Problems with transubstantiation

[asiyreh]

Hi guys

Ok I'm new here, I guess this is the correct section for this post...

As I explained on my intro post
I started Roman Catholic, I guess I've left that behind me now.
I'm not really sure what I am any more.
I like the teaching of the Seventh Day Adventists and I guess the Messianic Jews would have to have things pretty correct?

So I guess I'm in there somewhere I suppose.

I'm stuck on this whole transubstantiation problem at the moment however.
You see I still live in a Catholic city and this one always really stumps me, when I speak with people.
This is what has brought me here to your attractive website.

I’d like to learn more about this idea.
Is it a Catholic only thing?
Do other denominations practice Holy Communion? If not how do you get around the problem of where Christ asks his followers to practice this rite in memory of him.

Apologies if this is a little vague it's a difficult idea to research. But I'd be glad of any help or your own dominations view on the subject.

 

[PaladinValer]

I like the teaching of the Seventh Day Adventists and I guess the Messianic Jews would have to have things pretty correct?

Only if you are into believing St. Michael is Jesus (An Adventist belief which is absolutely contrary to orthodoxy) or if you want to embrace Judaizerism (a racist/pietistic belief of both condemned in the 1st century). Both are unacceptable.

I'm stuck on this whole transubstantiation problem at the moment however.
You see I still live in a Catholic city and this one always really stumps me, when I speak with people.
This is what has brought me here to your attractive website.

I’d like to learn more about this idea.
Is it a Catholic only thing?
Do other denominations practice Holy Communion? If not how do you get around the problem of where Christ asks his followers to practice this rite in memory of him.

Apologies if this is a little vague it's a difficult idea to research. But I'd be glad of any help or your own dominations view on the subject.

Transubstantiationism is particular to the Vatican Catholic Church. It is a Real Presence theology, though not the only one that teaches exactly when and how Christ becomes fully Present during the Eucharistic Liturgy.

Most Christianity believes that Jesus is both physically and spiritually present (Real Present) in the Sacrament of Holy Communion. This includes the three largest Christian bodies (the Vatican Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and my Anglican Church) as well as all Lutheran and Moravian bodies, the Continuing Churches, the Oriental Orthodox, the Old Catholic Church, and splinter groups such as Sedevacantists, Conclavists, SSPX, and various Old Catholic bodies not in Communion with the Holy See of Utrecht, not to mention the personal beliefs of many Methodists. Only the Vatican Catholic Church believes in transubstantiationism; the rest have other valid Real Presence theological beliefs.

The Church has always had the theology of the Real Presence and it wasn't until the Radical Reformation that Christians began to believe otherwise. Both Luther and Hus believed in the Real Presence, as did John Wesley (who remained an Anglican his entire life), and both Lutherans and Moravians still teach this belief.

The idea that Jesus isn't physically Present in Holy Communion is based on a unhistoric idea of private interpretation of Holy Scripture which is not authentically Christian.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Only if you are into believing St. Michael is Jesus (An Adventist belief which is absolutely contrary to orthodoxy) or if you want to embrace Judaizerism (a racist/pietistic belief of both condemned in the 1st century). Both are unacceptable.



Transubstantiationism is particular to the Vatican Catholic Church. It is a Real Presence theology, though not the only one that teaches exactly when and how Christ becomes fully Present during the Eucharistic Liturgy.

Most Christianity believes that Jesus is both physically and spiritually present (Real Present) in the Sacrament of Holy Communion. This includes the three largest Christian bodies (the Vatican Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and my Anglican Church) as well as all Lutheran and Moravian bodies, the Continuing Churches, the Oriental Orthodox, the Old Catholic Church, and splinter groups such as Sedevacantists, Conclavists, SSPX, and various Old Catholic bodies not in Communion with the Holy See of Utrecht, not to mention the personal beliefs of many Methodists. Only the Vatican Catholic Church believes in transubstantiationism; the rest have other valid Real Presence theological beliefs.

The Church has always had the theology of the Real Presence and it wasn't until the Radical Reformation that Christians began to believe otherwise. Both Luther and Hus believed in the Real Presence, as did John Wesley (who remained an Anglican his entire life), and both Lutherans and Moravians still teach this belief.

The idea that Jesus isn't physically Present in Holy Communion is based on a unhistoric idea of private interpretation of Holy Scripture which is not authentically Christian.

I largely agree....


The affirmation of Real Presence is ancient and common: embraced by Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran communities all embrace this (rather passionately). It's really the simple idea that when Jesus (and Paul) said "is" - that's what they meant. "The meaning of is is is" (pardon the grammar, lol).

Transubstantiation is a uniquely RCC idea. It seems it was invented in the 9th Century (but was very controversal at the time), became rather officially embraced in that one denomination in 1215 (the status of such is debated) and was made dogma in 1551 (a few years after Luther's death). It exists nowhere but in that singular denomination. It is the idea that the bread and wine undergo an alchemic-like 'change' leaving behind Aristotelian "accidents." While Orthodox too seem to embrace SOME sense of "change" they have never taught Transubstantiation. Lutherans simply stick to the texts which say nothing about alchemy or Aristotle or "accidents" or transubstantiation or even change - Lutherans simply stick with what Jesus said and Paul penned by inspiration, taking it literally. Lutherans find the new, unique dogma of the RCC on this as abiblical and unnecessary (and may actually undermine Real Presence). SOME might think it as POSSIBILITY (and simply object to its status as DOGMA), others might consider it a lot of western, medieval, "scholastic," mumbo jumbo that just blurs the issue.


I hope that helps.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[PaladinValer]

I think transubstantiationism is a valid possibility, but to dogmatize it was unnecessary. Clearly there is a change in the species by which Jesus the Christ is both physically and spiritually Present, but I think the Vatican went a little too far.

The logic is fine, but perhaps some of the implications are not (thereby, valid if not sound). It is a worthwhile debate, and I have no problem with it as a pious belief (all forms of Real Presence are; only the actual theology of Real Presence in and of itself is fundamental).

Until the Church meets in Ecumenical Council again, my personal opinion is that people are allowed their pious opinions insofar as they adhere to Real Presence theology. Anything not in adherence is outside the teachings of the historic faith and Church and are to rejected.

 

[asiyreh]

Only if you are into believing St. Michael is Jesus (An Adventist belief which is absolutely contrary to orthodoxy) or if you want to embrace Judaizerism (a racist/pietistic belief of both condemned in the 1st century). Both are unacceptable.
Lol you don’t mince your words.
Well it was lectures from the seventh day Adventists that exposed the “flaws” I now see within the Catholic Church so I guess I’ll always be grateful to them.
Isn’t it the Jehovah’s witnesses who believe in the Michael thing?
Pretty sure the Sevenths believe in Jesus as the Godhead.
But on that point I’m not so sure I completely disagree with the Michael thing. I remember something about Michael translating as “the one who is like God.” And there’s only one person I know who ever successfully filled that role.
And I think it was the arch angel Michael...
The whole Jewish thing there seems to have just a little Anti Semitism dripping through it if you don’t mind me saying.
I mean Christ after all was a Jew and said that neither a jot nor title would be removed from the law. The only problem with them was that they rejected their Messiah and as prophesied were therefore scatted to the four corners of the Earth.
Seems to me that – if there are Jews out there who follow Christ and keep all the Law. Then they got to have things pretty correct? Perhaps I’m wrong.

 

[asiyreh]

Only if you are into believing St. Michael is Jesus (An Adventist belief which is absolutely contrary to orthodoxy) or if you want to embrace Judaizerism (a racist/pietistic belief of both condemned in the 1st century). Both are unacceptable.

Lol you don’t mince your words.

Well it was lectures from the seventh day Adventists that exposed the “flaws” I now see within the Catholic Church so I guess I’ll always be grateful to them.

Isn’t it the Jehovah’s witnesses who believe in the Michael thing?
Pretty sure the Sevenths believe in Jesus as the Godhead.
But on that point I’m not so sure I completely disagree with the Michael thing. I remember something about Michael translating as “the one who is like God.” And there’s only one person I know who ever successfully filled that role.
And I think it was the angel Michael...

The whole Jewish thing there seems to have just a little Anti Semitism dripping through it if you don’t mind me saying.
I mean Christ after all was a Jew and said that neither a jot nor title would be removed from the law. The only problem with them was that they rejected their Messiah and as prophesied were therefore scatted to the four corners of the Earth.

Seems to me that – if there are Jews out there who follow Christ and keep all the Law. Then they got to have things pretty correct? Perhaps I’m wrong.

