Transubstantiation?

[JTBT]

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

Lutherans do not teach consub… as someone said, they say he present, but do not want to even try to define it any more than that, that is actually close to what the EO believe.

 

[JTBT]

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

transubstantiation is a philophical attempt to explain something that should be considered unexplainable, so I think it should be avoided.

 

[JTBT]

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

does it shock you that I said that?

 

[VociMike]

does it shock you that I said that?

Huh? You’re welcome to believe the Eastern Orthodox are the One True Church. You’d be a lot closer to the truth if you believed that. But go find an Eastern Orthodox and ask them if what they believe regarding the Eucharist is what the Lutherans believe. Ask them, for example, if they toss out the remaining “bread” after the liturgy, the way the Lutherans do.

 

[VociMike]

transubstantiation is a philophical attempt to explain something that should be considered unexplainable, so I think it should be avoided.

OK, I can accept that view. But didn’t you try to explain it earlier, asking why the bread and wine couldn’t exist along with Christ? I take it that you would no longer try to hold that position?

If you truly don’t try to hold “the bread and wine remain” but instead leave it as a mystery, I can’t find fault with that. The teachings of the Church are a bit more precise, but for a non-Catholic your position is quite close to the truth.

 

[CentralFLJames]

transubstantiation is a philophical attempt to explain something that should be considered unexplainable, so I think it should be avoided.

Your admission of real presence if admirable for a non-Catholic. It seems you are just a bit hung up on terminology. You are so close to Catholic belief here that you are at real risk of becoming Catholic. Let’s hope you do.

The way I personally look at this issue with outward appearance is to recognize that we are sensual beings. We use our senses to discern what we are dealing with - sight, sound, smell, taste, feel etc. As such, Christ knew it would be difficult for even a true believer to overcome a natural aversion for eating anything that had the appearances of (divine) human flesh. So he permitted, if you will, the “appearance” and taste of bread and wine to remain in the effected species so it would not be so difficult for us to “take our medicine” so to speak. I also think Jesus wanted a sensory contradiction so we would have to rely 100% on faith to accept His word and nothing but His word that the converted bread and wine was exactly what He said it was.

Frankly, you don’t see a lot of common every day Catholics walking around saying the word “Transubstantiation”. We simply refer to it as Eucharist - the body and blood of Christ. Transubstantiation, the word, is just a fancy name for describing the mechanism for “what happens”. I admit it does sound rather academic. I would not get to hung up on the word. All that is important to us individually is that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus through some supernatural effect that we need not understand in great detail. Our end objective is simply to consume it reverently and in a state of grace so we can be obedient to Christ and receive the expected grace and remain in Him.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

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.

Well thanks for being frank and not beating around the bush. So many others are evasive and don’t want to admit their true faith and beliefs.

Let’s explore your objections to why you have such an aversion for “Rome”. Are these objections first of all because somone taught you to object to the Catholic position? Or are these objections extending from a personal desire to have a very concise and simple faith where you can not think of much anything other than “Jesus as Lord” and the need to “believe and be saved”? I get the impression that a lot of Protestants simply are averse to rules and structure and authority.

Also, do you reject the Catholic claim that Peter was the fist bishop on the grounds of a different perspective of History or do you reject it blindly out of a doctrinal predisposition that abhors the notion that any man could possibly be on earth as a Vicar of Christ (His earthly representative)? Would you have accepted the papal succession if Paul had been claimed to be first Bishop? If so why? And finally do you have any speculation on who the original church was if not Catholics?

Catholics have a list of 266 Catholic popes going all the way back to Peter. Do you claim that this list is historically bogus and none of these Popes was ever the earthly head of The Church?

Finally, will you answer the question I asked about if the Catholic church does not have the sole authority to effect the sacrament of Holy Communion who in your opinion has that authority?

Thanks,
James

 

[Church_Militant]

but should belief in Transubstantiation be dogma?

Yes it should…because the New Testament teaches it and the early church made it a point upon which to err was grave heresy. Look again at what Ignatius of Antioch tells the church at Smyrna and the what St.Paul says in 1st Corinthians 11:23-30.

