On The Eucharist...

[ICTHUS]

Uhhh, as I understand it, God came to inhabit matter (a man). Christ still had the "substance" of a man.

After all, He was "true God and True Man"

So the kind of change you are describing is entirely different to transubstantiation.

I do not see that this line of argumentation makes any progress to proving transubstantiation at all, as it is silly to say that God taking on a human nature while keeping His Divine Nature is the same thing as transubstantiation.

If anything, your line of argumentation would prove con-substantiation rather than trans-substantiation, and I dont think you want to be a Lutheran. For, if you say that Christ's incarnation is a representation of the change in the bread and wine, then you must concede that, just as Divine and Creation coexist in Christ's hypostatic union (unless you're a Monophysite, and I hope youre not!), so must Divine (Christ) and Creation (Bread and wine) coexist in the Eucharist.

You're a Lutheran!!

Edited December 11, 2003 by ICTHUS

[Jake Huether]

Dude, take a deep breath. I wasn't trying to PROVE transubstantiation, anymore than one can PROVE God became man. Both are faith based. Get a grip (said with love).

I think you are reading WAY to deeply into what I said.

Actually Jesus is no more God then the Eucharist. They are both God the Son in his fullness, Body Blood Soul and Divinity. So I fail to see your point about him also being man, while in the case of the Eucharist it is merely the accidents of bread and wine.

My argument wasn't on the specific scientific details of God becoming man / Christ becoming bread and wine.

My argument was simply this:

Bread is no more Divine than us. It is created. We are created. Yes, we were created in the image and likeness of God... But that doesn't make us Divine. We are created, and so is bread.

I started thinking about this because our good friend Ayed has been asking and commenting on how Christ could become human. And it just struck me as so similar to the disbelief that Protestants have in the fact that bread and wine can become Christ.

Protestants rationalise the Eucharist just like non-Christians rationalize Christ. They say, "How can he become human, and yet still be God." Protestants say, "How can bread and wine become the Body and blood of Jesus Christ". Non-Christians will point to their holy books (for athiests maybe a biology or history book) and show how this "contradicts" God. Protestants point to the Bible and show how Christ "wasn't" talking about really eating His Body and Blood.

It was just curiouse to me why Protestants believe that God could become man, yet then rationalize that he couldn't make bread and wine become Him???

When God became man we interacted with Him as He came to us, as a human (i.e. we become friends, talk, laugh with, etc.)

When bread and wine become Christ we interact with Him as He comes to us, as bread and wine (i.e. we eat him).

I'm not trying to prove anything, just sayin it like it is...

[Jake Huether]

First off: Again get a grip, man. Re-read my post.

I wasn't comparing God becoming man to Christ becoming the Eucharist, in the specific sense of their actuality.

I was comparing the reactions that non-Christians have to the former and non-Catholics to the latter.

I never said that the two events ocur the same in every detail. In both cases, quite simply, creation becomes God (or vice/versa).

So the kind of change you are describing is entirely different to transubstantiation.

Agreed, but in both cases Creation becomes God - unless you are saying that Christ isn't completely God - but I know you just said he was. In both cases: Bread becomes fully God. Man becomes fully God (and fully man)

I do not see that this line of argumentation makes any progress to proving transubstantiation at all, as it is silly to say that God taking on a human nature while keeping His Divine Nature is the same thing as transubstantiation.

That would be pretty silly, I guess. Good thing I didn't say it.

Now, as to your comment about con-substantiation (Christ being in and around the elements- and not the actual elements themselves), you have a few holes.

If anything, your line of argumentation would prove con-substantiation rather than trans-substantiation

No it doesn't. If anything it doesn't prove either. Con-substantiation is when God is in and around the elements.

In the Case of Christ each and every element of him has become God. Unless you believe that Christ was simply a physical vessle for God?? Your statment would indicate that you think God was merely in and around the elements of man. Not so. Each element was fully God fully man. This is not con-substantiation, though it isn't transubstantiation either (in that the elements of Christ retain their complete human nature at the same time, while the bread and wine merely retain their accidents).

You're a Lutheran!!

NO I'M NOT! I'M CATHOLIC! GET THAT STRAIGHT!!!!!!

(I'm biting my tongue hard not to retaliate for that).

Have a little charity. This is a discussion topic. You know I'm Catholic. So calling me a Lutheran is a HUGE insult. I am deeply offended. And very much agrivated! Nothing I said was Lutheran.

You have extrapolated a bunch of ideas (and I use extrapolate very loosely) that aren't even envolved here.

Dude, seriously, re-read what I wrote, and then let's have a friendly discussion about it.

I don't want to discuss how Christ becomes the Eucharist or how God became man. I wan't to discuss the similarity in the ideology of the non-Catholics to non-Christians in their rationalizing how God could NOT become a part of creation (wheather through the incarnation or transubstantiation).

[Paladin D]

I thought ICTHUS was playing Devil's Advocate...

[Jake Huether]

If he was, he was being an a double s about it.

And I hope that my posts cleared up his advocacy. ;)

[Jake Huether]

Uhhh, as I understand it, God came to inhabit matter (a man). Christ still had the "substance" of a man.

After all, He was "true God and True Man"

This is an oxymoron. God didn't "inhabit matter". God became matter. To inhabit is NOT to be. I inhabit my home. But I don't become my home.

If God merely inhabited a man, then the man wasn't "True God" (which blows your last statement way).

[God Conquers]

am I missing something here? Like a post?

[Jake Huether]

am I missing something here? Like a post?

I know. I felt the same way???

[vianney]

uggg ha ha i dont understand ha ha....okkk ha ha how bout them yankees?

[Seatbelt Blue]

uggg ha ha i dont understand ha ha....okkk ha ha how bout them yankees?

They lost to a bunch of fish.

<_<

[foundsheep]

Does anyone have blind faith anymore. Do we really need documentation to believe?