Question about Transubstantiation

[abucs]

If God is so petty as to deny me entrance into heaven for this simple reason, then I suspect that he’ll have no problem finding a reason to condemn us all to hell.

Allnamesused,

i don’t think you are going to Hell because you don’t partake of the Eucharist, and i don’t think that is Catholic teaching either.

On the matter of receiving a ‘placebo’ eucharist - I would say that the sacraments are a physical way to connect to God. It is not like a magic pill.

I might see Islam or some Protestant Churches as false but i would not say that people cannot search for and receive God in those religions even if it is false.

Of course as a Catholic i do believe that the eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. It teaches me to be humble and to view the physical world as secondary and to search for something that is primary. It is a direct physical connection with God paralleling the spiritual connection and as such i cannot help but view myself in comparison with God and see my short-comings more clearly, and what i need to do to ‘bridge the gap’. And i cannot help but think of the death and ressurrection of Christ as part of the Eucharist.

I would suggest reading John chapter 6 in that light and then reading some of John’s disciples on the Eucharist only a few years after John wrote his Gospel.

aimeemilburn.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/09/irenaeus-from-p.html

catholicfaithandreason.org/fathersoneucharist.htm

 

[Allnamesused]

No amount of our words will ever make you understand. It’s all a matter of FAITH. It’s that simple. The words that Jesus spoke were of Spirit & Life. So without the Holy Spirit to give you the faith you will never believe.

Please click on the link in my siggy about Jesus being the Eucharist. You will also see other videos in the related videos section to the right of my video.

Peace & Love in Christ

I agree with you, belief in transubstantiation is a belief based upon nothing more that faith and zero evidence. So was the belief that flying a jet into the side of the World Trade Center would result in the terrorist be granted 72 virgins. What…you don’t belief that they actually recieved those virgins; obviously you lack faith. Faith is what allows protestants to believe that the world was created in six days and that the universe is only 6000 years old (they really believe this BTW). Every ounce of emperical and historical evidence discount this…but they have faith. Hindu’s in India who just slaughtered dozens of Christians and burned down hundreds of homes and churches had faith that their actions were the will of their gods. Thousands of women were killed by angry villiagers in Europe and the Americas because the villiagers had faith that they were killing witches and doing God’s will. Faith without reason is a jet into the side of a skyscraper; it’s an innocent women burned at the stake for witchcraft.

 

[maturingcatholi]

I think a previous poster’s point in referencing whether or not a Protestant believer is a new creation because he called upon the Lord’s name is a great example of what happens in the Eucharist in regards to the OP question. It also goes along well with what another person supplied as an analogy of the Eucharist.

In the same way that there is no way to prove a “saved” person is born a new creation in Christ (because it is an internal change, not an external one), so too is the Eucharist an example of change of the internal (rather than external) reality of something.

What scientific evidence can a believer give to support their being a new creation? What empirical evidence can they show? None that I can think of. But they can certainly quote quite a few bible verses.

So can Catholics regarding the Eucharist. In response to the posters having problems with Catholics taking this particular example from the bible literally, support for them doing so may be found twofold in John 6. How many times in the bible, let alone in one chapter, does Jesus use those other symbolic examples? One? Maybe two? Three if you’re lucky? In John Chapter 6, Jesus ends up talking in great deal about the bread that comes from heaven, and makes no less than 7 references to himself - his body - being that bread, and that unless his followers ate that bread, they would not have life within them… that they must eat the bread, his body, in order to have eternal life. I think it goes to show that this very deep and thorough explanation bears witness to the fact that Jesus was not being symbolic here.

When Jesus spoke in parable, many times he would take his disciples aside after his speeches and explain to them what those parables meant. The fact that he doesn’t feel the need to explain what he stated - even though many followers returned to their old ways after hearing something that sounds so absurd - is only further evidence of His teachings in this instance being literal, not symbolic. (And I am not entirely sure, but I think this is the first time Jesus points out that Judas will betray him. Some believe it is because of Jesus’ Eucharistic teaching that Judas decides to betray Him.)

Don’t know how much help or use this will end up being to the discussion, but hopefully it can concisely answer the question of the OP and other questions brought up thereafter.

 

[AlegreFe]

I agree with you, belief in transubstantiation is a belief based upon nothing more that faith and zero evidence.

We believe in the Eucharist. I have faith that the Eucharist is Jesus Christ. As far as how He does it is really not a great concern of mine. And the reason it’s not a great concern is because I believe. I know what Jesus says in John 6 and His words are real. It is because of the Holy Spirit that we can have the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. That’s all that matters to me. I frankly think that “transubstantiation” gets too much attention. I believe in the Real Presence.

Faith without reason is a …

Reason in this case does not necessarily mean physical proof. You are clearly a “doubting Thomas” who needs to “see” and “feel” the wounds of Jesus. Well, there are Eucharistic Miracles. Search it on the web or on CAF. You’ll find plenty of them.

For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible. This is why I think transubstantiation is overrated. We do not need, nor do we want an explanation. We believe. The only “explanation” I like is the Holy Spirit.

You’re in my prayers.