Transubstantiation

[VociMike]

Yet you have not answered his question.

I answered his (her?) question by pointing out that it is a false question and one that denies the Incarnation. I consider that a sufficient answer.

 

[Rolltide]

The Lord Jesus’ interpretation in John 6 is not unclear.

.

It most certainly is unclear, if almost 70% of Christians disagree with you… How is that not unclear?

On another point, since we’ve been talking about “bewaring the interpretations of men”… why would I believe the interpretation of some reformer who spoke about “symbolic communion” just 500 years ago, when no one believed it was symbolic up to that point in time?

 

[CentralFLJames]

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.

Let’s see if we can put you in one camp or another. Are you admitting that The Catholic Church originally had the authority and somehow lost it? If so can you show us in the bible when that occurred? But if you believe that the Catholic Church never had any authority then how do you account for the bible you hold in your hand given that it came directly from Catholic Pope Damasus’ canonization? Every person who subscribes to the words of the bible as being authentic is voting for the legitimacy of the Catholic Church. We thank you for your vote of confidence every time you all quote us scripture…

You painted yourself into a corner my friend.

James

 

[onetimeposter]

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?

All these councils, rules, cannons, encyclicals, dogmas, catechisms, proclamations, papal infallibility…it does seem all so complicated and I do wonder if Christianity was ever meant to be this complicated.

I mean, I always hear about the 33,000 protestant denominations, yet their is endless discussion and debate about all things Catholic. I try to remember that most of the Catholic ways of doing things were created by mortal mens opinions of how things should be done.

 

[onetimeposter]

Let’s see if we can put you in one camp or another. Are you admitting that The Catholic Church originally had the authority and somehow lost it? If so can you show us in the bible when that occurred? If you believe that the Catholic Church never had a pope - how do you account for the bible you hold in your hand given that it came directly from Catholic Pope Damasu’s canonization?

You painted yourself into a corner my friend.

James

Not a corner… it’s called disillusion.

 

[VociMike]

You must interpret the verse in context!

Context VociMike Context!

.

It is such a simple question. Does Christ’s flesh profit nothing. Yes or No? You keep bringing up this verse, and yet when called to defend your apparent interpretation of it you hide behind “context, context!”

 

[onetimeposter]

I answered his (her?) question by pointing out that it is a false question and one that denies the Incarnation. I consider that a sufficient answer.

However, the fact remains, not unlike a politician who avoids a tough question…you did not provide a clear answer.

 

[VociMike]

All these councils, rules, cannons, encyclicals, dogmas, catechisms, proclamations, papal infallibility…it does seem all so complicated and I do wonder if Christianity was ever meant to be this complicated.

But that’s not the issue at hand. I just want to know about the councils that clarified the “unclear” teaching regarding the Eucharist.

I mean, I always hear about the 33,000 protestant denominations, yet their is endless discussion and debate about all things Catholic. I try to remember that most of the Catholic ways of doing things were created by mortal mens opinions of how things should be done.

Endless discussion mostly initiated by those who reject Catholic teaching. Is the Catholic Church to blame for that? Endless discussion that has been answered a million times before, and will be answered a million times more.

 

[Rolltide]

I’m just aware that the hierarchy of the Church is made up and was always made up of men.

Just exactly who is it supposed to be made up of? ALL churches are made up of men, and they all have their interpretations.

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.

As they should, yes.

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.

And there are a lot of sinners within the Catholic Church, yes. We are a Church of sinners. That is why we God created a church and protected it with the Holy Spirit, so that our doctrine would NOT fall to the false interpretations of men. It’s really the only way you can guarantee it. Who’s to say that the reformers who believe that the Catholic Church has lost its way aren’t wrong? The interpretation of men, that’s who.

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.

Yes, this is a big problem within the church. There has been some poor catechesis since Vatican II, and the Church is attempting to correct that. However, humans have free will. I can’t put a gun to your head and make you believe something (nor should I). All I can do is provide the evidence and let you reach the conclusion for yourself. Even then, if you reject it, it doesn’t make you right.

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!!

Indeed, I absolutely agree with you. It’s certainly a big reason I go!

