Transubtiation dialogue on Catholicism - page TWO
Transubtiation dialogue on Catholicism. (page TWO)
...[continued from eucharist4.html]

Mark 14:22-24,Luke22:19-20,and Matt.26:26,27
In each of these passages, Jesus says the bread is his body and they wine is his blood. Why all the debate? It is what Jesus said that it is so why the major debate?


a Christin friend/sister
<BR>vicki


Martin,

On the quote from Irenaeus, I think you are probably aware that you have successfully knocked down a straw man. You cited the quote from Irenaeus that had nothing to do with the 2 substances (earthly and heavenly) in the bread after the consecration. Go back to Post 5 and 7 to see the correct quote from Irenaeus , (Against Heresies Book IV). Don't say that I am inserting things in his mouth!

This is the "pot-calling-the-kettle-black" syndrome. I did say that you indulged in this behavior regarding Justin's quote. Your words that have been repeated several times now:

"I agree with Justin Martyr on this. But like Justin Martyr, I don't believe the Incarnation entailed bread and wine ... but rather the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus"

My complaint is that Justin never say any of the sort. ("soul and divinity"?) Justin makes a simple parallel statement describing the Eucharist in terms of the Incarnation. (Word is tabernacled in the earthly material substance,- my words)
To apply what Justin is saying, it would make the Eucharist 2 substances or essences, like the incarnation. That view, by todays Roman Catholic standards, has been anathematized.

Pope Gelsius' quote does not merely "imply consubstantiation". It conpletely refutes the transubstantiation. I have offered several times to weigh any evidence that it is spurious. No one has put forth any scholastic opinions to challenge it. I think I am more than fair on it. I don't think that you want to deal with the prospect that a Pope was wrong on a definitive statement regarding a dogma.

Probably the most frustrating thing is the presupposition from you and others that the word "is" in the formula "This is my Body.." automatically denotes "annihilation of substance". That is non-sequitor. When I say (to follow the incarnational analogy) that "Jesus is God", I do not automatically mean that his humanity has been annihilated. Not to sound too "Clintonesque", but "is" seems to have loaded meaning that is not warranted in this case.

I do not want to be regurgitating and parsing the same statements over and over. There are numerous other points I could make, like why the Didache, which mentions the Lord Supper, implies that it is merely a memorial, but I won't start dragging all of those up,since they don't actually speak of the "substance" of the elements.

In closing, I will say that there are 3 statements here that either imply or flatly deny the Transubstantiation view. There are no statements from the early church that say that the substance of the elements is annihilated or removed, or excluded or anything to that effect. The Transubstantiation argument is based solely on reading medeival definitions into the statements that affirm the Real Presence, and presuming that they must mean to the exclusion of the elements, although that is not stated in any of the texts cited.

Now Martin, I am not infallible, and if there are any explicit statements to support your case, I will consider them. Based on some other research I am working on, I think that there are a number of other sources from the 4th and 5th century that I could come up with as additional witnesses to support my case, but I need the time to dig them up. Keep in mind that when the Transubstantiation view was first defined by Paschius Radbertus in 831 AD, that even his fellow monks and friends (Ratramnus, Rabanus Maurus, John Scotus Eriugena) opposed him on it being contrary to the early church fathers. It is not a universal (ie catholic) belief.

I will let you close this thread if you like. We can tango on another thread, perhaps one that will draw more interest. I am sure that on some other threads, we will find ourselves on the same side of the fence.

God Bless,

Eric (aka Intolerant)


hi Vicki,

In the words of our Illustrious President and Commander in Chief:

"I guess it depends on what your definition of 'is' is".

If you mean that "This is my Body" means that Jesus is really present, and the elements have been changed in such a way that Christ spiritually has become joined to the elements so we partake of Christ when we have the Eucharist, then I agree with you.

If however, you mean that the elements have been transmutated into carnal flesh and blood, and the bread and wine were destroyed, and God tricks your senses into thinking that there is really bread there, and He miraculously deceives everyone into thinking that something exists that does not (ie. the bread) then I disagree with you.

