Prove Transubtantiation and I will convert

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hey! Mickey, here is an eastern father who describes and believes in Transubstantiation, without having to use the word transubstantiation: See post #497 by Peary:

Cyril of Jerusalem

“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).

There is no reason to defend transubstantiation when the Early church fathers already believed in transubstantiation and taught its meaning without ever using the word. There are others that Peary posted. Take the time to review what Our Early Fathers taught on transubstantiation. Maybe instead of refuting the Pope, try refuting the early fathers who agree with the Pope in transubstantiation.
Peace be with you

 

[Mickey]

There is no reason to defend transubstantiation when the Early church fathers already believed in transubstantiation and taught its meaning without ever using the word. There are others that Peary posted. Take the time to review what Our Early Fathers taught on transubstantiation. Maybe instead of refuting the Pope, try refuting the early fathers who agree with the Pope in transubstantiation.
Peace be with you

LOL!!! These Church Fathers have written about the Real Presence–not the strange philosophy of transubstantiation!

 

[DL82]

LOL!!! These Church Fathers have written about the Real Presence–not the strange philosophy of transubstantiation!

Just to point out, the only thing necessary to be a Catholic is to believe in the Real Presence. Transubstantiation is just the best explanation we have as to how it is that the Real Presence is instantiated in the Eucharist. Transubstantiation is not a doctrine, it’s a teaching of the doctors of the Church, particularly St Thomas Aquinas.

The Eastern Catholics, for example, don’t explain it in the same way, they have a more mystical philosophy of how the Real Presence happens, i.e. “it just happens, for God all things are possible”.

What’s clear from East and West, and from the Early Church Fathers, is that Christians have always believed that the communion elements cease to be truly bread and truly wine, and become truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. That’s the doctrine of the Real Presence. St Thomas tried to give the most plausible philosophical account of how this happens, the account of transubstantiation.

I have to admit, I haven’t read all 500+ posts on this thread, so I’m not sure if you’re coming at this as a Bible-believing protestant, or as a total skeptic, but I’ll address the protestant approach first.

If the Word of God (John 1:1-3 says that Jesus Christ is the Word of God), the same eternal Word who in the beginning said “let there be light: and there was light.” (Genesis 1:4) also said “this is my body” (a phrase repeated in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul, and clearly supported by John 6), then surely we have at least as much reason for believing in the Real Presence as for believing in the reality of the created world in which we live. If you are a Protestant, I’d say that is proof, conclusive proof.

Another argument, though not proof, is the consistency of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist with Christ’s incarnation, as I’ve argued here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=229810

If you’re already a believer in Christ, these should be convincing arguments. If you’re a sceptic about religion in general, then it’s probably far better to start with the major questions, such as the existence of God, and the question of whether God has a personal love for us, rather than the rather hair-splitting issue of transubstantiation, which is a complex doctrine of Catholicism, only of significance in as far as it is a bone of contention with protestants.

 

[Mickey]

Just to point out, the only thing necessary to be a Catholic is to believe in the Real Presence.

Amen.

Transubstantiation is just the best explanation we have as to how it is that the Real Presence is instantiated in the Eucharist.

The Eucharistic Mystrery cannot be explained. Transubstantiation only confuses people.

Transubstantiation is not a doctrine, it’s a teaching of the doctors of the Church, particularly St Thomas Aquinas.

Yes. It is a Thomistic teaching. I have never been a big fan.

The Eastern Catholics, for example, don’t explain it in the same way.

When I was Eastern Catholic, it was explained to me exactly as the Orthodox understanding. But of course, Orthodoxy is the Eastern Catholic’s original patrimony.

St Thomas tried to give the most plausible philosophical account of how this happens, the account of transubstantiation.

I think it is a shame that Thomas Aquinas attempted to define a Mystery.

I have to admit, I haven’t read all 500+ posts on this thread, so I’m not sure if you’re coming at this as a Bible-believing protestant, or as a total skeptic, but I’ll address the protestant approach first.

I am approaching it from the fullness of truth- the New Testament Church–the Church of the early Church Fathers–the Church that Jesus Christ established–the Holy Orthodox Church.

If you’re already a believer in Christ, these should be convincing arguments.

There is no convincing argument that tries to explain/define the glorious Mystery of the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Slava Isusu Christu!

