Transubstantiation...Your Take?

[mayogirl25]

Careful, don’t leave out the Easter Orthodox or the Oriental churches. Even kindly Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger described the Lutheran Divine Service as ‘salvation granting.’

Hi benjohnson, you sound like a reasonable person. Why don’t you come on over to this side of the fence and beat the rush. Come see what all the “mystery” is about. You might find you like it better. Good talking to you. My best regards.

 

[hn160]

You see no difference between Catholic and Lutheran views! What planet do you live on? Catholics believe that the Body and Blood of Christ is present at a Catholic Mass. That is something not present in a Lutheran service. Big difference. I do agree that Luther got his knickers in a twist that day and went off. But, he left the Church and started his own sect and that is where we are today. You can parse it any way from now until next week but it is what it is.

What planet do you live on? I do believe that the Catholic Church kicked Luther out and had the civil authorities namely Emperor Charles V to name Luther an outlaw of the empire. And besides who are you to deside that the Lutherans do not have Christ’s Body and Blood? You may be surprised when you get to heaven that we do and tha Luther is there too. Maybe you have a direct line to Christ.

 

[Stilldreamn]

Touche! But still splitting hairs. Still at the end of the day only in the Catholic (and Orthodox churches) is Christ truly present at Mass. If you desire Him so, then why not join us and be in Communion with us. It will eventually come to be, why not jump the line and come over now?

I admire your joy and enthusiasm as that is how I feel at our Mass as well. I receive Christ with joy in his Word and the Eucharist. Truly, He meets us, as well as you.

 

[Falco]

it always interested me that when Satanists broke into churches to steal consecrated hosts for nefarious purposes - it was always the Catholic churches, never any other denomination. It would seem that even Satan knows that our Hosts are consecrated and therefore transubstantiated.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Good post. Mayogirl…I think arguing with Lutherans over the Eucharist is like debating how blue the sky is. We both agree with sky is blue. I am more interested in someone who says the sky is purple or green. The majority of Christianity believe in ther RP in the Eucharist. I want a Baptist or Methodist who doesn’t believe that and I want to know why.

Thank you to our Luthern brethen for their post and the belief in the RP!

 

[cajunhillbilly]

As an Anglican my views are not much different from the Lutheran and Catholic views. I agree that it is a Mystery and that Christ is Present in the bread and the wine.

 

[aidanbradypop]

As an Anglican my views are not much different from the Lutheran and Catholic views. I agree that it is a Mystery and that Christ is Present in the bread and the wine.

What took ya so long cajun? lol Thanks for joining in!

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

I can’t speak on behalf of any denomination - only myself, and I’m a mutt - my dad is Christian (Desciples of Christ) and my mom is Roman Catholic. Transubstantiation is one of those things of most organized religions that leaves me scratching my head thinking, really?

Personally, I have always seen communion as a symbolic act of sharing in the body and blood of Christ. Not once have I ever thought that I was actually eating flesh and drinking blood. I agree there are many mysteries about God and the nature of faith, but I don’t see this as one of them. Frankly, it’s issues like this (among many others like confession and the infallibility of the Pope) that resulted in me choosing not to go through confirmation. If it’s a choice between “Believe what we say or else…” (the implication ranging from not belonging to the church to risking my immortal soul to eternal damnation), I’ll go my own way.

Not all Catholics believe in transubstantiation. I watched on one of my favorite historians/authors, Garry Wills, on The Colbert Report on 2/11/13 dispute the subject, stating that Augustine (a 3rd century Catholic - granted, but a valid respectable source) said it was ridiculous to say that we eat God, that we digest God, and excrete God. Wills went on to say that Christ, at the last supper said, “Eat this bread, it is my body”, he didn’t say “take a chunk out of my arm or tap my blood”. No wonder Wills won the Pulitzer with such wit and wisdom like that…

 

[aidanbradypop]

I can’t speak on behalf of any denomination - only myself, and I’m a mutt - my dad is Christian (Desciples of Christ) and my mom is Roman Catholic. Transubstantiation is one of those things of most organized religions that leaves me scratching my head thinking, really?

Personally, I have always seen communion as a symbolic act of sharing in the body and blood of Christ. Not once have I ever thought that I was actually eating flesh and drinking blood. I agree there are many mysteries about God and the nature of faith, but I don’t see this as one of them. Frankly, it’s issues like this (among many others like confession and the infallibility of the Pope) that resulted in me choosing not to go through confirmation. If it’s a choice between “Believe what we say or else…” (the implication ranging from not belonging to the church to risking my immortal soul to eternal damnation), I’ll go my own way.

