Transubstantiation!!

[Matt Black]

It kind of originated with Zwingli owing to his misunderstanding of the Latin 'sacramentum' but didn't gain ground among evangelicals until the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

I've heard several theories for this 'gaining of ground': dispensationalism, fundamentalism, the rationalist-modernist influence of the Enlightenment, Finney-ite 'revivalism', etc. It may be a combination of all those factors.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Actually even the Baptists weren't wholly memorialist initially :-

London Baptist Confession (1689)
30. The Lord's Supper
There is only a memorial of that one offering up of Christ by Himself upon the cross once for all, the memorial being accompanied by a spiritual oblation of all possible praise to God for Calvary. Therefore, the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, being injurious to Christ's own sacrifice, which is the only propitiation for all the sins of the elect.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

But you can see from your own posting,

Apparently Baptists deny the Transubstantiation.
But you misunderstand the concept of Memorial, because it doesn't deny Bread and Wine mean the Body and Blood.

Also, you must not be confused between Transubstantiation and Real Presence of Christ who is Omni-Present everywhere and anytime in the world, which none of the true believers deny.

The real objection by the Believers is the claim that the materials are changed by the magic prayers of the Catholic priests, which might have been acceptable during the Dark Age when there was no way of testing the materials at the Lab.

Do you believe that the materials themselves are converted ? If you ddisbelieve it, why don't you condemn them as a superstitious Heresy ?

 

[Matt Black]

Firstly I would be wary of calling another Christian's belief 'heresy'. I personally don't believe in transubstantiation; I think it is the erroneous product of overly-rational medieval scholasticism. But I wouldn't condemn those who do believe it as it is a valid expression of the Real Presence doctrine, albeit one with which I disagree.

Whenever I have come across memorialism, it has denied that the Body and Blood of Christ are present/ received in the bread and wine. I take more issue with this stance than I do with transubstantiation. If you know of another type of memorialism, please clarify what you mean by that.

 

[Chemnitz]

Whenever I have come across memorialism, it has denied that the Body and Blood of Christ are present/ received in the bread and wine. I take more issue with this stance than I do with transubstantiation. If you know of another type of memorialism, please clarify what you mean by that.

There are memorialists on this board that claim that it is impossible for Christ to have His Body and Blood in multiple places.

 

[Eliyahu]

Transubstantiation is one thing and Real Presence is another !

One typical problem with RC logic is that if we deny Theotokos, then RC accuse us that we deny the deity of Jesus. Likewise, if we deny Transubstantiation, then RC accuse us of denying Real Presence.

1) Simply speaking Tr-n is wrong!
2) Mass asking for the forgiveness of sins is wrong, because they misunderstand Confession as Asking forgiveness, disbelieving the Forgivenss at the Cross once for All.

 

[Chemnitz]

Transubstantiation is one thing and Real Presence is another !

Are they? Transubstantiation is only a misunderstanding of Real Presence brought about by Thomas Aquinas' use of Aristotilian logic. Unlike memorialists who deny Christ's promises or worse state that He is incapable of keeping His promises, people who believe in transubstantiation at least acknowledge that Christ can and does keep His promise of giving His body and blood

One typical problem with RC logic is that if we deny Theotokos, then RC accuse us that we deny the deity of Jesus.

If you deny that Mary gave Birth to God and Man in Jesus then you are either denying the incarnation or the divine nature of Christ. What can be said about one can and must be said about the other lest you seperate the two natures into two different persons.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
The RCC says the RC Eucharist would be pure “idolatry” if non-Catholics are right about priests having no magic powers to “confect GOD”!

The Faith Explained – A bestselling RC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II by Leo J. Trese is promoted as “A standard reference for every Catholic home and library”. Complete with Papal Imprimatur -- Quote from page 350-351

Parenthetical inserts “mine”

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

The Faith Explained – Page 350

“On this, the last night before His death, Jesus is making His last will and testament.

Ibid. Page 351
A last will is no place for figurative speech (in the Catholic opinion); under the best of circumstances (human) courts sometimes have difficulty in interpreting a testator’s intentions aright, even without the confusion of symbolic language. Moreover, since Jesus is God, He knew that as a result of His words that night, untold millions of people would be worshipping him through the centuries under the appearance of the bread. if he would not really be present under those appearances, the worshippers would be adoring a mere piece of bread, and would be guilty of idolatry,. Certainly that is something that God Himself would set the stage for, by talking in obscure figurative speech.
…
IF Jesus was using a metaphor; if what He really meant was, “This bread is a sort of SYMBOL of My Body, and this is a SYMBOL of My Blood (not yet spilled – so they were not then participating in sacrifice); hereafter, any time that My followers get together and partake of the bread and wine like this, they will be honoring Me and representing My death”; if that IS what Jesus meant (as many protestants claim), then the apostles got Him all wrong (in the Catholic option here). And through their misunderstanding (can the Catholic document blame the Apostles instead of the Catholic church’s tradition that interjects this RC heresy?), mankind has for centuries worshiped A PIECE OF BREAD as God”

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Eliyahu]

I used to live in St. Catharines, Ontario some years ago, which is near from Niagara Falls.

At that time, my son attended a certain Catholic High School for one year because of the distance.
That Catholic school usually performed Eucharist every Friday.

Only the Catholic students were allowed to have the Eucharist. One day, the priest came and performed the Eucharist, but spilt Wine out of the cup. Then he shouted
" Oh Shit !"
Then, many students said " Wow !" and wondered saying, " Is that the right word for the priests to say in such circumstances ?"

Dear friends, who advocate Transubstantiation, would you comment whether Blood of Jesus become S-H-I-T in such case ?

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:

If you deny that Mary gave Birth to God and Man in Jesus then you are either denying the incarnation or the divine nature of Christ. What can be said about one can and must be said about the other lest you seperate the two natures into two different persons. [/QB][/QUOTE]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

You are trapped in Human Syllogism.
Human Syllogism doesn't work in God's Word.

Do you believe that God is Son of Mary ?

Do you say that Mary gave birth to Almighty God ?

Is your God the Son of Mary or the Creator of Mary ?

God is Omni-Present, Is Mary following God everywhere ?

 

[nate]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
You are trapped in Human Syllogism.
Human Syllogism doesn't work in God's Word.

Do you believe that God is Son of Mary ?

Do you say that Mary gave birth to Almighty God ?

Is your God the Son of Mary or the Creator of Mary ?

God is Omni-Present, Is Mary following God everywhere ?

1. You are trapped in your own flawed view of God's Word.
God is the Son of Mary in the form of Jesus Christ who was both God and man.

Is your God the Son of Mary or the Creator of Mary?

Both.

No why would Mary follow God everywhere you my friend are confused.

 

[nate]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
Dear friends, who advocate Transubstantiation, would you comment whether Blood of Jesus become S-H-I-T in such case ?

Absolutely not. No way. I believe in Real Presence but not in transubstantiation. I think everyone on the thread is defending Real Presence not transubstantiation.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by nate:
[/qb]

Absolutely not. No way. I believe in Real Presence but not in transubstantiation. I think everyone on the thread is defending Real Presence not transubstantiation. [/QB][/QUOTE]

I agree with Real Presence as Jesus is Omni-Present.
But some people, not only RC but also someone like Chemnitz may be defending Transubstantiation, as Lutheran Consubstantiation is similar to Transubstantiation.

Asserting Real Presence sounds like denying Omni-Presence of Jesus, because if anyone believes in His Omni-Presence, she or he doesn't have to mention Real Presence at the Lord Supper. His presence everywhere in the world is special and wonderful at any time throughout history. Do you believe this ?

 

[nate]

XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

This is basically my belief in the Lord's Supper.

 

[Melanie]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
I used to live in St. Catharines, Ontario some years ago, which is near from Niagara Falls.

At that time, my son attended a certain Catholic High School for one year because of the distance.
That Catholic school usually performed Eucharist every Friday.

Only the Catholic students were allowed to have the Eucharist. One day, the priest came and performed the Eucharist, but spilt Wine out of the cup. Then he shouted
" Oh Shit !"
Then, many students said " Wow !" and wondered saying, " Is that the right word for the priests to say in such circumstances ?"

Dear friends, who advocate Transubstantiation, would you comment whether Blood of Jesus become S-H-I-T in such case ?

What an incredible blasphemy.....I truely hope he was reported to his bishop and removed or at least censured appropriately.....I can scarcely believe it, however the church is fallible in her people......oh my oh my.....

 

[Bro. James]

Performing eucharist on Friday---

Was this before or after eating meat on Friday was a mortal sin? If the priestly function was invalid, what about all those poor souls who did not really receive the real presence in all those invalid masses? Now what?

Legalism is an insidious doctrine which permeates most of Christendom.

If a layperson, consecrated of course, can administer baptism under extreme circumstances, without a "priest" present, why cannot that same layperson say the words which change the bread into flesh and the wine into blood?

Jesus paid it all.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Eliyahu]

B-G,

Even the people of our church would not like to mention about it. The name of the school became very much famous before that event, because of the bizarre murder accident called "Homolka" case. In Canada nobody doesn't know about it as the offender (girl student at that time) assisted the murderer by inducing her friends at the school and took the video on the scenes.

Bad peoples are everywhere in the world, even in Protestant churches and therefore this type of event cannot be an issue to discuss here. I just mentioned it as an example that not everyone (or not the majority) considers Bread and Wine so much consecreated or holy as required in the Bible.

If we can commemorate the Supper as remembered by Thomas A Kempis, it will be fine.

 

[nate]

XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

Eliyahu I repost this because I'm wondering do you see anything wrong with my view of the Lord's Supper?

 

[Eliyahu]

If you can say that

The mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

Then Transubstantiation occurs in the moment of eating by faith, not by the magic performance of the priests.

Then I think it is a matter of faith.
When we eat the Bread (not the flesh) by faith, we eat the body of Christ by faith. Then I think it will be OK.

Otherwise, if you say there should be involved the Priests, such Priests are not mentioned in NT because all the believers are the true Priests as we read 1 Peter 2:5-9.

 

[nate]

No I don't think a priest praying over the substances makes them become the literal flesh and blood. I believe it is by the faith of the individual believe or one could say priest as we endorse the individual priesthood of the believer.

 

[Eliyahu]

I don't think RC maintain or accept your idea. They believe and perform the transubstantiaton through the prayer of Priests.