Who invented transubstantiation?

ViaCrucis · Jun 17, 2015

abacabb3 said:
So, are sins forgiven anew every weak, or is the forgiveness of sins proclaimed every week in the Eucharist?

Yes. What Christ has done for us is brought to us through God's Word and Sacrament. So in the Eucharist we, every week, receive the forgiveness of God that is ours in Christ by His death and resurrection. What Christ has done once and for all is ours continually by the grace of God. God's mercies are new every morning.

-CryptoLutheran

abacabb3 · Jun 17, 2015

It's an either or question. Does the eucharist bring about a new forgiveness of sins which could no be enjoy, let's say, an hour before partaking the eucharist, or does it proclaim the forgiveness of sins that is available to us by faith in Christ?

ViaCrucis · Jun 17, 2015

abacabb3 said:
It's an either or question. Does the eucharist bring about a new forgiveness of sins which could no be enjoy, let's say, an hour before partaking the eucharist, or does it proclaim the forgiveness of sins that is available to us by faith in Christ?

And I'm saying it's not an either/or question.

-CryptoLutheran

abacabb3 · Jun 17, 2015

So, it is both?

ViaCrucis · Jun 17, 2015

abacabb3 said:
So, it is both?

Yes, and neither. The forgiveness in the Eucharist is the forgiveness found in the death and resurrection of Jesus. That forgiveness, objectively, took place two thousand years ago; it is ours--or to put it another way, we are the benefactors of it--in and through the Means of Grace which God has given us. The Eucharist is one of those Means.

Your question, as it seems to me, presumes this:

1) A "new forgiveness" means a forgiveness apart from the historic act of Christ's death and resurrection. It's not that.

or

2) Merely talking about the forgiveness that is in the historic act of Christ's death and resurrection. It's not that either.

Instead it communicates and gives the very body and blood of Christ, it gives us the work of Christ which is God's forgiveness of sins. What Christ has done is ours in the Eucharist, the once-and-for-all work of Christ's atoning work is administered to us in the Eucharist because we receive the body of Christ and the blood of Christ. It isn't just reminding us of the past, it is an anamnesis, a remembrance, by which the past is brought into the present and we become partakers of it.

When Jewish people gather for the Seder on Passover they engage in an act of remembrance of God's deliverance of Israel from out of Egypt. It is not simply a recollection of the past, indeed the Haggadah says "we were slaves in Egypt". The Jewish Passover is a living embrace of God's deliverance of the People, a living memory that brings together the past with the present.

So is the Christian Passover, the Eucharist. It is the anamnesis of Christ's work, but it isn't merely a recollection of "this happened two thousand years ago" it is a living participation of Christ's death and resurrection in the present. We, say St. Paul, share (have koinonia) with Christ's body and blood in the bread and wine we receive. It is the very body of Christ broken for us, the very blood of Christ shed for us; it is Christ Himself crucified, risen, ascended, reigning given to us and for us. It is therefore the entire reality of Christ's work brought into our present moment and by which we are indeed partakers and sharers of Christ's saving act and we are the benefactors of it.

It is not a "new forgiveness", it is the forgiveness of God in Christ made new, brought into our present lives for the sake of our faith, for our believing, to trust upon Him who saves and is saving us.

-CryptoLutheran

abacabb3 · Jun 18, 2015

Open to everyone:

I am honestly trying to understand this. So, per chance, your car breaks down and you miss church. Thereby, you miss the Eucharist that week, though you didn't the week before. Are there any sins that the Christian in this situation has not been forgiven, because there has been a week lapse in the eucharist? Why or why not?

I would greatly appreciate if an answer can be given as simply as possible, I believe I worded the question simply.

GreekOrthodox · Jun 18, 2015

Dear Abacabb,
You are really trying to over think this and I suspect that the next question will be "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin". One answer to that is, "As many as are needed". As we sing in the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts,"O taste and see that the Lord is good. Alleluia"

abacabb3 · Jun 18, 2015

Honestly, it is a serious question and I really wonder why it is so hard to answer. I want to understand where you guys really come from, as people seem to flipplatly say "it forgives sins" but then when asked to elaborate they backtrack, and I don't understand why. So please, if you can answer the question here, it would be very beneficial to me.

