(I'd think the puny little humans would have learned this by now.)
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.
They seemingly abound...
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
1 John 3:21-24
Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.
Are Catholics allowed to speak in tongues?
(I'd think the puny little humans would have learned this by now.)
It has me...
Here ya go! Copy the following code on your computer and use it anytime you wish...Excellent observations!
“per” takes the accusative.
“Nomen” is neuter.
So it would be “per aliud nomen.”
But, “by another name” is interesting. I don’t think “per” gives the sense we want. It really suggests “through.” To the extent that it means “by” it would be more like “by way of,” As in “I went to Boston by Springfield rather than by Providence.” I would have gone with “sub”, under.
“Alio nomine” (ablative case) has a sense of agency, so I don’t think it would do.
So, “Consectatio opus sub aliud nomen est.” Or, I like “Consectatio opus sub nomen alterium est.”
“Consectatio” has a sense of competition. It’s cognate with consequor — follow together. I’m guessing you want to convey a sense of frantic effort more than competition. I don’t know what word I’d use.
Don’t mind me. Free advice, worth every penny. It’s like morning exercises to see if my brain will work today. Result: inconclusive.
WRT #545: LOL!
WRT #546: Thankee! It REALLY interests me.
First, there is no connection or relationship between the unleavened bread matzos) and the “what-is-it” substance (manna). These substances are not even physically alike at all, even though manna is sometimes referred to in Scripture as “bread.”
This is not to argue against what you are saying; I am not familiar with the symbolism used in the Seder meal. But if there was a desire to prepare a substance to symbolize manna, what would you use to represent this “what-is-it”?
PapaFran is, let's say, stimulating my adrenal medulla. What stimulates it (them) even worse is the reporting on him. For example, in the encyclical I call “Tomato, Si! (Yanqui, No!)” at some point he says the Church can't run science or politics. So, once you've read that you see that most of the non “faith and morals” stuff is “just his opinion.” The docile Catholic reads and ponders and says, “Thank you for sharing,” but that's about all we owe ... but we do owe pondering.
I read his other encyclical — senior moment, can't remember the name — and it seemed clear to me that his alleged denunciations of capitalism are of capitalism ALONE. We kind of kicked it around in our “chapter” of sooper, extremely advanced and real smart, just ask us, lay Dominicans.
My conclusion was that, to the extent that it is a “social” encyclical, it has to be read in the context of the earlier encyclicals.
(Wow! Are WE ever wandering far afield!)
My take on the whole stream of social encyclicals is that they all agree on two things:
1) Every political/economic system requires the leavening of the Spirit or it will go bad and become oppressively unjust. Individuals and each human heart matters.
2) There are two basic principles, solidarity and subsidiarity. Each without the other is a disaster.
(2.A) Solidarity. We are all one family. What hurts one hurts the family.
By itself, this has a strong tendency toward totalitarian socialism.
(2.B) Subsidiarity. The function of “higher” political/economic entities is to keep out of the way unless a lower entity needs help. Then the higher entity should assist the lower to get back to where it doesn't need help and THEN get back out of the way again.
So, if a family has a disaster, the neighborhood should help out, and then back off. If New Orleans floods, Louisiana and the Feds should help out, and then back off If Bangladesh has a problem, the “family of nations” should help out and then back off.
AND, the higher entity need not act as an entity. After Katrina I got trained by the Red Cross and then went down to Louisiana and did what they told me. (I think the Red Cross is going bad, but they were the only show in town.) That would be an example of subsidiarity in action. I, as an individual, signed up temporarily with an NGO (allegedly), helped, and left.
...
So, PapaFran can say whatever about a global climate commissariat, but he is as bound by previous encyclicals as the rest of us, not only as regards the coordination and assistance of Solidarity but also concerning the local control and autonomy of Subsidiarity.
So, while he's not making it as easy or as clear as St. J2P2 the Great or PapaBenXVI would have, my unmentionables remain unknotted.
But yeah, they are, just not all the time.
I have found myself referring to the guidelines so often that I have bookmarked them. There is much wisdom in the Miscellaneous statements. Regarding the second statement, there are times when it feels like spitwads are plastered all over my face after reading a comment.
Miscellaneous:
The demeanor of the poster says more about his own confession than the post says about yours. When he is being rude or mean it drives people away from his confession and towards yours. That is of course if you can resist the urge to meet fire with fire, in which case neither confession is appealing to the lurkers. The poster who “turns the other cheek” wins every single time.
If the other guy is throwing spitwads at you on an “open” thread it probably means he has run out of ammunition.
Take it as a backhanded compliment. You won, walk away.
Spiritual maturity is not a prerequisite for posting on the Religion Forum. If the other guy is being childish, be patient with him.
Abusive spammers contribute nothing other than their spam and they don’t last long on Free Republic.
When posting in a foreign language, unless the statement is very common, e.g. adios, always include the English translation of it.
When quoting a source, e.g. a website, article or book – be sure to include sufficient source information for the moderators to enforce copyright restrictions.
When another Freeper asks you not to link to his hosting service, e.g. to use a public domain image hosted there, cooperate with his request. In such cases, you may wish to put a copy of the image on your own hosting service.
Good eats. Crunchy and nutritious.
Are Catholics allowed to speak in tongues?
You are not aware of the Charismatic Catholic movement?
Where IS that like button?
Bottom line, as the coffee goes to work, manna was something real that God gave to the Israelites which could sustain their bodily functions, The matzo was a regular bread dough that was cooked before it had a chance to rise from yeast working in it. This was meant to symbolize the rush to get out of Egypt (the Israelites were to eat this last meal in Egypt with their sandals on, if you get my drift). They were also to have made enough of this matzo so that they had ration for seven days with them we they fled from Egypt. Hence the Passover matzo is eaten for seven days in the Remembrance Seder re-enactment. The matzo is not related to the manna. Jesus was sharing the matzo in the Passover Seder with zero reference to manna. This should give clues to a Bible student for understanding the exchanges in John 6.
I think Aristotle is too readily dismissed as being “mechanical” or something like that. And his clarity and organization makes it possible to “work” his system without really soaking in it.
MY take on an accessible aspect of his thought is that at least once there is a more or less triangular thing there is the “form” of “triangle.” And that form really exists, somehow, objectively. And that's why geometry is an effort in discovery rather than creation. The things of the intellect, things intellectually perceived are not products of the intellect.
(And this is why I balk at the question of “physical or spiritual” as though that exhausted the possibilities. I think that “triangle” exists and is neither physical nor spiritual.)
...
Now here's a thing. Which more completely expresses the complete reality (in this Realist sense) of Fatherhood, God or me? MY current account is like this: FIRST my having and then being a father teach me something about God. But THEN, my contemplation of God's and my fatherhood teaches me that I am ALMOST an ersatz father. I could choose, with uncertain effects and results, to have A child. But I did not choose the child got, until she arrived. Then, when I saw her, I said, “YEAH! THAT one!”
So, I am mostly kinda sorta LIKE a father, while God is a sho’ ‘nuff father. My instantiation taught me about the form, but contemplation of God and the form taught me about the vast imperfections of my particular instantiantion of it.
...
Now I turn to “food indeed”. The carnal man, your humble servant, thinks, basically, pizza and beer = true food. It satisfies hunger, tastes great, makes me feel good, strengthens me, and when eaten with friends creates joviality.
But then I get hungry again, and fat, and my doctor tuts at me. And the friends go home. And, well, it's not really everything I need food to be, just as I am not everything my daughter needs a father to be.
...
At then end of the Paradiso, a wonderful transformation happens. In Dante's scheme, heaven is beyond the sphere of the fixed stars, beyond the sphere that powers the rest. So it is FIRST envisioned as a glorious periphery. But then there's a kind of reversal — and Dante begins to admit that his poetry is not up to the task — and what SEEMED to be the periphery is TRULY seen as the TRUE Center.
I am talking about this kind of reversal. And, at some mean, which Aquinas designates as “sacramental,” between Pizza and the Son of God, there is the Holy Eucharist.
My daughter as she grows ought to become more (lovingly, I hope) aware of my inadequacies as a father because she grows closer, through the Son, to the father of all. And that closeness will, I hope lead her to a greater love and appreciation of me AS she realizes my role as an almost fake imitation of fatherhood.
My enjoyment of pizza and beer is refined and ordered because there is another meal, the Mass, which is truer food. In heaven, we can say both that there is no longer any Mass or that it is ALL Mass, as that which is promised in today's Mass is finally fulfilled.
I suspect some of my Orthodox friends might find something congenial in this. But to me this sort of thinking is far more to the purpose than being picky about substance. Except that when The Philosopher says the soul is “the form of the body” ( and he doesn't mean the ‘shape’) we can see that under the shell of metaphysical technicalities he perceives a lambent and dynamic ousia which beckons to all who hunger for Reality and Truth, that ousia of which we say that the Son is homo-ousion with the Father.
Well said.
Rome says that only IT has the 'authority' to 'interpret'.
The dogma we're discussing didn't originate with Rome, for example. There's a long discussion about what the Sacrament is and about the way to explain it, to the extent that it can be explained. Then a disagreement, aka the Reformation, :-) arises so the council says, “Okay, there is a ‘real’ change and the template, sorta kinda, for describing it is ‘transubstantiation’.”
Rome rarely initiates. It umpires. So, if somebody interpreted and it was weird and it caught on, then at some point Rome would rear back and decide. And on the BIG stuff, usually there's a lot of consensus before Rome utters.
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.