Transubstantiation. What is it?

[Robert Pate]

"Transubstantiation". The first part of the word "Trans" means to change. The second part of the word "Substantiation" means the substance. Catholics believe that the bread and the wine in the Eucharist changes into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. I have trouble with this because it appears to be spiritual cannibalism. What is the purpose of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus? I believe that they have taken this from John 6:53 where Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you" Was Jesus advocating cannibalism? I don't think so. The purpose of transubstantiation is to become more like Jesus.

The Bible is a spiritual book. Paul said, "I have been crucified with Christ" Galatians 2:20. Was Paul actually crucified with Christ? I don't think so. Paul didn't become a Christian until after Jesus returned to heaven. Spiritually speaking, Paul was crucified with Christ, but not actually or physically. Same thing with eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking his blood. Jesus also said, "I am the bread of life" John 6:51. Is Jesus bread? I don't think so. These things have a spiritual meaning. What is the spiritual meaning of these scriptures? What they mean is that Jesus is our life. We live and have our being in him and because of him. This is how we eat his flesh and drink his blood. It has a very spiritual meaning.

 

[JohnDB]

Yeah,
Not so much for a strict literal interpretation of scriptures. Some are.

It's how most people miss that instead of 12 tribes of Israel there really was 13 of them.
OR
That instead of 12 apostles there really were 13 of them too.

But many people are delighted with a "Baker's Dozen "

 

[Robert Pate]

Yeah,
Not so much for a strict literal interpretation of scriptures. Some are.

It's how most people miss that instead of 12 tribes of Israel there really was 13 of them.
OR
That instead of 12 apostles there really were 13 of them too.

But many people are delighted with a "Baker's Dozen "

The sole purpose of the Bible is to be a witness for Christ and his Gospel. We need to remember that the Bible was written by men and authored by God.

 

[JohnDB]

The sole purpose of the Bible is to be a witness for Christ and his Gospel. We need to remember that the Bible was written by men and authored by God.

So who can't count?
Man or God?

 

[Robert Pate]

So who can't count?
Man or God?

Man is a sinner. Don't trust in him, especially if he has on a black suit.

 

[Robert Pate]

Man is a sinner. Don't trust in him, especially if he has on a black suit.

Transubstantiation is another Catholic fairy tail. The Bible does not teach it, if it did the Bible would be full of it. Transubstantiation is anti-Gospel and is just another way for Catholics to pervert the Gospel. It is another Gospel, Galatians 1:6-10.

 

[Taken]

The sole purpose of the Bible is to be a witness for Christ and his Gospel. We need to remember that the Bible was written by men and authored by God.

Yes.
And the well known conundrum of going Against natural mans nature that “SEEING is Believing”.

Thus the TEACHING is in Parallels of what DOES Apply to God, paralleled to that which a man naturally understands.
AS WELL AS “snippets” a man can “SEE and Experience” … OF … Gods Power.
(* Blessings when everything appears hopeless for an seemingly impossible favorable result.
* The Great winds, Earthquakes, Flooding, etc. effects of Weather controlled by Gods Power.)

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[RedFan]

Transubstantiation is another Catholic fairy tail. The Bible does not teach it, if it did the Bible would be full of it. Transubstantiation is anti-Gospel and is just another way for Catholics to pervert the Gospel. It is another Gospel, Galatians 1:6-10.

It is not only John 6:55 but the evidence from the early Church Fathers which should be considered here. Within the first two centuries after Calvary, we find the testimony of Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnians ch. 7 (“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. . .”); Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch. 66 (“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh”); Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, ch. 18 § 5 (“Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption and does not partake of life? . . . For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of resurrection to eternity”); Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, ch. 2 § 3 (“When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?”).

Such was the currency of the doctrine two centuries before Chalcedon, a millennium before Aquinas. It is not easy to dismiss this history as simply a misinterpretation of John's gospel.

In fact, one could take the history back further, to Israel’s historic practice of consuming the flesh of sin offerings. The same God who demanded sacrifice as the price of forgiving sin also prescribed that the flesh be consumed, Lev. 6:29―not because He couldn’t see perfectly good meat going to waste, but because it was a means of communion for His chosen people. It still is. God still holds to the original insistence that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin (Heb. 9:22). The difference now is that His injunction against consuming that blood (Gen. 9:4, Deut. 12:23) has been partly lifted; He now enjoins the opposite on us when it comes to the blood of Christ (John 6:53). Blood was sacred to God because it contained the victim’s life essence (Lev. 17:10-13). And that, I think, is behind John's command to drink the blood of Christ, which contains the victim’s eternal life essence, as a pathway to eternal life. (If John meant something else, it isn't easy to see what that might be.)

