Transubstantiation

Theresa · Dec 1, 2002

If I didn't believe in transubstantiation then these verses might help me understand better:

(ie. one poster said how could we claim to take Jesus out of heaven)

Matt 28:20 - "....and I will be with you always, to the end of the age."
(We understand that he will be with us not only spiritually, but physically as well with the Eucharist.)

Luke 24:15-16 - "As they talked and discussed, Jesus himself drew near and walked along with them; they saw hem, but somehow did not recognize him...."
28-31 - "As they came near the village to which they were going, Jesus acted as if he were going farther; but they held him back, saying, 'Stay with us; the day is almost over and it is getting dark.' So he went in to stay with them. He sat down to eat with them, took the bread and said the blessing; then he broke the bread and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he disappered from their sight."
35 - "the two then explained to them what had happened on the road, and how they had recognized the Lord when he broke the bread."

and lastly:

Rev 5:6 -" then I saw a lamb, looking as if it had been slain...."
(seperated body and blood, maybe? That would make it look as if it had been slain)

(Is the Mass Truly a Sacrifice? http://www.scborromeo.org/index2.htm

Thanx, Luv
Theresa

panterapat · Dec 5, 2002

Theresa

Please, prayfully read John 6, The Discourse on the Bread of Life. Jesus repeated Himself three thmes telling us that His Flesh is real food and His Blood real drink. Many walked away because these teachings were too hard to accept. Jesus did not call them back but reiterated His Divine Truth pertaining to the Eucharist.

In Christ, Patrick

VOW · Dec 5, 2002

To Patrick:

THREE times? I counted SEVEN times!! The Bread of Life Discourse in the sixth chapter of John is the most powerful message in the Gospel, IMHO.

Peace,
~VOW

panterapat · Dec 5, 2002

Thanks again Vow-

I was going from recollection. Seven times! The perfect number for the perfect sacrament.

In Christ, Patrick
PS: Oh that all Christians would take these passages as literal.

Hoonbaba · Dec 5, 2002

One thing I find fascinating is how the author of Hebrews says 4 times, "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek".  Of course this is a reference to Jesus being the High priest in heaven.  But one thing I completely overlooked is the fact that it says 'forever'.  And Heb 8:3 teaches:

"Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer" (Heb 8:3)

'this one' is of course referring to Our Lord Jesus Christ.  And since he's offering something forever (Heb 5:6, Heb 6:20, etc), now the question is:  What is Jesus offering forever!?

=)

Somehow that question never came to my mind until I came across Catholicism, and the answer is simply amazing in light of John 6, 1 Cor 11:24-30 and Revelation 5:6

The answer would also suggest that whatever was being done would be continually done like the early church (Acts 2:42, Acts 20:7), since whatever Jesus's ministered was to be done forever (Heb 6:5) =)

God bless!

-Jason

damaris13 · Dec 5, 2002

I am a protestant. I am asking permission before I say anything in here as I realize it is a Catholic forum. I came to this because I am trying to understand transubstantiation and where in the Bible it discusses it. Would it be okay if I ask a few questions or make a few statements? I recognize that we will definitely have different views on the subject. I would also like to know what Catholics think it is we believe the bread and wine to be. I'll understand if you say no.
Jesus loves you!
damaris

nyj · Dec 5, 2002

Originally posted by damaris13
I would also like to know what Catholics think it is we believe the bread and wine to be.

Catholics believe that the bread and wine, after the Consecration, becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

But it doesn't taste like flesh and blood.

True, but theologically speaking, every creation consists of what is known as accidental and substantial properties.

Accidental properties are things that we often associate with an object but which can change without changing what that object is.

Substance is what makes an object an object.

So, take a rose for example. It has a sweet scent, it has smooth petals and thorns that can prick you, it has a deep, lovely red color, it has a bitter taste to it.

Those are all accidental properties. You can stop watering the rose and the color will go from red to black. Instead of being smooth to the touch it can become brittle and the thorns may drop off or become dulled, the scent may disappear. Yet, it is still a rose.

What the doctrine of Transubstantiation states is that while the accidental properties of the bread and wine remain unchanged, what has changed is the substance. So while it tastes like bread and like wine (both accidental properties), it is actually the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in substance.

Does that make sense?

Hoonbaba · Dec 5, 2002

Hi damaris13,

I'm also not Catholic, however I don't know if I'm a protestant either =P I'm slowly leaning towards Catholicism.

