Transubstantiation

[emeraldisle]

Well, here’s something to think about. Obviously, there are two different ways of interpreting this passage - figuratively, and literally. Since it can be debated, shouldn’t we look to the earliest extra-Biblical sources to see how the first and second generation after the Apostles (those trained by them personally) interpreted the passage? I would think that the Early Church Fathers would be incredibly important in this case.

Fortunately, I have provided the appropriate references above. Please read my post above (I apologize for the length) and let me know what you think.

**John 6 - Symbolic or Literal? **

And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. John 6:35

Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.” John 6:53-58

---

Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?” When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? ** 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 6:60-63

.

 

[emeraldisle]

Now you’ve got it!

I know it’s really ridiculous the suggestion that the Lord Jesus gave His disciples His flesh to eat. It’s so obvious that the Lord Jesus gave them bread to eat and this bread symbolized His body.

.

 

[Koopa]

I know it’s really ridiculous the suggestion that the Lord Jesus gave His disciples His flesh to eat. It’s so obvious that the Lord Jesus gave them bread to eat and this bread symbolized His body.

.

Um, no, I’m sorry, that’s not what I meant. I meant that yes, Christ really was giving his disciples his flesh to eat. Sorry for my unclarity.

And your Scripture quotation is what the whole thread has been dealing with.

BTW, where does the name “emeraldisle” come from?

Peace!

 

[CentralFLJames]

I know it’s really ridiculous the suggestion that the Lord Jesus gave His disciples His flesh to eat. It’s so obvious that the Lord Jesus gave them bread to eat and this bread symbolized His body.

.

Ok - now let’s play along like what you say is true. Why is it that Christ would want us to symbolically eat His body? Why didn’t Jesus just go tack a loaf of bread to a cross and have it crucified and say “this is my body which I symbolically lay down for you - but after the leavening cooks it the sun it will rise again symbolically of eternal life”.

Why did Jesus even make ANY allusion to “His Body” at all - real or symbolic? Why do you suppose that Jesus didn’t just simply say “take this bread and eat it - this is a symbol of your new life in me”?

The reason is because Jesus is the LIVING BREAD OF LIFE that comes down from heaven just like the manna from the OT to keep us alive. It is LITERAL spiritual food. It is consuming literally the WORD OF GOD MADE INCARNATE (FLESH) because no life is within you unless one partakes of EVERY WORD THAT COMES FROM GOD’s MOUTH. Since Jesus was the living embodiment of God’s word in the flesh to obey the law we had to eat the whole of THE WORD OF GOD. GOD’s WORD is MORE than just words in scripture. It is SPIRITUALLY ALIVE and perpetual. Salvation is more than just “reading the word” it is absorbing and consuming the whole of God’s word. ONLY JESUS is the WHOLE and COMPLETE word of God. Ergo - we must eat the bread of life and live by every word of God - Jesus, the living word of God, the bread of life.

Can’t you see the connection?

I am curious, do you think your bible a symbol too?

James

 

[Rolltide]

So you are suggesting that the Lord Jesus was actually giving His disciples His flesh to eat??

.

Yes! 100% correct! This is indeed what Catholics believe.

Jesus performed the miracle of Transubstantiation for the first time at the Last Supper. Although the Body and Blood of Christ continued to have the “accidents” of bread and wine (meaning that it kept the physical appearance of bread and wine), it had, in fact, literally changed into His flesh and blood.

 

[mesl4]

Sheesh! I’m coming with a very sincere heart and desperatly want to please the Lord. The whole reason I’m asking my question is because I’m starting to find doubt in the ways of Protestantism/leaving Church Authority. It is very insulting to declare that all Protestants are following Satan’s teachings or however you put it. This is not the best method of winning a soul to The Church. I understand your passion, as I have felt the same toward you Caholics at one point - although never in a demeaning way like you put it. Just as you say I can only think this way because it is what I’ve been fed/trained in , the same is for anyone. You also have been taught the way you believe. Also, I am not a Fundamentalist. I don’t hold strongly to particular views like 7 day creation vs eras,etc. Many things of the Bible I am very open to understanding different interpretations, and feel fine w/not defining things as absolutes, but simply saying that “could be” or “maybe not” " I guess we’ll find out when we meet God" As a matter fact, I find it quite sad that we’ve needed to define so many things that are not clear in the Bible. If we could hold more loose definitions of things, there would not be so many divisions in The Church. Even defining the Trinity is hard to do. None of us really can understand fully our eternal Father and his mysteries. It’s better in my opinion to leave the mysteries mysteries and stay unified as a Church, those that in their heart love Jesus/God, and sincerely want to please him. The sure allows for more unity in the faith.

