Transubstantiation Unsubstantiated

[Stormstopper]

Greetings People....

I am sure you don't mind if I use my handle, "Storm"? I'm one of the co-authors of the essay on Transubstantiation which Raphael kindly posted here. Let's get right to it, shall we? As I wrote to the nice gent last night:


[font="Georgia"][size="2"][color="#800000"]I've been asking the same question for 20 years that no Catholic can answer and neither will YOU be able to answer it because it will expose your hypocrisy. The question is, If, as you say, I do not understand Catholicism, then kindly point out to me just ONE Protestant on planet Earth who DOES understand it---and REJECTS it at the same time. Then I will check their writings and see if I agree. Chances are, I will.[/color][/size][/font]

[font="Georgia"][size="2"][color="#800000"]I won't let you get away with saying you can understand the Protestant point of view perfectly well and reject it---- but you don't have the guts to admit that there isn't any Protestant who understands YOUR theology and rejects it as well??????????? Spare me such bafoonary.
_________________________________________________________

Consequently, if no one on this board can respond to the above, then I ask you to cease and desist from saying that ALL P's who reject, for example, papal subordination as a requirement for salvation (which the Catholic Church teaches to be so) do not understand Catholicism. That is just one fact of Catholicism which we DO understand as it was CLEARLY stated at Vatican 1. We insist it is another gospel, and we thoroughly reject it.

Raphael also told me to please try and come up with some new arguments that haven't been defeated and disproven hundreds of times before. Quite amusing to make such a statement and provide no proof. I'd like to know by whose standard of logic gains the victory crown in declaring that ALL Protestant arguments have been defeated? O.K., then, if all our arguments are so easily dismantled, then I want to know how you nice folk deal with Hebrews 9:16-20, which the logic of God conclusively demands that the Mass is a hoax. Obviously you don't know what I'm talking about, so get out your Bibles and read it for yourself. Then compare what your church teaches and what the Creator of Heaven and Earth says. They BOTH cannot be true. We've done all the work for you so I'm pasting it here.

[color="#ff0000"] [/color][font="Comic Sans MS"]THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST ------ [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]AT THE LAST SUPPER???????????[/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]Perhaps the most infuriating aspect of Catholic Church theology is that she has the gaul to teach that Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice "in the bread and the wine" [/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"]at the Last Supper . . . BEFORE HE WENT TO THE CROSS! [/color][color="#0000ff"]The allegedly "infallible" Council of Trent taught that, [/color][color="#000000"]"At the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed . . .offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the form of bread and wine. . ..[/color][color="#0000ff"]{"Concerning the Mass", ch. 1; CCC #1365}. This is simply reprehensible and the Scriptures will not allow such religious quackery. First of all, Christ offered up His body [u]"on the tree"[/u] {1 Peter 2:24}----i.e., at the cross, no sooner and no later, and certainly not at the Last Supper before it had even happened yet!

[/color][/font]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]Second, Jesus typified the passover lamb of the Old Testament {1 Cor 5:7}. If we are to believe the Catholic Church, a "live sacrifice" was going on at the Last Supper "with the blood still in it". But God strictly forbid the practice of eating a live sacrifice with the blood still in it in Leviticus 17:11-14 . Once again, the Catholic Church ruins the typologies Christ came to fulfill.[/font][font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#000000"][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="3"][color="#ff0000"]

[color="#0000ff"]Third, even if Catholics were indeed swallowing the literal body of Christ, they will never know if they are eating a "PRE" or "POST" resurrection body because the Pope has muddied the waters in confusion. [/color][color="#0000ff"]In his encyclical, [i]Ecclesia de Eucharistia, [/i]JPII says on the one hand that, [i]"the body given up for us and made present under the sacramental signs, was the [u]same[/u] body which Mary had [u]conceived in her womb[/u]" --- [/i]and in communion, [i]"we receive His body which He gave up for us [u]on the Cross[/u]"[/i] (#16 & 55). But elsewhere he says, [i]"The flesh of the Son of Man, given as food, is His body in its [u]glorious state after the resurrection[/u]" [/i](#18). Paragraph 18 is an irreconcilable contradiction with the others because the pre-crucified body of Christ [i]"had not yet been glorified" [/i](John 7:39) and everyone agrees that Mary did not give birth to a glorified post-resurrected Messiah. Worse still, the Pope flip-flops his position when referring to the agony in the garden when His sweat became as great drops of blood {Luke 22:44}. He says that directly after the Last Supper,[i] "The blood which shortly before He had given to the Church as the drink of salvation in the sacrament of the Eucharist, [u]began to be shed[/u] [/i](#3).[i] [/i]By Catholic Church definition, the blood at the Last Supper and the blood in the Garden is [i][color="#ff0000"] pre[/color]-crucifixtion blood, [/i]which again is in dire straits with the Pope's simultaneous assumption that the Eucharist is[i] [color="#ff0000"]post[/color][/i][color="#0000ff"][i]-resurrection [/i]blood.[/color] [/color][/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]Fourth, when Christ held the cup announcing this was the blood of the [i]new[/i] covenant, the disciples [u]would[/u] have understood this against the backdrop of the blood sacrifice of the [i]old [/i] covenant {Exodus 24:8}. And that sacrifice was blood from a sacrificial victim and [u]not[/u] a living person.[color="#000000"] [i] [/i][color="#0000ff"][i]"Did the apostles who took part in the Last Supper understand the [/i][eucharistic] [i]meaning of the words spoken by Christ? Probably not" [/i]{"Ecclesia de Eucharistia" #2).[/color][i] [/i]Hence, since[/color][/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] Christ had not yet died at the time of the Last Supper, it is impossible for the contents of that cup to be understood as, or to [u]be[/u] His actual blood which will inaugurate the New Testament. The only alternative is that the bread and wine [u]must[/u] be symbols of His body and blood pointing to the cross since the reality of the crucifixtion had not yet taken place, and it was in this symbolic fashion that the disciples were more likely to lean upon.[/color][/font]

