Transubstantiation is a Device of Man

[alms]

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.’”

I know. It completely baffles my mind that the John 6 discourse can be interpreted any other way except for the actual body and blood of Jesus. I don’t think an engineering instruction manual could be more descriptive.

It makes me wonder what barriers there are in many of the Protestant faiths that fail Protestant individuals to see the correct/Catholic view of the John 6 discourse. I think the main barrier is cultural. What do you think are the barriers for the Protestants coming the true understanding of John 6? (I might have to start a new thread for this?)

 

[guanophore]

I know. It completely baffles my mind that the John 6 discourse can be interpreted any other way except for the actual body and blood of Jesus. I don’t think an engineering instruction manual could be more descriptive.

It makes me wonder what barriers there are in many of the Protestant faiths that fail Protestant individuals to see the correct/Catholic view of the John 6 discourse. I think the main barrier is cultural. What do you think are the barriers for the Protestants coming the true understanding of John 6? (I might have to start a new thread for this?)

When you consider that this is the core of our faith, it is clear why the father of lies would want to draw people away from it. This is in todays homily on EWTN.

 

[HailMary]

To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible."

– Thomas Aquinas

 

[alms]

When you consider that this is the core of our faith, it is clear why the father of lies would want to draw people away from it. This is in todays homily on EWTN.

I’ll be sure to check it out.

 

[alms]

– “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” Thomas Aquinas

What barriers do you think are there causing no or lack of faith?

 

[HailMary]

What barriers do you think are there causing no or lack of faith?

Morality, the divorce of God in our schools and countries, and Contraception especially.

Look how during Lincoln’s time, he could speak about God without being harassed. Now, we have to fight for this.
classicallibrary.org/lincoln/thanksgiving.htm

 

[CatholicChick]

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!

LOL my husband has said this phrase before and it always makes me laugh!

 

[Verita]

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.

How sad a statement like this must make Jesus. It is a rejection his sacrificial gift to us.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I know. It completely baffles my mind that the John 6 discourse can be interpreted any other way except for the actual body and blood of Jesus. I don’t think an engineering instruction manual could be more descriptive.

It makes me wonder what barriers there are in many of the Protestant faiths that fail Protestant individuals to see the correct/Catholic view of the John 6 discourse. I think the main barrier is cultural. What do you think are the barriers for the Protestants coming the true understanding of John 6? (I might have to start a new thread for this?)

The rejection of transubstatiation is an example of what I call “Sola Scriptura but not Wholla da Scriptura.”

Clearly in Jesus’ own words, stressed several times, the bread and wine, once consecrated are His body and blood.

 

[mikew262]

How sad a statement like this must make Jesus. It is a rejection his sacrificial gift to us.

To the Catholic Church that is true, but not to many Protestants. While they may interpret his sacrificial gift differently, they certainly don’t reject it. The fact that Jesus died for our sins is the underlying message of his sacrifice, and as long as one understands that, I don’t think Jesus will too sad.

 

[st_lucy]

To the Catholic Church that is true, but not to many Protestants. While they may interpret his sacrificial gift differently, they certainly don’t reject it. The fact that Jesus died for our sins is the underlying message of his sacrifice, and as long as one understands that, I don’t think Jesus will too sad.

In all of Scripture we see that Jesus asked to do many things for others, but He only asked us to do one thing for Him and that was to Eat His Body and Drink His Blood. Yes I think He would be very sad that there are those who will refuse to do this for Him.

 

[guanophore]

What barriers do you think are there causing no or lack of faith?

You mean in the Real Presence in the Eucharist? I think there are many. I notice there are an awful lot of people lining up for communion, but the lines to the confessional are very short. If people receive in a state of mortal sin, which many do, they are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. this practice dulls the conscience and blinds people from being able to discern the real presence.

 

[guanophore]

… a foundation for thoughts on inerrancy, with particular regard to the matter of *transubstantiation *as an example of the difficulties we get ourselves into.

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.

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.

… 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.

… This is the test by which we must read Scripture intelligently.

Blessings.

How sad a statement like this must make Jesus. It is a rejection his sacrificial gift to us.

It is also confusing. It seems that the literal meaning is the most plain. "3 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” John 6:53-59

 

[VociMike]

It is also confusing. It seems that the literal meaning is the most plain.

Yes, I doubt there is anything more plainly said in the entire bible.

