Prove Transubtantiation and I will convert

[AlegreFe]

All of those could just as easily be teaching the common Lutheran view or consubstantiation.

I was asking for evidence of Transubstantiation proper, No you were not asking that according to your post in the other thread; see quote below where, when the priest says “hoc est enim 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.

(bold emphasis mine)
(red emphasis mine) You forgot "enim"

If you can show me where the 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.

According to your post here you were not asking for “evidence” for transubstantiation. You were asking for exactly what Manny and “Rolltide” and perhaps many others (haven’t read the whole thread) have already posted.

I have not read the rest of the thread (too long) but I’m sure they have answered your question.

I also say to you what Jesus told the disciples who refused to believe, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” in John 6:63. Since you are thinking “of the flesh” you do not believe. These are words that need to “Spirit” for you to BELIEVE. Only the Holy Spirit can make you have faith in these words of “eternal life” that Jesus spoke.

So my advice to you is to pray to the Holy Spirit for faith. Perhaps you can go to a Catholic Church and sit in front of Jesus in the tabernacle and pray right there. Ask Jesus, “if it is really you in there please let me know. Please show me a sign.” And don’t expect for an Angel to appear to you to tell you. That is not the “sign” I would mean for you to ask for. God speaks to us in many ways.

There was once a Baptist minister who wanted to know the TRUTH about the Eucharist. He sat in front of the tabernacle (EWTN’s chapel in Irondale, AL) and asked for a sign. He said, “… you have got to let me know TODAY. If you are here in this place in the way that these crazy people say, then let me know, please just speak to me today, let’s just settle this one way or the other today and I am not going to leave here until I get an answer…” He sat there for several hours. He had his bible with him. So he picked up his bible and opened it and put it down on the pew in front of him (he was probably kneeling) and right in front of his eyes HIGHLIGHTED he read “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you.” He said he normally does not play “bible roulette” so this was not his norm, first sign. The second sign, it was highlighted. The third sign, Jesus Himself telling this Baptist minister right in the bible, “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you.” He said that he obviously read it before but never understood it in the way the Holy Spirit revealed it to him on that day in that chapel right in front of Jesus.

God will give you “a sign” if you ask Him. It seems like you want to believe since you said if we prove to you that the ECFs believed & taught the real presence then you would sign up for RCIA. Well they presented you with plenty of letters from the ECFs. So when are you going to sign up?! I will gladly welcome you into the “home” that Jesus established especially for you. The Catholic Church and our Catholic faith is His gift to all of us who want to accept Him into our hearts. But we Catholics also accept Him substantially in the Eucharist. After all that is what Jesus commanded of us, to eat and drink of His body & blood.

Oh, btw that Baptist minister is now a Catholic Priest! He is now called FATHER Gray Bean! Alleluia! Praise the Lord! You can go to the Bible Christian Society website to download his conversion story. It’s free, you just have to type in your email. Click on the third link that says “Baptist Minister Becomes Priest.”

 

[AlegreFe]

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.

No one can “prove” transubstantiation the way that Steadfast would want it. You cannot put a consecrated host (Jesus) under a microscope and “see” the Divinity in there. All you will see is what the actual “accidents” consist of.

But I do like what you wrote there about Saint Jerome. If that doesn’t convince Steadfast, then only the Holy Spirit can convince him with something else.

 

[chet]

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.

I have

 

[AlegreFe]

As far as “proving” T. or the Real Presence… you can’t prove a mystery, silly folks. And that is the definition of a sacrament, whether one is Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox.

Sometimes… it may actually be that simple. Simple gifts, much grace.

O+

You are absolutely right about not being able to PROVE this mystery. It is not for us to understand. Who fully understands the Trinity and can prove the fact? No one. It is for us to have faith in the words that Jesus spoke to us. It is the Holy Spirit that will reveal the life that is in the words that Jesus told us. Then and only then will he believe.

I will pray for “Steadfast.”

Come Holy Spirit

Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful
and kindle in them the fire of your love.
V. Send forth your Spirit, and they shall be created.
R. And You shall renew the face of the earth.

Let us pray

O, God, who by the light of the Holy Spirit, did instruct
the hearts of the faithful, grant that by the same Holy Spirit
we may be truly wise and ever enjoy His consolations.
Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

To Steadfast:
Here is a prayer that YOU can pray. Well anyone can pray this prayer. But it seems at the moment that YOU in particular should pray this prayer:
Prayer of Consecration to the Holy Spirit
O Holy Ghost, divine Spirit of light and love, I consecrate to Thee my intellect, my heart, my will and my whole being for time and for eternity.