That is what the debate is about. A monk invented the latter idea in 831, contrary to the teaching of the church. Pope Innocent III declared it dogma, and you all are stuck with it.

Eric (aka Iintolerant).


On the quote from Irenaeus, I think you are probably aware that you have successfully knocked down a straw man. You cited the quote from Irenaeus that had nothing to do with the 2 substances (earthly and heavenly) in the bread after the consecration. Go back to Post 5 and 7 to see the correct quote from Irenaeus , (Against Heresies Book IV). Don't say that I am inserting things in his mouth!

Sorry if I skipped over that quote, I though we had already gone over this quote. In any event ... the quote again:

"But our belief is in accord with the Eucharist, while the Eucharist confirms our opinion. For we offer to Him the things that are His, proclaiming harmoniously the unity of flesh and spirit. For the bread which is of the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread but Eucharist, consisting of two things, and earthly and a heavenly; so also are bodies, partaking of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of eternal resurrection."

This is entirely consistant with transubstantiation abd the Incarnation. Jesus was both the Son of Man, and the Son of God .... earthly and heavenly. And this comes after a previous statement from Irenaeus in the same chapter:

"But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives "first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear."

Again, Irenaeus says the bread IS the body of the Lord, and the cup His blood. Entirely consistant with what the Catholic Church teaches.

My complaint is that Justin never say any of the sort. ("soul and divinity"?) Justin makes a simple parallel statement describing the Eucharist in terms of the Incarnation. (Word is tabernacled in the earthly material substance,- my words) To apply what Justin is saying, it would make the Eucharist 2 substances or essences, like the incarnation. That view, by todays Roman Catholic standards, has been anathematized.

The Catholic Church teaches ... and has always taught that the Eucharist IS the Jesus' body and blood. Jesus' body and blood are always not simply flesh and blood, but also divine. That's what the Incarnation is about ... fully man and fully God ..... but one Christ. It's a mystery we don't understand.

I'll skip Pope Gelasius statement for now, I cant find any of his writings on line, nor any other theologians that discuss the issue. I'm not up to doing much research on this for now.

Probably the most frustrating thing is the presupposition from you and others that the word "is" in the formula "This is my Body.." automatically denotes "annihilation of substance". That is non-sequitor. When I say (to follow the incarnational analogy) that "Jesus is God", I do not automatically mean that his humanity has been annihilated. Not to sound too "Clintonesque", but "is" seems to have loaded meaning that is not warranted in this case.

Noone is claiming Jesus humanity is annihilated when one says Jesus is God! We are simply saying that the Eucharist is Jesus. And Jesus body and blood didn't contain bread and wine. It's that simple.

I do not want to be regurgitating and parsing the same statements over and over. There are numerous other points I could make, like why the Didache, which mentions the Lord Supper, implies that it is merely a memorial, but I won't start dragging all of those up,since they don't actually speak of the "substance" of the elements.

The Didache doesn't imply it's a mere memorial! Read it sometime. In chapter 14 it clearly teaches that Holy Communion is a sacrifice and quotes Malachi 1:11 as a reference. This idea of sacrifice clearly refutes the idea that the Lord's Supper is a mere memorial.

Keep in mind that when the Transubstantiation view was first defined by Paschius Radbertus in 831 AD, that even his fellow monks and friends (Ratramnus, Rabanus Maurus, John Scotus Eriugena) opposed him on it being contrary to the early church fathers. It is not a universal (ie catholic) belief.

Boy, do you need to get your facts straight about Paschasius and Ratramus! Paschius teaching scarcely extended beyond the limits of his audience (for some Benedictine missionaries) and concerned itself solely with the philosophical question, whether the Eucharistic Body of Christ is identical with the natural Body He had in Palestine and now has in heaven. FOr Paschius, the real presence is absolutely indispensible for the function of this sacrament, which is to unite believers with the God-man in his very reality.

Ratramus set out to combat the Paschasian notion of a supernatural change of the bread and wine ... while never really denying the real Presence, he cut too deep into the sap-bearing trunk of the Church's eucharistic faith.

