M
MelanieAnne
Guest
Insulting me doesn’t make you any less incorrect.
- Status
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
I hve respect for what you believe. i dont understand why some see and some dont.Animal sacrifice also ceased at other times, before Jesus. Animals cannot be sacrificed when the Temple is not standing. And the Second Temple’s destruction in 70 CE was not the first time it was destroyed.
The FIRST Temple was also destroyed, and I don’t recall Jesus being anywhere around when it happened.
The destruction of the Temples were foretold in Jewish prophecy, just as other punishments were foretold. Deuteronomy 28 mentions what will happen when Jews do not keep the Torah, and what happens when we do.
We have been punished when we do not keep Torah, no other reason.
BTW it might interest you to learn that in Judaism, animal sacrifice is not the ONLY way to atone for sin. It is simply ONE Of the ways. Even Leviticus 17 states that blood was given by God to make AN atonement for sin.
Proverbs 16:6 states that mercy and truth ALSO atone for sin (which means the doing of mitzvot, or good deeds.) This is why Judaism is so strong on doing good deeds, because during this period (until the Messiah comes to help build the Third Temple), good deeds is what atones for our sins.
reading daniel interpreting teh dream of Nebuchadnezzar it is very interesting to me.
dont you find amazing the a man comes to Israel is killed and His followers go on and today we have this Kingdom that although so many tried to destroy and yet it have survived to this day? have you really read the NT with an open heart? a lot of times we miss things because we reject it even before we can understand.
Stephen168
New member
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT: SESSION 13, CHAPTER IV.
On Transubstantiation.
And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.
On Transubstantiation.
And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.
Z
zerinus
Guest
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
Transubstantiation and Real Presence are not interchangeable terms, despite the efforts of some posters to equate them. Here is an excerpt from , by CANON FRANCIS J. RIPLEY TRANSUBSTANTIATION FOR BEGINNERS
Stephen168
New member
This is the definition of transubstantiation according to the Council of Trent. Let me try to translate it for you:
And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, Christ taught us that we receive his body in the Eucharist
therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, This has always been a teaching of the Church and the Church reaffirms this belief.
by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; At the consecration the bread and wine are converted into the body and blood of Christ.
which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation. This conversion is called transubstantiation.
To repeat the Council and what I’ve been trying so hard to explain to Zerinus:
The conversion is called transubstantiation. There is bread then through transubstantiation there is the body of Christ. Bread>Transubstantiation>Real Presence
And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, Christ taught us that we receive his body in the Eucharist
therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, This has always been a teaching of the Church and the Church reaffirms this belief.
by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; At the consecration the bread and wine are converted into the body and blood of Christ.
which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation. This conversion is called transubstantiation.
To repeat the Council and what I’ve been trying so hard to explain to Zerinus:
The conversion is called transubstantiation. There is bread then through transubstantiation there is the body of Christ. Bread>Transubstantiation>Real Presence
T
The_GreyPilgrim
Guest
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?
Zerinus, do you have an answer for the above questions or are you going to continue to ignore them?
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?
Zerinus, do you have an answer for the above questions or are you going to continue to ignore them?
Z
zerinus
Guest
You are beating about the bush and changing the subject. I can read English myself, thank you. I don’t need you to translate it for me. But I fail to see how that passage helps your case any. That passage merely confirms that Transubstantiation is an integral part of Real Presence, which is what I had said, not what you had said. In your previous post you had said:
When I asked you to explain to me how Real Presence takes place, you backed off and did not reply. So I researched it myself, and found that Real Presence takes place by means of Transubstantiation, which is what that paragraph says. What you said in that quote is not correct.
The subject of the thread is Transubstantiation, which is a requirement for Real Presence in Catholic theology. I maintain that Transubstantiation is unbiblical and hence false, which in one of your earlier posts you agreed with. That means that the Catholic doctrine of Real Presence is also incorrect, because it is necessarily based on Transubstantiation. If there is such a thing as Real Presence, it cannot be as the Catholics have defined it. It would have to be something different—or not true at all.
zerinus
Z
zerinus
Guest
A
abucs
Guest
zerinus,
i would argue that things unbiblical need not be false.
