Scriptural Support for Transubstantiation

[jjkadavil]

That’s simply not true. The funny thing about forums is that your posts are still there to read. I will save you the embarrassment of quoting your own words. Go and re-read your responses in this thread and you will see that you denied Transubstantiation several times. If you don’t believe you have in your heart, then you need to pay more attention to the meanings of the words you use so carelessly.

This is exactly what happened when western missionaries came to our place. Christianity was instituted in our place in AD 52 by St. Thomas. And we grew as strong Christian community. After 1700 years westerners came…next day they judged we are heretic. We were one community for 1700 years. Now split into many…big thanks to the westerners who could not accept anything other than they knew.

 

[jjkadavil]

St. Athanasius’ Doctrine of the Trinity was not there since the beginning of the Church, do you deny the Trinity too?

If Sacramental bread is used outside Holy Mass, can’t we use it anywhere we think we need the presence of Jesus? For example our house, offices, clubs, vehicles, class rooms…anywhere we think we need the presence of Jesus. Using this way can happen if we do not stop the practice of using it outside the symbolization of a sacramental meal. If we follow His this command (This my body eat from it) we won’t have to depend on Aristotle to explain divine mysteries.

So it’s all about yes or no. That means whether sacramental bread is used within the mass (symbolic meal) or outside this. Things might be going fine at present. But at the same time we also have the responsibility to make sure things wont go worse or deviated in the distant future.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

jjkadavil:

If Sacramental bread is used outside Holy Mass, can’t we use it anywhere we think we need the presence of Jesus? For example our house, offices, clubs, vehicles, class rooms…anywhere we think we need the presence of Jesus. Using this way can happen if we do not stop the practice of using it outside the symbolization of a sacramental meal. If we follow His this command (This my body eat from it) we won’t have to depend on Aristotle to explain divine mysteries.

You are reducing this to absurdity. The Catholic Church is EXTREMELY reverent with the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament.

1. It usually is begun with a Benediction service liturgy
2. The Blessed Sacrament can NEVER be left alone. There must always be a worshiper present where ever and when ever the Blessed Sacrament is exposed.
3. The UTMOST reverence is always required whenever one is present before the Blessed Sacrament, or by the Priest who is responsible for the care of the Monstrance.

So your fear that it will become casual is completely misplaced.

Secondly, even in the time of St. Basil, he would take the Eucharist consecrated at Mass and divide it into thirds. 1/3 for the Liturgy, 1/3 he gave to the monks, and another 1/3 was placed in a golden dove that was suspended above the Altar. This Blessed Sacrament was probably in reserve for those who were sick, near death, or baptism. So even in the Eastern Church there was the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament.

Also, the desert fathers and hermits in the time before Constantine, would often keep the Blessed Sacrament in reserve IN THEIR HUT, HOUSE, HOVEL, OR CELL, as they were not able to attend weekly liturgies, as we do in modern times.

So the idea of reserving the Blessed Sacrament is ancient. What the Latin Church has done, mostly originating around the time of Berengarius and the great Eucharistic Heresy that was spreading about then, was to institute these periods of adoration, whether in a monstrance in a Church, or in a Holy Procession. The Church was solicitous that the faithful fully understand that the Divine Presence existed as long as the Appearance of Bread and Wine continued. There is NOTHING wrong with this. Even the Eastern Church reserves the Blessed Sacrament with the understanding that it IS STILL the Body and Blood of JESUS, even OUTSIDE of the Eucharistic Liturgy.

Your Oriental Orthodox Church does not have this tradition, but that does NOT mean it is wrong for the Latin Church to do so. You must try and expand your understanding of the Eucharist, the Liturgy, and Ecclesiology, or you will think anything and everything that is not exactly like your Church is wrong. You are so focused on the Thomistic/Aristotelian philosophy of transubstantiation that you are completely missing the Mystical and Holy in the Latin Church’s Eucharistic Sacrament.

 

[jjkadavil]

1. It usually is begun with a Benediction service liturgy

Why the benedication liturgy is only at the beginning when Sacramental bread remains the same throughout the benedication?