May my intellect be ever docile to Thy heavenly inspirations and to the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church of which Thou art the infallible Guide. May my heart be ever inflamed with the love of God and my neighbour; may my will be ever in conformity with the divine will, and may my whole life be a faithful imitation of the life and virtues of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to whom, with the Father and thee, Holy Spirit, be honour and glory for ever. Amen.
No matter what, Jesus loves you.
Peace.

 

[whatistruth]

I do not mean to repeat myself but I will. Read John 16:25-32! he is clearly telling his apostles that he is NO LONGER SPEAKING TO THEM IN FIGUATIVE LANGUAGE! and when the apostles understood the teaching that the bread and wine are his body and blood Jesus said: “The hour is coming, the hour has come”! he was waiting to leave for the Garden when they understood the spiritual and theological meaning at the last supper in the upper room! AMEN ! please read this passage when you read John 6 and the synoptic gospels of the Last Supper.

 

[agangbern]

**
Trent was, of course, the council which was summoned specially to refute the errors of the Reformation. After affirming the Real Presence of Christ, the reason for it, and the preeminence of the Eucharist over other sacraments, the council defined the following on October 11, 1551: “Because Christ our Redeemer said it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church, and this holy council now declares that, by the consecration of the bread and wine a change takes place in which the whole substance of bread is changed into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the Holy Catholic Church fittingly and properly names transubstantiation.” **

So, that is the meaning of “transubstantiation”. The changing of one substance into another substance, and in this case, the substance of bread into the substance of the body of Christ.

This fits with the CCC:
*1374 The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."202 "This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."203

1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:
It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.204*

 

[Contarini]

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.

That’s an extremely funny sentence. You claim one thing, and then change it to something completely different. Which is it? No one has claimed that transubstantiation contradicts the teachings of the ECFs. We could argue that maybe it contradicts some of Augustine’s statements, but in that case the Lutheran view does as well, and those statements are not the subject of this thread.

Not contradicting is completely different from “proved by.” Nothing I have said in this post, for instance, contradicts the view that the moon is made of green cheese. But it would be very bold for you to assume that I believed such a thing simply because I have not said anything to the contrary. (Nor is the above statement a claim that these two views–the composition of the moon and the transformation of the elements–are of equivalent plausibility.)

It appears that almost no Catholic on this thread even understands what Steadfast believes or is interested in providing the evidence asked for.

Edwin

 

[JohnnyReb]

Hi Edwin

That’s an extremely funny sentence. You claim one thing, and then change it to something completely different. Which is it?

I claim both. Its not either or. If the ECFs provide evidence for transubstantiation, they obviously don’t contradict it either. You present a false dilemma. That’s kind of funny to me.

No one has claimed that transubstantiation contradicts the teachings of the ECFs. We could argue that maybe it contradicts some of Augustine’s statements, but in that case the Lutheran view does as well, and those statements are not the subject of this thread.

Steadfast does claim there is a lack of support for transubstantiation, and then argues that some of the quotes provided in support of it support his Lutheran view much more clearly.

Not contradicting is completely different from “proved by.” Nothing I have said in this post, for instance, contradicts the view that the moon is made of green cheese. But it would be very bold for you to assume that I believed such a thing simply because I have not said anything to the contrary. (Nor is the above statement a claim that these two views–the composition of the moon and the transformation of the elements–are of equivalent plausibility.)

There would be zero evidence because you never say it explicitly or imply such a thing. Such a belief could not be deduced from anything you have said. With the ECFs and transubstantiation, the concept is there even if the word transubstantiation is not used.

It appears that almost no Catholic on this thread even understands what Steadfast believes or is interested in providing the evidence asked for.

Edwin

That is a matter of opinion. I stand by what I said eariler. I doubt he would be receptive to any evidence. Many have provided quotes here, so they are interested in giving evidence.

Have a happy Thanksgiving

 

[Contarini]

Hi Edwin

I claim both. Its not either or. If the ECFs provide evidence for transubstantiation, they obviously don’t contradict it either. You present a false dilemma. That’s kind of funny to me.

So if you can prove that they believed in transubstantiation, why suddenly change your argument to the much, much weaker claim that they don’t contradict it?