 

[PaladinValer]

Lol you don’t mince your words.
Well it was lectures from the seventh day Adventists that exposed the “flaws” I now see within the Catholic Church so I guess I’ll always be grateful to them.

Don't buy the lectures; Seventh Day Adventists are notedly anti ANYTHING "Catholic" and have no problem utilizing lies, half-truths, and other deceptions in their ideas.

If you want to know what Vatican Catholicism actually teaches, I suggest consulting the Catechism of the Catholic Church and asking one of their priests how their church interprets it. Or, go ask questions in OBOB; they'd be happy to help you there.

Isn’t it the Jehovah’s witnesses who believe in the Michael thing?

Seventh Day Adventists are in agreement with them. In fact, both groups have historic ties.

Pretty sure the Sevenths believe in Jesus as the Godhead.

They also sadly think St. Michael is Jesus. It is not an orthodox Christian belief.

But on that point I’m not so sure I completely disagree with the Michael thing. I remember something about Michael translating as “the one who is like God.” And there’s only one person I know who ever successfully filled that role.

Jesus isn't an angel; St. Michael is. St. Michael is not God; Jesus is. Angels are not God; while they are celestial beings, they are not of the Divine Substance.

The Holy Bible says that humanity is in the image and likeness of God; does that make us God?

Think logically.

The whole Jewish thing there seems to have just a little Anti Semitism dripping through it if you don’t mind me saying.

Then your understanding of anti-Semitism isn't correct.

I mean Christ after all was a Jew and said that neither a jot nor title would be removed from the law.

Ohhh boy...

The Torah is dead or Jesus is a false Messiah, God failed, and Christianity is a bogus load of tripe.

Jesus is the Law; He is the Covenant. No one only-human person could or can follow the Law. That's basic Christianity. Jesus is the one perfect sacrifice for all sin. He is the Great High Hierarch. The temple is gone. In Jesus there are no real divisions. That means no more ritual/holiness laws and no more social laws; they were fulfilled in Him. Any sort of doctrine or idea that we must follow the Torah is a Jewish idea and is a betrayal of Jesus the Christ.

The only problem with them was that they rejected their Messiah and as prophesied were therefore scatted to the four corners of the Earth.

They were scattered long before then.

Seems to me that – if there are Jews out there who follow Christ and keep all the Law. Then they got to have things pretty correct? Perhaps I’m wrong.

If you follow the Torah, you are a Jew, not a Christian.

Israel is a theocratic state. Under its laws, only Jews may make aliyah and receive automatic citizenship. No Christian can do so. The Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Israeli highest court are in full agreement with each other in this regard.

Judaizerism is a terrible thing; it is condemned as a heresy by Christianity and it is condemned as non-Jewish by Judaism. Do a little research on the "Brother Daniel" case where a Judaizer attempted to make aliyah under the Law of Return and you'll see I am not making this up nor am I lying.

There is absolutely no such thing as a Jewish Christian. You can be of Hebrew ethnicity and Christian, but being a Jew means being both an ethnicity and a religion, and that religion is following all 613 laws of the Torah. Since Christianity teaches that cannot be done, then it is logically impossible to be both.

The New Covenant is the continuation of the Old; the only difference is that the New fulfilled the Old. The Church is the True Israel; the true "Jews" are Christians.

This isn't anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is persecution of Jews. The belief that Judaism is a false religion isn't persecution. They have every right to believe what they wish and no one has the right to deny them that right or the right to practice their religion. They have the right to vote, run for office, be of any profession, go to school, etc etc etc.

Learn what anti-Semitism is.

 

[asiyreh]

That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread:
1Cr 11:24 KJV - And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Cr 11:25 KJV - After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.

Lol thanks for the response Paladin.

Just so we don't get too off topic I was wondering how ^ that quote translates to you. It scares me a little because I feel if I leave behind the Catholic church forever I can't take holy communion.

Ok now

Jesus isn't an angel; St. Michael is. St. Michael is not God; Jesus is. Angels are not God; while they are celestial beings, they are not of the Divine Substance.

John 10:34 - Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Hmmm if we are, it stands to reason they are too.

I have a little look over the rest of it now. Sorry I have children and not as much spare time as I used to.

 

[PaladinValer]

Lol thanks for the response Paladin.

