Transubstantiation?

[CentralFLJames]

well then you completly mis-spoke because all orthodox Christians accept the Virgin Birth; but not all accept the real presence.

Then can you please answer my question? How can you believe that God can come to earth through the Virginal Birth (the Incarnation) as a divine-human but not accept that God can give Himself through real-presence in the converted Bread and Wine?

One is just as profound a miracle as the other - so the degree of required faith is on an equivalent order of magnitude. When the literal words are right in scripture how can you not believe? Is it that you do not want to believe?

Do you identify more with the people who left Jesus over disbelief in real-presence as mentioned in John 6:66 or with Peter in subsequent verses where Jesus asks will you lave me too and Peter answers “and to whom shall we go - you have the words of ever lasting life”?

Do you follow Peter’s lead or the crowd’s lead?

James

 

[VociMike]

then you are saying it is the Priest who makes it happen, you are just not using those words. Christ Charge was “do this in rememberance of me” so if anyone does this in rememberace of him he is present.

No, I am saying what I am saying. When God gives divine authority he is making a promise, that he will respond as he has promised any time a person who has received that authority calls upon God.

It is not the power of the priest that brings about the Real Presence, it is the faithfulness of God to his promises.

Would you also claim that people have the “power” to save themselves by accepting Christ? Or would you agree that they are saved because God is faithful to his own promise?

 

[JTBT]

Then can you please answer my question? How can you believe that God can come to earth through the Virginal Birth (the Incarnation) as a divine-human but not accept that God can give Himself through real-presence in the converted Bread and Wine?

One is just as profound a miracle as the other - so the degree of required faith is on an equivalent order of magnitude. When the literal words are right in scripture how can you not believe? Is it that you do not want to believe?

Do you identify more with the people who left Jesus over disbelief in real-presence as mentioned in John 6:66 or with Peter in subsequent verses where Jesus asks will you lave me too and Peter answers “and to whom shall we go - you have the words of ever lasting life”?

Do you follow Peter’s lead or the crowd’s lead?

James

I follow God’s lead, and his infaliable lead can be found in scripture.
that being said, I have already said that believing in Real presence does not mean that you have to believe in Transubstantiation.

 

[JTBT]

No, I am saying what I am saying. When God gives divine authority he is making a promise, that he will respond as he has promised any time a person who has received that authority calls upon God.

It is not the power of the priest that brings about the Real Presence, it is the faithfulness of God to his promises.

Would you also claim that people have the “power” to save themselves by accepting Christ? Or would you agree that they are saved because God is faithful to his own promise?

I don’t see anywhere in scripture that God promised that he would come when a Priest of the Roman Catholic Church said a certain thing can you show me this in scripture?
But I do see where he said that when 2 or 3 are gathered in his name he will be there.

 

[mercygate]

then you are saying it is the Priest who makes it happen, you are just not using those words. Christ Charge was “do this in rememberance of me” so if anyone does this in rememberace of him he is present.

“Anyone?” At the Last Supper, Our Lord addressed the words, “Do this in remembrance of me” not to “anyone” but specifically to the Apostles. That is why the ancient Apostolic Churches understand that the Eucharist is tied to the unity of the Apostolic faith via Apostolic Succession. It is only for the Eleven, in the Gospel of John that Jesus prays “that they all might be one.” When we are “one” in faith with the Apostles and their successors, then we are fully “one” in Christ.

It is no more strange that a “priest makes it happen” than that Christ’s Church should be built upon the foundation stones of the Apostles.

 

[JTBT]

“Anyone?” At the Last Supper, Our Lord addressed the words, “Do this in remembrance of me” not to “anyone” but specifically to the Apostles. That is why the ancient Apostolic Churches understand that the Eucharist is tied to the unity of the Apostolic faith via Apostolic Succession. It is only for the Eleven, in the Gospel of John that Jesus prays “that they all might be one.” When we are “one” in faith with the Apostles and their successors, then we are fully “one” in Christ.

It is no more strange that a “priest makes it happen” than that Christ’s Church should be built upon the foundation stones of the Apostles.

thats not right, Christ prays

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word;”

sorry but that includes all Christians not just the Apostles.

 

[mercygate]

thats not right, Christ prays

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word;”

sorry but that includes all Christians not just the Apostles.

We believe that"those who will believe in me through their word" [the preaching of the Apostles] means those who “believe” the Apostolic faith. Our Lord’s prayer for unity is in the context of the Eleven and THEIR preaching.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I follow God’s lead, and his infaliable lead can be found in scripture.
that being said, I have already said that believing in Real presence does not mean that you have to believe in Transubstantiation.

