Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Transubstantiation: Change We Can Believe In
Faith, Reason, and Health Blog ^ | October 19, 2011 | unknown

Posted on 10/19/2011 7:55:51 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-141 next last
I saw this on Facebook, thought it worth sharing here ;-)
1 posted on 10/19/2011 7:55:53 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
bump.

It's also the perfect rebuke to The -1.

2 posted on 10/19/2011 8:01:12 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (...then they came for the guitars, and we kicked their sorry faggot asses into the dust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

One of those Catholic doctrines like the Immaculate Conception some of us protestants have scriptural difficulty with.


3 posted on 10/19/2011 8:07:47 PM PDT by One Name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: One Name
Yes, this one is a "difficult saying." Lots of folks have had difficulty with it ;-)

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Many Disciples Desert Jesus

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”


4 posted on 10/19/2011 8:12:57 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
Yes, this one is a "difficult saying." Lots of folks have had difficulty with it ;-)

Audacious, isn't it? One might even say it's The Audacity of Hope.

5 posted on 10/19/2011 8:22:53 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (...then they came for the guitars, and we kicked their sorry faggot asses into the dust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: One Name
One of those Catholic doctrines like the Immaculate Conception some of us protestants have scriptural difficulty with.

As well as some Catholics. I'm sorry, but my wife and I went to Catholic school together for 12 years, but we just don't understand (or believe) "Transubstantiation, the "Immaculate Conception," and many other doctrines of the faith. We believe that they were created by man, not God. We respect Catholics, but we prefer to worship in other Christian churches.

6 posted on 10/19/2011 8:25:47 PM PDT by ExtremeUnction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Thank you- that is the relevant Scripture.

How do we get from the wafer and the wine, though?

We ( the P’s) accept this symbolically. We are participants in the death and resurrection of Christ. We identify with Him in the process, which some of us would argue includes Him going to Hell for us in the process.

Transubstantiation asserts that the wafer becomes His Flesh, and the wine His blood.

We(I) would say that the difficult part is the Identification, where we as believers must die to ourselves, in order to apprehend Christ’s sacrifice.

Thanks again, as I am but a journeyer..


7 posted on 10/19/2011 8:28:23 PM PDT by One Name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: One Name
Transubstantiation asserts that the wafer becomes His Flesh, and the wine His blood.

Indeed. Paul knew this to be True:

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.


8 posted on 10/19/2011 8:37:39 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ExtremeUnction

I for one don’t believe that Catholics have horns; I have met many faithful Catholics much more reverant and serving than myself.

A quest for doctrinal purity tends to lead to an excessively legalistic splitting of hairs (there’s a joke about that, Heretic Scum!)

But, I believe God is pulling the Church to the center.

Thank you.


9 posted on 10/19/2011 8:38:56 PM PDT by One Name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Brian, this is awesome! Thank you.

For those who do not understand, but perhaps are interested, or wish to see the scriptural basis for the dogmatic Catholic belief, two links:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html


10 posted on 10/19/2011 8:43:16 PM PDT by sayuncledave (et Verbum caro factum est (And the Word was made flesh))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Fascinating- I have not reviewed that passage in this context for some time.

That many would be ill or perhaps die due to unworthy Communion is interesting indeed.

Some of us are not big fans of “pharmakeia” or the practioners “pharmakyos”.


11 posted on 10/19/2011 8:47:37 PM PDT by One Name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; Cronos; wagglebee; dsc; Deo volente; MarkBsnr; Mad Dawg; ArrogantBustard; ...

This might brighten your day ;-) My family saw it and everyone loved it. It instantly became our favorite desktop background.


12 posted on 10/19/2011 8:47:59 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: One Name

The dogma of the real presence predates the canonization of the New Testament. Not to mention, the Orthodox more or less share the same doctrine as the Catholic Church although Aristotle’s terminology isn’t used.

Eastern Catholics don’t make use of Aristotle’s philosophy.

The Protestant denial of the real presence is a 16th century innovation that the earliest Christians would have found odd.


13 posted on 10/19/2011 8:52:14 PM PDT by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Rhanks so much, FRiend.


14 posted on 10/19/2011 8:54:05 PM PDT by Judith Anne ( Holy Mary, Mother of God, please pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: One Name
That many would be ill or perhaps die due to unworthy Communion is interesting indeed.

