Posted on 07/09/2015 9:33:36 AM PDT by RnMomof7
The doctrine of Transubstantiation is the belief that the elements of the Lord’s table (bread and wine) supernaturally transform into the body and blood of Christ during the Mass. This is uniquely held by Roman Catholics but some form of a “Real Presence” view is held by Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, and some Anglicans. The Calvinist/Reformed tradition believes in a real spiritual presence but not one of substance. Most of the remaining Protestant traditions (myself included) don’t believe in any real presence, either spiritual or physical, but believe that the Eucharist is a memorial and a proclamation of Christ’s work on the cross (this is often called Zwinglianism). The Roman Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563) defined Transubstantiation this way:
By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Session XIII, chapter IV)
As well, there is an abiding curse (anathema) placed on all Christians who deny this doctrine:
If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ,[42] but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema. (Session XII, Canon I)
It is very important to note that Roman Catholics not only believe that taking the Eucharist in the right manner is essential for salvation, but that belief in the doctrine is just as essential.
Here are the five primary reasons why I reject the doctrine of Transubstantiation:
1. It takes Christ too literally
There does not seem to be any reason to take Christ literally when he institutes the Eucharist with the words, “This is my body” and “This is my blood” (Matt. 26:26-28, et al). Christ often used metaphor in order to communicate a point. For example, he says “I am the door,” “I am the vine,” “You are the salt of the earth,” and “You are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:13-14) but people know that we don’t take such statement literally. After all, who believes that Christ is literally a door swinging on a hinge?
2. It does not take Christ literally enough
Let’s say for the sake of the argument that in this instance Christ did mean to be taken literally. What would this mean? Well, it seems hard to escape the conclusion that the night before Christ died on the cross, when he said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood,” that it actually was his body and blood that night before he died. If this were the case, and Christ really meant to be taken literally, we have Christ, before the atonement was actually made, offering the atonement to his disciples. I think this alone gives strong support to a denial of any substantial real presence.
3. It does not take Christ literally enough (2)
In each of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) we have the institution of the Eucharist. When the wine is presented, Christ’s wording is a bit different. Here is how it goes in Luke’s Gospel: “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” (Luk 22:20). Here, if we were really to take Christ literally, the “cup” is the new covenant. It is not the wine, it is the cup that is holy. However, of course, even Roman Catholics would agree that the cup is symbolic of the wine. But why one and not the other? Why can’t the wine be symbolic of his death if the cup can be symbolic of the wine? As well, is the cup actually the “new covenant”? That is what he says. “This cup . . . is the new covenant.” Is the cup the actual new covenant, or only symbolic of it? See the issues?
4. The Gospel of John fails to mention the Eucharist
Another significant problem I have with the Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist and its abiding anathemas is that the one Gospel which claims to be written so that people may have eternal life, John (John 20:31), does not even include the institution of the Eucharist. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all tell the story of Christ giving the first Lord’s table, but John decides to leave it out. Why? This issue is made more significant in that John includes more of the “Upper Room” narrative than any of the other Gospels. Nearly one-third of the entire book of John walks us through what Christ did and said that night with his disciples. Yet no breaking of the bread or giving of the wine is included. This is a pretty significant oversight if John meant to give people the message that would lead to eternal life (John 20:31). From the Roman Catholic perspective, his message must be seen as insufficient to lead to eternal life since practice and belief in the Mass are essential for eternal life and he leaves these completely out of the Upper Room narrative.
(Some believe that John does mention the importance of belief in Transubstantiation in John 6. The whole, “Why did he let them walk away?” argument. But I think this argument is weak. I talk about that here. Nevertheless, it still does not answer why John left out the institution of the Lord’s Supper. It could be that by A.D. 90, John saw an abuse of the Lord’s table already rising. He may have sought to curb this abuse by leaving the Eucharist completely out of his Gospel. But this, I readily admit, is speculative.)
