The doctrine of Transubstantiation is the belief that the elements of the Lord’s table (bread and wine) supernaturally transform into the body and blood of Christ during the Mass. This is uniquely held by Roman Catholics but some form of a “Real Presence” view is held by Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, and some Anglicans. The Calvinist/Reformed tradition believes in a real spiritual presence but not one of substance. Most of the remaining Protestant traditions (myself included) don’t believe in any real presence, either spiritual or physical, but believe that the Eucharist is a memorial and a proclamation of Christ’s work on the cross (this is often called Zwinglianism). The Roman Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563) defined Transubstantiation this way:
By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Session XIII, chapter IV)
As well, there is an abiding curse (anathema) placed on all Christians who deny this doctrine:
If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ,[42] but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema. (Session XII, Canon I)
It is very important to note that Roman Catholics not only believe that taking the Eucharist in the right manner is essential for salvation, but that belief in the doctrine is just as essential.
Here are the five primary reasons why I reject the doctrine of Transubstantiation:
1. It takes Christ too literally
There does not seem to be any reason to take Christ literally when he institutes the Eucharist with the words, “This is my body” and “This is my blood” (Matt. 26:26-28, et al). Christ often used metaphor in order to communicate a point. For example, he says “I am the door,” “I am the vine,” “You are the salt of the earth,” and “You are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:13-14) but people know that we don’t take such statement literally. After all, who believes that Christ is literally a door swinging on a hinge?
2. It does not take Christ literally enough
Let’s say for the sake of the argument that in this instance Christ did mean to be taken literally. What would this mean? Well, it seems hard to escape the conclusion that the night before Christ died on the cross, when he said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood,” that it actually was his body and blood that night before he died. If this were the case, and Christ really meant to be taken literally, we have Christ, before the atonement was actually made, offering the atonement to his disciples. I think this alone gives strong support to a denial of any substantial real presence.
3. It does not take Christ literally enough (2)
In each of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) we have the institution of the Eucharist. When the wine is presented, Christ’s wording is a bit different. Here is how it goes in Luke’s Gospel: “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” (Luk 22:20). Here, if we were really to take Christ literally, the “cup” is the new covenant. It is not the wine, it is the cup that is holy. However, of course, even Roman Catholics would agree that the cup is symbolic of the wine. But why one and not the other? Why can’t the wine be symbolic of his death if the cup can be symbolic of the wine? As well, is the cup actually the “new covenant”? That is what he says. “This cup . . . is the new covenant.” Is the cup the actual new covenant, or only symbolic of it? See the issues?
4. The Gospel of John fails to mention the Eucharist
Another significant problem I have with the Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist and its abiding anathemas is that the one Gospel which claims to be written so that people may have eternal life, John (John 20:31), does not even include the institution of the Eucharist. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all tell the story of Christ giving the first Lord’s table, but John decides to leave it out. Why? This issue is made more significant in that John includes more of the “Upper Room” narrative than any of the other Gospels. Nearly one-third of the entire book of John walks us through what Christ did and said that night with his disciples. Yet no breaking of the bread or giving of the wine is included. This is a pretty significant oversight if John meant to give people the message that would lead to eternal life (John 20:31). From the Roman Catholic perspective, his message must be seen as insufficient to lead to eternal life since practice and belief in the Mass are essential for eternal life and he leaves these completely out of the Upper Room narrative.
(Some believe that John does mention the importance of belief in Transubstantiation in John 6. The whole, “Why did he let them walk away?” argument. But I think this argument is weak. I talk about that here. Nevertheless, it still does not answer why John left out the institution of the Lord’s Supper. It could be that by A.D. 90, John saw an abuse of the Lord’s table already rising. He may have sought to curb this abuse by leaving the Eucharist completely out of his Gospel. But this, I readily admit, is speculative.)
5. Problems with the Hypostatic Union and the Council of Chalcedon
This one is going to be a bit difficult to explain, but let me give it a shot. Orthodox Christianity (not Eastern Orthodox) holds to the “Hypostatic Union” of Christ. This means that we believe that Christ is fully God and fully man. This was most acutely defined at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Important for our conversation is that Christ had to be fully man to fully redeem us. Christ could not be a mixture of God and man, or he could only represent other mixtures of God and man. He is/was one person with two complete natures. These nature do not intermingle (they are “without confusion”). In other words, his human nature does not infect or corrupt his divine nature. And his divine nature does not infect or corrupt his human nature. This is called the communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties or attributes). The attributes of one nature cannot communicate (transfer/share) with another nature. Christ’s humanity did not become divinitized. It remained complete and perfect humanity (with all its limitations). The natures can communicate with the Person, but not with each other. Therefore, the attribute of omnipresence (present everywhere) cannot communicate to his humanity to make his humanity omnipresent. If it did, we lose our representative High Priest, since we don’t have this attribute communicated to our nature. Christ must always remain as we are in order to be the Priest and Pioneer of our faith. What does all of this mean? Christ’s body cannot be at more than one place at a time, much less at millions of places across the world every Sunday during Mass. In this sense, I believe that any real physical presence view denies the definition of Chalcedon and the principles therein.
