Transubstantiation

[InServicetoGod]

Greetings

I had an experience of transubstantiation in an Episcopal high mass a several years ago

I was told, that this is not something that is accepted or taught by the Episcopal faith, and I basically have kept quiet on it to this day

I have had many "experiences" which could border on mystical or unexplainable, which have happened while in various worship services of various names, (as in denominations of movements)
To me, it shows that God is at work everywhere, through anyone

But I would welcome any comments on this topic

 

[Schroeder]

Greetings

I had an experience of transubstantiation in an Episcopal high mass a several years ago

I was told, that this is not something that is accepted or taught by the Episcopal faith, and I basically have kept quiet on it to this day

I have had many "experiences" which could border on mystical or unexplainable, which have happened while in various worship services of various names, (as in denominations of movements)
To me, it shows that God is at work everywhere, through anyone

But I would welcome any comments on this topic

it is ALWAYS explainable just that some of the explanitations we do not want to hear. just be weary of your experiences. Emotionalism is rather populare but not always helpful or fulfilling and sometimes dangerouse. The devil can move in a church he is not off limits to them.

 

[a_ntv]

Greetings

I had an experience of transubstantiation in an Episcopal high mass a several years ago

I was told, that this is not something that is accepted or taught by the Episcopal faith, and I basically have kept quiet on it to this day

I have had many "experiences" which could border on mystical or unexplainable, which have happened while in various worship services of various names, (as in denominations of movements)
To me, it shows that God is at work everywhere, through anyone

But I would welcome any comments on this topic

The Liturgy is a great way to enter in God's Mysteries.

I think that the best possible liturgy is the Coptic one, followed by the Armenian.
I love also the Latin Catholic Liturgy, if well celebrated.

I hope that you can repeat such experiences.

And I hope that you can trasform such experience, that are gifts of Gods, in a every day private prayer of adoration and thanksgiving in front to the Holy Sacrament kept on the altar.
The joy and peace caming from that is un-speakanable

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Transubstantiation is not an experience.
It's a philosophy
From Aristotle.


It's from his now largely discarded views of physics.
That there are "appearances" or "accidents" that are, in fact, phantoms.


While Sacramental denominations have always agreed that in the Eucharist we receive His True Body and Blood - literally, physically, in both natures - Transubstantiation addresses the other aspect, the bread and wine.


For 1200 years, Christians left the "presense" of the bread and wine to mystery. They are "there" in some sense (as Paul seems to affirm), but in what sense Scripture doesn't say so we don't. This is still the position of the Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican Christians (as I understand it). But the RCC took a unique position in 1215 stating that Aristotle's philosophical theory of "accidents" is THE explaination for the 'presense' of the bread and wine. They made it DOGMA (the highest and most important and certain of all teachings - to deny is to be a heretic) in 1215.



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[a_ntv]

But the RCC took a unique position in 1215 stating that Aristotle's philosophical theory of "accidents" is THE explaination for the 'presense' of the bread and wine. They made it DOGMA (the highest and most important and certain of all teachings - to deny is to be a heretic) in 1215.

Dear CJ,

You use many time to highlight the 1215 statment of the four Lateran Council.

Here is the very original text:
..In which (the Church) there is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us. And this sacrament no one can effect except the priest who has been duly ordained in accordance with the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ Himself gave to the Apostles and their successors. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html)

You can see that it is not at all a philosophical explanation.
I can say that in such a text there is nothing new.

Let's examine some sentences:

- body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine
that is very standard in any pre-protestant theology.

- the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood
it is clear that the term transubstatation is simply a new and specific term for change.

- so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us.
the above statment does not cancel the mystery, but on the contrary it highlighs it.

Please note that there is not at all any ban to express the same idea about the Eucharist with other words.

And also note the the latin verbs for 'to change' (muto, immuto, permuto, commuto) have a very specific meanings (diferently from the English that allow a wide meaning for most of the words), and so actually not suitable to describe what happen on the altar. That is the main reason why a new verb had to be coined.

PS: your understanding of 'dogma' is something too semplicistic. The above was only part of the first canon, and other canons of the same councils (as the 13, The founding of new religious orders is forbidden) were largely and often changed.

PPSS: Please note: And this sacrament no one can effect except the priest who has been duly ordained in accordance with the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ Himself gave to the Apostles and their successors

 

[Schroeder]

Dear CJ,

You use many time to highlight the 1215 statment of the four Lateran Council.

Here is the very original text:
..In which (the Church) there is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us. And this sacrament no one can effect except the priest who has been duly ordained in accordance with the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ Himself gave to the Apostles and their successors. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html)

You can see that it is not at all a philosophical explanation.
I can say that in such a text there is nothing new.

Let's examine some sentences:

- body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine
that is very standard in any pre-protestant theology.

- the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood
it is clear that the term transubstatation is simply a new and specific term for change.

