The Case Against Transubstantiation

[HashemEchad]

Don’t tell that to a Fundamentalist! They might have a heart attack

Well, honestly you’d have to be a complete ignoramus (at the very least, historically ignorant) NOT to know that! This is not about theology, its about historical FACT.

Did Luther, Knox, Calvin, Hus, Savonarola or any of the others exist at the time when Jesus is supposed to have existed?

OBVIOUSLY not.

This isn’t, for me, about which religion is RIGHT; its simply about which CHURCH within Christianity would be the OLDEST one. The only other one that can even try to claim to be the oldest would be the Orthodox churches…but they are divided along ethnic lines and are autonomous from what I can see, thereby meaning they would not be in line with what Jesus taught, which was that his church would be a) universal, and b) ruled by one head, not many.

 

[Stephen168]

That is puzzling. I thought it was. This is the definition I gave:

“If anyone says that the substance of bread and wine remains in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and denies that wonderful and extraordinary change of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, while only the species of bread and wine remain, a change which the Catholic Church has most fittingly called ‘transubstantiation,’ let him be anathema.” (Session 13, can.2) Source: The Real Presence Eucharistic

I presume you were referring to the passage that you had quoted, which is this one:

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.
The Council Of Trent: Session 13, Chapter Iv.

They may be from two different sections of the decision of the Council; but they are saying the same things. Can you tell me what is the difference (doctrinally) between them that I should have preferred your passage to mine?

Chapter IV is the definition of Transubstantiation.

Cannon one is a condemnation of the Eucharist being a sign.
Cannon two is a condemnation of consubstantiation.

You lied to your readers by calling a condemnation of consubstantiation a definition of transubstantiation.

I would think it would be very easy to define transubstantiation by using the actual definition provided by Trent.

 

[ibkc]

Well, honestly you’d have to be a complete ignoramus (at the very least, historically ignorant) NOT to know that! This is not about theology, its about historical FACT.

Did Luther, Knox, Calvin, Hus, Savonarola or any of the others exist at the time when Jesus is supposed to have existed?

OBVIOUSLY not.

Before I returned to Christianity, I was always aware that the Catholic Church was the oldest form of organized Christianity. When I decided to come back, I was shocked to discover that many fundamentalist/evangelical/Pentecostal types have their own version of history where the first Christians were actually “just like them”, that is, Bible-alone (never mind that there was no Bible until hundreds of years after the death of Christ), non-sacramental, etc. They cannot provide any proof of this claim and their explanation is that they practiced underground for centuries without attracting the notice of any onlookers, until the Reformation happened and they were set free. You can also find sites where these people identify themselves with various heresies, apparently without even looking to see what these heresies taught. It really is rank ignorance, and I use that word specifically because it is willful. In this world of instantaneous information, anyone can find out the truth of history if they care to see it, but these people very stubbornly stick to what is in their own heads.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Before I returned to Christianity, I was always aware that the Catholic Church was the oldest form of organized Christianity. When I decided to come back, I was shocked to discover that many fundamentalist/evangelical/Pentecostal types have their own version of history where the first Christians were actually “just like them”, that is, Bible-alone (never mind that there was no Bible until hundreds of years after the death of Christ), non-sacramental, etc. They cannot provide any proof of this claim and their explanation is that they practiced underground for centuries without attracting the notice of any onlookers, until the Reformation happened and they were set free. You can also find sites where these people identify themselves with various heresies, apparently without even looking to see what these heresies taught. It really is rank ignorance, and I use that word specifically because it is willful. In this world of instantaneous information, anyone can find out the truth of history if they care to see it, but these people very stubbornly stick to what is in their own heads.

I was listening to a program on this sort of subject just the other day. When you have all the information, to believe in transubstantiation is actually easier, and requires less faith, than not to believe in it. The speaker on this program gave as his example how so many non-sacramental sects claim, when confronted with early church history, that the REAL history, which supports their version of everything, was destroyed by the Catholic Church.

So you have to think about this. To actually believe the claims of these people, you have to believe that the Church sent out teams of people all over the known world and literally scoured the planet seeking and out destroying this “subversive” early Christian documentation and THAT’s why there is no documentation of their existence. I guess the “original” church of the Mormons ~ you know, the one Joseph Smith “restored” ~ met the same fate?

Of course there’s no historical evidence that any of this happened so I guess that must have been destroyed too? This fantastic story is credible but the Word of God is not?

If you ask these Bible-alone people if Christ healed the sick or made the blind see, they will say He did. If you ask if He was resurrected from the dead, they will say that He was. Well guess what, the same Jesus that did all that can also transform the Eucharistic elements into His Body and Blood just as He said they would be. How can anyone believe only PART of what Jesus said? Because someone else told them not to?

