Transubstantiation Unsubstantiated

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 September 2009 - 01:15 PM' timestamp='1252257319' post='1961836']
So what if some people in the past believed the actual event was made present? That doesn't make it any more true than what a few popes have opined on abortion! "He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body" (Gregory VI, circa 1000) and Gregory XIII said it was not homicide to kill an embryo of less than 40 days since it wasn't yet human (circa 1500).
[/quote]

This is really a tangent, but I'm not going to let you get away with this. At that time, the science of those days could not detect the beginning of life or examine the moment of conception. The first indication anyone had of life was movement, brought about by the soul. Pope Gregory was not excusing abortion, as you would purport. He was saying that murder, which is defined as the unjust taking of human life, could not apply where there is no life, that is no soul. The problem is that the earliest indication of a soul in those times was a few months into pregnancy, giving the impression that Gregory approved of early abortions. In fact, he didn't, he would have been against them for the same reason we are against contraception, e.g. that it defies God's designs for life, he simply wouldn't have classified early abortion as murder because he wasn't aware that the soul was already in the child at that point. Had he been aware of the scientific information we now have, he would have been very clear that abortion is always murder.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 September 2009 - 01:15 PM' timestamp='1252257319' post='1961836']
Roman Catholics must face the fact that their church has inexcusably [i][u]transubstantiated[/u] [/i] all the attributes of the Holy Spirit and turned them into the alleged benefits to be received by swallowing the Eucharist.
[/quote]

Are you trying to say that the Catholic Church changed the substance of the attributes of the Holy Spirit? Somehow, I really don't think you know what the word "transubstantiation" means.

[Apotheoun]

I thought that I would post this brief speech addressed by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I to Pope Benedict XVI during the latters visit to the Phanar in November 2006, because it shows that the ancient apostolic Churches (i.e., Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox) hold a common faith as it concerns the nature of the liturgy and that they all (i.e., the ancient Churches) believe that - through the prayer of invocation - the Eucharistic elements become the true body and blood of Christ, "the medicine of immorality" as St. Ignatios called them in his letter to the Ephesians.

Here is what the Ecumenical Patriarch said about the divine liturgy:



[size="3"]With the grace of God, Your Holiness, we have been blessed to enter the joy of the Kingdom, to "see the true light and receive the heavenly Spirit." [i]Every celebration of the Divine Liturgy is a powerful and inspiring con-celebration of heaven and of history[/i]. Every Divine Liturgy is both an [i][b]anamnesis[/b][/i] of the past and an anticipation of the Kingdom. We are convinced that during this Divine Liturgy, we have once again been transferred spiritually in three directions: [i]toward the kingdom of heaven where the angels celebrate; toward the celebration of the liturgy through the centuries; and toward the heavenly kingdom to come[/i].

This overwhelming continuity with heaven as well as with history means that the Orthodox liturgy is the mystical experience and profound conviction that "Christ was, is, and ever shall be in our midst!" For in Christ, there is a deep connection between past, present, and future. [i]In this way, the liturgy is more than merely the recollection of Christ's words and acts. It is the realization of the very presence of Christ Himself, who has promised to be wherever two or three are gathered in His name[/i].

At the same time, we recognize that the rule of prayer is the rule of faith, that the doctrines of the Person of Christ and of the Holy Trinity have left an indelible mark on the liturgy, which comprises one of the undefined doctrines, "revealed to us in mystery," of which St. Basil the Great so eloquently spoke. This is why, in liturgy, we are reminded of the need to reach unity in faith as well as in prayer. Therefore, we kneel in humility and repentance before the living God and our Lord Jesus Christ, whose precious Name we bear and yet at the same time whose seamless garment we have divided. We confess in sorrow that we are not yet able to celebrate the holy sacraments in unity. And we pray that the day may come when this sacramental unity will be realized in its fullness.

