ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Transubstantiation In Christianity

Is transubstantiation a universal belief by all the pre-Reformation Churches, or is it just Roman Catholics that believe this?

Monk Brendan

Join Our Free Chat and Take The Who Is Jesus Bible Quiz
 ---Monk_Brendan on 1/26/16
     Helpful Blog Vote (3)

Post a New Blog



Because the world has become too educated, christians have made living the christian life too complicated. Why not love God by just obeying the ten commandments. Or is that too simple?
---Steveng on 2/7/16


Okay John, here it is. "This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink, but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus." (St. Justin Martyr, "First Apology", Ch. 66)
---Monk_Brendan on 2/7/16


john9346:

You wrote to Monk_Brendan: I seriously remind you sir only heretics in the history of the church held this position you are promulgating.

The problem with calling someone a heretic is, who gets to adjudicate who is a heretic and who isn't? Calvin called Catholics heretics, while Catholics called Calvin a heretic. Who was right, and how can we which is which? You can't say "the side who agrees with scripture", because both sides will claim they do. Unfortunately, short of God speaking from heaven and saying "this is my servant in whom I am well pleased", there is no objective test.
---StrongAxe on 2/7/16


\\1. I am still waiting for Cluny to provide the greek word in john 6 that teaches Prophetic to transubstantiation? \\

Your question assumes that all prophecy is predictive. This is not so, so your question is meaningless.

\\2. I am still waiting for cluny and brendan to provide in context church fathers who believed and taught transubstantiation? Note context and not just a quotation.\\

I have repeatedly said on these blogs that Real Presence and Transubstantiation are not the same things. It is useless to answer your question until you understand the difference.

Now, can you provide a quote from a church father that DENIES the bread somehow becomes the Body of Christ?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/7/16


To recap:


1. I am still waiting for Cluny to provide the greek word in john 6 that teaches Prophetic to transubstantiation?

2. I am still waiting for cluny and brendan to provide in context church fathers who believed and taught transubstantiation? Note context and not just a quotation.

3. Throughout this dialog, I hope everyone can see how Brendan and Cluny demonstrate unequivocally that the Scriptures are not, "Theopneustos."
---john on 2/7/16




Brendan you said, "Obviously not! But if you want to make it easy, why not just make the scrolls appear, already written? why not shower down copies of the King James version, fully bound in red leather, with thumb indexing, with five ribbons in assorted colors."

A Christian Philosopher once said, "It is not more evidence we need, its what will we do with the evidence we already have."

I seriously remind you sir only heretics in the history of the church held this position you are promulgating.
---john9346 on 2/7/16


Well, this blog certainly has been yet another fruitless exercise in religious "tail chasing" & futility (pointless monkey business). smh
---Leon on 2/6/16


John 9346 said, "Is God so weak that he cant even preserve his own word really as you are stating... Obviously not! But if you want to make it easy, why not just make the scrolls appear, already written?

On another post, you corrected someone in saying that nothing is impossible with God.

If he cant preserve his own word, then there is something impossible for God after all.


Again, why not shower down copies of the King James version, fully bound in red leather, with thumb indexing, with five ribbons in assorted colors. Because He is God, He can do it!

Pray for me,
Monk Brendan
---Monk_Brendan on 2/5/16


Brendan you said, "
If God wrote it all down, what language did He use to write it? If He was dictating to them, what happened if they made a mistake, or ran out of parchment, or broke a quill? These things do happen, you know."

Sir, is not God God??

Is God so weak that he cant even preserve his own word really as you are stating...

On another post, you corrected someone in saying that nothing is impossible with God.

If he cant preserve his own word, then there is something impossible for God after all.
---john9346 on 2/5/16


Cluny:

You wrote: I believe the Bible says what it means and means what it says.

Yes, but it also says Jesus was a vine, yet he gave no grapes nor wood.
It also says he is the lamb, yet he gave no wool.
He is the morning star, but he didn't have fusion that vaporized the earth.
He is the Alpha and Omega, yet doesn't occur at the beginning or end of any dictionary.

