Transubstantiation Unsubstantiated

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Raphael' date='06 September 2009 - 12:40 AM' timestamp='1252212053' post='1961668']
Storm, I'm going to be straightforward with you because I don't believe you to be open-minded enough about Catholicism to give us a fair hearing, so here it goes: you misrepresent my theology and offer no actual rebuttal of it, except to insist that it is unbiblical and foolish, without providing any evidence against it. I refuted your claims not on the basis that your Scripture was incorrect, but on the basis that your understanding of the Church's theology was incorrect, and you have tried to rebut by saying that I have not provided scriptural evidence. The problem with your theology is that you think whatever is true and necessary in the Christian faith must be found explicitly in the Scriptures. It seems to me, then, that you are mixing issues. If you wish to debate Sola Scriptura or the development of the faith, then you will need to open a new thread. As it stands, however, I have offered you a summary of the Catholic teaching regarding the temporal transcendence of the Eucharist based on philosophy and you have not replied in kind. If you want a Scriptural support, the Bible nowhere delves into this particular aspect of Eucharistic theology, nor does it need to. There are many things the Scriptures never explicitly tell us and you know it. Stop pretending that your faith is founded completely on the Scripture and face facts: you believe that everything in Christian faith should be found in the Scriptures, but the Scriptures nowhere say that, a self-contradiction. You also surely believe in God as three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that each is truly God, but the Scriptures never spell all that out for us, nor use the word Trinity. Surely logic would lead you to the knowledge that they all dwell within one another, but nowhere do the Scriptures use the word perichoresis. The Scriptures never say that faith alone saves (although they do say that faith alone does not save), but you believe it. Stop the dishonest attempts at bullying Catholics and face the truth. It is blatant hypocrisy to accuse Catholics of having an unbiblical faith when your beliefs are themselves not spelled out in Scripture. Simply because the Church has used her brain for the past 2000 years to come to a deeper knowledge of the faith through the application of philosophy, the sciences, the arts, and the light of human reason does not mean that all those conclusions based on Scripture but not explicit in Scripture are invalid. Stop being afraid of the gift of reason God gave the human race. [b]God never intended the Bible to be the ultimate and sole authority for Christian teaching.[/b] If it were, Christianity's answers to two millennia of heresy would be restricted to short snippets of the Scriptures taken out of context and often misapplied with faulty logic the way sound bytes are misused in a McCarthy documentary on a Catholic crisis of faith. Face it, you have the Catholic Church to thank for defending and preserving the faith handed on to you by those who broke with the Church. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Henry VIII, they all stole the Catholic faith and corrupted her gift of Divine Revelation, manipulating it to their own ends, and then had the arrogance to claim that the Catholic Church, the only means through which they received the Gospel at all, had somehow passed on something faulty. My recommendation to you, sir: start to learn why the Church teaches as she does. Start with the Didache. Read about the controversies in the early Church, the heresies that opposed the Gospel and the reasons for the Church's answer. You will, if your eyes are open, witness the development of many aspects of theology that, though based in Scripture, are elucidated by the light of reason, such that what becomes of the Gospel has truly grown, but not changed, from the seminal form it had in the written Word of God. Jesus said that the Church, fully grown, would not resemble the early Church, that it would grow from a mustard seed to a mustard bush, and yet you accuse that same Church our Lord founded of being different and of having theology you do not recognize. You do not recognize the seed because you are looking at a bush, but the bush is a natural growth from the seed, of the same species, but more mature, more developed. The problem with Fundamentalism is that it condemns the Church for being a living thing, developing and adapting to its environment. Here are some of the basic characteristics of all living things: they react to stimuli (the Church reacts to heresy and error by developing the teachings of the Scriptures), they grow and develop (the Church grows and develops according to its mission, to evangelize a changing world), they reproduce (the Church makes converts and builds up Christian societies), they have organization (the Church is a hierarchy). Fundamentalism wants to look at the Church and see what is portrayed in the New Testament, but every attempt of Fundamentalism to do this will fail, because we live in a different world with a different set of circumstances and different problems faced by the faithful of this day and age. Fundamentalism will die out. In the words of G.K. Chesterton, it takes a living thing to swim against the tide. Fundamentalism is driftwood.
[/quote]
DADGUM IT ALL! That post was so great I meant to give it +1, but selected -1.
I'll balance it out elsewhere. I'm sorry.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 September 2009 - 12:37 AM' timestamp='1252211866' post='1961666']
XIX says we are making a false dichotomy. We deny it, and dealt with that here:

[u] [/u][font="Comic Sans MS"]OBJECTION:[/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"] "We believe that as a result of consuming the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, we are granted the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. For as John Paul II has said, [i]"Through our communion in His body and blood, Christ also grants us His Spirit" [/i](and) [i]"the joint and inseparable activity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. . . is at work in the Eucharist"[/i][/color] [color="#0000ff"][i] [/i]{Ecclesia de Eucharistia, #17 & 23}.[/color][/font]

[u][font="Comic Sans MS"]ANSWER:[/font][/u][color="#0000ff"] [font="Comic Sans MS"]The biblical evidence will not permit the Roman Catholic to have it both ways because the gift of the Spirit has been promised [u]outside[/u] of the Communion ceremony by [u]faith[/u] as Scripture clearly teaches! Because the Catholic Church cannot pinpoint any direct biblical link as to what advantage might result from actually swallowing the physical body of Jesus, she cleverly solves this problem by co-joining the presence of the Holy Spirit as a benefit, so that everything said about the Holy Spirit, may equally be said about the Eucharist. Thus she deceitfully transfers all the attributes of the Spirt's presence which[i] [u]are[/u] [/i]found in the Bible in abundance, and then unwarrantedly transfers them over to the Eucharist, which are not stated [u]anywhere.[/u] [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"] Swallowing the body of Christ, literally or not, is a biblically proven [u]separate[/u] action that does not give any promise [u]equal[/u] to what the Holy Spirit has already been appointed for. The Catechism readily admits that the Spirit will "teach us everything", helps in understanding the Word of God, renews us into the image of Christ, sanctifies the church, and produces in us "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and self-control" according to Galatians 5:22 {CCC # 729, 1101, 1109, 747, 736}. Furthermore, they agree that He has been sent . .. . "to lead us into all truth" --- "to convince the world of sin, righteousness and judgment" ---- "to shine in our hearts to give us light" --- "to give us wisdom" --- "to quicken us to spiritual life" --- "to help our infirmaties, to help us pray, to intercede for us" --- "to confirm within our hearts that we are children of God" ---and "to be the seal of our inheritence" { John 16:13, 1 Cor 6:20, 2 Cor 4:6, Eph 1:17, John 6:63, Romans 8:16; 26, Eph 1:13}. [/font][/color]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"]We have as yet to hear of any benefit of the Catholic Church Eucharist that has not [u]already[/u] been defined as one of the Holy Spirit's assigned duties. That being the case, ingesting the [u]actual[/u] body of Christ, even if it were true, does not serve any purpose. The Holy Spirit which inspired the Scripture, singlehandedly multi-tasks [u]all[/u] the benefits Christ promised when He emphatically stated His physical presence was going away and the Comforter sent to fill in the void. Moreover, the catechism as quoted above {#1374} which states that the Eucharist materializes the "real presence" in the fullest sense, is a lie. Galatians 3:26 says that when "we receive the promise of the Spirit by faith" ---- we are [u]filled[/u] with that Spirit and with all the [u]fullness[/u] of God {Luke 1:41; 67, 4:1, Acts 2:4; 4:8; 31; 6:3; 5, 7:55, 9:17, 11:24, 13:9; 52, Eph 3:17-19; 5:18, }. The Catholic Church says the Eucharist brings "fullness" ---but the Holy Spirit says [color="#800000"]HE[/color] [color="#800000"] [/color]does! Both cannot be true since you cannot fill a vessel that is already full with something else! Yet the Catholic Church presses even further by supposing that, [i] "in the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice, the Church prays that the Father of Mercies will grant His children the [u]fullness of the Holy Spirit [/u]. . . " [/i]{Ecclesia de Eucharista, #43}. Let the Catholic Church pray all she wishes. The Bible will not support this "dual presence in the fullest sense", and therefore, she has neither one.[i] [/i] [/color][/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"] [/color][/font]
[/quote]

This is indeed false dichotomy. You lead your reader to believe that only one of the following can be right: 1) that we receive the Holy Spirit outside of the Eucharist, or 2) that we receive the Holy Spirit through the Eucharist. This is a false dichotomy because the Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Spirit comes with Baptism (and with all the sacraments). In much of the Catholic Church throughout the world, Baptism is separated from Holy Communion by about 8 years. Clearly, then, we believe that the faithful receive the Holy Spirit both outside of and inside of Holy Communion.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='06 September 2009 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1252212253' post='1961670']
DADGUM IT ALL! That post was so great I meant to give it +1, but selected -1.
I'll balance it out elsewhere. I'm sorry.
[/quote]


I tried to plus it up but I'm out for today. LOL I'll wait an hour and try again.

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='picchick' date='04 September 2009 - 10:20 PM' timestamp='1252120806' post='1961163']
"Unless you Eat my Flesh and Drink my Blood you have no life within you."

