Science vs Transubstantiation

[MikeS]

Originally posted by Rakka Rage:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The once-for-all sacrifice of Christ, re-presented to the Father unceasingly, day in, day out, for the people of God. Ain't it glorious!

no, it aint... it's disgusting unscriptural canabalisim/idolatry.

"ONCE for all"... thats your interp of once for all? "once-a-day, every-day" </font>[/QUOTE]It's a beautiful notion, one that gives me tingles just thinking about it.

The people of God participating in the same once-for-all sacrifice of Christ, located once in time and space in a bloody manner, and also located outside of time and place in the unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass. Not either-or, but both-and. Through Him, in Him, with Him, the people of God join with Christ the High Priest in the unceasing offering of His One Sacrifice to His, and our, Father in Heaven.

In all charity, your memorial is mighty thin gruel by comparison to The Real Thing.

 

[BobRyan]

Grant said --
My arguement of proving Jesus divinity still holds. If you HAD lived in the time of Jesus, and did see Him like those who saw Him did, you would have had no proof that He was God. None, except His testimony, or the testimony of those who had seen Him. Your argument about the past does not hold because if Jesus was here now, you still would not be able to prove His divinity.

Unfortunately - that does not work. Christ did not come to earth claiming "See my body THIS IS THE SUBSTANCE known as GOD. This is the SAME substance that God is composed of".

INSTEAD of that we find that "He EMPTIED HIMSELF - taking on the FORM (substance) of a bond-SERVANT TAKING ON the likeness of mankind -". Phil 2:7

So the "Substance" claim made by Christ would be - THIS FLESH is HUMAN flesh in SUBSTANCE.

Hmm - do you think we could "tell" that His statement was true? I do.

When He comes again - the claim will be "This the GLORIFIED form - and the SUBSTANCE is of GOD - " - Do you "think we will be able to Tell?". I do.

In the mean time you claimed that H20 as Ice or as water vapor is the SAME SUBSTANCE - H20. I claim that the SUBSTANCE H20 is "detectable" and that is a problem - since you desperately need Bread not to be "detectible in substance" so that when it doesn't change to Flesh - you can still claim that it chanched into flesh.

So you need another way to define water - the substance water.

Grant --
As for the water argument...

When I see a chair, even if I had never seen that particular chair in my life, I would be able to recognize it as such. Why? Because all chairs have certain properties that I can recognize, and yet, the chair I am viewing can be like no other. While it's form is different from all other chairs, it has the "substance" of a chair. ..

So what am I saying? The "chairness" of a chair is a mental construct.

Hmmmm- so you mean the meatness of bread becomes "evident" once the "breadness of bread" is changed into the "meatness of bread"?

I guess I would have to already be Catholic to have that sound convincing.

Grant said --

Thus, in the Eucharist, if God wishes to make the "substance" of the material on the alter "the Body and Blood of Christ," this can occur without a neccessary change in form

As in the case of the substance H20 in ice form changing to the substance NaCl (salt) without actually changing form eh?

But remember - substance has to be "undetectable" so that when it doesn't really change - you can still claim that it really changed. How are you making that case with H20?

In fact - where do you get the idea of "undetectible substance" from the Bible?

Grant said --
this can occur without a neccessary change in form
, and not just in mentality, because God's Word does not return to Him empty: it achieves what it sets out to accomplish.

Fine - where did God ever make the claim to "undetectible changes in undetectible substances"?

Having never made that claim in scripture - your argument above is a case of circular reasoning. It would be as if I said to you "See 2Thess 2 says the Catholic church is bad - and God's Word does not lie - so the RCC must really be bad". You would respond to me that "I have selected that meaning" for 2Thess 2 - and that I can't use "God's Word must be true" as a defense - since it is very debatable whether 2Thess 2 even mentions the Catholic church at all.

The same holds for your argument. God's word makes no mention of "undetectible changes in undectible substance".

Grant --
The substance, or the WHAT of the "object" is different, even though its form has not changed.

