Prove Transubtantiation and I will convert

[KJK80]

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?

Well, science can only explain what it can observe by the means available to it.

OK, but there are lots of philosophical hypothesis out there. I don’t think it affects things much.

Again, I don’t see how the word “Transubstantiation” by its use in the Catechism is explaining anything, versus putting a label on something.

Of course, by extension, creating a label for something, requires a hypothesis (in this case) by which to make a definition for said label.

However, I do not see these hypothesis’ defined in the Catechism? Therefore, I assuming they are not by any means dogma. Am I wrong? I honestly don’t know that.

In these cases, I refer to “this is the best we know on the subject to help you with your walk with God, if it detracts from your walk with God; believe in the basics as a matter of faith.”

If I’m wrong here as well, I’m open to criticism.

Thanks!

 

[Mickey]

Again, I don’t see how the word “Transubstantiation” by its use in the Catechism is explaining anything, versus putting a label on something.

Yeah, those Roman Catholics always have to label everything.

Of course, by extension, creating a label for something, requires a hypothesis (in this case) by which to make a definition for said label.

And so, suddenly you have labeled something that cannot be labeled and forced to define something that cannot be defined.

If I’m wrong here as well, I’m open to criticism.

Nah. I do not think you are wrong. I don’t think that the belief in the concept of transubstantiation is dogmatic. I have said all along—if a person’s heart can somehow be opened to the Real Presence through this philosophical concept–then so be it. My only point is that Holy Orthodoxy does not subscribe to this scholastic philosophy and the early Church Fathers do not imply such a concept.

Peace and blessings to you.

 

[KJK80]

I have said all along—if a person’s heart can somehow be opened to the Real Presence through this philosophical concept–then so be it.

I would be one of those…

My only point is that Holy Orthodoxy does not subscribe to this scholastic philosophy and the early Church Fathers do not imply such a concept.

To use your words “then so be it.”

Peace and blessings to you.

And to you!

 

[Mickey]

**The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. ‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!" **
St Clement of Alexandria

 

[Steadfast]

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.

Are you saying that this is just how it is because it is that way? Or are you saying that this is how it is because it can’t be any other way?

Just wondering, because all we’re saying (Mickey and I, strange bedfellows though we may be) is that “Transubstantiation” is ultimately divisive since it forces a mystery into terms alien to Scripture as well as being quite beyond the testimony of the ECF’s and it does so in so astoundingly unnecessary a fashion that one wonders at the blithe puzzlement of Catholics who have difficulty comprehending an objection to it.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Are you saying that this is just how it is because it is that way? Or are you saying that this is how it is because it can’t be any other way?

I am saying both of these samples apply to the Eucharist and Transubstantiation and then some. And then some is attributing to the miracles that have been recorded from the Eucharist in time.

Just wondering, because all we’re saying (Mickey and I, strange bedfellows though we may be) is that “Transubstantiation” is ultimately divisive since it forces a mystery into terms alien to Scripture as well as being quite beyond the testimony of the ECF’s and it does so in so astoundingly unnecessary a fashion that one wonders at the blithe puzzlement of Catholics who have difficulty comprehending an objection to it.

**You and my fellow brothers or sisters are of an opinion only, what I discuss is worthy of belief and doctrine. We have a huge division here. Your opinion does not see Jesus confecting the bread and wine into his body and blood, transubstantially, even though scripture does not indicate it, The apostles are looking right at the result of Jesus words, transubstantiates bread and wine into his body and blood, although the bread and wine to the apostles senses remain bread and wine.

As far as the ECF’s are concerned, they explicity define transubstantiation in their teachings, even though you may not read the word transubstantiation, they make it abundantly clear the bread and wine remain them to our senses, this the Roman Catholic church agrees and calls this union transubstantiation.

