The Case Against Transubstantiation

[MelanieAnne]

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.

It’s possible. Were that the case, I submit you’ll not see a public admission.

 

[thecoach]

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.

Sure it does. You offer nothing to contradict the truth of my statement.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Sure it does. You offer nothing to contradict the truth of my statement.

I saw no truth in your statement. I saw the bitterness of a wounded person. That is my opinion, it is not meant as a criticism or an attack. Our parish is not a cold place, and I have never been to any parish that was. There is nothing about your statement that comports with the reality of the experience of anyone I know.

Sacraments possess their own power. They are valid by themselves. That is a doctrine of the Church. Jesus gave the authority to the Apostles and that authority has continued in an unbroken line to this day. No one ever claimed that any Catholic was perfect. Most of us do try to live our lives as best we can, but we often fall short and need God’s Grace. This is why we go to Mass so often, to receive spiritual food. That is the Truth.

 

[Ronald_E]

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

Maybe we don’t have the faith of a mustard seed. However, it does not diminish the Real Presence in any way for those who do have the faith.

 

[zerinus]

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

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

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.

I think that you are more intelligent than that. You do yourself a disservice with this kind of post.

zerinus

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Originally Posted by The GreyPilgrim View Post
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?

Ignore them.

zerinus

Very telling, indeed.

My prayers for you that Christ through the Holy Spirit may break your hardened heart and grant you the grace of seeing Him as those disciples did-in the breaking of the bread.

 

[Jesuspaiditall]

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?

Immediately after that Jesus said, “the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are SPIRIT.” !

 

[Tonks40]

Immediately after that Jesus said, “the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are SPIRIT.” !

sigh Have you even read this thread in it’s entirety?

Anyhow, welcome to the forums.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Immediately after that Jesus said, “the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are SPIRIT.” !

I point you to a post that I made before that clarifies v. 64:

Ver. 64. The flesh profiteth nothing. Dead flesh, separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to say, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us.

— Are spirit and life. By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace and life. These words sufficiently correct the gross and carnal imagination of these Capharnaites, that he meant to them his body and blood to eat in a visible and bloody manner, as flesh, says St. Augustine, is sold in the market, and in the shambles;[3] but they do not imply a figurative or metaphorical presence only.

The manner of Christ’s presence is spiritual and under the outward appearances of bread and wine; but yet he is there truly and really present, by a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body and blood, which truly and really become our spiritual food, and are truly and really received in the holy sacrament.

— The flesh[4] of itself profiteth nothing, not even the flesh of our Saviour Christ, were it not united to the divine person of Christ. But we must take care how we understand these words spoken by our Saviour: for it is certain, says St. Augustine, that the word made flesh, is the cause of all our happiness. (Witham) — When I promise you life if you eat my flesh, I do not wish you to understand this of that gross and carnal manner, of cutting my members in pieces: such ideas are far from my mind: the flesh profiteth nothing. In the Scriptures, the word flesh is often put for the carnal manner of understanding any thing. If you wish to enter into the spirit of my words, raise your hearts to a more elevated and spiritual way of understanding them. (Calmet)

— The reader may consult Des Mahis, p. 165, a convert from Protestantism, and who has proved the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist in the most satisfactory manner, from the written word. Where he shows that Jesus Christ, speaking of his own body, never says the flesh, but my flesh: the former mode of expression is used to signify, as we have observed above, a carnal manner of understanding any thing.

And if I may point out your response answered none of my questions Jesuspaiditall so I’ll ask again:

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?

 

[Jesuspaiditall]

And if I may point out your response answered none of my questions Jesuspaiditall so I’ll ask again:

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?

He said he meant spiritually to eat his body.
“For man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.”

 

[qui_est_ce]

He said he meant spiritually to eat his body.
“For man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.”

This is from Luke and Matthew quoting Deuteronomy. It does NOT say man lives ONLY on every word that comes from the mouth of God.

Deut 8:1-6:
*
"Be careful to observe all the commandments I enjoin on you today, that you may live and increase, and may enter in and possess the land which the LORD promised on oath to your fathers.
2
Remember how for forty years now the LORD, your God, has directed all your journeying in the desert, so as to test you by affliction and find out whether or not it was your intention to **keep his commandments. **3
1 He therefore let you be afflicted with hunger, and then fed you with manna, a food unknown to you and your fathers, in order to show you that not by bread alone does man live, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of the LORD.
6
"Therefore, **keep the commandments **of the LORD, your God, by **walking in his ways *and fearing him

sigh this word “Allein” from Martin Luther still haunts his disciples today.

Why was
“This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?(John 6:60-61)
Why was this so hard to accept?
66
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
67
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
*

Jesus did not say, “Hey, wait, I meant SPIRITUALLY!” No, he repeated SEVEN (the perfect number) that his FLESH is true food, and his BLOOD is true drink.