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_29.gif

 

[DL82]

Amen.
The Eucharistic Mystrery cannot be explained. Transubstantiation only confuses people.
Yes. It is a Thomistic teaching. I have never been a big fan.
When I was Eastern Catholic, it was explained to me exactly as the Orthodox understanding. But of course, Orthodoxy is the Eastern Catholic’s original patrimony.
I think it is a shame that Thomas Aquinas attempted to define a Mystery.
I am approaching it from the fullness of truth- the New Testament Church–the Church of the early Church Fathers–the Church that Jesus Christ established–the Holy Orthodox Church.
There is no convincing argument that tries to explain/define the glorious Mystery of the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Slava Isusu Christu!

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_29.gif

Thanks Mickey,

So if you accept that only belief in the Real Presence is necessary for Catholic Faith, then why do you want ‘proof’ of transubstantiation in order to convert?

As a former Protestant who is now a Catholic, at least in part due to the witness of the Eastern Catholic Church, I’d be interested to know what drew you to Orthodoxy? I spent some time umming and ahing about whether to become Catholic or Orthodox, but Western-convert Orthodoxy just seemed quite artificial, while Eastern Catholicism was genuinely faithful both to its’ rich cultural and theological heritage, and the unity of the Catholic Faith. I also found that the Catholic claim to truth was more systematic, though backed up by the witness of great mystics such as the apparitions at Lourdes and Fatima, or the contemplations of St John of the Cross or St Teresa of Avila, though nothing of Catholic teaching relies exclusively on miracles or private revelations, but can also be proved systematically through reason and scripture. Many of the Orthodox Christians I spoke to relied on events such as the miracle of Holy Fire or the miracles attributed to holy ikons, as evidence for the content and correctness of their faith. I’m not saying all Orthodox think that way, maybe those people were poorly catechised. Nonetheless, miracles are encouragement, not evidence.

The nature of evidence is probably the biggest obstacle here. If you like, you can accuse me of looking at this from the bias of a ‘Western’ mind, in which case, I plead guilty as charged. The reason I’m neither Eastern Orthodox nor Eastern Catholic but Roman Catholic with an interest in Eastern theology is that I just found the Eastern Church impossible to understand from outside the acculturation of Eastern Christian society and upbringing. If you’re going to dismiss Western notions of systematic evidence, please tell me how the alternative Eastern reasoning process works, else we are talking different languages, with no dictionary to interpret one another.

For example, if, as you say, you deny that it is possible, or even licit, to try to define the workings of a divine mystery, what kind of evidence could you possibly accept as ‘proof’ for transubstantiation?

 

[Mickey]

So if you accept that only belief in the Real Presence is necessary for Catholic Faith, then why do you want ‘proof’ of transubstantiation in order to convert?

You are confused my friend. This is not my thread. I have merely responded that the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist cannot be explained through Aristotlean/Thomistic philosophy.

I’d be interested to know what drew you to Orthodoxy?

Much prayer and discernment.

Western-convert Orthodoxy just seemed quite artificial

I also found that the Catholic claim to truth was more systematic, though backed up by the witness of great mystics such as the apparitions at Lourdes and Fatima

I stick to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. I was never an apparition kinda guy.

If you like, you can accuse me of looking at this from the bias of a ‘Western’ mind

I accuse you of nothing. You are my brother in Christ.

The reason I’m neither Eastern Orthodox nor Eastern Catholic but Roman Catholic with an interest in Eastern theology is that I just found the Eastern Church impossible to understand from outside the acculturation of Eastern Christian society and upbringing.

I discovered something quite different. Born and raised in the Latin Catholic Church for over 38 years, I became Eastern Catholic and then Orthodox–it was a wonderful journey for me.

If you’re going to dismiss Western notions of systematic evidence

I am only questioning the philosophical explanation of transubstantiation on this thread. Other Western notions can be debated on other threads.

For example, if, as you say, you deny that it is possible, or even licit, to try to define the workings of a divine mystery, what kind of evidence could you possibly accept as ‘proof’ for transubstantiation?

That is the whole point! We are not asking for proof! We do not need philosophical explanations or scientific definitions!

We believe that it is a divine and sacred Mystery—and we approach the Chalice with awe!

 

[Michael_Joyce]

Why try to prove it? If your heart is really set on knowing the truth about it, ask Jesus to reveal it to you Himself. He’s quite capable .

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

LOL!!! These Church Fathers have written about the Real Presence–not the strange philosophy of transubstantiation!

Mickey, Mickey, I had higher thoughts of your spirituality than this. You cannot see transubstantiation in front of you because your pride blinds you.

Cyril of Jerusalem, is not teaching transubstantiation, he is teaching the true presence. But he defines the true presence using the definition the Catholic church calls transubstantiation. I cant believe you dont see this right in front of your eyes. You can read this statement from cyril, and not see the mystical essence of transubstantiation, being referred to the bread remain, the wine remain to our senses, and becomes the true body and blood of Jesus Christ. If that isnt transubstantiation, then your belief in the true presence must be mystical alright, Prostestants are in a par with you when they have faith in the symbol of Jesus, and hope they are doing the right thing in the mystery of faith.

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).

 

[Mickey]

Mickey, Mickey, I had higher thoughts of your spirituality than this. You cannot see transubstantiation in front of you because your pride blinds you.

I do not mind discussing and debating. But if you continue your attitude of condescension, I will be forced to discontinue responding to you. I do not mind if you criticize my theology, but when you begin attacking my personal spirituality in addition to proclaiming that I am blinded by pride—it does nothing for your argument—let alone your Christian charity.

 

[Mickey]

Cyril of Jerusalem, is not teaching transubstantiation, he is teaching the true presence.

Correct.

But he defines the true presence using the definition the Catholic church calls transubstantiation.

Incorrect.

I cant believe you dont see this right in front of your eyes.

Because it is not there.

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Again–this is a beautiful witness to the “Real Presence”--------------NOT transubstantiation.

 

[Mickey]

Why try to prove it? If your heart is really set on knowing the truth about it, ask Jesus to reveal it to you Himself. He’s quite capable .

Amen, my brother in Christ.

 

[DL82]

You are confused my friend. This is not my thread. I have merely responded that the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist cannot be explained through Aristotlean/Thomistic philosophy.

Sorry, I got the wrong guy! Amen to what you say. The first words of the CCC (don’t have it to quote) are to the effect that all our positive theology is just a best attempt at finite minds grasping the infinite, the theological definitions are never perfect, nor will they ever grasp the full height and depth and length and width of the infinite and almighty God.

Much prayer and discernment.

Amen.

As a former Catholic, and a gradual and thoughtful convert to Eastern Christianity none of what I’m about to say refers to you.

I just found that many Western converts were somewhat separate from the rest of the Orthodox Church, I had written at quite some length about this, but have edited it to remove those comments, as they were uncharitable to my Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ. Suffice it to say that there seemed some disconnection between what Orthodoxy meant to Russians in Russia or Copts in Egypt, and what it meant to many protestant converts of various kinds in England. The numbers of Western converts also seemed negligibly small, which made it difficult to find fellowship.

The very fact that I have to ask what kind of Orthodox you are (Oriental, Eastern, Armenian, Chaldean, etc.) and within that what communion you belong to, seems to me to militate against recognising in Orthodoxy the oneness Christ prayed for for His Church in John 17. In my own mindset at the time, one of the principal reasons for leaving my protestant church was over its’ problems with authority and disunity.

I stick to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. I was never an apparition kinda guy.

Amen

I accuse you of nothing. You are my brother in Christ.

Likewise

I discovered something quite different. Born and raised in the Latin Catholic Church for over 38 years, I became Eastern Catholic and then Orthodox–it was a wonderful journey for me.

Well, at least you had a Catholic upbringing, which opened you up to the traditional Christian mindset. I was really surprised to find how much Catholics of East and West have in common, and in turn have in common with Orthodoxy.

What made you move from Eastern Catholicism to Orthodoxy?

I am only questioning the philosophical explanation of transubstantiation on this thread. Other Western notions can be debated on other threads.

Questioning is good. Questioning is how we separate doctrine from heresy. I’m no fan of Aristotelian hair-splitting myself, but it’s good at refining precise questions to help us consider more and more precise answers, though of course they will never lead us to the fullness of truth.

It’s like if you said, ‘I want to buy a chocolate bar’ and I led you to the section of the supermarket where all the chocolate bars are. Am I closing your mind by leading you past all the shelves of meat, vegetables, tinned goods, etc? I’m just showing you where the chocolate isn’t, so you don’t have to waste your time looking at that, and therefore you can spend more time choosing from the chocolate that really is chocolate. Once we’ve got to the candy section, I could leave it at that, and call picking chocolate from among other candy a ‘mystery’, or I could lead you past all the other candy straight to the narrow section of the aisle that just has chocolate and nothing else. That’s what systematic theology does, helps us avoid more and more heresies, the more precise it is.

That is the whole point! We are not asking for proof! We do not need philosophical explanations or scientific definitions!

We believe that it is a divine and sacred Mystery—and we approach the Chalice with awe!

Likewise. Amen :byzsoc:

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Mickey if you dont see the definition being explained from the early church fathers without having to try and explain transubstantiation. To which the Roman Catholic church explains what the ECF were speaking about when Jesus becomes Present in the form of bread and wine.

All I can conclude is that the the difference between you and I is. Roman Catholicism is Orthodox in her beliefs because her teachings come to us from the Apostles unchanged. Iam finding a difference between claiming to be Orthodox and being Orthodox. Roman Catholics dont claim to be Orthodox, Roman Catholics are Orthodox. Their is a difference between knowing Orthodoxy, and claiming Orthodoxy whiich you claim to be? This does not equate your Catholicism is watered down, I am saying yours has not grown.

I want to be clear to you here, Roman Catholics Know the true presence. You claim to believe in the mystery of the true presence, to which Roman Catholics say “Amen”. Roman Catholics take a step further, begining in faith, then knowing how this is Jesus being present in the Eucharist. You claim you dont know just leave it to faith. To which I respond, I already have faith in the true presence, now through transubstantiation, I know Jesus is truly presence in the Eucharist.

Peace brother. I would re-read our early church fathers again, if you want to know the difference in believing in the true presence and knowing and believing in the true presence.

 

[Mickey]

That’s what systematic theology does, helps us avoid more and more heresies, the more precise it is.

Sometimes too much reason leads us to the road of heresy. Fr Benedict Goeschel (sp?) once said in reference to the real heavy thinkers–“Sometimes the highest mountain will cast the largest shadow”.

 

[Mickey]

It’s like if you said, ‘I want to buy a chocolate bar’ and I led you to the section of the supermarket where all the chocolate bars are. Am I closing your mind by leading you past all the shelves of meat, vegetables, tinned goods, etc? I’m just showing you where the chocolate isn’t, so you don’t have to waste your time looking at that, and therefore you can spend more time choosing from the chocolate that really is chocolate. Once we’ve got to the candy section, I could leave it at that, and call picking chocolate from among other candy a ‘mystery’, or I could lead you past all the other candy straight to the narrow section of the aisle that just has chocolate and nothing else. That’s what systematic theology does, helps us avoid more and more heresies, the more precise it is.

I am not fond of this analogy. We know that this is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. We know where to partake of our Lord and Saviour. We know that the change takes place. That’s good enough for me.

 

[Mickey]

Roman Catholicism is Orthodox in her beliefs because her teachings come to us from the Apostles unchanged.

I’m sorry. Post-schism Rome veered into many innovations.

I am saying yours has not grown.

You seem to say many uncharitable things.

Roman Catholics take a step further

An unnecessary step.

I would re-read our early church fathers again

I am well versed in the Early Church Fathers. They speak eloquently to the Real Presence. But there is no evidence of any writing about the philosophical concept of transubstantiation.

 

[DL82]

I am not fond of this analogy. We know that this is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. We know where to partake of our Lord and Saviour. We know that the change takes place. That’s good enough for me.

It’s good enough for me too.

The thing you need to realise is that much of the seemingly hair-splitting doctrine in the Western Church emerged in response to some very serious heresies in Western Christianity (the Cathars, Waldensians, Catabaptists, Anabaptists, then finally the Lutherans and Calvinists). It was in response to this heresy that the Catholic Church had to define very precisely what it is that makes the Real Presence (and therefore the Real Church) real, and what would invalidate that reality.

 

[Mickey]

The thing you need to realise is that much of the seemingly hair-splitting doctrine in the Western Church emerged in response to some very serious heresies in Western Christianity (the Cathars, Waldensians, Catabaptists, Anabaptists, then finally the Lutherans and Calvinists). It was in response to this heresy that the Catholic Church had to define very precisely what it is that makes the Real Presence (and therefore the Real Church) real, and what would invalidate that reality.

I hear what you are saying. But the Orthodox Church remained doctrinally sound without going on the defensive. I believe it is a mistake to attempt to define a Mystery. Sometimes you can define yourself into a box and then you must come up with more explanations to get out of the box–and before you know it, you are faced with a mountain of damage control.

Protestanism was a particular thorn in the side of Rome because the reformation was born out of the Latin Catholic Church. Holy Orthodoxy never had to deal with a reformation.

They are your wayward children!

Peace and blessings to you.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I’m sorry. Post-schism Rome veered into many innovations.

Rome has always had to contend with defending the Catholic faith, as you may state a form of Orthodoxy that does not contend with the fast changes of man and societies from your neck of the woods, Orthodoxy you claim to be unchanging. The Orthodoxy I speak of becomes more revealed, but never changes, to which your of the opionion of innovations, because you remain in your Orthodoxy that I cant justify to remain Idle why the world, comes against the Catholic faith from our neck of the woods. And you say that is Romes problem, and then come against her revelations of an already orthodox belief that she has bled to keep these last 2000 years. My brother history repeats itself again here.

You seem to say many uncharitable things.

This was not an uncharitable comment, it is a compliment to your Orthodoxy, that it doesnt change, correct, my comment was to the Orthodox teachings of Christianity in the Roman Catholicism, gets revealed in a deeper understanding as man’s kowledge increases, so grows the Roman Catholic church’s understanding for the new age of man to be able to still comprehend, the changing of languages, and times, cultures, at the same time remaining Orthodox and true to the teachings of Jesus Christ. To a changing world. In case you havent noticed, we are entering into a new languge ERA, the computer language, The Roman Catholic church will, adapt to these new communications in order to get the Gospel of Jesus to them, in the computer literate generations to come. In 25 years, we will see new words, and new societies develope from this computer age, And the Roman Catholic church will not sit Idle in Orthodox customs, but will find a way to get her Orthodox Gospel to the new languages that are soon to be here. You call this innovation of the Roman Catholic church, I call it, The Roman Catholic church will be ready to give an account of her faith, to all ages in life, in death, until Jesus comes for her, unchanged.

I am well versed in the Early Church Fathers. They speak eloquently to the Real Presence. But there is no evidence of any writing about the philosophical concept of transubstantiation.

I never said there was a philosophical concept, I am relating to you from them is the seed planted that has grown to a deeper understanding from when the world was flat, to now when we learned the world is round,

From what I read of the Early Church Fathers, is that they confirm the definition of transubstantiation in their writings without having an attempt to do so. The word is a deeper revelation of an already revealed belief (doctrine). And before you say it, It does not exhaust the mystical meaning of the Eucharist, and it does not invent anything new about the Eucharist , only to the minds of our age, to grasp the understanding that lead us into the mysteries of the true presence.

We dont disagree, you point out you wont accept transubstantiation to describe what has taken place, that the early church fathers explained to us about, in today’s understanding, the Eucharist has not changed from this revelation, since the beginiing, only a deeper understanding, so that one can reach farther into the mysteries of the mystical body of Jesus Christ.

Peace be with you

 

[AlegreFe]

The Holy Eucharist is clear and evident in Sacred Scripture. The science and philosophy behind the word “transubstantiation” is nowhere to be found in Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition until post-schism Rome brought it forth.

Transubstantiation is evident to me when Jesus said “This is my Body.” How else is that bread supposed to be Jesus? The word itself is not needed for me. But the “idea” of it is evident to me. I’m sure it is to many other Catholics also. I guess it’s a “common sense” thing for us. But the bottom line is, it’s really a “faith” thing for us. Without FAITH we will never believe that Jesus is the Eucharist. And it doesn’t matter what word is used to describe how the Holy Spirit changes the bread & wine to the Body & Blood of Jesus Christ.

Please do not insult me.

I did not insult you, or I should say, that was not my intention.

It is hurtful.

I am sorry. Please forgive me. I did not mean to hurt you.

I do not need to see it. I believe it–through faith in my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

That’s good. I’m glad you believe.

Yes, I have flesh. Yes, I have sinful pride which I struggle against everyday. I am the most wretched of sinners.

dito. Please pray for me as I am also a sinner and in need of the grace of Jesus Christ every day.

Again, if it helps you–God bless.

I already said it doesn’t help me in the least for I already believe. But I know that the idea of transubstantiation is there.

Most Catholics I know, have never heard of the word “transubstantiation” and when you introduce them to the concept they become confused.

Most Catholics you know are not most Catholics. If they become confused then it could possibly mean one of two things… either they do not believe in the real presence or if they do believe in the real presence, they have no concept of how it could happen and then it really doesn’t matter because they believe in the real presence and therefore they do not need that word.