The Case Against Transubstantiation

  • Thread starter Thread starter zerinus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MelanieAnne said:
No, but it sounds as if you might be recommending it!
Click to expand...
What your wrote in your post

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3563805&postcount=432

is exactly what Scott Hahn talks about. They did not drink the fourth cup. Then on the cross, he drank the bitter wine and said “It is finished.” Meaning His kingdom is now on earth. He also talks about the Passover and the blood of the lamb splashed on the lintels saving the Jews. They were to EAT the lamb. This was not a symbolic meal. Jesus is the lamb. As a cradle Catholic, this gave me a whole new look at the Eucharist. The mass is a sacrifice where we unite ourselves in Jesus’ suffering on the cross.

Col 1:24 -25
*Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and **in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking 14 in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church, **
25
of which I am a minister in accordance with God’s stewardship given to me to bring to completion for you the word of God, *

When we were kids and were hurt, we were told to “offer it up to God.” Now I now why!
 
Christine, perhaps the RCIA teacher that told us about the seder had read the Scott Hahn book, I don’t know, but it sounds like something I’d like to read. Our teacher didn’t point out that the 4th cup was the wine on the cross. Thanks for mentioning it, and the book!
 
MelanieAnne said:
Christine, perhaps the RCIA teacher that told us about the seder had read the Scott Hahn book, I don’t know, but it sounds like something I’d like to read. Our teacher didn’t point out that the 4th cup was the wine on the cross. Thanks for mentioning it, and the book!
Click to expand...
You had a very wise RCIA instructer. We use Scott Hahn’s video, The Fourth Cup in our RCIA. I have the CD. If you want it, I’ll send it to you. We have Cd’s available in the back of our church. They change them every few months. Tim Staples, Matthew Arnold, Marcus Grodi. Really fabulous. We are very blessed in our parish to have priests who teach and encourage us to learn as much as we can about or faith and most importantly to LIVE it.
 
qui_est_ce said:
You had a very wise RCIA instructer. We use Scott Hahn’s video, The Fourth Cup in our RCIA. I have the CD. If you want it, I’ll send it to you. We have Cd’s available in the back of our church. They change them every few months. Tim Staples, Matthew Arnold, Marcus Grodi. Really fabulous. We are very blessed in our parish to have priests who teach and encourage us to learn as much as we can about or faith and most importantly to LIVE it.
Click to expand...
That’s very gracious of you although I believe I’ll buy a copy so that I can share it with my family. Thank you so much for the recommendation. 👍
 
MelanieAnne said:
The problem for Zerinus, and we are wandering ever more far away from the topic, in understanding the Immaculate Conception of Mary may have, at its root, the understanding of the Godhead. Mormons do not view Jesus the same way that Christians do, and Mormons believe in eternal progression. For the origins of the humanity of Jesus to be rooted in sin may make sense to Mormons when you consider how they view Jesus to begin with.

There is no common understanding of terms here. No common acceptance of basic theology. Yet Christian theology is an entire body of interrelated concepts. Zerinus cannot be expected to understand or accept Immaculate Conception or Real Presence when his understanding of God is so different. This is why all these discussions go in circles. What is the point of that?
Click to expand...
Yea, sure. You said it, and I believed it.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
Of course she is “highly favored”. She was chosen to be the earthly mother of the Son of God. I can’t think of a greater “favor” than that “among women”. But that is a far cry from saying that she was “immaculately conceived”. No way!

zerinus
Click to expand...
OFF TOPIC! Let’s move.
 
po18guy said:
OFF TOPIC! Let’s move.
Click to expand...
I am not stopping anybody commenting on the “topic”. But since Stephen168 finally admitted that Transubstantiation was wrong, nobody seems willing to make any further comments on the “topic”. People are free to comment on the “topic” if they want to—and I am ready to answer them if they do.

zerinus
 
I don’t see what difference it makes, what various Christian groups believe about this.

If (most) Protestants choose to believe the words of Jesus in John 6 were symbolic, so be it.

If Catholics choose to believe his words were literal, so be it.

Why does it really matter?

In some ways, this reminds me of the Filioque debate between the Catholics and Orthodox, way back in 787 CE.

Personally, I wish ALL Christians believed in the doctrine of transubstantiation, because that is the primary belief of the Roman church that keeps most Jews from even thinking about becoming Catholic. Most Jews who convert to Christianity go the evangelical Protestant/“messianic” route, partly for this reason (in counseling Jews who converted and then came back, this is what many have told me.)
 
HashemEchad said:
I don’t see what difference it makes, what various Christian groups believe about this.

If (most) Protestants choose to believe the words of Jesus in John 6 were symbolic, so be it.

If Catholics choose to believe his words were literal, so be it.

Why does it really matter?

In some ways, this reminds me of the Filioque debate between the Catholics and Orthodox, way back in 787 CE.

Personally, I wish ALL Christians believed in the doctrine of transubstantiation, because that is the primary belief of the Roman church that keeps most Jews from even thinking about becoming Catholic. Most Jews who convert to Christianity go the evangelical Protestant/“messianic” route, partly for this reason (in counseling Jews who converted and then came back, this is what many have told me.)
Click to expand...
God can not lie. God can not deceive.
 
MementoMori3283 said:
God can not lie. God can not deceive.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%. I just don’t see why Protestants jump all over the Catholics for choosing to adopt a LITERAL understanding of a NT passage. Who does it hurt by them believing it that way?

