Transubstantiation

[VociMike]

You never answer his question, thats why he keeps asking.

Nonsense. The answer to his question is that it is a false question which denies the Incarnation. And I’ve only said that three times now. “Three” does not equal “never”.

 

[mesl4]

For those of you who keep asking what is the Biblical evidence of the Catholic church’s authority, or the apostle’s authority to turn the bread and wine into Jesus, these answers fall best under a “Church Authority” post.
www.catholic.com is very helpful and answers all these questions excellently. On the left of the webpage there are different topics you can look up and read about.
Plus:
www.earlychristianwritings.com has tons of writings (yes, not canon, but great as historical references to see the church authority established by the apostles (and therefore, by Jesus).
Check it out! It’s what’s been very instrumental in my conversion…(Well what do you know, I said I’m converted! Plus, now I"m defending what I used to deny!!) Reading Ignatius and Clement (early bishops of church) were what opened my eyes to the church authority being established. Going to the Bible and re-reading how Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and all authority in heaven was given to him, showed me that yes, Jesus did want a leader/group of leaders here on Earth to help guide things, even though our kingdom is in heaven. It’s great to know he’s left someone here to clarify our confusion. It’s taken me about 6 months of intense study to get to this point so please, take the time to read the Bible about the authority, then the Early Fathers’ writings, and see how it relates to the Catholic Church today. Once you understand that, you know you need to further investigate what they teach because it very well may be God’ plan/authority he’s established. Then we are more open to trying to understand their teachings. Anyway, I’m off on a total tangent here, but it was necessary because of the non-Catholic responses here. I was asking originally for Catholic responses.If you aren’t Catholic and want to know more about how I came to this point, email me! I’d love to help others understand!
Maya

 

[CentralFLJames]

No where in the Bible does it say that the bread is the Lord Jesus’ flesh. However there are plenty of Bible references that clearly state that the bread is in fact bread and that it is eaten in remembrance of the perfect once for all sacrifice of the Lord Jesus.

I never can get over the smug stubbornness or the arrogance and pride of the “new students of scriptures” (Protestants have only been around 500 years) trying to teach the teacher who assembled the bible and taught accurately what it was Jesus, the apostles and The Church has always taught.

I guess you missed the very next verse that tells us definitively that Christ’s body is real food.

John 6:65
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed

Now can you please now kick the “needle” out of the stuck record groove and stop the endless monologue? You really are sounding like a broken record with only 1 track.

Here is more reading for you if you really want the truth. But I don’t think you are here to learn the truth. I think you are here to try and teach error.

All of this bread and wine message is all significant - it comes directly from Jewish religious observance during passover and Seder.

About Bread
Jesus is spiritually present in the Seder bread. It is unleavened, pure as Jesus was pure. It has dark stripes, as His back was striped by Pilate’s scourging. It is pierced, as He was pierced on the Cross. Once it was the bread of life for Israel on the desert, as Jesus is the Jn 6:35 Bread of Life for all mankind. During the Seder, the head of the family takes three pieces of unleavened bread, reminding us of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He breaks in half the second piece, suggesting the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity crucified. He then wraps one of these two pieces, called the afikomen (Hebrew: festival procession), a reminder of Jesus’ constant call, “Follow Me,” in white linen, reminding us of Jesus linen burial cloth, and “buries” or hides it, as Jesus was entombed. Later the youngest at table “resurrects” or finds the afikomen as Jesus rose from the dead. The head of the family then breaks the afikomen and passes it around for all to eat, as Jesus did when He told His apostles, Lk 22:19 “This is My Body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.” In that way, Jesus through the Seder calls us to follow Him into His death and resurrection, to become a new person in Christ.

The unleavened bread also reminds us of the haste with which the Israelites left Egypt. The dough that they were sunbaking on the hot rocks of the Egyptian fields was removed before it could leaven, and so remained flat. It represents our need to remain ever alert and prepared for the day when God calls us to our destiny as Jesus told us, Mt 25:13 “Watch, therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.”

**About Wine **
Jesus is spiritually present in the wine. When the afikomen is broken and passed around for all to eat, Jews drink the third of four cups of wine, called the cup of blessing because it represents the blood of the sacrificed paschal lamb. It is the cup that Jesus gave to His apostles, saying, Lk 22:20 “This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in My Blood.” He did not drink the fourth, the Kalah cup, explaining, Mt 26:29 “I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” But later that evening at Gethsemane, Jesus prayed by moonlight, Mt 26:39 “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me.” After He was captured, Jesus asked Peter, Jn 18:11 “Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given Me?” Many Catholics believe that Jesus drank the last cup on the Cross, Jn 19:29 “They put a sponge full of the vinegar on hyssop and held it to His mouth. When Jesus had received the vinegar, He said, ‘It is finished’; and He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.”

