Transubstantiation?

[CoboltBlue]

So…What…? Is this actually supposed to be an argument?
++++You bet it is. And of the strongest kind. Becasue if it is not in the Amplified Bible, the King James, the NIV, nor is it listed in WE Vines Dictionary of Hebrew and Greek …the the only place you are finding it is in your historical writings by the church…it is a made up word to describe a sort of magic during the Mass where everyone is suppose to believe that the bread and wine have been transformed into the body and blood.
How mush simplier to do what Jesus actaully said. To do it in rememberacne of Me and move on.There is nothing difficult about it. ++++++

And he said “This is my body”. So we believe it to be his body. Couldn’t be any simpler.

Please, please, make the tiniest little effort to find out what the Catholic Church actually teaches, OK? Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think Christ would let himself be re-crucified thousands and thousands of times each day?
++++++No he would not. But the church fathers oho invemed tpos wprd;invented this were not worried about it.+++++

So when Christ says “this is my body” that’s not Christ “teaching it that way” in scripture?

++++Sure it is. It is not Him say, Transub… my being.+++++

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Cobolt,

CoboltBlue:

How mush simplier to do what Jesus actaully said. To do it in rememberacne of Me and move on.There is nothing difficult about it.

Christ earnestly desired to celebrate the Passover with His disciples, and did so with great solemnity. It doesn’t seem like a “do it and move on” kind of thing, does it?

By the way, how often do you do it in remembrance of Him?
VC

 

[Church_Militant]

CM, I am slowly becoming completely confused.

The Church has used what

term? Transubstantiation?Yep.

…

Or, when you say “metaphysical sense” do you mean the magical-mumbo-jumbo that some people in the last 100 years or so call

metaphysics?Exactly!

Though, in thinking about this, I can see where it has a positive application, because metaphysics, per se, refers to realities, and the Eucharist is a Real Presence…a reality.

It has nothing to do with magic or other foolishness, but, as it says in the Nicene Creed,
"We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen. "

This is one of those unseen aspects of New Testament Christianity.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[mark_a]

THIS ADDED NOTHING TO THE CONVERSATION.

ALRIGHTY THEN.

 

[VociMike]

++++Sure it is. It is not Him say, Transub… my being.+++++

What do you think “transubstantiation” means?

I can tell you that it is an exact restatement of “this is my body…this is my blood”.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Yep.

Though, in thinking about this, I can see where it has a positive application, because metaphysics, per se, refers to realities, and the Eucharist is a Real Presence…a reality.

It has nothing to do with magic or other foolishness

Ok.

Look – I think I want to insist on us defining our terms here. Calling new-age mumbo-jumbo metaphysics is surrendering our patrimony. Some people have co-opted the word metaphysics to mean new age spiritualism, occultism, crystal healing, etc. etc. – but that doesn’t mean **WE **should let them get away with it. Some people use the word “angel” to mean something quite apart from what it really means too – but we shouldn’t.

So, can we all agree that metaphysics means the study of the ultimate principles of reality and not crystal healing?

"We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen. "

This is one of those unseen aspects of New Testament Christianity.

CM, I’d put the emphais, rather on the phrase “of all that is” rather than seen and unseen, only because I don’t want anyone to think that metaphysics deals *only *with unseen realities (or seen realities). It deals with all reality.

We square?
How about you JTBT? What do you think?

VC

 

[Church_Militant]

Ok.

Look – I think I want to insist on us defining our terms here. Calling new-age mumbo-jumbo metaphysics

is surrendering our patrimony. Some people have co-opted the word metaphysics to mean new age spiritualism, occultism, crystal healing, etc. etc. – but that doesn’t mean **WE **should let them get away with it. Some people use the word “angel” to mean something quite apart from what it really means too – but we shouldn’t.

So, can we all agree that metaphysics means the study of the ultimate principles of reality and not crystal healing? This works for me.

CM, I’d put the emphasis, rather on the phrase "of all that is

" rather than seen and unseen, only because I don’t want anyone to think that metaphysics deals *only *with unseen realities (or seen realities). It deals with all reality.

We square?
How about you JTBT? What do you think?

VCI’d suggest that the entire line be our definition, since we are here discussing a divine reality that God brings into being. I think we’re on the same page, just off by a line or phrase, but I’m pretty sure that we understand each other. I just want to be sure that JTBT isn’t confused by it all.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Ok, great!

Maybe now I won’t start to shake whenever I see a so-called “metaphysical bookstore”. . Ugh.

