The Case Against Transubstantiation

[J_C]

According to a news report I was listening to a couple of days ago relative to the Pope’s expected visit to the US, only about 11% of Catholic France go to Mass on Sundays. In Ireland (probably the most devout Catholic in Europe), the figure has halved during the past decade or so. Some people here have pointed with glee to the LDS figure of 40% or 50% inactivity rate. Well, in the Catholic Church it appears to be around 90%! Any thoughts on that?

zerinus

regarding France, don’t forget this is the same country that went through the notorious French Revolution only a couple hundred years ago. To call France “Catholic” is to grossly misjudge. there may have been a time hundreds of years ago when France was the most Catholic country in Europe, but those days are long gone.

i think it is a shame that there are so many nominal Christians, as well as nominal mormins. i have a friend whose father, now in his 70s, calls himself mormin, but does not go to hsi meetings on sundays, and lives an overtly sinful lifestyle, carousing around with as many women as he can. he is vividly unhappy. i have encouraged him to go back to his ward for sustenance, and his answer to me was, “do you really think that going to chruch will save you”"? i said, of course it will, as a first step to repentence and renewed faith.

now, i can’t speak to those stats that zerinis passed along, unattributed as they are. my parish is bursting at the seams with six weekend Masses, often standing room only in a building designed to accomodate a thousand people. we have dozens of new convertsf in RCIA at any given time, and parishioners even without forced tithing give far more than the parish needs, enough so that we give thousands of dollars to other poorer parishes.

we have to be careful of statistics. they can be twisted and manipulated to mean various things, same as the Bible can be twisted and manipulated to mean various things. I don’t trust the 10% number for Catholics, nor do I trust the 50% number for morrmins. in the final analysis numbers mean very little. a single Godly man or woman is a tremendous force for good.

 

[po18guy]

There are loads. All you have to do is to look at my previous posts in this thread alone, nevermind about my posts in lots other threads.

zerinus

No deal! You make the accusation. You show me the money! Pick one. I bet you it is a problem with mis-interpretation, or the LDS definition of commonly understood terms.

 

[J_C]

No deal! You make the accusation. You show me the money! Pick one. I bet you it is a problem with mis-interpretation, or the LDS definition of commonly understood terms.

correct, it is always about interpretations. same as with the fundamentalist protestants. they can’t tell the difference between the Bible and their interpreetations of the Bible.

seeing that z"s misinterpretations about TS are identical to the satard protestant misinterpretations of it, we might expect that z would offer several examples of Bible stories that “contradict” Catholic teaching that are similar or identical to the various protestant ones. which should surprise no one in view of mormenisms protestant heritage.

 

[wisdomseeker]

watch this video. that is what happen when people get the Bible and believe they understand.

youtube.com/watch?v=8bB2rt3IKJc

 

[po18guy]

correct, it is always about interpretations. same as with the fundamentalist protestants. they can’t tell the difference between the Bible and their interpreetations of the Bible.

seeing that z"s misinterpretations about TS are identical to the satard protestant misinterpretations of it, we might expect that z would offer several examples of Bible stories that “contradict” Catholic teaching that are similar or identical to the various protestant ones. which should surprise no one in view of mormenisms protestant heritage.

That’s why I stipulated a Catholic bible. I am about to refer him to the book of Sirach. That will sound as strange to him as Moroni does to us.

 

[po18guy]

I am sure it was. Did you know that LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley had been to the White House on several occasions, met with several past Presidents of the US, and in 2004 he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom (the nations highest civilian honor) by President George W. Bush?

medaloffreedom.com/GordonHinckley.htm

newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/president-gordon-b-hinckley-awarded-presidential-medal-of-freedom

zerinus

Very sorry, but Gordon Hinckley is not a world leader, a successor to Peter, or anything of the like. He is an apparently good American and the leader of a pseudo-Christian religious sect. I’ll shake his hand, but I will not follow him.

 

[po18guy]

I don’t think you should be offended Christine. Their is truth in her statement. In my parish there are 1600 families. 400 go to Mass regularly. I have found in discussion with them [that] they do not consider knowledge of Sacred Scripture as necessary as does say, St Jerome.

Obviously, she is not speaking to the small minority of the 1.1 billion Catholics who read and heed. If the majority did so, there would be less of all that is evil in the world; considerably.

Truth is still the truth, even if no one believes it. A lie is still a lie, even if everyone believes it. (F.S.)

The percentage of adherents to any given faith who are active, or orthodox, is in no way a reflection of the truth that the faith teaches. It is reflective of the advances that the evil one has made, espcially since Christ’s body was shattered. It also reflects the amount of work we have to do.

 

[qui_est_ce]

There are loads. All you have to do is to look at my previous posts in this thread alone, nevermind about my posts in lots other threads.

zerinus

And every one of your posts has been refuted, yet you continue to gloss over them, and instead of answering, you come up with other non sequitors to prove your point. You are not here to understand, but to provide yourself with ammunition for attacks. And you are woefully lacking.

 

[po18guy]

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

Here’s the deal. The bible, the original canon, and especially the KJV, was produced by men who were apostates. Why would the LDS condemn the men, but rely on their canon of scripture? Since they were apostates, who is to testify that sacred scripture was not altered by these same apostates? Either it is all good and the inspired word of God, or it’s from satan. There is no middle ground.

So, all the LDS has as “guaranteed” writing is the BOM. Thus, there can be no argument here, only a study of the contrasts between the LDS and various other belief systems.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Here’s the deal. The bible, the original canon, and especially the KJV, was produced by men who were apostates. Why would the LDS condemn the men, but rely on their canon of scripture? Since they were apostates, who is to testify that sacred scripture was not altered by these same apostates? Either it is all good and the inspired word of God, or it’s from satan. There is no middle ground.

So, all the LDS has as “guaranteed” writing is the BOM. Thus, there can be no argument here, only a study of the contrasts between the LDS and various other belief systems.

You know POGUY, I find it interesting that Jesus uses hyperbole when he is talking about feeding on his flesh, yet no where in the Bible is a teaching reiterated as much as it is in John 6, and then further expounded in the Last Supper literature, which, curiously is absent from John’s Gospel. Could it be that John thought the concept was well enough explained in his writings?

No where in any other Gospels does Jesus ask “does this shock you?” What Jesus was saying was indeed shocking.

Why do Creationists insist on literal translation of Genesis, but not the words of Jesus repeated.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I’ve been lurking this thread for a while. I can’t find where anyone addressed the Transubstatiation vs. Real Presence. Transubstantiation is not the Doctrine of the Real Presence, but merely the explanation of the Real Presence in the accident of bread and wine.
newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#3

All of which makes me glad that as a Catholic I don’t have to reinvent, revisit what has already been established by Jesus’ Church.

Can only intellectuals have true faith? Can only those you can read understand the message of Jesus? Only those that know how to quote and paste? Thankfully we have the Magesterium, protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

AMEN

 

[MelanieAnne]

We had a Passover Seder as part of our RCIA experience. We had a Jewish man and his wife who conducted the rituals so that they would be authentic. We had guide books to follow along and provide translation of the Hebrew.

The Last Supper was indeed shocking for a number of reasons. Historically, the ritual of a passover seder has been “etched in stone”. NO ONE changes it. There are ritual foods, there is a precise ritual to be followed. There are 4 cups of wine that are consumed during the complete seder. The wine is a very big deal and charities are set up for the poor at passover time to be sure that the poor have their wine. 2 cups are consumed prior to eating the passover meal and 2 cups are consumed after the meal.

The Eucharist was instituted during the part of the ritual where the ritual would specify that the 3rd cup of wine is consumed, that is, after dinner but before dessert. Jesus not only changed the liturgy of the passover seder by handing out the bread and wine and saying it was His Body and Blood, but if you read the Gospel it says that after they did that they left. They left before the 4th cup of wine. So Jesus altered the words of the liturgy and and altered the length of it, because He cut it off early.

This may not sound like a big deal to us. But according to what we were told in relationship to the seder we attended, it would have been a VERY BIG DEAL to a 1st Century Jew in Jerusalem during Passover.

Why is any of this pertinent? Because Jesus didn’t do anything carelessly. It was all very deliberate. He said “this is my Body” because that’s what it was and still is. He didn’t say “this is a symbol” or “this is a substitute”. He was very clear as to what it was. Similarly, if you pay attention to the Gospel, he also made other, very “shocking” changes to the passover ritual. These were also done deliberately, which underscored in a very tangible, memorable way that something had profoundly changed.

 

[qui_est_ce]

and and altered the length of it, because He cut it off early.

This may not sound like a big deal to us. But according to what we were told in relationship to the seder we attended, it would have been a VERY BIG DEAL to a 1st Century Jew in Jerusalem during Passover.

