E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Curious when did the Church teach the Real Presence as dogma?
Was not 2Corinthians 5:16 Paul's ideal opportunity to teach transubstantiation?
- Status
S
SoMissCatholic
Guest
How many times does God have to tell you something before you believe Him?
D
dcana
Guest
Hello. I say, along with SoMissCatholic:
How many times does God have to tell you something before you believe Him?
“Be not faithless, but believing”
Yeah…it’s too bad Jesus never said anything like “This IS my body” or “This IS my blood.” Then we would know for sure.
I think a lot of people get hung up on the term “transubstantiation,” for some reason. It just means “something has become something else.” When Jesus changed water into wine, that was sort of a transubstantiation. Jesus, being God, created out of nothing the alcohol molecules and all the other molecules that are found in wine and “added them” to the water, if you will, to make wine. He just thought them into existence. As God, He can do anything He chooses to as easily as He created Creation out of nothing. So Jesus took BREAD and then after saying the blessing and breaking it, said “this is [now] MY BODY.” And likewise with the wine - changed, according to his own Words and Power, into His Blood. Simple as that. Transubstantiation. God bless.
How many times does God have to tell you something before you believe Him?
“Be not faithless, but believing”
Yeah…it’s too bad Jesus never said anything like “This IS my body” or “This IS my blood.” Then we would know for sure.
I think a lot of people get hung up on the term “transubstantiation,” for some reason. It just means “something has become something else.” When Jesus changed water into wine, that was sort of a transubstantiation. Jesus, being God, created out of nothing the alcohol molecules and all the other molecules that are found in wine and “added them” to the water, if you will, to make wine. He just thought them into existence. As God, He can do anything He chooses to as easily as He created Creation out of nothing. So Jesus took BREAD and then after saying the blessing and breaking it, said “this is [now] MY BODY.” And likewise with the wine - changed, according to his own Words and Power, into His Blood. Simple as that. Transubstantiation. God bless.
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
2Corinthians 11:5 “For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles”
Regarding your quote and Peter : In my book ( I believe ) it was Peter and Paul or Paul and Peter.
I am not doubting the arithmetic but when I went to School : a dozen was twelve and twelve also made a dozen.
In my opinion of all the faults in the Corinthian church the first one that Paul tackles ( before the errors in regards to the supper) was their practice in relation to particular ministers of Christ (1Cor 3:4) " For while one saith,I am of Paul;and another,I am of Apollos ;are ye not carnal?"
Does Paul not rather than see division spread : seek to unite all (Christ’s ministers) under the one God?
(Verse22&23)
“Whether Paul,or Apollos,or Cephas,or the world,or life,or death,or things present,or things to come;all are your’s ;
And ye are Christ’s;and Christ is God’s”
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
P
PJM
Guest
For a start it’s no-longer “a man” It’s Jesus Christ/ GOD — True God AND at the same time truly man.
READ 1 Cor. 11:26-30
"** 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. 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. 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.
For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 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. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.[means die [condemned] in their Sin]
God Bless you,
Patrick
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
Hi Patrick
Having read your RC version of the above verses I would again point to Paul’s( which he "received of the Lord “)consistent use of the “cup” ( or chalice if you prefer) to symbolically and typically show forth a certain significance.
Is this not Just like 1Corinthians10:16 " The cup of blessing which we bless”?
For me your quoted verses ,would have to read ( to be consistent ) verse 25: This wine is my blood for the new testament .
Not as it is: “This cup”( chalice)" is the new testament in my blood".
Verse 26: “For as often as ye eat this bread,and drink this cup ,ye do shew forth the Lord’s death till he come”
Likewise I would have expected to see :as often as ye eat this bread ,and drink of this blood (or at least see : drink of this wine)
Since it is obviously not the case ,why then does Paul( through the ascended Christ ) in reference to the contents ,use the symbolism of “the cup” ( or chalice) on every occasion?
