The Case Against Transubstantiation

  • Thread starter Thread starter zerinus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
According to Pope Zerinus, right?
The “Pope” is the one who makes categorical assertions without any arguments to back up his claims; and that sounds more like you I am afraid.
Christ said it, it happens. Period.
Actually, He didn’t say it, and it doesn’t happen.
Did you know that the earliest Christians were arrested and killed because they were accused of Cannibalism? They knew what it meant, and so did those around them.
The early Christians were falsely accused of all kinds of things, which they never did nor practiced, such as literally eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ.

zerinus
 
Here is the post:

zerinus.blogspot.com/2008/04/case-against-transubstantiation.html

Have a read through it and tell me what you think

zerinus
I notice the Mormon page ignored the Apostles Paul’s verse about the real precense. Because when you read that one you will see that Jesus truely is the Body and Blood.

1 Cor 10:16
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

1 Cor 11:23-29
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.


Secondly can someone explain all the eucharistic miracles that have happened where the host has actually turned into felsh and blood?

And yes the early christians were accused of cannibalism because of the real presence. Which shows they believed in it. Why would they go to death for it then if they didn’t believe in it? The mormons are in the same heresy that all the earlier “sects” were when ignoring the real prescense. A church without the Real Presence in the Eucharist is a Dead Church as Pope Benedict says, even when it invites us to pray.
 
Not at all! Partaking of the Eucharist is a sacrament, like the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost; and as such it is able to impart grace. A sacrament is defined in the Catholic Church I believe as an “outward sign of inward grace,” and I accept that definition. Eating the bread and wine is the sign—just as laying on of hand is a sign. Performing that sign then enables one to receive grace. The turning of the bread and wine to flesh and blood is totally unnecessary for that sign to be present—which is eating of the bread and wine in remembrance of the sufferings of Christ.
If the bread of life is no longer regarded and believed to be the true flesh and blood of Christ, then it is just bread. Believing in the Eucharistic presence requires a huge leap of faith. If one can put aside their doubts and personal pride, God will make himself manifest. From personal experience, there is no equal to the graces that come from frequent communion. God is ever present.
This sounds bogus to me! This kind of thing can easily be staged. My objections to Transubstantiation are biblical, scriptural, and theological; it is not a question of “believing” or “not believing” something. The scriptures argue against it, period.
You’ve already defeated yourself. The bible is not the only rule of faith whether one likes it or not
Please, post some scriptures to back up your statements. My friend your pride is killing you, none of us here on this board care in the least about your objections! I will pray for you regardless, but your issues with the Christian faith are you own, and of no import to this argument.

If it is a genuine miracle, and the symbols literally turned into flesh and blood, they should do so in an observable manner every time, not just when somebody allegedly “prayed” for it in 700.

God does not have to do anything. Believing in the Eucharist is a huge leap of faith, and if you’ve read your bible closely you’ll see God loves doing stuff like that. The Eucharist is a huge test in one’s faith, and to demand a validation shows a very prideful and arrogant attitude. Sure it would be nice if the Lord poked his head out of the tabernacle every now and then…but it aint gonna happen

in prayer,
-revelatiosn
 
You have misunderstood the Old Testament as well as the New. “Eating” of the sacrificial lamb was not the thing that made the atonement. It was the shedding of the blood of the sacrificial beast that did:

Leviticus 17:

11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

2 Chronicles 29:

24 And the priests killed them, and they made reconciliation with their blood upon the altar, to make an atonement for all Israel . . .

Hebrews 9:

22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

zerinus
Only blood? Go back to Leviticus 10:17-18:

Why did you not eat the sin offering in the sacred place, since it is most sacred? It has been given to you that you might bear the guilt of the community and make atonement for them before the LORD. If its blood was not brought into the inmost part of the sanctuary, you should certainly have eaten the offering in the sanctuary, in keeping with the command I had received."

Why would Moses, being a stickler in following the commands of the Lord, be so angry at his sons for not eating from the sin offering?
 
The early Christians were falsely accused of all kinds of things, which they never did nor practiced, such as literally eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ.

Oh really?

St. Ignatius

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus ( [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported) how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him? ( [A.D. 189]).

Clement of Alexandria

“Eat my flesh)” [Jesus] says, “and drink my blood.” The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Hippolytus

“And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table” [Proverbs 9:1] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper * ( [A.D. 217]).

Aphraahat

After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so. . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul
Theodore

When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, “This is the symbol of my body” but, “This is my body.” In the same way when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say. “This is the symbol of my blood,” but, “This is my blood,” for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup) but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit** ( [A.D. 405]).

Ambrose

Perhaps you may be saying, “I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?” It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ (9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

Augustine

You ought to know that you have received what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That bread which you see on the altar having been sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ, That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ ( [A.D. 411]).

. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith, yet faith does not desire instruction
This sounds bogus to me! This kind of thing can easily be staged. My objections to Transubstantiation are biblical, scriptural, . The scriptures argue against it, period.
 
I notice the Mormon page ignored the Apostles Paul’s verse about the real precense. Because when you read that one you will see that Jesus truely is the Body and Blood.

1 Cor 10:16
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ
?

1 Cor 11:23-29
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body
, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Secondly can someone explain all the eucharistic miracles that have happened where the host has actually turned into felsh and blood?

And yes the early christians were accused of cannibalism because of the real presence. Which shows they believed in it. Why would they go to death for it then if they didn’t believe in it? The mormons are in the same heresy that all the earlier “sects” were when ignoring the real prescense. A church without the Real Presence in the Eucharist is a Dead Church as Pope Benedict says, even when it invites us to pray.
In those verses Paul is using the same figurative language that Jesus was using; but the context of what he says makes it clear that it was not meant to be taken literally.

zerinus
 
In those verses Paul is using the same figurative language that Jesus was using; but the context of what he says makes it clear that it was not meant to be taken literally.

zerinus
Sorry…didn’t catch that part in the text in Paul. How did you come up with that summation? Can you give us an example of how Paul uses this figuratively…maybe, say words that would preface that?
 
Only blood? Go back to Leviticus 10:17-18:

Why did you not eat the sin offering in the sacred place, since it is most sacred? It has been given to you that you might bear the guilt of the community and make atonement for them before the LORD. If its blood was not brought into the inmost part of the sanctuary, you should certainly have eaten the offering in the sanctuary, in keeping with the command I had received."

Why would Moses, being a stickler in following the commands of the Lord, be so angry at his sons for not eating from the sin offering?
That explains why the sin offering was “sacred”. It was sacred because “It has been given to you that you might bear the guilt of the community and make atonement for them before the LORD ”. Hence it should have been eaten in the sanctuary. It does not mean that the eating of it made the atonement. The sin offering was given to Aaron and his sons by the Lord to be their food. The Levites did not have an inheritance (of land) in Israel. They lived on the tithes and sacrificial offerings of the Israelites. Verses 12 to 15 makes that clear:

Leviticus 10:

12 And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meat offering that remaineth of the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar: for it is most holy:

13 And ye shall eat it in the holy place, because it is thy due , and thy sons’ due , of the sacrifices of the Lord made by fire: for so I am commanded.

14 And the wave breast and heave shoulder shall ye eat in a clean place; thou, and thy sons, and thy daughters with thee: for they be thy due, and thy sons’ due, which are given out of the sacrifices of peace offerings of the children of Israel.

15 The heave shoulder and the wave breast shall they bring with the offerings made by fire of the fat, to wave it for a wave offering before the Lord; and it shall be thine, and thy sons’ with thee , by a statute for ever; as the Lord hath commanded.

But because it was considered holy, they were to eat it in the holy place. In fact, no one else was allowed to eat of it except them, and their immediate family members.

zerinus
 
Sorry…didn’t catch that part in the text in Paul. How did you come up with that summation? Can you give us an example of how Paul uses this figuratively…maybe, say words that would preface that?
In those verses that you had highlighted Paul is simply copying the language of Jesus. Just as Jesus did not intend that language to be taken literally (as explained), neither did Paul. But the context of the rest of the passage makes it clear how Paul intended the meaning of the Sacrament to be understood—i.e. to be taken in remembrance of the sufferings of Jesus, not His literal flesh and blood.

zerinus
 
Zerinus, do you want me to argue for Transubstantiation using your “scriptures”? :tsktsk: If you continue with this ridiculous line of reasoning I will. 😃
 
Originally Posted by O.S. Luke
I would argue against transubstantiation being used to describe what happens at the Table to the bread and win at the Eucharist - it is an Aristotelian philosophical construct that is at odds with the mysterious nature of a sacrament
.**However, after reading your article, I highly disagree with your premise. The bread and wine DO become the Body and Blood of Christ. Christ is really present - make no mistake about it.
Your second paragraph seems to contradict your first paragraph. Oh well! :rolleyes:

Besides, making categorical assertions doesn’t really mean anything unless you can back it up with sound arguments.

zerinus
Zerinus,
I see no contradiction at all in OS Luke’s statement. Without putting words in his mouth, Transubstantiation is a Catholic expression of the real presence. Non-catholics who believe in the real presence describe what happens in different ways, or choose not to describe it at all, and accept it as the mystery that it is. Disagreeing with the Catholic expression of the real presence does not mean one rejects the real presence.
As for sound arguments supporting the real presence, this thread and others on this site are filled with them. Or try bookofconcord.org/fc-sd/supper.html
 
Oh really?

St. Ignatius

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes [A.D. 110]).

