Transubstantiation

[Lynn73]

My comments weren't directed at anyone specifically Lynn, I am sorry if you took it that way.

I didn't really take it personal, just felt the need to comment.

Honestly, I believe the Eucharist to be Christ. I have faith that Jesus will forgive my naivity if my understanding is misguided, since it is my intent to worship Jesus the best way I know how.

Good answer. That's about what I'd say to as it's my intent to worship Jesus the best I know according to the light I have from the Spirit and His word also.

 

[Lynn73]

As Catholic's we believe the Eucharist IS Christ. Not like Christ, not symbolically Christ, & not representing Christ... but CHrist Himself, body, blood, soul and divinity.

Believing as such, don't you expect us to worship it? Wouldn't you, if you believed as we do?

A Protestant poster here once said something pretty powerful, something along the lines of:

"If I was Catholic and I believed in the Eucharist as they do, I would go to adoration, fall on my knees, and never get up."

Yes, I expect if that's what you believe, it's no surprise that you worship it. Just as it's no surprise to you you that those of us who don't believe it don't worship it. People worship according to what they believe, right?

 

[cathmomof3]

Yes, I expect if that's what you believe, it's no surprise that you worship it. Just as it's no surprise to you you that those of us who don't believe it don't worship it. People worship according to what they believe, right?

Yes and we don't criticize other Christians for not worshipping the Eucharist, just as we should not be called idolaters for worshipping the Eucharist.

 

[christianmomof3]

No . Jusus was not talking symbolically...

I do not understand why He was not talking symbolically. Many times in the Old Testament eating is referred to symbolically. "Thy words were found and I did eat them and thy words became to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart." Jer. 15:16
This was not talking about physically eating words. It is symbolic. When we eat something we take it into us and it becomes a part of us. We digest it and it becomes an organic part of us. The Lord said He is the bread of life. He often refers to Himself as our food. But, this is a spiritual food, not a physical food. And spiritually, we do eat and drink Him when we pray and read the Bible and call upon His name and sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. His spiritual element comes into our spirit and transforms us into His image. The bread and cup are to be taken in rememberance of Him - to remind us of all that He is and has done for us.

 

[Tonks]

I do not understand why He was not talking symbolically. Many times in the Old Testament eating is referred to symbolically. "Thy words were found and I did eat them and thy words became to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart." Jer. 15:16
This was not talking about physically eating words. It is symbolic. When we eat something we take it into us and it becomes a part of us. We digest it and it becomes an organic part of us. The Lord said He is the bread of life. He often refers to Himself as our food. But, this is a spiritual food, not a physical food. And spiritually, we do eat and drink Him when we pray and read the Bible and call upon His name and sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. His spiritual element comes into our spirit and transforms us into His image. The bread and cup are to be taken in rememberance of Him - to remind us of all that He is and has done for us.

John 6:51-58

 

[Jipsah]

Hypothetically to your way of thinking, tell us how you would feel someday if you found out you'd just been praying to a round wafer all this time.

Prolly kinda like we Prots would feel if we found we'd been praying to letters printed on a piece of paper all this time.

I don't worship the Bible. I worship it's Author and I believe what He says.

He said "this is My Body", didn't He? I wouldn't be too eager to bust the chops of brethren who happen to take that more literally than we do.

 

[Jipsah]

I believe in real presence but not in transubstantiation.

Ditto. I believe that consubstantiation is closer to the mark.

 

[OnTheWay]

John 6:51-66

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Firstly, if Jesus was speaking symbolically then why didn't he correct those that took him literally (and clearly everyone did) and left because of it? Clearly he was understood as being literal, made no statement that would in any way correct that interpertation, and again it is only recently in the wide world of protestant sects that any thing other than the real presence has come up.

 

[christianmomof3]

John 6:51-58

I still see this as being symbolic. Flesh and blood are necessary for redemption. The Lord is indicating here that His death will redeem us. To eat His flesh is to receive by faith all that He has done in giving His Body for us and to drink His blood is to receive by faith all that He accomplished in shedding His blood for us. To eat Him is to receive Him in His redemption and life supply by believing in what He did for us on the cross. We see this in verse 47 "Truly, truly I say to you, He who believes has eternal life". This verse preceeds the verses about eating His flesh and drinking His blood.
To eat is to take food into us so that it organically becomes a part of our body. When we eat the Lord Jesus, we receive Him into us and He organically becomes assimilated by the new man in us . Then we live by Him who we have received. This is how He lives in us.
In the following verses we see that the Jews misunderstood Him and thought that He was speaking of eating His physical body - however, the Lord explained in verse 63 that He was speaking of the Spirit and that what He was referring to was spiritual.
Jn. 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing, the words which I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

