The Case Against Transubstantiation

  • Thread starter Thread starter zerinus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I appreciate the way Fr. Corapi explains the Eucharist. I think too many people are focused on the idea that somehow they are consuming Jesus and that gets their head all messed up. But Fr. Corapi explains it well, I think. This may not be a word-for-word quote, but it is close:
When we participate in the Eucharist, it is not that we assimilate Jesus Christ into ourselves, it is that He assimilates Us into Him.
Without Real Presence, that couldn’t happen. Real Presence is there because Jesus said it is. No hyperbole, no symbolism. It’s really just that simple. Those that say there’s no biblical proof are choosing to ignore the plain words of the Gospel.

Those that say it couldn’t happen are, perhaps unwittingly, denying the power of God. Do they believe that God is Omnipotent? Do they believe that God created the universe and everything in it? Do they believe that Jesus healed the blind, cured the sick, and after His own crucifixion, was resurrected from the dead? If you believe all these things, then what’s the big deal about Real Presence? It’s child’s play compared to creating the universe and all the other things.
 
zerinus;3610808 said:
That still does not tell me where in the Bible to find scripture that says that we eat the whole soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole of Christ, under each species, and under every part of each species of the bread and wine when separated
. Heck, I don’t even know what that means, never mind find it in the Bible.
Obviously!

I don’t think that you know what that means. I don’t think anybody knows what that means. I don’t think that it has ever made any sense to anybody, including those who wrote it.

zerinus
 
I don’t think that you know what that means. I don’t think anybody knows what that means. I don’t think that it has ever made any sense to anybody, including those who wrote it.

zerinus
This is why the Church calls it a Mystery.

I disagree with your statement that those who wrote it could not make sense of it. They KNEW what Christ was talking about. That’s why some reject it. That’s why some left. That’s why Peter told Christ, “To whom shall I go…you have the words of eternal life.”
 
I think I have a sense of it.

You have been attacking a two thousand year old Belief that has its roots prominent in the Old Testament, fulfilled in the New by God Himself. Only God gives life, only God maintains life, and only God can sustain life. And yes we feed on Him in every way, blood, body, soul and divinity. What other food is there? All food in the end comes forth from God. The act of the Mass is so beyond LDS thinking that it cannot be reorganized as any thing other than other. But to us Christians it is of God. Jesus ate with them then, Jesus eats with us now. He feed the multitudes and you would call this a miracle would you not? He walked on the Sea and you would also call this a miracle. But when He in His own words gives us His Daily Bread, the Daily Miracle in our lives as Catholics you mock us and in that mock your own God. A servant does only what is asked of him or her. Did the perfect servant do what he thought was right? Did he do what he thought was just? Did Abraham question our Lord as well? Or do they do what is asked looking for nothing in return? Does Jesus not have the words to eternal life? When you connect the dots from the Old Testament and the New you have a whole body of Christ. We are part of His body and everything about His body sustains us. The best advice I think I could give is find a Catholic Church and spend some quiet time next to the Blessed Sacrament. Ask God these questions, bring a list with you. But when you ask try to remain silent and still. The biggest question may be “Can God do this?” If your children were dying, if there were no food, what would you do? We are fed both physically and spiritually. This is what unites us, graphs us to Him, the Father, Son and their Holy Spirit. The Holy Trinity.

God Bless
www.utahmission.com

God Bless
 
I don’t think that you know what that means. I don’t think anybody knows what that means. I don’t think that it has ever made any sense to anybody, including those who wrote it.

zerinus
interestingly I have read z make this identical statement about the Creed, let’s say the Nicene Creed. The discussion has come up now and again, particularly after the late Dr. Hinckley also made such a statements of incomprehension during a speech not long before he passed.

and this has shurprised me, because frankly I cannot see what is hard to comprehend about the Nicene Creed, or the Apostles’s Creed. they are so easy to understand, and in fact were written so as to be easy to digest, that a person would out and out have to work HARD to not understnad them. especially a person with so much mind power as z.