There are many more objections that I could bring including Paul’s lack of mentioning it to the Romans (the most comprehensive presentation of the Gospel in the Bible), some issues of anatomy, issues of idolatry, and just some very practical things concerning Holy Orders, church history, and . . . ahem . . . excrement. But I think these five are significant enough to justify a denial of Transubstantiation. While I respect Roman Catholicism a great deal, I must admit how hard it is for me to believe that a doctrine that is so difficult to defend biblically is held to such a degree that abiding anathemas are pronounced on those who disagree.
344 replies to "Five Reasons I Reject the Doctrine of Transubstantiation"
John how about doing it one at the time? I mean post what you can one after another. There is no rush in so doing. I can wait without making a reply until you finished.
How about that? And if you agree, start first with the Council of Chalcedon and tell me what they really mean by the Hypostatic Union they were discussing.
God bless
Ebouty, I can’t post what I wrote. I know it doesn’t make sense that I can post this reply to you (assuming it turns up), but I can’t post my answers. There must be some heuristic or bug or something that I just can’t fathom that decides what it will let through. I even tried just posting the first sentence of my reply, but no. I don’t know if there’s some heuristic that tries to avoid duplicates, or who knows what.
Meanwhile, you still won’t tell us why you are allowed to post oversized replies. I can’t believe you don’t know why. You must know why, whether you are somehow associated with reclaiming the mind or what.
******and the rest of us poor slobs don’t. *****
John everyone are poor slobs, even myself so don’t think I wasn’t. You are absolutely wrong if you excluded me.
God bless
Why not contacting the Administrator?
God bless
OK, I just left a message on the contact page. I have zero confidence that anything will change though since the 2000 character limit has always truncated at 1950 or something, leaving hundreds of comments on the site with missing last line. Nobody seems to care about that.
Meanwhile, obviously you are not denying that you are somehow associated with the site, since you can post more than 2000, and you won’t tell us why. So why don’t you get it fixed?
*****There must be some heuristic or….*******
It was so funny if that what going to happen in this blog or forum. Are you sure the Administrator are avoiding us to discover or learn something that you think is the truth? Really sure of that, how about waiting for a reply from the Administrator?
God bless
No Ebouty, I don’t think anyone is targeting me. I’m not that paranoid. But there might be some heuristic I don’t know about, even so. Something about duplicates that isn’t working correctly perhaps.
******Meanwhile, obviously you are not denying that you are somehow associated with the site, since you can post more than 2000, and you won’t tell us why. So why don’t you get it fixed?******
You really are a funny guy. I just found this site and how come then have some relation or association with. I even don’t know them well.
I told you before, I did with the power of the mind. Nothing more nothing less. God will help me so. There is nothing to suspect having a relationship or association with this site.
But I just wonder how come everyone here (according to your claim) don’t want to use the power of their mind, if I’m right of using that to mean what I did; using my mine to break the limit which I think is not so hard to do. Doesn’t need all day to think of.
Maybe the Administrator too will figure that out, and who knows I will not be able then to do the same again.
God bless
Oh, the power of the mind, aka disable javascript?
Doesn’t fix my problem.
@Ebouty: “but if those whom you claim to be sent by the Apostles continue to pass on such teaching and some, centuries later, diverted from their (Apostles) teaching what will happen then?”
That would be unacceptable of course. Which is why we rely on the pillar and foundation of the truth, the church, to keep safe the deposit of faith.
You have NO WAY of knowing what that deposit of faith is without, in some fashion, consulting the church. At least I assume you weren’t walking along one day and had a bible fall out of the sky on your head. Someone told you what the deposit of faith is. They might have got it wrong, especially if they were from a heterodox group, but someone gave you that information.
“So, what grounds are we going to accept those who were sent by the Apostles? What about those who were mentioned in Gal 1? Are they not being sent or being taught too by the Apostles orally? And why did they so quickly removed from Jesus’ true Gospel? I believe they did, because they hold on to their own traditions, even though they actually received first-hand tradition from the Apostles.”
That’s true. So you need to compare what one person says came from the apostles, with the opinion of the universal church. That applies whether your source is written or oral. You don’t escape the conundrum.
“Paul heard what they did and that is why he corrected them in a letter. ”
Yes he did correct them with a letter. That’s not to say he always did so with a letter. I mean, the very fact that the letter refers to earlier oral teaching shows that he wasn’t wedded to the written form.
@Ebouty: ““But as controversies arose, and disputants on both sides of all questions appealed to “tradition,” i.e., to what they had been taught; and when it was found that these traditions differed, one church saying their teachers had always taught them one thing, and another that theirs had taught them the opposite, it was felt that there should be some common and authoritative standard.”
Yes, there was a movement to standardise both scripture and extra-scriptural things. Thus, over centuries, the canon became more standard, and doctrine became clarified in ecumenical councils, and church rules became standardised in canons. It wasn’t purely about scripture.
” So is your principle works in this situation? Absolutely not,”
It works no less well than your theory, with multiple and erroneous lists of holy books circulating, some of them heretical. Arguing about written sources of authority vs oral sources is the same epistemological problem, until the church expresses its authority on which is true and which isn’t.
“Now is the worship of Mary or images and many more diversion or development which are in progress many centuries after the Apostles are one of their tradition?”
Putting aside your polemical characterisation of “worshipping Mary”, the earliest liturgical sources seem to indicate belief in intercession of the saints, and the earliest archaeological sources seem to indicate a love for iconography. We wouldn’t really expect a lot of discussion by the apostles on the departed NT saints, when there weren’t many yet.
The question for you is why these things were present in the early church, and yet little controversy is recorded till much much later. Did nobody at all receive a different tradition from the apostles?
*****That’s true. So you need to compare what one person says came from the apostles, with the opinion of the universal church. That applies whether your source is written or oral. You don’t escape the conundrum *****
Really? Comparing a human being with another human being, how so or another lies with another lies? Why are you trying to get rid of the word of God as the only source for our rule of faith, I believe so?
God bless
***Oh, the power of the mind, aka disable javascript?****
John nothing is technical here. It just the power of the mind . I told you, but you don’t want to understand. Its going to be a waste of time.
The power of my mind doesn’t disable anything technically or how do I say it. It just a way of thinking your way out. Nothing more nothing less.
God bless
I’m still waiting John for your explanation on the Hypostatic Union discussion at the Council of Chalcedon. Like I ask you before or like this one; to explain to me how they distinguished the two Nature of Christ one must what and the other must what. Just like that and many more that you can.
God bless
Which words are the words of God? You didn’t know till some church told you so. It didn’t fall out of the sky onto your head. So since a church told you ANYWAY what to believe, telling you other things to believe is no epistemological leap.
You ask me “how they distinguished the two Nature of Christ”. What does that mean? Did they do such a thing? They said there are two natures. Whether they distinguished them, as if they had Christ on the laboratory table, is another matter. If you want to quote some canon of the council and ask a question about it, go ahead.
I didn’t say anything about whether the father and the son are in heaven “knowing nothing unless the spirit reports it to them”. I just said that you can’t assume something applies to one member of the trinity, just because you established that it applies to another one. Your entire argument was based on this false premise. Now if you want to PROVE that a PARTICULAR proposition applies to a PARTICULAR member of the trinity, then go ahead, and we can discuss that argument on its merits. But if you just want to argue based on your being a modalist then there’s no point talking as if you understand the trinity doctrine.
John, let us try not to make things confusing here by talking about three things at a time. So what I think will try to finish first is on the Chalcedon declaration or whatever.
What exactly is all about the Hypostatic Union, John? Is it about Human Nature (flesh and bones -visible), Half Ghost and half Human Nature (flesh and bone -invisible) and Divine Nature?
You understand what I mean right? Take an example you reply to me on the Chalcedon only and don’t mention about trinity. I will reply to you on trinity then do the same without mentioning Chalcedon or whatever. I believe I did the same before, but please just to make my records on different issues kept separately.
God bless
*******They said there are two natures. Whether they distinguished them, as if they had Christ on the laboratory table, is another matter. ******
That’s my point John, what are those two Natures according to them. Are they just saying Oh it just only two Natures we need to say here and that all, lets go on to another issue, is that right?
Just explain to me what they mean by two Natures.
I ask you before and I quote: “So if the one dwells on earth the other two were sleeping in heaven…?” and you answered “Yes one could be sleeping in heaven, while the other is on earth.” I also asked you: “He report then to the Son and then the Son start His next tour? Because His (Spirit) presence on earth the Son does not know about, right? Here, you did not reply, so I assume you agree. But then you said “ I didn’t say anything about whether the father and the son are in heaven “knowing nothing unless the spirit reports it to them”.
