Transubstantiation!!

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by nate, Jan 27, 2006.

  1. nate

    nate
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    How important was the early church? Do you consider it to be closer in doctrine and practice than the modern church? As I read more of the Church fathers the more I realize that Protestant christianity is farther away from their practices than we might think.

    For instance Justin Martyr seems to affirm transubstantiation in this quote:

    Justin probably wrote this around the year 150 A.D. it's hard to comprehend that Justin was into heresy. So does the early church beliefs matter to you?
     
  2. nate

    nate
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    I previously posted this in the Baptist Theology section and decided to start it down here. Can someone give me the differences between 'Real Presence'and 'Transubstantiation'.
     
  3. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    6
    Hey, Nate

    "Real presence" refers to the general belief (which was the consensus among orthodox Christians up to the Reformation) that somehow the bread and wine become (in some way) the Body and Blood of Christ, that partaking of these elements effects a real participation in (or communion) the divine-humanity of Christ. "Transubstantiation" is the technical description, utilizing Aristotelian concepts, of the manner in which this change takes place according to the RCC. So one might say all those who advocate transubstantion also advocate the real presence, but not all those who advocate the real presence subscribe to transsubstantiation.

    Regarding, your first question: Yes, I think it's very important to consider what the earliest Christians believed about certain doctrines and how they interpreted certain Scriptural passages, especially when there was consensus on a particular issue (contrasted with the numerous conflicting interpretations over those same issues today.)
     
  4. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. In a certain sense the most of the protestant churches have neglected the importance of the Lord's Supper because they noticed the problems with RC as RC retained the formal rituals while the important core of the belief was lacking.

    2. True believers believe the Real Presence of Christ everywhere in the world, even in themselves. Maybe Roman Catholics believe that Christ is present only at the scene of so-called Eucharist.

    3. When we eat and drink the Lord's Supper, we believe that they symbolize the body of Christ, and remember His death, Bleeding, and Resurrection. If anyone claim that they actually turn into the Body and Wine thru the prayer of the priest, then they must prove with the left-over that they are changed to different materials. Nobody has done so far.

    4. Priests are not special as the true believers are all priests as said in 1 Peter 2:5-9.
    Everyone is honorable guest invited by the precious Lord Jesus who shed the precious blood and died the terrible death for us.
    It is not right if anyone behave like a Host because he is a priest and as if he host the party. We are not invited by any priests but by Christ who died for us.

    5. Throughout the history, there have been always the true churches which have performed the Lord's Supper in proper manner which was done in remembrance of Lord, among the Brethren in the West Deutsche, Paulicans, Montanusian, Cathari, Bogomil, Albigenes, Waldenese, Bohemian Brethren, Moravian Brethren, Mennonites, Plymouth Brethren, and so on.

    6. Today, I think so-called Plymouth Brethren are performing the Lord's Supper in the most faithful manner, where there is no priest, but more than 10 people stand up one by one, giving thanks to the Lord, remembering the work done at the Cross, once every week. They share the Bread and Wine after reading the Bible, Prayers, and singing Hymns, and all men and women who were truly born again and baptized are privileged to eat the Bread and drink the Wine.

    7. Even Catholic may not be performing the Eucharist properly because I have noticed that they break the bread only and the wine is drunk only by the priests, not by the lay church people. So, the lay churchmen of Catholic have no chance of drinking Wine. This may vary according to the locations, but whereever I checked, RC's did that way.

    8. 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)

    9. 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 to 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.
     
  5. Linda64

    Linda64
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Roman Catholic Church has consistently held fast to the belief in the Real Presence. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

    The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."

    - The Catechism of the Catholic Church: paragraph 1374

    In many ways, Our Lord, is calling us to worship and receive Him in the Eucharist. He speaks this desire in many ways: through the Pope and the Magisterium of the Church, in the Bible (Jn. 6), through his Blessed Mother in approved Marian apparitions, through the testimonies of Saints and Martyrs, through Eucharistic miracles, through Church approved messages given by Jesus by Divine Revelation, through our souls who long for Jesus in Communion, and through our suffering world which is in much need of prayer before the Blessed Sacrament. Unfortunately many of us disbelieve or have grown indifferent towards Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.

    http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/a.html


    Theology of transubstantiation

    Transubstantiation is generally understood to refer to the belief that at the "moment" of Consecration, the elements (or "gifts" as they are termed for liturgical purposes) of bread and wine are transformed (literally trans-substance-iated) into the actual Body and Blood of Christ. The terms "elements" or "gifts" are preferred, as it is theologically incorrect to refer to the "bread" or "wine" after they have been consecrated, as Roman Catholics believe they are no longer bread and wine. This doctrine holds that the elements are not only spiritually transformed, but are actually (substantially) transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. The elements retain the appearance or "accidents" of bread and wine, but are indeed the actual Body and Blood of Christ, the true, real, and substantial presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. For this reason, what remains of the sacrament after the Communion procession is reserved in the Tabernacle, for distribution to the dying ("viaticum") and sick, for private devotion and prayer, as well as for public Eucharistic adoration. The practice exists of distributing the reserved sacrament at later Masses, but this is deprecated in Church documents (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 55).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation#Theology_of_transubstantiation

    Here's another article by a Catholic Cardinal:

    http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/Jan98/transubstantiation.html

    There ya go--from Wikipedia and a Catholic source.
     