Trusting Jesus was and is a man of His Word is WAY easier.

 

[zerinus]

Small trees were turning into big trees many many years before mankind could explain how it happens. If we suddenly lost our understand of how a small tree became a big tree, it would still happen. Trees changing and the knowledge of what happens when they change are not interdependent. You can have the Real Presence as Christ taught us without understand how it happens. They are not interdependent.

I can only go by how your most authoritative theological texts have defined your theology. As I see it, they are inseparably intertwined and interdependent, so that one cannot exist without the other. Small trees and big trees don’t make up the difference I am afraid.

Chapter IV is the definition of Transubstantiation.

Well and good!

Cannon one is a condemnation of the Eucharist being a sign.
Cannon two is a condemnation of consubstantiation.

The word “consubstantiation” is not mentioned anywhere in that paragraph; but “transubstantiation” is mentioned. I read it as a condemnation of not believing in transubstantiation (as well as giving a definition of it); not a condemnation of believing in consubstantiation.

You lied to your readers by calling a condemnation of consubstantiation a definition of transubstantiation.

That is going over the top. I didn’t lie at all. I have given my understanding of the case according to how I see it. You are free to disagree with me if you like.

I would think it would be very easy to define transubstantiation by using the actual definition provided by Trent.

Same as above. If you genuinely believe that I have got it wrong, you are welcome to give your “correct” version of it as a comment to my blog. I promise you that I won’t delete it—provided that it is done respectfully. Saying that I have “lied” is not the right way.

zerinus

 

[rich123456]

catholicscomehome.org/epic/epic120.phtml
Scripture says “and there eyes were opened as he broke bread”
For this ex-mormon my eyes were also opened at the Eucharistic table. I have been receiving Communion for 9 years now and I have to say it has done me very well. I know Christ as God. It is spiritual food to the greatest degree. It has to be accepted on faith, just as love is also accepted on faith.

Receiving Christ in this way has taught me much about Revelation. I have had many epiphanies in the last nine years all on my own and has convinced me that revelation comes by way of dying to ones self, of decreasing rather than increasing.

When I think of Jesus washing the disciples feet, when I think of Jesus washing my feet by dying for me a sinner I think of our Church with the Cross at the center, how we have been given the gift of Jesus in our midst, in our souls, in our hearts and minds. A Jesus that is pure in every way shape or form. The confessionals show us that we are not pure in any way shape or form accept in Christ. Confessionals that allow us to visit with the one who truly loves us in spite of ourselves.

Revelation to understand and grasp the cross. Revelation as to loving those who love us, but most of all to love and to pray for even our enemies. Jesus said that we would do greater works than even Himself.

Revelation to understand this in all humility.

He did not have to work to love them all, as He is love itself. But as a Human He knows the difficulty we face in loving even our enemies, placing them first in our lives through prayer and understanding the great message.

Is it hard for me to believe as the first Christians believed in the Eucharist? What else can we feed on but Christ Him self? What other food is there but Him? Is His flesh of no avail? Is His blood of no avail? Mormons are like children dressing up, pretending to be gods, pretending to be wise. Catholics are like little children who know who feeds them, like a mother who nourishes here infants, the Church feeds her children. This Church is Jesus and this Church inludes each one of us. I will never search for another miracle in my life because In the Church I live the great miracle of Eucharist daily. I come to Christ with empty hands and He always feed me. It is my wish that my hands will remain forever empty so that He can continue to fill them with every gift that he gives freely. I have to keep checking my hands!

If I could compare the Catholic Church with the LDS Church I would say this. I do not have to do this or that to attain Salvation. I have it as a promise from my Lord. In that I can let the personal relationship grow from there and it does. It grows in me as I receive Christ’s body and blood, soul and divinity each Sunday. It grows as I move out beyond myself into my confessions, it grows within the confines of the blessed Sacrament chapel as I encounter my God in sorrow and joy. It grows as I decrease in my own wants and desires and place all of those things in His hands, again keeping mine empty. I grew from Mormonism through His humility, I found truth and I choose it. This truth is un changing and is available to every singe soul on earth. The revelations I have come to discover are the very same that they, the Apostles came to discover in the breaking of the bread at the table of our Lord. It is not new nor is it old. It is just what it is. How we deal with it shapes our lives and our decisions.

If we want to be comfortable than it is about us and not God. If we want to remain free to love in truth than we choose God over being comfortable. True peace comes from choosing God over all else, even Him over our own families. This is where Christian life begins, it is where Mormonism ends.