 

[OnTheWay]

While I don't necessarily agree with transubstantiation I don't necessarily disagree. It reflects a western theological trend that dictates everything must be defined and as little left to mystery as possible. In the east we perfer to leave things as mystery. So while I am not absolutely sure at exactly what moment the bread and wine because the Body and Blood I am certain the Euchrist is the living Body and Blood of Christ.
If it were merely bread and wine then why would St. Paul warn us that to take the Euchrist unworthily is to eat and drink our own damnation? Don't see anything to support the notion that eating bread and drinking wine will damn you. As such St. Paul clearly understood the Euchrist to be the Body and Blood of Christ as well.

 

[christianmomof3]

If it were merely bread and wine then why would St. Paul warn us that to take the Euchrist unworthily is to eat and drink our own damnation? Don't see anything to support the notion that eating bread and drinking wine will damn you.

The reason taking it unworthily would subject you to judgement is found in the unworthiness - not in the bread and wine itself. The problem with the Corinthians as was pointed out earlier was that they were not taking communion to remember the Lord, but were just eating it as food and they were living in sin and not repenting of it.

 

[OnTheWay]

I still see this as being symbolic. Flesh and blood are necessary for redemption. The Lord is indicating here that His death will redeem us. To eat His flesh is to receive by faith all that He has done in giving His Body for us and to drink His blood is to receive by faith all that He accomplished in shedding His blood for us. To eat Him is to receive Him in His redemption and life supply by believing in what He did for us on the cross. We see this in verse 47 "Truly, truly I say to you, He who believes has eternal life". This verse preceeds the verses about eating His flesh and drinking His blood.
To eat is to take food into us so that it organically becomes a part of our body. When we eat the Lord Jesus, we receive Him into us and He organically becomes assimilated by the new man in us . Then we live by Him who we have received. This is how He lives in us.
In the following verses we see that the Jews misunderstood Him and thought that He was speaking of eating His physical body - however, the Lord explained in verse 63 that He was speaking of the Spirit and that what He was referring to was spiritual.
Jn. 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing, the words which I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

You still refuse to answer the question, why didn't he correct those that left because they found the teaching revolting? Why didn't he explain to the 12 when they said this was a hard teaching that it was merely symbolic? Your views simply don't match the text of Scripture. It's rather contrived because you're attempting to reach around what is there to find what you want to see.

 

[a_ntv]

I believe in real presence but not in transubstantiation.

Dont confont the doctrine with the philosophical system used to describe it.

The doctrine is as huge as God is, so no words can completly define it.

We can only try to decribe such a mystery with the philosofy we have (=with the language we have)

The Fathers of the Church used mainly the terms Typos/Untypos. But we are not greeks, such a terms cannot be properlu translated (well the right translation is sacrament), so we shall find some new way to descrive the Fact.

Trasubstantation is a good way for a logic mind, provided that you are used with aristotelic language.

But for sure you shall not believe in Aristoles to believe in the Real Presence.
But if you use the Aristotelic language (that is not a necessity), you shall agree on Transubstantation.

So the CC believe in the exact same Fact that Orthodoxes, even if using diffeent languages.

 

[OnTheWay]

The reason taking it unworthily would subject you to judgement is found in the unworthiness - not in the bread and wine itself. The problem with the Corinthians as was pointed out earlier was that they were not taking communion to remember the Lord, but were just eating it as food and they were living in sin and not repenting of it.

But according to you it is just bread and wine, so again why would this be a problem?

 

[cathmomof3]

I still see this as being symbolic. Flesh and blood are necessary for redemption. The Lord is indicating here that His death will redeem us. To eat His flesh is to receive by faith all that He has done in giving His Body for us and to drink His blood is to receive by faith all that He accomplished in shedding His blood for us. To eat Him is to receive Him in His redemption and life supply by believing in what He did for us on the cross. We see this in verse 47 "Truly, truly I say to you, He who believes has eternal life". This verse preceeds the verses about eating His flesh and drinking His blood.
To eat is to take food into us so that it organically becomes a part of our body. When we eat the Lord Jesus, we receive Him into us and He organically becomes assimilated by the new man in us . Then we live by Him who we have received. This is how He lives in us.
In the following verses we see that the Jews misunderstood Him and thought that He was speaking of eating His physical body - however, the Lord explained in verse 63 that He was speaking of the Spirit and that what He was referring to was spiritual.
Jn. 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing, the words which I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

