Problems with transubstantiation

PaladinValer · Mar 17, 2012

asiyreh said:
Ok so now I'm really confused.

Do some protestant dominations receive bread and or wine in the middle of their sermons?

I know of none. Most mainline or traditional Protestants like United Methodists and Presbyterians (PCUSA) have a set Communion liturgy. I know for a fact that Lutherans (whom it is hard to describe as "Protestant") have a traditional Eucharistic liturgy.

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?

Holy Communion has various theologies about it. You can split them into four groups: those that acknowledge the Real Presence (Lutherans, Anglicans, the Eastern Orthodox, etc), those who acknowledge a pneumatic presence (Presbyterians and Calvinists), those who reject any presence (most Baptists and Evangelicals), and those who don't even have it (Quakers). Just because a Baptist church has a Communion rite doesn't mean they believe He is Present.

bottomofsandal · Mar 17, 2012

bbbbbbb said:
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.

AMEN brother, let's obey The Master and just stick to what Jesus commanded us to do. One can read the Catecism of the RCC on the Vatican website. The RCC believes that Jesus is re-presented and re-sacrificed. The Bible tell us otherwise. I do not want to cut and paste portions of the CCC, Canon Law, etc. I ask that we be good Bereans and check it out and compare the interpretation of men with the inspired Spirit penned words of The Bible.

The abrogation of Transubstantiation can be easily acheived because there is no empirical evidence. I am not speaking to the bread remaining bread, rather the unchanged recipient of RC communion. If there is really a "Presence" then there should be a power that accompanies it. Where The Spirit of The Lord is there is power, yet the host does not cause any immediate or long-term change. In fact, many pedophiles were routinely exposed to the "Presence", and continued in their vile behavior.

The RCC makes no bones about their way being superior, yet they appear to be sinners like the rest of us. If there really was something substantive or significant that outsiders could see that was manifested in the lives of the RC community as evidential and deliberate, then non-RC would want to possess this and convert.

If there is no efficacy, if there is no added benefit, then the RCC viewpoint of Transubstantiation must be viewed as merely good intentions that men have created to get closer to God. This is noble and one cannot condemn or judge the RCC and other Churches for their desire to draw nearer to God, they have saddled themselves with an impossibilty.

bbbbbbb · Mar 18, 2012

bottomofsandal said:
AMEN brother, let's obey The Master and just stick to what Jesus commanded us to do. One can read the Catecism of the RCC on the Vatican website. The RCC believes that Jesus is re-presented and re-sacrificed. The Bible tell us otherwise. I do not want to cut and paste portions of the CCC, Canon Law, etc. I ask that we be good Bereans and check it out and compare the interpretation of men with the inspired Spirit penned words of The Bible.

The abrogation of Transubstantiation can be easily acheived because there is no empirical evidence. I am not speaking to the bread remaining bread, rather the unchanged recipient of RC communion. If there is really a "Presence" then there should be a power that accompanies it. Where The Spirit of The Lord is there is power, yet the host does not cause any immediate or long-term change. In fact, many pedophiles were routinely exposed to the "Presence", and continued in their vile behavior.

The RCC makes no bones about their way being superior, yet they appear to be sinners like the rest of us. If there really was something substantive or significant that outsiders could see that was manifested in the lives of the RC community as evidential and deliberate, then non-RC would want to possess this and convert.

If there is no efficacy, if there is no added benefit, then the RCC viewpoint of Transubstantiation must be viewed as merely good intentions that men have created to get closer to God. This is noble and one cannot condemn or judge the RCC and other Churches for their desire to draw nearer to God, they have saddled themselves with an impossibilty.

SQLservant · Mar 20, 2012

bottomofsandal said:
The RCC believes that Jesus is re-presented and re-sacrificed.

Re-presented, yes. Re-sacrificed, no. The ONE sacrifice of Jesus Christ is made present (there's your re-presentation). As I'm not a Catholic myself, this understanding may be heterodox, but think of it this way: when you watch a movie more than once, are you re-making that movie? No; it's one and the same film, but you are witnessing and experiencing it at a different time than before. The Mass is kind of like that. No priest believes he is sacrificing Jesus again; once was quite enough.

If there is really a "Presence" then there should be a power that accompanies it.