In anycase, another significant aspect of transubstantiation is that the Lord is present in the bread and wine, since Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.  In some ways, I think it's weird, but I trust Jesus's words when he said, "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink" (John 6:55).

I used to think this passage was to be taken figuratively, until I realized that it's silly for Jesus to not have explained the figurativeness of the passage to those who turned away

...but of course Jesus reaffirms his words by constantly saying, "eat and drink my blood" whenever the people began grumbling (John 6:61), which indicates Jesus literally meant what he meant.

In anycase, the significance of the blood and wine being the flesh and blood of the lord is that Catholics participate in the Lord's supper and that Christ is present at the breaking of bread (Luke 24:35).  In other words, Christ is revealed through the lord's supper, particularly through the bread and body of the lord.

That would explain why early believers devoted themselves to partaking in the lord's supper (Acts 2:42), since it must've been incredible to experience Christ in this way, on a weekly basis (Acts 20:7).  The marriage supper of the Lamb of course is the 'best' part in Revelation (Rev 19:9)

God bless!

-Jason

damaris13 · Dec 5, 2002

you know nyj, i think that's one of the best and most understandable explanations of transubstantiation i have ever read. the odd thing is that it is very similar to what i have come to hold when i take communion at a protestant church. for me, Jesus is in the bread and the wine because that is what he gave up for me. he gave up his body and his blood on the cross in order to save me from my sins. believing and understanding the statement i just made is easy for me because i believe God and Jesus are in all things. i guess what i cannot say is that it is literally the body and the blood (this does not mean that i say it is symbolic, because i don't)

I guess what i have difficulty understanding is why only Catholics have transubstantiation when i know quite a few protestants who hold that the blood=wine and the bread=body in the manner i say i do. am i being clear?

next question, is it always wine? or do any Catholic churches serve grape juice like i know many Protestant churches do (i was always told as a child to take grape juice when i attended churches that served both).

Thank you!
Jesus loves you!

nyj · Dec 5, 2002

Originally posted by damaris13
you know nyj, i think that's one of the best and most understandable explanations of transubstantiation i have ever read.

 

Thank you.

 

Originally posted by damaris13

the odd thing is that it is very similar to what i have come to hold when i take communion at a protestant church. for me, Jesus is in the bread and the wine because that is what he gave up for me. he gave up his body and his blood on the cross in order to save me from my sins. believing and understanding the statement i just made is easy for me because i believe God and Jesus are in all things.

I guess the difference arises because I am pretty sure that the Catholic Church does not believe that God/Jesus Christ reside in all of creation (I'd have to check further into St.Thomas' Summa).  That the Creator and the creations are separate.  For instance, by logical analysis of God and the nature of sin (the rejection of God), the two cannot reside together in the same place.  Therefore, when understood in this particular light, you can see that Transubstantiation becomes even more of a big deal because it takes a "Special Event" to occur for God to reside in the bread and wine.

Originally posted by damaris13
I guess what i have difficulty understanding is why only Catholics have transubstantiation when i know quite a few protestants who hold that the blood=wine and the bread=body in the manner i say i do. am i being clear?

 

Yes, I just think that the difference arises further down the "theological totem pole".  It just so happens that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation gets most of the press which is why it is the hotly debated contest.

 

Originally posted by damaris13
next question, is it always wine? or do any Catholic churches serve grape juice like i know many Protestant churches do (i was always told as a child to take grape juice when i attended churches that served both).

 

Yes, it must be wine, see Canon Law #924.3 The wine must be natural, made from grapes of the vine, and not corrupt.  In the case of alcoholic priests, wine that has it's fermentation process halted by freezing may be allowed (called mustum) but ONLY by special permission from the Bishop of the diocese in which the priest resides.

 

Hoonbaba · Dec 5, 2002

Originally posted by damaris13
I guess what i have difficulty understanding is why only Catholics have transubstantiation when i know quite a few protestants who hold that the blood=wine and the bread=body in the manner i say i do. am i being clear?

I think this has to do with apostolic succession.  The priest must be ordained (someone must lay hands on the priest to be ordained to do this ministry).  I know this may sound bizarre but here's some background for this:

Jesus initially had 12 disciples.  Jesus laid his hands on them and ordained them to do his work.  Then the disciples were told to do the same for others, so they ordained people like Barnabus and such.  Eventually people like Barnabus would ordain others, and the cycle would continue on and on up to now.

The significance of this is that Catholics maintiain this apostolic succession, the same is true for Orthodox (they also teach transubstantiation).  However, protestants completely broke away from the Catholic church and they do not teach apostolic succession.  And so the cycle was broken off with protestants doing their own thing.  Catholics however maintained the tradition, so a Catholic priest has the authority which was originally passed down from the apostles and Jesus, yet protestants don't.

Thus, protestant Communion is almost like a cheap imitation...maybe I shouldn't have said it like that...

Anyway I hope that helps.

God bless!

-Jason

damaris13 · Dec 5, 2002

thank you!

damaris13 · Dec 5, 2002

Originally posted by Hoonbaba
I think this has to do with apostolic succession.  The priest must be ordained (someone must lay hands on the priest to be ordained to do this ministry).  I know this may sound bizarre but here's some background for this:

Jesus initially had 12 disciples.  Jesus laid his hands on them and ordained them to do his work.  Then the disciples were told to do the same for others, so they ordained people like Barnabus and such.  Eventually people like Barnabus would ordain others, and the cycle would continue on and on up to now.

The significance of this is that Catholics maintiain this apostolic succession, the same is true for Orthodox (they also teach transubstantiation).  However, protestants completely broke away from the Catholic church and they do not teach apostolic succession.  And so the cycle was broken off with protestants doing their own thing.  Catholics however maintained the tradition, so a Catholic priest has the authority which was originally passed down from the apostles and Jesus, yet protestants don't.

Thus, protestant Communion is almost like a cheap imitation...maybe I shouldn't have said it like that...

Anyway I hope that helps.

God bless!

-Jason

okay, i think i'm just going to have to agree to disagree with most of what you just said for numerous reasons and i don't want to debate anything right now (not the time, not the thread).  on the cheap imitation, yeah, that kinda wasn't the right thing to say.  and i will always have a problem with the fact that if you aren't ordained in the Catholic Church then you aren't a minister of God.  main reason = my dad is a preacher.  but you know, no offense taken.  i recognize that we were taught to believe (or have come to believe through our own research of the Bible and history) two different things.  that's okay.  i still feel safe to say that i will be with all Christians in heaven when Jesus returns to takes us there.  i still feel it necessary to learn about other beliefs because it further helps me to understand mine.

okay, back to studying.  thank you for the information.  keep it coming if you have anything to add.  and please don't take my statement above as a debate.  i'm just sharing a little bit about me and why i do not believe or hold on to some of the same traditions (for lack of a better word right now, Vow, please understand finals week fries the brain!) as those who are responding.  so far all has been pleasant.  please let me know if i get out of hand because i truly do not want to argue about anything. 

VOW · Dec 5, 2002

To Damaris:

Respectful questions are always welcome here. My goal (and also the goal of many other Catholics here) isn't to convert all Protestants to the Catholic Church. If you have God where you are, that's wonderful. What we want to do is clear up the misconceptions and misunderstandings many folks have about the Catholic Church. I'm sure you've heard most of them too: why do Catholics worship Mary (we don't) and what's the big deal with the Pope.

I do understand completely your position on communion. I'm a convert, and when I was studying the Catholic faith and the whole teaching of Transubstantiation was explained to me, I was flabbergasted. You mean all those times I had received communion in a Protestant Church, I DIDN'T get the Real Body and Real Blood of Jesus?

I thought EVERYBODY did!

Once I found out what the deal was, that made me want to be Catholic even MORE. I wanted the REAL THING. The more I studied, the more I learned, I began to CRAVE the Real Presence.

No one here will argue that your father is not a minister of God, simply because he is not included in the Apostolic Succession. I am sure his call from God is true, valid, and 100% real. There are many ministers who are not Catholic but still contain the presence of the Holy Spirit, and can share the Good News with people. So we have no argument there.

But for us Catholics, we want the whole deal. We want the Apostolic Succession, so we can get the Real Presence. Because we truly believe that in the Eucharist we have the heart, the soul, the Body, the Blood of our Savior. When we receive Communion, we touch God.