You should know that I wasn’t referring to the person of God. We all understand that there are three persons in God; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. My point is the essence, so let me quote you a formula the church has been formulated:
“The one divine essence subsists in three persons; or (what is the same thing), In the Deity there are three persons and one essence; or also, God is, one in essence, ,but the same God, one in essence, is threefold in person.”
Your problem John in understanding the Trinity is the word Person. I believe you take the word person according to our understanding. But you forgot that there is always this difference in the word person when used with reference to God or man, respectively, that in the latter case it signifies a subject subsisting by itself, which has its own essence, whilst in the Trinity there is only one undivided essence, of which all the three persons of the Godhead partake.”
Here we are required then to recognize in this one essence three persons. From this unity one person in virtue of the unity of essence is within another (John 14: 11; 17: 21), through which term the error is precluded, of regarding the three persons as subsisting separately alongside of one another; as also the equality (so that no one person is greater or less than another, and that the Father cannot properly be called God; by way of eminence or be said to be greater than the Son by reason of the mode of subsistence).
Do you see where you get wrong in your thinking? You regard the three persons as subsisting separately alongside of one another. So how can one dwells in earth while the other could be in heaven without knowing until something being reported to them, when there is only one undidived essence, of which all the three persons of the Godhead partake?
“Thus, in the Church, the term person is used in a different sense from the common usage of speaking. Among men we know what a person is, among angels we understand what it is. Peter, Paul, and John are three persons to whom one human nature is common. But, they differ very much, (1) in substance, because one entirety is distinct from another, (2) in time, (3) in will, (4) in power, (5) in work •••• But in the Trinity, persons are not thus distinguished, as an angel from an angel, and a man from a man (nor do they differ in time, will, power, work; but, in the persons or the Trinity, there is coeternity , one will, one power, one working).”
“These works are undivided, because then the three persons are together and work together… In God there is so great unity, and so great power of one and the same essence, that to individual persons individual and peculiar works, which are wrought separately in creatures, ought by no means to be assigned,” whence follows the statement: “By one person, named in works ad extra, the entire Trinity is meant.”
So the presence of the Spirit in the Eucharist involves the presence of the Father and the Son.
God bless
I’m sorry John. I have to make myself clear once again. We can debate on Tradition, Eucharist and Trinity, but in making responds its better to do it separately in a post especially in your case, but if you find your way then that won’t be necessary.
I believe that will help you to mention more on one point in one post, and for me to record it separately.
God bless
I come across one quotation from one article that I like to share with you, and it says:
“The relationship between the three persons is so close that they “indwell” on one another, and all share in the distinct work of each. Their mutual indwelling activity has been traditionally described as a kind of “Dance.” The key to understanding the Trinity is to recognize that it is not just a math problem (how can three be one?), the Trinity is a relationship.”
This I believe was another quotation that seems to agree with my point that the presence of the Holy Spirit during the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper involves the Father and the Son. And maybe it could be the reason when saying .. the Spirit of God ..Spirit of Christ, not really sure.
God bless you
*****Which words are the words of God? You didn’t know till some church told you so. It didn’t fall out of the sky onto your head. So since a church told you ANYWAY what to believe, telling you other things to believe is no epistemological leap.******
“It’s not the Church that told you what to believe. It is the word of God given (falling from heaven -adding mine) the Apostles and then from them onto the Church, not one church but various churches (you right when you said some churches) they had laid the foundation, and that foundation is the word of God. Even the Church does not wrote the word of God (mine), did they? What the Church did is collecting them.”
“Also the church doesn’t determine what is inspired. The Church merely discovers what is inspired. This makes sense from not only a Biblical viewpoint, but from a temporal one. What really matters is that today we have the books that God intended us to have – and those books are in harmony with each other. Any other books that are not in complete agreement with the OT and NT in message, history, and accuracy of transmission should be discarded. The apocryphal books would not qualify.”
John “If the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, what is the pillar and ground of the church? The Apostle Paul said that we, Christ’s church, are built on the prophets and apostles with Christ Jesus as the cornerstone of the foundation. How do we know what the prophesies are? Scripture! How do we know what the fulfillment of the prophesies are? The writings of the apostles! And who do the prophets and apostles testify of? Christ! If Paul said we are built on this foundation then clearly this is the foundation of the truth the church is supposed to proclaim. Irenaeus clearly understood this because he also said that the base and pillar of the church is the fourfold Gospel.”
Just to let you know that those words are not from me. I took it from someone I know in one forum I used to debate in before this…
@Ebouty, Actually Peter and Paul ARE one substance… the substance of flesh and blood. The father and the son are one substance… God substance, whatever that is.
You seem to have some notion that one substance means that there is some etherial thingami that the Three somehow joined to, yet not joined to. As if the three are three in one way, but one in another way, BUT WE HAVE NO understanding of what that threeness or oneness is all about.
