and important because it provides an excellent precedent but it is far from convincing proof that even a majority of the ECF’s believed similarly.

Again, Irenaeus clearly did not.

And now I’m going to ignore you because you’re being annoying and unreasonable and you’re making a fool of yourself and I would spare you any encouragement in that direction.

That’s PRECISELY what you’re looking for.
As JohnnyReb stated, your mind was made up about this from the time you began discussing the topic.
**You don’t want to know the truth - you are merely here to spout off your opinions - in an extremely condescending manner, I might add. **You are simply another in the growing number of uncharitable antagonists who come here MERELY to antagonize.
That’s why I admonished you to seek another hobby.

 

[chet]

I DON’T KNOW, I DIDN’T START THE THREAD.

Originally Posted by Steadfast View Post

If you can show me ECF’s taught and believed that the bread and wine were changed into the Body and Blood of Christ such that the bread and wine ceased to exist only the accidents remaining, I will enroll in RCIA today.

It appears that in a round about way you did. Just curious Steadfast, but can you show us that ECF’s believe what you claim they believed? That the Eucharist becomes truly the body and blood of Christ; but the bread and wine also remain bread and wine? Because you said they were Lutheran in their understanding. Thanks,Chet

 

[chet]

I just realized the development of Theology for protestants is very much a trap.If they stick with what is only in the Bible it can’t develop.If they follow what the reformers actually taught then they find it’s either too Catholic; or it doesn’t fit in with what the fullness of scripture reveals.If they try to incorporate Early Church Fathers they have to navigate a land mine field of Catholic ideas.Finally they run the risk of developing either truly heretical ideas that are not from the Holy Spirit;Or worse they develop theology and in site that they later discover the Catholic Church had for centuries.

 

[mangy_dog]

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

One time Jesus was talking to His disciples (the twelve were there also). And He was telling them how they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood, and whoever didn’t eat His flesh and drink His blood could not have life in them etc etc. He went on and on about His flesh and His blood. Now this was a time and a place and a people that had complete aversion to blood of any animal let alone drinking the blood of a man!! Their minds must’ve been reeling. Jesus (being God) knew that their minds were reeling. And a large group of these disciples said, " this doctrine is harsh we cannot stand this doctrine" and they left, walked away. Now why would Jesus just let good disciple walk away if He was only talking about a symbol? Surely if it was a symbol He would’ve caught up to them and said, " wait , wait…what I meant was the bread and wine will be “like” my flesh and blood." But, we all know that Jesus didn’t do that. Nor!! did He turn to the twelve and say, “those dummies, they didn’t understand that I was talking about a symbol”. Instead!! He asked, …“and you, what are you going to do?” The Apostles must’ve shot looks and glances at each other and then all turned towards their de facto spokesman, Peter. Peter taking the word said, " Whom shall we go to Lord, you have the words of life."

Please go to your nearest Catholic Church and speak with the priest there to enroll in RCIA.
Let me be the first to welcome you to the Catholic Church, …welcome home!!

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[OhioBob]

Originally Posted by Steadfast View Post
It appears that in a round about way you did. Just curious Steadfast, but can you show us that ECF’s believe what you claim they believed? That the Eucharist becomes truly the body and blood of Christ; but the bread and wine also remain bread and wine? Because you said they were Lutheran in their understanding. Thanks,Chet

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that exactly what the term “transubstantiation” was coined to describe? That the “is” of the bread and wine is transformed to the body and blood of Christ, yet the outward perceptible physical properties of the bread and wine (the accidents) remain?

Christ is spoken of as a single divine person (the “is”) with two natures - human and divine. He is not two persons in one (the old “God in a man suit” analogy). Similarly (albeit loosely), is not the Eucharist a single divine “person” with outward physical properties of bread and wine?

I believe that while the ECFs may not have know the term “transubstantiation”, what they taught was essentially that. That the bread and wine became fully and completely the body and blood of Christ even though the outward physical qualities of the bread and wine remained. Apparently, short of an ECF writing using the exact term “transubstantiation”, there is no argument that Steadfast will consider compelling.

