The Case Against Transubstantiation

[LilyM]

The sacrifice itself was not symbolic. That sacrifice was of the real flesh and real blood of Jesus Christ. But it was performed once, and it needed to be performed only once. The Eucharist is a commemoration of that sacrifice, to be done in remembrance of Him. It is not a repetition of that sacrifice.

zerinus

Yes it was performed only once - we don’t believe that our Masses are repetitions of that sacrifice any more than you do, rather we believe that each time we celebrate the Mass we tap into that same eternally present sacrifice. As you would know if you’d spent any time at all actually examining Catholic beliefs on the Mass. And Christ’s sacrifice NEEDS to be eternally present and tapped into afresh by each new generation of believers to redeem all of us down to the end of the age.

Examine what the Jews believed about their Passover - they believed the same thing about it - that it was an eternal event that they made present again (not repeated) each year that it occured.

My question stands though - if it’s unnecessary for Christ’s literal flesh and blood to be present and available to us today then why was it necessary for Christ’s literal flesh to be broken and blood to be shed at any time, including on Calvary?

Do you understand that if we need only a symbol of His flesh and blood now, then only a symbol of His flesh and blood has EVER been needed? The people around Jesus at Calvary did in fact have access to his REAL flesh and blood sacrifice, not some symbol of it. Why? Because it was necessary for them to have the reality, not some symbol.

And here and now we are no different. What was needed on Calvary for the people there IS what is needed for us right here and now, because for God there IS no difference between then and now, no difference between us and those around Jesus on Calvary. Geddit?

 

[zerinus]

ok so bear with me please. If Christ is spiritually present in the bread and wine, does it mean it is simply bread and wine (you can step on them and walk with good conscience) or bread and wine with Jesus IN (with Spirit) and hence must be treated as if Jesus is in them?

No, Jesus’ presence in the sacrament is spiritual. That does not mean that His Spirit is physically present inside the bread and wine. It means that we receive spiritual grace from Him as we participate in the Sacrament with a good conscience in faith. The situation is the same as in baptism. When we participate by faith in the sacrament of baptism, we receive spiritual grace from the Lord independent of the actual water that touches our bodies. This is how St Peter describes the blessing we receive at baptism:

1 Peter 3:

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

In other words, the actually water of the baptism does not do anything for us. What makes the difference is “the answer of a good conscience toward God”. Similarly, the actual bread and wine of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper does not do anything to us; but “the answer of a good conscience toward God” does.

zerinus

 

[why_me]

I wish to thank all of you for totally blowing off my earlier post! I asked if anybody knew about Eucharistic Miracles. Because if Zerinus wanted proof about the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Jesus,he could’ve been referred to that topic.

      Again Thanks a lot. NOT!

Saint Faustina comes to mind. She saw Jesus when the priest was blessing the Sacrament. You can go to #420 in her diary.

She states: Toward the end of the sevice, when the priest took the Blessed Sacrament to bless the people, I saw the Lord Jesus as He is represented in the image. The Lord gave His blessing, and the rays extended over the whole world.

I believe that her visions of Jesus happened quite often during the sacrament.

 

[zerinus]

My question stands though - if it’s unnecessary for Christ’s literal flesh and blood to be present and available to us today then why was it necessary for Christ’s literal flesh to be broken and blood to be shed at any time, including on Calvary?

That is just an illogical argument. If you can’t see that, then I can’t help you.

Do you understand that if we need only a symbol of His flesh and blood now, then only a symbol of His flesh and blood has EVER been needed?

No, I don’t see that at all. It doesn’t make any sense to me at all. I hope it does to you.

zerinus

 

[LilyM]

Go here for accounts of various Eucharistic Miracles, where the host or chalice turned to real flesh and/or blood. The most famous of these is the miracle in Lanciano, Italy. Which incidentally occured to a priest who was doubting Transubstantiation at the time, and so had no vested interest in believing in Catholic doctrine on the topic.

 

[inJESUS]

That is just an illogical argument. If you can’t see that, then I can’t help you.

No, I don’t see that at all. It doesn’t make any sense to me at all. I hope it does to you.

zerinus

Zerinus, i think these are important questions.

And thank you for you clarification. I get it now.

My next question is : what is the reason that makes it impossible for Jesus to be really present, from your point of view, or the Bible’s?

 

[wisdomseeker]

The sacrifice itself was not symbolic. That sacrifice was of the real flesh and real blood of Jesus Christ. But it was performed once, and it needed to be performed only once. The Eucharist is a commemoration of that sacrifice, to be done in remembrance of Him. It is not a repetition of that sacrifice.

zerinus

Really! when this sort of believe came about? do you know?

 

[zerinus]

Go here for accounts of various Eucharistic Miracles, where the host or chalice turned to real flesh and/or blood. The most famous of these is the miracle in Lanciano, Italy. Which incidentally occured to a priest who was doubting Transubstantiation at the time, and so had no vested interest in believing in Catholic doctrine on the topic.

Do you know how many people have seen the face of Ayatollah Khomeini on the moon?

zerinus

 

[inJESUS]

My question stands though - if it’s unnecessary for Christ’s literal flesh and blood to be present and available to us today then why was it necessary for Christ’s literal flesh to be broken and blood to be shed at any time, including on Calvary?

this point i believe is related to gnostics who made out of Jesus’ death a mere appearance. Could be that they did not believe in the real presence as well?

 

[J_C]

Do you know how many people have seen the face of Ayatollah Khomeini on the moon?

zerinus

no. how many?

and what would this have to do with eucharistic miracles?

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus, i think these are important questions.

And thank you for you clarification. I get it now.

