Transubstanciation

[Templar81]

The real physical presnece of Christ in the Eucharrist ahs been understood sicne the early days as Selene points out but it wasn't until the 13th century that it started being called "Transubstanciation." What I mean is Transubstanciation has always been around, but it wasn't until the High Middle Ages that it got the name.

 

[brionne]

The real physical presnece of Christ in the Eucharrist ahs been understood sicne the early days as Selene points out but it wasn't until the 13th century that it started being called "Transubstanciation." What I mean is Transubstanciation has always been around, but it wasn't until the High Middle Ages that it got the name.

yes i got that point cheers

Im still not convinced any bible writers actually discussed this miracle. I think the scriptures used to explain it are very dubious.

 

[Selene]

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.

Hello Pegg,

We have never called the Mass as sacrifice of Jesus sacrificing Himself over on the cross. We have always acknowledged that Christ sacrificed Himself only once. The Eucharist is called a "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" because we come together to give Him thanks and praise Him for redeeming us. We also call the Eucharist a "sacrifice of propitiation and petition" because we offer our petitions to help the souls in Purgatory (which Catholics believe in). We also call the Eucharist "Holy Communion" because we become one with our Lord. But we have never called the Eucharist "Jesus sacrificing Himself over and over again." Just because you hear the words "Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" does not mean that we are saying that Jesus is sacrificing Himself over and over in our Mass. "Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" simply means a coming together to praise God and to give Him thanks. That is all.

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.

I don't know where you got this "New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), but no true Catholic Encyclopedia would say that. Below is the weblink from the Catholic Encycopedia on Transubstanciation:

http://www.newadvent...3a.htm#section3

Yes, it is true that Jesus would use figures of speech such as calling Himself "Rock," "Vine," "Gate," etc., but in all of these, His disciples did not abandoned Him. It was only when He told His disciples that He was the bread of life and that anyone who eats His flesh will have life...that a large majority of His disciples left Him. When He said that, they all knew that He meant it literally, which is the reason why they left Him. Other times, when He said that He was a "Gate," they didn't abandoned Him because they knew He spoke figuretavely. However, when He said that He was the bread of life and they must eat His flesh, this was their response. This response shows that His followers knew that He spoke literally unlike other times:

John 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

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.”

Ignatius was the disciple of the Apostle John; therefore, he could not have contradicted the Apostles because it was an Apostle who taught him this teaching.

Also, the chief source of Catholic doctrne is BOTH Apostolic Tradition AND Sacred Scripture. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

CCC #80 One common source......."Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal.....

St. Paul taught us that in addition to Scripture, the apostoloic tradition passed down through the generations should also be adhered. We have never listened to the traditions of men. We listened to the oral traditions passed down from the Apostles themselves and to Sacred Scripture. Below is what St. Paul stated in Scripture:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

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.

The Catholic Church has practiced the oral traditions passed down by the Apostles, but they did not become official dogma until later when a conflict arises. One example is the Holy Trinity. We have always believed in the Holy Trinity since the first century, but it did not become an official dogma until later in the Council of Nincea when Bishop Arian challenged the Church's belief of the Holy Trinity in the third century.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[brionne]

Hello Pegg,

We have never called the Mass as sacrifice of Jesus sacrificing Himself over on the cross. We have always acknowledged that Christ sacrificed Himself only once. The Eucharist is called a "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" because we come together to give Him thanks and praise Him for redeeming us.... But we have never called the Eucharist "Jesus sacrificing Himself over and over again."

I agree that the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine should be done as a memorial of Christs death, this is what Jesus requested at Luke 22:19

However, it seem that the eucharist is in fact considered a 'sacrifice' by the church as these references show:

The Documents of Vatican II 1966 edited by W. M. Abbott, S.J., p. 154: “At the Last Supper, on the night when He was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross . . . ”

The Catholic Encyclopedia 1913 Vol. X, pp. 6, 17: “The Church intends the Mass to be regarded as a ‘true and proper sacrifice’

I don't know where you got this "New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), but no true Catholic Encyclopedia would say that. Below is the weblink from the Catholic Encycopedia on Transubstanciation:

http://www.newadvent...3a.htm#section3

Im sorry, but the catholic encylopedia does say that. 2nd column, 2nd paragraph, 9th line Here is the reference: 1913 Vol. X, pp. 6, 17

Yes, it is true that Jesus would use figures of speech such as calling Himself "Rock," "Vine," "Gate," etc., but in all of these, His disciples did not abandoned Him. It was only when He told His disciples that He was the bread of life and that anyone who eats His flesh will have life...that a large majority of His disciples left Him. When He said that, they all knew that He meant it literally, which is the reason why they left Him. Other times, when He said that He was a "Gate," they didn't abandoned Him because they knew He spoke figuretavely. However, when He said that He was the bread of life and they must eat His flesh, this was their response. This response shows that His followers knew that He spoke literally unlike other times:

Did jesus provide the apostles with his literal flesh and blood on the night of the passover?