Now the Real Presence is a bit more of a handful to grasp, I’ll give you that, but the words of Jesus and Paul are so clear, so forthright, a person just has to get down and work HARD to not understand what He and Paul were talking about. I get the mental image of a person trying to ppound square pegs into round holes. when it would be so much easier to stop working so hard at being contrary, and just let God’s miracles be what He intended for them to be.
 
I think the Council of Trent was mainly a defense of the Protestant revolt. A defense against Luther’s consubstantiation, Calvin’s ‘only a sign’, and Mormon’s ……280 years pause…… The wording is a defense and a clarification of the 1500 year old historic Christian understanding of what Christ taught his Church.
 
I think the Council of Trent was . . . a defense and a clarification of the 1500 year old historic Christian understanding of what Christ taught his Church.
Yea, it sure makes Real Presence Really clear! 😃

zerinus
 
. . . the words of Jesus and Paul are so clear, so forthright, a person just has to get down and work HARD to not understand what He and Paul were talking about.
Sure, words of Jesus and Paul are clear. Trouble is, the Real Presence of Catholicism is not the same as the words of Jesus and Paul.

zerinus
 
We do that when we partake of them as an unrepentant sinner. That is what it means to eat and drink of them unworthily.
1 Cor 10:[16] The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

What does Paul mean when he says that the bread and the wine are a participation IN the Body and Blood of Christ?

1 Cor 11:[27] Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

& [29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

If it just a matter of bread and wine then why does Paul write here that those who receive them in an unworthy manner are guilty of blasphemy?

And if the sacrament of bread and wine has no real effect beyond being a symbol of profession to the community how can one partake of it unworthily much less be guilty of profaning the Lord?

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.”

[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

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?

Where in John 6 does the Lord say that he means to “spiritually eat His flesh”?

And where in John 6 does it say that His flesh-Jesus’ flesh- is of no avail?

I have another pair of scripture passages that points to transubstantiation:

John 2:
[1]On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there;

Now mind you this is the third day from the four days that preceded it; day 1 (Jn 1:1), day 2(the next day Jn 1:29), day 3( the next day Jn 1:35), day 4(the next day-Jn 1:43).

So this is the seventh day from the beginning. Whatever is going to happen on this day John is letting us know is very important.

[2] Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples.

We are at a marriage feast.

[3] When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
[4] And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”
[5] His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
[6] Now six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons.
[7] Jesus said to them, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim.
[8] He said to them, “Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast.” So they took it.
[9] When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward of the feast called the bridegroom
[10] and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.”
[11] This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

What was it that Jesus did here at this wedding feast?

Did He not change water into wine?

Did he not change the substance of one thing into another?

Or is this also hyperbole?
 
I don’t think that you know what that means. I don’t think anybody knows what that means. I don’t think that it has ever made any sense to anybody, including those who wrote it.

zerinus
This is what it means.
At the Incarnation, Christ did not lose His divinity; He took on a human body and soul. He is true God (retaining His divine nature) and He is true man (having a body and a soul) and His divinity cannot be separated from His humanity (cf. Nestorianism). This is what is meant by “the whole Christ”. In the Eucharist we don’t receive His body and blood only, or His soul only, or His divinity only, but Christ in His entirety. This is true whether we receive under the species of bread or wine. It is true if we receive even part of a host.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” [Jn 1:1]. “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” [Jn 1:14]. “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” [Mt 16:16]. “Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant (or slave), being born in the likeness of men” [Phil 2:6-7]. These are but a few places where Scripture attests to the humanity and the divinity of Jesus.
 
I am worried about the sufferings of our Church today. Please pray for the Church of Jesus that the promise of Christ be acomplished that the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
No need to worry about the Church. Jesus told us that the gates of hell will never prevail against her. What we need to worry about is Catholics who lose hope. Don’t lose hope. We have to Trust in Jesus. Look at The Divine Mercy in my siggy and pray that little prayer.
 
