The first transubstantiation

[Angainor]

Genesis315:

I’m not sure that I follow when you say your human person is inhabiting your human nature. Do you mean your soul is inhabiting your body?

Not exactly, “human nature” is a little more than just a body.

I think of it as if you took “me” out of my human nature and put in “Jesus” into that nature, that would be roughly the kind of existance Jesus would have had while on Earth.

 

[Angainor]

jimmy:

Next, the Eucharist is the body of the ressurected Christ, which is not bound by time. Without the ressurection the Eucharist would be nothing, therefore the Eucharist is one of the products of the ressurection. It can be given previously to the ressurection because God is outside of time. It is done in anticipation of the sacrifice of Christ.

This makes a certain amount of sense. If I were to accept any explination, this would do.

I have technical probems with this expination as well, however. As I have already said in this thread, I don’t think Jesus was omnipresent while on Earth (he was only in one spot at a time). In addition, I don’t think Jesus was omniscient while on Earth (Father if it is your will, take this cup of suffering from me). Jesus did not possess certain knowledge of future events. Jesus would not presume to hand out his future resurrected body.

More than that, if Jesus was handing out future material, that would mean the events from the Upper Room to the ressurection were determined. They could not happen any other way. The CChurch teaches against determinism.

 

[davidv]

Angainor:

I don’t think Jesus was omnipresent while on Earth (he was only in one spot at a time). In addition, I don’t think Jesus was omniscient while on Earth (Father if it is your will, take this cup of suffering from me).

How can this be? Jesus didn’t give up his Godly nature when he took on human nature in the incarnation.

 

[Angainor]

davidv:

How can this be? Jesus didn’t give up his Godly nature when he took on human nature in the incarnation.

That is just how I make sense of Jesus’ life. It is pretty clear to me that Jesus wasn’t omnipresent (to the point of being obvious). I also don’t think Jesus was omniscient or omnipotent. For me, this sheds light on different aspects of Jesus life: The boy Jesus learning his Father’s word in the temple, Jesus prayer in the garden, and Jesus temptation by Satan.

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

 

[adnauseum]

Christ instituted the Eucharist at the last supper. He was not performing consecration. These are two different acts.

This is fully spelled out in the Catholic Catechism paragraphs 1337-1343.

Is the Catechism’s account not clear? If not, where does it err?

 

[st_felicity]

Angainor:

I have technical probems with this expination … In addition, I don’t think Jesus was omniscient while on Earth (Father if it is your will, take this cup of suffering from me). Jesus did not possess certain knowledge of future events. Jesus would not presume to hand out his future resurrected body.

Why are you certain He did not know The Father’s will while praying in the garden? Could Jesus have simply been demonstrating for us how to bear suffering by abandoning to the will of God? Teaching to the end?

More than that, if Jesus was handing out future material, that would mean the events from the Upper Room to the ressurection were determined. They could not happen any other way. The CChurch teaches against determinism.

Timeless God knows all the choices we will make (past present and future in the eternal Now)–but He does not determine them for us–we still have free will to choose our path in this temporal existence. I see no contradiction.

 

[Angainor]

st_felicity:

Why are you certain He did not know The Father’s will while praying in the garden? Could Jesus have simply been demonstrating for us how to bear suffering by abandoning to the will of God? Teaching to the end?

I don’t happen to think Jesus was playacting. I have no reason to believe he wasn’t sincere.

st_felicity:

Timeless God knows all the choices we will make (past present and future in the eternal Now)–but He does not determine them for us–we still have free will to choose our path in this temporal existence. I see no contradiction.

Good point. It just makes me a little uncomfortable. Prophecy about the future is one thing, but this would represent part of the future in the present. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, it just makes me uncomfortable.

 

[Angainor]

adnauseum:

Christ instituted the Eucharist at the last supper. He was not performing consecration.

What are you saying? There wasn’t transubstantiation at the Lord’s Supper?

 

[James224]

Hi Angainor,

Quote: “At the Last Supper, did the Eucharist transubstantiate into the body and blood of Christ? Christ was sitting right there. His body was sitting at the table. His blood was pumping through his veins. When the deciples looked to Jesus, did they look to the bread and wine, or did they look to the Jesus who was speaking to them?”

My comment: Your question I think has to do with the “Touto Esti” Argument. Instead of getting into the Greek, I think it may be easier to answer your question using the verses, for example, in Matt 26:27-28 which says, “And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is the blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins.” Clearly, Christ is saying that “This blood” is His blood which the apostles were to drink. How can this be since He hasn’t died yet? If you look at 1 Cor 11:27, it says, “Therefore, WHOSOEVER shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord UNWORTHILY, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.” The word “Unworthily” doesn’t modify the food but, rather, the person for it says “Whosoever”. Also, verse 29 says, “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh JUDGEMENT TO HIMSELF, not discerning the body of the Lord.” This shows that Jesus wasn’t speaking figuratively at the Last Supper about eating His Body and drinking His Blood, otherwise, in 1 Cor 11:29, drinking His blood wouldn’t bring damnation.

