Transubstanciation

fivesense said:

The ecclesia has no priest, but One, no organization since it is a spiritual organism, and offers divine service unto God, not works of flesh which cannot possibly surpass the ultimate Sacrifice of Calvary. Such thinking as is involved in that mundane act does not stem from the sacred, but sacrilegious against the revealed intents and purposes of God.

Click to expand...

Last year benedict again reinforced the claim that the catholic church is the only means to salvation ... pretty strong language in the lines of, "there is no other"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288841,00.html

actually says "outside the church there is no salvation"

Selene said:

Hello JarBreaker,

If you had read my post, I DID say that Christ sacrificed Himself on the cross only once. I also said that the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist means "communion." Furthermore, I can honestly say that in my church, it is not just the priest who drank the blood of Christ, but also the people who were present in the Mass.

In Christ,
Selene

Click to expand...

that whole idea of NEEDING the sacrament to "be one" or commune is the basis of the church's established control ...

JarBreaker said:

Last year benedict again reinforced the claim that the catholic church is the only means to salvation ... pretty strong language in the lines of, "there is no other"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288841,00.html

actually says "outside the church there is no salvation"

Click to expand...

What has this have to do with transubstantiation ?

that whole idea of NEEDING the sacrament to "be one" or commune is the basis of the church's established control ...

Click to expand...

Actually, it is in the Bible.

John 17:21 That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

I remember the Rev. Billy Graham sharing a story of an experience with an intoxicated man aboard an airline. The airline tried so hard to give Billy Graham privacy while in flight, but this intoxicated man spotted him. The man came up to Billy and said;" Billy Graham!" , "You saved me!", Billy replied; " Young man I can't save you, only Jesus Christ can save you.". "I couldn't save myself , I needed Jesus to save me.". Finally the man went to his seat, with what Billy Graham said to him on his mind.
Any church, pastor, etc. Thinks they are the only way to Jesus Christ, have a pride problem for one, and I'd suggest that they read I Corinthians 3:6,7,8,11; I have planted, Apolos watered, but God gave the increase. 7; So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. v.8; Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. v.11; For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Besides the Lord Jesus Christ makes it quite clear in John 14; I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life, there is no other way to the Father but by Me.

Selene said:

The Holy Eucharist is not a sacrifice of Jesus being done over and over and over. Jesus sacrificed Himself only once. The Holy Eucharist is a communion.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid your not well informed on this. The eucharist is indeed a continual sacrifice. THese are from catholic sites:

http://www.therealpr...nk/e-litur.html
"Since it is the same Jesus, we must say He continues in the Mass what He did on Calvary except that now in the Mass, He is no longer mortal or capable of suffering in His physical person. On Calvary He was, by His own choice, capable of suffering and dying. What He did then was to gain the blessings of our redemption. What He does now in the Mass is apply these blessings to the constant spiritual needs of a sinful, suffering humanity."

"Why is the Mass a true sacrifice? Because in the Mass the same Jesus Christ who offered Himself on Calvary now offers Himself on the altar. The Priest is the same, the Victim is the same, and the end or purpose is the same."

http://www.justforca...cs.org/a173.htm
Whereas the Catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges the Eucharist as “a sacrifice of praise in thanksgiving” (paragraphs 1359-3361), the Roman position goes well beyond that. It teaches that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice, that is, a sacrifice that atones for sin. The Council of Trent defines the issue:

Templar81 said:

it does not crucify the son of Man a new. There was one sacrifice and that stands, it is eternal as is God. When the Eucharist is celebrated we recieve soemthing that is eternal.

Click to expand...

We are not talking about crucifixion. Crucifixion is not sacrifice (its was Roman capital punnishment). Eucharist dogma never talks about new or continous crucifixion. It is about sacrificing Jesus over and over again, whether on a cross or by grinding Him with your back teeth.

When you say "There was one sacrifice and that stands", your are introducing personal philosophies that challenge the eucharist decree; you are treading into "heretic" territory. There simply is no debating this: eucharist is continous sacrifice dogma, it's simply a fact, not my opinion. That leaves you with 3 options: Accept your faith no-questions-asked. Twist your faith with personal philosophies and risk being condemned. Or last but definitly not least, accept God's truth.

evanom said:

We are not talking about crucifixion. Crucifixion is not sacrifice (its was Roman capital punnishment). Eucharist dogma never talks about new or continous crucifixion. It is about sacrificing Jesus over and over again, whether on a cross or by grinding Him with your back teeth.

When you say "There was one sacrifice and that stands", your are introducing personal philosophies that challenge the eucharist decree; you are treading into "heretic" territory. There simply is no debating this: eucharist is continous sacrifice dogma, it's simply a fact, not my opinion. That leaves you with 3 options: Accept your faith no-questions-asked. Twist your faith with personal philosophies and risk being condemned. Or last but definitly not least, accept God's truth.

Click to expand...

Hello Evanom,

You need to read the entire article that you posted and not just parts of it. Nowhere in that article did it say that it is a sacrifice of Christ on the cross over and over and over. It says that the Mass is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving as well as a propitiatory sacrifice. Perhaps, you should look up the word "propitatory." It is defined as helping souls in Purgatory, which is what Catholics believe in. Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving also does not mean that Christ sacrificed Himself on the cross over and over and over.

How did Christ sacrifice Himself? Was it not by dying on the cross? Was it not by crucifixation? The Sacrament of the Eucharist says that it is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and a propitiatory sacrifice. Where does it say that the Mass is a continuous sacrifice of Christ over and over? Please read the aritlces you posted in full.

In Christ,
Selene

If Christ was being literal concerning eating His flesh why didn't He cut off His arm and feed it to His disciples rather than giving them bread?

its actually interesting to see what the Apostles had to say about it...they were the ones whom Jesus instructed so I beleive their view on it should be our view on it.

In 1Corinthians 5:7-8 we are told that the 'festival' is to be kept. The last supper was held on the night of the jewish festival of passover. It seems Pauls instructions was to hold their new celebration of the lords meal on the same time as the old festival. Vs 7 says "Clear away the old leaven, that YOU may be a new lump, according as YOU are free from ferment. For, indeed, Christ our passover has been sacrificed. 8 Consequently let us keep the festival, not with old leaven, neither with leaven of badness and wickedness, but with unfermented cakes of sincerity and truth"

and we can see the reason that they were observing the celebration of the lords evening meal at 1Corintians 11:23-26

notice especially what he says at the end of vs 25 and vs 26....it has to do with 'rememberance of Jesus' and 'proclamation of his death'
"Keep doing this, as often as YOU drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as YOU eat this loaf and drink this cup, YOU keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he arrives"

Pegg said:

its actually interesting to see what the Apostles had to say about it...they were the ones whom Jesus instructed so I beleive their view on it should be our view on it.

In 1Corinthians 5:7-8 we are told that the 'festival' is to be kept. The last supper was held on the night of the jewish festival of passover. It seems Pauls instructions was to hold their new celebration of the lords meal on the same time as the old festival. Vs 7 says "Clear away the old leaven, that YOU may be a new lump, according as YOU are free from ferment. For, indeed, Christ our passover has been sacrificed. 8 Consequently let us keep the festival, not with old leaven, neither with leaven of badness and wickedness, but with unfermented cakes of sincerity and truth"

and we can see the reason that they were observing the celebration of the lords evening meal at 1Corintians 11:23-26

Click to expand...

And if you had read 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, this is what St. Paul says about the bread and wine:

1 Corinthians 11:23-26 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.............For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

Notice how St. Paul instructs the Corinthians on how they should treat the bread and wine? He stated that if it is treated unworthily, they are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. If it is only just bread and wine that is being given, then why the warning? St. Paul also says this:

1 Corinthians 10:16 The chalice of benediction,which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?

jiggyfly said:

If Christ was being literal concerning eating His flesh why didn't He cut off His arm and feed it to His disciples rather than giving them bread?

Click to expand...