Yes, it means what is says, but in what CONTEXT does it mean it? Literally? If so, then Genesis 1 took 168 hours, yet you have repeatedly said that you don't believe that (or many other things) literally. Why is this one thing so very different from all the others?
---StrongAxe on 2/5/16




Thank you Strong Ax. We disagree on what is meant.

I just read how the Leader of the Russian Orthodox is meeting with the Pope. They are going to work on healing the split from 1054.

But the list of differences maybe too great to overcome.
---Samuelbb7 on 2/5/16


St. Cyril of Jerusalem on the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

"Contemplate therefore the Bread and Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ, for though sense suggests this to thee, let faith stablish thee. Judge not the matter from taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that thou hast been vouchsafed the Body and Blood of Christ."

Pray for me,
Monk Brendan
---Monk_Brendan on 2/5/16


\\The issue here isn't believing what the words SAY, because none of us dispute that. The difference of opinion is what those words actually MEAN in the context in which they are given.
\\

I believe the Bible says what it means and means what it says.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/5/16


God is absolute Truth. There is no one among the people that jump to ATTACK mode when I post that can possibly prove to me that all the men who were part of writing the Bible were taking it down in shorthand. I tell you that God worked through men, using their free will, their understanding, their intellect, and their passions.

If God wrote it all down, what language did He use to write it? If He was dictating to them, what happened if they made a mistake, or ran out of parchment, or broke a quill? These things do happen, you know.

Pray for me!
Monk Brendan
---Monk_Brendan on 2/5/16


Cluny:

You wrote: I'll believe our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ and His holy Word.

The issue here isn't believing what the words SAY, because none of us dispute that. The difference of opinion is what those words actually MEAN in the context in which they are given.
---StrongAxe on 2/5/16


Brendan,

Justin clarifies his 1st Apology 66 by saying the following:


the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).
---john9346 on 2/5/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


Where do you sacrifice YOUR Pesach lambs, Mark?
---Cluny on 2/4/16

The point is, we no longer need to.

We no longer need to kill the lamb, eat the Pesach, or to apply the Blood.

Jesus told us that the Pesach would be fulfilled in the kingdom of God, and I believe Jesus fulfilled the Pesach by His death, burial, and resurrection.

One sacrifice, the last sacrifice, for all people, for all time.
---Mark_Eaton on 2/4/16


\\We forget the Jewishness of Jesus and the Apostles. They were celebrating Pesach, the Seder, a meal symbolizing the Exodus and Salvation of the Jewish people. \\

There is some argument whether the Last Supper was in fact a Seder, because Christ was crucified at the moment the Paschal victims were being slaughtered, according to St. John's gospel.

jerry, are you going to call "Pesach" and "Seder" psychobabble?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/4/16


\\So the Eucharist remembers that Jesus for all time became the perfect Pesach lamb.\\

I'm not arguing against that.

Where do you sacrifice YOUR Pesach lambs, Mark?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/4/16


If you can believe that NOTHING HAPPENED, your faith is stronger than mine.
---Cluny on 2/3/16

Let me try this one more thing and then I will quit my nagging.

We forget the Jewishness of Jesus and the Apostles. They were celebrating Pesach, the Seder, a meal symbolizing the Exodus and Salvation of the Jewish people.

Jesus added to this symbolic meal when He had them "do this in remembrance of Me" so that they would know and remember that His body was the Passover Lamb, and His blood was the blood applied so God would pass over our sin.

So the Eucharist remembers that Jesus for all time became the perfect Pesach lamb.
---Mark_Eaton on 2/4/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


\\God Incarnate said "I am the true vine" but He has no grapes on Him.

God Incarnate said "I am the living water" but you will not get your feet wet.

God Incarnate said "I am the bread of heaven" but you cannot make a sandwich.\\

The classical Patristic exegeses of these passages has been to PROVE the real presence.

Try again.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/4/16


John 9346, Here is one such.

St. Justin Martyr in his 1st Apology said, "but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

There are too many more, and I have no more room.

Monk Brendan
---Monk_Brendan on 2/4/16


Strongaxe said, "All the other examples you gave were imperatives, commands about what he wanted to happen in the future (which subsequently did), but this is an indicative statement of fact in the present tense, so it can't really be lumped in with them to make an analogy. He didn't say "Let this be my body and blood".