- so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us.
the above statment does not cancel the mystery, but on the contrary it highlighs it.

Please note that there is not at all any ban to express the same idea about the Eucharist with other words.

And also note the the latin verbs for 'to change' (muto, immuto, permuto, commuto) have a very specific meanings (diferently from the English that allow a wide meaning for most of the words), and so actually not suitable to describe what happen on the altar. That is the main reason why a new verb had to be coined.

PS: your understanding of 'dogma' is something too semplicistic. The above was only part of the first canon, and other canons of the same councils (as the 13, The founding of new religious orders is forbidden) were largely and often changed.

PPSS: Please note: And this sacrament no one can effect except the priest who has been duly ordained in accordance with the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ Himself gave to the Apostles and their successors

this is off the OP but this whole eurchurist thing is made up to be rudly honest. communion i can almost see but the whole changing into Christ blood and flesh is wrong and kind of gross. It is more close to pagan worship then christ centered worship, which i know is a rather strong statement but there is nothing in scripture to make such a claim. john 6 is often used but it is way out of context and verse 63 should show this clearly. the mystery they speak of in being in UNITY with him is the SPIRIT in us which was the NEW teaching of this covenant. THis SPirit of Christ in us is the Church and why the Church is always ONE and why there is NO head church to govern others or oversee christians. i will leave it at that. probably said to much already.

 

[a_ntv]

this is off the OP but this whole eurchurist thing is made up to be rudly honest. communion i can almost see but the whole changing into Christ blood and flesh is wrong and kind of gross. It is more close to pagan worship then christ centered worship, which i know is a rather strong statement but there is nothing in scripture to make such a claim. john 6 is often used but it is way out of context and verse 63 should show this clearly. the mystery they speak of in being in UNITY with him is the SPIRIT in us which was the NEW teaching of this covenant. THis SPirit of Christ in us is the Church and why the Church is always ONE and why there is NO head church to govern others or oversee christians. i will leave it at that. probably said to much already.

I dont know, but I'm extremly attracted by the Eucharist (probaby like the OP post).
That for sure it is not a proof of nothing, but the more I pray, the more I'm illogically attracted.
And that is not a result of my bringing up (I came from a an atheist family): that is completly irrational and illogic, but this attraction exists.

 

[Schroeder]

I dont know, but I'm extremly attracted by the Eucharist (probaby like the OP post).
That for sure it is not a proof of nothing, but the more I pray, the more I'm illogically attracted.
And that is not a result of my bringing up (I came from a an atheist family): that is completly irrational and illogic, but this attraction exists.

that is fine i suppose but to say scripture shows it as a command and that it is truelly the bllod and flesh is wrong. all attractions are not from the Spirit of Christ. But i think that is all sycology stuff about how you were raised, issues ect ect. Not saying it is harmfull to you to do it if it bring you closer to God, nothing wrong with that. I dont have much problems with how anyone wants to worship God or do there service, there are many ways to do this and scripture gives no ONE way it should be done EXCEPT to do it in His name and for Him. But to say as to many do that scripture tells us it should be done THIS WAY and not that way, is not being honest. To me it was left open so we could adpt it to how we are raised and how we are as individuals what works for me may not work for you. I try to argue the idea that SCRIPTURE DOES NOT say one way or another on these types issues and that it should be presented as this is how I feel about it and it is not the only way it must be done and understood. the ONLY one that must be done is to BELIEVE in Christ as your saviour. the way to salvation is specific but a lot of other things we tend to argue about is not. I try not to say your wrong in doing this or that but say your wrong in saying that is how the scriptures tell us it SHOULD be done or understood. rites ordances ect are said in scripture as to MUST be don, they are not commanded, BUT scripture does not say that they should NEVER be done either.

 

[Fortuna]

Greetings

I had an experience of transubstantiation in an Episcopal high mass a several years ago

I was told, that this is not something that is accepted or taught by the Episcopal faith, and I basically have kept quiet on it to this day

I have had many "experiences" which could border on mystical or unexplainable, which have happened while in various worship services of various names, (as in denominations of movements)
To me, it shows that God is at work everywhere, through anyone

But I would welcome any comments on this topic

I too have had many experiences that you are talking about. I believe my Episcopal (Anglican) church does believe in transubstantiation. In any case, I believe it because of my experiences with it. Do not let anyone invalidate your experiences with Jesus and the sacraments. There are those who are skeptical and this is primarily an orthodox, catholic and protestant catholic belief, that of transubstantiation.
I completely understand where you are coming from, I think. As I said, I have had some very mystical experiences within my church and have had my prayers answered by physical, spritual or material manifestation. Who is to say how the Holy Spirit moves through us and our clergy? I say it does and through some of us, often. I have seen proof of it.
Some people have not had these experiences and may be jealous or just not capable of having them so do not let this inhibit your communion with the Holy Spirit.

Blessings and Holdfast to your faith, Fortuna