Jesuspaiditall, your handle implies that you believe we need do nothing, since Jesus “paid the price.” What do you think of the following?
Colossions 1:24
*Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lackiing in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church, *

 

[BloodWashed]

Forgive me if this was brought up already, as I don’t feel like reading through the entire thread, but how do you explain the inablility of Catholics with gluten intolerance to take the Eucharist? If it has been miraculously changed into the body and blood, shouldn’t it no longer be wheat, and no longer be a problem for those with gluten intolerance?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Forgive me if this was brought up already, as I don’t feel like reading through the entire thread, but how do you explain the inablility of Catholics with gluten intolerance to take the Eucharist? If it has been miraculously changed into the body and blood, shouldn’t it no longer be wheat, and no longer be a problem for those with gluten intolerance?

Gluten intolerance was not discussed because Transubstantion explains the accident of the Real Presence under the appearance of bread and wine.

 

[BloodWashed]

Gluten intolerance was not discussed because Transubstantion explains the accident of the Real Presence under the appearance of bread and wine.

I don’t see how that answers my question. My understanding is that it is believed that the bread and wine turn into literal body and blood of Christ–therefore shouldn’t the bread no longer pose a gluten problem, if it is no longer bread but flesh?

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by BloodWashed:

Forgive me if this was brought up already, as I don’t feel like reading through the entire thread, but how do you explain the inablility of Catholics with gluten intolerance to take the Eucharist? If it has been miraculously changed into the body and blood, shouldn’t it no longer be wheat, and no longer be a problem for those with gluten intolerance?

When speaking of transubstantiation, Roman Catholics distinguish between **substance **and accidents. These two words have special meanings borrowed from Aristotelean thought. The substance of a thing is defined as what it truly is: for example, an orange is truly an orange. Accidents refer to the *properties *of a substance. So, the accidents (or properties) of an orange would be that it looks round, the color orange, feels smooth, smells sweet and tastes sweet and slightly sour.

Applied to the Bread and Wine: when the priest consecrates the Bread and Wine, there is a change in substance: the Bread and Wine cease being Bread and Wine and become the Body and Blood of Christ. However, the accidents of Bread and Wine still exist: they look like bread and wine, the bread tastes like normal bread, the wine tastes like alcohol and can intoxicate like alcohol, and so on. This is why people who have gluten problems would be affected, because the properties of the Bread and Wine are not changed by transubstantiation. Only the substance is changed.

 

[Ronald_E]

I don’t see how that answers my question. My understanding is that it is believed that the bread and wine turn into literal body and blood of Christ–therefore shouldn’t the bread no longer pose a gluten problem, if it is no longer bread but flesh?

Just in case someone is gluten intolerant Jesus can be taken in the form of the wine. The problem with understanding this sacrament is that it cannot be understood without humility that is exhibited in the sacrament of confession and further developed in the Spirit with the Sacrament of Confirmation.
The only other way to understand this is through Grace.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I don’t see how that answers my question. My understanding is that it is believed that the bread and wine turn into literal body and blood of Christ–therefore shouldn’t the bread no longer pose a gluten problem, if it is no longer bread but flesh?

Are you confusing Real Presence with Transubstantiation?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3564061&postcount=434

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.

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

 

[qui_est_ce]

Forgive me if this was brought up already, as I don’t feel like reading through the entire thread, but how do you explain the inablility of Catholics with gluten intolerance to take the Eucharist? If it has been miraculously changed into the body and blood, shouldn’t it no longer be wheat, and no longer be a problem for those with gluten intolerance?

Transubstantion has already been discussed and defined in this thread. If you really want and answer to your question, you will read throught this thread. It’s all there.

 

[HashemEchad]

Just in case someone is gluten intolerant Jesus can be taken in the form of the wine. The problem with understanding this sacrament is that it cannot be understood without humility that is exhibited in the sacrament of confession and further developed in the Spirit with the Sacrament of Confirmation.
The only other way to understand this is through Grace.

At the Passover Seders I attended recently, I was asking myself a related question.

At the Seder, a Jew is required to drink four full cups of wine or grape juice.

What if someone is alcoholic, or diabetic?

I’m neither, but I did think about it…have to ask a rabbi what happens in a case like that!

 

[MelanieAnne]

At the Passover Seders I attended recently, I was asking myself a related question.

At the Seder, a Jew is required to drink four full cups of wine or grape juice.

What if someone is alcoholic, or diabetic?

I’m neither, but I did think about it…have to ask a rabbi what happens in a case like that!

Alcoholics should have no problem with grape juice or non-alcoholic wine. My son’s a diabetic & he just drinks wine, but he’s a “Type I” diabetic & his consumption is moderate. The vast majority of diabetics ~ the “Type 2” diabetics ~ might have to find an acceptable substitute ~ perhaps there’s a low-sugar juice? There are low-sugar & sugar free jams now, so perhaps there are sugar-free juices as well.