The concept expressed by the early Church Fathers here is that only if Christ is really present in these elements will this communing with the eternal be fulfilled. Say that it’s just wine, that the meal is commemorative only, and this benefit is lost. Real Presence was orthodox doctrine in the early Church for this reason. The Catholics took this Real Presence notion and butchered it into the doctrine of transubstantiation, which holds that the bread and wine, upon being consecrated by a priest, are mysteriously changed and are no longer bread and wine despite all physical appearances to the contrary.

 

[Robert Pate]

It is not only John 6:55 but the evidence from the early Church Fathers which should be considered here. Within the first two centuries after Calvary, we find the testimony of Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnians ch. 7 (“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. . .”); Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch. 66 (“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh”); Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, ch. 18 § 5 (“Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption and does not partake of life? . . . For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of resurrection to eternity”); Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, ch. 2 § 3 (“When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?”).

Such was the currency of the doctrine two centuries before Chalcedon, a millennium before Aquinas. It is not easy to dismiss this history as simply a misinterpretation of John's gospel.

In fact, one could take the history back further, to Israel’s historic practice of consuming the flesh of sin offerings. The same God who demanded sacrifice as the price of forgiving sin also prescribed that the flesh be consumed, Lev. 6:29―not because He couldn’t see perfectly good meat going to waste, but because it was a means of communion for His chosen people. It still is. God still holds to the original insistence that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin (Heb. 9:22). The difference now is that His injunction against consuming that blood (Gen. 9:4, Deut. 12:23) has been partly lifted; He now enjoins the opposite on us when it comes to the blood of Christ (John 6:53). Blood was sacred to God because it contained the victim’s life essence (Lev. 17:10-13). And that, I think, is behind John's command to drink the blood of Christ, which contains the victim’s eternal life essence, as a pathway to eternal life. (If John meant something else, it isn't easy to see what that might be.)

The concept expressed by the early Church Fathers here is that only if Christ is really present in these elements will this communing with the eternal be fulfilled. Say that it’s just wine, that the meal is commemorative only, and this benefit is lost. Real Presence was orthodox doctrine in the early Church for this reason. The Catholics took this Real Presence notion and butchered it into the doctrine of transubstantiation, which holds that the bread and wine, upon being consecrated by a priest, are mysteriously changed and are no longer bread and wine despite all physical appearances to the contrary.

The whole idea behind transubstantiation is to become like Jesus Christ. They can eat wafers and drink grape juice until they choke, they will never be like Jesus.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

"Transubstantiation". The first part of the word "Trans" means to change. The second part of the word "Substantiation" means the substance. Catholics believe that the bread and the wine in the Eucharist changes into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. I have trouble with this because it appears to be spiritual cannibalism. What is the purpose of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus? I believe that they have taken this from John 6:53 where Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you" Was Jesus advocating cannibalism? I don't think so. The purpose of transubstantiation is to become more like Jesus.

The Bible is a spiritual book. Paul said, "I have been crucified with Christ" Galatians 2:20. Was Paul actually crucified with Christ? I don't think so. Paul didn't become a Christian until after Jesus returned to heaven. Spiritually speaking, Paul was crucified with Christ, but not actually or physically. Same thing with eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking his blood. Jesus also said, "I am the bread of life" John 6:51. Is Jesus bread? I don't think so. These things have a spiritual meaning. What is the spiritual meaning of these scriptures? What they mean is that Jesus is our life. We live and have our being in him and because of him. This is how we eat his flesh and drink his blood. It has a very spiritual meaning.

What all of us gentile believers do not understand is the meaning of what Jesus took at the last supper (Passover meal) and said was HIs body and blood.

The Pesach meal included 3 loaves of unleavened bread in a trifold napkin. Jesus took out the middle loaf, which had to be striped and pierced and said this is my body.

The cup He took was the 3rd of four cups of wine drank at Passover and it was the cup of redemption. Nearly all the components of the Passover meal had symbolisms to them and Jesus was explaining what these two parts of the meal meant. Just like the bitter herbs, the spotless lamb, Jesus was explaining the symbols and what they actually stood for.

Hope this helps.

 

[Robert Pate]

What all of us gentile believers do not understand is the meaning of what Jesus took at the last supper (Passover meal) and said was HIs body and blood.

The Pesach meal included 3 loaves of unleavened bread in a trifold napkin. Jesus took out the middle loaf, which had to be striped and pierced and said this is my body.

