Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This is true of the word "Transubstantiation". The word attempts to describe in human terms something divine that happens. So the word is inadequate, just as the word "resurrection" is inadequate to define what happened to Jesus on Easter Sunday.Transubstantiation is a specific view on the Christian doctrine of the Real Presence. As a theological and philosophical approach to the Real Presence Transubstantiation is a product of late medieval Scholasticism.
The Christian doctrine of the Real Presence was "invented" by Jesus Christ when at His Last Supper He took bread and wine and said they were His body and blood.
-CryptoLutheran
1.Jesus did. 2. It is an unbloody representation of a bloody Sacrifice. It's the same sacrifice.True, which is why time travel movies never work. Let me ask two questions:
1. When was it first elucidated that with the eucharist came forgiveness of sins?
2. If Christ's sacrifice is bloody, is the Eucharist a bloody or unbloody sacrifice?
Not only that, but since Christ is divine, had he drank the cup, he would still have never drank any animal or human blood.
But, Peter was being honest. He had never drank any animal's or human's blood.
Every Sacrament forgives sins, because every Sacrament calls on the Holy Spirit to act.
Yes, the real presence is there but there is no mention of sins being forgiven by partaking in the Eucharist. In fact, he clearly ascribes this power to the sacrament of baptism in the quote you provided, but appears unaware of that same detail when speaking of the Eucharist.
God bless,
Craib
Good guess, but wrong. Even the Pharisees thought that Jesus did the work of the devil.The devil?
We have hosts that are made specifically for those with wheat allergies. Also, you may partake of just the Precious Blood in such a case.Well, I think in apologetics we get all complicated talking about penitential rites and such, because the real issue is can a Christian have sins forgiven without partaking in the Eucharist for a plethora of legitimate reasons. This is ultimately not an issue over the Real Presence, but it is one that deals with soteriology and it shows how vast the difference is between Catholicism and Protestantism.
So, I will give a reason right now why I cannot partake in the Roman Eucharist. It is made of wheat bread. I am allergic to bread. So, even if the species of the bread is Christ, the accidens are sufficient to make me sick. Now, if I were a devout Roman Catholic, this would bother me simply because of the teaching that I should partake in the sacrament as the means God has given me to absolve post-baptismal sins. It is better to live and pain and die young, and avoid undo time in purgatory.
Yet, I can even argue as a Catholic that I do not need to take part in the sacrament if I desire to take part. As Aquinas writes, "And it has been said above (Question 68, Article 2), that before receiving a sacrament, the reality of the sacrament can be had through the very desire of receiving the sacrament."
So, at its very core, the technical Catholic answer is in reality no different than the Protestant one. Your sins are forgiven by faith. If you flout God's commands and don't desire to partake in sacraments, then you don't really have faith at all. If your desire is reflective of a true faith, then this faith is the means in which one is given the grace of forgiveness by God.
Honestly, I find it unnecessarily confusing and I think it is deliberately so. Their reason for this hits THE VERY CORE of the Protestant-Catholic schism. Protestants believe we are justified by faith in Christ. We don't believe grace can be lost as long as one perseveres in the faith. The Catholic Church teaches, “Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification” (CCC 1446).
So, in reality, my faith is not good enough. My penance must not only be a broken and contrite heart, but it has to take the shape and the form of the choosing of the Catholic Church, because the Catholic CHurch can bind and loose.
WOuld the above be sufficiently accurate? If so, I will talk about the early church, penance, and transubstantiation, which is the topic of this thread.
Why would the bread and wine change when Christ was still there? Secondly, just because they look the same doesn't mean they are. Christ did not look divine, and yet He is.There are several problems with the RCC interpretation of the Last Supper. The most obvious is that there is absolutely no indication that the bread and wine changed at the Last Supper. The same is true today at Mass. The bread and wine before and after look exactly the same. They smell, feel and taste the same. All empirical evidence points to the fact that they do not change at all. The RCC uses a theory called "transubstantiation" to explain why this "miracle" cannot be seen.
