Real Presence Apologetics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kliska
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why is it that transubstantiation specifically excludes the possibility of salvation for those who do not believe in transubstantiation?
It doesn’t per se itself - but the Lutheran complaint would be that the Catholic dogma requires assent to a vary particular mode of change at the altar in addition to trusting in Christ’s words.

We Lutheran do understand the Catholic dogma is a response to herrasy of the enthusiasts - and in all probability doesn’t have to be church dividing as long as it’s understood to be a defense and not a proscription or formula for God’s Miracle.
 
It doesn’t per se itself - but the Lutheran complaint would be that the Catholic dogma requires assent to a vary particular mode of change at the altar in addition to trusting in Christ’s words.

We Lutheran do understand the Catholic dogma is a response to herrasy of the enthusiasts - and in all probability doesn’t have to be church dividing as long as it’s understood to be a defense and not a proscription or formula for God’s Miracle.
Transubstantiation is never a formula, that is a ridiculous and false assertion to the dogma. If Lutherans take this formula position, they have been grossly misinformed.

Trans. separates the sheep from the goats always. Trans. only confirms the apostolic faith that a change has occurred resulting in the real and substantial true presence calling us to faith, never subscribes to a formula.

Trans. separates the faithful from the goats who falsely believe in a symbolic presence, or to recall a past event by the imagination from the recorded Last Supper. It declares God dwells with the human race.

Our faith is never an addition to Christ’s Words, Christ’s Words calls us to that faith, trans. only confirms our faith trusting in Christ’s own Words that the miracle (change) took place and continues.

Show me the formula from trans. defined by the church that adds to the words of the Lord ( not Aristotle). And I will show you a devil.

Trans.is never Church dividing, it confirms the faith and removes doubt, that Unites all the Catholic Church both on earth and those in heaven as one body.

Peace be with you
 
Transubstantiation is never a formula, that is a ridiculous and false assertion to the dogma. If Lutherans take this formula position, they have been grossly misinformed.

Trans. separates the sheep from the goats always. Trans. only confirms the apostolic faith that a change has occurred resulting in the real and substantial true presence calling us to faith, never subscribes to a formula.

Trans. separates the faithful from the goats who falsely believe in a symbolic presence, or to recall a past event by the imagination from the recorded Last Supper. It declares God dwells with the human race.

Our faith is never an addition to Christ’s Words, Christ’s Words calls us to that faith, trans. only confirms our faith trusting in Christ’s own Words that the miracle (change) took place and continues.

Show me the formula from trans. defined by the church that adds to the words of the Lord ( not Aristotle). And I will show you a devil.

Trans.is never Church dividing, it confirms the faith and removes doubt, that Unites all the Catholic Church both on earth and those in heaven as one body.

Trans. removes ones suspended faith in the mystery from any doubt or wondering and emphatically confirms our faith that God has done this change, never transubstantiation adds to the miracle of the True Presence.

Peace be with you
 
Transubstantiation is never a formula, that is a ridiculous and false assertion to the dogma. If Lutherans take this formula position, they have been grossly misinformed.

Trans. separates the sheep from the goats always. Trans. only confirms the apostolic faith that a change has occurred resulting in the real and substantial true presence calling us to faith, never subscribes to a formula.

Trans. separates the faithful from the goats who falsely believe in a symbolic presence, or to recall a past event by the imagination from the recorded Last Supper. It declares God dwells with the human race.

Our faith is never an addition to Christ’s Words, Christ’s Words calls us to that faith, trans. only confirms our faith trusting in Christ’s own Words that the miracle (change) took place and continues.

Show me the formula from trans. defined by the church that adds to the words of the Lord ( not Aristotle). And I will show you a devil.

Trans.is never Church dividing, it confirms the faith and removes doubt, that Unites all the Catholic Church both on earth and those in heaven as one body.

Peace be with you
Why are Orthodox allowed to commune in Catholic churches; they don’t believe in transubstantiation? And, according to the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue the belief in transubstantiation is not required for intercommunion between the two churches.
 