Peace be with you,
~VOW

Hoonbaba · Dec 5, 2002

Originally posted by damaris13
okay, i think i'm just going to have to agree to disagree with most of what you just said for numerous reasons and i don't want to debate anything right now (not the time, not the thread).  on the cheap imitation, yeah, that kinda wasn't the right thing to say.  and i will always have a problem with the fact that if you aren't ordained in the Catholic Church then you aren't a minister of God.  main reason = my dad is a preacher.  but you know, no offense taken.  i recognize that we were taught to believe (or have come to believe through our own research of the Bible and history) two different things.  that's okay.  i still feel safe to say that i will be with all Christians in heaven when Jesus returns to takes us there.  i still feel it necessary to learn about other beliefs because it further helps me to understand mine.

okay, back to studying.  thank you for the information.  keep it coming if you have anything to add.  and please don't take my statement above as a debate.  i'm just sharing a little bit about me and why i do not believe or hold on to some of the same traditions (for lack of a better word right now, Vow, please understand finals week fries the brain!) as those who are responding.  so far all has been pleasant.  please let me know if i get out of hand because i truly do not want to argue about anything. 

 

Hi damaris13,

I guess I should've worded that better.  In anycase I sometimes get upset knowing that my current church does it communion only 4 times a year.

In anycase, please keep in mind I wasn't speak of ministers in general.  I was specifically referring to those who are ordained to administer Communion.  Personally, I think God can use anyone to share and preach the gospel, if they are truly walking with the Lord.

In anycase, I just wish I can partake in the Eucharist every week, or more like every morning.

God bless!

-Jason

Hoonbaba · Dec 5, 2002

Originally posted by damaris13
okay, back to studying. 

My God bless your studies!!  I have exams coming up too

-Jason

damaris13 · Dec 5, 2002

Jason,
Do you attend a Catholic Church, or did I miss something there? I never took communion every Sunday, but when I attended the churches on the military posts, I always knew I would be served communion at least once a month (and usually knew which Sunday it was on). However at the churches I've been attending recently it is very irregular. I really don't understand it. Although I cannot partake in the Eucharist at the Catholic Church, I think it's wonderful that it can be received at least once a week (if not more!).

God bless your (and anyone else's ) studies as well.

Hoonbaba · Dec 5, 2002

Originally posted by damaris13
Jason,
Do you attend a Catholic Church, or did I miss something there? I never took communion every Sunday, but when I attended the churches on the military posts, I always knew I would be served communion at least once a month (and usually knew which Sunday it was on). However at the churches I've been attending recently it is very irregular. I really don't understand it. Although I cannot partake in the Eucharist at the Catholic Church, I think it's wonderful that it can be received at least once a week (if not more!).

God bless your (and anyone else's ) studies as well.

Hi damaris13,

I thought I already mentioned this but I'm not Catholic Theologically speaking, I'm not a protestant, but I'm not Catholic yet (but I'm still part of a protestant church)

The last time I took Communion, I was never been so joyful at knowing I can experience at least a 'cheap' Communion...I was honestly about to cry.

Maybe I shouldn't have said 'cheap' again

God bless!

-Jason

Caedmon · Dec 6, 2002

Originally posted by nyj
What the doctrine of Transubstantiation states is that while the accidental properties of the bread and wine remain unchanged, what has changed is the substance.  So while it tastes like bread and like wine (both accidental properties), it is actually the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in substance.

 

Does that make sense?

See, this is what I don't understand. If Jesus wanted so much to make it His real body and blood, then why doesn't He change its accidentals too? Yes, I've heard about Lanciano, but I am very skeptical about that isolated incident. I don't understand how Christ can be any more than spiritually present in the Eucharist, if He is unwilling to evidence his physical presence through changing the accidentals. Please answer me this question: What would be the reason for not alterring the accidentals?

nyj · Dec 6, 2002

Originally posted by humblejoe
See, this is what I don't understand. If Jesus wanted so much to make it His real body and blood, then why doesn't He change its accidentals too? Yes, I've heard about Lanciano, but I am very skeptical about that isolated incident. I don't understand how Christ can be any more than spiritually present in the Eucharist, if He is unwilling to evidence his physical presence through changing the accidentals. Please answer me this question: What would be the reason for not alterring the accidentals?

 

Yet Joe, Jesus said that where two or more are gathered together in His Name, there He would be.  Do you see Him present?  Do you always feel Him present?  I would venture a guess that you do not.

 

So, was Jesus lying?  No, He wasn't.  It comes down to a single principle Joe...

 

Faith.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Transubstantiation

With Reason

Praise God in all things!

Moderator

Praise God in all things!

Catholic Preterist

Active Member

Goodbye, my puppy

Catholic Preterist

Active Member

Goodbye, my puppy

Catholic Preterist

Active Member

Active Member

Moderator

Catholic Preterist

Catholic Preterist

Active Member

Catholic Preterist

kawaii

Goodbye, my puppy

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency