Transubstantiation of the Eucharist

[Afterburned6387]

First, I’d like to say I do not believe in Transubstantiation, and the reason why is because the entire Eucharist meal is a Passover meal. Jesus says in 1 Cor 11:24-25 to “do this in remembrance of me” Hence the protestant view of symbolism, we do it to remember what Christ did, not to actually eat his flesh. Paul goes on to say:

“For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”

Once again, no “Transubstantiation”

The second problem is this, that in transubstantiation, the Catholic Church claims that the bread and wine have power, and when you eat and drink, you are actually getting atonement for sin, and the spirit of the new covenant. Problem is, Jesus says this:

"And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.” Luke 22:15-16

So, after the Last Supper, when does it find fulfillment?

Next Question, where was Jesus for the 3 days he was dead? One thing we do know is that he wasn’t with God:

“Jesus said, ‘Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father’” John 20:17

What we also know is that he didn’t allow the women to touch him. Why is this? well, in short, he was about to perform the role of High Priest, and to be touched by the women would have rendered him ceremonially unclean. How do we know he was about to do that? Hebrews 8, 9, and 10 indicate that he actually performed the High Priestly duties in a Heavenly realm. After he returned to his disciples, what did he do?

"Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have…
And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence.
Luke 24:39,41-43

The let him TOUCH him, and he ATE. now, after he died, after he came back and appeared to mary magdelene, returned to his fatther, and now appears to his disciples, now he has completed everything.

My point is this:

1. No where in scripture does it indicate a “transubstantiation,” in fact, scripture points to symbolism
2. The reality of what the Eucharist symbolized took place at a different time than the first Eucharist, thereby one is a physical symbol of a spiritual reality that took place at another time.

Glad to have put that to bed!

 

[Church_Militant]

First, I’d like to say I do not believe in Transubstantiation, and the reason why is because the entire Eucharist meal is a Passover meal. Jesus says in 1 Cor 11:24-25 to “do this in remembrance of me” Hence the protestant view of symbolism, we do it to remember what Christ did, not to actually eat his flesh. Paul goes on to say:

“For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”

Once again, no “Transubstantiation”

:dts: The problem here is that you’re right. It IS a Paschal meal. What did John the Baptist say of Jesus? John.1: [29] The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! and [36] and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!”
What happened to the lamb at the Paschal meal?

As for your out of context citation from 1Corinthians 11:23-30, let’s look at that.
[23] For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
[24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
[25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
[26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
[27] Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
[28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
[29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
[30] That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

How can unworthily partaking of a symbol make one guilty of that person’s body and blood. St. Paul doesn’t seem to share your interpretation.

The second problem is this, that in transubstantiation, the Catholic Church claims that the bread and wine have power, and when you eat and drink, you are actually getting atonement for sin, and the spirit of the new covenant. Problem is, Jesus says this:

"And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.” Luke 22:15-16

So, after the Last Supper, when does it find fulfillment?

“Getting atonement for sin?” Can you show me an authentic Catholic document that says that? No, you can’t because that is not what the Catholic teaching is.

Bread and wine have no power…but Christ does.

…My point is this:

1. No where in scripture does it indicate a “transubstantiation,” in fact, scripture points to symbolism

I’m sorry but that is not what my Bible says in context. You have cherry picked verses in an attempt to make a case that does not exist. Paul teaches
transubstantiation in 1st Corinthians 10:16-17 and 11:23-30. Christ Himself taught it at the last supper and especially in the 6th chapter of John.

1. The reality of what the Eucharist symbolized took place at a different time than the first Eucharist, thereby one is a physical symbol of a spiritual reality that took place at another time.

Theological doublespeak for “I don’t want to believe this because it would mean that The Catholics have been right for 2,000 years.”

Glad to have put that to bed!

You wish…

The Eucharist IS Scriptural and Eucharist not a symbol
Enjoy the reading.