That being said, it is interesting that the word used in the Lords prayer for DAILY - ‘give us our DAILY bread’ is in the Greek - Epiousios.
This word is only mentioned in the Luke and Matthew gospels in all of Greek literature. It was thought there was one other occurrance found, but this is now thought to be incorrect. The word used in fact does not equate to ‘daily’ in the Greek.
It is obviously a new word that was only used by the Christians, presumably to define something new.
The task to translate the Gospels fell to St. Jerome and he defined the word to mean both ‘daily’ and ‘supersubstantial’.
He transalted the same word of ‘Epiousios’ as daily in the one gospels Lords Prayer and Supersubstantial in the other.
Over the centuries the use of ‘daily’ was used alone in place of supersubstantial in the Lords prayer.
When i look at the Lords prayer everything seems to be a prayer to God referring to Heavenly and Spiritual things. The use of daily seems out of place before the prayer then continues on with spiritual matters. If we substitute supersubstantial (Jeromes other equal translation) then there is no abrupt change in the prayer and it flows easier without reference to material things IMHO.
btw, Jesus saying THIS IS MY BODY, UNLESS YOU EAT THIS BREAD AND DRINK THIS CUP THERE IS NO LIFE IN YOU is kind of biblical.
Paul talking of eating the bread worthily and with devotion each day in a clear reference to obeying Jesus’ command of ‘DO THIS IN MEMORY Of ME’ Pauls and Jesus words are also quite biblical as well.
We have to remember that the Catholic church compiled the bible from early church writings in part to prevent misunderstandings and differences of pratice amongst Christians. The issue of transtubstantiation doesn’t seem to be a big issue in the early church but was rejected in the Reformation along with the authority of “The Church”.
In fact most of the early reformers were not against the ‘true presence’ but as soon as you reject the authority of the church it is an easy step to reject the things that that authority does - hear confessions, give indulgence, make Saints or perform the Eucharist.
It seems that historically the rejection of the Eucharist was not direct, but a knock-on effect of rejecting the Church as authority.
btw, the idea of God being present in substance poses a challenge to how we think about God and what the nature of our reality is IMHO.
Is everything God ? How does God know what is going on everywhere and inside peoples thoughts ?
we are told :
Everything was made through Gods Word (with a capital W).
Gods Word binds all creation.
The Father and i (Jesus) are one.
You will see that i (Jesus) am in the Father and the Father is in me just as i am in you.
Lots of philosophical thoughts about reality stem from the idea of the Eucharist and also from the idea of the Trinity.
I personally see many similarities between these teachings and Quantum Physics and Bells Theorem with matter as creation and as a unified substance having its origin and existance connected to something from outside of our 4 dimensions.
Just me 2c worth,
I respect your different point of view.
i would argue that things unbiblical need not be false.
That being said, it is interesting that the word used in the Lords prayer for DAILY - ‘give us our DAILY bread’ is in the Greek - Epiousios.
This word is only mentioned in the Luke and Matthew gospels in all of Greek literature. It was thought there was one other occurrance found, but this is now thought to be incorrect. The word used in fact does not equate to ‘daily’ in the Greek.
It is obviously a new word that was only used by the Christians, presumably to define something new.
The task to translate the Gospels fell to St. Jerome and he defined the word to mean both ‘daily’ and ‘supersubstantial’.
He transalted the same word of ‘Epiousios’ as daily in the one gospels Lords Prayer and Supersubstantial in the other.
Over the centuries the use of ‘daily’ was used alone in place of supersubstantial in the Lords prayer.
