Science vs Transubstantiation

Yelsew replied, where I last said:

All I know is, when I leave my home in about an hour from now, I will be going to daily Mass and believe that I will be actually consuming his actual (not natural) body and blood. It looks, feels, smells and digests like bread and wine, but it is no longer bread and wine but His body and blood in fact.

Jesus said it in so many words in John Chapter 6, and He instituted it during the Last Supper sequence.

Huh?

No, all I am saying is, when we go to communion, we acdrtually receive Jesus' body and blood.

What was once bread and wine, is no longer bread and wine, but actually Jesus' body and blood.

What we taste is the "accidents," of what used to be bread and wine, but is no longer bread and wine. Our senses therefore deceive us is what it is we are receiving (the action of the flesh) but intellectually, we know, by faith, that it is really Jesus' body and blood (the spirit part.)

NO! What we receive is ACTUAL food! It is His body and blood, soul and divinity that we receive! We receive His body and blood ACTUALLY.

And, of course, we also receive His spiritually as well!

Christ is not a dummy, knowing we humans live in a physical world, not very well understanding the spiritual. Therefore, for Him to come to us spiritually, He comes to us ACTUALLY!

There is no more beautiful sacrament then the Eucharist!

Some of Christ's own disciples deserted Him over this doctrine, not having the spirit that would reveal this to them, in a total beauty that even I fail utterly to understand fully!

[i9]So why then confuse the issue? Why not state it as Paul stated in his letter to the Corinthians.

Yelsew then quoted the following scripture:

Wonderful quote, something most non-Catholics fail to explain fully, so what is your spin on all this:

First of all, how is it that we can eat and drink of this "unworthily" if it is only "substitutionary" as you say, since if it were so, it simply would not be the reality of Jesus Christ in His body and blood!!!?

Bread and wine do not "substitute" for Christ; the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine actually, completely but are His actual body and blood!

How does Christ appear to us in the Eucharist from on high on His throne in heaven? By one of the most wonderful gift he could give us, that sustains us in the greatest gift He gave us - Salvation!

Nothing "substitutes" for Him, as it is actually HIM! Else how can we partake of a "substitute" unworthily is the substitute is not actually HIM?

Answer: It cannot!

How is it one could ever be "worthy" if what I partake of is simply "substutionary"? If can tear-up a picture of you in anger, simply because that picture is "substutionary" of you as only an image of you, how can I then be "guilty" of actually hurting you?

Much different, I think you would agree, if I were to take my anger against you personally, right, Yelsew? (Heaven forbid! I am not a violent person!)

First of all, the Catholic Church is not a "denomination" simply because it was the ONLY church around for about 1500 years?!!!

Secondly, it rightfully claims it status and the only church established by Christ by simple history: She can trace her origins back to Christ Himself!

Your church cannot claim that status, simply because to go back to it's origins, guess which church do you find your "denomination" spring off from?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

Hey Putman, where are the DNA results from the "host"? I'm still waiting for them!

 

Baptists and Catholics go beyond the simply teachings of Holy Scripture. Both reject the scriptures in favor of their own innovations. Scripture teaches, "This is my body" and "This is my blood." But scripture also teaches, "eat of that bread" and "drink of that cup."

Christ's body and blood are truly present in, with, and under the bread and wine. However, in the Baptist and Catholic churches, human reason has trumped Holy Scripture!

 

John, John, John... ;)

Please tell me where the words "in, with, and under" come into play in Holy Scriptures. Sure, they are in the Lutheran Confessions and Catechism, but it is an extra-Biblical understanding of the Real Presence. That particular understanding is not in the Bible; it was Luther and his colleague's way of understanding it.

God bless,

Grant

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:
Christ said nothing about "I change the undetectible substance of bread into the equally undetectible substance of flesh".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only the faithLESS disciples take the RC POV in John 6.

The faithFULL disciples - take no BITE out of Christ.

The text of John 6 does not in any way what ou claimed: "What Jesus is saying is, that only the spirit can understand the things of the spirit,".

That is not a quote from John 6 and it is not found in all of John 6 - nor is it exegesis of anything in John 6. Lacking the text - you simply make it up.

Now - what does the text "really say"? After arguing the case for half the chapter that they only way to get eternal life was to eat his flesh right then and there because He flesh was ALREADY food - Christ gives HIS own summary (which is nothing remotely like "only the spirit CAN UNDERSTAND the things of the spirit")

He actually shows the REAL way to get life -

"63 "" It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."

