Transubstantiation

[Mark of the Cross]

[size="2"]This is my version which I concluded after some deliberation
[/size]

[size="2"]Some people think that the bread and wine become the physicalbody and blood of Jesus. Others say it is only symbolic. I believe that it ismore than either. When we acceptfrom our souls the bread and wine as Jesus body and blood we are accepting himspiritually to become one with him. For theTransubstantiation to be complete the person has to receive it from their soul.The bread and wine then take on a duality. While still being physically breadand wine, they become the spiritual body and blood of Jesus, which is thecommunion between Jesus and the recipient. This is not to be seen as onlysymbolic and downgrading the idea of the Transubstantiation. The spiritualexistence is a much greater and more significant reality than the physical. Thephysical universe is terminal and will come to pass, whereas the spiritualworld is for eternity. In this duality the physical bread and wine enters ourphysical body and at the same time the spiritual body and blood of Jesusbecomes one with our own soul.[/size]



Gotquestions.org
Thankfully, Jesus made it exceedingly obvious what He meant. [url="http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/John%206.63"]John 6:63[/url]declares, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. Thewords I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." Jesusspecifically stated that His words are "spirit." Jesus was usingphysical concepts, eating and drinking, to teach spiritual truth. Justas consuming physical food and drink sustains our physical bodies, soare our spiritual lives saved and built up by spiritually receivingHim, by grace through faith. Eating Jesus' flesh and drinking His bloodare symbols of fully and completely receiving Him in our lives.

The Scriptures declare that the Lord's Supper is a memorial to the body and blood of Christ ([url="http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Luke%2022.19"]Luke 22:19[/url]; [url="http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20Corinthians%2011.24-25"]1 Corinthians 11:24-25[/url]),not the actual consumption of His physical body and blood. When Jesuswas speaking in John chapter 6, Jesus had not yet had the Last Supperwith His disciples, in which He instituted the Lord's Supper.

There are more examples if you can find them

[Nihil Obstat]

We don't believe it physically becomes Jesus either. Its substance is changed to the [b]real substance[/b] of Jesus Christ, while it remains (physically) under the[b] accidents[/b] of bread and wine.
It [b]is[/b] Jesus' Body and Blood, and it [b][u][i]is not[/i] [/u][/b] bread and wine anymore but it looks like bread and wine, and (usually) does not look like flesh and blood..

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='09 September 2009 - 07:23 PM' timestamp='1252538609' post='1964062']
We don't believe it physically becomes Jesus either. Its substance is changed to the [b]real substance[/b] of Jesus Christ, while it remains (physically) under the[b] accidents[/b] of bread and wine.
It [b]is[/b] Jesus' Body and Blood, and it [b][u][i]is not[/i] [/u][/b] bread and wine anymore but it looks like bread and wine, and (usually) does not look like flesh and blood..
[/quote]
Because the word "physically" carries a variety of meanings in the English language, it's best to avoid that terminology. Here's a relevant clarification: http://www.adoremus.org/0302RealPresence.html .

However, and I say the following with submission to the teaching authority of the Church and the realization that I may not be nuancing it quite adequately, but there doesn't seem to be much of anything on this topic...I don't think we can say that the Eucharistic presence of Christ is physical in the sense that we could say, "oh, the Eucharist has Christ's skin and liver and kidneys, etc.," but that that which He is, His human nature, His divine nature, His soul, His Body and Blood at their ontological level are all in the Eucharist. Personally, I'd love if someone could find more on this. I have yet to find anything on this from the Church, I suspect because we have only relatively recently in history started to think of "body" in a more scientific sense.

[Fidei Defensor]

I think it's best to stick with what's conveyed by the word "transubstantiation" and say that it is substantially the body and blood of Jesus, i.e., the substance is changed but not the accidents.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='09 September 2009 - 11:34 PM' timestamp='1252553654' post='1964243']
I think it's best to stick with what's conveyed by the word "transubstantiation" and say that it is substantially the body and blood of Jesus, i.e., the substance is changed but not the accidents.
[/quote]
This.
What you're describing is what the Church already teaches. The accidents (the 'physical' objects, i.e., the bread and wine) remain unchanged, while the substance (i.e., what the objects are in actuality, i.e., the Blood and Body of Christ Jesus) [i]are [/i]changed.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='09 September 2009 - 10:41 PM' timestamp='1252554079' post='1964251']
This.
What you're describing is what the Church already teaches. The accidents (the 'physical' objects, i.e., the bread and wine) remain unchanged, while the substance (i.e., what the objects are in actuality, i.e., the Blood and Body of Christ Jesus) [i]are [/i]changed.
[/quote]
That too. It's clear and exactly what the Church teaches. Can't go wrong there.

[Apotheoun]

The Scholastic position, as I understand it, holds that the physical body and blood of Christ (along with His soul and divinity) is present in the sacrament of the altar (see [i]Summa Theologica[/i], Tertia Pars, Q. 76, Art. 1, Reply Obj. 2), but that Christ's physical body and blood (and bones, nerves, etc.) exist in the sacrament according to a substantial mode of being. In other words, "what" is present in the sacrament in no way differs from the physical body of Christ born of the Virgin Theotokos, and which rose from the dead on the third day after His crucifixion; rather, the difference is in "how" that one and identical body (or more precisely . . . person in His fullness) is present, for in the sacrament Christ is not present as a body is present in a place, but He is present instead by a mode of being that the Scholastics -- using the metaphysical categories of Aristotle -- called [i]substantial[/i].

Edited September 10, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='09 September 2009 - 11:02 PM' timestamp='1252555321' post='1964270']
The Scholastic position, as I understand it, holds that the physical body and blood of Christ (along with His soul and divinity) is present in the sacrament of the altar (see [i]Summa Theologica[/i], Tertia Pars, Q. 76, Art. 1, Reply Obj. 2), but that Christ's physical body and blood (and bones, nerves, etc.) exist in the sacrament according to a substantial mode of being. In other words, "what" is present in the sacrament in no way differs from the physical body of Christ born of the Virgin Theotokos, and which rose from the dead on the third day after His crucifixion; rather, the difference is in "how" that one and identical body (or more precisely . . . person in His fullness) is present, for in the sacrament Christ is not present as a body is present in a place, but He is present instead by a mode of being that the Scholastics -- using the metaphysical categories of Aristotle -- called [i]substantial[/i].
[/quote]



[color="#ff0000"]Apo...

