Transubstantiation. What is it?

[Augustin56]

Personally I think that's a big part of why we have the Bible, so we can see for ourselves what God said, and know when someone was teaching something different.

Call it personal, call it whatever you want. Catholic says this, Bible says that, I'm believing the Bible. You say, I don't understand the Bible, but I think it's the other way.

You say, but my church has said this for 2000 years, and whether that is true or not doesn't matter, lies repeated are still lies.

Your best answer to me, all the Catholics here, their very best answer seems to not be, This is where the Bible says that, instead, You just don't understand that even though it says THIS, it actually means THAT, and if you'd only listen to our Pope you'd know that.

My answer is, Here is where the Bible says that, ans that's the words it uses, so that's what it means.

Do you see why I think the way I do?

Much love!

The Bible isn't a stand-alone document. If you are honest, instead of saying "Bible says that" you must say, "my personal interpretation of the Bible says that." IF your personal interpretation of the Bible matches what has always been taught from the very beginning, i.e., Catholic doctrine, then you can rest assured that your interpretation is correct. If it is contrary to what has always been taught, then you can rest assured that it is in error. It's not that complicated.

 

[marks]

The Bible isn't a stand-alone document. If you are honest, instead of saying "Bible says that" you must say, "my personal interpretation of the Bible says that."

I can just the same say,

If you were honest, you'd recognize that the Bible gives objective propositional statements which are either received in their own right, or rejected.

If I wanted to discuss this at a superficial level.

Much love!

 

[David H.]

The Bible isn't a stand-alone document.

It stands alone under the anointing of the Holy Ghost in the believer..... 1 John 2:27 read it carefully.

 

[Augustin56]

It stands alone under the anointing of the Holy Ghost in the believer..... 1 John 2:27 read it carefully.

David, is that the correct quote you intended? 1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, so that you do not need anyone to teach you. But his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not false; just as it taught you, remain in him.

1 John 2:24-27 talks about God's anointing, not Scripture. It speaks to continuity with the Apostolic witness as proclaimed in the prologue is the safeguard of right belief.

 

[Robert Pate]

No Catholic doctrine contradicts anything in Scripture, New or Old Testament...when correctly interpreted.

Ask yourself, why are there so many different-believing Protestant denominations today? (Thousands, literally!) For example, the Baptists say that infant baptism is invalid. Lutherans and Anglicans say it is valid. Yet, all read the same Bible and claim to be led in their interpretation by the same Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit is not the spirit of contradiction or confusion. They can't be all correct.

Anyone who strays from the original interpretation of Scripture that existed long before Protestantism began in the 16th century, is in error, and does not have the Word of God as their guide. They have their own personal interpretation, apart from the teachings of Christ.

So, when you say that "there are a lot of things that Catholics do that are not according to the Bible" you should more honestly say, "there are a lot of things that Catholics do that are not according to the Bible as I personally interpret it." That would be a truthful and honest opinion.

I interpret everything in the light of the historical Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Catholic church does not believe or have a Gospel.

 

[Augustin56]

I can just the same say,

If you were honest, you'd recognize that the Bible gives objective propositional statements which are either received in their own right, or rejected.

If I wanted to discuss this at a superficial level.

Much love!

Yet again, they must be interpreted and understood as intended by the authors in order to get them right. Otherwise, you end up with error. That is why there are tens of thousands of man-made, different-believing Protestant denominations, all based on personal interpretation of Scripture. IF there were any credibility to a bible-alone approach, there would be ONE Protestant denomination, and one consistent body of doctrine, with all believing the same thing. Not thousands of differences and contradictions.

 

[Augustin56]

I interpret everything in the light of the historical Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Catholic church does not believe or have a Gospel.

The Gospel came from the Catholic Church. The authors were all Catholic. It was the Catholic Church, at the Councils of Rome, Hippo. and Carthage, in the late 4th century, that decided that these documents would be considered Scripture and included in the New Testament. They went through over 300+ documents, books, letters, etc., and came up with the 27 that we all call the New Testament today. You have a New Testament today because the Holy Spirit worked THROUGH the Catholic Church to provide it for you. God didn't reach a big hand down and hand King James the first bible.

Read Galatians 1:8. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! If you vary from what has always been taught from the beginning, then you are skating on thin ice. Protestantism and the bible-alone theory didn't start till the 16th century. Everything Protestants believe that is contrary to what has always been taught from the beginning, is a different gospel. Where would a "correction" come from? Do you claim an angel appeared? Or Jesus came back to make some corrections?

