Transubstantiation

[Koopa]

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!

I heard a conversion story of someone (Rosalind Moss, maybe?) converting to Catholicism where this person told her Catholic mentor that she finally prayed to Mary the other day, and her mentor replied to no one in particular, “She’s done.” (I probably totally butchered that story )

Anyway, please be assured that it really is God reaching you. Christ never intended to give us a book and then let us run wild with 30,000 interpretations. Wouldn’t God care a little more that people knew the one truth? He does, so He gave us a (visible) Church, too, to guide us. He specifically chose twelve Apostles and gave them special authority (Last Supper- “Do this in remembrance of me”), particularly Peter (keys to the kingdom!). This was on ongoing establishment Christ made. Remember in Acts when they chose a new Apostle to replace Judas? Why would that be necessary if there was to be no figures of authority in His Church? Who are we to question this authority established by Christ?

Well… I totally delved into something off-topic, but it was something I read today in Surprised by Truth 2 and it just made so much sense that I figured I’d share it.

Please do not fear seeking the truth. God would never punish anyone honestly seeking the truth, even if what they were considering was wrong. Put it this way, which seems more perfect of God to do: Give us a symbol of his life being given for us or to actually give his body, blood, soul, and divinity, his very life to us? Once you understand the beauty of Christ’s sacrifice you understand the beauty of the Real Presence.

May God bless you through Mary, Mother of the Eucharist–and our own Mother, too. :heaven:

Peace!

~Prayers attached~

 

[CentralFLJames]

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

Jon, I hope you will consider that your pithy out-of-church pontification comes off sounding flat and looks plain silly while you stand in a Catholic forum wearing Lutheran choir robes. Why even try to project and feign objectivity when its clear you are not? Please note that any assumption of superior moral position in this matter does not convey to you any exemption from the moral consequence of sharing equally in the faults that you judge and subscribe to me; rightly or wrongly (e.g. ‘judge not least ye be so judged’). Nor do your presumptions to self-appoint yourself to an unrequested single-seated custos morum role relieve you from the moral consequences that will quite naturally follow poor judgment. Succinctly said, you attempted peer division and alienation. This only serves to engineer and escalate tensions to others who are not in the conflict you are actively expanding. So unless your actions here are a matter of incompetently executed good intentions you have no justification in elevating yourself in this discussion and offering yourself as a broker of truth by slandering my contributions and making unwarranted comparisons.

I am also suggesting to you that it is not at all very wise to assume a parent-child relationship with an adult who is at least your intellectual peer. The next time you attempt to spank and compel a behavior modification by social alienation you should consider two things: 1) Perhaps fully play out the paternal role you seem to enjoy by first uttering the traditional rhetorical pre-spanking ejaculation - “this is going to hurt me more than it is going to hurt you” and 2) before you try to put somone over your knee fist seriously consider if you really have the competence and wherewithal to not have the roles suddenly reversed, the paddle taken away and the behavior modification reciprocated.

So, since you have intruded into this matter I am going to end this here and now. I will concede one thing. Since you have made yourself a part of this - we are both wrong. There is no need to further entertain by what degree.

My final comment to you on the matter is to say that irrespective of what face you would personally prefer to be painted on the truth, irrespective of your lack of recognition of value I have made some excellent points on the OPs initial question. The most grave problem you have personally is that you can not accept the Catholic dogmatic truth no matter what face is put on it - no matter if its starting you in the face.


Fini.

James

 

[Linda_Marie]

Here is a thread dealing with this subject at depth.
Why did He let them walk away?

The following passage has always resonated with me. Had Jesus been speaking symbolically, at this point He would have told them He was speaking symbolically. He didn’t. He re-iterated his declaration in very strong terms that we have to eat His Body and drink His Blood or we will not have eternal life.

John 6: 52-57
At this the Jews quarrelled among themselves, saying, “How can he give us his flesh to eat” Thereupon Jesus said to them:
“Let me solemnly assure you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. He who feeds* on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood real drink. the man who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the Father who has life sent me and I have life because of the Father, so the man who feeds on me will have life because of me.”

• Note: Feeds: the verb that John uses in these verses is not the regular verb ‘to eat’, but a very realistic verb with a rather crude connotation of ‘munch, gnaw’, giving emphasis to the literal meaning.

Archbishop Wuerl’s Address at Eucharistic Congress

“The Institution of the Holy Eucharist, Gift of God”

QUEBEC CITY, JUNE 16, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Here is the address Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., gave today at the 49th International Eucharistic Congress, which is being held through Sunday in Quebec.

 

[emeraldisle]

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.)

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

Again are you saying the bread is real bread but it’s not really bread because it’s the Lord Jesus’ flesh?? Just like the color black is black but it’s not really black because it’s white??

I prefer to believe what the Lord Jesus said regarding this issue;

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

.

 

[emeraldisle]

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…

Christians feed on the Bible spiritually they don’t eat their Bibles

Like-wise Christians eat the bread to remember the Lord Jesus’ perfect sacrifice on the cross. They don’t eat His flesh to remember His perfect sacrifice on the cross.

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

.

