Transubstantiation. What is it?

[Hobie]

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).

It was the hardest thing for Martin Luther to understand and leave behind, but it was a false idea from pagan mythology as the other things the apostate church brought in. Christ said it was for us to remember, not any mystic change of raw flesh and blood. This is a good explanation..
"A popular misconception among Reformation students is that Luther affirmed and promoted “consubstantiation,” but neither Luther nor the Lutheran church ever accepted that term. Luther simply refused to speculate on how Christ is present and instead settled for affirming that he is there. The presence of Christ in the Supper is miraculous and thus defies explanation.

Roman Catholic theologians strongly emphasized the moment of consecration, when the priest would lift the bread and say “Hoc est corpus meum.” At that moment, bells would be rung and all eyes would be on the elevated host, which had magically been transformed into Christ’s body.

Luther similarly emphasized the words of institution, but only because Christ’s command leads to the change, not because the priest has made a special utterance. In this and other practices, Luther was content to alter the understanding behind Roman Catholic practice without feeling the need to actually change the tradition itself."Luther vs. Zwingli 2: Luther on the Lord's Supper

 

[Augustin56]

It was the hardest thing for Martin Luther to understand and leave behind, but it was a false idea from pagan mythology as the other things the apostate church brought in. Christ said it was for us to remember, not any mystic change of raw flesh and blood. This is a good explanation..
"A popular misconception among Reformation students is that Luther affirmed and promoted “consubstantiation,” but neither Luther nor the Lutheran church ever accepted that term. Luther simply refused to speculate on how Christ is present and instead settled for affirming that he is there. The presence of Christ in the Supper is miraculous and thus defies explanation.

Roman Catholic theologians strongly emphasized the moment of consecration, when the priest would lift the bread and say “Hoc est corpus meum.” At that moment, bells would be rung and all eyes would be on the elevated host, which had magically been transformed into Christ’s body.

Luther similarly emphasized the words of institution, but only because Christ’s command leads to the change, not because the priest has made a special utterance. In this and other practices, Luther was content to alter the understanding behind Roman Catholic practice without feeling the need to actually change the tradition itself."Luther vs. Zwingli 2: Luther on the Lord's Supper

There is no magic involved in transubstantiation. Christ, through his instrument the priest, changes the bread and wine, substantively, to His Body and Blood. If you think Christ, Who is God, is not capable of doing so, then you may need to decide whether you think God is all powerful. Christ commissioned others to consecrate the bread and wine at the Last Supper. He delegated His authority to do so to the Apostles and their successors. Similarly, Christ delegated His authority to forgive sins in John 20:19-23.

Jesus established a (one) Church while He was on earth. He promised to remain with that Church till the end of time. He authorized no one to found a separate/different Church, ever. Jesus is ever with His Church, not just spiritually, but physically! He is in the Eucharist in every Catholic Church in the world.

Luther went off the rails through pride. He took upon himself the power to change the Bible (switched OT versions to the one set in the late 1st/early 2nd century by the Jews who had rejected Christ), and began establishing doctrines, such as Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, neither of which are Scriptural.

 

[RedFan]

I generally agree with Augustin56 on this. Where I differ with the Roman Catholic view is at the point of its insistence on transubstantiation (the essence/substance of bread and wine are displaced by the essence/substance of Christ) over consubstantiation (the elements retain a dual essence/substance). I favor consubstantiation as the proper theory. To my way of thinking, it's the Real Presence of Christ in the elements that matters, and that is attested by John 6:55. Real presence is real presence, regardless of what else may be present.

Some transubstantiation denizens argue that if the bread and wine are literally the Body and Blood of Christ, then they can no longer be bread and wine at all (whatever their accidental qualities or appearance). The Body and Blood, they say, must fully occupy the field, leaving no room for any other substance or essence. But it must be possible for the elements to retain a dual essence or substance if we allow―as most Christians certainly do― that Jesus himself enjoyed a dual essence/substance while on earth. The sense in which Jesus Christ can simultaneously be both “true God and true man” is the same sense in which the Eucharist can simultaneously be both true body and true bread, or true blood and true wine. Certainly Christ’s dual nature is not the easiest concept to grasp; but let someone explain it to me, and I will then have an answer for him on why consubstantiation is a viable position to hold.