1. The Blessed Sacrament can NEVER be left alone. There must always be a worshiper present where ever and when ever the Blessed Sacrament is exposed.

Why can’t Blessed Sacrament be left alone? Why should there ‘must’ be someone?

1. The UTMOST reverence is always required whenever one is present before the Blessed Sacrament, or by the Priest who is responsible for the care of the Monstrance.

Does it mean that the examples I mentioned in pervious post are less reverent places? Of course no. Even if it is so, remember Jesus came not for the healthy, but for the sick.

Secondly, even in the time of St. Basil, he would take the Eucharist consecrated at Mass and divide it into thirds. 1/3 for the Liturgy, 1/3 he gave to the monks, and another 1/3 was placed in a golden dove that was suspended above the Altar. This Blessed Sacrament was probably in reserve for those who were sick, near death, or baptism. So even in the Eastern Church there was the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament.
Also, the desert fathers and hermits in the time before Constantine, would often keep the Blessed Sacrament in reserve IN THEIR HUT, HOUSE, HOVEL, OR CELL, as they were not able to attend weekly liturgies, as we do in modern times.

You also have given my explanation to it in the same paragraph. In all the situations mentioned above, the sacramental bread is kept for the later consumption which is within the symbolizaiton of a meal. So it’s sure the bread won’t be kept until it would go off and there is no need of depending on the theory of transubstantiation.

The Church was solicitous that the faithful fully understand that the Divine Presence existed as long as the Appearance of Bread and Wine continued. There is NOTHING wrong with this.

This is where the entire problem lies. First of all, we had to talk about how long Divine presence would continue in the bread and wine because we started reserving it for worshipping purpose out of the symbolisation of a meal. If it was kept only for eating, no question of bread and wine going off. Wine lasts longer and bread less than that. So Divine presence depends of the nature of the matter? Then why do you say with transubstantiation bread is no more bread and not necessarily be used every time as sacramental meal?

Divine Presence existed as long as the Appearance of Bread and Wine continued

We know, bread and wine do not lose their appearance within a second. It is a gradual process. Does it mean Divine presence also gradually goes away in the same proportion of the bread and wine losing its appearance?

But that does NOT mean it is wrong for the Latin Church to do so. You must try and expand your understanding of the Eucharist, the Liturgy, and Ecclesiology, or you will think anything and everything that is not exactly like your Church is wrong.

So you agree Latin churches ‘expand’ the ‘understanding’ of Eucharistic mystery (understanding mystery???). I feel so sorry to hear it. Too much expansion might end up in bursting. If the church celebrated this mystery without any expansion for at least 1200 years why should there be an expansion after that?

You are so focused on the Thomistic/Aristotelian philosophy of transubstantiation that you are completely missing the Mystical and Holy in the Latin Church’s Eucharistic Sacrament.

If it was a mystery why did St. Aquinas gave it a philosophical interpretation?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

jjkadavil:

You also have given my explanation to it in the same paragraph. In all the situations mentioned above, the sacramental bread is kept for the later consumption which is within the symbolizaiton of a meal. So it’s sure the bread won’t be kept until it would go off and there is no need of depending on the theory of transubstantiation.

In the Latin Church the Holy Eucharist is always consumed afterwards, even if it is exposed in the Monstrance. So you have no argument against us now.

 

[ProVobis]

In the Latin Church the Holy Eucharist is always consumed afterwards, even if it is exposed in the Monstrance. So you have no argument against us now.

Doesn’t it lose its True Presence after a set time?

 

[jjkadavil]

In the Latin Church the Holy Eucharist is always consumed afterwards, even if it is exposed in the Monstrance. So you have no argument against us now.

In the examples you said in your previous post it is very clear sacramental bread were reserved only because It could not be available to be consumed until they participated in next mass which probably were very infrequent. But when you deliberately do not consume it for monstrance adoration it is being used out of symbolization of sacramental meal. Which means the focus of Sacrament of Eucharist is taken from the symbolization as Sacramental meal to the substance of the matter of the bread and wine. It is because of this you had to depend on transubstantiation. Because you had to depend on transubstantiation you had to explain how long Divine presence would last in the bread and wine. With which you again going back to matter of the bread and wine from the Substance (Jesus) and you land up in a position to explain how Jesus leaves bread and wine if it is left unconsumed (for eg: due to a theft).