Ignatius was the disciple of the Apostle John; therefore, he could not have contradicted the Apostles because it was an Apostle who taught him this teaching.

And you provide any links to Ignatius's writings showing him to discuss the transubtantiation?

St. Paul taught us that in addition to Scripture, the apostoloic tradition passed down through the generations should also be adhered. We have never listened to the traditions of men. We listened to the oral traditions passed down from the Apostles themselves and to Sacred Scripture. Below is what St. Paul stated in Scripture:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

2 Thessalonians shows Paul is speaking about the writings of the Apostles and the things the Apostles taught the congregations.....not the writings of anyone else. He says this again in 2Thessalonians 3:6-11 Its the traditions given by the apostles.
These 'traditions' are the writings which make up the NT. Anything beside these were not included in the cannon (this includes many works by the 'apostolic fathers') because they were not inspired by God. The Apostles writings were inspiried which is why they are in our bibles.

The Catholic Church has practiced the oral traditions passed down by the Apostles, but they did not become official dogma until later when a conflict arises. One example is the Holy Trinity. We have always believed in the Holy Trinity since the first century, but it did not become an official dogma until later in the Council of Nincea when Bishop Arian challenged the Church's belief of the Holy Trinity in the third century.

That is quite a debatable point right there. It is well acknowledged that many of the teachings of the catholic church have no founding in the writings of the apostles...so you'd have a fairly hard time trying to make a case for that.

 

[Selene]

I agree that the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine should be done as a memorial of Christs death, this is what Jesus requested at Luke 22:19

However, it seem that the eucharist is in fact considered a 'sacrifice' by the church as these references show:

The Documents of Vatican II 1966 edited by W. M. Abbott, S.J., p. 154: “At the Last Supper, on the night when He was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross . . . ”

The Catholic Encyclopedia 1913 Vol. X, pp. 6, 17: “The Church intends the Mass to be regarded as a ‘true and proper sacrifice’



Im sorry, but the catholic encylopedia does say that. 2nd column, 2nd paragraph, 9th line Here is the reference: 1913 Vol. X, pp. 6, 17

Hello Pegg,

Please do not take a sentence out of context without reading the entire article. Please read the entire article. Below is what your article stated towards the end if you had read the entire article, which I know is a very long one. I provided the long version from your weblink, so that everyone can read the entire article and not just the shorter version, which you provided. You will find the explaination on 44th paragraph. The weblink of the longer version is provided below. At any rate, it states exactly what I've been saying:

Taken from the Second Column of the Second paragraph:

(I) The Existence of the Mass.—Before dealing with the proofs of revelation afforded by the Bible and tradition, certain preliminary points must first be decided. Of these the most important is that the Church intends the Mass to be regarded as a "true and proper sacrifice", and will not tolerate the idea that the sacrifice is identical with Holy Communion. That is the sense of a clause from the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, can. i): "If any one saith that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema" (Denzinger, "Enchir.", 10th ed., 1908, n. 948).

Taken from the 44th paragraph of the same article:

(a) The Effects of the Sacrifice of the Mass.—The Reformers found themselves compelled to reject entirely the Sacrifice of the Mass, since they recognized the Eucharist merely as a sacrament. Both their views were founded on the reflection, properly appraised above, that the Bloody Sacrifice of the Cross was the sole Sacrifice of Christ and of Christendom, and thus does not admit of the Sacrifice of the Mass. As a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in the symbolical or figurative sense, they had earlier approved of the Mass, and Melanchthon resented the charge that Protestants had entirely abolished it. What they most bitterly opposed was the Catholic doctrine that the Mass is a sacrifice not only of praise and thanks-giving, but also of impetration and atonement, whose fruits may benefit others, while it is evident that a sacrament as such can profit merely the recipient. Here the Council of Trent interposed with a definition of faith (Sass. XXII, can, iii); "If any one saith, that the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits only the recipient, and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema" (Denzinger, n. 950).......

http://oce.catholic....ice_of_the_Mass


If you had read the entire article instead of just the 2nd paragraph of the second column, it would explain what is meant by a "true and proper sacrifice" of the Mass. I understand that the article is a very long one. But as a Catholic who knows her faith very well, why do you not believe me when I say that we recognize that Christ sacrificed Himself on the cross only once? I hope you are not one of those people who will keep saying "Yes, You do believe in this" regardless of what I say. Afterall, I know what I believe in. And when I say that the Eucharist is a "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" or a "propitiatory sacrifice" I, as a Catholic, would know much about it.