And given that John OPENS the book with "The WORD became FLESH and dwelt among us" - anyone using even a smattering of exegesis sees this and says "I get it!".

In Christ,

Bob

 

First of all, please spell my name right!

Secondly, it was not my issue, but since you asked, since no scientific instrument can detect any difference between a consecrated host and an unconsecrated host, what makes you think that a
DNA test would make any difference?

But to answer your question, a DNA test of a consecrated host would not yeald anything different from a DNA test on an unconsecrated host.

Yet by a faith many of Christ's own disciples could not abide by, we believe that any fragment of the host, down to the conherent molecule level, would still be the body of Christ.

If you break it down further, such as what happens with the digestive juices in the human body, it is no longer the body and blood of Christ!

Don't believe it? I can't force you to, certainly, come holy Spirit...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

Bob replied, where I last said:

No, He did not say it in perhaps a way you would want Him to say it. But he did say it, as I explained it per the link below:

And them Bob quoted from my web site:

Now some Protestants think verse 63 is where Jesus corrects what he is saying, that It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. But it actually does no such thing. What Jesus is saying is, that only the spirit can understand the things of the spirit, something that flesh cannot. Or, in other words, flesh cannot conceive of the consumption of the actual body and blood of Jesus.

Furthermore, if the Protestant interpretation of this verse was correct, why do we read in verse 66: As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life. [Catholic NAB] WELL GEE, I THOUGHT VERSE 63 CLEARED THIS UP! We even see Jesus turning to Peter in verse 67 and ask ...do you also want to leave? and in verse 58, Simon, is a great display of pure faith without understanding, says to Jesus, Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

What is the Catholic point of view, Bob? That indeed, they took Him literally, even cannibalistically?

What other way do you wish to take it, Bob?

Oh please! Did you really think that was a direct quote from the text? I suppose my explanation is taken as from the text, as if you guys don't attempt to explain the text in the best manner you can? Well, maybe you are better then I at doing this, so let's see...

Wait a minute now! We have His own disciples diserting Him, Bob, and you have not reasoned as to why they would do so. What is so hard about a metaphoric "eating my flesh and drinking my blood," if he really meant it that way, to be so awful to the minds of the Jews and some of His disciples? If they took Jesus WRONG on that point, why did not Jesus correct them?

And how wonderful did the spirit come, that they would understand exactly what He was talking about! Not then and there, as we seem to see in Peter's simple, "...to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." (verse 68)

The "flesh" obviously did not understand, or at least have the courage of Peter to remain with Him until it was fully explained...at the Last Supper.

And obviously that particular, singular and specific "flesh" was also God! And of course, you realize that the reference to "flesh" outside of that context is to connotate the miserable state upon which man must depend, what the flesh can decide in the physical world - something quite apart from the spiritual understanding of how ordinary bread and wine can become the actual (not natural) body and blood of Christ!

Welcome to the company of disbelieving Jews and absndoning disciples, Bob! No, I better not say that, as I would really like you to read over agin, and again, and again, the magnificance of what the "bread of life" discourse in John, Chapter 6 is really saying...and what culminated at the Lord's Last Supper routine...

God bless,

PAX

Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

 

In otherwords, Putnam, you're saying "the substance was changed, but there's absolutely no way to prove it." That's a Satanic lie! If a substance changes you ought to be able to prove it!

 

And with the words "prove it!" the Faith-O-Meter heads into negative territory! The atheists and agnostics in the crowd roar!

A disembodied bible instead of a supernatural Church offering a living faith built upon Scripture, Tradition and Magesterium. A memorial instead of the re-presented once-for-all Sacrifice of the Cross. Regular bread and wine instead of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. No guarantee of Truth. No apostolic succession. No living link at all with Christ.

It all seems to me as cold and empty as a dried-up insect on the windowsill. Clutching at crumbs, shouting about Satanic lies, when the banquet awaits only an act of faith.

No offense intended to anybody, just my sincere opinion.

 

IT'S A PHYSICAL HAPPENING! DUH! IT REQUIRES NO FAITH TO BELIEVE THE PHYSICAL - IT REQUIRES PROOF. YOU SHOULD USE YOUR BRAIN RATHER THAN HAVE IT WASHED.

 

Wow, ALL CAPS! I guess I got my point across!