There is, but why do you demand it be the earthquake or fire rather than the still small voice? God doesn't always ride in through the window on His Harley, adjust His Rad Leather Jacket, take off His holy Sunglasses (Songlasses, even?), and utter a divine Pithy One-Liner whenever He shows up...

Where The Spirit of The Lord is there is power, yet the host does not cause any immediate or long-term change.

Again, would you seek after signs and wonders, rather than accept that Christ is where He said He would be? Not to mention, we are still humans, you know. Devout Catholics definitely do experience the power of God in the Eucharist. There are plenty who don't care, though, who commune every week without thinking of Who it is they're receiving, who go on living just as worldly and sinfully as ever, and I imagine these are the individuals you know. Paul knew them, too, and said that they are eating and drinking judgment for themselves, sinning against the very Body and Blood of the Lord. Just because there are fake Christians doesn't mean Christianity is fake, though their existence does drive people away, and you can see THAT in any church.

pedophiles

Real classy. Wanna mention the Crusades or Galileo while you're at it?

The RCC makes no bones about their way being superior, yet they appear to be sinners like the rest of us. If there really was something substantive or significant that outsiders could see that was manifested in the lives of the RC community as evidential and deliberate, then non-RC would want to possess this and convert.

Hey, maybe someone should start a church like that. You know, one where you can join and in the twinkling of an eye be changed into a perfectly holy being, with no vestige of your former "sinner" behind. Just, BAM! No more human nature. You don't even have to care about what this church teaches at all! You want examples of "something substantive"? Read up on the saints. Ignatius of Loyola was a very worldly man before he found Jesus; John Fisher died for standing up for the sanctity of marriage; Francis de Sales told average Joes (or Jacques, where he lived) about living holy lives where they were, and even the Calvinists who would just as soon have burned him at the stake were forced to admit the amazing example of the love of God that he set.

They have saddled themselves with an impossibilty.

You know what else is an impossibility? God becoming a man. A virgin conceiving. Resurrection from the dead. But you have no trouble believing in those. The eyes of faith are required to see all these, and indeed, so in the Eucharist.

PaladinValer · Mar 20, 2012

SQLservant said:
Re-presented, yes. Re-sacrificed, no. The ONE sacrifice of Jesus Christ is made present (there's your re-presentation). As I'm not a Catholic myself, this understanding may be heterodox, but think of it this way: when you watch a movie more than once, are you re-making that movie? No; it's one and the same film, but you are witnessing and experiencing it at a different time than before. The Mass is kind of like that. No priest believes he is sacrificing Jesus again; once was quite enough.

Actually, that's a fairly good analogy.

There is, but why do you demand it be the earthquake or fire rather than the still small voice? God doesn't always ride in through the window on His Harley, adjust His Rad Leather Jacket, take off His holy Sunglasses (Songlasses, even?), and utter a divine Pithy One-Liner whenever He shows up...

Bingo. It was when out of the earthquake, fire, or wind, but when there was sheer silence that God spoke to Elijah. The idea that there must be some flashy fireworks is absolutely contrary to Holy Scripture.

Again, would you seek after signs and wonders, rather than accept that Christ is where He said He would be? Not to mention, we are still humans, you know. Devout Catholics definitely do experience the power of God in the Eucharist. There are plenty who don't care, though, who commune every week without thinking of Who it is they're receiving, who go on living just as worldly and sinfully as ever, and I imagine these are the individuals you know. Paul knew them, too, and said that they are eating and drinking judgment for themselves, sinning against the very Body and Blood of the Lord. Just because there are fake Christians doesn't mean Christianity is fake, though their existence does drive people away, and you can see THAT in any church.

Well said once again.

Real classy. Wanna mention the Crusades or Galileo while you're at it?

Not to mention all the pedophiles amongst Evangelical Protestant clergy...

<snip>

Reps. Definitely. Well said all of it!

bottomofsandal · Mar 20, 2012

SQLservant said:
Re-presented, yes. Re-sacrificed, no. The ONE sacrifice of Jesus Christ is made present (there's your re-presentation). As I'm not a Catholic myself, this understanding may be heterodox, but think of it this way: when you watch a movie more than once, are you re-making that movie? No; it's one and the same film, but you are witnessing and experiencing it at a different time than before. The Mass is kind of like that. No priest believes he is sacrificing Jesus again; once was quite enough.