Yes. I don't think Paul would make such an assertion over a simple wafer, or a simple symbol. There just has to be more to it. Of course, the earliest Christians were unanimous in their belief in the Real Presence. It was only questioned after a thousand years had passed in Church history, and then only rejected by some sects after 3/4 of the history of Christianity had passed.

Of course, all the historic Christian denominations still cling to this belief, rightly so. And it brings more believers home than any other subject.

15 posted on 10/19/2011 8:55:12 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

My pleasure. My oldest son liked it so much, he is going to have it printed as a poster and hang it on his dorm room door at Christendom College.


16 posted on 10/19/2011 8:58:43 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: One Name

i hope you believe St John understood what the Eucharist is, whether it is merely bread or it is the Body of Christ.
after all, he was present at the Last Supper and we know he was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
now, if we agree on St John, can we also agree that Ignatius was taught what the Eucharist was by St John correctly? i am sure you were taught what your pastor thinks the Lord’s Supper is, just as Ignatius was taught by St John.
now, Ignatius wrote 7 epistles in the late first century just before he was martyred in Rome for his faith.
in one of these epistles, Ignatius says the Gnostics did not participate in the Eucharist because they denied it was the Body of Christ.
why do protestants continue with this gnostic heresy?


17 posted on 10/19/2011 9:00:00 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: One Name

Scriptural difficulty? Jesus said “This is My Body”, He didn’t say this represents my body.

i would say the difficulty is not scriptural, but rather using the natural mind rather than the eyes of faith.


18 posted on 10/19/2011 9:02:27 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rzman21; Dr. Brian Kopp

As a prot; the Real Presence is not a familiar doctrine.

Matthew 28:20
King James Version (KJV)

20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

I have to suspect this verse relates somehow.

The Spirit is indeed here as a Comforter and Friend.

Jesus lives, and guides his Bride to the Truth.


19 posted on 10/19/2011 9:05:24 PM PDT by One Name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: One Name

would the Holy Spirit not lead the Church correctly for 16 centuries on what the Eucharist is? 16 centuries is a long time, don’t you agree?


20 posted on 10/19/2011 9:07:32 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: One Name

Why?

Christ says, “This is my body.” This is my blood.”

Or are you someone who does not know what the meaning of “is” is?


21 posted on 10/19/2011 9:14:59 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Thanks for the Scripture!


22 posted on 10/19/2011 9:15:47 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: One Name
As a prot; the Real Presence is not a familiar doctrine.

Wikipedia has a decent entry on the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist that gives all the different viewpoints.

23 posted on 10/19/2011 9:19:55 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

Problem being the other baggage the same hierarchy carried forward- intercession, Imac, purgatory, penance, indulgences, etc.


24 posted on 10/19/2011 9:22:37 PM PDT by One Name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp; Absolutely Nobama; Elendur; it_ürür; Bockscar; Mary Kochan; Bed_Zeppelin; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.


25 posted on 10/19/2011 9:25:55 PM PDT by narses (what you bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and what you loose upon earth, shall be ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: One Name

This is only talking about one subject the Eucharist. Can you please stick to the subject?


26 posted on 10/19/2011 9:26:10 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: One Name

On the other hand, it could be that none of that is “baggage” after all...

If the True Presence is correct, you might just need to reexamine a lot of preconceived notions ;-)


27 posted on 10/19/2011 9:26:50 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: One Name
For your study -- it just might change your life!

Transubstantiation: Change We Can Believe In
The Institution of the Eucharist in Scripture [Catholic Caucus]
How the Mass is a sacrifice, and why so many deny this doctrine (Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)
New book connects the Eucharist with its Jewish roots
THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST (sections 3 only) {Ecumenical Thread}
THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST (sections 1&2 only) {Ecumenical Thread}