We hear of incidents ‘black mass’ people taking the sacramental bread for their witchcraft. This because they believe in transubstantiation. They believe that what they take is the body of Jesus. Do you believe, that bread is body of Jesus when they take it for witchcraft? I would like to believe no because God doesn’t have to be ‘trapped’ in a bread and by they taking it for the purpose of the witchcraft it goes out of the symbolization of sacramental meal.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

jjkadavil:

But when you deliberately do not consume it for monstrance adoration it is being used out of symbolization of sacramental meal. Which means the focus of Sacrament of Eucharist is taken from the symbolization as Sacramental meal to the substance of the matter of the bread and wine.

Now you understand. What is that substance? The body and blood of Jesus.

We adore Jesus in this Most Holy Sacrament, because it is such an awesome gift of Himself to us.

Are you uncomfortable with the many layers of Mystery surrounding the Holy Eucharist? It is MORE than the Sacramental Meal (although it is that too.) You are trying to imprison Jesus in your narrow thinking. The Church knows better.

 

[jjkadavil]

Now you understand. What is that substance? The body and blood of Jesus.

We adore Jesus in this Most Holy Sacrament, because it is such an awesome gift of Himself to us.

Are you uncomfortable with the many layers of Mystery surrounding the Holy Eucharist? It is MORE than the Sacramental Meal (although it is that too.) You are trying to imprison Jesus in your narrow thinking. The Church knows better.

I’m 100% comfortable with the mysteries because I don’t depend on reasoning and philosophies to accept it.

Please answer me, when the black mass people steal the sacramental bread and take to their devil worship is that bread still the body of Jesus?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I’m 100% comfortable with the mysteries because I don’t depend on reasoning and philosophies to accept it.

Please answer me, when the black mass people steal the sacramental bread and take to their devil worship is that bread still the body of Jesus?

We don’t call it reasoning and philosophies, we call it infallible Church doctrine. (I’m sure you are displeased with that too.)

Ask yourself what would happen if the Holy Eucharist was taken from your Oriental Orthodox Liturgy after it was consecrated.

 

[jjkadavil]

We don’t call it reasoning and philosophies, we call it infallible Church doctrine. (I’m sure you are displeased with that too.)

Ask yourself what would happen if the Holy Eucharist was taken from your Oriental Orthodox Liturgy after it was consecrated.

Still you do not answer it. Oriental Orthodox have no problems with it as they have no question of using it outside the symbolization of sacramental meal. Definitely black mass does not come in that so that question not relevant to oriental churches. Your church promotes using sacramental bread outside mass and it’s your responsibility to answer it. Would you like to answer?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Still you do not answer it. Oriental Orthodox have no problems with it as they have no question of using it outside the symbolization of sacramental meal. Definitely black mass does not come in that so that question not relevant to oriental churches. Your church promotes using sacramental bread outside mass and it’s your responsibility to answer it. Would you like to answer?

Your answer is unsatisfactory because it evades the question entirely. If you feel this is entirely acceptable, then you have your answer from me too.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I’m 100% comfortable with the mysteries because I don’t depend on reasoning and philosophies to accept it.

Please answer me, when the black mass people steal the sacramental bread and take to their devil worship is that bread still the body of Jesus?

Yes, it is. Christ during His life made Himself vulnerable to all sorts of abuse, especially to the abuse of wicked men. What they do is sacriledge, and they will be answerable for the Body and Blood of the Lord just as we will.

 

[jjkadavil]

Yes, it is. Christ during His life made Him vulnerable to all sorts of abuse, especially to the abuse of wicked men. What they do is sacriledge, and they will be answerable for the Body and Blood of the Lord just as we will.

Yes Jesus accepted all limitations of man during His life. He is not in that limitations anymore and doesn’t have to be there in the midst of a sacrilege.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Yes Jesus accepted all limitations of man during His life. He is not in that limitations anymore and doesn’t have to be there in the midst of a sacrilege.