God Bless
www.utahmission.com
Common Questions about the Eucharist
utahmission.com/pages/Common_Questions.html

 

[NDfan]

I was listening to a program on this sort of subject just the other day. When you have all the information, to believe in transubstantiation is actually easier, and requires less faith, than not to believe in it. The speaker on this program gave as his example how so many non-sacramental sects claim, when confronted with early church history, that the REAL history, which supports their version of everything, was destroyed by the Catholic Church.

So you have to think about this. To actually believe the claims of these people, you have to believe that the Church sent out teams of people all over the known world and literally scoured the planet seeking and out destroying this “subversive” early Christian documentation and THAT’s why there is no documentation of their existence. I guess the “original” church of the Mormons ~ you know, the one Joseph Smith “restored” ~ met the same fate?

Of course there’s no historical evidence that any of this happened so I guess that must have been destroyed too? This fantastic story is credible but the Word of God is not?

If you ask these Bible-alone people if Christ healed the sick or made the blind see, they will say He did. If you ask if He was resurrected from the dead, they will say that He was. Well guess what, the same Jesus that did all that can also transform the Eucharistic elements into His Body and Blood just as He said they would be. How can anyone believe only PART of what Jesus said? Because someone else told them not to?

Trusting Jesus was and is a man of His Word is WAY easier.

Trusting Jesus is very easy and certainly no one would ever doubt transubstantiation if that’s what Jesus literally meant and taught. But HE states I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. So are we going to drink blood in Heaven?? (yuk)

Now here’s a question back. Since Jesus was such a man of HIS word have you chopped off your hand(s) yet?? Or have you gouged out your eye(s) yet?? Jesus said it is better to let the sinful parts go to hell than the entire body. Is this symbolic or literal??

 

[MelanieAnne]

Silly questions.

 

[Stephen168]

The word “consubstantiation” is not mentioned anywhere in that paragraph; but “transubstantiation” is mentioned. **I read it as a condemnation of *not believing in transubstantiation ***(as well as giving a definition of it); not a condemnation of believing in consubstantiation.

It is not the definition of transubstantiation and you know it.

So I researched it myself, and found that Real Presence takes place by means of Transubstantiation, which is what that paragraph says.

I know you know there is a difference between transubstantiation and Real Presence. You also have been told THE definition of Transubstantiation. The fact you are holding on to this ‘strawman’ tells me that you are dishonest.
You were not mistaken when you used a condemnation of consubstantiation as your definition of transubstantiation; you knowingly lied to your readers.

 

[MementoMori3283]

Trusting Jesus is very easy

really

and certainly no one would ever doubt transubstantiation if that’s what Jesus literally meant and taught.

really

But HE states I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. So are we going to drink blood in Heaven?? (yuk)

it’s literal, he’s talking about the wine

Now here’s a question back. Since Jesus was such a man of HIS word have you chopped off your hand(s) yet?? Or have you gouged out your eye(s) yet?? Jesus said it is better to let the sinful parts go to hell than the entire body. Is this symbolic or literal??

literal

For certainly if we had courage, and our eyes we could not avert from sin, or our hands, we could not stop from being the handiwork of the devil, then it would be better for us to gouge them out and cut them off. But because we are weak and because Jesus knows this, He has given us Holy Mother Church and the Sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist that we might receive the grace we need to overcome our sinful nature.

 

[zerinus]

It is not the definition of transubstantiation and you know it.

I think that it is, and you know it.

I know you know there is a difference between transubstantiation and Real Presence. You also have been told THE definition of Transubstantiation. The fact you are holding on to this ‘strawman’ tells me that you are dishonest.

I see no difference between what you call “THE definition of Transubstantiation” and the one I gave. I asked you to show me what the difference was, and you refused to answer. I think that puts the shoe on the other foot.

You were not mistaken when you used a condemnation of consubstantiation as your definition of transubstantiation; you knowingly lied to your readers.

I think that that is disingenuous as well as dishonest. I guess that brings our conversation to an end. But my offer still stands. You are free to challenge my blog with your own comment, and I promise I will not delete it if it is not disrespectful. But I may decide to challenge it if I disagree with it—or on the other hand, I may not.

zerinus

 

[Ronald_E]

Trusting Jesus is very easy and certainly no one would ever doubt transubstantiation if that’s what Jesus literally meant and taught. But HE states I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. So are we going to drink blood in Heaven?? (yuk)

Now here’s a question back. Since Jesus was such a man of HIS word have you chopped off your hand(s) yet?? Or have you gouged out your eye(s) yet?? Jesus said it is better to let the sinful parts go to hell than the entire body. Is this symbolic or literal??