Did jesus provide the apostles with his literal flesh and blood on the night of the passover?

Yes, He did because I know that Christ does not lie. In John 6:51, Jesus Himself said that the bread He WILL give is His flesh. During that night, He said, "Take, for this is my body." I know that Christ does not lie and that He is capable of performing miracles. His Apostles know that as well.

And you provide any links to Ignatius's writings showing him to discuss the transubtantiation?

Below is the weblink you requested:

http://en.wikipedia...._the_Smyrnaeans

2 Thessalonians shows Paul is speaking about the writings of the Apostles and the things the Apostles taught the congregations.....not the writings of anyone else. He says this again in 2Thessalonians 3:6-11 Its the traditions given by the apostles.
These 'traditions' are the writings which make up the NT. Anything beside these were not included in the cannon (this includes many works by the 'apostolic fathers') because they were not inspired by God. The Apostles writings were inspiried which is why they are in our bibles.

Let us take a closer look at the verse. It says:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by WORD OR by our epistle.

Taken from the Doury-Reims Bible.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

Taken from the Bible on this forum board.

According to St. Paul, he is defining traditions as both SPOKEN WORD or EPISTLE (meaning the written letters). Tradition means the oral words OR by written epistles. We have BOTH....the spoken or oral traditions passed down from the Apostles that we call "Apostolic Tradition" (or oral teachings) and the Bible that we call "Sacred Scripture." We have both...the spoken word and the written letters.

That is quite a debatable point right there. It is well acknowledged that many of the teachings of the catholic church have no founding in the writings of the apostles...so you'd have a fairly hard time trying to make a case for that.

That's what a lot of Non-Catholics say about us.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[brionne]

If you had read the entire article instead of just the 2nd paragraph of the second column, it would explain what is meant by a "true and proper sacrifice" of the Mass. I understand that the article is a very long one. But as a Catholic who knows her faith very well, why do you not believe me when I say that we recognize that Christ sacrificed Himself on the cross only once? I hope you are not one of those people who will keep saying "Yes, You do believe in this" regardless of what I say. Afterall, I know what I believe in. And when I say that the Eucharist is a "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" or a "propitiatory sacrifice" I, as a Catholic, would know much about it.

Im sorry if i've misunderstood you, but you appeared to me to be saying that the sacraments are miraculously changed into Jesus actual body and blood every time you partake of them. This is what i'm objecting to. I certainly believe, like you, that the sacraments are taken to commemorate christs one and only sacrifice that he gave of himself, but the idea that they are also his literal body and blood I do not.

Yes, He did because I know that Christ does not lie. In John 6:51, Jesus Himself said that the bread He WILL give is His flesh. During that night, He said, "Take, for this is my body." I know that Christ does not lie and that He is capable of performing miracles. His Apostles know that as well.

You are saying here that the sacraments do become his literal body and blood, yes?

Let us take a closer look at the verse. It says:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by WORD OR by our epistle.

Taken from the Doury-Reims Bible.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

Taken from the Bible on this forum board.

According to St. Paul, he is defining traditions as both SPOKEN WORD or EPISTLE (meaning the written letters). Tradition means the oral words OR by written epistles. We have BOTH....the spoken or oral traditions passed down from the Apostles that we call "Apostolic Tradition" (or oral teachings) and the Bible that we call "Sacred Scripture." We have both...the spoken word and the written letters.

But thats quite a questionable debate isnt it, basically any church father can claim to hold an oral tradition....but nothing can be proved that the oral tradition actually came from any of the Apostles or Jesus Christ. This is why we should stick to what God has provided us with in the written word. It cannot be changed. It has been preserved for us so that we can know everything we need to know.

You realise that the Jews also had and 'oral' tradition, im sure. And im sure you know what he said about those oral traditions in passages such as Mr 7:3 Mt 15:9 Mt 15:1, 2, 7-11; Mr 7:4-8

Rather then oral traditions that did not have Gods stamp of approval, we should only be looking at what is written because that is what God has provided us with as Paul shows Ro 15:4; 2Ti 3:15-17

 

[Selene]

Im sorry if i've misunderstood you, but you appeared to me to be saying that the sacraments are miraculously changed into Jesus actual body and blood every time you partake of them. This is what i'm objecting to. I certainly believe, like you, that the sacraments are taken to commemorate christs one and only sacrifice that he gave of himself, but the idea that they are also his literal body and blood I do not.



You are saying here that the sacraments do become his literal body and blood, yes?

Hello Pegg,

Catholics believe that the Holy Eucharist is both a sacrament and a "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" as well as a "sacrifice of propitiation and petition." A sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving or a sacrifice of propitation and petition, however, does not mean that Christ sacrifice Himself over and over in the Mass. It is not the sacrament that is changed. The sacrament is still a sacrament. It is the bread and wine that has changed.

