The Case Against Transubstantiation

[NDfan]

I have heard that the translation, “do this is remembrance of me” is weak. I am not versed in ancient languages, but I’ve heard the original Greek is much clearer, more like “bring this back to life again.” Does bread have life? It certainly does if its God’s life. Why would God animate mere bread with his spirit? Simple - He doesn’t. He makes it Him.

Nate the Greek that is used is the word Amnesis which literally means remembrance. When a Greek would do something in amnesis they literally would stop everything they are doing and meditate on the event they are trying to recall. This is how the Jews recall the Exodus when they participate in the seder meal. They try to make the past the present by trying to re-live in their minds the actual Exodus.

But the elements of the seder meal are purely symbolic. The 3rd cup of redemption taken after the meal is the same cup Jesus issued to the Apostles that represented the new covenant, red wine mixed with warm water. This symbolized the blood of the passover lambs sacrificed for the redemption from Pharaoh. Given the Temple has been destroyed the Jews have no way of sacrificing a Lamb for the passover so they use a shank bone called the Zeroah to symbolize the lamb. Along with the 3rd cup of redemption the Jews after 70AD starting eating an olive-sized piece of bread to symbolize the body of Lamb. Sound familiar?

This part of the seder is called Afikomen and is exactly what Jesus was pre-figuring when they finished the passover meal and HE instituted the supper. Jesus replaced the bread and red wine that symbolized the lambs of the passover with HIS body and blood. That’s why after HE issues the 3rd cup of redemption HE states that he will not drink this fruit of the vine again until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

Jesus certainly clarifies that they are drinking wine and not literal blood.

Don’t fight John 6, its meaning is clear. Especially from what Jesus doesn’t do. Disciples abandon him, and he lets them go. No plea that he was merely being poetic; no words of explanation about his flowery exposition. Jesus was asking Jews, forbidden to drink blood, to break Mosaic law, and He made no apologies for it. Those that abandon Him are doomed; the stakes couldn’t be higher, and He lets them go.

But Jesus did clarify HIS message stating that He was speaking spiritually. The problem was the Jews could not understand that the Messiah would never ask them to drink blood that was expressly forbidden in Leviticus. Why would Jesus disregard HIS Father’s law unless HE was speaking figuratively?

Jesus says in verse 35: whoever believes in me shall never thirst and then immediately in 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.

Following in verse 40 Jesus states:

40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Instead of listening to Jesus they grumbled over the fact that HE stated HE was the bread that came down from Heaven. Then right away in verse 47 & 48 Jesus states:
47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life.

This whole discourse of eating flesh and drinking blood is figurative language for believing in Jesus which is confirmed by verse 54:

Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

This is a figurative re-statement of verse 40:

40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

So one needs to ask is it believing in Jesus or literally eating HIS flesh that gives eternal life? To confirm we must re-examine scripture. No where in scripture do we see eating flesh as a way to have eternal life. Obtaining eternal life is always equated with believing. Communion is our way of outwardly professing we believe in Jesus.

With that being said one valuable lesson I learned in Theology is that when Jesus gives us something to do that involves HIM, HE is usually present. i.e. Where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name I am there with you and when we get baptized the Holy Spirit fills us. So I would say it’s safe to assume Jesus is with us during communion. But more spiritually than a change to literal flesh and blood. When the water at the wedding feast at Cana changed into wine, it literally became wine. It wasn’t water that was really wine underneath.

Jesus made no bones about explaining parables that His disciples didn’t understand throughout the Gospel. Why wouldn’t He do it in this case? He spoke clearly. His words were plain and to be taken literally. To let souls die over language misinterpretation from God’s own mouth would be cruel, and God, Jesus, was certainly not cruel.

Jesus would never be cruel. The discourse made in John 6 is explained within the same sermon Jesus gave at Capernaum. He rectifies eating flesh and drinking blood by telling them they must believe. If you notice not everyone left Jesus after this. The Apostles were still there because as Peter states in verse 68, “we have believed,and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God”.

But other disciples stayed as well as we see in verse 66 “After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him”. It doesn’t say they all left except the 12. It says many left, then Jesus turned to the 12. So obviously others comprehended what he was saying.

I don’t know if these arguments have already been made, I didn’t read the whole post, mostly just your first post and the last few replies.

I am feeling quite fervent about this tonight…I just got back from my parish’s Forty Hours Benediction!