A SUMMARY OF THE THREAD:
Here is the post:

zerinus.blogspot.com/2008/04/case-against-transubstantiation.html

Have a read through it and tell me what you think

zerinus
Even though the OP uses transubstantiation and Real Presence as the same thing, His case can be summarized as:
Jesus [often] spoke in hyperbole
John 6:53-57 is [obviously] hyperbole
Therefore no transubstantiation
GreyPilgrim asks specifically about John 6:54:
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?
No response from OP

GreyPilgrim asks again:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3553468&postcount=278

No response from OP

I give it a try:
I’m not sure it is a key verse as much as a first verse of a sermon. What does he mean in John 6:53-58?
I think that has already been answered. It means partaking of his life-giving sacrifice by His Spirit through faith.
That isn’t clear to me. I don’t see the word faith used at all between John 6:51 and John 6:58
If I told a guy ‘I was so hungry I could eat a horse,’ then I noticed he as confused; I would have made myself clear.
Why did Jesus keep speaking in hyperbole after John 6:52?
You are being highly selective in your choice of context, which is not very clever:

John 6:

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48 I am that bread of life.
None of your highly selective verse were after 6:52?

Does this mean you have no answer?
Your answer has been given, and will not be given again.
I’ll take that as a “no, I can not explain why Christ continues to speak hyperbolically after John 6:52.”
He doesn’t. In verse 63 He gives the final and definitive explanation of what He is talking about; and in verse 64 He reverts to the essential requirement of faith in Him once more.
So, you agree that John 6:53-58 is NOT hyperbole.
Okay wise guy; if you want to be a smart aleck, you will get no replies from me. My time can be better spent than that.
John 6:53-57 can not be explained as hyperbole; as the OP argues in his blog.

So I lay out the historical case
The Catholic audience knows Christ was saying just what he meant by “I am the Bread of Life,” “my blood,” ”my body” in the discourses in John 6:25-58. We know this by his reaction to the crowd’s reaction. Christ had two chances to explain the metaphor or hyperbole, IF that is what he was using; once during the discourse on the bread of life (John 6:41-42), and again during the discourse on the Eucharist (John 6:52). Finally, if it is just hyperbole, why was it such a hard teaching that almost all the disciples left him (John 6:60, John 6:66). We also realize in verse 63, he is no longer talking about his body; he doesn’t use the word ‘my’ and it would contradict verse 51, if he was talking about his body. All this has got to be explained away. Real Presence was taught by Christ, by Paul ( 1 Cor 11:23-29), and by the Church to this day.
No response from OP

GreyPilgrim tries again

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3612186&postcount=687

No response from OP
 
Stephen168, you have made a valiant effort here, as have others. The OP either doesn’t “get it”, or doesn’t want to “get it”. To “get it” might mean the OP has to re-think his entire belief system in this area. Most people are highly resistant to that.

Having said that, contrary to the title of this thread, no case has been made against transubstantiation.
 
The OP has been defeated on every other area in which our faith and his faith differ. So he has chosen to dwell (with obsessive persistence) on this subject.

If this thread doesn’t quickly die on its own, I will ask mods to put a lock on it.
 
You mean your summary of the thread. :confused:

zerinus
Um…nope…that’s about right.

The fact that you “pick-and-choose” which posts and points the participants in this thread have submitted in support of transubstantiaton that you respond to shows us that for you, this “case against transubstationiation” is an all-or-nothing statement.

Next time, when you ask us for our opinions, please don’t if you are not willing to engage in any sort of productive conversation, ok? Just keep it to yourself.

Thanks.
 