My next question is : what is the reason that makes it impossible for Jesus to be really present, from your point of view, or the Bible’s?

It is not a question of what is possible and what is not possible. The question is what is the biblical and scriptural and what is not. Transubstantiation is not a biblical doctrine. It is a gross misinterpretation of the Bible.

zerinus

 

[LilyM]

It is not a question of what is possible and what is not possible. The question is what is the biblical and scriptural and what is not. Transubstantiation is not a biblical doctrine. It is a gross misinterpretation of the Bible.

zerinus

Heaven forbid that anyone should misinterpret some of the words of the Gospels - as opposed to, say, writing a whole fnerkin’ New New Testament aka the Book of Mormon. Where on earth anyone thinks they have authority from to do THAT is beyond me.

 

[JCismywingman]

Well, if you’re unwilling to accept the various links people have shown you where the host and/or wine does in fact change physically to actual flesh and/or blood, there’s really nothing more to say.

Sorry if this is going to sound mean, but i guess Jesus wouldn’t want to waste a miracle to prove to you that transubstantiation is true. So, sorry if you’ve never and will never get to see host and/or wine turning into real flesh and/or blood.

If you believe that priests are acting in the person of Christ during the Eucharist, why is it so difficult to believe when Christ himself says “THIS IS MY BODY which will be given up for you… THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD…”

He does say "IS"and not “is SYMBOLIC” or “is my body IN SPIRIT”…

 

[why_me]

Saint Faustina comes to mind. She saw Jesus when the priest was blessing the Sacrament. You can go to #420 in her diary.

She states: Toward the end of the sevice, when the priest took the Blessed Sacrament to bless the people, I saw the Lord Jesus as He is represented in the image. The Lord gave His blessing, and the rays extended over the whole world.

I believe that her visions of Jesus happened quite often during the sacrament.

Des this prove anything or did I misunderstand the topic?

 

[J_C]

It is not a question of what is possible and what is not possible. The question is what is the biblical and scriptural and what is not. Transubstantiation is not a biblical doctrine. It is a gross misinterpretation of the Bible.

zerinus

then it comes down to your interpretation vs the 2000 year old interpretation of the Catholic Church.

we always come back to the matter of interpretations, which leads to the question of authority to interpret. that is why the title of your thread is misleading. because there is no reasonable case against TS, certainly none from biblcle point of view.

 

[J_C]

Des this prove anything or did I misunderstand the topic?

i would not say this proves anything, there is no proof but only evidences whihc add up to a substantial case. I understand that this is a typical mormon rsponse to the proof question; that there is no proof except that which is witnessed to the individual by the Holy Ghost. i think Catholics agree in large extent with this, but we also place a large investment in the evidences accumulated over 2000 years, from many hundreds and thousands of people and written reports, while mormons seem to rely on the claims of a single man plyus a handful of witnesses whose testimonies seem to me very fishy.

and,though i am not certain, gathering from other misunderstandings of Catholic things that you have shown in this forum, i would not be surprised that you have misunderstaood some aspect of this also.

 

[zerinus]

then it comes down to your interpretation vs the 2000 year old interpretation of the Catholic Church.

we always come back to the matter of interpretations, which leads to the question of authority to interpret. that is why the title of your thread is misleading. because there is no reasonable case against TS, certainly none from biblcle point of view.

We present our logic, reasoning, and interpretations, and you are free to present yours. Others can judge for themselves who has the stronger case.

zerinus

 

[why_me]

i would not say this proves anything, there is no proof but only evidences whihc add up to a substantial case. I understand that this is a typical mormon rsponse to the proof question; that there is no proof except that which is witnessed to the individual by the Holy Ghost. .

If you read Saint Faustina’s diary, you will see that she had visions of Christ at the altar when the priest was blessing the sacrament. I quoted from one of those visions. This has nothing to do with the mormon interpretation of the holy ghost but actual sighting of jesus at the altar by a now catholic saint.

 

[J_C]

If you read Saint Faustina’s diary, you will see that she had visions of Christ at the altar when the priest was blessing the sacrament. I quoted from one of those visions. This has nothing to do with the mormon interpretation of the holy ghost but actual sighting of jesus at the altar by a now catholic saint.

i understand, and i do not question the visions.

but these are not required to be believed by we faithful. they are personal revelation and do not affect the doctrine of the faith except to support it.

you wondered whether it proved anything. i said no, because they prove nothing. they are additional evidence, no more than that, and if a person should choose to ignore them, which i mostly do ignore such things, then that is OK by the Church.

personally i do not feel drawn to such things, as Fatima, Lourdes, etc. they seem strange to me, i think because of my protestant background. one of the beautyful things about our Catholic religion is that it is so big, and so full of many varied devotions, a person can find something to suit his or her tastes. i think it is fine that you are drawn to Faustina, and i hope that your dwelling thereupon will draw you further into the faith that you abandoned so many years ago.

 

[maryj]

It is not a question of what is possible and what is not possible. The question is what is the biblical and scriptural and what is not. Transubstantiation is not a biblical doctrine. It is a gross misinterpretation of the Bible.

zerinus

Luke 24:15-16 and it happened that while conversing and debating, Jesus himself drew near and walked with them, but their eyes were prevented from recognizing him.

30-31 And it happened that, while he was at table, he took bread, blessed it, broke it and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight.

Your eyes zerinus are prevented from recognizing Him, because you depend upon the ways of man to interpret for you. Sorry if that’s offensive to you, but it remains the truth. the Apostles were sent to preach, to the ends of the earth, God’s good news. They inturn taught the ECF. the beginning of the One, Holy Catholic, Apostolic church.