And yet, Your Holiness and beloved brother in Christ, this con-celebration of heaven and earth, of history and time, brings us closer to each other today through the blessing of the presence, together with all the saints, of the predecessors of our Modesty, namely St. Gregory the Theologian and St. John Chrysostom. We are honored to venerate the relics of these two spiritual giants after the solemn restoration of their sacred relics in this holy church two years ago when they were graciously returned to us by the venerable Pope John Paul II. Just as, at that time, during our Thronal Feast, we welcomed and placed their saintly relics on the Patriarchal Throne, chanting "Behold your throne!" So, today we gather in their living presence and eternal memory as we celebrate the Liturgy named in honor of St. John Chrysostom.

[i]Thus our worship coincides with the same joyous worship in heaven and throughout history[/i]. Indeed, as St. John Chrysostom himself affirms: "[i]Those in heaven and those on earth form a single festival, a shared thanksgiving, one choir[/i]" (PG 56.97). Heaven and earth offer one prayer, one feast, and one doxology. The Divine Liturgy is at once the heavenly kingdom and our home, "a new heaven and a new earth" (Rev. 21.1), the ground and center where all things find their true meaning. The Liturgy teaches us to broaden our horizon and vision, to speak the language of love and communion, but also to learn that we must be with one another in spite of our differences and even divisions. In its spacious embrace, it includes the whole world, the communion of saints, and all of God's creation. The entire universe becomes "a cosmic liturgy", to recall the teaching of St. Maximus the Confessor. This kind of Liturgy can never grow old or outdated.

The only appropriate response to this showering of divine benefits and compassionate mercy is gratitude ([i]eucharistia[/i]). Indeed, thanksgiving and glory are the only fitting response of human beings to their Creator. For to Him belong all glory, honor, and worship: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; now and always, and to the ages of ages. Amen.[/size]

Edited September 6, 2009 by Apotheoun

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Raphael' date='06 September 2009 - 11:29 AM' timestamp='1252258196' post='1961849']
Somehow, I really don't think you know what the word "transubstantiation" means.
[/quote]
I think Apot referenced this earlier, and it seems like a really valid request now. I cannot find Storm's answer...

Storm-

define transubstantiation.

(or link me to your post where you have defined it)