Let’s apply Ockham’s Razor here. If consubstantiation is a sufficient explanation of the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, why go further? The Eucharist is mystical enough without also putting it through extra levels of explanation, as must be done with the doctrine of transubstantiation. Putting the elements through a chemical lab will surely yield the result that they are bread and wine; why resort to Aristotelian niceties distinguishing the essential and the accidental in order to explain that result? Irenaeus’ “two realities” is a simpler explanation.

 

[Hobie]

There is no magic involved in transubstantiation. Christ, through his instrument the priest, changes the bread and wine, substantively, to His Body and Blood. If you think Christ, Who is God, is not capable of doing so, then you may need to decide whether you think God is all powerful. Christ commissioned others to consecrate the bread and wine at the Last Supper. He delegated His authority to do so to the Apostles and their successors. Similarly, Christ delegated His authority to forgive sins in John 20:19-23.

Jesus established a (one) Church while He was on earth. He promised to remain with that Church till the end of time. He authorized no one to found a separate/different Church, ever. Jesus is ever with His Church, not just spiritually, but physically! He is in the Eucharist in every Catholic Church in the world.

Luther went off the rails through pride. He took upon himself the power to change the Bible (switched OT versions to the one set in the late 1st/early 2nd century by the Jews who had rejected Christ), and began establishing doctrines, such as Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, neither of which are Scriptural.

A yes, the priest is the only one it is claimed. Christ has no control or gives none this, but a man changes it to raw flesh and blood, the 'elements into the body and blood of Christ.. only the appearances of bread and wine still remaining.' No, it was to be done in remembrance, not a virtual bloody re-sacrifice, only the devil is pleased with that..

 

[Augustin56]

A yes, the priest is the only one it is claimed. Christ has no control or gives none this, but a man changes it to raw flesh and blood, the 'elements into the body and blood of Christ.. only the appearances of bread and wine still remaining.' No, it was to be done in remembrance, not a virtual bloody re-sacrifice, only the devil is pleased with that..

The issue is about authority. Authority, unlike power, is "given." Power is "taken." Christ gave His authority to confect the Eucharist to the Apostles. He didn't give it to everyone. Had He intended that, He could have given it to the 5000 when they were gathered there to listen to Him. (Story about the fishes and loaves.) Or one of the other great gatherings where they came to hear Him.

No. He chose the Apostles, in the upper room. They gave that authority to their successors, the bishops, who did likewise, etc., for almost 2000 years now. Look up the term "Apostolic Succession." Every bishop can trace the authority given him through previous bishops, the Apostles, and Christ.

And, as usual, trying to reinvent the wheel by personally interpreting the Bible leads to error. The "in remembrance" part is the why, not the what. All of the first Christians the the Early Church fathers understood Jesus to be talking literally, not figuratively.

And it is not a "re-sacrifice." That notion is made up by Protestants who don't understand what Christ's Church teaches. It is the one, same sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, re-presented in reality.

I think God understands the confusion that some well-meaning people, such as yourself, have regarding the Eucharist. That's why there have been several (many?) Eucharistic miracles where the Eucharist has visibly turned into flesh and blood. Scientific tests were done on the materials, because someone could have substituted chicken blood or beef meat, or some such thing. Medical scientists and forensic scientists, in different parts of the world, have tested these phenomena. They have concluded the following:

1. The tissue is cardiac tissue.
2. The tissue comes from a male human being, aged 30-35 (Our Lord was 33 when He was crucified.)
3. The blood is type AB blood, very rare, but less rare in the Middle East.
4. The tissue was taken from a living human being, even though some of the samples were years old.
5. The blood is in the same proportions as fresh blood. If you or I cut ourselves seriously, and a pool of blood dripped on the floor, within about 20 minutes, it would begin to separate the red blood cells from the serum.