On another matter, where do priests get the supernatural power to turn bread into the flesh and blood of the Son of God?

It was given by Jesus to the Apostles, and granted on down the line through Apostolic Succession.

 

[VociMike]

However, the fact remains, not unlike a politician who avoids a tough question…you did not provide a clear answer.

Fine, you clarify the question and I will provide a “clear” answer. I do not even see a question, only a statement. So formulate the question.

And have the courtesy to not compare me to a politician. That is just snarky.

 

[onetimeposter]

Lets cut to the chase.

The RCC believes that their priests can turn bread into the Son of God.

The believers actually question how is it that people can question this?

You are suggesting that a mortal priest can turn a piece of bread in Jesus Christ’s flesh and blood at every single mass.

Where did this power come from in scripture? The power that says, ’ priest will be able to miraculously turn a piece of bread into the flesh, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

 

[onetimeposter]

It was given by Jesus to the Apostles, and granted on down the line through Apostolic Succession.

Verse and number please.

 

[emeraldisle]

It most certainly is unclear, if almost 70% of Christians disagree with you… How is that not unclear?

On another point, since we’ve been talking about “bewaring the interpretations of men”… why would I believe the interpretation of some reformer who spoke about “symbolic communion” just 500 years ago, when no one believed it was symbolic up to that point in time?

Are you now suggesting that the Lord Jesus made a mistake in His interpretation and how explained it to us? As for your numbers of people argument, well what about all the people who don’t believe the very clear gospel truth. Does this now mean that the gospel isn’t clear or that it isn’t true?

Gods Truth is Truth and it doesn’t change in relation to the numbers of people who don’t believe it or who do believe it.

.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I want to publicly thank JonNC for his Christian charity and maturity in contacting me privately and working with me to resolve our prior conflict. JonNC is a good man and I respect him. We both admit to making some uncharitable comments to each other and harbor no ill will nor grudge against each other.


James

 

[VociMike]

Lets cut to the chase.

The RCC believes that their priests can turn bread into the Son of God.

The believers actually question how is it that people can question this?

You are suggesting that a mortal priest can turn a piece of bread in Jesus Christ’s flesh and blood at every single mass.

It is actually the Holy Spirit who effects the transformation. The words of the Eucharistic Prayer are quite clear on this.

Where did this power come from in scripture? The power that says, ’ priest will be able to miraculously turn a piece of bread into the flesh, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Church teaching, authority and power does not come from scripture. That is a Protestant notion. The authority to confect the Eucharist comes from God, granted through his Church to the Bishops, who in turn delegate the authority to priests under his authority.

 

[VociMike]

Verse and number please.

That is a very Protestant question, and thus flawed at its core. How did that become for you, especially as a Catholic, the sole test of truth?

 

[JonNC]

I want to publicly thank JonNC for his Christian charity and maturity in contacting me privately and working with me to resolve our prior conflict. JonNC is a good man and I respect him. We both admit to making some uncharitable comments to each other and harbor no ill will nor grudge against each other.


James

I thank you, James, for your kind statement. And I ask everyone’s forgiveness for my temporarily hijacking the thread.
Jon

 

[CentralFLJames]

Lets cut to the chase.

The RCC believes that their priests can turn bread into the Son of God.

The believers actually question how is it that people can question this?

You are suggesting that a mortal priest can turn a piece of bread in Jesus Christ’s flesh and blood at every single mass.

Where did this power come from in scripture? The power that says, ’ priest will be able to miraculously turn a piece of bread into the flesh, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Glad you asked:
(a). Jesus Promises His Real Presence in the Eucharist
John 6:4,11-14 - on the eve of the Passover, Jesus performs the miracle of multiplying the loaves. This was prophesied in the Old Testament (e.g., 2 Kings4:43), and foreshadows the infinite heavenly bread which is Him.

Matt. 14:19, 15:36; Mark 6:41, 8:6; Luke 9:16 - these passages are additional accounts of the multiplication miracles. This points to the Eucharist.

Matt. 16:12 - in this verse, Jesus explains His metaphorical use of the term “bread.” In John 6, He eliminates any metaphorical possibilities.