Scotus is the one who influenced Berengarius of Tours, the first to flatly deny the Real Presence .....although he ended up recanting and publically accepting that the bread and wine which are placed on the altar are "changed" into their substance into the true flesh and blood of Jesus.


LOL Eman.........your opening statement took me right off the seriousness of the subject! I loved it.

Transmutation to me sounds like.......well.......muddy water speaking would make more sense! Of course I agree with you!
Jesus spoke to the spirit of man as much as to man. Someone who tries to throw "transmutation" into the equation is not being biblical, nor are they being spiritually awake.

I am sorry if my opinion on this disturbs and angers some. I hope that we can move past this and still be friends. :-) It is just that some of us look at what Jesus said and take it that he meant what he said. Others have to get all religious and try to explain what he meant....That makes the Bible so difficult. If we all agree to take The Word at face value, eventually our eyes are opened to see what he is saying. And that includes the Eucharist!

The Word is also referred to as 'milk' and 'meat'. Huuuuuum.
Now anyone with a brain knows that we do not sit down at the table and literally eat and drink The word. With out the Word we would, however become spiritually dead...."starve to death" maybe. Also, Jesus said, I am living water and whoever partakes will never thirst. We still drink water from the tap. So again it must be spiritual also. The Word says that, man does not live by meat alone but every word from the mouth of God. Our spirits would die with out the word and we would fall by the way side and back into our sin.
Transmutation? I dont think so. Spiritual? By all means!
a Christin friend/sister
<BR>vicki


Well, Intolerant. Looks like you might be Lutheran. Is this correct?

From what I see, it's a good thing you didn't enter the Church.

Steve from Examining Protestantism!

http://www.shasta.com/sphaws/mainmenu.html


Steve,

I think you've done a nice job so far on your site.

FYI, I donned my daily battle gear on CARM for nearly a year (until mid-1998) ...... until I got fed up with the skeptics (the reason Matt instituted the password system). I got tired of discussing the same issues with the same people day after day .... and them continue to misrepresent Catholicism. They'd just post tract after tract, which I'd refute .... and then rather than addresss the issues I'd refuted, they'd simply post another tract. It got old.

I hope your experience is better than mine.


Thanks, Martin.

I discovered CARM about Sep. 98, sounds like I just missed you. Was my first discovery of religion-on-the-web and my first real intro. to apologetics. Was a pretty brutal experience, especially with Laird & the universalists dominating the religion board at that time.

Seems to be the same old story on all of the boards. I'm mostly at Suzanne's Cath/Prot Board now, but still frequent CARM (it recently crashed, is being put back up) and Steve Ray's Cath. Convert Board.

Started my site from the nonsense at CARM.

I just noticed your recent debates with Eric the Intolerant re transubstantiation. Sounds like he might be Lutheran or possibly Anglican. There is a similar person at Suzanne's board, is both Lutheran & Anglican, and very impressed with his own scholarship & ability. This guy is currently trying to explain how neither Scripture nor Church History really supports the virginal conception of Christ, i.e., he contends that Joseph could have been Christ's biological father!

I, and most of the board, am trying to explain to him that this is just rank heresy.

See where their prideful "scholarship" takes them when they cut themselves off from the Magisterium?

I will probably hang around this board more, may even link it from my board as I did with some others.

Steve

Examining Protestantism!

http://www.shasta.com/sphaws/mainmenu.html


Stephen,
No, I have never been part of a Lutheran Church, nor been a member of a Protestant denomination.

Stephen, from the responses I have seen from you, every one has been sarcastic and cynical, even though I haven't said anything spiteful to anyone.

Check your spirit brother.

Eric (aka Intolerant)


It must be your "aka"

Steve


>Stephen, No, I have never been part of a Lutheran Church, nor been a member of a Protestant denomination.

I must be a bit "tetched in the head" (an ol' southern saying we toss around CS a fair amount:>), but I could have sworn you mentioned being a "non-Catholic" when attending Steubanville. I am, naturally, too lazy to verify it on that thread. :>)


...Back to the Eucharist Page