The Eucharist and Transubstantiation

[mnwickens]

No one has said that people simply died and went to hell for 1500 years. However, the "dark ages" were dark because of the suppression of knowledge and Scriptures by the Catholic Church. However, that may be more protestant propaganda.

At any rate, we believe there has always been a remnant, perhaps small, but they have always been there.

What kind of a Saviour do we have? Not one that would suffer and die and then expect us to die and suffer for an unknown limited time in purgatory.

MNW

[Jim]

Quote:As a matter of fact, I would very much like to know how YOUR ASSEMBLY celebrates it, inasmuch as there is not one single word of command which tells us what to use for the elements, is there? Upon what then do you base your obsevance when there is nothing of direct command telling you what to do? Could it be your Fundamentalist Tradition perhaps?

I am not here to justify anyone or anything, what I am here doing, and your doing a good job of helping me show, why the catholic church is apostate, so I greatly appreciate it.

And if you think i am suffering from fundamentalist tradition, then it will behoove you to know I have been a fundamentalist for only 5 years now. Besides, the catholic church accusing someone else of "tradition" is the pot calling the kettle black. back at you.

Quote:The point of talking about other Christians in an earlier time is simply that if you have the entire group believing one thing, then you know that must be what the CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE PASSAGE IS!!!

Yeah, the catholic church is a democracy, isn't it?

Say that to Jimmy Johnson, Charles Manson, David Koresh, Shoko Asahara, adn all the others who had the "correct interpretation of scripture". You obviously believe they were interpreting correctly because, and I quote you:

Quote:...is simply that if you have the entire group believing one thing, then you know that must be...

Quote:Since we see no evidence of any other belief in that time, then your assertion that the Bible passages in John do not teach the Eucharist have no substance.

Good grief, If you are gonna keep shooting this dead horse, then I will play your hedonistic game:

Show me anywhere in any teaching by any apostle, that supports the eucharist. Stop disinterring these "Early Church Fathers" as you continually call them.

If you believe that even the apostles got along unanimously, even on matters of the spirit, you are WRONG:

Quote:Acts 15:6
And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
15:7
And when there had been much disputing,...

and

Quote:Acts 15:38
But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.
15:39
And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other:

When are you going to realize that all men are flesh? When are you going to realize that all men are susceptible to err and failure? Whe nare you going to stop putting your faith and prayers to everything , and as you say, along with Christ, even though I believe you have completely replaced deity and mocked Him by your placement of faith in all things lower than Him. that's called idol worship. Worship and prayer to, are one and the same. You don't pray to things that you don't worship.

Quote:YOU cannot see the forest for the trees.

At least my forest has trees.

Quote:Therefore, you continue to ignore evidence to the contrary because it does not fit your preconceptions of what is true and right.

It's very funny that you continue to accuse people of what you are guilty of the most.

Quote:In other words, for 1500 years, until the anabaptists brought forth their teachings that the Lord's Supper is nothing more than a bare memorial meal of rememberance, the whole Church was steeped in error!

Yes, the whole Catholic Church was in fact, in error on this. Let's look at Calvin's take on it:

Quote:(The idea of sacrifice in the Eucharist, and Scriptural use of the word "sacrifice"; the Mass a sacrilege, 12-1
12. The oblation of the Old Covenant and the Lord's Supper

Any who will diligently consider, will perceive that the word of the Lord makes this distinction between the Mosaic sacrifices and our eucharist?that while the former represented to the Jewish people the same efficacy of the death of Christ which is now exhibited to us, in the Supper (Lev. 1:5), yet the form of representation was different. There the Levitical priests were ordered to typify the sacrifice which Christ was to accomplish; a victim was placed to act as a substitute for Christ himself; an altar was erected on which it was to be sacrificed; the whole, in short, was so conducted as to bring under the eye an image of the sacrifice which was to be offered to God in expiation. But now that the sacrifice has been performed, the Lord has prescribed a different method to us, viz., to transmit the benefit of the sacrifice offered to him by his Son to his believing people, The Lord, therefore, has given us a table at which we may feast, not an altar on which a victim may be offered; he has not consecrated priests to sacrifice, but ministers to distribute a sacred feast. The more sublime and holy this mystery is the more religiously and reverently ought it to be treated. Nothing, therefore, is, safer than to banish all the boldness of human sense, and adhere solely to what Scripture delivers. And certainly, if we reflect that it is the Supper of the Lord and not of men, why do we allow ourselves to be turned aside one nail's-breadth from Scripture by any authority of man, or length of prescription? Accordingly, the apostle, in desiring completely to remove the vices which had crept into the Church of Corinth, as the most expeditious method recalls them to the institution itself, showing that thence a perpetual rule ought to be derived (I Cor. 11:20f).