 

[mesl4]

Look for scriptural support for transubstantiation then, look at Ex. ch. 12. Christ is our pascial sacrifice, is he not. He saves us from eternal death just as the slaughter of the unblemished lamb saved the OT jews from death. In Ex. ch. 12 the lamb must be consumed and any left over must be burnt.

“The flesh counts for nothing” agrument is easily understood. The idea that Christ’s flesh count for nothing is sort of unchristian when you think about it. Christ’s flesh was sacrified so that we might live. If his spirit was all that we needed then he didn’t have to die the horrible death that he did. If his spirit was all that was need then God would have allow that cup to pass from him in the garden.

Bravo! I appreciate your answer that is clear and NOT insulting like some are. This was a very insightful response. Thank you!
Maya

 

[mesl4]

In John 6, some take ‘spirit’ to mean ‘symbolic’.
I’m sure your sentence above wouldn’t be correct if we made the subsitution.

The Trinity is not the Father, Son, and Holy Symbolic.

I think we cannot even fathom the reality of ‘spirit’.
I think our current physical ‘reality’ is but a shadow, a dream compared to the reality we’ll know when we are fully in the spirit in heaven.

I see ‘spirit’ as MORE real than current physicality.

In no way can ‘spirit’ be equated with ‘symbolic’.
Jesus was speaking literally in John 6.

michel

I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you’re saying. Are you pro transubstantiation or against? We don’t think Jesus’ SPirit is symbolic, but that when he says his words are SPirit that means he’s speaking spiritually, not physically/carnally./materialistically. We believe his Spirit is very real, not symbolic and it literally lives in us. What do Catholics believe about this?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Sheesh! I’m coming with a very sincere heart and desperatly want to please the Lord. The whole reason I’m asking my question is because I’m starting to find doubt in the ways of Protestantism/leaving Church Authority. It is very insulting to declare that all Protestants are following Satan’s teachings or however you put it. This is not the best method of winning a soul to The Church. I understand your passion, as I have felt the same toward you Caholics at one point - although never in a demeaning way like you put it. Just as you say I can only think this way because it is what I’ve been fed/trained in , the same is for anyone. You also have been taught the way you believe. Also, I am not a Fundamentalist. I don’t hold strongly to particular views like 7 day creation vs eras,etc. Many things of the Bible I am very open to understanding different interpretations, and feel fine w/not defining things as absolutes, but simply saying that “could be” or “maybe not” " I guess we’ll find out when we meet God" As a matter fact, I find it quite sad that we’ve needed to define so many things that are not clear in the Bible. If we could hold more loose definitions of things, there would not be so many divisions in The Church. Even defining the Trinity is hard to do. None of us really can understand fully our eternal Father and his mysteries. It’s better in my opinion to leave the mysteries mysteries and stay unified as a Church, those that in their heart love Jesus/God, and sincerely want to please him. The sure allows for more unity in the faith.

I understand your perspective. I’ll leave it at that.

The core challenge you are going to face as you go forward in the faith is that in matters of salvation there are definate absolutes - there is correct Apostolic teaching and there is mere fabrication that comes from man. There is no validity to moral relativism just as there is no validity to spiritual relativism. There is only one truth - and some people do not have it. That is inescapable. The Catholic Church teaches absolutes in the areas it knows to be absolute simply because deviation from it is spiritually dangerous and leads to perdition. There is no concept of “unity of faith” between fundamentally different beliefs. The Lord’s supper is not a super-buffet where we are free to pick and chose what appeals to our tastes and traditions. The Catholic Church will never sacrifice truth just for the sake of an artificial unity anymore so that it would sacrifice Christ again on the cross.