Consider this also. This is (in part) a memorial meal to God Himself, to Jesus Christ our Savior. Is bread and wine (most often in practice, a cracker and a sip of juice) really a suitable memorial feast for the risen Christ? Is a cracker and a sip of juice a fitting memorial meal to any person? Would any of us hold a memorial meal for someone we loved and serve the guests a cracker and a sip of juice?

But, in the Catholic (and Orthodox) understanding, the meal is the most perfect, most exalted meal possible. It is the only meal truly suitable to memorialize God, because the meal itself is God.

Which seems fitting, which less than fitting?

 

[KennC]

Yes, I doubt there is anything more plainly said in the entire bible.

Well, that and … “this IS My Body” … from the very same, light was spoken into existance. How do you make that anymore plain.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I am so sorry to be obtuse. But in parts of Papua New Guinea, Andaman Islands and elsewhere, flesh and blood of the dead are literally eaten as part of the memorial meal for the dear departed. For them, eating flesh and blood *is *an appropriate feast of remembrance. The faithful of some religions call this cannibalism.

We understand, in our memorial feast, that it is not. Christ asked us to eat and drink in memory of Him. But I do not agree with you that it is the only or even the best and most fitting menu for a memorial meal. Where in previous or subsequent history of humanity have we held this belief? That is what puzzles me so much about taking Christ’s command literally, when so much else it taken metaphorically or alegorically

The Eucharist talks about the wine and bread *that human hands have made. *I think this a beautiful line: that we have made this, with the hands God gave us, present them to Him in grateful thanks, and eat them in memory of his awesome sacrifice.

This is perhaps off the topic. I still cannot believe that the immutable laws of nature will permit 10 milliion or so miraculous transubstantiations per week globally. But as a long-time Catholic convert told me the other day: when she was being readied for confirmation, the bishop asked NOT if she believed in transubstantiation, but rather if she did NOT believe in transubstantiation. She replied that she was still working on it, and so the confirmation went ahead.

But I hate having to make compomises - which are required throughout the process of Scriptural understanding - of this kind. We need to explain this and that, and argue and differ, and dither and change, adjust and simplify or complexify.

This is noted by other faiths. *You have to try so hard to justify what you believe and the rituals that surround them! *And of course the transformation of wine and bread, and the eating of flesh are two of the most troubling for other faiths. And let no one say that it does not matter what *they *think. It does matter to them and therefore to us.

Many of the books of our Bible are the same as those of the Jews and Moslems. I wonder if they turn themselves inside out to the same extent as Christians to devise explanations for the inexplicable?

Blessings

 

[Carol_Coombe]

First of all, thank you Dallas Catholic, for asking that we discuss instead of immediately going into defensive or sarcastic mode. I actually did walk out of the forum, but have been dragged back in. I am not sure whether I am grateful, but I am willing to give it a go.

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.

This is an interesting thought because it has been the Vatican, the Pontificate, the Magisterium, the heirarchy of the Catholic Church, and even the ordinary faithful who have thought, argued, written, and agreed about our understandings of Christian faith throughout the ages - since the crucifixion. There has been a constant attempt to come to grips with the mysteries of the faith, and to agree on their meaning.

Ultimately we cannot grasp, with our inadequate minds, the mystery of God and His Creation, His Son, the Holy Spirit. But we sure have made the running as far as trying to understand and be faithful is concerned. And we must not give up: all great religions grow and change, adapt or die. And Catholic Christianity must continue to do this also, as it has done for the past 2000 years.

Blessings.

 

[VociMike]

I am so sorry to be obtuse. But in parts of Papua New Guinea, Andaman Islands and elsewhere, flesh and blood of the dead are literally eaten as part of the memorial meal for the dear departed. For them, eating flesh and blood *is *an appropriate feast of remembrance. The faithful of some religions call this cannibalism.

Yes, the eating of the dead flesh of a human person is indeed cannibalism. But as Christ is neither a human person nor is He dead (nor is His flesh and blood dead), the Eucharist is not cannibalism.

We understand, in our memorial feast, that it is not. Christ asked us to eat and drink in memory of Him. But I do not agree with you that it is the only or even the best and most fitting menu for a memorial meal.

Remember, the only choices we have here are bread and wine (usually in practice, a cracker and a sip of juice), or the very body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. There are no third options. So between those two options, which would seem to be more fitting to memorialize God? To put the question another way, would you ever serve crackers and juice at the memorial of one you deeply loved?