NOW, is this Catholic teaching? I doubt it. What I just wrote is overly complex and philisophical

Agreed.

Grant said -- This is my way of thinking through that which cannot really be thought through, because it is an article of faith, not science.

This is the very point I have been making - the RCC has foolishly selected something that is NOT spirit, that is NOT of faith, that is NOT simply of "belief" -- it has selected MATTER - SUBSTANCE and the Physical WORLD and wants to claim a "non-change" is a "change" IN The real SUBSTANCE of the matter present. It would be much better to stick to undetectible "soul" or "spirit" or "faith" or "belief" or "events in heaven that can't be seen or detected" - but taking a piece of bread and "pronouncing it meat" is right out there demonstratably false.

When Christ stood out in John 6 (BEFORE the Lords table) and said "My flesh is food" - The faithful loyal disciples did not "bite him". When He said "I am the bread that came down out of heaven" - He did not "appear as bread" NOR was He "changed in undectectible substance - into Bread".

The undetectible substance idea - is not claimed in scripture. The RCC may fabricate that idea - but it is based on tradition - not scripture.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
It is not difficult to understand, so long as you brush away 'the crap of religious dogma' so you can see the truth!

"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."

"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;"

"For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."

Only a tradition of men, formed for the purpose of opposing Catholicism, could deny the obvious meaning of these words. When you (in general, not you Yelsew in particular) are reduced to arguing what the meaning of the word "is" is, you need to take a deep breath and reconsider. Meanwhile, the banquet, as ever, awaits...

 

[Yelsew]

John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, of course, but the Word became Flesh!

Here's one more thought. Christ, the Lamb of God, was prefigured by the sacrificial passover lamb in the OT. There were two requirements regarding the passover lamb. It was to be slain, and it's flesh was to be eaten. Both actions were required for life. Surely the true, actual flesh of the Lamb of God was slain on the cross. Just as surely, it is the true, actual flesh of the Lamb of God that we are called to eat, this time for eternal life!

Once again, not either-or, but both-and.

"This is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to His supper!"

(Words spoken at every Mass after the bread and wine are consecrated)

 

[Rakka Rage]

In all charity, your memorial is mighty thin gruel by comparison to The Real Thing.

all memorials of Jesus sacrifice are by def thin compared to the real thing. are you saying your memorial is the same thing as Jesus dying?

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Rakka Rage:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In all charity, your memorial is mighty thin gruel by comparison to The Real Thing.

all memorials of Jesus sacrifice are by def thin compared to the real thing. are you saying your memorial is the same thing as Jesus dying? </font>[/QUOTE]No, because a re-presentation and a presentation are not equal events. And yet a re-presentation is much stronger than a representation.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Yelsew]

Well MikeS, It seems you have much to prove if you expect to convince any that you are eating the flesh of Jesus by consuming a wafer of wheat!

I consume "the Flesh", the real meat of Jesus Christ by devouring his Holy Word, and honoring him in rememberance through symbolically eating his flesh by consuming the wafer of wheat. I am taking into me through the Word, and not though a wafer, the real Jesus Christ.

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by Rakka Rage:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In all charity, your memorial is mighty thin gruel by comparison to The Real Thing.

all memorials of Jesus sacrifice are by def thin compared to the real thing. are you saying your memorial is the same thing as Jesus dying? </font>[/QUOTE]It's exactly the same Sacrifice. It's not the "same thing" because it was only presented once on the cross in a bloody manner, but it's the same Sacrifice, made present by the grace of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Read the Catholic Catechism.

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
Well MikeS, It seems you have much to prove if you expect to convince any that you are eating the flesh of Jesus by consuming a wafer of wheat!

I consume "the Flesh", the real meat of Jesus Christ by devouring his Holy Word, and honoring him in rememberance through symbolically eating his flesh by consuming the wafer of wheat. I am taking into me through the Word, and not though a wafer, the real Jesus Christ.

Not either-or, but both-and. We have both the Word of God (interpreted infallibly by the Church), and the very body, blood, soul and divinity of the Lamb of God as our food of eternal life.

Not either-or, but both-and. Not just symbol, but both symbol and reality at the same time.

 

[Rakka Rage]

It's exactly the same Sacrifice.

no, it aint

Read the Catholic Catechism.

make me

 

[Rakka Rage]

infallibly

the Catholic Church is not infallible

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=infallible

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by Rakka Rage:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It's exactly the same Sacrifice.

no, it aint

Read the Catholic Catechism.

make me </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sorry, I mistook you for somebody who was actually interested in answers to the questions you asked. What was I thinking?

 

[TP]

Greetings,

I did not read the pages and pages of response, only the first couple: Science CANNOT prove the incarnation. Even if Jesus was standing right here in front of us: His blood tests, and ALL other tests would say he was a normal human being, but we know that he was a divine person. If you deny the Eucharist, you are giving credence to ALL the arguements of those who deny the incarnation.

peace

 

[SolaScriptura in 2003]

TP:

Even if Jesus was standing right here in front of us: His blood tests, and ALL other tests would say he was a normal human being...

Those same tests would be able to prove that the wine was human blood, if it was.

If you deny the Eucharist, you are giving credence to ALL the arguements of those who deny the incarnation

NOPE! A change of physical substance (transubstantiation) is always provable/disprovable by science. That's what science deal in - physical substance. Whether or not the spirit that resides a certain body is divine or not, however, is far outside the scientific realm.

[ June 12, 2003, 01:19 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

[Alcott]

Originally posted by MikeS:
Only a tradition of men, formed for the purpose of opposing Catholicism, could deny the obvious meaning of these words. When you... are reduced to arguing what the meaning of the word "is" is, you need to take a deep breath and reconsider.

Hebrews 12:29-- for our God is a consuming fire.

James 4:8-- Draw near to God and He will draw near to you.

So we are to draw near to a consuming fire, since we are to draw near to God and that's what God is?

Or is "is" really is?

 

[BobRyan]

I did not read the pages and pages of response, only the first couple: Science CANNOT prove the incarnation. Even if Jesus was standing right here in front of us: His blood tests, and ALL other tests would say he was a normal human being

Your point fails "since" Christ was not born on earth claiming "My SUBSTANCE is the SUBSTANCE of what God is made of even though I happen to look like a human". Rather we find this claim

Phil 2:
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.


He condemned "Sin in the FLESH" Romans 8:1-3 not in "God Substance" as your illustration supposes.

And in fact that is exactly what we would have detected - HUMAN flesh. The "substance of human flesh" would not have been "undetectible".

But when He comes the 2nd time - He comes in "God Substance" not in human flesh --- are you saying you don't thing we will be able to tell that this is God - in God substance coming in the clouds of heaven?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[SolaScriptura in 2003]

Bob, I disagree with your last post. Jesus was/is both God and man at once, BUT neither His flesh was converted into Deity nor His deity into flesh - He had/has both at once. IN FACT, the Catholic position on the incarnation is supposed to be that God did not become flesh by conversion of the Deity into flesh, but by the taking of that manhood into the Deity. Why then do they constantly act as if transubstantiation and the incarnation are so related? Have they changed their mind and decides that the Deity was converted into flesh?

[ June 12, 2003, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by SolaScriptura in 2003:
The Catholic position is supposed to be that God did not become flesh by conversion of the Deity into flesh, but by the taking of that manhood into the Deity. Why then do they constantly act as if transubstantiation and the incarnation are so related?

Because they are articles of faith, something we can never prove but by our trust in God's Revelation.

God bless,

Grant

 

[SolaScriptura in 2003]

They are different though, do to the nature of the things.

(1) Incarnation - NO CHANGE IN PHYSICAL SUBSTANCE, but rather a personal union of Jesus as man and as God
(2) transubstantiation - CHANGE IN PHYSICAL SUBSTANCE

A change in physical substance falls within the realm of science, thus (2) can be demonstrated to be true or false via science.