The Case Against Transubstantiation

[Gabriel_of_12]

Zerinus has already provided the answer
If you say substantiation a hundred times it will start sounding funny.

So then what is his case? if he doesnt have another definition than what is accepted. If he wants an explanation of the mystery of the Eucharist, he would have to partake of Jesus divine nature like everyone of God’s children have since the Apostles.

Besides this is not his definition of the word Transubstantiation. This is only one he provided from another source unless I missed where he agrees with this definition or not. I would like to know his meaning of the word .

Peace

 

[qui_est_ce]

Besides this is not his definition of the word Transubstantiation. This is only one he provided from another source unless I missed where he agrees with this definition or not. I would like to know his meaning of the word .

Peace

Read his blogspot
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3517729&postcount=1
No matter how often you try to point out the difference between the Real Presence and Transubstantiaation, it means the same thing to him, (I have provided you quotes), and he doesn’t believe in the Real Presence, no matter how much Biblical support is given.

My conclusion is yup, he got us. We cannot refute his assertions.

 

[fdmilkis]

Mark 14:24

And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

So did Christ spiritually, symbolically, figuratively shed his blood on the Cross? Or did he literally shed his blood for many?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Read his blogspot
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3517729&postcount=1
No matter how often you try to point out the difference between the Real Presence and Transubstantiaation, it means the same thing to him, (I have provided you quotes), and he doesn’t believe in the Real Presence, no matter how much Biblical support is given.

My conclusion is yup, he got us. We cannot refute his assertions.

I believe it all goes back to the nature of God. Mormons have a completely different understanding of God. The differences start there. Without a common understanding of the nature of God, related concepts become even more difficult to understand.

Of course there can also be an element of stubbornness/refusal to understand, too. But when you have a different understanding of God, a different understanding of Jesus Christ, an entirely different definition of “Trinity”, then it’s possible that more subtle distinctions such as differences in meaning between Real Presence and Transubstantiation become meaningless or unimportant to such persons. It’s like having a conversation with someone who doesn’t speak the same language. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Tonks40]

I believe it all goes back to the nature of God. Mormons have a completely different understanding of God. The differences start there. Without a common understanding of the nature of God, related concepts become even more difficult to understand.

Of course there can also be an element of stubbornness/refusal to understand, too. But when you have a different understanding of God, a different understanding of Jesus Christ, an entirely different definition of “Trinity”, then it’s possible that more subtle distinctions such as differences in meaning between Real Presence and Transubstantiation become meaningless or unimportant to such persons. It’s like having a conversation with someone who doesn’t speak the same language. Just my 2 cents.

IOW - we cannot refute z because we’re just not on the same page.

• sigh * It’s sad…

 

[MelanieAnne]

Tonks ~~~~~~~

Sad for whom?

We can’t make the blind see, we can’t make the deaf hear.

But yes, we can be sad for those who, for whatever reason, are blind and deaf. And we can pray for them. What else can we do?

 

[Tonks40]

Tonks ~~~~~~~

Sad for whom?

We can’t make the blind see, we can’t make the deaf hear.

But yes, we can be sad for those who, for whatever reason, are blind and deaf. And we can pray for them. What else can we do?

Not to get off topic, but I just feel sadness all around. I try and center how I treat others outside my faith by focusing on what we have in common…but when there is no common bond, I have some difficulty letting go…

…you’re right. I should pray that God grant those who do not understand the eyes to see and the ears to hear…and I do.

God Bless.

 

[Jerusha]

My conclusion is yup, he got us. We cannot refute his assertions.

We cannot refute his assertions, because they are based on faith. He cannot refute our assertions because they are based on faith. The difference between his assertions and Hashem’s assertions is that her assertions are based on our right to believe as we do, but his are not.

No use arguing with either one.

 

[zerinus]

For the benefit of those who are interested, and before this thread runs out of steam, I will briefly explain what the LDS theological position with regard to the Eucharist is. LDS theology is derived from LDS scripture, which includes modern revelation as well as the Bible. The advantage of having additional scripture is that it clarifies what is in the Bible, without contradicting it. Just as Mark clarifies what is in Matthew without contradicting it, or Luke clarifies what is in Matthew and Mark without contradicting them, and Matthew clarifies what is in Mark, Luke and John; modern LDS scripture also clarifies what is in the Bible, without contradicting it. The main passages expounding the LDS doctrine of the Sacrament are in the Book of Mormon, with smaller passages in the Doctrine and Covenants. I will quote the passages, with the most significant verses highlighted, and briefly comment on them afterwards. Jesus instituted the Sacrament among the Nephites in the Book of Mormon when He visited them after His resurrection. Here is the account:

3 Nephi 18:

1 And it came to pass that Jesus commanded his Disciples that they should bring forth some bread and wine unto him.

2 And while they were gone for bread and wine, he commanded the multitude that they should sit themselves down upon the earth.

3 And when the Disciples had come with bread and wine, he took of the bread and brake and blessed it; and he gave unto the Disciples and commanded that they should eat.

4 And when they had eaten and were filled, he commanded that they should give unto the multitude.

5 And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the Disciples: Behold there shall one be ordained among you, and to him will I give power that he shall break bread and bless it and give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name.

6 And this shall ye always observe to do, even as I have done, even as I have broken bread and blessed it and given it unto you.

7 And this shall ye do in remembrance of my body, which I have shown unto you. And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you.

8 And it came to pass that when he said these words, he commanded his Disciples that they should take of the wine of the cup and drink of it, and that they should also give unto the multitude that they might drink of it.

9 And it came to pass that they did so, and did drink of it and were filled; and they gave unto the multitude, and they did drink, and they were filled.

10 And when the Disciples had done this, Jesus said unto them: Blessed are ye for this thing which ye have done, for this is fulfilling my commandments, and this doth witness unto the Father that ye are willing to do that which I have commanded you.

11 And this shall ye always do to those who repent and are baptized in my name; and ye shall do it in remembrance of my blood, which I have shed for you, that ye may witness unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you.

12 And I give unto you a commandment that ye shall do these things. And if ye shall always do these things blessed are ye, for ye are built upon my rock.

13 But whoso among you shall do more or less than these are not built upon my rock, but are built upon a sandy foundation; and when the rain descends, and the floods come, and the winds blow, and beat upon them, they shall fall, and the gates of hell are ready open to receive them.

14 Therefore blessed are ye if ye shall keep my commandments, which the Father hath commanded me that I should give unto you.

The first theologically significant clause occurs in verse 5, where it says, “there shall one be ordained among you, . . . This suggests that the Eucharist is a true sacrament. It requires priesthood authority to be administered. The next significant clause occurs in verse 7, where we are taught that it is done “in remembrance of my body, . . .”. The first part of that clause, “in remembrance of my body . . .” also occurs in the Bible:

Luke 22:

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

1 Corinthians 11:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

The significant bits that the Book of Mormon passage adds, that is not found in the Bible, is “And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you. This adds clarification. It informs us that the Sacrament is indeed a memorial of the sufferings of Christ; not that we will eat or drink His flesh or blood literally. It also informs us how we are blessed spiritually when we partake of the Sacrament worthily. That happens when we are promissed that we should have His Spirit to be with us.

zerinus

Continued . . . /

 

[zerinus]

/. . . Continued

The next significant passage occurs in verse 10: “for this is fulfilling my commandments, and this doth witness unto the Father that ye are willing to do that which I have commanded you. Participation in the Sacrament, like baptism, is not a difficult or demanding requirement; nevertheless, like baptism, it is a token of our willingness to obey God’s commandments.

The next theologically significant passage is verse 11, which is a repeat of what was said in verse 7, except that this time in relation to the wine rather than the bread. And the last significant verse is 13, which states, “But whoso among you shall do more or less than these are not built upon my rock, but are built upon a sandy foundation; and when the rain descends, and the floods come, and the winds blow, and beat upon them, they shall fall, and the gates of hell are ready open to receive them.” This is a warning to those who add or remove unauthorized material to the Sacrament, either doctrinally or procedurally. They are building their house on sand; and when the winds blow and rains descend, it shall fall, and “great shall be the fall of it”.

In the continuation to the same chapter, the Lord then proceeds to give the warning to those who partake of the Sacrament unworthily:

3 Nephi 18:

27 Behold verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto you another commandment, and then I must go unto my Father that I may fulfil other commandments which he hath given me.

28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;

29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

30 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.

The interesting thing about this passage is that it uses the same language that Catholics like to associate with Real Presence. Well, since every church seems to have its own definition of Real Presence, I am willing to accept that term provided that I can define the conditions of it myself—although I would rather not use those theological terms at all, because they carry connotations and nuances that do not sit well with the theology of the Restoration. LDS is a new dispensation of the gospel. It is not dependent on those archaic terminologies developed in historical Christianity. It uses its own. Nevertheless, I will accept Real Presence if I can define the terms of it myself. My definition of it (if I have to use that term) is that the administration of the Sacrament makes Jesus “Present” with us when the promise is fulfilled that we will “always have His Spirit to be with us”. That is how Jesus promised His disciples that He would always be present with them:

John 14:

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Ephesians 3:

16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;

17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

That is how Jesus has promised that He will always be “Present” with His disciples—by giving them of His Spirit to always be with them, and dwell in them by faith. The idea that we must literally eat His flesh and drink His blood is a foolish and a ridiculous idea. That is not what God has said He wants us to do.

Chapter 18 of 3 Nephi gives a description of how Jesus instituted the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper among the Nephites. The day after that even, Jesus visits them again, and administers the Sacrament to them the second time. This is a shorter passage, but still contains theologically significant verses that are worth discussing:

zerinus

Continued . . . /

 

[zerinus]

/. . . Continued

3 Nephi 20:

1 And it came to pass that he commanded the multitude that they should cease to pray, and also his disciples. And he commanded them that they should not cease to pray in their hearts.

2 And he commanded them that they should arise and stand up upon their feet. And they arose up and stood upon their feet.

3 And it came to pass that he brake bread again and blessed it, and gave to the disciples to eat.

4 And when they had eaten he commanded them that they should break bread, and give unto the multitude.

5 And when they had given unto the multitude he also gave them wine to drink, and commanded them that they should give unto the multitude.

6 Now, there had been no bread, neither wine, brought by the disciples, neither by the multitude;

7 But he truly gave unto them bread to eat, and also wine to drink.

8 And he said unto them: He that eateth this bread eateth of my body to his soul; and he that drinketh of this wine drinketh of my blood to his soul; and his soul shall never hunger nor thirst, but shall be filled.

9 Now, when the multitude had all eaten and drunk, behold, they were filled with the Spirit; and they did cry out with one voice, and gave glory to Jesus, whom they both saw and heard.

Verse 8 again uses a language that the Catholics would tend to identify with their understanding of Real Presence; although it uses it to suggest a kind of “spiritual feeding”. Verse 9 describes how that “feeding” takes place: it is done, again, by being filled with His Spirit. The idea of physically eating Jesus Christ is just plain nonsense. Only a Catholics and madmen would accept that!

The theology of the Sacrament in the LDS Church is even more completely and comprehensively, but in a highly condensed form, taught in the actual Sacramental prayers themselves, which were given by revelation. Here are the two Sacramental prayers for bread and wine:

D&C 20:

77 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

79 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

There are many theologically significant phrases in these prayers. First, note that the emblems are “blessed and sanctified”. To sanctify means to consecrate or make holy. This does not mean that actual emblems in themselves are made holy; rather, they are sanctified “to the souls of all those who partake of it”. The sanctification rebounds on those who partake of it by faith and in worthiness. In the early church, all church members were called “saints”. That did not mean that they were sinless. It means that they had undergone the sanctifying experience of receiving the ordinances of the gospel, such as baptism and confirmation, but most importantly, of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. That is what makes us holy, or turns us into saints. If we wanted to express that in Catholic terminology, I suppose it would translate into “receiving grace”. But I don’t like using those old terms, because they are ambiguous and vague. “Becoming sanctified” is a more meaningful expression for me than “receiving grace,” which nobody seems to be able to clearly define. This process of sanctification as we participate in the life of the Church is referred to in several places in the modern LDS scripture:

D&C 43:

9 And thus ye shall become instructed in the law of my church, and be sanctified by that which ye have received, and ye shall bind yourselves to act in all holiness before me.