Yes, we do believe that the bread and wine miraculously changed into the body and blood of Christ. Yes, this is indeed the part that you disagree and object to. We believe that the bread and wine changed into the body and blood of Christ because we believe that in Scripture Christ meant it literally when He said, "Take, for this is my body and drink for this is my blood." We do not view His words in the Gospel of John symbolically because as I pointed out earlier, many of Jesus' disciples abandoned Him after He spoke those words. His disciples took His words literally as indicated by Scripture.

John 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

So, bascially, these are our reasons as to why we took Christ's words literally. I'm sure you have your own reasons why you took His words symbollicaly. Perhaps, it is because like His disciples who left Him, you found it difficult to believe and even unthinkable of Christ saying it literally? Thus, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

But thats quite a questionable debate isnt it, basically any church father can claim to hold an oral tradition....but nothing can be proved that the oral tradition actually came from any of the Apostles or Jesus Christ. This is why we should stick to what God has provided us with in the written word. It cannot be changed. It has been preserved for us so that we can know everything we need to know.

You realise that the Jews also had and 'oral' tradition, im sure. And im sure you know what he said about those oral traditions in passages such as Mr 7:3 Mt 15:9 Mt 15:1, 2, 7-11; Mr 7:4-8

Rather then oral traditions that did not have Gods stamp of approval, we should only be looking at what is written because that is what God has provided us with as Paul shows Ro 15:4; 2Ti 3:15-17

Yes, I am aware that the Jews also have an oral tradition. However, their oral traditions has nothing to do with the Sciptures that you posted. According to our Catholic Bible (Sirach 17:9), "Moreover he gave them instructions, and the law of life for an inheritance." This is a biblical Scripture that you can find ONLY in a Catholic Bible. I understand that because you don't have this scripture in your Bible, you may view this as irrelevant and uninspired. But because it is in a Catholic Bible, then perhaps you can see why I as a Catholic understand about the Jewish Talmud.

Nevertheless, according to this Scripture, God gave the Jewish people oral instructions. The word "Talmud" in Hebrew means "instructions." Their oral instructions came from God, not from the traditions of men, and this is what is written in their Talmud. The Jewish oral traditions are now written in the Jewish Talmud, which conist of the Mishnah,( the first written compendium of Judaism's Oral Law); and the Gemara (a discussion of the Mishnah and Tannaitic writings).

As you know, the first Christians were also Jews, so it should not be surprising to learn that these first Jewish Christians passed on something "Jewish" to the Gentile converts. We Catholics still retain many of that Jewish heritage that has been passed down from the Apostles who were Jewish. Like the Jewish people, our oral teachings were written in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Canon Law of the Catholic Church.

And the word "Catechism" is Latin meaning "oral teachings." Do you see the similarities? In Judaism, the Jewish Talmud (which mean "instructions") are the oral traditions of the Jews and it is in our Scripture that God gave them these instructions to keep. In the same way, the Catechisms (which means "oral teachings") are the oral teachings that St. Paul speaks about in Scripture. St. Paul never said to get rid of the oral teachings. He did say to hold on to those oral teachings.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

Sacred Scripture instructs us to hold on to the traditions that were taught to us through the spoken word, and this already had God's stamp of approval because it is written down in Scripture. Therefore, we cannot simply just get rid of these oral teachings. Our sacred tradition is already written in our Catechism and Cannon Law. Catechism is the latin word meaning "oral teaching." We are following exactly what is written in Scripture by the Apostle Paul. We have both....the oral teachings (Sacred Apostolic Tradition) and Sacred Scripture (the Bible).

By the way, I am taking a class this summer and may not be able to get online. So, if I don't answer right away, it is because I am busy with class. God bless you, my sister.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[brionne]

Sacred Scripture instructs us to hold on to the traditions that were taught to us through the spoken word, and this already had God's stamp of approval because it is written down in Scripture. Therefore, we cannot simply just get rid of these oral teachings. Our sacred tradition is already written in our Catechism and Cannon Law. Catechism is the latin word meaning "oral teaching." We are following exactly what is written in Scripture by the Apostle Paul. We have both....the oral teachings (Sacred Apostolic Tradition) and Sacred Scripture (the Bible).

By the way, I am taking a class this summer and may not be able to get online. So, if I don't answer right away, it is because I am busy with class. God bless you, my sister.

In Christ,
Selene

cheers for that Selene, i understand where you are coming from.

I guess its Pauls and the other OT traditions that i am most intersted in...any additions to these I am perhaps not viewing in the same way as you are.

Goodluck in your studies and im sure we'll cross posts again soon