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.
LINK

1st Corinthians 11:23-30

"23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. "

If there is no real presence in the Eucharist, then how can St.Paul warn us not to take it unworthily lest we become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? That “spiritualization” makes complete nonsense not only of the 6th chapter of John, but of 1st Corinthians 10:16-17 “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.”
Now, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE? Now if I make a symbol of a person and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol. I may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol of the person, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question…of course not! Why? BECAUSE THAT PERSON IS NOT REALLY PRESENT IN THAT SYMBOL is he?

 

[CoboltBlue]

To: vociMike, Verbumcaro, Chruch Militant, Des, mercygate, fellowChristian, CentralFLJames, and any one else I may have missed naming and have offended;
I just want to say I am sorry. I understand that we will never agree.
The use of caps was a mistake on my part…I did not understand that they are thought of as yelliing at someone.
I leave you to enjoy your time here as you should. I won’t be back to cause anyone trouble.
I pray for only good from Father God for you and everyone here.
Please forgive me my bad behavior.
CoboltBlue…Pat

PS If I missed anyone from other forums here that I need to say I am sorry too I do reconize them. I repeat that I am sorry. to them as well.
Thank you, Pat

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Well you already pegged me, I do agree with the Lutherans, Sacramental Presence is what they call it, they disagree with Transub, and Consub.

Luther, if I recall correctly, was the one who coined the term “consubstantiation,” and that’s what most Lutherans that I know call it. Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans and Orthodox all use the phrase Real or Sacramental Presence, in fact, the Catholic belief in transubstantiation is that the bread and wine Sacramentally become the Body and Blood of Christ. It is with eyes of faith that we discern the Lord’s body (1 Cor 11:29). But Sacramental does not ever mean symbolic, but I can see from your posts that you’re not an adherent to the typical Baptist, “This represents…” rather than “This is…” which is what the Bible says.

as far as Believers Baptism well I disagree, but that is another topic, that is if I didn’t think the Bible taught it I wouldn’t believe it.

Catholics agree with and administer the Sacrament of Baptism to new adult believers, but as you said, that’s really a topic for another thread. Since I and my family just became Catholic in the last year (from a Baptist background) my youngest son was baptized at age 10, a perfectly acceptable age, even for Baptists.

 

[JTBT]

cute signature… most of us don’t really hold to that; anymore than you worship Mary. (non-dancing )

 

[JTBT]

Yes it should…because the New Testament teaches it and the early church made it a point upon which to err was grave heresy. Look again at what Ignatius of Antioch tells the church at Smyrna and the what St.Paul says in 1st Corinthians 11:23-30.

1st Corinthians 11:23-30

"23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. "

If there is no real presence in the Eucharist, then how can St.Paul warn us not to take it unworthily lest we become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? That “spiritualization” makes complete nonsense not only of the 6th chapter of John, but of 1st Corinthians 10:16-17 “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.”
Now, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE? Now if I make a symbol of a person and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol. I may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol of the person, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question…of course not! Why? BECAUSE THAT PERSON IS NOT REALLY PRESENT IN THAT SYMBOL is he?

your yelling

 

[JTBT]

Well thanks for being frank and not beating around the bush. So many others are evasive and don’t want to admit their true faith and beliefs.

I think that makes for a better conversation don’t you?

Let’s explore your objections to why you have such an aversion for “Rome”.

where to start well 1st I don’t have an aversion for “Rome”…if I did I certainly wouldn’t be posting here.

Are these objections first of all because somone taught you to object to the Catholic position? Or are these objections extending from a personal desire to have a very concise and simple faith where you can not think of much anything other than “Jesus as Lord” and the need to “believe and be saved”? I get the impression that a lot of Protestants simply are averse to rules and structure and authority.

…you left out the possiablility that I honestly looked into the claims of Rome and found them unconvincing; Protestants in general are averse to the structure of the RC church because of the abuse that can filter from the top down.

Also, do you reject the Catholic claim that Peter was the fist bishop on the grounds of a different perspective of History or do you reject it blindly out of a doctrinal predisposition that abhors the notion that any man could possibly be on earth as a Vicar of Christ (His earthly representative)?

well I guess a different perspective of History, and I actually do find the title offencive

Would you have accepted the papal succession if Paul had been claimed to be first Bishop? If so why?

no I will admit that Peter and Paul planted the Church in Rome, and that they were maryted there, but I do not believe that either were Bishops of any City. BTW Peter also planted Antioch

And finally do you have any speculation on who the original church was if not Catholics?

I have already said the EO Church has a stronger claim than the RC Church; if for no other reason I think history shows which church split and split and split etc.

Catholics have a list of 266 Catholic popes going all the way back to Peter. Do you claim that this list is historically bogus and none of these Popes was ever the earthly head of The Church?

… partially Bogus, but the Bishop of Rome was the frist among EQUALS in the early church, not the head of the Church, there is only one head and that is Christ.

Finally, will you answer the question I asked about if the Catholic church does not have the sole authority to effect the sacrament of Holy Communion who in your opinion has that authority?

Thanks,
James

God

 

[Church_Militant]

your yelling

Sorry about that, but that is the way it is on the document (of my own) that I was quoting It’s not intended as a yell…just emphasis.

I generally never yell. If God can speak to the prophet Elijah in a still small voice, then I figure He can say what He wants through me without raising my voice.

Oh… and BTW, what do you say to the facts that I have presented to you?

 

[Michael96]

but should belief in Transubstantiation be dogma?

I don’t see a problem with it being dogmatic, as it’s essentially just saying “something changes and something stays the same”. What changes we might call “substance”, and what we know is that Christ said “this is my body”, so something pretty important changes. What says the same is that it still looks like bread, tastes like bread, smells like bread. In all outward form and appearance it would be identified as bread by people.

For me a critical thing is to start with Christ’s words and fit our understanding of “substantial” and “accidental” form around that, and what we know happens (or doesn’t happen) to the outward form of the bread. I think in that case it’s fine to be dogmatic that far - but that still leaves huge room for mystery.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

cute signature… most of us don’t really hold to that; anymore than you worship Mary. (non-dancing )

The Baptists I was around certainly didn’t dance, though with all the differing theologies among those under the ever growing umbrella of “Baptist” one can’t really make any broad-brush statements about what Baptists believe.

 

[JTBT]

Sorry about that, but that is the way it is on the document (of my own) that I was quoting It’s not intended as a yell…just emphasis.

I generally never yell. If God can speak to the prophet Elijah in a still small voice, then I figure He can say what He wants through me without raising my voice.

Oh… and BTW, what do you say to the facts that I have presented to you?

I actually don’t see how this supports real presence because it is in “commemoration” of Christ, this actually seems to go against real presence.

 

[JTBT]

The Baptists I was around certainly didn’t dance, though with all the differing theologies among those under the ever growing umbrella of “Baptist” one can’t really make any broad-brush statements about what Baptists believe.

true, I can almost be Catholic and still be a Baptists, or I can be the most anti Catholic person alive and still be a Baptist, that is not what makes a Baptists a Baptist, it is believers (believer in Christ) Baptism that make a Baptist a Baptist

 

[VociMike]

I actually don’t see how this supports real presence because it is in “commemoration” of Christ, this actually seems to go against real presence.

Why does “commemoration” go against the real presence? I hear this argument all the time, and nobody has ever been able to support it.

Isn’t Christ present when two or three are gathered in his name at such a “commemoration”? Of course we all agree he is. So the argument seems to be that “commemoration” prevents, not the presence of Christ but only the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This makes no sense at all, and when I have pointed out this inconsistency the other side always gets silent on the matter.

 

[mercygate]

but should belief in Transubstantiation be dogma?

Why not? Transubstantiation sums up the facts and leaves no wiggle room for “strange doctrine.” It would not BE dogma if there had not been a problem.

As mentioned up thread, the East never encountered the doctrinal challenges faced in the West and thus never HAD to define the Real Presence. We in the West have a different intellectual culture, where defending the faith has been forced by different heresies and different expectations of theological science.