 

[marks]

Yet again, they must be interpreted and understood as intended by the authors in order to get them right. Otherwise, you end up with error. That is why there are tens of thousands of man-made, different-believing Protestant denominations, all based on personal interpretation of Scripture. IF there were any credibility to a bible-alone approach, there would be ONE Protestant denomination, and one consistent body of doctrine, with all believing the same thing. Not thousands of differences and contradictions.

At the end of the day, the Holy Spirit will never contradict Himself. Therefore if your church tells you something contrary to Scripture, believe the Scriptures, because that teaching is NOT from God.

Words have meanings.

Much love!

 

[Augustin56]

The Catholic Church has never, and will never, declare a doctrine contrary to Scripture (correctly interpreted). This is so, not because of the individuals within it, but because it is protected from teaching doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church does not claim the right to correct or change the teachings of Christ. Without the Catholic Church, you know nothing about Christ. Unless you're claiming Christ came back or sent an angel to change Divine Revelation? The Catholic Church says that Divine Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle.

Words do, indeed, have meaning. But they are subject to interpretation. Without a sure guide, then interpretation is nothing more than a crap shoot. I recall someone I met from England, who was invited to supper at a house in the U.S. When asked how he enjoyed it, he said, "Well, your wife is very homely." In England, that means she was a good home maker. In the U.S., it would imply she was ugly. Same words, different meaning in different cultures.

St. Paul refers to the Church as the "pillar and foundation of truth." 1 Tim 3:15. Nowhere does he say an individual, using personal interpretation is anything of the sort.

 

[David H.]

1 John 2:24-27 talks about God's anointing, not Scripture. It speaks to continuity with the Apostolic witness as proclaimed in the prologue is the safeguard of right belief.

The Apostolic succession you speak of is false. "Those who claim to be apostles but are not"... the point of that verse is that those with the anointing need no one to rule over them.... (Nicolaitanism) instead the Spirit of Truth guides them in all truth... It is not an anointing only for the elite in the Papacy and priesthood, but for all Believers, who have moved on from the milk of the word to the meat of the Word of God.
So, to answer your question I believe in the inspired Word of God, Scripture, plus the anointing of the Spirit as the guide for all truth. I Just do not think that anointing is exclusive to a priesthood or Papacy or a Pastor etc.... But open to all who call upon the name of the LORD. My Biggest Problem with the Catholic church is that they place themselves between God and man as a mediator, when scripture clearly says there is no mediator between God and man. (1 Timothy 2:5) I Know this is true because the Holy Ghost has shown the veracity of this because He lives within my heart.

God Bless

 

[L.A.M.B.]

Why are they all in an uproar tainting every thread that speaks the word of God in truth with the lies of their father ?

Have they been drinking the kool-aide?

 

[Taken]

Transubstantiation. What is it?

One of many fancy words, (typically established historically) to use as a “code word of sorts” in application to reveal an individuals “spiritual beliefs”.

Through-out ancient and recent history;
* ManKIND has Secretly Kept and Openly …
Announced their Beliefs.
* ManKIND has Suffered retaliation for being found “secretly” believing this or that.
* ManKIND has Suffered retaliation for being
“Openly” believing this or that.
* ManKIND has “gathered and established” large numbers of individuals, guards, armies to protect, to seek and destroy, kill others in opposition of their “beliefs”.

Men of differing beliefs;
(of WHO IS their god)
And
Men of similar beliefs;
(Of they HAVE a god)
And
Men of same beliefs;
(Of they SHARE the Same god)

Then to “consider” Nations; (lands)
* An “expectation”…An “implication”…
This Nations individual People “ARE” outwardly “implied”…ALL in “agreement” of;
This “spiritual belief” or That “spiritual belief”.

 

[Taken]

The Bible isn't a stand-alone document.

IF your personal interpretation of the Bible matches what has always been taught from the very beginning, i.e., Catholic doctrine, then you can rest assured that your interpretation is correct.

It's not that complicated.

Your words are not complicated to understand.

However from the very beginning;
God Himself was the Speaker, the Teacher of His Word, His Doctrine and He the Lord God Almighty is the Giver of His Understanding of His own Word.
^ THAT has NOT CHANGED from the Beginning of ManKIND.

Individual men adopted the “term” Catholic…
That name was established to “apply” to:
A people, buildings, A doctrine, A belief system, that which may or may not be an opinion, an indication, a truth, a presumption, a lie, scripturally verifiable, not scripturally verifiable….

Not complicated.