Hello Jiggyfly,

He gave them bread that He transformed into the flesh of His heart. That is what transubstantiation is. It is a miracle. If Christ were to cut off His arm and gave it to His disciples to eat, there is no miracle in that. The miracle is in the transubstantiation....when Christ miraculously turned the bread and wine into his body and blood. The fact that you cannot see this miracle is really not my problem. As Scripture says, there are some who have eyes, but cannot see and ears but cannot hear (Acts 28:27).

As I pointed out in my posts, when Jesus said that whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have life in them, a vast majority of His disciples abandoned Him because they knew that He was speaking literally. The 12 that remained also knew that He was speaking literally, but they chose to stay because they've seen His miracles and believed.

In Christ,
Selene

Selene said:

And if you had read 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, this is what St. Paul says about the bread and wine:

1 Corinthians 11:23-26 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.............For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

Notice how St. Paul instructs the Corinthians on how they should treat the bread and wine? He stated that if it is treated unworthily, they are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. If it is only just bread and wine that is being given, then why the warning? St. Paul also says this:

1 Corithians 10:16 The chalice of benediction,which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?

Click to expand...

I would say the warning is given for the same reason that an Isrealite who disgregarded the law of moses would be put to death. Because the person is dishonouring God when he dishonoured the law. The same it is with Jesus shed blood. If a christian were to treat is of little value, then they too are dishonouring the sacrifice that Jesus made on their behalf.

Paul mentions this in regard to Jesus sacrifice at Hebrews 10:28, 29

"28 Any man that has disregarded the law of Moses dies without compassion, upon the testimony of two or three. 29 Of how much more severe a punishment, do YOU think, will the man be counted worthy who has trampled upon the Son of God and who has esteemed as of ordinary value the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified"

Those who are partaking of the bread and wine must do so with the utmost respect and appreciation for what they represent. They represent the sacrificial death that Jesus gave in order to save those who are partaking.

I really cant see how they can literally be the blood and body of Christ...I can see how they 'represent' the blood and body of Christ though.

Pegg said:

I would say the warning is given for the same reason that an Isrealite who disgregarded the law of moses would be put to death. Because the person is dishonouring God when he dishonoured the law. The same it is with Jesus shed blood. If a christian were to treat is of little value, then they too are dishonouring the sacrifice that Jesus made on their behalf.

Paul mentions this in regard to Jesus sacrifice at Hebrews 10:28, 29

"28 Any man that has disregarded the law of Moses dies without compassion, upon the testimony of two or three. 29 Of how much more severe a punishment, do YOU think, will the man be counted worthy who has trampled upon the Son of God and who has esteemed as of ordinary value the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified"

Those who are partaking of the bread and wine must do so with the utmost respect and appreciation for what they represent. They represent the sacrificial death that Jesus gave in order to save those who are partaking.

I really cant see how they can literally be the blood and body of Christ...I can see how they 'represent' the blood and body of Christ though.

Click to expand...

Hello Peg,

First of all, St. Paul never wrote the letter to the Hebrews.

Secondly, Hebrews 10:28-29 is not referring to the bread and wine. It is actually referring to what happens to us if we sin willfully after we gain the Truth of the Gospel. It is referring to the sin of wilful apostasy.

For you, it "represents" the sacrificial death that Christ gave in order to save those who are partaking. For people like me and Templar, we believe in transubstantiation, the miracle of Christ's words when He said, "Take this bread for this is my body" and "Drink, for this is my blood." As I pointed out in my previous post, many of His followers abandoned Christ when they heard Him say this because they took His words literally when He spoke to the crowd. Only 12 remained and chose to stay with Him.

In Christ,
Selene

Selene said:

For you, it "represents" the sacrificial death that Christ gave in order to save those who are partaking. For people like me and Templar, we believe in transubstantiation, the miracle of Christ's words when He said, "Take this bread for this is my body" and "Drink, for this is my blood." As I pointed out in my previous post, many of His followers abandoned Christ when they heard Him say this because they took His words literally when He spoke to the crowd. Only 12 remained and chose to stay with Him.

