Logical Problems with Transubstantiation

Yes, but the purpose of CAF is to give “Catholic Answers”. If you are not willing to listen to them, why ask? Perhaps you are only here to attack, and not to learn? You really come across as someone who already has their mind made up, and is quite closed to any defense we could make.

No one pronounced judgement upon you John. The observation was made that you seem to be intent upon attacking our faith. The eternal consequences for such behavior is between you and God. The temporal ones may include that you will no longer be able to post here.

Members are required to respect our faith, which it is clear you do not.

I am looking forward to seeing where you found this in a Catholic document. :wink:

Clearly you seem to believe that Catholic doctrines are the “precepts of men”. :shrug:

You say it is not Biblical. But the great fathers, doctors, and saints of the Church, along with almost 70% of Christians today, say it IS Biblical. You are entitled to your opinion, but do not speak in absolutes. It is not Biblical in your opinion, but your opinion is not Holy Writ.

As for the Jesuits, they believe in it too, so you might not want to go down that road.

Please read the thread The Sacrifice of the Mass before addressing any questions on the Eucharist.

Thanks!

Indeed yes. True learning, though if faith, seeking understanding. There comes a point at which our human logic fails us,a nd when we stand face to face with the divine mystery such as the Eucharist, logic is insufficient.

The biggest problem with the notion of Transubstantiation is that logic is trying to explain a divine mystery and therefore, will always fall short.

Why is this a problem for YOU , though, John? Since you seem to have no use for the Catholic Church, I don’t understand why it would bother you so much what Catholics believe?

You should know better: there are many early theologians who disagree. I don’t think you can count 70% of Christians, and most Catholics that do believe in doctrines such as transubstantiation do so because of the “authority” of the Church. Anyway…

So go for it. Instead of dismissing my view as mere opinion, go ahead and refute my points. Show us that transubstantiation is indeed logically consistent and coherent.

Incidentally, are your opinions concerning the doctrines of the Roman Church more valuable because they derive from an “authoritative” source? :wink:

Perhaps, since you are new, you did not take the opportunity to read the forum rules, which state that you are not to create duplicate threads in many sections at the same time.

This requires a thorough understanding of Passover. Jesus is our Passover Lamb. Do you understand what that means?

The Passover Lamb was sacrificed. The Lord’s supper is our memorial meal. If you look at the language, Jesus’ says “do this”, using the same word that is used in the OT for a priest conducting a ritual sacrifice. the rememberance" is an anamesis - a ritual recreation.

The ritual sacrifice is not “Roman”. Using this language is considered insulting.

He took bread and wine. These are every day material elements. He infused them with Divine meaning, then told his disciples to "do this " (ritual sacrifice) as a memorial (ritual enactment).

Jesus used the material to help us understand the invisible. Your separation from the faith of the Apostles has watered down the meaning of what He was doing.

If this were true, then He would not have set up the physical blood sacrifice in the first place. Both things are true and valid. There is a material that points to the eternal.

You have taken this comment about the yeast of the Pharisees out of context, apparently to support that the literal sacrifice of the mass is not done according to Jesus’ intention.

There is no other way for us to understand it. This is the manner in which He taught it. He showed this to His Apostles, and they handed it down to us to the present day.

Heretics have been denying this since the beginning.

Well, here is another Catholic doctrine for you, straight out of the Catechism:

2089 …Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith…

Translation: If any Catholic denies Transubstantiation they are a heretic according to Church teaching

After you read the Summa Theologica, we can chat. :wink:

LOL. In other words, you don’t feel like talking do you. :stuck_out_tongue:

Hi john,

Perhaps it would be simplest to ask:

Do you have blood in your body right now? If so, are you bloody?

VC

John:

Welcome to the forum! (Great discussion topic, BTW.)

Regarding the importance of worshiping the God of truth with logic, I agree!

:thumbsup:

Regarding the idea that transubstantiation is not biblical, I ask this: Do you believe Jesus’ words in John’s gospel are not biblical?

:shrug:

Okay, well lets first agree on version of scripture, Arguably Latina Vulgata, Clementine Vulgate or Douay-Rheims Version, all other versions came from those and have been changed in wording. That not withstanding, Jesus speaks in a way where His words can be literally taken and all apply at least three different ways without contradicting each other. That is what is odd about the manner in which Jesus Speaks. A Clue to his divinity, you can’t make Christs Words fail. Christ is the only being on the face of the planet who’s words you can’t make fail. oddly enough but. Alot of times if you will reflect on what the Spirit is doing while Christ is speaking, only then will you give yourself the Basis for believing in True Presence. The Holy Ghost(Christ Himself) through the Priest transforming the Bread and Wine into His Body and Blood. A Case for Transubstantiation taking place in the physical world, and you cannot see it happening.

Lets talk about Simultainiety of meaning in Scripture, I think it is erroneous thinking to seperate out one view of Scripture while exluding all other views, so yes Jesus meant it literally and figuratively at the same time, its figurative meaning is just as purposeful and true as its literal meaning.

Literalist’s, need not fear, THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW CANNOT BE WITHOUT THE LETTER OF THE LAW. You will hear persons Argue for Spirit of Scripture over Literalness of Scripture, but if you think about it long enough, you come to the above truth, The Spirit of the Law can only be Manifested by the Letter of the Law, how these two got seperated, and perhaps they can be for cases of thinking and argument, in fact cannot be seperated when looking at the WHOLE TRUTH OF THE MATTER.

Protestants are prone to argue , and they will say as much, we Believe in the Spirit of the Law moreso then the Letter, we are not literalists, but from another point of view this is non-sense or can be non-sense because and I repeat, the Spirit of the Law cannot exist without the letter of the Law being what it is.

4. Limited physical content available for distribution: Following the Resurrection, Jesus presented himself in his familiar, though-glorified human body—all in one piece—to his closest disciples. So, the shape and mass of his body was similar to the crucified body. Now that the Roman Church has grown so large and conducts thousands of Masses throughout the world each week, a question arises: How is his flesh and blood—from one finite body—to be so finely distributed to suit this purpose? Or does each parish only receive a portion of Jesus flesh and blood? Which portions?

Here again, you have to first reflect upon the actions of the Holy Ghost through the Priest.
People get lost a lot in their reading, because they fail to consider exactly what it is that the Holy Ghost is doing to make things in Scripture so. That is the Key to much of what Jesus says…

When scripture is executed in the Spirit it is exactly the Holy Ghost doing the execution of Scripture, in an executive fashion. HE, (GOD/JESUS) IS EXECUTING HIS OFFICE AS KING OF KINGS BY AND THROUGH THE HOLY GHOST.

If you can come to believe that the Holy Ghost is real??? Then Scripture all of it both Figuritive and Literal become very accessible to all persons.

JOHN LADDER, DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE HOLY GHOST??

That is the Key to John Ladder going from applying a figurative meaning to alot of Scripture to comming into a fuller understanding of the HOLY SCRIPTURES.

No problem John, No Harm, No Foul, many persons are right there with you, stumbling around for the clue that will allow them to walk into a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ.

Once Again, JOHN LADDER, Do you BELIEVE IN THE HOLY GHOST??

See Because you are dealing with the Miraculous when you are dealing with the Holy Ghost. Another Concept that may come in Handy is this, there is an Absolute sort of Being that is GOD.

The Actions of the Holy Ghost are miraculous in Nature.

it is logical to say that the Holy Ghost through the Priest changes Bread and Wine into Body and Blood.

So me and my Knights of Columbus Buddy were about to be deployed to the Gulf, so we are at our Knights Meeting, and Deacon Bob walks up and Bless’s us each. THE HOLY SPIRIT GOES FLYING THROUGH MY HEAD, LIKE SOMEONE TURNED ON A FIRE HOSE, I CAN FEEL IT FLYING THROUGH ME.

John there is a chance that you won’t be able to experience any of these things until you do become Catholic. Another aspect of Catholicism is that, this Church has a vail over it, the Church is IN HERSELF, You can tiptoe and peek in the windows John, but until you actually become Catholic, you may not be able to experience much of what we are talking about. The Catholic Church is For Catholic’s. You expect, and all non-babtised persons who have a natural tendency to think like protestants, and even protestants largely expect the Roman Catholic Church to lift her Vail and let you see into it, without you becomming Catholic. And that is not something that the Catholic Church may do. The Roman Catholic Church is for the Roman Catholics inside it. It is that way by design and by Reason.

I did read it- you got whooped:D

It’s not just the Roman Church.

a question arises: How is his flesh and blood—from one finite body—to be so finely distributed to suit this purpose? Or does each parish only receive a portion of Jesus flesh and blood? Which portions?

We let God work out the details.

Let God be good.

What’s your “authoritative” source- the Bible.But who’s interpretation-yours? Your pastor’s? The Church up the street? the individual who interprets his bible according to “their” sense of scripture? what you state as obvious to you is not obvious to the rest of us nor was it obvious to ECF or the Early Church or even the Romans who persecuted the Christians because they like you misunderstood the concept of an unbloody sacrifice and accused Christians of cannibalism. I find that kind of authority with scripture tradition and even extra biblical proof way more compelling then "your’ authority.

After you show me that the virgin birth is indeed logically consistent and coherent and even scientifically possible. Unless you don’t agree with that part of the Bible.

Hello, John!
Your question is a good one. Even in the Holy Bible people ask (John 6:60) “This teaching is difficult, who can accept it?” I would suggest reading “The Hidden Manna; A Theology of the Eucharist” by Fr. James T. O’Connor.

I think most of your questions would be answered there! :wink:

In the words of the movie character pictured above, “I’m your huckleberry.”

How nice of you to pronounce judgment upon me! This is typical of yet another unbiblical stance often taken up by Catholics: “you are not of the true Church, so you’re going to hell.”

The lady did no such thing and you misrepresent what she said as well as assert a rash generalization against Catholics. That’s wrong

Consider what Jesus said in Matthew 15:9

– IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS (a)DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’"Yeah, I read that in my Bible, but that has no application to the Eucharist or transubstantiation because it is just a term used to help explain the Eucharist.

Now if you want a doctrine of men to deal with, there’s always Sola Scriptura, which has no basis in scripture and yet is probably the foundational doctrine of most (not all) n-C Christian religions.

Oh indeed they would, while decimating your arguments while half asleep. I’d leave them alone if I were you. One of my favorites was Fr. John Hardon. Trust me…you don’t wanna even try to deal with his writings.

I am not referring to a contrast between logic/reason/empiricism and the miraculous.

My point is that the notion of transubstantiation has inherent logical flaws.

Then you lose from the outset because you are trying to tell us that something miraculous must have a logical basis, and that’s so weak as to be sad.

Take for example John 2 and that wedding feast. Water turning into the finest wine make logical sense? Of course not, yet we have here in this account that very thing.

Would you care to take on the logic behind feeding 4 or 5 thousand people with a few loves and fish?

According to your fallacious arguments none of these things could have occurred. Yet we have record of them both.

Wanna try for some others?

[LIST]
*]Walking on water?
*]Commanding the storm to calm?
*]Lazarus raised from the dead?

*]St. Peter’s mother in law?
*]Jairus daughter?
*]The man born blind?
*]The 10 lepers?
*]The sacrificial death of Christ on the cross?
*]The resurrection?

[/LIST]

Moreover, it is not biblical, which further exacerbates the problem for the mind of a Christian.

Firstly, there is no passage in scripture that says that all Christians believe has to be found in the Bible. That errant doctrine is generally known as Sola Scriptura and is itself unbiblical.

Second, I can show you the scriptural basis for the Eucharist from an article that I wrote and posted on my blog. It’s called, The Eucharist IS Scriptural and was first posted here at CAF several years ago.

Well, you have to admit, no one who ever walked the earth tried harder to make “logical” sense of this profound Divine Mystery. :smiley:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.