About the significance of Lamb
Pasch or pesach in Hebrew means “he passed over.” The paschal lamb recalls the lamb that was sacrificed that its blood might be daubed on the doorposts of every Jewish home, and its body eaten in every Jewish home, that the angel of death might know it as a household of the faithful and pass over. God had originally commanded Ex 12:6 that the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel kill the paschal lambs. When Solomon built the first Temple, Jewish priests sacrificed the paschal lambs there. But after Jesus ascended to heaven and the second Temple fell never to rise again, the Temple sacrifices could no longer be done, so Jews began to represent the paschal lamb with a lamb’s shank bone.

Jesus is spiritually present in the shank bone of the lamb. The Jews in Egypt ate the paschal lamb to be physically redeemed and led to the promised land of Canaan. Catholics for two thousand years have consumed the Body and Blood of the Lamb of God, Jn 1:29 that we might be spiritually redeemed and find the promised kingdom of heaven.

In the ancient days, when the Jewish priest had killed the last lamb of the Passover, he uttered the Hebrew word Kalah, “it is finished.” Moments before He died on the Cross, Jesus said, Jn 19:30 Kalah (it is finished).

More here: therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html

Do you even read anything we tell you?

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

For those of you who keep asking what is the Biblical evidence of the Catholic church’s authority, or the apostle’s authority to turn the bread and wine into Jesus, these answers fall best under a “Church Authority” post.
www.catholic.com is very helpful and answers all these questions excellently. On the left of the webpage there are different topics you can look up and read about.
Plus:
www.earlychristianwritings.com has tons of writings (yes, not canon, but great as historical references to see the church authority established by the apostles (and therefore, by Jesus).
Check it out! It’s what’s been very instrumental in my conversion…(Well what do you know, I said I’m converted! Plus, now I"m defending what I used to deny!!) Reading Ignatius and Clement (early bishops of church) were what opened my eyes to the church authority being established. Going to the Bible and re-reading how Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and all authority in heaven was given to him, showed me that yes, Jesus did want a leader/group of leaders here on Earth to help guide things, even though our kingdom is in heaven. It’s great to know he’s left someone here to clarify our confusion. It’s taken me about 6 months of intense study to get to this point so please, take the time to read the Bible about the authority, then the Early Fathers’ writings, and see how it relates to the Catholic Church today. Once you understand that, you know you need to further investigate what they teach because it very well may be God’ plan/authority he’s established. Then we are more open to trying to understand their teachings. Anyway, I’m off on a total tangent here, but it was necessary because of the non-Catholic responses here. I was asking originally for Catholic responses.If you aren’t Catholic and want to know more about how I came to this point, email me! I’d love to help others understand!
Maya

Praise be to God Maya - welcome Home brother!

God Bless!
James

 

[onetimeposter]

1. If the bread really is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus…then where does the supernatural power of the priest come from so that he can turn bread into the Son of God?

Answering the question…'the power comes from God ’ doesn’t cut it.

No where in the Bible does it say that mortal priests or mortal men will be able to turn bread into the Son of God.

’ Do this in memory of me’ Certainly does not speak of a supernatural power given to ordained priests.

So, can anyone answer that question? Where does the ability for every Roman Catholic Priest come from, that allows them to turn bread into Jesus Christ’s flesh and blood?

If it’s not in the Bible, Jesus never said it, then clearly ’ someone ’ in the Catholic Church decided that priests have the power to turn bread into Jesus…is that not correct?

I found this…it sure seems like a pretty sound argument.

JOHN 6 VERSES 52 THROUGH 69

This caused the unbelieving Jews to say, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” They are still thinking about physical life and physical bread. Jesus is talking about spiritual life and spiritual bread. He has told them over and over that the work of God is to believe on Him and they repeatedly refuse to believe on Him and persist in seeking physical bread.

In v. 55, Jesus said, “My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” Many people were offended at the thought of what they perceived as cannibalism. Because of their unbelief, they were still thinking in the physical realm.

What about the disciples that left him? Was it because they had to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood? No! They left because they did not believe the claims that Jesus made just like the greedy people who didn’t believe either. Because they did not believe, they could not understand what Jesus was saying (see I Cor 2:14).

