Transubstantiation

  • Thread starter Thread starter mesl4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LOL. Nice try. Your questions have been answered. Just read the answers given to you and not deviate on minutiae that has nothing to do with the answer given to you.

Well I have to go to Mass and participate in the beautiful miracle of transubstantiation! I will be back and will say a prayer for you emeraldisle out of deep love.

Simple question. Would any answer on here be sufficient for you? :blessyou:
 
Rolltide said:
As you can see, a Biblical interpretation alone doesn’t work in this case, since it is clear that the Bible alone is not sufficient to interpret which way it was meant. (Much like the Trinity, which was only finally settled at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD).

So… can you point to anyone in history who actually believed this? I’ve yet to see a shred of credible evidence from your point of view, other than, “It’s obvious it’s symbolic”. Why? Because you say so? Sorry, I’ll trust 1000 years of the best Christian minds over your opinion (no disrespect intended).
Click to expand...
The highest authority in interpreting Scriptures is God, now the Lord Jesus who is both God and Man has already interpreted His words in John 6 to mean He was speaking in spiritual terms.

Now are you going to believe mens interpretations or the Lord Jesus’ interpretation?

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63

.
 
CentralFLJames said:
This is a prime example of why it is utterly disastrous to one’s salvation to trust one’s eternal soul to private interpretation of scripture.

James
Click to expand...
Instead, you trust the salvation of your eternal soul to strangers who will interpret scripture for you.

That doesn’t sound so great either, now does it?
 
emeraldisle said:
The highest authority in interpreting Scriptures is God, now the Lord Jesus who is both God and Man has already interpreted His words in John 6 to mean He was speaking in spiritual terms.

Now are you going to believe mens interpretations or the Lord Jesus’ interpretation?

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63

.
Click to expand...
You make a good point…I think sometimes Catholics forget that the interpretation of the Bible by the Church is actually the interpretation of fallible men…just like Protestants.

I don’t think it’s written anywhere in the Bible that only the Roman Catholic Church can provide for a correct interpretation of scripture.
 
emeraldisle said:
The highest authority in interpreting Scriptures is God, now the Lord Jesus who is both God and Man has already interpreted His words in John 6 to mean He was speaking in spiritual terms.

Now are you going to believe mens interpretations or the Lord Jesus’ interpretation?

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63

.
Click to expand...
True. But when God’s interpretation is unclear, as it is in this case, we have to refer to those who were taught first and second hand by Jesus, and THEY believed in the Real Presence. Are you saying that Jesus’s apostles were the world’s worst teachers, physically corrupting Christianity for 1500 years? That doesn’t sound like God’s plan to me…
 
onetimeposter said:
You make a good point…I think sometimes Catholics forget that the interpretation of the Church is actually the interpretation of fallible men…just like Protestants.

I don’t think it’s written anywhere in the Bible that only the Roman Catholic Church can provide for a correct interpretation of scripture.
Click to expand...
First, I would disagree with your premise, but that said…

The Catholic Church interprets the scripture as meaning the Real Presence
The Oriental Orthodox Churches interpret the scripture as meaning the Real Presence
The Eastern Orthodox Churches interpret the scripture as meaning the Real Presence
The Lutheran Church interprets the scripture as meaning the Real Presence
Most Anglican Churches interpret the scripture as meaning the Real Presence

Try as hard as I might, I can’t find ANYONE who believed this interpretation until 1500 AD. Why is that?
 
onetimeposter said:
Instead, you trust the salvation of your eternal soul to strangers who will interpret scripture for you.

That doesn’t sound so great either, now does it?
Click to expand...
Thank you. You have just uncovered the fatal flaw in Sola Scriptura, which is that all scripture DOES INDEED need interpreting by man. Therefore, an institution was provided, the Universal (or Catholic) Church, to guarantee that that interpretation was protected by the Holy Spirit.

For example, you would say that it is obvious from scripture that the Trinity exists. Except, that that’s not true. There was a HUGE debate in the early church. Even many high ranking bishops and theologians denied the Trinity, led by the Bishop Arius. And yet, thanks to the Council of Nicea (the interpretation of MEN), we have arrived at the conclusion we have today.

You can’t have it both ways.
 
Rolltide said:
True. But when God’s interpretation is unclear, as it is in this case, we have to refer to those who were taught first and second hand by Jesus, and THEY believed in the Real Presence. Are you saying that Jesus’s apostles were the world’s worst teachers, physically corrupting Christianity for 1500 years? That doesn’t sound like God’s plan to me…
Click to expand...
I don’t think what the apostles said about this matter is as crystal clear as you would like to think.
 
onetimeposter said:
I don’t think what the apostles said about this matter is as crystal clear as you would like to think.
Click to expand...
We have the writings of many of the people that the apostles taught, however, and they all agree on the Real Presence. Why is that?

Did Christianity go off the rails just ONE GENERATION REMOVED from Jesus?
 
onetimeposter said:
I don’t think what the apostles said about this matter is as crystal clear as you would like to think.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Provide evidence from the first centuries of Christianity that people believed in a purely symbolic representation of Communion. No one has given me a single quote yet…
 
emeraldisle said:
According to the reasoning that says it looks like bread, it tastes like bread, it is bread but it’s not bread it’s the Lord Jesus’ flesh one could equally say that Christians look and act like humans and are human but they are really sheep, branches and have a literal spring of water welling up in them. Anything is possible in the “transubstantiation” reasoning!

.
Click to expand...
No, only those things which God wills. Do you deny the Incarnation? By your own logic you should deny it.
 
emeraldisle said:
So you are asking me a question and then you are telling me how to answer the question. 🙂

Context VociMike Context!

.
Click to expand...
Your avoidance of the question speaks volumes. You want to both assert and deny at the same time that Christ’s flesh profits nothing.

It is such a simple question. Does Christ’s flesh profit nothing? That is what you appear to be claiming, over and over. Is that in fact what you are claiming?
 
Rolltide said:
Thank you. You have just uncovered the fatal flaw in Sola Scriptura, which is that all scripture DOES INDEED need interpreting by man. Therefore, an institution was provided, the Universal (or Catholic) Church, to guarantee that that interpretation was protected by the Holy Spirit.

For example, you would say that it is obvious from scripture that the Trinity exists. Except, that that’s not true. There was a HUGE debate in the early church. Even many high ranking bishops and theologians denied the Trinity, led by the Bishop Arius. And yet, thanks to the Council of Nicea (the interpretation of MEN), we have arrived at the conclusion we have today.

You can’t have it both ways.
Click to expand...
I’m just aware that the hierarchy of the Church is made up and was always made up of men. These men historically wielded a lot of power and of course, these men were able to direct the Church and tell the adherents what to believe, think and pray.

The easy Catholic cop out is to say, but Jesus created the Catholic Church, promised it would never fall and gave the forgiveness of sins to Peter and the keys to heaven. Well, there are a lot of people who don’t believe that and allot of people who believe that the Roman Catholic Church has lost Her way.

As I spend more time around here, I notice a certain elitist attitude and an intellectually arrogance about all things Catholic…in relation to transubstantiation, like it or not, a lot of Roman Catholics dont believe in it and allot dont think about it.

I mean think about…the Church is saying that the bread turns into the actual flesh and blood of the Son of God. I mean, do you realize that people should be flocking to Catholic Church`s…the actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ in any Catholic Church, at every mass!!

On another matter, where do priests get the supernatural power to turn bread into the flesh and blood of the Son of God?
 
onetimeposter said:
Instead, you trust the salvation of your eternal soul to strangers who will interpret scripture for you.

That doesn’t sound so great either, now does it?
Click to expand...
Well onetimeposter do you consider the apostles strange men?
I don’t.

Don’t you imagine that the apostles might have a small idea about what they meant when they spoke and wrote scripture? I guess I can see why non-apostolic faiths (e.g. all denominations other than Catholics and Orthodox ) who have absolutely no historical linkage to the apostolic teaching tradition nor historical hand off nor respect the oral tradition and who must rely on 2 levels of translations of scripture would find 2nd hand accounts of what Jesus actually taught perfectly reasonable - even when they contradict the literal text. But what is amazing to me is that the same go out of their way to ignore instruction of what the early church actually believed. What is most strange to me is than non-Catholics could actually believe the conjecture and theories coming out of Luther’s academic theories and speculations when their are much more reliable sources that contradict a modern academic’s mere opinion.

Do you really want to trust your soul to a few men from the 1500’s who never knew Christ nor had a proper teaching of scripture to give you a better truth than the same Church that has possessed it from the very beginning? If you do, I would say that is strange indeed - if not utter insanity. If the latter then there is still hope for salvation by rights of invincible ignorance. But if the prior - most non-Catholic’s salvation is at grave risk .

James
 
Rolltide said:
True. But when God’s interpretation is unclear, as it is in this case, we have to refer to those who were taught first and second hand by Jesus, and THEY believed in the Real Presence. Are you saying that Jesus’s apostles were the world’s worst teachers, physically corrupting Christianity for 1500 years? That doesn’t sound like God’s plan to me…
Click to expand...
The Lord Jesus’ interpretation in John 6 is not unclear. Also no where in the Biblical records, which are infallible does it say that the Christians believed that the bread was the flesh of the Lord Jesus.

Also I say again no where in the Bible does God commanded His children to eat human flesh.

.
 
VociMike said:
Your avoidance of the question speaks volumes. You want to both assert and deny at the same time that Christ’s flesh profits nothing.

It is such a simple question. Does Christ’s flesh profit nothing? That is what you appear to be claiming, over and over. Is that in fact what you are claiming?
Click to expand...
You must interpret the verse in context!

Context VociMike Context!

.
 
onetimeposter said:
I don’t think what the apostles said about this matter is as crystal clear as you would like to think.
Click to expand...
What happens in the early Church when things are not clear? One or more councils are convened to clarify the matter. Councils clarified the nature of Christ. Councils clarified the nature of the Trinity. Councils clarified the canon of scripture. I could go on and on.

So where are the councils that clarified the unclear nature of the Eucharist?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top