You have every right to your opinion to disagree with the ECF’s, and you may find some close to your opinion, but at the end they taught and defined what the Roman Catholic church calls without having to go into much deliberation Transubstantiation. I am of the opinon that the ECF’s revealed transubstantiation without ever using the word. Their teachings describe transubstantiation. To be of the opinion to disagree without any proof. I have placed the proof here before your eyes just using one Cyril of Jerusalem, Peary also posted a whole list of their writings reveal the bread and wine remain these to our senses, but is truly the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

I do not object to your opinion disagreeing with transubstantiation, This only reveals ones understanding and spirituality to the subject at hand. To attribute transubstantiation as divisive to the Eucharist displays either an ignorance, or a misunderstanding of the word transubstantiation. Divisive is not a term that can be used for the subject at hand. Transubstantiation is in union with the Eucharist not divided.

One cannot object to anothers belief in a thing. Only the one possesing the knowledge can reveal the subject truthfully. The disposition of the one recieving the knowledge decides whether or not knowledge is recieved. If the knowledge is not accepted, then proof is required from the recieving end. If the opposing opinion leaves it up to a mystery, or a darkness of the mind. Then the knowledge outways the opinion if left up to the opinion only, the opinon is left suspended.

So to summarize your accusation. Your opinon (mystery) need not be received as an objection to the Knowledge (transubstantiation) which never defies the mystery of the Eucharist. Because it does not explain how the Holy Spirit can cause this change, only to our senses we understand the knowledge of transubstantiation.

Proof on these threads prove transubstantiation, that the true presence gets revealed to our fleshly senses that enters one into the Spiritual mysteries of the eternity reality, where the Spirit and the flesh become one in the same in the incarnate God.

The opposing view leaves only an opinion that is left suspended for the mind to wonder, how can this happen? so it is ones opinion how one enters into the mysteries, without the senses of the flesh, left only with the Spirit to guide and no body?**

 

[Ronald_E]

In and of itself, Transubstantiation is not divisive. It seeks to begin to explain the Mystery. Expressing one’s faith is an attempt to explain the mystery of God and our relationship to God. When we begin to identify ourselves as this or that denomination we then state what our understanding is about God and our relationship to God. That is what is divisive. It is then from our identity associated with our particular denomination that we will begin to pick apart Transubstantiation because we are already opposed to Catholicism for other mysterious reasons that have yet to be revealed.
The debate about Transubstantiation is a symptom of a deeper and more harmful opposition to Catholicism that only those who oppose the teachings of Catholicism can reveal to us.
It is not so much about theology as it seems to be about what is in the heart of the person who opposes Catholicism.

 

[Ronald_E]

Gabriel 12, I am amazed that you and I were writing the same thing at the same time. Amazing.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel 12, I am amazed that you and I were writing the same thing at the same time. Amazing.

The Church of Jesus Christ is One faith, one mind in one accord, in Faith, under one baptism, in One Holy Catholic Apostolic church in One Lord Jesus Christ body. We may come under attack, Not even death can seperate those in Jesus Christ. Thank God for his holy communion. Praise be Jesus Christ, now and forever.

 

[Mickey]

As far as the ECF’s are concerned, they explicity define transubstantiation in their teachings

Wrong.

You have every right to your opinion to disagree with the ECF’s

On the contrary–we agree with the early Church Fathers.

but at the end they taught and defined what the Roman Catholic church calls without having to go into much deliberation Transubstantiation.

Wrong**.**

I am of the opinon that the ECF’s revealed transubstantiation without ever using the word.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Their teachings describe transubstantiation.

No.

To be of the opinion to disagree without any proof. I have placed the proof here before your eyes just using one Cyril of Jerusalem

St Cyril never taught the odd philosophical concept of transubstantiaition.

If the knowledge is not accepted, then proof is required from the recieving end. If the opposing opinion leaves it up to a mystery, or a darkness of the mind.

Your opinon (mystery) need not be received as an objection to the Knowledge (transubstantiation) which never defies the mystery of the Eucharist.

The divine Mystery of the Real Presence is not an opinion. It is a sacred reality. It is received by faith. Transubstantiation is an invented term.

The opposing view leaves only an opinion that is left suspended for the mind to wonder, how can this happen?

Wow! Unbelieveable! According to you, the sacred Mystery of the Holy Eucharist is not acceptable by faith. I am in shock that you have said this. According to you, only the clear understanding of the Thomistic concept of transubstantiation suffices to explain the Mystery. This is the epitome of legalism. I am saddened by this post.