Why is any of this pertinent? Because Jesus didn’t do anything carelessly. It was all very deliberate. He said “this is my Body” because that’s what it was and still is. He didn’t say “this is a symbol” or “this is a substitute”. He was very clear as to what it was. Similarly, if you pay attention to the Gospel, he also made other, very “shocking” changes to the passover ritual. These were also done deliberately, which underscored in a very tangible, memorable way that something had profoundly changed.

So true.
Have you ever read Scott Hahn’s “The Fourth Cup?”

 

[MelanieAnne]

So true.
Have you ever read Scott Hahn’s “The Fourth Cup?”

No, but it sounds as if you might be recommending it!

 

[Church_Militant]

Here is the post:

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

Have a read through it and tell me what you think

zerinusI think you wish.

There is no scriptural case against transubstantiation and the Eucharistic Real Presence.
The Eucharist IS Scriptural

Take note of the fact that Zerinus’ article completely ignores the important context of both St. Paul’s discourse on the the Eucharistic Real Presence (In 1st Corinthians 11) and the point that he treats as FACT that transubstantiation occurs and the very early 2nd century writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch who makes it plain that to reject it makes one a heresy to be shunned. :bible1:

 

[Stephen168]

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

First, Zerinus should change the title from ‘transubstantiation’ to ‘Real Presence.’
Transubstantiation is how Catholics explain what happens (process) at the consecration. This is another subject all together. Orthodox also know the Real Presence but don’t use transubstantiation to explain it. That is how O.S. Luke’s post makes sense.

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.

Transubstantiation is not a biblical doctrine.

True, but the Real Presence in the Eucharist is very biblical.

The Real Presence of Christ, in the Eucharist, is what Zerinus is talking about, not how it happens.

Second, the quality depends on the audience to be persuaded. If the audience is Mormon, then it is a great job. If the audience is Catholic, I have some thoughts. The Catholic audience knows Christ was saying just what he meant by “I am the Bread of Life,” “my blood,” ”my body” in the discourses in John 6:25-58. We know this by his reaction to the crowd’s reaction. Christ had two chances to explain the metaphor or hyperbole, IF that is what he was using; once during the discourse on the bread of life (John 6:41-42), and again during the discourse on the Eucharist (John 6:52). Finally, if it is just hyperbole, why was it such a hard teaching that almost all the disciples left him (John 6:60, John 6:66). We also realize in verse 63, he is no longer talking about his body; he doesn’t use the word ‘my’ and it would contradict verse 51, if he was talking about his body. All this has got to be explained away. Real Presence was taught by Christ, by Paul ( 1 Cor 11:23-29), and by the Church to this day.

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]).

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]).

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]). *
zerinus;3553378:

We never claim to provide “evidence” for the truth of Mormonism, except the testimony of the Holy Ghost. If you believe that you have more convincing “evidence” for the truth of your own religion, then you are welcome to it. Mormonism is not for you. There are those, however, who find the testimony we bear more convincing than the kind of “evidence” you offer them. Our message is intended for them.

Third, Facts might not be required in the LDS world, but Catholics need a good fact based, logical explanation. And always remember:

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

Just my thoughts

 

[Stephen168]

I’ve been lurking this thread for a while. I can’t find where anyone addressed the Transubstatiation vs. Real Presence. Transubstantiation is not the Doctrine of the Real Presence, but merely the explanation of the Real Presence in the accident of bread and wine.
newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#3

I just saw your post. Of course I completely agree!!

 

[po18guy]

I think you wish.

There is no scriptural case against transubstantiation and the Eucharistic Real Presence.
The Eucharist IS Scriptural

Take note of the fact that Zerinus’ article completely ignores the important context of both St. Paul’s discourse on the the Eucharistic Real Presence (In 1st Corinthians 11) and the point that he treats as FACT that transubstantiation occurs and the very early 2nd century writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch who makes it plain that to reject it makes one a heresy to be shunned. :bible1:

Well, you see, Paul was “figurative” and the church was in total apostasy juuuuuuuusssst before Ignatius. There. proof.

z is nothing is not a firm believer.

 

[zerinus]

No deal! You make the accusation. You show me the money! Pick one. I bet you it is a problem with mis-interpretation, or the LDS definition of commonly understood terms.

Show me one verse in the Bible that teaches supports the Immaculate Conception.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

correct, it is always about interpretations. same as with the fundamentalist protestants. they can’t tell the difference between the Bible and their interpreetations of the Bible.

I could turn that round and apply it to you. All of your criticisms of LDS doctrine are a matter of “interpretation”—that is, your misinterpretation of the Bible.

zerinus