The Case Against Transubstantiation

[zerinus]

to me, it is significant that Jesus identity was not obvious to the two disciples, who had known him personally before the crucifixion. even as Jesus interpreted the scriptures that related to Himself, and their hearts burned within them, they still did not recognize him until the moment of the breaking of the bread.

The reason why they did not recognize Him initially was because Jesus did not want them to recognize Him at that time. That is what it says in verse 16: "But their eyes were holden that they should not know him." That means that Jesus had deliberately prevented them from recognizing Him. He wanted to wait until a more appropriate moment to disclose His true identity to them, which is what He later did.

zerinus

 

[wisdomseeker]

They were just having dinner! They had invited Jesus to stay with them overnight as their guest (without realizing who He was). Jesus graciously had accepted. They arrived home and sat down to have dinner. “Sat at meat with them” means that they sat down to have dinner:

Luke 24:

30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.

31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

They eat flat bread in those days; and it was customary when they sat to have a meal, for the host or the honored guest to break bread, give thanks (like our saying grace), and distribute a portion to the others at the table. Jesus did what was done in every Jewish household at meal time. He just chose that particular moment to reveal His true identity to them. Just because the Eucharist consists of “breaking bread,” it does not mean that every time somebody “broke bread” that was the Eucharist.

Even assuming that it was a Eucharist (which it wasn’t), I don’t see what relevance it would have to Transubstantiation.

zerinus

you said this correct. “it does not mean that every time somebody broke bread that was the Eucharist.” because only the priest can do this. only the priest is allowed to bless the bread and wine before they can be transformed into the flesh and blood of Christ. noone else can do this but catholic priests only.

 

[teadough]

The reason why they did not recognize Him initially was because Jesus did not want them to recognize Him at that time. That is what it says in verse 16: "But their eyes were holden that they should not know him." That means that Jesus had deliberately prevented them from recognizing Him. He wanted to wait until a more appropriate moment to disclose His true identity to them, which is what He later did.

zerinus

OK. Let me get this straight. You are saying that Jesus was having a formal meal with these two disciples?

 

[zerinus]

OK. Let me get this straight. You are saying that Jesus was having a formal meal with these two disciples?

Yes. He was their guest. He had gone to stay with them overnight at their invitation. “Sat at meat” means that they sat down to have dinner. There may have been other members of the household present than just the two disciples. It was a formal dinner occasion.

zerinus

 

[teadough]

Yes. He was their guest. He had gone to stay with them overnight at their invitation. “Sat at meat” means that they sad down to have dinner. There may have been other members of the household present than just the two disciples. It was a formal dinner occasion.

zerinus

So then we should call the meal at Passover before Jesus was betrayed the “Next to Last Supper” and call the one after He arose the Last Supper since you seem to think this was some formal setting. We will call that other meal at the end of Luke where He ate fish “The Last Snack” since He did not give thanks/say Grace

 

[teadough]

Well, I guess this thread has come to an End for me. I will check again after I get back home for the sake of seeing what else others have to say.

Zerunus, I enjoyed the conversation and I hope to see you again on CAF. Take care my friend and may God Bless you and your Family.

1 John
9
Whoever says he is in the light, yet hates his brother, is still in the darkness.
10
Whoever loves his brother remains in the light, and there is nothing in him to cause a fall.

`

 

[zerinus]

Well, I guess this thread has come to an End for me. I will check again after I get back home for the sake of seeing what else others have to say.

Zerunus, I enjoyed the conversation and I hope to see you again on CAF. Take care my friend and may God Bless you and your Family.

Thank you. God bless you too.

zerinus

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Yes. He was their guest. He had gone to stay with them overnight at their invitation. “Sat at meat” means that they sat down to have dinner. There may have been other members of the household present than just the two disciples. It was a formal dinner occasion.

zerinus

But where in the scripture does it say this? Is scripture lying when it says that it was just the two disciples and Jesus? Or are you just trying to reason your way through the scripture instead of just taking the text for what it says because you already don’t believe?

 

[Scott36]

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,

Yes the argument that it should be a visible change “in an observable manner” seems rational at first. A thought that allowed me to “believe without seeing” is the thought than when we see something, the seeing is possible only through a series of complicated and seemingly disparate and unlikely events. First light has to be created, then that light has to bounce off of the object (in this case the host) and in the interaction of the reflection, the light change it’s character (wavelength) or colour. Then that light has to pass into our eye and interact with all the intracacies of eye tissue and eventually register in our conciousness somehow.

Now, don’t you think that the material of the host has some sort of existence, some sort of inherent nature that is independent of the complicated (and to my mind, quite bizzare and miraculous) series of processes that allows us to see it visually. Even the study of it in a lab under a microscope or any other scientific analysis, depends on complicated interactions and surely doesn’t determine the deepest inherent nature of a substance. I mention this because you talked about scientific analysis in a previous post.

