Is Transubstantiation Biblical?

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Trento,

Read the posts by our Orthodox brothers and sisters in this thread....




.

 

[RND]

Not sure what ya mean here

The Eucharist is symbolic. The bread and wine don't turn into Jesus' real body nor does he leave the Heavenly Sanctuary to become the "real presence." Now, if someone wants to say that the Holy Spirit enjoins the one taking the bread and wine that I would agree with.

 

[Trento]

The Eucharist is symbolic. The bread and wine don't turn into Jesus' real body nor does he leave the Heavenly Sanctuary to become the "real presence." Now, if someone wants to say that the Holy Spirit enjoins the one taking the bread and wine that I would agree with.

Right from the mouth of an Apostolic Father who was instructed by Saint John Apostle.

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 110 A.D.)

They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrn 7:1)

 

[2 King]

SYMBOLIC FLESH!
Which has already been sacrificed on Calvary. And to RE-SACRIFICE is not biblical.

 

[PaladinValer]

SYMBOLIC FLESH!
Which has already been sacrificed on Calvary. And to RE-SACRIFICE is not biblical.

It isn't a resacrifice but the same sacrifice.

The Greek word translated (poorly) as "remembrance" implies a mystical union through time and space between what happens at the altar to what happened at Calvary.

It is the same event.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Right from the mouth of an Apostolic Father who was instructed by Saint John Apostle.

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 110 A.D.)

They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrn 7:1)

Thanks for AGAIN supporting the Lutheran doctrine of Real Presence. But friend, that's another discussion for another day and thread. This thread is about the new, unique Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation - and specifically about the Scripture(s) that perhaps confirm it. We're all continue to wait and see if any Catholic can come up with any. So far, not. How about you?




.

 

[MamaZ]

How can it be the same? For He died on the cross and people did no go and eat of Him then for the forgivness of sin. He was buried and rose up from the dead. He then was glorified. It was not His glorified flesh that was beaten beyond recognition for our sake. It was His human flesh that He was born into that was.. So therefore it cannot be the same.. For He is no longer the same as He was.

 

[PaladinValer]

Thanks for AGAIN supporting the Lutheran doctrine of Real Presence. But friend, that's another discussion for another day and thread. This thread is about the new, unique Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation

Not according to the OP.

 

[Trento]

Thanks for AGAIN supporting the Lutheran doctrine of Real Presence. But friend, that's another discussion for another day and thread. This thread is about the new, unique Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation - and specifically about the Scripture(s) that perhaps confirm it. We're all continue to wait and see if any Catholic can come up with any. So far, not. How about you?




.

The Roman Catholic Church through history approached her faith life with the clarification of language. That is, she translated the essentials of revealed faith into the vocabulary of living language.
To the revealed Word that there is "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" the Church labeled the belief "Trinity."

To the revealed Word that the "Son of God became man" the Church labeled the belief "Incarnation."


To the revealed Word that the "blood of Christ spilled on Calvary saved us" the Church labeled the belief "Redemption."


To the revealed Word that "my flesh is true food, my blood is true drink" the Church labeled the belief "Transubstantiation."


Transubstantiation reflects Roman Catholic faith in the literalness of the words of the Bible.
Jesus (omnipotent God) said: "This is my body; this is my blood." And again Jesus said: "I am the bread of life;" "My flesh is true food; my blood is true drink;" "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood ...;" etc.
Roman Catholics take Jesus at His word: the bread is his body; the wine is his blood.
From the Apostles at the Last Supper until today, the bread and wine of Eucharist looks and feels and tastes like bread and wine in the eating and drinking.
Similar to all of God's Word, faith is essential. Faith in what? In the words of Jesus even though the bread does not look, feel, taste like flesh; even though the wine does not look, feel, taste like blood.
Medieval theologians sought simply to label this simple biblical faith: Jesus said that bread is his body and wine is his blood even though it did not appear to change into visible flesh and blood. Transubstantiation means the substance part of the bread and wine elements changes; but the accidental parts--sight, taste, smell, touch--do not. Catholics believe that since Jesus said it and He is God, he can do it. They believe! "Transubstantiation" merely labels it.

 

[simonthezealot]

Jesus said people would reply like this.

.

Where?

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Maybe. But at least I hit the target.

So did Brutus, Bob Ford, Jack McCall, and John Wlikes Booth.

 

[tadoflamb]

SYMBOLIC FLESH!
Which has already been sacrificed on Calvary. And to RE-SACRIFICE is not biblical.

For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting,
my name is great among the nations;
And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name,
and a pure offering;
For great is my name among nations,
says the Lord of hosts.

(Malachi 1:11)

Every second at least four masses are being heard somewhere around the world.

Only the Catholic mass fulfills this prophecy.

 

[2 King]

Not according to the OP.[/color][/size][/font]

Interesting. Because now the OP made a separate thread which is about RP. So now this is only about TRANS. No more discussion of RP on this thread.

 

[tadoflamb]

Interesting. Because now the OP made a separate thread which is about RP. So now this is only about TRANS. No more discussion of RP on this thread.

Inseparable from the Catholic pov.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Interesting. Because now the OP made a separate thread which is about RP. So now this is only about TRANS. No more discussion of RP on this thread.

Lots of threads on the RP on the Sacramental board.....this was one of the largest.
I myself do not believe in the RP, but then I do not participate in the communio with RCs or Orthodox either......

http://www.christianforums.com/t6467459/
Why I deny the "real presence."

 

[2 King]

For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting,
my name is great among the nations;
And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name,
and a pure offering;
For great is my name among nations,
says the Lord of hosts.

(Malachi 1:11)

Nice try brother.
If you go into context you'll plainly see that "and a pure offering" means either the Gentiles themselves, their souls and bodies, or their sacrifices of praise and works may be said to be "pure" and offered in a pure and spiritual manner.

and "my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles;"through the preaching of the Gospel.

 

[tadoflamb]

Nice try brother.
If you go into context you'll plainly see that "and a pure offering" means either the Gentiles themselves, their souls and bodies, or their sacrifices of praise and works may be said to be "pure" and offered in a pure and spiritual manner.

and "my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles;"through the preaching of the Gospel.

The only thing I plainly see is the foretelling of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[2 King]

The only thing I plainly see is the foretelling of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

that's because you took a verse and applied the words of it to the CC.
Where is the RCC's interpretation of that verse? I thought all they needed was John 6?

 

[tadoflamb]

that's because you took a verse and applied the words of it to the CC.
Where is the RCC's interpretation of that verse? I thought all they needed was John 6?

The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith. It's woven all throughout the Sacred Scriptures.

He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more. (Sirach 24:20)

 

[tadoflamb]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=30&chapter=15&verse=16&version=31&context=verse

When your words came, I ate them;(Jeremiah 15:16)

(That's a Protestant version, the Catholic version reads 'devoured')