5. Problems with the Hypostatic Union and the Council of Chalcedon
This one is going to be a bit difficult to explain, but let me give it a shot. Orthodox Christianity (not Eastern Orthodox) holds to the “Hypostatic Union” of Christ. This means that we believe that Christ is fully God and fully man. This was most acutely defined at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Important for our conversation is that Christ had to be fully man to fully redeem us. Christ could not be a mixture of God and man, or he could only represent other mixtures of God and man. He is/was one person with two complete natures. These nature do not intermingle (they are “without confusion”). In other words, his human nature does not infect or corrupt his divine nature. And his divine nature does not infect or corrupt his human nature. This is called the communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties or attributes). The attributes of one nature cannot communicate (transfer/share) with another nature. Christ’s humanity did not become divinitized. It remained complete and perfect humanity (with all its limitations). The natures can communicate with the Person, but not with each other. Therefore, the attribute of omnipresence (present everywhere) cannot communicate to his humanity to make his humanity omnipresent. If it did, we lose our representative High Priest, since we don’t have this attribute communicated to our nature. Christ must always remain as we are in order to be the Priest and Pioneer of our faith. What does all of this mean? Christ’s body cannot be at more than one place at a time, much less at millions of places across the world every Sunday during Mass. In this sense, I believe that any real physical presence view denies the definition of Chalcedon and the principles therein.
There are many more objections that I could bring including Paul’s lack of mentioning it to the Romans (the most comprehensive presentation of the Gospel in the Bible), some issues of anatomy, issues of idolatry, and just some very practical things concerning Holy Orders, church history, and . . . ahem . . . excrement. But I think these five are significant enough to justify a denial of Transubstantiation. While I respect Roman Catholicism a great deal, I must admit how hard it is for me to believe that a doctrine that is so difficult to defend biblically is held to such a degree that abiding anathemas are pronounced on those who disagree.
So Catholic or protestant.
I have not sought to hide my true feelings about the RCC rites and religion. I have used scripture to show why RCC religion is 'another religion', a gospel different from what Jesus and the New Testament offer.
So far, having posted that paragraph to several catholics not one has had a single objection to the blasphemous assertions it makes. One poster tries to question the authenticity. Another, non-Catholic, referred to the quote as hyperbole, the closest so far to admitting the assertions --which are quoted accurately from page 270 of John O'brien's book, Faith Of Millions, in an edition prior to 1974-- are a red flag.
You just inferred I was being deceitful to not have a catholic verify the quote. A none catholic, Blue Dragon, has verified the quote as found around page 255 in a newer edition.
Why would a catholic apologist not address the assertions in the paragraph yet try to infer the quote is either erroneous or deceitful? Is it because the heart of a catholic must have some twinge when reading such assertions. Continue to squelch that pricking of the soul and God will eventually give them up to their blasphemies.
I will continue to pray that God opens your eyes.
Type 2 b eats Type 1, but I had a foot injury that has not permitted me to go to the gym in over 2 months. So that means the diet is more restricted than usual. I would like to get back into doing Triathlons, but you can’t do that if you can’t swim.
“When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from his throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of men. It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors; it is greater than that of saints and angels, grater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim. Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. The priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man – not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.”
That paragraph from a book which carries the RCC nihil obstat --meaning it had been approved officially to not deviate from RCC teaching on faith and morals-- has several items which illustrate the drastic differences between RCC dogma and Christian faith. To help sort it further, I'll make a partial list of things asserted that ought to be objectionable to Christians but so far appear quite the truth to RCC apologists:
1 - the priest is said to bring Christ down out of Heaven
2 - the priest puts The Christ upon the catholic altar
3 --the Christ is, by the power of the priest, continuing to be the victim sacrifice at thousands of locations, daily
4 - the 'sacrifice' is a repetition, since the priest supposedly is bringing Jesus Christ back to the catholic altar from where He, Jesus arose to enter His Father's presence
5 - The priest speaks and Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command
So far, not one catholic has objected to any of the assertions found in the paragraph. A couple have actually stated that they gladly affirm the assertions as facts by the RCC religion.
Blasphemy or heresies should not be thought of as games. They are serious eternal destiny issues.