The Perfect Sacrifice: When Heaven Comes to Earth [Catholic Caucus]
The Real Presence [Church Fathers on the Holy Eucharist, cont'd ]
Is the Mass a Sacrifice? (Once and for all, Heb 9-10) {Catholic/Orthodox Caucus}
Radio Replies Second Volume - Holy Communion
The Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist {Catholic/Orthodox Caucus}
Radio Replies Second Volume - The Sacrifice of the Mass
Radio Replies Second Volume - Holy Eucharist
Thanksgiving, the Prophets and the Eucharist
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live
[CATHOLIC/ORTHODOX CAUCUS] 5th Luminous Mystery: Institution of the Eucharist (Patristic Rosary)
Wounded in the house of them that loved Me
[CATHOLIC / ORTHODOX CAUCUS] Eucharist is Jesus' greatest gift to us, teaches Pope Benedict XVI
[CATHOLIC CAUCUS] What makes Jesus present in the Eucharist: broadening one's view.
Pope's Q--A at End of Priestly Year Pt 4 "We Celebrate,..Meditate..on Eucharist" [Catholic Caucus]
Sacrifice, Transubstantiation, and Real Presence (Pope Benedict XVI) [Catholic Caucus]
Catholic Caucus: Eucharist is the Heart of God
[CATHOLIC CAUCUS]'Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity': The Miracle and Gift of the Most Holy Eucharist
A Secular Eucharist
Paul and the Eucharist
Centered in the Eucharist

Who Can Receive Communion? (Catholic Caucus)
Respect For Christ In The Eucharist – One Priest’s Perspective
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Opportunities of Grace: The Eucharist: The Lord's Supper
THE PRIEST IN THE COMMUNION RITES - Liturgy Prepares for Reception of the Eucharist
Novena with Saint Peter Julian Eymard for Prayer in the Presence of the Blessed Sacrament [Prayer]
THE PRIEST IN THE COMMUNION RITES - Liturgy Prepares for Reception of the Eucharist
Boston Cardinal: Church Needs 'Clear' Injunction Denying Pro-Abortion Pols Communion
Benedict XVI calls priests to protect communion between God and man
Eucharist: Holy Sacrifice
Fr. Men: The Eucharist [Cath-Orth caucus]
Catholics in Costa Rica outraged by disrespect toward Eucharist [Catholic Caucus]
The Institution of the Eucharist in Scripture
St Anthony and the Real Presence
The Essentials of the Catholic Faith, Part Two: Channels of Grace: The Eucharist
EWTN - October 29 - 8PM - Fr. Antoine and the Eucharist
The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium
Radio Replies First Volume - Holy Eucharist
The Institution of the Eucharist in Scripture
Catholic Caucus: The Spiritual Combat Ch 54. MANNER IN WHICH WE OUGHT TO RECEIVE...BLESSED SACRAMENT
Catholic Caucus: The Spiritual Combat: Ch 53. CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

A Few Texts From Saint Cyril of Jerusalem on the Eucharist
Catholic Devotional: On Visiting Jesus Christ In the Blessed Sacrament
The Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Focus on the Real Presence
A Chinese Girl-True Story That Inspired Bishop Fulton Sheen- Eucharist Adoration (Catholic Caucus)
Doubting Thomases(Eucharist); the Pitfalls of Folly(Catholic Caucus)
Rainbow sash-wearers prohibited from receiving [the Eucharist at Cathedral of St. Paul]
The significance of Holy Thursday (institution of the Eucharist and priesthood)
Our Lady of the Most Blessed Sacrament [Catholic Caucus]
The Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas THE HOLY EUCHARIST
Holy Communion and Non-Catholics (with a Quiz!)
Beginning Catholic: The Eucharist: In the Presence of the Lord Himself [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Receiving the Lord in Holy Communion [Ecumenical]
Faithful Invited to Follow Pope, Adore Eucharist [Catholic Caucus]
Christmas and the Eucharist(Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)
Eucharist kneeling request sparks controversy [Catholic Caucus]
Eucharist vs. the Word (which is more important in the Catholic Church)
Christ the Miracle Worker in the Eucharist(Catholic Caucus)
Imitating Christ in the Eucharist(Catholic Caucus)
The Eucharist - the Lord's Sacrifice, Banquet and Presence (OPEN)

Pope Calls Eucharist History's Greatest Revolution [OPEN]
A Brief Catechism for Adults - Lesson 22: The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist (Holy Communion)
A series of reflections from St. Peter Julian Eymard Blessed Sacrament(Catholic Caucus)
Eucharist, Holy Meal
Imitating Christ in the Eucharist
Christmas and the Eucharist
Prayer Before the Blessed Sacrament
This is My Body, This is My Blood
THE HOLY EUCHARIST IS THE WHOLE CHRIST
Gift Of Life, Gift Eternal: The Most Holy Eucharist and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
Area worshipers march to celebrate Holy Eucharist
Grace of the Eucharist is secret to holy priests, says Pope
The Disposition of Priests [Valid Mass, Valid Holy Eucharist?]
The Body of Christ?
Holy Sacrifice, Living Sacrament
Knights of the Eucharist
The Banquet of Corpus Christi - "Why did Jesus give us His Body and Blood?"
The Eucharist: Eternity and Time Together
Restored Order of the Sacraments of Initiation? Confirmation and First Eucharist together? (Vanity)
Reflections of Cardinal Ratzinger on the Eucharist

