Transubstantiation: What changes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Exalt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What do you think working OUT means? it doesn’t mean work FOR it. How do work OUT something you do not possess?
I do not posess the answer for '2 times pi’. If I DID posess the answer, there would be nothing to work out, because I already have worked it out.
 
[BIBLEDRB]Rom 2:2-8[/BIBLEDRB]
You do realize this entire chapter is about the judgement of the Jews?
[BIBLEDRB]2 Cor 5:10 [/BIBLEDRB]
yes, works are judged. But not for salvation.
[BIBLEDRB]2 Cor 11:15[/BIBLEDRB]
Yes, reward or loss is according to works. 1 Cor 3:15
[BIBLEDRB]1 Pet 1:17 [/BIBLEDRB]
yes, works are judged. No one said otherwise. this has nothing to do with salvation.
[BIBLEDRB]Rev 20:12-13[/BIBLEDRB]
The GreatWhite Throne Judgment is not for believers.
[BIBLEDRB]Col 3:24-25[/BIBLEDRB]
No argument there. But keep in mind, eternal life is NOT a reward.

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.

Snipping and clipping verses out of context as you have done is never a good idea.
 
It has already been done here several times.

Given your assurance that transubstantiation is false doctrine, I would assume you would have some scripture that directly contradicts the teaching.

Contrary to your assertion above this would actually disprove transubstantiation.

Since you don’t have any verses that do this I guess that leaves us with the fact that you simply dismiss the doctrine as an error by asserting your personal authority to declare all the verses referring to the Eucharist as metaphorical.

We have many verses in scripture that lead us to believe that these verses should be taken literally.

Do you have any that tell us they should be taken metaphorically?

Your logic seems to be “Jesus has used metaphors therefore anything he has to say should be taken as a metaphor.”

You don’t really mean to make this assertion do you?

Chuck
Also, we have actual quotes from early Church Fathers (Ignatius of Antioch, Clement, Polycarp, Irenaus, etc.), some of whom received their teachings directly from the apostles John, Peter, Paul stating that the bread and wine truly becomes Christ’s body and blood. Nowhere, however, do we hear of an early Church Father stating no, the bread and wine are only symbolic,or spiritual, of Christ’s body and blood.
 
Why would you presume to think God’s grace equate sinlessness? Paul knew he was a sinner, the CHIEF of sinners at that.

If we say we have no sin, we decieve ourselves and the truth is not in us.
That’s sort of the point of the question. If St. Paul had been completely saved (assuming here we mean saved from sin), he would no longer sin at all. Committing a sin is proof that you aren’t, at that moment, saved from it, since it is visibly obvious at that point that you’ve committed it. Much in the same way, being bitten by a Tiger is evidence that you haven’t been completely saved from that Tiger. At the very least its evidence that you need to be saved from it again, since you decided once again to approach it–bad idea, by the way.
 
So are you, then, saying that God respects our free will so much that he will not stop you from sinning even though you consider yourself saved?
Have you stopped sinning? Do you know anyone that does not sin? If your answer is no, then you are suggesting that there is no person on this earth that is saved.
 
Also, we have actual quotes from early Church Fathers (Ignatius of Antioch, Clement, Polycarp, Irenaus, etc.), some of whom received their teachings directly from the apostles John, Peter, Paul stating that the bread and wine truly becomes Christ’s body and blood. Nowhere, however, do we hear of an early Church Father stating no, the bread and wine are only symbolic,or spiritual, of Christ’s body and blood.
And we have quotes from Our Lord! 😃

byfaithalone is very ignorant of Scripture to make such a FALSE claim that there is no real presence. Jesus says THIS IS! Was the bread and wine always??? NO. HE consecrated it! and HE said for his apostles to DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME!!

Matthew 26:26-28
“And as they were eating, Jesus took
bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and
gave it to the disciples, and said, Take,
eat; this is my body. And he took the cup,
and gave thanks, and gave it to them,
saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my
blood of the new testamen
t, which is
shed for many for the remission of sins.”

Mark 14:22,24
“And as they did eat, Jesus took bread,
and blessed, and brake it, and gave to
them, and said, Take, eat: this is my
bod
y…And he said unto them, This is
my blood of the new testament
, which is
shed for many.”

Luke 22:19-20
“And he took bread, and gave thanks,
and brake it, and gave unto them,
saying, This is my body which is given
for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Likewise also the cup after supper,
saying, This cup is the new testament in
my blood
, which is shed for you.”

Luke 24:30-31,35
“And it came to pass, as he sat at meat
with them, he took bread, and blessed
it, and brake, and gave to them. And
their eyes were opened, and they knew
him
; and he vanished out of their
sight…And they told what things were
done in the way, and how he was known
of them in breaking of bread.”
 
That’s sort of the point of the question. If St. Paul had been completely saved (assuming here we mean saved from sin), he would no longer sin at all. Committing a sin is proof that you aren’t, at that moment, saved from it, since it is visibly obvious at that point that you’ve committed it. Much in the same way, being bitten by a Tiger is evidence that you haven’t been completely saved from that Tiger. At the very least its evidence that you need to be saved from it again, since you decided once again to approach it–bad idea, by the way.
Thank you very much.
 
Have you stopped sinning? Do you know anyone that does not sin? If your answer is no, then you are suggesting that there is no person on this earth that is saved.
I am not suggesting it. I am telling you that, in fact, there is no one on this earth who is saved. Again, we will not know our destiny until we are judged by God. That will occur the split second after we croak. Get it?
 
