D
Dubay
Guest
Thanks but disagree with premise that slight difference of opinion means you are any less Catholic. For heaven sakes half the congregation would need to resign under those terms.
- Status
B
Bballer32
Guest
Thats probably because half of the congregation has no idea what Transubstantiation is.
Y
YoungCatholic86
Guest
Actually it is the same thing. Let me expound upon that: I can be a math teacher that finds certain methods of teaching/learning more preferable than others but I cannot reject fundamental mathematical truth such as 1+1=2. If I am a Catholic, I can choose to follow devotions to things like the Shroud, Divine Mercy, Our Lady of Guadelupe, etc. but I cannot reject a doctrinal teaching ESPECIALLY the one that is as important as the Eucharist. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change 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. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”
If you reject this, you reject the fundamental truth that is central to our faith. If it is not true, then the Catholic Church is a fraud and has lied to her people for centuries. But if it is true, and you are going up to receive communion holding that belief, then you are “profaining the body and blood of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 11:27)
And they should if they won’t accept the teaching. I’m tired of people coming up for communion thinking its a symbol.
Y
YoungCatholic86
Guest
Also, please tell me what you think makes you Catholic?
Is it following the Pope? Can’t be him because the Pope has always taught transubstantiation
Is it the Mass? Can’t be that either because you reject they only thing that makes our liturgy different from others
Is it the structure of the organization? Well the organization follows the Catechism and we’ve already shown how the Catechism teaches transubstantiation.
Everything in our Church flows from the Eucharist which is Jesus Christ body, blood, soul, and divinity.
Is it following the Pope? Can’t be him because the Pope has always taught transubstantiation
Is it the Mass? Can’t be that either because you reject they only thing that makes our liturgy different from others
Is it the structure of the organization? Well the organization follows the Catechism and we’ve already shown how the Catechism teaches transubstantiation.
Everything in our Church flows from the Eucharist which is Jesus Christ body, blood, soul, and divinity.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Agreed - thank you for adding that.
Scripture has a plurality of meaning of which the literal sense is one.
M
minkymurph
Guest
B
Ben_F
Guest
I find it very interesting that in the first bread discourse, Jesus said that He was Bread. Then in the second bread discourse, He said that The Bread was His Body. God bless:thumbsup:
T
Taestron
Guest
Forgive me, but this argument has to be the weakest argument for transubstantiation that I have ever come across. And this is coming from someone who thinks that John 6 teaches the real presence.
Here is what I mean. There are seven traditional “I am” statements found in John’s gospel, so termed because they use the formulaic “ego eimi” that Jesus uses to describe himself. See how many these you think are physical descriptions of Jesus.
I am the bread of life (John 6:35, 48)
I am the light of the world (John 8:12)
I am the door (John 10:7)
I am the good shepherd (John 10:11)
I am resurrection and the life (John 11:25)
I am the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6)
I am the true vine (John 15:1,5)
You cannot claim that John 6 is grammatically and lexically an argument for transubstantiation while denying that John 10 is grammatically and lexically an argument that Jesus is physically a door or that John 15 makes Jesus a plant. The difference between metaphor and simile is not so exact as you make it out to be. That being said, I do think that John 6 teaches real presence and you might be able to make a case for transubstantiation, but these things cannot be argued from the Greek syntax.
D
Dubay
Guest
That could be true as well, but as they say another debate for another day.
po18guy
Well-known member
As Christians, the first thing we must know is that the bible is an incomplete record (i.e. Luke 3:1, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34, Ephesians 6:21, Colossians 4:7 etc.). The faith was passed on primarily via the oral Apostolic Tradition. Read the prologue to Luke (Luke 1:1-4). In it, we see that Theophilus learned nothing from Luke’s Gospel. Luke wrote the Gospel only to confirm the oral teaching that Theophilus had already received. There was no New Testament, so how did Theophilus learn the Gospel?
The Eucharistic beliefs were handed on to following generations as part of the deposit of the faith. Remember that Paul went to Peter and the others (Galatians 1:18, 2:2) to ensure that the Gospel he preached was in accord with theirs, and scripture tells us that the Apostles counseled all to be in complete accord (Acts 2:46, 4:24, 5:12, Acts 15, Romans 15:5, Philippians 2:2). 1 Corinthians 10:16, and 11:29 demonstrate that the Eucharist is a participation (not merely a remembrance) in the Body and Blood of the Lord.
In 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, Paul mentions the consistent message of Christ - both at the Last Supper, as well as years later after Paul’s conversion: “Take, eat, this is my Body” “This is my blood of the new Covenant”. Regarding the Eucharist, our Lord never spoke of it as symbolic. Neither did any of the Apostles or anyone in the Apostolic Church. As we see from 1 Corinthians 11:29-31, some of the early believers were already sick and even dying from unworthy consumption of the Lord’s Body and Blood - not from bread and wine. They were guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord!
Since you doubt the Catholic word on this, I suggest that you seek out the beliefs of the equally Apostolic Orthodox Churches, which believe in the exact same Eucharistic Presence. Both antiquarian Churches, which trace directly and completely back to Christ, share an absolute belief in Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. So do Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists. So did Martin Luther and John Wesley, among many other protestants.
On principle, if we demand proof through the senses, are we any different from Thomas, who refused to believe until and unless he probed our Lord’s wounds? In fact, it is only in relatively modern times that faith in Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist has begun to dissolve.
po18guy
Well-known member
Remember that you are reverse-eingineering the true meaning of physical and spiritual actions, using the partial and incomplete written record. Error is unavoidable. You must seek out the beliefs of the primitive Church. Don’t believe the Catholic? Investigate the Orthodox. You find complete accord in Christ’s True Presence.
According to the beliefs of the last 495 years, every believer on earth, except those in recent times with a bible, got the faith all wrong. Let’s ponder that assertion for a bit…
B
Ben_F
Guest
I´m confused. Not believing that the Bread is Christ, is not a slight disagreement. If half of the congregation has to resign, then they should. God bless:thumbsup:
M
minkymurph
Guest
This post was a continuation of another post. As such, it is incomplete. It was intended to be read with the other post and not stand alone. Although I can appreciate why you would have thought it was.
I was not arguing the Greek syntax. My post related to how the early Christians would have understood Jesus words. I don’t know anything about the Greek syntax, but I was taught, put briefly and simplistically as it is more complicated than this, the 7 ‘I AM’s of John’ is where our belief in the Trinity comes from, and the 7 ‘I AM’s’ denote the Apostles believed he was God. When Jesus uses the terms door, true vine etc. preceded by ‘I AM’ (how God revealed Himself to Moses) they refer to his Divinity. He does not actually say he is God, anywhere in the Bible, and those who do not believe Christ would challenge us on this point. The relevance of this is the Apostles would have understood the 7 ‘I AM’s’ as Jesus assertion he was God following Pentecost, and what I was discussing was how they would have understood his words concerning ‘eat my flesh and drink my blood.’
As such, I wouldn’t understand the 7 ‘I AM’s’ to have any connection with the celebration of the Eucharist, but rather Jesus Divinity.
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
The common language of Our Lord and his audience was the Old Covenant: the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms and the Jewish liturgy (the feasts and festivals). The words Our Lord used could only possibly be understood in one sense. His audience understood Him correctly, but this doctrine of Our Lord’s clearly required faith and trust beyond what the crowd was either ready or willing to give. Indeed, from the New Testament evidence, even His closest disciples could only accept this doctrine on faith, trusting perhaps that Our Lord would make this doctrine plainer to them than the general crowds as He was wont to do with His parables, for instance.
John 6:4:
John 6:4:
The above is the liturgical context Our Lord was speaking in. Imagine a man saying he “is the Holy Communion” (or anything like that) to a devout Catholic during Holy Week.
po18guy
Well-known member
As well, the Apostles were confronted years before with an apparent dichotomy: this Man who stood before them, who ate, sweated and tired out at day’s end was actually what He did not appear to be: God. Is it any wonder that it must be taken on faith that bread and wine, earthly objects - just as a human body is - after an action of God, are truly something that they do not appear to be?
M
minkymurph
Guest
I read through my post again and part of it, for some reason is missing.
I remember reading a commentary on John 6. To paraphrase, as there was much more than what I can write here.
The Johannine community believed Jesus presence is still with us in the form of the Holy Spirit. I won’t go into that in too much detail as I find it incredibly difficult to talk about the Holy Trinity without straying into heresy. When Jesus prayed and broke bread, something miraculous happened - for example feeding of the 5 000 and the Road to Emmaus. In addition, the wine at Cana. As everyone knows something miraculous happened the night of the Passover, which prefigured the Last Supper. As such, the breaking of bread became associated with the action of the Holy Spirit and Jesus presence.
This was believed prior to the writing of John, which is reputed to have been written around 90AD? The significance of this is the early Christians did not belief these things because the read John 6, but rather John 6 was written because this is how they came to understand what Jesus said following Pentecost. It is not the case that they read John 6 and then discussed what Jesus meant.
I meant to include this in my earlier post which hopefully should make more sense now.
I remember reading a commentary on John 6. To paraphrase, as there was much more than what I can write here.
The Johannine community believed Jesus presence is still with us in the form of the Holy Spirit. I won’t go into that in too much detail as I find it incredibly difficult to talk about the Holy Trinity without straying into heresy. When Jesus prayed and broke bread, something miraculous happened - for example feeding of the 5 000 and the Road to Emmaus. In addition, the wine at Cana. As everyone knows something miraculous happened the night of the Passover, which prefigured the Last Supper. As such, the breaking of bread became associated with the action of the Holy Spirit and Jesus presence.
This was believed prior to the writing of John, which is reputed to have been written around 90AD? The significance of this is the early Christians did not belief these things because the read John 6, but rather John 6 was written because this is how they came to understand what Jesus said following Pentecost. It is not the case that they read John 6 and then discussed what Jesus meant.
I meant to include this in my earlier post which hopefully should make more sense now.
N
Nicea325
Guest
And can you show us ONE writing outside the NT where it confirms the novelty of a symbolic Eucharist? By the way, give me one name the first 500 years clearly teaching the Real Presence of the Eucharist was heretical or a great usurpation of Christ?
N
Nicea325
Guest
And do you honestly believe the CC in the past centuries never used the entirety of the Bible to support the Real Presence? Your argument has been answered and rebuked a million times over.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
When Jesus said “Whoever does not eat my flesh and drink my blood has no life in them”–was He telling the truth?
A lot of times when it comes to John 6 it seems like people try to skip this verse.
Does not eating the flesh of Jesus and not drinking his blood have consequences or not?
A lot of times when it comes to John 6 it seems like people try to skip this verse.
Does not eating the flesh of Jesus and not drinking his blood have consequences or not?
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Yeah, I thought only Protestants were allowed to cite/quote/otherwise reference St. Paul. In fact, wasn’t he a Protestant himself?I lol’ed at the emoticon behind St Paul haha
- Status