[u][font="Comic Sans MS"]OBJECTION:[/font][/u][color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"] "Why do you say that Christ couldn't change the elements into His body and blood at the Last Supper? [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]We know that with God all things are possible" {Matt 19:26}.[/font][/color]

[u][font="Comic Sans MS"]ANSWER:[/font][/u][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"] Summoning into service the fact that God can do anything in response to any controversy is a poor apologetic. Anyone can say that to support whatever they wish. That Jesus did not transubstantiate the elements is refuted, not by our logic, but by [u]His[/u] logic in Hebrews chapter 9 that no power on earth can deny. The Lord is not the author of confusion, but reason {1 Cor 14:33, Isa 1:18} Watch it: We are told that when Moses sprinkled the blood of a sacrificed animal on the book of the law and on the people, he said, "[u]This is the blood of the Testament[/u]" Hence, there can be no doubt that Jesus was picking up on this very same sentiment when He held the cup and said, "[u]This is my blood of the New Testament[/u]." It is crucial to remember that Jesus was [u]alive[/u] when He said this because we read,[/color] [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]"FOR WHERE A TESTAMENT IS, THERE MUST OF NECESSITY BE THE DEATH OF THE TESTATOR; [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]FOR A TESTAMENT IS IN FORCE {only} AFTER {AGAIN, [u][color="#ff0000"]AFTER}[/u][/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"] MEN ARE DEAD: OTHERWISE [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]IT IS OF NO STRENGTH AT ALL WHILE THE TESTATOR LIVES" {Hebrews 9:16-20}.[/font]



[color="#ff0000"][font="Comic Sans MS"]NO STRENGTH AT ALL[/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]Very simply, a person's last will and testament is not in force until that person has died! It is invalid, useless and consists of, as we read above, "no strength at all". On the other hand, the Catholic Church pompously affirms that the bread and wine has the [/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#ff0000"]STRENGTH [/color][/font][color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]to [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]A. . .. function as the "antidote" whereby we may be cleansed from past sins and [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]preserved from future sins" {CCC #1393, 1395} -----and[/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]B . . .. that it serve as a "means of grace", or a channel of life-changing power" {ibid, Shea, p. 29}--- and[/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]C . . .. that it should be adored and worshipped owing to the fact that "it" is God {CCC # 1380: Trent, Session 13}.[/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]Hebrews 9:16-20 utterly rejects the above three and any other imagined "benefits" based on the fact that Jesus was [u]alive[/u] when proclaiming the New Testament at the Last Supper. If the contents of a person's will has "no strength" and is useless until the Testator has died, then the contents of the cup Jesus held----and by extention, the bread--- also had no strength to be what the Catholic Church claims them to be since the Testator had not yet died. Therefore, since the emblems did not carry any efficacious power back then, it certainly doesn't carry any [i]now.[/i] So that "our minds should not be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" {2 Cor 11:3}--- the only logical and simplistic solution is that the elements were symbols of His body and blood {His life and death} which we were to remember until He returned {Romans 5:10}. Going beyond that is heresy.[/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font]

[color="#ff0000"][/color]
End.[/color][/size][/font]

[font="Georgia"][size="2"][color="#800000"][/color][/size][/font]

[Gregorius]

I just tried to answer it piece by piece, but there were too many quotation blocks!!
So, I got most of the way through it, then got bored. I unraveled it myself, so I'm happy.
It's three in the morning where I am, so I should get some rest.

[Gregorius]

Hi, Mr. Stormstopper! Welcome to Phatmass!

[iheartjp2]

So.....much......TEXT!