I'm reposting my "Captives to a Concept" essay here since no one refuted it from the last thread. How much more sane, glorious and simple to believe Jesus spoke figuratively...and which ALL the evidence suggests. WHO CARES what the Scolastics say! They muddy the waters with their speculations on "substantial" presence using Aristotle-esque concepts. It's all a bunch of hooey. Your desire should be, "WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURE!"
[/color][font="Comic Sans MS"]
THE TRANSUBSTANTIATION OF HIS "NO REPUTATION" [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"]The only transubstantiation the Bible speaks about is Christ [i]"having made Himself of no reputation, taking upon Himself the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of men" [/i]{Phil 2:6}. He was previously in the form of God, having created the universe which [u]outwardly[/u] expresses the [u]inward[/u] glory that is naturally His. However, through the incarnation, He now [/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"]takes on the form of a servant. The word, "form" has reference to the [u]outward[/u] expression of an [u]inward[/u] quality or character. And this is precisely what "being made in the likeness of men" demonstrates: the [u]outward[/u] expression of an [u]inward[/u] quality of servitude. In light of the Holy Spirit giving us an an "outward/inward" incarnation theology [/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"] in Philippians 2:6, it is unreasonable to believe He could be so neglectful to give us a[/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"] [/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"]"Eucharistic theology" within the sacred text regarding the [u]inward[/u] essence of the elements changing, but the [u]outward[/u] appearance remaining that of ordinary bread and wine. Therefore, this is a tradition of men which has no place in the plan of salvation.[/color][/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]THE GOSPEL[/font]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]The good news of Jesus Christ is primarily an act of the intellect that is received by what unbelievers would call, "the foolishness of preaching" {1 Cor 1:18-21}----but what Christians know to be "the power of God unto salvation" {Rms 1:16}. It is not meant to satisfy our physical appetite except in metaphorical ways {Psalm 34:8, Jeremiah 2:13, Isa 55:1, Rev 2:16; 22:17}. The gospel hinges on what He has done for [u]us[/u]---not what we can do for him {2 Cor 4:6}. When we then join His ranks, we are told to put on the whole armor of God, which includes "the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shoes of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation and the sword of the spirit" {Eph 6:13-17}. Directly after these verses, the apostle Paul indeed says he wanted to open his mouth---but not in order to swallow the Eucharist.[color="#ff0000"] [/color][/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#ff0000"]Notice--- [/color][color="#0000ff"]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", by John Paul II, #16-17) it would have been highlighted [u]here[/u] 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, [i]"our food for the journey" [/i]{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[/color] "invisibly equipped" [color="#0000ff"]with the Eucharist! {Consitution on the Sacred Liturgy, para 2}.[/color] [/font]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]However, as we will show below, the Lord has already promised the "invisible equipment" of the [i]Holy Spirit[/i]---by whom we are promised to be "[u]strengthened with might in the inner man[/u]" {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}.[/font][/color]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]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 [u] plus[/u] [i] [/i]the ritualisitic consumption of Christ at Mass, which the Catholic would consider a work of righteousness. [/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"] [color="#0000ff"] However, the Bible is adamant that our righteous acts do not save us (Titus 3:5). Salvation is conceptualized in Scripture as a [i]free gift,[/i] plain and simple[i] [/i] (Eph 2:8-9, 2 Cor 9:15).[/color][/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#ff0000"]GOING AWAY

[/color][/font][color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]With regard to the "Real Presence" --- Scripture declares that the physical presence of Jesus was going away! [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]"I go to prepare a place for you" . . . "Yet a little while and the world seeth me no more." . . . "I go away" . . . "But now I go my way to Him that sent me." . . . "I leave the world and go unto the Father" . . .. "I go to my Father and ye see me no more." . . . "For the poor ye have with you always; but me ye have not always." . . . "Ye shall seek me and shall not find me; and where I am, thither ye cannot come." . .. . "And now, I am no more in the world." . . . {John 14:2, 14:19, 14:28, 16:5, 16:29, 16:10, 12:8, 7:34, 17:11}. And Paul confirmed that, "though we have known Christ in the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him [i]no more[/i] " {2 Cor 5:16}.[color="#ff0000"] [/color][/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#ff0000"]Notice--- [/color][/font][color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]He makes no exception that we be consoled with either Christ's presence in--or eating His flesh as a result of, the Eucharist. Naturally then, a doctrine such as Transubstantiation which bids us to believe in the actual bodily presence of our Lord is at war with the Bible from the get-go. [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]Furthermore, Jesus emphatically states that prior to the time of His second coming, "if any man shall say to you, lo, here is Christ; or lo, He is there; [/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#ff0000"]believe it not[/color][/font][color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"] " {Mk 13:21}. [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]Is not the Catholic Church bidding us to believe Christ is "over there" in a dispensary called a "monstrance", and picked out by the hands of the priest distributing Him in "physical form" at Communion? Yes they are, and this should rightly disturb you. But the Bible declares that Jesus does [u]not[/u] dwell in temples {or any holy places} made with hands . . .but has entered into Heaven itself" where He will remain until He appears "a second time" [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]{Acts 7:48; Hebrews 9:24;28}. No mention is made of a "sacramental presence" to sustain us in the meantime. [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]Thus, the Catholic Church vessel called a "monstrance" {or a "ciborium" or "tabernacle"} is nothing other than an alleged holy place made with hands, but Scripture states that Christ is not there![/font][/color]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]We also note another warning in Matthew 24:26: "Therefore, if they shall say to you, Behold He is in the desert; go not forth: {or} Behold, He is in the secret chambers {King James Version} [/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#ff0000"]believe it not. " [/color][color="#0000ff"]The New King James Version renders "secret chambers" as "inner rooms". . . or even, "inner chambers" {American Standard Version}. What does this mean? In order that there would be no need to speculate, Jesus provided exact locations where these false appearances would occur. With reference to Strong's Concordance, the actual meaning of the Greek word[/color][color="#ff0000"] [/color]"TAMEION" [color="#0000ff"]that is translated as "inner rooms" is, [/color]"a dispensory; i.e. a chamber on the ground floor or interior of an Oriental house {generally used for storage or privacy; a spot for retirement}." [color="#0000ff"]In other words, the original Greek actually refers to some kind of storage space , dispensary or private place. The backbone of Roman Catholicism is its star prop---the monstrance, which is a vessel / dispensary/ private dwelling----wherein they insist Jesus Christ "retires" in physical form until taken out by the hands of the priest, to be dispensed to the people via the mouth. However, our Lord says to REJECT any future sightings of His physical presence in any "secret chamber" by preceeding his warning with, "See, I have told you beforehand." {Matt 24:25-26}. And He most certainly did. No where but in Catholicism do the words of Christ find their fulfillment with such stark clarity.