The words are the same, its all in how one interprets them, right?
 
Right. But it pains dear friend Zerinus down to the very core of his being to see people believing different than him. His motivation is good, apparently. It is just that he believes that everyone who does not believe as he does is condemned to the outer darkness. :eek: He only harrasses us because he loves us. :rolleyes: sigh. 😦

So you see, spiritual abuse is an act of love. :banghead: By people who are mentally and spritually ill. 🤷

Whatever else can I say??
 
Jerusha said:
Right. But it pains dear friend Zerinus down to the very core of his being to see people believing different than him. His motivation is good, apparently. It is just that he believes that everyone who does not believe as he does is condemned to the outer darkness. :eek: He only harrasses us because he loves us. :rolleyes: sigh. 😦

So you see, spiritual abuse is an act of love. :banghead: By people who are mentally and spritually ill. 🤷

Whatever else can I say??
Click to expand...
Well, sadly the same has been done to me by Christians.

People are entitled to believe differently, and do not need to be subject to abuse for doing so. That’s what I’ve been trying to say to others myself!
 
Equating transubstantiation and the Real Presence of Christ is a fairly old anti-Catholic trick. Because Mormonism came out of the anti-Catholic Restorationist period of the early 1800, it does not surprise me that Zerinus is trying to use it. They know there is no way to disprove Christ’s teaching of his Real Presence in the Eucharist. Christ taught the Real Presence to the Apostles, the Apostles taught it to the Bishops. There was no word for what took place at the consecration. It wasn’t until the 11th century the word transubstantiation was first used. NOW, all the anti-Catholic has to do is declare the term transubstantiation to be the same as the dogma of the Real Presence and presto-chango: The Catholics changed dogma in the 11th century. Isn’t hate fun.

Biblical (adj.) - of, relating to, or contained in the Bible.

The term transubstantiation and the theology behind it are not contained in the Bible, so by definition; transubstantiation is not biblical. The tune up specifications for my tractor are also not biblical, but very true; just as transubstantiation is true.

All I am pointing out is: Zerinus is mixing up the two words in his blog. At first I thought it was an innocent mistake, but now I’m thinking he did it on purpose. It has been done for years.
zerinus said:
making categorical assertions doesn’t really mean anything unless you can back it up with sound arguments.
Click to expand...
 
What I find remarkable is that Stephen168 pointed out that the opening post is mixing up transubstantiation and Real Presence and so the opening poster concluded from that information that Stephen168 has just admitted that transubstantiation itself is wrong.

Stephen168 never admitted that transubstantiation itself was wrong, but the opening poster persists in that conclusion. It’s hard to have a discussion of any sort of topic under such circumstances.
 
MelanieAnne said:
What I find remarkable is that Stephen168 pointed out that the opening post is mixing up transubstantiation and Real Presence and so the opening poster concluded from that information that Stephen168 has just admitted that transubstantiation itself is wrong.

Stephen168 never admitted that transubstantiation itself was wrong, but the opening poster persists in that conclusion. It’s hard to have a discussion of any sort of topic under such circumstances.
Click to expand...
It is called cognitive distortion. If we have a belief that is supported by a strong feeling that has become a part of our identity then the brain will have prejudice against opposing beliefs no matter what facts may be presented to prove the prejudice wrong.
This happens in jury selection and there is research to support this but I do not have it available now. The brain will create distortions to make reality fit into the belief system of the person who is faced with facts that may threaten his belief system that support his identity.
I hope I made this clear. It has been a long day.
 
Ronald_E said:
It is called cognitive distortion. If we have a belief that is supported by a strong feeling that has become a part of our identity then the brain will have prejudice against opposing beliefs no matter what facts may be presented to prove the prejudice wrong.
This happens in jury selection and there is research to support this but I do not have it available now. The brain will create distortions to make reality fit into the belief system of the person who is faced with facts that may threaten his belief system that support his identity.
I hope I made this clear. It has been a long day.
Click to expand...
Your explanation makes sense.

The behavior of some posters is what is doesn’t make sense. You’re very gracious. I’m not sure what we’re seeing here is so much cognitive distortion as it is games-playing but it was good of you to explain the psychological phenomenon.
 
HashemEchad said:
I agree 100%. I just don’t see why Protestants jump all over the Catholics for choosing to adopt a LITERAL understanding of a NT passage. Who does it hurt by them believing it that way?

The words are the same, its all in how one interprets them, right?
Click to expand...
The problem is that Protestants and, sadly, Jewish polemics who do not believe Jesus Christ walked the earth can never interpret Scripture, whether it be Torah or the New Testament in this Light.

Someone who has closed their mind and hardened their heart must find an alternate interpretation than that which was intended by God. So when Scriptrure is plain as the nose on your face such a man would say, “I can not see it; I will not see it. It can not be so.”

God can not lie. God can not decieve. God said He would send a Righteous Shoot. God did not say that He requires random acts of kindness from His chosen people to do such. God said He will do it and that is enough. God requires no assistance in His plan and in fact carries out His part of the Covenant even though Israel fails miserably in their role.

God can not lie. God can not deceive.
 
I notice that Zerinus didn’t bother to answer my post and blog article which refutes his error and points up things that he ignores in his own article.

Oh well…🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top