In Christ,
Selene

Click to expand...

the verse you are quoting here comes from the night of the last supper or Lords Evening meal when the 12 apostles were gathered in the upper room for the passover celebration. Those words were spoken in private only to the 11 apostles (judas had already left the room by this stage)

What you are actually refering to is the event that took place when Jesus was publically preaching and he told a crowd that unless they ate his flesh they would not have everlasting life. The account is in John 6:53-59 and yes, many of his followers thought he had gone made and refused to follow him any longer.

However, Jesus later clarified exactly what he meant by his strange words when he handed around the bread and wine at the last supper and told his apostles that they represented his body and blood. Then the apostles understood what his words to the crowds actually meant. They realised then that they were not going to have to literally eat and drink his blood...something illegal under the mosaic law....but rather they would commemorate his death by partaking of the wine and bread (Matthew 26:26, 28) as emblems of his shed blood. Hence why Paul said “For as often as you eat this LOAF and drink this CUP, you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he arrives.” Paul was certainy not under the impression that the 'loaf' or cup was Christs actual blood or body.

Now you would think that if such a miracle were to occur, the apostle would have mentioned it. You also need to ask why the teaching only came about in the middle ages and why none of christs apostles wrote anything about it.

Selene said:

Hello Jiggyfly,

He gave them bread that He transformed into the flesh of His heart. That is what transubstantiation is. It is a miracle. If Christ were to cut off His arm and gave it to His disciples to eat, there is no miracle in that. The miracle is in the transubstantiation....when Christ miraculously turned the bread and wine into his body and blood. The fact that you cannot see this miracle is really not my problem. As Scripture says, there are some who have eyes, but cannot see and ears but cannot hear (Acts 28:27).

As I pointed out in my posts, when Jesus said that whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have life in them, a vast majority of His disciples abandoned Him because they knew that He was speaking literally. The 12 that remained also knew that He was speaking literally, but they chose to stay because they've seen His miracles and believed.

In Christ,
Selene

Click to expand...

The fact that many of His followers left Him after He said this does not lend to your belief that He was speaking literal. Jesus also said He was the bread of life so in your paradigm He must have changed His flesh into bread,right?

Pegg said:

the verse you are quoting here comes from the night of the last supper or Lords Evening meal when the 12 apostles were gathered in the upper room for the passover celebration. Those words were spoken in private only to the 11 apostles (judas had already left the room by this stage)

What you are actually refering to is the event that took place when Jesus was publically preaching and he told a crowd that unless they ate his flesh they would not have everlasting life. The account is in John 6:53-59 and yes, many of his followers thought he had gone made and refused to follow him any longer.

However, Jesus later clarified exactly what he meant by his strange words when he handed around the bread and wine at the last supper and told his apostles that they represented his body and blood. Then the apostles understood what his words to the crowds actually meant. They realised then that they were not going to have to literally eat and drink his blood...something illegal under the mosaic law....but rather they would commemorate his death by partaking of the wine and bread (Matthew 26:26, 28) as emblems of his shed blood. Hence why Paul said “For as often as you eat this LOAF and drink this CUP, you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he arrives.” Paul was certainy not under the impression that the 'loaf' or cup was Christs actual blood or body.

Click to expand...

Hello Pegg,

What Jesus told the crowd is consistent with what He said He will do at the last supper. In John 6:51, Jesus stated: "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world." In here, Christ said that the bread that He WILL give is His flesh. Here, He is already telling what He will give in the last supper. So, it is consistent.

Now you would think that if such a miracle were to occur, the apostle would have mentioned it. You also need to ask why the teaching only came about in the middle ages and why none of christs apostles wrote anything about it.

Click to expand...

The apostles did mentioned it, and I even quoted it in my previous post. It was St. Paul who stated that the bread that they ate is the body of Christ and the cup they drink is the blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16 and 1 Corinthians 11:29). Furthermore, the early Church Fathers also believed in Transubstantiation as indicated by their writings. Below are some of the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and I included the sources of their writings:

1. In AD 151, Justin Martyr wrote: For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was make incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh are nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66).

