What is wrong with transubstantiation?

[Contarini]

Thanks for responding Edwin, in my laymen terms I’ll try to spell myself out as clearly as possible.

Symbolic and highly significant because it symbolizes the Christs’ message of grace and salvation
and also symbollic in its prefigurement of the Messianic banquet.

Luke 22:19 (New International Version)
19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying,
“This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

Verses symbolically showing the prefigurement of the Messianic banquet; the promises, celebratory banquets and the fulfillment…

The symbolic or typological promises…
Isaiah 25:6-8 (New International Version)
6 On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare
a feast of rich food for all peoples,
a banquet of aged wine—
the best of meats and the finest of wines.
7 On this mountain he will destroy
the shroud that enfolds all peoples,
the sheet that covers all nations;
8 he will swallow up death forever.
The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears
from all faces;
he will remove the disgrace of his people
from all the earth.
The LORD has spoken.

Matthew 22:4 (New International Version)
4"Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner:
My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’

Luke 15:22-32 (New International Version)

22"But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet.
23Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate.
24For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.
25"Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing.
26So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on.
27’Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’
28"The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him.
29But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders.
Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends.
30But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’
31" ‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours.
32But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ "

The celebrations…
We find in the apostolic practice of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:46).
46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts.
They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,

The fulfillment
Revelation 19:9 (New International Version)
9Then the angel said to me, "Write: ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!’ " And he added,
“These are the true words of God.”

He is worthy to be sought!
Simon

I don’t think anything you have said is controversial. However, what you said and I challenged was that Scripture presents difficulties for believing that it is *more *than symbolic. The question is not whether your symbolic view is wrong, but whether there are other dimensions to the Eucharist.

I repeat: what in Scripture do you believe presents difficulties for the view that the Eucharist is more (not in any way less) than a symbol?

Or more precisely, for the view that the Eucharist is a symbol that contains the reality to which it points rather than merely a symbol that points to an absent reality (clearly in its eschatological dimension it does point to something that has not yet entirely been fulfilled, but even there I would say that when we receive the Eucharist we are not merely acting out a prediction of the messianic banquet but are actually sharing in it).

Edwin

 

[MariaG]

Maybe crucify is a wrong word to use, but we can agree on sacrifice, 'cause that is what mass is all about, isn’t it? The real presence of Christ in the eucharist, and that it is being offered as a sacrifice? You, as a catholic are bound to believe that Christ is REALLY present in the eucharist. Hence the sacrificing of Christ is happening every time you have mass… Witch is happening in every catholic church all over the world each Sunday.

-c-

I don’t think that the Catholics believe that Christ is being sacrificed again and again and again which, of course, would be contrary to the teaching in Hebrews. Its a bit of a close distinction and words may be getting in the way here, but I think that Catholics are saying that Christ’s original sacrifice is being re-presented during the Mass, in other words, that we are essentially transported in some mystical way to the foot of Calvary.

Yes, but in the Catholic view it’s all one sacrifice!

Edwin

I just wanted to thank my Protestant brothers in Christ, for defending the Catholic understanding:tiphat: . I think this is important to point out that there are non-Catholics who don’t think the Catholic Church teaches we resacrifice Christ over and over again. We don’t, but this is, unfortunately, one of the “Jack Chick” kind of lies that is perpetuated about Mass.

One Sacrifice made present. (BTW God makes it present, not some magical words of the priest )

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Truthstalker]

The myth of resacrifice can be traced at least to John Calvin, who repeatedly states that is what Catholics do in the Mass. His understanding of the Mass derived not from official Catholic teaching but from speculations being taught, I think, at the University of Paris. As I understand it, during the time when the papacy was secularized, papal attention was on politics more than theology and a great number of things that should have been addressed were not. So theologians were free to state almost anything, including the idea that the priest was sacrificing Christ on the altar during Mass. I think some actually taught that. In any case Calvin was convinced that that was Church teaching, and had been so taught, and Calvin being Calvin, he now exerts a great influence on many Protestants who are convinced that he knew what he was talking about. Unfortunately he did not. It is found in the worst section of the Institutes and in his Commentaries. I wish someone would have sat down with him and straightened him out on it, as it was a primary reason he left Catholicism.