Not all Catholics believe in transubstantiation. I watched on one of my favorite historians/authors, Garry Wills, on The Colbert Report on 2/11/13 dispute the subject, stating that Augustine (a 3rd century Catholic - granted, but a valid respectable source) said it was ridiculous to say that we eat God, that we digest God, and excrete God. Wills went on to say that Christ, at the last supper said, “Eat this bread, it is my body”, he didn’t say “take a chunk out of my arm or tap my blood”. No wonder Wills won the Pulitzer with such wit and wisdom like that…

The Catholic Church is not the one that said believe what we say or else. It was actually Christ that stated it is His Body and His Blood. Read this and then come back and post your thoughts. scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#eucharist-IIa

 

[SteveVH]

I can’t speak on behalf of any denomination - only myself, and I’m a mutt - my dad is Christian (Desciples of Christ) and my mom is Roman Catholic. Transubstantiation is one of those things of most organized religions that leaves me scratching my head thinking, really?

Personally, I have always seen communion as a symbolic act of sharing in the body and blood of Christ. Not once have I ever thought that I was actually eating flesh and drinking blood. I agree there are many mysteries about God and the nature of faith, but I don’t see this as one of them. Frankly, it’s issues like this (among many others like confession and the infallibility of the Pope) that resulted in me choosing not to go through confirmation. If it’s a choice between “Believe what we say or else…” (the implication ranging from not belonging to the church to risking my immortal soul to eternal damnation), I’ll go my own way.

Have you ever wondered why the Church, from apostolic times until today, has believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, so much so that the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Catholic (including EO) faith? Do you know that there would be no Catholic Church without the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? And if there were no Catholic Church, your ecclesial community would not exist.

Not all Catholics believe in transubstantiation.

So what? If the Church were a democracy this might mean something.

I watched on one of my favorite historians/authors, Garry Wills, on The Colbert Report

The Cobert Report? Really?

Wills went on to say that Christ, at the last supper said, “Eat this bread, it is my body”, he didn’t say “take a chunk out of my arm or tap my blood”. No wonder Wills won the Pulitzer with such wit and wisdom like that…

Wit and wisdom? This guy sounds like an idiot to me. Did he bother finding out that the Church teaches that we recieve Christ’s glorified body and blood. He said “the bread that I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh”. So yes, he was speaking of a future event and was not inviting them to come and gnaw on his arm. But just as God can say “Let there be light, and there was light” he can say “This is my body… This is my blood” and it is.

Willis apparently disregards the plethora of evidence of belief in the real presence found in the writings of the early Church Fathers, rather he would choose an isolated comment from Augustine in a poor attempt to make his point.

 

[smaneck]

Lutherans just go with “is.” Like, This IS my body. It could be transubstantiation, but we just decline to define the actual process.

Now may I have some popcorn too?

Luther’s problem with transsubstantiation is that he was a nominalist who did not accept the distinction between substances and accidents which depend on Aristotelian metaphysics. His position was that the blood and body of Christ were really there, even if the elements did not cease to be bread and wine. For that reason some have called his position co-substantiation but Luther would not have used this term because, as I said, he didn’t accept the distinction between substance and accidents. He did however, accept the “Real Presence” to the extent that he regarded anyone who rejected it as not a true brother in Christ. In his view, if the Real Presence was not possible, then neither was the Incarnation.

 

[smaneck]

I watched on one of my favorite historians/authors, Garry Wills, on The Colbert Report on 2/11/13 dispute the subject, stating that Augustine (a 3rd century Catholic - granted, but a valid respectable source) said it was ridiculous to say that we eat God, that we digest God, and excrete God.

I saw that program too. Wills was basically denying the whole Catholic priesthood.

 

[smaneck]

The majority of Christianity believe in ther RP in the Eucharist. I want a Baptist or Methodist who doesn’t believe that and I want to know why.

Not a Baptist or a Methodist, but this debate really goes back to Zwingli, the first Protestant Reformer to deny the Real Presence. He insisted that the sacrament was symbolic because the Bible said Jesus was now seated at the right hand of the Father. He could not possibly, then be present in bread and the wine. Luther’s position is that if this were the case then the Incarnation would not be possible either since God was still in heaven the whole time.

Calvin, btw, took an intermediate position, that Christ was spiritually present in the Eucharist. As a nominalist this distinction between spiritual and physical would not have made any sense to Luther. I was raised in United Church of Christ and later the Presbyterian Church, both of which grew out of Calvinist tradition. However, this emphasis on the ‘spiritual presence’ seems to have been lost by then because it never occurred to me that communion was anything but symbolic. In fact, I was rather shocked to find out years later that Lutherans believed in the Real Presence.

 

[Indifferently]

Christ is indeed truly present in the Eucharist. He said, ‘This is my body’ and not ‘This is my body in this way’. Those receiving in faith do verily receive Christ in the Eucharist, and those not receiving in faith do not discern the body of the Lord, but do eat and drink damnation to themselves.