2. In the first century, Ignatius (the Bishop of Antioch who was a disciple of the Apostle John) argued against the Gnostics and wrote in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans.: 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 the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans).

3. In AD 227, St. Agustine wrote the following: That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. (Augustine, Sermons, 227).

So, you see, transubstantiation goes all the way back to the Apostolic times. I don't understand where you got the idea that the concept of transubstantiation only came about in the middle ages.

In Christ,
Selene

Selene said:

Hello Pegg,

What Jesus told the crowd is consistent with what He said He will do at the last supper. In John 6:51, Jesus stated: "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world." In here, Christ said that the bread that He WILL give is His flesh. Here, He is already telling what He will give in the last supper. So, it is consistent.

Click to expand...

But at the last supper, Jesus said nothing about taking that bread as a sacrifice....he said keep doing this in 'rememberence' of him....not in sacrifice of him.
Thats why the Apostle Paul said "for as often as you eat of it you are proclaiming the death of the lord" The purpose was to remember Jesus sacrifice and to proclaim it. There was no mention of sacrificing Jesus over and over again as if his original sacrifice wasnt good enough. It was the fact that his original sacrifice WAS good enough that no more sacrifices were needed. Look at Hebrews 7:26-28 for clarification that Jesus sacrifice was a one off sacrifice.

Selene said:

The apostles did mentioned it, and I even quoted it in my previous post. It was St. Paul who stated that the bread that they ate is the body of Christ and the cup they drink is the blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16 and 1 Corinthians 11:29).

Click to expand...

New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) says: “We should not rely too heavily on the literalness of the words ‘This is my body’ or ‘This is my blood.’ . . . For in phrases such as ‘the harvest is the end of the world’ (Mt 13.39) or ‘I am the true vine’ (Jn 15.1) the [verb “to be”] means only to signify or represent.”

Therefore the wording found at Matthew 26:26-28 does not prove that the bread and the wine were changed into Jesus’ literal body and blood at the Last Supper. Jesus used a lot of figurative expressions and if you consider the expressions he used at the 'last supper' you should be able to see that the cup he passed around was not literally the 'new covenant'. He said "this CUP means the new covenent by vitue of my blood"
The covenant was not a tangible thing...it wasnt the cup, but Jesus used a cup of wine to signify the new covenant.... the covenant being the agreement between Jesus and his Apostles for a kingdom...it had nothing to do with literal cups.

Selene said:

Furthermore, the early Church Fathers also believed in Transubstantiation as indicated by their writings. Below are some of the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and I included the sources of their writings:

1. In AD 151, Justin Martyr wrote: For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was make incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh are nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66).

2. In the first century, Ignatius (the Bishop of Antioch who was a disciple of the Apostle John) argued against the Gnostics and wrote in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans.: 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 the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans).

3. In AD 227, St. Agustine wrote the following: That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. (Augustine, Sermons, 227).

Click to expand...

I dont believe the writings of the early church 'fathers' are anything to go by. Many of them began to contradict the writings of the apostles and started teaching greek philosophies instead. I would never accept the teaching of any of these men over the teaching of an inspired bible writer directed by Gods holy spirit.

And the fact is that the church admits that the teaching is based on 'tradition' as opposed to anything witten in scripture.
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913 edition) says: “The chief source of our doctrine . . . is tradition, which from the earliest times declares the impetratory [entreating] value of the Sacrifice of the Mass.”

This reminds me of Jesus words to the religious leaders of his day: “You have made God’s word ineffective by means of your tradition.” (Matthew 15:6)

Selene said:

So, you see, transubstantiation goes all the way back to the Apostolic times. I don't understand where you got the idea that the concept of transubstantiation only came about in the middle ages.
In Christ,
Selene

Click to expand...

Yes you may be right on that, my mistake. I was thinking more in terms of when the teaching became an 'official' teaching in the church. The Encyclopaedia Britannica (1942), Vol. 8, pp. 795-797 says that the term “transubstantiation” did not appear until the eleventh century. And it didnt actually become an official dogma of the Roman Catholic Church until the year 1215ce.