This is the argument of accidents vs. substance. The substance changes into the body of Christ but the accidents or physical appearance in all respects remains the same. It tastes the same looks the same and would be analyzed in the lab (I hope this has never been done out of respect and love for Christ) the same. That is my understanding.

I’m not arguing against your biblical arguments here…it just seemed that you, once or twice, suggested that it made no sense as a miracle because we can’t see it happen.

God bless,
Scott

 

[zerinus]

But where in the scripture does it say this? Is scripture lying when it says that it was just the two disciples and Jesus? Or are you just trying to reason your way through the scripture instead of just taking the text for what it says because you already don’t believe?

Whether there were just the two disciples or other household members present makes no difference to the case. The fact remains that Jesus went to stay with them overnight as their guest, and that they sat down to have the evening meal together.

zerinus

 

[c659smith]

That was not a formal dinner. Jesus wanted to eat something in front of them to prove to them that He was alive, that was all. If I am walking down town and decided to eat some icecream, that is not dinner, and I don’t say grace when I eat an icecream.

Catholics have a great tendency to mix up religion with superstition. Their whole religion is made up more of superstition than religion. That is sad.

zerinus

Are you really serious when you as a latter day Saint (Mormon) that Catholics have superstition?

Your faith is based on pre-designation which takes away free will and that everyone is a god in the after-life. This taught from a man that was well off his rocker.

LDS is not a religion but a cult.

This is for all here please do not be led astray / L.D.S. is not a part of Christianity.

 

[flameburns623]

Are you really serious when you as a latter day Saint (Mormon) that Catholics have superstition?

Your faith is based on pre-designation which takes away free will and that everyone is a god in the after-life. This taught from a man that was well off his rocker.

LDS is not a religion but a cult.

This is for all here please do not be led astray / L.D.S. is not a part of Christianity.

The word is pre-destination and Mormons expressly reject that doctrine. Mormons place such high stress on free will (what they call ‘free agency’) that they are generally understood to hold to a doctrine called Pelagianism–salvation is by works, and Christ was only the way-shower, not the Way-Maker in LDS theology. As a popular LDS Hymn would have it:

“He marked the path,
and led the way,
and every point defines,
to light and life and endless day,
where God’s full Presence shines”.

(From “How Great the Wisdom and the Love”, in the LDS Hymnal.

Or, as II Nephi 25:23 suggests: “It is by grace we are saved, after all we can do”.

All of which is off-topic for this thread. In recent years Mormons have been attempting to answer the charge of Pelagianism; they certainly do not therefore deserve to be called ‘Predestinarians’. I did want to stress that while the criticism was well-intended it was wrong-headed.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Whether there were just the two disciples or other household members present makes no difference to the case. The fact remains that Jesus went to stay with them overnight as their guest, and that they sat down to have the evening meal together.

zerinus

John 6:[27] Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal."

John 6:55 "For my Flesh is true food, and my Blood is true drink."

John 6:[54] “he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

So if it is just “superstition” how do you explain these passages from John 6?

What does Jesus mean when He says to “LABOR” for the food that leads to eternal life which He will give us?

What does Jesus mean when He says that His FLESH is true food and that whoever eats this food-eats His flesh-will have eternal life?

 

[c659smith]

The word is pre-destination and Mormons expressly reject that doctrine. Mormons place such high stress on free will (what they call ‘free agency’) that they are generally understood to hold to a doctrine called Pelagianism–salvation is by works, and Christ was only the way-shower, not the Way-Maker in LDS theology. As a popular LDS Hymn would have it:

“He marked the path,
and led the way,
and every point defines,
to light and life and endless day,
where God’s full Presence shines”.

(From “How Great the Wisdom and the Love”, in the LDS Hymnal.

Or, as II Nephi 25:23 suggests: “It is by grace we are saved, after all we can do”.

All of which is off-topic for this thread. In recent years Mormons have been attempting to answer the charge of Pelagianism; they certainly do not therefore deserve to be called ‘Predestinarians’. I did want to stress that while the criticism was well-intended it was wrong-headed.

the elect ant the mormon temple.

Additionally, it is the goal of the Mormon Church to have all members of the human race be sealed to their lineal ancestors in a direct course leading back to Adam and Eve. So, it is incumbent upon members to search out the names of their dead, to have proxy baptisms, endowments, and marriage sealings performed for them, and then to have each generation sealed to the previous one.

The Mormon is required to amass as much genealogical material as possible concerning his ancestors and to assure that the various proxy rituals are done for them. Only in this way can he have any hope of attaining the fullness of salvation as a god himself.

If this is not working towards 'Predestinarians" than I will eat my hat. But then again you probably have never been in a Mormon Temple.

 

[Koopa]

zerinus, your argument seems to be based on your interpretation of the Bible. And the Catholic argument is based on its interpretation. Now you would think that God in his infinite wisdom would have made some way to clarify the Scriptures that he gave us so that we didn’t all believe different things… and hey! Look at that. He established the Catholic Church, and gave it the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and said that it would never perish.

These Eucharistic Miracles could not have been staged. How exactly does one get human heart tissue and blood that never decays? How is it that someone gets one pellet of blood to weigh the same as all five pellets of blood combined? How is it that the miracle of Lanciano persists in its “miraculous-ness” to this day? People can not do that sort of thing. God can.

The Eucharistic Miracles were not sent by God to prove transubstantiation, but rather to increase faith and remind people of what Christ really meant. It is so easy to assume that he meant it symbolically, and because of that, he made sure that we had an authority to declare the truth and he even threw in some miracles to help us along.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The word is pre-destination and Mormons expressly reject that doctrine. Mormons place such high stress on free will (what they call ‘free agency’) that they are generally understood to hold to a doctrine called Pelagianism–salvation is by works, and Christ was only the way-shower, not the Way-Maker in LDS theology. As a popular LDS Hymn would have it:

“He marked the path,
and led the way,
and every point defines,
to light and life and endless day,
where God’s full Presence shines”.

(From “How Great the Wisdom and the Love”, in the LDS Hymnal.

Or, as II Nephi 25:23 suggests: “It is by grace we are saved, after all we can do”.

All of which is off-topic for this thread. In recent years Mormons have been attempting to answer the charge of Pelagianism; they certainly do not therefore deserve to be called ‘Predestinarians’. I did want to stress that while the criticism was well-intended it was wrong-headed.

Mormons don’t believe in predestination, in a Calvinistic sense. They do however believe in foreordination. This is their belief that all human souls existed together pre-creation of the Earth. And based on one’s obedience and loyalty to Jesus (a spirit, like the rest of us), your station in life reflect this. The good souls are born to LDS families, the not so good souls are born to lower circumstances. So, you know if you were born into extremely poor circumstances, it was because of what you did or didn’t do as a spirit, before you were born.

Prophets are preordained, ie, it was their destiny to become a prophet.

Free will still comes into play, as, even if you are one of the elect, born into the best of circumstances (LDS family) you have choices and so, even if you were foreordained to greatness, even godhood, you can blow it by not being obedient to the LDS church leaders.

 

[J_C]

The reason why they did not recognize Him initially was because Jesus did not want them to recognize Him at that time. That is what it says in verse 16: "But their eyes were holden that they should not know him." That means that Jesus had deliberately prevented them from recognizing Him. He wanted to wait until a more appropriate moment to disclose His true identity to them, which is what He later did.

zerinus

i can’t argue about that. the scripture seems to clearly say that the resurrected Christ intended for them not to recognize Him until the moment arrived that he should permit it to be so.

but that has nothing to do with the point i made, and in fact it serves only to emphasize it. Jesus spent considerable time interpreting scripture for the two disciples, yet did not choose to reveal himself to them in the revelation of the Word of God which he, God was Himself interpreting for them.

not until he blessed and broke the bread at table did he then make himself known, at which time he vanished, levaing behind the bread.

you know, Scripture contains many of these signs. when i was still a protestant i never saw these. i think the reason this scripture about the dsiples on the road to Emmaus is so powerful to me is that I read it one night during my conversion and it just opened up like a flower for me right then, with no commentary, no prior interpretation being given to me. As a protestant i would have expected Jesus to be revealed to them in the interpreting of the Word. the fact that it happened in the breaking of the bread, which required no literacy, points the way to the Eucharist, the Word made flesh, made Bread of Life.

 

[RebeccaJ]

the elect ant the mormon temple.

Additionally, it is the goal of the Mormon Church to have all members of the human race be sealed to their lineal ancestors in a direct course leading back to Adam and Eve. So, it is incumbent upon members to search out the names of their dead, to have proxy baptisms, endowments, and marriage sealings performed for them, and then to have each generation sealed to the previous one.

The Mormon is required to amass as much genealogical material as possible concerning his ancestors and to assure that the various proxy rituals are done for them. Only in this way can he have any hope of attaining the fullness of salvation as a god himself.

If this is not working towards 'Predestinarians" than I will eat my hat. But then again you probably have never been in a Mormon Temple.

This is one of the things in Mormonism that always makes me go ??? Our Faith is just that, Faith. Once one is dead, if you were notified that a live person has just been baptized a Mormon for you, and you now have the choice, accept the baptism and become a god, or don’t and just hang out on a planet for eternity…doesn’t seem to me to require any Faith, whatsoever. More like, a no brainer.

It always cracks me up, just a little bit.

 

[zerinus]

Sacrament, however, is consecrated obliquely to the congregation in an LDS chapel. It is not consecrated on an altar, . . .

Why should we? We are not sacrificing anybody, as the Catholics do. What do we want an altar for?

. . . and the entire service is not centrally focused on the act of consecration.

Wrong! Again and again! The central future of the service is the act of consecration. The fact that we also preach the gospel as part of the service, and sing hymns of praise to the Lord does not detract from the centrality of the consecration. I know what you are saying. You are suggesting that the entire service should consist of the act of consecration, or we should just drag it out by adding a whole bunch of unnecessary stuff to it to make it look like the Mass. Wrong, and wrong, and wrong again! that is now how Jesus consecrated the sacrament, that is now how Paul told the Christians to consecrate it, and that is now how God has told us to do it. What we do follows the NT pattern, not apostate Christendom.

If you were allowed to conduct an LDS worship service in a 2nd-century Christian chapel, you would have to bring in ‘furniture’ to do what is normally done in an LDS chapel, and you would have to ignore the furnishings which yet survive in such chapels–notably, the altar which is central to the room in the two or three such chapels I observed. On the other hand, a Lutheran or an Episcopalian could do a very basic worship service without making any significant changes to the furnishings of the catacomb or chapel. (The main difference would be the introduction of chairs or pews, with kneelers: originally, Christians observed worship standing and brought cushions to kneel on, or else knelt on the bare floor. Modern folks have gotten soft and like to sit down or kneel on special furniture).

That is correct. We don’t follow the practices and procedures of apostate Christendom. Neither do we want to, nor should we. That is not what God has commanded us to do.

This is in addition to the significant differences in the way liturgical worship services build ‘towards’ the consecration of the Eucharist, while Sacrament in an LDS worship service is a prelude to other activities. You have not addressed that fact.

That is how you choose to describe it. Nothing to “address” here.

We have liturgies going back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries–we KNOW what liturgy looked like very close to the Apostolic Age, and it doesn’t much resemble what happens in a Baptist worship service, let alone an LDS service.

The only “liturgy” I know that is “close to the Apostolic age” is the examples in the NT, and they come a lot closer to what is practiced in the LDS Church than any other church.

For Mormons, the majority of ‘official’ discussions of the issue suggest that it is a symbolic action, not a real reception of Christ, under the appearance of the elements or in any other way.

Have no idea what you mean by “a real reception of Christ”. If you can clarify the meaning of that for me, I can tell you whether we do so or not. All I can say is that to us it is a true sacrament, and that means what it says.

I have heard one priesthood holder suggest during a priesthood session that while receiving the Sacrament, one IS receiving Jesus in a special way. He did not elaborate on this except to say that the elements themselves are symbols, but that in receiving the symbols Mormons believe they are receiving Jesus in a special way. This was something I heard said by ONE LDS person, once, and I am not certain that I have ever heard such a thing said before or since in an LDS setting.

It is a sacrament, period.

If this could be documented as approximating official LDS teaching, I would have to say that this understanding of LDS Sacrament would closely approximate what many Lutherans, Anglicans, and some other historic Reformation churches with a high-church liturgy suggest about the Eucharist. Remember that ‘transubstantiation’ is simply a medieval Catholic way of describing what is supposed to be happening in liturgical worship. (Of course it is also, now, official Catholic dogma). Lutherans and Episcopalians don’t accept transubstantiation either, but they still have a higher view of what consecration does than I think LDS theology has. Feel free to elaborate if you wish.

I also still would argue that LDS Sacrament service is saying something by the very ‘shape’ of it’s worship that is fundamentally different from what liturgical worship is saying. You might try reading something called “The Shape of the Liturgy” by Dom Gregory Dix. It is a good introduction to some of the things which are being said by the ‘unspoken language’ of liturgy. Dix’s work actually helped create an impetus towards liturgical reform in the RCC and Episcopal Church, or so I’m told. It is NOT an apologetic work directed against Mormons or other Protestants, but you might find it useful in coming to understand what I am trying to describe about LDS worship versus traditional liturgical worship.

Haven’t a clue what you are talking about here.

zerinus

 

[Jerusha]

Once one is dead, if you were notified that a live person has just been baptized a Mormon for you, and you now have the choice, accept the baptism and become a god, or don’t and just hang out on a planet for eternity…

Maybe that is the reason why Mormonism is in such trouble. So many angry dead-dunked ghosts.:bigyikes: If that isn’t superstition, I don’t know what is.