Prove Transubtantiation and I will convert

[AlegreFe]

If the word “transubstantiation” confuses most cradle Catholics. How do you figure that it will help unbelievers?

From where in the world do you get your “statistics?” How do you figure that most Catholics are confused with that word? As I said in my previous reply, the “most Catholics” that you know are not most Catholics.

 

[AlegreFe]

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

You complained that I insulted and hurt you and yet you laugh at people.

I guess it’s like beating a dead horse or banging our heads against the wall, it’s no use with you.

I guess you just won’t get (any time soon) that the Real Presence automatically refers to transubstantiation.

I have to pray for more patience. I will also pray for you Mickey.

 

[AlegreFe]

Gabriel of 12:

I am saying yours has not grown.

You seem to say many uncharitable things.

Oh my goodness. Even God would say something to try to wake us up and it might not seem “charitable” to you. God only speaks love for our own good.
If we try to say something to you to try to help, please do not think that it is uncharitable. Sometimes we all need to be “hurt” in order to be humbled. That is love.
And if you do get “hurt” the only thing being “hurt” is your pride. That is how we are humbled by God. And Love does hurt. Just look at a crucifix. Jesus was severly hurt but He didn’t need to be hurt like that because He was already humble. We are the ones who deserve to be hurt like that. I thank Jesus Christ for taking the pain for me. But that does not mean that I don’t have to suffer pain on this earth. I have to suffer pain in order to see God.

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.

:doh2:

 

[Mickey]

Oh my goodness. Even God would say something to try to wake us up and it might not seem “charitable” to you.

Oh my Goodness. Are you saying that Gabriel of 12 speaks for God?!?

God only speaks love for our own good.

Amen.

If we try to say something to you to try to help, please do not think that it is uncharitable. Sometimes we all need to be “hurt” in order to be humbled.

I can always use a good dose of humility. Disparaging my faith and the Holy Orthodox Church while exhibiting the spirit of triumphalism is not “trying to help”. Sorry my friend.

That is love.

No.

And if you do get “hurt” the only thing being “hurt” is your pride.

To know that I am bathed in the fullness of truth and proclaiming it to the world is not the passion of pride.

You and Gabriel are comfortable to judge me. You seem to have no problem speaking about my problem of pride. Perhaps there is a log in your eye?

I will pray for you.

Mickey

 

[Mickey]

You complained that I insulted and hurt you and yet you laugh at people.

Lighten up my friend. It is a smiley. Sometimes I get a chuckle when people use the Church Fathers to justify things that are not there.

the Real Presence automatically refers to transubstantiation.

I’ll say it one more time. If the odd philosophical concept of “transubstantiation” assists you in understanding the undefinable Mystery of the Holy Eucharist—then God bless.

I have to pray for more patience.

That is a daily prayer of mine also!

 

[Mickey]

From where in the world do you get your “statistics?”

Personal experience. I was Latin Catholic for more than 38 years. But do not take my word for it. Go to random Churches throughout the country (or state or city). Ask people after Mass to explain “transubstantiation”. You will get many puzzled looks.

 

[Mickey]

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.

They do not attempt to do so, because it is not there.

only to the minds of our age, to grasp the understanding that lead us into the mysteries of the true presence.

It is a Mystery that cannot be explained by worldly philosophy.

you point out you wont accept transubstantiation to describe what has taken place, that the early church fathers explained to us

They say nothing of the sort.

I am glad that you believe and cherish the Sacred Mystery of the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Peace

 

[O.S.Luke]

I think you might as well give up, folks. Some folks are simply not going to see the difference between Real Presence and Transubstantiation. It’s been a good conversation in places, tho.

 

[Mickey]

I think you might as well give up, folks. Some folks are simply not going to see the difference between Real Presence and Transubstantiation. It’s been a good conversation in places, tho.

Good advice, my friend.

May the peace and love of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, be with you and your family always.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_29.gif

 

[onenow1]

Hi,All
I just wonder why Jesus had the apostles pick up all the crumbs, after feeding the thousands after all being outside it really wasn’t necessary the birds and animals would take care of that. Do you suppose this is Jesus teaching the priesthood to the Apostles ?

Transubstantiation !

John 2: 5 His mother said to the servants do whatever He tells you.

