The Case Against Transubstantiation

[J_C]

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.

as you know mary this was the Gospel reading at today’s Mass. I love this story, it always brings tears to my eyes, as the part is read about how Jesus was known to them in the breaking of the bread.

and i love whatt you said about our mormon friend zerinis depending uponn the ways of man to interpret for him. that Gospel story tells how Jesus, beginning at the beginning, *interpreted the scriptures *for the disciples. this is how i see a very big part of the mission of our Church, that of interpreting the scriptures for us, setting them into the context of histry so that they make sense. Jesus the head of the Catholic Church continues through the Church to properly interpret the meaning of Scripture today, just as he did on the road to Emmaus 2000 years ago.

 

[Jerusha]

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?

The Gnostic aspect of LDS contradicts what Zerinus is trying to teach us. If Jesus was capable of appearing in the Americas shortly after the Resurrection, then surely He is capable of being present in the Eucharist, not merely as a symbol. Of course, as Catholics, we really don’t believe that Jesus came to the Americas just after the Resurrection, that is LDS Gnosticism-- Jesus had no human nature.

Of course, Catholics who read and thoroughly analyze the Book of Mormon have no difficulty with seeing the first Mass offered in the New World in approximately 1052 as being Jesus’s presence (in the Eucharist) in the Americas. But LDS refuse to believe that. It is the only reasonable interpretation of 3 Nephi, if one assumes that there is any truth to the BOM. Yes, it had to be a big thing to the Christians who came here, probably Irish slaves. :harp:

LDS (and particularly Zerinus) choose to believe any doctrine and teaching that is in conflict with Catholic teachings, even if it is in opposition to some of their own teachings. So it is unnecessary to argue with him.

Done. Sorry I couldn’t fulfill my promise yesterday, ran out of computer time.

 

[inJESUS]

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

actually it is about interpretation in addition to how the first Christians understood it.So what makes our interpretation impossible?

As a side note to all, i just watched an exorcism on TV…how scary…what is interesting is how the possesssed girl screamed, and her eyes became totally white when the priest put the Eucharist on her head …

 

[maryj]

as you know mary this was the Gospel reading at today’s Mass. I love this story, it always brings tears to my eyes, as the part is read about how Jesus was known to them in the breaking of the bread.

and i love whatt you said about our mormon friend zerinis depending uponn the ways of man to interpret for him. that Gospel story tells how Jesus, beginning at the beginning, *interpreted the scriptures *for the disciples. this is how i see a very big part of the mission of our Church, that of interpreting the scriptures for us, setting them into the context of histry so that they make sense. Jesus the head of the Catholic Church continues through the Church to properly interpret the meaning of Scripture today, just as he did on the road to Emmaus 2000 years ago.

And it is exactly that!! the teachings in the Scriptures, interpreted by Christ’s church, open our eyes to the presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. Quite ingenious of God I might add:thumbsup:

 

[inJESUS]

Jerucha,

i just read that gnostics did not believe in the real presence because they believed the human nature of Jesus is an appearance…it appeared that He was crucified…

In this regard, LilyM’ s question is straight to the point so if the Eucharist is a symbol, was Jesus’ body as well?

After all, Joseph Smith’s ideas did not come from nowhere…he must have adopted things known befor him, just like Muhammad adopted gnosticism regarding Jesus’ crucifixon and now Muslims are under the illusion Jesus was not crucified. So some say He was not crucified, some say He was not resurrected, and some say He is not really present and the list goes on, and ironically all got their inspiration from an angel yet all contradict each others…

 

[Jerusha]

After all, Joseph Smith’s ideas did not come from nowhere…he must have adopted things known befor him… So some say He was not crucified, some say He was not resurrected, and some say He is not really present and the list goes on, and ironically all got their inspiration from an angel yet all contradict each others…

Gnostics believe (d) whatever the “Spirit” tells them to believe. They can get far out there denying the physical, without logic or rationality LDS prophets are excellent examples.

Joseph’s book was partially derived from Native legends about the Viking invasion, and, necessarily, people of different tribes would tell it from different perspectives… He and friends then adapted it according to their white Protestant understanding, therefore turning it into (generally) confusing mish-mash. Certainly the BOM contradicts itself many times.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Just one question:
were those who denied the true presence of the Body and Blood of Christ considered heretics by the early Church or not?

