Transubstantiation!!

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Debby in Philly:
The whole Passover meal was a foreshadowing, a picture, of Christ's sacrifice. Because the words are metaphor ("this is my body....") and not similie ("this is like my body...."), the RCC and others got tripped up. But ask any language or literature teacher, both metaphor and similie are SYMBOLIC devices.

Correction...everyone "got tripped up" because everyone (other than docetists/gnostics) believed in the real presence from the beginning.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by DeclareHim:
Yes the early churches views and beliefs matter to me. That does not mean they are right. I believe they were wrong to believe in real presence or transubstantiation.

By what authority--your interpretation of Scripture? What makes you think that your interpretation is better (or more authoritative) than theirs, considering there was consensus (among orthodox Christians) in believing in the real presence from the beginning?

 

[Eliyahu]

Isaiah 40:6-7
All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: 7 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass.

Does this mean that all of our flesh is grass ?

There is no word "like"

 

[billwald]

Communion is holding a wake for Jesus with nothing special happening?

 

[Chemnitz]

saiah 40:6-7
All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: 7 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass.

Does this mean that all of our flesh is grass ?

There is no word "like"

It isn't even a valid verse for comparison. If you are going to use another verse to try and understand a verse you are having trouble understanding at least use one that is written in a similar literary style. The prophecies in Isaiah are largely written in a poetic picturest style where as the gospel accounts and Paul are written on a more literal style. If you are going to try and compare the accounts of the Institution with anything you are going to have to compare it with the related passages in the Synoptic Gospels. Comparing a literal historical account with a prophecy written in poetic language is only going to create more confusion.

When you compare the words of the institution with the other words of Christ in the Synoptics there is a marked difference between the times He speaks literally and when He speaks figuratively. When Christ speaks figuratively He generally predicates it with " _______ is like"

 

[elijah_lives]

Let the residue of the blood in the cup be tested ! and the residue of the bread be tested to prove whether they are blood and flesh !

Pardon my intrusion, but I watch EWTN regularly, because I do admire the faith of some of the priests on that channel, even if I do not agree with much of their doctrine. I believe it was Father Pacwa (not sure if I spelled his name right) who claimed that a test would reveal nothing, because it was a matter of faith; the outward appearance would always be bread and wine, but the real essence would be the body and blood of Christ. A nice way of precluding further argument on that basis.

 

[nate]

I think it's interesting Reformed theology believes in Christ is spiritually present in communion.The Reformation was an attempt to return to the early church and true faith.The Eastern Orthodox which IMO is the oldest and probably the closest to the early church teachings and belief also believe in the physical prescence of Christ in the communion although their belief is not transubstantiation. It's just something to think about. Did the church not get it right till the late 1700's?

 

[nate]

Excellent post Matt! Thank you for the new information.

 

[DeclareHim]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
By what authority--your interpretation of Scripture? What makes you think that your interpretation is better (or more authoritative) than theirs, considering there was consensus (among orthodox Christians) in believing in the real presence from the beginning?

The Church Fathers were not free from sin. On the contrary Peter denied our Lord a few hours after Jesus told him he would. Origen a church father said this of the Trinity

"being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone."

I'm not suggesting Origen was a wicked godless sinner. He did some great work and was a defender of the faith. But he had his problems. Just because a church father believes something does not mean I'm going to.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
SIMPLY, Let the residue of the blood in the cup be tested ! and the residue of the bread be tested to prove whether they are blood and flesh !

The way the RCC describes transubstantiation is that the elements retain the "accidents" (structure, taste, texture, molecular build up) of bread and wine while changing into the "substance" or essence of Christ.

So testing the elements would result in testing the "accidents" of their elements.

 

[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 the article of the Reformed Episcopal Church.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by DeclareHim:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
By what authority--your interpretation of Scripture? What makes you think that your interpretation is better (or more authoritative) than theirs, considering there was consensus (among orthodox Christians) in believing in the real presence from the beginning?

The Church Fathers were not free from sin. </font>[/QUOTE]And you are? Why else should we trust your interpretation over theirs?

 

[Eliyahu]

Can we not say that we eat the body of Christ and drink the blood of Christ, without saying that Bread turned into flesh and Wine turned into Blood?

Which denomination else than Holy Roman Catholic say that the Bread and Wine are converted by the prayer of the priests?

The main issue and difference is the change of the substance by the Prayer of the Priests, which is a kind of Magic Performance !

 

[Matt Black]

Yes we can and we should say that we eat the body of Christ and drink His Blood when we take communion. Whether that's physically as well as spiritually is pretty much a non-issue for me.

Perhaps you believe all of Jesus' miracles to be a "kind of Magic Performance".

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by DeclareHim:
]The Church Fathers were not free from sin. On the contrary Peter denied our Lord a few hours after Jesus told him he would. Origen a church father said this of the Trinity </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> "being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone."

I'm not suggesting Origen was a wicked godless sinner. He did some great work and was a defender of the faith. But he had his problems. Just because a church father believes something does not mean I'm going to. </font>[/QUOTE]Origen indeed expressed some things that were deemed heretical. However, if you notice, I said that it was the consensus of patristic belief (not merely an isolated speculation of an individual churchman) that the Eucharist was truly the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ (ie "Real Presence"). Such was the consensus for the first 1500 years of the church.

 

[Matt Black]

...and indeed for most of the church beyond that time

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Perhaps you believe all of Jesus' miracles to be a "kind of Magic Performance". [/QB]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Where did I deny that all the miracles of Jesus were magic performance?

It is absolutely false accusation and groundless Slander which was often tactics of the Inquisitors !

The reason why I call the Transubstantiation as the Magic Performance by Priests is because none of the priests proved that Bread and Wine have transubstiantiated by their prayer.

You may say that the miracles of Jesus cannot be proven. But Bible proves it and the Bible doesn't classify between Laymen and Priests at all while it says everyone is Priest in 1 Pet 2:5-9.
The miracles by Jesus were recognized by so many people at that time. These days, if Catholic want it, they can prove it by allowing the substance to be tested at the laboratories, which they never did so far. Therefore I say that they are claiming that they do miracles, which actually do not exist.

This is why I say to you again, You are making false accusation and slandering against me, which proves you are not the true believer at all !

 

[Matt Black]

Since when was 'perhaps' an 'accusation'? You were saying that what Catholics regard as a miracle you regard as a 'magic performance'; I was quite understandably asking whether you view all miracles in this way.

However, you accusing me of not being a true 'believer' is defamatory, and I would ask you to retract it forthwith.

[BTW it's not slander if it is written even if it was an accusation; slander can only be spoken. Do try to keep up.]

 

[Eliyahu]

That is my discernment and I would maintain it.

Inquisitors often slandered that way.

Even though I didn't deny the miracles of Jesus, you say that perhaps I am denying the miracles.

Inquisitors often accused the true believers when they denied calling Mary Mother of God as denying Deity of Jesus

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
...and indeed for most of the church beyond that time

True, that.