No, such vague nonsense is not the doctrine on the trinity. The trinity is that there are three persons in God, made of the same God-stuff, same substance.
Yes they are undivided, just like the Catholic Orthodox church is said to be undivided. Undivided in purpose and in will and destiny and so on and so forth. Not undivided in personhood.
Yet again, I repeat, I never said that other members of the trinity are in heaven knowing nothing until the Spirit submits his annual report. All I said was that the trinity doctrine says nothing to such a topic. Other doctrines or teachings might, but the trinity doctrine does not.
As John of Damascus put it, the persons neither mingle nor coalesce.
You talk about the church merely collecting the books and passing them on. But you are splitting a hair that can’t be split. The church recognised them and passed them onto you. Your knowledge is dependant on that correct recognition. If the recognition is fallible or flawed, your list is flawed.
Yes, multiple churches pass on such lists. Mormons have their list, Muslims their list and so forth. Only the true church can pass on the true list. If you got your list from the false church, it is only as good as how close it corresponds to the true list, and thus the true church. If your church can’t plausibly claim to be the one true church, then its a crap shoot whether you got the true list.
@Ebouty, Your question of what is the hypostatic union, is a very broad question, and I’m not even sure of the point really.
You asked if your finger was chopped off, could it be in two churches at once? Well yes, if I chopped it into 2 pieces. And in fact, at the rate we shed skin cells, my guess is your body IS in probably hundreds of churches right now. As I pointed out already in this thread, even an atheist could readily admit, using math alone, that Christ probably IS in the eucharist, simply by virtue of the math concerning shedding of skin, number of atoms, distribution of atoms etc. So if its possible with natural causes, there is certainly no objection at all if the supernatural is called into play.
Wow good try John. Will respond soon or later. But as for the list you mentioned, did you add the apocryphal books in your canon?
******@Ebouty, Your question of what is the hypostatic union, is a very broad question, and I’m not even sure of the point really. ********
We all know that there are two Natures of Christ. Is that right? So what are those two Natures all about?
God bless
“did you add the apocryphal books in your canon?”
The so-called apocryphal books, yes.
`”what are those two Natures all about?”
Very vague question.
Why is so hard for you to explain those Natures?
God bless
“Why is so hard for you to explain those Natures?”
People have written volumes.
What is it you want to know?
I want to know how you, you as John understand the Two Natures of Christ according to the Chalcedon declaration or statement whatever it is. Is that hard for you to tell me?
God bless
This is how I understand it…
Our Lord Jesus Christ is to us
One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.
John that is not your understanding, that is the Chalcedon definition that I want you to tell me what you really understand of, especially on this one and I quote:
One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in TWO NATURES UNCONFUSEDLY, UNCHANGEABLY, INDIVISIBLY, INSEPARABLY; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis;”
What those two Natures that are UNCONFUSEDLY, UNCHANGEABLY, INDIVISIBLY, INSEPARABLY?
God bless
@Ebouty: I don’t understand the problem or the controversy. I understand it as written. I’m guessing the bishops at Chalcedon didn’t aim to write it with ambiguity.
John even if you don’t understand the problem or the controversy, that definition is so obvious for everyone to understand.
I’m not really sure why hardly for you to understand. Never mind, for I think have to bow my head on this issue.
May God bless us all.
I have to conclude here that because you cannot tell me what those two natures are then you fail to support the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
Those two Natures are UNCONFUSEDLY, UNCHANGEABLY, INDIVISIBLY, INSEPARABLY, but Transubstantiation makes the Natures CONFUSEDLY, CHANGEABLY, DIVISIBLY and SEPARABLY.
UNCONFUSEDLY, UNCHANGEABLY, INDIVISIBLY, INSEPARABLY is what the Church understood at the Council regarding the Human and Divine Nature, but what makes that understanding corruptible is the decision of the later Church when the literal issue raised by Radbertus.
Now let read John of Damascus in his exposition of the orthodox faith:
“Since we find many terms used symbolically in the Scriptures concerning God which are more applicable to that which has body, we should recognise that it is quite impossible for us men clothed about with this dense covering of flesh to understand or speak of the divine and lofty and immaterial energies of the Godhead, except by the use of images and types and symbols derived from our own life. So then all the statements concerning God that imply body, are symbols, but have a higher meaning: for the Deity is simple and formless.”
Now don’t think that this statement has nothing to do with the Eucharist. What they understand about “This is my body” or other terms that imply a body are symbol, but has a higher or hidden meaning. I repeat they are symbols, but as a higher and hidden meaning.
Another comments from one of a Church Father:
“The soul became flesh that the soul might become visible. Well, then, did the flesh likewise become soul that the flesh might be manifested? If the soul is flesh, it is no longer soul, but flesh. If the flesh is soul, it is no longer flesh, but soul.”
First of all, we need to understand that there is a difference between soul and spirit, but the essence (if I’m right in using that word) that these two (Soul and Spirit) shared is invisible.
Now the doctrine of transubstantiation is very wrong in this sense. It called the soul and Spirit fresh, which according to that comments if the soul is fresh it is no longer soul and that soul become visible. Even our Lord Jesus Christ understood the difference.
“Now, if they are neither in particular, although they become both one and the other, it is, to say the least, very absurd, that we should understand the soul when we name the flesh, and when we indicate the soul, explain ourselves as meaning the flesh.”
“But in Christ we find the soul and the flesh expressed in simple unfigurative terms; that is to say, the soul is called soul, and the flesh, flesh; nowhere is the soul termed flesh, or the flesh, soul; and yet they ought to have been thus (confusedly) named if such had been their condition.
“For the soul-flesh, or the flesh-soul, is but one; unless indeed He even had some other soul apart from that which was flesh, and bare about another flesh besides that which was soul. But since He had but one flesh and one soul,—that “soul which was sorrowful, even unto death,” and that flesh which was the “bread given for the life of the world,”—the number is unimpaired of two substances distinct in kind, thus excluding the unique species of the flesh-comprised soul.”
As I said already I have to bow my head and good luck.
God bless us all in our journey
*******I’d like to throw Lanciano in there and see what effect that has on the conversation…http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html*******
Let us not hood-wink by signs that the devil can do on earth. In Matthew 16:4 Jesus says:
“An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of Jonah.”
Catholics often and will always never stop claiming of things as signs, even though Jesus says that there would be no more sign to be given except the sign of Jonah. So what is that sign of Jonah? The sign of Jonah was an analogy of three days he was in the great fish and Jesus would be in Hades (cf. 1 Pet. 3:19).
So, the only sign that we need to know and believed is the sign of the death and resurrection from the death. It is not about a sign for a conversion or transformation of the bread into the literal Body of our Lord.
What is vital for Christians is to follow and believed Jesus as the Son of God, because He conquered death and rose after three days (sign of Jonah), appearing to His disciples and there Thomas did not believe, but after Jesus convinced him physically He said:
“Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” (John 20:29).
Also Jesus said: “I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.” (John 6:35)
To believe in the presence of the Holy Spirit in the commemoration of the Lord’s passion is all we need for our salvation because we believe and follow His commands when He said “do this in remembrance of me.” Nothing carnal or literal required for our salvation or signs, in my opinion, that we need more for increasing our salvation, because those will lead us to adulterous superstitious ideas thus condemnation will fall upon us.
Apparently the Jewish religionists are similar with Romanism as they wanted evidence that Jesus was empowered by YHWH. Which in fact Jesus gave them already that sign (i.e., His resurrection), and nothing more to be given.
God bless
[…] 5 Reasons I Reject the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. “Here are the five primary reasons why I reject the doctrine of Transubstantiation.” […]
Amazing how we Protestants love to build up Catholic straw men and then tear them down. We Christians accepted His presence in both His earthly body and blood, yet somehow we do not recognize His presence in the eucharist as though they were just another piece of bread or glass of wine that we eat or drink in remembrance of Him and not a symbol under which He is present. If that be so, among other things why are we warned that 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? 1 Cor. 11:27 Whereas, we are never given such warnings with the other symbols: the door; the way; water, etc.?
*********If that be so, among other things why are we warned that 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? 1 Cor. 11:27 Whereas, we are never given such warnings with the other symbols: the door; the way; water, etc.?**********
It is Christ our Lord’s command, and that is the reason eating and drinking unworthy shows that you are ignorant or do not want to follow His command and more importantly did not believe in His death and resurrection. In other words, you did not understand the purpose of His incarnation when He took the form of a servant.
You must understand the importance of John’s gospel. God did not send His Son to be eaten, but what the scripture says is:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)
That is the vital massage of the bread of life discourse.
I have no intention to continue a debate on this issue, because there’s been so many things being discussed already, but I was only interested to make a respond to this interesting question only raised by John on the 19th of March 2013.
Here’s the question; So why not just hold a Real Presence view, if they are the same?
I know that when he mentioned about real presence he was referring to the doctrine of transubstantiation, a literal or physical view. So my own answer to his question is this, they are not the same. Jesus said and I quote:
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:39)
The difference was absolutely comes from the mouth of our Lord Jesus Christ. In that case such a doctrine is a failure both from scripture and from the Council of Chalcedon definition.
God bless
I have no intention to continue a debate on this issue, because there has been so many things discussed already, but I was only interested to make a respond to this interesting question only raised by John on the 19th of March 2013.
Here’s the question; So why not just hold a Real Presence view, if they are the same?
I know that when he mentioned about real presence he was referring to the doctrine of transubstantiation, a literal or physical view. So my own answer to his question is this, they are not the same. Jesus said and I quote:
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:39)
The difference was absolutely comes from the mouth of our Lord Jesus Christ. In that case such a doctrine is a failure both from scripture and from the Council of Chalcedon definition.
God bless
Michael, your article and comments are convincing to a rational mind; however, rationality is not required to believe in transubstantiation since it is a matter of blind faith. Roman Catholicism, which I have studied for years, is first and foremost a dogmatic commitment to the Church which was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone and Peter His vicar here on earth. Once doctrine is dogmatized it is beyond question. Logic, rationality, whatever, may support our understanding but not prove it, according to their way of thinking. So, in essence, we who hold a more generalized view like consubstantiation or that communion is simply a sign or symbol will never argue our way out of this. Remember Church tradition trumps private interpretation and sola scriptura is in essence heresy. Scripture is simply an infallible guide in the sense of providing an embryonic resource to develop, support and when convenient confirm Catholic doctrine. Interestingly enough Mormons take a similar approach.
Scripture is truly the word of God, right? and it is the foundation of the Church like what Irenaeus said and not the Church alone, because the majority of the scriptures are the Apostles. We don’t have them, but we have their words or teachings that are in the scripture. The Apostles did not say this “we handed you (Church) our teachings, but remember it’s not yet being developed for that’s the task of the Pope who is our Leader, because he is the only Vicar of Christ on earth and not us, to develop it. Did Paul, Peter and some other Apostles said that? I don’t think so. So the Church was truly builds on the foundation of scriptures, because Scriptures are the Apostles and prophets i.e. Old and New Testament.
By the way, there is no need for development, I think, because the only message the Apostles want us to know is to believe in Jesus Christ and the Spirit will do the rest.
Now you say that sola scripture is in essence heresy. I don’t understand what you said, and is that the reason the Roman Catholic Church does not believe Paul’s words to the Corinthians when he said:
For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)????
Is that also the reason your Church says that burning heretics is the will of the Spirit, because your Church tradition trumps private interpretation?
Let me give you two personal interpretations that came up during the reformation (if I’m right). One is from your Pope who said that killing the heretics is the will of the Spirit. The other is from Martin Luther who goes against that interpretation saying that that’s not the will of the Spirit. Which one do you think is right?
Hi, I would just like to say that the author is incorrect in saying that the Eastern Orthodox Church or more correctly Chalcedonian Eastern Churches (i.e. the Greek Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church etc.) do not believe in the Hypostatic Union, these Churches do accept the Council of Chalcedon’s decree on the Hypostatic Union. Just wanted to make that clear.
So what is your opinion of the Eucharistic miracles? There have been hundreds! they go back even to the medieval times. A recent miracle was On February 28, 2010, in the Vatican.
So thank you for enlightening me as to the exact meaning of blasphemy. You write an entire article full of what I assume you consider well thought out arguments, then invalidate your argument by calling that which you reject “excrement.” I belong to a Church whose teaching is that God will save whom God will save, that God is not limited by any thing. In our Church, some might well call you misguided, but no one is going to pronounce anyone seeking to spread the Gospel as a purveyor of crap. People once called Jesus’ power demonic, that is, he was using evil crap, not Godly power to work miracles. As I recall, Jesus was a lot more than displeased by these accusations.
I am Catholic. I do believe that Jesus is present. I also watch EWTN on a regular basis. It is our Catholic network with tons of great information. Let me share a story with you that I saw on a Catholic TV program. There was a young girl who became very ill. The child was too sick to attend mass so her mother asked her parish priest to say mass in their home. He agreed. The child had two nurses at her side, one who was Jewish and the other Baptist. The child slipped into a coma but somehow was always able to receive communion. One day as the priest lifted the host up as he was praying he noticed what appeared to be blood in it. Naturally, he was startled. Our church documents everything. He sent the host to a lab not connected with the church in any way so it would not be biased and they indeed confirmed the substance was blood. Also a statue of Mary that was present cried tears. Those too were sent. They were said to be olive oil. Both the Baptist and the Jew converted to the Catholic faith after witnessing what they considered to be a miracle. The child was very sick and did die. But many have claimed they were healed of their own illnesses while visiting the child. She may become a saint in our church one day. She lived her life with a love for Jesus and inspired many.
A Critique of Random Thoughts on the Eucharists, the real presence and faith:
First of all Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas-Aristotle suggested that the reason for anything coming about can be attributed to four different types of simultaneously active causal factors:
1. Material cause describes the material out of which something is composed.
2. The formal cause is its form, i.e., the arrangement of that matter.
3. The efficient cause is “the primary source”, or that from which the change under consideration proceeds.
4. The final cause or teleos is the purpose or function that something is supposed to serve. This covers modern ideas of motivating causes, such as volition, need, desire, ethics, or spiritual beliefs.
Aristotle in the Posterior Analytics argues for foundationalism on the basis of the regress argument. St. Thomas Aquinas apparently agreed by positing faith as the teleos or functioning principle in our pursuit of God the efficient cause. The depth of this retrogressive cycle of paradoxical understanding is, indeed, amazing in that we are the recipients and initiators in our spiritual journey in and through faith.
Faith as Primal Understanding
It was not without cause that Paul in the book of Hebrews, chapter eleven, verse one calls faith a substance, an evidence of things not yet seen. Thus, through faith we both see and understand that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist under the form of bread and wine.
By this change, then, of the substance of the bread into the body of Christ, this body, itself remaining unchanged, becomes really present under the accidents of the bread, because these accidents lose the real and containing relation they had to the substance of the bread and they acquire a new, real, and containing relation to the body of Christ. This new real relation presupposes a real foundation, which is transubstantiation.
“Thus it comes,” [says the Catechism of the Council of Trent, [904] “that the entire substance of the bread is by divine power changed into the entire substance of Christ’s body without any mutation in our Lord.”
Think of it this way, if in a house where there was no fire in which we now find a fire, that fire either must have been brought there or produced there. Similarly, if a body is present where before it was not, then, by the principle of identity, this body must undergo a change of place, or then another body must be changed into it. Hence, if the earthly or resurrected body of Christ Himself is not the subject of the change, He cannot become really present except by the changing the substances of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. This, I say, because according to Tridentine Creed and the Catechistic doctrine thereof to speak of transubstantiation as adductive is to deny the conversion of one substance into another, and to affirm the substitution of one for the other.
Which, Scripture so vividly illustrates on the night of the Last Supper, when Christ, clearly visibly present at the table with them lifts the bread and the chalice and utters these words: “This is my body . . . this is my blood.” Thus, the substances of bread and wine become the substance of His body and His blood leaving as it were Christ fully embodied in His humanity and in the consecrated Bread and Wine of which they partook. In other words, the bread and wine was transformed or transubstantiated into the body and blood (body), soul and divinity of Christ. Therefore, once again and in the spirit of Malachi 1:11 , He is materially present with us in the fulness of the Godhead bodily simultaneously at each and every Eucharistic celebration.
Thus, primal knowledge is first of all revealed or intuitive, a priori knowledge, though not contrary to reason, faith is nonetheless superior to reason. Reason apprehends faith, not the other way around. God makes no apologies as to who he is; but simply states, “I am that I am.”—thereby affirming, his self-sustaining existence. However, because of His generous grace and love toward us, he by revelation makes himself known unto us. This act of grace, though unmerited, is nonetheless a necessary grace in as much as it is an expression of His divine nature. God is love, and in him is no shadow of darkness within him. Thus, we can count on the transparency of his love to clearly reveal his inwardness by his outwardness. So, we therefore understand that his inwardness and outwardness are one and the same, but not in that order.
Love is foundational to his outwardness. Faith, therefore, is based on the outwardness of his inwardness to assure us of the perfection of his inwardness. We who depend on his outwardness to understand his inwardness clearly understand that now abide these three: faith, hope, and charity; but the greatest of these is charity. Each of these, however, do not stand alone, as they are but the natural consequences of the foundational principle of love. Without love there is no hope—for all may end in naught, and, therefore, confidence is lost. Also, we may easily understand that without love there is no charity—for there is no reason for charity. Furthermore, it can also be safely said that “perfect love castes out fear, for there is no fear in love [1 John 4:18].”
We, therefore, are securely anchored in love by hope with full confidence in His promises to us through Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior [Hebrews 6:17-20].
Not.
Good logic and reason are man’s effort to arrange thoughts in order to arrive at truth. Aquinas was a master of reason, not so much the Holy Spirit. Knowledge (God’s truth) must be imparted by the HS, and cannot be deduced entirely by reason. God’s Word is Truth. The Bible still trumps man’s best logic.
The belief in the real presence was right from the beginning even BEFORE the canon of the New testament was complied. A lot is mentioned in scripture and some things are not. Those are found in Apostolic tradition.Who decided that the other epistles and gospels should not be included in the canon of the new testament? The same early Christians had beliefs which are not written down……