Posted on 07/09/2015 9:33:36 AM PDT by RnMomof7
The doctrine of Transubstantiation is the belief that the elements of the Lords 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) dont believe in any real presence, either spiritual or physical, but believe that the Eucharist is a memorial and a proclamation of Christs 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 dont 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
Lets 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, Christs wording is a bit different. Here is how it goes in Lukes 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 cant 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 Lords 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 Lords Supper. It could be that by A.D. 90, John saw an abuse of the Lords 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. Christs 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 dont 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? Christs 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 Pauls 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.
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you:
The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said,
This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me. 25
In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying,
This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For whenever you eat This bread and drink This cup, you proclaim the Lords death until he comes.
.
Is ANYONE in this thread REALLY doing it like Jesus did it?
Christ also said, You brood of vipers, and you find that easy enough to dismiss . . .
I had the matzo and wine just two nights ago, in Remembrance of His death for me. I do it like Cuban leaf does it, at home, with the Lord’s Presence in Spirit and Truth. I know that Jesus was not there physically in any way because He told me in His word that He would not be physically returning again to Earth until He cleans the place up with a huge outpouring of God’s Wrath.
Article 1. Whether the body of Christ be in this sacrament in very truth, or merely as in a figure or sign?
Objection 1. It seems that the body of Christ is not in this sacrament in very truth, but only as in a figure, or sign. For it is written (John 6:54) that when our Lord had uttered these words: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood," etc., "Many of His disciples on hearing it said: 'this is a hard saying'": to whom He rejoined: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing": as if He were to say, according to Augustine's exposition on Ps. 4 [On Psalm 98:9]: "Give a spiritual meaning to what I have said. You are not to eat this body which you see, nor to drink the blood which they who crucify Me are to spill. It is a mystery that I put before you: in its spiritual sense it will quicken you; but the flesh profiteth nothing."
Reply to Objection 1. From this authority the aforesaid heretics have taken occasion to err from evilly understanding Augustine's words. For when Augustine says: "You are not to eat this body which you see," he means not to exclude the truth of Christ's body, but that it was not to be eaten in this species in which it was seen by them. And by the words: "It is a mystery that I put before you; in its spiritual sense it will quicken you," he intends not that the body of Christ is in this sacrament merely according to mystical signification, but "spiritually," that is, invisibly, and by the power of the spirit. Hence (Tract. xxvii), expounding John 6:64: "the flesh profiteth nothing," he says: "Yea, but as they understood it, for they understood that the flesh was to be eaten as it is divided piecemeal in a dead body, or as sold in the shambles, not as it is quickened by the spirit . . . Let the spirit draw nigh to the flesh . . . then the flesh profiteth very much: for if the flesh profiteth nothing, the Word had not been made flesh, that It might dwell among us."
Are there any writings on just HOW it is determined which is which?
If there are, I bet they don’t think that big letters in changing fonts make the argument any better.
Oh??
When Christ says He is the Gate, He is clearly saying something about the nature of Christ and His relationship to us, because He is saying something about Himself. In the sentence "This is My Body," He is clearly saying something relational about the bread;
Don't complain that my remarks BOLDED are spin; if you cannot (or will not) apply the same rule to YOUR remarks.
Acts 1:11
"Men of Galilee," why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner...
Being found in a wafer (Host, for the easily offended) and some wine is NOT the 'same manner'!!!
Do I really have to invoke Clinton in on this?
Why?
They just get a big vat of water, set in on the stove, and then boil the HELL out of it!
Yes!
I've heard that there is a really good one located on the road from Jerusalem to Damascus.
Route 90 is a very scenic trip today as one nears and passes the Sea of Gallilee.
Check it out in GoogleEarth®.
And Eastern, northern, southern and Idaho; too!
What does the Cow say?
Moo!
What does the Pig say?
Oink!
25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lords death until he comes.
Where is the MAGIC part?
INDEED!
This is what I do when the ANTI-scripturalists come spouting their un-biblical teaching of The WORD.
Your old Logic teachers called.
..said something about a refresher course?
Many of the Catholics have proved very adept at IGNORING the meaning of words spoken by Jesus. They somehow cannot admit that Pharisees are snked!
"You brood of vipers."
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.