13. The nature of sacrifice

Lest any quarrelsome person should raise a dispute with us as to the terms, "sacrifice" and "priest", I will briefly explain what in the whole of this discussion we mean by "sacrifice", and what by "priest".

Some, on what rational ground I see not, extend the term sacrifice to all sacred ceremonies and religious acts.

We know that by the uniform use of Scripture, the name of sacrifice is given to what the Greeks call at one time "thusia", at another "prosfora", at another "telete". This, in its general acceptation, includes everything whatever that is offered to God. Wherefore, we ought to distinguish, but so that the distinction may derive its analogy from the sacrifices of the Mosaic Law, under whose shadows the Lord was pleased to represent to his people the whole reality of sacrifices. Though these were various in form, they may all be referred to two classes. For either an oblation for sin was made by a certain species of satisfaction, by which the penalty was redeemed before God, or it was a symbol and attestation of religion and divine worship, at one time in the way of supplication to demand the favour of God; at another, by way of thanksgiving, to testify gratitude to God for benefits received; at another as a simple exercise of piety to renew the sanction of the covenant, to which latter branch, burnt-offerings, and libations, oblations, first fruits, and peace-offerings, referred.

Hence, let us also distribute them into two classes. The other class, with the view of explaining, let us call "latreutikon", and "sebastikon", as consisting of the veneration and worship which believers both owe and render to God; or, if you prefer it, let us call it "eucharistikon", since it is exhibited to God by none but those who, enriched with his boundless benefits, offer themselves and all their actions to him in return.

The other class let us call propitiatory or expiatory. A sacrifice of expiation is one whose object is to appease the wrath of God, to satisfy his justice, and thereby wipe and wash away the sins, by which the sinner being cleansed and restored to purity, may return to favour with God. Hence the name which was given in the Law to the victims which were offered in expiation of sin, (Exod. 29: 36 not that they were adequate to regain the favour of God, and wipe away guilt, but because they typified the true sacrifice of this nature, which was at length performed in reality by Christ alone; by him alone, because no other could, and once, because the efficacy and power of the one sacrifice performed by Christ is eternal, as he declared by his voice, when he said, "It is finished;" that is, that everything necessary to regain the favour of the Father, to procure forgiveness of sins, righteousness and salvation, that all this was performed and consummated by his one oblation, and that hence nothing was wanting. No place was left for another sacrifice.

14. The sale of masses

Wherefore, I conclude, that it is an abominable insult and intolerable blasphemy, as well against Christ as the sacrifice, which, by his death, he performed for us on the cross, for any one to think of repeating the oblation, of purchasing the forgiveness of sins, of propitiating God, and obtaining justification. But what else is done in the Mass than to make us partakers of the sufferings of Christ by means of a new oblation? And that there might be no limit to their extravagance, they have deemed it little to say, that it properly becomes a common sacrifice for the whole Church, without adding, that it is at their pleasure to apply it specially to this one or that, as they choose; or rather, to any one who is willing to purchase their merchandise from them for a price paid. Moreover, as they could not come up to the estimate of Judas, still, that they might in some way refer to their author, they make the resemblance to consist in the member. He sold for thirty pieces of silver: they, according to the French method of computation, sell for thirty pieces of brass. He did it once: they as often as a purchaser is met with.

We deny that they are priests in this sense, namely, that by such oblations they intercede with God for the people, that by propitiating God they make expiation for sins. Christ is the only Pontiff and Priest of the New Testament (cf. Heb. ch.9): to him all priestly offices were transferred, and in him they closed and terminated. Even had Scripture made no mention of the eternal priesthood of Christ, yet, as God, after abolishing those ancient sacrifices, appointed no new priest, the argument of the apostle remains invincible, "No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron," (Heb. 5: 4.) How, then, can those sacrilegious men, who by their own account are murderers of Christ, dare to call themselves the priests of the living God?