In verse 63, Jesus asked the disciples that murmured, “Doth this offend you? It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth (gives life); THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT, and they are life.” He told them plainly that He was not talking literally. He said, "…the words that I speak unto you, THEY ARE SPIRIT.

 

[Rolltide]

Emeraldisle,
It is time for me to bow out of this thread. We have both presented our arguments to mesl4, and she agrees that we have demonstrated that the Catholic position is the most logical. It saddens me that you do not see the logic of our position. Ultimately, the flaw in your analysis was that you were asking us to believe your own personal interpretation of scripture (which is ironic, since you warn us about personal interpretations of scripture). Why should I believe your interpretation over any other person’s interpretation? You failed to back your assertions with a clear argument, simply saying that the Bible was clear and that it was obvious, although you used only a few contested scriptures without much explanation. We utilized dozens of scripture passages, professional historical analysis, and the Early Church Fathers to build a case that was strong. Yes, only the Bible is inerrant, but that doesn’t mean that historical sources should be rejected completely! They can be powerful secondary evidence. Not once did you show a single early Christian that believed your argument. You argued that Paul did, and we argued that he didn’t. That is not proof. If you believe that we were wrong, and you weren’t getting through to us, you would think that you would try to acknowledge our concerns and try to convince us using different angles. Further, if your position is true, there should be SOME early proof, and yet there is not (or, at least, you did not provide any). You are almost never going to convince a Catholic by using the Bible alone, since from the Catholic position, you have no authority to interpret it. You may not care about sources and interpretation outside the Bible, but if you’re ever going to reach anyone who DOES believe in it, you’re going to have to broaden your arguments.

Thank you for an interesting debate, as always. You will be in my prayers.

 

[VociMike]

If it’s not in the Bible, Jesus never said it, then clearly ’ someone ’ in the Catholic Church decided that priests have the power to turn bread into Jesus…is that not correct?

No, this is not correct, and therefore any conclusion that follows from it is also incorrect. “If it’s not in the bible Jesus didn’t say it” is contradicted by common sense and by the bible itself.

 

[onetimeposter]

No, this is not correct, and therefore any conclusion that follows from it is also incorrect. “If it’s not in the bible Jesus didn’t say it” is contradicted by common sense and by the bible itself.

Ok, that’s fine…but who decided that Priests can turn bread into the Son of God’s flesh and blood.

You have completely and utterly avoided my only two questions.

 

[Rolltide]

Here’s a response from Fisheaters.com regarding both where the power of priests to perform transubstantiation comes from and the question by emeraldisle about “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:

**But “the Spirit quickeneth and the flesh profiteth nothing”! **

Some Protestants claim that this part of John 6, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing” proves that Jesus was speaking only symbolically. But how can He mean BOTH

Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

AND

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing

How can both of these verses be true if understood in the sense that Protestants understand them? Is He schizophrenic? A liar? A contradicter of His own words? Did He change His mind in between verses 58 and 63?

Whom was Christ addressing when He spoke those words? That section of the chapter begins (verse 24) with our Lord saying

Amen, amen, I say to you, you seek Me not because you have seen miracles [He had just gotten done feeding the thousands with the five loaves], but because you did eat of the loaves and were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you.

The crowd then goes on to ask for manna – and what did manna do? It physically kept the Israelites alive. It was a non-salvific, non-grace transmitting Heaven-sent bread given for physical sustenance. By saying to His disciples that the “Spirit gives life, the flesh profiteth nothing,” He is not saying the His flesh is not meat indeed (which He DEFINITELY goes on to say); He is admonishing those who only want a bellyful and who think only carnally instead of seeing things spiritually and seeking life everlasting. He is admonishing those who care more for their earthly pleasures than heeding His words, “he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.”

Here is what St. John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople (A.D. 347-407) says about the verse:

Ver. 63. 'It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.' His meaning is, 'Ye must hear spiritually what relateth to Me, for he who heareth carnally is not profiled, nor gathereth any advantage.' [in fact, Paul later says in I Corinthians 11:23-30 that he who eats the Body of Christ without discerning the Body of Christ, he who eats it unworthily, eats damnation on himself. He says that this is the reason why some of the Christians get sick even.]

It was carnal to question how He came down from Heaven, to deem that He was the son of Joseph, to ask, 'How can he give us His flesh to eat?' All this was carnal, when they ought to have understood the matter in a mystical and spiritual sense. 'But,' saith some one, 'how could they understand what the 'eating flesh might mean?' Then it was their duty to wait for the proper time and enquire, and not to abandon Him. 'The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.' That is, they are divine and spiritual, have nothing carnal about them, are not subject to the laws of physical consequence, but are free from any such necessity, are even set above the laws appointed for this world, and have also another and a different meaning.

Now as it, this passage He said 'spirit,' instead of 'spiritual,' so when He speaketh of 'flesh,' He meant not 'carnal things,' but 'carnally hearing,' and alluding at the same time to them, because they ever desired carnal things when they ought to have desired spiritual. For if a man receives them carnally, he profits nothing. 'What then, is not His flesh, flesh?' Most certainly. 'How then saith He, that the flesh profiteth nothing?' He speaketh not of His own flesh, (God forbid!) but of those who received His words in a carnal manner. But what is 'understanding carnally'? It is looking merely to what is before our eyes, without imagining anything beyond. This is understanding carnally.

But we must not judge thus by sight, but must look into all mysteries with the eyes within. This is seeing spiritually. He that eateth not His flesh, and drinketh not His blood, hath no life in him. How then doth 'the flesh profit nothing,' if without it we cannot live?

Seest thou that the words, 'the flesh profiteth nothing,' are spoken not of His own flesh, but of carnal hearing? Ver. 64. 'But there are some of you that believe not.' Again, according to His custom, He addeth weight to His words, by foretelling what would come to pass, and by showing that He spake thus not from desire of honor from them, but because He cared for them. And when He said 'some,' He excepted the disciples. For at first He said, 'Ye have both seen Me, and believe not' (ver. 36); but here, 'There are some of you that believe not.' For He 'knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray Him.

See also What the Earliest Christians Wrote About the Eucharist, and “The Order of Melchisedech,” a sermon by St. Ambrose (A.D. 340-397)

**
But – how can any of this be? We are the priesthood of believers! We can’t possibly need an ordained priesthood to confect the Eucharist!**

Yes! We are members of what Catholics call the “royal priesthood” and what Protestants call “the priesthood of believers,” no doubt. But so were the ancient Israelites:

Exodus 19:6
And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

… and this nation of priests still had their Aaronic priesthood whose members were the only ones allowed to offer certain sacrifices. The Aaronic priesthood was based on genetic succession; it descended from Aaron, through his sons, and their sons after them. The priesthood of the New Covenant, having changed (Hebrews 7:11-12), is based on Apostolic succession, and every validly ordained Catholic priest has been made a priest by the laying on of hands: he has been ordained by a bishop who’s been ordained by a bishop who’s been ordained by a bishop…who, going back two millennia, was ordained by the Apostles who were ordained by Christ.

And if you just can’t stand the idea of hierarchy and think that blurring the distinctions between the royal priesthood and the ordained priesthood is no big deal, consider Jude 1:11 (yup, that’s the New Testament, folks):

Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.

The “issues” with Cain and Balaam are explained in Hebrews 11 and 2 Peter 2, respectively. But who’s this “Korah” and why was Jude “woe-ing” those like him? See Numbers 16:3:

They [Korah and company] gathered together against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, "You take too much upon yourselves, for all the congregation is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?"

Korah et al knew they were part of the common priesthood but wanted more: they wanted the powers of the ordained and got in Moses’ face about it; in their pride, they were offended by the idea of a “priestly class.” Moses challenged them to offer incense to God, as do the priests, the next day. They did. And they died.

Jude has warned you – in the New Testament, after the coming of our Lord Whom many believe didn’t come to fulfill the Law but to destroy it. “Why, we’re under a doctrine of Grace, and in Him there is neither male nor female and such as that, so that means hiearchy and ‘religion’ make no sense. All I need is my Bible and the Holy Spirit to interpret it for me; I don’t need priests!” Not according to Jude. Not according to the very earliest Christians. Think about it.

 

[VociMike]

Ok, that’s fine…but who decided that Priests can turn bread into the Son of God’s flesh and blood.

You have completely and utterly avoided my only two questions.

Incorrect. I have told you that Christ gave the authority to the apostles at the Last Supper, and that the authority is passed on just as every authority of the office of bishop is passed on. So why do you wrongly claim that I have not answered your questions?

You have also been given scriptural evidence, but you reject that as being insufficient. So you reject the testimony of the Church and you reject the scriptural evidence. Sounds like you’re going to arrive at your pre-decided conclusion no matter what.