Similarly today we have ex-Catholics who run around saying that when they were Catholic, they worshipped Mary, bread, and the Pope. True Catholic worship involves another Trinity, but this whole subtopic underscores a crying need for a reform of the educational system in the Catholic church. At least these ex-Catholics no longer worship Mary, bread and the Pope. I wish, however, that they did not have to leave the Catholic Church to stop it and learn what hyperdoulia, transubstantiation, and papal authority mean. As for me, I’m still trying to figure it out.

 

[Truthstalker]

By the way, I am toying with the statement that in Thomist terms the Eucharist is simple: it is a symbol of itself.

 

[Contarini]

The myth of resacrifice can be traced at least to John Calvin, who repeatedly states that is what Catholics do in the Mass. His understanding of the Mass derived not from official Catholic teaching but from speculations being taught, I think, at the University of Paris. As I understand it, during the time when the papacy was secularized, papal attention was on politics more than theology and a great number of things that should have been addressed were not. So theologians were free to state almost anything,

Actually, it’s more the other way round. The universities–especially Paris–saw themselves as the guardians of orthodoxy and would condemn people as heretics even if Rome thought they were OK (this happened to Erasmus). I don’t think it’s true that the papacy didn’t pay attention to doctrine, though certainly many popes weren’t as spiritual or as theologically profound as one might have hoped.

including the idea that the priest was sacrificing Christ on the altar during Mass. I think some actually taught that.

Francis X. Clark wrote a book, Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation (1960), which examined early-sixteenth-century theological and liturgical texts in some detail and found no evidence that anyone taught any such thing. He may have been wrong or biased, but I don’t know of any refutation of his argument here, so I’m inclined to go with his findings until further evidence turns up.

In any case Calvin was convinced that that was Church teaching, and had been so taught,

I think a distinction needs to be made between a straight misrepresentation of what the Church teaches and a disagreement concerning the implications of its teaching. I don’t think anyone was teaching that Christ was resacrificed in each Mass, but the Reformers concluded that this was the implication of Catholic teaching. And it is fair to say that Catholic theology at this point left itself open to this charge by the strong language it used concerning the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. It wasn’t that people taught that Christ was resacrificed, but that they had not yet undertaken the task of explaining how the Eucharist could be a sacrifice *without *Christ being resacrificed. Catholic theology has since clarified this point, but many Protestants are unconvinced. In many cases this is because they have not had it explained to them (I think this was true of me), and when it is explained they say “that makes sense.” But other Protestants say, “no, you’re just trying to explain away the clear implications of your teaching.” That’s their right, just as, for instance, it’s my right to say that Baptists believe we are saved by one easy work, or that they (and to some extent more traditional Protestants as well) believe that we are saved by putting faith in faith rather than in Christ.

These are polemical statements of a doctrine in terms of the implications one finds in it. One should also be capable of stating that same doctrine in the terms of its adherents, but one doesn’t have to accept those terms as the best way to describe the doctrine. If a doctrine is false, then most likely part of its falsity involves blinding its adherents to its true implications (although if one rarely finds the adherents behaving in a way that justifies the polemic, the polemic is probably seriously misconceived). So I don’t think this kind of polemical characterization is always wrong (even though it should be used with utmost care, after making sure that you understand the doctrine as its adherents perceive it).

There are Protestants out there who understand what dulia and latria mean, but reject the distinction and thus believe that Catholics do worship the saints. That is not a “misrepresentation,” at least not on a factual level. Its error is theological, not descriptive. Same with the claim that Catholics resacrifice Christ, *if *the Protestant making the claim has first examined and understood the Catholic perspective. Of course most who make this charge have done no such thing. . . . but some have.

Edwin

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I don’t think anything you have said is controversial. However, what you said and I challenged was that Scripture presents difficulties for believing that it is *more *than symbolic.

Edwin

Here was my quote;
Scripturally I struggle with it being anything more than symbolic.

This was not to say a case couldn’t be made for other beliefs, it is my opinion only. I can understand how people may view it different.

So just to clarify, I don’t take issue personally with real presence whether spiritually, faithfully or actually. I just don’t interpret it as such, well maybe In a sense I follow the calvinist view of spiritual presence.

He is worthy to be sought!
Simon

 

[Contarini]

Here was my quote;
Scripturally I struggle with it being anything more than symbolic.

This was not to say a case couldn’t be made for other beliefs, it is my opinion only. I can understand how people may view it different.

That’s fine, but my question is: what about Scripture makes you struggle in this respect? “Struggle” implies that Scripture places some obstacle in the way of believing that it is more than symbolic. I’d like to hear what that obstacle is.