THE HOLY EUCHARIST: NOURISHMENT TO FINISH OUR COURSE
The Eucharist in Scripture - Part 1 - Old Testament
LITANY OF REPARATION TO OUR LORD IN THE BLESSED SACRAMENT
Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament
POPE GRANTS PLENARY INDULGENCE FOR YEAR OF THE EUCHARIST
New Plenary Indulgence to Mark Year of the Eucharist
Kneeling and Faith in the Eucharist
The Immaculate Conception and the Eucharist, a course in Christian culture in Tashkent
The Year of the Eucharist by Bishop Donald Wuerl
"While We're At It": What can we do to show that the Eucharist is a communal activity?
CATHOLICS AND BAPTISTS WITNESSED UNUSUAL IMAGES IN BLESSED SACRAMENT
The Discipline of the Eucharist Holy See Releases Redemptionis Sacramentum...
Vatican: Matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist (April 23, 2004)
Devotion to the Holy Eucharist Advances Devotion to Jesus' Person
New rules on the Holy Eucharist on Holy Thursday
The Reverence due to the Holy Eucharist
The Holy Face of Jesus Christ as appeared on the Holy Eucharist
The Fourth Cup: The Sacrament of the Eucharist [Holy Thursday] [Passover]
Holy Father stresses Need of Devotion to Holy Eucharist outside of Mass: Pope Paul VI

28 posted on 10/19/2011 9:27:11 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Wow! (How do you DO that so fast? ;-)
29 posted on 10/19/2011 9:29:23 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: One Name

You wrote:

“As a prot; the Real Presence is not a familiar doctrine.”

It should be. After all it’s really a Protestant phrase. Catholics only used it once or twice before the Protestant Revolution. Protestants actually popularized the phrase. Kind of ironic considering how many Protestants no longer believe in it today.


30 posted on 10/19/2011 9:30:15 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
Jesus also said "I am the door" ...

A clear figure of speech that is used to make a point.

31 posted on 10/19/2011 9:32:04 PM PDT by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: One Name

Do note OneName that not all non-Catholics say that “the Real Presence is not a familiar doctrine” — it is what our Lutheran and traditional Anglican brethren believe in as well.


32 posted on 10/19/2011 9:32:04 PM PDT by Cronos (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2787101/posts?page=58#58)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ExtremeUnction
My guess is that you probably would learn more by reading the relevant passages in the Cathechism than you did by suffering through your inadequate religion classes. Most Catholics get about as much from these classes as they do from their algebra classes. In any case. just remember that "substance", which comes from the Latin word used to translate the Greek word "ousia," is an example of a technical philosophical term that was vested with a very different meaning by the Ecumenical Council of Niceaea as a tool for defining the doctrine of the Trinity. Just as the Council says, against Arius, Jesus is "really" God as well as "really" man, so is Jesus really present in the Sacrament. But read 1372-1779 in the Catechism, which avoids some of the scholastic language that is so hard for moderns.

You recognize the power of the Spirit working in the Scriptures --which after all are mere paper--but not in the bread and wine. That largely because you do not recognize Christ in the person of the priest. Ironically, modern evangelicals are anti-liturgical in a way that John Calvin was not. You will find what Calvin says about the Eucharist in his Institutes is probably closer to Catholic teaching than that of so many evangelical congregations who to eschew all sacraments, even baptism, a treat the Lord's Supper as no more than a occasional celebration of unity. How has this come to be? Out of some special revelation, or because of a corruption of the original teachings?

33 posted on 10/19/2011 9:37:16 PM PDT by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp; vladimir998; Salvation; one Lord one faith one baptism

You guys are tearing me up- had to quit politics for a while

1 COR 11: 24 “And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.”

Remembrance is symbolic, not actual. Did you actually die with Christ? Spritually, yes. Physically, no. Not yet.

Don’t need a priest to interceed ( the veil of the Temple was rent). Mary was a normal woman, chosen by God to bear the Savior- not the Mother of God, immaculately conceived.

