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.
Consectatio est opus per alius nomen Latin for ‘Striving is working by another name.’ Catholicism is a works based religion, not The Gospel as found illustrated graphically in the Bible.
Can spiritual things eat?
How do you know those are the only choices?
Wow!
Praise God!
When you read the post I offered in answer to your question, then we will have a further exchange.
To: rwa265If I answer the following question for you, will you in turn answer one I will ask? ...
"So how can He give His flesh for the life of the world if the flesh profits nothing?" rwa265
The text in Greek clearly shows that to consume the flesh will profit nothing. So, the life of God is not going to get into the consumer vai the mouth. The Life of God comes into the human spirit AFTER it is cleansed of ALL unrighteousness. That coming in of the Holy Spirit is graphically illustrated at Pentecost and in the house of Cornelius. So, in answer to your question, The Flesh of Jesus was sacrificed upon the Cross, by Him, willingly giving Himself up to take the penalty fro sin. That act of sacrifice becomes your personal moment for salvation from your sins when you have a repentant heart and an accepting humility to believe He did that act for you.
When you take the bread and wine as a Remembrance, the Way Jesus instructed it be accepted, you testify tot he world and to God that you are numbered with Him in that cross death. You eat the bread making a spiritual connection to His sacrifice, not yours. You accept His atonement death for you. You are not accepting His flesh into you, you are acknowledging that He did this paying the penalty specifically for you.
The cup of wine when accepted is affirming your belief that His blood was shed for the remission of your sin nature. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. This astonishing Divine act is accomplished only by God as The Great High Priest entering into the Holy of Holies to cover the Mercy Seat with the perfect sinless blood of the Christ, The Son of the Living God, so that when 'an accuser' makes accusation that you have broken a law of Moses God will see the atonement made by Jesus, not your sin transgression. This atonement is not something you can drink in a cup. Jesus called the cup contents wine. Believe Him. He also taught that His giving of Himself was so that You and I can have His life n us, in the now, not after some trail of striving to obtain eternal life.
451 posted on 7/13/2015 11:14:32 AM by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
Do your see the answer to the question you posed, in that reply to your question?
What you are not grasping is that you have answered a question that was not asked ... lol.
I'll give you one more chance as I tire of your bait and switch.
Do you or do you not have a cogent explanation for why, if John 6 is a discussion of the Lords Table, that John omits the Lords Table in 13-17?
We see these types of claims from Catholics.
Yet they NEVER seem to be able to put their fingers on just WHICH 'false' things they are speaking about.
Oh?
James 4:7
Submit therefore to God and stand against Satan, and he will flee from you.
Almost ALL of Catholic rites and rituals are OMITTED in verse 29...
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
Like a Buddy Holly song and a phrase that John Wayne said a lot in The Searchers...
If the “Lord’s Table” was REALLY important; I’m just SURE that Mary would have said so in one or more of her world-wide visitations and/or apparitions.
I did read your post 451. I did not see a question from you for me to answer. Then I saw your back and forth with Mad Dawg which prompted me to expand on my post 415.
I really wasn’t looking for an answer to my question; it was a hypophoric question. Here is the full paragraph:
So how can He give His flesh for the life of the world if the flesh profits nothing? It is the Spirit dwelling in Him that gives life to His flesh. It is this living bread come down from heaven that is His flesh for the life of the world.
The flesh itself profits nothing. But the flesh Jesus mentioned, His flesh, has the Spirit within, and it is the Spirit within that allows Him to give His flesh for the life of the world.
Yes and I gave it to you, as I said perhaps you don’t like it, or don’t understand it, but that is the answer you received.
So we disagree on how The Spirit gets into the human believer. Catholicism teaches you eat Jesus at Mass to get His life in oyu. Jesus teaches in several passages that the Spirit does the born from above, not by the mouth on a catholic altar. God even illustrated the truth for cahtolics on the day of Pentecost and in the house of Cornelius. Don’t you want to be born from above? Take a clue from the Bible passages which graphically illustrate the event, with immediate evidence to the believer that they have been born from above. Would you rather work your way there, to eternal life, by striving to obtain, eventually, or accept His eternal life in the moment you believe He will do just as He p[romised, right then and there, then put His life in you without you having to eat him at Mass?
.
>> “A part of the “this” in “this do in remembrance of Me” is replicating the context of the full invitation to the Lord’s Table of the rest of complement of the local Body.” <<
.
Nonsense.
We are asked to do so at each occasion in which we break the loaf. That is without regard to who is present.
Nicolaitanism is constantly trying to get its nose under the tent.
.
>> “ I am persuaded that Jesus, as God with us, would not violate His laws as given through Moses to the world.” <<
.
Absolutely correct, every minute of every day.
His flesh was given at the cross, and no reenactment is to be done.
The eucharist is Lucifer’s false messiah in every way.
Here's my problem, or one of them. If a person tells me I am mistaken and then repeatedly asserts something that sounds false to me, every time he repeats the seemingly untrue assertion, I trust him less.
I could be mistaken but Catholic sacramental theology is that "ordinarily" (and that's important because it admits extraordinary things) Baptism is the sacrament having to do with the reception of the Holy Spirit.
It may be that I don't read well, but I'm pretty sure I've already quoted or referred to Aquinas's article which argues that reception of communion is not necessary for salvation. And it's all the more important, because Aquinas quotes Augustine, so two great "doctors," centuries apart, disagree with your assertion.
I could be wrong, but when someone tells me the RCC teaches one thing and I see two great doctors teaching the contrary, I'm going to conclude that the person disagreeing with the doctors has got it wrong.
Would you rather work your way there, to eternal life, by striving to obtain, eventually, or accept His eternal life in the moment you believe He will do just as He p[romised, right then and there, then put His life in you without you having to eat him at Mass?
I'd rather be a Catholic.
That, sir, is quite obvious, you would rather be catholic than see what The Bible clearly says to you. Got wrath?
“1411 Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.”
Pure invention. Brazen, really. Whoever came up with that is probably regretting it. Sad. Men shouldn’t add to God’s Word.
The end of the REAL earthly priesthood—the one God established—is detailed in Hebrews, if you’re interested. No other earthly one has been instituted.
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.