Transubstantiation!!

Thank you

 

What we didn't deal with on this thread thoroughly:

1) Transubstantion of the Substances, while the external accidents remain unchanged. Isn't this Partial Transubstantiation or Dual Transubstantiation as it is limited to the Invisible part? In such case doesn't the doctrine itself deny the change of the visible substance? Nevertheless can we call it Transubstantiation still ?

2) What are the factors of Consecration? I have thought and heard that it is mainly the prayers and rituals by the priests (including lifting up the cookies). What makes the Bread and Wine consecrated?

3) How is the sharing of chalice among RC's?
Do the lay people not participate there throughout the year or throughout the world? Or are there any special occasions where lay people participate ?

 

I think nobody wants to post on this issue any more. Finally, I want to explain what is the right way of commemorating Lord's Supper from the biblical point of view:

I mentioned this on this thread before :


Lord's Supper has the meanings as follows:

1) Remembrance of Shedding Blood and Death of Jesus Christ at the Cross.
2) Communion with His Body and Blood ( 1 Cor 11:24, Eph 5:30)
3) Fellowship and oneness with the other believers ( 1 Cor 10:17)
4) Preaching the Death of Jesus until He comes again ( 1 Cor 11:26)
5) Makes the believers examine themselves about whether they are unworthy of the Bread and Wine, so that they can be spotless in the presence of God ( 1 Cor 11: 28-31)
6) It makes the believers separated from the world ( 1 Cor 11:32)
7) It enlightens us to look up for His coming back ( 1 Cor 11:26)
8) It reminds us of the Love of Christ (Luke 22:15
9) It reminds us that thereby we have entered a new covenant with Him ( Luke 22:20, Matthew 26: 28)
10) It reminds us that our sins were forgiven ( Matthew 26:28)
11) It reminds us that we died with Jesus Christ at the time when Jesus died at the Cross ( Galatian 2:20)

12) Everyone is the honorable guest for the Supper hosted by Lord Jesus Christ. It is not the priest that host the Lord's Supper, but Jesus Christ who loved us so much that he even died at the Cross, the terrible death.
No clergy system is involved in there.

One of the reason why so-called Plymouth Brethren do not pursue big size churches is because, if the church becomes too big, then all the participants cannot give thanks and praise the Lord at the Lord's Supper. In our church which has about 200 baptized members, I refrain from standing up for the prayer of giving thanks and praise more than once a month. We have no separation of Laymen and Clergy, because everyone is believed to be the priests ( 1 Peter 2:5-9)
So, so-called Plymouth Brethren emphasize not only the importance of spiritual conversion but also the formal rituals which are mentioned in the Bible as they teaches us about Jesus.
The minimum requirement for the Supper is that one should have been born again in Jesus Christ by Holy Spirit and should have been baptized.

 

Could you expand on what you understand by #2, please?

Do you want answers to these questions according to Catholic theology or that of some other denomination? I shall assume the former unless and until disabused of the assumption.

1. If I understand you aright, this is total transubstantiation.

2. The epiclesis : "Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ." As the prayer suggests, it is the Holy Spirit which does this consecration/ change, not the priest.

3. Since Vatican II it has become the custom for the laity to receive in utraque specie ie: they receive the chalice/wine/Blood as a matter of practice but as a matter of doctrine it is still the case the RCs believe that if you partake of one of the elements only, that is good enough to receive both Body and Blood (and, no, I don't understand how they come to that conclusion either )

 

This is from page one.

</font>[/QUOTE]Should we "believe" what the RC published in Catholic Digest as the "correct view" of the implication of their doctrine on bread-being-god being doctrinal error?

In other words - many non-Catholics reject the error of that doctrine - and yet when we do that - do we ALSO admit to the TRUTH of the statement above? IF they are in error on that doctrine THEN they ask that we consider how great the implication of such an error is!! I say we listen to them on that point!

 

...except I don't think that they are in error on that point. And, as I pointed out above, there is no 'confection of God by the priest', it is rather the Holy Spirit Who effects the change in the elements.

 

Mat I am not sure what he wants considering the fact he flat out stated that what Thomas Aquinas wrote is not transubstantation. I still can't believe eliyahu did that considering the fact it was Aquinas who formalized the doctrine.

 

#1. The "ideal case" is always the one where "you are right and not wrong". But you have to admit - a lot of people on this board have figured out that their claims to confect God are in error.

#2. As to the fact that this IS THE MAGIC POWER of the priest - NOTE that a priest who has ONCE been GIVEN that POWER does not LOSE THAT POWER when they defect from Christianity! When they are excommunicated it is THEY who RETAIN the power to "confect God".

As with all topics on the doctrines of the RCC - the less you know - the better they look

 

I can hear them now "I have the power Still!!"

The 'division' between sacred priesthood and profane laity introduced by the RCC was BASED n the dividing line between those that "had the power" to effect sacraments and those that did not.

 

Ah, transubstantiation...a Roman miracle indeed.

http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/homemake/romanmir.htm

 

Is the bread and wine used in communion symbolic? Well we can be certain it was the first time. Because it was given by the Lord Jesus Christ himself. And he didn't cut his flesh and he did not drain his blood. So we are absolutely certain the bread and wine used in communion was symbolic the first time it was introduced.

 

Yes, they are symbolic and the substances do not change, but we regard and take them as Body and Blood by faith.
The materials remain as they are, but when they come into our mouth, they are regarded as Body and Blood by our faith.

 

I have no scars on my hand and on my feet, but I believe that I was crucified with Christ at the Cross, by faith.

 

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. All who eat my flesh and drink my blood remain in me, and I in them. John 6:55-56

 

The Materials don't change as RC says the external accidents remain the same. If the substances are changed they can be tested at the Lab. But we take Bread and Wine regarding them as Body and Blood by faith as we believe that we were cruicified with Christ at the Cross ( Gal 2:20) even though we were not there and don't have the scars on our hands and feet. Any ritual process or so-called consecration process does'nt change the substance but the belief and faith let us take them as Body and Blood.
John 6 is about the Salvation, Being Born Again.

6:47 He that believeth on my hath everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life.
53 except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. ( If this means the Eucharist, no salvation would be possible even though someone believes in Jesus, unless she or he takes Eucharist). However, Robber has got the Salvation by faith, even though he had never participated in Eucharist.

63 The Words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.

By believing in Him, we eat His flesh.
Clearly, Believing in Jesus is equalized as Eating Flesh throughout John 6.

Robber at the Cross never had the Eucharist but he went to Paradise, without need to go to Purgatory!