You do realize this entire chapter is about the judgement of the Jews?
[BIBLEDRB]Galatians 3:28[/BIBLEDRB]
yes, works are judged. But not for salvation. Yes, reward or loss is according to works. 1 Cor 3:15 yes, works are judged. No one said otherwise. this has nothing to do with salvation.
Says who? Tim LaHaye?
The GreatWhite Throne Judgment is not for believers.
Says who? What part of “all men” is there not to understand?
No argument there. But keep in mind, eternal life is NOT a reward.
Says who? Not Jesus Christ.
[BIBLEDRB]Mark 10:24-30[/BIBLEDRB]
 
[BIBLEDRB]Galatians 3:28[/BIBLEDRB]
Nice verse. But Romans 2 is addressing the Jews under the law who thought they were above judgment.
Says who? Tim LaHaye?
Care to refute me?
Says who? What part of “all men” is there not to understand?
You aren’t well verses in the book of Revelation are you? Rev. 20 takes place AFTER the marriage supper of the Lamb.
Says who? Not Jesus Christ.
Yes.

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6
 
(1) Episcopalians and Lutherans tends to have a higher view of communion. Lutherans historically have spoken of consubstantiation, that Christ exists in the sacrament but that it does not change. Don’t ask me for clarification as I haven’t comprehended it entirely. High church Anglicans come close to the Catholic position.
I am also no expert, but from what I understand, in “consubstantiation” they believe the presence is real, but that it leaves the materials at the conclusion of the liturgy, and returns to it’s original form. (very simplistically stated on my part, so expert explanation is welcomed). I think there are some Priests in the Anglican Church who are ordained by Catholic Apostolically succeeded Bishops, and therefore are part of an unbroken line in Holy Orders, and if those priests used the liturgical rite and intent of confecting the Holy Eucharist in Persona Christi, then it may be that they DO have transubstantiation, AND believe it. I just don’t know. Can an Anglican pipe in on this?)
(2) Many mainline Protestants emphasize that communon is important, that Christ is in reality present as he promised (‘lo, I am with you always’), but that the sacrament is a remembrance of his death and resurrection without any change in the elements of communion. Christ would be present with or without communion.
In a symbolic ceremony, they are correct, in that transubstantiation does not occur. due to lack of liturgical eucharistic formula, intent, or validly ordained priests in persona Christi to confect and celebrate.
(3) Those who put less emphasis on the sacramental aspect of communion may see it mainly as a celebration of community, and suggest that what change may occur is not in the cup and bread but can come within the communicants themselves. Communion is seen as a symbolic and fellowship (communual) meal since we cannot all dine with with one another at our homes and such.
Once again correct. Anything other than the liturgical formula by a validly ordained priest will not yield a result of transubstantiation, and the bread and wine do not become the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord and savior.
I find that many Catholics revere the Eucharist as though it is an abode of Christ, deserving, for example, of perpetual adoration
This is a fact. All should. It is the our faith.
On the other hand, I saw a poll in the US Catholicmagazine that 43% of American Catholics reject transubstantiation. Are these excommunicating themselves because of their refusal to accept official doctine?
I’ve never seen this statistic, but it wouldn’t surprise me sadly in this age of cafeteria Catholicism. I’m not an expert in canon law, but I would think that it depends on their level of innocence and ignorance due to bad catechesis, and their level of conscious cooperation, but St. Paul reminds us that “he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord”, so it’s not just a shame, but a bit of a frightening shame which we must all pray to change, who love our brothers and sisters.

May God bless, keep and save us always
 
I am not suggesting it. I am telling you that, in fact, there is no one on this earth who is saved. Again, we will not know our destiny until we are judged by God. That will occur the split second after we croak. Get it?
Whoever believes in Me HAS eternal life. I guess Jesus has no idea what He is talking about does He?

Go in Peace. Your faith has saved you. Luke 7:50 She’s alive and well, walking the earth SAVED.
 
That’s sort of the point of the question. If St. Paul had been completely saved (assuming here we mean saved from sin), he would no longer sin at all.
Says who? Where is it stated and taught in Scripture that the saved are sinless?
Committing a sin is proof that you aren’t, at that moment, saved from it, since it is visibly obvious at that point that you’ve committed it.
Wrong. We sin because we are sinners. Salvation doesn’t change that fact, it changes us to where we no longer want to fulfill the desires of the flesh, but strive to walk in the Spirit.
 
I am not suggesting it. I am telling you that, in fact, there is no one on this earth who is saved. Again, we will not know our destiny until we are judged by God. That will occur the split second after we croak. Get it?
As Catholics we can say we HAVE been saved (baptism), we are CURRENTLY being saved (the sacraments, avoiding mortal sin, grace), and by living Christ’s laws and commandments, we HOPE to be saved at our judgement.

But you can’t guarantee you’ve been saved. Live a life of unrepentant sin and your still guaranteed salvation because you’ve proclaimed “Jesus is Lord?” This is where “faith and reason” come in to play. Christ did say “Not all those that say ‘Lord, Lord’ will inherit the Kingdom of God.” Looks to me that this is possibly focused towards the “once saved, always saved” crowd. You can lose your salvation.
 
Nice verse. But Romans 2 is addressing the Jews under the law who thought they were above judgment.
[BIBLEDRB]Romans 2:10[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 12:13[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Colossians 3:11[/BIBLEDRB]
You aren’t well verses in the book of Revelation are you? Rev. 20 takes place AFTER the marriage supper of the Lamb.
What makes you think that Revelation is in chronological order? Why is the birth of Jesus (Ch12) depicted as being after the Lamb is shown reigning?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top