But JTBT - God’s lead is through the Good Shepherd - Jesus Christ. And Jesus has conveyed that same lead to the apostles. There is no where in scripture where it says in the same God breathed sentence “follow God’s lead and start following me in the bible”. None of the apostles or the early church followed a book (the bible). Nope, they followed a real man, Christ, and that man’s successors - the apostles and in turn their successors. Do you doubt this? Did the bible produce itself? Did the bible baptise anyone? Did the bible transform bread and wine into the Eucharist? Did the bible die on the cross? Did the bible evangelize the new Christian Church. Nope - it did not. Jesus’ apostles and their apostolic successors did and you know it.

There are only two paths in the discourse by John - following the crowd who did not believe in real presence in John 6:66 or following the disciples who trusted in Jesus’ words - as hard as they were to accept. You can’t follow both paths without hurting yourself or tearing a leg out of its socket.

It sounds like you believe in real-presence - but not in the authority of the apostolic priesthood to convert it from bread and wine. Who do you imagine has the authority to effect the sacraments? Do you think Judas did? Do you think Simon the magician does? Do you think the Sanhedrin do? Do you think everyone who says “I believe” does??? Let’s put it another way - who does NOT have the authority to effect the sacraments?

James

 

[JTBT]

We believe that"those who will believe in me through their word" [the preaching of the Apostles] means those who “believe” the Apostolic faith. Our Lord’s prayer for unity is in the context of the Eleven and THEIR preaching.

ok well we agree in a way; but we disagree on what the Apostolic faith is, and that is also another thread it’s self.
but just think about this, The person who preached to me, was preached to by another, who was preached to by another, … all the way back to the Apostles.
and the “Apostolic faith” is perserved in the Bible.

 

[mercygate]

ok well we agree in a way; but we disagree on what the Apostolic faith is, and that is also another thread it’s self.
but just think about this, The person who preached to me, was preached to by another, who was preached to by another, … all the way back to the Apostles.
and the “Apostolic faith” is perserved in the Bible.

The apostolic faith is not fully revealed in Scripture; if it had been, there would have been no need for the Council of Nicea – whose canons you accept. There would be no challenge to the doctrine of the real presence, since everyone could clearly understand it. There would be no controversy over infant baptism, since the Scriptures would be completely transparent.

Christianity was preached through the early Church and transmitted by the Apostles. We all know that the New Testament was not used as a field manual by the early Church. We all know that all the Christian churches identified themselves by WHO planted them and with WHOM they were in communion via hand-to-hand transmission of the faith. “The Book” is a byproduct of the Apostolic teaching, not the CAUSE of the Apostolic preaching.

 

[JTBT]

But JTBT - God’s lead is through the Good Shepherd - Jesus Christ. And Jesus has conveyed that same lead to the apostles. There is no where in scripture where it says in the same God breathed sentence “follow God’s lead and start following me in the bible”. None of the apostles or the early church followed a book (the bible). Nope, they followed a real man, Christ, and that man’s successors - the apostles and in turn their successors. Do you doubt this? Did the bible produce itself? Did the bible baptise anyone? Did the bible transform bread and wine into the Eucharist? Did the bible die on the cross? Did the bible evangelize the new Christian Church. Nope - it did not. Jesus’ apostles and their apostolic successors did and you know it.

There are only two paths in the discourse by John - following the crowd who did not believe in real presence in John 6:66 or following the disciples who trusted in Jesus’ words - as hard as they were to accept. You can’t follow both paths without hurting yourself or tearing a leg out of its socket.

It sounds like you believe in real-presence - but not in the authority of the apostolic priesthood to convert it from bread and wine. Who do you imagine has the authority to effect the sacraments? Do you think Judas did? Do you think Simon the magician does? Do you think the Sanhedrin do? Do you think everyone who says “I believe” does??? Let’s put it another way - who does NOT have the authority to effect the sacraments?

James

I follow Christ period.
I do not equate Christ with the Bishop of Rome, I don’t believe that Peter was the 1st Bishop of Rome, nor do I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the orginal church.

so there you have it that is why I cannot be a Roman Catholic.

 

[VociMike]

I don’t see anywhere in scripture that God promised that he would come when a Priest of the Roman Catholic Church said a certain thing can you show me this in scripture?
But I do see where he said that when 2 or 3 are gathered in his name he will be there.

In the first place, your apparent standard of proof is unscriptural.

However, when we read in scripture that Christ told his first bishops “Do this”, and the “this” was what he did when he said “this is my body…this is my blood”, we have the evidence of the divine authority given to the bishops of the Church to consecrate the Eucharist. The bishops in turn have given that authority to the priests under them.

 

[mercygate]

I follow Christ period.
I do not equate Christ with the Bishop of Rome, I don’t believe that Peter was the 1st Bishop of Rome, nor do I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the orginal church.

so there you have it that is why I cannot be a Roman Catholic.

Therein lies the entire matter.

You reject “Thou art Peter” from Scripture. You reject the testimony of history that Peter was a Bishop at Rome (you do not need to believe that he was THE Bishop of Rome to believe that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter. Moreover, you reject the OTHER witnesses to fundamental Catholic teaching in the Eastern Orthodox Churches. All the Orthodox believe in Apostolic Succession, and who baptize infants, who believe in the authority of Priests to absolve sins and to consecrate the Eucharist.

People tend to object to the “Roman Catholic” teaching without recognizing that it is also the teaching of a large body of Christians who are not in communion with Rome and who have also held these selfsame beliefs and practices for two thousand years.

 

[Michael96]

Why do Catholics believe that Bread and Wine Actually change in substance, that is, that they are no longer Bread and Wine?
It seems you can believe in the Real Presences with out the Bread and Wine actually changing into some other substance.

I’m jumping in late on this one, but it seems to me that the Real Presence is the key, and that transubstantiation was/is an attempt to explain it.

I think one thing we should remember is that “substance” and “accident” was an ancient method of explaining how something could appear to change: why does iron look different when it rusts? why does water seem different when it freezes? I don’t mean to belittle the notion of substance and accident as it actually contains a key truth - that the outer form of something doesn’t always have a simple 1:1 relationship with the inner form. Transubstantion is the corresponding opposite to ice melting: in the latter we have the outward form changing while the “essence” of the material is unchanged, and in transubstantiation we have the outer form unchanged but the internal essence changed. I find “transubstantiation” useful in thinking about it in that way, but I think it’s just trying to provide a way to relate the eucharist to other changes in appearnce vs, “substance” that people could see commonly in their lives.

If someone asked me if I believed in the Real Presence I would say “absolutely”. If someone asked me if I believed in transubstantiation, I would say that I thought it was quite a neat way of thinking about the Real Presence.

 

[JTBT]

I’m jumping in late on this one, but it seems to me that the Real Presence is the key, and that transubstantiation was/is an attempt to explain it.

I think one thing we should remember is that “substance” and “accident” was an ancient method of explaining how something could appear to change: why does iron look different when it rusts? why does water seem different when it freezes? I don’t mean to belittle the notion of substance and accident as it actually contains a key truth - that the outer form of something doesn’t always have a simple 1:1 relationship with the inner form. Transubstantion is the corresponding opposite to ice melting: in the latter we have the outward form changing while the “essence” of the material is unchanged, and in transubstantiation we have the outer form unchanged but the internal essence changed. I find “transubstantiation” useful in thinking about it in that way, but I think it’s just trying to provide a way to relate the eucharist to other changes in appearnce vs, “substance” that people could see commonly in their lives.

If someone asked me if I believed in the Real Presence I would say “absolutely”. If someone asked me if I believed in transubstantiation, I would say that I thought it was quite a neat way of thinking about the Real Presence.

but should belief in Transubstantiation be dogma?

 

[mikeledes]

but should belief in Transubstantiation be dogma?

It’s taught by Christ Himself, so it must be dogma.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[JTBT]

Therein lies the entire matter.

You reject “Thou art Peter” from Scripture.

No

You reject the testimony of history that Peter was a Bishop at Rome (you do not need to believe that he was THE Bishop of Rome to believe that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter.

I don’t understand this I thought Rome’s whole claim was Peter was the 1st Bishop if you are simply saying that Peter and Paul established the Church in Rome, I do not have an argument with that; however, they also established the Church in Antioch, so I don’t see how that proves papal primacy.

Moreover, you reject the OTHER witnesses to fundamental Catholic teaching in the Eastern Orthodox Churches. All the Orthodox believe in Apostolic Succession, and who baptize infants, who believe in the authority of Priests to absolve sins and to consecrate the Eucharist.

you don’t know that you are assuming that.

People tend to object to the “Roman Catholic” teaching without recognizing that it is also the teaching of a large body of Christians who are not in communion with Rome and who have also held these selfsame beliefs and practices for two thousand years.

not true I think the Eastern Orthodox church has a very strong claim to being the orginal church

 

[JTBT]

It’s taught by Christ Himself, so it must be dogma.

God Bless,
Michael

No Christ taught Real presence, not Transubstantiation

 

[VociMike]

…I think the Eastern Orthodox church has a very strong claim to being the orginal church

Do you know what they teach regarding the Eucharist? It certainly isn’t what the Lutherans teach.

 

[VociMike]

No Christ taught Real presence, not Transubstantiation

Please explain the difference. Explain how “real presence” differs from “transubstantiation,” and how “transubstantiation” is a false understanding of what Christ taught.