John 6:4 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.

John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times “I AM the bread from heaven.” It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.

John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this “new” bread which must be consumed.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases “real” food and “real” drink use the word “alethes.” “Alethes” means “really” or “truly,” and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus’ flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus’ disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, “Who can ‘listen’ to it (much less understand it)?” To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of “spirit versus flesh” to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still “in the flesh.”

John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where “spirit” means “symbolic.” As we have seen, the use of “spirit” relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.

John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn’t Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn’t Jesus say, “Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!”? Because they understood correctly.

Mark 4:34 - Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meanings of His teachings. He never would have let them go away with a false impression, most especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation.

John 6:37 - Jesus says He would not drive those away from Him. They understood Him correctly but would not believe.

John 3:5,11; Matt. 16:11-12 - here are some examples of Jesus correcting wrong impressions of His teaching. In the Eucharistic discourse, Jesus does not correct the scandalized disciples.

John 6:64,70 - Jesus ties the disbelief in the Real Presence of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist to Judas’ betrayal. Those who don’t believe in this miracle betray Him.

Psalm 27:2; Isa. 9:20; 49:26; Mic. 3:3; 2 Sam. 23:17; Rev. 16:6; 17:6, 16 - to further dispense with the Protestant claim that Jesus was only speaking symbolically, these verses demonstrate that symbolically eating body and blood is always used in a negative context of a physical assault. It always means “destroying an enemy,” not becoming intimately close with him. Thus, if Jesus were speaking symbolically in John 6:51-58, He would be saying to us, “He who reviles or assaults me has eternal life.” This, of course, is absurd.

John 10:7 - Protestants point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, “I am the door.” But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically.

John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, “I am the vine.” Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine. In John 6, Jesus’ disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18 – Jesus says He will not drink of the “fruit of the vine” until He drinks it new in the kingdom. Some Protestants try to use this verse (because Jesus said “fruit of the vine”) to prove the wine cannot be His blood. But the Greek word for fruit is “genneema” which literally means “that which is generated from the vine.” In John 15:1,5 Jesus says “I am the vine.” So “fruit of the vine” can also mean Jesus’ blood. In 1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul also used “bread” and “the body of the Lord” interchangeably in the same sentence. Also, see Matt. 3:7;12:34;23:33 for examples were “genneema” means “birth” or “generation.”

Rom. 14:14-18; 1 Cor. 8:1-13; 1 Tim. 4:3 – Protestants often argue that drinking blood and eating certain sacrificed meats were prohibited in the New Testament, so Jesus would have never commanded us to consume His body and blood. But these verses prove them wrong, showing that Paul taught all foods, even meat offered to idols, strangled, or with blood, could be consumed by the Christian if it didn’t bother the brother’s conscience and were consumed with thanksgiving to God.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says we must become like children, or we will not enter the kingdom of God. We must believe Jesus’ words with child-like faith. Because Jesus says this bread is His flesh, we believe by faith, even though it surpasses our understanding.

Luke 1:37 - with God, nothing is impossible. If we can believe in the incredible reality of the Incarnation, we can certainly believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. God coming to us in elements He created is an extension of the awesome mystery of the Incarnation.

[continued]

James

 

[onetimeposter]

That is a very Protestant question, and thus flawed at its core. How did that become for you, especially as a Catholic, the sole test of truth?

How can we be assured that Priests have the power to change bread into Jesus Christ, flesh, soul, blood and divinity?

If their is no scriptural basis, then it is the work of men who decided one day that priest’s suddenly possess this power…is this not true?

 

[CentralFLJames]

[continued part II from prior]

(b). Jesus Institutes the Eucharist / More Proofs of the Real Presence
Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is “Touto estin to soma mou.” This phraseology means “this is actually” or “this is really” my body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - “touto mou estin to soma.” The statement is “this is really” my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying “this represents (not is) my body and blood.” However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for “represent,” but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for “estin” which means “is.”

Matt. 26:28; Mark. 14:24; Luke 22:20 - Jesus’ use of “poured out” in reference to His blood also emphasizes the reality of its presence.

