Transubstantiation -- Is it really more than symbolism?

[Blessedwithfive]

I think this comes down to the famous saying that states:

For those with Faith, no explanation is necessary.
For those without Faith, no explanation is possible.

I am not sure who said it but it sums up the concept for me.

 

[JonNC]

When a properly ordained priest consecrates the bread and wine, yes, they then become the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

Protestant ministers are not able to do this, so in a Protestant service, the change, which is called Transubstantiation, does not occur, and it remains merely a symbol.

On the first part, amen.

On the second, certainly the Catholic view. Other views will vary.

 

[grannymh]

I will definitely be reviewing the links that you all have provided in this thread, either tonight or tomorrow. I hope it’s the concrete stuff that I can see or feel.

Post 17 is not a link. However, I hope you review it. Thank you.

 

[JonNC]

=GiftedChildren;14683965]I haven’t gotten a chance to look at the links that you all have provided me – yet. But based on the words alone, I’m still seeing SYMBOLISM.

There’s a frequent reference to John 6, but how about John 4? When he speaks of Living Water, which is later revealed to be the Holy Spirit… we easily see the symbolism.

“Before I drink mere wine with the enthusiasts, I will drink blood with the pope.” - Luther

I, as a non-Catholic, think transub is far more Biblical than a symbolic view. Christ’s common use of metaphors is always phrased as. , " I am the ______." At the Last Supper, He says something quite different. He says, “this is my body.” He holds the bread and says this is me, my body.
This isn’t symbolism. This is a statement of fact.

Perhaps I should’ve changed the thread title to “Can you prove transubstantiation to a scientist / atheist / agnostic / Jew / Muslim / etc.?”

Can you prove the virgin birth, the incarnation, the Trinity, the resurrection?

The real presence- “This is my body .”

Jon

 

[po18guy]

I haven’t gotten a chance to look at the links that you all have provided me – yet. But based on the words alone, I’m still seeing SYMBOLISM.

“Symbolism” is a part of it, but the Holy Eucharist is also what it symbolizes, if you catch the drift. Remember that our Lord spoke the words of consecration at the last supper in the upper room. Read back in John 16:25-33 - Jesus said the words (“This is My Body”, “This is the New Testament in My Blood”) after He had stopped speaking to them in parables. Since He was speaking plainly, how could it be merely symbolic?

Jesus can neither deceive nor be deceived. The man-made idea of symbolism alone appeared nowhere on earth until 1500s Europe. That “alone” should cause you to doubt the reformers’ ideas.

Name anything -anything - that Jesus said that had no substance to it. Symbolic repentance? Nonsense! Symbolic charity? Foolishness! Symbolic love? Insane! Everything Jesus said was real, truthful and substantive. He did not issue double-dog dares.

To find the truth, you must go back before the reformation. It is just that simple.