Posted on 07/09/2015 9:33:36 AM PDT by RnMomof7
The doctrine of Transubstantiation is the belief that the elements of the Lord’s table (bread and wine) supernaturally transform into the body and blood of Christ during the Mass. This is uniquely held by Roman Catholics but some form of a “Real Presence” view is held by Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, and some Anglicans. The Calvinist/Reformed tradition believes in a real spiritual presence but not one of substance. Most of the remaining Protestant traditions (myself included) don’t believe in any real presence, either spiritual or physical, but believe that the Eucharist is a memorial and a proclamation of Christ’s work on the cross (this is often called Zwinglianism). The Roman Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563) defined Transubstantiation this way:
By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Session XIII, chapter IV)
As well, there is an abiding curse (anathema) placed on all Christians who deny this doctrine:
If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ,[42] but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema. (Session XII, Canon I)
It is very important to note that Roman Catholics not only believe that taking the Eucharist in the right manner is essential for salvation, but that belief in the doctrine is just as essential.
Here are the five primary reasons why I reject the doctrine of Transubstantiation:
1. It takes Christ too literally
There does not seem to be any reason to take Christ literally when he institutes the Eucharist with the words, “This is my body” and “This is my blood” (Matt. 26:26-28, et al). Christ often used metaphor in order to communicate a point. For example, he says “I am the door,” “I am the vine,” “You are the salt of the earth,” and “You are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:13-14) but people know that we don’t take such statement literally. After all, who believes that Christ is literally a door swinging on a hinge?
2. It does not take Christ literally enough
Let’s say for the sake of the argument that in this instance Christ did mean to be taken literally. What would this mean? Well, it seems hard to escape the conclusion that the night before Christ died on the cross, when he said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood,” that it actually was his body and blood that night before he died. If this were the case, and Christ really meant to be taken literally, we have Christ, before the atonement was actually made, offering the atonement to his disciples. I think this alone gives strong support to a denial of any substantial real presence.
3. It does not take Christ literally enough (2)
In each of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) we have the institution of the Eucharist. When the wine is presented, Christ’s wording is a bit different. Here is how it goes in Luke’s Gospel: “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” (Luk 22:20). Here, if we were really to take Christ literally, the “cup” is the new covenant. It is not the wine, it is the cup that is holy. However, of course, even Roman Catholics would agree that the cup is symbolic of the wine. But why one and not the other? Why can’t the wine be symbolic of his death if the cup can be symbolic of the wine? As well, is the cup actually the “new covenant”? That is what he says. “This cup . . . is the new covenant.” Is the cup the actual new covenant, or only symbolic of it? See the issues?
4. The Gospel of John fails to mention the Eucharist
Another significant problem I have with the Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist and its abiding anathemas is that the one Gospel which claims to be written so that people may have eternal life, John (John 20:31), does not even include the institution of the Eucharist. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all tell the story of Christ giving the first Lord’s table, but John decides to leave it out. Why? This issue is made more significant in that John includes more of the “Upper Room” narrative than any of the other Gospels. Nearly one-third of the entire book of John walks us through what Christ did and said that night with his disciples. Yet no breaking of the bread or giving of the wine is included. This is a pretty significant oversight if John meant to give people the message that would lead to eternal life (John 20:31). From the Roman Catholic perspective, his message must be seen as insufficient to lead to eternal life since practice and belief in the Mass are essential for eternal life and he leaves these completely out of the Upper Room narrative.
(Some believe that John does mention the importance of belief in Transubstantiation in John 6. The whole, “Why did he let them walk away?” argument. But I think this argument is weak. I talk about that here. Nevertheless, it still does not answer why John left out the institution of the Lord’s Supper. It could be that by A.D. 90, John saw an abuse of the Lord’s table already rising. He may have sought to curb this abuse by leaving the Eucharist completely out of his Gospel. But this, I readily admit, is speculative.)
5. Problems with the Hypostatic Union and the Council of Chalcedon
This one is going to be a bit difficult to explain, but let me give it a shot. Orthodox Christianity (not Eastern Orthodox) holds to the “Hypostatic Union” of Christ. This means that we believe that Christ is fully God and fully man. This was most acutely defined at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Important for our conversation is that Christ had to be fully man to fully redeem us. Christ could not be a mixture of God and man, or he could only represent other mixtures of God and man. He is/was one person with two complete natures. These nature do not intermingle (they are “without confusion”). In other words, his human nature does not infect or corrupt his divine nature. And his divine nature does not infect or corrupt his human nature. This is called the communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties or attributes). The attributes of one nature cannot communicate (transfer/share) with another nature. Christ’s humanity did not become divinitized. It remained complete and perfect humanity (with all its limitations). The natures can communicate with the Person, but not with each other. Therefore, the attribute of omnipresence (present everywhere) cannot communicate to his humanity to make his humanity omnipresent. If it did, we lose our representative High Priest, since we don’t have this attribute communicated to our nature. Christ must always remain as we are in order to be the Priest and Pioneer of our faith. What does all of this mean? Christ’s body cannot be at more than one place at a time, much less at millions of places across the world every Sunday during Mass. In this sense, I believe that any real physical presence view denies the definition of Chalcedon and the principles therein.
There are many more objections that I could bring including Paul’s lack of mentioning it to the Romans (the most comprehensive presentation of the Gospel in the Bible), some issues of anatomy, issues of idolatry, and just some very practical things concerning Holy Orders, church history, and . . . ahem . . . excrement. But I think these five are significant enough to justify a denial of Transubstantiation. While I respect Roman Catholicism a great deal, I must admit how hard it is for me to believe that a doctrine that is so difficult to defend biblically is held to such a degree that abiding anathemas are pronounced on those who disagree.
And yet no one rushed to bite Him.
That would have been bad.
It’s not recorded, but Nathaniel said to Philip: “What heavenly thing is He saying”? Philip replied: “Be patient, Nat, the Lord will explain in His time.”
And accordingly, the Lord did explain. At the Seder meal.
Putting this aside, I still believe that the four chief ordinances for the New Testament local assemblies are those that I gave you. Unhappily, the Baptist distinctives only count two indispensible ordinances about which there is no need for discussion: baptism (immersion) of the professing "believer" and The Lord's Supper.
On another tack, I was not familiar with "In Thy Word" operation. Who are they, and how long have they been in business?
Amen and amen.
All very probable in their thinking. But it is also tru that they were exhibiting the same mistake in perspective that Jesus corrected in Nicodemus, that of thinking there is something, some work that they could do to earn eternal life. I believe He sprinkled sarcasm into His responses in order to trap them in their own error just as He trapped Nicodemus in his. with Nicodemus, probably because his ehart was sincerely seeking the Truth, the trap awakened in Nicodemus a new perspective. we know it had some effect because it was Nic who provided the cash to purchase the spices and ointments for treating the body of Jesus, items which the women were approaching the tomb with on resurrection morning.
This approach doesn't quite seem to match up with Scripture. Take look at 1 Cor. 12, from which verses 12, 13, and 14 contradict your hypothesis:
12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
The whole chapter follows in the same vein, and quite firmly.
If this doesn't make sense to you, there's not much value in further debating the point of trying to practice the rite of communion apart from the other communicants, is there?
Well he's really there...ohhhh wait he really isn't there .. its an accident not truly really.. but sort kinda ... not physically.. but not spiritually either ...just sort like a cloud that leaves when you put the cracker in your mouth..
LOL...So was Thomas infallible.. or was this his own personal opinion??
What makes his words more correct than say Luther? or Calvin? Or Arminius ? or mine?
Yeah, this passage is very thought-provoking. A little leaven of crass selfishness in the hearts of some of the outspoken of the crowd makes it a little more earthy. I surely pay close attention to exactly how Jesus initiated and responded with elegant, precise grammar.
It is a curious and astonishing thing that when one starts witht he premise that the Bible is true but we mortals are not yet able to know all the vagaries of how it is ALL true simply reading the texts and studying the connections yields insights to the Deep Truths therein. One of the most fundamental axioms with such a student is, God will not contradict Himself, so when we discover what appears to be a contradiction, there must be a deeper meaning we are missing that dissolves the seeming duplicity.
