Science vs Transubstantiation

While I agree that we cannot prove items of our faith, I still don't like the term "blind leap." (Although that is the first time I have ever heard of scrunched-eyed faith. ) It isn't a blind or even scrunched-eyed faith. There is a surety and coviction to our faith.

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Hebrews 11:1, NIV

Some translations say substance and evidence. There is clearly something that our faith is built upon that we can understand. And while we cannot prove our faith, the evidence is clear even to unbelievers. The evidence is there but they choose to reject it.

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:18-20, NIV

It is clear that everyone is without excuse and that God has given more than enough evidence for the reasonableness of our faith. Yes, we have to have faith that what God has said is true, but He has given the evidence to justify that belief.

Neal

P.S. I was trying to incorporate the KKK or 666 in the post but couldn't do it so that it wouldn't stand out like a sore thumb.

[ June 17, 2003, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

My apologies to John and other Lutherans (at least, ELCA and LCMS, since that is who I looked up).

From LCMS.org:

Consubstantiation.

View, falsely charged to Lutheranism, that bread and body form 1 substance (a ?3d substance?) in Communion (similarly wine and blood) or that body and blood are present, like bread and wine, in a natural manner. See also Grace, Means of, IV 3.

However the denial, I still am baffled that you reject it, considering consubstantiation simply states that the bread and wine and body and blood are all physically present, although only the bread and wine are visible. The denial seems to just be that Lutherans do not wish to put a name or explanation to the belief.

Of course, being raised LCMS, I could have sworn this term was used (because I was familiar with it well before I looked into Catholicism). I will ask my old pastor about it next time I go home.

Again, sorry for the false accusation!

God bless,

Grant

 

Consubstantiation is rejected by the Lutheran Confessions:

They confess, according to the words of Irenaeus, that in this Sacrament there are two things, a heavenly and an earthly. Accordingly, they hold and teach that with the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, offered, and received. And although they believe in no transubstantiation, that is, an essential transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, nor hold that the body and blood of Christ are included in the bread localiter, that is, locally, or are otherwise permanently united therewith apart from the use of the Sacrament, yet they concede that through the sacramental union the bread is the body of Christ, etc. [that when the bread is offered, the body of Christ is at the same time present, and is truly tendered]. 15]For apart from the use, when the bread is laid aside and preserved in the sacramental vessel [the pyx], or is carried about in the procession and exhibited, as is done in popery, they do not hold that the body of Christ is present.
Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 1580

 

John,

Just for clarification...

The Body and Blood of Christ is only present when it is received by the communicant, IN FAITH, not before partaking, not after partaking, and not if receieved without faith?

God bless,

Grant

 

The presence of the Body and Blood of Christ does not depend on the faith of the communicant. Those who lack faith receive the sacrament to their judgment that can lead to eternal damnation.

However, the Body and Blood of Christ is not present when there is no intention to receive the sacrament. This is the case for certain Protestant sects who celebrate a memorial meal only. This is also the case when the bread and/or wine is paraded about with no intention to receive the sacrament. Do Catholics still do that?

However, this blessing, or the recitation of the words of institution of Christ alone does not make a sacrament if the entire action of the Supper, as it was instituted by Christ, is not observed (as when the consecrated bread is not distributed, received, and partaken of, but is enclosed, sacrificed, or carried about), but the command of Christ, This do (which embraces the entire action or administration in this Sacrament, 84] that in an assembly of Christians bread and wine are taken, consecrated, distributed, received, eaten, drunk, and the Lord's death is shown forth at the same time) must be observed unseparated and inviolate, as also St. Paul places before our eyes the entire action of the breaking of bread or of distribution and reception, 1 Cor. 10, 16. Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, 1580.

As to the moment of the Real Presence, it is enough to know that the Body and Blood of Christ is truly distributed and received.

 

Sola,

I am not glib of tongue enough to convince you of anything!

Therefore, I must rely upon the holy Spirit to come into your heart and have you enlighted on something I am totally and completely incompetant to explain to you!

Come, holy Spirit!

God bless,

PAX

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary;
For those who do not believe, no proof is possible."