God has managed to carry forward His Truth; but perhaps we should all be ready to shed our non-Scriptural dogma.

Flame suit on- gotta go to work- catch you later, FRiends.


34 posted on 10/19/2011 9:57:30 PM PDT by One Name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: One Name

“Do this in memory of me.”

That is what is actual.

May the Lord help your unbelief.


35 posted on 10/19/2011 10:01:33 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Not gonna argue that- as a non-Catholic I understand the Lutherans, Anglicans and Episcopals share some terminology with Catholicism.

Not a phrase I’ve heard although I referred to the concept earlier.

Do the Lutherans and old Anglicans believe in Transubstantiation of the Elements?


36 posted on 10/19/2011 10:04:23 PM PDT by One Name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Thanks for your prayer.

May the Lord break you free of your ritualistic dogma as expressed by the Vicar of Rome.


37 posted on 10/19/2011 10:08:13 PM PDT by One Name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: One Name
the Lutherans, Anglicans and Episcopals share some terminology with Catholicism.

well, actually a lot more than that -- and I would say conservative Lutherans and Anglicans --> neither we nor our conservative Anglican/Lutheran brethren would like to be associated with the gay-marriage ECUSA or ELCA!

But to the point, both Lutherans and Anglicans share the same belief with orthodoxy on Baptism, Communion as a sacrament and also they have somewhat of a belief in the Sacrament of Penance.

On the matter of the Eucharist -- yes and no. Lutherans and conservative Anglicans believe in the Real Presence, i.e. that Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharst, not just a symbol. However they do not use the term transubstantiation and the Lutherans prefer not to use the term consubstantiation. There is a difference in what each believe exactly "happens" to put it badly, but we all believe that Jesus Christ is really and truly present.

38 posted on 10/19/2011 11:00:45 PM PDT by Cronos (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2787101/posts?page=58#58)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: One Name
this is not ritual -- if you read in the Bible, starting from John 6:30, we read
30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.
They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.

and Jesus says something strange to them -- He says Moses didn't give you bread, My father did, and bread that comes down from heaven. Then He says that HE is the bread of life, HE is the manna -- and manna was to be eaten.

The people around Him made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
And
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.
Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12
5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
In this case, look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.

You cannot even say it was a metaphor by incorreclty comparing it to John 10:9 (I am the gate/doorway) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) is because this is not referenced in the entire verse in the same way as John 6 which shows the entire incident from start to finish of Jesus saying His body is to be eaten, repeating it and seeing his disciples go and not correcting them (as he did in Matthew 16).

Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”
Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying
John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.
Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.

And, all of this is confirmed in Paul's writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16)
6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
and also 1 Cor 11:27-29
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.

Finally, the Earliest Christians also said any consideration of this as just a metaphor was false -- Ignature of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the SMyrnaens). The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "Not as common bread or 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 nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

in view of this overwhelming evidence from scripture and supplemented by the practise and belief of the earliest Christians, we can only say that there IS a real presence in the Eucharist. Martin Luther too believed it -- he said that Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. --> only Calvin/Zwingli turned around what Christ had said
39 posted on 10/19/2011 11:03:09 PM PDT by Cronos (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2787101/posts?page=58#58)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: One Name
as our Protestant Lutheran brethren say From the Lutheran LCMS.org website
All three accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper in the Gospels (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-23) explicitly state that Jesus took BREAD, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to his disciples saying, "Take, eat; this [i.e., this BREAD, which I have just blessed and broken and am now giving to you] is my body." Jesus uses similar language in referring to "the cup" (of wine) as "his blood."...
Perhaps the most explicit expression of this truth, however, is found in 1 Cor. 10:16-17, where Paul writes: "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread."
Paul clearly says here that we all "partake" of "BREAD" when we receive the Lord's Supper--even as we also partake of and "participate in" the true body of Christ. And he says that we all "partake" of the wine (the cup), even as we also partake of the true blood of Christ.
Similarly, in 1 Cor. 11:26, Paul says: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." Paul expressly states here ........................that those who eat this bread and drink this cup are also partaking of the true body and blood of Christ.
So "real" is this participation in Christ's body and blood, in fact, that (according to Paul) those who partake of the bread and wine "in an unworthy manner" are actually guilty of "profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27). (Partaking of the Lord's Supper "in a worthy manner," of course, is not something that we "do" or "accomplish" on the basis of our "personal holiness" or "good works." It means receiving God's free and gracious gifts of life and forgiveness offered in the Lord's Supper in true repentance produced by the work of the Spirit through God's Law and in true faith in Christ and his promises produced by God's Spirit through the Gospel).

