Replies

Muddled is the wrong word.

It is obvious that when Jesus tells His followers to eat His flesh and drink His blood that some thought “carnally” as if Christ was going to carve Himself up and serve Himself to them. The Apostles, as Peter attests, had faith though they surely did not know how Jesus was going to do as He said.

At the Last Supper, they gain a little more understanding though just how the bread and wine became His Body and His Blood was most likely still unclear.

Then, on the way to Emmaus, when Jesus appears to the two disciples, they see Him in the breaking of the bread and run back to tell the Apostles. This would bring them even closer to understanding more fully.

Finally, we have Paul explaining that Jesus is the one loaf from which we all eat. And the cup is the one cup which we all share.

But, let’s look back at the feeding of the multitude. The Apostles were there, they had seen what Christ could do. They knew that if God wills it, it will happen just as He says, even if they couldn’t fully articulate it.

Even though the word transubstantiation is a new word through which by its use one seeks to explain this mystery, the Eucharist remains a mystery which we will never fully grasp until we are in full communion with God in His heavenly kingdom.

Look back at the words you posted from early church fathers which also seek to explain this and you will see the roots of transubstantiation. You will see the words reality and mystery.

St. Thomas Aquinas coined a new word, but not a new doctrine to answer the heresies that were abounding regarding Christ’s true presence in the Eucharist.

He also penned a benediction prayer whereby we ask that Jesus make up in our faith that which we lack in our senses.

So, in our senses, our carnality, we see bread and wine.

But, in faith, we know these have become His Body and His blood.

We walk by faith and not by sight. We cannot rely only on our human senses which are limited. Jesus gives us faith which we must rely on at all times because we constantly behold that which is carnal and temporal and if we allow it, we could be overcome by our senses and lose faith.

We must not allow ourselves to be led by that which we sense in our humanity, but instead, we must be led by that which we know through faith.

I believe in God, though I have never seen Him or touched Him or had experience with Him in my human senses. But, with the eyes of faith, I have known Him in my life and therefore, know that He is real.

******To say that the bread and the wine isn’t really the body of Christ, or that it maintains its nature as bread and wine, or that it is a symbol of a higher reality that takes its name “in a certain manner” of speaking, then they are teaching in direct contradiction to Roman dogma.****

On the contrary, they are fully in line with the faith, however they may struggle to define what is beyond human understanding.

These men are exploring a way to pin down what cannot be pinned down. Christ’s incarnation is a mystery. How did that happen? Science tells us the egg needs sperm in order for conception. The Holy Spirit was not carnal, but spiritual and yet, Jesus is born with a truly human nature and a truly divine nature.

Ok, great, Jesus was both human and divine. I believe that. But, Hmmm......explain it.

One can’t, it is a mystery that we try to explain but can we really? We just have faith that what Scriptures tells us is true.

How about the Trinity?

God in Three Persons? What? How many words have been used to explain that? And do we yet understand it fully? No,

How about the creation of the world? Science has tried to use the physical realities of the world to prove that the it is an accident of evolution and not created by God. How many words have been used to try to explain His existence as Creator?

There are many mysteries that we are not capable of explaining or understanding fully.

And there is not one single man within the Church to whom we can point and say, Here, everything this man has said is perfect and orthodox.

That is why the Church works with Him, in Him and through Him to present the Truth as best is humanly possible to grasp. In all of it, faith is how we understand.

That is why though the Church is made up of sinners and men who cannot know the mind of God, we trust in His protection and guidance. Jesus promised it.

“It is obvious that when Jesus tells His followers to eat His flesh and drink His blood that some thought “carnally” as if Christ was going to carve Himself up and serve Himself to them. The Apostles, as Peter attests, had faith though they surely did not know how Jesus was going to do as He said.”

Christ specifically explains that He will ascend up to where He was before, and that His words are spiritual, ‘the flesh profits nothing.’ In other words, how can they expect to eat and drink him physically if He is going back to heaven? Since no one took a bite out of him to gain eternal life while they still could, I think we can safely assume that the Apostles understood “eating” and “drinking” Christ spiritually, just as Christ recommended. Furthermore, when Christ institutes the Lord’s Supper, He specifically says that it should be done for remembrance. Not for eternal life. If one is celebrating The Lord’s Supper as a remembrance, He is calling us to remember what Christ did for us on the cross, and not instituting a way to get into heaven by chewing and eating.

“Even though the word transubstantiation is a new word”

It’s a new doctrine too. Not just a “new word” to explain what everyone allegedly believed.

“Look back at the words you posted from early church fathers which also seek to explain this and you will see the roots of transubstantiation.”

How do you find the roots of Transubstantiation in quotes which deny transubstantiation? Either they teach transubstantiation or not, or at least allow for it. This simply isn’t the case.

“We walk by faith and not by sight.”

I’d much rather have faith in Jesus Christ.

“On the contrary, they are fully in line with the faith, however they may struggle to define what is beyond human understanding.”

In your dreams they are, but in reality they do no such thing.

“There are many mysteries that we are not capable of explaining or understanding fully.”

That’s just an excuse since Roman theology tends to be superstitious. We may not understand how God is a Trinity, yet we know it is true since it is clearly taught in the scriptures. Evolotionists may argue against creation, yet I can look at the mitochondria and notice that the proteins and entire system of ATP production resembles a complex machine, complete with a set of proteins that literally resemble a pump. Unless that complicated machine evolved all at once, it simply could not have been put together by random processes. Sure, it’s complicated, but it’s not hard to believe the plain words of the scripture. Roman dogma, however, is not taught in the scriptures at all, and instead they must rely on shallow claims of authority to force their extrabiblical inventions on others. Thus, anything that is silly is just written off as a mystery of the faith.

“Why don’t the Fathers support Roman dogma?” - “Well, my boy, THAT’s a mystery!” LOL

“And there is not one single man within the Church to whom we can point and say, Here, everything this man has said is perfect and orthodox.”

Supposedly that’s what the Pope and the Bishops are for, who allegedly are all united under the same theology. I guess we can only hope that the majority decision of these fallible men turns out to be correct.