P
pablope
Guest
Anybody correct me if I am mistaken…but I do not think there has been any sort of Church council convened to state the Real Presence…it has always been believed in what it has been for 2000 years…
- Status
T
thenobes
Guest
If you’re still interested, one of the best apologetics of this sort I’ve ever read was in a book written by a convert governor of California, Peter H. Burnett, published in 1859. “The path which led a protestant lawyer to the Catholic Church” . Burnett, Peter H. (Peter Hardeman), 1807-1895.
Here is a link to his chapter on transubstantiation.
first page
babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t81j99k6g;view=1up;seq=538
last page
babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t81j99k6g;view=1up;seq=629
The entire book is a very logical and well thought out examination of Roman Catholicism and its claims, in a very legal, scholarly approach. I would recommend reading the entire book, after you’ve read the chapter on transubstantiation.
Hope you enjoy it. He makes a lot of interesting points, and also lots of parallels to the way systems of law work. Somewhat stilted speech, but I believe normal for books of that time, and makes the reading interesting as well.
peace
steve
K
Kliska
Guest
Thank you! Will check it out.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Just to add St John to me connects with Polycarp/St Ireneaus in this way the writing of St Ireneaus becomes intimately connected to the Church and during Easter.
Here’s Ireneaus
2.But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, “In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins.” And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills ). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
3.When, therefore, the mingled [320-321] cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?-even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor [322-323] flesh; but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones,-that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a corn of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption, because the strength of God is made perfect in weakness, in order that we may never become puffed up, as if we had life from ourselves, and exalted against God, our minds becoming ungrateful; but learning by experience that we possess eternal duration from the excelling power of this Being, not from our own nature, we may neither undervalue that glory which surrounds God as He is, nor be ignorant of our own nature, but that we may know what God can effect, and what benefits man receives, and thus never wander from the true comprehension of things as they are, that is, both with regard to God and with regard to man. And might it not be the case, perhaps, as I have already observed, that for this purpose [324-325] God permitted our resolution into the common dust of mortality, that we, being instructed by every mode, may be accurate in all things for the future, being ignorant neither of God nor of ourselves?
St Ireneaus- Against Heresies (book 5, Chapter 2 paragraph 2 and 3)
textexcavation.com/irenaeusah5.html
Irenaeus also maintained that the bishops in different cities are known as far back as the Apostles and that the bishops provided the only safe guide to the interpretation of Scripture The scripture on John is read 3rd Thursday of Easter which connects the Saint and Apostle.
usccb.org/bible/readings/041813.cfm
Gospel Jn 6:44-51
Jesus said to the crowds:
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him,
and I will raise him on the last day.
It is written in the prophets:
They shall all be taught by God.
Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me.
Not that anyone has seen the Father
except the one who is from God;
he has seen the Father.
Amen, amen, I say to you,
whoever believes has eternal life.
I am the bread of life.
Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
this is the bread that comes down from heaven
so that one may eat it and not die.
I am the living bread that came down from heaven;
whoever eats this bread will live forever;
and the bread that I will give
is my Flesh for the life of the world.”
They connect through the attack of gnostic issues.
The body of Christ and the Church is also significant in that in the presence of the Holy Spirit and the interaction of the consecration is indeed spiritually profound.
Here’s Ireneaus
2.But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, “In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins.” And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills ). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
3.When, therefore, the mingled [320-321] cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?-even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor [322-323] flesh; but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones,-that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a corn of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption, because the strength of God is made perfect in weakness, in order that we may never become puffed up, as if we had life from ourselves, and exalted against God, our minds becoming ungrateful; but learning by experience that we possess eternal duration from the excelling power of this Being, not from our own nature, we may neither undervalue that glory which surrounds God as He is, nor be ignorant of our own nature, but that we may know what God can effect, and what benefits man receives, and thus never wander from the true comprehension of things as they are, that is, both with regard to God and with regard to man. And might it not be the case, perhaps, as I have already observed, that for this purpose [324-325] God permitted our resolution into the common dust of mortality, that we, being instructed by every mode, may be accurate in all things for the future, being ignorant neither of God nor of ourselves?
St Ireneaus- Against Heresies (book 5, Chapter 2 paragraph 2 and 3)
textexcavation.com/irenaeusah5.html
Irenaeus also maintained that the bishops in different cities are known as far back as the Apostles and that the bishops provided the only safe guide to the interpretation of Scripture The scripture on John is read 3rd Thursday of Easter which connects the Saint and Apostle.
usccb.org/bible/readings/041813.cfm
Gospel Jn 6:44-51
Jesus said to the crowds:
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him,
and I will raise him on the last day.
It is written in the prophets:
They shall all be taught by God.
Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me.
Not that anyone has seen the Father
except the one who is from God;
he has seen the Father.
Amen, amen, I say to you,
whoever believes has eternal life.
I am the bread of life.
Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
this is the bread that comes down from heaven
so that one may eat it and not die.
I am the living bread that came down from heaven;
whoever eats this bread will live forever;
and the bread that I will give
is my Flesh for the life of the world.”
They connect through the attack of gnostic issues.
The body of Christ and the Church is also significant in that in the presence of the Holy Spirit and the interaction of the consecration is indeed spiritually profound.
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
As a new new member myself ,I thank you for your patience TCEL.
As a former Roman Catholic the teaching I inherited from my parents ,that is of “transubstantiation” cannot,I believe, be shown( as you seem to suggest in your comments) from, or in the Old Testament figures,or types .
What they portrayed was the coming of Christ ,and his becoming", Christ our Passover" ,“the lamb of God”( this we all believe) .
This was the true sacrifice all the OT shadows foretold.
This is true of your own example of the “Passover”
and also of the holy “offerings of the Lord”( Deuteronomy 18 ;1) : “They shall eat the offerings of The Lord made by fire.”
This was flesh ( or meat) that was to be eaten ,only by the Levites.(or OT.priests)
Yes it is true,these as well as the"Eucharist ," are all eaten and enter into the stomach;but the former are only types (of Christ) .
As the old types did not evidence a “literal presence” ( of the actual Christ figured) these examples would only give a basis for symbolic figures to be used in the New Testament as well .
So these were not to be seen as a type of " transubstantiation " as far as Jewish faith was then practiced ,would you agree?
One might rightly say yes,but this was before Jesus ,“lamb of God” was crucified ,but it could also be argued,that so was the “last supper”,“on the night in which he was betrayed”.
T
TCEL
Guest
Thanks so much for clarifying! It really helped. Hopefully, what I’m about to say will make sense.
You’re absolutely correct that typology points to Christ, first and foremost. Christ is the key. But, OT types can be shown in the Eucharist, too. I think historical Tradition is pretty clear on the true Presence. I was just using the example from Exodus to show that there was already a precedent for reserving the heavenly bread in the tabernacle, to indicate that this isn’t unscriptural
.I want to highlight again how right you are that everything makes sense in the context of Christ! Only, I would further argue, especially the Eucharist! See, I don’t think Christ was only a spiritual presence. His contemporaries in John 6 didn’t understand him to be speaking figuratively either. I think if I were one of His disciples at the time, I wouldn’t have been scandalized at the suggestion of only a symbolic communion. The Passover itself was to be not only a past event, but a present reality, to each Jew. At each Passover, it was as if God was delivering I myself from Egypt, though it happened a while ago. So, the idea of a symbolic communion wouldn’t have troubled me so much. Yet, it says many left him.
So, in this instance, I don’t have a problem believing the Eucharist is more than a symbol; especially if Jesus’ own words, and Tradition, point to this. Personally, my biggest obstacle are simply my own senses.
Scott Hahn put it a really good way, I think, knowing what we know about Judaism. If the Last Supper is just a meal, then the crucifixion is just an execution.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
The true presence officially has not counciled to proclaim the true presence, but there are biblical new testament letters, early church fathers writings that teach the true presence in the Eucharist and they have defended the true presence Catholic faith against heretics and heresies that never required a church council to declare, define or defend from a council.Anybody correct me if I am mistaken…but I do not think there has been any sort of Church council convened to state the Real Presence…it has always been believed in what it has been for 2000 years…
Only Transubstantiation proved officially to the freethinkers heretical views, that a substance change takes place in the confected Host. The true presence was not necessarily defended from a council.
Early on Christians were persecuted for practicing their Catholic faith in the true presence by the pagan Rome.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Hi TCEL, the apostles and the church have put in words what you have beautifully described from your posts.
In what is anamnesis, parousia, zakor = these biblical words describes the practice of the Hebrew Zakor Passover that gets fulfilled in the Last supper of Jesus the Lamb of God who commissions His disciples to practice the Eucharist celebration from the anamnesis in the “remembrance” to the fulfillment of the presence revealed in the parousia.
One needs the Church’s Sacred apostolic Traditions and practices from the original apostles, handed down through the Catholic Church in order to understand their new testament writings. The English translation needs the Church whom Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to teach us.
In what is anamnesis, parousia, zakor = these biblical words describes the practice of the Hebrew Zakor Passover that gets fulfilled in the Last supper of Jesus the Lamb of God who commissions His disciples to practice the Eucharist celebration from the anamnesis in the “remembrance” to the fulfillment of the presence revealed in the parousia.
One needs the Church’s Sacred apostolic Traditions and practices from the original apostles, handed down through the Catholic Church in order to understand their new testament writings. The English translation needs the Church whom Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to teach us.
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
Hi,thanks for your prompt reply.
I was not arguing against your using Old Testament types,as such , that is in your original comment,.
After all we both agree on the substance or reality they showed to ( Jewish ) faith : the offering up by God the father ,his only ( pictured by Isaac) son ,upon the alter.
The Passover "remembrance “, that the Jews repeated every year is by you ,rightly applied to the present time,for each ( believing) Jew.
Jesus in the night he was betrayed eager to eat it with his disciples. If the Jewish Lamb was symbolic that they had first eaten of,and so full of meaning : why could not Jesus teach in the same manner( with much significance also) without it being classified as " just a meal”?
In john 6( from my point of seeing it) it could just as easily been seen that his "disciples "no longer followed him because as they were only after more bread anyway( another course from the “five thousand " table) they would not be interested in any spiritual analogy ,only a full stomach.(labour not for meat John 6:26,27)).
How then would you read the conclusion of the chapter by Peter verse 68 when it was asked would he (they ) would also leave him ( Christ)?
Peters words"Lord ,to whom shall we go ? Thou hast the words of eternal life.”
T
TCEL
Guest
You’re welcome! First, I don’t know why there aren’t more words of explanation at the Institution accounts. You’ll have to ask Jesus. As a Catholic, I respond it’s because He had His Apostles to hand the teaching on; and also because a Jewish lens of context was firmly in place. That’s why we place such high regard not only on Sacred Scripture, but Tradition. The Jewish faith wasn’t only a faith of the written word, there was an oral dimension, too. If you haven’t, I highly recommend you read Brant Pitre’s Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist. It goes over a lot of the types; but I guarantee it helps with a more accurate understanding. Unfortunately, I don’t own it, so I can’t reference it.
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
Dear QNDNNDQDCE.
In your analogy of a “rude” individual,within a congregation , ( as a former Catholic ) I can only sympathise with your sentiments.However it is my conviction that the doctrine of the “Eucharist” and in particular “transubstantiation” , if rightly presented. (to the wider “church”) would exclude salvation to all outside the walls of Roman Catholicism.This is still
held among certain of those who would still maintain an historical stand :even to this day.
That if it is through the Catholic Priest that the merits of Christ are conveyed to men; and that through the "sacraments ",then it stands to reason that all who are blind to this will be lost.
So while I have the highest regard for you personally ,I am only coming from this same foundation and being honest by my views.
If either of us are to suffer ( in dialogue) let it be by the "weapons of our warfare ",and let God the Holy Spirit ,do the wounding.( Heb4:12)
“For the word of God is Quick,and powerful,and sharper than any two edged sword,piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit,and of the joints and marrow,and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart”
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Hi Tcel, the Church has applied biblical terms that relate to the institution of the Eucharist, which follows and supports your commentary, in regards to the English translated word of “Do this in remembrance of me”, that sheds light on the real institution of the liturgy that brings the eternal presence of God in the presence.
Such as the Hebrew word zakor used in the perpetual Passover that has not ended, Jesus fulfilled it that remains perpetual from " Zakor". Paul takes the Hebrew fulfilled Passover in Jesus and graduates it into “Anamnesis” of the Eucharist when nothing is lost, the new testament letters also relate the “parousia” of the true presence of Jesus.
In Addition Eucharista meaning thanksgiving litters the new testament from the original writings of the apostles where we get Eucharist.
Without the Hebrew understanding of the true presence fulfilled in the apostles learning from Jesus himself, has the passover of old fulfilled at the last supper from anamnesis, that remains perpetual eternally and parousia revealed from the apostles.
A non catholic English interpretation of remembrance remains in a symbolic Jesus that does not exist, and this false pretense to recall to only a memory of a pass biblical event, that Jesus commissioned the Church to do, cannot and does not fulfill the perpetual passover God commanded Moses by Divine Law, and Jesus fulfilled in His Eucharist that remains perpetual until the Parousia of Jesus Christ.
The definition of sacrament used by the Church says it all.
Peace be with you
Such as the Hebrew word zakor used in the perpetual Passover that has not ended, Jesus fulfilled it that remains perpetual from " Zakor". Paul takes the Hebrew fulfilled Passover in Jesus and graduates it into “Anamnesis” of the Eucharist when nothing is lost, the new testament letters also relate the “parousia” of the true presence of Jesus.
In Addition Eucharista meaning thanksgiving litters the new testament from the original writings of the apostles where we get Eucharist.
Without the Hebrew understanding of the true presence fulfilled in the apostles learning from Jesus himself, has the passover of old fulfilled at the last supper from anamnesis, that remains perpetual eternally and parousia revealed from the apostles.
A non catholic English interpretation of remembrance remains in a symbolic Jesus that does not exist, and this false pretense to recall to only a memory of a pass biblical event, that Jesus commissioned the Church to do, cannot and does not fulfill the perpetual passover God commanded Moses by Divine Law, and Jesus fulfilled in His Eucharist that remains perpetual until the Parousia of Jesus Christ.
The definition of sacrament used by the Church says it all.
Peace be with you
T
thenobes
Guest
Or perhaps the best explanation is that they followed Him to Capernaum to crown Him King, because there had been a belief extant among them, that the Messiah would be one to perform even a greater miracle with respect to Bread than Moses had done. That is, the messiah would provide more bread than the 40 years of mannah they received in the desert of Sinai.
They wanted a conquering king, and bread was only a sign of this king. The “food that perishes” is actually success in worldly ambition.
Please read the chapter on transubstantiation written by the author I referenced in post #99 to see what I mean.
peace
steve
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
The Lord’s Supper by Martin Chemnitz.
Also, the Two Natures in Christ by Chemnitz (mainly as a Christological argument for the necessity of the real presence).
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
Regarding the word ‘remembrance ’ :
It is only in Luke - and therefore Paul’s ministry- that the word remembrance was added.There is absolutely nothing of it in Matthew and Mark.Nothing whatsoever about even the occurrence of the Last Supper in John. And the only record of any church in which the Lord’s supper is recorded as having taken place at all,is that in the first epistle to the Corinthian church’For I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you.’
The word ‘Eucharist’ was never used by The Lord Jesus or his apostles to denote any ordinance or feast in the new testament.It is true that as part of what is called’The Lord’s supper’, Jesus gave thanks.This was but one of many of his actions during that ordinance.But only a part ,only one action.The Greek word for ‘thanks’ happens to be eucharist(eo).
Now why choose out only one of Jesus’ acts during the supper? Why call the supper by the name of a part of it? Especially when there is no scriptural authority for doing so?In any event,why not translate the word ‘eucharist eo’ into English the same as any other word? Why the Greek mystery? Why change it from a verb - the action- into a noun- the name- falsely to designate the whole ordinance by this altered part of speech? The Lord’s supper is no more ‘The Eucharist’ than it is ‘The Breaking of Bread’.It is the Lord’s supper,during which as parts of the whole both these actions were performed.
As to ‘Eucharist’ the same word is used by the hypocrite in the temple who prayed thus with himself: ‘God, I ““thank”” thee ,that I am not as other men’ There is as much justification for that to be called the Eucharist,as the supper.we do not have the right not to translate the Greek,much less change the part of speech to make it denominative.And finally,the same flimsy basis exists as strongly in the one case as in the other.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
Hi Steve,
Yes ,I would fully agree with you.
“Ye seek me,not because ye saw the miracles”( verse 26)
How amazing ! With so many miracles vindicating his heavenly origins,their gaze was still earthward.
As Jesus says to them elsewhere that they should believe for the " miracles sake" ( alone ,if nothing else).
Even the Apostles in Acts 1:6 “saying Lord,wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom”
An triumphant earthy Kingdom and David again their king.
These "followers “( inJohn 6)had such an earthly kingdom view ,how ever could they understand this heavenly language from the Son of God? " doth this offend you”( verse 61)
They saw only the “son of Joseph”(verse 42)
With such a "literal " view of his kingdom,Jesus interprets and corrects(verse 63) their now taking his ( heavenly) words to have literal meaning too.
“It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speak unto you ,they are spirit ,and they are life”
B
benjohnson
Guest
It looks like it’s available here: logia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/book-supper-chemnitz-teigen.pdf
EDIT: This copy is legal to download and use per the pdf itself.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
Why is it that transubstantiation specifically excludes the possibility of salvation for those who do not believe in transubstantiation? Could you explain that? Also, was this post intended as a comment on something I said or as a new topic? If the former, the connection between your post and what I wrote is not clear.
I am a bit concerned, Bernard. Are you suggesting that Christ did not say what Luke and Paul said he did? That Luke and Paul put words in Christ’s mouth that he never intended?
- Status