But it is an imperative! Jesus did not need to say "Let this be Body and Blood."

He was talking about an accomplishment. After the storm had passed, He didn't need to say to wind and waves "you are stilled."

Another imperative was "Do this..."

Monk Brendan
---Monk_Brendan on 2/4/16


You all believe what you want to believe.

I'll believe our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ and His holy Word.

Glory to Him!
---Cluny on 2/4/16


Send a Free St Patrick's Day Ecard


Brendan states, "John, all of the things you say are erroneous have, in fact, been believed since the time of the Apostles."

Ok, so, give me 1 church father who taught and believed such dogmas along with quotation in context sir??

Just like on another blog the assumption of mary was condemned because the teaching was originally found in an Apocryphal Writings your own source confirms fact...
---john9346 on 2/3/16


Cluny your responses,

"John 6 is a foreshadowing--prophecy, if you like--of the Eucharist."

And where did the author of John use prophetic language in this chapter please cite the greek word?

"I've already given one--St. Ignatius of Antioch."

Yes, but the context of Smyrnaeans 6 doesn't agree with your interpretation as Previously Stated. Remember, I asked for context.

Please cite in context where Cyril of jerusalem specifically states this as you say?

Please give context where Athanasius states as you claim?


Cluny, remember, there must be an unanimous Consistency of the church fathers on something for it to be believe?
---john on 2/3/16


Cluny:

You wrote: God Incarnate said over bread and wine, "This is My Body and Blood."

All the other examples you gave were imperatives, commands about what he wanted to happen in the future (which subsequently did), but this is an indicative statement of fact in the present tense, so it can't really be lumped in with them to make an analogy. He didn't say "Let this be my body and blood".
---StrongAxe on 2/3/16


God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
---Cluny on 2/3/16

Back at you with a list of His metaphors:

God Incarnate said "I am the door to the sheep" but don't look for the door knob.

God Incarnate said "I am the true vine" but He has no grapes on Him.

God Incarnate said "I am the living water" but you will not get your feet wet.

God Incarnate said "I am the bread of heaven" but you cannot make a sandwich.

God Incarnate said "I am the light of the world" but you will still need a flashlight.

God Incarnate said "I am the Good Shepherd" but He was not talking about sheep.
---Mark_Eaton on 2/3/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


\\BCV please, for Jesus talking about the bread and wine
BECOMING His body and blood. \\

God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

God Incarnate said, "Demons, depart," and they departed.

God Incarnate said to the sick, "Be healed," and they were healed.

God Incarnate said to blind eyes and deaf ears, "Be opened," and they were.

God Incarnate said to the sea and storm, "Peace! Be still," and they were stilled.

God Incarnate said over bread and wine, "This is My Body and Blood."

If you can believe that NOTHING HAPPENED, your faith is stronger than mine.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/3/16


John 9346 said, "This is erroneous.
The church of 100 AD did not believe and teach the following dogmas ...:
Mary's perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, assumption, co-redemptrix, and mediatrix.
papal primacy and infallibility, the priesthood, purgatory, indulgences, treasury of merit, the eucharist, and the mass.
Iconography, Sola Ekklesia, and theosis.
This church was not the Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, various Orthodox Denominations, Coptic, etc."


John, all of the things you say are erroneous have, in fact, been believed since the time of the Apostles.

Except for Mary being co-redemptrix. That is something that none of the Pre-Reformation have ever taught.
---Monk_Brendan on 2/3/16


When Jesus was talking about the Bread and Wine becoming His Body and Blood, He was not speaking in metaphor.
---Monk_Brendan on 2/2/16

BCV please, for Jesus talking about the bread and wine
BECOMING His body and blood.

I feel this is the beginning of the error. Even in the way you speak about the event.

Jesus never spoke about the bread and wine becoming anything. He said plainly "take eat, this is my body" or "drink for this is my blood".

However, according to your dogma, the elements had already changed. When did that happen? When Jesus touched them? When Jesus broke the bread or opened the wine? When they were dining? Before Judas left?
---Mark_Eaton on 2/3/16


\\The Lord's Supper wasn't even around or instituted in John chapter 6.\\

John 6 is a foreshadowing--prophecy, if you like--of the Eucharist.

\\Please give us 1 orthodox believer who believe this and cite where they said this in context??
---john9346 on 2/3/16\\

Me. I'm Orthodox, and I believe it.

So do the millions of Orthodox Christians, to say nothing of Copts, Armenians, Syriacs, and Roman and Eastern Catholics.

**Cluny, please give us 1 church father who said this and taught this and believe this...
---john on 2/3/16**

I've already given one--St. Ignatius of Antioch. Someone else instanced St. Athanasius. There's also St. Cyril of Jerusalem.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/3/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


It was those nasty old Patristic fathers you so despise who gave you the very Bible to which you appeal.
---Cluny on 2/2/16

I do not despise the Patristic fathers. Rather, I respect, venerate, and study their influence on our beliefs.

I have immense respect for Athanasius in his defense of the Trinity, respect for Irenaeus in his defense against Gnosticism, and of course Augustine. But I disagree with Augustine because he incorporates many Greek "beliefs" into Christianity.

But the Patristic fathers must be seen as men, and men can be wrong. Look at Origen and Tertullian. Both brilliant learned men, trained in the same Scripture and Tradition as others but whose beliefs were later declared heretical.
---Mark_Eaton on 2/3/16


Brendan states, "
It never was symbolic! When Jesus was talking about the Bread and Wine becoming His Body and Blood, He was not speaking in metaphor. Rather, He was talking about His real Body and His real Blood. It has always been believed that way by all of the orthodox believers, all the way down from 2000 years ago."

The Lord's Supper wasn't even around or instituted in John chapter 6.


Please give us 1 orthodox believer who believe this and cite where they said this in context??
---john9346 on 2/3/16


Cluny states, "It was those nasty old Patristic fathers you so despise who gave you the very Bible to which you appeal."

Cluny, please give us 1 church father who said this and taught this and believe this please cite for us in context their statement so we can go look it up??
---john on 2/3/16


The problem for you Monk Brendan is that many time Jesus spoke symbolically. So your insistence that he is literal here is not supported. You have the right to believe that it is literal.

Do you condemn as lost those who see it as Spiritual and symbolic.
---Samuelbb7 on 2/3/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


///...Taking the Bread & Wine to remember Christ is a Spiritual experience that needs no temporal change in it. God Bless---Darlene_1 on 1/31/16///

You're absolutely Scripture correct Darlene! In Luke 22:19, Jesus said, "Do this is in memory of me." Having been instructed by Him for 3 years the disciples knew He was speaking of Himself regarding Jn. 6:35, i.e., "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be HUNGRY again. Whoever believes in me will never THIRST." Jesus wanted his disciples to "REMEMBER WHY" they were eating the bread & drinking the wine.

Cannibalism? No! That's doctrinal heresy. Symbolism? Most definitely!!!
---Leon on 2/2/16


Darlene said, " How did the Bread and Blood get from being symbolic for Christs Flesh and Blood to changing to real Blood and Flesh?"

It never was symbolic! When Jesus was talking about the Bread and Wine becoming His Body and Blood, He was not speaking in metaphor. Rather, He was talking about His real Body and His real Blood. It has always been believed that way by all of the orthodox believers, all the way down from 2000 years ago.

Monk Brendan
---Monk_Brendan on 2/2/16


Brendan states, "The early Christian Church (there was only the one in 100 A.D.) is the same Church that became both Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Orthodox of various flavors, plus Coptic, etc."

This is erroneous.

The church of 100 AD did not believe and teach the following dogmas and would have anathematize such dogmas:

Mary's perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, assumption, co-redemptrix, and mediatrix.

papal primacy and infallibility, the priesthood, purgatory, indulgences, treasury of merit, the eucharist, and the mass.

Iconography, Sola Ekklesia, and theosis.

This church was not the Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, various Orthodox Denominations, Coptic, etc.

---john9346 on 2/2/16


Samuelbb7 said, "I need to so some research."

Samuel, first, your correct the rcc didn't exist until 1054 AD

transubstantiation wasn't declared dogma until 1215 AD at the Fourth Lateran Council.

If you would e-mail me, I can recommend Several Sources/authorities to aid you in doing research.
---john on 2/2/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


\\ I believe Athanasius to be the first to put into writing that the bread and wine "change"\\

And the Bible says you can believe a lie and be damned.

It was those nasty old Patristic fathers you so despise who gave you the very Bible to which you appeal.

Who do you think God worked through to let us know what should be in the Bible and what should not be?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/2/16


you believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.
---Cluny on 2/1/16

You know I do not.

You know that I believe the dogma was a creation of man, that the Patristic fathers created this dogma, that the Apostles did not teach it to them, and that it was derived out of their own desire to fight heretics.

You also know, that I believe Athanasius to be the first to put into writing that the bread and wine "change", that they are somehow different after prayers on the altar. This is the beginning of the "Presence", 3 to 4 hundred years after Jesus.
---Mark_Eaton on 2/2/16


\\But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine and thus His Body is confected"\\

BTW, this would be consubstantiation--assuming the English is accurate.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/2/16


Thank you cluny. I looked up the differences like you suggested. I agree with the Methodist radical reformers.

Agape
---Samuelbb7 on 2/1/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis


Cluny said, "I didn't say he did, john." "Do you grasp the difference between Real Presence and Transubstantiation yet?"

First, the topic question asks about transubstantiation not real presence.

You yourself should know that through out church history the 2 views presented were material and spiritual.

The didache refers to the Lord's Supper as spiritual food and drink.

Eusebius of Caesarea wrote that John 6 referencing Jesus's Flesh and Blood is symbolic.
---john9346 on 2/1/16


\\You are right. I believe the dogma started with Athanasius. ..."Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine and thus His Body is confected"\\

In other words, Mark, you believe, as St. Athanasius said, that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/1/16


Ignatius did not teach transubstantiation.
---john9346 on 2/1/16

You are right. I believe the dogma started with Athanasius. In his Sermon to the Newly Baptized he says:

"Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine and thus His Body is confected"
---Mark_Eaton on 2/1/16


\\Ignatius did not teach transubstantiation.\\

I didn't say he did, john.

Do you grasp the difference between Real Presence and Transubstantiation yet?

If you don't, please read my previous posts, or else go to everyone's favorite search engine and look it up. You will be presented with the distinction between Real Presence, Transubstantiation, and Consubstantiation.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/1/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma


Darlene,

Ignatius did not teach transubstantiation.

Cluny is referencing a quote that in context, he is defending against docetism which believed Jesus did not exist physically.


"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again."

Ignatius letter to the Smyrnaeans chapter 6.
---john9346 on 2/1/16


In one of them he specifically said, "The Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Christ."
---Cluny on 1/31/16

What you are attempting to quote is from the Letter to the Smyrnaeans in which Ignatius says "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins".

The letter says nothing about the "Presence" in the elements.

As I have stated before, I do not believe these heretics were denying the elements had the "Presence" of Jesus in them. I believe that these heretics were denying that the elements were Jesus in any manner, symbolically, spiritually, or physically.
---Mark_Eaton on 2/1/16


All of the church fathers didn't agree on transubstantiation.

example below:


[The sacraments] bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood (Augustine, Letter 98, From Augustine to Boniface).
---john on 2/1/16


\\When did the term transubstantiation come to be?\\

I believe it was shortly before Thomas Aquinas.

You do understand that "Real Presence" and "Transubstantiation" are not the same things, I hope.

++unless there is a passage in the Bible that says God will change man made bread and wine into actual flesh and blood I can't receive it. ++

Try the accounts of the Last Supper in the Gospels.

"How can Jesus give us His flesh to eat?" was the same question asked by the very people in John 6 who "walked with Jesus no more."

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/1/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol


Samuel BB said, "By the Way the RCC did not exist in the 100's. Neither did the Orthodox.

I need to so some research."


Please research. The early Christian Church (there was only the one in 100 A.D.) is the same Church that became both Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Orthodox of various flavors, plus Coptic, etc. Take a look at some unbiased books on the subject (i.e. books on Church History, as opposed to SDA books.)

Monk Brendan
---Monk_Brendan on 2/1/16


It is important to note that the rcc didn't make transubstantiation a dogma until 1215 through out church history there is never an unanimous agreement on what the council of trent made a requirement for salvation.

---john9346 on 1/24/16




---john9346 on 2/1/16


When did the term transubstantiation come to be? I need to check. But your statement does not prove all Christians taught that it was the real body and blood.

By the Way the RCC did not exist in the 100's. Neither did the Orthodox.

I need to so some research.

Agape
---Samuelbb7 on 2/1/16


Cluny thank you for your answer but to be honest Saint Antioch means nothing to me nor does anything he wrote. I don't say that out of disrespect for him or you but unless there is a passage in the Bible that says God will change man made bread and wine into actual flesh and blood I can't receive it. It is just not in what I learned only from the Bible to me it is all Spiritual and to remember Christ. I''m done I can't see why Christ would want us to eat actual blood when the Bible forbids it. God Bless Please pray for my husband he is 82 and I had to get an ambulance to take him to the hospital emergency last night he had a stroke,he is in stage 4. Thank you
---Darlene_1 on 2/1/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery


\\ How did the Bread and Blood get from being symbolic for Christs Flesh and Blood to changing to real Blood and Flesh? \\

It never was merely symbolic, nor was it ever understood to be so.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, who died for Christ in the 100's, wrote a series of letters on his way to martyrdom. In one of them he specifically said, "The Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Christ."

It was never a late Roman Catholic invention, because churches in the far east, such as India, believed this, and still do.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/31/16


Monk Brendan I am not trying to argue just understand. How did the Bread and Blood get from being symbolic for Christs Flesh and Blood to changing to real Blood and Flesh? The first time Jesus told the Apostles to take the Bread and Wine in remembrance of Him and He said it is His body and blood but he didn't say now this is going to turn to my real flesh and blood when you do it. Now when every Christian takes them they Spiritually become flesh and blood but not in reality for that space and time. Most confusing. Taking the Bread and Wine to remember Christ is a Spiritual experience that needs no temporal change in it. God Bless
---Darlene_1 on 1/31/16


First of all, I am talking about the Real Presence of Jesus being the spiritual substance of the Eucharist.

Just as a Bible is nothing more than paper and ink, without the ability to impart any spiritual significance (and no, I am not putting down the Bible in any way, one has to read it to gain the spiritual understanding), just so, the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus.

This was made very clear in all four of the Gospels, and prophecy from the Old Testament, as well as Paul's first letter to the Corinthians.

Monk Brendan
---Monk_Brendan on 1/30/16


\\My understanding is and Cluny can correct me. They are more of a confederation. \\

Quite right, Samuel.

The local Orthodox Churches (Greece, Constantinople, Russia, and the rest) are held together by mutual love and faith, and not by jurisdictional structure.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/30/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion


When I was younger I was surprised to find out that more then one Church called itself Roman Catholic. There are also a number of Orthodox churches. Greek, Russian and others. My understanding is and Cluny can correct me. They are more of a confederation.

Agape
---Samuelbb7 on 1/29/16


\\\\How many other pre-reformation churches are there?\\\\

BTW, Jed, I'll bet you're surprised to find out there were that many pre-Reformation Churches.

Something suggests that before you met me you thought there were just Roman Catholic and Protestant.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/29/16


\\You would think if bread and wine had been been transformed into flesh and blood upon receiving it (a claim that Jesus himself never made), it would be noticeable.\\

1. That's not the teaching of Transubstantiation. What you are saying here is called "receptionism".

2. How do you quantify a SPIRITUAL change that cannot be sensually perceived by laboratory methods?

Glory to Jesus Christ
---Cluny on 1/28/16


Before you can explain HOW something happened, you must first establish that it did happen. You would think if bread and wine had been been transformed into flesh and blood upon receiving it (a claim that Jesus himself never made), it would be noticeable.
---Jed on 1/28/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause


What is important is that this is a spiritual change, and not a physical change...
---Monk_Brendan on 1/28/16

If that statement was the truth, then we Protestants would have no disagreements with your understanding of the Eucharist.

But, it is the physical, metaphysical, or transmagical transformation that the word TS attempts to describe. To describe how the substance (essence) of Jesus inhabits the bread and wine. Not only His Spirit, but His essence. This essence that is the same essence as the Father and Holy Spirit.

I can agree if you say that Jesus is in all parts of the cosmos, including the bread and the wine. But if you say it transforms from bread and wine into body and blood, then I must disagree.
---Mark_Eaton on 1/28/16


Jed said, "...Easy to tell if you are eating and drinking bread and wine vs human fleash and blood. If not, it ahould be poasible to have the bread and wine tested to see if their composition remains to be bread and wine or if they have actually undergone a ...change into blood and flesh..."

Okay folks, transubstantiation is what the Roman Catholics believe is the METHOD of how the Holy Spirit changes the bread and wine to Body and Blood.

What is important is that this is a spiritual change, and not a physical change, and cannot be measured by any scientific instrument, down to atomic particles.

Monk Brendan
---Monk_Brendan on 1/28/16


\\\\How many other pre-reformation churches are there?\\\\

I forgot to mention the Ethiopian and Eritrean Tahwedo Churches, which date back to the time of the Ethiopian eunuch of Acts.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/28/16


Nicole, heat and cold are qualities that can be perceived by the senses.

Hence they are "accidents" of an object.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/27/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals


As Cluny has pointed out, the bread and wine really become body and blood. They don't do so physically, but rather metaphysically.

We are assustomed to such semantic nuances in real life. For example, there is no physical test you could do to tell a wife from a fiancee, or a fiancee from a girlfriend, or a renter from a house owner. There might be some other physical evidence of marriage or ownership (e.g. a ring or a deed), but these merely reflect reality. They don't cause reality. Melting a ring or burning a deed doesn't change that reality. Marriage and ownership are metaphysical, rather than physical realities. They are, nevertheless, real. So are countries, virtues, churches, philosophies, etc.
---StrongAxe on 1/28/16


\\it ahould be poasible to have the bread and wine tested to see if their composition remains to be bread and wine or if they have actually undergone a chemical or physical change into blood and flesh. \\

No one ever said they did, except for you.

Keep in mind that "accidents" and "substance" have technical meanings in Aristotelian metaphysics--that is, they are different from ordinary speech.

"Substance" in this sense is NOT something that can be perceived by the senses, and hence cannot be quantified in the lab.

That's because spiritual matters are spiritually discerned. But I don't expect you to understand this, either.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/27/16


I'm surprised that Catholics haven't attempted this to disprove all the transubstination nay-sayers. --Jed on 1/27/16

The RCC has and given you the word transubstantiation.

We take Jesus at His Words. But for you all we don't mind explaining as directed by Peter.

The word is called 'Accident'

You can't taste 'cold' You only taste ice cream that is cold.

You can't taste 'hot'. You only can taste food that has been heated up.

You can't bottle up 'hot' or 'cold'. They need a SUBSTANCE to attach itself.
---Nicole_Lacey on 1/27/16


\\How many other pre-reformation churches are there?\\

Here are the principal ones:

Roman Catholic

Orthodox

Eastern Churches in communion with Rome

Assyrian Church of the East

Ancient Church of the East

Coptic Church of Egypt

Armenian Gregorian Apostolic Church (monophysite)

Syriac Church (Monophysite)

Syriac Churches of India

Assyrian Church of India (Malabar)

There may be others, but I can't think of them, Jed.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/27/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


How many other pre-reformation churches are there?

At any rate, it should be easy to tell if you are eating and drinking bread and wine vs human fleash and blood. If not, it ahould be poasible to have the bread and wine tested to see if their composition remains to be bread and wine or if they have actually undergone a chemical or physical change into blood and flesh. I'm surprised that Catholics haven't attempted this to disprove all the transubstination nay-sayers.
---Jed on 1/27/16


Fair question, Samuel

"Real presence" simply means that the bread and wine objectively become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation is an attempt to explain HOW it happens.

In metaphysics, all things have "accidents" (what we see, taste, touch, etc.) and "substance" (the intangible quality that makes the thing really what it is).

Thomas Aquinas in the 1100's applied this to the Eucharist, where the "substance" of the bread and wine become the "substance" of the Body and Blood of Christ. The "accidents" remain the same.

Hence "transubstantiation".

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/27/16


Okay Cluny you have stumped me and I don't have time to google this. What is the difference.

Agape
---Samuelbb7 on 1/27/16


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.