[Nihil Obstat]

I have reached my quota for negative marks today.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Gregorius' date='05 September 2009 - 01:14 AM' timestamp='1252134880' post='1961237']
Hi, Mr. Stormstopper! Welcome to Phatmass!
[/quote]

let the games begin

[zunshynn]

There was a guy who must have seen my entrance picture in OLAM's newsletter, and I guess decided I was going to be his little project, that he would save me from the papists and religion and accept Jesus as my personal lord and savior. It was just kind of weird because I was the only one he wrote, individually, to. He sent me a Christmas card every year with a letter to convince me that the Catholic Church was wrong, and tracts about religious sisters and priests who left religious life and became fundamentalists. What really irritated me one time was shortly after Mother Teresa's letters were released and I guess a lot of people were using her spiritual life and the darkness she experienced as proof that "she was trying to work her way into heaven."

Sr. Catherine gave me permission to write him back once and send him a CD of Jeff Cavins conversion story. Oh my gosh, the guy was so excited, he couldn't believe I responded.

[homeschoolmom]

Hey, Storm... welcome to Phatmass.

[peach_cube]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='05 September 2009 - 04:11 AM' timestamp='1252134675' post='1961235']
Greetings People....

I am sure you don't mind if I use my handle, "Storm"? I'm one of the co-authors of the essay on Transubstantiation which Raphael kindly posted here. Let's get right to it, shall we? As I wrote to the nice gent last night:


[font="Georgia"][size="2"][color="#800000"]I've been asking the same question for 20 years that no Catholic can answer and neither will YOU be able to answer it because it will expose your hypocrisy. The question is, If, as you say, I do not understand Catholicism, then kindly point out to me just ONE Protestant on planet Earth who DOES understand it---and REJECTS it at the same time. Then I will check their writings and see if I agree. Chances are, I will.[/color][/size][/font]

[font="Georgia"][size="2"][color="#800000"]I won't let you get away with saying you can understand the Protestant point of view perfectly well and reject it---- but you don't have the guts to admit that there isn't any Protestant who understands YOUR theology and rejects it as well??????????? Spare me such bafoonary.
_________________________________________________________

Consequently, if no one on this board can respond to the above, then I ask you to cease and desist from saying that ALL P's who reject, for example, papal subordination as a requirement for salvation (which the Catholic Church teaches to be so) do not understand Catholicism. That is just one fact of Catholicism which we DO understand as it was CLEARLY stated at Vatican 1. We insist it is another gospel, and we thoroughly reject it.

Raphael also told me to please try and come up with some new arguments that haven't been defeated and disproven hundreds of times before. Quite amusing to make such a statement and provide no proof. I'd like to know by whose standard of logic gains the victory crown in declaring that ALL Protestant arguments have been defeated? O.K., then, if all our arguments are so easily dismantled, then I want to know how you nice folk deal with Hebrews 9:16-20, which the logic of God conclusively demands that the Mass is a hoax. Obviously you don't know what I'm talking about, so get out your Bibles and read it for yourself. Then compare what your church teaches and what the Creator of Heaven and Earth says. They BOTH cannot be true. We've done all the work for you so I'm pasting it here.

[color="#ff0000"] [/color][font="Comic Sans MS"]THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST ------ [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]AT THE LAST SUPPER???????????[/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]Perhaps the most infuriating aspect of Catholic Church theology is that she has the gaul to teach that Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice "in the bread and the wine" [/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"]at the Last Supper . . . BEFORE HE WENT TO THE CROSS! [/color][color="#0000ff"]The allegedly "infallible" Council of Trent taught that, [/color][color="#000000"]"At the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed . . .offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the form of bread and wine. . ..[/color][color="#0000ff"]{"Concerning the Mass", ch. 1; CCC #1365}. This is simply reprehensible and the Scriptures will not allow such religious quackery. First of all, Christ offered up His body [u]"on the tree"[/u] {1 Peter 2:24}----i.e., at the cross, no sooner and no later, and certainly not at the Last Supper before it had even happened yet!

[/color][/font]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]Second, Jesus typified the passover lamb of the Old Testament {1 Cor 5:7}. If we are to believe the Catholic Church, a "live sacrifice" was going on at the Last Supper "with the blood still in it". But God strictly forbid the practice of eating a live sacrifice with the blood still in it in Leviticus 17:11-14 . Once again, the Catholic Church ruins the typologies Christ came to fulfill.[/font][font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#000000"][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="3"][color="#ff0000"]

