Transubstantiation is a Device of Man

  • Thread starter Thread starter guanophore
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

guanophore

Guest
Carol_Coombe said:
I was very much taken by the note by *itsjustdave1988 above *on understandings of the physical world, and the laws that govern it.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=124060

I would like to use it as a foundation for thoughts on inerrancy, with particular regard to the matter of *transubstantiation *as an example of the difficulties we get ourselves into. (I apologise in advance to *itsjustdave1988 *if I do him an injustice.)

If I am a literalist, I would need a bit of Christ’s body to eat - His right finger? a left toe, a bit of hair? Disgusting thought, heinous sin, grotesque cannibalism.

The Catholic argument that it is through the process of transubstantiation that the bread and wine of Communion become, in substance but not appearance, the body and blood of Jesus Christ at consecration is not acceptable - for a variety of reasons - to many Christians, Catholic Christians, and moral non-Christians.

And because we cannot literally eat the body of the man Jesus of Nazareth, 2000 years after His death, it is evident that the communion bread and wine we take must be symbolic representations of His flesh and blood.

Why? Understanding our Creator God, and the laws of nature, makes it clear that natural laws of the universe/multiverse are fixed and immutable. as far as we know. Our current belief is that God will not intervene in the physical, chemical or biological laws which He has established for all time. If He did, we would be confronted by chaos and anarchy. Our brains have likely not evolved sufficiently to catch up with the true magnificence of His creation - but they will. (Even if one believes He did *not *create the laws which Newton, Einstein, Hawking et al are defining for us, the laws are still immutable. We must accept this at least until our brains catch up with a law that is not. There are suspicions, admittedly, about both brain and laws.)

The mandatory stability of physical matter means that the substance of the bread and wine of the Eucharist does not and cannot change into blood and flesh. I know, I know, you will say that according to the teaching of theology a revealed fact can be proved solely by recurrence to the sources of faith viz. Scripture and Tradition, with which is also bound up the infallible magisterium of the Church (Catholic Encyc).

As a Christian I am not bound by this belief, I will not eat Christ’s (literal) body, I am not interested in eating his transubstantiated flesh (which is itself but a symbol of the literal flesh and blood), but I do accept that the bread and wine we offer during the Eucharist, through Him, with Him and in Him, in memory of the death *he freely accepted, *represent his flesh and blood.

Do you think Jesus the man, before recognising His own Divinity on the cross, had any concept of transubstantiation when, 2000 years ago, he commanded us to drink and eat his body? He did not. Therefore how did he assume we were going to eat his flesh and body literally down through the ages?

Transubstantiation, as a concept, is a device of man and not of the Scriptures, whatever Jesus or the apostles are reported to have said about what we should eat and drink in His memory. It is the memory of His sacrifice that matters.

Do you really think that our God, a God of ineffable love and compassion, will send to hell (that is, make separate from His grace) all those who cannot or will not accept the concept of transubstantiation? Reading the Bible literally, as inerrant, in cases like this is quite certainly unChristian, an anathema to the loving grace of our compassionate God. This is the test by which we must read Scripture intelligently.

See also previous posting on Vatican II.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=124060

Blessings.
Click to expand...
When you say that God does not intervene with the natural laws, does that mean that you don’t believe any of the miracles recorded in the Bible?
 
guanophore said:
When you say that God does not intervene with the natural laws, does that mean that you don’t believe any of the miracles recorded in the Bible?
Click to expand...
I would ask also how she would explain, just as one example, the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy? It seems to me that in this case God most certainly did intervene with the natural laws, literally changing the bread and the wine into flesh and blood.
 
The idea of transubstantiation is an attempt by man to understand more fully his words to eat his body and drink his blood.

The attempt does not have to be made. We can simply take him at his word without attempting further understanding or trying to think about the implications of his words.

In the same way, Jesus never uses the term “trinity” to describe his relationship to his father and the holy spirit. We use the word as part of a doctrinal understanding of what his words mean.