You may have that opinion, I don’t. I know what the Church teaches, and I’m not going against the wisdom of the Church.

Transubstatiation is a permanent change of substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. The substance does not change back into bread once it leaves the Mass.

The substance is not dependent on a clock but on the action of God through His priests and Bishops. By Faith we know the change happens. And we can be sure that Christ knew that when He instituted the Eucharist that it would be abused as you suggest. He did it anyway. And the Holy Spirit inspired the Church to proclaim Transubstatiation as it does even to today.

I understand your desire to protect Jesus’ identity in this matter, but I think the God of the Universe can handle it on His own.

 

[jjkadavil]

You may have that opinion, I don’t. I know what the Church teaches, and I’m not going against the wisdom of the Church.

Transubstatiation is a permanent change of substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. The substance does not change back into bread once it leaves the Mass.

The substance is not dependent on a clock but on the action of God through His priests and Bishops. By Faith we know the change happens. And we can be sure that Christ knew that when He instituted the Eucharist that it would be abused as you suggest. He did it anyway. And the Holy Spirit inspired the Church to proclaim Transubstatiation as it does even to today.

I understand your desire to protect Jesus’ identity in this matter, but I think the God of the Universe can handle it on His own.

The theory of ‘transubstantiation’ is perfect, but it fell in trouble when the sacramental bread started being used outside Holy Mass or outside the symbolisation of Sacramental meal. In the west you may not face many questioning about it. But please reaslise we are questioned by churches who have proper apostolic succession and we cannot disregard them just calling anti-catholic views.
You said transubstantiation is permanent change. It is. Now let us take it out of its symbolisation as meal. Do you know transubstantiation will be undone as soon as bread and wine lose their appearance? As losing their appearance is not a one-second incident but a gradual process, we cannot say at which point the transubstantiation is undone. We cannot also say transubstantiation gets undone gradually as ‘partial presence’ of Jesus cannot happen.
When It is used for sacrilage it is abuse even if Jesus is present in it or not. Their intention is disrespecting and disgracing our Lord. That is abuse. But they think Jesus is present there because they are stupid. When Holy Spirit gives us wisdom, what devil gives them is stupidity and false knowledge.
As Jesus died on the cross He left all the human limitations. He cannot be restrained and forced to be somewhere where He does not want to be. I’m sure my Lord is awesome.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

jjkadavil:

The theory of ‘transubstantiation’ is perfect, but it fell in trouble when the sacramental bread started being used outside Holy Mass or outside the symbolisation of Sacramental meal. In the west you may not face many questioning about it. But please reaslise we are questioned by churches who have proper apostolic succession and we cannot disregard them just calling anti-catholic views.

When you say “we are questioned” you mean, I suppose, the Oriental Orthodox Churches. But who do you mean when you say “churches who have proper apostolic succession.” Are you referring to the Orthodox? Please answer.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Do you know transubstantiation will be undone as soon as bread and wine lose their appearance? As losing their appearance is not a one-second incident but a gradual process, we cannot say at which point the transubstantiation is undone. We cannot also say transubstantiation gets undone gradually as ‘partial presence’ of Jesus cannot happen.

That is not an issue. The issue is if the appearance of bread and wine remain. When you eat food, when does it cease to be food and become a part of your body? It is immaterial. The fact is you are nourished by food, and no one cares when it “ceases to be food.” In the Holy Eucharist, we are nourished (both body and soul) by the Body and Blood of Jesus. No one cares (nor should they) when Jesus is no longer present in the Bread and Wine, because now He is present within US. It is a sublime mystery.

But in the case of the Sacramental bread falling to the floor of a church accidentally, the bread can be dissolved in water where it loses its appearance of bread and can be disposed of reverently. Or in the case of the Sacramental wine spilling accidentally to the floor, the clean towel can be used to soak it up and then can be rinsed out reverently. Catholic Churches have a special sink which connects directly to the ground below (not the sewer system) just for this purpose. We believe that it is no longer the Body and Blood of Jesus at that point. No one cares about the exact millisecond when the Holy Presence of Jesus departed from the accidents of bread and wine.

