Transubstantiation and Real Presence

[RyanBlack]

Documentation please because that sounds like specious a-C propaganda to me.

During the Reformation, Anabaptists, who do not practice infant baptism, were killed as heretics by both Catholics and other Protestants.

 

[Duane1966]

During the Reformation, Anabaptists, who do not practice infant baptism, were killed as heretics by both Catholics and other Protestants.

Yes, killed by individual Catholics, but not by the Church. Big difference.

 

[rcwitness]

Yes, killed by individual Catholics, but not by the Church. Big difference.

Let’s try to be fair here. We’re all executions condemned by the Church? I’m not sure. Capital punishment is not strictly condemned, if I’m not mistaken. So sects, and individuals, who go around preaching and teaching false doctrines are warned to stop, but what if the continue? What if great harm to the body persists?

No doubt many abuses happened, and even to Saints like Joan of Arc.

We should probably try to begin separate threads for these discussions, huh?

 

[Duane1966]

Let’s try to be fair here. We’re all executions condemned by the Church? I’m not sure. Capital punishment is not strictly condemned, if I’m not mistaken. So sects, and individuals, who go around preaching and teaching false doctrines are warned to stop, but what if the continue? What if great harm to the body persists?

No doubt many abuses happened, and even to Saints like Joan of Arc.

We should probably try to begin separate threads for these discussions, huh?

I am being fair here. To my knowledge, the Anabaptists were killed by secular authorities. Without a doubt many of those secular authorities were Catholics, carrying out secular laws. I have yet to see a document put forth by anyone showing that the Catholic Church at this time taught that heretics should be executed. An individual bishop maybe, but not the Church.

 

[RyanBlack]

Yes, killed by individual Catholics, but not by the Church.

I’ve not said otherwise.

 

[Peter_J]

If the dispute has not been rectified by each consulting his own church, I know for a fact that disputes have been settled amiable by the joint meeting of both churches. I know that from personal experience. It is not so impossible as you have been led to believe.

This post wasn’t addressed to me, but I think you’re missing the point. Yes it is possible, and happened wrt to baptism in the early church: that is, the various churches agreed that infants could be baptized, which had previously been a disputed point. Doesn’t that sound to you like they settled the dispute?

 

[Duane1966]

How would it be obvious?
I think that it is obvious that Christians in the very first decade didn’t believe that baptism replaced circumcision - therefore infants at 8 days must be baptized. If they believed this, there would be no surprise when Cornelius was filled with the Holy Spirit and there would be no resistance to the uncircumcised becoming Christians resulting in disagreements taken to Jerusalem. We don’t see that the apostles in Jerusalem decided that circumcision was not necessary ‘because baptism replaced circumcision.’ They decided that it was no longer necessary to enforce the law. Many Jewish families continued to practice circumcision and baptism.

Agreed, they did not see baptism replacing circumcision. But you still have not answered my question. I will ask it again.

Susan, what did circumcision accomplish?

 

[susanlo]

Agreed, they did not see baptism replacing circumcision. But you still have not answered my question. I will ask it again.

Susan, what did circumcision accomplish?

It was the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham.

 

[Duane1966]

It was the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham.

To be part of that covenant, all his male descendants had to be circumcised correct?

 

[susanlo]

To be part of that covenant, all his male descendants had to be circumcised correct?

Genesis 9
9Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised.* My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14*Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

Yes.
There are some similarities between circumcision and baptism. There are many differences as well.
Do you think females should be baptized? Why? If you would hire live-in help - maybe a nanny - would you insist that he/she be baptized before residing in your home regardless of belief?

 

[Faithdancer]

Re the original question:
I believe in the Real Presence. I don’t worry too much about medieval Scholastic belaborings. I agree with John Donne:
"“He was the Word that spake it; He took the bread and brake it; And what that Word did make it; I do believe and take it”

 

[Duane1966]

Genesis 9
9Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised.* My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14*Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

Yes.
There are some similarities between circumcision and baptism. There are many differences as well.

If one is saved, it is through the New Covenant correct?

Do you think females should be baptized?

Yes.

Why?

1 Peter 3:21.

If you would hire live-in help - maybe a nanny - would you insist that he/she be baptized before residing in your home regardless of belief?

Relevance of question?

 

[susanlo]

If one is saved, it is through the New Covenant correct?
Yes. 1 Peter 3:21. Relevance of question?

I asked about the live-in help because Abraham and his descendants were required to circumcise all descendants as well as any slaves that were purchased for their household. It was for males only. Females weren’t circumcised.

If we say that baptism and circumcision have some similarities, and boys were circumcised at 8 days…Therefore we should baptize boys and girls some time in infancy, this is not thorough logic.

Where in the Old Testament does it say “Believe and be circumcised.” “Repent and be circumcised.”?
Where in the New Testament did the apostles teach “For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be baptized, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. - and oh yea, include girls this time.”?

I can see some similarities, but it clearly is not exactly the same.

 

[Duane1966]

I asked about the live-in help because Abraham and his descendants were required to circumcise all descendants as well as any slaves that were purchased for their household. It was for males only. Females weren’t circumcised.

If we say that baptism and circumcision have some similarities, and boys were circumcised at 8 days…Therefore we should baptize boys and girls some time in infancy, this is not thorough logic.

Where in the Old Testament does it say “Believe and be circumcised.” “Repent and be circumcised.”?
Where in the New Testament did the apostles teach “For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be baptized, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. - and oh yea, include girls this time.”?

I can see some similarities, but it clearly is not exactly the same.

I never said it was the same. But you once again do not answer the question. I will pose it again.

Susan, if one is saved, it is through the New Covenant correct?

 

[susanlo]

I never said it was the same. But you once again do not answer the question. I will pose it again.

Susan, if one is saved, it is through the New Covenant correct?

Yes.

Instead of playing question - answer, why don’t you just present your case already.

 

[Richca]

Are you referring to matter in scientific terms or philosophic terms? In transubstantiation does the chemist’s idea of “matter” change? Or does “matter” on a philosophical level change?

Well, I’ve been trying to explain but have probably not done a very good job of it of how the substance which includes matter is withdrawn from the bread and wine at the consecration of the Mass yet the the bread and wine look the same after the consecration as before the consecration. In regards to the matter of the bread and wine, modern science tells us that this matter is composed of millions of elemental atoms which atoms themselves are composed of more fundamental material particles such as the protons, neutrons, and electrons. Okay then. When the matter is withdrawn from the bread and wine at the consecration of the Mass and it is converted to the matter of Christ’s body and blood, the dimensions of the bread and wine remain which is obvious to the senses. This means that the dimensions of all the millions of the atoms and the subatomic particles which makes for the dimensions of the bread and wine we see with the naked eye remain too; otherwise the host would shrink after the consecration which it doesn’t. The dimensions of the elemental atoms along with their subatomic particles remain after the consecration but without matter by a divine miracle. If one looked at a consecrated host under a powerful microscope they would see all the elemental atoms and their subatomic particles just as if they were looking at an unconsecrated host of bread with matter. In catholic philosophy and metaphysics, dimensions such as length, width, and depth and extension involve the accident of quantity. A host of other accidents which includes the atomic and subatomic level remain after the consecration of the bread and wine. I have only focused on dimensions here because all other accidents which follow the material part of substance are founded upon the accident of quantity or extension.

A crude analogy of a proton with dimensions but without matter: consider a balloon filled with air, then remove the air but the balloon remains with the same dimensions without the air supporting the dimensions. Again, this is crude because the balloon itself is of a different kind of material or substance as it were than the air.

Accidents are said to inhere in the substance so the dimensions of a substance which is an accidental form may be better visualized as inhering in matter such as an image is impressed in wax or like as a marble statue of Socrates - the form of Socrates is at it were impressed in the marble and would appear to be inseparable from the marble at least by natural means. In the eucharistic miracle, God separates the substances of the bread and wine from their accidents and leaves the accidents of the bread and wine remaining without a substance to inhere in or to support them. The accidents of the bread and wine do not inhere in the substance of Christ’s body and blood which replaces the substances of the bread and wine.

 

[rcwitness]

I asked about the live-in help because Abraham and his descendants were required to circumcise all descendants as well as any slaves that were purchased for their household. It was for males only. Females weren’t circumcised.

If we say that baptism and circumcision have some similarities, and boys were circumcised at 8 days…Therefore we should baptize boys and girls some time in infancy, this is not thorough logic.

Where in the Old Testament does it say “Believe and be circumcised.” “Repent and be circumcised.”?
Where in the New Testament did the apostles teach “For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be baptized, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. - and oh yea, include girls this time.”?

I can see some similarities, but it clearly is not exactly the same.

Good points! I think the arguement, is that Baptism is more inclusive than circumcision.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

​

Good points! I think the arguement, is that Baptism is more inclusive than circumcision.

Right, baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision.

Just like we dont find OT passages claiming you are guilty of adultery by looking lustfully. Because fulfillment had not occurred yet.

 

[Vico]

​

Right, baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision.

Just like we dont find OT passages claiming you are guilty of adultery by looking lustfully. Because fulfillment had not occurred yet.

You mean like thou shalt not covet your neighbors wife?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

You mean like thou shalt not covet your neighbors wife?

Never interpreted that as same levels of lust described in those commandments imo.

Jesus has enhanced it. Same thing with anger equating to murder