[/color][/font][color="#ff0000"][font="Comic Sans MS"]BLOODY COMMUNION WAFERS?[/font][/color]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]Roman Catholics around the world have been duped into believing that on many occasions the blood of Christ has dripped out of a wafer, and they claim this phenomena constitutes proof for "The Real Presence". What most people are unaware of is the history of red bacteria called [/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#ff0000"]Serratia marcesens [/color][color="#0000ff"]. In the 6th century B.C., Pythagoras reported on a substance that was said to look [/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"]like blood which sometimes appeared on food. Then in 332 B.C., soldiers of the Macedonian army of Alexander the Great, found that from time to time, their bread appeared to have blood on it also. Later in the Middle Ages, it was regularly observed to grow on communion wafers. This led multitudes to think that this was the blood of Christ, hence a miracle. In the dark, damp churches of medieval times, wafers used in Holy Communion often became contaminated with S. marcescens. In 1264, Pope Urban instituted the feast of Corpus Christi {"Body of Christ"} to honor another one of these sightings and there stands today a "Corpus Christi" church in practically every state in the U.S. named after this fake miracle centuries ago. It was 400 years later when Anton van Leeuwenhoek would observe the red bacteria under the microscope. But even today, ignorance prevails and many are deceived[/color] [/font][color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]{"The Genesis of Germs" by A. Gillen, p. 15}. [/font][/color]

[color="#0000ff"]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]NOT VIA THE MOUTH, BUT[/font][/color]

[color="#ff0000"][font="Comic Sans MS"]''HAVE YE RECEIVED THE SPIRIT .. .. . [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]BY THE HEARING OF FAITH?'' [/font]

[/color][color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"](Galatians 3:2).[/font][/color]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]Without an iota of proof, the Catholic Church would have us believe that, "it is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present in this unique way. Since He was about to take His departure in His visible form, He wanted to give us His sacramental presence {in the Eucharist----CCC # 1380}. [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]Reader, that is a boldfaced lie. Before Christ made His departure He said absolutely nothing about "this unique way of remaining mysteriously in our midst through His sacramental presence in the Eucharist" {ibid}. Instead, He promised to be with us by[/font][/color]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]*** The presence of the Holy Spirit! This is the birthright of every born again Christian; "God has made known to us the riches of the glory of this mystery, [namely] [color="#ff0000"]"Christ in you, [/color]the hope of glory" {Colossians 1:27}. [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]*** "Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him..." and "manifest myself to him" {Rev 3:20, John 14:21-23}. [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]*** After you believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the downpayment of our inheritence" {Eph 1:13} [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]*** "Nevertheless, I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me" {Galatians 2:20}. [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]*** The Spirit of God will "abide with you forever; even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive...but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." {John 14:17, 15:26, 16:13}. [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]*** The believer has the promise of being, "strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith" ---not by transubstantiation {Eph 3:16-17}. Again, God has sent forth the Spirit into our hearts by [color="#ff0000"]faith[/color], and[color="#ff0000"] not via the mouth and into the stomach[/color]---as Catholicism falsely teaches. He has come to reinhabit our redeemed humanity so that our bodies might become the temple of the living God {1 Cor 6:19, 2 Cor 13:5}. Each believer is called a "living stone" that is being "fitly framed together" with the others, being built into a "spiritual house for the habitation of God through the Spirit" {1 Peter 2:5, Eph 2:21-22}. [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]*** Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" {1 Cor 3:16}. [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]*** In Isaiah 57:15, the Lord says that He is the high and lofty one that inhabits eternity, and "I dwell [color="#ff0000"]also [/color]with him that is of a contrite and humble spirit." Thus, it simply staggers the imagination to realize that the God of all creation and eternity dwells with each and every one of His people, just as He knows the name of each and every star in the universe {Psalm 147:4}. "For ye are the temple of the living God; as He has said: I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God and they shall be my people" {2 Cor 6:16, Rms 8:11}. [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]*** "And because ye are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts..." {Galatians 4:6} [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]"Lo, I am with you always, [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]even unto the end of the world" {Matt 28:20}.[/font]



[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#ff0000"]EXCUSES

[/color][/font][color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]The Catholic Church may be likened to King Saul in First Samuel 15:13 and following. After being accused of not doing what he was told to do, he kept making excuses that he had indeed obeyed God, but his pleas fell on deaf ears. Saul was full of nothing but hot air. In similar manner, while every Roman Catholic will not argue with the Scriptural references detailing Christ's physical exit out of this world, the fact remains they simply don't like it! Tiptoeing around the fact that Jesus has bid us farewell, damage control experts offer weak explanations seeking to justify His physical presence in the Eucharist that are in abject defiance of the Word of God. Let the reader judge:[/font][/color]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]"This presence is called "real" ----by which it is not intended to exclude all other types of presence as if they could not be "real" too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense. It is a substantial presence by which Christ, the God-man, is wholly and entirely present" {CCC #1374}.[/font][/color]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]" Certainly, non-Eucharistic Christians have a valid relationship with Him {but} the Eucharist. . . is the most concentrated manifestation of what {Catholics} experience. . . . . . . our souls cannot feed on mere abstract omnipresence; we hunger for a touch" {M. Shea, "This is My Body", p. 35}.[/font][/color]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]"Christ's presence in the Eucharist in the tabernacle of every Catholic church is a way in which God dwells among His people with special closeness. This is why our churches are open daily and why people often drop in for a visit to share their joys and sorrows with Him, or just to talk things over"[/font][/color] [color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]{A. Wilhelm, "Christ Among Us" p. 252}. [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]Reader---the above is nothing but deceptive, religious-sounding cotton candy. The Catholic Church is simply dissatisfied to "walk by faith and not by sight" {2 Cor 5:7} and impatient for the day when "we shall see Him as He is" {1 John 3:2}. Roman Catholics who "hunger for a touch of the concentrated manifestation of his substantial presence in the fullest sense" are guilty of "great swelling words" {2 Pet 2:18} and "fair speeches that deceive the hearts of the simple" {Rom 16:18}. They just "cannot endure that which is commanded" {Heb 12:20}--- so through "philosophy and vain deceit" {Col 2:8} they scramble to support their worthless traditions received from their fathers {1 Pet 1:18} and in the process, nullify the word of God {Mk 7:9}. [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]Knowing that her detractors are irate with the thought of the Creator of the universe shrunk to the size of a half-dollar, the Catholic Church presses hard to convince us that His presence in the wafer is by, [/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"]"a manner of existing which, though we can scarcely express it in words. . . ought most firmly to be believed" [/font][color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]{Trent, "On the Real Presence". . .ch.1}. And a popular Catholic website reports that, "the body of Christ, with its head, trunk and members, has assumed a mode of existence independent of space; within the diminutive limits of the Host. . . which neither experience, nor any system of philosophy, physics or mechanics has the least inkling" {NewAdvent.org). Moreover, the Pope has said, [i]"[We] must firmly maintain that in objective reality, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist. . .[This] mystery indeed taxes our mind's ability to pass beyond appearances. Here our senses fail us." [/i]{Ecclesia de Eucharistia, by Pope John Paul II, #15 & 58}. We must forthrightly object to all these grandiose claims! These unwarrantable conjectures must be passed over as gratuitously as they were advanced. Christ's response to Thomas after inviting him to touch Him because of His unbelief was an exception. Future blessed generations, He said, would be "those who have [i]not [/i] seen, and yet have believed" [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]{Jn 20:29}. Roman Catholics, however, insist that Christ left us a "visible" demonstration of His presence, "[u]such as the nature of man requires"[/u] {CCC # 1366}---but exactly how it takes place, "[u]we must not curiously inquire"[/u] {Catechism of the Council of Trent, by McHugh, p. 239}. [/font][/color][color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"] Man requires it, but must not inquire into it? Foolishness! Scripture makes no such demands to believe something, "regardless of how repugnant it may appear to the senses" {ibid, p.228}. Rather, we are to look [u]foward[/u] to, "the appearing of Jesus Christ, whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though ye see Him not, yet believeing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable" {1 Peter 1:7-8}. Again, the eternal, immortal King is [u]invisible[/u] {1 Tim 1:17}---thus it is a delusion to imagine it would be His will to leave us a [i]"visible demonstration". We are not to place Him[/i] in a monstrance because, "Heaven is my throne and earth is my footstool; what house will ye build me?" {Acts 7:49}. We are called to, "look [u]not[/u] at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen" {2 Cor 4:18}. The Catholic Church has "exchanged the glory of the incorruptible, invisible God for an image. . ." ---a wafer God that may be likened to a counterfeit bill that cannot be redeemed. And neither can a soul be redeemed by the counterfeit "offering" of the Eucharistic false christ [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]in the Mass because there is now "[i]no[/i] [i]more[/i] offering for sin." {Romans 1:23; 2 Cor 11:4, Heb 10:18}. [/font]

[/color][u][font="Comic Sans MS"]OBJECTION:[/font][/u][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 does not serve any purpose, so our thesis will show He must have been speaking metaphorically in those places where He bids us to "eat Him". 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 [u]fullest[/u] 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"] In addition, as they looked skyward to see Him leave this world, the angel said, "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come[/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#ff0000"] in [u]like manner[/u] as ye have seen Him go into Heaven." [/color][color="#0000ff"]{Acts 1:11}. Since He left in His resurrected body, He will return in "like manner" and in no other manner---including disguising Himself under the form of bread and wine. [/color][color="#ff0000"]Notice--- [/color][color="#0000ff"]if the Catholic Church position were true, the angel should have reminded them in similar fashion as He did at the empty tomb. .. . "He is risen. . . [/color]just as He said unto you." [color="#0000ff"]{Mk 16:7} And then we would read, "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? {You have the reality of His bodily presence when He hides Himself in the bread and wine, just as He said unto you}. But the angel offered no such reminder. Hence, the ascension of Christ and consequent sending of the Spirit for our comfort explicitly denies the necessity for transubstantiation, and thus the case for Jesus speaking symbolically in John 6 and the Last Supper, rings true.[/color][/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"]Furthermore, 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}.

[/color][/font][color="#ff0000"][font="Comic Sans MS"]THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT[/font][/color]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]Under no circumstances whatsoever does the Bible indicate the "transforming power" of the Spirit to change the emblems of bread and wine into God Almighty---as the Catholic Church would have us believe {CCC #737, #1104}. Rather, we are told that He transforms [/font][/color][u][color="#ff0000"][font="Comic Sans MS"]us[/font][/u] [/color][color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]from one degree of glory into another as we mature {2 Cor 3:17-18, Rom 8:4, Titus 3:5}. While the Catholic Church admits that the Holy Spirit has the power to transform our lives into the image of Christ {CCC #1109} ----they systematically proceed to duplicate and transfer every last one of the Spirit's virtues and place them all on the head of the Eucharist--- all without a shred of scriptural support. [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]Additionally, [/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"]NO WHERE are we told that the Holy Spirit needs to be "BEGGED" out from heaven by a priest to transform a wafer into Diety [color="#0000ff"]{CCC #1105} [/color]and as one popular priest has written: [color="#0000ff"]"When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings down Christ from His throne, and places Him upon our altars to be offered again as the victim for the sins of men" {Fr. John O'Brien, "The Faith of Millions"-- p. 255-6}. As a matter of fact, Romans 10:6 emphatically condemns these wild ideas: [/color][color="#800080"]"who shall ascend into heaven to bring down Christ from above?" [/color][/font][color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]The apostle is teaching that the language of faith does not ask a man to climb to heaven to bring Christ down again since that is impossible as well as unnecessary because Jesus has already come to earth in His incarnation, "nor yet that He should offer Himself often" {e.g. in the Mass} because, "there is now no more offering for sin" {Hebrews 9:25; 10:18}. [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]Therefore, since it is an established fact we have the promise of new life by the residing power and presence of the Holy Spirit within us BY FAITH ---[i]without[/i] the necessity of ingesting the body of Christ "under the form of bread and wine" {Galatians 3:2} ---- Jesus had to be speaking figuratively when He told us to eat His flesh and drink His blood to have new life because the sending of the Spirit for comfort logically refutes the oral fixation of Roman Catholicism. [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"] "I will not leave you as orphans" . . . "Ye shall receive power and the Holy Ghost will come upon you and you shall be witnesses unto me...." {John 14:18; 20:22, Act 1:8}. [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]Consequently, the claim that the [u]substantial[/u] presence of Christ in, and consequent [u]ingestion[/u] of, the Roman Catholic wafer is [u]necessary for salvation[/u] {CCC #1129, 1374; Trent, "Concerning Communion" , ch. 1} is tragically unbiblical. Rather, "if any man have not the [u]Spirit of Christ[/u] ---he is none of His" {Romans 8:9}. And again, "For as many as are led by the [u]Spirit of God[/u] {not who eat Him} they are the Sons of God" {Rms 8:14}. [/font]

[/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#ff0000"][font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#000000"][/color][/size][/font]

DENIAL OF THE INCARNATION

[/color][/font][color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]The doctrine of the "Real Presence" is an intrusion upon the doctrine of the incarnation. Jesus will forever be both God and man. "For in Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead [u]bodily[/u]" {Col 2:9, John 1:14}. This is the incarnation. Thus, to retain the attributes of humanity, our Lord must be localized in one place at one time since that is the nature of being human. The deity of Christ is omnipresent only in Spirit. This is in perfect harmony with the biblical testimony that the physical presence of Christ was going away; then sending the Holy Spirit to comfort us in His absence; and thereafter being physically taken up into heaven and sitting down at the right hand of God until He returns {Acts 1:11; Hebrews 10:12}. However, the Catholic Church position is that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ which is [i]everywhere[/i] present at every Mass on planet earth! This cannot be so as it violates the doctrine of the incarnation. "He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore all things" {Acts 3:19-21}.[/font]

[/color] [font="Comic Sans MS"][u]OBJECTION:[/u][i] [/i][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"] [color="#0000ff"]But the Catholic Church already agrees that, "Christ's body is present in one place only, namely in Heaven. In its [u]sacramental[/u] state, however {under the form of bread and wine} it has multi-presence" {Ludwig Ott, author of "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, in "Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews"}.

[/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][u]ANSWER:[/u] [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"] [color="#0000ff"] Roman Catholicism [/color][/font][color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]leaves the impression that the Creator of the universe was lax in His ability to convey exactly what we need to know via the Scripture and that He's appointed Catholic Church personnel to expound with more exactitude. [/font][/color][color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]We deny this. Consider the lesson given to us in 1 Kings 13:1, where a lesson is to be learned {Rms 15:4}. God tells a man to take a journey with strict instructions. Someone comes along claiming to speak for God, but he lies to him, saying plans have been changed! You can read for yourself the dire consequences that were suffered after being enticed by this falsehood. We learn from this story that God's marching orders are crystal clear regarding His presence on earth via the Holy Spirit. He has emphatically told us to reject any physical sightings of Him in any shape or form, and that would include "sacramentally" since He has given us no exception to the rule . The Catholic Church comes along claiming to speak for God and tells us plans have been "expanded" (i.e., the human nature of Christ in its "sacramental form" may also contain the attribute of omnipresence). [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]NO WAY. Christians must be unalterably opposed to these pious excuses because we are warned [u]not[/u] to add to the Word of God, lest we are found to be a liar {Deut 4:2, Prov 30:6, Rev 22:18}.[/font][/color]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"][font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#000000"][/color][/size][/font]

[/color][/font][color="#ff0000"][font="Comic Sans MS"]THE REAL ABSENCE[/font][/color]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]Jesus said that, "if I go not away, the Comforter ---which is the Holy Spirit, will not come; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you" {John 16:7}.[/font][/color]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]Any physical presence therefore, of Christ in the Lord's Supper, other than by His indwelling Spirit is a denial of His real human nature which must be localized in one place. In actuality, the Lord's Supper is a witness to his [/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#ff0000"]real absence --- [/color][/font][color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]for "as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come." [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]{1 Cor 11:26}. The physical act of eating the emblems at Communion has value only in pointing to the spiritual truth which they represent. More on this later. [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]If the bodily presence of Christ were indeed contained in the Catholic Church Eucharist, then the words, "Do this in remembrance of me" would be meaningless. [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]A memorial service is not held for someone in attendance, but for someone who has departed. [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]Thus, transubstantiation is like an extra jigsaw puzzle piece we noticed in the box after completing the framework of Christian theology. It simply does not belong.[/font][/color]

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

[color="#008000"][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#ff0000"]JOHN 6:53[/color] [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you"[/font][/color]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"]Are these words of Jesus to be taken figuratively or literally? The Catholic Church insists they are to be taken literally, while most other churches demand the figurative sense. The difference is crucial and we are convinced the biblical data supports the fact that the Catholic Church wars against Scripture, common sense and reason. To begin with, the bare assertion that we are to take these words literally, but at the same time are expected to believe that the [i]literal[/i] body and blood of Christ are [i]hidden, veiled to the senses and only [u]appear[/u] [/i]as bread and wine, is a nonsensical definition of the word "literal", unsupported by any grammatical or historical context of the word itself. Second, the Bible is a treasure chest of metaphorical, symbolic and parabolic expressions, none of which is to be taken literally, but rather as illustrative in order to startle and lead us into spiritual reality. What is important to remember is that we stand on a firm foundation when we declare

[/color][/font][u][font="Comic Sans MS"]God's word endorses the concept of eating and drinking as an act of the intellect![/font][/u]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]For example, we cannot "eat and drink righteousness". Yet Jesus said that those who hunger and thirst after righteousness will be filled {Matt 5:6}.[color="#ff0000"] [/color][/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#ff0000"]Notice--- [/color][/font][color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]right from the start of His ministry, He begins to utilize eating and drinking in a symbolic sense. Long before Catholicism came on the scene, the Psalmist demonstrates a desire to "eat" God also. "Oh taste and see that the Lord is good!" {34:8}. However, he most certainly was not desiring to physically ingest his Creator into his stomach, but rather a deepening appreciation of who He was and what He had accomplished. A little later we read of His desire to "drink" of the Lord also. "My soul thirsteth for God" {42:2}. Was he looking for some "holy water" that He offers? No, but for a similar reason as before. "Whether we be Jew or Gentile, bond or free, we have been all made to drink into one Spirit" {1 Cor 12:13}. And when Paul spoke to those who were "babes in Christ", he said he had to {figuratively} "feed" them with milk {the elementary truths of the faith} and not with meat {the more advanced teachings . . .1 Cor 3:1-2}. In conjunction with these ideas, it is not surprising to find the Lord describing Himself as, "the fountain of living waters" and to "everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters" {Jeremiah 2:13; Isaiah 55:1}. In the last two chapters of the Bible, God promises to quench our spiritual thirst by "giving unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely" {Rev 21:6; 22:17}. [/font][/color]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#ff0000"]THE FAITH OF THE CANAAITE WOMAN[/color][/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]She sought Jesus for the healing of her daughter. He responded that He was not sent except to the house of Israel and it would not be good to take the children's bread {Israel} and throw it to the little dogs first. Her response was incisive: "Truth, Lord; but even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from the master's table." [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]"Oh woman", she was told, "great is thy faith. Let it be done unto you as you desire. And her daughter was healed from that very hour" {Matt 15:21}. This is a striking example where Jesus equated the act of [u] believing[/u] ---as being synonymous with "eating the [u]words[/u] from the master's table". This is precisely how the Lord wishes us to understand Him in John 6 and at the Lord's Supper, and the Old Testament prepares us for this interpretation:[/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every [u]word[/u] that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" {Deut 8:3; Matt 4:4}. And, "I have esteemed the [u]words[/u] of His mouth more than my necessary food" {Job 23:12}. "Thy [u]words[/u] were found and I did [color="#ff0000"]EAT[/color][color="#0000ff"] them, and thy [u]word[/u] was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart" {Jer 15:16}[/color][/font][/color]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]With these thoughts as our foundation, now let us explore what comes before John 6 to see if we are on scriptural ground when we arrive at our conclusion that Jesus did [u]not[/u] intend for us to eat Him in the crude, literal fashion the Catholic Church suggests. Notice the consistent pattern where His audience gets confused because they take Him literally and focus on the physical aspect:[/font][/color]

[u][color="#ff0000"][font="Comic Sans MS"]CHAPTER 1[/font][/u][font="Comic Sans MS"] THEY MISUNDERSTAND![/font][/color]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]Jesus is described as the "light of men" {1:5}. Was He a lightbulb? NO. He is also described as "the Lamb of God" {1:29}. Was He a barn animal? NO. Elsewhere in the book of John, He is described as a "door", "a sheperd", "the way", and "the vine". All of these are figurative expressions, but when we get to His saying, "This is my body" and calling Himself "the bread of life", the Catholic Church takes this literally and thinks we ought to eat Him! But He was no more a loaf of bread to be consumed than actual believers are meant to be consumed when the apostle called the church, "we being many are one bread." [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]{1 Cor 10:17}. [/font]

[/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][u]OBJECTION:[/u] [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"] [color="#0000ff"]There is no logical parallel between the words, "This is my body" and the statements, "I am the vine" or "I am the door". Yes, Christ is like a vine because all the sap of my spiritual life comes from Him, and He is like a door because I go to heaven through Him. But since there is no one to one corrolation between a piece of bread and His flesh, "This is my body" could not be symbolic. {"Catholicism & Fundamentalism", by Keating, p. 236}.

[/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][u]ANSWER:[/u] [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"] [color="#0000ff"] Completely untrue. Jesus was looking back to millenia of symbolism and identifying Himself [i]in it.[/i] The bread they were eating was unleavened bread because leaven represents sin...of which He had no part. Go to any supermarket and buy a box of matzot. You will note that the matzot has a particular appearance. It is both striped and pierced throughout. Thus, the direct corrolation here is that He is like a piece of unleavened bread because, "By His stripes we are healed . . .(and) He was pierced for our iniquity" {Isa 53}. The Lord even compares Himself to a "grain of wheat" ---[i]from which bread is made---[/i] which falls into the ground and dies (John 12:24). These things being so, there is indeed direct association between bread and His flesh to validate Christ was speaking symbolically when He said, "This is my body."[/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"] Further evidence for symbolism at the Last Supper will follow shortly.[/color][/font]

[u][color="#ff0000"][font="Comic Sans MS"]CHAPTER 2[/font][/u][font="Comic Sans MS"] THEY MISUNDERSTAND![/font][/color]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]At the temple, the Jews asked Jesus for a sign of His authority. He answered, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews took Christ literally, saying the temple took 46 years to build and would be impossible to reconstruct in three days. They misunderstood the true spiritual meaning of His words. The next passage reads, "But He spoke of the temple of His body" ---referring to the forthcoming destruction of His body and consequent resurrection three days later {2:21}.[/font][/color]

[u][color="#ff0000"][font="Comic Sans MS"]CHAPTER 3[/font][/u][font="Comic Sans MS"] HE MISUNDERSTANDS![/font][/color]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"]Jesus told Nicodemus that He had to be born again. Nicodemus wonders how he could enter a second time into his mother's womb {3:4}. He misunderstood that Jesus was contrasting physical birth with spiritual birth.

[/color][/font][u][color="#ff0000"][font="Comic Sans MS"]CHAPTER 4[/font][/u][font="Comic Sans MS"] SHE MISUNDERSTANDS![/font][/color]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]Jesus purposely situates Himself in a setting where the topic of drinking was sure to come up {4:5}. He goes to a place called "Jacob's well" --- waiting for His divine appointment with a woman looking to draw water. He told her that He had "living water" to give her. But she noticed that He had nothing to draw water with and wondered how He was going to retrieve the water in a well that was so deep. She misunderstood! The spiritual water He was offering her was no more H20 than the offer to eat His flesh and drink His blood was an invitation to cannabilism. Jesus responded that, "whoever drinks of the water that I will give him, shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." {13:14}. She misunderstands again! She is bent on thinking on the physical level and wants to know where this water is so she wouldn't have to make the journey to the well ever again. But He was not offering to satisfy her physical thirst from Jacob's well. He wanted her to drink from "Christ's well" ----whose water {the Holy Spirit} would become a well that bubbles up and assures her of everlasting life. As the Psalmist said, "My cup runneth over. Surely, goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever" {23:5-6}. This interpretation is confirmed in chapter 7, "if any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me as the scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake He of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should receive. .. .." {7:38-39}. There is no escaping the fact that the word of God is making clear that spiritual eating and drinking is through [/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#ff0000"]believing [/color][color="#ffffff"]i[/color][/font][color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]in Him and that as a result of the gift of the Holy Spirit's indwelling, that person becomes a river, or a channel of blessing of eternal life to others. This is verified in Isaiah 44:3: "I will pour out my Spirit upon thy offspring and they shall spring up among the grass as willows by the water." [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]The impossibility of the physical manifestation of Christ in the Catholic Church Eucharist is also implied in this conversation. The woman said that "our fathers worshipped in this mountain, and you say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship." Jesus responded that the hour was coming when she would neither worship in this mountain or in Jerusalem---{"for the Holy Ghost had not yet been given" John 7:39}---for God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit {[u]not[/u] in the material} and in truth" {4:21-24}. Two separate commands are implied here and the Catholic Church flunks the test in both. First, worship under the New Covenant would not be characterized by locality and materiality--- but is rather an action of the heart. Yet, the Catholic Church is infamous for confining her worship in a sacred vessel, on an altar and distributing a material object,[/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"] "to exercise the work of salvation . . .by means of sacrifice and sacraments, around which the entire liturgical life revolves" [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"]{Vatican 2, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, para 6}. So whether it be at Mass or making an appointment at a Eucharistic devotion, or when the community carries the monstrance in a parade through town, these desires for physical manifestations are out of sync with John 4. [/color][/font]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]Second, "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign. . .of God's action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer" [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]{Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 1325, #1380}. [/font][/color]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]Note here the claim of [u]sanctification[/u] through worship of the Eucharist! This directly contradicts the Bible which says that we are sanctified by the operation of the Holy Spirit who dwells within {1 Cor 6:11} . Sanctification is a lifelong process wherein we are "conformed to the image of His Son" {Romans 8:29} and Jesus prayed that we would be "sanctified through thy truth; thy word is truth " {Jn 17:17}. That being the case, the process of advancing along on the road of holiness can only come about through "eating" the Word of God because, "How sweet are thy words unto my taste; yes, sweeter than honey to my mouth ......and[/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"]"How then shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed according to thy word" {Ps 119:103 . . .Ps 119:9}. [/font][/color]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"]In direct opposition to this, the Catholic Church says it is by the ingestion and worship of the Eucharistic wafer! "There is nothing more efficacious for advancing along the road of holiness {than} conversation with Christ in the Blessed Sacrament" {"Mysterium Fidei" by JPII}. [/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"]"Growth in the Christian life needs the nourishment of Eucharistic Communion" {CCC #1392}. [/color][/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"]All the good things the Catholic Church may say of the Holy Spirit are drowned out and nullified by falsely asserting that Christ [/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"] left us a "visible" demonstration of His presence, "[u]such as the nature of man demands"[/u] {CCC # 1366}. [/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"]True, obstinate men may indeed require a sign, but Jesus' general tenor was that an "evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, but there shall no sign be given. . . " {Matt 12:39}. The Catholic Church's infatuation with the physical by #1. . .. centering her worship in religious spectacle; #2. . . gaining access to Christ's substantial presence contingent upon the magic of Transubstantiation, and #3. . .. becoming sanctified by worshipping, then swallowing a material object, is diametrically opposed to the undenialable spiritual applications set forth by Jesus everywhere [/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"]in the Gospel of John. [/color][/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"]Someone has correctly observed: "The interaction in John 4 bears remarkable similarity with John 6. In J-4, Jesus picks up on the woman's interest in water. In J-6, He picks up on the crowd's interest in bread. In both cases, eternal life is in view. In both cases, a metaphor of consumption is used to illustrate belief in Jesus. Since He is speaking of eternal life in both passages, the question must be asked: If the Catholic Church insists on viewing J-6 literally, in that we must actually eat [i]bread [/i] to gain eternal life, why does that same Catholic Church not teach that we must drink [i] physical water [/i] to obtain eternal life per J-4? If the Catholic Church understands J-4 symbolically, (and she does) then she has no basis for rejecting the symbolic understanding of J-6." {"Evangelical Answers", by E. Svendsen, p. 246}. The parallel is clear: [i]if drinking literal water does not produce eternal life, then neither does eating actual bread. [/i] [/color][/font]

[u][color="#ff0000"][font="Comic Sans MS"]CHAPTER 5[/font][/u][font="Comic Sans MS"] THEY MISUNDERSTAND! [/font]

[/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"]Jesus was claiming to be equal with God and this very thought was revolting to the Jews, whose vociferous hostility was to the point of seeking to slay Him {5:16}. Christ responded that, "he that heareth my word and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life." Here we notice eternal life is offered simply by faith----with no requirement of eating and drinking anything.

[/color][/font][u][color="#ff0000"][font="Comic Sans MS"]CHAPTER 6[/font][/u][font="Comic Sans MS"] THEY MISUNDERSTAND![/font][/color]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]In light of the many erroneous conclusions people made preceeding John 6---as well as after {7:36, 8:22, 10:6, 11:12, 16:18}--- it should now come as no surprise that subsequent to Jesus announcing that we should eat His flesh and drink His blood, "the Jews strove among themselves, saying 'How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" {6:52}. [/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]We are practically [u]set up[/u] to expect that once again, people were about to be confounded by the[/font][/color] [color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]words of the Messiah. We insist on the strongest of evidence that just as before,[/font][/color] [color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]they have failed to follow the spiritual tapestry underlying the symbol of His words and the result is similar to what comes later in 10:6: "But they understood not what things they were which He spake unto them".[color="#000000"] [/color][/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"]Amazingly, it is right here that the Catholic Church interferes with the symmetry of Scripture and would have us believe for no good reason that [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"]the Jews were following His train of thought perfectly. [color="#0000ff"]They unconvincingly argue that[/color] [color="#0000ff"]although the Jews were confused, they were [u]correct[/u] to understand Christ literally; that He was actually bidding us to eat His physical body so the Catholic Church view of [u]transubstantiation[/u] may be vindicated. But this absolutely cannot be true no matter how many popes, priests, prelates or paupers have promoted it! It was the [u]intentional[/u] will of God to withhold the mysteries of the kingdom to many for His own good reasons and this is yet another pristine example {Isa 6:9, Matt 11:25, Mk 4:11-12, Luke 8:10, John 9:39-41, Rms 11:8}.[/color][/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"]Simple logic also wins out in this case. If the Jews did not believe Jesus descended from heaven to [i]begin with [/i] (John 6:41-2), it is inconceivable He would add to their disbelief with an even more astounding miracle---that being the alleged consumption of His physical body. The teacher who has a class of elementary Algebra students who are not comprehending well, would never imagine moving on to Calculus to resolve their[/color] [color="#0000ff"]confusion. And neither did Jesus move on to a higher plain of spirituality, even if Transubstantiation were true, without them first accepting His divine origin. The entire [i]theme[/i] of the gospel of John that is reiterated over and over again is [i]believing[/i] that Jesus is the Son of God and that is exactly what "eating" His body and blood on the "metaphorical menu" was meant to convey. Again, if the Jews did not believe in His divine origin from the start---which is a truth set forth in the very first verse of this gospel, it is illogical to suppose that Jesus would take them on to more advanced learning. 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]

[color="#ff0000"][font="Comic Sans MS"]THE BLOOD OF ATONEMENT[/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"]WAS NOT A BEVERAGE[/font][/color]

[color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]When John 6:53 is interpreted literally, it is in disharmony with the rest of the Bible. It opposes scores of verses that declare salvation is by faith in Christ without any indication of the need to consume Him in bodily form. Jesus was using the

[Slappo]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='10 September 2009 - 11:55 AM' timestamp='1252608951' post='1964519']
[color="#ff0000"]Apo...

I'm reposting my "Captives to a Concept" essay here since no one refuted it from the last thread. How much more sane, glorious and simple to believe Jesus spoke figuratively...and which ALL the evidence suggests. WHO CARES what the [b]Scolastics[/b] say! They muddy the waters with their speculations on "substantial" presence using Aristotle-esque concepts. It's all a bunch of hooey. Your desire should be, "[b]WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURE[/b]!"
[/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][/quote]

Scholastics not Scolastics .

Also, maybe you don't realize this, but Catholics do [b]NOT[/b] believe in [i]Sola Scriptura[/i]. Therefore, our question is not "What saith the Scripture?," rather, "What saith Scripture and Tradition lead by the Magisterium?" Because Tradition is included in our question, the scholastics DO apply as they are part of the traditions of the Church and they continue to pass down that which has been passed down for two millenia.

[StColette]

That's fine Stormstopper to repost your tract, but remember to keep on the one topic "Transubstantiation". The other thread was closed because too many topics were being addressed.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='StColette' date='10 September 2009 - 01:13 PM' timestamp='1252610015' post='1964525']
That's fine Stormstopper to repost your tract, but remember to keep on the one topic "Transubstantiation". The other thread was closed because too many topics were being addressed.
[/quote]
The problem with Stormstopper's tract is that rarely touches on the concept of "transubstantiation," while simultaneously bringing up things (e.g., Eucharistic miracles) that are not essential to the truth of the doctrine itself.


Stormstopper,

I think that you are captive to a modern understanding of the word "symbol," which you try to apply to ancient peoples even though I supplied sources refuting your position on that topic in the older (and now closed) thread.

What I ask you to do in this thread . . . is to respond to my actual post, rather than simply re-posting a tract that jumps all over the place, while never really addressing the Scholastic teaching in question.

God grant you many joyful years,
Todd

Edited September 10, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

As far as the concept of biblical memorials are concerned, I would refer you to the paper I wrote on that subject when I was working on my minor in Jewish Studies. To read that paper click the link below:

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=98319&view=findpost&p=1961821"][u]Zikkaron: Liturgical Remembrance and Sacred History[/u][/url]

In addition to that paper, I composed a brief post on this particular issue in the other thread, a post that you never responded to, and so I am re-posting that essay here:

[size="3"]I find your comments on the nature of biblical memorials unconvincing, because both Jews and Christians in ancient times believed that "memorials" rendered present the sacred event that was being memorialized (cf. Artur Weiser "The Psalms," Max Thurian "The Eucharistic Memorial," Gerhard Von Rad "Old Testament Theology," and Ernest G. Wright "God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital"). In fact, the doctrine that biblical memorials are a participation in the living eternal memory of God is found in both the writings of the Church Fathers and in the Rabbinic texts of the early Christian era (cf. Herbert Danby, translator, "The Mishnah," Pesahim 10:5, page 151).

Ultimately, the Greek word [i]anamnesis[/i] bears the same meaning as the Hebrew word [i]zikkaron[/i], and both words can be translated into English as "memory" or "remembrance," but the memory that is manifested through a liturgical celebration is not the memory of a mere man, nor is it even the memory of the worshipping community [i]per se[/i]; instead, it is the eternal and everliving memory of God [cf. Matthias Scheeben, "The Mysteries of Christianity," (London: B. Herder Book Company, 1946), page 509]. Now, the divine memory is manifested through the chanting of the inspired biblical narrative and through the proper use of the sacred signs established for this very purpose (i.e., the bread and wine, etc.) by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself while He walked upon the earth as a Man among men. That said, the liturgy of the Church manifests three distinct realities simultaneously: (1) the liturgy renders present a past event, i.e., the incarnation and paschal mystery of Christ, making it operative today; (2) it gives grace, i.e., divine energy, in the present moment; and (3) it anticipates the [i]Parousia[/i] at the end of time, making it a living reality for the members of the worshipping community. In fact, this third element was manifested on Mt. Tabor when Christ was Transfigured in front of the three Apostles, because Christ Himself is the Kingdom of God realized in human form, and -- as a consequence -- all those who become members of His body, the Church, are living the reality of the Kingdom here and now, and not simply as something that will happen in the future. In other words, the life of divine grace (i.e., energy) given in the sacraments is an eschatological reality in which time itself is transcended, so that the participants in the liturgy experience what was, is, and is to come in the mystery of Christ incarnate, and in the process all the members of the Church experience a foretaste of the divine eternity. [/size]

Edited September 10, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

The Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) teaching on the nature of the Eucharistic memorial is reflected in St. John Damascene's [i]17th Homily on Hebrews[/i], which I supplied a quotation from in the older thread, and which I will re-post here, since you never responded to the clear teaching contained in this ancient homily:


[size="3"]What then? Do not we offer every day? We offer indeed, but making a remembrance of His death, and this sacrifice is one and not many.

How is it one, and not many? Inasmuch as that sacrifice was once for all offered, and carried into the Holy of Holies.

This rite is a figure of that sacrifice and this sacrifice of that. For we always offer the same Person, not one sheep now and tomorrow another, but ever the same: so that the sacrifice is one.

Since by this reasoning, inasmuch as the offering is made in many places, are there many Christs? God forbid; but Christ is one every where, being complete here and complete there also, one Body.

Just then as while offered in many places, He is one Body and not many bodies; so also is there one sacrifice. He is our High Priest, who offered the sacrifice that cleanses us. That sacrifice we offer now also, which was then offered, which cannot be exhausted. This is done in remembrance of what was then done. For, saith He, 'Do this in remembrance of Me.' It is not another sacrifice that we offer, as the High Priest of old did, but always the same, or rather we perform a remembrance of a sacrifice.[/size]

Taken from Post #180 in the [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=98319&st=160&p=1962241&#entry1962241"]Transubstantiation Unsubstantiated[/url] thread.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Selah]

Storm...if you honestly think...anyone...ANYONE...is going to read that horribly long post...*shudders* it never ended.

By the way, "What saith the scripture"? Remember, you are talking to Catholics, and Catholics do not view the Bible as the cornerstone of their faith, or Sola Scriptura. So, because the Bible is not the sole foundation of faith, why would it be used?

Why don't we go by what the early Christians taught? I think that their views hold more water than the modern views held today. In fact, they would probably laugh at the idea that communion is only a symbol.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Selah' date='10 September 2009 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1252614865' post='1964536']
Storm...if you honestly think...anyone...ANYONE...is going to read that horribly long post...*shudders* it never ended.

By the way, "What saith the scripture"? Remember, you are talking to Catholics, and Catholics do not view the Bible as the cornerstone of their faith, or Sola Scriptura. So, because the Bible is not the sole foundation of faith, why would it be used?

Why don't we go by what the early Christians taught? I think that their views hold more water than the modern views held today. In fact, they would probably laugh at the idea that communion is only a symbol.
[/quote]
SIDENOTE: Just to clarify, Scripture and Tradition focus on revealing God. Jesus Christ is the full revelation of God. So He is the cornerstone of our faith.

God bless,

Raphael