Prove Transubtantiation and I will convert

[peary]

I think I would actually agree with what you say if you are trying to define the Real Presence. But I am not sure that the Magisterium would agree with you on your simplified definition of transubstantiation. The problem is - you CAN’T simplify it as you have.

As far as the Real Presence, it is simple enough for me. It is bread and wine… AND it is the Body and Blood of Christ. Both/ands are not an impossibility in a supernatural event. ALL celebrations of the Eucharist are miracles… by the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread and wine become Christ’s Body and Blood.

O+

I thought you were Methodist.

 

[Schultzz]

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

I think you have the process exactly backwards.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I thought you were Methodist.

I am.

 

[O.S.Luke]

So I take it you have no problem recognizing the Eucharist as a Sacrament. Or do you and others have a problem with the term Sacrament when applied to the Eucharis. The Sacrament is a word that comes to us also that gives a definition from the Church, dont tell me you have a problem with Sacrament that describes what it is, and Transubstantiation describes what it does. I dont find the logic of your disagreement other than it stays within the mental parameters of the Flesh, never leaving into the Mysteries, but you prefer mystery, but do not acknowllege the work of the mystery only the word. Unbelievable if you ask me.

Huh?!?

 

[peary]

Originally Posted by peary:
*I thought you were Methodist. *

I am.

I am.

**Surely you do not believe that your communion serivce in anything near the Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist. Methodists believe that Christ is present in a spiritual way but certainly not bodily, and that you do not offer the sacrifice but only as a memorial. You do not even use wine but grape juice, and your bread can be anything from hot dog buns to full bakery loaves.

I will contend that Christ is present at your communion service because, as scripture tells us, where two or more are gathered in His name, He is there in your midst. But that isn’t the same as the Eucharist.**

 

[po18guy]

Po,

It’s really much simpler than all that.

Again, I don’t care if the word can be found.

The idea isn’t there.

The idea that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood is there. But the idea that they bread and wine cease to exist and only His Body and Blood remain is unknown to them and doesn’t even show a shadow until Cyril.

I do not deny that it is a development, I simply deny that it can be found and drawn from their writings without the importation of alien philosophical ideas.

This would require a thorough education in Catholic theology to determine. As a Protestant, you cannot and do not agree with large chunks of Catholic theology. Thus, you also cannot understand it, or its development without illumination of the Holy Spirit. For that, I pray.

As to “importation of alien philosophical ideas”, which religious organization or authority is propounding this? It evidences the taint of the conspiracy theorist. Since Christ is pure, the bread and wine, once consecrated also become pure. The accidents remain. I honestly can’t see the difficulty here. The gracious Lord has helped me to overcome every objection to Catholicism, and I had many.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Mickey]

My problem is that I cannot in any stretch of the imagination reconcile the purest definition of a sacrament with Aristotelian metaphysics, because - in my view - to do so means you have to use reason to define a mystery. That is a non sequitur if there ever was one.

I agree.

Maybe this gets more at the OP - I don’t think the ECF’s would have delineated the Real Presence so much. It’s the Body and Blood of Christ. Period. An outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace.

Yes.

Science was in vogue when transubstantiation came on the scene. It was, in my opinion, a mistake to embrace a concept that would require so much education in philosophy to fully embrace.

I also believe it was an error.

Why not leave the mystery a mystery!! To me, that is a much more powerful statement.

Absolutely!

 

[Mickey]

Transubstantiation is evident in scripture

The Real Presence is evident in Sacred Scripture—not the philosophy of transubstantiation.

 

[Mickey]

If you want to call it a Mystery you wont get excommunicated for it.

That’s reassuring–but I’m not Roman Catholic.

But when an unbeliever asks you how does this happen, maintaining it to be a mystery is not a problem with the Roman Catholic church.

Fine.

be careful how you answer, because your going to place belief in transubstantiation and not know that you did.

I will use the words of the priest as we receive Communion. "The servant of God partaketh of the precious and holy Body and Blood of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, unto the remission of sins and unto life everlasting."