The cup He took was the 3rd of four cups of wine drank at Passover and it was the cup of redemption. Nearly all the components of the Passover meal had symbolisms to them and Jesus was explaining what these two parts of the meal meant. Just like the bitter herbs, the spotless lamb, Jesus was explaining the symbols and what they actually stood for.

Hope this helps.

Symbols are spiritual. Much of what Jesus said and did was spiritual. The only ones that understand spiritual things are those that are indwelt with the Holy Spirit. The rest are in darkness.

 

[Hobie]

"Transubstantiation". The first part of the word "Trans" means to change. The second part of the word "Substantiation" means the substance. Catholics believe that the bread and the wine in the Eucharist changes into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. I have trouble with this because it appears to be spiritual cannibalism. What is the purpose of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus? I believe that they have taken this from John 6:53 where Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you" Was Jesus advocating cannibalism? I don't think so. The purpose of transubstantiation is to become more like Jesus.

The Bible is a spiritual book. Paul said, "I have been crucified with Christ" Galatians 2:20. Was Paul actually crucified with Christ? I don't think so. Paul didn't become a Christian until after Jesus returned to heaven. Spiritually speaking, Paul was crucified with Christ, but not actually or physically. Same thing with eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking his blood. Jesus also said, "I am the bread of life" John 6:51. Is Jesus bread? I don't think so. These things have a spiritual meaning. What is the spiritual meaning of these scriptures? What they mean is that Jesus is our life. We live and have our being in him and because of him. This is how we eat his flesh and drink his blood. It has a very spiritual meaning.

Its spiritual or the example of the sacrificial lamb, but the apostate church turns it into the literal eating your enemy as they are in conflict with Christ, the lamb of God.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Symbols are spiritual. Much of what Jesus said and did was spiritual. The only ones that understand spiritual things are those that are indwelt with the Holy Spirit. The rest are in darkness.

No. ssymbols are physical metaphors for reality. The passover meal was loaded with symbols. As is written in Hebrews that many OT things were types and shadows of things to come. Like Melchizedek, He was a real figure and was a type of priest Jesus is. That is real and physical. The passover lamb was a type or symbol of Jesus as
gods passover lamb, same with Isaac was a symbol of god sacrificing His son etc.etc.

The way you explain yourself lends one to believe you believe in a mystical type of interpreting Scripture and seeing spiritual meanings behind literal things. There are many who have gone down that road and for one passage have come up with hundreds of "spiritual interpretations". They all can't be right and swear they heard from God and the others are wrong or mistaken in whole or part.

 

[Augustin56]

The whole idea behind transubstantiation is to become like Jesus Christ. They can eat wafers and drink grape juice until they choke, they will never be like Jesus.

The "wafers" and "grape juice are transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ. The first group that left Jesus, left over this very doctrine. See John 6:66: As a result of this, many of His disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

Not just the Gospel of John, but the beliefs of the first Christians. Here are just three, for starters:

Ignatius of Antioch​

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . 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 that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr​

“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made 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 is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus​

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

"Transubstantiation". The first part of the word "Trans" means to change. The second part of the word "Substantiation" means the substance. Catholics believe that the bread and the wine in the Eucharist changes into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. I have trouble with this because it appears to be spiritual cannibalism. What is the purpose of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus? I believe that they have taken this from John 6:53 where Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you" Was Jesus advocating cannibalism? I don't think so. The purpose of transubstantiation is to become more like Jesus.

The Bible is a spiritual book. Paul said, "I have been crucified with Christ" Galatians 2:20. Was Paul actually crucified with Christ? I don't think so. Paul didn't become a Christian until after Jesus returned to heaven. Spiritually speaking, Paul was crucified with Christ, but not actually or physically. Same thing with eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking his blood. Jesus also said, "I am the bread of life" John 6:51. Is Jesus bread? I don't think so. These things have a spiritual meaning. What is the spiritual meaning of these scriptures? What they mean is that Jesus is our life. We live and have our being in him and because of him. This is how we eat his flesh and drink his blood. It has a very spiritual meaning.

Jesus performed many miracles, healings, fed the multitude and still there were unbelievers. " But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe." They wanted yet another sign. They brought up Moses and the manna. Likey they wanted to see manna fall from heaven? Jesus said I am the bread of life. But they grumbled, were doubters, so He said something profound to get rid of them, " "eat my flesh and drink my blood" ... they couldn't handle that, they left.

Bread and wine are symbolic. He says every time you meet do this in remembrance of Me. We remember what He did. As man cannot live by bread alone, Jesus is the spiritual bread of life. We nourish ourselves with His Word. He is the Word and sonit is symbolism. We consume the Word. If this transsubstantiation actually occurred, we would taste it, yuck. No. He also meant that symbolically when He told them you must eat my flesh and drink my blood, knowing they would not understand and to get rid of them at the time.