Doesn't Jesus say this? And don't the people question? And doesn't Jesus correct them saying HIS Body and HIS Blood?
[/quote]


[font="Comic Sans MS"]How do we get new life? [/font][color="#008000"][font="Comic Sans MS"]"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have [u]no life in you[/u]"[/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"]{John 6:53}[/font][/color]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"]WHAT DID HE WISH TO CONVEY? THE ANSWER IS FOUND LATER IN JOHN 20:31 . . .[/color][/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]IT IS BY [/font]

[color="#ff0000"][font="Comic Sans MS"]believing that Jesus is the Christ, [u]that we have life.[/u][/font][/color]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"]In 1 Cor 10:4 we are metaphorically told that in the Old Testament, those wandering in the wilderness [i]"drank" [/i]from their spiritual Rock, who was Christ. The water that flowed from an actual rock was indeed literal water so they would not die of thirst, but the language of Scripture which turns Christ into a beverage, as it were, was [u]not[/u] meant to be taken literally as even all Catholics will agree (See any Bible Commentary of your choice on this verse). Thus, since the idea of [i]"drinking"[/i] Christ in a figurative sense was introduced in the Old Testament, all rational reasoning demands we keep the same typology when we come to the New Testament (1 Cor 2:13).[/color][/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"][/color][/font]



[font="Comic Sans MS"]How do we get new life? [/font][color="#008000"][font="Comic Sans MS"]"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have [u]no life in you[/u]"[/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"]{John 6:53}[/font][/color]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"]WHAT DID HE WISH TO CONVEY? THE ANSWER IS FOUND LATER IN JOHN 20:31 . . .[/color][/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]IT IS BY [/font]

[color="#ff0000"][font="Comic Sans MS"]believing that Jesus is the Christ, [u]that we have life.[/u][/font][/color]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"]In 1 Cor 10:4 we are metaphorically told that in the Old Testament, those wandering in the wilderness [i]"drank" [/i]from their spiritual Rock, who was Christ. The water that flowed from an actual rock was indeed literal water so they would not die of thirst, but the language of Scripture which turns Christ into a beverage, as it were, was [u]not[/u] meant to be taken literally as even all Catholics will agree (See any Bible Commentary of your choice on this verse). Thus, since the idea of [i]"drinking"[/i] Christ in a figurative sense was introduced in the Old Testament, all rational reasoning demands we keep the same typology when we come to the New Testament (1 Cor 2:13).[/color][/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"][/color][/font]

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 September 2009 - 12:52 AM' timestamp='1252212765' post='1961679']
[color="#ff0000"][font="Comic Sans MS"]believing that Jesus is the Christ, [u]that we have life.[/u][/font][/color]
[/quote]
[i]I[/i] see now - turns out, Christ was just a liar!


Ok, maybe that's harsh. But apparently, He was a waffler, changing his story from drinking of His Blood and eating of His Flesh to just only believing in him.


Wait a minute....do you mean to tell me that John Kerry is Jesus!?

Edited September 6, 2009 by USAirwaysIHS

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='picchick' date='04 September 2009 - 10:20 PM' timestamp='1252120806' post='1961163']
"Unless you Eat my Flesh and Drink my Blood you have no life within you."

Doesn't Jesus say this? And don't the people question? And doesn't Jesus correct them saying HIS Body and HIS Blood?
[/quote]

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
you seem to be having problems with the quote system

if you'd like to respond to multiple posts, just hit the "multi-quote" button on each post, then click "add reply". if you click the "reply" button directly on a post, it will take you to a new screen where it will have already quoted the post you wished to reply to.

hope this helps. as it is, i'm merging your posts so as to not create any undue confusion. God bless.

[CorMaria]

Certain thick people seem to look past 1600 years of almost unanimous testimony to this Christian belief.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 September 2009 - 12:52 AM' timestamp='1252212765' post='1961679']
[font="Comic Sans MS"]How do we get new life? [/font][color="#008000"][font="Comic Sans MS"]"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have [u]no life in you[/u]"[/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"]{John 6:53}[/font][/color]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"]WHAT DID HE WISH TO CONVEY? THE ANSWER IS FOUND LATER IN JOHN 20:31 . . .[/color][/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]IT IS BY [/font]