 

[Afterburned6387]

First, the Catholic Church as you say it exists has only been around for the last 1200 years (Pseudo-Isidore founded it)

Secondly, the Catholic Church is missing the full profundity of what Christ was saying. In the context of the Passover meal, he was saying, in essence

“Our forefathers have partaken of the passover meal over and over again for the last several hundred years, but now I will tell you its real meaning”

Every old testament tradition, every old testament story finds its fulfillment in Christ

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

Matthew 5:17

Furthermore, my contention is that every passover meal since the exodus, well, actually, every entire passover tradition, of the lamb living with the people, being put to death, blood over the doorway, everything, had to do more with Christ than cursing Pharoah’s son.

Jesus here wasn’t establishing anything new, he was fulfilling the Law.

And as for drinking to your own judgment, even that text is primarily symbolic, because we’re faced with a dilemma with two options in interpreting that passage

1. It really is the body and blood of Christ, but it has no power because of the reasons listed in my last post, it occured at another time
2. It isnt the body of christ, and has no power because of the reasons of my last post

So then the question arises, Why does it need to be the actual body and blood of christ? especially as this would be the only miracle in all of chrisendom where it does not actually change. Jesus didnt turn the essence of water into wine, and then get mad at people for not recognizing the water as wine, why should he do the same with his flesh?

Besides, do you even know what it symbolizes?

Flesh - His flesh broken for atonement of sin to purify us

Blood - To seal the new covenant, and what is the new covenant?

The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."

Hebrews 8:8-12

Sound like the spirit? well thats because it is, thats what the blood symbolizes, the “counselor” we now have in the spirit!

And I am about as fed up with this 2000yrs garbage as I can get. YOU base your “transubstantiation” on the texts of “church fathers” that lived after the last of the apostles had died. They were mere men, and prone to error. If you aren’t Christ or an Apostle, you can be wrong, yes, even for 2000 years

Please, learn about the jewish faith, every one of their traditions comes to fulfillment in Christ, there are so many contexts, and so many more profound truths that can be uncovered in the context of the jewish faith. like matzo, the traditional jewish passover bread…ever seen a piece? its has creases running through it, and holes poked in it. Striped and pierced ring a bell?

 

[Dulcimer]

And I am about as fed up with this 2000yrs garbage as I can get. YOU base your “transubstantiation” on the texts of “church fathers” that lived after the last of the apostles had died. They were mere men, and prone to error. If you aren’t Christ or an Apostle, you can be wrong, yes, even for 2000 years.

Please, learn about the jewish faith, every one of their traditions comes to fulfillment in Christ, there are so many contexts, and so many more profound truths that can be uncovered in the context of the jewish faith. like matzo, the traditional jewish passover bread…ever seen a piece? its has creases running through it, and holes poked in it. Striped and pierced ring a bell?

I’ve attended a Jewish passover, served by a “completed Jew” (a Jewish Christian) who explained all of the various things of the service; what is served food-wise, what is read, what is sung, the questions asked by the eldest, what is done with the Matzo, the significance of the numbers of things (there are 3 Matzo breads in one pouch on the table, the CENTER one is broken between the other…hung between two thieves, anyone?), etc. etc.

It was fascinating!

Also, yes, men have been in error before, and–as posted elsewhere–even Apostles can screw up…Paul scolding Peter anyone? Only Christ is sinless and inerrant.

Just my $.02…

–D <><

 

[Afterburned6387]

Even the order is important, do you not see the fulfillment of “new wine in old wineskins”? You can’t give the spirit to someone who has not been atoned for, hence flesh before blood

“Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”

Matthew 9:17

The RCC is missing out on SO MUCH SYMBOLISM it overlaps, it unfurls in a grand mosaic of the Glory of God…if you let it

 

[VociMike]

First, I’d like to say I do not believe in Transubstantiation, and the reason why is because the entire Eucharist meal is a Passover meal. Jesus says in 1 Cor 11:24-25 to “do this in remembrance of me” Hence the protestant view of symbolism, we do it to remember what Christ did, not to actually eat his flesh.