 

[flameburns623]

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

Zerinus:

I’ve been in catacombs and early Christian places of worship. A web search can help you to see some of those places yourself. One of the notable things about these very early places of worship is that they all have an altar as a central place of worship, with the lecterns located to the side. Clearly: these early places of worship envisioned some sort of sacrifice going on. Clearly that sacrifice was more central to the worship activities of early Christians than teaching or preaching. From the testimonies of early Christians, we are led to understand that the ‘sacrifice’ taking place involved bread and wine, the elements of Holy Communion, or Sacrament as it is called in the LDS Church. It appears clear from the very ancient liturgies and references thereto that early Christians met together to worship and to pray at least as much as they met to be instructed. In fact it appears that religious instruction was NOT a central aspect of ordinary worship–such instruction took place elsewhere, at other times. Early Christians met regularly–daily when possible, weekly at a minimum–to ‘break bread’, to sing psalms, and to pray.

Contrast this with what happens in a contemporary LDS worhsip service: after several opening hymns and prayers, approximately 15 minutes are spent blessing and distributing the Sacrament (usually ordinary white bread and water, since contemporary Mormonism is averse to the use of actual wine). The Sacrament is consecrated (‘blessed’, actually) on a table to the side of the main podium, and although the few minutes spent during this ritual are as reverent as possible–it is clear that Sacrament is mostly a prelude to the Main Event, which are the two or three talks presented by the speakers (on ordinary Sundays) or the testimonies of the congregation (on Fast-and-Testimony Sunday).

As in most Protestant churches, it is the sermon which is the actual point of LDS worship. All of the prayers taken together in the LDS service take less than 5 minutes of an average 65-minute service. Sacrament–Holy Communion–takes up about a quarter of that service. Sing of hymns, mebbe another 15 minutes, another quarter of the service. More than half of the service in an LDS worship session–is teaching. It just doesn’t resemble what the historical record suggests was the way early Christians worship.

On the other hand: Episcopalians, Lutherans, Orthodox, and especially Roman Catholics, seem to have the balance closer to correct. Most of the service is a prayer, most of the service is worship. And the central focus of that service–is the breaking of bread and the sharing of wine. Now the interesting thing about all of these groups is that in general–each one of them believes that the breaking of that bread and sharing of that wine is something more than symbolic. In some sense, Jesus is really and truly received in the elements of that ritual, according to each of these traditions.

I would suggest that even if you don’t buy into the actual Roman Catholic theory of transubstantiation—Mormon Sacrament, as a ‘symbolic-only’ observance of the Lord’s Supper misses the mark by a Roman mile.

 

[inJESUS]

Just one question:
were those who denied the true presence of the Body and Blood of Christ considered heretics by the early Church or not?

i believe yes since Ireneous (sp?) was defending the doctrine against the Gnostic and Docete heretics.

 

[wisdomseeker]

i believe yes since Ireneous (sp?) was defending the doctrine against the Gnostic and Docete heretics.

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

 

[zerinus]

actually it is about interpretation in addition to how the first Christians understood it.So what makes our interpretation impossible?

It makes it impossible because it is unbiblical and unscriptural.

As a side note to all, i just watched an exorcism on TV…how scary…what is interesting is how the possesssed girl screamed, and her eyes became totally white when the priest put the Eucharist on her head …

Sounds more like voodoo than the gospel to me. Jesus cast out devils by His word, not by putting the Eucharist on their heads:

Matthew 8:

16 When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick.

And so did His Apostles and disciples:

Acts 16:

18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

Luke 10:

17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.

Not a good idea to confuse voodoo and the gospel together.

zerinus

 

[inJESUS]

It makes it impossible because it is unbiblical and unscriptural.

but what you are preaching is unbiblical as well. Jesus did not use the word symbol about what He is saying.

Sounds more like voodoo than the gospel to me. Jesus cast out devils by His word

Jesus IS the Eucharist
no matter what you believe about the “how” the point is that demons scream.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

And it is by His words and His grace that the substances of bread and wine are changed.

In faith we believe because we trust in the words that he told to the apostles:“This is my Body…This is the cup of my blood…”

The Eucharist is the fulfillment of His promise “to be with us always, to the close of the age.”(Mat 28:20).

I ask you, what does Jesus mean when in John 6:55 when He says “My FLESH is true food, and my BLOOD is true drink.”?

Where does He say in scripture that his word is true food?

 

[zerinus]

Contrast this with what happens in a contemporary LDS worhsip service: after several opening hymns and prayers, approximately 15 minutes are spent blessing and distributing the Sacrament (usually ordinary white bread and water, since contemporary Mormonism is averse to the use of actual wine). The Sacrament is consecrated (‘blessed’, actually) on a table to the side of the main podium, and although the few minutes spent during this ritual are as reverent as possible–it is clear that Sacrament is mostly a prelude to the Main Event, which are the two or three talks presented by the speakers (on ordinary Sundays) or the testimonies of the congregation (on Fast-and-Testimony Sunday).

That is absolutely not true. The administration of the Sacrament is by far the most important and central element in LDS Sunday worship. The length of time that is devoted to it is not a measure of its importance or unimportance. Our administration of the Sacrament is a short and simple ceremony according the pattern that Jesus himself established; but a profound act of worship nevertheless. The pattern that Jesus established was a short and simple one (see Matthew 26:26–30; Mark 14:22–26; Luke 22:15–20), and that is exactly what the Apostles had taught the rest of the church to do (1 Corinthians 11:23–26). Those additional trappings, paraphernalia, and theatrics were added later as the church went into apostasy. That was not the pattern that Jesus and His Apostles had established. We follow the pattern that the Lord has revealed to us, which conforms to the ancient practice indicated in the New Testament.

As in most Protestant churches, it is the sermon which is the actual point of LDS worship. All of the prayers taken together in the LDS service take less than 5 minutes of an average 65-minute service. Sacrament–Holy Communion–takes up about a quarter of that service. Sing of hymns, mebbe another 15 minutes, another quarter of the service. More than half of the service in an LDS worship session–is teaching. It just doesn’t resemble what the historical record suggests was the way early Christians worship.

Again, that reveals a very shortsighted and superficial attitude in looking at religion. The length of time that is devoted to a certain part of service is not the measure of its importance or unimportance. Baptism is the shortest sacramental procedure of all. That does not mean that it must therefore be the least important.

On the other hand: Episcopalians, Lutherans, Orthodox, and especially Roman Catholics, seem to have the balance closer to correct. Most of the service is a prayer, most of the service is worship. And the central focus of that service–is the breaking of bread and the sharing of wine. Now the interesting thing about all of these groups is that in general–each one of them believes that the breaking of that bread and sharing of that wine is something more than symbolic. In some sense, Jesus is really and truly received in the elements of that ritual, according to each of these traditions.

We don’t think it is just symbolic either. We think it is a true sacrament through which saving grace is imparted to the individual. I don’t know what other language I am suppose to use to emphasize its importance in our worship, and that it is not just “symbolic”. We just don’t accept that the emblems literally turn into flesh and blood. That is a different kind of ball game altogether, and not a requirement for the procedure to be truly sacramental.

I would suggest that even if you don’t buy into the actual Roman Catholic theory of transubstantiation—Mormon Sacrament, as a ‘symbolic-only’ observance of the Lord’s Supper misses the mark by a Roman mile.

See above.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

but what you are preaching is unbiblical as well. Jesus did not use the word symbol about what He is saying.

Jesus also said, “You strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel” (Matthew 23:24). Do you think they were really swallowing camels out there?

zerinus

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Jesus also said, “You strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel” (Matthew 23:24). Do you think they were really swallowing camels out there?

zerinus

Talk about out-of-context. Jesus was condemning the Pharisees and their hypocrisy, not about how to properly worship Him.

 

[Nate415]

Jesus also said, “You strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel” (Matthew 23:24). Do you think they were really swallowing camels out there?

zerinus

That is clearly metaphorical language intended to expose the scribes and Pharisees hypocrisy.

“…this is my body…this is my blood…”

What we’re really talking about is what Jesus means by “is.” Reminds me of a debate a certain past President of the United States wanted to have. Simple rule to live by - is is is; is isn’t isn’t…

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.

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.

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.

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!

 

[Ronald_E]

Dear zerinus, Please read the Gospel of Luke which is the reading for today’s Mass. It is about the road to Emmaus. The two disciples who are not apostles and were not with Him at the Last Supper did not recognize Him until He broke bread and said the blessing; then their eyes were open.
At that point He disappeared. Their eyes could not recognize Him until He blessed the bread.
I am curious as to what you may think of this.
I hope you are not getting frustrated with us.
God Bless You.

 

[Harpazo]

Dear zerinus, Please read the Gospel of Luke which is the reading for today’s Mass. It is about the road to Emmaus. The two disciples who are not apostles and were not with Him at the Last Supper did not recognize Him until He broke bread and said the blessing; then their eyes were open.
At that point He disappeared. Their eyes could not recognize Him until He blessed the bread.
I am curious as to what you may think of this.
I hope you are not getting frustrated with us.
God Bless You.

It was the same reading in the Maronite Catholic Church! It’s such a clear Eucharistic allusion.

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

 

[maryj]

Dear zerinus, Please read the Gospel of Luke which is the reading for today’s Mass. It is about the road to Emmaus. The two disciples who are not apostles and were not with Him at the Last Supper did not recognize Him until He broke bread and said the blessing; then their eyes were open.
At that point He disappeared. Their eyes could not recognize Him until He blessed the bread.
I am curious as to what you may think of this.
I hope you are not getting frustrated with us.
God Bless You.

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