It is a very complex matter, but we should simply trust our Lord in what he says and not try to constrain the holy Mystery to worldly and human philosophies like Transubstantiation. Participation in the Holy Sacrament is nothing less than the grace giving act of the whole Church, which is itself the very Body of Christ in which we are incorporate through baptism.

The Eucharist brings us so close to God because we, as an active memorial as members of that one Body, are participants, not just figuratively but really, in the Cross itself. It is a thing of most supreme unity and beauty, which is the centre of the Christian life.

 

[SteveVH]

Christ is indeed truly present in the Eucharist. He said, ‘This is my body’ and not ‘This is my body in this way’. Those receiving in faith do verily receive Christ in the Eucharist, and those not receiving in faith do not discern the body of the Lord, but do eat and drink damnation to themselves.

It is a very complex matter, but we should simply trust our Lord in what he says and not try to constrain the holy Mystery to worldly and human philosophies like Transubstantiation. Participation in the Holy Sacrament is nothing less than the grace giving act of the whole Church, which is itself the very Body of Christ in which we are incorporate through baptism.

The Eucharist brings us so close to God because we, as an active memorial as members of that one Body, are participants, not just figuratively but really, in the Cross itself. It is a thing of most supreme unity and beauty, which is the centre of the Christian life.

As in all Catholic councils, Trent was convened to defend various truths that were being challenged by the so-called “reformers”. It had no choice but to make a definitive statement concerning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In doing so, it had to define how Christ is truly present; that it is in no way just a symbol. I think the Church did a great job in defining it through “transubstantiation”. This does not mean that the Church believes that all will now have a perfect understanding of the Eucharist. We do not believe it because we understand it. We believe it because of the One who told us.

 

[Indifferently]

As in all Catholic councils, Trent was convened to defend various truths that were being challenged by the so-called “reformers”. It had no choice but to make a definitive statement concerning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In doing so, it had to define how Christ is truly present; that it is in no way just a symbol. I think the Church did a great job in defining it through “transubstantiation”. This does not mean that the Church believes that all will now have a perfect understanding of the Eucharist. We do not believe it because we understand it. We believe it because of the One who told us.

Doesn’t Trent also teach that the Mass is a propetiatory sacrifice offered up by Priests to appease the Father?

 

[smaneck]

As in all Catholic councils, Trent was convened to defend various truths that were being challenged by the so-called “reformers”. It had no choice but to make a definitive statement concerning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In doing so, it had to define how Christ is truly present; that it is in no way just a symbol. I think the Church did a great job in defining it through “transubstantiation”.

That was actually done much earlier in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1213.

 

[SteveVH]

That was actually done much earlier in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1213.

Yes, the word had been used before as early as the 11th century, but had not been officially defined until Trent. As is usual, the Church defined what it already believed in the face of heresy.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

The Catholic Church is not the one that said believe what we say or else. It was actually Christ that stated it is His Body and His Blood. Read this and then come back and post your thoughts. scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#eucharist-IIa

You are correct in stating the Catholic Church is not the one that said believe what we say or else. The church, indeed any organized religion, is not one person with a singular mind, speaking for all who associate with said religion.

I did follow the link provided, and peruse the information provided. I must say that it brought back fond memories of people talking to my dad about their opinions and referencing scripture to ‘prove’ their views were correct and any other interpretation must be wrong. My dad is a retired minister with a doctorate in theology. I am, in no way suggesting his advanced education gives anything I have to say any more weight than it deserves, however, I am familiar with scripture and theological debate.

All of the points addressed on the web page reference scripture. If I were to argue my stance in this nature, I would site John 6:63. However, I am simply stating my opinion that was requested in the topic of this thread. I respect the right of anyone else to disagree with my opinion. Peace be with you.

 

[SteveVH]

Doesn’t Trent also teach that the Mass is a propetiatory sacrifice offered up by Priests to appease the Father?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

*"Mass is a truly propitiatory sacrifice, which means that by this oblation “the Lord is appeased, He grants grace and the gift of repentance, and He pardons wrongdoings and sins, even grave ones. For it is one and the same victim. He who now makes the offering through the ministry of priests and he who then offered himself on the cross. The only difference is the manner of offering” (Denzinger 1743).

The Mass cannot be understood apart from Calvary, of which it is a re-presentation, memorial, and effective application of the merits gained by Christ."*

Do you have an issue with this? Did not Christ’s sacrifice satisfy God’s judgment? Is that not what is meant by “redemption”. We offer this one sacrifice of Christ to the Father each and every day in every parish around the world and it is truly a propitiatory sacrifice.