PEACE

 

[SenorSalsa]

Am I the only one who sees the utter irony in the fact that** a Mormon **is arguing that something is not stated in the Bible, and thus cant be true?

Its downright laughable

 

[flameburns623]

Zerinus:

You’re missing my point: the very construction of early 2nd-century churches shows that worship in those churches centered around the Eucharist. These worship services even had an altar erected at the center of their church–usually it is the altar which was the primary surviving remnant of the chapel. The early liturgies reflect the same thing. The way that people spoke of Christian worship reflects the same thing–even early critics of Christianity noted the centrality of the ceremonies involving bread and wine.

An LDS baptism service takes a bit less than 45 minutes or so but of this time, the baptism itself is about 20 minutes or so long, from the opening prayer to the actual baptism. And the baptistry is the gathering-point for the service: in my baptism, those I attended as a guest, and in the one baptism I performed, there was a multipurpose room adjacent to the baptistry, where folding chairs were set up for those in attendance. Following my baptism, and the others I have attended, the candidate is then brought into the same area, seated in a chair front-and-center in the room, and ‘confirmed’. Again, the ceremony is the most-important activity taking place at that point and so it is given the most prominent place in the service.

Sacrament service on Sundays, while it does indeed command reverence and import, is not given this same sort of prominence. Look at the way the Sacrament table is placed obliquely and to one side of the LDS chapel, rather than in the very center of it. Look at the fact that the service is conducted on a table rather than on an altar–there are significant differences. And LDS chapels simply are not constructed the way early Christian churches are conducted. You could not conduct an LDS worship service efficiently in a 2nd century Christian catacomb the way some of those catacombs are occasionally used to conduct a Catholic Mass. (You could conduct a Lutheran or Episcopal service in the same setting). Something is different between the way LDS currently worship and the way early Christians worship. Honesty should compel you to recognize that fact.

My point was not to criticise the way the LDS do services, but to point to the way that even simple architecture suggests that what happens in an LDS service is remarkably different from what early Christians thought was happening in their worship services. Early Christians apparently thought something very important was happening during their consecration of bread and wine, and they gave that event central stage for almost the entirety of their worship.

 

[teadough]

brought this up about 7 hours(and many posts) ago. Me thinks zerinus does not want to speak of it.

I brought it up as well and he seem to dodge that one.

I don’t know what to say for myself on the same piece of scripture.Let me say that another way. I don’t know what I would have said when I was a Protestant. It’s like that piece of scripture was never mentioned and I never bothered to pay it any attention.

What can one say in regards to that Lukes Gospel? You can’t come to the conclusion that Jesus gave the two guys sympolic bread and their eyes opened unless you say that “their eyes were opened” was also symbolic. It makes no sense in that apect.

 

[teadough]

So one needs to ask is it believing in Jesus or literally eating HIS flesh that gives eternal life? To confirm we must re-examine scripture. No where in scripture do we see eating flesh as a way to have eternal life. Obtaining eternal life is always equated with believing. Communion is our way of outwardly professing we believe in Jesus.PEACE

Communion is our way of outwardly professing we believe in Jesus.

Outwardly professing your faith to whom? Members of your church or to Jesus?

I would like to hear your take on Luke 24:30-31 when it comes to your conclusion of people “outwardly professing” faith. Who are these two guys professing their faith to?

“30When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him”

 

[revelations]

Am I the only one who sees the utter irony in the fact that** a Mormon **is arguing that something is not stated in the Bible, and thus cant be true?

Its downright laughable

Amazing aint it?

www.exmormon.org

Wicked site with lots of references and LOGICAL arguments

 

[LilyM]

Am I the only one who sees the utter irony in the fact that** a Mormon **is arguing that something is not stated in the Bible, and thus cant be true?

Its downright laughable

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.

 

[Nate415]

You know all this debating about what scripture means certainly makes me glad that, as Catholics, we have the Pope and the Magisterium, powered by the Holy Spirit to provide us with truth.

We’ve gone over some great theory, and some really interesting arguments, but when it comes down to it - transubstantiation is an infallible doctrine of faith of the Catholic Church, founded by Christ and lead by his Vicar and protected by the Holy Spirit, throughout the ages.

Of course, we are able to believe what we want, and we can abandon these truths like some disciples in John 6, that’s what free will is all about.

 

[O.S.Luke]

We’ve gone over some great theory, and some really interesting arguments, but when it comes down to it - transubstantiation is an infallible doctrine of faith of the Catholic Church, founded by Christ and lead by his Vicar and protected by the Holy Spirit, throughout the ages.

I believe T. is dogma, not doctrine.

 

[J_C]

if this is true than why is this disbelieve about the Eucharist today no longer considered a heresy?

hi wisdomseeker, i do not see where anyone responded to this, maybe i overlooked it.

I cannot imagine that a disbelief in the Eucharist being the true body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus would not be related to some heresy or group of heresies, today as back then.

i am not expert in this, but this teaching is so central to Catholic faith that it certainly must still be considered heresy to beleve, or at least to teach otherwise.

 

[J_C]

I don’t know what to say for myself on the same piece of scripture.Let me say that another way. I don’t know what I would have said when I was a Protestant. It’s like that piece of scripture was never mentioned and I never bothered to pay it any attention.

same here, teadough! as a protestant this story in Luke never meant anything in particular to me as far as eucharist is concerned probably because my nondenomination ignored the eucharist altogehtehr. i remember going to visit another nondenomination group that had a lot of Catholic influence in it and they did have a eucharistic service with wonder bread and grape jhuice, and i was impressed with what i though was solemnity, but confused about wht the purpose of it was.

after going Catholic many years ago, only then did i start lerning about the Body and Blood of Jesus, and suddenly this scripture, as well as many others, came alive for me in such a new way. in fact, the entire Bible really coalesced for me once i started reading it as a whole, and interpreting it according to the ancient ways, rather than taking verses out of context as i had done before, and also ignoring those places that support Catholic teachings.

 

[ibkc]

I believe T. is dogma, not doctrine.

All dogma is doctrine.

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus:

You’re missing my point: . . .

I don’t think so. I think you are missing my point.

An LDS baptism service takes a bit less than 45 minutes or so but of this time, the baptism itself is about 20 minutes or so long, from the opening prayer to the actual baptism. . . .

I was referring to the sacramental procedure of the baptism itself, not the “service” that precedes or accompanies it. The “service” is not a part of the sacramental procedure. You can perform the baptism without the “service,” and it will be an equally valid baptism. That procedure lasts only a couple of minutes—perhaps seconds. It consists of uttering the sacramental formula: “Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” Then dipping the candidate in water. That is all that there is to the sacrament of baptism. The “service” is not a required part of it.

Early Christians apparently thought something very important was happening during their consecration of bread and wine, and they gave that event central stage for almost the entirety of their worship.

Let me assure you once again that we believe that “something very important is happening” during the administration of the Sacrament, and that it is the “centre stage” of our service. We just don’t think that it should artificially be made to last forever for it to be that important, as you apparently do.

zerinus

 

[wisdomseeker]

Nate the Greek that is used is the word Amnesis which literally means remembrance. When a Greek would do something in amnesis they literally would stop everything they are doing and meditate on the event they are trying to recall. This is how the Jews recall the Exodus when they participate in the seder meal. They try to make the past the present by trying to re-live in their minds the actual Exodus.

But the elements of the seder meal are purely symbolic. The 3rd cup of redemption taken after the meal is the same cup Jesus issued to the Apostles that represented the new covenant, red wine mixed with warm water. This symbolized the blood of the passover lambs sacrificed for the redemption from Pharaoh. Given the Temple has been destroyed the Jews have no way of sacrificing a Lamb for the passover so they use a shank bone called the Zeroah to symbolize the lamb. Along with the 3rd cup of redemption the Jews after 70AD starting eating an olive-sized piece of bread to symbolize the body of Lamb. Sound familiar?

This part of the seder is called Afikomen and is exactly what Jesus was pre-figuring when they finished the passover meal and HE instituted the supper. Jesus replaced the bread and red wine that symbolized the lambs of the passover with HIS body and blood. That’s why after HE issues the 3rd cup of redemption HE states that he will not drink this fruit of the vine again until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

Jesus certainly clarifies that they are drinking wine and not literal blood.

But Jesus did clarify HIS message stating that He was speaking spiritually. The problem was the Jews could not understand that the Messiah would never ask them to drink blood that was expressly forbidden in Leviticus. Why would Jesus disregard HIS Father’s law unless HE was speaking figuratively?

Jesus says in verse 35: whoever believes in me shall never thirst and then immediately in 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.

Following in verse 40 Jesus states:

40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Instead of listening to Jesus they grumbled over the fact that HE stated HE was the bread that came down from Heaven. Then right away in verse 47 & 48 Jesus states:
47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life.