 

[onetimeposter]

Incorrect. I have told you that Christ gave the authority to the apostles at the Last Supper, and that the authority is passed on just as every authority of the office of bishop is passed on. So why do you wrongly claim that I have not answered your questions?

You have also been given scriptural evidence, but you reject that as being insufficient. So you reject the testimony of the Church and you reject the scriptural evidence. Sounds like you’re going to arrive at your pre-decided conclusion no matter what.

" Do this in memory of me"

That’s the scripture that gives priests the power to turn bread into Jesus?

 

[Rolltide]

" Do this in memory of me"

That’s the scripture that gives priests the power to turn bread into Jesus?

Please see the second half of post 169.

 

[Rolltide]

Onetimeposter,
Here’s some more explanation for you from Catholicbridge.com:
** Keep in mind as you read this, that in the Old Testament, the role of performing sacrifices was granted only to the high priests.

Priesthood in the Bible**

Catholic’s believe there is plenty of scriptural evidence that God has a unique role for ministerial priests in his economy of salvation. The very fact that Jesus came out of the Jewish people indicates that God did not want to throw out the Jewish way of relating to God. If Jewish history, and their ritualistic approach, was unimportant then God could have easily chosen the Moabites, Philistines, or some other non-Jewish race from which to birth the Saviour. God did not want us to completely throw out the Jewish tradition, which is the fountain of our Christian heritage. He wanted us to understand it. The rituals came from God and are written in his Holy Word, the Bible. Obedience to The Law pleased Him. God was angry when they didn’t perform the rituals. He does not want us to rip the first 1200 pages out of our Bibles. He wants us to understand the New Covenant in relation to the Old Covenant. Jesus said “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.” (Mat 5:17) Catholics believe that fulfillment does not mean total abandonment of the old way. God did not want us to destroy the foundation that He built in the Old Testament, and rebuild from scratch. He wanted to complete this structure that he began with his promise to Abraham.

In the Old Covenant, God ordained Aaron, the brother of Moses, to be a priest. (Ex 38:21) He extended the spirit of Moses to seventy wise men and shared among the sons of Aaron the fullness of their father’s Power. That’s why Jesus called the priesthood “Moses Seat” (Mat 23:2) Their ministry passed from generation to generation through the bloodline of Levite family. In a way, they were a prefigurement of the ordained priestly ministry of the New Covenant. The Catechism says:

1544 Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God and men."15 The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, "priest of God Most High," as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique "high priest after the order of Melchizedek";16 "holy, blameless, unstained,"17 "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,"18 that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.

Melchizedek is the only priest of the Old Testament who was not a Levite. He sets the stage for Christ as High Priest.

"Melchizedek brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. He blessed him and ...Abram gave him one-tenth of everything."(Gen 14:18-19)

Right after his blessing upon Abraham, Abraham’s son Isaac was born and God’s promise that he would father a great nation came alive. (Gen 17:2) King David prophesizes Jesus as the new High Priest:

"The Lord said to my lord 'sit at my right hand' . You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek" (Psm 110:1-4)

At the last supper Jesus served bread and wine (the first Mass) just as Melchizedek had done with Abraham (Gen 14:18). He said to the disciples “this is the New Covenant in my blood” (Lk 22:20), signifying, among other things, God’s transfer of Priestly duties from the Levites to Jesus who was the “true priest with the others [disciples] being only his ministers.” (Aquinas, Hebr. 8.4) That night Jesus washed their feet and taught them to be servants in their new ministry. He said “I have set you an example, that you should do as I have done to you.” (Jn 13:15) Catholics believe that night, he conferred the ministry of the new priesthood upon them. He did not do so because the job was too much for him, (as it was when God ordained the Levites to help Moses). Jesus invites them to share this priesthood because of the overabundance of his Graces.

The early Church had central direction evidenced by the way it handled the crisis of faith over circumcision. (Acts 15-16) Paul and Barnabus went to Jerusalem to settle the circumcision issue. “As they (Paul and Timothy) went through the towns they delivered to the believers the rules decided upon by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, and they told them to obey those rules.” (Acts 16:3)

Within a short time, there was a structure to this new ministerial office with bishops, deacons, and priests. (1 Tit 3:1) Peter was it’s head (Mat 16:18, Jn 21:17). It was not haphazard. It was very organized, even though they were often in hiding. The reason they were not in the temple was not because they dishonoured it. It was because they were under persecution. And as soon as the persecution lifted under Constantine, they were able to once again have a “House of God” which they so desperately longed and prayed for where Jesus truly did dwell in the flesh as the Eucharist. The early Church was not, as some believe, a bunch of dislocated cell churches. It is quite easy to trace today’s Catholic clergy back through the generations to this early apostolic priesthood of the first century. A timeline is here.