Steadfast does claim there is a lack of support for transubstantiation, and then argues that some of the quotes provided in support of it support his Lutheran view much more clearly.

Arguably some of them do. However, his overall point is that the Fathers support either the Lutheran or the Catholic view. They simply don’t specify enough to make the case for one or the other.

I’m not sure this is true of Cyril and Ambrose, who do seem to point toward something like transubstantiation–but on the other hand, some parts of Augustine’s writings could be (and have been) reasonably interpreted to support a more “Reformed” understanding, although with the very significant difference that Augustine seems to allow for the (intra-liturgical, not extra-liturgical which he doesn’t mention) adoration of the Host, which the Reformed regard as idolatrous.

There would be zero evidence because you never say it explicitly or imply such a thing. Such a belief could not be deduced from anything you have said. With the ECFs and transubstantiation, the concept is there even if the word transubstantiation is not used.

Cyril and Ambrose, yes. Not Ignatius and Irenaeus, who have been cited to that effect on this forum. Nothing from the pre-Nicene era can be reasonably interpreted to imply transubstantiation rather than some other theory of Real Presence.

That is a matter of opinion. I stand by what I said eariler. I doubt he would be receptive to any evidence.

Then why all the posts allegedly trying to give such evidence?

Many have provided quotes here, so they are interested in giving evidence.

Yes, but most of the quotes support the Real Presence in general and are not helpful in deciding between transubstantiation and the Lutheran view. One person referred to Cyril of Jerusalem, but I did not notice them actually citing the passages in question. I find this odd, because Cyril and Ambrose do provide strong ammunition. What bugs me is that the Catholics on this forum are so used to arguing a stock case against deniers of the Real Presence that they simply trot out the usual quotes from Ignatius, etc., without bothering to notice that they don’t apply in this particular instance. (And, of course, once you admit that something like transubstantiation doesn’t develop until the fourth century and isn’t universal even then, you do weaken the case that many Catholics here want to make.)

Edwin

 

[JohnnyReb]

So if you can prove that they believed in transubstantiation, why suddenly change your argument to the much, much weaker claim that they don’t contradict it?

For the sake of discussion

Arguably some of them do. However, his overall point is that the Fathers support either the Lutheran or the Catholic view. They simply don’t specify enough to make the case for one or the other.

Fair enough

I’m not sure this is true of Cyril and Ambrose, who do seem to point toward something like transubstantiation–but on the other hand, some parts of Augustine’s writings could be (and have been) reasonably interpreted to support a more “Reformed” understanding, although with the very significant difference that Augustine seems to allow for the (intra-liturgical, not extra-liturgical which he doesn’t mention) adoration of the Host, which the Reformed regard as idolatrous

Cyril and Ambrose, yes. Not Ignatius and Irenaeus, who have been cited to that effect on this forum. Nothing from the pre-Nicene era can be reasonably interpreted to imply transubstantiation rather than some other theory of Real Presence.

So any theory must be taken on faith, and all such theories represent a development in theology?

Then why all the posts allegedly trying to give such evidence?

I can’t speak for all here, but they were given because the evidence was asked for.

Yes, but most of the quotes support the Real Presence in general and are not helpful in deciding between transubstantiation and the Lutheran view. One person referred to Cyril of Jerusalem, but I did not notice them actually citing the passages in question. I find this odd, because Cyril and Ambrose do provide strong ammunition. What bugs me is that the Catholics on this forum are so used to arguing a stock case against deniers of the Real Presence that they simply trot out the usual quotes from Ignatius, etc., without bothering to notice that they don’t apply in this particular instance. (And, of course, once you admit that something like transubstantiation doesn’t develop until the fourth century and isn’t universal even then, you do weaken the case that many Catholics here want to make.)

Edwin

Arguing for real presence and transubstantiation are two different things. I think many Catholics get mixed up here because they are more used to discussing with fundamentalists that deny real presence and transubstantiation. They forget that the two are not synonymous. Proving real presence is one thing, transubstantiation another.

A Catholic can accept the teaching of transubstantiation because it is taught by the church, and they accept the teaching authority of the church.

 

[cascherman]

A Catholic can accept the teaching of transubstantiation because it is taught by the church, and they accept the teaching authority of the church.

I think ultimately this is the issue ^^ .

As I have thought many many times, it all comes down to authority. We can spend as much time as we want pressing and pressing Catholic ideas with support but if they don’t accept Catholic authority overall they will not generally accept the ideas.

So, seems to me this will come down to authority once again.

 

[DJgang]

I do not understand what evidence you are asking for because the fact that the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine is already a matter of faith. “Faith is the evidence of things that are not seen.”

Wow…out of all this bickering, IMHO, this is the best answer!

It’s a Mystery of the Faith.

It doesn’t have to be proven.

 

[cascherman]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, St. John Chrysostom says:

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. the priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.202

from dictionary.com :
trans·form /v. trænsˈfɔrm; n. ˈtrænsfɔrm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. trans-fawrm; n. trans-fawrm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)

1. to change in form, appearance, or structure; metamorphose.
2. to change in condition, nature, or character; convert.
3. to change into another substance; transmute.

The word transform is used, definition above, by St. John somewhere between the years 347 to 407. The word conform is not used, or ‘to be sustained in harmony with’.

con·form /kənˈfɔrm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-fawrm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used without object)

1. to act in accordance or harmony; comply (usually fol. by to): to conform to rules.
2. to act in accord with the prevailing standards, attitudes, practices, etc., of society or a group: One has to conform in order to succeed in this company.
3. to be or become similar in form, nature, or character.
4. to be in harmony or accord.
5. to comply with the usages of an established church, esp. the Church of England.
   –verb (used with object)
6. to make similar in form, nature, or character.
7. to bring into agreement, correspondence, or harmony.

and St. Ambrose, year 340-397:

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. the power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed… Could not Christ’s word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.203

change of nature… if the nature has changed then it is no longer bread by nature, and cannot be both if it has no nature of bread left in it.

So according to these guys less than 400 years after Christ, the nature itself changes or transforms, leaving no bread behind.

Don’t know if that means anything to you guys, but I thought I would share.

 

[mangy_dog]

Wow…out of all this bickering, IMHO, this is the best answer!

It’s a Mystery of the Faith.

It doesn’t have to be proven.

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.

This was my answer to the original transubstantiation remark. Lengthy but it points to the true and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist as intended by Christ Himself.

 

[DJgang]

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!!

.

Already a step ahead of ya Mangy… It’s been four years…and I’m finally coming home!

 

[kentuckyliz]

I didn’t follow the whole long thread…just seems simple to me. The God who made everything out of nothing just by speaking a word…can hold up a piece of bread and say this is my body, a chalice of wine and say this is my blood…God’s word has creative power…so if Jesus is God, him speaking that creative word MAKES it his body and blood. I believe Jesus is God, so, that seals the deal for me. Pretty simple.

 

[Ronald_E]

Returning to our Catholic faith after hating it for 40 years was not a choice but instead was an action that was many years in developing after being softened up by God through the study of eastern philosophy. I had a lot of education in psychology and neurobiology and attachment theory. Along with this I was exposed to quantum physics and then God brought in miracles several years ago that would absolutely change my reality. I met a person who was dying of a terminal illness. She had about 5 months to live when we first met. She began to bleed from her hands and I witnessed this one time.This is too long to tell here. Suffice it to say she was cured in '04 when her doctors witnessed her bleeding profusely from her hands during a visit when they had decided to stop treatment because she was so close to death. At that visit she was cured. She is still alive. I returned to our Catholic faith Easter of '05. I had not seen this person for almost 1 year. When I saw her Nov. '05 and informed her about my return to my faith she started to cry and said her hands had stopped bleeding that same Easter. What does this have to do with transubstantiation? This is so complicated. Her illness changed to health without any direct observable evidence. My eyes were opened and I am not the same internally although the same externally. When Christ breathed on His apostles He gave them his essence that could not be seen. They were changed and were given the ability and direction how to pass His essence on to others through the process of the different sacraments. Being born again is internal. Through touch and annointing in the priesthood that was initially given to the apostles is passed to others. It is all connected to Jesus breathing on His apostles right before His ascension into heaven. Humility and belief determine whether or not we benefit from His Word. I tried to be brief, but this is so complicated. I hope this makes sense since I have not proofed this. God Bless.

 

[DJgang]

Thanks for sharing Ronald.

 

[buffalo]

I have an idea. - Go to Adoration and spend time listening.

 

[mangy_dog]

Already a step ahead of ya Mangy… It’s been four years…and I’m finally coming home!

Blessed be God forever!! I am happy for you.

Belated Welcome!

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.