Prove Transubtantiation and I will convert

  • Thread starter Thread starter guanophore
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Steadfast said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.”
 
If the eucharist is merely a symbol, why did St. Paul say if you eat the Lords supper unworthily, you are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. If it was not truely his body and blood you could not be guilty. So Transubtantiation must be true.
John
 
Prayerjohn said:
If the eucharist is merely a symbol, why did St. Paul say if you eat the Lords supper unworthily, you are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. If it was not truely his body and blood you could not be guilty. So Transubtantiation must be true.
Code: 
John
Click to expand...
Transubstantiation is not the only way to understand the real presence.

It’s not Transubstantiation and Symbolicalism and no other options.
 
So does anyone know if he has enrolled in RCIA? I dont see how anyone can refute this evidence.
 
YADA said:
From the Didache:

Chapter 9. The Eucharist. Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever…
And concerning the broken bread: We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever…
But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”
Chapter 10. Prayer after Communion. But after you are filled, give thanks this way:We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name’s sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. Before all things we thank Thee that You are mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou have prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.
But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire.

Clearly this early writing echos the Mass, the Holy Priesthood and the Eucharist … in the passage immediately above "prophets [presbyters - bishops] make Thanksgiving [Eucharist] …

While this may not be your latin quote; the context of the Mass is clearly noted in this work which was used to provide instruction to catechumens [and perhaps served as a rudimentary sacramentary]…
Click to expand...
How does this support transubstantiation? Actually the Didache is embarrassing for proponents of the Real Presence (such as myself) to the point that some have suggested that it’s not talking about the Eucharist at all, precisely because there is no mention of the Real Presence.

Edwin
 
Lee said:
So does anyone know if he has enrolled in RCIA? I dont see how anyone can refute this evidence.
Click to expand...
Of course I haven’t. The point hasn’t been carried. All that has been established is that the fathers believed in a Real Presence.

I do too.
 
latin_rite said:
guanophore hasn’t replied. maybe he is busy in RCIA classes.
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

Actually I had no intention of attempting to prove Transubstantiation. I much prefer the Eastern “Mystery” approach myself. But I love to stir the pot. 😉
 
Steadfast said:
Of course I haven’t. The point hasn’t been carried. All that has been established is that the fathers believed in a Real Presence.

I do too.
Click to expand...
Too believe in Transubtantion you must accept the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Obviously you do not.

Transubtantion is at the consecration the bread and wine are changed in to the body and blood of Jesus, the characteristics are of bread and wine , but are his body and blood

john:)
 
Steadfast said:
Actually it sounds like the Lutheran view which is, according to your church, heretical.
Click to expand...
**Hogwash. **
He had a Catholic understanding of the Eucharist.
You are here merely to antagonize the Catholics.
Do your homework - and find another hobby.
 
It’s been a many a long year since I discussed Lutheran theology with a Lutheran. Don’t some Lutherans hold that the bread and wine go back to being plain old bread and wine afterwards? If so, what do you say to undo it? Can you use the same species next week?

For what its worth, even though you are missing the boat on Irenaeus, I do love your signature.
 
**I’m not about to prove the most basic fact of Christianity.

You prove to us that Jesus was lying in John 6 when He Himself said that the bread is His Body and the wine is His Blood. Because He Himself said it. **

**The apostles and His followers believed Him - some of whom left Him at that point and He didn’t tell them to come back because they’d misunderstood Him. The did understand Him perfectly, but rejected Him for it! **

**Meanwhile, since His resurrection, hundreds of early Church Fathers (in the first, second, third, fourth centuries, etc.) ALL believed and taught that the Eucharist (Holy Communion) is truly Jesus’ Body and Blood. **

**Both Churches: Orthodox & Catholic which are the only two which go back Historically to Jesus and His Apostles still teach to this day that the Eucharist is Jesus’ Body and Blood. **

**For anyone who doesn’t believe this…you’re the one who needs to prove your view as you’re the one who is not in line with what Jesus Himself taught, you’re not in line with what Scripture teaches and your not in line with Church History/Theology.