For the exact same reason that I posted the last three or four times you asked me this question.I have not verified for myself the accuracy of the quote. I have not read the quote myself in context. I don't know if the author was quoting someone else, nor do I know if the author was engaging in hyperbole or taking poetic liberty.
You just inferred I was being deceitful to not have a catholic verify the quote.
First off as the sender of the post I can't "infer" anything, I can "imply", but I did not. It is up to you as the recipient to "infer." I would advise against that since it would constitute mind reading. Second It sounds like someone is either projecting or has a guilty conscience.
Let me give you a perfect example. Are you aware that the Bile itself denies the very existence of God? It is right there in Psalm 14:1 ...There is no God...
My statement is 100% accurate, yet taken in context it says the exact opposite.
Why don’t you try quoting the Bible for defense of the RCC dogmas? You could start witht he adoration of Mary as a mediatrix helping Jesus get His High Priest role accomplished. where would I look to find that in scriptures?
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, l for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26:26-28)Jesus said it. All human objections are meaningless.
Please keep in mind that it is the summer and I have a life.
But again the physical presence of the risen Christ is something different, something new. The risen Lord enters into our midst. And then we can do no other than say, with Saint Thomas: my Lord and my God! Adoration is primarily an act of faith – the act of faith as such. God is not just some possible or impossible hypothesis concerning the origin of all things He is present. And if he is present, then I bow down before him. Then my intellect and will and heart open up towards him and from him. In the risen Christ, the incarnate God is present, who suffered for us because he loves us. We enter this certainty of God’s tangible love for us with love in our own hearts. This is adoration, and this then determines my life. Only thus can I celebrate the Eucharist correctly and receive the body of the Lord rightly.
Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia, 22 December 2011 --- Benedict XVI
LOL... if anyone would know about changing the meaning and intent of words...it would be Rome and her representatives. .
I hope the “ministering” is “pro-Love” without being “anti-Church.”
LOL
Do Rc's know what a metaphor is ???
If you had but included the next sentence Jesus spoke, the passage would be clear, baecause Jesus told the disciples that He would not drink THIS fruit of the vine again until in the Father’s Kingdom. Jesus HImslef called th cup contents WINE. One of your group is fond of telling folks to give quotes in context. well, there’s an example of why we ought do just that! The meaning is quite different if the entire passage is read in context. Jesus in all three gospel scens calls the contents of the covenant cup WINE. He also said to do this ritual IN REMEMBRANCE of His sacrifice for us. Paul tells us this REMEBRANCE is to show Jesus’s death until He comes back.
Instead of simply regurgitating the false understanding of others (straw men), why not post the legitimate Catholic teaching from a legitimate Catholic source and then dissect it yourself. This would be intellectually honest and would bring light to a topic instead of heat.
He also said He was he door to the sheep gate John 10:9
But He also said He was the Shepherd ...that kept the sheep in the sheep pen, John 10:11
And of course He also said He was the vine (that the grapes grew on , that made the wine) John 15:1
He also promised if you ate the "bread of life " you would never hunger or thirst again (John 4:14) (John 6:35)
Do RC's ever wonder why the apostle Jesus loved.. that wrote all the above...never writes of it in his gospel...???
Context /Context /Context
Matthew 26:29-30; Mark 14:22-26; Luke 22:14-23Matthew 26:26As they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks for it, and broke it. He gave to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." 27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, "All of you drink it, 28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on, until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's Kingdom." 30When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
Mark 14:22 As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had blessed, he broke it, and gave to them, and said, "Take, eat. This is my body." 23 He took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them. They all drank of it. 24 He said to them, "This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Most certainly I tell you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it anew in the Kingdom of God."26 When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
Luke 22:14When the hour had come, he sat down with the twelve apostles. 15 He said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer, 16 for I tell you, I will no longer by any means eat of it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God." 17 He received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, "Take this, and share it among yourselves, 18 for I tell you, I will not drink at all again from the fruit of the vine, until the Kingdom of God comes." 19 He took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and gave to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in memory of me." 20 Likewise, he took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."
As suggested to the RCC apologists on two other occasions, the underlined quotes of Jesus speaking name the contents of the cups of Passover as WINE. And just so you don't miss it, the larger print is the sentence where Jesus tells the disciples that last cup of the new covenant in His blood about to be shed on Calvary is POURED OUT.
The full passage in each case makes it clear in each retelling of the scene that the cups contained wine, never blood. Blood in the cups of Passover would have been abominable, breaking the laws of Moses the very night before He was going to sacrifice Himself as the perfect and unblemished One.
Will you at least read the entire passage in each retelling?
Who said anyone had any questions?
Every time someone talks about a non-practicing Catholic, that is your default answer, as if you can read their minds and know that the reason they’re where they are is because they have *questions* about ..... whatever.
Talk about presumption.
In response, I asked for identification and clarification of the offending words. I cannot now find a response to that request.
I have no difficulty objecting to the style and certain expressions in the quote.
Neither those expressions nor the style impinge directly on the dogma. As far as I can see, only one active interlocutor has questioned the nature of substance. (He has my respect and my gratitude, not least because I am putting the Summa Contra Gentiles on my reading list, but mostly because he raised a good objection.) The Al-Ghazali wing has hinted at an infernal odor to the technical vocabulary. This is offered as an argument?
Isaiah 28 mentions those who take refuge in lies. I have found the links to the relevant section of the Summa. In coming up with them I have read in the Summa Contra Gentiles and other parts of the Summa. I also went to Feser's Scholastic Metaphysics to see if I was getting it wrong, to clarify my own thinking, and to see if I could find better analogies and examples.
I even made a "meta" criticism of Aquinas, not for the first time on this or any stage, that He uses "Sacramental" as his drop back and punt word. And what is the response?
Insistence, from those who do not consult Aquinas and who cherry pick conciliar quotes, that our formal, magisterial, teaching is not what we say it is, that they know better what we teach and intend to teach, that our fatigue and boredom under this barrage is in fact a sort of remorse we are hiding from ourselves.
Refuge in lies
One person, between dire predictions of doom and contempt for those who does not think as he does, complains that on a precise question of the meaning of "substance" I do not refer enough to Scripture!
Note, however, that the article of the OP refers to an alleged attribute of the human body without appeal to Scripture. Where is my assailant then?
Oh, This one is good. I maintain that the contemporary, popular meaning of the word "substance" is very different from its meaning in theology. Here's the response:
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."[204]
Evidently some Protestants consider it persuasive, logical, and reasonable to repeat something in colors. It is beyond me HOW this quote is going to show that the meaning of "substance" is what one side says and the other denies. SEE? They used the word SUBSTANCE! Therefore substance means what I say it means and not what YOU say it means! She might as well have stamped her foot and said, "Is TOO!" for all the good this did in advancing the discussion or clarifying the question.
I make a mild claim to a certain reliability on the question of Catholic dogma in this matter, and somebody -- was it you? -- makes irrelevant remarks about whether GOD cares about grades. I devoutly trust not! EXCEPT that, since I have a certain facility in this area, I suspect that God would like it and take it as a gesture of pious gratitude for me to use the gift.
The most attractive explanation (though it is distressing) for this kind of thing is that the OP was made to attract people who would, foolishly -- considering the quality of conversation here, address the points in it. And then the usual suspects would appear with the usual bullying nonsense and think that they had defended Truth by changing the subject, printing things in color, and indulging in sophistries
This is beneath adult human dignity. And it's why I retired from frequent involvement in FR some years ago. I learned that the most vocal of the opponents had weak understanding of the Incarnation, Human Nature, the Salvific work of Christ, God's relationship to space and time, and reason itself. In dealing with this stuff, however hostile the expression, my own understanding was deepened. I got considerable, though obviously unintended, good out of the conversations.
But now I am accused, by someone who keeps careful note of implied insults, of avoiding questions, while others stamp their feet and repeat themselves.
Very well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.