Just so we don't get too off topic I was wondering how ^ that quote translates to you. It scares me a little because I feel if I leave behind the Catholic church forever I can't take holy communion.

Again, those passages support Real Presence theology. I do not see any actual support of the transubstantiationist personal dogma of the Vatican there however.

You cannot receive Holy Communion in their church unless you are a member of their actual church (with a few exceptions: the Assyrian Church of the East, the Polish National Catholic Church, and both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches; members of those churches are allowed to receive at their altars).

However, there are some Catholic (non-Vatican) churches that do have a more open (though still limited) policy. My Anglican Church for example allows all persons who have been baptized in the Trinity formula and doctrine as per the Nicene Creed, are currently Christian with Nicene theology, and who discern themselves as worthy to receive, to come forth to the altar and receive Holy Communion. It doesn't matter if the person is Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, Eastern Orthodox, or Congregationalist...if they meet the criteria above, then they are welcome.

John 10:34 - Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Hmmm if we are, it stands to reason they are too.

I have a little look over the rest of it now. Sorry I have children and not as much spare time as I used to.

Christianity teaches, as does Judaism, that there is only one God.

Logically then, that passage isn't meant to be taken literally. It harkens back to Genesis where, unlike all other living beings, only humanity received a spirit. All living things on Earth have a soul, but only humanity has a spirit. That is one place the passage is referring to.

Furthermore, it is also a passage that refers to the soteriological view of theosis (or "sanctification" for those who prefer that term instead), by which we, upon being judged as worthy at the Last Day, become one with the Energies (but never the Substance) of God. I highly suggest researching the doctrine as it is quite beautiful and very ancient.

 

[asiyreh]

Don't buy the lectures; Seventh Day Adventists are notedly anti ANYTHING "Catholic" and have no problem utilizing lies, half-truths, and other deceptions in their ideas.

If you want to know what Vatican Catholicism actually teaches, I suggest consulting the Catechism of the Catholic Church and asking one of their priests how their church interprets it. Or, go ask questions in OBOB; they'd be happy to help you there.

Well I wouldn’t exactly say “buy,” in the strictest sense of the word.
They do have an interesting theory on the Beast of revelation, Total onslaught was the name of the lecture series as I remember.
Which as you suggest was pretty much as you and the title describe.

They do have an interesting theory on The beast of Revelation however.

As Daniel said – A beast was a kingdom or a king. A king representing a kingdom.
So they said we have to use this interpretation of A Beast rather than some Damien Omen figure for example .
Now this Beast would think to change, the Times and the Laws, that’s how we would know him.

Ok so Vatican is a separate city state.
With the Pope as ruler.
A King in his Kingdom.

Ok so did this kingdom through his King change the times and the Laws

Well what are the Times
What could that be – hmmm
The Calander?
The Feast Days?
The time of the new morning. from Sun rise to 12:00
The Sabbath day – Saturday

Did someone change those things?

Ok what about the laws
What if every Catholic (pretty much) was walking around wearing a “Holy medal” in direct defiance of the second commandment. Because they all think that thou shalt not covet thy neighbours Goods/Wife is 2 separate commandments and because they aren’t aware that one of the Ten commandments or the Law forbids them from doing so. Because it’s been changed.

Or what about the fact that Keep ye holy the Sabbath day was changed to SUN-day, the day of the Sun. Just like Christmas...

Do I worship Christ or Horus? hmm?

Seriously they have everyone running about praying for intervention through the queen of Heaven. Dude I don’t need to read the Catholic Catechisms I lived that nightmare.

Now as far as I know there’s is One God and one name we can pray through for intervention.
Just do a bible search for the Queen of heaven and see what it comes up with.

Nothing too good.

Ok getting to the rest...

 

[asiyreh]

Seventh Day Adventists are in agreement with them. In fact, both groups have historic ties.

Hmmm most of the research here I'm looking at seems to suggest there's quite a high level of acceptance of the trinity view.
One of there leading advocates A professor Walter Veith, is definitely a believer in the trinity view. I heard him describe it a number of times through the Lecture Series I mentioned above.

The way I like to think about Christ is:

And the spirit was poured into him being without measure.
A cup of God, in infinite measurements.

Hey I know it's a little strange, but it's the only way I can rap my mind round the idea.

 

[asiyreh]

They also sadly think St. Michael is Jesus. It is not an orthodox Christian belief.