D&C 59:

9 And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day;

D&C 60:

7 And in this place let them lift up their voice and declare my word with loud voices, without wrath or doubting, lifting up holy hands upon them. For I am able to make you holy, and your sins are forgiven you.

Returning to the sacramental prayers, there are other significant phrases that need to be discussed. Note first that the words “remember” and “remembrance” occur frequently in both prayers. That is the key word. “Always remember him” means what it says: always. It means remembering Him in every waking moment of our lives. Some may think that is impossible. I don’t think so, because God has commanded it. It is through this constant, ceaseless, incessant remembering that we are guaranteed to have His Spirit to always be with us.

zerinus

Continued . . . /

 

[zerinus]

/. . . Continued

Other covenants we make are to declare our willingness to “take upon us His name” and also to “keep His commandments which He has given us”. To “take upon us His name” means to be willing to be identified by His name, in other words, to become true Christians (not Apostate ones! )

Latter-day Saints often describe the Sacrament as a “renewal of our baptismal covenant”. That is because there is a striking resemblance between the covenants we make at baptism (Mosiah 18:8–10; D&C 20:37); and the covenants we make as we partake of the Sacrament.

The only other thing that needs to be added to this brief summary is that we currently do not use wine for the administration of the Sacrament, but water. This is because of a commandment we received from the Lord owing to the circumstances that prevailed at that time, as recorded in the following revelation:

D&C 27:

1 Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Lord, your God, and your Redeemer, whose word is quick and powerful.

2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.

3 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, that you shall not purchase wine neither strong drink of your enemies;

4 Wherefore, you shall partake of none except it is made new among you; yea, in this my Father’s kingdom which shall be built up on the earth.

Verse 2 in this passage contains more doctrinal insights into the theology of the Sacrament. It teaches that the correct way to partake of the Sacrament is to do so “with an eye single to the glory of God;” and it reemphasizes once again the centrality of “remembering” Jesus Christ as the most important requirement in the Sacrament.

Such is the simplicity and beauty of the theology of the Sacrament in LDS scripture. Everything is plain, clear, meaningful, and dovetails perfectly with what is taught in the Bible. There are no dark shadows and mysterious ideas to fathom. No daft ideas such as eating Jesus Christ and all of His divinity all in one go! That is the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints concerning the Eucharist, or the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

zerinus

 

[Ronald_E]

Zerinus, I have focused on the phrase “…in remembrance of me.” What does that phrase mean? To me, when I receive the Sacrament of Communion I remember that Jesus told me it is He I am receiving because He stated that all power in heaven and on earth has been given to Him. Consequently, He has infinite power with His Word to create through Peter a Sacrament that mysteriously places Him within each one who is blessed to receive Him in this way. This is what has been passed down to us in Catholicism in the priesthood beginning with Christ giving Peter the foundation to construct His Church on earth. The sacramental mystery of the priesthood in Catholicism cannot be undone by a sinful priest. The sacrament is pure regardless of the person who brings us the Sacrament as long as that unbroken line is preserved.

 

[Stephen168]

Use a work of fiction to mimic Christ’s words and change their meaning. Got it. Thanks

 

[Stephen168]

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.

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

 

[valient_Lucy]

“If (communion) is just a symbol, then to Hell with it!”

Flannery O’Conner

 

[MelanieAnne]

Use a work of fiction to mimic Christ’s words and change their meaning. Got it. Thanks

While I concur that the BOM was the creation of Joseph Smith, who borrowed heavily from the Bible, the passages cited by Zerinus do not change the meaning of the words of Christ when He instituted the Eucharist.

In the Liturgy of the Eucharist we re-present the Last Supper. In that sense we are obviously remembering the event. And Jesus did say to DO THIS in remembrance of Him. There is no issue there of changing words.