They got this from Aristotle who taught that all matter consists of "accidents" and "substance". Accidents are the outward appearance of an object and substance is its inner essence.
The theory of transubstantiation says that at the consecration of the Mass, the substance of the bread and wine change while their accidents remain the same.
1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."202 "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."203
1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion.
Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:
It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.204
And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:
Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.205
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206
1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.207
The second problem with this interpretation is that it requires the eating of human flesh. For a Jew to drink human blood would have been more than repulsive (according to the Mosaic Law, it would have been unlawful). Where was the heated discussion about drinking blood and eating flesh? But, this is what the disciples did at the Last Supper. They ate human flesh and drank human blood.
Paul proclaimed later, in Acts 10:14
"But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean."
Acts_17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
Who came up with transubstantiation? I think it was Simon the Magician of Acts 8. He liked to perform magic tricks. He also visited Rome.
What about the Last Supper? That's what the 'very act of communion' is modeled after.The very act of communion was an invention of Paul, against the directive of Jesus, so you can expect all kinds of bizarre practices and beliefs that go with it in the course of time!
What about the Last Supper? That's what the 'very act of communion' is modeled after.
Who came up with transubstantiation? I think it was Simon the Magician of Acts 8. He liked to perform magic tricks. He also visited Rome.
Ritual is not meaningless when those involved know what it is. People here recite the Pledge of Allegiance and the Star Spangled Banner without understanding what was involved in them, but that is not the fault of those who died for our freedom.The significance of the communion is spiritually interpreted in John 6:32 to 58. That is how the chosen apostles observed. Paul started a meaningless ritual instead, without knowing the spiritual significance. The published book "Did Saint Paul Deviate From the Gospel?" deals with this in detail.
Ritual is not meaningless when those involved know what it is. People here recite the Pledge of Allegiance and the Star Spangled Banner without understanding what was involved in them, but that is not the fault of those who died for our freedom.
Paul didn't start anything. He recorded in his letter what the ritual means. Jesus started the ritual.
By the way John 6:32-58 is not just spiritual...
Right! Ha, ha. The fact that the Last Supper was done on Passover indicates that it was to celebrate the Passover, which is a remembrance of that day. He is the sacrificial Lamb of God. Paul knew the significance, but didn't invent it.Proclamation of death is not a big deal as per the ritual started by Paul! Jesus never said that to observe in remembrance of His death. It was Paul's invention!
Right! Ha, ha. The fact that the Last Supper was done on Passover indicates that it was to celebrate the Passover, which is a remembrance of that day. He is the sacrificial Lamb of God. Paul knew the significance, but didn't invent it.
Jesus did not put an end to ritual, at all. In fact, the Apostles turned to ritual when they were so confused after Jesus' death. Jesus instituted the Eucharist. Paul received it from Jesus and wrote to the Corinthians about it. Paul didn't create any doctrines in his letters, he corrected errors in the thought of the faithful.Please note that what Jesus celebrated was a preparation of the Passover the previous day as per the observance of Judaism. The next day was the Passover. Jesus put an end to all kinds of rituals by the final supreme sacrifice. The significance of the communion now became the celebration of risen Lord though it costed His life. Being a Pharisee, Paul was bogged down with his ritualistic mindset in the early part of his ministry. His wisdom allowed him to come up a solution in the notorious Corinthian church.
Jesus did not put an end to ritual, at all. In fact, the Apostles turned to ritual when they were so confused after Jesus' death. Jesus instituted the Eucharist. Paul received it from Jesus and wrote to the Corinthians about it. Paul didn't create any doctrines in his letters, he corrected errors in the thought of the faithful.
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but you're wrong. Marriage is a ritual, among others. The apostles celebrated the Eucharist as Jesus showed them. A ritual.Jesus clearly said that one should worship God in spirit and truth. That puts and to all external rituals. Apostles did not turn to rituals; they only went back to their livelihood practices. The apostles present during the Last Supper do not indicate that be observed as a remembrance of His death. It was self-claim of Paul as usual!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?