Oh, and by the way, if you can prove that Jesus was lying, then He was a false prophet and you should stop being a Christian all together! 👍 **
 
Prayerjohn said:
Too believe in Transubtantion you must accept the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Obviously you do not.

Every Orthodox (Greek, Russian, etc.) & every rite of the Catholic (Roman, Ukrainian, Coptic, etc.) Churches, the only Churches which go back Historically to Jesus and His Apostles, have always taught and still teach that the Eucharist (Holy Communion) is truly the Real Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. One does not have to accept the “authority” of the Catholic Church - none of the Orthodox Churches do.

Transubtantion is at the consecration the bread and wine are changed in to the body and blood of Jesus, the characteristics are of bread and wine , but are his body and blood

Here are 2 of many prayers which have been handed down from Ancient Church times which and prayed after receiving Holy Communion: May Thy Holy Body, O Lord Jesus Christ our God, be unto me for eternal life, and Thy Precious Blood for the forgiveness of sins. And may this Eucharist be unto me for joy, health, and gladness. And in Thy dread second coming, make me, the sinner, worthy to stand at the right hand of Thy glory, by the intercessions of Thine all-immaculate Mother and of all Thy Saints. Amen.
This next one was written by St. Symeon, an Early Church Father:
Thou Who givest me willingly as nourishment Thy Flesh, Thou Who art fire, and dost consume the unworthy, Scorch me not, O my Maker, But rather pass through me for the right ordering of my members, Into all my joints, my reins, and my heart. Burn up the thorns of all mine offences. Purify my soul; sanctify my mind; Make firm my knees and bones; Enlighten the simple unity of my five senses. Nail down the whole of me with Thy fear. Ever shelter, guard, and keep me From every soul-corrupting deed and word. Purify, and cleanse, and order me aright;…As intercessors I bring to Thee all the sanctified…And further, Thy pure and spotless Mother. The prayers of these receive, O my compassionate Christ…For Thou alone are our sanctification, O Good One, And the illumination of our souls; And to Thee, as to our God and Master, we each day, As is fitting, all send up glory. Amen. Do to space, had to shorten the prayer a little. But still proves the point!

john:)
Click to expand...
 
Steadfast said:
There is still nothing there that would not admit any number of other theories of the Real Presence including that of my own communion.

Augustine comes close, but even there his point is not to detail the change so much as to impress upon his readers the reality of Jesus’ presence in the meal.

I find it a bit funny that you read all these and see transubstantiation, while, when I read them I see simple, but nonetheless firm statements of a clear belief in the Real Presence without much dilation on how that is brought about or how, exactly, it is constituted.

All we seem to be able to say with any certainty is that they pretty much unanimously believed in a real, not a symbolic or significatory presence in the Eucharist.

And that would be my point. Transubstantiation proper couldn’t have been a part of their thinking since the terms were alien to them until Avicenna restored Aristotle and Aquinas brought him into the church.
Click to expand...
Dude, honestly. These quotes state that the gifts ARE the body and blood of Christ (the Catholic view) not that christ is present in them (the Lutheran view). That’s really that.
 
Prayerjohn said:
Too believe in Transubtantion you must accept the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Obviously you do not.

Transubtantion is at the consecration the bread and wine are changed in to the body and blood of Jesus, the characteristics are of bread and wine , but are his body and blood

john:)
Click to expand...
John,

Again, Transubstantiation does not equal Real Presence.

Lutherans believe in a Real Presence but not in transubstantiation, and neither, evidently, did the Early Church Fathers.
 
East_and_West said:
Dude, honestly. These quotes state that the gifts ARE the body and blood of Christ (the Catholic view) not that christ is present in them (the Lutheran view). That’s really that.
Click to expand...
How well versed are you in Lutheran Sacramentology?

Are you not aware that we believe teach and confess that the bread and wine become the true Body and Blood of Jesus given for us? That they ARE the true Body and Blood of Jesus?

The formulation “in, with and under” is technical, but even so it doesn’t negate the understanding that in the Sacrament we receive what has become, what is, the Body and Blood of Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top