[color="#0000ff"]Third, even if Catholics were indeed swallowing the literal body of Christ, they will never know if they are eating a "PRE" or "POST" resurrection body because the Pope has muddied the waters in confusion. [/color][color="#0000ff"]In his encyclical, [i]Ecclesia de Eucharistia, [/i]JPII says on the one hand that, [i]"the body given up for us and made present under the sacramental signs, was the [u]same[/u] body which Mary had [u]conceived in her womb[/u]" --- [/i]and in communion, [i]"we receive His body which He gave up for us [u]on the Cross[/u]"[/i] (#16 & 55). But elsewhere he says, [i]"The flesh of the Son of Man, given as food, is His body in its [u]glorious state after the resurrection[/u]" [/i](#18). Paragraph 18 is an irreconcilable contradiction with the others because the pre-crucified body of Christ [i]"had not yet been glorified" [/i](John 7:39) and everyone agrees that Mary did not give birth to a glorified post-resurrected Messiah. Worse still, the Pope flip-flops his position when referring to the agony in the garden when His sweat became as great drops of blood {Luke 22:44}. He says that directly after the Last Supper,[i] "The blood which shortly before He had given to the Church as the drink of salvation in the sacrament of the Eucharist, [u]began to be shed[/u] [/i](#3).[i] [/i]By Catholic Church definition, the blood at the Last Supper and the blood in the Garden is [i][color="#ff0000"] pre[/color]-crucifixtion blood, [/i]which again is in dire straits with the Pope's simultaneous assumption that the Eucharist is[i] [color="#ff0000"]post[/color][/i][color="#0000ff"][i]-resurrection [/i]blood.[/color] [/color][/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]Fourth, when Christ held the cup announcing this was the blood of the [i]new[/i] covenant, the disciples [u]would[/u] have understood this against the backdrop of the blood sacrifice of the [i]old [/i] covenant {Exodus 24:8}. And that sacrifice was blood from a sacrificial victim and [u]not[/u] a living person.[color="#000000"] [i] [/i][color="#0000ff"][i]"Did the apostles who took part in the Last Supper understand the [/i][eucharistic] [i]meaning of the words spoken by Christ? Probably not" [/i]{"Ecclesia de Eucharistia" #2).[/color][i] [/i]Hence, since[/color][/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] Christ had not yet died at the time of the Last Supper, it is impossible for the contents of that cup to be understood as, or to [u]be[/u] His actual blood which will inaugurate the New Testament. The only alternative is that the bread and wine [u]must[/u] be symbols of His body and blood pointing to the cross since the reality of the crucifixtion had not yet taken place, and it was in this symbolic fashion that the disciples were more likely to lean upon.[/color][/font]

[u][font="Comic Sans MS"]OBJECTION:[/font][/u][color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"] "Why do you say that Christ couldn't change the elements into His body and blood at the Last Supper? [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]We know that with God all things are possible" {Matt 19:26}.[/font][/color]

[u][font="Comic Sans MS"]ANSWER:[/font][/u][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"] Summoning into service the fact that God can do anything in response to any controversy is a poor apologetic. Anyone can say that to support whatever they wish. That Jesus did not transubstantiate the elements is refuted, not by our logic, but by [u]His[/u] logic in Hebrews chapter 9 that no power on earth can deny. The Lord is not the author of confusion, but reason {1 Cor 14:33, Isa 1:18} Watch it: We are told that when Moses sprinkled the blood of a sacrificed animal on the book of the law and on the people, he said, "[u]This is the blood of the Testament[/u]" Hence, there can be no doubt that Jesus was picking up on this very same sentiment when He held the cup and said, "[u]This is my blood of the New Testament[/u]." It is crucial to remember that Jesus was [u]alive[/u] when He said this because we read,[/color] [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]"FOR WHERE A TESTAMENT IS, THERE MUST OF NECESSITY BE THE DEATH OF THE TESTATOR; [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]FOR A TESTAMENT IS IN FORCE {only} AFTER {AGAIN, [u][color="#ff0000"]AFTER}[/u][/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"] MEN ARE DEAD: OTHERWISE [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]IT IS OF NO STRENGTH AT ALL WHILE THE TESTATOR LIVES" {Hebrews 9:16-20}.[/font]



[color="#ff0000"][font="Comic Sans MS"]NO STRENGTH AT ALL[/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]Very simply, a person's last will and testament is not in force until that person has died! It is invalid, useless and consists of, as we read above, "no strength at all". On the other hand, the Catholic Church pompously affirms that the bread and wine has the [/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#ff0000"]STRENGTH [/color][/font][color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]to [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]A. . .. function as the "antidote" whereby we may be cleansed from past sins and [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]preserved from future sins" {CCC #1393, 1395} -----and[/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]B . . .. that it serve as a "means of grace", or a channel of life-changing power" {ibid, Shea, p. 29}--- and[/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]C . . .. that it should be adored and worshipped owing to the fact that "it" is God {CCC # 1380: Trent, Session 13}.[/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]Hebrews 9:16-20 utterly rejects the above three and any other imagined "benefits" based on the fact that Jesus was [u]alive[/u] when proclaiming the New Testament at the Last Supper. If the contents of a person's will has "no strength" and is useless until the Testator has died, then the contents of the cup Jesus held----and by extention, the bread--- also had no strength to be what the Catholic Church claims them to be since the Testator had not yet died. Therefore, since the emblems did not carry any efficacious power back then, it certainly doesn't carry any [i]now.[/i] So that "our minds should not be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" {2 Cor 11:3}--- the only logical and simplistic solution is that the elements were symbols of His body and blood {His life and death} which we were to remember until He returned {Romans 5:10}. Going beyond that is heresy.[/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font]

[color="#ff0000"][/color]
End.[/color][/size][/font]