15. Plato's remarks on similar pretense and delusion

There is a most elegant passage in the second book of Plato's Republic. Speaking of ancient expiations, and deriding the foolish confidence of wicked and iniquitous men, who thought that by them, as a kind of veils, they concealed their crimes from the gods; and, as if they had made a paction with the gods, indulged themselves more securely, he seems accurately to describe the use of the expiation of the mass, as it exists in the world in the present day. All know that it is unlawful to defraud and circumvent another. To do injustice to widows, to pillage pupils, to molest the poor, to seize the goods of others by wicked arts, to get possession of any mans succession by fraud and perjury, to oppress by violence and tyrannical terror, all admit to be impious. How then do so many, as if assured of impunity, dare to do all those things? Undoubtedly, if we duly consider, we will find that the only thing which gives them so much courage is, that by the sacrifice of the mass as a price paid, they trust that they will satisfy God, or at least will easily find a means of transacting with him.

Plato next proceeds to deride the gross stupidity of those who think by such expiations to redeem the punishments which they must otherwise suffer after death. And what is meant by anniversaries and the greater part of masses in the present day, but just that those who through life have been the most cruel tyrants, or most rapacious plunderers or adepts in all kinds of wickedness, may, as if redeemed at this price, escape the fire of purgatory?

16. The "thank offering" of the Christian church

Under the other kind of sacrifice, which we have called eucharistic, are included all the offices of charity, by which, while we embrace our brethren, we honour the Lord himself in his members; in fine, all our prayers, praises, thanksgivings, and every act of worship which we perform to God. All these depend on the greater sacrifice with which we dedicate ourselves, soul and body, to be a holy temple to the Lord (I Cor. 3:16). For it is not enough that our external acts be framed to obedience, but we must dedicate and consecrate first ourselves, and, secondly, all that we have, so that all which is in us may be subservient to his glory, and be stirred up to magnify it.

This kind of sacrifice has nothing to do with appeasing God, with obtaining remission of sins, with procuring justification, but is wholly employed in magnifying and extolling God, since it cannot be grateful and acceptable to God unless at the hand of those who, having received forgiveness of sins, have already been reconciled and freed from guilt.

This is so necessary to the Church, that it cannot be dispensed with. Therefore, it will endure for ever, so long as the people of God shall endure, as we have already seen above from the prophet. For in this sense we may understand the prophecy, "From the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts," (Malachi 1: 11 so far are we from doing away with this sacrifice. Thus Paul beseeches us, by the mercies of God, to present our bodies "a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God," our "reasonable service," (Rom. 12: 1; cf. I Peter 2:5-6). Here he speaks very significantly when he adds, that this service is reasonable, for he refers to the spiritual mode of worshipping God, and tacitly opposes it to the carnal sacrifices of the Mosaic Law. Thus to do good and communicate are called sacrifices with which God is well-pleased, (Heb. 13: 16.) Thus the kindness of the Philippians in relieving Paul's want is called "an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God," (Phil. 4: 18 and thus all the good works of believers are called spiritual sacrifices.

17. Scriptural phrases illustrate the sacrifices of praise

And why do I enumerate? This form of expression is constantly occurring in Scripture. Nay, even while the people of God were kept under the external tutelage of the law, the prophets clearly expressed that under these carnal sacrifices there was a reality which is common both to the Jewish people and the Christian Church. For this reason David prayed, "Let my prayer ascend forth before thee as incense," (Psalm 141: 2.) And Hosea gives the name of "calves of the lips" (Hos. 14: 3) to thanksgivings, which David elsewhere calls "sacrifices of praise;" the apostle imitating him, speaks of offering "the sacrifice of praise," which he explains to mean, "the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name," (Heb. 13: 15.) This kind of sacrifice is indispensable in the Lord's Supper, in which, while we show forth his death, and give him thanks, we offer nothing but the sacrifice of praise. From this office of sacrificing, all Christians are called "a royal priesthood," because by Christ we offer that sacrifice of praise of which the apostle speaks, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name, (1 Peter 2: 9; Heb. 13: 15.) We do not appear with our gifts in the presence of God without an intercessor. Christ, our Mediator, by whose intervention we offer ourselves and our all to the Father; he is our High Priest, who, having entered into the upper sanctuary, opens up an access for us; he the altar on which we lay our gifts, that whatever we do attempts we may attempt in him; he it is, I say, who "has made us kings and priests unto God and his Father," (Rev. 1: 6.)

18. The Mass itself, apart from its profanation, is sacrilege

What remains but for the blind to see, the deaf to hear, children even to perceive this abomination of the mass, which, held forth in a golden cup, has so intoxicated all the kings and nations of the earth, from the highest to the lowest; so struck them with stupor and giddiness, that, duller than the lower animals, they have placed the vessel of their salvation in this fatal vortex. Certainly Satan never employed a more powerful engine to assail and storm the kingdom of Christ. This is the Helen for whom the enemies of the truth in the present day fight with so much rage, fury, and atrocity; and truly the Helen with whom they commit spiritual whoredom, the most execrable of all. I am not here laying my little finger on those gross abuses by which they might pretend that the purity of their sacred mass is profaned; on the base traffic which they ply; the sordid gain which they make; the rapacity with which they satiate their avarice. I only indicate, and that in few and simple terms, how very sacred the sanctity of the mass is, how well it has for several ages deserved to be admired and held in veneration! It were a greater work to illustrate these great mysteries as they deserve, and I am unwilling to meddle with their obscene impurities, which are daily before the eyes and faces of all, that it may be understood that the mass, taken in the most choice form in which it can be exhibited, without any appendages, teems from head to foot with all kinds of impiety, blasphemy, idolatry, and sacrilege.

Quote:Come on Jim, you are much smarter than that!!!

That is unfortunatetly the problem with "religion" today. Man makes himself "smarter" than God. They put more reliance in man, than scripture.

Quote:If all those doctrines are wrong from day one, then the evil one DID overcome the Church and billions of souls went to hell for 1500 years?

Most likely. Did Jesus say that MOST would go to heaven?:

Quote:Matt. 7:13
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
7:14
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Looks to me like He says few here.

So in response to your assertion:

Quote:Jesus promised that the gates of hell would NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT overcome His Church.

That is exactly right, what you do not see is that His church is NOT the Catholic Church. Why would Satan overcome something he created?

[DefensorFidei]

The Ante-Nicene Fathers were taught by the Apostles. The fact that there is simply no other belief in the Eucharist than what they taught shows that they learned this belief directly from the Apostles.

[Jim]

Have you ever heard of the didache? This basically is one of the earliest christian documents known outside of the apostolic letters. It is a summary of the basic fundamental beliefs of apostolic doctrine, and it does not believe the Eucharist was the physical body and blood of Christ.

Some choices of words have been used maybe that I should not have chosen, however, still does not deviate from the fact that the Eucharist in transubstantiation is in all ways unbiblical. I find it quite enough censure in itself that you have to cite man's views, but simply could not come up with any proof in scripture substantiating the proof of the eucharist.

Quote:The Ante-Nicene Fathers were taught by the Apostles.

So were many other thousands of people. And Hitler wa staught by Jews, did that make him Judaist? I don't think so. Just because somebody was taught by someone, doesn't mean that what beliefs they formed in their mind were correct.

Either way, I still don't know if I even trust any documentation doctored by the catholic church anyway for any support of anything. If it does not confirm to scripture, then catholic church is guilty of manipulating it, or these people were just dead wrong. I just have a hard time believing that they truly believed in the Eucharist.

Quote:The fact that there is simply no other belief in the Eucharist than what they taught shows that they learned this belief directly from the Apostles.

Again, this is what the catholic church believes, not me.

[Jim]

I have one simple question according to transubstantiation.

If what the catholics believe is true, and the grape juice/wine or whatever it is they drink actually does turn into the blood of Christ, then what does this "blood" taste like?

I mean think about it, if it still tastes like wine/grape juice, then isn't that in fact what it really is?

If I drive a Dodge truck and beleive with all my heart that it is a Chevy, does that mean it's a Chevy?

Just wondering......

Jim

[DefensorFidei]

Transubstantiation is predicated upon the distinction between two sorts of change: accidental and substantial. Accidental change occurs when non-essential outward properties are transformed in some fashion. Thus, water can take on the properties of solidity (ice) and gas (steam), all the while remaining chemically the same. A substantial change, on the other hand, produces something else altogether. An example of this is the metabolism of food, which becomes part of our bodies as a result of chemical and biological processes initiated by digestion. In our everyday experience, a change of substance is always accompanied by a corresponding transition of accidents, or properties.