May God bless,

James224

 

[adnauseum]

Angainor:

There wasn’t transubstantiation at the Lord’s Supper?

You have to ask a theologian.

 

[st_felicity]

Angainor:

I don’t happen to think Jesus was playacting. I have no reason to believe he wasn’t sincere.

It doesn’t have to be “playacting”–and it doesn’t diminish His sincerity at all–It could be like when he was on the cross and references Psalm 22 (I think that’s it…) My Lord, why have you forsaken me?" That was a teaching moment–though at the time it did not appear to be to those who witnessed it.

this would represent part of the future in the present. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, it just makes me uncomfortable.

I can appreciate that…Some things–I believe–are not meant to be fully understood–nor can they be fully understood since God is so far above our cognative ability to comprehend Him. That’s why, in His mercy, God gives us the capacity to grow in faith.

 

[st_felicity]

Genesis315:

Haha, 3:15. I totally overlooked the fact that it could be read as 31:5 in it’s current form until after it was too late . What is Gen 31:5? I’ll have to look it up. Hopefully it’s a good one and I’ll have a doubly cool screenname .

As for bilocation, there’s been a few saints like that although I can’t remember the others off the top of my head.

If it’s both 3:15 and 31:5–isn’t your screen name a Scriptural tribute to bilocation? Whoa–coincidence???

 

[Philthy]

Hi Angainor! Thanks for the interesting thread…

I have to say, your objection to the Real Presence at the Last Supper based on the fact that “his blood was pumping in his veins” is a very obvious one. But when you consider the great minds throughout Church history who have wrestled with such questions and who still came to accept the Real Presence, do you really think that this elementary consideration was overlooked by them? Do you think Aquinas, Augustine, Ignatious, etc missed this obvious, apparently mutually exclusive reality? Humble yourself and you just might learn something. Try digging a little deeper. Don’t worry, you’ll never fully understand all that Christ is.

Angainor:

I have technical probems with this expination as well, however. As I have already said in this thread, I don’t think Jesus was omnipresent while on Earth (he was only in one spot at a time).

Did you not read the posts that dealt with this "technicality? The resurrected Jesus is capable of “time travel”. Once you understand this, then what is to prevent Him from travelling forward or backward in time? Suffice it to say that an understanding of how one experiences the human side of being completely man and completely God simultaneously is outside the realm of our comprehension

Angainor:

In addition,** I don’t think** Jesus was omniscient while on Earth (Father if it is your will, take this cup of suffering from me). Jesus did not possess certain knowledge of future events. Jesus would not presume to hand out his future resurrected body.

I agree with you here - you don’t think - just kidding! This stuff is mysterious. Your example, “Father if it is your will, take this cup of suffering from me”, meant to support your contention that Jesus wasn’t omniscient while on earth actually comes closer to refuting it. How exactly did he know that he was going to suffer that night? He knew, didn’t he? How did he know? He also knew Judas was the betrayer. Yet he also is experiencing things in real time. Again, I say mysterious.Suffice it to say that an understanding of how one experiences the human side of being completely man and completely God simultaneously is outside the realm of our comprehension.

Thanks again for starting the thread,

Phil

 

[Angainor]

Philthy:

Did you not read the posts that dealt with this "technicality? The resurrected Jesus is capable of “time travel”. Once you understand this, then what is to prevent Him from travelling forward or backward in time? Suffice it to say that an understanding of how one experiences the human side of being completely man and completely God simultaneously is outside the realm of our comprehension

I will have to apologize ahead of time. I can’t help but lighten up this conversation. This reminds me of Bill and Ted. They had to get into the city jail (where Ted’s Dad worked) but they didn’t have the keys. Bill and Ted have a time machine so they decided that they were going to remember sometime in the future to go back in time, steal Ted’s dad’s jail keys, and hide them behind the sign they are standing next to. Whatdoyouknow? It worked. The walked up to the sign and there were the keys!

Philthy:
I agree with you here - you don’t think - just kidding! This stuff is mysterious. Your example, “Father if it is your will, take this cup of suffering from me”, meant to support your contention that Jesus wasn’t omniscient while on earth actually comes closer to refuting it. How exactly did he know that he was going to suffer that night? He knew, didn’t he? How did he know?He was a smart guy. He could see the political winds swirling around him. He could see the writing on the wall.

Do you think he sweat blood for nothing? Was that a teaching moment?

 

[st_felicity]

Angainor:

Do you think he sweat blood for nothing? Was that a teaching moment?

Was this for me? I’ll address it anyway…

Again–I see no contradiction–He was fully human and fully divine. His human nature feared and ached and suffered for what His divine nature knew must be. Where is your problem with all of this? And why can’t we learn from His example?

