I am coming to you all for help.

[Adammi]

In the General Theology forum some Catholics are really putting me to the test when it comes to transubstantiation. Please help, I don't have all the answers. Please go there and help. I hope that that isnt against a rule or anything.

 

[BT]

No it isn't against the rules... post the link for me.

 

[Adammi]

http://christianforum.com/t883273

No it isn't against the rules... post the link for me.

Thank You!!

 

[scham]

transubstantiation.
whats that? I'm no good with big words. Lol

 

[SumTinWong]

To the OP,
I would personally say don't get into fights unless you have been trained to do it. Some of these things seem to fly in the face of what we have been taught but I have learned from experience that it is best to know why I believe in what I do, and be able to back it up before I attempt to engage in the discussion with others. The people who are on that side of their belief have a couple of thousand years of belief on their hands, and it is up to us really to prove why they were wrong, if they really were wrong in the first place.

I would suggest going and reading what the early church fathers said on the subject and see why they felt the way they did.

I would also suggest not looking at this as just a Catholic teaching. The Orthodox who don't feel the need to put labels on or even try to explain the unexplainable believe the samething but without the explaination. Lutherans believe in somewhat the same thing and so on... So when did Christians, or should I say the Baptists decide that this was not the case and therefore threw out two thousand years of practices?

In this day in age it seems that we ust be defenders of our own faith even amongst Christians. Iron does sharpen iron.

here is a nice article for you:
http://www.justforcatholics.org/bread.htm

 

[ZiSunka]

Actually, the idea of transubstantiation is absolutely necessary to the catholic faith and you will never talk true believers of catholicism out of it. To us it is bread and wine or bread and juice, but them, it is there only hope of pleasing God and achieving grace. If Christ isn't in the cup for them, then everything they hang their hope on is wrong and this will send them into dispair, which makes them fight all the harder to prove that transubstantiation is true. It's like a watching a drowning man who suddenly fears that what he thought was a life jacket is really a backpack full of bricks., but instead of taking off the backpack, he decides to prove that it is really a life jacket. Sad, but in the end, fruitless and costly.

You're better off taking to them about having a personal relationship with God, which is a concept that interests them, but they will have a hard time arguing with it, because their faith doesn't have a pre-packaged response to it.

 

[Unnamed Servant]

So when did Christians, or should I say the Baptists decide that this was not the case and therefore threw out two thousand years of practices?

Just because something has been practiced for a long time doesn't mean that it is correct.

How long was the law of the OT practiced for? Why don't we practice it anymore since it was practiced for so long?

Love-In-Christ,

Unnamed Servant

 

[ZiSunka]

To the OP,
So when did Christians, or should I say the Baptists decide that this was not the case and therefore threw out two thousand years of practices?

I think it was probably when they looked into the cup and saw bread and wine, not flesh and blood.

 

[SumTinWong]

I understand that Unamed, and I am not defending what they believe in. That is the Catholic/Orthodox defence. If one wanted to follow longevity as a rule of thumb than long before Christianity, was Buddha and his clan. So you are right it does not mean anything.

So by what authority do we claim that they are wrong? By what authority do they claim they are right?

 

[SumTinWong]

I think it was probably when they looked into the cup and saw bread and wine, not flesh and blood.

That was cute

 

[Gold Dragon]

I just want to clarify what seems to be a slight misunderstanding of transubstantiation. Catholics don't believe that the Eucharist is literally Christ's body and blood in physical form, otherwise known as the physical accidents of the Eucharist which remain bread and wine. But they believe that the "essence" or "substance" of Christ has literally replaced the "essence" or "substance" of the bread and the wine.

Lutherans believe in consubstantiation where both the substance of Christ and the substance of the bread and wine exist in the Eucharist.

I think a key part of understanding why transubstantiation is important to Catholics is understanding how pivotal the idea of incarnation is to Catholics. God incarnate as Jesus. The Holy Spirit incarnate in Christians. Jesus incarnate in the poor, hungry, unclothed, imprisoned (Matt 25:31-46). Jesus incarnate in the bread and the cup.

 

[ZiSunka]

Still doesn't make must sense to me. Saying Jesus is incarnate in the cup doesn't make it so...

 

[Gold Dragon]

Still doesn't make must sense to me. Saying Jesus is incarnate in the cup doesn't make it so...

I'm not saying it is so. But if we are to have reasonable discussions with Catholics to disagree with their understanding of communion, let's make sure we know what they really believe and why they believe it.

 

[SumTinWong]

One way to find out is to study what they mean by "The Real Presence". Another way is to see what they mean by "Eucharist as a sacrament", or perhaps even why some partake in the "adoration of the eucharist".

I know why I do not believe in many of the doctrines developed, or should I say touted by the RCC, I just wonder if everyone else does?

 

[Gold Dragon]

One way to find out is to study what they mean by "The Real Presence". Another way is to see what they mean by "Eucharist as a sacrament", or perhaps even why some partake in the "adoration of the eucharist".

I know why I do not believe in many of the doctrines developed, or should I say touted by the RCC, I just wonder if everyone else does?

I have found that in discovering why other Christians have different ways of understanding communion, my personal experience and understanding of communion has been enriched.

The same is true of other doctrines and even dispensationalism has helped enrich my view of scripture, even though I still vehemently disagree with its premises and appllications.

 

[SumTinWong]

I know what you mean. I want to know the truth. If that means I have to step outside of my comfort zone and look at how other people view the cross and its meaning I don't mind. It has made me a stronger believer in the reformation that was needed then, and in my opinion is needed again.

 

[Carrye]

Actually, the idea of transubstantiation is absolutely necessary to the catholic faith and you will never talk true believers of catholicism out of it. To us it is bread and wine or bread and juice, but them, it is there only hope of pleasing God and achieving grace. If Christ isn't in the cup for them, then everything they hang their hope on is wrong and this will send them into dispair, which makes them fight all the harder to prove that transubstantiation is true.

That's an interesting insight, and I agree that if Christ is not present the way we believe, then many other things don't make sense. It's not about proving that transubstantiation is true though, as Lollard pointed out that the Orthodox believe as we do, but it's about believing that once bread and wine are consecrated they are the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.

And Lollard: you and I have had our disagreements in the past, but I greatly appreciate your respectful thoughts in this thread.

To other Baptists: we will probably never agree on this issue, but I really do appreciate the civil discussion. I am less concerned about you believing as I do, as you understanding why Catholics and Orthodox believe as they do.

God bless you all.