Why are Orthodox allowed to commune in Catholic churches; they don’t believe in transubstantiation? And, according to the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue the belief in transubstantiation is not required for intercommunion between the two churches.
Its not so much that we don’t believe in Transubstantiation, but more that we reject it as the only valid understanding of what happens.
The Holy Eucharist is a mystery, probably the greatest of all mysteries, and while there have been a number of attempts to describe what happens when the Holy Spirit descends on the offerings of bread and wine, they all fall short.
 
Why are Orthodox allowed to commune in Catholic churches; they don’t believe in transubstantiation? And, according to the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue the belief in transubstantiation is not required for intercommunion between the two churches.
My guess: apostolic succession. No matter what you think, EC, they don’t recognize Lutheran succession.

Jon
 
Transubstantiation is never a formula, that is a ridiculous and false assertion to the dogma. If Lutherans take this formula position, they have been grossly misinformed.
Hi Gabe - just wanted to thank you for this post. If Trans. is indeed only a way of explaining that a change has occurred and never a formula, then the definition sounds incredibly more palatable to [at least these] Lutheran ears.

I cringe when I see others mistakenly equate Sacramental Union with Consubstantiation, so I can understand why you would be upset if we have mischaracterized Trans. But I have trouble seeing how Trans. is not an Aristotelian attempt at explaining the Mystery. Can you elaborate?
 
The Holy Eucharist is a mystery, probably the greatest of all mysteries, and while there have been a number of attempts to describe what happens when the Holy Spirit descends on the offerings of bread and wine, they all fall short.
Amen, amen, amen. 👍
 
Its not so much that we don’t believe in Transubstantiation, but more that we reject it as the only valid understanding of what happens.
The Holy Eucharist is a mystery, probably the greatest of all mysteries, and while there have been a number of attempts to describe what happens when the Holy Spirit descends on the offerings of bread and wine, they all fall short.
I’ll buy that.

GKC
 
Hi Gabe - just wanted to thank you for this post. If Trans. is indeed only a way of explaining that a change has occurred and never a formula, then the definition sounds incredibly more palatable to [at least these] Lutheran ears.

I cringe when I see others mistakenly equate Sacramental Union with Consubstantiation, so I can understand why you would be upset if we have mischaracterized Trans. But I have trouble seeing how Trans. is not an Aristotelian attempt at explaining the Mystery. Can you elaborate?
Gabe is good at this.

Jon
 
Perhaps this can help as well:

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part II, Chapter IV

QUESTION III

Why this Sacrament is called Eucharist

Wherefore the sacred writers, seeing that it was not at all possible that they should demonstrate by one term the dignity and excellence of this admirable sacrament, endeavoured to express it by many words. For sometimes they call it Eucharist; which word we may render in Latin either good grace, or giving of thanks. And rightly, indeed, is it to be called good grace, as well because it first signifies eternal life, concerning which it has been written: the grace of God is eternal life; and also because it includes in it Christ the Lord, who is true grace and the fountain of all favours. And no less aptly do we interpret it a giving of thanks; inasmuch as, when we immolate this purest victim, we give daily unbounded thanks to God for all his kindnesses towards us, and above all for so excellent a gift of his grace, which he assigns to us in this sacrament. But that very name, also, agrees best with those things which we read were done by Christ the Lord, at the institution of this mystery. For taking bread he brake it, and gave thanks. David also, when he would contemplate the greatness of this mystery, before he pronounced that verse: He hath made his wonderful works to be remembered; the Lord is gracious, and full of compassion. He hath given meat unto them that fear him, thought that the giving of thanks should be placed first, when he says: confession and magnificence are his work.

QUESTION XL

This Wondrous Conversion is appropriately called Transubstantiation

This admirable conversion then, as the Sacred Council of Trent has taught, is accurately and appropriately called by the holy Catholic Church Transubstantiation, for as natural generation, because in it the form [of existence] is changed, may properly and appropriately be called transformation; so, in like manner, to express the change that takes place in the sacrament of the Eucharist, in which the whole substance of one thing passes into the whole substance of another, the word Transubstantiation was rightly and wisely introduced by our predecessors in the faith.