I appreciate the way Fr. Corapi explains the Eucharist. I think too many people are focused on the idea that somehow they are consuming Jesus and that gets their head all messed up. But Fr. Corapi explains it well, I think. This may not be a word-for-word quote, but it is close:

Without Real Presence, that couldn’t happen. Real Presence is there because Jesus said it is. No hyperbole, no symbolism. It’s really just that simple. Those that say there’s no biblical proof are choosing to ignore the plain words of the Gospel

**That is a very interesting analogy by Fr. Caropi, how it is Jesus Christ that consumes us into his body as one.

When we consume the transubstantiated bread and wine of the body,blood,soul and divinityof our dear Lord Jesus Christ their is a lot of mystical spiritual reality that takes place out side of time and the material world.

For one to be priveldged to recieve the sacrificial body, blood of Jesus Christ, one has to die and be raised in Jesus Christ (baptised) made a new creation in Jesus Christ… In other words one has to sacrifice his life (take up his cross and follow Jesus) as Jesus sacrificed his life for us. So as in Holy Communion we enter into the day that the Lord has made, Where we come to him and give our body to Jesus as he gives us his body,blood, soul and divinity. This is the consumation of the Marriage (supper of the Lamb See Rev.19) covenant of God and his people where the two are now made one, and perfect because God is perfect.

How else can man be made perfect unless he is in the body of Jesus Christ? like Fr. Caropi explains it is Jesus Christ who truly consumes his people, we consume the bread and wine that is transubstantiated into the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus, mystically the Catholic church the bride of Jesus Christ whom he sacrificed his life for, say’s I Love you to Jesus and recieves her husband (Ba’al) by giving Jesus our body to into his inorder to recieve eternal life with him. That is what God has created man for, to be eteranlly in full communion with him through his body and blood, soul and divinity, what husband does not want to give all that is his to his virgin bride. Jesus states "eat this bread my body, drink this cup my blood in the new and everlasting covenant, that will be shed for you, Jesus tells his bride to “DO THIS”… and proclaim my love (sacrificial death) for you until he returns.

Jesus never tires of telling his bride “I love you” and his bride never forgets he is returning and proclaims her love back by obeying her husbands command, to consumate the marriage bond by giving ones life for the other in the (Eucharist) body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

I hope I wasnt to long winded Melanie Ann, but when you mentioned Fr. Caropi, and his comment, it brought much enlightenment, thought I share it here. God bless and peace be with you.

How wonderful it is to be One with God and his people in one body, one baptism In One Lord, in the one Holy Apostolic Catholic church that never changes.**
 
It seems to me that what Z can’t get is how can we eat not only Jesus’ body and blood but His soul and divinity.

I would ask Z if he has ever heard of the communication of idioms?

His reply would more than likely be ‘no’.

Then I would tell Him that since Jesus was and is at once True God AND True Man that whatever we say about Jesus’ humanity MUST be said about Jesus’ divinity.

He finds it abhorrent that we eat Jesus’ flesh and blood-as He told us to in John 6-yet finds it perfectly acceptable that God could be born of a woman or that God could die on a cross given that God is immortal and eternal and cannot die or be born.

The logic goes that if the substance of bread and wine is changed into Jesus’ body and blood it is a substance that is both divine AND human because Jesus Himself was and is both divine AND human.

This is the mystery of Christ in Himself and it can only be understood by the grace given us through faith in Jesus. Jesus became man in order to raise man up to be with God, to be “sons of God.” To be sons and daughters “in the Son”.

Did you ever hear of the expression “You are what you eat?” Ever wonder where that came from?

The Eucharist is how this is accomplished and perfected. By consuming Jesus we are filled with His grace, His very Presence. By tapping into this grace we become conformed to the “image and likeness of God/Jesus.” We don’t just believe that God declares us righteous. We believe that by living a sacramental life that through many charitable works and many professions of faith that God actually makes us righteous.

I have given you questions from John 6 and 1 Corinthians 10 & 11that actually in and of themselves explain all that I have just said.

You have hardened yourself to the extent that you refuse to accept them. That being the case I have nothing more to say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top