Transubstantiation!!

Nope...it's pretty much classic transubstantiationism.

 

Oh good grief eliyahu, Aquinas is the man who developed the formalized doctrine of transubstantiation. You can ask any RCC theologian and they will tell you that.

 

C'mon people. Name calling only incites a riot.

Everyone has a right to believe anything they want--including nothing at all--it is called freedom of conscience. This is a notion completely foreign to "state religions".

Please respect everyone's right to their own belief. Point--counter point works just fine.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

I was not groundless about T Aquinas:

http://www.udayton.edu/mary/meditations/thomasaquinas.html

Our brother Thomas, one of the greatest lights of the Dominican Order, was profoundly devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary. His little known Marian thought has been gathered in a volume entitled Meditations by the Dominican, Fr. Mezard, O. P.1 These selections, "taken verbatum from Aquinas" Fr. Mezard tells us, were culled from the Summa,as well as from his Commentaries on the Hail Mary and the Gospel of St. John. They are arranged in the form of short readings to accompany the feasts and seasons of the liturgical year.

_________________
He may have believed in Omni-Presence of Mary, which is groundless. These types of people are so called Great Church Fathers !

 

What does this have to do with whether or not Aquinas is an accurate portrayal of the RCC teachings concerning Transubstantiation?

 

Chemnitz,

Wasn't it you or Alexander who quoted the followings?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Alexander stated is an accurate portrayal of the RCC teaching of Transubstantiation


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I answer that, It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after
the consecration. And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not
customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And therefore Christ's
flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which are the
more commonly used by men, namely, bread and wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament might be
derided by unbelievers, if we were to eat our Lord under His own species. Thirdly, that while we
receive our Lord's body and blood invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith.

Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica pg 3402
Summa Theologica - its a huge file
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

It was me. But I still don't see why Aquinas' position on Mary has anything to do concerning him being the premiere RCC theologian concerning Transubstantiation.

 

How could he pray to Mary and praise Mary if he believed she is dead?
Didn't he believe the Omni-Presence of Mary throughout the ages, throughout the spaces and locations? It means that he thought Mary is a deity - goddess. Could Mary hear the praise and prayer from Thomas Aquinas ?
In other words, what he thought and presented was absolutely heretic!

IMO, Thomas Aquinas was just a nice, inteligent sorcerer. Can any sorcerer present a correct commentary on the Words of God?

 

Eliyahu,

Mary is only dead to you. All the saints, Mary included, are alive in God's presence. In fact, I would say that the 'dead in Christ' who are 'alive in God' are MORE alive now than they ever were when they lived on earth.

Simply because the saints (and all the faithful departed) are alive in God does NOT mean they are 'omni-present'.

Alexander

 

Yes, all are alive to God, but to any human being they are dead because no one can reach them now. Could you talk to your ancestor now ?
Any prayer or praise to the dead except God and Jesus Christ makes no sense.

 

I am not saying he is correct in his interpretation just that he is an excellent example of what the RCC teaches concerning transubstantion.

Again I will ask you not to be insulting in refering to other people, unless you would like me to be insulting to you once again. I know you don't like people insulting you, so I can not fathom why you think you can get away with it. It only turns people off and lowers their opinion of you and your arguments.

 

Is it an insult if I tell someone who praise and worshipped Mary as Maria Worshipper?

Maybe your conscience is teaching you something.

 

No, you called him a sorcerer, which he wasn't and insulting and false to insinuate such about him. My conscience isn't telling me anything outside I hope I don't sound as childish as you.

 

What is the definition of Sorcerer? Didn't he call and praise and pray to the dead woman ? Only difference is how much it is beautified by the people. Maria worshipping is just a sorcery decorated and beatified by human theories
I don't find much difference between the sorcerers and idol worshippers.

 

THERE IS NO POWER IN THE COMMUNION WAFER ITSELF

Moses was divinely commanded to make a serpent of brass resembling the living ones, and to elevate it among the people. To this, all who had been bitten were to look, and they would find relief. He did so, and the joyful news was sounded throughout the encampment that all who had been bitten might look upon the brazen serpent and live. Many had already died, and when Moses raised the serpent upon the pole, some would not believe that merely gazing upon that metallic image would heal them; these perished in their unbelief. Yet there were many who had faith in the provision which God had made. Fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters were anxiously engaged in helping their suffering, dying friends to fix their languid eyes upon the serpent. If these, though faint and dying, could only once look, they were perfectly restored.

The people well knew that there was no power in the serpent of brass to cause such a change in those who looked upon it. The healing virtue was from God alone. In His wisdom He chose this way of displaying His power. By this simple means the people were made to realize that this affliction had been brought upon them by their sins. They were also assured that while obeying God they had no reason to fear, for He would preserve them.

The lifting up of the brazen serpent was to teach Israel an important lesson. They could not save themselves from the fatal effect of the poison in their wounds. God alone was able to heal them. Yet they were required to show their faith in the provision which He had made. They must look in order to live. It was their faith that was acceptable with God, and by looking upon the serpent their faith was shown. They knew that there was no virtue in the serpent itself, but it was a symbol of Christ; and the necessity of faith in His merits was thus presented to their minds. Heretofore many had brought their offerings to God, and had felt that in so doing they made ample atonement for their sins. They did not rely upon the Redeemer to come, of whom these offerings were only a type. The Lord would now teach them that their sacrifices, in themselves, had no more power or virtue than the serpent of brass, but were, like that, to lead their minds to Christ, the great sin offering.

"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness," even so was the Son of man "lifted up: that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." John 3:14, 15. All who have ever lived upon the earth have felt the deadly sting of "that old serpent, called the devil, and Satan." Revelation 12:9. The fatal effects of sin can be removed only by the provision that God has made. The Israelites saved their lives by looking upon the uplifted serpent. That look implied faith. They lived because they believed God's word, and trusted in the means provided for their recovery. So the sinner may look to Christ, and live. He receives pardon through faith in the atoning sacrifice. Unlike the inert and lifeless symbol, Christ has power and virtue in Himself to heal the repenting sinner.

While the sinner cannot save himself, he still has something to do to secure salvation. "Him that cometh to Me," says Christ, "I will in no wise cast out." John 6:37. But we must come to Him; and when we repent of our sins, we must believe that He accepts and pardons us. Faith is the gift of God, but the power to exercise it is ours. Faith is the hand by which the soul takes hold upon the divine offers of grace and mercy.

Nothing but the righteousness of Christ can entitle us to one of the blessings of the covenant of grace. There are many who have long desired and tried to obtain these blessings, but have not received them, because they have cherished the idea that they could do something to make themselves worthy of them. They have not looked away from self, believing that Jesus is an all-sufficient Saviour. We must not think that our own merits will save us; Christ is our only hope of salvation. "For there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12.

When we trust God fully, when we rely upon the merits of Jesus as a sin-pardoning Saviour, we shall receive all the help that we can desire. Let none look to self, as though they had power to save themselves. Jesus died for us because we were helpless to do this. In Him is our hope, our justification, our righteousness. When we see our sinfulness we should not despond and fear that we have no Saviour, or that He has no thoughts of mercy toward us. At this very time He is inviting us to come to Him in our helplessness and be saved.

 

Claudia,
Thanks for the post which I enjoyed reading.
As for the brasen serpent, we should remember that Israelites burnt the incense to it later on. therefore Hezkiah destroyed them.(2 Kings 18:4) Human beings are often vulnerable to idol worshipping.
Returning to the OP, I remember you pointed well that Being Born Again didn't mean the physical rebirth.
We should note that Jesus asked us to regard the Bread as Body, and Wine as Blood, which doesn't mean the change of any substance by the prayer of the priests.

Regarding A as B doesn't mean that Material A is transformed as Material B. Even though the materials remain the same, we regard them as the ones instructed.

 

Eliyahu, you are hopeless, you hate the fact that you were proven wrong concerning what transubstantiation is, so all you can do now is toss out empty insults.

Do you know any debating techniques outside of ad hominim?

 

Chemnitz,
Is this your debating technique ?

It is no wonder that Satan was able to trick you into doubting God's promises for you and thereby drive you to the brink of destruction said by Chemnitz.

You already lost the sense before you criticize me. Then I would render you the same as I don't have to invent a new insulting. I am learning from you the debating technique !

Satan was able to trick you into doubting God's promises for you and thereby drive you to the brink of destruction.

 

So, you believe that Disciples drank Blood !

You do not know how to regard A as B by faith as we read Romans 6:11.

I believe that I was crucified with Christ at the Cross ( Gal 2:20) Does it mean that I lived 2000 years ago and went to Calvary and was crucified there with Christ?

Do you believe Gal 2:20?

 

Claudia,

I absolutely agree with you.

THERE IS NO MAGIC IN THE COMMUNION WAFER! THERE NEVER WAS ANY MAGIC IN THE COMMUNION WAFER AND THERE NEVER WILL BE. NO HUMAN BEING - NO PRIEST, NO BISHOP, NO POPE - CAN SAY OR DO ANYTHING THAT MAKES MAGIC HAPPEN WITH THE COMMUNION WAFER.

God's promises are never magic. They are not supernatural.

God's promises are, however, deeply and mysteriously spiritual and are always true.

When God promises me and you and every Christian that we participate in our Lord's Body and Blood when we receive the sacrament, then you can rest assured that this is exactly what happens. How it happens is beyond my ability to comprehend. But my lack of comprehensioin IN NO WAY changes the fact that what God says He will accomplish in the sacrament is EXACTLY what He accomplishes.

Coupled with the fact that unworthy reception makes one guilty of profaning our Lord's Body and Blood, we have clear teaching from the apostle Paul about the nature of the sacrament.

The problem, as I understand it, with the symbolism/memorialism understanding, is that it is not Scriptural and cannot be reconciled with the Pauline teaching regarding the Sacrament AND our Lord's teaching in John 6.

Why do some (many?) of those who profess symbolism/memorialism AND who profess to believe in the literal interpretation of Scripture AND believe that they are absolutely faithful in their theology, suddenly start throwing in words and interpretations about the Eucharist that are simply not part of the Scriptural teaching? Where, in Scripture, does it ever state that the Eucharistic elements are symbols? (The answer is simple and summed up in one word: NOWHERE).

Alexander