Transubstantiation

[cathmomof3]

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. .

My point with the historical arguement was that The apostles passed on their belief to the early Christians and that the belief in the Eucharist was there before the bible was written. So, if there could be multiple interpretations I would bet on the one that was closest to the apostles time.

 

[cathmomof3]

Thank you for disagreeing in a kind and respectful manner.

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.

Thank you too...

True...

 

[Biff]

To Scott_LaFrance vbmenu_register("postmenu_25275978", true);

For those of us who do, we are worshipping Jesus Christ the way we are supposed to.

No different that how some people essentially worship thier bible, because both the bible and Jesus are referred to as "the Word".

However the "word" (small "w") of God says this -

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Matthew 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.



Jesus is The Word of God" (large "W")! and He is to be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth as He is. and seeing as how He is a real and living "Person", then we are to worship Him in Person as He is.

The Bible contains "the word of God" (small "w")! and it is what God has to say to men. They don't "Worship" the Bible, as you say, but they do adore every word from His mouth! Don't you??

Biff

 

[cathmomof3]

And you know this how?

 

[Biff]

.

 

[cathmomof3]

#1. Because I have come to know the Lord, Personally, and He is not an "IT", nor in an "IT". "HE" is a real and living "PERSON"!

#2. I am an EX-CATHOLIC.

#3. Worshipping anything other than God (not some "God" in the eucharist) is IDOLATRY!
The eucharist is a "THING"! "GOD" is not a "THING"!

1. And I have come to know him personally as well and I KNOW he is present in the Eucharist.
2. You being an ex-Catholic means absolutely nothing other than you were not well catechized in the Catholic faith.
3. I agree that worshipping anything other than God is idolatry..But the Eucharist IS the body and blood of Christ.

I would think twice before speaking again the way that you have spoken about the Eucharist. Your speech is profaning the body & blood of Christ and I find it extremely offensive.

 

[OnTheWay]

Wow, so if I claim to be an ex-Catholic does that automatically make me an authority on the real presence of Christ in the Euchrist?

 

[Lynn73]

2. You being an ex-Catholic means absolutely nothing other than you were not well catechized in the Catholic faith.

This appears to be the standard Catholic answer concerning those who leave Catholicsim.

3. I agree that worshipping anything other than God is idolatry..But the Eucharist IS the body and blood of Christ.

That remains to be seen.

I would think twice before speaking again the way that you have spoken about the Eucharist. Your speech is profaning the body & blood of Christ and I find it extremely offensive.

We don't believe that it's Christ so there's no profaning His body and blood. And I find your tendency to inform us of how offended you are extremely offensive. Those who disagree with you are entitled to express their beliefs the same as your are.

 

[cathmomof3]

This appears to be the standard Catholic answer concerning those who leave Catholicsim.



That remains to be seen.



We don't believe that it's Christ so there's no profaning His body and blood. And I find your tendency to inform us of how offended you are extremely offensive. Those who disagree with you are entitled to express their beliefs the same as your are.

If you believed that it was the body & blood of Christ, would you not be offended?

Yes, you are entitled to express your opinion, but there are more respectful ways of doing it...

 

[Splayd]

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".

This comes down to the way we interpret scripture. We all tend to read our own beliefs into it. Because you already believe in the real presence, when you read these verses it reaffirms your belief. Most people reading this verse without any preconceived ideas don't come to that conclusion.

 

[canadiancatholic]

I have scanned through this thread and was about to say I am amazed by the civilty it has maintained... until a few pages ago. Some people need to realize that taking ones sacred beliefs and stepping on them is more offensive then calling them anything imagined. Then to have others step into the fray and fan the flames was totally unneccessary. Some peoples needs to evangelize at the expense of anothers feelings is contradictory and counterproductive, and flies in the face of Christian love.

 

[Lynn73]

If you believed that it was the body & blood of Christ, would you not be offended?

Yes, you are entitled to express your opinion, but there are more respectful ways of doing it...

I haven't been disrespectful that I know of. I'm just honestly saying what I believe, the same as you. I can't help it if what I believe about the Eucharist offends you. I certainly am not going to lie about it just so as not to offend. I stand by what I said. There is no profaning going on because I don't believe the Eucharist is Christ. I just think you might think about maybe cutting down on your usage of "I find that offensive." Just a thought. I find things offensive too but what purpose would it serve for me to be continually saying it?

 

[OnTheWay]

This appears to be the standard Catholic answer concerning those who leave Catholicsim.



That remains to be seen.



We don't believe that it's Christ so there's no profaning His body and blood. And I find your tendency to inform us of how offended you are extremely offensive. Those who disagree with you are entitled to express their beliefs the same as your are.