In these quotes, Ignatius is simply copying the language of Jesus. He no more means it literally than Jesus did. The rest wrote after the doctrines had already been corrupted.
Your objections are heretical just like the other heretics for 2000 years who denied it. Your nothing new.
An easy rebuttal! I could take the easy rout out too, if I wanted to.
Did Jesus say “Take this and eat it, this is SYMBOLLICALLY my body and blood?”
Actually, He said just that! Go back and read my commentary on John 6:53–63, and note especially my comments on verse 63, and you will see.

zerinus
 
Here is the post:

zerinus.blogspot.com/2008/04/case-against-transubstantiation.html

Have a read through it and tell me what you think

zerinus
There is a disconnect between these points and historical Catholic teaching. Catholics look to our own traditional historical interpretation of Jesus’ words. This is difficult enough for Catholics of this culture to grasp sometimes.

I would think it would be nearly impossible for Mormonism, a religion born and raised in the American culture, to grasp transubstantiation. Or even to present it objectively.

Do the Orthodox, who have their own ojections to transubstantiation, come closer to the Mormon train of thought?
 
There is a disconnect between these points and historical Catholic teaching. Catholics look to our own traditional historical interpretation of Jesus’ words. This is difficult enough for Catholics of this culture to grasp sometimes.

I would think it would be nearly impossible for Mormonism, a religion born and raised in the American culture, to grasp transubstantiation. Or even to present it objectively.

Do the Orthodox, who have their own ojections to transubstantiation, come closer to the Mormon train of thought?
I am listening to LDS General Conference right now:

lds.org/broadcast/gc/0,5161,8046,00.html

I will catch you later!

zerinus
 
This sounds bogus to me! This kind of thing can easily be staged. My objections to Transubstantiation are biblical, scriptural, and theological; it is not a question of “believing” or “not believing” something. The scriptures argue against it, period.

If it is a genuine miracle, and the symbols literally turned into flesh and blood, they should do so in an observable manner every time, not just when somebody allegedly “prayed” for it in 700.

zerinus
Zerinus,
I understand and appreciate your argument. But, this basically boils down to interpretation of scripture. Your arguments are from your interpretational view point. The ‘real presence’ interpretation is a doctrine of the Catholic Church and not a personal interpretation. As a Mormon, you can appreciate the doctrines of church magesterium such as your LDS doctrines. So interpretation is essentially Authority and Tradition no matter how you slice it.

You have admitted that it would be possible for Jesus to do this. But according to your interpretation/opinion, this is not what he did. But how do you know for sure? Who gave you the authority to interpret Sacred Scripture and form doctrines from those interpretations? What did the early Church Fathers believe before the New Testament was officially canonized?
St. Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, St. Ignatius of Antioch

This link holds but a few of the quotes from them.

But the real question is: Why do you really argue against it?
And, if it is true, what would you do?

YBIC,
MRM
 
You have admitted that it would be possible for Jesus to do this. But according to your interpretation/opinion, this is not what he did. But how do you know for sure? Who gave you the authority to interpret Sacred Scripture and form doctrines from those interpretations?
My testimony of the Restoration, my understanding of the gospel based on modern revelation as well as the Bible, and the authority of the holy priesthood that I have does!
But the real question is: Why do you really argue against it?
Because I know that it is not true.
And, if it is true, what would you do?
I know that it isn’t!

zerinus
 
Because I know that it is not true.
How? Through prayer I have discerned this for a long time, and I, along with a great deal of other Catholics who have done the same as I, can attest to the real and true presence of Jesus Christ in the eucharist.

Zerinus, we could easily turn this logic on you and openly state that all LDS doctrines are heretical, and that mormons are in fact not even christian??

Please, offer references, scripture quotes, or links to back up your claims.
 
How? Through prayer I have discerned this for a long time, and I, along with a great deal of other Catholics who have done the same as I, can attest to the real and true presence of Jesus Christ in the eucharist.
Then good luck to you; I hope that you are right. However, we know that you are not!

“Real presence” in the Spirit, yes—but in flesh and blood, no.
Zerinus, we could easily turn this logic on you and openly state that all LDS doctrines are heretical, and that mormons are in fact not even christian??
I am sure you could, and many do. I don’t dispute that. But so do we. We believe that the Holy Ghost bears witness to the truths that has been revealed to us, and we know to be true. That witness carries conviction to the hearts of those who hear our message by the same Spirit.
Please, offer references, scripture quotes, or links to back up your claims.
Which claims? The claims of the Restoration? Those claims are only witnessed to by the power of the Holy Ghost. Links and references will not do the trick.

zerinus
 
I dunno the Bible as well as I should, and I’m not a scholar, so this how I look at it.

This was the Faith of first Christians. The Church fathers, that walked with the Apostles, who in turn were present at the Last Supper, believed Him literally to be the Bread of Life. All I need to know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top