To hold true the catholic assertion that Jesus commanded his followers to eat the real and substantially present flesh and blood and soul and divinity means to ignore all the other passages of the Bible which make this claim of catholcism reveal duplicity in God. God is not double minded, so there is some other way to understand this seeming contradiction which one must dig out by studying 'the rest of the story'.
If you post record of eaucharist miracles supposedly proving the transubstantiation, then you are at once affirming your pagan belief that the real body of Jesus is consumed at the catholic altar. That is cannibalism, a central spiritual belief of pagan rites.
A part of the "this" in "this do in remembrance of Me" is replicating the context of the full invitation to the Lord's Table of the rest of complement of the local Body. Neglecting that invitation, it is partial and exclusive. You might want to work this out before proceeding.
"So how can He give His flesh for the life of the world if the flesh profits nothing?" rwa265
The text in Greek clearly shows that to consume the flesh will profit nothing. So, the life of God is not going to get into the consumer vai the mouth. The Life of God comes into the human spirit AFTER it is cleansed of ALL unrighteousness. That coming in of the Holy Spirit is graphically illustrated at Pentecost and in the house of Cornelius. So, in answer to your question, The Flesh of Jesus was sacrificed upon the Cross, by Him, willingly giving Himself up to take the penalty fro sin. That act of sacrifice becomes your personal moment for salvation from your sins when you have a repentant heart and an accepting humility to believe He did that act for you.
When you take the bread and wine as a Remembrance, the Way Jesus instructed it be accepted, you testify tot he world and to God that you are numbered with Him in that cross death. You eat the bread making a spiritual connection to His sacrifice, not yours. You accept His atonement death for you. You are not accepting His flesh into you, you are acknowledging that He did this paying the penalty specifically for you.
The cup of wine when accepted is affirming your belief that His blood was shed for the remission of your sin nature. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. This astonishing Divine act is accomplished only by God as The Great High Priest entering into the Holy of Holies to cover the Mercy Seat with the perfect sinless blood of the Christ, The Son of the Living God, so that when 'an accuser' makes accusation that you have broken a law of Moses God will see the atonement made by Jesus, not your sin transgression. This atonement is not something you can drink in a cup. Jesus called the cup contents wine. Believe Him. He also taught that His giving of Himself was so that You and I can have His life n us, in the now, not after some trail of striving to obtain eternal life.
You are not infallible. But you are probably the world’s foremost authority on what you had as your first meal of the day yesterday.
If someone, say MHGinTN, were to say that you might think you had THIS, but in fact you had THAT, I would still go to you rather than another, without my thinking that you were infallible, to find out what you had.
So, both the writer of the article you posted and other on this thread claim that the dogma concerning the Eucharist states that receiving the Eucharist is necessary to Salvation.
Whether Luther, Calvin, Arminius, or you are more correct about the Eucharist than Thomas is not the question I have addressed since I came onto this thread. I did not cite Thomas to argue for the truth of his teaching. I referred to him to clarify what his teaching is.
Suppose I were to say that Reform theology teaches justification by works. Suppose you quoted Calvin to show it teaches no such thing. In your opinion would it make sense or even be relevant to ask whether Calvin was infallible or more reliable than Luther, Aquinas, Arminius, or me?
το πνευμα εστιν το ζωοποιουν η σαρξ ουκ ωφελει ουδεν τα ρηματα α εγω λαλω υμιν πνευμα εστιν και ζωη εστιν
Ping to above
Hardly, you just bypassed the main point and elevated the time delay to be the content of the assertion ... but the main point remains and you have yet to provide a cogent explanation for the omission in John 13-17.
Its ok ... I didn't expect one.
Consectatio est opus per alius nomen
That’s as may be. But it’s another topic.
Must we be bush-league? How is the Greek any clearer than the English? You said it was clear in the Greek.
Must we be bush-league? How is the Greek any clearer than the English? You said it was clear in the Greek.
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.