pax,

MIKolbe

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='Raphael' date='06 September 2009 - 12:14 PM' timestamp='1252257248' post='1961834']
I want to jump on with this and try to put something in simple terms. Storm, you repeatedly accuse us of saying that the Eucharist is somehow a time-traveling host. This, of course, is incorrect. Rather, it would be correct to say that the Mass makes the Christian faithful present to God in such a way that we are, at least to some extent, within His time frame. All moments throughout history are the present to God, who knows neither past nor future. Because He is not subject to time, Adam and Eve are as present to Him now in their earthly lives as we are present to Him. In the Mass, we step into Kairos, the Greek term for "God's time" (for lack of a better term). The Eucharist is Jesus, and therefore God. All His life is present to Him, and in receiving Him, all His life is present to us. The Mass makes present for us the events of the temporal past and future in a mystical way. Neither the Eucharist nor the congregation time travels; rather, we come into communion with God, for whom all time is the present.
[/quote]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][size="3"]Raphael,[/size][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]I will try to get to the epistle you posted to me as soon as I can.[/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]Second, I never said the Eucharist was a time traveling Host. I merely conveyed what the Catholic Church voices at every Mass; namely that they pray that the Lord will send His angel to somehow carry (in a way not specified) the sacrifice of Christ to Heaven's altar. Needless to say, this is nothing but wishful thinking.[/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]Third, you are indeed a noble opponent. But I must tell you that your armchair theological gymnastics attempting to validate the "present tense mode of the Calvary event" are unconvincing. Adam and Eve are DEAD---and hopefully in Heaven. To suggest that they are present to God in their EARTHLY lives in exactly the same way we are present to Him now in the year 2009, is unforgivably illogical. [i]"The former things have passed away!" [/i](Rev 21:4). And of course, you ran to that old stand-by escape hatch by pinning your hopes for the Calvary episode being [u]actually[/u] present at Mass (literally), by turning to that ever popular excuse, it being done in "a mystical way". I understand what you are saying about the eternity of God to the extent you have defined it and some of it is true. But you push too far by vindicating the Mass in saying, "For Him, all time is present". This is nothing but phyilosophical mumbo jumbo. You are a mere man trying to describe the Creator of the Universe whose ways are higher than ours, "who can know Him fully?"---so say the Psalms. We MUST stay within biblical guard rails and not venture out into the fantasy world of the earthly Adam & Eve being just as much present to Him as Calvary----or any other event in history. There is simply no evidence for this and I am quite certain He would not wish us to speculate in such a vain fashion----just as those at the Pontifical Acadamy of Science were speculating on life on other planets and what we might need to do to evangelize them. SPARE ME! Evangelizing life on other planets is none of our business. In any case, as we said in the essay,[/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][size="3"]____________________________________________________________________________________[/size][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][size="3"]when we take God's character into consideration, we note that the overwhelming evidence indicates that when He wishes to demonstrate His power by miracles, they must be seen! No where in the Bible are we ever told of a miracle taking place where all the evidence indicated no miracle had taken place. Transubstantiation is an allegedly "invisible" miracle that cannot be seen. We object. The wafer looks, tastes, smells and feels like a wafer--- and that is exactly what it is. How can we forget water changing into wine, a rod being changed into a serpent, the sea being split down the middle, the lame walk, the blind see, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and even dry bones are changed into an army of men, all to the amazement of the onlookers {Ezekiel 37:5-10}. And John the Baptist said that God could of these very stones, raise up children to Abraham {Matt 3:9}. But if He did, they would no longer retain the appearance of stones! Moreover, lest we forget that [i]Jesus turned water into wine, [/i]we are reminded that the guests did [u]not[/u] say, "Why are you serving us water?". Neither did Jesus respond, "It may look and taste like water, but it is actually wine under the appearance of water." No, in fact the guests considered the wine to [u]be[/u] the finest served that night" (John 2:1-10). Consequently, we must conclude that invisible miracles such as disguising Himself "under the form of bread and wine" is saying something about God which is incorrect {Job 42:8}. [/size][color="#ff0000"] [/color]

[/color][/size][/font]

[Slappo]

ughh... You just don't listen or read do you? You're ignoring half the posts and then confusing logic.


And if I were Rexi I'd say you can't spell... "phyilosophical" clearly it is philosophical...

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='MIkolbe' date='06 September 2009 - 12:47 PM' timestamp='1252259226' post='1961864']
I think Apot referenced this earlier, and it seems like a really valid request now. I cannot find Storm's answer...

Storm-

define transubstantiation.

(or link me to your post where you have defined it)

pax,

MIKolbe
[/quote]

[Stormstopper]

What an insult to be asked to define transubstantiation. You are of course implying I don't understand Catholicism so you can once again try to establish Protestants are incapable of EVER understanding your church's teaching. But so as not to disappoint you, I will answer you in the same way Jesus did (Mk 11:29). I too will ask you one question---which, if you answer me, I will answer yours. As I previously posted, here it is:


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.

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???????????

If you don't answer this question, then as Jesus said, "NEITHER WILL I ANSWER YOURS".

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='Slappo' date='06 September 2009 - 01:29 PM' timestamp='1252261759' post='1961918']
ughh... You just don't listen or read do you? You're ignoring half the posts and then confusing logic.


And if I were Rexi I'd say you can't spell... "phyilosophical" clearly it is philosophical...
[/quote]

[Stormstopper]

Slappo.....I am very tempted to say you deserve a slap, but I won't. If the only relevent thing you have to say is to point out a spelling error, you clearly are incapable of giving a defence of your faith. And your comment that I am confusing logic without giving an example, is reprehensible.