This whole discourse of eating flesh and drinking blood is figurative language for believing in Jesus which is confirmed by verse 54:

Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

This is a figurative re-statement of verse 40:

40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

So one needs to ask is it believing in Jesus or literally eating HIS flesh that gives eternal life? To confirm we must re-examine scripture. No where in scripture do we see eating flesh as a way to have eternal life. Obtaining eternal life is always equated with believing. Communion is our way of outwardly professing we believe in Jesus.

With that being said one valuable lesson I learned in Theology is that when Jesus gives us something to do that involves HIM, HE is usually present. i.e. Where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name I am there with you and when we get baptized the Holy Spirit fills us. So I would say it’s safe to assume Jesus is with us during communion. But more spiritually than a change to literal flesh and blood. When the water at the wedding feast at Cana changed into wine, it literally became wine. It wasn’t water that was really wine underneath.

Jesus would never be cruel. The discourse made in John 6 is explained within the same sermon Jesus gave at Capernaum. He rectifies eating flesh and drinking blood by telling them they must believe. If you notice not everyone left Jesus after this. The Apostles were still there because as Peter states in verse 68, “we have believed,and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God”.

But other disciples stayed as well as we see in verse 66 “After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him”. It doesn’t say they all left except the 12. It says many left, then Jesus turned to the 12. So obviously others comprehended what he was saying.

PEACE

:newidea:

Are you trying to imply here that your interpretation of the Word of God is correct and the interpretation of the Catholic Church is wrong? because if you are, I got news for you. One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. named about one hundred after Jesus by the sucsessors of the apostles. She remains to this day, ever unchanged. why dont you leave your pride once and for all and actually do some readings about what our Fathers has taught from the beginning instead hang on to new version of interpretation. go back to the past and discover the present.

 

[teadough]

I don’t think so. I think you are missing my point.

I was referring to the sacramental procedure of the baptism itself, not the “service” that precedes or accompanies it. The “service” is not a part of the sacramental procedure. You can perform the baptism without the “service,” and it will be an equally valid baptism. That procedure lasts only a couple of minutes—perhaps seconds. It consists of uttering the sacramental formula: “Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” Then dipping the candidate in water. That is all that there is to the sacrament of baptism. The “service” is not a required part of it.

Let me assure you once again that we believe that “something very important is happening” during the administration of the Sacrament, and that it is the “centre stage” of our service. We just don’t think that it should artificially be made to last forever for it to be that important, as you apparently do.

zerinus

HI,Zerinus. We are still waiting on your comments on Luke24:30-31. I thought maybe you did not see the other 4 post that related the same questions so I will post the said scripture again. Thanks in advance and God Bless you.

Luke24
"30When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him"



`

 

[Mystic_of_God]

It is not a question of whether He could do such a thing or not; but of whether it is true Christian doctrine that He would or should or not.

Raising the dead or walking on the water served a purpose at that time. Turning bread into flesh and wine into blood serves no useful purpose to anyone, and is not a Christian or biblical doctrine that He should.

Raising someone from the dead or walking on water were manifest miracles that could be observed as such. But we know that the bread is not turned into flesh, nor wine into blood, because we can eat and drink them and taste them, and take them to the laboratory and test them. It is a fake miracle if it is one.

zerinus

[SIGN]DO NOT FEED THE TROLL![/SIGN]

 

[Nate415]

Nate the Greek that is used is the word Amnesis which literally means remembrance. When a Greek would do something in amnesis they literally would stop everything they are doing and meditate on the event they are trying to recall. This is how the Jews recall the Exodus when they participate in the seder meal. They try to make the past the present by trying to re-live in their minds the actual Exodus.

But the elements of the seder meal are purely symbolic. The 3rd cup of redemption taken after the meal is the same cup Jesus issued to the Apostles that represented the new covenant, red wine mixed with warm water. This symbolized the blood of the passover lambs sacrificed for the redemption from Pharaoh. Given the Temple has been destroyed the Jews have no way of sacrificing a Lamb for the passover so they use a shank bone called the Zeroah to symbolize the lamb. Along with the 3rd cup of redemption the Jews after 70AD starting eating an olive-sized piece of bread to symbolize the body of Lamb. Sound familiar?

This part of the seder is called Afikomen and is exactly what Jesus was pre-figuring when they finished the passover meal and HE instituted the supper. Jesus replaced the bread and red wine that symbolized the lambs of the passover with HIS body and blood. That’s why after HE issues the 3rd cup of redemption HE states that he will not drink this fruit of the vine again until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

Jesus certainly clarifies that they are drinking wine and not literal blood.