[font="Georgia"][size="2"][color="#800000"][/color][/size][/font]
[/quote]

I don't have any respect for spammers. When you make an argument it should be as if you where really talking to someone. No one I know talks in various colors and font sizes, anyone who uses all caps is just yelling at me. Copy and paste dumps are no way to build an argument. If you cannot summarize what a source is saying then you do not understand it yourself. That said, you should cite those sources. If you would like to continue the argument I would gladly participate as long as you follow these guidelines. If you cannot abide in them then stop wasting everyone's time, including your own.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='05 September 2009 - 03:11 AM' timestamp='1252134675' post='1961235']
O.K., then, if all our arguments are so easily dismantled, then I want to know how you nice folk deal with Hebrews 9:16-20, which the logic of God conclusively demands that the Mass is a hoax. Obviously you don't know what I'm talking about, so get out your Bibles and read it for yourself. Then compare what your church teaches and what the Creator of Heaven and Earth says. They BOTH cannot be true. We've done all the work for you so I'm pasting it here.[/quote]

The first mistake of arrogance is that it blindly condemns others as being inferior. You are making the assumption that Catholics don't know their Scriptures (but that's another debate). Why you make that assumption I don't know, perhaps you were raised in an anti-Catholic environment, perhaps you are a former Catholic who didn't pay attention to the multiple readings and references to Scripture in the Mass that follow a three-year Bible study format, perhaps you have just been deceived by others.

[quote] [color="#ff0000"] [/color][font="Comic Sans MS"]THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST ------ [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]AT THE LAST SUPPER???????????[/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]Perhaps the most infuriating aspect of Catholic Church theology is that she has the gaul to teach that Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice "in the bread and the wine" [/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"]at the Last Supper . . . BEFORE HE WENT TO THE CROSS! [/color][color="#0000ff"]The allegedly "infallible" Council of Trent taught that, [/color][color="#000000"]"At the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed . . .offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the form of bread and wine. . ..[/color][color="#0000ff"]{"Concerning the Mass", ch. 1; CCC #1365}. This is simply reprehensible and the Scriptures will not allow such religious quackery. First of all, Christ offered up His body [u]"on the tree"[/u] {1 Peter 2:24}----i.e., at the cross, no sooner and no later, and certainly not at the Last Supper before it had even happened yet!

[/color][/font][/quote]

In the theology of the Church, the Eucharist is not a separate event from the Cross, but a mystical re-presentation of the one sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross. In fact, the entire life of Christ and not only His death was a sacrifice to God, the same way that our lives of choosing virtue over sin is a sacrifice to God, but it culminated in His death. Even so, the Eucharist is a re-presentation, that is, that a priest in our time offers bread and wine which becomes Christ, the very same Christ who offered Himself once-for-all upon the Cross precisely as Christ offers Himself. It is as if the multiplication of the loaves had been applied to the Crucifixion across time, that the one sacrifice of Christ could be brought to all people. The sacrifice at the Last Supper was simply a pre-presentation instead of a re-presentation.

[quote][color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]Second, Jesus typified the passover lamb of the Old Testament {1 Cor 5:7}. If we are to believe the Catholic Church, a "live sacrifice" was going on at the Last Supper "with the blood still in it". But God strictly forbid the practice of eating a live sacrifice with the blood still in it in Leviticus 17:11-14 . Once again, the Catholic Church ruins the typologies Christ came to fulfill.[/font][font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#000000"][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="3"][color="#ff0000"][/quote]

As you surely already know, no typology is a direct and perfect parallel. Aside from that, however, you are incorrect. My above statement on the Eucharistic sacrifice points out that the Eucharist is offered in the same way that Christ was offered on the Cross. The Body offered in the Eucharist at the Last Supper was the Body that hung upon the Cross, mystically in the time of the Crucifixion, not the Last Supper.

[quote][color="#0000ff"]Third, even if Catholics were indeed swallowing the literal body of Christ, they will never know if they are eating a "PRE" or "POST" resurrection body because the Pope has muddied the waters in confusion. [/color][color="#0000ff"]In his encyclical, [i]Ecclesia de Eucharistia, [/i]JPII says on the one hand that, [i]"the body given up for us and made present under the sacramental signs, was the [u]same[/u] body which Mary had [u]conceived in her womb[/u]" --- [/i]and in communion, [i]"we receive His body which He gave up for us [u]on the Cross[/u]"[/i] (#16 & 55). But elsewhere he says, [i]"The flesh of the Son of Man, given as food, is His body in its [u]glorious state after the resurrection[/u]" [/i](#18). Paragraph 18 is an irreconcilable contradiction with the others because the pre-crucified body of Christ [i]"had not yet been glorified" [/i](John 7:39) and everyone agrees that Mary did not give birth to a glorified post-resurrected Messiah. Worse still, the Pope flip-flops his position when referring to the agony in the garden when His sweat became as great drops of blood {Luke 22:44}. He says that directly after the Last Supper,[i] "The blood which shortly before He had given to the Church as the drink of salvation in the sacrament of the Eucharist, [u]began to be shed[/u] [/i](#3).[i] [/i]By Catholic Church definition, the blood at the Last Supper and the blood in the Garden is [i][color="#ff0000"] pre[/color]-crucifixtion blood, [/i]which again is in dire straits with the Pope's simultaneous assumption that the Eucharist is[i] [color="#ff0000"]post[/color][/i][color="#0000ff"][i]-resurrection [/i]blood.[/color] [/color][/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][/quote]

