Transubstantiation?

[fellowChristian]

Matthew 26:26-28

26While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”

27And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you;

28for **this is My blood **of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14:22

22While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; **this is My body.” **

Mark 14:24

24And He said to them, "**This is My blood **of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Luke 22:19-20

19And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “**This is My body **which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

20And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

**John 6 **

51"**I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread **also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."

52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

53So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

54"He who **eats My flesh and drinks My blood **has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

55"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.

56"He who** eats My flesh and drinks My blood **abides in Me, and I in him.

57"As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.

58"This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever."

I can not find where Jesus says
“I am with the bread” or “My flesh is with the bread” or how about
“My blood is in the wine”
So God does something,because He can, so that the substance is Him and only Him.
And God has from the begining of time let His children give everything a name.

Genesis 2
19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

Transubstantiation is a term by which we describe,as best as we can, what happens at the altar.

and not all sacrifices are bloody…

Romans 12

1Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.

 

[JTBT]

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.

well I will try to give you an answer, I agree that there is “real” presence when ever two or three are gathered in his name, the question is not if he is present, the question is, is the Bread actually his body, and the Wine actually his Blood, yes he is present by that does not mean that the substance of the Bread and Wine has changed. Like at the last supper, Christ said this is my Body while holding the bread with his body so how literal was he speaking, that is where the debate is, and that has kind of been my point, you can believe that Chirst is really present without holding to Transub.

 

[mercygate]

No

Didn’t you say you did not believe that Peter is the rock upon whom Christ promised to build His Church? Or was that somebody else?

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.

You said you did not believe Peter was the first Bishop OF Rome. What I am claiming is that even if that were so – even if Peter, Paul, and whoever else was around enjoyed episcopal status all at the same time in Rome, Peter was STILL a bishop by virtue of his Apostolic status. Peter was a bishop in Rome. Even if Paul were there, Peter’s status as an Apostle, Our Lord’s promise to build his Church upon “this rock” and Peter’s status as an “eyewitness to the Resurrection” would make him the pre-eminent Apostle there. Peter shed his blood for Christ in Rome – as did Paul.

Roman primacy of Rome depends on Peter’s status as an Apostolic bishop and on his martyrdom in that place. The first 14 Bishops of Rome followed him in martyrdom, affirming the privilege of the See.

Peter died in Rome – not Antioch – giving Rome the honor of his blood. Peter did hand over to the Church in Antioch with the Apostolic power enjoyed by ALL churches in the Apostolic Succession but he did not leave his blood in Antioch…

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.

You believe in infant baptism? Confession to a priest? Apostolic Succession? Seven Sacraments rather than two ordinances? Aren’t you a baptist?

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

There is no “the” Eastern Orthodox Church. They are “Churches.” And you are correct those churches ARE “original” in that they, too, derive their Apostolic Succession and their teaching and practice from the early Church. They have valid priestly Orders and celebrate valid Sacraments. They are true sister Churches of Rome in all but jurisdiction.

They venerate images, baptize infants, and confess to priests.

They are without the one marker Jesus promised as the identifier of “His” Church: Communion with Peter.

 

[mercygate]

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

I see your thought processes as evolving in sophistication. Perhaps for the purposes of distinguishing believers’ baptism as a hallmark of the Baptist tradition, you might consider the term “believers’ only” baptism, since Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Presbyterians – everybody in the pre-baptist Christian world – also baptizes adult believers. Belivers’ baptism is not unique to baptists and their descendents. Not baptizing infants is the identifier of your tradition.

 

[JTBT]

Didn’t you say you did not believe that Peter is the rock upon whom Christ promised to build His Church? Or was that somebody else?.

I can say Peter is the rock, but that doesn’t translate into the current Pope being equal with Peter.

You said you did not believe Peter was the first Bishop OF Rome. What I am claiming is that even if that were so – even if Peter, Paul, and whoever else was around enjoyed episcopal status all at the same time in Rome, Peter was STILL a bishop by virtue of his Apostolic status. Peter was a bishop in Rome. Even if Paul were there, Peter’s status as an Apostle, Our Lord’s promise to build his Church upon “this rock” and Peter’s status as an “eyewitness to the Resurrection” would make him the pre-eminent Apostle there. Peter shed his blood for Christ in Rome – as did Paul. .

