Transubstantiation

[D_Quintero]

I went to CARM and found this argument against Transubstantiation. some of the arguments I had never seen before. Anyone want to try and debate it? it’s here
Real Presence

 

[MiddleBear]

At the Holy holy sacrifice of the Mass the priest says " Happy are those who are called to His table", and to that I say …Amen!

The poor Evangelicals, (and fundamentalists whot take a literal interpretation in reading the bible, except of course the verses regarding the Eucharist) and all Protestants for that matter, are missing the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament for they do not have the Eucharist.

Pray the daily rosary for conversions.

 

[justcatholic]

Transubstantiation is one of the hardest Catholic beliefs to defend, because it goes against our human senses of sight, and smell. From all appearances the hosts of the Eucharist are just a wafer and wine. Even when we drink the wine it smells like wine and taste like wine. So how can one really believe any change has taken place after the priest consecrates the emblems?

                           It can only be done **by faith**. Or acceptance that a change has occurred. You cannot prove the doctrine rationally or scientifically. It is a mystery **of faith**. I simply accept what our Lord said and what the early fathers also testified to as well. You simply cannot argue this issue with someone who has a closed mind to begin with and says, "Show me". 

                            Because I receive Christ's flesh and blood **by faith**, I always receive a blessing within me. I really do and that I can't explain by rational means either. Learn to accept some things by faith and your life will be simpler and much more peaceful. :)

 

[godsent]

justcatholic:

Transubstantiation is one of the hardest Catholic beliefs to defend, because it goes against our human senses of sight, and smell. From all appearances the hosts of the Eucharist are just a wafer and wine. Even when we drink the wine it smells like wine and taste like wine. So how can one really believe any change has taken place after the priest consecrates the emblems?

It can only be done by faith. Or acceptance that a change has occurred. You cannot prove the doctrine rationally or scientifically. It is a mystery of faith. I simply accept what our Lord said and what the early fathers also testified to as well. You simply cannot argue this issue with someone who has a closed mind to begin with and says, “Show me”.

Because I receive Christ’s flesh and blood by faith, I always receive a blessing within me. I really do and that I can’t explain by rational means either. Learn to accept some things by faith and your life will be simpler and much more peaceful.

Amen to that!

You have got it right there!

By the way heres a site which defends the True presence with scriptural evidence!

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

 

[RyanL]

From the site:
**First - there is no indication that the words were meant to be literal

**Refutation

**Second - there is no indication the disciples thought the elements changed
**
Refutation

**Third - there is no indication the disciples worshipped the elements

**Refutation: There is also no indication that they didn’t - this is an argument from silence, which is really a non-argument. All of the disciples who disbelieved in the Real Presence left in John 6:66 (interesting number).

**Fourth - the supper was instituted before Jesus’ crucifixion

**Refutation

**Fifth -the Roman Catholic view is a violation of Levitical law

**Refutation

**Sixth - It is a violation of the incarnation

**This is just plain silly, so I’m not even going to link anything. Is “Jesus in our hearts” a refutation of the incarnation? Is the Church as the Body of Christ a refutation of the incarnation? Really, this is just plain feeble.

**Seventh - the Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice of Christ

**Refutation
Another Refutation, this time from the Early Church Fathers.

If you’re only going to read one and only one of the links I provided (of course, I recommend all of them), read the Fourth Point refutation.

God bless,
RyanL

 

[michaelgazin]

RyanL:

From the site:
First - there is no indication that the words were meant to be literal

****Refutation

Second - there is no indication the disciples thought the elements changed

---

Refutation

Third - there is no indication the disciples worshipped the elements

****Refutation: There is also no indication that they didn’t - this is an argument from silence, which is really a non-argument. All of the disciples who disbelieved in the Real Presence left in John 6:66 (interesting number).

Fourth - the supper was instituted before Jesus’ crucifixion

****Refutation

Fifth -the Roman Catholic view is a violation of Levitical law

****Refutation

Sixth - It is a violation of the incarnation

****This is just plain silly, so I’m not even going to link anything. Is “Jesus in our hearts” a refutation of the incarnation? Is the Church as the Body of Christ a refutation of the incarnation? Really, this is just plain feeble.

Seventh - the Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice of Christ

****Refutation
Another Refutation, this time from the Early Church Fathers.

If you’re only going to read one and only one of the links I provided (of course, I recommend all of them), read the Fourth Point refutation.

God bless,
RyanL

Well, I think Ryan just about finished off this one

 

[michaelgazin]

justcatholic:

Transubstantiation is one of the hardest Catholic beliefs to defend

While it remains no harder to believe that Jesus is God and man.

 

[JimG]

Ever since Christ first enunciated this doctrine, there have been those who reply: “This is a hard saying. Who can accept it?” And many of his disciples left him over this doctrine. They still do.

 

[Marie]

JimG:

Ever since Christ first enunciated this doctrine, there have been those who reply: “This is a hard saying. Who can accept it?” And many of his disciples left him over this doctrine. They still do.

That is correct. It has always been that way.

One of the Early Church fathers mentioned that quite plainly I think.
St Ignatius to the Smyraens-AD 110:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.

 

[D_Quintero]

Thanks for helping me out!
It is so great to go to mass and take part of the Eucharist. I just wish more people knew how great it is.

 

[Liberian]

D Quintero:

I went to CARM and found this argument against Transubstantiation. some of the arguments I had never seen before. Anyone want to try and debate it? it’s here
Real Presence

Quintero,

I don’t know that I can add anything to what Ryan pointed to, but I would note that CARM never dealt with the passage from I Corinthians 12. That’s a pretty gaping hole in their “refutation.”

• Liberian