Transubstantiation?

[mercygate]

Well as far not explaining away the Bread and Wine when Jesus said this is my body this IS my blood, he was standing there holding the bread and wine with he body, it is a mystery how the bread was his body at that moment considering he was still standing there with his body…

Yes! This is a great mystery, and the ECFs treated of it because it was a mystery. Augustine says that Our Lord held his own Body in His own hands.

My point is the bread and wine doesn’t have to stop being in order for Christ to be truly present, and we don’t have to ,nor should we, try to figure out how he is present just know that he is present,
to quote C.S. Lewis *“Christ said “take and eat” not take and understand.” *

Actually, we didn’t “have to” figure this out until theological controversies arose that made it necessary. Honest. The Church generally does not declare dogmas if they can be quietly let lie. We may have lost sight of the problem because 700 years have passed since the definition but that does not mean that it was not necessary to nail it down.

 

[JTBT]

Yes! This is a great mystery, and the ECFs treated of it because it was a mystery. Augustine says that Our Lord held his own Body in His own hands.

Actually, we didn’t “have to” figure this out until theological controversies arose that made it necessary. Honest. The Church generally does not declare dogmas if they can be quietly let lie. We may have lost sight of the problem because 700 years have passed since the definition but that does not mean that it was not necessary to nail it down.

not even willing to admit that Catholic’s might have made a mistake huh?

 

[VociMike]

not even willing to admit that Catholic’s might have made a mistake huh?

In that case, maybe Catholics also made a mistake in declaring Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as inspired scripture. Now where do you go?

 

[Popes_Soldier]

not even willing to admit that Catholic’s might have made a mistake huh?

Not possible. The Church’s Magisterium is infallibe in matters of faith and morals

 

[mercygate]

not even willing to admit that Catholic’s might have made a mistake huh?

No. It is the refinement of a belief held without challenge from the earliest days of the Church. The fact that particiular history compelled a tighter definition that was required in the fourth century does not make the definition a “mistake.”

 

[mercygate]

not even willing to admit that Catholic’s might have made a mistake huh?

No. It is the refinement of a belief held without challenge from the earliest days of the Church. The fact that particiular history compelled a tighter definition that was required in the fourth century does not make the later definition a “mistake.”

The principle of non-contradiction holds that two things cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. So “this” is either “substantially” bread or it is “substantially” the Body of Christ. If “this” “is” His Body, then it is substantially Christ’s Body and not substantially bread. Sounds a lot like transubstantiation to me.

As a matter of fact, while the Eastern Orthodox do not define the mystery, theoretically there would be absolutely no reason in the world that an Orthodox Christian might not privately choose to understand the Presence as transubstantiation.

 

[JTBT]

In that case, maybe Catholics also made a mistake in declaring Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as inspired scripture. Now where do you go?

I don’t need the Church of Rome to tell me that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are inspired scripture.

 

[JTBT]

Not possible. The Church’s Magisterium is infallibe in matters of faith and morals

now here is where we have a huge difference of opinion, that I don’t even think is worth going into because you will not change my mind and I doubt I will change yours.

 

[JTBT]

The principle of non-contradiction holds that two things cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. So “this” is either “substantially” bread or it is “substantially” the Body of Christ. If “this” “is” His Body, then it is substantially Christ’s Body and not substantially bread. Sounds a lot like transubstantiation to me.

so are you saying that Jesus cannot be both God and Man?

 

[Church_Militant]

I don’t need the Church of Rome

to tell me that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are inspired scripture.Y’know, if you want to discuss our faith, then it would behoove you to drop the pejoratives like that.

The fact is that you do indeed need the Catholic Church to tell you what books of the Word of God are inspired and which are not.

You cannot find a single source in the early church that was not Catholic in both name and belief who spoke out on the canon of scripture.

The problem here is that you have nothing to base your belief that your particular version of the Canon is inspired. The early church did indeed have to discern what writings were authentically Christian and which were inspired. If they had not, you might still be trying to discern your way through the Gnostic gospels and other apocryphal works.

You are apparently somewhat ignorant of the history of the Word of God and the Christian faith. If you weren’t, you’d know that the church, (yes…the Catholic Church!) discussed this for quite some time and it was finally decided in the councils of Hippo and Carthage and the matter closed in 382 by the then serving Pope.
newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Here’s a list of those who verifiably discussed the canon.

Mileto, Bishop of Sardis, c 175

St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, 185

Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, c 325

Pope Damasus in 382 prompted by the Council of Rome, wrote a decree listing the present 73 book canon.

Council of Hippo in 393 concurred with Damasus.

Council of Hippo in 397 concurred with Damasus and is the council that most Protestants take as the authority for the NT canon.

Pope St Innocent I in 405 approved the 73 book canon and closed the issue in a decree to the bishop of Toulouse.

In 419 the 2nd Council of Carthage affirmed that decree again.

In 1441 the ecumenical Council of Florence formally defined that same 73 book canon.

In 1546 the ecumenical Council of Trent formally defined that same 73 book canon in response to the errors of Martin Luther and the reformers.

 

[Church_Militant]

so are you saying that Jesus cannot be both God and Man?

[SIGN1]Obtuseness alert!!![/SIGN1]

 

[mercygate]

so are you saying that Jesus cannot be both God and Man?

Good question! Touche.

But wait! We do say that the bread and wine are “accidentally” [in form] still present. But no longer substantially present.

How would your formulation of the Real Presence be defined? Keep in mind the problems posed by the Lutheran model in which Christ vanishes when the congregation leaves the room.

 

[mercygate]

[sign1]Obtuseness alert!!![/sign1]

I think it’s a legitimate question and deserves a better answer than I can give. Believe me, I know that this has been thought through up one side and down the other by better minds than mine and that there IS an answer. But the whole issue is “obtuse,” not just this question.