Your statement about drinking blood in Heaven shows that you are not in a serious discussion. It shows what your underlying disposition is concerning this Sacrament that we Catholics have had passed to us since the Apostles. Why show such disrespect? Is that what Jesus would want?
You pull scripture out of context which creates fragmented perceptions. The Catholic Church is built on the totality of Scripture. If you believe that those who have died for our Catholic Faith and helped preserve all of Scripture, written and oral, are not living in the Truth then nothing I can say will change your mind. Your lack of understanding is a function your life experiences which have formed your sense of self. The hardest thing for a person to give up is their identity because it keeps them safe within what they know.
I lost my old identity at age 58 through Grace and the Catholic Church became visible to me without any effort on my part. It takes humility to know Truth not sarcastic remarks that reveal something internally harmful to the person expressing them.

 

[rich123456]

The Great Aposatcy is turning away from the Miracle Christ left His Church. He gave us this Miracle well before the Mormon so called apostacy. The fact is the Church has remained just as Jesus said it would. God tells us that he will remain with us until the end of the age. Not a just a good man, God Himself. He being Creator, we being Created. (Christian) The below is Catholic prior to the Mormon Great Apostacy. Christ leads us Catholics because we are sinners in 100% need of Him.

St. Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans on the Mass. (The year is 110 A.D.)

He became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena. He wrote:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not profess that the Eucharist **(Jn 6:66) **is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”
It is the Mass that has brought Christ into the present. It is the sign given as you contemplate all of chapter 6 in John’s gospel.

In Scripture and the words of the early Church Fathers
(See Luke 24:30-31, 33, 35 )

When he was at table with them, he took bread, blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight. That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together. Then they told what had happened on the road, and how Jesus had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread.

No matter what Christian sect one might attend there is no mistaking the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist at Mass in scripture and in the Early Church Fathers own words. It is the Christian Mass from the time of the Last Supper that has brought Christianity into the here and now. It is the sign given as you contemplate Johns Gospel Chapter 6. The Mass takes place every 2 minutes somewhere on the earth, 7 days a week, all year long except for Good Friday. The connection that is made between the Cross then and the Cross now is breathtaking when one connects the dots softly hidden amongst the 7 Sacraments. Did not Jesus take on the sins of the world, past present and future, once for all, for what we have done and for what we have failed to do? Do we not proclaim His death until He comes again? Jesus showed us what he could do with a little bread and a few fish by feeding the multitudes (Jn 6:23-27). Jesus was constantly showing us His power over nature herself to prepare our hearts and our minds for the food that was to nourish each of us on our journey. “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.” (1Cor 10:16-17)

When He spoke of this food from heaven to be given many of His disciples left because what he was saying was to hard for them to believe (John 6:66). But the Apostles stayed and were rewarded with the last supper, along with His Spirit at Pentecost (Jn 20:19, 22-23)., Him to be with them, in them. On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, Jesus showed himself to his apostles. It’s easy to put up resistance to the Most Holy Eucharist when one is looking from the outside in, but one can not argue that it is at the very center of the “why and reason” Christianity has survived the attacks from the outside as well as the inside for 2000 years.

Think of your riducule here? Why did most of his desiples leave when He spoke about drinking His blood and eating His flesh?
The twelve stayed? Why? Because He has the words to eternal life. Everytime we celebrate Mass we say “We beleive that you are the only Son of God” We believe that what yoj say is true?
As Catholics we do what Christ ask us to do. We have never changed His words or watered them down for a world who cannot see. He calls us by name to His table. We find Him there just as the 12 found Him there. We are His body, we are His people. You are mocking God when you Mock His words. Pray about this.
God Bless
www.utahmission.com
If you are in Northern Utah and really want to learn with an open heart just go to www.utahmission.com and come to our inquiry.

 

[HashemEchad]

Before I returned to Christianity, I was always aware that the Catholic Church was the oldest form of organized Christianity. When I decided to come back, I was shocked to discover that many fundamentalist/evangelical/Pentecostal types have their own version of history where the first Christians were actually “just like them”, that is, Bible-alone (never mind that there was no Bible until hundreds of years after the death of Christ), non-sacramental, etc. They cannot provide any proof of this claim and their explanation is that they practiced underground for centuries without attracting the notice of any onlookers, until the Reformation happened and they were set free. You can also find sites where these people identify themselves with various heresies, apparently without even looking to see what these heresies taught. It really is rank ignorance, and I use that word specifically because it is willful. In this world of instantaneous information, anyone can find out the truth of history if they care to see it, but these people very stubbornly stick to what is in their own heads.

When my husband was still a Baptist, he used to have this little red book called, “The Trail of Blood”.