But of course you don’t have to pursue this discussion if you don’t want to.

Edwin

 

[myfavoritmartin]

That’s fine, but my question is: what about Scripture makes you struggle in this respect? “Struggle” implies that Scripture places some obstacle in the way of believing that it is more than symbolic. I’d like to hear what that obstacle is.

But of course you don’t have to pursue this discussion if you don’t want to.

Edwin

I guess the first scripture Luke 22:19 that I stated is
" done for rememberence."
Then john 6:33-36
33For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."
34"Sir," they said, “from now on give us this bread.”
35Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life.** He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.** 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

Christ is drawing the parallel here that he is the bread.
Certainly not the other way around.

Matt 6:11
Give us this day our daily bread.

Christ is our bread, our bread is not Christ…
(please, fellow catholics take no offense) I’m responding to a question on my beliefs.

 

[MariaG]

Christ is our bread, our bread is not Christ…

Hi

No offense taken, but maybe I am a little dense. I don’t understand what you mean by the above phrase.

Could you expand a little?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Truthstalker]

Actually, it’s more the other way round. The universities–especially Paris–saw themselves as the guardians of orthodoxy and would condemn people as heretics even if Rome thought they were OK (this happened to Erasmus). I don’t think it’s true that the papacy didn’t pay attention to doctrine, though certainly many popes weren’t as spiritual or as theologically profound as one might have hoped.

Francis X. Clark wrote a book, Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation (1960), which examined early-sixteenth-century theological and liturgical texts in some detail and found no evidence that anyone taught any such thing. He may have been wrong or biased, but I don’t know of any refutation of his argument here, so I’m inclined to go with his findings until further evidence turns up.

Edwin

I draw my information from Calvin’s Instiutes Book IV chaqpter 1, Ch XVIII.1. My Battle’s translation has a footnote 2 referencing Calvin’s “the Mass is a work by which the priest who offers up Christ…” stating that "these views prevailed among the sixteenth-century Sorbonne theologians such as Clichtove. Cf. his Propugnaculum (1526) I, xi, fo. 24 f;
etc., and De Castro. Perhaps you are better informed, since I have read neither.

Perhaps the Catholic Church had not, at the time, articulated a theology of the Eucharist as thoroughly as Calvin did in rejecting what he thought of as the Catholic position. Trent certainly did not satisfy him. I do not know if the Catholics of the time did what should have been sufficient apologetic work to counter Calvin, or if he insisted on something he should not have. I do not know if he ever backed off of his claim that Catholics resacrifice Christ - it seems to be Calvin to the core.

The Catholic Encyclopedia’s treatment of Leo X as a playboy who wanted peace at all most any cost, and for whom it seems that the argument with Luther was one far beyond his willingness to comprehend, is part of the background for my comments. I don’t have the background, nor does this thread have the space, to treat of the supervision of the church by the pope in the years prior to the Reformation. I only know what I read. Certainly Leo X did not pay proper attention to what he should have. Had he done his duty, history, I think, would have been much happier and there would not have been a schism in the west. But that is speculation.

 

[jco2004]

The problem from an Eastern point of view is not so much the term itself- as you say it simply means “change of substance”- similar to “metaousia”, a term used by the East. But the teaching that it came to designate, that the entire substance of, for example, the bread is changed into the body of Christ, and that only the appearance of bread is left, arguably conflicts with a very ancient idea that the Eucharist is analogous to the Incarnation; that, just as Christ combined two natures, human and divine, in one person, so there are two substances in the consecrated bread- heavenly (Christ) and earthly (bread).

“For as the bread of the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly; so also our bodies, partaking of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of eternal resurrection.” St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. IV. xviii. 4-6 (the entire passage is well worth reading). Joe

 

[Contarini]

I guess the first scripture Luke 22:19 that I stated is
" done for rememberence."

Anamnesis, yes. This is a word with very rich connotations in Greek. Plato, for instance, used it to describe our knowledge of the eternal truths of the World of Forms, which we “remember” here in the world of shadows we mistakenly call “real.” It has been argued (persuasively, I think) that the word as used in the NT has the connotations of making that which is in the past a present reality.

The problem with this whole discussion is that we modern people have a fundamentally materialistic perspective. So words like “symbol” and “remembrance” are weak words for us–they simply denote a mental activity that connects two things that really remain separate. When we say X is a symbol of Y we mean simply that X helps us think of Y. When we say that we remember a past event we mean simply that certain information is retrieved from our brain cells.

But what if this is a fundamentally warped way of looking at the world? What if ancient/medieval philosophy was closer to the truth in holding that we know things by being intellectually united to the object of our knowledge? What if memory is in fact something that connects us to eternal, imperishable reality–a token of our participation in the Divine mind?

The Incarnation, by its very nature, breaks down the barriers between symbol and reality. As C. S. Lewis put it so memorably, it was a case of myth becoming historical fact. Language such as “merely symbolic” or “just a remembrance” is grotesquely inappropriate when speaking of these mysteries.

All of this is a fancy, long-winded way of saying that you are still citing positive statements from Scripture and turning them into negative ones, without providing any justification for doing so.

Then john 6:33-36
33For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."
34"Sir," they said, “from now on give us this bread.”
35Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life.** He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.** 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

Christ is drawing the parallel here that he is the bread.
Certainly not the other way around.

Why certainly not? If Christ is our bread, why could Christ’s glorified Body and Blood not be present under the outward form of bread and wine?

Christ is our bread, our bread is not Christ…

Again, you take a positive statement and arbitrarily deduce a negative statement from it. Why?

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Image_of_God]

It is so fun to talk about the Eucharist, just look at my quote from one of the most devoted Catholic Priest. I am also interested in the Anglican Position. I know that I have disrespected the Eucharist in the past, but I plan to change that. I know that Aquinas spoke about it, and I should read his writings. I am also interested in the Protestant positions about the Eucharist and consubstantiation.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Anamnesis, yes. This is a word with very rich connotations in Greek. Plato, for instance, used it to describe our knowledge of the eternal truths of the World of Forms, which we “remember” here in the world of shadows we mistakenly call “real.” It has been argued (persuasively, I think) that the word as used in the NT has the connotations of making that which is in the past a present reality.

The problem with this whole discussion is that we modern people have a fundamentally materialistic perspective. So words like “symbol” and “remembrance” are weak words for us–they simply denote a mental activity that connects two things that really remain separate. When we say X is a symbol of Y we mean simply that X helps us think of Y. When we say that we remember a past event we mean simply that certain information is retrieved from our brain cells.

But what if this is a fundamentally warped way of looking at the world? What if ancient/medieval philosophy was closer to the truth in holding that we know things by being intellectually united to the object of our knowledge? What if memory is in fact something that connects us to eternal, imperishable reality–a token of our participation in the Divine mind?

The Incarnation, by its very nature, breaks down the barriers between symbol and reality. As C. S. Lewis put it so memorably, it was a case of myth becoming historical fact. Language such as “merely symbolic” or “just a remembrance” is grotesquely inappropriate when speaking of these mysteries.

All of this is a fancy, long-winded way of saying that you are still citing positive statements from Scripture and turning them into negative ones, without providing any justification for doing so.

Why certainly not? If Christ is our bread, why could Christ’s glorified Body and Blood not be present under the outward form of bread and wine?

Again, you take a positive statement and arbitrarily deduce a negative statement from it. Why?

In Christ,

Edwin

While I attempt to answer I am curious do you find the priest or ministers invoking the holy spirit to enter the bread,
" the epiklesis" scriptural?
Just curious.
His slave and servant,
Simon

 

[JonathanKinsman]

While I attempt to answer I am curious do you find the priest or ministers invoking the holy spirit to enter the bread,

" the epiklesis" scriptural?
Just curious.
His slave and servant,
Simon

The Epiclesis, ‘a summoning, or calling forth,’ (invocation of the Holy Spirit) asks God the Father to send the Holy Spirit upon the gifts of bread and wine “that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.” The priest asks this with his hands outstretched of the paten and chalice [the laying on of hands]. When he is done with the epiclesis, he then makes the sign of the cross over the offerings.

The laying on of hands has scriptural basis in Luke 4:40, Acts 9:17, Acts 13:1-3.

In line with scripture Catholic know the Holy Spirit is the power moving over the waters to creat life at creation and as the power overshadowing Mary to create the child within her.

In Jewish tradition (Catholics were Christian Jews, remember? So many of our traditions are Jewish traditions with Jesus as the object of praise and worship), the priest on the day of repentance laid hands upon an animal (the ‘scapegoat’) symbolizing the transmission of all sins to this creature.

The connection of this scapegoat to the Lamb of God (our Lord Jesus) whose sacrificial gift on the cross makes forgiveness of sins possible is what the priest and people understand at this moment in the Mass.

This prayer asks God through invoking the Holy Spirit to transform the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ as He promised and to unite all those who receive the consecrated elements into one body, completely bonded by faith and by love.

Did you get my PM?

Jonathan

 

[myfavoritmartin]

The Epiclesis, ‘a summoning, or calling forth,’ (invocation of the Holy Spirit) asks God the Father to send the Holy Spirit upon the gifts of bread and wine “that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.” The priest asks this with his hands outstretched of the paten and chalice [the laying on of hands]. When he is done with the epiclesis, he then makes the sign of the cross over the offerings.

The laying on of hands has scriptural basis in Luke 4:40, Acts 9:17, Acts 13:1-3.

In line with scripture Catholic know the Holy Spirit is the power moving over the waters to creat life at creation and as the power overshadowing Mary to create the child within her.

In Jewish tradition (Catholics were Christian Jews, remember? So many of our traditions are Jewish traditions with Jesus as the object of praise and worship), the priest on the day of repentance laid hands upon an animal (the ‘scapegoat’) symbolizing the transmission of all sins to this creature.

The connection of this scapegoat to the Lamb of God (our Lord Jesus) whose sacrificial gift on the cross makes forgiveness of sins possible is what the priest and people understand at this moment in the Mass.

This prayer asks God through invoking the Holy Spirit to transform the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ as He promised and to unite all those who receive the consecrated elements into one body, completely bonded by faith and by love.

Did you get my PM?

Jonathan

You lost me when you equivelated My Saviour to a scapegoat.

Another thing you say Catholics were Christian jews, how come messianic jews of the 21st century are the one group of Christians whom actually take serious offense to transubstantiation… and consider it cannabalism?

 

[Contarini]

While I attempt to answer I am curious do you find the priest or ministers invoking the holy spirit to enter the bread,
" the epiklesis" scriptural?
Just curious.

What do you find contrary to Scripture in it?

I’m going to keep pushing you on this, because I do not subscribe to the notion that anything not explicitly found in Scripture is “un-Scriptural.”

However, I think John 6:63 makes far more sense as a reference to the epiclesis (or to the fundamental understanding of grace that lies behind the epiclesis) than as a Zwinglian denial of the value of matter for conveying grace.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You lost me when you equivelated My Saviour to a scapegoat.

Another thing you say Catholics were Christian jews, how come messianic jews of the 21st century are the one group of Christians whom actually take serious offense to transubstantiation… and consider it cannabalism?

Messianic Jews are not the only group of Christians who make this charge. It’s a common Protestant line. And most Messianic Jews, whether they want to admit it or not, are evangelical Protestants with Jewish trappings. (I’m not saying that their love of Judaism is necessarily affected or trivial, though in my experience it sometimes is–but their theological roots lie squarely in evangelical Protestantism and they have no historical continuity whatever with Jewish Christians of the early centuries.)

Edwin

 

[myfavoritmartin]

What do you find contrary to Scripture in it?
I’m going to keep pushing you on this, because I do not subscribe to the notion that anything not explicitly found in Scripture is “un-Scriptural.”

Neither do I, though I do demand that tradition that contradicts and or does not align with scripture, be discarded. Therefore I tend not to get into the Eucharist argument as it is a matter of scriptural interpretation, albeit the line of questioning your putting me to is solid and reaffirms ones beliefs.

However, I think John 6:63 makes far more sense as a reference to the epiclesis (or to the fundamental understanding of grace that lies behind the epiclesis) than as a Zwinglian denial of the value of matter for conveying grace.

In Christ,

Edwin

Edwin,
Though I realise my initial comments may have came across Zwinglian, I wouldn’t say my beliefs are to that extreme.

I would contend that Joh 6:63 is more of a scriptural acknowledgement of spiritual presense vs. real presence.

Blessings my brother,
Simon

 

[myfavoritmartin]

What do you find contrary to Scripture in it?

In Christ,

Edwin

I tend to think in this manner, Christ was alive at the institution of the last supper(that is scriptural), Christ is completely human and completely divine(scriptural).His human nature (flesh) is what is displayed in the real presence according to the RCC, I just don’t see how Christ in flesh is something that can be present in bread throughout the world at any given time it seems it would actually take away from the fully human aspect, seeing as they aren’t suggesting its spiritual, rather its physical.