Five Reasons I Reject the Doctrine of Transubstantiation

Reclaiming the Mind Credo House ^ | March 8, 2013 | C Michael Patton

[MHGinTN]

The Greek conveys that ‘something’ referred to in previous sentences ‘profits not’, does not help, gives no benefit. Call that reading of the Greek bush league, but it is only such in an arrogant condescending mind determined to remain blind to truth.

[Mad Dawg]

Leaving aside the state of my vile soul, it seems to me the Greek says he sarx profits nothing.

[MHGinTN]

That would be HIS sarx, His flesh profits not the receiver.

[Mad Dawg]

Eisogesis, imho.
That’s no more explicit in the Koine than it is in translation.

[Religion Moderator]

Please supply a translation.

[Elsie]

And accordingly, the Lord did explain. At the Seder meal.

And just WHY isn't that explanation good enough for Rome?

[Elsie]

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.

Unhappily??

Indispensable?
What happens to the soul if they ARE 'dispensed' with?

[Elsie]

 

 

 

 

---

 

Micah 6:8

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

---

John 6:28-29
Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?

 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

---

1 John 3:21-23
Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him.
And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.

---

James 1:27

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

 

---

 

 

 

[Mad Dawg]

Striving is work by another name. Not good Latin.

[rwa265]

The Greek conveys that ‘something’ referred to in previous sentences ‘profits not’, does not help, gives no benefit

---

He does refer in the previous sentences to something that does not help:

Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. (John 6:27)

Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. (John 6:49)

Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever. (John 6:58)

Notice the parallelisms. The manna in the desert represents the something that profits not. The bread that comes down from heaven represents the something that gives life. And Jesus says He is the living bread that came down from heaven; and the bread that He will give is His flesh for the life of the world.

Do you not believe that the Spirit can give life to the flesh for the life of the world?

[verga]

You received an answer perhaps you did not understand it, or didn’t like it, but make no mistake, you did receive an answer. That seems to be a common tactic among the non-Catholics when you don’t receive the answer you seem to want. I had the exact same problem with one of my foster daughters. She didn’t get the answer she wanted from either my wife or myself and she would go to the other to ask the same question.

[verga]

Where is the personal pronoun “My”? I see the direct article “The”, but no personal pronoun.

[Mad Dawg]

There is none.

[RnMomof7]

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.

I do not much care what his opinion was.. it was not infallible... simply one mans fallible position...

Wonder how he would have explained all the "real physical" blood in those "Eucharist miracles" ...not real , not true ...just substance

BTW did you answer if that substance is physical or spiritual ??

[Religion Moderator]

Thank you.

[rwa265]

BTW did you answer if that substance is physical or spiritual ??

---

He did, in his inimitable way. See posts 178 and 376.

[Mad Dawg]

You say you don't care. Maybe you don't. But you selected and posted an article which began with a lot of assertions about what the doctrine is. And many of those assertions are false. Maybe you don't care, but I would care if I found I was saying things about other people, and the things weren't true.

If you really wonder what Aquinas thinks about the apparitions, go to the relevant part of the Summa. He deals with the question directly. If you like, I'll get you the URL.

I did not answer the question because I haven't decided if physical and spiritual exhaust the possibilities. If you've actually read what I wrote in this thread you know I won't say physical. My gut (but acquired) reflex is to say, “Real!”

Certainly spiritual would be way closer than physical, so if I had to choose between the two I'd go with spiritual, and I'd clarify that substance is not perceived by the senses AND that the spiritual is Real, but the physical not so much.

[Mad Dawg]

Man! Now I’m going to have to go see what I said.

;-)

[RnMomof7]

I did not answer the question because I haven't decided if physical and spiritual exhaust the possibilities.

That are the only choices.. If it is physical it would bleed...spirits do not have fled and blood..

[rwa265]

What you wrote truly gave me a deeper understanding of the meaning of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.