GreekOrthodox · Jun 19, 2015

Dear Abacab, we're not trying to be flippant or anything else. We're not given the mechanics of how forgiveness of sins works in the Eucharist. As for your question, we are in constant need of forgiveness and honestly, I dont know how or if God keeps track of sins between communion, between confessions, or after baptism. As St. John of Karpathos writes, “My brethren, do all that is in your power not to fall, for the strong athlete should not fall, but, if you do fall, get up again at once, and continue the contest. Even if you fall a thousand times, because of the withdrawal of God’s grace, rise up again at each time, and keep on doing so until the day of your death. For it is written: ‘If a righteous man falls seven times,’ that is, repeatedly throughout his life, ‘seven times shall he rise again’ [Proverbs 24:16].”

abacabb3 · Jun 20, 2015

GreekOrthodox said:
Dear Abacab, we're not trying to be flippant or anything else. We're not given the mechanics of how forgiveness of sins works in the Eucharist.

Well, keeping in mind the following question:

So, per chance, your car breaks down and you miss church. Thereby, you miss the Eucharist that week, though you didn't the week before. Are there any sins that the Christian in this situation has not been forgiven, because there has been a week lapse in the eucharist? Why or why not?

In my opinion, the answer is simple. The person who misses the Eucharist enjoys the same forgiveness of sins as the person who does not, presuming that the faith of both is identical. The sacrifice of Christ becomes applicable to us not by eating and drinking, but by faith. Eating and drinking apart from faith does not do anything, and so if the faithful person cannot eat and drink to the glory of God, the forgiveness of his sins is not contingent upon missing a sacrament he did not want to miss.

Christ has pronounced forgiveness of sins after seeing faith (Luke 5:20). "Everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins" (Acts 10:43). So, is is believing in Christ that forgives sins and it is such a belief that leads the Christian to the Eucharist, so actually eating and drinking it does not forgive sins. If it did, then the person who misses church because of a car accident o whatever is at very real disadvantage upon the judgment if he dies before receiving the Eucharist next.

If whatever I said is untrue, it should be easy enough to say, "No, literally eating and drinking does forgive sins, so the person who misses church through no fault of their own IS not forgiven certain sins until he receives the Eucharist next, if at all."

It honestly is not complicated, in my opinion. If it is a mystery and you do not know, then it is sufficient to say, "Receiving the Eucharist forgives sins, but we do not know if you miss it whether or not you miss out on that forgiveness."

abacabb3 · Jun 22, 2015

Can anyone help me with this?

tz620q · Jun 23, 2015

abacabb3 said:
Well, keeping in mind the following question:

So, per chance, your car breaks down and you miss church. Thereby, you miss the Eucharist that week, though you didn't the week before. Are there any sins that the Christian in this situation has not been forgiven, because there has been a week lapse in the eucharist? Why or why not?
It honestly is not complicated, in my opinion. If it is a mystery and you do not know, then it is sufficient to say, "Receiving the Eucharist forgives sins, but we do not know if you miss it whether or not you miss out on that forgiveness."

I think this analogy is too black and white. Let me make another analogy that I think is more in line with how we think. You wake up one morning with a high fever. You have a bacterial infection and you get in the car to go to the doctor for a shot of antibiotics. You have an accident and never make it to the doctor's office. Your body might fight off the infection on it's own and return to health; but does that disprove the efficacy of the antibiotic? If sin is turning away from God, then the opposite of sin is not doing nothing and hoping for a good result. It is taking every opportunity to turn towards God. To us the pinnacle of this is in the Eucharist.

God bless,
Byron

abacabb3 · Jun 23, 2015

tz620q said:
I think this analogy is too black and white. Let me make another analogy that I think is more in line with how we think. You wake up one morning with a high fever. You have a bacterial infection and you get in the car to go to the doctor for a shot of antibiotics. You have an accident and never make it to the doctor's office. Your body might fight off the infection on it's own and return to health; but does that disprove the efficacy of the antibiotic? If sin is turning away from God, then the opposite of sin is not doing nothing and hoping for a good result. It is taking every opportunity to turn towards God. To us the pinnacle of this is in the Eucharist.

God bless,
Byron

It's odd that you think my analogy is too black and white, because it probably really happens at least once every week. Concerning your analogy, it does not really answer the question. No one debates that partaking in the Eucharist is conducive to spiritual health. The question is if the believer misses out on the propitiatory/expiatory effect of Christ's sacrifice if for some reason out of his control he misses out on it.

tz620q · Jun 24, 2015

abacabb3 said:
It's odd that you think my analogy is too black and white, because it probably really happens at least once every week. Concerning your analogy, it does not really answer the question. No one debates that partaking in the Eucharist is conducive to spiritual health. The question is if the believer misses out on the propitiatory/expiatory effect of Christ's sacrifice if for some reason out of his control he misses out on it.

I think we can agree that there are other avenues for propitiation to occur. So we would never say that without the Eucharist there cannot be forgiveness of sins. The sacraments are there as the normative method for the conveyance of God's Grace. Going back to our analogy, there probably is a few different ways for the sick man to get to the doctor's office. One of those ways is the best and the one he would normally use. Let's say that instead of his car being in the accident, he comes upon an accident that blocks this normal way to the doctor. So he takes a different way. To relate back to the Eucharist, if he can't make it to the church, he can call the church and have someone bring the Eucharist to him (Doctor's do make house calls in this case.). If on the rare occasion, someone cannot make it to the Eucharist because of illness or some other unforeseen event, the Catholic Church does not see that as sin; but if this same person misses every Sunday, it is probably an indication that he has turned away from God in his life and fallen into a pattern of sinfulness.

I think in general we view theosis or spiritual growth as a process that requires our active participation and does not end until our death. That is why the question, "Are you saved?" to a Catholic will normally yield a shrug or a complicated explanation. For one, who are we to answer for God? He is the ultimate arbitrator of that decision. We think it is presumptive to speak for Him. Also, since we see this salvation as a process and not an event; we tend to think of it as a journey. There are things that help us on this journey. The Eucharist is one of the most important of these. Can someone make this journey without it? Certainly, but we see it as so important that if would be like strapping 20 pounds of weight to each leg before starting.

abacabb3 · Jun 24, 2015

tz620q said:
I think we can agree that there are other avenues for propitiation to occur.

Personally, I do not believe that. Propitiation occurs solely through Christ's work on the cross. By faith in that sacrifice, which is a living and true faith which includes partaking in the eucharist, confession, almsgiving, taking very though captive in Christ and such, we tap into that propitiation. Hence, it is never the action that creates the propitiatory effect, the action is the fruit of faith which makes the propitiatory effect applicable.

So we would never say that without the Eucharist there cannot be forgiveness of sins. The sacraments are there as the normative method for the conveyance of God's Grace.

I appreciate you pointing that out.

If on the rare occasion, someone cannot make it to the Eucharist because of illness or some other unforeseen event, the Catholic Church does not see that as sin; but if this same person misses every Sunday, it is probably an indication that he has turned away from God in his life and fallen into a pattern of sinfulness.

I agree.

I think in general we view theosis or spiritual growth as a process that requires our active participation and does not end until our death. That is why the question, "Are you saved?" to a Catholic will normally yield a shrug or a complicated explanation. For one, who are we to answer for God?

That is awfully sad, though. John warns us, "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love" (1 John 4:18).

Which is said because Paul speaks of salvation using very confident terms in Rom 8, 2 Cor 4, Heb 6, among other places. A Christian can say with confidence that he is saved, to say otherwise throws the Scriptures where Paul speaks of himself and others of being saved into contradiction.

outsidethecamp · Jul 1, 2015

There are several problems with the RCC interpretation of the Last Supper. The most obvious is that there is absolutely no indication that the bread and wine changed at the Last Supper. The same is true today at Mass. The bread and wine before and after look exactly the same. They smell, feel and taste the same. All empirical evidence points to the fact that they do not change at all. The RCC uses a theory called "transubstantiation" to explain why this "miracle" cannot be seen.

They got this from Aristotle who taught that all matter consists of "accidents" and "substance". Accidents are the outward appearance of an object and substance is its inner essence.

The theory of transubstantiation says that at the consecration of the Mass, the substance of the bread and wine change while their accidents remain the same.

1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."202 "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."203

1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion.

Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:
It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.204

And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:
Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.205

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that 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."206

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.207

The second problem with this interpretation is that it requires the eating of human flesh. For a Jew to drink human blood would have been more than repulsive (according to the Mosaic Law, it would have been unlawful). Where was the heated discussion about drinking blood and eating flesh? But, this is what the disciples did at the Last Supper. They ate human flesh and drank human blood.

Paul proclaimed later, in Acts 10:14
"But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean."

Acts_17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

tz620q · Jul 1, 2015

outsidethecamp said:
Paul proclaimed later, in Acts 10:14
"But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean."

This is a really bad example to use since the rest of that episode reads thus:
Acts 10:13-15 -
A voice said to him, “Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.”
But Peter said, “Certainly not, sir. For never have I eaten anything profane and unclean.”
The voice spoke to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.”

outsidethecamp said:
Acts_17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

You know sometimes when Paul is talking to a group of people he is just talking to a group of people and not trying to condemn the whole Greek nation. I assume that is what you meant to imply, that Aristotle was superstitious as well. Calling Aristotle superstitious while using much of the science that he invented seems odd to me. It was not a good apologetic for Paul at the time and still isn't.

Alive_Again · Jul 3, 2015

Jesus clearly said, "This is My Body". It is to be done in memory of Him. It's more than just celebrating Memorial Day where we remember the fallen. It IS His Body.

I believe where it went from "This is My Body", to "The bread and the wine are no longer bread and wine", is when it was esteemed to be "transubstantiation". By the power of God it becomes a spiritual meal, but you can clearly see the "bread" and smell the wine (if you're fortunate enough to partake of that). Miracles done by God are typically witnessed by the physical senses. Some were "healed on the way", but eventually, it became obvious.

Billions of communion wafers have been consumed and they have seemingly always remained wafers. This has become a point of contention between the denominations. During inquisitions people have been asked under torture if they acknowledge transubstantiation. Usually a stronghold is at the root of something when "truth is insisted on". I am glad that during nondenominational services communion is partaken of (grape juice). You get these little cups and you throw them away when you're done. You can still see some grape juice adhering to the plastic. These are thrown away. We don't get hung up about any remaining droplets because it's God's Spirit that makes it what it is. We don't tabernacle the remains and call them God. There's no condemnation and no conviction tossing out the leftovers either. Yet we still esteem it to be a spiritual meal and it is just as much a blessing as in any other church I have attended.

I don't want to offend, but you know if you are the Body of Christ, we don't put you in a tabernacle and call you God, yet you would be every bit as much the Body of Christ as that wafer was.

outsidethecamp · Jul 3, 2015

tz620q said:
This is a really bad example to use since the rest of that episode reads thus:
Acts 10:13-15 -
A voice said to him, “Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.”
But Peter said, “Certainly not, sir. For never have I eaten anything profane and unclean.”
The voice spoke to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.”

But, Peter was being honest. He had never drank any animal's or human's blood.

outsidethecamp · Jul 3, 2015

Alive_Again said:
Jesus clearly said, "This is My Body". It is to be done in memory of Him. It's more than just celebrating Memorial Day where we remember the fallen. It IS His Body.

I believe where it went from "This is My Body", to "The bread and the wine are no longer bread and wine", is when it was esteemed to be "transubstantiation". By the power of God it becomes a spiritual meal, but you can clearly see the "bread" and smell the wine (if you're fortunate enough to partake of that). Miracles done by God are typically witnessed by the physical senses. Some were "healed on the way", but eventually, it became obvious.

Billions of communion wafers have been consumed and they have seemingly always remained wafers. This has become a point of contention between the denominations. During inquisitions people have been asked under torture if they acknowledge transubstantiation. Usually a stronghold is at the root of something when "truth is insisted on". I am glad that during nondenominational services communion is partaken of (grape juice). You get these little cups and you throw them away when you're done. You can still see some grape juice adhering to the plastic. These are thrown away. We don't get hung up about any remaining droplets because it's God's Spirit that makes it what it is. We don't tabernacle the remains and call them God. There's no condemnation and no conviction tossing out the leftovers either. Yet we still esteem it to be a spiritual meal and it is just as much a blessing as in any other church I have attended.

I don't want to offend, but you know if you are the Body of Christ, we don't put you in a tabernacle and call you God, yet you would be every bit as much the Body of Christ as that wafer was.

Jesus was very good at putting things into context. Not the first time He explained things to His disciples:

John_6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
John_6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
John_6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

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.

You see in the same context, He wasn't truly speaking about eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

"This is My Body and this is My blood", was meant to be understood in the figurative sense.

Just as these verses are figurative.

John 6:48
John 8:12
John 10:9
John 10:11
John 11:25
John 14:26
John 15:1

Who invented transubstantiation?

Confessional Lutheran

Newbie

Confessional Lutheran

Newbie

Confessional Lutheran

Newbie

Psalti Chrysostom

Newbie

Psalti Chrysostom

Newbie

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

Heb 13:10-15

Regular Member

Resident Alien

Heb 13:10-15

Heb 13:10-15

Similar threads