If you only knew how weak my Catholic schooling was, you'd laugh right along with me about the brainwashing thing! More like "Excuse me, I'm still sitting here waiting for my brainwashing. Hello, anybody listening? Did everybody go home? Hello? Don't you WANT to turn me into a Catholic zombie?!" :D

 

If you only know that I wasn't refering to Catholic schools you'd be laughing even harder. I'm just refering to what you are taught as a Catholic, wherever you may be taught: confirmation class, mass, wherever. Baptists are just as brainwashed as you as far as their hatred of baptism is concerned, and they get all the brainwasing they need from their pastor at church. Why should you be any different?

 

Could you show me a Baptist that hates baptism? I have never seen one and I have been one for a good while. The only hatred I see is in your posts towards people who do not think just like you. You sure don't exemplify Galatians 5:22-23. Do you hate those verses?

Neal

 

While I agree that we can't prove matters of faith 100% I must point out that faith is not a blind leap. The things we believe in have a reasonable basis to justify our belief. There is no point in believing in something you have absolutely no knowledge about. But you probably already understand this, but I wanted to make the point anyway.

Neal

 

The first part of your response is absolutely correct - there is no way scientifically to detect any change.

A "Satanic lie," you say?

Taken from the opening chapter of

Euchasistic Miracles
by Joan Carroll Cruz,
ISBN: 0-89555-303-1

These opening words (with some contraction) is describing the famous Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy.

It would seem that God Himself, from time to time, provided the miracles that would re-confirm the supernatural occurrances we now call transubstantiation.

The sciences cannot prove it because the "flesh" is unable to see it, but the "spirit" that comes into the heart of man can.

Yet it is a "Satanic lie," Sola?

Now, if ever a statement needs "proof," that one surely does!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.

He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thencd He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

- The Apostles Creed -

[ June 17, 2003, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: WPutnam ]

 

God requires that faith be formed by EVIDENCE. The Bible says," Now faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1. The source of the evidence comes from God. Romans 10:17,  So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
This EVIDENCE was OBSEREVABLE TO THE SENSES. John records in his gospel in John 20:30,  And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31  But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. Each of the eight miraculus proofs for our faith wre observable ones. They could be proven by observation of the senses.This is the case with Biblical faith. Biblical faith has always been proveable by observable substantiated EVIDENCE.
Furthermore, the test of apostleship was observable evidence. II Cor. 12:12. Again, miraculous observable evidence was employed so the hearer could have faith. This was commanded by Jesus in the gospel of Mark. In Mark 16:17-20, the Bible says, 17  And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18  They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19  ¶So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20  And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
In short, Christianity is a system of faith, not a system of blind trust. Faith always has been and alwasys will be provable by the many evidences observed by the human senses as recorded in the pages of inspiration.In all matters of faith, one MUST ask; PROVE IT!!! I Thes. 5:21.
The controversy surrounding this matter could be ended by the presentation of recorded observable evidence. If this is not possible, then one must conclude, in a biblical sense, it is not a matter of faith as set forth in the word of God. It is, then, a tradition that originated in the mind of men who do not require recorded observable evuidence by the senses in order to practice the tradition.

 

Umm, the Lutheran belief IS consubstantiation. That simply means the substance of Christ's Body and Blood are WITH the bread and wine.

God bless,

Grant

 

That's what he meant, as well. You jumped the gun a little bit. "Schooling" doesn't always mean "formal education." If I am "schooled" on a subject, I have been taught something about it. That doesn't mean via private school system.

God bless,

Grant

 

While I agree that we can't prove matters of faith 100% I must point out that faith is not a blind leap. The things we believe in have a reasonable basis to justify our belief. There is no point in believing in something you have absolutely no knowledge about. But you probably already understand this, but I wanted to make the point anyway.

Neal </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I agree that we should have a reasonable basis to justify our belief, but I don't believe we can "prove" items of our faith, in the sense that any rational person would be compelled to accept those items. So in that sense, I think faith is a blind leap, but a blind leap with hints (perhaps a scrunch-eyed leap of faith?!). It is these hints, which God gives to all of us (indeed, all of creation is a giant hint!), which we can rationally accept or reject. The hints are never "proof"; if they were then we would lose our free will to believe or disbelieve.

I actually find this a very interesting subject. I think many, many "inexplicable" aspects of our existence, such as e.g. suffering, are explained by God's refusal to compromise our free will by revealing too much of Himself. Our love must be freely given; He will not compel us.

Wow, an entire exchange without mentioning KKK or 666! There is hope!