Why does “do this in remembrance of me” prevent Christ from actually being present. Isn’t Christ present whenever two or three are gathered in his name? Surely Christ is present at your own worship services where you have the Lord’s Supper, isn’t he? I’ve never heard a Protestant use “do this in remembrance of me” to deny that Christ was actually present at their own worship services. They only use it to deny that Christ is present in the manner of the Real Presence. Very selective of them.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Welcome to the forum Afterburned!

Afterburned6387:

this would be the only miracle in all of chrisendom where it does not actually change.

Not so. One example would be when you are baptized you are changed, but there is no visible difference.

Afterburned6387:

Jesus didnt turn the essence of water into wine, and then get mad at people for not recognizing the water as wine, why should he do the same with his flesh?

Perhaps He is calling you to greater faith?Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.” John 20:29
VC

 

[RedSoxFan]

If, as Catholics contend the transubstantiation of the Eucharist is not symbolic, but rather the literal transformation of the host into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, why then can no physical difference be discerned before and after the Priest performs the necessary ritual?

If it is a physical alteration should not that physical alteration be measurable and quantifiable?

I agree with a lot of what has already been posted on this thread in response to your post. I’m just wondering if this is a bigger mystery for you than a virgin becoming pregnant?

 

[VociMike]

Originally Posted by Afterburned6387
this would be the only miracle in all of chrisendom where it does not actually change.

Of course it actually changes! It actually changes from matter to God!

What you mean is that the change is undetectable by physical means. What you mean is that “flesh and blood has not revealed” any change. Yeah, we call that faith. Would physical tests have revealed that Jesus was God Incarnate. Nope. Would physical tests reveal that the books of the bible are inspired by God? Nope. Would physical tests detect who is born again, and who is not. Nope.

But you accept all of these miracles…

 

[Afterburned6387]

Vocimike>And once again, my friend, the key is CONTEXT, that verse you’re referring to, about two or three gathered, has nothing to do with worship services, and everything to do with REBUKE
Deut 19:15 says
“One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses”

So then when we see

"If your brother sins against you,** go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[c] 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be[d]bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.

19"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

In Matthew 8, its clear that referrs to REBUKE, in context

this is probably the most misquoted verse in the bible

As for all the Transubstantiation nonsense, the point I’m trying to make is that IT DOES NOT MATTER, the problem is, the RCC uses it to miss the fullness of the symbology surrounding the Lord’s Supper

Psalm 16:10 says:

“because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay.”

So then I ask, though there are many miracles where there is no physical change, we can see the change through behaviors, and other secondary evidences, but my question is, will the eucharistic bread still mold?**

 

[Verbum_Caro]

my question is, will the eucharistic bread still mold?

Sure. The visible accidents mold. Christ does not mold or corrupt.

God bless you,
VC

(p.s. I should also note that Christ cannot “mold” because He doesn’t have the accidents of bread, in addition to the way you are thinking of it, i.e. Psalm 16)

 

[Church_Militant]

First, the Catholic Church as you say it exists has only been around for the last 1200 years (Pseudo-Isidore founded it)

Please prove this with citations of your sources. I doubt you can.

Secondly, the Catholic Church is missing the full profundity of what Christ was saying. In the context of the Passover meal, he was saying, in essence

“Our forefathers have partaken of the passover meal over and over again for the last several hundred years, but now I will tell you its real meaning”

Every old testament tradition, every old testament story finds its fulfillment in Christ

And Catholics agree with that…

Furthermore, my contention is that every passover meal since the exodus, well, actually, every entire passover tradition, of the lamb living with the people, being put to death, blood over the doorway, everything, had to do more with Christ than cursing Pharoah’s son.

True…where’s that relevant to this discussion?

And as for drinking to your own judgment, even that text is primarily symbolic, because we’re faced with a dilemma with two options in interpreting that passage

1. It really is the body and blood of Christ, but it has no power because of the reasons listed in my last post, it occured at another time

1. It isnt the body of christ, and has no power because of the reasons of my last post

So then the question arises, Why does it need to be the actual body and blood of christ? especially as this would be the only miracle in all of chrisendom where it does not actually change. Jesus didnt turn the essence of water into wine, and then get mad at people for not recognizing the water as wine, why should he do the same with his flesh?

According to the Word of God, your option # 1 is correct. Your opinions and interpretations have yet to align with the Word of God.

Besides, do you even know what it symbolizes?

Oh yes. I assure you that we do…but it is not just a powerless symbol. Not according to the New Testament anyway.

Flesh - His flesh broken for atonement of sin to purify us

Blood - To seal the new covenant, and what is the new covenant?

And yet far more…as stated by the words of Christ Himself, the apostle Paul, and the verifiable historic writings of the early church.

Sound like the spirit? well thats because it is, thats what the blood symbolizes, the “counselor” we now have in the spirit!

This is nothing more than biased interpretation that can only be supported with twisted scriptural citations…

One of the things that most bothers Catholics is not that n-Cs & a-Cs want us to accept a Biblical citation, but that they want us to actually accept their personal (fallible, they even say so) interpretation of them. Catholics have no problems with the Word of God, we do however have problems with the doctrinal interpretations of the modern post reformation step children, most of whom don’t even believe the same things that the reformers did.

And I am about as fed up with this 2000yrs garbage as I can get. YOU base your “transubstantiation” on the texts of “church fathers” that lived after the last of the apostles had died. They were mere men, and prone to error. If you aren’t Christ or an Apostle, you can be wrong, yes, even for 2000 years

That’s kind of too bad though, because, (if you bothered to do the research into the early church) you’d find that what I stated is factual. If you are fed up with that…that’s on you…

Please, learn about the jewish faith, every one of their traditions comes to fulfillment in Christ, there are so many contexts, and so many more profound truths that can be uncovered in the context of the jewish faith. like matzo, the traditional jewish passover bread…ever seen a piece? its has creases running through it, and holes poked in it. Striped and pierced ring a bell?

:yawn: I suspect that if you actually checked it out that you’ll find that we Catholics know a great deal more about that than you do.

The RCC is missing out on SO MUCH SYMBOLISM it overlaps, it unfurls in a grand mosaic of the Glory of God…if you let it

In your opinion…

 

[Afterburned6387]

sounds like someone is just stubborn

And The Decretals Of Isidore (the cited text) is the bases for Papal Authority, and most of Canon law, and yes, it was a forgery, forged in 852AD

 

[Verbum_Caro]

For anyone interested in the False Decretals, This Rock Magazine has a good article: The False Decretals. Also see the Catholic Encyclopedia: False Decretals

No worries there.

But, let’s get back to the topic of this thread shall we? Transubstantiation.

 

[VociMike]

Vocimike>And once again, my friend, the key is CONTEXT, that verse you’re referring to, about two or three gathered, has nothing to do with worship services, and everything to do with REBUKE
Deut 19:15 says
“One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses”

So then when we see

"If your brother sins against you,** go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[c] 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be[d]bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.

19"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

In Matthew 8, its clear that referrs to REBUKE, in context

this is probably the most misquoted verse in the bible
**

So you are claiming that Christ is not present at your worship services? If so, you are a Protestant denomination of one, for I have never heard any non-Catholic Christian ever make such a claim before.

Let’s clarify: Is Christ present at your worship service, at your Lord’s Supper? Yes or No?

 

[Dulcimer]

Of course it actually changes! It actually changes from matter to God!

What you mean is that the change is undetectable by physical means. What you mean is that “flesh and blood has not revealed” any change. Yeah, we call that faith. Would physical tests have revealed that Jesus was God Incarnate. Nope. Would physical tests reveal that the books of the bible are inspired by God? Nope. Would physical tests detect who is born again, and who is not. Nope.

But you accept all of these miracles…

I missed something a few posts ago…Afterburner, you were making a point about Jesus turning water into wine and getting mad at someone for not noticing the change (obviously this did not happen, you were using it as an example).

The miracle of the water to wine was noticeable by ALL. Even the wine master tasted it and praised the couple for saving the best wine to serve last!

When Jesus fed the multitudes, they tasted real bread and real fish.

When he cursed the fig tree, it actually died.

So why, if the miracle of transubstantiation actually takes place do we not see/taste the difference? If it is on a spiritual level only, I can accept that…But if people want to insist that a physical change takes place–in the natural world, not the spiritual–then I’d like some physical evidence.

“Yes yes, please please!”

 

[VociMike]

So why, if the miracle of transubstantiation actually takes place do we not see/taste the difference? If it is on a spiritual level only, I can accept that…But if people want to insist that a physical change takes place–in the natural world, not the spiritual–then I’d like some physical evidence.

Sure, just show us your physical evidence that Jesus was God Incarnate. Just show us your physical evidence of the change when a person is born again.

For people who claim to have faith, all this “prove it, show me the evidence!” talk is sure bewildering. But it fits a pattern I have long noticed, which is that when Protestants argue against Catholicism they often argue exactly like atheists.

 

[Dulcimer]

Sure, just show us your physical evidence that Jesus was God Incarnate. Just show us your physical evidence of the change when a person is born again.

For people who claim to have faith, all this “prove it, show me the evidence!” talk is sure bewildering. But it fits a pattern I have long noticed, which is that when Protestants argue against Catholicism they often argue exactly like atheists.

bewildered

Was Thomas then Protestant/Atheist?

Sorry, I always took Jesus’ response to Thomas as encouraging. He created Thomas, who doubts, and shows him precisely what Thomas’ brain requires to believe. Jesus DOES commend those who did not need this proof, but he doesn’t withhold proof from Thomas.

Please don’t be offended if I am a weaker brother/sister and require more than you do…

 

[Dulcimer]

RE: Things that change but not externally (in reference to Eucharist)…You said:

Not so. One example would be when you are baptized you are changed, but there is no visible difference.

Good point. But isn’t the transformation at Baptism primarily a SPIRITUAL one? If the Eucharist SPIRITUALLY changes (but not physically), then I’m on the same page with you. If it is supposed to PHYSICALLY change, then it should be measurable/quantifiable, just like all of the rest of Jesus’ miracles, which provided ample proof…sometimes with proof left over…

 

[savedsinner]

And I am about as fed up with this 2000yrs garbage as I can get. YOU base your “transubstantiation” on the texts of “church fathers” that lived after the last of the apostles had died. They were mere men, and prone to error. If you aren’t Christ or an Apostle, you can be wrong, yes, even for 2000 years

Why do you assume the only Christ and the Apostles can be protected from teaching error?

First of all, there are church fathers, who were personally taught by the Apostles, who taught the real presence, and fathers who were personally taught by these select fathers who also taught the real presence.
Yes, they could be wrong, but how could they be so wrong so quickly if they were taught personally by the Apostles.

Second of all, if they were wrong, then Christ lied to his followers when he told them that he would send them the Holy Spirit to lead them to all truth, and that he would be with them until the end of time. And we see Paul telling Timothy to pass on to others who will also pass on to others what was passed onto Paul.
This passage seems to me that this passing on would have continued on until at least the Apostolic fathers, who taught about the real presence.

And as for the Transubstantiation of the Eucharist in scripture.

Well, it doesn’t come right out and spell out the doctrine in a clear way. I mean if you don’t believe Jesus when he said this is my body (…“ummm…Jesus why did you say that, I think that you made a mistake, you meant to say ‘this represents my body’ didn’t you”), then the closest I can think of would be in Luke.
**
Luke 24:30-31**
When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight.

Why would they have recognized him in the breaking of the bread, these particular two disciples were not at the last supper?

Why do you reason that Jesus vanished out of their sight right at that very moment? (think about this a little, before giving a glib answer)