You have this assurance…because…The Church told you so and a round and a round we go.
Sorry I can’t come up with a better analogy and of course I don’t need to because I know the Truth that the bread is bread and it’s to be eaten in remembrance of the Lord Jesus’ perfect sacrifice.
Do you understand how unworkable this has proven to be? Can you name even a dozen things that all who read the Bible and draw their own conclusions believe? I assure you, you cannot. It doesn’t work. And so people invent (tradition of men!) some distinction between “essential” and “non-essential” truths, a distinction not found in the bible. And guess what? They don’t even all agree on the “essentials”!
Why would I “remember” something that I knew to be false?
Does the Church teach this? It does not. Your grasp of Catholic teaching is terribly weak. Study up on what the Magisterium is, and on how it speaks without error.
Show me somebody who was not otherwise a heretic who taught that in the 2nd century. The 3rd. The 4th. The 5th. The 6th. The 7th. The 8th. The 9th. The 10th. The 11th. The 12th. The 13th. The 14th. The 15th.
Correct. Because every single person on earth is capable of coming up with their own interpretation, it requires the intervention of the Holy Spirit, or you’d never know who was right. That’s where the authority of the Catholic Church comes in. When the Church as a body rules on a particular interpretation, we can be guaranteed that it is correct because the Holy Spirit has promised His protection. The fact that we keep endlessly arguing the point proves that we need some guarantor of the interpretation.
By reading the posts in this thread which present the Roman Catholic Churches teaching on transubstantiation I get the following ideas;
This is a very good question… and for that matter, what did people do for the first 400 years of Christianity before the Bible was canonized and many books were contested? If you were living around, say, 325 AD, how could you possibly know what to believe? Many books were still contested at that time (although I acknowledge that there was general agreement about the four Gospels and most of Paul’s letters by that time.)
Yes, God is the source of Truth. How is it, though, that so many men, men much closer to the times of Christ and His Apostles, such as St. Ignatius and St. Justin and St. Iraeneus, also searched scripture and found transubstantiation to be true. My question then is, what are the “traditions” St. Paul handed on to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, and Timothy? Also, if the Truth were so self-evident in Scripture, why would the author of 2 Peter warn against private interpretation, and why would so many Protestant denominations hold so many different beliefs. I myself have searched the Scriptures and found, when analyzing the Greek text, transubstantiation is greatly justified. I will continue my prayers for unity.
Apply the same tests to Our Lord Jesus Christ and you will “prove” that he is a human being. Or accept the teaching of the Christian faith that he is God, a Divine Person.
Why not? Do you deny the Incarnation? Do you deny the Resurrection? If you do not deny these things then you know that this consuming of Jesus Christ in no way injures or diminishes him. So I ask again, WHY NOT?
Talk to me again when you understand the term “analogy”.
Of course we are not living in 325 AD, we are living in 2008 AD and we have the Scriptures and no-where in these Scriptures does it say that Christians are to eat the Lord Jesus’ flesh in remembrance of His perfect sacrifice.
Does your bible not have John 6? Does it not have the Last Supper narratives.
Like the Holy Spirit inspired interpretation Paul had. Also what period of the Church was he in?The interpretation that nobody had for the first 15 centuries of Christianity. OK, now I understand.
Oh please. Christ refers to himself as the bread of life. “This bread” refers to Christ, the bread of life.
I will readily admit that this is a good thing.
For the record… In your opinion, where does this belief leave the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, who also believe in Transubstantiation?Why Not?
I, a Roman Catholic, am expected to believe that an ordinary man, an ordained Priest has the supernatural power to turn bread and wine into the flesh and blood of the Son of God, Jesus Christ!
Not only that, but this takes place thousands of times a day, all over the world, on demand!
…but only ordained priests have this supernatural power!
It`s not entirely clear why the Church believes that this power exists, that this power is real and that this power is actually given to the Church…nowhere have I seen instructions left by Christ in how to turn bread into his flesh and blood!
Obviously they all got it wrong for 1500 years. The Protestant claim is nothing if not arrogant.
One could argue the Catholic position is nothing if not controlling.Obviously they all got it wrong for 1500 years. The Protestant claim is nothing if not arrogant.
It’s indeed terrifying that “proper” Christianity virtually completely ceased to be taught just 67 years after the death of Jesus, leaving Europe to languish in heretical belief for a millenium and a half. It’s hard to come to grips with why Jesus would appear and preach his message, only to allow the entirety of his followers to get it so incredibly, dangerously wrong. Thank God for the Reformers! Education must have truly been dire if no one could see the obvious nature of God’s revelation in the Biblical texts.Obviously they all got it wrong for 1500 years. The Protestant claim is nothing if not arrogant.
