G
grannymh
Guest
The principle of Transubstantiation.
Christmas Blessings,
granny
The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert
The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.
- Status
Christmas Blessings,
granny
The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert
The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.
L
Luke_K
Guest
I don’t think anyone has mentioned this yet.
Jesus is our paschal lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7). The Last Supper took place on the day when they sacrificed the paschal lamb (Mark 14:12). What were the Jews instructed to do with the paschal lamb after sacrificing it? They ate it on the same evening (Exodus 12:1-13).
Jesus is our paschal lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7). The Last Supper took place on the day when they sacrificed the paschal lamb (Mark 14:12). What were the Jews instructed to do with the paschal lamb after sacrificing it? They ate it on the same evening (Exodus 12:1-13).
P
patricius79
Guest
you’re right. just scroll down at this site for a good collection of the Nicence and post-Nicene fathers.
bringyou.to/apologetics/num8.htm
I know for sure that the early Church fathers were Catholics and believers in the real presence.
Irenaeus and Justin even testify to Transubstantiation rather explicitly in the 100s.
J
JustaServant
Guest
For me, it was the pointless ceremony Baptist churches went through for ‘communion Sunday’, scheduled as infrequently as possible (heard one preacher say “we do it for the old folks”). In some of the churches the preacher will spend twenty minutes (basically a second sermon) telling the people this ceremony (that we are required to do) doesn’t mean a thing. This would be reiterated EVERY SINGLE TIME, until we wanted to run from the church screaming. Why spend so much time convincing the people that communion doesn’t mean anything? Who is the preacher trying to convince? Himself?
When the Eucharist is removed from a Christian’s life, they are forever trying to find something to replace it with.
D
dnar
Guest
I’m really trying hard to learn apologetics, is there anyone that would take their time and give a detailed response to these arguments put forth at this website. I am needing all the help I can get.
carm.org/transubstantiation
If someone could email me the response I would appreciate it a lot. Or, if you would rather just post a reply to each one on here. I understand if nobody has the time to do this.
God Bless.
carm.org/transubstantiation
If someone could email me the response I would appreciate it a lot. Or, if you would rather just post a reply to each one on here. I understand if nobody has the time to do this.
God Bless.
J
JustaServant
Guest
Going to CARM to learn to be an apologist is like trying to learn to be a chicken in a pack of wolves.
Stay off that site.
D
dnar
Guest
I wasn’t trying to learn anything from CARM, just to learn how to refute them.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Sound advice.
Z
zz912
Guest
I would REALLY be leery of that site. Lots of selective usage of Scripture to prop up their case, but ignoring that which doesn’t. It is intellectually dishonest. Here is a good example, they use John 6, but only selectively. Here is the whole passage that pertains:
32 So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”
35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.
36 But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe.
37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me,
38 because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.
39 And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day.
40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day.”
41 The Jews murmured about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,”
42 and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Stop murmuring among yourselves.
44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets: ‘They shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me.
46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.
47 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
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?”
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69 We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
He not only says it, He says it THREE times. Even when they are grumbling, He reaffirms what He is saying. Not only that, but many leave, but instead of calling them back saying He was only being figurative, He lets them leave.
So their arguments:
- Not meant to be literal. Well the passage above pretty well refutes that.
- No indication the disciples believed the elements changed. Read ANY of the church fathers, and you will know this is false. Also, read St Paul where he says that any man that eats the Eucharist in an unholy state puts himself in mortal jeopardy. Why would you be in jeopardy if you were only eating symbolic bread?
- The disciples did not worship the elements. Again, read the church fathers, you’ll see that their claim is false.
- The Last Supper was instituted before his death. I guess they Jesus is only capable of CERTAIN miracles.
- Violation of Levitical law. Two problems with this. One, most Levitical laws were done away with by Jesus (care to bet the authors of that site eat pork?). Second, the body and blood are his glorified and heavenly body, not his earthly body.
- Violation of the Incarnation. Again, I guess they think Jesus is only capable of SOME miracles…
- The Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice of Christ. Well they are kinda correct. The Mass is a re-presentation of his sacrifice. This is just their ignorance speaking.
G
grannymh
Guest
May I suggest that before one learns apologetics, one first has to know everything possible about the subject – in this case it is transubstantiation during the Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass. One needs to be able to answer the OP question “What convinced you unequivocally that Jesus Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are Present in the Holy Eucharist?”
Next one has to figure out what it is about Transubstantiation that is unknown or confusing to another person. This means studying the language used to describe the Catholic Real Presence and realizing that other religions do have the words eucharist and [Christ’s] presence in their vocabulary but do not believe in Catholic Transubstantiation. It means listening intently to the other person so that you can determine the key arguments.
Please, do not think that one needs to know everything in order to be an effective apologist. But one should have a cheat sheet. For me, regarding Transubstantiation, I have a minimal outline of the meaning plus words or concepts which will alert me to key issues. I didn’t get past the first couple of paragraphs of the article on the website when my bat-like radar went into alert mode. It was the word elements and its usage which sounded strange. Since I am not totally sure what it is I am sensing, I will have to check my reliable sources listed on my cheat sheet.
I am not what you call an apologist; however, I do occasionally write about Church topics, sometimes as an insert for our parish bulletin. When I do research, I use the same process described above. Looking at the article as research, the first part of the website’s article seemed o.k. and then my cheat sheet radar kicked in. This article’s sly deceptive language can over time be devastating to one’s Catholic Faith.
In my humble opinion, the article’s attack on the divinity of Jesus is brutal. It is the first time that I have seen Cartesian dualism applied to God.
As far as detailed responses to the article, one can use CAF sources. Click Faith at the top of the screen and then Library.
As a start, I suggest that you read the article slowly and list any suspicious words or concepts. List the ones you are not familiar with. Then list the ones you are familiar with so you can check if the article is correct in its interpretation. As you do this, you will spot relationships between words and concepts. By grouping these relationships, you will get an idea of what the real falsehood is.
If it would help, imagine the type of person with whom you want to share God’s truth. Make a basic outline of what you would say. Do your own cheat sheet. You could even imagine how someone would object to your explanations. There are plenty of examples of objections and answers on CAF threads.
So that I don’t wander off topic, send me a private message via CAF as to what you think about my suggestions.
Blessings,
granny
The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
M
MariaG
Guest
And spend more time in the library of Catholic Answers. There was an article in there that touches on almost every point in that article. Spend some time researching at Catholic Answers library, and the magazine articles are wonderful.
D
dnar
Guest
I appreciate those who have responded to my request. Thank you very much.
I didn’t mean to come off as I was going to CARM to learn apologetics. I am trying to be a good apologist and someone pointed me to CARM and said “here is the truth of the matter” on the subject of the real presence. I wasn’t reading the site to learn from them, I was reading the site they requested in order to refute those arguments.
I didn’t mean to come off as I was going to CARM to learn apologetics. I am trying to be a good apologist and someone pointed me to CARM and said “here is the truth of the matter” on the subject of the real presence. I wasn’t reading the site to learn from them, I was reading the site they requested in order to refute those arguments.
P
patricius79
Guest
I agree about CARM.
I have a question: when explaining the faith, and when accused of trying to “re-kill” Christ in the Mass, I will point to the documents of Trent and add that we are recieving “the spiritual body of Christ” by referring to 1 Cor 15:44:
“if there is a natural body then there is a spiritual body”
What do you think of this? Here is a quotation I love from St. Ephraim:
ST. EPHRAIM (c. 306 - 373 A.D.)
*Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit. And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: “Take, all of you eat of this, which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread [of life], and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats in it Fire and Spirit. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven.” But if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as a certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body.
After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ’s body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. Then He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out…Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: “This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood. As you have seen Me do, do you also in My memory. Whenever you are gathered together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My Body, and drink My Blood, a covenant new and old.” (Homilies 4:4; 4:6)*
bringyou.to/apologetics/num8.htm
I have a question: when explaining the faith, and when accused of trying to “re-kill” Christ in the Mass, I will point to the documents of Trent and add that we are recieving “the spiritual body of Christ” by referring to 1 Cor 15:44:
“if there is a natural body then there is a spiritual body”
What do you think of this? Here is a quotation I love from St. Ephraim:
ST. EPHRAIM (c. 306 - 373 A.D.)
*Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit. And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: “Take, all of you eat of this, which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread [of life], and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats in it Fire and Spirit. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven.” But if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as a certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body.
After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ’s body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. Then He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out…Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: “This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood. As you have seen Me do, do you also in My memory. Whenever you are gathered together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My Body, and drink My Blood, a covenant new and old.” (Homilies 4:4; 4:6)*
bringyou.to/apologetics/num8.htm
G
grannymh
Guest
This is a beautiful and very useful quotation.
In addition, find out what is meant by “re-kill” Christ in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Find out the elements that the person thinks were needed for the historical death of Jesus Christ. Discuss why Jesus died in regard to today’s living humans. Listen carefully to the other side of the discussion.
Eventually, you should be able to pick up on the difference between a bloody sacrifice and an unbloody sacrifice. Keep handy the citations for Melchizekek starting with the Letter to the Hebrews and working back to the Old Testament. Because I prefer to avoid Scripture dueling, I would refer to the example of an unbloody sacrifice instead of chapter and verse.
“There are three main points of resemblance between Melchizedek, the prophetic type, and Christ Who fulfilled this prophecy: both are kings as well as priests, both offer bread and wine to God, and both have their priesthood directly from God and not through Aaron, since neither belongs to the tribe of Levi.” from the Bible Dictionary at the back of the Saint Joseph Edition, The New American Bible.
Depending on individual discussions, you could even look at Jesus’ death as being for all time right up to the present time. The significance of Jesus’ death which is the point of salvation needs to be remembered for all time so that each of us can come to Jesus and love Him personally within our present lives. You might ask this question in some form or another. Do you think that Jesus has to be re-killed when a person wants to be saved by Him?
The discussion should be leading to the truth that the Holy Sacrifice is unbloody. It re-presents the Sacrifice on the Cross in an unbloody manner. The Catholic Mass becomes the means that the one historical Sacrifice on the Cross is available to all for all time.
Do be careful about getting hung up on unbloody because you may run into a problem explaining the Body and Blood of Christ. One suggestion is to keep bringing the discussion back to the original issue of “re-killing” Christ. Bring closure to this subject before starting any other topic. One way is to offer your understanding of the difficulty of two kinds of sacrifice. Add why you are personally grateful for the opportunity to have the unbloody re-presentation of Christ’s Sacrifice. Now you have a personal opportunity to pour out your love to the One Who died for you.
Blessings,
granny
www.CatholicsComeHomeRockford.org
www.CatholicsComeHome.org
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Cool. I accept the Scriptures given in that post - and I agree entirely with the view expressed concerning them. But all that supports REAL PRESENCE. That’s not, however, the divisive issue. Lutherans (the first and largest Protestant group) teaches Real Presence firmly as a dogma. The divisive issue is that a bit after Luther’s death, The Catholic Church (alone, exclusively) embraced Transubstantiation. THAT, it seems to me, is unsupported by the texts (and by Tradition).
Thank you. Blessings on your spiritual journey!
Pax
- Josiah
G
grannymh
Guest
May I ask if the divisive issue in the 16th century is the Lutheran belief in consubstantiation, that is, the substance of the body and blood of Jesus coexists with the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist?
Blessings,
granny
www.CatholicsComeHomeRockford.org
www.CatholicsComeHome.org
P
patricius79
Guest
Thanks, Granny, I’ll be reading over your advice a few times. So it sounds like there is no problem with bring 1 Cor 15:44 into the discussion of Mass.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Although I understand Luther twice in his life used the word “consubstantiation,” he did not mean it in the western, medieval, Catholic, “Scholasticism” sense.
Luther (passionately and dogmatically) accepted the biblical and traditional view of Real Presence. Lutherans accept the Eucharistic texts very literally, and that the meaning of is is is (as I like to put it, excuse the grammar). When my Lutheran pastor places the host on my tongue, his verbatim words are, “Josiah - this IS the Body of Christ.” That’s our position.
Now, a few years after Luther’s death, The Catholic Church declared Transubstantiation as dogma. It is a new and unique dogma of that singular denomination, embraced by no other (before or after). Lutherans, included.
.
P
patricius79
Guest
In my opinion based on reading the patristics, the ideas of Consubstantiation and Trasnsubstantiation could be considered to have some basis in the patristics, though neither are explicit.
None of hte fathers say, “the bread becomes the body of Christ in the sense that the bread is their with the Body of Christ”
neither do they say “the bread becoems the Body of Christ in the sense that the bread no longer remains, but only the appearence”
however they do say that the “the Bread becomes teh Body of Christ”
and “the Bread [on the ALtear] IS the Body of Christ after teh blessing”
now from my perspective, Lutheranism is clearly the most consistent with the fathers–since it accepts the teaching on Baptism.
But Lutheranism is contrary to the Church fathers on Confirmation, the Papacy (as aer the orthodox, who deviate from their own saints on this), Apostolic Succession, etc.
However, this has nothing to do with pride, since many Lutherans (who are really Catholics in my view) are much better Christians than a lot of " Catholics"
J
JJ59
Guest
First I’d like to turn the question around and ask, How can you be 100% certain that the Eucharist isn’t Jesus’ body and blood?
In any case, the literal interpretation of John 6 IS the only reasonable interpretation. Let me put it this way. You’re stuck on the side of a huge mountain thatld kill you if you were to let go. You call for help, and someone above you says “Hey! Just sit tight, I’ll throw you some rope.” What’s your first response?
“Maybe it’s ‘hay’ he’s going to try and help me with.”
“He said sit tight, does he mean to sit down?”
etc.
Obviosly not! You would interpret it the obvious way: He means you should stay there until he finds rope to help you. You’re betting your life on the idea that you interpreted those words right.
So how is that different than passages like John 6? In the opinion of Catholics, Jesus was clearly talking literally. Why not bet our salvation on that?
I’d just like to add here that not only Catholics, roughly 50% of Christians believe in the real presence, but also the Orthodox (25%) and several major Protestant Denominations -Lutheran Anglican-.
Also, many of the Early Church Fathers believed in the Real Presence as well (catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp) As well, doctrinal decisions by the Catholic Church aren’t made just for the heck of it. The Church is full of some of the world’s top theologians, and it takes many, many years of studying and prayer for a doctrine to be finally accepted into the Church.
So essentially, I have 2 options. Choose a long-held interpretation believed by over 75% of Christians for almost 2000 years, or choose the interpretation of less than a quarter of Christians based on their personal interpretation of the Bible. I think I’ll go with the first
God bless,
- Status