Scriptural Support for Transubstantiation


#1

Is there any scriptural support or is it just assumed?


#2

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 11:24-25[/BIBLEDRB]

(1 Corinthians 11:24-25)


#3

[quote="YosefYosep, post:1, topic:328564"]
Is there any scriptural support or is it just assumed?

[/quote]

To quote a noteable politician of recent memory, "It all depends on what the meaning of the word is is." Bill Clinton ].

"This is my body"

"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: "


#4

For the Jews the Passover was not complete until they ate the flesh and drank the blood of the lamb. Ex12:1-11.


#5

In baptism we use water and the Holy Spirit comes to that person. But is that water Holy Spirit? It’s in that sacrament as a whole the Holy Spirit comes.
Jesus used bread and wine as symbols based on the old testament pesha. He becomes part of our spiritual body through the church. Sacrament of Holy Eucharist (entire mass) takes place in the church. For people to understand this mystery Jesus used bread as in the old testament pesha which is familiar to all people and the mystery is easily understood by people.


#6

"unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you do not have life within you"

"for my body is true food and my blood is true drink"

Read John chapter 6, they're both in there with more


#7

Do you know syrian orthodox churches, which were founded by St.Paul and St.Peter and also follow the apostolic traditions strictly to the closest of its originality, do not believe in transubstantiation. They believe bread and wine are representations of Jesus body and blood.


#8

[quote="YosefYosep, post:1, topic:328564"]
Is there any scriptural support or is it just assumed?

[/quote]

Do you mean as opposed to consubstantiation?

All scripture verses say that it IS his body, not that his body is with the bread or that his body is in the bread, it IS the "bread" (in quotes because it only appears as bread).


#9

This is my Body which is given up for you.

This is the cup of my Blood, the blood of the new covenant, which will be poured out for you.

Jesus changed the bread into His body and the wine into His blood. He didn’t say, “This is a symbol of my body,” He said “This IS my body.” No doubt as to what he meant, because several of his disciples left at that point.


#10

[quote="TheRealJuliane, post:9, topic:328564"]
This is my Body which is given up for you.

This is the cup of my Blood, the blood of the new covenant, which will be poured out for you.

Jesus changed the bread into His body and the wine into His blood. He didn't say, "This is a symbol of my body," He said "This IS my body." No doubt as to what he meant, because several of his disciples left at that point.

[/quote]

But He definitely meant "This represents my body". His body is made of flesh and blood. How can someone take his own body in hand? The bread He hold is not part of His body. It represents His body.


#11

[quote="jjkadavil, post:10, topic:328564"]
But He definitely meant "This represents my body". His body is made of flesh and blood. How can someone take his own body in hand? The bread He hold is not part of His body. It represents His body.

[/quote]

Consubstantiation is false. It no longer is bread and wine. Only the accidents are bread and wine. Its substance has changed.

Ex. 12:8,11 - The paschal lamb had to be eaten to spare the first-born sons. Jesus is the true paschal Lamb.

Lev. 19:22 – In the old covenant priests made atonement for sin with the guilt offering of an animal which was consumed. What was consumed was the sacrifice, not a symbol of a sacrifice.

Zech. 9:15-16 – The sons of Zion, shall drink blood like wine and be saved. This prefigures the Eucharistic sacrifice.

Ezek. 2:8-10; 3:1-3 - God orders Ezekiel to open his mouth and eat the scroll which is the Word of God.

2Chron. 30:15-17; 35:1,6,11,13; Ezra 6:20-21; Ezek. 6:20-21 - The lamb was killed, roasted and eaten to atone for sin and restore communion with God. Jesus was stripped, pierced, and sacrificed to atone for our sin and restore communion.

Mt. 26:2; Mk. 14:12; Lk. 22:7 - Jesus' passion is connected with the Passover sacrifice where lambs were slain and eaten.

Jn. 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times that He is the bread of heaven.

Jn. 6:51-59 - Then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The shocked Jews understood Jesus literally.

Jn. 6:60 - 67 - Jews leave because of this, and Jesus does not stop them. Jesus confirms it is truly His body and blood.

Mt. 26:26-28; Mk. 14:22,24; Lk. 22;19-20; 1Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, “this is my body and blood”…not a symbol of it.

Lk. 22:19, 1Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says "do this", that is, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice,” in remembrance of Him.

1Cor. 11:27 - You can’t profane a symbol, neither can you worship one. Paul confirms the Real Presence.


#12

[quote="jjkadavil, post:10, topic:328564"]
But He definitely meant "This represents my body". His body is made of flesh and blood. How can someone take his own body in hand? The bread He hold is not part of His body. It represents His body.

[/quote]

No, he said what he meant, and he meant that the bread he had just consecrated WAS his body. The fact that it still resembles bread is accidental. If it was a symbol, do you really think many of his disciples would have left him at that point? This was someone they loved, admired, and respected. A symbol has a lot less shock value than telling these men that they were eating and drinking HIM.

Jesus' earthly body was flesh and blood, but He was/is GOD.

Jesus was very clear in what he said. All throughout the New Testament, you can see it.


#13

Where does transubstantiation come in these OT examples? For example do you mean that scroll was transubstantiated? But even without being transubstantiated what happened in the prophet after eating the scroll we read in the Bible.

In the Old Testament, sacrificial lamb reunited man with God. Do you think it was the lamb who did this? No. It is done by God for everybody who does this sacrifice which is required to be done from our side as the symbol of our wanting to reunite to God. Also susch symbolisations help the man to understand God’s act in it easily.

Jesus did not have to specifically say that this bread ‘represented’ His body because He (His body) was present among them. That body is 100% complete. Then how can there be something out of this 100%ness? When Jesus said to John that mother Mary is your mother why didn’t He specifically say that He did not mean biological mother. We know Mother Mary is not our biological mother even though Jesus said she is our mother.

The bread He had in his hand is representation of His body as that bread did not have nature of human body and was not physically part of Jesus’s body.

When we willingly take part in the sacrament of Holy Eucharist, and eat the blessed bread and drink the blessed wine which are representations of His body and blood, as part of this sacrament, Jesus comes and dwells in us and becomes part of our spiritual body. As God did when people made lamb sacrifice.

Nothing is impossible for God. If He wants He can transubstantiate the bread. But I am sure He respects our finite nature and limited knowledge. He will act only respecting that. I think the idea of transubstantiation is the intellectual work of western church. In eastern churches they believe that by eating this bread Jesus becomes part of their spiritual body without accepting the idea of transubstantiation.

Let us be open to why the Eastern churches, which were also founded by Apostles and are very careful in being faithful to the apostolic traditions, do not believe in transubstantiation.

God bless…


#14

[quote="TheRealJuliane, post:12, topic:328564"]
No, he said what he meant, and he meant that the bread he had just consecrated WAS his body. The fact that it still resembles bread is accidental. If it was a symbol, do you really think many of his disciples would have left him at that point? This was someone they loved, admired, and respected. A symbol has a lot less shock value than telling these men that they were eating and drinking HIM.

Jesus' earthly body was flesh and blood, but He was/is GOD.

Jesus was very clear in what he said. All throughout the New Testament, you can see it.

[/quote]

Thanks TheRealJuliane for the reply. Please refer to my pervious post.


#15

[quote=jjkadavil]Let us be open to why the Eastern churches, which were also founded by Apostles and are very careful in being faithful to the apostolic traditions, do not believe in transubstantiation.
[/quote]

You are correct that the Orthodox do not believe in the Latin Church’s EXPRESSION of the real presence in her doctrine of Transubstantiation. This term is a technical, theological/philosophical term which unites the Latin Church in the doctrine of the Real Presence.

On the other hand, you do not properly grasp the Orthodox view of the Real Presence or what it means by symbolic.

From the OCA website:

“The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood.”

"In the Orthodox view, all of reality—the world and man himself—is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us. Thus, the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God’s true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. "

Like the West, the East has a very Theological usage of the terms symbolic, which in Orthodox theology affirms and maintains the absolute REAL PRESENCE in the Eucharist.

From the OCA website:

"Thus, the bread of the eucharist is Christ’s flesh, and Christ’s flesh is the eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one. The word “symbolical” in Orthodox terminology means exactly this: “to bring together into one.” "

The Theology of the Real Presence is considered SO SIMILAR in its understanding of the Real Presence, that the Latin Church absolutely believes that the Orthodox DO HAVE the REAL PRESENCE in their Eucharistic celebration.


#16

You also have a basic misunderstanding of scripture, I suggest that you meet with your priest and tell him what you have told us. He will clear it up for you.


#17

[quote="jjkadavil, post:13, topic:328564"]
Let us be open to why the Eastern churches, which were also founded by Apostles and are very careful in being faithful to the apostolic traditions, do not believe in transubstantiation.
God bless...

[/quote]

You have misrepresented the eastern orthodox church. They believe in the Real Presence. Your position is also against Catholic teaching.


#18

Think of identical twins who have identical dna. They look exactly the same. But underneath... that which stands below what is visible, the sub-stance is not the same. One person is Bill, the other is Bob.

Similarly, the substance of bread and wine are trans-formed by trans-substantiation into Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. What was bread still appears as bread, just as Bob still looks like Bill. What was wine still appears as wine just Bill looks like Bob, but Bill and Bob are not substantially the same, just as the wine and bread before the consecration are the same as the bread and wine after the consecration.


#19

I had to report post #2 to the mods. It’s causing the whole thread to get messed up.

:shrug:


#20

[quote="irenaeuslyons, post:18, topic:328564"]
Think of identical twins who have identical dna. They look exactly the same. But underneath... that which stands below what is visible, the sub-stance is not the same. One person is Bill, the other is Bob.

Similarly, the substance of bread and wine are trans-formed by trans-substantiation into Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. What was bread still appears as bread, just as Bob still looks like Bill. What was wine still appears as wine just Bill looks like Bob, but Bill and Bob are not substantially the same, just as the wine and bread before the consecration are the same as the bread and wine after the consecration.

[/quote]

ugghhh ;) I meant not

"just as the wine and bread before the consecration are *NOT * the same as the bread and wine after the consecration."


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.