40 posted on 10/19/2011 11:06:11 PM PDT by Cronos (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2787101/posts?page=58#58)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: One Name; Dr. Brian Kopp; vladimir998; Salvation; one Lord one faith one baptism
Actually the renting of the veil of the Temple signifies that the wall between the "profane" earth and heaven has been removed once and for all

The priest (or rather minsterial-priest since we are all a royal priesthood as Christians) serves as a minister, a pastor/presbyter (from which the term priest in English derives). The Head Priest is Jesus Christ as always and He is present in the Eucharist to lead us in our holiest of all prayers, the Divine Liturgy/Mass

41 posted on 10/19/2011 11:16:22 PM PDT by Cronos (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2787101/posts?page=58#58)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: One Name; Dr. Brian Kopp; vladimir998; Salvation; one Lord one faith one baptism
Mary was a normal woman, chosen by God to bear the Savior- not the Mother of God,

Note that the Savior, Our Lord, GOD and Savior, Jesus Christ was/is God. A mother does not "create" her child -- my mother is not my creator, neither was Jesus Christ, God's mother, His creator. In a strange twist, she was mother, i.e. she bore her own Creator.

She did not bear the Holy Spirit or the Father, but she DID bear the Son, GOD the Son, hence the term mother of God -- this very term Theotokos was first used to confound those who said Jesus was a subordinate divine being, some super-angel.

One cannot say "Oh, she was just the mother of the Savior not God" because the Savior was/is God. One cannot say she is the mother of God the Father or the Holy Spirit either as she wasn't. One cannot say that she was the mother i.e. the bearer of just Jesus the man as we then seem to imply that there was/is a separation between His divine and human natures whereas we know that they are/were inseparable and that Jesus was not some man who became God or some man possessed by God.

42 posted on 10/19/2011 11:20:31 PM PDT by Cronos (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2787101/posts?page=58#58)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; One Name; Dr. Brian Kopp
Christ is present in the bread and wine, He said so. I believe Christ whether anyone has the mechanism of that taking place accurately worked out or not. Believing that I am eating His body and drinking His blood is an act of faith, not proof that I believe there is a scientifically clear explanation of how that change takes place or at what point that change takes place.

Christ and the Apostles made it very clear that we're to live by faith, not by having our personal understanding satisfied. In fact, I'd say that a good part of the weight of our cross in this modern world is the burden of believing things we cannot prove. The whole world pretends they believe that only what we can see, touch, measure, and prove scientifically, is real. Believing what Christ said is a real burden in that sort of world, especially when so many people either mock what Christ said or go to great lengths to explain why what Christ said isn't what you think He said.

It's always amazed me how so many non-Catholics answer questions by going to great lengths to show you that what Scripture says isn't what Scripture really means (in fact, that's the single biggest factor in my being Catholic now after spending most of my life non-Catholic), almost always by taking something from a different context and tossing it out. It's twice as amazing when your realize that those who are convinced that all they need is their own copy of the KJV of the Bible and their own understanding guided by whatever spirit shouts loudest are in reality creating a personal subset of the Scripture. First they select what they accept as it is written, then mix in the balance of the Scripture only after they interpret it to suit them self.

What else can you expect, really, when the originator of the Scripture Alone doctrine first threw out portions of the Bible as it existed at the time of Christ, then spelled out a hierarchy of which books in the NT were worthy and which weren't, and only then finally said "This portion of the Scripture Alone". Everyone who adheres to the same doctrine naturally feels free to do the same thing, find the portions they agree with or interpret to suit their own preconceptions and understanding and then proclaim, "This portion of Scripture Alone". Gnostics who hide the structure of their faith behind an elaborate scaffolding built from their own understanding and out of context Scripture is the result.

I know several people who cannot stand to simply let you read them the verses prior to and just after something they quote because it messes up their personal version of Scripture. In what they accept, verses other than those they quote just don't exist. They may as well redact that portion of their Bible. They believe the verses they've highlighted in various colors and believe those verses as they relate to other highlighted verses, not the entire Bible and not those portions that make them uncomfortable or might make them live by faith alone rather than by their understanding alone.