 

[onetimeposter]

You can accept that:

God created the universe from nothing
God sustains all that is by a mere act of his will
God is a Trinity, one God in three Persons
God became Man, truly God and truly Man in the hypostatic union
**
These are things we can’t see, so out senses don’t contradict our faith.**

You cannot accept:

God transforms bread and wine into his Body and Blood to feed us Sacramentally

Sorry, why, exactly can you not accept this?

We can still see that it is bread and wine, so our senses challenge our faith. Why does Jesus have to keep sacrificing himself thousands of time a day in masses?

Wasn’t once enough?

Jesus also called himself a vine and a door. Jesus is not a vine or a physical door.

How did Priests obtain this supernatural power to change bread and wine into Jesus Christs flesh and blood?

 

[Linda_Marie]

I prefer to believe what the Lord Jesus said regarding this issue;

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

.

And what are those words which He just spoke to them that are spirit and life?

“Let me solemnly assure you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood real drink. the man who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the Father who has life sent me and I have life because of the Father, so the man who feeds on me will have life because of me.”
John 6: 53-57

 

[sebestt]

I prefer to follow what Jesus said and what the Apostles, the true disciples and the disciples of the Apostles believed. And they believed that is was the actual body and blood of Jesus. I will take that any day over religions (protestant religions) founded by men. God Bless You emeraldisle in I hope your pursuit of truth. I just said a short prayer for you.

 

[Koopa]

Again are you saying the bread is real bread but it’s not really bread because it’s the Lord Jesus’ flesh?? Just like the color black is black but it’s not really black because it’s white??

I prefer to believe what the Lord Jesus said regarding this issue;

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

.

I don’t think you are understanding his response. After the consecration, the “bread” is NOT real bread, because it is not bread. It is Christ’s flesh (body, blood, soul, and divinity), and only Christ’s flesh (body, blood, soul, and divinity). Just because it looks like bread does not mean that it is bread. And just because Gummy Worms look like worms they are not worms, they are candy.

Of course it is hard to believe; God has to require faith. Don’t you think it’s ridiculous that a person could rise from the dead and fly up to heaven? You would, except that you have faith.

That quote has been dealt with throughout the thread, I think. In my opinion they fully support Christ’s declaration of transubstantiation.

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

Christ was saying that the words he speaks are “spirit”. You think that this means he is saying the words he speaks are “symbolic,” yes? I do not agree. In the first sentence he is saying the (Holy) Spirit gives life but the flesh profits nothing. He is saying to us that we must believe with faith, by the grace of the Holy Spirit (Holy Spirit giving grace = Spirit giving life), because our flesh (senses) will not be able to comprehend this great mystery, it will profit nothing. The words he speaks to you are spirit, they should be grasped by faith (as opposed to the flesh’s senses), and they are life (grace, a doctrine being revealed by God).

If he had meant his words were symbolic with that quote, then no one would have left him. Who would say that this is a hard teaching? What’s so hard about eating a piece of bread symbolizing, Jesus? His disciples understood what he was saying and they left him because of it.

Peace be with you! :bounce:

 

[emeraldisle]

I don’t think you are understanding his response. After the consecration, the “bread” is NOT real bread, because it is not bread. It is Christ’s flesh (body, blood, soul, and divinity), and only Christ’s flesh (body, blood, soul, and divinity). Just because it looks like bread does not mean that it is bread. And just because Gummy Worms look like worms they are not worms, they are candy.

It looks like bread, it tastes like bread, it is bread but it’s not bread it’s the Lord Jesus’ flesh ???

Gummy Worms = bread thats not bread ???

.

 

[Koopa]

We can still see that it is bread and wine, so our senses challenge our faith. Why does Jesus have to keep sacrificing himself thousands of time a day in masses?

Wasn’t once enough?

Jesus also called himself a vine and a door. Jesus is not a vine or a physical door.

How did Priests obtain this supernatural power to change bread and wine into Jesus Christs flesh and blood?

I think the post you quoted had a mistake in it, a typo. I’m pretty sure he meant to say that our senses DO contradict our faith in the supernatural.

Catholic teaching says that each time at mass, we are certainly not sacrificing our Lord again, but rather entering into the one sacrifice that he made 2000 years ago. If it helps, it is kind of like time travel.

When Jesus called himself a vine, did he hold up a vine and say “This is me.”? Or hold a door and say “This is me.”? No, but he did hold up a piece of bread and say “This is [me].” There is a difference in these instances when Christ was calling something himself.

Also notice he said “This is [me].” and not “I am this.”

Priests obtained the power to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist when Christ gave them the power to, saying “Do this in memory of me.” In the same way that he gave Peter the power to bind and loose in earth and have it be bound and loosed in heaven.

God bless you!

 

[sebestt]

I guess it is easy to begin to argue semantics instead of the intent of the words. That is why the man-made tradition of “Sola Scriptura” is in error. I truly believe emeraldisle does not intend to want to discuss the intent but instead try to argue on miniscule issues. Again I am praying for you emeraldisle. God Bless You!

 

[Koopa]

It looks like bread, it tastes like bread, it is bread but it’s not bread it’s the Lord Jesus’ flesh ???