QUESTION XLI

The Manner of Transubstantiation, and the Place in which Christ is in this Sacrament, must not be curiously searched into

But in accordance with the principle so often repeated by the Fathers, the faithful are to be admonished that they do not inquire too curiously into the manner in which this change may be made, for it defies our powers of conception, nor have we any example of it in natural changes, nor in the creation of things itself. The change itself is to be learnt by faith; the manner thereof is not to be made a subject of too curious inquiry. Pastors should also use no less caution in explaining the mysterious manner, in which the body of our Lord is contained whole and entire under the least particle of the bread: such disputations will scarcely ever have to be entered upon; should, however, Christian charity require it, the pastor will recollect previously to fortify the minds of the faithful, by reminding them that no thing shall be impossible with God.

Peace,
 
Our faith is never an addition to Christ’s Words, Christ’s Words calls us to that faith, trans. only confirms our faith trusting in Christ’s own Words that the miracle (change) took place and continues.
We’re certainly in agreement!

The reluctance in Lutheran circles to fully assent to what you are describing are when we find vestiges of Catholic thought around the Mystery. The Catholic Encyclopedia is a good example of this here:

From here: newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3

It’s simply much too concrete.

That said, I use the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation to explain to my curious children what is going on - but I always follow that the eucharist is as Christ has said and is a mystery.
 
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?
Please do not fret thyself ;and “do thy self no harm,we are all here” , that is : the word of Christ and Christ’s Words ,written through the blessed Holy Spirit ,by the New Testament writers.

The word " remembrance " in relation to the Lord’s supper ,and therefore with the injunction to repeat it ( the supper) as a memorial, is not included by the two Gospel writers Matthew and Mark .
As the Gospel of John gives no historical account of the supper; it leaves only the Gospel of Luke with the written account of :“this do in remembrance of me”.or tells of Jesus instruction for the “church” to reenact the supper “remembrance”.

Luke’s Gospel and the book of acts were ,for a time,thought to be connected.
So much so was this believed that it was said that they could have been one single writing .
Whatever,there is a strong connection between Luke and the ministry of Paul the apostle to the Gentiles and Luke is mentioned by Paul by name a number of times in the NT.

It is believed there is a high probability that Luke in the writing of his Gospel ,was doing so directly by the instruction of the apostle Paul; or possibly by Paul’s own dictation.

Since it was Paul who directly "received from the Lord ";that which he also delivered to the “church” at Corin , could it not be said then ,that this apostle is still the prominent character in connection with the supper( in the NT.) being observed ,repeated ;and kept as an ordinance? And that in support of this( from his own writings) all roads seem to lead to Paul?
 
The word " remembrance " in relation to the Lord’s supper ,and therefore with the injunction to repeat it ( the supper) as a memorial, is not included by the two Gospel writers Matthew and Mark .
As the Gospel of John gives no historical account of the supper; it leaves only the Gospel of Luke with the written account of :“this do in remembrance of me”.or tells of Jesus instruction for the “church” to reenact the supper “remembrance”.
At the Lord’s Supper, Matthew and John were there. Mark, Luke and Paul were not.

However, Mark, Luke and Paul learned from the Apostles and the Church.

So, not everything was written down by one particular Gospel writer. Meaning that they need to be read (Like the rest of Scriptures, as a whole). Also, this is a clear witness of oral tradition.
Luke’s Gospel and the book of acts were ,for a time,thought to be connected.
So much so was this believed that it was said that they could have been one single writing .
Whatever,there is a strong connection between Luke and the ministry of Paul the apostle to the Gentiles and Luke is mentioned by Paul by name a number of times in the NT.
3 times, that I can find: Col 4:14; 2 Ti 4:11; Phm 24.
 
Hi Gabe - just wanted to thank you for this post. If Trans. is indeed only a way of explaining that a change has occurred and never a formula, then the definition sounds incredibly more palatable to [at least these] Lutheran ears.