[mortify]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 September 2009 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1252262213' post='1961929']
What an insult to be asked to define transubstantiation. You are of course implying I don't understand Catholicism so you can once again try to establish Protestants are incapable of EVER understanding your church's teaching.
[/quote]

At least if you were ignorant you would have an excuse, but now that you *know* and *understand* the teaching, you are guilty for rejecting it and are properly called a heretic. You're walking through the wide gate to hell my friend, and you better humble yourself and seriously consider the universal belief of all early Christians, that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, otherwise you will have a sad end.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 September 2009 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1252262213' post='1961929']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??????????? [/quote]

Exactly which Prestestant point of view do you mean? (there are many)

(See how I posted your quote with my response in the same post? Why are you not doing likewise?)

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 September 2009 - 12:36 PM' timestamp='1252262213' post='1961929']
What an insult to be asked to define transubstantiation. You are of course implying I don't understand Catholicism so you can once again try to establish Protestants are incapable of EVER understanding your church's teaching. But so as not to disappoint you, I will answer you in the same way Jesus did (Mk 11:29). I too will ask you one question---which, if you answer me, I will answer yours. As I previously posted, here it is:


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.

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???????????

If you don't answer this question, then as Jesus said, "NEITHER WILL I ANSWER YOURS".
[/quote]
There is no reason to be evasive.

The fact that I, and several other posters, have asked you to define the word "transubstantiation," which is an act that does not require that you believe in what the term is meant to convey, does not impugn your intelligence, nor does it imply that I, or the others who have asked this of you, think that Protestants are inherently incapable of properly defining the word while simultaneously rejecting its theological validity. Now with that out of the way, I can say that the only reason why I have asked that you define the word is because some of your comments betray a physicalist rather than a substantialist understanding of the term, and so by giving a concise definition it would help to clarify whether you really are confused on this point or not.

Edited September 6, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 September 2009 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1252262213' post='1961929']
What an insult to be asked to define transubstantiation. You are of course implying I don't understand Catholicism so you can once again try to establish Protestants are incapable of EVER understanding your church's teaching. But so as not to disappoint you, I will answer you in the same way Jesus did (Mk 11:29). I too will ask you one question---which, if you answer me, I will answer yours. As I previously posted, here it is:


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.

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???????????

If you don't answer this question, then as Jesus said, "NEITHER WILL I ANSWER YOURS".
[/quote]


Stormstopper, I have read carefully each and every post you have posted here. I have carefully weighed your arguments.

I find it interesting that since I made it clear that I was once Protestant (for over 30 years) and have since converted, you have responded to none of my posts. Instead you continue to post disconnected diatribes that provide no theological substance to reinforce your point; you offer nothing more than your personal conjecture supported by innumerable and unnamed others you refer to as "we" in your posts. Anyone can take selected Scripture and make a case to support just about anything, including murder. Catholics reject emphatically this cafeteria-style treatment of Holy Writ.

What I see is a person who is clinging desperately to his point of view and is trying to reinforce his mistaken theology by tearing others down. You cannot offer a reasoned, fair, anger-free discourse here. Instead you try to ram your theological view down the collective Catholic throat by trying to intimidate us into agreement. In one of your previous posts you make the statement that "your theology is constantly running afoul of biblical parameters--and I am not going to be taken in by it." If you are so certain of your perspective, how could you be "taken in" by our argument? That, to be honest, sounds like a statement something akin to a small child plugging his ears and saying "na na na na na" in order to avoid hearing something. Truth is truth. It has a way of being persuasive.

You continue to make this assertion that somewhere there is a mystical Protestant who completely comprehends Catholic theology and rejects it. The fact is, Protestants who completely comprehend Catholic theology don't reject it, they become Catholics. Truth, once received and understood, is difficult to reject. Protestants reject Catholic theology mainly because they have never attended a Catholic Mass, never received education from Catholic teachers...so they have no real context for the information they receive. Have you, Stormstopper, ever attended a Catholic Mass? Ever had someone teach you the meaning of the liturgy? Aside from that, as your posts demonstrate, you do NOT have a correct understanding or interpretation of Catholic dogma. I have read very little in your argument that represents the teaching of the Church on what the Eucharist is. So...that mystical Protestant who is the ultimate refutation of Catholicism? To answer, they don't exist.