 

[Robert Pate]

The Apostolic succession you speak of is false. "Those who claim to be apostles but are not"... the point of that verse is that those with the anointing need no one to rule over them.... (Nicolaitanism) instead the Spirit of Truth guides them in all truth... It is not an anointing only for the elite in the Papacy and priesthood, but for all Believers, who have moved on from the milk of the word to the meat of the Word of God.
So, to answer your question I believe in the inspired Word of God, Scripture, plus the anointing of the Spirit as the guide for all truth. I Just do not think that anointing is exclusive to a priesthood or Papacy or a Pastor etc.... But open to all who call upon the name of the LORD. My Biggest Problem with the Catholic church is that they place themselves between God and man as a mediator, when scripture clearly says there is no mediator between God and man. (1 Timothy 2:5) I Know this is true because the Holy Ghost has shown the veracity of this because He lives within my heart.

God Bless

The pope believes that he is the vicar of Christ. He sits on a throne, while Jesus is nailed to the cross.

 

[Augustin56]

The Apostolic succession you speak of is false. "Those who claim to be apostles but are not"... the point of that verse is that those with the anointing need no one to rule over them.... (Nicolaitanism) instead the Spirit of Truth guides them in all truth... It is not an anointing only for the elite in the Papacy and priesthood, but for all Believers, who have moved on from the milk of the word to the meat of the Word of God.
So, to answer your question I believe in the inspired Word of God, Scripture, plus the anointing of the Spirit as the guide for all truth. I Just do not think that anointing is exclusive to a priesthood or Papacy or a Pastor etc.... But open to all who call upon the name of the LORD. My Biggest Problem with the Catholic church is that they place themselves between God and man as a mediator, when scripture clearly says there is no mediator between God and man. (1 Timothy 2:5) I Know this is true because the Holy Ghost has shown the veracity of this because He lives within my heart.

God Bless

Apostolic Succession has to do with authority. Christ gave His authority to the Apostles. The Apostles gave that authority to their successors, the bishops. Those bishops gave that authority to their successor bishops, etc. Authority is "given" not taken. Power is taken.

Today's bishops go back through a line of bishops to the Apostles. Christ established the Catholic Church, not man (unless you are considering that Christ was both God and man). It is not a manmade institution. It has, as its earthly leader, the Pope, the first of which was Peter. Christ set Peter as the first Pope to govern His Church on earth. Peter had successors, through today.

The office of Pope was established by Christ in Matt. 16:18-19. Every first century Jew knew that the king always had a second-in-command, who ran the kingdom in the king's absence (away at war, visiting another kingdom, etc.) or when he was incapacitated (sick, injured, etc.). This second-in-command would rule in the king's place, and the king, upon his return, would uphold whatever the second-in-command had ruled. (See an example of this office in Isaiah 22:22.) This position of second-in-command was dynastic. If he died, then another was appointed in his place. In other words, it was an on-going position. (Like the Pope.) The symbol of the office of the second-in-command was a large (2-3 ft.) key (or sometimes two keys), which he carried over his shoulder to let people know his authority. When Jesus gave Peter the "keys to the kingdom" (Matt. 16:19) He was clearly establishing such a second-in-command position, because Jesus (Our King!), was going to ascend to heaven and He needed someone to run the Church here on earth until He returned. The person that occupies this office has Christ's authority to do so.

 

[Augustin56]

Your words are not complicated to understand.

However from the very beginning;
God Himself was the Speaker, the Teacher of His Word, His Doctrine and He the Lord God Almighty is the Giver of His Understanding of His own Word.
^ THAT has NOT CHANGED from the Beginning of ManKIND.

Individual men adopted the “term” Catholic…
That name was established to “apply” to:
A people, buildings, A doctrine, A belief system, that which may or may not be an opinion, an indication, a truth, a presumption, a lie, scripturally verifiable, not scripturally verifiable….

Not complicated.

When babies are born, sometimes they aren't named for a day or two (depending on the culture and circumstances). When the baby is given an official name, he/she does not become a different person. They are the same person with a name (label) to be able to identify them.

The Church founded by Christ very early on came to be known as the Catholic Church. St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of Antioch ordained by St. Peter, was captured by the Romans. While they were transporting him to be martyred for the faith, he wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans around 107-110 A.D., referring to the "Catholic Church," not in such a manner as if he were coining the term, but in such a manner in which he fully expected the Smyrnaeans to understand what he was talking about. It says in paragraph 8, "Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

See the entire letter here: https://www.orderofstignatius.org/files/Letters/Ignatius_to_Smyrnaeans.pdf

The buildings of the Church aren't an integral part of the real Church, but a tool thereof. The doctrines of the Church were handed to the Church by Jesus Christ, Who gave them to the Apostles, and who, in turn, handed them on to their successors, the bishops, who have done likewise for 2000 years now. These original doctrines are the doctrines of the Catholic Church. The Church has never changed any of the doctrines given her by Christ, nor does it claim the authority to change them. Christ promised to remain with His Church until the end of time (Matt. 28:20). This means He will protect His Church from teaching error.

 

[RedFan]

Apostolic Succession has to do with authority. Christ gave His authority to the Apostles. The Apostles gave that authority to their successors, the bishops. Those bishops gave that authority to their successor bishops, etc. Authority is "given" not taken. Power is taken.

Today's bishops go back through a line of bishops to the Apostles. Christ established the Catholic Church, not man (unless you are considering that Christ was both God and man). It is not a manmade institution. It has, as its earthly leader, the Pope, the first of which was Peter. Christ set Peter as the first Pope to govern His Church on earth. Peter had successors, through today.

The office of Pope was established by Christ in Matt. 16:18-19. Every first century Jew knew that the king always had a second-in-command, who ran the kingdom in the king's absence (away at war, visiting another kingdom, etc.) or when he was incapacitated (sick, injured, etc.). This second-in-command would rule in the king's place, and the king, upon his return, would uphold whatever the second-in-command had ruled. (See an example of this office in Isaiah 22:22.) This position of second-in-command was dynastic. If he died, then another was appointed in his place. In other words, it was an on-going position. (Like the Pope.) The symbol of the office of the second-in-command was a large (2-3 ft.) key (or sometimes two keys), which he carried over his shoulder to let people know his authority. When Jesus gave Peter the "keys to the kingdom" (Matt. 16:19) He was clearly establishing such a second-in-command position, because Jesus (Our King!), was going to ascend to heaven and He needed someone to run the Church here on earth until He returned. The person that occupies this office has Christ's authority to do so.

I'm on board for interpreting Matthew 16 as indicating that Christ invested Peter with special authority. But there is no Scriptural basis for anyone after Peter succeeding to his authority, whether by assignment from Peter directly or by vote of other bishops/clerics. The passing on of the Keys requires some discussion here.

 

[Robert Pate]

When babies are born, sometimes they aren't named for a day or two (depending on the culture and circumstances). When the baby is given an official name, he/she does not become a different person. They are the same person with a name (label) to be able to identify them.

The Church founded by Christ very early on came to be known as the Catholic Church. St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of Antioch ordained by St. Peter, was captured by the Romans. While they were transporting him to be martyred for the faith, he wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans around 107-110 A.D., referring to the "Catholic Church," not in such a manner as if he were coining the term, but in such a manner in which he fully expected the Smyrnaeans to understand what he was talking about. It says in paragraph 8, "Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

See the entire letter here: https://www.orderofstignatius.org/files/Letters/Ignatius_to_Smyrnaeans.pdf

The buildings of the Church aren't an integral part of the real Church, but a tool thereof. The doctrines of the Church were handed to the Church by Jesus Christ, Who gave them to the Apostles, and who, in turn, handed them on to their successors, the bishops, who have done likewise for 2000 years now. These original doctrines are the doctrines of the Catholic Church. The Church has never changed any of the doctrines given her by Christ, nor does it claim the authority to change them. Christ promised to remain with His Church until the end of time (Matt. 28:20). This means He will protect His Church from teaching error.

It appears to me that you have made the Catholic church your Jesus. Just like the Pharisees made the Torah their Jesus.

 

[Philip James]

It appears to me that you have made the Catholic church your Jesus. Just like the Pharisees made the Torah their Jesus.

Christ and His Church are one!

"For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church.

Merry Christmas!

 

[Augustin56]

I'm on board for interpreting Matthew 16 as indicating that Christ invested Peter with special authority. But there is no Scriptural basis for anyone after Peter succeeding to his authority, whether by assignment from Peter directly or by vote of other bishops/clerics. The passing on of the Keys requires some discussion here.

The model, as explained, was Isaiah 22:22. Everyone in first century Israel and the surrounding area understood the position of the second-in-command to the king. And, the position was dynastic. That means, if the second-in-command died, he was replaced by another. It was never a one-off position.

We need only look to history to see that this is how the first Christians understood this position, because there was always a successor to the position. You can see a list of Popes here: List Of The Popes Of The Catholic Church | uCatholic