There is, but why do you demand it be the earthquake or fire rather than the still small voice? God doesn't always ride in through the window on His Harley, adjust His Rad Leather Jacket, take off His holy Sunglasses (Songlasses, even?), and utter a divine Pithy One-Liner whenever He shows up...

Again, would you seek after signs and wonders, rather than accept that Christ is where He said He would be? Not to mention, we are still humans, you know. Devout Catholics definitely do experience the power of God in the Eucharist. There are plenty who don't care, though, who commune every week without thinking of Who it is they're receiving, who go on living just as worldly and sinfully as ever, and I imagine these are the individuals you know. Paul knew them, too, and said that they are eating and drinking judgment for themselves, sinning against the very Body and Blood of the Lord. Just because there are fake Christians doesn't mean Christianity is fake, though their existence does drive people away, and you can see THAT in any church.

Real classy. Wanna mention the Crusades or Galileo while you're at it?

Hey, maybe someone should start a church like that. You know, one where you can join and in the twinkling of an eye be changed into a perfectly holy being, with no vestige of your former "sinner" behind. Just, BAM! No more human nature. You don't even have to care about what this church teaches at all! You want examples of "something substantive"? Read up on the saints. Ignatius of Loyola was a very worldly man before he found Jesus; John Fisher died for standing up for the sanctity of marriage; Francis de Sales told average Joes (or Jacques, where he lived) about living holy lives where they were, and even the Calvinists who would just as soon have burned him at the stake were forced to admit the amazing example of the love of God that he set.

You know what else is an impossibility? God becoming a man. A virgin conceiving. Resurrection from the dead. But you have no trouble believing in those. The eyes of faith are required to see all these, and indeed, so in the Eucharist.

Your post really doesn't prove anything other than you believe in Theophagy. In your opinion something happens that you cannot really validate or confirm other than to say your faith sees it. By the tone of your post and the specific information you know, and by utilizing the word "Eucharist", you clearly are affiliated with a community that practices transubstantiation.

The RCC calls the mass a sacrifice, more precisely The Sacrifice of The Mass. The one perfect Sacrifice was completed, it is finished. I can post verses from Hebrews to illustrate the error of your position, but you will not be able to address them without your private interpretation.

There are a few other glaring problems with your position:

Matthew 26:26-29 New King James Version (NKJV)

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, Take, eat; this is My body. 27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Fathers kingdom.

1) what did Jesus give the 12 to eat at the Last Supper ? If Jesus said, "This is My Body", did He give them His flesh or bread ?

2) What will Jesus be serving in Heaven...fruit of the vine or His blood ?

On a side note...why you want to call evil good or deflect the atrocity of the RCC is perplexing. Non-RC are not claiming "Presence", you are. If the RCC communion is "spiritual Presence", while the non-RC use emblems, we should see a superior spirituality from the RC. Since we see no difference between RC and non-RC regarding their works or behavior, the RC faithful are the evidence that there is no "Presence". Heck, read some of their posts. Hard to believe their displayed attitude is a result of God's Presence. If the RC standard of communion is higher and more powerful by their own assertion and allegation, then they should exhibit a greater benefit from their more powerful, more holy, more superior communion.

asiyreh · Mar 20, 2012

Eucharistic liturgy

Hmmmm ok the curtains are starting to lift on the whole idea here thanks Paladin.

Ok thanks guys, sorry i'm just reading through your comments there.

I talk to allot of people where I work, there's a fairy wide spread accepted notion that Catholics are the only people who take - The "true" body and blood of Christ.
It was like some sort of notion of pride thing to among the hard core.
I knew the notion must have some genetic roots established within the community, but unfortunately as is typical with these things, all of them were too stupid to be able to explain this unshakeable sense of ahhh....
What's a good word to say having unmistakeable truth bestowed upon you?
They all seemed to be transfixed on the notion, but as I say unfortunately none of them could outline the reasoning behind the belief.

Don’t You really hate that??

RRRRRR - makes my teeth itch.

Lol

PaladinValer · Mar 20, 2012

asiyreh said:
Eucharistic liturgy

Hmmmm ok the curtains are starting to lift on the whole idea here thanks Paladin.

You are quite welcome, but others here provided some excellent points, so I cannot take full credit.

I talk to allot of people where I work, there's a fairy wide spread accepted notion that Catholics are the only people who take - The "true" body and blood of Christ.
It was like some sort of notion of pride thing to among the hard core.