  6. Linda64

    Linda64
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    In Catholic terminology, Real Presence and Transubstantiation are the same thing.
     
  7. Linda64

    Linda64
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    From the Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible:

    CONSUBSTANTIATION


    (to unite in one common substance or nature). The erroneous belief of some denominations that after the bread and juice of the Lord's Supper are blessed by a priest, the literal presence of Christ is "present in, under, and with the elements so that Christ may be received sacramentally by those who observe the ordinance" (Pictorial Bible Dictionary). This is the doctrine of the Anglican and Lutheran denominations, and is a compromise between the abomination of the Roman Catholic mass and the true meaning of the Lord's Supper as a simple memorial meal.
     
  8. wopik

    wopik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2002
    Messages:
    1,158
    Likes Received:
    0
    'trans' what ?

    trans fatty acids ?


    you got to avoid them like the plaque.
     
  9. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    trans-mission !
     
  10. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    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”

     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    They point out "this does NOT symbolize God - rather this IS GOD!"


    Non-Catholics who would think nothing of glossing over that error - make a huge mistake.
     
  12. nate

    nate
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lets not get sidetracked into another RCC thread. The OP questions were~1. was the early church wrong if they believed in Real Presence? 2. Does the Early churches teaching matter to you?

    Isaiah 7:14 "διὰ τοῦτο δώσει κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον· ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ·" LXX
     
  13. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The Errors of the RCC began in earnest in the 4th and 5th centuries with early traces found even in the late 2nd century in the case of "a few" errors. The RCC 'evolved over time' so it would not be fair to insist that the ECFs "fell into NO RC error" before the 4th century. It just is not true.

    As soon as you are willing to "forget what scripture" SAYS in John 6 and 1Cor 11 about the Lord's table and then take the "traditions of man instead" then you are entering the realm of error EVEN if the MAN you are following is a snippet of text from one of the ECFs.

    The point to my previous post is that EVEN the RCC admits that this is a gross and grevious error IF in fact they are wrong. So IF we suppose that we found an ECF teaching the SAME error THEN (assuming we are not Catholic) we would have to conclude they are in error AND if we were to use the reasoning of the RCC when evaluating that error we would AGREE with the RCC in saying that it is pure idolatry! My agreement with them here is in fact a sign of objectivity.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  14. Chemnitz

    Chemnitz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Linda if you are going to write concerning a doctrine at least make sure you post accurate information.

    1. Lutherans do not use the term consubstantiation because it is not an acurate term. Lutherans use the term Sacramental presence. Consubstantiation is far to limiting meaing only "with."

    2. We do not believe that they become one substance. Both the substance of the bread and wine and the substance of the body and blood of Christ are present. They are joined together in a manner beyond explanation but they do not become one substance.

    3. It is wine not juice.

    4. We do not have priests in the Lutheran Church.

    May I suggest you add A Summary of Christian Doctrine by Edward Koehler to your library. It is an excellent one volume systematic text for Lutheran Theology.
     
  15. nate

    nate
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    I recently learned of the Reformed view of the communion in which Christ is spiritually present. I just thought I would throw that in.
     
  16. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  17. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nate, I can give you a quote from earlier than Justin and, indeed, earlier than Bob's "late 2nd century":-

    Ignatius of Antioch


    "I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

    "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

    This guy was appointed bishop of Antioch by the apostle John. Now what's interesting about John in this context is that he recorded these words of Jesus:-

    John 6:32-36
    Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
    John 6:51-69
    I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

    Now, putting that together, we have John recording Jesus' words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, then soon after or whilst his gospel was written down, he discipled Ignatius who, as you can see, within a decade of John's death comes up with the Real Presence.

    Good enough for me...
     
  18. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    On this issue I think we should limit the argument as Transbustantiation, not on the Presence of Christ, because I believe that nobody denies the Presence of Jesus Christ everywhere. Maybe RCC believe that Christ is present only at the Eucharist, which is untrue !

    The main problem is that RCC claims that Bread and Wine are turned into Flesh and Blood by the prayer of the priests, which is apparently a miracle. Why don't they prove it by allowing the residue of the blood in the cup to be tested at the blood laboratory ? One at the kitchen must pay attention to the cups when she or he does the dish washing job !
     
  19. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 !
     
  20. Debby in Philly

    Debby in Philly
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    2,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     

Share This Page

Loading...