Peace, OneNow1,:twocents:

 

[Ronald_E]

I am really saddened that a word used in an attempt to describe a process in the mystery of the Eucharist has created division in our Catholic faith. The attempt to understand the mystery is motivated by a love for God. The criticism directed at one who makes the attempt of understanding the mystery does not appear to be motivated by love. Since we are made in His image and likeness it would seem a natural process to want to know the Mystery of His existence with us His creation. It seems that we begin this process of inquiry and attempts at understanding here and continue throughout eternity when the light is turned on. Why criticize someone’s passionate exploration into the mystery of the Real Presence and create division when both sides believe the basic truth?

 

[Mickey]

Since we are made in His image and likeness it would seem a natural process to want to know the Mystery of His existence with us His creation.

Post-schism Rome invented a philosophy in an attempt to define a divine Mystery! It is not definable. I do not disparage your understanding. Does this philosophy help you? Great!

But you cannot define a divine Mystery. This is common sense.

Why criticize someone’s passionate exploration into the mystery of the Real Presence

I mean no offense. I am only putting forth the understanding of the early Church.

Sometimes, when one tries to define the undefinable—one finds themselves more confused than when they began.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I think you might as well give up, folks. Some folks are simply not going to see the difference between Real Presence and Transubstantiation. It’s been a good conversation in places, tho.

That’s the misunderstanding for those who take the position of the Eucharist being different from Transubstantiation. There is no difference between what is , How what is. When trying to find a difference between the two, is like trying to fit a square into the circle, that is why you are not understanding, what is, and how it is. You are leaving out part of the equation in order to conclude when you look at the true presence, in the species of bread and wine, you are looking at transubstantiation.

Some folks with simple minds can see this commonality between the two, Some folks refuse to see their union, even though at holy communion they are looking right at it, in front of their eyes.

 

[Mickey]

you are looking at transubstantiation.

Really? You can see this philosophical concept in action?

 

[Ronald_E]

Mickey, Who defines a schism and who determines when it takes place? When there is no division between the observer and the observed then truth can be known. There seems to be no difference between Real Presence and Transubstantiation. Any difference is of the creation of the belief of the person who believes there is a difference. Is it essential to retain this belief to support where we presently reside so as not to threaten what we have come to know and feel comfortable with?

 

[Mickey]

There seems to be no difference between Real Presence and Transubstantiation.

The Real Presence is a divine Mystery that we know to be true by faith.

Transubstantiation is an Aristotlean/Thomistic philosophical concept that tries to explain/define this undefinable divine Mystery.

Peace,
Mickey

 

[KJK80]

These are the only two places I can see “transubstantiation” to be defined in the Catechism:

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

Looks to me like a word put on the process… i.e. at some point the bread & wine turn to His Body and His Blood… i.e. Real Presence…

Similar to the purification process we call Purgatory is simply a word put on the process… however the actual process and thereby the details are left somewhat vague…

**1031 **The Church gives the name *Purgatory *to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire: As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

Again, maybe I’m simple… but I don’t see the big deal…

 

[Mickey]

Similar to the purification process we call Purgatory is simply a word put on the process… however the actual process and thereby the details are left somewhat vague.

The Holy Orthodox Church views the Latin Catholic doctrine of purgatory as another post-schism innovation. But that is for another thread.

 

[KJK80]

The Holy Orthodox Church views the Latin Catholic doctrine of purgatory as another post-schism innovation. But that is for another thread.

Which is why I brought it up… Agreed, that is for another thread however.

Again, I view it as a label for a process. Rather than saying “the mystery by which there is a process of giving real presence to the host” – we say “transubstantiation.” (OK, don’t actually repeat what I said, and don’t make me accountable for it, I’m just making something up that sounds good here).

But you know what I mean? How I see it?

It’s like calling a carbonated drink “a mysterious bubbly phenomenon” instead of “carbonated.” (Sorry, only example I could think of, there’s a Diet RC sitting on my desk).

You can call it whatever you want, I believe you share the same belief… you just put a different label on it. (At least, when going by what the Catechism says). I just call it the Eucharist and leave it at that. The power from there is between God and His Church!

 

[Mickey]

I just call it the Eucharist and leave it at that.

Amen.

We have science to explain why there are bubbles in soda for those who need to know about the process of carbonation.

But It is not necessary to invent a philosophical hypothesis in an attempt to explain something that cannot be explained when we are talking about the divine Mystery of the Holy Eucharist.

Do you see my point?