This horse seems to be pretty dead by now.

 

[Monkey1976]

Given that St. Cyril of Jerusalem spoke pretty clearly about transubstantiation in the 4th century, I’m a little unclear on what the OP’s definition of “Early Church Father” is. How early is considered “Early”?

 

[YADA]

Given that St. Cyril of Jerusalem spoke pretty clearly about transubstantiation in the 4th century, I’m a little unclear on what the OP’s definition of “Early Church Father” is. How early is considered “Early”?

Well, it has to be earlier than any first reference or else they can’t prove their point if ECF “A” says Belief XYZ in 473 AD than that is not early enough…

If ECF “Z” says Belief JKL in 173 AD then Belief JKL is not true becuase it was not mentioned prior to 173 AD… it i a “Cathloic Invention” even though we allknow that Catholics were not invented until 311 AD with Constintine or later by some other reprobate…

OKAY sarcasm off

 

[chet]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that exactly what the term “transubstantiation” was coined to describe? That the “is” of the bread and wine is transformed to the body and blood of Christ, yet the outward perceptible physical properties of the bread and wine (the accidents) remain?

Christ is spoken of as a single divine person (the “is”) with two natures - human and divine. He is not two persons in one (the old “God in a man suit” analogy). Similarly (albeit loosely), is not the Eucharist a single divine “person” with outward physical properties of bread and wine?

I believe that while the ECFs may not have know the term “transubstantiation”, what they taught was essentially that. That the bread and wine became fully and completely the body and blood of Christ even though the outward physical qualities of the bread and wine remained. Apparently, short of an ECF writing using the exact term “transubstantiation”, there is no argument that Steadfast will consider compelling.

This horse seems to be pretty dead by now.

Actually Steadfast/Lutheran interpretation as he has expressed appears to be ; that just as Jesus was fully human and fully divine / The bread remains fully bread [not just the outward physical qualities of bread] / but is likewise fully, or at least substantially Jesus after the consecration.Something I believe that he cannot show conclusively shown from the Bible or the ECF,s.So it is a developed Theology though he appears to claim it is not.

 

[HollyDolly]

Don’t know if anyone has mentioned this,but type in eucharistic miracles,and you will find some miracles of the Holy Eucharist.Some of these have been subjected to scientific testing
and prove they are human flesh and blood.

 

[steve_b]

All of those could just as easily be teaching the common Lutheran view or consubstantiation.
I was asking for evidence of Transubstantiation proper, where, when the priest says “hoc est corpus meum” the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine at all but are completely changed such that all that is left are the body and blood of Christ with only the appearance of bread and wine remaining.

• In John’s Gospel (bread of life discourse Jn 6:50…) was Jesus speaking literally or figuratively? How would someone eat His flesh and drink His blood thereby doing what Jesus is prescribing? If He was speaking figuratively, why did most of His disciples leave Him over it? [Jn 6:66]
• Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”[Mt 26:25] Is Jesus, second person of the blessed Trinity, speaking literally here or figuratively?
• Then Jesus said “do this in memory of me.” [Lk 22:19] Do what? Does this literally mean to do what Jesus did with all its realities, or is it just figurative ?

 

[whatistruth]

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

He wants proof of “Transubtantiation” in the Eucharist so here is the best attempt: St.Jerome translated the Lord’s Prayer or the “Our Father” all the way down to its literal translation and meaning. He was able to translate “Our Daily bread” in english from the Greek “epiussion” to the latin “Supersubstantialem” which means “Spiritual Bread from Heaven”. This is the word and the meaning “Transubtantiation” derived from.

Also, Read John 16:25-32 where Jesus is stating he is no longer speaking figuratively or symbolically but speaking plainly. Where is Jesus speaking plainly to his Apostles in John 16:25-32? The Upper Room in the doctrine of his “True Presence” in the bread and wine “Supersubstantialem”!

Come on home and sign up for RCIA and participate in the “Marriage Feast of the Lamb”