 

Hi Sola,

You wrote, "Putnam, do you really think I'm going to believe your medieval fantasy? It's not different than the lunatics today who see "Mother" Teresa's face in donuts."

Kind of like that Palestinian fantasy that God became a man through a virgin teenager, performed numerous miracles, died, rose, and then ascended to heaven?

The Incarnation? The Virgin Birth? The Resurrection? Miracles? Hogwash!

Do you really think we're supposed to believe these pre-critical Palestinian fantasies? It's no different than the lunatics today who claim miraculous healings.

Or is it?

 

Perfect reply, Carson! Absolutely perfect!

By the way, did I tell you about that "miracle" down the road? Something like seeing an image of the Blessed Virgin on a tortilla?

Private reveleations (no matter how rediculous they are) are equated with the very words of Jesus Christ?

Carson, now you now why I became a Catholic back in 1953! And there is no doubt I have been "at home" ever since!

You are a blessing to this conference, Carson! And that has got to mean something from this old man now!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Blest be God.
Blest be his holy name.
Blest be Jesus Christ, true God and true man.
Blest be the name of Jesus.
Blest be his most sacred heart.
Blest be his most precious blood.
Blest be Jesus in the most holy sacrament of the altar.
Blest be the Holy Spirit, the Consoler.
Blest be the great Mother of God, Mary most holy.
Blest be her holy and immaculate conception.
Blest be her glorious assumption.
Blest be the name of Mary, virgin and mother.
Blest be Saint Joseph, her most chaste spouse.
Blest be God in his angels and in his saints.

- The Divine Praises -

 

Okay, that makes much more sense to me.

Yes, we still do that!

Here is my new dilema, though. I know for a fact that (at lesat some) Lutheran ministers take communion to the sick. Are you telling me that from consecration, to distributing to the communicants, to carrying it to the sick, to the sick receiving, that Christ physcially unites himself with the bread and wine, then leaves, then comes back? Or is he present the whole time until the sick person receives it?

Also, on a side note, where in Scripture can you get that Christ, who you agree said "This IS My Body," and meant it, also meant that at another point, "This won't be My Body anymore!" In short, where is the Scriptural evidence for this?

Sorry, another question. When does it, roundabouts, become the Body and Blood of Christ? The Words of Consecration? Or does it happen more during the actual distribution?

God bless you,

Grant

 

Wputnam,

Sorry to be so long in responding, but I have been swamped the last few days with rescue mission work.

But here goes with my response to your "posted June 16, 2003 06:37 PM "

Huh?

No, all I am saying is, when we go to communion, we acdrtually receive Jesus' body and blood.

What was once bread and wine, is no longer bread and wine, but actually Jesus' body and blood.

What we taste is the "accidents," of what used to be bread and wine, but is no longer bread and wine. Our senses therefore deceive us is what it is we are receiving (the action of the flesh) but intellectually, we know, by faith, that it is really Jesus' body and blood (the spirit part.)</font>[/QUOTE]Then you accept the Words of Jesus, but do not apply the context to them. Jesus who was in his "real" body and blood declared the bread and wine on the table before him to be his body and blood. You see, Jesus' body and blood was destined for the Cross, the altar of sacrifice, to be sacrificed for the sins of the world. He was not altering bread into flesh or wine into blood, he was declaring them to be substitutes for his real body and blood to teach his disciples a way of remembering what it is He was going to do for all mankind. He did not assign any powers to the bread or the wine so that they would transubstantiate upon consumption to nourish or become part of the bodies and blood of those who consumed them. He painted us a glorious picture of remembrance which does the same thing for the one who eats the substitutes as the Rosary does for the one who uses it, that is "remembrance" of specific prayers, each bead being a memory jogger.

Since you insist on believing that you are "tasting the flesh and the blood" of Jesus, you should be made aware that the occult does the same thing. Which came first? Who knows, but the fact is clear that both good and evil do the same thing, they deceive themselves, which is what "transubstantiation" is, a total deception, you said so yourself!

"Unworthily" means that the one partaking of the substitutionary elements has in his heart a spot or blemish that the partaker does not want to wash clean, a grudge, or unsettled issue, if you will. Therefore Sin remains in the partaker's heart. And, that is why one who is convicted of sin is not supposed to partake, but to leave his offering at the altar, go to the one with whom there is a grudge or unsettled issue and resolve it first, then return to the Altar and offer the sacrifice with a clean heart (clear conscience).

The partaking of the substitutionary elements is directly equivalent to the OT substitutionary animal sacrifice. It was and is viewed as an Holy event, and the one who offers the sacrifice is required to do so with a clean heart else the sacrifice is not acceptable to Holy God, but is instead an abomination. So you see, it matters not that the elements are substitutes because they are mere symbols of the reality of the spirit in which the receiving of the elements represents the recieving of the real flesh and blood of the HOLY Son of God sacrificed for us. To hold a grudge or an unsettled issue between yourself and another is sin, so you are recieving the HOLY, pure and clean, into a dirty, UNWORTHY receptical therefore bringing damnation upon one's self for so doing.

Neither did the spotless lamb or other "worthy substitute" become the real flesh and blood of the one who offered it for atonement of sin, but the blood of the lamb was accepted by God in lieu of the blood of the sinner, just as the precious blood of God's only Son has been accepted by God in our stead. In the OT, God no longer held the sinner accountable for the sins that were atoned by the substitute! Likewise, God no longer holds our sins against us because He has accepted the precious blood of His only Son as payment for our sins!

Just as the OT blood sacrifice of innocent animals was a substitute for the blood of the sinner, the blood of Jesus, God's only begotten Son, is the direct substitute for our blood. Remember the wage of sin is death! But the gift we receive out of the Grace of God is his Precious Son who atoned for our sin. Jesus paid the WAGE once-for-ALL, so that we would not be condemned by our sin. Thus, we are not condemned by our sin, but rather in our failing to believe in Jesus, even on his name, which is our salvation. Thus the flesh and blood of Jesus is the substitute for our own flesh and blood.

Jesus made "bread and wine" the memorial of his "flesh and blood", a remembrance device (gimick) like that of the rosary which is a gimick for remembrance. Thus when we partake of the bread and wine in remembrance of the Real flesh and Blood of Jesus we are reminded of his Substitutionary sacrifice in our stead. We are not continuing to crucify Jesus in order to eat his real flesh and real blood through transubstantiation, which is "the changing of one reality into another reality". We "consume" the one reality in our physical body. We "accept" the other higher reality in our spirit.

You may continue to crucify Jesus over and over as you wish, in order to eat and drink His 'real' flesh and blood. That is what the pagans do. OR, you can accept what the scriptures teach us, as I have stated herein, realizing that Jesus' Once-for-ALL sacrifice on the cross is a done deal that we celebrate in remembrance by consuming the substitues that Jesus gave us in the place of his 'real' body and blood. You see, Jesus knew that His "real" body and blood would not be available for us to continue to consume for 2000 years. Therefore we have bread and wine, those renewable substances that are available to us year after year, to be mere reminders of the Once-for-ALL real body and blood that was sacrificed in our stead.

"Worthiness" has nothing to do with the elements, but rather the "heart of the one partaking of the substitutionary elements. God is not interested in the bread wafer or the sip of wine or grape juice, he is interested in the faith condition of the one who eats and drinks the memorial substitutes of His Son's flesh and blood. You want to make of them something that Jesus did not!

Jesus declared the bread and wine to substitute for his own flesh and blood. His real body and blood at the time were destined to the cross, and were not available to his disciples for consumption any more than they are available for us to consume today.

He declared that bread represents his 'real' flesh, and that wine represents his "real" blood. Yes, his words can be interpreted literally, as you do, but the disciples who did not understand fully at the time, did not subsequently interpret his words as you do! If one does interpret his words in this instance literally, then one must interpret all of his words literally. Can you imagine the chaos that would cause in the Catholic church? Jesus used figurative speach in declaring that the lowly bread and wine were his real and actual flesh and blood. Believe it or not!

I do not see that this thought has any bearing on the discussion, you threw it in as diversion.

Firstly, the Roman church is a denomination, a branch of the true "catholic" (universal) faith. The Catholic church has at it's core the same tenets of the faith that ALL Christian denominations, regardless of origin, have. It is those universal truthes by which it is called Christian.