Where in previous or subsequent history of humanity have we held this belief? That is what puzzles me so much about taking Christ’s command literally, when so much else it taken metaphorically or alegorically

Are you asking where in pagan religions? I don’t see those as being a sure guide to the Christian truth. Remember that even God’s chosen people, the Jews, didn’t expect God Himself to be the Messiah, much less the pagans. Does that invalidate Christianity?

The Eucharist talks about the wine and bread *that human hands have made. *I think this a beautiful line: that we have made this, with the hands God gave us, present them to Him in grateful thanks, and eat them in memory of his awesome sacrifice.

You have touched upon another wonderful example of God’s generosity. As in every aspect of His saving work, He invites us to take part. That is why He uses the work of human hands, bread and wine, rather than, say, figs and water. But while He invites us to take part, His part in the offering is infinitely greater than ours. We offer bread and wine. He offers Himself.

This is perhaps off the topic. I still cannot believe that the immutable laws of nature will permit 10 milliion or so miraculous transubstantiations per week globally. But as a long-time Catholic convert told me the other day: when she was being readied for confirmation, the bishop asked NOT if she believed in transubstantiation, but rather if she did NOT believe in transubstantiation. She replied that she was still working on it, and so the confirmation went ahead.

God, who counts the hairs on each of our heads, doesn’t have a problem with 10 million.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

*Odell *

how do we Catholics explain that our fellow protestants don’t have life without offending them?

In the same way that reformed churches try to explain that they do not have to eat transubstantiated bread and wine without offending you. If they believe that the bread and wine of communion are sufficient symbols, and believe this is a correct interpretation, then perhaps we should just listen and leave be. Only would-be converts are stuck.

*Truthstalker

Transubstantiation is a device of man, only so far as it is the most reasonable understanding of what happens in Communion…the result of a long debate elimination of other alternatives. The concept is not a revelation so much as a deduction, and in that sense is a device of man, to explain what is beyond explanation.

*This has an interesting ring of possibility to it. That sounds trite, but one must contemplate.

Jimg added *

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. So it is possible that belief in transubstantiation is a device of man. What I cannot fathom is why I must believe that *other *interpretation is always erroneous, and the RCC *always *correct. Why do you believe there is only one correct truth, that alternatives offered are those of red-neck Christians of the happy-clappy variety, and that no truth is possible from other respected denominations? Is this bigotry under other circumstances?

*VociMike

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,etc…Why not? Why not? *

Because just as some denominations do not subscribe to the concept of transubstantiation, they also see the possibility of total immersion in water as symbolic of being washed in the blood of the Lamb; or being infused with a profound understanding of divine Scripture as symbolic in the same way. Our minds work differently.

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.

Sorry, I cannot help it – this is garbage. There is no charge of cannibalism: it is – and you must accept this – how it is seen by others of the world’s great religions. Go and ask them. What do you know about the Bhagavad Gita or Vinoba Bhave?

*Alms

…that fail Protestant individuals to see the correct/Catholic view…?

This is an example of the (perhaps) blind faith of (perhaps) born Catholics that correct = Catholic = correct. You must know that it drives other Christians crazy! Why should they assume this? It has not always been so. We know the debates of centuries among Catholic clergy; we know the about recent Encyclicals and Papal Bulls, without resolution, driving many Catholics into subversive behaviour (for want of a better description).

So the Catholic Church, despite its belief in the possibility of infallibility (a concept of man) may sometimes be in error, or force compromises in belief. We must accept this unless we want to be unthinking sheep. (I have always wondered whether I want to be designated one of Christ’s sheep, one of His lambs: although the image is comforting, sheep are not among the smartest creatures on God’s earth, and they always seem to be being driven to slaughter. If I am a pig, at least I get pearls.)

Blessings

 

[VociMike]

Sorry, I cannot help it – this is garbage. There is no charge of cannibalism: it is – and you must accept this – how it is seen by others of the world’s great religions. Go and ask them. What do you know about the Bhagavad Gita or Vinoba Bhave?

What are you claiming, without much tact, is garbage? That many Protestants (as well as the ancient Romans) charge that the Eucharist is cannibalism? Well, the making of that charge is a simple fact. So explain what it is that you consider garbage.

And as for the Bhagavad Gita or Vinoba Bhave, how did they get into the discussion of transubstantiation?