This reminds me of Bill and Ted.

P.S. Catholicism is "Excellent!!!",

 

[Gordon_N]

Angainor:

That is just how I make sense of Jesus’ life. It is pretty clear to me that Jesus wasn’t omnipresent (to the point of being obvious). I also don’t think Jesus was omniscient or omnipotent. For me, this sheds light on different aspects of Jesus life: The boy Jesus learning his Father’s word in the temple, Jesus prayer in the garden, and Jesus temptation by Satan.

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

Angainor,

This is the post that sticks out in my mind that shows that you not only doubt transubstantiation, but are doubting the basic premises of any church’s teachings…

If He had no omnipresence, omniscience, or omnipotence, what was He? Just God in the form of a human with no divine nature? Just some charlatan that did magic tricks like turning water to wine? Just some sorcerer that raised the dead? If he had none of the “omni” natures of His divine being, how is it that He performed those miracles?

Remember, God is all powerful, and we will never totally understand the depths of those powers. Who says that God cannot make a square circle? He made our logic, he can change it. Science has not found a way to bring the dead back to life, so do you debate that Jesus did? There is a point where faith comes in. Faith makes it so we can accept the unexplainable, and not slight God with a limited (human) explanation about what, why, when, where, and how…

Seems to me that this thread was started with a fair (non-Catholic) question, but it now looks like you are debating the Catholic teachings of transubstantiation with no solid footing or belief yourself.

Interesting.

Peace,

Gordon

 

[Angainor]

Gordon N:

If He had no omnipresence, omniscience, or omnipotence, what was He? Just God in the form of a human with no divine nature? Just some charlatan that did magic tricks like turning water to wine? Just some sorcerer that raised the dead? If he had none of the “omni” natures of His divine being, how is it that He performed those miracles?

Then he got into the boat and his disciples follwed him. Without warning, a furious storm came up on the lake, so that the waves swept over the boat. But Jesus was sleeping. The disciples went and woke him, saying, “Lord save us! We’re going to drown!”
He replied, “You of little faith, why are you so afraid?” Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm.
The men were amazed and asked, “What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him!” Matthew 8:23-27

“Lord if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.”
“Come,” he said.
Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!”
Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and cought him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?” Matthew 14:28-31
Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment.
Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?”
He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” Matthew 17:18-21
Faith as small as a mustard seed… What kind of great deeds could be performed by a divine person with flawless faith?

You say “God in the form of a human with no divine nature”. I call it “divine person with a human nature”.

 

[JimG]

With respect to the Last Supper, I think you have to start at the crucifixion. That is the key-point on which all of history turns. Jesus said, “It is finished,” indicating that his once for all sacrifice was complete, and it was soon to be ratified by his resurrection.

But that once for all sacrifice was for all men in all times and in all places. The sacrifice being consummated, pierces time and space, reaching backward to be present at the last supper, and reaching forward to be present in every Mass in every time and place.

It is all one sacrifice, not many, one body and blood, not multiple Christs, enabling us not only to be present at the events of our salvation, but to receive the benefits of his promise that “he who eats my body and drinks my blood” will have life eternal.

 

[Gordon_N]

Angainor:

You say “God in the form of a human with no divine nature”. I call it “divine person with a human nature”.

BY NO MEANS DID I SAY THAT! That was posed as a rehtorical question to you (it seems that you parsed my sentence and deleted the question mark - shame on you.)

I do believe that Jesus Christ was God in human flesh. I do believe that during His earthly life, He was omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipresent. I do believe that He retained all of His divinity while amongst us in the flesh. I do not appreciate you changing my words to suit your closing sentence. Please read the post, understand the post, then reply to the post.

One last belief: I believe that God can do whatever God wants, when He wants to do it. I know that he sent you here for a reason…

Peace,
Gordon

 

[Angainor]

Gordon N:

BY NO MEANS DID I SAY THAT! That was posed as a rehtorical question to you (it seems that you parsed my sentence and deleted the question mark - shame on you.)

I did not intend to imply that you did. I phrased that paragraph poorly. I wanted to repeat your summary of my position. I know it is not your position. Sorry for the confusion, but it won’t let me edit it now.
Gordon N:
I do believe that Jesus Christ was God in human flesh. I do believe that during His earthly life, He was omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipresent. I do believe that He retained all of His divinity while amongst us in the flesh.I understand your views. I just don’t understand how, especially how Jesus was omnipresent. I think that deserves a [thread=47373]new thread[/thread].
Gordon N:
One last belief: I believe that God can do whatever God wants, when He wants to do it. I know that he sent you here for a reason…Sent me here? Perhaps. I don’t know. Perhaps my freewill just wandered here. Whatever the case, if I was sent or if I wandered here, God can use it for good, especially if you and I and everyone else on the forum trusts His guidance.