P
Pita53
Guest
Hi BJ,
You seem to be struggling with the whole idea of transubstantiation and the real presence.
When Jesus instructs us to “Do this in remembrance of me” it was never intended to be a memorial of something in past history. Because Jesus/God is outside of time and space, this is an invitation to participate in the eternal NOW.
'The command of Jesus to repeat his actions and words “until he comes” does not only ask us to remember Jesus and what he did. It is directed at the liturgical celebration, by the apostles and their successors, of the memorial of Christ, of his life, of his death, of his Resurrection and of his intercession in the presence of the Father. (1 Cor 11:26)
From the beginning the Church has been faithful to the Lord’s command. (Acts 2:42, 46. Acts 10:7.)’
Catechism of the Catholic Church 1345-47
“Let me solemnly assure you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood real drink. The man who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.” (John 6: 53-56)
Isn’t this incredible! Our God loves each of us more than mortal life; he holds and sustains and feeds us in spirit and in word and in fact! Our God feeds us his very body and blood, soul and divinity. God is good, all the time! All the time, God is good!
May you find what you seek in Christ Jesus. I will keep you in my prayers!
You seem to be struggling with the whole idea of transubstantiation and the real presence.
When Jesus instructs us to “Do this in remembrance of me” it was never intended to be a memorial of something in past history. Because Jesus/God is outside of time and space, this is an invitation to participate in the eternal NOW.
'The command of Jesus to repeat his actions and words “until he comes” does not only ask us to remember Jesus and what he did. It is directed at the liturgical celebration, by the apostles and their successors, of the memorial of Christ, of his life, of his death, of his Resurrection and of his intercession in the presence of the Father. (1 Cor 11:26)
From the beginning the Church has been faithful to the Lord’s command. (Acts 2:42, 46. Acts 10:7.)’
Catechism of the Catholic Church 1345-47
“Let me solemnly assure you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood real drink. The man who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.” (John 6: 53-56)
Isn’t this incredible! Our God loves each of us more than mortal life; he holds and sustains and feeds us in spirit and in word and in fact! Our God feeds us his very body and blood, soul and divinity. God is good, all the time! All the time, God is good!
May you find what you seek in Christ Jesus. I will keep you in my prayers!
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
Greetings Pita53
Yes I would agree that the "remembrance " of the supper is not restricted to the past ,that is as it were ,an historical event such as that which Americans bring to remembrance on the 4th of July.
The significance of the supper today is as real now as it was then.
That which is graphically shown and pictured(I believe) by the series of actions performed by Jesus ,was still to take place for those sat at meat: “on the night in which he was betrayed”.That is in their future .
So that which was then shown figuratively( at the supper) was still to be played out or find its fulfilment at Golgotha.
But for me the words remembrance ,or memorial ,in the actual everyday meaning; and usage, must have its focus on a past event.
Then, I believe all the significance and the entirety of all the benefits ( for all those who would ever feast at this same table( 1Cor10:21), was already secured ( for ever) when that terrible “cup” was in fact consumed to the bitter dregs.
For we who believe that this cup that Jesus was yet to put to his mouth was not that “cup of blessing”(1Cor10:16) which we ,who now remember his death in our time,for it is only when he had drank it to the full : that it’s contents where there and then changed : full to the brim are they now ( for those who now drink) with “blessing”.Not then the same contents which he was to drink : even" the wine of the wrath of God,which is poured out without mixture."(Rev14:10)
M
manualman
Guest
The OP seems to be making the argument that since Scripture itself neither uses the word transubstantiation, nor explicitly explains the doctrine (though there are many passages that pretty clearly suggest that the readers already understand the idea), then it must be made up by (probably nefarious) later catholics.
Such logic is rather troublesome, however, since if it is valid logic it also disproves the reliability of the doctrine of the Trinity. Just like with transubstantiation, Scripture has every opportunity, yet fails to clearly explain the Trinity in explicit detail. Worse, one can actually cite verses that seem on the surface to be incompatible with the doctrine of the Trinity (for example Jesus telling the disciples that He doesn’t know, that only the Father knows the day and the hour of judgment).
So how about it, OP? You reject the Trinity too? Or is that one OK since it is affirmed in your protestant Traditions?
It seems to me that one must either admit the train of logic is faulty or assert that the Trinity is not revelation. Which will it be?
Such logic is rather troublesome, however, since if it is valid logic it also disproves the reliability of the doctrine of the Trinity. Just like with transubstantiation, Scripture has every opportunity, yet fails to clearly explain the Trinity in explicit detail. Worse, one can actually cite verses that seem on the surface to be incompatible with the doctrine of the Trinity (for example Jesus telling the disciples that He doesn’t know, that only the Father knows the day and the hour of judgment).
So how about it, OP? You reject the Trinity too? Or is that one OK since it is affirmed in your protestant Traditions?
It seems to me that one must either admit the train of logic is faulty or assert that the Trinity is not revelation. Which will it be?
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
I personally would not fully agree with the use and the convenience of using the word “trinity” .
As it is not used of the Holy Ghost (in the scriptures)it might well be considered a short cut.
That is : instead of explaining in scriptural language ,that mystery which is in Father ,Son ;and Holy Ghost : three persons in one God.
Which God ( in three persons) is clearly identifiable within the pages of the new testament.
Not merely as you say of transubstantiation, it would only :“pretty clearly suggest”.
That the Father is shown by his Son and the Father and the Son are revealed through the Person of the Holy Ghost is identifiable : " Howbeit when he the Spirit of truth,is come,he will guide you into all truth…He shall glorify me:for he shall receive of mine,and shall show it unto you.
All things that the Father hath are mine…"(John 16:13-15)
I would agree that the sons of men can and do make all their practices agree with the scripture but this does not make the holy scriptures agree with all their practices.
Or as scripture( I believe) itself testifies to this fact: 1Cor10:21" ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table,and of the table of devils"
One of us is correct : show me please Paul ’ s instruction of RP?
M
manualman
Guest
Oh, please. Centuries worth of sincere and well intentioned believers engaged in argument, debate and downright bar fights over what the real meaning of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as mentioned in Scripture really meant. Show me clearly where Scripture clearly explains that the Holy Spirit is a PERSON. You can’t. It’s suggested, perhaps implied, but not articulated. Just like the Real Presence in the Eucharist. The only reason YOU find the Trinity perfectly clear is because it is settled Tradition now that your protestant forefathers chose not to question. The process by which it BECAME settled Tradition is pretty much the same one used to settle on the definition of transubstantiation. You only object to that because you’ve been trained to. It’s a basic inconsistency in logic and principle.
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
Matthew 28:19 “Go ye therefore and teach all nations,baptising in the name of the Father,and of the Son,and of the Holy Ghost”
Here we see that as well as equality within the Godhead ,there is equally a designation of each person:named.So if the name Father points to his person and the name Son indicates his person ; then the name of the Holy Ghost ,of necessity clearly identifies his person.
Romans 8:27" And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit"
Being the person of the Holy Ghost : He has a mind.
John 14:26 " But the Comforter,which is the Holy Ghost ,whom the Father will send in my name,he shall teach you all things,and bring into remembrance ,whatsoever I have said unto you"
Here those who are to be taught( disciples of Christ) obviously have a mind to receive that which they are to learn.
How much more does the teacher( the Holy Ghost) have a mind and ability to teach ; and as his mind and memory is infinitely superior to theirs, for he “will bring into remembrance "
" whatsoever I have said to you”
The person of the Holy Ghost ,hearing ( always ) and remembering ,that communication of the person of the Son and indeed himself communicating ( the same) to the disciples.
1Corinthians12:11 “But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit,dividing to every man severally as he will.”
The person of the Holy Ghost has a will.
Acts 21:11" Thus saith the Holy Ghost ,so shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle"
Evidently the person of the Holy Ghost can speak:
Acts 13:2" the Holy Ghost said ,separate me Barnabas and Saul"
And has continually spoken throughout scripture:
Heb 3:7
"Wherefore( as the Holy Ghost saith,To day if you will here his voice "
In Acts ,the person of the Holy Ghost : Forbids and allows ; approves ,disapproves ,he can be vexed ,he can comfort he can be grieved ect.ect.
For me that the person of the Holy Spirit is invisible and as such is intangible and so can only be perceived and experienced in the (spiritual) life of sanctified or holy men(and women) and that by his indwelling. But the evidence ( in scripture) ,even though his person and activities appear invisibly ,there is I say as much proof of his person as that of the person of the Father , for the Father in heaven,is only seen through his son
n earth.(Heb 1:1" God ,who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets"(verse 2) " Hath in these last days spoken to us by"(in) “son”(KJV)
So would you then say that it is also not possible to prove the person of the Father ,as seen in scripture?
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
With all due respect( as you are a "veteran “member and I a “new”) I merely suggest that it is you who are at rest in the arms of tradition not me .
Whether RC or Protestant as you wrongly designate me , " tradition” is ( however or whenever correct) through the channel of fallible men ,and as such is subject to decay and death.
But “the word of God which liveth and abideth forever” 1Peter 1:23.
Here I can find a sure resting place ( or an high tower) :“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word,it is because there is no light in them” Isaiah 8:20.
M
manualman
Guest
The very fact that you had to string numerous Scripture passages together to support your argument reveals clearly that it is an interpretation issue, not a black and white revelation of Scripture. And the historical record that sincere believers struggled mightily and took a long time to formulate Trinitarian doctrine illustrates that Scripture doesn’t interpret itself to all sincere believers.
I know you won’t admit it, but your very explanation demonstrates the way that your own Tradition formed you. I don’t suppose it bothers you very much that every significant Christian of the first millennia explicitly or implicitly accepted the Real Presence in the Eucharist as a part of revelation. Calvin and his spiritual offspring have been the first significant (i.e. not isolated cranks) Christians in history to reject the Eucharist as Real Presence, body and blood. It really doesn’t bother you at all to assert that only 1500+ years after the birth of Christ did believers start understanding communion properly?
If you’re interested in the topic from the catholic perspective, I suggest “The Lamb’s Supper” by Scott Hahn. He came from a Presbyterian background himself before becoming catholic, so you may find his thought processes helpful.
And he’s not as cranky as me. Bonus!
I know you won’t admit it, but your very explanation demonstrates the way that your own Tradition formed you. I don’t suppose it bothers you very much that every significant Christian of the first millennia explicitly or implicitly accepted the Real Presence in the Eucharist as a part of revelation. Calvin and his spiritual offspring have been the first significant (i.e. not isolated cranks) Christians in history to reject the Eucharist as Real Presence, body and blood. It really doesn’t bother you at all to assert that only 1500+ years after the birth of Christ did believers start understanding communion properly?
If you’re interested in the topic from the catholic perspective, I suggest “The Lamb’s Supper” by Scott Hahn. He came from a Presbyterian background himself before becoming catholic, so you may find his thought processes helpful.
And he’s not as cranky as me. Bonus!
S
SoMissCatholic
Guest
That is all well and good, but let me ask you this: if the trinity is so clearly taught in scripture as you claim, then why does history contradict you? Arianism was a heresy that denied the trinity and raged through the early church for centuries, at times threatening to overtake true trinitarian Christianity. Or how about Oneness Pentacostals today? They deny the trinity in favor of (at least as I understand it) a form of Modalism. Or how about the Mormons, or the Jehova’s Witnesses? They both deny the trinity (along with many other things). There are millions upon millions of people throughout history and today that have denied and continue to deny the trinity.
Can you honestly tell me that had you never before heard of Christianity or any of its teachings and just picked up a Bible and read it without any preconcieved notions that you would “clearly” come to the following conclusions: that there is one God existing in three co-eternal and co-equal persons; that within that Godhead exists the Son, Jesus Christ who is both fully God and fully man (i.e. two natures); and further, that within the person of Jesus Christ there exist two wills, a divine will and a human will? I don’t think you can. Rather, you readily accept the trinity and these other doctrines regarding the Godhead because (whether you acknowledge it or not) you accept the authority of the early councils of the Catholic Church, which defined each of the foregoing in the face of heresies claiming otherwise. IOW, you accept those portions of Sacred Tradition that agree with your protestant/evangelical/whateveryouwanttocallit worldview and reject those portions that don’t.
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
Seriously? Really? Wow. What is in a cup? Did he command us to eat the cup. Chew on the wood/metal that it was made of? The amount of mental gymnastics that must be accomplished to separate a cup from what is in it, EVEN THOUGH HE IS TALKING ABOUT PARTICIPATING IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST, is astounding. Everything is somehow literal in scripture, except for the words of Jesus and Paul when it comes to the Eucharist. Is it somehow more sensible to assume Genesis is literal, even though light and the sun appear on different days, than it is to take Christ at His literal word?
Read the fathers of the Church. They all speak of the real presence. Look up ‘church fathers and the Eucharist’. Do it if you’re not afraid to see that Catholicism is historical Christianity.
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
Of course. Somehow the Spirit is capable of revealing to us which books are scripture, and passing that down through the ages, yet somehow when it comes to anything else, can’t guide us. How weak is the Protestant God…
Tell me, why is 3 John and Revelation inspired, but the epistle of Barnabas and the Apocalypse of Peter not? How do you know?
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
Well yes ,that is the whole point : your exaggeration stresses the point :that Somehow and for some other reason, the continuous use of “the cup” ,by Paul,rather than just its contents,must have a greater spiritual significance and therefore benefit to the reader.
Would Catholics accept that in Mark 10:38 ,when Jesus replies to the ‘sons of thunder’,desire for maximum prominence in his coming glory, that we see the cup and its contents ,being used to signify an all encompassing spiritual reality.?That here ,by using the metaphoric “cup” ,he is figuratively pointing to his own pathway and cross :whereby his Father would exult the name of his Son ;and make his name to be “a name which is above every other name”?( Phil 2:9)
Could the names of James and John get to a similar place :
“ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of?”
Of course not ,he must drink of this cup alone and that to the bitter dregs.
Why does Jesus seem to adjust the sternness of this affirmation? ( that they could not)
“Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of ?”
It seems to be contradictory would you agree?For me It can only be the same cup( that they all could share) if ,once emptied of its terrible contents( by the Saviour) : the vessel remained the same but the contents now were:" The cup of blessing" 1Cor10:16
Carry therefore this symbolic use of the cup over to the me memorial of the supper and do we not see the contents ( of the cup) and the vessel which holds those contents,similarly put to use?
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
That’s some impressive cognitive dissonance. You should have told that to the Apostles and their disciples. We have Ignatius of Antioch condemn Gnostics because they refuse to acknowledge the Eucharist as the flesh of Christ. We have Justin the Martyr explain it as ‘transmutation’, which essentially means the same as transformation.
If Paul was talking about those who participate unworthily in the metaphoric cup of Christ’s suffering, then it would be impossible to drink condemnation upon oneself by the simple participation in the one-time event of a symbolic communion. This is not the case, as he speaks of participation in the Eucharist in an unworthy state as BEING the source of the condemnation.
Additionally, they DID end up drinking of the cup of Christ’s blood, and entered into the LITERAL mystery of His Passion, just as Catholics do each time they receive the flesh of Christ in the Eucharist.
- Status