Here is a video that touches on this phenomena:

 

[Robert Pate]

The issue is about authority. Authority, unlike power, is "given." Power is "taken." Christ gave His authority to confect the Eucharist to the Apostles. He didn't give it to everyone. Had He intended that, He could have given it to the 5000 when they were gathered there to listen to Him. (Story about the fishes and loaves.) Or one of the other great gatherings where they came to hear Him.

No. He chose the Apostles, in the upper room. They gave that authority to their successors, the bishops, who did likewise, etc., for almost 2000 years now. Look up the term "Apostolic Succession." Every bishop can trace the authority given him through previous bishops, the Apostles, and Christ.

And, as usual, trying to reinvent the wheel by personally interpreting the Bible leads to error. The "in remembrance" part is the why, not the what. All of the first Christians the the Early Church fathers understood Jesus to be talking literally, not figuratively.

And it is not a "re-sacrifice." That notion is made up by Protestants who don't understand what Christ's Church teaches. It is the one, same sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, re-presented in reality.

I think God understands the confusion that some well-meaning people, such as yourself, have regarding the Eucharist. That's why there have been several (many?) Eucharistic miracles where the Eucharist has visibly turned into flesh and blood. Scientific tests were done on the materials, because someone could have substituted chicken blood or beef meat, or some such thing. Medical scientists and forensic scientists, in different parts of the world, have tested these phenomena. They have concluded the following:

1. The tissue is cardiac tissue.
2. The tissue comes from a male human being, aged 30-35 (Our Lord was 33 when He was crucified.)
3. The blood is type AB blood, very rare, but less rare in the Middle East.
4. The tissue was taken from a living human being, even though some of the samples were years old.
5. The blood is in the same proportions as fresh blood. If you or I cut ourselves seriously, and a pool of blood dripped on the floor, within about 20 minutes, it would begin to separate the red blood cells from the serum.

Here is a video that touches on this phenomena:

Taking the sacraments is a work of the law, it is something that you do. Any religious thing that we do is a work of the law. Paul said, "Therefore by the deeds of the law (what you do) no flesh will be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin" Romans 3:20. Catholics believe that they are saved and justified by what they do. Jesus said, "Many will say to me on that day (judgment day) Lord, Lord didn't we preach in your name? and in your name cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works? and then I will say unto them, I never knew you: depart from me you that work iniquity" Matthew 7:21-23.

 

[RedFan]

Taking the sacraments is a work of the law, it is something that you do. Any religious thing that we do is a work of the law.

Then Luke 22:19, where Jesus is recorded as saying to "Do this," must have been instituting a "work of the law" in your book.

 

[Robert Pate]

Then Luke 22:19, where Jesus is recorded as saying to "Do this," must have been instituting a "work of the law" in your book.

Christians are not under the law, nore are they subject to it, Ephesians 2:15. Jesus nailed it to his cross, Colossians 2:14.

 

[Hobie]

The issue is about authority. Authority, unlike power, is "given." Power is "taken." Christ gave His authority to confect the Eucharist to the Apostles. He didn't give it to everyone. Had He intended that, He could have given it to the 5000 when they were gathered there to listen to Him. (Story about the fishes and loaves.) Or one of the other great gatherings where they came to hear Him.

No. He chose the Apostles, in the upper room. They gave that authority to their successors, the bishops, who did likewise, etc., for almost 2000 years now. Look up the term "Apostolic Succession." Every bishop can trace the authority given him through previous bishops, the Apostles, and Christ.

And, as usual, trying to reinvent the wheel by personally interpreting the Bible leads to error. The "in remembrance" part is the why, not the what. All of the first Christians the the Early Church fathers understood Jesus to be talking literally, not figuratively.

And it is not a "re-sacrifice." That notion is made up by Protestants who don't understand what Christ's Church teaches. It is the one, same sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, re-presented in reality.

I think God understands the confusion that some well-meaning people, such as yourself, have regarding the Eucharist. That's why there have been several (many?) Eucharistic miracles where the Eucharist has visibly turned into flesh and blood. Scientific tests were done on the materials, because someone could have substituted chicken blood or beef meat, or some such thing. Medical scientists and forensic scientists, in different parts of the world, have tested these phenomena. They have concluded the following:

1. The tissue is cardiac tissue.
2. The tissue comes from a male human being, aged 30-35 (Our Lord was 33 when He was crucified.)
3. The blood is type AB blood, very rare, but less rare in the Middle East.
4. The tissue was taken from a living human being, even though some of the samples were years old.
5. The blood is in the same proportions as fresh blood. If you or I cut ourselves seriously, and a pool of blood dripped on the floor, within about 20 minutes, it would begin to separate the red blood cells from the serum.

Here is a video that touches on this phenomena:

The issue is about authority. Authority, unlike power, is "given." Power is "taken." Christ gave His authority to confect the Eucharist to the Apostles. He didn't give it to everyone. Had He intended that, He could have given it to the 5000 when they were gathered there to listen to Him. (Story about the fishes and loaves.) Or one of the other great gatherings where they came to hear Him.

No. He chose the Apostles, in the upper room. They gave that authority to their successors, the bishops, who did likewise, etc., for almost 2000 years now. Look up the term "Apostolic Succession." Every bishop can trace the authority given him through previous bishops, the Apostles, and Christ.

And, as usual, trying to reinvent the wheel by personally interpreting the Bible leads to error. The "in remembrance" part is the why, not the what. All of the first Christians the the Early Church fathers understood Jesus to be talking literally, not figuratively.

And it is not a "re-sacrifice." That notion is made up by Protestants who don't understand what Christ's Church teaches. It is the one, same sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, re-presented in reality.

I think God understands the confusion that some well-meaning people, such as yourself, have regarding the Eucharist. That's why there have been several (many?) Eucharistic miracles where the Eucharist has visibly turned into flesh and blood. Scientific tests were done on the materials, because someone could have substituted chicken blood or beef meat, or some such thing. Medical scientists and forensic scientists, in different parts of the world, have tested these phenomena. They have concluded the following:

1. The tissue is cardiac tissue.
2. The tissue comes from a male human being, aged 30-35 (Our Lord was 33 when He was crucified.)
3. The blood is type AB blood, very rare, but less rare in the Middle East.
4. The tissue was taken from a living human being, even though some of the samples were years old.
5. The blood is in the same proportions as fresh blood. If you or I cut ourselves seriously, and a pool of blood dripped on the floor, within about 20 minutes, it would begin to separate the red blood cells from the serum.

Here is a video that touches on this phenomena:

Yes, yes weve heard it all, that man has become god and has the authority...
“The Pope is of so great dignity, and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God. and the vicar of God.”
Ferraris Ecclesiastical dictionary

“All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.”
On the Authority of the Councils, book 2, chapter 17

“The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.”
Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, “Cities Petrus Bertanous”.”…the Pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief of kings, having plenitude of power.”
Lucius Ferraris, in “Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica”, Volume V, article on “Papa, Article II”, titled “Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility”, #1, 5, 13-15, 18, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition.

“The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth…by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.” Quoted in the New York Catechism.

These words are written in the Roman Canon Law 1685: “To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical.”Father A. Pereira says: “It is quite certain that Popes have never approved or rejected this title ‘Lord God the Pope,’ for the passage in the gloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome in 1580 by Gregory XIII.”

Writers on the Canon Law say, “The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth.”
Barclay Cap. XXVII, p. 218. Cities Petrus Bertrandus, Pius V. – Cardinal Cusa supports his statement.

Pope Nicholas I declared: “the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man.”
Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can. 7, Satis evidentur, Decret Gratian Primer Para."...

Need to see the problem with that..

 

[Robert Pate]

Yes, yes weve heard it all, that man has become god and has the authority...
“The Pope is of so great dignity, and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God. and the vicar of God.”
Ferraris Ecclesiastical dictionary

“All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.”
On the Authority of the Councils, book 2, chapter 17

“The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.”
Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, “Cities Petrus Bertanous”.”…the Pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief of kings, having plenitude of power.”
Lucius Ferraris, in “Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica”, Volume V, article on “Papa, Article II”, titled “Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility”, #1, 5, 13-15, 18, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition.

“The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth…by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.” Quoted in the New York Catechism.

These words are written in the Roman Canon Law 1685: “To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical.”Father A. Pereira says: “It is quite certain that Popes have never approved or rejected this title ‘Lord God the Pope,’ for the passage in the gloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome in 1580 by Gregory XIII.”

Writers on the Canon Law say, “The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth.”
Barclay Cap. XXVII, p. 218. Cities Petrus Bertrandus, Pius V. – Cardinal Cusa supports his statement.

Pope Nicholas I declared: “the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man.”
Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can. 7, Satis evidentur, Decret Gratian Primer Para."...

Need to see the problem with that..

Big problem with that. Man in the place of God is about as Satanic as it gets.

 

[Augustin56]

Taking the sacraments is a work of the law, it is something that you do. Any religious thing that we do is a work of the law. Paul said, "Therefore by the deeds of the law (what you do) no flesh will be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin" Romans 3:20. Catholics believe that they are saved and justified by what they do. Jesus said, "Many will say to me on that day (judgment day) Lord, Lord didn't we preach in your name? and in your name cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works? and then I will say unto them, I never knew you: depart from me you that work iniquity" Matthew 7:21-23.

Sacraments and "works of the law" are two entirely different things.

Works of the law refer to acts undertaken to obey the Law of Moses, the fundamental law of Judaism. Thus, after saying we are justified apart from works of the law, Paul asks, “Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also?” (Rom. 3:29). He then refers to circumcision—the most famous requirement of the Law of Moses—saying God “will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith” (Rom. 3:30).

Elsewhere, Paul raises the question of Jews and Gentiles and says that “a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” (Gal. 2:16). Just before this, he referred to the Jerusalem council and noted his companion Titus was not required to undergo circumcision, though he was Greek (Gal. 2:1–10).

This event is described in Acts. It occurred when “some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved’” (Acts 15:1). The resulting council reiterated that Gentile Christians did not need to be circumcised and become Jews.

That’s what Paul is talking about in Romans and Galatians. He is stressing that you don’t have to be circumcised, become a Jew, and obey the Mosaic Law to be saved.

The Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification.

 

[Augustin56]

Yes, yes weve heard it all, that man has become god and has the authority...
“The Pope is of so great dignity, and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God. and the vicar of God.”
Ferraris Ecclesiastical dictionary

“All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.”
On the Authority of the Councils, book 2, chapter 17

“The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.”
Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, “Cities Petrus Bertanous”.”…the Pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief of kings, having plenitude of power.”
Lucius Ferraris, in “Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica”, Volume V, article on “Papa, Article II”, titled “Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility”, #1, 5, 13-15, 18, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition.

“The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth…by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.” Quoted in the New York Catechism.

These words are written in the Roman Canon Law 1685: “To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical.”Father A. Pereira says: “It is quite certain that Popes have never approved or rejected this title ‘Lord God the Pope,’ for the passage in the gloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome in 1580 by Gregory XIII.”

Writers on the Canon Law say, “The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth.”
Barclay Cap. XXVII, p. 218. Cities Petrus Bertrandus, Pius V. – Cardinal Cusa supports his statement.

Pope Nicholas I declared: “the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man.”
Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can. 7, Satis evidentur, Decret Gratian Primer Para."...

Need to see the problem with that..

Again, you are trying to negate what Jesus clearly did and said. Jesus established the office that we call Pope in Matt. 16:18-19. The "keys" to the kingdom of heaven are the giveaway. Everyone in Jesus' day understood the symbol of authority of the keys. The king usually had a second-in-command, a sort of royal steward (see Isaiah 22;22 for an example), who ruled the kingdom when the king was unavailble (off to war, visiting other kingdoms, ill, etc.). Whatever this second-in-command ruled in the king's absence was upheld by the king upon his return. Jesus wanted someone as a visible head of His Church to govern and sanctify, until He returned. The first individual to hold this office was Peter. Peter had successors ever since, even till now. Pope Francis holds this office, and the authority given it by Christ to rule and govern.

Look closely at Matt. 16:19, where Jesus says, "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

 

[Ronald Nolette]

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.

give an example of what you mean.

 

[Robert Pate]

give an example of what you mean.

The best example is the Gospel. In the Gospel we have been crucified with Christ. In the Gospel we have been resurrected with Christ. Romans 6: 3-8. In the Gospel we are Complete in Christ, Colossians 2:10. This is all spiritual.

 

[RedFan]

Again, you are trying to negate what Jesus clearly did and said. Jesus established the office that we call Pope in Matt. 16:18-19. The "keys" to the kingdom of heaven are the giveaway. Everyone in Jesus' day understood the symbol of authority of the keys. The king usually had a second-in-command, a sort of royal steward (see Isaiah 22;22 for an example), who ruled the kingdom when the king was unavailble (off to war, visiting other kingdoms, ill, etc.). Whatever this second-in-command ruled in the king's absence was upheld by the king upon his return. Jesus wanted someone as a visible head of His Church to govern and sanctify, until He returned. The first individual to hold this office was Peter. Peter had successors ever since, even till now. Pope Francis holds this office, and the authority given it by Christ to rule and govern.

Look closely at Matt. 16:19, where Jesus says, "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

If "binding" and "loosing" in this verse were intended by Matthew to refer to forgiveness and retention of sins, well, that same authority was reportedly given to all of the disciples, not just to Peter (and hence Matt. 16:19 will not support institution of the papacy quite as robustly as the RCC might wish). If those words refer to something else than forgiveness and retention of sins, well, what might that be?

 

[Augustin56]

If "binding" and "loosing" in this verse were intended by Matthew to refer to forgiveness and retention of sins, well, that same authority was reportedly given to all of the disciples, not just to Peter (and hence Matt. 16:19 will not support institution of the papacy quite as robustly as the RCC might wish). If those words refer to something else than forgiveness and retention of sins, well, what might that be?

The "loosing and binding" in Matthew 16 is "whatever" he looses or binds. With regard to forgiveness of sins, (John 20:19-23) refers to loosing and binding of sins. A clear difference...

 

[quietthinker]

Transubstantiation. What is it?​

some Trans substantiate multi coloured flags to be in vogue?

 

[RedFan]

The "loosing and binding" in Matthew 16 is "whatever" he looses or binds. With regard to forgiveness of sins, (John 20:19-23) refers to loosing and binding of sins. A clear difference...

Well, whatever their meaning, Matt 18:8 makes clear that all the disciples had the power of loosing and binding -- it wasn't unique to Peter, and thus offers little support for the papacy argument. But in fairness, the verses leading up to Matt. 18:18 do smack of dealing with sin.

Anyway, as far as Matthew is concerned, the papacy argument needs to stick to the keys, not the loosing and binding.

 

[quietthinker]

Anyway, as far as Matthew is concerned, the papacy argument needs to stick to the keys, not the loosing and binding.

not loose keys and definitely not binding ones!

 

[Philip James]

What is the purpose of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus?

Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

All! Are welcome to come to the wedding Feast of the Lamb of God!

Alma Redemptoris Mater