Transubstantiation!!

Chemnitz,

Excellent! I was about to post similar thoughts and you beat me to it.

No one who believes in symbolism/memorialism has EVER explained in ANY discussion I've been part of, how it is that by eating and drinking the bread and wine of the Eucharist is guilty of profaning our Lord's body and blood.

IF the bread and wine are only symbols/memorials, then eating them unworthily might be wrong but it would, at the most, be disrepectful of the symbol.

Since it is absolutely clear that the Apostolic teaching is that eating and drinking unworthily is a prafaning of our Lord's body and blood, why can't the memorialists accept the clear teaching of Scripture? Aren't they the ones who so often say: "God said it. I believe it. That settles it."? Why can't they say, with St. Paul and the ancient church: The cup of the Lord is participation in his blood and the bread is participation in his body, and to eat them unworthily is profaning the Body and Blood of our Lord (note: NOT profaning bread and wine but profaning our Lord's Body and Blood).

I believe that the reason they cannot accept the apostolic teaching is that they are bringing a pre-determined theological belief and forcing that interpretation into Scripture (and it takes a LOT of forcing) RATHER than letting Scripture and the apostolic teaching and ancient church teaching/practice inform them.

Symbolism/memorialism appeared on the scene in only the last 200 years or so. Would you rather believe the apostolic teaching or the theological interpretations that arose in the last 200 years. I know which I'll accept as authoritative.

Alexander

 

Eating human flesh and drinking the human blood was the pagan Cannibal after Human Sacrifice, which was extremely hated by God.

 

Sorry but ancedotal evidence doesn't count. Just like Thomas wanted to stick his fingers in the wounds as proof, I want to see verifiable lab results of you being a new creation in Christ.

If you want me to stop this lunacy than kindly quit pushing your ludicrous request to test for something science cannot verify.

If they were symbolic they wouldn't be participating as symbolic only means that it points to or represents. Participating on the other hand means to take part in or in this case take part in eating and drinking.

Not even a valid comparison. If you want to compare verses at least pick one that matches the literary style of Paul not something that is using obvious picture language as does the poetic style of the prophetic books.

1) a)no and you will never hear me defend that part of Transubstation. However, he does say that it is His body he is giving so it is present. b)what a stupid thing to ask, who knows and who cares it is beside the point.

2)a&b see above

3)Duhhh, no.

 

Not even a valid comparison. If you want to compare verses at least pick one that matches the literary style of Paul not something that is using obvious picture language as does the poetic style of the prophetic books.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

That is your human classification.
You are devaluating the Prophet lower than Pauline epistle or Gospel.

The point is that even though Bible doesn't mention any allegory or symbolization, it can mean the symbolic institution or reference. Otherwise, all human beings are eating human flesh every week like Cannibal, which might happen in Babylon or Egypt.

 

Eliyahu,

Your personal attacks are unbecoming of a Christian.

To call another person stupid is both unkind and, in this context, without basis in fact.

You need to stop your ad hominem attacks, and you need to apologize to Chemnitz. And finally, you need to resolve to stop these baseless, unChristian, unking attacks now.

Alexander

 

What are you afraid that the lab test will show that you're experience of being made anew was all a figment of your imagination? If you are so sure than surely you would be willing to submit to some simple tests, such as genetic scans. If you are a new creation in Christ it should show up there.

Again if you want this line of questioning to stop , quit requiring the equally idiotic suggestion that the RCC have the communion elements tested. Neither your test or mine would actually prove anything but at least I am honest enough to admit it.

For somebody who claims to be born again you have acted in a decidedly unChristian manner by accusing everybody who disagrees with you of being unsaved. To be honest I sometimes doubt your spiritual health and standing with the LORD because of the way you have treated others on this board and the despicable way you refer to people in the RCC. But as I said you can get me to stop requesting that you submit yourself to testing by simply stopping your request of the RCC.

How have I made Isaiah lower that Paul? I merely stated that when determining meaning of one passage you cannot jump immediately to another from a different style of literature. They are both equally the word of God but they are written in different styles. Isaiah is obviously using more verbal pictures to convey the message while Paul is using a far more literal means of communicating.

 

Chemnitz and Alexander,

Sorry for using the words Stupid and Silly.
But please note that I mentioned "as long as you continue" such illogical comments.

We are here on the Transubstantiation.

1) Do you believe in Transbustantiation or Consubstantiation? which one ?

If you do not believe in Transubstantiation, I think you should stay away from the discussion because your previous posts are enough.

2) Being born again can be proven
- by the testimony of the person, not by the Lab Tests.
- by the fruits of the person as Jesus mentioned in Mt 7:13-23
The testimony means the testimony of the change of the life which means the same as the Fruits.

Have you ever read this?
John 3:8
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Testing the Faith by Lab would not produce any result!

3) However, if you claim that the Substances of the Bread and Wine are changed into Flesh and Blood, it is a matter of Sunstantial(material) change and therefore it can be proven by the test.
Are you not claiming that the materials are changed? Then you are believing that Bread and Wine are the Symbolic representation of Flesh and Blood. You are still believing Symbolic Memorial instead of any Transformation of the Substances !

 

Neither, I keep telling you consubstantiation is not an accurate term. I believe that Christ's body and blood are given in, with, and under the bread and wine.

I will continue to post on this thread as there are no RCC'ers to defend themselves on this board. Besides I can not sit idly by while somebody attacks the doctrine of Real Presence.