When i look at the Lords prayer everything seems to be a prayer to God referring to Heavenly and Spiritual things. The use of daily seems out of place before the prayer then continues on with spiritual matters. If we substitute supersubstantial (Jeromes other equal translation) then there is no abrupt change in the prayer and it flows easier without reference to material things IMHO.
btw, Jesus saying THIS IS MY BODY, UNLESS YOU EAT THIS BREAD AND DRINK THIS CUP THERE IS NO LIFE IN YOU is kind of biblical.
Paul talking of eating the bread worthily and with devotion each day in a clear reference to obeying Jesus’ command of ‘DO THIS IN MEMORY Of ME’ Pauls and Jesus words are also quite biblical as well.
We have to remember that the Catholic church compiled the bible from early church writings in part to prevent misunderstandings and differences of pratice amongst Christians. The issue of transtubstantiation doesn’t seem to be a big issue in the early church but was rejected in the Reformation along with the authority of “The Church”.
In fact most of the early reformers were not against the ‘true presence’ but as soon as you reject the authority of the church it is an easy step to reject the things that that authority does - hear confessions, give indulgence, make Saints or perform the Eucharist.
It seems that historically the rejection of the Eucharist was not direct, but a knock-on effect of rejecting the Church as authority.
btw, the idea of God being present in substance poses a challenge to how we think about God and what the nature of our reality is IMHO.
Is everything God ? How does God know what is going on everywhere and inside peoples thoughts ?
we are told :
Everything was made through Gods Word (with a capital W).
Gods Word binds all creation.
The Father and i (Jesus) are one.
You will see that i (Jesus) am in the Father and the Father is in me just as i am in you.
Lots of philosophical thoughts about reality stem from the idea of the Eucharist and also from the idea of the Trinity.
I personally see many similarities between these teachings and Quantum Physics and Bells Theorem with matter as creation and as a unified substance having its origin and existance connected to something from outside of our 4 dimensions.
Just me 2c worth,
I respect your different point of view.
Stephen168
New member
Now you understand the difference!!
You never asked me how Real Presence takes place. What you asked was “What IS the Real Presence. Your blog made it clear to me that you have good definition of the Real Presence, so I let is go. Now you have an understanding of transubstantiation and why it is different from the Real Presence.
No, the subject of the thread is “What do you think of my blog called The Case Against Transubstantiation” You know very will I never sound that transubstantiation was false.
Just like there were trees before we understood how they grew; there was the Real Presence in the Eucharist, before there was an attempt to explain how it is happens.
J
Jerusha
Guest
This is an irrefutable argument. There is no response to it that I can think of. And I respect it. This is the reason why Torah-believing Jews will not, but yet respect what we believe. And the reason why the low churches (those which believe that it is only symbolic, that do not believe in the Transubstantiation in any way, shape, or form) have such organizations as “Jews for Jesus”.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Christ came to the Jews first. Salvation is from the Jews, Judaism is the foundation of Catholicism. Mary and Joseph offered sacrifice at the Temple in Jerusalem. Jesus and his disciples attended Temple and Synagogue, even after the death and Resurrection of Jesus.
, please do not make assumptions about me and Catholics. As a Catholics, we read the ENTIRE chapters. If you attend weekly mass, in a three year period, you will have read the entire Bible. If you attend daily mass, you will have read the entire Bible in two years. We are not like Evangelicals who only know their pastor’s obsession withverses out of context. I also participate in in Bible study. We just finished Acts (it was the second time in ten years I have studied Acts in a formal fashion).
. Yes, you are correct, but you assume I cherry pick verses. When taken in context of the ENTIRE book of Acts, it also refers to Jewish Christian converts who insisted Christians must become Jewish before becoming Christians (Acts 15). Food was an example, but also some foods were considered unclean (pork, shellfish, blood). Those who ate it became ritually impure. The Gentiles were considered impure and anyone who had contact with them became ritually impure, no?