In the most sacrilegious usage that you described, we believe that according to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, as long as the appearance of bread and wine remain, it would still be the Body and Blood of Jesus. We also believe that if they stole the bread from your Oriental Orthodox church it would still be the Body and Blood of Jesus.

If we could, we would try to recover the bread. However, what exactly happens is ALWAYS up to Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Transubstantiation is not a Divine Law. It is a teaching to help us understand the Divine Truth of HOW Jesus is present in the Holy Eucharist.

 

[jjkadavil]

That is not an issue. The issue is if the appearance of bread and wine remain. When you eat food, when does it cease to be food and become a part of your body? It is immaterial. The fact is you are nourished by food, and no one cares when it “ceases to be food.” In the Holy Eucharist, we are nourished (both body and soul) by the Body and Blood of Jesus. No one cares (nor should they) when Jesus is no longer present in the Bread and Wine, because now He is present within US. It is a sublime mystery.

Exactly, this is the destiny of sacramental bread and of Jesus in it. Displaying sacramental bread in front of someone is exactly equal to displaying food to someone who is starving. We have to see our Lord not through the sacramental bread, but through His creation around us. Liturgy of the Hours for the season of Epiphany clearly describes that.

But in the case of the Sacramental bread falling to the floor of a church accidentally, the bread can be dissolved in water where it loses its appearance of bread and can be disposed of reverently. Or in the case of the Sacramental wine spilling accidentally to the floor, the clean towel can be used to soak it up and then can be rinsed out reverently. Catholic Churches have a special sink which connects directly to the ground below (not the sewer system) just for this purpose. We believe that it is no longer the Body and Blood of Jesus at that point. No one cares about the exact millisecond when the Holy Presence of Jesus departed from the accidents of bread and wine.

I would like to believe, the reason for the transubstantiation getting undone in the above examples is not because they are irretrievably lost, but because They went out of the symbolisation of the sacramental meal. Otherwise the tiny particles of the bread in the water would still remain the body of Jesus. Because sometimes we divide one host into many when there are no enough hosts but Jesus is one body and not divided. When it fell in the water and dissolved the same thing happens. Only difference is in the number of particles.

In the most sacrilegious usage that you described, we believe that according to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, as long as the appearance of bread and wine remain, it would still be the Body and Blood of Jesus.

With the above explanation I would like to disagree with this statement as I believe the sacramental bread went out of the symbolisation of sacramental meal when it is taken by the black mass people. Also I believe Jesus would not want to be present there in the symbol in the same way He is present in the sacrament of Eucharist. And He does not have to, as He is not anymore in any limitations. And I find it totally inappropriate to ‘make ’ Him be present where He definitely would not want to be present. And if you believe Jesus can undo the transubstantiation if the Holy Host goes into the water and melt why can’t He do the same when Holy Host is taken away to inappropriate places?

If we could, we would try to recover the bread. However, what exactly happens is ALWAYS up to Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Yes of course, it is our duty to try our best to bring it back within Its sacramental purpose.

Transubstantiation is not a Divine Law. It is a teaching to help us understand the Divine Truth of HOW Jesus is present in the Holy Eucharist.

Is it merely a teaching? This is the Divine act that takes place in the Sacrament of Eucharist.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I would like to believe, the reason for the transubstantiation getting undone in the above examples

You are entitled to believe according to what your Oriental Orthodox Church teaches. By the same token, Catholics are entitled to believe according to what the Catholic Church teaches. Is that so hard to understand?

With the above explanation I would like to disagree with this statement as I believe the sacramental bread went out of the symbolisation of sacramental meal

See above comment.

Displaying sacramental bread in front of someone is exactly equal to displaying food to someone who is starving.

No, you are wrong. It is exactly like having Jesus with us, to be close to, adore, and love for his wonderful miracle and His presence among us. We are not starving. Do you not read in the Scriptures where Jesus says “But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst;” (John 4:14) or again: "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. " (John 6:51)