Did Jesus understand transubstantiation? I’m sure he did. He was pretty emphatic that we must eat his body and drink his blood. He was pretty specific in the words of institution. He even made it clear to a later disciple, Paul, who specifically warned against receiving the eucharist without recognizing that it is Jesus’ body and blood. And recognizing his emphatic instructions, the Church followed them from the beginning.

Whatever our understanding, it is important not to think of the Eucharist as receiving a ‘piece of Jesus’, as one person once told me. We never receive just a piece of him–that would be cannibalism. We receive all of him, all at once, whole and entire, under the appearances of even the smallest particle of the eucharistic host.
 
It is the Glorified Christ we receive in the most Holy Eucharist.

Christ was very clear that the Bread and Wine became His body and blood. Even when others were offended and left Him, He reiterated that unless we Eat His Body and Drink His Blood, we will have no life in Him. If he did not mean it literally, He certainly would have explained to those who left Him. He did not. Pretty clear if your glasses aren’t foggy and your hearing is in good shape.👍

Those who shout cannibalism are pointing the finger at Christ and should reconcile with Him for their misjudgment.

Kelly
 
The people who don’t understand what Jesus meant when He said “This is my body and this is my blood” are like Bill Clinton.

They don’t know what the definition of “is” is!
 
In the Gospel of Political Correctness, we read how Jesus said, “This here bread is a symbol of my body, and this here wine is a symbol of my blood.”😃
 
Jerry-Jet said:
The people who don’t understand what Jesus meant when He said “This is my body and this is my blood” are like Bill Clinton.

They don’t know what the definition of “is” is!
Click to expand...
Easy there big fella! I think guanophore started this post in an attempt to continue a conversation begun in the “Inerrant Bible” thread. In that thread Carol became offended and said “I am out of here”. I would really like to hear her thoughts/reasons regarding this topic. So let’s all be gentle and see if she will respond.
 
Only one person benefits from this heresy, only one creature could plant the seeds of doubt that would separate Christians from Christ. Any guesses?
 
JimG said:
The idea of transubstantiation is an attempt by man to understand more fully his words to eat his body and drink his blood.

The attempt does not have to be made. We can simply take him at his word without attempting further understanding or trying to think about the implications of his words.
Click to expand...
Exactly. There is no point in trying to understand what is beyond our ability to understand. Western philosophy seems to tell us we have to figure everything out- that we can’t contemplate the mystery of God and appreciate that He is greater than words can describe. God reveals himself more as people draw closer to Him, so the way to learn more about God is to go deeper in prayer. People get so excited about St. Thomas Aquinas’ writings, and don’t seem to understand that he stopped writing because he realized that everything he could write is nothing compared to the greatness of God.
 
DallasCatholic said:
I would ask also how she would explain, just as one example, the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy? It seems to me that in this case God most certainly did intervene with the natural laws, literally changing the bread and the wine into flesh and blood.
Click to expand...
As he does at every Mass. 🙂
 
You know the bible does say that he who does not eat his flesh does not have life. How do we explain this? I believe 100% in the Transubstantiation but how do we as catholics explain that our fellow protestants dont have life without offending them?
 
This thread bugs me. For one thing, it has only drawn Catholic posters when clearly you were seeking someone to defend the position “Transubstantiation is a Device of Man.” For another, I am trying to think of a way, as a Protestant, to take another position, but I have always believed that Christ is really present in a special way in the Communion elements, in a way that symbolic nonsubstantiation or consubstantiation really don’t work for. I meet Him in Communion in my Presbyterian church. I’ve also had some very strange experiences that I won’t go into here in Catholic Churches. I make that point to state that I believe He is really present, so I can’t really argue.

Catholics will be quick to point out that there is no confection in Protestant churches. The bread does not literally become His flesh, nor the wine His blood, in a Protestant service. I agree. But God in His mercy meets us where we are at, and that includes Protestants in our myriad understandings of what happens in Communion.

So I will go back to the opening statement and see what I can do to defend it, to give you something to do with this thread. Transubstantiation is a device of man, only so far as it is the most reasonable understanding of what happens in Communion, an understanding that is the result of a long debate and process of elimination of all other alternatives. The concept of transubstantiation is not a revelation so much as a deduction, and in that sense it is a device of man, one man uses to explain what is beyond explanation.
 