I disagree with your interpretation. I do however concede that it could be interpreted as you have stated, just as many things in the Bible could be interpreted in multiple ways. Can you concede then that it could be interpreted as the true body & blood of Christ?
So, where do you go from there? We have at least 2 possible interpretations. It would make sense to then look at what the early Christians believed. The CC belief in the Eucharist was held by Christians until after the protestant reformation (which BTW, Martin Luther believed in the real presence). The CC has not changed the belief in the Eucharist for 2000 years. So, what do you think the most prudent interpretation would be? The one held by the early Christians and passed on for 2000 years or the one that has been held by some protestants for less than 500 years?
And wouldn't it be awesome if it truly is the body & blodd of Christ? Wouldn't you feel like you had missed out on something wonderful all these years?

"Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine."" Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
There are many more quotes at scripturecatholic.com

 

[Tonks]

While I don't necessarily agree with transubstantiation I don't necessarily disagree. It reflects a western theological trend that dictates everything must be defined and as little left to mystery as possible. In the east we perfer to leave things as mystery. So while I am not absolutely sure at exactly what moment the bread and wine because the Body and Blood I am certain the Euchrist is the living Body and Blood of Christ.
If it were merely bread and wine then why would St. Paul warn us that to take the Euchrist unworthily is to eat and drink our own damnation? Don't see anything to support the notion that eating bread and drinking wine will damn you. As such St. Paul clearly understood the Euchrist to be the Body and Blood of Christ as well.

Indeed. This is an explanation that I am comfortable with as well. However, roma locuta est so for me it is Transubstantiation....

 

[a_ntv]

... So while I am not absolutely sure at exactly what moment the bread and wine because the Body and Blood I am certain the Euchrist is the living Body and Blood of Christ....

Recenty also CC "arrived to a huger understanding" about the very moment the bread and wine became the Body and Blood

 

[christianmomof3]

You still refuse to answer the question, why didn't he correct those that left because they found the teaching revolting? Why didn't he explain to the 12 when they said this was a hard teaching that it was merely symbolic?

I am sorry, I did not see your question - I think we were posting at the same time. I was not refusing to answer it. I do not know why the Lord did not explain everything to the disciples - there are other examples in the Bible of Him not explaining everything in relation to His death also.

 

[christianmomof3]

I disagree with your interpretation. I do however concede that it could be interpreted as you have stated, just as many things in the Bible could be interpreted in multiple ways. Can you concede then that it could be interpreted as the true body & blood of Christ?
So, where do you go from there? We have at least 2 possible interpretations. It would make sense to then look at what the early Christians believed. The CC belief in the Eucharist was held by Christians until after the protestant reformation (which BTW, Martin Luther believed in the real presence). The CC has not changed the belief in the Eucharist for 2000 years. So, what do you think the most prudent interpretation would be? The one held by the early Christians and passed on for 2000 years or the one that has been held by some protestants for less than 500 years?
And wouldn't it be awesome if it truly is the body & blodd of Christ? Wouldn't you feel like you had missed out on something wonderful all these years?

Thank you for disagreeing in a kind and respectful manner. It is not just my interpretation, but one I have learned from many ministry books and from other Christians and from the Bible.
I am asking questions here to learn about what different Christians believe and to share what I believe.
I do not understand the purpose of the bread and wine being turned into actual flesh and blood of Christ and I don't see the scriptures pointing that way. Verse 63 points us to the Spirit and tells us that the Spirit gives life and the flesh profits nothing. It appears that the Lord is correcting the misinterpretation of the bread and wine becoming actual flesh and blood in that verse. There are many more verses about eating the Lord and about Him being the true bread, and about the Spirit, but not about eating actual flesh and blood that I am aware of.
As far as the historical argument that since it has been interpreted in a different way for a longer time it must be correct - I do not agree that simply because something has been done a certain way for a longer time that it is necessarily more correct. People believed that the world was flat for much longer than they have believed that it is round. Does that make them correct?
If I am wrong about the Eucharist, that is ok - I am still a born-again Christian and when the Lord returns, whatever misunderstandings I have that He points out I will gladly disregard and go with Him.

 

[cathmomof3]

I do not understand the purpose of the bread and wine being turned into actual flesh and blood of Christ and I don't see the scriptures pointing that way.

The purpose is to nourish us with his body and blood and he promised to be with us always. I don't claim to understand the why of everything. I don't see how anyone can get around John 6:55-56 "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him".