Hmmm ok so going back to the translation again.
Michael - The one who is like God.

I'm not saying I'm sold on the idea but I'm not completely opposed to the theory.

 

[asiyreh]

The Holy Bible says that humanity is in the image and likeness of God; does that make us God?

Think logically.

I think this belief in Man as God is literally taking a bite of the apple.
It didn't go so well for Adam and Eve so I guess I won't be partaking of that particular fruit any time soon.

However The Christ did say- have I not told you ye are gods.

You said angels don't have a divine make-up or words to that effect. But I think there's a strong possibility you are wrong using the evidence above.

 

[asiyreh]

Then your understanding of anti-Semitism isn't correct.

Yes I understand the word grammatically but you didn't exactly go for a diplomatic description when you described the Jews. Psychological speaking your description of the Jewish religion/state smells a littlle ammm ... harsh.

Hey I'm no great fan of Zionism but the Jews have got things tough lets be honest.
They've been persecuted for the past 2000 years because of the whole Roman trial.
Almost exterminated.
Surrounded on all sides by people who pretty much would like nothing better than to see the Fuhrers plan come to completion.

If that was my country, I say we'd probably have already pushed the button, already tbh.

Anyway's getting off track.

 

[asiyreh]

Jesus is the Law; He is the Covenant. No one only-human person could or can follow the Law. That's basic Christianity. Jesus is the one perfect sacrifice for all sin. He is the Great High Hierarch. The temple is gone. In Jesus there are no real divisions. That means no more ritual/holiness laws and no more social laws; they were fulfilled in Him. Any sort of doctrine or idea that we must follow the Torah is a Jewish idea and is a betrayal of Jesus the Christ.

Essentially I agree with you here, however the argument is not as clear cut as you would have me believe.

I don't want to play devils advocate, I would find it difficult as I also believe what you do regarding this matter, but there's entire schools of theological opinion that have went into this Debate. People have lost lives over this debate.

 

[asiyreh]

They were scattered long before then.

Yes I remember hearing something about that...
Now not the separation of the tribes. Something about the Jewish people as they are now, are not ammm genetically or perhaps racially would be a better description, as they were in the past.

Sorry I'm rambling, I seemed quite sold on the idea at the time as I remember however.

 

[asiyreh]

If you follow the Torah, you are a Jew, not a Christian.

I like the whole bible, it's nice.

I don't suffer the problem of people seeming change in Gods mood from the old to the new testament.

I think Jesus could be quite capable of sounding ammmm angry, just like God the father.

For example when Christ talks about how many would come on the last days saying, but Lord didn't we praise your name and perform wonders in your name. And Christ will say. Get ye from me for I never knew you.

Faith without works is dead...

Everybody is thinking Jesus the Lamb is looking down on them, but the next time he comes Jesus the Lion will be in old testament mode.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Back to the transubstantiation issue. There are many Christians, like myself, who see the breaking of the bread and the taking of the cup for exactly what Christ meant it to be - in remembrance of Him. Every Christian agrees that it is done in remembrance of His vicarious death for our sin. Many Christians have jumped through endless theological hoops in efforts to somehow force the bread to become flesh and the wine to become blood. For centuries Catholics were quite explicit that the priest transformed them into literal flesh and literal blood. Martin Luther modified the view into the belief that although the bread and wine contain the literal person of Jesus Christ (the Real Presence) the bread is bread and the wine is wine, but really the spiritual flesh and the spiritual blood of Jesus Christ.

I am content to hold to Christ's command to remember Him in this manner.

 

[asiyreh]

Ok so now I'm really confused.

Do some protestant dominations receive bread and or wine in the middle of their sermons?
From what I'm understanding here, you're saying they just don't believe in the complete literal acceptance of the transubstantiation doctrine but do receive a form of holy communion. Is that correct?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Ok so now I'm really confused.

Do some protestant dominations receive bread and or wine in the middle of their sermons?
From what I'm understanding here, you're saying they just don't believe in the complete literal acceptance of the transubstantiation doctrine but do receive a form of holy communion. Is that correct?

Again, Lutherans, Orthodox (as well as some Anglicans and Methodist) DO accept Real Presence. But Transubstantiation is a unique, new dogma of just one denomination: The Catholic Church.


I know of none that celebrate the Eucharist in the middle of the sermon.




.