Roman primacy of Rome depends on Peter’s status as an Apostolic bishop and on his martyrdom in that place. The first 14 Bishops of Rome followed him in martyrdom, affirming the privilege of the See. .

so you are saying it is by virture of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul that the Bishop of Rome has primacy?

Peter died in Rome – not Antioch – giving Rome the honor of his blood. Peter did hand over to the Church in Antioch with the Apostolic power enjoyed by ALL churches in the Apostolic Succession but he did not leave his blood in Antioch… .

You believe in infant baptism? Confession to a priest? Aren’t you a baptist?.

no I do not believe in infant baptism, but i thought that this was a perfectly acceptable practice to delay Baptism in RC, and EO Church, even Augustine was not Baptisted until he believed and his mother is considered a saint in the RC church.

 

[VociMike]

well I will try to give you an answer, I agree that there is “real” presence when ever two or three are gathered in his name, the question is not if he is present, the question is, is the Bread actually his body, and the Wine actually his Blood, yes he is present by that does not mean that the substance of the Bread and Wine has changed. Like at the last supper, Christ said this is my Body while holding the bread with his body so how literal was he speaking, that is where the debate is, and that has kind of been my point, you can believe that Chirst is really present without holding to Transub.

Then the “commemoration” aspect really doesn’t come in to play at all here.

BTW, I’m still hoping to get an answer regarding the way the Lutherans treat the “bread” after their liturgy (they toss it), vs. the way the Catholics and Orthodox treat it (with the reverence due to God). Which do you think is correct, and why?

 

[JTBT]

I see your thought processes as evolving in sophistication. Perhaps for the purposes of distinguishing believers’ baptism as a hallmark of the Baptist tradition, you might consider the term “believers’ only” baptism, since Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Presbyterians – everybody in the pre-baptist Christian world – also baptizes adult believers. Belivers’ baptism is not unique to baptists and their descendents. Not baptizing infants is the identifier of your tradition.

granted

 

[JTBT]

Then the “commemoration” aspect really doesn’t come in to play at all here.?

how so?

BTW, I’m still hoping to get an answer regarding the way the Lutherans treat the “bread” after their liturgy (they toss it), vs. the way the Catholics and Orthodox treat it (with the reverence due to God). Which do you think is correct, and why?

I think you maybe generalizing a little bit with the Lutherans, I’m sure not all of them do that, as to which I think is correct… I haven’t given that much thought. Considering what Catholics and Orthodox believe I would expect nothing less than a worshipful attiude toward the Bread and Wine. However if you believed that Christ left the Bread and Wine after the service why would it be a problem to throw it away?

 

[mercygate]

I can say Peter is the rock, but that doesn’t translate into the current Pope being equal with Peter.

We just take it from Jesus’ mouth and trace the line through the early Fathers; the understanding of “Peter the Rock” to mean “where Peter is, there is the Church” is not a novelty of recent development.

so you are saying it is by virture of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul that the Bishop of Rome has primacy?

The early Church thought so.

**“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
**

no I do not believe in infant baptism, but i thought that this was a perfectly acceptable practice to delay Baptism in RC, and EO Church, even Augustine was not Baptisted until he believed and his mother is considered a saint in the RC church.

History has moved the fashion from time to time but in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches delayed baptisms were not because people did not believe that infants COULD be baptised but because the theology of reconciliation had not been fully delineated, and people feared that post-baptismal sin would condemn them to Hell. The first reference to withholding iinfant baptism appears in the proceedings of a council in 250 A.D., where the question is not whether to baptize infants, but whether to withhold baptism until the child is eight days old.

 

[mercygate]

how so?

I think you maybe generalizing a little bit with the Lutherans, I’m sure not all of them do that, as to which I think is correct… I haven’t given that much thought. Considering what Catholics and Orthodox believe I would expect nothing less than a worshipful attiude toward the Bread and Wine. However if you believed that Christ left the Bread and Wine after the service why would it be a problem to throw it away?

Not exactly addressing your question here, but there is a famous child-martyr of the early Church, Tarcisius, who because of his piety (and probably because people thought he wouldn’t get caught) was entrusted to carry the Consecrated Host away from the Eucharistic celebration to a person confined to his home by illness. On the road he was stopped by Roman soldiers, to whom he refused to relinquish the Sacred Host – so they killed him. This story illustrates the very early belief that Our Lord’s Eucharistic Presence REMAINS after the close of the celebration.

