JohnStrachan
New member
I’m not asking what transubstantiation is - I’m well aware of it. I’m not even disputing that it takes place. But why is it necessary to take place? Why do RCs believe that it is truly the body and blood of Jesus?
Why is transubstantiation necessary?
- Thread starter JohnStrachan
- Start date
- Status
0
0331
Guest
Are you asking why Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist?
JohnStrachan
New member
No I’m not. I’m asking why RCs believe it is truly the body and blood? Under what authority? as the Eucharist developed was it understood from the very beginning that Jesus was present? And, why don’t most Protestants believe in this doctrine?
P
phil19034
Guest
Well, for starters, it’s not just the Catholics. All of the Orthodox believe the exact same thing (they just don’t use the scholastic term of transubstantiation, nor to they attempt to define it. But they all do believe the same thing.
Many Catholics will give you Biblical verses that support the Catholic belief. But I know that protestants have talking point to refute this. So I will point you to the Church Fathers.
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/fathers.htm
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/chfatheuch.HTM
NOTE: now some Protestant scholars will cherry pick some of the Father’s words against them, trying to prove that they believe it was a symbol.
Catholics & Orthodox acknowledge the Bread and Wine as symbols. We would never say they are not. However, we also believe that Jesus truly become present during the liturgy - just as present has Jesus was to the Apostles.
God Bless
Many Catholics will give you Biblical verses that support the Catholic belief. But I know that protestants have talking point to refute this. So I will point you to the Church Fathers.
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/fathers.htm
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/chfatheuch.HTM
NOTE: now some Protestant scholars will cherry pick some of the Father’s words against them, trying to prove that they believe it was a symbol.
Catholics & Orthodox acknowledge the Bread and Wine as symbols. We would never say they are not. However, we also believe that Jesus truly become present during the liturgy - just as present has Jesus was to the Apostles.
God Bless
I
Irishmom2
Guest
Jesus said “This is my body…”
He did not say this is like my body, or this is a symbol of my body.
I think if you want to know why Protestants don’t believe it, you need to ask them.
He did not say this is like my body, or this is a symbol of my body.
I think if you want to know why Protestants don’t believe it, you need to ask them.
C
Cruciferi
Guest
Cause’ Jesus said so…
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
Many protestants don’t believe in it because the belief of the Real Presence requires sacramental theology. And since most protestants do not believe in a priesthood, it becomes difficult for them.
NOTE: Anglicans and Lutherans do believe in a form of the priesthood and a form of the Real Presence - just not in the exact same way as Catholics and the Orthodox.
Last edited:
0
0331
Guest
One thing we can point you to are the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch:
‘Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans , Ch 6’
I believe that was 107 AD. So it is evidence that the earliest Christians believed in the Real Presence. It is held by many that Ignatius was a student of the apostle John, by the way.
We can also point to John 6, in which Jesus sad he is the bread of life, comparing himself to the manna in which the forefathers ate during their wandering in the desert. We eat the Bread of Life to spiritually nourish and prepare ourselves before entering Heaven.
Just as manna was nourishment, so is the Eucharist. Symbols do not nourish, real Bread nourishes.
Also, as John the Baptist says, Jesus is the lamb of God (Jn 1:29). This points to the sacrificial lamb offered to God on the Passover, and is tied back to Jesus perfecting this Paschal Sacrifice, making it himself.
‘Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans , Ch 6’
I believe that was 107 AD. So it is evidence that the earliest Christians believed in the Real Presence. It is held by many that Ignatius was a student of the apostle John, by the way.
We can also point to John 6, in which Jesus sad he is the bread of life, comparing himself to the manna in which the forefathers ate during their wandering in the desert. We eat the Bread of Life to spiritually nourish and prepare ourselves before entering Heaven.
Just as manna was nourishment, so is the Eucharist. Symbols do not nourish, real Bread nourishes.
Also, as John the Baptist says, Jesus is the lamb of God (Jn 1:29). This points to the sacrificial lamb offered to God on the Passover, and is tied back to Jesus perfecting this Paschal Sacrifice, making it himself.
Last edited:
Z
Zach
Guest
Anglican and Lutherans believe in consubstantiation - the bread and wine is still present along with the body and blood while Catholics believe in transubstantiation - the bread and wine is no longer present. They all believe in the real presence. Other sects believe the bread and wine is just symbolic. I believe Pentecostals believe this. At least this is how I understand it
P
phil19034
Guest
Correct. That’s why I said a “form of the Real Presence”
Z
Zach
Guest
I know you knew this. I was just clarifying to see if I understood it correctly.
0
0331
Guest
I have read that Henry VIII, even after the English Reformation, held true to his devotion to the Real Presence.
We’ve been passed this Tradition (and the Tradition of all the Sacraments) under the authority of the bishops, who are the successors of the Apostles, who were taught by Jesus.
So it’s not as if one person with authority in the early Church had a wild idea and the bishops agreed on it—it was just understood that Jesus truly meant he was truly present in it and we were to hold to it. More writings from those early days of persecution talk about the Romans being bewildered that the Christians professed to eat the flesh of their God!
We’ve been passed this Tradition (and the Tradition of all the Sacraments) under the authority of the bishops, who are the successors of the Apostles, who were taught by Jesus.
So it’s not as if one person with authority in the early Church had a wild idea and the bishops agreed on it—it was just understood that Jesus truly meant he was truly present in it and we were to hold to it. More writings from those early days of persecution talk about the Romans being bewildered that the Christians professed to eat the flesh of their God!
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
Because “This is my body” and “this is my blood of the new testament” is understood by the faithful in the simple, natural sense, literally, as taught from ancient times. Many did not believe and departed:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Scripture says so, the Church teaches so, many very intelligent saints agreed, and I have faith.
“Adore te devote” pretty much says it all.
I’m honestly baffled and sad that so many people DON’T believe it. I pray for them to receive the gift of faith.
I have no idea why Protestants do anything. You would have to ask them why they would reject such a wonderful teaching of Christ rather than rushing to join the Catholic Church so they too could receive Jesus.
C
CapitalistCatholic
Guest
The Church Fathers agree, and so does the Bible. It’s the only logical answer.
G
Gabika50
Guest
Because Jesus said it’s the real thing in John 6.
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
Also, a good chunk of Anglicans and Lutherans believe that the body and blood of Christ are physically present, not just symbolic.
The best understanding I can get of the importance of the physical presence (whether you believe in transubstantiation or consubstantiation) is that it has to do with the nature of Jesus’ sacrifice. He was the ultimate Passover Lamb, and after the lamb is sacrificed, it is eaten. So we gather to eat the final Passover feast.
The best understanding I can get of the importance of the physical presence (whether you believe in transubstantiation or consubstantiation) is that it has to do with the nature of Jesus’ sacrifice. He was the ultimate Passover Lamb, and after the lamb is sacrificed, it is eaten. So we gather to eat the final Passover feast.
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
Why is transubstantiation necessary? Because the New Covenant is better than the Old Covenant (see Hebrews 8:6) and under the Old Covenant the whole Israelite people were miraculously provided with manna as their daily food for forty years and the miracle of transubstantiation is the only food-related miracle under the New Covenant that exceeds the miracle of the manna in such terms as the number of people fed and the number of years it has continued.
Last edited:
C
Crocus
Guest
Transubstantiation is just so God-like. Wouldn’t you know it, that the omnipotent God would perform the most awesome miracle ever imaginable, then hide it under the most imperceptible physical elements.
D
Dovekin
Guest
This is not an easy question to answer!
Transubstantiation developed as a defense of the human physicality of Jesus. The incarnation of God as a human needed a continuing presence in time to keep it from becoming too abstract and spiritualized. It had to be both ordinary and extraordinary, something common and miraculous.
Articulating the idea came at the moment when dialectics and logic were applied in new ways, sparking the rise of universities. For some people, the abstraction was too much and a more concrete, less miraculous balance was sought. The Reformation grew up alongside those reactions, and that coincidence explains some of the disagreements over the Eucharist.
That is a broadbrush picture. A better one would explain differences of faith instead of just intellectual changes.
Transubstantiation developed as a defense of the human physicality of Jesus. The incarnation of God as a human needed a continuing presence in time to keep it from becoming too abstract and spiritualized. It had to be both ordinary and extraordinary, something common and miraculous.
Articulating the idea came at the moment when dialectics and logic were applied in new ways, sparking the rise of universities. For some people, the abstraction was too much and a more concrete, less miraculous balance was sought. The Reformation grew up alongside those reactions, and that coincidence explains some of the disagreements over the Eucharist.
That is a broadbrush picture. A better one would explain differences of faith instead of just intellectual changes.
- Status