Exodus 24:8 - Jesus emphasizes the reality of His actual blood being present by using Moses’ statement “blood of the covenant.”

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, “the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ’s body and blood?” Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul’s questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word “koinonia” describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.

1 Cor. 10:18 - in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.

1 Cor. 11:23 - Paul does not explain what he has actually received directly from Christ, except in the case when he teaches about the Eucharist. Here, Paul emphasizes the importance of the Eucharist by telling us he received directly from Jesus instructions on the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the Christian faith.

1 Cor. 11:27-29 - in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

1 Cor. 11:30 - this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin results in actual physical consequences to our bodies.

1 Cor. 11:27-30 - thus, if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of literally murdering the body of Christ, and risking physical consequences to our bodies. This is overwhelming evidence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are unjust penalties if the Eucharist is just a symbol.

Acts 2:42 - from the Church’s inception, apostolic tradition included celebrating the Eucharist (the “breaking of the bread”) to fulfill Jesus’ command “do this in remembrance of me.”

Acts 20:28 - Paul charges the Church elders to “feed” the Church of the Lord, that is, with the flesh and blood of Christ.

Matt. 6:11; Luke 11:3 - in the Our Father, we ask God to give us this day our daily bread, that is the bread of life, Jesus Christ.

Matt. 12:39 – Jesus says no “sign” will be given except the “sign of the prophet Jonah.” While Protestants focus only on the “sign” of the Eucharist, this verse demonstrates that a sign can be followed by the reality (here, Jesus’ resurrection, which is intimately connected to the Eucharist).

Matt. 19:6 - Jesus says a husband and wife become one flesh which is consummated in the life giving union of the marital act. This union of marital love which reflects Christ’s union with the Church is physical, not just spiritual. Thus, when Paul says we are a part of Christ’s body (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23,30-31; Col. 1:18,24), he means that our union with Christ is physical, not just spiritual. But our union with Christ can only be physical if He is actually giving us something physical, that is Himself, which is His body and blood to consume (otherwise it is a mere spiritual union).

Luke 14:15 - blessed is he who eats this bread in the kingdom of God, on earth and in heaven.

Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus commands the apostles to “do this,” that is, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, in remembrance of Him.

Luke 24:26-35 - in the Emmaus road story, Jesus gives a homily on the Scriptures and then follows it with the celebration of the Eucharist. This is the Holy Mass, and the Church has followed this order of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist for 2,000 years.

Luke 24:30-31,35 - Jesus is known only in the breaking of bread. Luke is emphasizing that we only receive the fullness of Jesus by celebrating the Eucharistic feast of His body and blood, which is only offered in its fullness by the Catholic Church.

John 1:14 - literally, this verse teaches that the Word was made flesh and “pitched His tabernacle” among us. The Eucharist, which is the Incarnate Word of God under the appearance of bread, is stored in the tabernacles of Catholic churches around the world.

John 21:15,17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed” His sheep, that is, with the Word of God through preaching and the Eucharist.

Acts 9:4-5; 22:8; 26:14-15 – Jesus asks Saul, “Why are you persecuting me?” when Saul was persecuting the Church. Jesus and the Church are one body (Bridegroom and Bride), and we are one with Jesus through His flesh and blood (the Eucharist).

1 Cor. 12:13 - we “drink” of one Spirit in the Eucharist by consuming the blood of Christ eternally offered to the Father.

Heb. 10:25,29 - these verses allude to the reality that failing to meet together to celebrate the Eucharist is mortal sin. It is profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

Heb. 12:22-23 - the Eucharistic liturgy brings about full union with angels in festal gathering, the just spirits, and God Himself, which takes place in the assembly or “ecclesia” (the Church).

Heb. 12:24 - we couldn’t come to Jesus’ sprinkled blood if it were no longer offered by Jesus to the Father and made present for us.

2 Pet. 1:4 - we partake of His divine nature, most notably through the Eucharist - a sacred family bond where we become one.

Rev. 2:7; 22:14 - we are invited to eat of the tree of life, which is the resurrected flesh of Jesus which, before, hung on the tree.

[continued]

James