Okay, the problem here is that you're trying to work out your theology on a topic that transcends time within the limits of temporal expression. There is one Body of Christ. The Eucharist which we receive is the whole Christ, the same Christ who was born of the Virgin, the same Christ who was Crucified, the same Christ who is now glorified in heaven with the Father. You're trying to use that statement and take it into a theological direction that was not intended by the author, which is a strawman fallacy. What you're trying to do is take a series of statements pointing out the significance of the Eucharist (by showing that we are receiving the true Christ, the Son of God become man, living in history and transcending history in eternity) and set those statements against what might be called "Eucharistic time." The problem is that the sacramental presence of Christ is not bound by the temporal or physical locality of His local presence (the term the Church uses to describe Christ's presence in heaven "at this moment" for lack of a better phrase). When we receive Christ in the Eucharist, we receive a Person, not just a body, and that Person brings His entire personal history with Him. It is as if we receive Him in every moment of His life all at once. There is no contradiction.

[quote][font="Comic Sans MS"]Fourth, when Christ held the cup announcing this was the blood of the [i]new[/i] covenant, the disciples [u]would[/u] have understood this against the backdrop of the blood sacrifice of the [i]old [/i] covenant {Exodus 24:8}. And that sacrifice was blood from a sacrificial victim and [u]not[/u] a living person.[color="#000000"] [i] [/i][color="#0000ff"][i]"Did the apostles who took part in the Last Supper understand the [/i][eucharistic] [i]meaning of the words spoken by Christ? Probably not" [/i]{"Ecclesia de Eucharistia" #2).[/color][i] [/i]Hence, since[/color][/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] Christ had not yet died at the time of the Last Supper, it is impossible for the contents of that cup to be understood as, or to [u]be[/u] His actual blood which will inaugurate the New Testament. The only alternative is that the bread and wine [u]must[/u] be symbols of His body and blood pointing to the cross since the reality of the crucifixtion had not yet taken place, and it was in this symbolic fashion that the disciples were more likely to lean upon.[/color][/font][/quote]

My previous points already address this. The Blood that was within the chalice was bound up in the following day. It would not have been the same had Christ slit His wrists and poured out His Blood into the chalice. Further, as I've said, the Eucharist is the whole Person of Christ, not just His Blood in the chalice and His Body in the host. If the Last Supper is not the first Eucharist, then the Last Supper was a purposeless practice of the Old Covenant that was not transformed into the sacrifice of the New Covenant. Jesus fulfills the Old Covenant. How could He possibly leave the Passover meal unfulfilled by celebrating the Passover and simply using it as a symbolic reference to something entirely different? You accuse us of having inadequate typology, but your typology isn't even typology, since typology has a type and an antitype which [i]fulfills[/i] it.



[quote][u][font="Comic Sans MS"]OBJECTION:[/font][/u][color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"] "Why do you say that Christ couldn't change the elements into His body and blood at the Last Supper? [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]We know that with God all things are possible" {Matt 19:26}.[/font][/color]

[u][font="Comic Sans MS"]ANSWER:[/font][/u][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"] Summoning into service the fact that God can do anything in response to any controversy is a poor apologetic. Anyone can say that to support whatever they wish. That Jesus did not transubstantiate the elements is refuted, not by our logic, but by [u]His[/u] logic in Hebrews chapter 9 that no power on earth can deny. The Lord is not the author of confusion, but reason {1 Cor 14:33, Isa 1:18} Watch it: We are told that when Moses sprinkled the blood of a sacrificed animal on the book of the law and on the people, he said, "[u]This is the blood of the Testament[/u]" Hence, there can be no doubt that Jesus was picking up on this very same sentiment when He held the cup and said, "[u]This is my blood of the New Testament[/u]." It is crucial to remember that Jesus was [u]alive[/u] when He said this because we read,[/color] [/font][/quote]

I've already argued against most of this, but it's important to point out that while Jesus' words at the Last Supper certainly call to mind the words of Moses, the reception of the Eucharist by Christ's faithful most perfectly fulfills the sprinkling of blood in the Mosaic rite.