You see! I did not need my old college philosophy books! ** **

 

[Mickey]

Methodists believe that Christ is present in a spiritual way but certainly not bodily, and that you do not offer the sacrifice but only as a memorial. You do not even use wine but grape juice, and your bread can be anything from hot dog buns to full bakery loaves.

I have never been to a Methodist service, but I am thinking that you are way off base.

 

[justinthemartyr]

Man, that has been covered soooo many times.

The Trinity is clear and evident in Scripture. Transubstantiation is not.

If that word helps you to believe and explain the great Mystery of the Eucharist, then by all means, use it.

PS–The undivided Church did not view the Pope as some supreme authority over the Council. In fact, the Pope usually sent legates in his place. It was the Council which made decisions(which included the representation of the bishop of Rome).

Jesus spent more time on the Eucharist than any other topic in the gospels.

The Trinity is implicit in the scriptures, the Eucharist is explicit. Where does Jesus ever say

The Godhead is three Divine Persons, Father, Son(myself) and Holy Spirit, Yet is One God.
He doesn’t. He implicitly covers this, as do the books outside of the gospels, but it is not explicit, only implicit. It took the Church to define this. Evidently, it must not be so
“clear and evident in scripture” since so many protestant Bible churches reject it.

The Eucharist is explicit. Christ takes bread/wine, blesses it and says " take eat/drink, this IS my Body/blood…then he tells them again and again and again to eat his flesh and drink his blood for eternal life, explicitly and literally, even after he was challenged, and they walk away and he does not stop them.

It is the most explicit sacrament defined by Christ. paul even explicitly clarifies the fact that it is no ordinary meal, and that to take it unworthily is to bring condemnation upon one self.

Trinity-implicit
Eucharist-overwhelmingly explicit

 

[O.S.Luke]

1. 
   

   Originally Posted by peary:
   *I thought you were Methodist. *
   
   I am.
   
   **Surely you do not believe that your communion serivce in anything near the Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist. Methodists believe that Christ is present in a spiritual way but certainly not bodily, and that you do not offer the sacrifice but only as a memorial. You do not even use wine but grape juice, and your bread can be anything from hot dog buns to full bakery loaves.
   
   I will contend that Christ is present at your communion service because, as scripture tells us, where two or more are gathered in His name, He is there in your midst. But that isn’t the same as the Eucharist.**

   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:
   

   Christ’s presence in the sacrament is a promise to the church and is not dependent upon recognition of this presence by individual members of the congregation. Holy Communion always offers grace. We are reminded of what God has done for us in the past, experience what God is doing now as we partake, and anticipate what God will do in the future work of salvation. “We await the final moment of grace, when Christ comes in victory at the end of the age to bring all who are in Christ into the glory of that victory” (By Water and the Spirit: A United Methodist Understanding of Baptism, in Book of Resolutions; page 816), and we join in feasting at the heavenly banquet table (Luke 22:14-18; Revelation 19:9)…

   United Methodists, along with other Christian traditions, have tried to provide clear and faithful interpretations of Christ’s presence in the Holy Meal. Our tradition asserts the real, personal, living presence of Jesus Christ. For United Methodists, the Lord’s Supper is anchored in the life of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, but is not primarily a remembrance or memorial. We do not embrace the medieval doctrine of transubstantiation, although we do believe that the elements are essential tangible means through which God works. We understand the divine presence in temporal and relational terms. In the Holy Meal of the church, the past, present, and future of the living Christ come together by the power of the Holy Spirit so that we may receive and embody Jesus Christ as God’s saving gift for the whole world. - from This Holy Mystery - Part Two: “Christ Is Here — Experiencing The Mystery, The Presence of Christ”
   You don’t have to agree. But don’t assume you speak for the United Methodist Church regarding its beliefs when you are misinformed.

 

[Mickey]

The Trinity is implicit in the scriptures, the Eucharist is explicit. Where does Jesus ever say

With all due respect, after years on this forum, I begin to get a chuckle when the Catholic apologist uses the the example of the Trinity to justify all Latin innovations. There were holy Councils of the undivided Church which dealt with multiple Theophanies from Sacred Srcipture.

But the Real Presence was always understood as the Real Presence. A glorious Mystery! There were no Councils of the undivided Church that wrestled with transubstantiation—because it was a non-issue.

Again, if the Thomistic understanding helps you----then God bless.

 

[Mickey]

That was fairly condescending regarding the elements.

Yes.

 

[justinthemartyr]

I agree.

you stated that the trinity is clear and evident in scripture and the Eucharist is not. I would disagree.

The Trinity is implicit.

the Eucharist is explicit.

 

[Mickey]

The Trinity is implicit.

the Eucharist is explicit.

…and transubstantiation is not there.

 

[Steadfast]

This would require a thorough education in Catholic theology to determine. As a Protestant, you cannot and do not agree with large chunks of Catholic theology. Thus, you also cannot understand it, or its development without illumination of the Holy Spirit. For that, I pray.

I assure you, my grounding in Catholic theology is sufficient.

I assure you further that I do in fact agree with “large chunks” of Catholic theology.

In balance I would say that I probably agree with more than I don’t and further that I probably agree with more than most run-of-the-mill Catholics if the polling data is anything to go by.

As to “importation of alien philosophical ideas”, which religious organization or authority is propounding this? It evidences the taint of the conspiracy theorist. Since Christ is pure, the bread and wine, once consecrated also become pure. The accidents remain. I honestly can’t see the difficulty here. The gracious Lord has helped me to overcome every objection to Catholicism, and I had many.

Tertullian asked “What hath Jerusalem to do with Athens?” when he took issue with the philosophizing of what is, ultimately, a very simple faith. He said this before he fell into the error of Montanism and when he was doing the bulk of that work which would earn him reverence as a church father.

I do not cite him as a source except by inference.

His point, and mine, is that these things cannot be defined.

There is no “conspiracy theory”. I’ll refer you back to my previous posts in this thread but, in a nutshell, the idea that a thing can appear to be one thing but not really be that which it appears to be, at the same time actually and really being another thing entirely is nonsense and though support is attempted using a construction fabricated from language borrowed from Aristotle, Aristotle himself would have none of it.

Christ’s peace.

The same to you and yours.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

With all due respect, after years on this forum, I begin to get a chuckle when the Catholic apologist uses the the example of the Trinity to justify all Latin innovations. There were holy Councils of the undivided Church which dealt with multiple Theophanies from Sacred Srcipture.

But the Real Presence was always understood as the Real Presence. A glorious Mystery! There were no Councils of the undivided Church that wrestled with transubstantiation—because it was a non-issue.

Again, if the Thomistic understanding helps you----then God bless.

Oh! I get it now Mickey you have no problem with the blessed sacrament , you have a Problem with authority. It was the Authority of Rome that comes to the defense of the Eucharist and refutes it to the unbeliever the mystery can be sought by the physcial eyes, but believed in the Spirit the reality of takes place. Transubstantiation.

I dont think its the definition because any reasonable mind, who views with an unprejudiced Spirit, does not go against the terminology, but accepts it. It is the authority that has you at odds with the transubstantiation word. But that is another thread isnt? That is why you find conmfort in a protestant view against the Roman Catholic church.

I as a Roman Catholic would never take the side of a protestant view against your Catholic view. My brother in the Lord. Lets be truthful, it is the authority of Rome that causes your defiance, on this simple explanation to the flesh of the world.

 

[Mickey]

Oh! I get it now Mickey

No you don’t.

I as a Roman Catholic would never take the side of a protestant view against your Catholic view.

That is because you are a triumphalist.

Lets be truthful, it is the authority of Rome that causes your defiance, on this simple explanation to the flesh of the world.

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

 

[peary]

I have never been to a Methodist service, but I am thinking that you are way off base.

Hardly! LOL And they only serve communion once a month too, usually.