 

[Mickey]

In and of itself, Transubstantiation is not divisive. It seeks to begin to explain the Mystery.

This Sacred Mystery cannot be explained.

Expressing one’s faith is an attempt to explain the mystery of God and our relationship to God.

The whole idea of “faith” involves believing something without necessarily having physical proof.

That is what is divisive. It is then from our identity associated with our particular denomination that we will begin to pick apart Transubstantiation because we are already opposed to Catholicism for other mysterious reasons that have yet to be revealed.

Wrong. You sound paranoid here. The rejection of the term “transubstantiation” is not a vast conspiracy against Catholicism. Transubstantiation is a legalistic term that was innovated in an attempt to define a Sacred Mystery–a Mystery that cannot be defined.

The debate about Transubstantiation is a symptom of a deeper and more harmful opposition to Catholicism that only those who oppose the teachings of Catholicism can reveal to us.

See above.

 

[Mickey]

Do not, therefore, regard the Bread and the 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.
St Cyril of Jerusalem

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Do not, therefore, regard the Bread and the 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.
St Cyril of Jerusalem

Mickey you just describe transubstantiation just like Cyril from Jerusalem did with out using the word.

Your objections do not disprove transubstantiation. Your objections are not supported with facts, just an objection. For one your objecting to something that has never been questioned, the mystical body of Jesus Christ.

I find your objection to be out of order, because you claim Transubstantiation tries to define the mystery, when it does not. It only applies to the senses in order to enter into the mystical body of Jesus Christ.

Take a breath and soak in to what has been revealed here. I have made no attempt to exhaust the sacred mysteries, only on how one can begin to enter them. And you defiantely say no one can, but yet you say it is ok, to believe in transubstantiation if it helps one to begin the mysteries of the mystical body of Jesus presence, but your of the opinion you dont have to because it is not there.

That is ok to have this opinion, as long as it does not go against the belief of the true presence.

Transubstantiation does not try to define the mystery of the mystical body of Christ, but your of the opinion it does. Can you reveal this to me, with evidence support?

Transubstantiation only defines our senses to the true presence of Jesus Christ, in order for one to understand from his flesh to enter into the mysteries. Your spirituality exceeds all of ours, because you state, you dont need to begin with the flesh, of understanding the transubstantiation of the consecrated bread and wine.

If your going to make an objection, please provide evidence to your objection, with reason. Faith is not in question here, because we both believe in the True presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, praise God. So to object with the cause of faith need not apply. And Mystery, you have no objection from me, nor from the definition of Transubstantiation. It does not come against the mystical body of Jesus Christ, or its mysteries. Yet you claim it does? where? and when does transubstantiation tries to define the mystical body of Jesus Christ? Remember what is Spirit is Spirit, what is flesh is flesh.

I have no doubt you can place an argument. But it is hard to argue without evidence to support it. Maybe if we can reason with facts without opinions, we may be able to reach a reasonable conclusion in peace.

 

[Ronald_E]

This Sacred Mystery cannot be explained.
The whole idea of “faith” involves believing something without necessarily having physical proof.
Wrong. You sound paranoid here. The rejection of the term “transubstantiation” is not a vast conspiracy against Catholicism. Transubstantiation is a legalistic term that was innovated in an attempt to define a Sacred Mystery–a Mystery that cannot be defined.
See above.

I stated that the argument against transubstantiation is a symptom of a deeper rooted problem with Catholicism that is not being addressed. I did not use the word conspiracy. The word conspiracy implies a secret union for an evil purpose. I would never use that term in relationship to this discussion.
The evil that conspires against Catholicism is clearly identified as satan. The only secrecy in satan’s attacks against unity of Christians is how we are influenced by satan to attack something that is good and try to make it appear to be wrong in its expression. Transubstantiation is thus being used to create friction when actually it’s origin began with the inspiration of a luminous light that has no friction.
Lucifer is light-bringer. This light is created by friction and causes heat.
Luminous is defined as giving light that is clear and lucid.
I love the exploration of Mystery because of the beauty that is revealed exploring the Mystery of God.
Why choose to create friction when something beautiful is being defined through the influence of a love of God.