That we may participate in the Eucharist, and remember Jesus and the sacrifice He made in the process, and the fact that we may come away filled with His Spirit is completely consistent with the Catholic faith. It would appear, if Zerinus’ description is complete, that the event ends there for Mormons, while it does not end there for Catholics.

Mormons have no special sacramental elements. They use ordinary bread and water, which they pass around the congregation on trays. They do not re-present the Last Supper as part of their ceremony. They do not use the ancient form of worship of the Early Church, and I submit most Mormons would not know what that even was. Whatever Christian roots Mormons have come from Protestantism, as evidenced from the King James Version of the Bible that they use as well as other elements of the history of the development of their Church.

In contrast, in re-presenting the Last Supper at every Mass, Catholics follow as closely as possible the actual words of Jesus. He said “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood”. This has been amply referenced just in this thread, so I will not cite the specific verses again. As Catholics, we are taking Jesus at His Word, we take the words literally for good reason. Mormons, and many, but not all Protestants, simply do not take Jesus at His literal Word, and assert that those particular words are hyperbole, and thus consider the sacramental elements as mere symbols.

As a person who was born and raised Episcopalian, and who participated in the Eucharist there, and who is now Catholic I can testify to the difference. Those that view the sacramental elements as mere symbols are missing out. Of course, those persons that they view as having “priesthood authority” to bless the sacraments, do not have valid authority based apostolic succession (I know the Mormon argument on this point, suffice it to say we don’t recognize it) so perhaps “symbols” are the best they can hope for. For them, that’s as close as they can come.

In conclusion, I agree with those Mormons and Protestants that say their sacraments are mere symbols. For them, they are. For those that have true apostolic succession, who have the authority given to the Apostles by Jesus Christ (and unless Jesus misrepresented His promises to the Early Church, Mormons as well as many others lack this authority) the elements of our Eucharist are just as Jesus Himself said they would be ~ His Body and His Blood ~ not a symbol.

While there can be a variety of ways that Jesus can be Present, in the Eucharist, this is what “Real Presence” consists of ~ the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as He Himself stated in the Gospel.

 

[thecoach]

The “Pope” is the one who makes categorical assertions without any arguments to back up his claims; and that sounds more like you I am afraid.

Actually, He didn’t say it, and it doesn’t happen.

The early Christians were falsely accused of all kinds of things, which they never did nor practiced, such as literally eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ.

zerinus

One thing to look at is, if it really is Christ, why does it do so little to change the hearts of those who receive it? Parishes are cold places, priests receive then defile themselves, really folks

 

[Stephen168]

MelanieAnne, I agree with you. I was thinking mainly about this:

3 Nephi 20:

8 And he said unto them: He that eateth this bread eateth of my body to his soul; and he that drinketh of this wine drinketh of my blood to his soul; and his soul shall never hunger nor thirst, but shall be filled.

9 Now, when the multitude had all eaten and drunk, behold, they were filled with the Spirit; and they did cry out with one voice, and gave glory to Jesus, whom they both saw and heard.

Verse 8 again uses a language that the Catholics would tend to identify with their understanding of Real Presence; although it uses it to suggest a kind of “spiritual feeding”. Verse 9 describes how that “feeding” takes place: it is done, again, by being filled with His Spirit.

Of course, those persons that they view as having “priesthood authority” to bless the sacraments, do not have valid authority based apostolic succession (I know the Mormon argument on this point, suffice it to say we don’t recognize it) so perhaps “symbols” are the best they can hope for. For them, that’s as close as they can come.

I’ve been thinking the same thing lately. I wonder if, maybe, deep down inside they know they don’t have the authority. Just a thought.

 

[MelanieAnne]

One thing to look at is, if it really is Christ, why does it do so little to change the hearts of those who receive it? Parishes are cold places, priests receive then defile themselves, really folks

If you have suffered in your life, and are unhappy as a result, then that is truly unfortunate and very saddening.

Of course there have been instances were fallible persons have sinned, have betrayed their priestly vows in various ways. Fortunately for us, Jesus promised that the Church would weather such storms. Many hearts are changed through the Eucharist, and if you have not witnessed that personally, then it is unfortunate for you, but it in no way detracts from the power of the Eucharist itself.