(Peter) He made no distinction between us and them, **for by faith he purified their hearts. ** They were not to eat the meat of strangle animals or blood. Blood was considered life-giving. (Lev 17) That is why those who eat the body and blood of the Lord will have everlasting life. (John 6)
That is when the Jews forever stopped animal sacrifice. But Christians stopped earlier, after they understood that Jesus was the ultimate and perfect sacrifice.
I am not saying you should accept Christianity, I am just telling you that IF Jesus was the real Messiah, Catholics are not going against the Torah.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Do not throw pearls before swine.
Z
zerinus
Guest
The subject of the thread is “The Case Against Transubstantiation,” which is also the subject of the blog—in other words, Why Transubstantiation is False. Would you mind returning to the subject, instead of beating abut the bush so much?—unless you have run out of ideas, and have nothing further to contribute; in which case, why not just say so?
zerinus
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
:bigyikes:
You should meet PC_Master, Zerinus. I would love to watch the verbal sparring.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3566372&postcount=666
Come on Stephen, admit that you have nothing further to contribute. I don’t. I’m sure Melanie won’t either. Zerinus, put in your blog that Catholics were unable to reply to this post. You have definately left us speachless.:bigyikes:
You should meet PC_Master, Zerinus. I would love to watch the verbal sparring.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3566372&postcount=666
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Hi z, From what I have read thus far, I hope it is cleared up that Transubstantiation is not the same as the True Presence of Jesus, body, blood, soul and divinity in the Consecrated species of bread and wine.
How can you prove a definition false? Do you have a definition for the world of the word Transubstantiation, other than what it means?
In layman terms, when you look at the confected bread and wilne, what is it that you see? You see bread and wine dont you? Of course you do.
Jesus is the Word of God made flesh. It was the Word of God that created the universe. But now the Word of God has taken on flesh, died, and is resurrected.
When Jesus spoke to the bread and wine at the last supper when He said, “take this (bread) and eat it, THIS (bread) is my body”. Now do you think the creator of the universe does not have the power to create with just his Word? But Jesus understands we are of the flesh, so he makes the bread his body through the Holy Spirit because the flesh is of no avail. Now when we eat this Heavenly bread that he gives the faithful, that has become his body, from the creators Word, it is through Jesus body,blood that we are given his soul and divinity because it is the Spirit that gives life. That is why the Roman Catholic Church remains the body of Jesus Christ on earth (see Ephesians 5,6) and Jesus is our Head in Heaven the two will never be seperated. (communion of Saints) … on earth as it is in heaven, is How Jesus taught us to pray…
Now Transubstantiation does not do anything but inform you that at the Words of Jesus the species of bread and wine remain those to our flesh, while the bread and wine become Jesus body,blood, soul and divinity.
If you are of the flesh you see simple bread and wine. If you are of the Spirit and the flesh, you are of the body of Jesus Christ Incarnate resurrected, believe the bread and wine become the. body,blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. So it is the flesh that Judges you, while those of the Spirit cannot be judged. For we have the mind of Jesus Christ.
Truly your case against transubstantiation does not argue against the true presence. Your case has to do with the definition of the word Transubstantiation, you will have to place your case against the literary and scientific world, not the Roman Catholic Church.
Now if it is against the true presence, then state your case against God himself, The Roman Catholic Church did not invent this, The Roman Catholic church has only obeyed the commandment of Jesus these last 2 milenium.to “Do this in rememberance of me”. Dont strike at the messenger,
So out of curiosity what does Transubstantiation mean to you? Do you have a new meaning to the word that the scholary world already recognizes?
Peace and still praying for you
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
Christine, on a somewhat related follow-up, I was able to purchase a DVD of The Fourth Cup for $19.95. I’ll looking forward to seeing it soon. Thank you so much for the recommendation!
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Zerinus has already provided the answer
If you say substantiation a hundred times it will start sounding funny.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
It’s a bit esoteric, but you’ll love it. I have a renewed awe for the Holy Eucharist since having heard the CD. I would recommend it to Hashem for a comment.
- Status