Reading what Christ personally said regarding the bread and wine is a perfect example. Non-Catholics for the most part read it, then start in on how Christ didn’t mean what He clearly said. More often than not, though, they become reenactors and make a smart remark then turn around and walk away from Christ just like people at the time did.

JMHO

Regards

43 posted on 10/20/2011 3:54:06 AM PDT by Rashputin (Obama stark, raving, mad, and even his security people know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

A convert’s teenage daughter had this to say about transubstantiation:

Jesus used a lot of material objects to describe Himself—He said, “I am the Light.” “I am the Door.” “I am the Shepherd.”

But He never said, “That light is Me.” “That door is Me.” “That shepherd is Me.”

However, He did say, “That Bread is Me. That Wine is Me.”
***************
I guess we have to decide. Do we believe Jesus?


44 posted on 10/20/2011 5:11:10 AM PDT by Not gonna take it anymore (Catholic, Easter vigil 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: One Name

You wrote:

“Remembrance is symbolic, not actual.”

Really?

“This memorial aspect is not simply a passive process but one by which the Christian can actually enter into the Paschal mystery.[2]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamnesis_(Christianity)


45 posted on 10/20/2011 5:49:10 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: One Name
Mary was a normal woman, chosen by God to bear the Savior- not the Mother of God, immaculately conceived.

The title "Mother of God" came about in the early church as a way to signify to those that did not believe in the divinity of Christ that Jesus was indeed God in the flesh. So literally, no Mary was not God's mother. But she IS the mother of Jesus ... Emmanuel ... God with us. So in that sense ... yes, she is the mother of God.

46 posted on 10/20/2011 6:42:45 AM PDT by al_c (http://www.blowoutcongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

Focusing on the words you made bold, it appears you are trying to extrapolate the idea that you are supposed to discern the body of Christ 'within the wafer', which is totally absurd...

26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

You don't eat the Presence of the Lord, you proclaim his death...

1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Paul said he received of the Lord, not that he received the Lord...

The significant thing is this verse is 'breaking the bread'...We are to remember it represents Jesus' broken body...

47 posted on 10/20/2011 7:09:45 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
would the Holy Spirit not lead the Church correctly for 16 centuries on what the Eucharist is? 16 centuries is a long time, don’t you agree?

He most certainly did...But it wasn't the Catholic religion he led...

48 posted on 10/20/2011 7:14:28 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
She did not bear the Holy Spirit or the Father, but she DID bear the Son, GOD the Son, hence the term mother of God

One cannot say "Oh, she was just the mother of the Savior not God" because the Savior was/is God.

Well make up your mind...You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time...

There are not three Gods...There is one God...

49 posted on 10/20/2011 7:25:21 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ExtremeUnction; One Name

Most who have difficulty with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception have never had it properly explained to them. To begin with, Mary always points us to Jesus, and this teaching is ultimately about Jesus.

Jesus has a divine nature and a human nature. The divine nature he has from the Father, through the power of the Holy Spirit. The human nature he has — entirely — from his mother, because he has no human father.

Our salvation is possible because we are allowed to participate in the merits of Christ’s Atonement. The Atonement is an act by which the original disobedience of man is overcome by the perfect obedience of Jesus, the new Adam. Jesus is perfectly obedient to the Father in both his divine and his human natures. In his human nature this is especially hard, because Jesus is a real man, and it’s part of our nature to avoid and resist suffering and death. Nevertheless, Jesus in his human nature gave himself to the plan of his divine Father, without compromise or reservation. It was a perfect gift of self, which is not possible for anyone afflicted by sin (Romans 7:15-23).

Mary comes into the picture because she also is called upon to make a total and unreserved gift of self, in obedience to the Father’s plan (Luke 1:38). It is Mary’s consent that makes possible the perfect union of human and divine natures in Jesus, and therefore makes it possible for Jesus’s sacrifice to be a perfect atonement of infinite merit. As with her divine son, Mary could not have given perfect assent to God’s proposal relayed through the angel, if her mind or flesh had ever been under the bondage of sin. Mary’s sinlessness makes her self-gift of human nature perfect and thus ensures that the Incarnation is genuine and not a hoax.

I hope this helps.


50 posted on 10/20/2011 8:12:53 AM PDT by Romulus (The Traditional Latin Mass is the real Youth Mass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-141 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson