Transubstantiation is not biblical


#1

This first post of mine will mainly cover John Chapter 6, a chapter in which the Catholic church uses to support its doctrine of transubstantiation. I will cover the chapter in sections, verses 26-35, 36-47, 48-51, 52-58, 60-63.

Let me begin by saying that I am using scripture to shed light on something that is not scripture, transubstantiation. The last supper account nowhere near establishes this idea, nor does John Chapter 6, in fact all the evidence of the new testament points away from it. If we look at what Christ is conveying, it has to do with believing in him and his sacrifice on the cross.

John 6:26-35

Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Let us stop here and review what Christ has spoken to them. Jesus starts by explaining that the people there following him were only after the food and drink that satisfied their human natures. Prior to these verses Christ fed multitudes of people. He voices his concern that they do not look for eternal life, which are the words that he speaks that will be the food and drink that lead them to it. He says, “Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life,”. Then the people ask him, what do we need to do? And Jesus says, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” Jesus says to believe in him. This isn’t precursor to believing that they need to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood, it is believing that he is the Son of God and holds the words of everlasting life. That he is the light of the world and it is only through him that we are saved. John 6:40, “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day”. Those that do this are the ones that have eaten his flesh and drunken his blood. This faith in Christ, those that consume his word and believe, may have everlasting life and will be raised. In verses 32 and 33, Christ says, “Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.” This is directed to those present, and everything Christ has established points to believing in him to receive eternal life. He is in no way instructing them to literally eat his flesh and blood, but to believe in him and his death on the cross for their sins, which will give life to the world.

All of this preludes Christ’s message of, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” Christ has established that those who believe in him will have eternal life and be raised up. This in no way establishes a priestly sacrifice on an alter to obtain eternal life. It is through faith in Christ. The ritual in which the Roman church partakes does not enhance ones belief in Christ. It does not hold power over Christ’s sacrifice, it does not repeat it, it does not conjure him as a victim to offer over and over to God. In Hebrews 10:10-12, “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ** once for all**. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;” And Hebrews 10:16-18, "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." And Hebrews 9:12, it is written, “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in **once **into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” We know that he suffered and died for our sins, we believe his word and in whom sent him. This is eternal life, this is the bread that nourishes the soul, you can’t get it by putting something into your stomach. This is made overwhelmingly clear all throughout John Chapter 6.

Lets look at John 5:24, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life”. What does Christ say? He that hears his word and believes that he was sent by God has eternal life. Again, let us bring in John 6:35, “And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst”. This in no way points to actually eating his flesh and drinking his blood, it is extremely obvious that he is speaking of a symbolic hunger and thirst for truth and life. In John 6:47 Jesus says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life”. Again, everything Christ teaches his disciples and the crowds throughout all of the gospels has to do with believing in him to receive eternal life, not literally partaking in a ritual of his flesh and blood. Do you remember when Christ reminded the evil one that, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Christ’s words are that of Gods, these words bring nourishment to our soul. It is strongly established that eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood is direct symbolism for belief in his message of eternal life through his word and passion. This is apparent if we were to just look at John Chapter six, which I will continue to the rest of, but like I said, it is apparent throughout the gospels.

Lets continue further into John Chapter Six.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Notice in verse 47 Christ says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” The very next verse is, “I am that bread of life”. It is so apparently obvious here that Christ is speaking of them believing in him. This does not have to do with transubstantiation, or the actual eating of his flesh and blood, but to do with the belief that he was sent by God for the remission of our sins on the cross, that brings life into you! He isn’t speaking of a ritual, but belief in him as the way to salvation! Again, verse 40, “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

.


#2

Lets move on.

48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Lets focus on verses 49 and 51, (49) "Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead." (51) "The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world". Christ is alluding to his sacrifice and resurrection, that replaces any food which you can consume, which does not bring life. It is this that will give life to the world! He does not mean for you to conjure his flesh and blood to eat! Believe he was sent by God and believe in his death and resurrection on the cross! That is what you are consuming!

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Jesus always reminds them that the words that he is speaking are not his own, but the Fathers words. These words from God give life! "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." He means believe on him and the one who sent him! We see in John 12:44, "Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me." And in John 5:24, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life.." And in John 6:29, Jesus answered and said unto them, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." These are only a few examples, but we see the bridge that Christ has shown here. He shows that whoever believes that he is of the Father, will live.

Also, given the context of Christ's message, the verse, "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.", does not legitimize the literal eating of his flesh and drinking his blood. This again alludes to believing in him, as we can point out in really any verse from this chapter, but I will use John 6:35, "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst". Those that come to him are those that are eating his flesh, "he that cometh to me shall never hunger" and those that believe in him are the ones that drink his blood, because they proclaim faith in his death for our sins, "and he that believeth on me shall never thirst". It isn't literal.

Continuing...

John 6:60-63
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Right here, in John 6:63, we have an affirmation that we really don't need because we know what Christ means. Christ says in verse 63, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." So, the words that he speaks are spirit and life! He is the word that came down from heaven, this is his bread that gives life, believing in him and his passion for sins! He isn't saying there is an instruction to literally eat his flesh and blood to gain eternal life!

The only way in which the Catholic church's position is established is through man made doctrine. In fact, it contradicts the gospels and the nature of Christ's message of salvation, and the nature on which it was completed


#3

[quote="Paulcor, post:2, topic:296709"]
Believe he was sent by God and believe in his death and resurrection on the cross! That is what you are consuming!

[/quote]

I appreciate all the work here, but analysis like the above come down to one thing––that's not what the text says. Simply telling us "it isn't literal" does not change what the text does say. And if we fast foward to John 6:66, it is the people who refused to take Jesus literally who are the ones that abandon him. Why if it was so plain that Jesus meant a symbolic eating would it be such a hard saying to accept, as those who abandoned him lamented. The confusion of the audience is nonsensical if Jesus meant to simply believe in him just as the Jews had believed in God for so long. For that and a multitude of reasons, the symbolic-only interpretation of John 6 thus cannot stand as sound interpretation in accord with the text.

Further, Paul tells us that in the bread, we must see Christ's body:1 Cor. 11:27-29 Whoever, therefore, **eats the bread or drinks the cup* of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.*See bread with your eyes. Discern the body. The bread is his body, seen only with the eyes of faith.

Anyway, you'll probably have your hands full of replies by the time this one's over. Your post is extremely common here. Welcome to the forums though!


#4

Every time Jesus' listeners misunderstand Him in the Bible, He corrects them. He doesn't let them walk away based on failure to comprehend his words. Yet here, when He says that they have to eat His flesh and drink His blood, the Bible tells us that they understood Him literally -- and He failed to correct them! He let them walk away from His teaching!

I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.

And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.

John 6:51-67.

Your theology would have us believe that Jesus deliberately misled His followers. And, please, tell us what happens to people who walk away from Him?

He flatly said "For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed." If you're right, He was lying, and He deliberately let His own followers go to Hell. That is not the Jesus taught in the Bible.


#5

[quote="MarcoPolo, post:3, topic:296709"]
I appreciate all the work here, but analysis like the above come down to one thing––that's not what the text says. Simply telling us "it isn't literal" does not change what the text does say. And if we fast foward to John 6:66, it is the people who refused to take Jesus literally who are the ones that abandon him. Why if it was so plain that Jesus meant a symbolic eating would it be such a hard saying to accept, as those who abandoned him lamented. The confusion of the audience is nonsensical if Jesus meant to simply believe in him just as the Jews had believed in God for so long. For that and a multitude of reasons, the symbolic-only interpretation of John 6 thus cannot stand as sound interpretation in accord with the text.

[/quote]

I agree. The OP has conveniently left out the last part of chapter 6, which blows a gaping hole through the entire theory. If Jesus didn't mean what He said literally, then why did many of His disciples abandon Him? And why didn't Jesus call them back and explain that He was only speaking metaphorically?

No, Christ made it exceedingly clear that He was speaking literally, and He knew that many would not accept the teaching.

"For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." John 6:65

Of course, when we see that the two posts above are the OP's only ones so far, and they're preaching a lengthy sermon with the intent to undermine our Catholic faith...there's probably not much I can say to change his/her opinion. :rolleyes: I'll pray that God allows Paulcor to do some listening on these forums, as well as preaching.


#6

"Transubstantiation" is based on Greek philosphical thought, used by the early Church Fathers to explain what Christ meant when he said "This is my body."

Newsflash! He actually meant it!:eek:

Telling us "Transubstantiation" is not biblical hardly rocks our faith:p

That's why we have a magisterium.

Stick around you'll learn these things.:thumbsup:


#7

[quote="Paulcor, post:2, topic:296709"]
Lets move on.

48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Lets focus on verses 49 and 51, (49) "Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead." (51) "The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world". Christ is alluding to his sacrifice and resurrection, that replaces any food which you can consume, which does not bring life. It is this that will give life to the world! He does not mean for you to conjure his flesh and blood to eat! Believe he was sent by God and believe in his death and resurrection on the cross! That is what you are consuming!

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Jesus always reminds them that the words that he is speaking are not his own, but the Fathers words. These words from God give life! "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." He means believe on him and the one who sent him! We see in John 12:44, "Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me." And in John 5:24, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life.." And in John 6:29, Jesus answered and said unto them, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." These are only a few examples, but we see the bridge that Christ has shown here. He shows that whoever believes that he is of the Father, will live.

Also, given the context of Christ's message, the verse, "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.", does not legitimize the literal eating of his flesh and drinking his blood. This again alludes to believing in him, as we can point out in really any verse from this chapter, but I will use John 6:35, "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst". Those that come to him are those that are eating his flesh, "he that cometh to me shall never hunger" and those that believe in him are the ones that drink his blood, because they proclaim faith in his death for our sins, "and he that believeth on me shall never thirst". It isn't literal.

Continuing...

John 6:60-63
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Right here, in John 6:63, we have an affirmation that we really don't need because we know what Christ means. Christ says in verse 63, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." So, the words that he speaks are spirit and life! He is the word that came down from heaven, this is his bread that gives life, believing in him and his passion for sins! He isn't saying there is an instruction to literally eat his flesh and blood to gain eternal life!

The only way in which the Catholic church's position is established is through man made doctrine. In fact, it contradicts the gospels and the nature of Christ's message of salvation, and the nature on which it was completed

[/quote]

Jesus was always clear about his teachings; if someone didn't understand something in parable form, he'd go back and explain.

He did not do so when he told his disciples that they were to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood. Many of them left because they couldn't take it...as many have left in modern times.

Your premise is flawed from the beginning. You are wrong.


#8

[quote="MarcoPolo, post:3, topic:296709"]
I appreciate all the work here, but analysis like the above come down to one thing––that's not what the text says. Simply telling us "it isn't literal" does not change what the text does say. And if we fast foward to John 6:66, it is the people who refused to take Jesus literally who are the ones that abandon him. Why if it was so plain that Jesus meant a symbolic eating would it be such a hard saying to accept, as those who abandoned him lamented. The confusion of the audience is nonsensical if Jesus meant to simply believe in him just as the Jews had believed in God for so long. For that and a multitude of reasons, the symbolic-only interpretation of John 6 thus cannot stand as sound interpretation in accord with the text.

Further, Paul tells us that in the bread, we must see Christ's body:1 Cor. 11:27-29 Whoever, therefore, **eats the bread or drinks the cup** of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.See bread with your eyes. Discern the body. The bread is his body, seen only with the eyes of faith.

Anyway, you'll probably have your hands full of replies by the time this one's over. Your post is extremely common here. Welcome to the forums though!

[/quote]

Wow, well put!


#9

[quote="Paulcor, post:1, topic:296709"]
This first post of mine will mainly cover John Chapter 6, a chapter in which the Catholic church uses to support its doctrine of transubstantiation.

I think you have this wrong. It is used to confirm the doctrine of the Real Presence, not transubstantation.

catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/TheSacraments/Articles/TransubstantiationExplained.aspx

catholicapologetics.org/ap060500.htm

Transubstantiation
The Roman Catholic Church through history approached her faith life with the clarification of language. That is, she translated the essentials of revealed faith into the vocabulary of living language.

To the revealed Word that there is "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" the Church labeled the belief "Trinity."
To the revealed Word that the "Son of God became man" the Church labeled the belief "Incarnation."
To the revealed Word that the "blood of Christ spilled on Calvary saved us" the Church labeled the belief "Redemption."
To the revealed Word that "my flesh is true food, my blood is true drink" the Church labeled the belief "Transubstantiation."
Transubstantiation reflects Roman Catholic faith in the literalness of the words of the Bible.

Jesus (omnipotent God) said: "This is my body; this is my blood." And again Jesus said: "I am the bread of life;" "My flesh is true food; my blood is true drink;" "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood ...;" etc.

Roman Catholics take Jesus at His word: the bread is his body; the wine is his blood.

Let me begin by saying that I am using scripture to shed light on something that is not scripture, transubstantiation.

Well, I would suggest...first prove where the Bible states that everthing one has to know is contained in the Bible.

Otherwise, how could Scripture interpret itself? How could Scripture prove something that is not there?

The last supper account nowhere near establishes this idea, nor does John Chapter 6, in fact all the evidence of the new testament points away from it.

As a matter of fact...it is actually your interpretation...or someelses that you picked up......so the question really is...why makes your interpretation correct?

[/quote]


#10

Terribly inaccurate. I shot down most all of this stuff years ago, right here on CAF. You'll see that original thread at The Eucharist IS Scriptural!

It became one of many Catholic articles on my blog.
The Eucharist IS Scriptural

Do you really think that yours is the first errant attack on this?

Speaking of doctrines that are not in the Bible; you'd be better off examining your own belief that everything that Christians believe and practice has to be based in the Bible, which we have also discussed/debated and you can read it in the following 2 threads. It's NOT in the Bible, okay? and It's NOT in the Bible, okay? (Part II). The 2nd one is still open so by all means take a swing, but I'd suggest that you read both before you do because I don't think you can provide the scriptural evidence because it's not there.

It's really sad that so many n-C Christians believe and propagate so many unscriptural doctrines. I believed what I was told for many years too, but it's great to actually follow what the Word of God really says and not something some modern preacher, teacher, or author puts forth.


#11

i dont know that you could actually argue that the doctrine on transubstantiation is actually wrong, how would it actually be able to be disproven?
from what i am aware of the doctrine of transubstantiation was drawn up from the bible to explain the presence in the eucharist, and that in discerning the body alls you would have to do is descern the presence of the body of jesus which was the sacrifice on the cross!
i guess what it comes down to and which seems to me to be a problem between people is understanding what is meant by discerning the body? is it meant that the body consists of the teaching of jesus? or is it literrally his flesh? one is catholic and the other is more protestant. and as far as im aware i had thought that the body was the teaching of jesus
and the blood was the sacrifice, but i actually was never formally taught anything regarding scripture or of the acknowledgement of the spirit i had to learn to discern truth on my own and also to discern spirit and their seems to be a misunderstanding of the teachings, on both sides but i would probably lean more to the catholic side of the arguement and that the discerning of the body is the acknowledgement of the son of mans flesh.


#12

[quote="Paulcor, post:1, topic:296709"]
This first post of mine will mainly cover John Chapter 6, a chapter in which the Catholic church uses to support its doctrine of transubstantiation. I will cover the chapter in sections, verses 26-35, 36-47, 48-51, 52-58, 60-63.

Let me begin by saying that I am using scripture to shed light on something that is not scripture, transubstantiation......

.

[/quote]

We Catholics believe it`s much safer to follow the teachings of the almost-2,000-years-old Holy Spirit-guided Church, than to follow the opinion of someone who has sat down and "read his Bible" and decided he can interpret it more accurately than the Church, inspired members of which WROTE the New Testament, can.
The Church was there! And she can trace her history right back to the beginning!

"It does not compute!" :shrug:


#13

Those are a lot of words paulcor (and interesting) but transubstantiation is biblical, "this is my body", and the idea of eating Jesus' body did offend many even before Jesus died on the Cross.


#14

Oh my dear, what an error.

When we open our hearts and read the Word of God as humble, little children, we will certainly not come to such conclusion.

LUKE 10:21- 23
In the same hour, he exulted in the Holy Spirit, and he said: “I confess to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the prudent, and have revealed them to little ones. It is so, Father, because this way was pleasing before you.
{10:22} All things have been delivered to me by my Father. And no one knows who the Son is, except the Father, and who the Father is, except the Son, and those to whom the Son has chosen to reveal him.”
{10:23} And turning to his disciples, he said: “Blessed are the eyes that see what you see.

Transubstantiation is Jesus becoming real food and real drink to us during the consecration and after in communion I receive Jesus into my stomach were he becomes part of me and I part of him. I am Gods creature and am part of him. The greatest gift ever, thanks to Jesus and His Catholic Church. I am a bride of Jesus. How fortunate I am to have such an awesome God. Rejoice!!!:)


#15

[quote="andreashofer, post:14, topic:296709"]
Oh my dear, what an error.

When we open our hearts and read the Word of God as humble, little children, we will certainly not come to such conclusion.

LUKE 10:21- 23
In the same hour, he exulted in the Holy Spirit, and he said: “I confess to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the prudent, and have revealed them to little ones. It is so, Father, because this way was pleasing before you.
{10:22} All things have been delivered to me by my Father. And no one knows who the Son is, except the Father, and who the Father is, except the Son, and those to whom the Son has chosen to reveal him.”
{10:23} And turning to his disciples, he said: “Blessed are the eyes that see what you see.

Transubstantiation is Jesus becoming real food and real drink to us during the consecration and after in communion I receive Jesus into my stomach were he becomes part of me and I part of him. I am Gods creature and am part of him. The greatest gift ever, thanks to Jesus and His Catholic Church. I am a bride of Jesus. How fortunate I am to have such an awesome God. Rejoice!!!:)

[/quote]

You had better watch out he might think that you are a cannibal!!!!:)
if i were him i probably wouldnt worry about it, he doesnt appear to know what you mean when you say real food and real drink.


#16

I agree with you.
Jesus handed out bread and wine at the passover meal to his group of friends/followers (that was a normal thing to do, yes?) and told his disciples to do it "in remembrance" of him.

Anything after that, I guess, was interpreted by the Catholic church?


#17

Well, to put it simply - You are wrong.

This is perhaps the oldest and most frequent objection to a Catholic Doctrine asserted by sola scriptura Protestant folks. Ironically enough, Sacred Scripture proves that you are wrong. Visit this site on the Real Presence for a thorough and very biblical explanation of the Eucharist and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html

How about this one:

“Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.’” (Mt. 26:26-28)

There is nothing that would contextually suggest that Christ was speaking figuratively here. So, if you really want to “consume his words” then you are calling Christ a liar.

I will pray that you see the Truth and come home to the Holy Catholic Church. We’re waiting for you with open arms. God Bless.


#18

And furthermore... on top of everything else that has already been said which makes it so clear, there is so much more to reinforce it.

For instance...

"Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?" :thumbsup:

"... So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves."


#19

If you want something Biblical, look at the word "anamnesis" and see what it means and how it is used in the Bible particularly in the Old Testament.

I will admit that transubstantiation is more of a philosophical reasoning in trying to explain what happens with the Eucharist. But it is not the be-all, end-all of the Eucharist. Whether you use the reasoning employed by Transubstantiation or not, it doesn't detract from the fact that the Eucharist is indeed the Body and Blood of Christ.


#20

[quote="DaddyGirl, post:16, topic:296709"]
I agree with you.
Jesus handed out bread and wine at the passover meal to his group of friends/followers (that was a normal thing to do, yes?) and told his disciples to do it "in remembrance" of him.

Anything after that, I guess, was interpreted by the Catholic church?

[/quote]

The fact that from a historical-critical view, the Last Supper is one of the best-attested facts in Jesus' life (Paul records it, as do the synoptics) suggest that it was something the early Christians thought to be worth preserving and talking about. John doesn't have an institution narrative, but the feeding of the five thousand men (one of the few pericopes which all four gospels share) and the subsequent discourse is pregnant with Eucharistic imagery.


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.