Gummy Worms = bread thats not bread ???

.

OK. Yes, it looks like bread. Yes, it tastes like bread. NO, it is not bread at all. It is the Lord Jesus’ flesh.

Sorry about the gummy worms. I should have put them in a separate paragraph. It was meant to be an example.

Gummy worms LOOK like they are worms. But what they ARE is candy. (One of) our senses deceive us in this matter.

In the same way, the Eucharist LOOKS like it is bread. But what it IS is Christ. (All of) our senses deceive us in this matter.

Thanks!

 

[VociMike]

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

He is saying that those who try and understand God or the teachings of God on their own, outside the grace of God, are doomed to fail. Nobody can understand things such as the Incarnation and the Real Presence and the Trinity on their own, because human intellect is simply not up to the task. It requires the grace of God to accept, if not fully understand, these things.

Now as to why Christ chooses to give himself to us in this manner, it all comes back to the Incarnation. The Word did not just “put on a man suit” 2000 years ago. No, he (and thus God) united fully and forever with his creation and with his people. In the Person of Jesus Christ, God is now and forever fully man as well as fully God. And thus the fullest union of Christ and us on earth must incorporate his entire nature (body, blood and soul, as well as divinity) and our entire nature (body, blood and soul). In the Eucharist this fullest union occurs, each and every day, all about the world. And it occurs in the form of food and drink, sustenance for life, because Christ is our sustenance for eternal life.

When you accept how complete and irrevocable the Incarnation was (is), then the Eucharist makes perfect sense as the always-present union of God Incarnate and his people. Jesus Christ in his fullness calls upon us in our fullness to unite with him as often as we choose - every single day of their lives for priests and other religious, and for many of the faithful as well. It is a gift beyond compare.

 

[emeraldisle]

OK. Yes, it looks like bread. Yes, it tastes like bread. NO, it is not bread at all. It is the Lord Jesus’ flesh.

In the same way, the Eucharist LOOKS like it is bread. But what it IS is Christ. **(All of) our senses deceive us in this matter.
**
Thanks!

Exactly!!!

Much better to believe what the Lord Jesus actually said;

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

Also there is no teaching in the Bible that Gods children should be eating human flesh. That’s why the Lord Jesus said, “The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.”

.

 

[pmoo]

I am thinking of joining Catholicism but can’t fully accept the doctrine of transubstantiation/real presence. I know Catholics use John 6 as evidence, but I see it as evidence against it! Read John 6:63-64, " The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." Catholics say if Jesus were speaking figuratively previously in the chapter he would’ve stopped those that walked away to explain. Well, that’s what he does in verse 63. Can someone explain to me how Catholics interpret that?

I am a recent convert to Catholicism and at first, I was shocked to learn about transubstantiation. However, as I continued through my RCIA classes and learned about apostolicc (sp?) succession and Jesus’ last days and the 40 days he spent with his apostles after his crucifixion. It then all made sense. Plus, I prayed a lot. At first, I watched the priest carefully and imagined Christ literally coming down into the Eucharist. We also learned that Jesus gave this power to his apostles and with apostolic succession, each priest therefore has been given the ability to change the wine and wafer into the body and blood of Christ. For me, Apostolic Succession was the deal-sealer to becoming a Catholic. It just makes sense and is the only religion that makes sense to me as it all started with Christ.

Hopefully I’ve explained it all correctly as I’ve only been a Catholic for 14 months. Good luck to you in your decision. Becoming a Catholic was a life-changing decision for me and my only regret is that I didn’t go it years ago.

 

[VociMike]

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.

Right, but however he is present, “do this in remembrance” cannot be used as proof that he is not present.

 

[onetimeposter]

I prefer to follow what Jesus said and what the Apostles, the true disciples and the disciples of the Apostles believed. And they believed that is was the actual body and blood of Jesus. I will take that any day over religions (protestant religions) founded by men. God Bless You emeraldisle in I hope your pursuit of truth. I just said a short prayer for you.

Don’t forget, all the rules, Biblical interpreations, catechism, moral laws, canons, encyclicals, and dogmas of the Catholic Church are the creations / ideas of men.

 

[onetimeposter]

Priests obtained the power to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist when Christ gave them the power to, saying “Do this in memory of me.” In the same way that he gave Peter the power to bind and loose in earth and have it be bound and loosed in heaven.

God bless you!

Is that the only Biblical support that the church uses to explain how Catholic Priests have the supernatural power to change bread and wine into the flesh and blood of the Son of God?

 

[VociMike]

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

Yes, he certainly does. The examples most often given are the spring of living water, the vine, and the door. And in each of these we can understand that he is speaking figuratively because he also says something about us, about human beings.

We know, for example, that Christians don’t have a literal spring of water welling up inside of them. So we understand this language is figurative. We know that Christians are not literal branches, so we understand this language is figurative. We know that Christians are not literal sheep, so we understand this language is figurative.

But nothing that Christ says regarding the need to eat his flesh and drink his blood tells us something about human beings that we know is not literal. Unlike the living water or the vine or the door, we are given no clue that Christ is speaking figuratively when he speaks of the Eucharist.