 

[JTBT]

How would your formulation of the Real Presence be defined?

it wouldn’t.
It IS just something you can accept after studying Scripture, and Tradition, like the Virgin Birth… people deny that but I don’t think anyone has gone to great lengths to say HOW it happened, other than to say it was God’s work.

 

[JTBT]

Y’know, if you want to discuss our faith, then it would behoove you to drop the pejoratives like that.
FONT]

it is true that I should not return evil for evil but return evil with good, I was offended by one posters comment so I offended the board and that wasn’t right.so to all the Catholics on the Board I Apologize,

 

[VociMike]

I don’t need the Church of Rome to tell me that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are inspired scripture.

Actually you do, you just reject that reality. But if you’d like to explain by what authority you are certain that the gospels are inspired scripture, but the gospel of Thomas is not, then go ahead. It will make an interesting thread, I assure you.

 

[savedsinner]

I don’t need the Church of Rome to tell me that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are inspired scripture.

Then how do you know for certain that all of the books included in your New Testament are inspired of God.

If you are going to use it as your sole source of authority for faith and morals, shouldn’t you be certain that the books in your bible are in fact inspired by God?

Could I view the Didache or 1 Clement as inspired by God if the Holy Spirit leads me to that decision.

Here is a link which shows a chart of what books of books which were accepted and rejected as being inspired in the early church. Not all of them agree of which books were inspired.

Could I view the Didache or 1 Clement as inspired if the Holy Spirit leads me to that decision.


The Development of the Canon of the New Testament

 

[Verbum_Caro]

so are you saying that Jesus cannot be both God and Man?

JTBT,

If this is an objection to transubstantiation, you *really *need to flesh this out more for it to make any sense.

Yes, **Jesus **is both God and Man.
**What **is both bread and Jesus?

VC

 

[maryj]

Most of the errors coming out of Protestantism are all similar in form. One of these errors is a consistent and arbitrary pattern of embracing “either/or” thinking and interpretation. But actions in scripture are rarely an either/or thing. Scripture is timeless and integrates old with new in a seamless way and nearly always relates to multiple things to cross ratify scripture. There are also many core beliefs in Protestantism that arise from simple fallacies in reason and logic that all come from secular perspectives - usually of the form “anti-authority” which is literally the spirit of the age. This is why having the linkage to apostolic teaching is necessary in this modern time to get a contextual link.

So here one really must consider that the the actions of the last supper are not an either/or thing. The events in the upper room and on the cross are a remembrance - but not JUST a remembrance. It is a new covenant but its not JUST a new covenant - nor is it consummated until He drinks the 4th Seder cup and proclaims “it is consummated” or “it is finished”. YES, it IS all thee things BUT its ALSO SIMULTANIOUSLY real presence of Christ through body, blood, soul and divinity. This is the only way that ALL last supper accounts in scripture (and all the OT prefiguring and the NT fish-and-loaves miracle) reconcile themselves. MAN COULD NOT HAVE INVENTED THIS - its too complex and too integrative for any human to have dreamt this stuff up. The Catholic Church has it 100% right on what is going on at the last supper.

So, the breaking and blessing of bread at the last supper is NOT JUST a memorial by the disciples of Christ memorializing CHRIST, It is ALSO a forward PARTICIPATION in Christ’s sacrifice and bonding with Christ as well as (for us) a backward looking PARTICIPATION in Christ’s sacrifice. That timelessness implies the divine aspects of the meal. Christ too as the SON of GOD is ALSO giving an occasion for HIS remembrance of human camaraderie and HIS friendship with HIS apostles. It’s not just a unidirectional thing Catholics do as a memorial - its bi-direction remembrance (Man to God and God to Man). But when God remembers He puts Himself through the body, blood soul and divinity right there with us (Emanuel) in real presence.

One other thing. A lot of people do not make the connection in the OT what to a Jew living in Pharaoh’s kingdom to put the blood of the pascal lamb on the door posts over one’s living space. This was an open declaration of contempt for Pharaoh and their lives were on the line for it! So, it was not only a covenant it was a supreme act of faith and commitment to God. Sure the lamb’s blood would be spilt. But in the morning if God did not do as He promised everyone of those Jews who marked their home in blood were dead men.

The ancient Jews completely trusted God to deliver them. They knew that God had intended to kill Egypt’s first born. Can you imagine the fear and contempt this would have caused against the Jews afterwords? Once a Jew marked his home there was no going back - it was a life and death decision. Clearly, there would have been the risk of retribution from just the sudden huge loss of choice lambs from Pharaoh’s kingdom that the Jews probably tended to as slaves. No, the Jews marked their houses with the blood of the lamb and put it all on the line knowing they were marked men if God did not come through.

James

I had never thought about what I have highlighted in your post. Frankly, you are just a font of knowledge and I thank God for the blessings He has givien us in bringing you here to catholic answers. Enough gushing, back to learning. God Bless you James…carry on!

 

[manualman]

Most problems with transubstantiation come from a failure to understand what SUBSTANCE is.

I like this image. Imagine that I was able to perfectly replicate the Mona Lisa down to every molecualr detail. Would there then be TWO Mona Lisas? No. Only one IS the Mona Lisa.

If I defaced the original so that my copy better matched the historical descriptions of it, would my copy then BE the Mona Lisa? No. The defaced one is still the Mona Lisa.

Substance has nothing to do with accidents. Regardless of what you or I do to the accidents, nothing else will ever BE the Mona Lisa.

At the moment of consecration, the host is miraculously changed. It is no longer bread. It IS Christ. It matters not how it looks or tastes. The substance has changed. The accidents matter not.