But Jesus did clarify HIS message stating that He was speaking spiritually. The problem was the Jews could not understand that the Messiah would never ask them to drink blood that was expressly forbidden in Leviticus. Why would Jesus disregard HIS Father’s law unless HE was speaking figuratively?

Jesus says in verse 35: whoever believes in me shall never thirst and then immediately in 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.

Following in verse 40 Jesus states:

40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Instead of listening to Jesus they grumbled over the fact that HE stated HE was the bread that came down from Heaven. Then right away in verse 47 & 48 Jesus states:
47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life.

This whole discourse of eating flesh and drinking blood is figurative language for believing in Jesus which is confirmed by verse 54:

Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

This is a figurative re-statement of verse 40:

40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

So one needs to ask is it believing in Jesus or literally eating HIS flesh that gives eternal life? To confirm we must re-examine scripture. No where in scripture do we see eating flesh as a way to have eternal life. Obtaining eternal life is always equated with believing. Communion is our way of outwardly professing we believe in Jesus.

With that being said one valuable lesson I learned in Theology is that when Jesus gives us something to do that involves HIM, HE is usually present. i.e. Where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name I am there with you and when we get baptized the Holy Spirit fills us. So I would say it’s safe to assume Jesus is with us during communion. But more spiritually than a change to literal flesh and blood. When the water at the wedding feast at Cana changed into wine, it literally became wine. It wasn’t water that was really wine underneath.

Jesus would never be cruel. The discourse made in John 6 is explained within the same sermon Jesus gave at Capernaum. He rectifies eating flesh and drinking blood by telling them they must believe. If you notice not everyone left Jesus after this. The Apostles were still there because as Peter states in verse 68, “we have believed,and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God”.

But other disciples stayed as well as we see in verse 66 “After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him”. It doesn’t say they all left except the 12. It says many left, then Jesus turned to the 12. So obviously others comprehended what he was saying.

PEACE

As for how Jesus’ sacrifice resembles passover, I implore you to read Scott Hahn’s Search for the Fourth Cup. He could certainly explain it better than I. For that matter read Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper, and Rome Sweet Home (a beautiful story of an anti Catholic coming back to the Church).

As to John 6, you neglect verse 55 & 56 “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.” So…Jesus is in me when I eat His flesh, and He is the bread of life, which happens to be true food. HOT DOG, I think we’re on to somthing here!

Kinda takes the hyperbole out of it, huh?

Also, I never said Jesus was cruel, and I never claimed that all disciples abandoned Him. We are free to believe or disbelieve. However, in other instances, Jesus explained parables or teachings that His disciples didn’t understand. He would open their eyes. In this chapter, He makes no attempt to recover those who abandon Him. If He was being poetic (like the parable of the sower) and people misunderstood and started ditching Him, I am sure He would have explained more clearly to prevent them from abandoning eternal life.

The Lord loves us and wants us to be with Him, He does not want us to abandon Him over a misinterpretation of His words. This whole protestant thing must have Him really broken up!

 

[flyersfan1088]

As to John 6, you neglect verse 55 & 56 “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.” (

Isn’t it funny how often verses are passed over to support an arguement. That’s why I love reading the Bible as a Catholic. I read ALL the words.

 

[zerinus]

HI,Zerinus. We are still waiting on your comments on Luke24:30-31. I thought maybe you did not see the other 4 post that related the same questions so I will post the said scripture again. Thanks in advance and God Bless you.

Luke24
"30When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him"

What do you expect me to say about that?

zerinus

 

[teadough]

What do you expect me to say about that?

zerinus

I never meant for the question to be some sort of trick question or something. It’s is one of those pieces of scripture that really made me ponder what was going on in the Catholic Church and why this Church was completely unique to all the others.

It’s strange because from the outside looking in one thinks they are looking at this enormous institution that is full of rules and regulations. They have some sort of vague idea of what they think the Catholic Church is or what the Catholic Church has become. Once coming into the Catholic faith one will find that there is a paradox when it comes to all these rules and regulations. It is a freedom I can’t describe. It is true faith and at the heart of it all is the Eucharist.

Becoming a Catholic was not something I had on my “things to do before I die” list. God has a funny way of revealing Himself to us. He does it all the time to people when they least expect it. I pray from the bottom of my heart that He reveals Himself and that He pierces your heart with His.

God Bless