What is wrong with transubstantiation?

[Truthstalker]

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.

I think you have to look at the union of Christ’s two natures in one person, something that we may not really be capable of doing. There is one Person but two natures. You cannot say that where one nature is the other is not: Christ is indivisible. We know where God is, and that is, everywhere. And where God is in His eternal nature, because of the union of the two natures, so Christ must also be present. And so His body - His human flesh - can be present, and is present, everywhere. Sometimes, as in the Eucharist, it is revealed as present. Look at Colossians 1:15-22 while considering this, as well as Colossians 2:9 and Ephesians 1:23. That Christ fills all things is true. Studying the doctrine of the fullness of Christ in all things is worth the while.

Probably I just committed seven or eight acts of heresy and demonstrated total incapacity to do theology, but there I am, more fool than full.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

1 Cor. 10:16 pretty clearly rules out a purely symbolic interpretation.

Edwin

As I read 16-20, I just don’t see it as actual rather more on a fugurative point. How do you explain this as anything other than figurative.

 

[Sixtus]

The idea of ‘transubstantiation’ is about as ridiculous as the idea of ‘a man rising from the dead’ or a great King sending his Son to die in place of the least of His subjects, whose heinous crimes, of which He is the victim.

Preposterous

 

[MariaG]

1 Cor. 10:16 pretty clearly rules out a purely symbolic interpretation. In Christ,

Edwin

As I read 16-20, I just don’t see it as actual rather more on a fugurative point. How do you explain this as anything other than figurative.

:bible1: 1Cor 10:16-20

16] The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
17] Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
18] Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?
19] What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?
20] No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons.

Browse the Bible

I know most everyone who posts here has a bible and reads it, this is for any lurkers out there who may not:wave:

 

[VociMike]

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

Does it follow then that you don’t believe Christ is actually present at your Lord’s Supper? Is He present at your worship service but leaves at the Lord’s Supper? Or is He not present at any point of your worship service?