Truthstalker said:
So I will go back to the opening statement and see what I can do to defend it, to give you something to do with this thread. Transubstantiation is a device of man, only so far as it is the most reasonable understanding of what happens in Communion, an understanding that is the result of a long debate and process of elimination of all other alternatives. The concept of transubstantiation is not a revelation so much as a deduction, and in that sense it is a device of man, one man uses to explain what is beyond explanation.
Click to expand...
I pretty much agree with what you say here. The main reason for doctrinal formulations such as this is probably for defense against error. That is, at some point, someone says, well, what it means is this, (followed by an incorrect understanding.) The Church, reacting, says, “wait a minute; the way you put it–that’s not what we believe.” So it then has to formulate a statement which clarifies what it does believe, and how that differs from the erroneous interpretation.
 
I’m still trying to figure out how He spoke light into existance???
 
Truthstalker said:
This thread bugs me. For one thing, it has only drawn Catholic posters when clearly you were seeking someone to defend the position “Transubstantiation is a Device of Man.” For another, I am trying to think of a way, as a Protestant, to take another position, but I have always believed that Christ is really present in a special way in the Communion elements, in a way that symbolic nonsubstantiation or consubstantiation really don’t work for. I meet Him in Communion in my Presbyterian church. I’ve also had some very strange experiences that I won’t go into here in Catholic Churches. I make that point to state that I believe He is really present, so I can’t really argue.

Catholics will be quick to point out that there is no confection in Protestant churches. The bread does not literally become His flesh, nor the wine His blood, in a Protestant service. I agree. But God in His mercy meets us where we are at, and that includes Protestants in our myriad understandings of what happens in Communion.

So I will go back to the opening statement and see what I can do to defend it, to give you something to do with this thread. Transubstantiation is a device of man, only so far as it is the most reasonable understanding of what happens in Communion, an understanding that is the result of a long debate and process of elimination of all other alternatives. The concept of transubstantiation is not a revelation so much as a deduction, and in that sense it is a device of man, one man uses to explain what is beyond explanation.
Click to expand...
Well said.

I still think you are a quasi-Catholic, and not a pseudo-Catholic. :yup:
 
dylanschrader said:
As he does at every Mass. 🙂
Click to expand...
No, he does not work the miracle of Lanciano at every Mass. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with this miracle? At Lanciano, during the consecration, God turned the Host into a piece of heart muscle and the wine into blood. Scientific tests have shown that the flesh is cardiac muscle and the blood is human blood. Also the blood types of the cardiac muscle and the blood are the same. In the Mass every day God changes the bread and wine into his flesh and blood but it still remains in the species of bread and wine…which is not what happened in Lanciano.
 
If I am a literalist, I would need a bit of Christ’s body to eat - His right finger? a left toe, a bit of hair? Disgusting thought, heinous sin, grotesque cannibalism.
Click to expand...
I get so disgusted by this particular hypocrisy. The same people who talk like this **rejoice **in the fact that they are washed in the blood of Christ. Why is that not also a disgusting thought, heinous sin, grotesque and morbid? Why not? Why not?

Oh, BTW, the charge of cannibalism is a denial of both the Incarnation and the Resurrection. But that is what people are driven to when they insist on denying the Real Presence.
 
vern_humphrey said:
In the Gospel of Political Correctness, we read how Jesus said, “This here bread is a symbol of my body, and this here wine is a symbol of my blood.”😃
Click to expand...
Scarily enough, one of the things that convinced me to leave my protestant church was my last communion there. The pastor got up and said, “Jesus said this means my body or see this as my body.”

I couldn’t believe anyone would actually twist the words of Jesus to support their own beliefs. I should have known better. The Message Bible is a favorite of that church. :rolleyes:
 
Saddest verse in the bible:

John 6:66 (KJV) - “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” 😦
 
alms said:
Saddest verse in the bible:

John 6:66 (KJV) - “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” 😦
Click to expand...
And note that that verse is not followed by a verse that says, “And He called to them, ‘Hey, y’all come on back. I’m just jerkin’ ya around – it’s only bread and wine.’”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top