Catholics think that Jesus is totally into the priesthood. I think many Evangelicals understand this on some level and have attempted to address this by appointing ministers to lead their congregations. Catholics think Scripture and history indicate that Jesus had something a little more formal and empowering in mind. Up until 500 years ago, all Christians agreed on this.

 

[VociMike]

" Do this in memory of me"

That’s the scripture that gives priests the power to turn bread into Jesus?

No, there is no scripture that “gives priests the power to turn bread into Jesus”. What there is is scriptural evidence, not scripturally-derived authority.

Why do you even want scripturally-derived authority if you reject the testimony of the Church. As soon as you reject the testimony of the Church you don’t even have a bible. That’s a fatal flaw that all Protestant denominations paper over, but it’s true nonetheless. You want proof in a book which you cannot possibly demonstrate is inspired by God without the testimony of the Church.

 

[onetimeposter]

…

I understand the belief in transubstantiation…however, it’s still not clear how it is that Catholic Priests possess the power to turn bread into Jesus.

Apostolic succession doesn’t seem to point to the answer…the apostles could carry out miracles, such as healing the sick…yet Catholic Priests can’t miraculously heal the sick…yet we are to believe that they can miraculously turn bread into Jesus Christ, every single time they have a mass?

What apostle is documented having turned a piece of bread into Jesus Christ’s flesh, blood, soul and divinity?

Very clearly, at some point in Church history, someone declared it so…no?

 

[onetimeposter]

No, there is no scripture that “gives priests the power to turn bread into Jesus”. What there is is scriptural evidence, not scripturally-derived authority.

Why do you even want scripturally-derived authority if you reject the testimony of the Church. As soon as you reject the testimony of the Church you don’t even have a bible. That’s a fatal flaw that all Protestant denominations paper over, but it’s true nonetheless. You want proof in a book which you cannot possibly demonstrate is inspired by God without the testimony of the Church.

This makes much more sense to me:
*
“The Bible does not owe its existence to the Catholic Church, but to the authority, power and providence of God.”*

and

The Roman Catholic Church was not fully developed until several hundred years after the New Testament was written. It is not the same institution as disclosed in the New Testament. The New Testament books were written by members of the Lord’s church, but they are not its author. God Himself is the author of the New Testament.

and

If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it?

and lastly

God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His books only on the basis of councils

 

[Rolltide]

Very clearly, at some point in Church history, someone declared it so…no?

Well, the very earliest extra-Biblical evidence for it comes from Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, both of whom were trained and appointed Bishops by Peter and Paul personally. From these documents, we know that the practice was in place no later than 110 AD, just 10 years after the death of St. John. If Jesus didn’t establish it (which Catholics believe he did), then it was established a mere 10 years after the Apostolic age. That’s the second generation of Christianity.

 

[Rolltide]

If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it?

Good lord! There is so much wrong with this statement, it would take a dozen posts to dissect it!

and lastly

God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His books only on the basis of councils

Then how was the canon formed? Why were books like 2 Peter, the Epistle of James, and Revelation still rejected by many in the church as late as the mid-300s AD? Why did some groups continue to use Gnostic Gospels, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache as scripture? What was it necessary to hold the Councils of Carthage, Hippo, and Rome if there wasn’t still debate and need for an ultimate decision upon a canon? Finally, what institution held those councils?

 

[Rolltide]

*If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? *

I will at least address one issue in this post…

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).
**
Priests (presbuteroi)** are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This non-technical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or non-ordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)

Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos (“servant” or “minister”; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle.

Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a “fellow elder,” [1 Pet. 5:1] even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.

The term for bishop, episcopos (“overseer”), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.

Although the terms “bishop,” “priest,” and “deacon” were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.

As the following quotations illustrate, the early Church Fathers recognized all three offices and regarded them as essential to the Church’s structure. Especially significant are the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who traveled from his home city to Rome, where he was executed around A.D. 110. On the way he wrote letters to the churches he passed. Each of these churches possessed the same threefold ministry. Without this threefold ministry, Ignatius said, a group cannot be called a church.

(The quotes are available from the library on the main page of this very site)

 

[Rolltide]

If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it?

To answer the rest of this, go to the front page (Catholic.com) and read some of the excellent tracts provided on the issue. They answer the issue far more thoroughly than I could.