You're right, it wouldn't, neither would a lab test confirm nor deny the the Presence of Christ Body and Blood. If you actually knew and understood the doctrine of transubstation you would understand this fact. According to the official line of the RCC the substance is changed but the external accidentals remain. Lab test would only be able to detect the external accidentals, they would not be able to determine a change in substance. As I said earlier as long as you keep calling for a test that will prove nothing, I will keep calling for an equally ludicrous test concerning yourself. If you want it to stop all you have to do is stop asking for the RCC to test their elements.

No I am not claiming the substance of the bread and wine have changed. I am claiming that Christ gives his body and blood to us in an unexplainable manner along with the bread and wine.

 

So, you don't believe that the Substances are changed !

One more question to be answered :

Did Jesus give His disciples the flesh and blood and the disciples ate the flesh and drank blood at the first Supper ?

 

Well, no, but then you aren't telling me the truth either so it doesn't matter anyhow.

Well duh!!! They recieved Christ's body and blood. It's not like Jesus is going to lie about something.

 

Chemnitz,

I agree with you about Real Presence, but the concept of your Real Presence is different from mine.

I believe Real Presence of Jesus Christ everywhere in the world.
What you say is the bodily Presence of Jesus as Holy Spirit came down at the time of Baptism of Jesus as in Mt 3:16. Such Bodily Presence may have happened occasionally, but if you claim that Bread becomes Body from the bakery, or Wine becomes Blood from the Cellar, you may believe in the materials.
Otherwise, if you believe that Bread and Wine become Body and Blood by faith of the believers at the time of Communion, it means almost the same as Memorial or Symbolic belief by faith,which is taken and believed by the most true believers.

 

This thread is for Transubstantiation.
If you do not believe in it, stay away from it. Then there will be no more posters and it will be closed.

 

So, do you believe that Disciples ate Human Flesh and Human Blood ?

 

Eliyahu,

Thank you for your apology.

I think part of the problem here is a misunderstanding of 'substance' and 'accidents'.

In philosophical terms, the 'accidents' of an object are the things that can be measured, like taste, color, shape, etc. For example, the chair in my living room is covered in red fabric, it is 48 inches tall and 40 inches wide.

The 'substance' of an object are those things that cannot be measured in any physical sense but which all objects of the same class share with another. In others words, not all chairs are covered in red fabric, are 48 inches tall and 40 inches wide. Some chairs are covered in blue fabric or green fabric, some chairs have no fabric at all, some chairs have arms while others do not. BUT they all share the same 'substance' (the same 'chair-ness') that makes them chairs. Any particular chair, regardless of its 'accidents', is immediately recognizable as a chair. A person would never mistake a 'chair' for a car or a bird, even though any particular chair's 'accidents' are very different from any other particular chair's 'accidents'.

So the doctrince of the Real Presence (if understood in terms of Transubstantiation), says that the 'accidents' of the bread and wine remain after the Consecration, which means that they still look and taste and feel like bread and wine, BUT their 'substance' (i.e., those things that make up their 'bread-ness' and 'wine-ness') are changed into the 'substance' of our Lord's Body and Blood.

Now, it is important to understand that Transubstantiation is NOT the only way to understand the Real Presence. One can accept, as the Orthodox do (and I believe also Chemnitz, and certainly myself) that the Real Presence is a mystery but is nonetheless real.

Your statement that Christ's Real Presence is everywhere in the world is similar to a debate during the Reformation. The ubiquity of Christ's presence is accurate, in some sense, so how is the Real Presence in the Eucharist different from the ubiquity of Christ's presence everywhere?

Again, that would be mystery. Perhaps one way of thinking about it is that although Christ's presence IS everywhere and WAS everywhere at the time he lived in Israel, he was also locally present in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. So, his ubiquity and his being in the person of Jesus of Nazareth were not contradictory.

One of the underlying problems in the debate among Protestants (particulary Baptists, if I may be so bold) is that so many of them believe, either explicitly or implicitly, that everything about God and the Christian faith can be understood throught the application of rational processes. I don't believe that, and accept that in our limited human frame, many of God's mysteries will remain exactly that: mysteries - - -- - completely true but impossible for frail humans to fathom.

Alexander

 

No you believe in omnipresence, which I do also, but you deny The Real Presence by denying that Christ offers His body and blood.

I will stop as soon as it is locked or as soon as you quit posting on this thread. The ball is in your court.

 

Alexander,

Thanks for your post.
I think you are explaining rather about Real Presence or Con-Substantiation, not the Transubstantiation.

The pure Transubstantiation is that the Substances of Bread and Wine are transformed by the Prayers of the priests, claimed by RCC.

I do believe the Real Presence of Jesus Christ according to dubiquity and omnipresence of His divine nature. Such Presence is always special, if you want to say " Special Presence" and also real if you want to say " Real Presence", everywhere in the world. We should not alter such truth, because, if so, it deface or diminish His Omnipresence in other places.

The more importance of the Real Presence at the scene of Supper would be because of our faith. Yes, I heard that Chernobyl disaster took place 1-2 week after the soldiers came into a underground brethren church meeting and kicked off the table of Lord's Supper. I believe that God pays the special attention to the Supper. But it doesn't mean that Jesus becomes Bread and Wine so that Bread and Wine become Body and Blood.

If you take the concept of Immaterial Presence by faith, it becomes almost the same as Memorial or Symbolic.

What RC claims is that the Substances are changed by the Prayers. If they excuse that Auxiliary external substance still remains the same while the core is changed, it is a cunning escape from what they claimed before.

In case of pure theory of Transubstantiation could be tested, unless they claim about the accidental remains.

 

What Alexander stated is an accurate portrayal of the RCC teaching of Transubstantiation

 

What Alexander explained is either Consubstantiation or Partial Transubstantiation.

Thomas Aquinas, Maria Worshipper !