Have yet to see a symbolic non-communion type present that position in any way resembling effective. Most likely because it's garbage made up by modernists that, like those faithless who left Jesus in John chapter 6, found the truth to hard for their tastes.

 

[Splayd]

Have yet to see a symbolic non-communion type present that position in any way resembling effective. Most likely because it's garbage made up by modernists that, like those faithless who left Jesus in John chapter 6, found the truth to hard for their tastes.

For the life of me I can never understand why you guys appeal to John 6 to make any sort of a case. Firstly, do you seriously contend that every single person there thought that Jesus literally meant they were to eat his flesh or do you concede there was some confusion amongst them as to what was meant?

 

[lionroar0]

For the life of me I can never understand why you guys appeal to John 6 to make any sort of a case. Firstly, do you seriously contend that every single person there thought that Jesus literally meant they were to eat his flesh or do you concede there was some confusion amongst them as to what was meant?

The words in the Greek are literal. Yes there was confusion, because it is against Jewish Law and Tradition to eat enything with blood still in it. Let alone human flesh with blood. Yet this is what Jesus said to do and He did not clarify by saying that He was speaking metaphorically or symbolically and a great number of diciples left.

Peace

 

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

A page back there was a question about why there is a need for bread and wine to be changed substantially into the Body and Blood of Christ. I just wanted to give a bit of an answer to this.

A clue lies in another teaching of Catholocism: that the Sacrifice and Celebration of the Mass is the same Sacrifice of Calvary, the exact same, ongoing Sacrifice which brought/brings salvation to mankind.

There is often a difference between talking about what is sufficient for salvation, and what goes beyond sufficient. The difference often has to do with knowledge, or personal circumstances. For example, if a person has lived isolated from all contact with anyone who might bring the Gospel to him, but all his life lived honestly according to what he believed to be good and true and right, then it may be said that he lived in the spirit of Christ, though he never heard of Christ or the salvation He brings, and as such, may by way of a kind of spiritual baptism, attain salvation.

However, as soon as this same person learns about the truth of the Gospel, and Christ's saving sacrifice, he has an obligation to accept Christ, and follow His commands.

Thusly, the Catholic Church recognizes "one Baptism for the remission of sin." Of course it is the remission of sin which sanctifies us and grants us salvation, as it was Original Sin which closed the gates of heaven to man in the first place.

So we see that knowledge, and understanding play an important role in salvation. However, let it be stated that we are all called to seek the truth always. Living a good life in invincible ignorance is enough to be saved, but knowing the Good News and knowing Christ and loving Him and keeping His commands is better. Thus we are called to find the truth. For, it seems, God will always call us to what is better.

Christ instituted seven Sacraments, which give the grace that sanctifies, and those who know and understand them, are called to partake in them for salvation. Baptism may be sufficient for the one who only knows or understands the basic need for salvation, but those who have gone deeper are obliged to participate in what is better. If one rejects these Sacraments, knowingly and from understanding, thusly rejects Christ, for they were instituted by Him for our salvation. The Eucharist is one of these sacraments.

A basic natural law (and we all know that natural laws were created and instituted by God) is that of reciprocation. If injury is done, injury is returned. If kindness is done, kindness is returned. Of course, there is a higher law which states that we should "turn the other cheek" when injury is done, and that we should do kindness where no kindness was first done, and even when kindness is not expected in return. However, there is another aspect of reciprocation, and that is to repair injuries done. We call this penance. It is right and good to pay the one you are in debt to, and debt comes either from reception of a gift, or from causing an injury or offense.

It is this basic principle of Justice which made it necessary that mankind offer some form of sacrifice, a kind of penance, in order to repair the offense we did against God. It was Justice which made it necessary for Christ to come to us for our salvation. Christ, as a perfect man, and as a Divine being (the Second Person of the Trinity, God Himself), made the perfect sacrifice that would repair the offense of Adam and Eve. His sacrifice was perfect Justice.

His sacrifice alone is sufficient for the salvation of every person, who also receives Baptism of the Holy Spirit and is sanctified in Christ. However, there is a difference between what is sufficient, and what is better.

Christ, as a Divine Being, as God, transcends time and space. This is how we are able to call the Mass the same sacrifice of Calvary. When Christ instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist, or Communion, He did so because even though His sacrifice was enough, it would be better if everyone offered that sacrifice with Him. Thus, by coming to us in the form of communion bread (and wine), we are able to unite ourselves to Him and join in the sacrifice of Calvary, the perfect sacrifice for the salvation of mankind.

When Christ said "this is my Body" and "this is my Blood" at the Last Supper, it was the same day that He died. We recount these on two separate days: Holy Thursday and Good Friday. However, in the Jewish counting of time, the evening (6:00 PM I believe) is the beginning of the next day. Thus, the Last Supper and His death on the Cross happened all on the same day according to Jewish reckoning.