 

[Mickey]

Mickey you just describe transubstantiation just like Cyril from Jerusalem did with out using the word.

Nope. St Cyril talks about believing in this Mystery by faith.

Your objections are not supported with facts, just an objection.

My refusal to use this strange philosophy is supported by Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

For one your objecting to something that has never been questioned, the mystical body of Jesus Christ.

I have never questioned the Real Presence.
Stop putting words in my mouth–it is not honest.

you claim Transubstantiation tries to define the mystery, when it does not.

It uses an Aristotlean/Thomistic philosophy in an attempt to explain a Sacred Mystery.

Take a breath and soak in to what has been revealed here.

And I will suggest that you do the same.

I have made no attempt to exhaust the sacred mysteries, only on how one can begin to enter them.

By faith my friend–by faith.

but your of the opinion you dont have to because it is not there.

I am not your boss. If the odd legalistic philosophy of transubstantiation helps you—then go for it.

That is ok to have this opinion, as long as it does not go against the belief of the true presence…

The Sacred Mystery of the Real Presence is near and dear to my heart.

Your spirituality exceeds all of ours, because you state, you dont need to begin with the flesh, of understanding the transubstantiation of the consecrated bread and wine.

Please do not keep putting words in my mouth. Try to stay charitable. We do not need to logically explain substance and accidents with philosophical concepts. Accepting it as a Sacred Mystery (by faith) is enough.

Faith is not in question here

Great.

But it is hard to argue without evidence to support it.

You attempt to claim that the Early Church Fathers support the philosophical concept of transubstantiation–but they do not.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Again, Mickey, Only objections without evidence to support your objections. I have not been uncharitable, you are misreading my comments.If you find that I have, please accept my apologies, it is not my intent to do so. So I ask for your forgiveness if you feel I have. I have been careful to preserve your othodox view. But you have only given an opinion with out any support of evidence, to disprove my Orthodox view of the true presence which Cyril of Jerusalem supports.

 

[Mickey]

I stated that the argument against transubstantiation is a symptom of a deeper rooted problem with Catholicism that is not being addressed.

And I say that statement is pure opinion and speculation.

Transubstantiation is thus being used to create friction when actually it’s origin began with the inspiration of a luminous light that has no friction.

Perhaps that is your perception. I am simply putting forth the position of The New Testament Church-- The Holy Orthodox Church—in relation to a recent philosophical innovation that attempts to explain a divine Mystery.

 

[Mickey]

Only objections without evidence to support your objections.

Sigh. That is the point of this thread. We do not need proof. We do not need evidence. We know, by faith and love, that the Real Presence of Our Lord, God, and Saviour Jesus Christ, in the Holy Eucharist—is a reality!!!

you are misreading my comments.If you find that I have, please accept my apologies, it is not my intent to do so. So I ask for your forgiveness if you feel I have.

I also do not mean to offend. We both believe in The Real Presence. Holy Orthodoxy/Eastern Catholicism accepts this Sacred Mystery as Scripture and Tradition reveals it to us. Roman Catholicism uses philosophy in an attempt to find explanations through human reason.

My apologies if you have been offended. Please forgive me.

 

[Mickey]

**The Mysterion of the Divine Eucharist that has been handed down by the Lord is the highest of all the Mysteria; it is the most wondrous of all the miracles which the power of God has performed; it is the highest which the wisdom of God has conceived; it is the most precious of all the gifts which the love of God has bestowed upon men. For all the other miracles result through a transcendence of certain laws of Nature, but the Mysterion of the divine Eucharist transcends all these laws. Hence it may justly be called, and be viewed as, the miracle of miracles and the Mysterion of Mysteria. **
**St Nectarios of **Aegina

---

---

---

 

[AlegreFe]

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

That is not what I meant in that post. But since you brought it up, those who speak the truth in Jesus Christ speak for God.

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”.

I have the spirit of speaking the truth. You speak about “triumphalism?” The Triumph is our Lady’s and our Lord’s.

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

No it wouldn’t be if that was the case. But the fullness of Truth is right here in the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

I will pray for you.

Thanks. I need all the prayers I can get.