First off, I'm going on the assumption that by "Catholics" you mean Vatican ("Roman") Catholics...

It isn't due to pride but logical theology. I suggest a little research on an aspect of faith called Apostolic Succession, which will shed a lot of light.

Of course, my Anglican Church disagrees with how limited their view is, but the idea behind it isn't wrong.

asiyreh · Mar 20, 2012

Yes I know I guess i should be a little more careful with my linguistic definitions on these matters.
However I'm fairly sure the precedent had been well established throughout this discussion.

Apologies to the rest of the brothers here, no disrespect it was in fact their input that led me back to a further investigation of your reference. I've often found though my voyage of discovery with Christ. Little journeys of investigation. Funny...

Ok Apostolic Succession. I'll have to get back on a later date. The wife is being wifey...

Thanks all for tonight's learning sorry hadn't more input but I learned allot from the paths you laid.

And that Ignatius Loyola character we'll have to have a chat with about him to.

SQLservant · Mar 21, 2012

bottomofsandal said:
Your post really doesn't prove anything other than you believe in Theophagy.

I can use the same process to say that your post really doesn't prove anything either.

You clearly are affiliated with a community that practices transubstantiation.

Nope. I came from a background much like yours, I expect, and have nothing to boast about but Christ. In the spirit of transparency, I am looking for a church home for my fiancee and myself, and that is proving more difficult than one had anticipated, but my faith journey would be better discussed elsewhere. I suppose I'm not really "affiliated" with any community at present, but I definitely need to be.

The RCC calls the mass a sacrifice, more precisely The Sacrifice of The Mass. The one perfect Sacrifice was completed, it is finished. I can post verses from Hebrews to illustrate the error of your position, but you will not be able to address them without your private interpretation.

It's not a "private interpretation." I take Jesus at his word when He said "It is finished" just as much as when He said "This is My body." The idea is that the Mass is a re-presentation of that one, single, individual, unique, completed, finished, concluded, perfected sacrifice in the present. It's not repeating the sacrifice because you're not MAKING the sacrifice again--Christ is not being offered up to suffer and die again--it's plugging in to the one two thousand years ago at Calvary. That is why the sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrifice of the Cross are one and the same. If I mis-represent this teaching, please show me how.

There are a few other glaring problems with your position:

I look forward to these with the desire to become a better contender for the faith and my brothers in Christ.

1) what did Jesus give the 12 to eat at the Last Supper ? If Jesus said, "This is My Body", did He give them His flesh or bread ?

"Thou sayest it."

2) What will Jesus be serving in Heaven...fruit of the vine or His blood ?

I cannot give any "official" answer, but is Jesus not the true vine? What is to forbid Him from referring to the contents of the cup as that, whether it is ontologically His Most Precious Blood, or only symbolic of it? I do not know the answer to what will be served in heaven, but I see no reason that it could not be this, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.

why you want to call evil good

Or call good evil, for that matter.

atrocity

What is the atrocity of the Catholic Church? Believing that when Jesus said "This is," he meant "this is," even if it doesn't make sense? There are a lot of things that don't make sense in our religion, but I don't hear any Memorialist saying that the Resurrection is just a metaphor, or that "the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us" is just a symbol for Jesus' message.

Non-RC are not claiming "Presence"

Ask PaladinValer if he claims the Real Presence is found in his church. Yes, a lot of non-Catholics claim the Real Presence in the Eucharist, whole denominations, even.

If the RCC communion is "spiritual Presence", while the non-RC use emblems, we should see a superior spirituality from the RC.

People didn't recognize Jesus for who He was when He was standing right in front of them and talking to them, either. People wanted to follow him, but were only half-committed then. People wanted to serve him, but would betray him at the last moment. The presence of Jesus in Palestine 2000 years ago is not denied by any Christian, and yet, right there in His full presence, people still turned away and were not any different than those who had never met Him at all. Why should it be different in the Eucharist, which Jesus said was His Body and Blood? People are still people--there are half-hearted and fake Christians in every church. Surely you believe you have had a real, spiritual encounter with Jesus in your church; why, then, should there be non-spiritual people there? By your logic, either there must not really be any presence of Jesus in your assembly, else you'd all be saints, or "I am with you always" and "when two or three are gathered" must be symbolic, too.

Since we see no difference between RC and non-RC regarding their works or behavior, the RC faithful are the evidence that there is no "Presence".

Yet again, this boils down to "the presence of unregenerates are proof that their Christ is not with them." That argument I would expect from an atheist, not a Christian speaking of his fellow brothers in Christ.

If the RC standard of communion is higher and more powerful by their own assertion and allegation, then they should exhibit a greater benefit from their more powerful, more holy, more superior communion.

Why? Grace is conferred through the Blessed Sacrament, not an uncontrollable urge to be a better Christian, for such an urge would make one a puppet, not a better Christian. You can still resist the grace given to you; God will not force you down the straight and narrow, dragging you into heaven kicking and screaming. It's up to you to accept it, take up your cross, and follow. He'll be there to help you on the way. Do you believe in irresistible grace instead? If so, that may be the heart of our disagreement over the presence or absence of evidence.

bottomofsandal · Mar 21, 2012

SQLservant said:
I can use the same process to say that your post really doesn't prove anything either.

Nope. I came from a background much like yours, I expect, and have nothing to boast about but Christ. In the spirit of transparency, I am looking for a church home for my fiancee and myself, and that is proving more difficult than one had anticipated, but my faith journey would be better discussed elsewhere. I suppose I'm not really "affiliated" with any community at present, but I definitely need to be.

It's not a "private interpretation." I take Jesus at his word when He said "It is finished" just as much as when He said "This is My body." The idea is that the Mass is a re-presentation of that one, single, individual, unique, completed, finished, concluded, perfected sacrifice in the present. It's not repeating the sacrifice because you're not MAKING the sacrifice again--Christ is not being offered up to suffer and die again--it's plugging in to the one two thousand years ago at Calvary. That is why the sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrifice of the Cross are one and the same. If I mis-represent this teaching, please show me how.

I look forward to these with the desire to become a better contender for the faith and my brothers in Christ.

"Thou sayest it."

I cannot give any "official" answer, but is Jesus not the true vine? What is to forbid Him from referring to the contents of the cup as that, whether it is ontologically His Most Precious Blood, or only symbolic of it? I do not know the answer to what will be served in heaven, but I see no reason that it could not be this, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.

Or call good evil, for that matter.

What is the atrocity of the Catholic Church? Believing that when Jesus said "This is," he meant "this is," even if it doesn't make sense? There are a lot of things that don't make sense in our religion, but I don't hear any Memorialist saying that the Resurrection is just a metaphor, or that "the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us" is just a symbol for Jesus' message.

Ask PaladinValer if he claims the Real Presence is found in his church. Yes, a lot of non-Catholics claim the Real Presence in the Eucharist, whole denominations, even.

People didn't recognize Jesus for who He was when He was standing right in front of them and talking to them, either. People wanted to follow him, but were only half-committed then. People wanted to serve him, but would betray him at the last moment. The presence of Jesus in Palestine 2000 years ago is not denied by any Christian, and yet, right there in His full presence, people still turned away and were not any different than those who had never met Him at all. Why should it be different in the Eucharist, which Jesus said was His Body and Blood? People are still people--there are half-hearted and fake Christians in every church. Surely you believe you have had a real, spiritual encounter with Jesus in your church; why, then, should there be non-spiritual people there? By your logic, either there must not really be any presence of Jesus in your assembly, else you'd all be saints, or "I am with you always" and "when two or three are gathered" must be symbolic, too.

Yet again, this boils down to "the presence of unregenerates are proof that their Christ is not with them." That argument I would expect from an atheist, not a Christian speaking of his fellow brothers in Christ.

Why? Grace is conferred through the Blessed Sacrament, not an uncontrollable urge to be a better Christian, for such an urge would make one a puppet, not a better Christian. You can still resist the grace given to you; God will not force you down the straight and narrow, dragging you into heaven kicking and screaming. It's up to you to accept it, take up your cross, and follow. He'll be there to help you on the way. Do you believe in irresistible grace instead? If so, that may be the heart of our disagreement over the presence or absence of evidence.