So, JTBT, it’s all up to you: what do you think about our agreement re: metaphysics?

Assuming that we all will reserve the term metaphysics for inquiry into the nature of reality (and not for new ageism) – do you still find anything objectionable about metaphysics?

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

since we are here discussing a divine reality that God brings into being.

CM,

Oops! I just caught that. I know it was inadvertent phrasing but it actually touches on the discussion about transubstantiation. In the consecration God is not bringing anything into being – nothing is created or destroyed, rather one substance is changed into another.

Thoughts? Mad at me for nitpicking?
VC

 

[JTBT]

Ok, great!

Maybe now I won’t start to shake whenever I see a so-called “metaphysical bookstore”. . Ugh.

So, JTBT, it’s all up to you: what do you think about our agreement re: metaphysics?

Assuming that we all will reserve the term metaphysics for inquiry into the nature of reality (and not for new ageism) – do you still find anything objectionable about metaphysics?

VC

Well yes, because it is linked to New Age, and that is my point; why not drop the term Transubstantiation, and stop trying to define the mysteries of God. that is point, the term divides people why not drop the term as say all we mean is that God really is present during the lord supper.

 

[JimG]

Well yes, because it is linked to New Age, and that is my point; why not drop the term Transubstantiation, and stop trying to define the mysteries of God. that is point, the term divides people why not drop the term as say all we mean is that God really is present during the lord supper.

I realize I’m getting old, but I’ve never heard of metaphysics being linked to the new age movement. At my Catholic college, everyone was required to take introductory courses in philosophy, which in most Catholic colleges, included introductory metaphysics, otherwise known as the Philosophy of Being. It is linked to the thought of Aristotle and Aquinas, and has nothing whatever to do with mysticism. It is rather a philosophical analysis of the real.

As for trying to define the mysteries of God, that is something that is most often undertaken by the Church out of necessity.

For example, the Church always believed that Jesus is the Son of God and the only begotten of the Father. But very early on, certain heresies arose which defined that as something less than divinity. The Church’s function is to ask, “is this what we have always believed?” If the answer is no, there usually follows a distinction and refinement of terms, because words matter when distinguishing truth from untruth.

Orthodoxy, or theological truth, can be a high wire balancing act. It is easy to fall off on either side, more difficult to maintain the truthful center.

 

[CoboltBlue]

True. neither does the word Trinity or incarnation, yet Christians believe in all those.
Jesus did not speak of abortion, nuclear war, and a host of other things as well. +++NO but we are talking only of receiving “in memory” WHO he was and is and always will be.And he did not say a word about transubstantiation. You only find this in RCC wiritings…this is where the rest of Christanity removed themselves becasue they did not want to be associated with and have to accept the RCC’s in changing scripture.++++

Okay, that’s fine. Unfortunately you seem to have missed the rest of the scriptural context on this.By all means show me any authentic and authoritative Catholic documentd
++++I don’t prove my words by your traditons. They are just that. Traditions by written up by the church that adds to God’s word…it changes the meansing of what God gave us. The Amplified, King James, NIV, WE Vines Dictionary on Hebrew/ Greek words found in the Bible, none of them speak of the word transustantiation.++++++
that teaches that we recrucify Our Lord in the Eucharist.

You can’t because no such exists and that means that this is not a Catholic teaching.
++++Well if you pray him back here then he has to come back as mortal man because he already said he won’t return until God tells him to come and get us and at that time he comes as KING.++++++It was used to make a point!++++++++
If you think this then you are grossly ignorant of the topic upon which you are attempting to speak out. the link above is a Bible study that may help if you are really interested. Again, do you have the same issue with the Trinity and the incarnation?

+++++I believe in the Trinity–Father, Son, Holy Spirit, if that is what you are asking+++++++
Well, I have to grant that you are essentially clueless. How can that be from someone who no doubt will tell me that they get everything that they believe from the Bible.

However, I’ll help you out by supplying some of the actual scriptures where an apostle deals with this. [FONT=“Garamond”

+++++First I am NOT grossly ignorant, thank you. Or clueless. But maybe you are if you can not see for yourself what God says in scripture and insist on listening to moral men who think they are infaliable and tell you that you can not interpret scritpture if it is not in line with what they say it says…!!! ++++++

]1st Corinthians 10:[16] The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?++++If you read it correctly it is talking about participation by the body of believers preparing to receive…it says, "the bread which we break…the bread is all you need in calling to mind the body of Christ…NOT his real body.
[17] Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
Here he is trying to emphise the fact that all human kind who believe in Him are one in ‘body’ in the church.
and

1st Corinthians 11:[23]For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
[24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
[25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”+++NIV NOTE: the cup was the sign of the new covenant (old being the Mosaic or Sinaitic covenant) by the use of this sign God signifies his bestowal of salvation upon his people, sealed and paid for by the shedding of Jesus’ blood.+++++++
[26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
[27]Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.+++++NIV NOTE: would be done in the irreverent and self-centered manner that characterized some of the Corinthians at their unruly agape supper.+ You have to understand the period and the setting and that Paul is speaking to people he has been trying to tain up in right thinking and behavior.++++++
[28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
[29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.++++NIV NOTE: A person whould test the attitude of his own heart and actions and his awareness of the significance of the Supper, thus making the Supper, under God, a spiritual means of grace.+++++++
[30] That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.++++++29 and 30 speak of the people who do not understand what is going on …they are participating under the wrong reasons …(perhaps a carnal nature,…have not matured in Christ even with Paul’s teachings.)…and they pay the price of death/falling asleep because they were self-centered and were judged by Jesus…as in a disciplinary judgment as physical sickness and death…NIV NOTES+++++++++
Thank you for making my case for me.
God bless you.

+++You might want to re-think your case++++CoboltBlue

 

[VociMike]

CoboltBlue, I’m still waiting for you to tell us what you think “transubstantiation” means. How can you know if it is true or not unless you know what it means?

 

[Church_Militant]

CM,

Oops! I just caught that. I know it was inadvertent phrasing but it actually touches on the discussion about transubstantiation. In the consecration God is not bringing anything into being – nothing is created or destroyed, rather one substance is changed into another.

Thoughts? Mad at me for nitpicking?
VC

Nah. Not at all.

You are correct of course, but it goes beyond even that.

Consider…what is really going on is that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is made present across space and time in the accidents of bread and wine. Just as Our Lord promised in John 6.

Do I comprehend the mechanics of all that? Not even a clue.

Do I believe it with all my hear and soul? Yes I do.

Better? Complex, I know, but then so is the New Testament.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Well yes, because it is linked to New Age, and that is my point;

** JTBT**,

Ok. I am loathe to give up the word metaphysics (and I can’t really, since it is so useful, and still used correctly in academia in general, in philosophical and theological circles, in writing, in journalism, etc.) – but maybe for the purposes of this thread we should avoid it?

But-- if we don’t use the word metaphysics, let’s just use the word **ontology – which is the study of reality, of being, of existence.

**Let’s all agree? Then there can be no question of any misgivings about “new ageism”.

why not drop the term Transubstantiation,

But, why? Transubstantiation just describes what is happening *ontologically. ***No new agey, magical connection whatsoever.

that is point, the term divides people

Yes, that is the point. The term divides people so that we can know who believes what. Its a very precise word: those who use it mean that the bread changes into the Body of Christ. Period. Full stop. There is no more bread, because the substance of bread has changed.

and stop trying to define the mysteries of God.

But sometimes we have to, don’t we? Questions get asked, and they need some sort of answer. The answer determines how we think about God. How we *think *about God determines how we act towards God. How we *act *towards God determines how we *love *God. And love is the end goal here.

For instance: who was Jesus? Was he a man? Yes. Did he die on the cross? Yes. But was He God? Yes. Did God die on the cross? Well. . . er, yes. But how can God die? Well, Jesus as man died, and Jesus is God. So Jesus was both man and God? Yes. Does that mean that God became man? Yes. Does that mean that the Word (God) overshadowed a man and united with him? No. Why not? Because “a man” would mean a person, and there is only one person in Christ, the Word Himself. So what about the man? The one divine person, the Word, took on a human nature. A body? Yes, but also a soul. A soul?. . Do you mean a mind and everything? Yes, a human intellect and a human will as well! Etc. And it gets much deeper, and more beautiful as we go.

As understanding increases, **although we can’t understand it all, **our LOVE increases. Just because we can’t exhaust the mysteries of God doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek as much light as possible from them.

why not drop the term as say all we mean is that God really is present during the lord supper.

Because that is not all that we mean. Christ is really present in all the sacraments, He is present in scripture, He is present “when two or more are gathered in His name”. . . but He is substantially present in the Eucharist. The Catholic Catechism phrases it this way:“This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a *substantial *presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.” (CCC 1374)

What do you think?