Therefore, we celebrate the Last Supper and offer the Sacrifice of Calvary in one Mass. For, when the priest says "this is my Body" he is speaking in persona Christi which means that Christ, sitting at the table of the Last Supper, transcended time, and speaks through every ordained priest who also speaks those same words, and as they did at the last supper, the bread and wine become Jesus Himself. It is in recieving Christ in the Eucharist that we become united to Him, spiritually and physically, and partake in that perfect sacrifice of Calvary. We share in the act of perfect justice of man offering penance to God for his offences.

Sure, we could have shared in that sacrifice spiritually, offered a spiritual communion, and that would have been sufficient. Heck, even just being Baptized and sanctified in the Holy Spirit is sufficient. However, Christ, knowing all things good, better and best, gave us the best, full union with Him in that sacrifice, body and soul.

And, since I know it, I am obliged to take part in it, for my knowledge demands that I do. If I refuse to, then I effectively refuse Christ, and His saving sacrifice. Thus, the Church, in her wisdom, obliges us to received communion at least once a year, and stronly encourages much more.

Why did Christ institute the sacrament of the Eucharist? Because it's best.

 

[Splayd]

The words in the Greek are literal. Yes there was confusion, because it is against Jewish Law and Tradition to eat enything with blood still in it. Let alone human flesh with blood.

Exactly! There was all sorts of confusion as to what Jesus meant. Some thought He meant it literally. Others I'm sure would have thought He meant it some other way. Some just had no idea what He was saying at all. There was murmering and argumenting about it, so we can be certain there wasn't universal understanding and agreement. What we can be certain of is that the only ones who we definitely know believed it was literal, were the very ones that were quoted as mocking the notion. It's only reasonable to assume that those mockers were amongst the ones that left. We have no evidence nor suggestion that those who remained agreed with their literal interpretation.

Yet this is what Jesus said to do and He did not clarify by saying that He was speaking metaphorically or symbolically and a great number of diciples left.

Sure He did.

Joh 6:63 It is the Spirit that makes alive, the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit and are life.

And what was the conclusion Peter made from the whole incident:

Joh 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered Him, Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the Words of eternal life.

What we don't have is evidence of Jesus correcting Peter. All in all, the only actual evidence we have is that amongst those unfaithful disciples who couldn't determine the truth and subsequently left Jesus, there were some that determined He meant we should literally eat His flesh. The rest is subjective and open to speculation either way, but on evidence alone, it hardly makes for a fair comparison between those who believed it was literal and left (back then) and we who don't believe it is and stay (today).

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

This comes down to the way we interpret scripture. We all tend to read our own beliefs into it. Because you already believe in the real presence, when you read these verses it reaffirms your belief. Most people reading this verse without any preconceived ideas don't come to that conclusion.

Well, let's see what the people who were actually there at the time of the Apostles. Let's see what the early Christians believed about these scriptures.

There is much support for the Eucharist (cf: Genesis 14:18-19; Leviticus 24:1, 5-9; Malachi 1:11; Matthew 26:26-28; Luke 22:14-20; 24:30-31; John 6:27-63; Acts 2:41-42; 20:7; 1 Corinthians 10: 16-17, 21; 11:23-29)

John 6:51-56 "[Jesus said] 'I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.' The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' So Jesus said to them, 'Truly truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."

Mark 14:22-24 "And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, 'Take; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, 'This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured our for many."

Saint Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the year 110, said the following regarding the Eucharist: "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions of the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. ...They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again." (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, VI. 2; VII. 1.)

It is disbelief that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus that is in disagreement with the Apostolic and Post Apostolic Christian teaching.

 

[cathmomof3]

I haven't been disrespectful that I know of. I'm just honestly saying what I believe, the same as you. I can't help it if what I believe about the Eucharist offends you. I certainly am not going to lie about it just so as not to offend. I stand by what I said. There is no profaning going on because I don't believe the Eucharist is Christ. I just think you might think about maybe cutting down on your usage of "I find that offensive." Just a thought. I find things offensive too but what purpose would it serve for me to be continually saying it?

Actually, I was offended by what "Biff" said as my reply was to him. I don't see why you joined in the conversation. And I think I have said I was offended maybe twice in 300 posts - once for the disparaging remarks about the Eucharist and once when someone said the Marian apparitions were from Satan.

 

[cathmomof3]

For the life of me I can never understand why you guys appeal to John 6 to make any sort of a case. Firstly, do you seriously contend that every single person there thought that Jesus literally meant they were to eat his flesh or do you concede there was some confusion amongst them as to what was meant?

Because we did not pick up the bible 400 years after Christianity began, read John ch 6 and say here is what I think he meant. We had our beliefs in the Eucharist passed to us in a direct line from the apostles. This has been the belief of the CC for 2000 years.