The only thing you have proven is that you cannot prove anything without extra-Biblical contrivance. Unless a doctrine originates in The Word of God, it must be dismissed as erroneous. Jesus said, MY words are Spirit and life, which means manmade words, traditions, ceremonies and rituals can and must be ignored if they are not rooted in The Holy Writ. Jesus said, If you abide in MY Word, you are My disciples, thereby corroborating that The Bible is the source of Divine knowledge, not mans private interpretation, or a Churchs claim to have a monopoly on the truth by pontificating their fraudulent assertions. Transubstantiation cannot be found in The Bible, additionally there is evidence that clearly refutes such fabricated promulgations by revealed truths found in The Bible and not by esoteric private or community interpretation.

A reading of Hebrews chapters 7 through 10 abrogates the priesthood. The Eternal Highpriest performed His perfect sacrifice and sat down at the right hand of The Father. No more sacrificing, no reenacting of sacrifices, no re-presenting. These are manmade practices. The RCC uses a sacrificial altar for their bloodless sacrifice. REALLY? Jesus went directly into Heaven with His Holy Blood, not the copies as Moses was instructed to make. Moses was given exact and precise specifications about construction of the copies, and God provided Spirit- filled craftsmen to build and make according to Gods standards. From where did the RCC get its blueprints for the altar and tabernacle, more importantly the prescribed format of the RCC Eucharist?

Where are Gods directives and procedural requirements in these matters? God gave instructions regarding the Levitical priesthood, Jesus performed the perfect offering and sacrifice, and so what are the RCC doing at their mass? If the mass is where transubstantiation occurs and the mass cannot be shown to be inspired of God, then what is the purpose and the outcome? If you read the RCC internal documents, this is how grace in their opinion is dispensed. So, if one is outside the RCC how is grace obtained? Since we are saved by grace, then how can a non-RC be saved ?According to the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam, it tells us of the necessity of belonging to The Church in order to attain salvation.

What is the purpose of inventing a counterfeit version of the Holy Sacrifice of Christ when we were never instructed to do so? Where in the Apostolic Succession was the Eucharistic prayer handed down from one generation to another? Or more importantly where is the connection to Jesus? Shouldnt the re-enactment contain the same exact prayer that Jesus used? Jesus said nothing other than to rememeber Him. He also said that He was a door, Alpha, Omega, first, last, a vine, the light of the worlddo we view these literally as well?

SQLservant · Mar 21, 2012

bottomofsandal said:
The only thing you have proven is that you cannot prove anything without extra-Biblical contrivance. Unless a doctrine originates in The Word of God, it must be dismissed as erroneous. Jesus said, MY words are Spirit and life, which means manmade words, traditions, ceremonies and rituals can and must be ignored if they are not rooted in The Holy Writ. Jesus said, If you abide in MY Word, you are My disciples, thereby corroborating that The Bible is the source of Divine knowledge, not mans private interpretation, or a Churchs claim to have a monopoly on the truth by pontificating their fraudulent assertions. Transubstantiation cannot be found in The Bible, additionally there is evidence that clearly refutes such fabricated promulgations by revealed truths found in The Bible and not by esoteric private or community interpretation.

A reading of Hebrews chapters 7 through 10 abrogates the priesthood. The Eternal Highpriest performed His perfect sacrifice and sat down at the right hand of The Father. No more sacrificing, no reenacting of sacrifices, no re-presenting. These are manmade practices. The RCC uses a sacrificial altar for their bloodless sacrifice. REALLY? Jesus went directly into Heaven with His Holy Blood, not the copies as Moses was instructed to make. Moses was given exact and precise specifications about construction of the copies, and God provided Spirit- filled craftsmen to build and make according to Gods standards. From where did the RCC get its blueprints for the altar and tabernacle, more importantly the prescribed format of the RCC Eucharist?

Where are Gods directives and procedural requirements in these matters? God gave instructions regarding the Levitical priesthood, Jesus performed the perfect offering and sacrifice, and so what are the RCC doing at their mass? If the mass is where transubstantiation occurs and the mass cannot be shown to be inspired of God, then what is the purpose and the outcome? If you read the RCC internal documents, this is how grace in their opinion is dispensed. So, if one is outside the RCC how is grace obtained? Since we are saved by grace, then how can a non-RC be saved ?According to the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam, it tells us of the necessity of belonging to The Church in order to attain salvation.