 

[VociMike]

I think you maybe generalizing a little bit with the Lutherans, I’m sure not all of them do that, as to which I think is correct… I haven’t given that much thought. Considering what Catholics and Orthodox believe I would expect nothing less than a worshipful attiude toward the Bread and Wine. However if you believed that Christ left the Bread and Wine after the service why would it be a problem to throw it away?

But they can’t both be right. Either throwing the “bread” away afterwords is an horrific blasphemy, or else treating it afterwards as the real presence of Christ is an horrific idolatry. You have to choose.

 

[VociMike]

Originally Posted by VociMike
Then the “commemoration” aspect really doesn’t come in to play at all here.?

Because we both agree that “commemoration” doesn’t refute the real presence of Christ. Even those who believe in a symbolic Eucharist agree that Christ is still present in some fashion.

 

[JTBT]

Because we both agree that “commemoration” doesn’t refute the real presence of Christ. Even those who believe in a symbolic Eucharist agree that Christ is still present in some fashion.

then why is there an argument between our two traditions?

 

[mercygate]

then why is there an argument between our two traditions?

I believe the origin of the problem arises from the actual jurisdictional break of Protestantism from the mother Church.

If you are no longer attached to the vine from which the sacraments take their life, then you have to come up with an alternate theology of the Church. It becomes NECESSARY to deny any point of doctrine that requires a visible church as THE Body of Christ: Apostolic Succession, Holy Orders, and the EFFICACY of the Sacraments all have to go because they cannot be maintained apart from the vine.

It’s that simple.

 

[JTBT]

I believe the origin of the problem arises from the actual jurisdictional break of Protestantism from the mother Church.

If you are no longer attached to the vine from which the sacraments take their life, then you have to come up with an alternate theology of the Church. It becomes NECESSARY to deny any point of doctrine that requires a visible church as THE Body of Christ: Apostolic Succession, Holy Orders, and the EFFICACY of the Sacraments all have to go because they cannot be maintained apart from the vine.

It’s that simple.

so there is an argument because your church believes that Christ is not really present when we have communion.

If that is the case why be offended by what the Luterans do?

 

[VociMike]

then why is there an argument between our two traditions?

I can’t answer that. It is always Protestants arguing against the Catholic Real Presence who bring up the “commemoration” argument. And then when they are reminded that Christ is also present at their commemoration, they get very quiet - until, that is, the next time one of them brings up the argument again.

 

[JTBT]

I can’t answer that. It is always Protestants arguing against the Catholic Real Presence who bring up the “commemoration” argument. And then when they are reminded that Christ is also present at their commemoration, they get very quiet - until, that is, the next time one of them brings up the argument again.

well either Christ is really present at our commemoration and our sacraments are valid or they are not, you can have it both ways. it is my understanding that the Catholic Church’s stance is that protestant communion is not vaild; therefore, no real presence. so at that point the Roman Catholic church is arguing against real presence.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

JTBT,

VociMike is speaking of a *relative presence. *Christ is present in various ways. For instance at your Lord’s Supper He is presumably present because you are praying to Him.

But the Eucharist is Christ present in a unique way.

VC

 

[mercygate]

so there is an argument because your church believes that Christ is not really present when we have communion.

Are you saying that because the Catholic and Orthodox Churches believe that Christ is truly present *on HIS own terms *only in the sacraments of Churches with authentic Apostolic succession, that we are somehow being contentious by insisting on our ancient beliefs and rejecting the Protestant view that the Eucharist is only a symbol?

If that is the case why be offended by what the Luterans do?

Not sure what you are getting at. Do you mean that business about tossing the leftovers to the birds? Lutherans can do whatever they please with bread and wine. We do not believe that Christ is really present in the elements. In fact, those Lutherans and Episcopalians who do reserve the sacrament would be much more vulnerable to the charge Evangelicals lay at the feet of Catholics – that we “worship a cracker.”

 

[mercygate]

well either Christ is really present at our commemoration and our sacraments are valid or they are not, you can have it both ways. it is my understanding that the Catholic Church’s stance is that protestant communion is not vaild; therefore, no real presence. so at that point the Roman Catholic church is arguing against real presence.

No. We are explaining that without the Apostolic charism conveyed by Apostolic Succession and without the intention to consecrate bread and wine such that they BECOME the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit acting IN Christ’s Church, the bread and wine do NOT contain the Real Presence of Jesus Christ.

That He is present among you in some way is another question. That He is personally and sacramentally present under the form of bread and wine is impossible.