I have a hard time continuing to try to compose insightful and considerate responses to a person who is determined to be caustic and completely unreceptive to dialogue. Dialogue, for your future reference, is the flow of conversation between two parties, NOT the insistent shouting of one party resulting in the submission of another.

May our Lord Jesus Christ give you His grace and peace.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 September 2009 - 12:45 PM' timestamp='1252255509' post='1961813']
Mr. Apo....

Other than your belief that the wafer is a symbol of something which really IZZZZ what it signifies, can you give me an example of something in "real time" ----or ANY time for that matter, where a symbol really izzzzzz, "in some kind of way" what it signifies? You cannot use something like the flag is a symbol for liberty and freedom, because one is an actual object and the other are conceptualized ideas. The Catholic Church teaches that the elements ARE the body of Christ, and you would need to demonstrate that object 1 is equal to object 2. I submit you cannot do this and are hiding behind a symantic word game. As we said in the essay:
[/quote]

Dear Stormstopper,

Welcome to Phatmass. I've been briefly skimming your posts, and this one jumped out at me, because it really gets to what we as Catholics call the [i]sensis fidelis[/i], or sense of the Faith. I think that one of your frustrations in speaking with us has been partly caused by the fact that we as Catholics have an entirely different way of seeing the world, and the Christian Faith -- it is this sensis fidelis.

Part of this sensis fidelis is the difference between the words "sacrament" and "symbol". A symbol is merely a representation of an idea. But a sacrament is what we call an "efficacious symbol"; that is to say, it actually [b]accomplishes[/b] (or has the [b]effect[/b], hence the phrase [b]efficacious[/b] symbol) what it symbolizes (this is different from saying that it [b]is[/b] what it symbolizes). Because Christ most often teaches us about our relationship with God in terms of marriage, I will speak to you of sacraments also in marital terms:

[b]It is like a kiss[/b]. Now, the thing about a kiss is that yes, it does symbolize love. But a kiss does more than [i]just[/i] symbolize love. It actually makes love present, and felt. A kiss does not just symbolize love, it is an active "I love you" -- it is a gift, a choice, that accomplishes love. I am reminded of one evening with my girlfriend (ironically, the same day that I had taken her to look at engagement rings), where she had a fever that spiked to 104*F. I had to get her fever back down, using ice packs, cold compresses, etc. Now, my girlfriend has a mood disorder called premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), which causes her to sometimes have wild mood swings during her period. The high fever somehow messed with her brain chemistry, and the PMDD reared its very ugly head. This was the first time that I had seen her in her throws of PMDD, and Emily later told me that this episode was among the more dramatic that she's ever had. During the episode, she expressed concern that now I had seen her PMDD, I wouldn't love her anymore. I thought about this very deeply in the brief moment that passed. We had just that day looked at engagement rings so that I could get an idea for what I would surprise her with later, and had talked and planned very intimately after that. Yet, this situation made the choice of getting married very real for me. It brought the words of the wedding vow "in sickness and in health" into full reality for me. And then I made a choice. She was sweaty from the fever, her nose running, and she was babbling incoherently about her insecurities brought on by the PMDD. I interrupted her babbling, and kissed her. That kiss not only [i]symbolized[/i] love, but was in itself an [i]act[/i] of love. This is an important, albeit subtle, distinction: while a kiss by itself is merely a symbol of love, the [b]gift[/b] of the kiss accomplishes love. The is so important, I will say it again: while a kiss by itself is merely a symbol of love, the [b]gift[/b] of the kiss accomplishes love. In other words, the kiss was precisely what Emily needed in order to regain confidence in herself and in my love for her. By kissing her, her confidence was restored, and that [b]gift[/b] was itself love.

[b]It is like the marital embrace[/b]. Sex is itself a sign of love, but just like the kiss, actually has the effect of making that love present. So present, in fact, that nine months later, you have to give that love a name.

Blessings,
Kris

Edited September 6, 2009 by mommas_boy