I pray that you will come to a true understanding of the faith.

James

 

[mesl4]

I just want to say how the Lord works in mysterious (and very cool I might add) ways. I’ve been wrestling w/this doctrine for days (before I thought it was crazy). I’m very close to accepting it. I find God speaks to me through the radio - crazy as though that sounds. I listen to Catholic Answers on the radio a lot and that station. I got into the car today and turned it on,and they were doing the mass. A few minutes later there was discussion on this very topic! The priest said the word used for “eat” actually means to chew or munch on. Once again, I thanked the Lord for reaching out to me. I can’t escape it. Almost every time I turn on that station, they are answering one of my questions. I think it’s too often to assume it’s coincidence.The thoughts have crossed my mind that it could be Satan trying to deceive me, but with all the praying I’ve been doing (and I admit I even asked Mary and the saints to pray for me! ), it would seem awful to think Satan communicates w/me more than my Father in heaven! I really see how the early fathers viewed it, the Ex 12 chapter, and more. I’m just so afraid that if it’s not true, I will be punished for idolatry! Lord have mercy!

 

[mesl4]

Do you believe Christ’s flesh counted for nothing? If you are a Christian you cannot and do not believe this. So clearly that is not what Christ is saying. Notice that in John 6 Christ speaks of both “my flesh” and “the flesh”. Are they the same thing?

If you want to understand “the spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing” then look at Mt 16:17. Jesus says to Peter "“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.”

Thus, “the flesh” or “flesh and blood” refers to human powers of understanding or intellect. We cannot know the truths of the faith based on our own understanding or intellect. Rather, it requires the grace of God for us to know these things. So when the crowd replied “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” Christ was saying that one cannot understand his saying on their own, but only through the grace of God.

BTW, how many Christians denied the Real Presence before 1500? Catholics didn’t. Eastern Orthodox didn’t. So if the doctrine of the Real Presence is false, how come nobody read John 6 and saw that it was false?

Good point. Still though, what does Jesus mean when he says the flesh counts for nothing? Why does he say this?

 

[mesl4]

but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

.

So do Catholics believe that Christ’s spirit plays a part in our salvation or only his flesh? I thought his work on the cross (his death) and resurrection is what "opened the gates of heaven " for us so by believing that, we are saved because his Spirit comes to indwell us so when we die, we have that spirit that will reconnect w/the Father and bring us to him. Is that what Catholics believe? It sounds like your saying that only by eating his flesh you are saved, but you leave the spirit part out. What is his flesh w/out his spirit?

 

[emeraldisle]

Yes! 100% correct! This is indeed what Catholics believe.

Jesus performed the miracle of Transubstantiation for the first time at the Last Supper. Although the Body and Blood of Christ continued to have the “accidents” of bread and wine (meaning that it kept the physical appearance of bread and wine), it had, in fact, literally changed into His flesh and blood.

So the bread is actually bread i.e. it looks like bread and tastes like bread. But you are suggesting that the bread isn’t really bread because it’s supposed to be the flesh of the Lord Jesus??

Please make your mind up, did the Lord Jesus give His disciples bread to eat or did He give them His flesh to eat?

.

 

[mesl4]

My point is that, if Christ is present (in particular, present in Protestant worship services), then how can “do this in rememberance” possibly be an argument against the Real Presence? It cannot.

Because we believe he’s present in us, not in the bread.Where 2 or 3 are gathered, he’s there. The Bible says that somewhere.

 

[mesl4]

Christ does not always speak figuratively. Where did you ever get that notion? Was he speaking figuratively, for example, when he said that before Abraham was, I am?

I misspoke. I should have said “often speaks figuratively”

 

[emeraldisle]

Why is it that Christ would want us to symbolically eat His body?

Eating the bread = eat His body ???

I am curious, do you think your bible a symbol too?

Christians feed on Gods word but they don’t actually eat their Bibles. So it’s the same with the bread re the Lords supper, the disciples ate bread and not the Lord Jesus’ flesh.

But Jesus answered him, saying, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’” Luke 4:4

.

 

[JonNC]

I hear you Jon but I am not operating to a double standard - really I am not.

I won’t elaborate too greatly more since I don’t want to further derail this thread. But consider how I differ from the behavior of the leadership of the The Lutheran Church. I made a credible charge against one man - Luther. The history and personal life of the man is well documented. However, I did not do what the Lutheran Church et-all has done with letting an ambiguous free standing and unjustifiable charge against “the pope” stand indefinitely with each new pope.

Lutherans tell us they don’t believe any of this “pope is Satan” nonsense and propaganda anymore. That is good - yet the official church cannon still stands. So, since Lutheran’s let the charge still stand from pope to pope in official Lutheran documents that just tells me something ugly about Lutherans. That tells me Lutherans will say and think one thing privately but publicly they will say and believe another thing (officially) altogether. That kind of duplicity brings again into question the validity of the Lutheran religion (and all its down stream derivatives) as “Christian” on that basis alone. Clearly there is no repentance for a clear injustice that could be corrected at anytime. That is most definitely not Christlike. “By their fruits they shall be known”.

James

James,
You are wrong. It is exactly the same. Be that as it may, you may also consider how you have approached the question of the OP, a new member here, as compared to Rolltide. Rolltide’s is a clear, and I might add, convincing explanation on Transubstantiation. Your’s, on the other hand, has been full of polemics. I offer to you that Rolltide presents a much better face on Catholic teaching. If your goal is to turn people away, then you are justified in what you have done here. If, on the other hand, you truly wish to bring people to the CC, I hope you will reconsider your approach.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Sheesh! I’m coming with a very sincere heart and desperatly want to please the Lord. The whole reason I’m asking my question is because I’m starting to find doubt in the ways of Protestantism/leaving Church Authority. It is very insulting to declare that all Protestants are following Satan’s teachings or however you put it. This is not the best method of winning a soul to The Church. I understand your passion, as I have felt the same toward you Caholics at one point - although never in a demeaning way like you put it. Just as you say I can only think this way because it is what I’ve been fed/trained in , the same is for anyone. You also have been taught the way you believe. Also, I am not a Fundamentalist. I don’t hold strongly to particular views like 7 day creation vs eras,etc. Many things of the Bible I am very open to understanding different interpretations, and feel fine w/not defining things as absolutes, but simply saying that “could be” or “maybe not” " I guess we’ll find out when we meet God" As a matter fact, I find it quite sad that we’ve needed to define so many things that are not clear in the Bible. If we could hold more loose definitions of things, there would not be so many divisions in The Church. Even defining the Trinity is hard to do. None of us really can understand fully our eternal Father and his mysteries. It’s better in my opinion to leave the mysteries mysteries and stay unified as a Church, those that in their heart love Jesus/God, and sincerely want to please him. The sure allows for more unity in the faith.

mes14,
There are a lot of wonderful Catholic people here. I encourage you to listen to those that speak with respect, and ignore the rhetoric from the few. If you are truly interested in understanding transubstantiation, listen to those who explain what they believe without bashing others.

Jon

 

[Rolltide]

So the bread is actually bread i.e. it looks like bread and tastes like bread. But you are suggesting that the bread isn’t really bread because it’s supposed to be the flesh of the Lord Jesus??

Not quite… If I’m reading your post right, you’ve presented something similar to the Lutheran position, which is that the bread and wine remain bread and wine, but that Jesus is somehow present “underneath” the substance of the bread and wine. Catholics believe that the bread and wine are physically transformed into the flesh and blood of Jesus, but happen to have the appearance and taste of bread. (This mystery where the Body and Blood retain the physical taste and appearance of bread and wine, although they are not, is called the “accidents”, if you want to do further research.)

Please make your mind up, did the Lord Jesus give His disciples bread to eat or did He give them His flesh to eat?

.

He took bread and wine, and transformed it into his flesh and blood. It only tastes like bread and wine.

 

[Rolltide]

Eating the bread = eat His body ???

Christians feed on Gods word but they don’t actually eat their Bibles.

.

No, but they literally eat the Word… the Word IS Jesus, if I recall correctly.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God…” Substitute “Jesus” for “Word”, and you see that through Transubstantiation, we actually DO, literally feed on God’s Word…