What is the purpose of inventing a counterfeit version of the Holy Sacrifice of Christ when we were never instructed to do so? Where in the Apostolic Succession was the Eucharistic prayer handed down from one generation to another? Or more importantly where is the connection to Jesus? Shouldnt the re-enactment contain the same exact prayer that Jesus used? Jesus said nothing other than to rememeber Him. He also said that He was a door, Alpha, Omega, first, last, a vine, the light of the worlddo we view these literally as well?

Okay, so calling it a sacrifice isn't scriptural in your opinion. What about what IS in Scripture, then? Like "This is My..." and "is it not a communion..."? Are all of these figurative? Nowhere in the Bible does it say so, and nowhere in the first millennium of the church either, unless you want to identify with those groups that denied Jesus was ever physically present on earth as well.

The RCC does not teach that grace is found only in the Sacraments, but they are the sure bets, and where it is found in greatest quantity.

Re: Unam Sanctam - read Munificentissimus Deus. Salvation as part of the Church is open to all Christians, as the Christian has faith in Christ the savior. This indicates, however, that by this faith, they are connected with the "true" and "original" church, which the RCC teaches it is. Protestants can go to heaven, according to the RCC, but it is much harder not to fall away due to the lack of the strengthening effects of the Sacraments.

The Eucharistic ceremonies that assume real presence, not just the mass, do include the words Jesus used, as given us by Paul.

Nowhere does the Bible say that people left Jesus over his saying he was the door or the true vine. When He said "My flesh is real food" they did. Further, when the Apostles asked what He meant, Jesus basically said "I meant exactly what I said." Jesus was also not shown laying His hand on a door and saying "I am this door" or grabbing a grapevine and saying "I am this vine and you are these branches. Judas, you're that one over there tangled up in the tree." To assume he was speaking figuratively at the Last Supper in the face of the other things Jesus and Paul said, or to assume that he was doing these things at the other times is itself extra-Biblical and therefore, according to you, to be rejected.

bottomofsandal · Mar 21, 2012

SQLservant said:
Okay, so calling it a sacrifice isn't scriptural in your opinion. What about what IS in Scripture, then? Like "This is My..." and "is it not a communion..."? Are all of these figurative? Nowhere in the Bible does it say so, and nowhere in the first millennium of the church either, unless you want to identify with those groups that denied Jesus was ever physically present on earth as well.

The RCC does not teach that grace is found only in the Sacraments, but they are the sure bets, and where it is found in greatest quantity.

Re: Unam Sanctam - read Munificentissimus Deus. Salvation as part of the Church is open to all Christians, as the Christian has faith in Christ the savior. This indicates, however, that by this faith, they are connected with the "true" and "original" church, which the RCC teaches it is. Protestants can go to heaven, according to the RCC, but it is much harder not to fall away due to the lack of the strengthening effects of the Sacraments.

The Eucharistic ceremonies that assume real presence, not just the mass, do include the words Jesus used, as given us by Paul.

Nowhere does the Bible say that people left Jesus over his saying he was the door or the true vine. When He said "My flesh is real food" they did. Further, when the Apostles asked what He meant, Jesus basically said "I meant exactly what I said." Jesus was also not shown laying His hand on a door and saying "I am this door" or grabbing a grapevine and saying "I am this vine and you are these branches. Judas, you're that one over there tangled up in the tree." To assume he was speaking figuratively at the Last Supper in the face of the other things Jesus and Paul said, or to assume that he was doing these things at the other times is itself extra-Biblical and therefore, according to you, to be rejected.

You did not answer the abrogation of the priesthood, neither did you cite any coherent connection between Jesus and the mass. Your play on literary devices still falls short because you never addressed the fact Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of Me" while giving them only bread. If this was Jesus' flesh, He was a cannibal because He then ate Himself. The same holds true when Jesus says He will drink His own "blood" in Heaven. Jesus said, " I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God comes".

Jesus sacrificed Himself once, and that is sufficient. Paul speaks of how to celebrate communion in 1 Corinthains 11:23-29, and quotes Jesus' words at The Last Supper. A remembrance. If bread is flesh, then all of us should be bumping into each other due to our blindness. If your eye causes you to sin...

I am pressed for time, but can post on exclusive grace from the RCC later or folks can easily look it up. Grace according to the RCC is trasmitted from their sacraments (and of course Mary). I really appreciate your effort, you gave it the old college try. There was alot there for consideration, perhaps in the future all the formidable and problematic inquiries can be addressed.

stan1953 · Mar 23, 2012

asiyreh said:
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.

Id 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.

I was raised RC many many years ago and this was one of the first things you learn, especially if you want to be an alter boy!
My understanding is they believe Matthew 26:28 is Jesus' indication that the wine turns into blood. However if you look at the very next verse, 29, it says; I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers kingdom. Sounds to me like it was wine, NOT blood.
Communion is what Jesus instituted, but it is meant to remember His sacrifice, just like the Passover Meal is meant to remember the Angel of Death passing over just before the Exodus.
1 Corinthians 11:17-34 will give you a good teaching on it. It's very clear in these scriptures that the bread and wine does NOT turn into Chirst's body and blood.
In any event I would be a little more worried about the teaching of a non-eternal soul in the SDA church. Please be careful of that.

ViaCrucis · Mar 24, 2012

stan1953 said:
I was raised RC many many years ago and this was one of the first things you learn, especially if you want to be an alter boy!
My understanding is they believe Matthew 26:28 is Jesus' indication that the wine turns into blood. However if you look at the very next verse, 29, it says; I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers kingdom. Sounds to me like it was wine, NOT blood.
Communion is what Jesus instituted, but it is meant to remember His sacrifice, just like the Passover Meal is meant to remember the Angel of Death passing over just before the Exodus.
1 Corinthians 11:17-34 will give you a good teaching on it. It's very clear in these scriptures that the bread and wine does NOT turn into Chirst's body and blood.
In any event I would be a little more worried about the teaching of a non-eternal soul in the SDA church. Please be careful of that.

1 Corinthians 10, on the other hand, speaks of the bread and cup as koinonia with Christ's body and blood.

Transubstantiation isn't the only view of the Real Presence. The Lutheran view is often called the Sacramental Union, and is analogous in many ways to the Hypostatic Union. We recognize that the bread is bread and the wine is wine (that's not a problem). We also recognize, by faith, that it is also the true body and true blood of Christ, and this a great mystery.

-CryptoLutheran

bottomofsandal · Mar 24, 2012

ViaCrucis said:
1 Corinthians 10, on the other hand, speaks of the bread and cup as koinonia with Christ's body and blood.

Transubstantiation isn't the only view of the Real Presence. The Lutheran view is often called the Sacramental Union, and is analogous in many ways to the Hypostatic Union. We recognize that the bread is bread and the wine is wine (that's not a problem). We also recognize, by faith, that it is also the true body and true blood of Christ, and this a great mystery.

-CryptoLutheran

AMEN, as Paul says, we are to examine, discern, and proclaim His death until He comes again.

stan1953 · Mar 24, 2012

ViaCrucis said:
1 Corinthians 10, on the other hand, speaks of the bread and cup as koinonia with Christ's body and blood.

Transubstantiation isn't the only view of the Real Presence. The Lutheran view is often called the Sacramental Union, and is analogous in many ways to the Hypostatic Union. We recognize that the bread is bread and the wine is wine (that's not a problem). We also recognize, by faith, that it is also the true body and true blood of Christ, and this a great mystery.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes, 1 Corinthians 10:16&17 does talk about the koinōnia, The Greek word meaning; fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation. Jesus said to do this, The Lord's Supper, in remembrance of Him. His original words were symbolic and metaphorical, not a statement of an actual transubstantiation. Why would God hide the taste of flesh and blood from us IF these elements ACTUALLY turned into flesh and blood? Do you not think that at least ONE scripture would have have referred to this spectacular change if it indeed ever happened? Hypostatic Union is derived from the 4 century Greek, to try and LABEL, as all of us humans try to do, what Jesus was to them. The understanding of God as a triune being is depicted in Genesis 1:26, where God said... Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness. The Hebrew word for God used in Genesis is 'Elohiym' in English Elohim and is pronounced 'el-o-HEEM' and is a plural word meaning Divine Ones. The very first use of the Trinity concept. Jesus, the human incarnation of God, ALREADY existed before creation. Fourth century concepts and Greek have not done anything but serve to blur the facts. Anytime man comes up with words or doctrines to try and clarify what they think the Word of God lacks, they do a disservice to Him.

Problems with transubstantiation

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Well-Known Member

bbbbbbb

Guest

Newbie

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Well-Known Member

God is salvation

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

God is salvation

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency