Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
We should rely on the finished work of Christ (John 19.30; Hebrews chapters 9 and 10); not on symbols ('this do in remembrance of Me', 1 Corinthians 11) supposedly becoming the very thing that they represent.I think I believe in transubstantiation despite being Protestant.
Is that bad?
I think I believe in transubstantiation despite being Protestant.
Is that bad?
Depends, do you believe in religious cannabalism?I think I believe in transubstantiation despite being Protestant.
Is that bad?
I think I believe in transubstantiation despite being Protestant.
Is that bad?
I think I believe in transubstantiation despite being Protestant.
Is that bad?
I think I believe in transubstantiation despite being Protestant.
Is that bad?
Depends, do you believe in religious cannabalism?
Please Be Very RICHLY Encouraged And Edified In Him, And
In HIS Word Of Truth, Rightly Divided!:
GRACE and Peace...
I think I believe in transubstantiation despite being Protestant.
Is that bad?
Yes! Jesus is not present in the Eucharist. He is in heaven ever living to make intercession for us! Catholicism calls this the perpetual sacrifice of th emass and that means they are constantly recrucifying Jesus at the mass.
The bible calls it a remembrance we do to show forth His death until he returns.
John 6:55-58 may suggest otherwise, Ronald.
But to me it is the evidence from the early Church Fathers which is compelling on this point. 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. I am not prepared to be dismissive of this history. Are you?
Such was the currency of the doctrine two centuries before Chalcedon, a millennium before Aquinas. I am not prepared to be dismissive of this history. Are you?
Of course it's bad. Do you understand what the Eucharist is all about? It is definitely NOT the Lord's Supper.I think I believe in transubstantiation despite being Protestant. Is that bad?
Do you understand what the Eucharist is all about? It is definitely NOT the Lord's Supper
I never gave it much thought. I wonder if the Catholics give it much thought. I'm more into the purpose of Communion than trying to define its aspects.I think I believe in transubstantiation despite being Protestant.
Is that bad?
Blood was sacred to God because it contained the victim’s life essence (Lev. 17:10-13). And that is precisely why we are commanded to drink the blood of Christ, which contains the victim’s eternal life essence. Only if Christ is really present in these elements will this be fulfilled. Say that it’s just wine, that the meal is commemorative only, and this benefit is lost.
It is definitely NOT the Lord's Supper.
I had to look up the dictionary definition of "transubstantiation"-
Transubstantiation
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY: the conversion of the substance of the Eucharistic elements into the body and blood of Christ at consecration, only the appearances of bread and wine still remaining.
But I still haven't a clue what it means, is it a catholic thing or what?..
"consubstantiation" rather than a "transubstantiation" theorist