Transubstantiation!!

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

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.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

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 ?

 

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 ?

 

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 ?

 

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.....

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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