In the Eucharist?a supernatural transformation?a substantial change occurs without accidental alteration. Thus, the properties of bread and wine continue after consecration, but their essence and substance cease to exist, replaced by the substance of the true and actual Body and Blood of Christ. It is this disjunction from the natural laws of physics which causes many to stumble (see John 6:60-69). See chart below.

Indeed, transubstantiation is difficult for the natural mind (especially with its modern excessively skeptical bent) to grasp and clearly requires a great deal of faith. Yet many aspects of Christianity which conservative, evangelical, orthodox Christians have no difficulty believing transcend reason and must ultimately be accepted on faith, such as: the Incarnation (in which a helpless infant in Bethlehem is God!), the Resurrection, the omniscience of God, the paradox of grace versus free will, eternity, the Union of the Human and Divine Natures in Christ (the Hypostatic Union), the Fall of Man and original sin, and the Virgin Birth, among many other beliefs. Transubstantiation may be considered beyond reason, yet it is not opposed to reason; suprarational, but not irrational, much like Christian theology in general.

If one accepts the fact that God became Man, then it cannot consistently be deemed impossible (as many casually assume) for Him to become truly and really present under the appearances of bread and wine. Jesus, after His Resurrection, could apparently walk through walls while remaining in His physical (glorified) body (John 20:26-27). How, then, can transubstantiation reasonably be regarded as intrinsically implausible by supernaturalist Christians?

Likewise, much of the objection to this doctrine seems to arise out of a pitting of matter against spirit, or, more specifically, an a priori hostility to the idea that grace can be conveyed through matter. This is exceedingly curious, since precisely this notion is fundamental to the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus. If God did not take on matter and human flesh, no one would have been saved. Such a prejudice is neither logical (given belief in the miraculous and Christian precepts) nor scriptural, as we shall see.

John Henry Cardinal Newman, whom very few would accuse of being unreasonable or credulous, had this to say about the "difficulties" of transubstantiation:

People say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is difficult to believe . . . It is difficult, impossible to imagine, I grant - but how is it difficult to believe? . . . For myself, I cannot indeed prove it, I cannot tell how it is; but I say, "Why should it not be? What?s to hinder it? What do I know of substance or matter? Just as much as the greatest philosophers, and that is nothing at all;" . . . And, in like manner: . . . the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity. What do I know of the Essence of the Divine Being? In know that my abstract idea of three is simply incompatible with my idea of one; but when I come to question the concrete fact, I have no means of proving that there is not a sense in which one and three can equally be predicated of the Inommunicable God. (23)

Once one realizes that transubstantiation is a miracle of God, any notion of impossibility vanishes, since God is omnipotent (all-powerful) and the sovereign Lord over all creation (Matthew 19:26, Philippians 3:20-21, Hebrews 1:3). If mere men can change accidental properties without changing substance (for example, turning iron into molten liquid or even vapor), then God is certainly able to change substance without outward transmutation.

Therefore, after these weak philosophical objections are disposed of, we can proceed to objectively and fairly examine the clear and indisputable biblical data which reveals to us that God does in fact perform (through the agency of priests) the supernatural act of transubstantiation.

[Davo]

Quote:Lu 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

The RCC does not follow this, as it does not "brake it."

We only have the priest's word that he has changed the bread and wine.

[DefensorFidei]

As usual....

Quote:We only have the priest's word that he has changed the bread and wine

.

We have the teaching of Jesus the Chrsit in John.

We have the teaching of the Apostles.

We have the teaching of the bishops who were trained by the Apostles.

We have the infallible teaching of the head of the Church, the Holy Fathers of the Church throughout history.

And we have the promise of Jesus that the Church would not be allowed to teach error.

What more would you possibly want?

[Davo]

Quote:Why do I not see all catholics dragging around a large Romanic torturing device behind them, namely, the cross?:

Well actually we do. In RC countries which have, untill recently, been virtualy untouched by reformed teaching, like the Philipines, people do lug crosses around, and get themselves nailed to them, and flagelate their bloody bodies through the streets.

[Jim]

Quote:In the Eucharist?a supernatural transformation?a substantial change occurs without accidental alteration

What a question dodge! You can't answer a simple question can you? this proves your doctrine is a lie.

Blood is blood, grape juice is grape juice, and wine is wine.

The fact that you can't differentiate them is sad.