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.
John 6:63: “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”
And Paul clarifies that quite nicely in Galatians.
Gal 5:16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other; that ye may not do the things that ye would.
Gal 5:18 But if ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties,
Gal 5:21 envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Gal 5:23 meekness, self-control; against such there is no law.
Gal 5:24 And they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with the passions and the lusts thereof.
See post 421
Yet this here from the comment I'm presently responding to;
So to me, this passage is about the rise of materialism in general thought.
There is that, yet if I recall, although years ago I'd been under the impression that the Aristotelian philosophy of substance was more figurative and of principles, and conceptualization, after reviewing the materials in treatement coming from professional academic who knew philosophy, I came to the conclusion that when it came to substance --- it could and did serve (more often than not was it? it difficult to recall precisely) very much as materialistic philosophy would today apply the term.
In some eucharistic argumentation what would be the substance and what the accident were reversed as those were thought of in Grecian application of the philosophy.
I realize that I'm making remark and assertion which I'm not presently establishing through evidence and explaining by example --- but --- when I fouind oiut that I'd had it backwards and a bit skewed off to the side, and then reflected upon how I was trying to also understand the philosophy from what I had been able to have gleaned from RC propaganda woops, meant to say apologetic (hehheh) I was p.o'ed.
It was like learning some foreign language, which once I attempted to use, I only then discovered the 'teachers' had such gawd-awful accents, if I attempted to say it like I'd heard it, listeners of the actual native language would hear the opposite of what I thought to intend. so, not your fault, but if you see tommy, tell him i said hey thanks. and he's ugly and his momma shor' did dress him funny. ;^')
Jesus never came right out and told His disciples everything all at once. He brought them along slowly to prepare them for the truth.
He began His public ministry with the "simplest" of miracles at Cana.
When He described His coming resurrection He used the analogy of the temple destruction.
He did the exact same thing in John 6.
And yet no one rushed to bite Him.
BAD A;postles!!
IGNORING a 'command' of the Lord!
Heck!
I've done that on this very thread!
The New Covenant is about Christ’s relationship is with His Bride, the church, of which you are a member.
I see it this way: The character of a community is the totality of the character of its individual members. i.e. if there are lots of individual moral families in a community, it will be more moral than one that has few moral families. The Jesus of the New Covenant has a relationship individually with each member of the body, resulting in a healthy “whole” body.
It’s like a “bottom up” approach rather than a “top down” approach. So, just as the Old Covenant dealt with a group called Israel and the New Covenant deals with a group called the Church, the former deals very much with the group, and members are blessed, while the latter deals with the individual members, one on one, and the group is blessed. In both cases the member are blessed, of course.
It seems subtle, but it is really huge. With Christianity, God is VERY PERSONAL, as if you were the only human alive. In the Old Covenant, it’s not nearly as personal. It’s why it is so much better.
You must be a killer Scrabble player.
And lawyer.
Those are the same Greek words for "the flesh," and let's also consider them with: And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew, Catholic chapter eighteen, Protestant verse three,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
Also, this is an excellent guide:
http://www.discipleshiptools.org/apps/articles/default.asp?articleid=36885&columnid=4189
49 Commands of Christ
By ITW Staff
What are 49 Ways to Love God and Others?
The theme of all Scripture is to love God with all of our hearts and to love one another.
(Read Matthew 22:40 and John 13:34.)
1. Repent-Matthew 4:17 Humility
2. Follow Me-Matthew 4:19 Meekness
3. Rejoice-Matthew 5:12 Joyfulness
4. Let Your Light Shine-Matthew 5:16 Generosity
5. Honor God’s Law-Matthew 5:17-18 Love
6. Be Reconciled-Matthew 5:24-25 Responsibility
7. Do Not Commit Adultery-Matthew 5:29-30 Self-Control
8. Keep Your Word-Matthew 5:37 Truthfulness
9. Go the Second Mile-Matthew 5:38-42 Deference
10. Love Your Enemies-Matthew 5:44 Creativity
11. Be Perfect-Matthew 5:48 Sincerity
12. Practice Secret Disciplines-Matthew 6:1-18 Faith
13. Lay Up Treasures-Matthew 6:19-21 Thriftiness
14. Seek God’s Kingdom-Matthew 6:33 Initiative
15. Judge Not-Matthew 7:1 Discernment
16. Do Not Cast Pearls-Matthew 7:6 Discretion
17. Ask, Seek, and Knock-Matthew 7:7-8 Resourcefulness
18. Do Unto Others-Matthew 7:12 Sensitivity
19. Choose the Narrow Way-Matthew 7:13-14 Decisiveness
20. Beware of False Prophets-Matthew 7:15 Alertness
21. Pray For Laborers-Matthew 9:38 Compassion
22. Be Wise as Serpents-Matthew 10:16 Wisdom
23. Fear Not-Matthew 10:26 Boldness
24. Hear God’s Voice-Matthew 11:15 Attentiveness
25. Take My Yoke-Matthew 11:29 Obedience
26. Honor Your Parents-Matthew 15:4 Honor/Reverence
27. Beware of Leaven-Matthew 16:6 Virtue
28. Deny Yourself-Luke 9:23 Determination
29. Despise Not Little Ones-Matthew 18:10 Tolerance
30. Go To Offenders-Matthew 18:15 Justice
31. Beware of Covetousness-Luke 12:15 Contentment
32. Forgive Offenders-Matthew 18:21-22 Forgiveness
33. Honor Marriage-Matthew 19:6 Loyalty
34. Be a Servant-Matthew 20:26-28 Availability
35. Be a House of Prayer-Matthew 21:13 Persuasiveness
36. Ask in Faith-Matthew 21:21-22 Patience
37. Bring in the Poor-Luke 14:12-14 Hospitality
38. Render to Caesar-Matthew 22:19-21 Gratefulness
39. Love the Lord-Matthew 22:37-38 Enthusiasm
40. Love Your Neighbor-Matthew 22:39 Gentleness
41. Await My Return-Matthew 24:42-44 Punctuality
42. Take, Eat, and Drink-Matthew 26:26-27 Thoroughness
43. Be Born Again-John 3:7 Security
44. Keep My Commandments-John 14:15 Diligence
45. Watch and Pray-Matthew 26:41 Endurance
46. Feed My Sheep-John 21:15-16 Dependability
47. Baptize My Disciples-Matthew 28:19 Cautiousness
48. Receive God’s Power-Luke 24:49 Orderliness
49. Make Disciples-Matthew 28:20 Flexibility
Folks; this stuff just writes itself!
I hear ya!
This FR addition will REALLY suck up millions of milliseconds of a person's life!
“Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the teachings of Rome like a child will be anathema."
Yup!
Rome re-crucifies Christ's flesh every time the HOST appears.
Hebrews 6:1-6 New International Version (NIV)
1 Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2 instruction about cleansing rites, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And God permitting, we will do so.
4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
FR needs a like button.
Why?
Our little opinions mean THAT much?
Well, it’s faster than typing a post to say, “Good post!”
Ps. 131.
Pretty personal.
Not really a counter-argument. An adumbration.
See Mad Dawg's posts up thread about all time and space being present to Jesus.
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.