The Roman Catholic Church is not the "true church" any more than the Methodist Church or the Presbyterian, or the Jerusalem Church is the "true church". By what ever means it happened and for what ever reason it happened, the present Roman Catholic Church usurps the role of the true church by declaring it's self to be the true church. Historically speaking the Roman Church can trace it's roots back to the original 12 apostles, but in so doing, it simply is declaring what all true Christians can do! Can all true Christians follow an ancestry tree? Yes, but for what reason? We know that our Root is Jesus, so there is no reason to pass back through time and humanity to find a root! I possess documentation that traces my familiy lineage back over 1000 years to the then King of Ireland (at least one of them). Though it is interesting reading in spots, it is of no possible value to me or to my children or their children. The same applies to the present day Roman Catholic Church. Historical Lineage is of no value to any excepting those who claim BOASTING RIGHTS. As for me, my boasting rights are in Jesus alone!

Secondly, Jesus did not establish the Roman Catholic Church! Jesus established "the Christ-ian Church" which is comprised of ALL who believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the Christ, and who adhere to His teachings. In core Tenets of the Catholic Church there are the teachings of Jesus preserved by faithful men in obedience to the Holy Spirit, none of us deny that. However, the True church of Jesus Christ is not comprised of flesh and blood, but of spirit! The spirits of all men who believe in Jesus the Christ are members of the True church of Jesus Christ regardless of the denominational affiliation with which they may worship God.

Thirdly, there has been a catholic (meaning universal) Christian Church with some of its membership within the Roman Catholic Church from the beginning of the Roman church which did not exist until after the first and possibly into the fourth an fifth generation of the original Christian church had died. Your claims aside, there is no foundation upon which the Roman church was built. However, there is a foundation upon which the Christ-ian church is built, and that foundation is quite simply the Everlasting Rock of our Salvation, the Person of Jesus, who is the Son of God, and who is the Christ. The last time I checked the Roman Church claims to be founded upon Peter, who never set foot in Rome!

 

http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?Category=8&ID=105419&r=1

 

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the faithLESS disciples take the RC POV in John 6.

The faithFULL disciples - take no BITE out of Christ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again Bill -- it's in the "details".

In John 6 Christ said "MY FLESH IS FOOD indeed" and "You must EAT my flesh and Drink My blood" to obtain eternal life.

Catholics argue that this is to be taken "literally".

Non-Catholics typically argue that this is symbolic SINCE as Christ stated "literal FLESH is WORTHLESS" in this regard - but that "My WORDS are SPIRIT and are LIFE".

He directs to the LITERAL source of LIFE in His own summary.

And of course the book's author - John left us with "no doubt" when he starts us off with "The WORD became FLESH".


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text of John 6 does not in any way what you claimed here: Bill said -- "What Jesus is saying is, that only the spirit can understand the things of the spirit,".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instead of making up the phrase above - what about sticking to the following

63 "" It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing;
the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

It would not make "your point above" but it makes the summary point perfectly for John 6.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is not a quote from John 6 and it is not found in all of John 6 - nor is it exegesis of anything in John 6. Lacking the text - you simply make it up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope. Not for a second. You are the one that said THIS is what Christ said.

Any time you want to start exegeting the text - please feel free. But just making stuff up is "not" like "you guys explaining the text" as you suggest.


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now - what does the text "really say"? After arguing the case for half the chapter that the only way to get eternal life was to eat his flesh right then and there because He flesh was ALREADY food - Christ gives HIS own summary (which is nothing remotely like "only the spirit CAN UNDERSTAND the things of the spirit")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure I have given the reason. The reason is that the ones that left took the Catholic view. The ones that stayed took Christ to be referring to "HIS WORDS as the SOURCE of LIFE" rather than "LITERALLY biting his FLESH as the source of LIFE".

Christ gave the correct literal view when after SPEAKING of flesh so repeatedly He adds "The FLESH is worthless".

Just as He does in John 11 after saying "Lazarus is ASLEEP I go that I make WAKE him" he then says "Lazarus IS DEAD".

Same exact pattern.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He actually shows the REAL way to get life -

"63 "" It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter is NOT saying "To whom shall we go to figure out what you are talking about"!

Peter said that they would not leave like the FaithLESS disciples because they already figured out that Christ had "The WORDS of LIFE" just as HIS OWN summary stated.

They were not going to "bite the FLESH" because the FaithFUL ones that stayed - got the message. No forks, no knives, no biting. Christ pointed them to His WORD as the SOURCE of LIFE - not biting on His literal flesh.

The RC argument is that the faithFUL disciples were confused.

They were not! They accepted Christ there and then - as the ONE with the WORDS that bring LIFE - and they accepted that the "FLESH profits NOTHING".


The faithFUL disciples "got it".

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And given that John OPENS the book with "The WORD became FLESH and dwelt among us" - anyone using even a smattering of exegesis sees this and says "I get it!".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes and no. Philipians 2 says "Christ EMPTIED HIMSELF" to become found in the form of a man. Prior to that He was in the FORM of God.

We see Christ coming to Earth at Sinai in the FORM of God - considerably "different" result.

Lets put your statement to the test shall we?

Lets take a look at "the details" in John 6.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Since Bill has rightly pointed us to John 6 as "key" in this discussion - might as well post it "again".

It way toooo long - I know - but why "talk about" John 6 and then not "look at the details"?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Substitute for Christ? "Vicar of Christ" EGADS!

I'm thoroughly impressed with this. Glad that finally came out of a non-Catholics' mouth.

God bless,

Grant

 

Substitute for Christ? "Vicar of Christ" EGADS!

I'm thoroughly impressed with this. Glad that finally came out of a non-Catholics' mouth.

God bless,

Grant </font>[/QUOTE]You will notice that I did not say that, 'the substitutes that Jesus declared' replaced him on the cross, or superseded him as head of the church, or atone for the sins of mankind, etc'. So those substitutes can IN NO WAY no way be "Vicar of Christ". Shucks, they cannot even be "vicar of the flesh and blood of the Christ's body", using the definition I chose to use, which is substitute. They are mere symbols, and symbols in themselves have no power whatever.

As for the Rosary and its symbolism, Jesus chastises all who use vain repititious prayers. It is such vain repetitious prayer that the Rosary reminds one to engage in. Therefore the Rosary is worthy of being castigated as non scriptural!

 

I hear much ado about vain repetition. Is anything said in the Bible about repetition itself? Just repetition...not VAIN repetition.

There is no vanity in the Rosary. In it, our thoughts are directed to the birth and life, Passion and death, and Ressurection and Ascension of Jesus. Is focusing one's thoughts on these things VAIN?

 

Yes, we still do that!
</font>[/QUOTE]It is crass idolatry to worship bread.

Here is my new dilema, though. I know for a fact that (at lesat some) Lutheran ministers take communion to the sick. Are you telling me that from consecration, to distributing to the communicants, to carrying it to the sick, to the sick receiving, that Christ physcially unites himself with the bread and wine, then leaves, then comes back? Or is he present the whole time until the sick person receives it?

Also, on a side note, where in Scripture can you get that Christ, who you agree said "This IS My Body," and meant it, also meant that at another point, "This won't be My Body anymore!" In short, where is the Scriptural evidence for this?

Christ says, “This do.” At any celebration of the Holy Supper, all actions instituted by Christ including the consecration must be completed. If Lutheran ministers are omitting the Verba, they are doing so contrary to Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.

The remaining elements that were not used for their intended purpose, whether or not the Body and Blood of Christ is truly present, we should treat with the utmost respect as items dedicated to God’s service.

Sorry, another question. When does it, roundabouts, become the Body and Blood of Christ? The Words of Consecration? Or does it happen more during the actual distribution?

This question has been fiercely debated by Lutherans for years. That’s why I answered the way I did. To me, it is enough to know that the Body and Blood of Christ is truly distributed and received.

 

John,

I thank you for your reply, but you did not answer the most important question: Bread and wine to be taken to the sick. Is the Body and Blood present at the consecration, or does it not become present until the sick, at a later date/time receive it?

God bless,

Grant