 

[Augustin56]

Jesus performed many miracles, healings, fed the multitude and still there were unbelievers. " But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe." They wanted yet another sign. They brought up Moses and the manna. Likeynthey was two ti see manna c all from heaven? Jesus said I am the bread of life. But they grumbled, were doubters, so He said something profound to get rid of them, " "eat my flesh and drink my blood" ... they couldn't handle that, they left.

Bread and wine are symbolic. He says every time you meet do this in remembrance of Me. We remember what He did. As man cannot live by bread alone, Jesus is the spiritual bread of life. We nourish ourselves with His Word. He is the Word and sonit is symbolism. We consume the Word. If this transsubstantiation actually occurred, we would taste it, yuck. No. He also meant that symbolically when He told them you must eat my flesh and drink my blood, knowing they would not understand and to get rid of them at the time.

Jesus said, "...do this in rememberance of Me." The "do this" is the what. The "in rememberance" part is the why. Be careful not to confuse the two. What is the "this" part? See Matt. 26:26, While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” He never said, "...this is a symbol of my body." Not once, not ever.

Then, Matt. 26:27-28: Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you,
for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." Again, He didn't say, "...this is a symbol of my blood."

The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church, J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

 

[Berserk]

(1) Robert Pate overlooks the fact that John excludes the words of Institution of Holy Communion in his chapter on the Last Supper (John 13) precisely because he prefers to include Jesus' words on the subject in 6:53-58. Jesus teaches that He becomes uniquely present to those who eat His body and drink His blood:

"For my flesh is REAL FOOD and my blood is REAL drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood ABIDE IN ME AND I IN THEM (6:55-56)."
He loses several disciples over this cannibalistic language. To retain them, all He needs to do is explain that Communion is a merely symbolic ritual, but He doesn't do this because He is really present in the act of receiving CommuNion!

(2) Holy Communion is not merely symbolic; we actually "share" in the body and blood of Christ:

"The cup of blessing that we bless, is not a SHARING in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a SHARING in the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16)?"

Because Christ is uniquely present in Holy Communion, there are serious physical consequences for failing to "discern" His Body:

"For all who eat and drink WITHOUT DISCERNING THE BODY eat and drink judgment against themselves. For this reason, many of you are weak and ill and some have died (11:29-30)."

 

[Robert Pate]

No. ssymbols are physical metaphors for reality. The passover meal was loaded with symbols. As is written in Hebrews that many OT things were types and shadows of things to come. Like Melchizedek, He was a real figure and was a type of priest Jesus is. That is real and physical. The passover lamb was a type or symbol of Jesus as
gods passover lamb, same with Isaac was a symbol of god sacrificing His son etc.etc.

The way you explain yourself lends one to believe you believe in a mystical type of interpreting Scripture and seeing spiritual meanings behind literal things. There are many who have gone down that road and for one passage have come up with hundreds of "spiritual interpretations". They all can't be right and swear they heard from God and the others are wrong or mistaken in whole or part.

My Funk and Wagnalls Dictionary says that a symbol is something chosen to represent something else. Example: An oak tree is a symbol of strength. There are many spiritual meanings behind literal things. The Whole Bible is a spiritual book. The Gospel is spiritual. Jesus spiritually defeated sin, death and the devil. Paul said, "I have been crucified with Christ" was Paul actually crucified with Christ? of course not. But spiritually he was.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

My Funk and Wagnalls Dictionary says that a symbol is something chosen to represent something else. Example: An oak tree is a symbol of strength. There are many spiritual meanings behind literal things. The Whole Bible is a spiritual book. The Gospel is spiritual. Jesus spiritually defeated sin, death and the devil. Paul said, "I have been crucified with Christ" was Paul actually crucified with Christ? of course not. But spiritually he was.

Well then define what you mean by saying the bible is a spiritual book. that statement has many different meanings with many different people.

Do you believe we should take it literally as written with all the symbols defined etc? or do you believe we must "read between the lines"? I would like to know what you mean so I can understand where you are coming from.

 

[Robert Pate]

Well then define what you mean by saying the bible is a spiritual book. that statement has many different meanings with many different people.

Do you believe we should take it literally as written with all the symbols defined etc? or do you believe we must "read between the lines"? I would like to know what you mean so I can understand where you are coming from.

Faith is spiritual. The Bible tells us about things that have happened that we have not seen or experienced, we spiritually believe that these things are of God and are true. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11:1.
A Symbol is an object or something that represents something else. Some symbols can also be spiritual.