Supposedly, it was the history of how the “true Christians” (i.e., Baptists) began. If I can find it, I’ll tell you more about it.

I just thought the whole thing was silly, because everyone who knows history knows the Catholic church is the oldest church. That does not mean I believe it is the true religion, just that it is the oldest church.

I think the oldest religion is Hinduism.

 

[Stephen168]

No matter what Christian sect one might attend there is no mistaking the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist at Mass in scripture and in the Early Church Fathers own words. It is the Christian Mass from the time of the Last Supper that has brought Christianity into the here and now. It is the sign given as you contemplate Johns Gospel Chapter 6.

Amen!

 

[ibkc]

I think the oldest religion is Hinduism.

It’s certainly old, but in its present version it may not be much older than Judaism. It is a mixture of Indo-European Vedism, which is extremely old, and the native religions of the Indian subcontinent, and it took a while to develop.

All of the cultures who spoke Indo-European languages retained bits and pieces of whatever now-lost religion the speakers of the conjectural Proto-Indo-European language followed. The cultures on the far geographic extremes of that diaspora - India in the east, Ireland in the west - had the most archaism going on. There are amazing parallels between the culture and religion of ancient Ireland (even going well into the Christian era, as far as Celtic social structure was concerned) and Indian culture and religion.

 

[rich123456]

Thanks Stephen, It is only what I have learned by people who take the time to teach the RCIA here in Northen Utah.

If it was not for the Catholic Mass Mormons would not even be able to utter the Name of Jesus. Jospeph Smith would not have been concerned with what if any Church holds truth. The Mass overflows to all Christian sects whether they know this or not. I was Mormon as a child. I becamew rather athiest as a teen. When I studied the Catholic Church with an open mind, no one forcing me I found Authentic Christianity. Dead on I might ad! Life is made up of mostly fears and transactions. The fear of losing something plays a big part in all of our decisions. When you no longer fear being wrong truth finds an open door. This truth sets us free, free in Jesus. His truth is like the parable about the Treaure buried in a field. And the Prodigal son as well. It is good to be with prodigal sons and daughters knowing that our Church is built on the fall of mankind, ouserves included, each of us rather than on the fall of another Church. Show me a Church with better people and I will show them the Cross with Christ on it. Why the Cross they mutter? When you have a need to get into heaven it will become clear that it is the only gate that opens.

www.utahmission.com

 

[GreenLantern]

When my husband was still a Baptist, he used to have this little red book called, “The Trail of Blood”.

Supposedly, it was the history of how the “true Christians” (i.e., Baptists) began. If I can find it, I’ll tell you more about it.

I just thought the whole thing was silly, because everyone who knows history knows the Catholic church is the oldest church. That does not mean I believe it is the true religion, just that it is the oldest church.

I think the oldest religion is Hinduism.

Is this it?

Really funny read, looks like he looked up a list of supressed heretical groups and thought “Aha! Since the Catholic Church supresses true Christians all of these groups must be Baptists by different names!”

1. During the period that we are now passing through the persecuted were called by many and varied names. Among them were Donatists, Paterines, Cathari, Paulicians, and Ana Baptists; and a little later, Petro-Brussians, Arnoldists, Henricians, Albigenses, and Waldenses. Sometimes one group of these was the most prominent and sometimes another. But some of them were almost always prominent because of the persistency and terribleness of their persecution.

Baptists are Cathars?

 

[HashemEchad]

Is this it?

Really funny read, looks like he looked up a list of supressed heretical groups and thought “Aha! Since the Catholic Church supresses true Christians all of these groups must be Baptists by different names!”

Oh, gee, yes, that’s it!

A really silly little book, they have Catholics listed in there as Baptists too, or some such silliness.

And if they are going to claim the Cathars and Albigensians as “true Christians”…

 

[MelanieAnne]

Your statement about drinking blood in Heaven shows that you are not in a serious discussion. It shows what your underlying disposition is concerning this Sacrament that we Catholics have had passed to us since the Apostles. Why show such disrespect? Is that what Jesus would want?
You pull scripture out of context which creates fragmented perceptions. The Catholic Church is built on the totality of Scripture. If you believe that those who have died for our Catholic Faith and helped preserve all of Scripture, written and oral, are not living in the Truth then nothing I can say will change your mind. Your lack of understanding is a function your life experiences which have formed your sense of self. The hardest thing for a person to give up is their identity because it keeps them safe within what they know.
I lost my old identity at age 58 through Grace and the Catholic Church became visible to me without any effort on my part. It takes humility to know Truth not sarcastic remarks that reveal something internally harmful to the person expressing them.