[color="#ff0000"][font="Comic Sans MS"]believing that Jesus is the Christ, [u]that we have life.[/u][/font][/color]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"]In 1 Cor 10:4 we are metaphorically told that in the Old Testament, those wandering in the wilderness [i]"drank" [/i]from their spiritual Rock, who was Christ. The water that flowed from an actual rock was indeed literal water so they would not die of thirst, but the language of Scripture which turns Christ into a beverage, as it were, was [u]not[/u] meant to be taken literally as even all Catholics will agree (See any Bible Commentary of your choice on this verse). Thus, since the idea of [i]"drinking"[/i] Christ in a figurative sense was introduced in the Old Testament, all rational reasoning demands we keep the same typology when we come to the New Testament (1 Cor 2:13).[/color][/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"][/color][/font]
[/quote]

Those who believe act. Those who believe that Jesus is the Christ believe what He has said and act upon it. Jesus has said to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. To do so brings life because faith leads us to act accordingly. So it is receiving the Eucharist (and doing anything else God instructs through faith) that brings life, both because the Eucharist is Jesus, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and because we act in faith in receiving Him.

I don't see a contradiction here.

As for the drinking analogy, Christ makes it quite clear in John 6 that He was being literal. No need to show the verse, it's already been brought up. Of course, it's one of the verses you've already disregarded, along with some of the other Scriptures you disregard.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='05 September 2009 - 11:54 PM' timestamp='1252212878' post='1961682']
[i]I[/i] see now - turns out, Christ was just a liar!


Ok, maybe that's harsh. But apparently, He was a waffler, changing his story from drinking of His Blood and eating of His Flesh to just only believing in him.


Wait a minute....do you mean to tell me that John Kerry is Jesus!?
[/quote]
John Kerry is a Catholic myth; he's not in the Bible anywhere.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='06 September 2009 - 01:00 AM' timestamp='1252213225' post='1961690']
John Kerry is a Catholic myth; he's not in the Bible anywhere.
[/quote]
Apostolic Tradition, you heretic.

Edited September 6, 2009 by USAirwaysIHS

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='06 September 2009 - 12:15 AM' timestamp='1252214138' post='1961702']
Apostolic Tradition, you heretic.
[/quote]
There is no tradition in the Bible, and nor are there heretics. Heretics are a myth.

[Nihil Obstat]

I feel dirty even joking like that.

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='05 September 2009 - 11:54 PM' timestamp='1252212878' post='1961682']
[i]I[/i] see now - turns out, Christ was just a liar!


Ok, maybe that's harsh. But apparently, He was a waffler, changing his story from drinking of His Blood and eating of His Flesh to just only believing in him.


Wait a minute....do you mean to tell me that John Kerry is Jesus!?
[/quote]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"] By describing Himself as the "Bread of Life" in verse 35, the Catholic Church admits that up to verse 47, [i]"the teaching and the meaning, at least up to this point, is purely symbolic" [/i](Not By Bread Alone, by R. Sungenis, p. 172). Hence, the Catholic Church bids us to believe that Jesus was speaking [u]metaphorically[/u] when He says He was the bread that came down from heaven, but then spoke [u]literally[/u] when He told them to [i]eat it! [/i]This is pure nonsense. Jesus used this "oral oratory" in John 6 to set the table---but not for Him being the main course! It was to convey the idea of [i]believing[/i] in Him, period. [i]"He that cometh to me [/i][not he who eats me] [i]shall never hunger, and he that believeth in me shall never thirst" [/i](6:35).[/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"][/color][/font]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 September 2009 - 01:20 AM' timestamp='1252214409' post='1961711']
[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"] By describing Himself as the "Bread of Life" in verse 35, the Catholic Church admits that up to verse 47, [i]"the teaching and the meaning, at least up to this point, is purely symbolic" [/i](Not By Bread Alone, by R. Sungenis, p. 172). Hence, the Catholic Church bids us to believe that Jesus was speaking [u]metaphorically[/u] when He says He was the bread that came down from heaven, but then spoke [u]literally[/u] when He told them to [i]eat it! [/i]This is pure nonsense. Jesus used this "oral oratory" in John 6 to set the table---but not for Him being the main course! It was to convey the idea of [i]believing[/i] in Him, period. [i]"He that cometh to me [/i][not he who eats me] [i]shall never hunger, and he that believeth in me shall never thirst" [/i](6:35).[/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"][/color][/font]
[/quote]

Another well-known problem in anti-Catholic rhetoric is the tendency to quote any theologian who says anything that looks even the slightest bit off, without regard for the theologian's orthodoxy, status, etc. So the fact that Mr. Sungenis is a huge supporter of geocentrism (the dubious theory that the earth is the center of the universe) doesn't factor into the debate for an anti-Catholic, nor does the fact that the work cited is an opinion piece and not any sort of authoritative text.

Of course, there is also a misunderstanding over the technical theological definition of the word [i]symbol[/i] (my short tract on it is in the defense directory) and I suspect there may be a misunderstanding also over the senses of Scripture.

Please, continue.