[quote][font="Comic Sans MS"]"FOR WHERE A TESTAMENT IS, THERE MUST OF NECESSITY BE THE DEATH OF THE TESTATOR; [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]FOR A TESTAMENT IS IN FORCE {only} AFTER {AGAIN, [u][color="#ff0000"]AFTER}[/u][/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"] MEN ARE DEAD: OTHERWISE [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]IT IS OF NO STRENGTH AT ALL WHILE THE TESTATOR LIVES" {Hebrews 9:16-20}.[/font]

[color="#ff0000"][font="Comic Sans MS"]NO STRENGTH AT ALL[/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]Very simply, a person's last will and testament is not in force until that person has died! It is invalid, useless and consists of, as we read above, "no strength at all". On the other hand, the Catholic Church pompously affirms that the bread and wine has the [/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#ff0000"]STRENGTH [/color][/font][color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]to [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]A. . .. function as the "antidote" whereby we may be cleansed from past sins and [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]preserved from future sins" {CCC #1393, 1395} -----and[/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]B . . .. that it serve as a "means of grace", or a channel of life-changing power" {ibid, Shea, p. 29}--- and[/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]C . . .. that it should be adored and worshipped owing to the fact that "it" is God {CCC # 1380: Trent, Session 13}.[/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]Hebrews 9:16-20 utterly rejects the above three and any other imagined "benefits" based on the fact that Jesus was [u]alive[/u] when proclaiming the New Testament at the Last Supper. If the contents of a person's will has "no strength" and is useless until the Testator has died, then the contents of the cup Jesus held----and by extention, the bread--- also had no strength to be what the Catholic Church claims them to be since the Testator had not yet died. Therefore, since the emblems did not carry any efficacious power back then, it certainly doesn't carry any [i]now.[/i] So that "our minds should not be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" {2 Cor 11:3}--- the only logical and simplistic solution is that the elements were symbols of His body and blood {His life and death} which we were to remember until He returned {Romans 5:10}. Going beyond that is heresy.[/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font][/quote]

If a wealthy man makes a will and divides his wealth among his sons, that man can still give of his wealth freely. Because a living man is not bound by his will (which takes effect when he dies), he is free to give as generously as he wishes from the wealth he has marked for future distribution. While the legal argument you've presented seems solid, it defies this simple understanding. Christ our Lord is not bound only to grant healing and salvation after His death, unless you mean to say that Christ did not have authority over sin and death before He died. A wealthy man could even give one of his sons his portion before his death (in fact, our Lord points this out in the parable of the Prodigal Son). Furthermore, if we understand the Eucharist to be in the moment of the Death of Christ (and to contain the whole Person of Christ with His entire life), then your point is further irrelevant.

God bless.

[AccountDeleted]

I can't debate this issue because it is too personal for me. The thought of living without being able to adore the Real Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament or receiving Him in the Eucharist is too painful to contemplate. It is a rejection of Him personally.

When Jesus told the disciples that they would have to eat His flesh and drink His blood, a lot of them left Him. But when He asked the Apostles if they wanted to leave too, Peter said, "Where would we go, Lord, you have the words of eternal life." Protestants just don't get it - and they are missing out on such a tremendous grace by this blindness - it is sad. We just need to pray for the Holy Spirit to reveal this truth to their hearts and minds.

[XIX]

At first glance, I noticed a lot of false dichotomies...

[quote]
Notice--- In Scripture, life is described as a battle. If there was anything even remotely nourishing in swallowing the communion wafer as the Catholic Church claims {CCC #1003, Ecclesia de Eucharista, #16-17) it would have been highlighted here as the ultimate "vitamin pill" to sustain "soldiers of Jesus Christ" in the wars ahead {1 Tim 1:18, 2 Tim 2:3}. The Pope says the Eucharist is, "our food for the journey" {Ecclesia, #61}. But the apostle did not include this food in the soldier's battle plan, but only asks the Ephesians to pray that he would boldly open his mouth to proclaim the mystery of the gospel . . . period. In stark contrast to God's marching orders as to what constitutes a soldier's armor, the Catholic Church again ventures outside the inscripturated Word and hundreds of years later expects us to believe we must add to our weaponry and be "invisibly equipped" with the Eucharist! {Consitution on the Sacred Liturgy, para 2}.

However, as we will show below, [b]the Lord has already promised the "invisible equipment" of the Holy Spirit[/b]---by whom we are promised to be "strengthened with might in the inner man" {Eph 3:16}. Thus, we are convinced that the Catholic Church Eucharist does not belong in our artillery, let alone it being necessary for salvation. "Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men " {Colossians 2:8}.[/quote]
Receiving the Holy Spirit in no way precludes one from receiving Jesus in the Eucharist. Regardless of one's beliefs on the Eucharist, the real presence can not be dis-proven by a presence of the Holy Spirit.

[quote]However, as we will show below, the Lord has already promised the "invisible equipment" of the Holy Spirit---by whom we are promised to be "strengthened with might in the inner man" {Eph 3:16}. Thus, we are convinced that the Catholic Church Eucharist does not belong in our artillery, let alone it being necessary for salvation. "Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men " {Colossians 2:8}.
[/quote]
That's definitely a false dichotomy.

[quote]Keep in mind that when the early church responded to those who would reduce Christianity to rites, rules and regulations, the apostle Paul would not stand for it, "No, not for an hour" {Galatians 2:5}. Later, when actual believers rose up and asserted that, "except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved" ---the council at Jerusalem rejected this addition also {Acts 15:1-11}. We see then that the mindset of the early pioneers was not one of religious toleration when it appeared the gospel was about to be compromised. They were rigidly inflexible when anything extra was looking to be added to the gospel equation. Scripture says we must "rest" our salvation on nothing more, nothing less and nothing ELSE than Jesus Christ crucified {1 Cor 1:23; 2:2, Heb 4:10}. The Catholic Church view is that salvation is a product of faith plus the ritualisitic consumption of Christ at Mass, [b]which the Catholic would consider a work of righteousness.[/b]
However, the Bible is adamant that our righteous acts do not save us (Titus 3:5). Salvation is conceptualized in Scripture as a free gift, plain and simple (Eph 2:8-9, 2 Cor 9:15).[/quote]

Okay, that's more of a strawman than anything else. "Lord I am not worth to receive you." Definitely not an "act of righteousness" as you would portray it.

[Stormstopper]

Hey folks,

Thanks to the few who welcomed me. But seriously now, I went through the string of replies and all you have done is blow a lot of smoke and dust into the air with your trite little comments. What am I supposed to say to the one who said, "don't speak to us in capital letters"? For crying out loud, 98% of the essay was no such thing, but the very verse I BEGGED you all to look at (Hebrews 9:16-20) I go ahead and capitalize so you can grasp the seriousness of your error---and I get condemned. My, my. Also, I will also not apologize for the length. Of course it is long and I am not surprised many will not go through it. That isn't my concern--just as when we plant seeds in the ground, not all of them "take". The opening up of a person's eyes is God's business, not mine. I am concerned with utilizing my talents and abilities, and since I have studied Catholicism for over 25 years and realize the evidence is quite formidable against you, we decided to put it all into one piece and send it out. We feel we are rightly dividing the word of God in stark contrast to your belief system, and that is EXACTLY what God expects us to do, and that izzzzzzz "evangelizing", contrary to the one who said it wasn't. IMHO, most of you are hiding behind the excuse of it being too long so you won't have to lift a finger to support your views. In reality, I think you probably weren't aware of the mountain of logical and biblical arguments to validate Jesus was speaking figuratively-- and so, behind a closed bathroom door you've probably had to grab a sedative with the realization that the word of God is indeed more powerful than any two-edged sword and you just don't know what to do when you see it is chopping down the hocus-pocus-domininocus of "The Real Presence" [i]at its roots.
[/i]
By the way, I was somewhat amused by Meg P's comment that she believes Transubstantiation is true because "Jesus said what He meant" and that, as they say, is that. Let me see now, I am supposed to [i] [u]respect[/u][/i] that sort of reply? If I sent you guys a tract that was one line saying the Pope is out of his collective mind, you know very well you would all just blow it off, condeming us because we are so lazy not to explain ourselves. Then when we send you a "tract" that is [i]loooong[/i], we still get a tomato thrown in our face because you think we are trying to hit you over the head with so much info that you won't have time to answer. Sheesh!

Incidentally Meg, I'm so glad you believe what Jesus says. Now tell me: God has announced in Scripture in more than 5 places, the direct, emphatic, and unambiguous statement that "ALL HAVE SINNED". Even a child could understand that......because GOD HAS SAID WHAT HE MEANT. Now why don't you believe it[i]???????[/i] You and your church simply spit in His face and tell us that Mary is an EXCEPTION! What part of "all" was confusing for you my dear? Which is exactly what you will hear from the the Lord (as well as Mary) on Judgment Day.

Storm

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
first off: holy camoley.

second, i just had to respond to this:
[quote name='Raphael' date='04 September 2009 - 08:14 PM' timestamp='1252116877' post='1961114']

We are sorry that you are held captive to the concept of "Transubstantiation" and the alleged "Real Presence" of Christ in the Communion wafer. [/quote]
oh, i'm held captive alright, just not in the way they mean

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
[quote name='picchick' date='04 September 2009 - 11:23 PM' timestamp='1252128229' post='1961210']My answer is the answer to the Eucharist. Jesus said what he meant. He wasn't joking. And because of it people left. I am not going to bother to answer them. It will take too long. And nothing I say will convert their heart. It is obvious they know a little of Catholic teaching. They had to in order to write what they did. It is full of misunderstanding, misconception and various anti-Catholic views spewed together in a long email. They are looking to cause trouble; they are not looking for answers.[/quote]yup.


[quote name='Stormstopper' date='05 September 2009 - 01:11 AM' timestamp='1252134675' post='1961235']
Greetings People....

I am sure you don't mind if I use my handle, "Storm"? I'm one of the co-authors of the essay on Transubstantiation which Raphael kindly posted here. Let's get right to it, shall we? As I wrote to the nice gent last night:[/quote]
welcome to phatmass.