I cringe when I see others mistakenly equate Sacramental Union with Consubstantiation, so I can understand why you would be upset if we have mischaracterized Trans. But I have trouble seeing how Trans. is not an Aristotelian attempt at explaining the Mystery. Can you elaborate?
Sure, Aristotle’s natural transubstantiation of it’s substance change is by natural means that can be measured and quantified, the Church’s definition of Trans. (substance change) can never be measured or quantified. The Catholic Church nor the Orthodox have ever attempted to define the Essence of God. Whereby Aristotle’s trans. defines the substance change and defines what caused the substance change within the natural tangible means that can be measured.

Let it be clear the Catholic Church never attempts to define the mystery of the substance change in the Blessed Sacrament, She has only declared that a change has occurred by trans.

Trans. is in keep ping with the Lords Word, “it is the Spirit that gives life while the flesh is of no avail”.

In other words trans. by the Church’s definition, thou we see bread and wine according to the flesh, this is of no avail, trans. states that God has caused the substance change, “for it is the Spirit that gives life”.

Trans. has nothing to do with the change in the Eucharist, it declares that a change has occurred, thou to our flesh the bread and wine are miraculous real, the senses of the flesh avail’s nothing.

What matter’s, to our eternal soul and spirit from our faith and consumption, God promise’s eternal Life to the faithful. Trans. Confirms God is the cause of the substance change and the change remains immortal because the Holy Spirit makes the change known.

Those who object to trans. under the false pretense that trans.attempts to define the mystery of the Eucharist have been deceived and grossly misinformed or do not understand the Catholic Church’s definition of trans. as applied to the Eucharist, which is defending the apostolic faith of the true presence.

I hear the falsehoods against trans. yet none of the false protests against trans. hold water when met with the TRUTH about trans.from the Church’s definition of the true presence.

Peace be with you
 
We’re certainly in agreement!

The reluctance in Lutheran circles to fully assent to what you are describing are when we find vestiges of Catholic thought around the Mystery. The Catholic Encyclopedia is a good example of this here:

From here: newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3

It’s simply much too concrete.

That said, I use the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation to explain to my curious children what is going on - but I always follow that the eucharist is as Christ has said and is a mystery.
If you want to know what the Catholic Church’s official position on any catholic topic check the CCC ( Catechism of the Catholic Church), not an encyclopedia. Although books of these types may have the approval of the Church because the authors comments do not conflict with church dogma, never the less they are not official Church teaching and are commentary.

I attempted to read your proposed site, and found myself disagreeing about the Greek comment. For many of the Greek Fathers and Saints defined trans. without ever using the term trans. Your author gives to Much credit to the Latin Fathers. So I refrained from reading all of the commentary.

If Lutherans learned from the official teachings of the Catholic Church, you would be amazed of how much of the dogmas leave the mysteries of God untouched, which calls us to faith.

Many of our theologians write and expound on dogmas, but that does not necessarily mean that they are revealing the official Church dogma, The reason the Church does not object to such authors, mainly because their writing’s do not conflict with Church teaching.

Peace be with you
 
This is for everyone, Catholic and Non, that profess the Real Presence. Specifically I’d like to hear from those that hold to a somatic Real Presence; what is your number one resource that you’d recommend for an apologetic on that belief? One book, article, etc… that you feel is the core for believing the idea of the somatic real presence. (The Bible doesn’t count, in this case, I’m asking for a write up of some sort of defense on the real presence.)

I’m studying this idea and I don’t want to be overwhelmed by recommendations, so please pick the resource at the “top of the heap” in your opinion.
Hi Kliska,

First it would be the Bible (John 6) and the practice throughout the early Church, but seeing as how you wish for other sources, I would go straight to the Eucharistic Miracles, as there is no denying those, this teaching becomes a very real reality for all of those who doubt.

What are Eucharistic Miracles? Throughout the history of the Catholic Church, Jesus has proven beyond any doubt that He is truly present in the Holy Eucharist. Why did He have to prove this to us? It is because at certain times in history, there were heresies that denied the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. On other occasions, some priests doubted the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. And yet, on other occasions, the Holy Eucharist was abused by believers and non-believers alike.

What follows are some of the Eucharistic Miracles that took place throughout the history of the Catholic Church. All of these have received the full approval of the Catholic Church. Please click on the link below.

catholicdoors.com/misc/eucharisticmiracles.htm

There is also a video of the recent Eucharistic miracle in Buenos Aires, Argentina being studied by pathologists along with some other miracles - Science tests the faith - youtube.com/watch?v=-kuxEJXgGSI

I believe this is also a good apologetics image for the Real Presense of the Eucharist -

http://s14.postimg.org/aoz6onyep/The_Eucharist_2.png

I hope I have helped, Thank you for reading
Josh
 
We’re certainly in agreement!

The reluctance in Lutheran circles to fully assent to what you are describing are when we find vestiges of Catholic thought around the Mystery. The Catholic Encyclopedia is a good example of this here:

From here: newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3

It’s simply much too concrete.

That said, I use the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation to explain to my curious children what is going on - but I always follow that the eucharist is as Christ has said and is a mystery.
I would like to add one more comment here, that many of the official doctrines of the Church are rejected and misunderstood because they are approached from outer motives that never reach the Catholic official definition, due to authority, or one trying to fit the defined doctrine to fit ones own theology which reveals contradictions and prejudices.

Applying the Church’s definition of the defended Apostolic doctrines without trying to make it fit into a different understanding of a word or a different theological interpretation that is not Catholic, reveals never a new doctrine, but a definition and clarification of the unchangeable apostolic faith, being defended and a clear understanding in a different age of understanding.

Thus, the free thinkers of the reformation tried to move the Rock (Church) with new understandings that contradicted and demanded change to the apostolic faith.

The Catholic Church did not and could not move, although disciplines were slow to reformed, but the doctrines never changed, only defended and clarified the doctrines with, trans, purgatory, Immaculate conception, infallibility etc. These are defined terms from a new era when man demanded change, all the Church did was defend the 2000 year old apostolic faith and gave them terms that clarifies the doctrines in words so that man’s new developed understandings and intelligence can grasp at these mysteries without rejecting them.

The free thinkers new found knowledge found that the Church’s faith possessing the mind of Christ contradicted with the world’s new understanding,

Peace be with you
 
I would like to add one more comment here, that many of the official doctrines of the Church are rejected and misunderstood because they are approached from outer motives that never reach the Catholic official definition, due to authority, or one trying to fit the defined doctrine to fit ones own theology which reveals contradictions and prejudices.

Applying the Church’s definition of the defended Apostolic doctrines without trying to make it fit into a different understanding of a word or a different theological interpretation that is not Catholic, reveals never a new doctrine, but a definition and clarification of the unchangeable apostolic faith, being defended and a clear understanding in a different age of understanding.

Thus, the free thinkers of the reformation tried to move the Rock (Church) with new understandings that contradicted and demanded change to the apostolic faith.

The Catholic Church did not and could not move, although disciplines were slow to reformed, but the doctrines never changed, only defended and clarified the doctrines with, trans, purgatory, Immaculate conception, infallibility etc. These are defined terms from a new era when man demanded change, all the Church did was defend the 2000 year old apostolic faith and gave them terms that clarifies the doctrines in words so that man’s new developed understandings and intelligence can grasp at these mysteries without rejecting them.

The free thinkers new found knowledge found that the Church’s faith possessing the mind of Christ contradicted with the world’s new understanding,

Peace be with you
Doctrine is what unites. I’ve been extremely interested in the ecumenical process on Catholic doctrine. And astonished by the conclusions on the Eucharist of the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue. The prospects for reunification are staggering.
Both Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches confess together that in the eucharistic bread and wine the gift of Christ’s very presence in body and blood is given. We believe that there is essential agreement between our two churches concerning the doctrine of the real presence. We believe that this agreement is sufficient for unity between our churches in this aspect of eucharistic faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top