By the way, do you feel your original question has been answered (i.e. “Why do Catholics believe there is no longer bread and wine?”) yet? Should we explore that more?

VC

 

[Church_Militant]

+++NO but we are talking only of receiving “in memory” WHO he was and is and always will be.And he did not say a word about transubstantiation. You only find this in RCC wiritings…this is where the rest of Christanity removed themselves becasue they did not want to be associated with and have to accept the RCC’s in changing scripture.++++

Where does Jesus say that this is only done “in memory”? You seem to be ignoring the 6th chapter of John’s Gospel which speaks directly to this as well.

Transubstantiation is merely a term that is used for what takes place.

I beg to differ with you, but the New Testament scriptures are pretty much universal among Christians, whether Catholic or not. The fact is that the New Testament IS a “Catholic writing”.

The Catholic Church never changed anything as you allege and you cannot support that from anything but the errant modern teachings of men.

When a martyred bishop of the early 2nd century Christian church, who was a direct disciple of the apostle St. John plainly writes that this is what takes place in the Eucharist and that anyone who denies it is a heretic to not even be spoken of, that sort of seals the deal for any question of real Christian interpretation of this.

So…where do you get your history that tells you anything different?

Me.

Okay, that’s fine. Unfortunately you seem to have missed the rest of the scriptural context on this.By all means show me any authentic and authoritative Catholic document

++++I don’t prove my words by your traditons. They are just that. Traditions by written up by the church that adds to God’s word…it changes the meansing of what God gave us. The Amplified, King James, NIV, WE Vines Dictionary on Hebrew/ Greek words found in the Bible, none of them speak of the word transustantiation.++++++

Kindly save the rhetoric and polemics for someone who might be impressed and/or distracted by them. We’ve already dealt with the fact that this, just like the Trinity and the incarnation, is a doctrine implied in scripture. If you reject this implied doctrine, do you also reject the others as well?

Well if you pray him back here then he has to come back as mortal man because he already said he won’t return until God tells him to come and get us and at that time he comes as KING.

This is not even a Christian doctrine. Nowhere does the Bible say that Christ will return as a mortal man at the second coming.

I believe in the Trinity–Father, Son, Holy Spirit, if that is what you are asking

That’s good, because from your other remarks I was beginning to wonder.

First I am NOT grossly ignorant, thank you. Or clueless. But maybe you are if you can not see for yourself what God says in scripture and insist on listening to moral men who think they are infaliable and tell you that you can not interpret scritpture if it is not in line with what they say it says…!!!

Actually you seem to be both, at least with respect to what the Catholic faith actually teaches and believes and why. It wasn’t meant as an insult, since it is probably not your fault.

1st Corinthians 10:[16] The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ

? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?If you read it correctly it is talking about participation by the body of believers preparing to receive…it says, "the bread which we break…the bread is all you need in calling to mind the body of Christ…NOT his real body.Read it again and notice the red highlighted parts for me. Then look at what you have said about this passage and show me if you can precisely where this says what you assert.

1st Corinthians 11:[23]For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
[24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
[25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

NIV NOTE: the cup was the sign of the new covenant (old being the Mosaic or Sinaitic covenant) by the use of this sign God signifies his bestowal of salvation upon his people, sealed and paid for by the shedding of Jesus’ blood.Since when are the notes from the New International Version Bible infallible interpretations? They are not, in fact they are, just as with all other notes in Bibles, the teachings of men. This particular note falls short of the fullness of the truth.

[27]Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

NIV NOTE: would be done in the irreverent and self-centered manner that characterized some of the Corinthians at their unruly agape supper.+ You have to understand the period and the setting and that Paul is speaking to people he has been trying to tain up in right thinking and behavior.That’s true, yet again, it fails to deal with the fact that St. Paul plainly tells us that to receive unworthily makes us “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”, that is simply not possible if it is a mere symbol.

[28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
[29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

NIV NOTE: A person whould test the attitude of his own heart and actions and his awareness of the significance of the Supper, thus making the Supper, under God, a spiritual means of grace.It’s called an examination of conscience.

However, this note also fails to even approach what St. Paul says is the spiritual reality at work here. This is why it’s best not to follow the teachings of modern men.[30] That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

29 and 30 speak of the people who do not understand what is going on …they are participating under the wrong reasons …(perhaps a carnal nature,…have not matured in Christ even with Paul’s teachings.)…and they pay the price of death/falling asleep because they were self-centered and were judged by Jesus…as in a disciplinary judgment as physical sickness and death…NIV NOTESNot so at all. These are things that were taught in every church universally. If it isn’t really the body and blood of Christ, then why is it so serious to God that he would strike someone sick or dead because of it?

St. Ignatius of Antioch tells us what he learned directly from St. John when he says the following in his letter to the Church in Smyrna.

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

You might want to re-think your case CoboltBlue

No thanks. I’ll stick with what the Bible actually says.

 

[Des]

Here he is trying to emphise the fact that all human kind who believe in Him are one in ‘body’ in the church.
and

**1 Corinthians 10: **

**16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? **

17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.

No, here he is trying to emphasize the fact that the body of Christ (Baptized believers in Christ) are partaking the Body of Christ (Holy Eucharist), and thereby formed into one mystical body.

 

[CoboltBlue]

Where does Jesus say that this is only done “in memory”? You seem to be ignoring the 6th chapter of John’s Gospel which speaks directly to this as well.
++++It is found in all biblical writings that do not have the RCC tradition of the Apocryphal text++++
Transubstantiation is merely a term that is used for what takes place. +++But used only by the traditions added by the RCC+++

I beg to differ with you, but the New Testament scriptures are pretty much universal among Christians, whether Catholic or not. The fact is that the New Testament IS a “Catholic writing”.
+++If you accept just your Cathholic Bible it is so…other wise there are many others who transcribed it for the Protestans who did not believe in the RCC adding tradition to God’s scripture…Luther, Wycliffe, Tyndale, King Henry Vlll authorized an English translation in 1553…the Geneva Bible and it was aboard the Mayflower. The King James translates from the Geneva Bible --commissioned 1604-completed 1611 by Oxford, Cambridge and Westminister scholars…including Lancelot Andrews (Preces Privatoe) who began studing Greek at age six…mission was to deliver God’s book unto God’s people in a tongue which they could understand;the Greek Orthodox church by way of Patriarch Constantinople translated Codex Alexandrianus in the 5th century (org. Alexandria, Egypt,from which it gets its name, made in 4th centruy) along with it the Codex Sinaificig, 1 of 50 Greek Bibles commissioned to be copied by Constantine—only fragments from Constantines time exist and they date to the second half of the 1st century according to historian Tacitus, who also says there is a seven yr. gap separating earliest extant copy from the original writings. These all disagreed with what the RCC was doing with scripture+++

The Catholic Church never changed anything as you allege and you cannot support that from anything but the errant modern teachings of men. +++LOOK at the statement by the Council of Trent++++

When a martyred bishop of the early 2nd century Christian church, who was a direct disciple of the apostle St. John plainly writes that this is what takes place in the Eucharist and that anyone who denies it is a heretic to not even be spoken of, that sort of seals the deal for any question of real Christian interpretation of this.+++where is this found? And I don’t mean in the writing of the Apocryphal…support it elsewhere+++

So…where do you get your history that tells you anything different?+++Teachings in the Bibles that do not pertain to the RCC church Apocryphal writings++++

Kindly save the rhetoric and polemics for someone who might be impressed and/or distracted by them. We’ve already dealt with the fact that this, just like the Trinity and the incarnation, is a doctrine implied in scripture. If you reject this implied doctrine, do you also reject the others as well?
+++you are the one refusing to see it correctly and accepting what the Church puts into it…All scripture should be read and interpreted as you would other forms of communication–in the most obvious and natural sense- which scripture uses a metaphor, or a gifure of speech, we should interprete it accordingly–example: serpent in the Garden of Eden is a metaphor for Satan; the 'showbread" (bread-or loaf of bread), is a metaphor for the body of Christ.++++
This is not even a Christian doctrine. Nowhere does the Bible say that Christ will return as a mortal man at the second
+++I SAID that if you pray him back into your communion as the living body, that he is, then he would have to come back as mortal man BECAUSE in HIS second coming HE will be KING+++++++
coming.:shrug:That’s good, because from your other remarks I was beginning to wonder. Actually you seem to be both, at least with respect to what the Catholic faith actually teaches and believes and why. It wasn’t meant as an insult, since it is probably not your fault.Read it again and notice the red highlighted parts for me. Then look at what you have said about this passage and show me if you can precisely where this says what you assert.Since when are the notes from the New International Version Bible infallible interpretations? They are not, in fact they are, just as with all other notes in Bibles, the teachings of men++++AND SO IS WHAT YOU GO BY WHEN YOU FOLLOW THE RCC TEACHNG. IT IS NOT INFALIABLE EITHER! Totally man made interpretations/traditions added!++++++++++. This particular note falls short of the fullness of the truth.That’s true, yet again, it fails to deal with the fact that St. Paul plainly tells us that to receive unworthily makes us “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”, that is simply not possible if it is a mere symbol.It’s called an examination of conscience.++++it is an examination of conscience for you BUT God sees us through our hearts+++++++
:thumbsup:Not so at all. These are things that were taught in every church universally. If it isn’t really the body and blood of Christ,++++we take the bread as the symbol of the body–can you not say that when you dwell upon the reason you are taking the bread/host, that your mind does not picture Christ on the cross and spilling his blood for us sinners? That in essence is what memory/recall and association with the bread is. You do not have to have a magical prayer said and believe ‘magically’ that Christ body is what you are eating. He never said it that way. Study the scripture without the RCC take on it. Let God show you the truth.++++ then why is it so serious to God that he would strike someone sick or dead because of it?++++BEcause they were accepting it unworthily…just as you said we have to admit to our sins…examination of conscious …I say Heart since God judges us this way…The people of the church of Corinth were very carnal and this is way Paul was having such a hard time getting them to behave the way Jesus was instructing them to…He made three trips there trying to straighten them out…besides, are you not using your memory to recall the death of Christ for our sins when you examine yourself for sins against Him? ++++++

St. Ignatius of Antioch tells us what he learned directly from St. John when he says the following in his letter to the Church in Smyrna.
++++show us proof other than a letter by way of the Apocrophyal writings that proves this.++++++
No thanks. I’ll stick with what the Bible actually says+++Actually you mean you want to stick with man made addtitions to scripture-----I gave that up for the truth in God’s scripture+++++++

 

[Des]

Cobolt, how about quote the proper way or separate your quotes with colour or something. It is not easy to reply back when it’s tough identifying which quote is yours and which isn’t and quite frankly is giving me a headache.

 

[JTBT]

** JTBT**,

Ok. I am loathe to give up the word metaphysics (and I can’t really, since it is so useful, and still used correctly in academia in general, in philosophical and theological circles, in writing, in journalism, etc.) – but maybe for the purposes of this thread we should avoid it?

But-- if we don’t use the word metaphysics, let’s just use the word ontology – which is the study of reality, of being, of existence.

Let’s all agree? Then there can be no question of any misgivings about “new ageism”.

But, why? Transubstantiation just describes what is happening *ontologically. ***No new agey, magical connection whatsoever.

Yes, that is the point. The term divides people so that we can know who believes what. Its a very precise word: those who use it mean that the bread changes into the Body of Christ. Period. Full stop. There is no more bread, because the substance of bread has changed.

But sometimes we have to, don’t we? Questions get asked, and they need some sort of answer. The answer determines how we think about God. How we *think *about God determines how we act towards God. How we *act *towards God determines how we *love *God. And love is the end goal here.

For instance: who was Jesus? Was he a man? Yes. Did he die on the cross? Yes. But was He God? Yes. Did God die on the cross? Well. . . er, yes. But how can God die? Well, Jesus as man died, and Jesus is God. So Jesus was both man and God? Yes. Does that mean that God became man? Yes. Does that mean that the Word (God) overshadowed a man and united with him? No. Why not? Because “a man” would mean a person, and there is only one person in Christ, the Word Himself. So what about the man? The one divine person, the Word, took on a human nature. A body? Yes, but also a soul. A soul?. . Do you mean a mind and everything? Yes, a human intellect and a human will as well! Etc. And it gets much deeper, and more beautiful as we go.

As understanding increases, although we can’t understand it all, our LOVE increases. Just because we can’t exhaust the mysteries of God doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek as much light as possible from them.

Because that is not all that we mean. Christ is really present in all the sacraments, He is present in scripture, He is present “when two or more are gathered in His name”. . . but He is substantially present in the Eucharist. The Catholic Catechism phrases it this way:“This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a *substantial *presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.” (CCC 1374)

What do you think?

By the way, do you feel your original question has been answered (i.e. “Why do Catholics believe there is no longer bread and wine?”) yet? Should we explore that more?

VC

yes my question has been answered. I don’t know that I agree, but y’all have answered my question.

but what I’m hearing is this: that the Lord presence is MORE real in this case.
But if the presence is real then the presence is real I don’t see a reason to say that "in this case his presence is More real.