what is the doctrine of transubstantiation?what is the doctrine of transubstantiation?

There is a world of difference between saying, I am the door (which He is obviously not a wooden door with iron hinges) and saying, This is My Body, this is My blood. One, the former, is a symbol, whereas, the other is a sign. Browse other questions tagged, Like any library, Christianity Stack Exchange offers great information, but, Start here for a quick overview of the site, Detailed answers to any questions you might have, Discuss the workings and policies of this site. It would be like trying to mathematically prove which perfume smells better. Some of the answers provided have already mentioned John 6, but no one yet has quoted the most important verses in the chapterat least those verses touching on the subject at hand. Thus, the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of Gods true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ. The best support for the metaphor view comes from the practice of communion in Corinth. Read Augustine or any other early Doctor of the Church. My books are available in paperback and Kindle from Amazon. This is not an answer to the question, with respect. According to holy text in The Lord's Supper we do not see any indicating to any miracle, so we can not say that a miracle was happened depending on guessing, to say This is my body, maybe can be understood symbolical way like I'm the door, way, You are a salt, This is Lamb of God, Did the Holy Spirit forget to tell us that there is a miracle?! These are St. Johns pointers for us to understanding the Eucharist. Serapion (died 211 AD) refers to the elements as "a likeness. Type of union Christ must always remainas we are in order to be the Priest and Pioneer of our faith. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts,. It is very important to notethat 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. Whereas, Aristotelian logic has shown that there is a fundamental distinction between the essential and accidental properties of a thing. I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. Did the Early Church Teach Transubstantiation? - The Master's To my thinking this has human motivation. Neither has a part in it. Could these three Gospels have been changed by the RCC to promote its doctrines and power and create the celebration of the mass to also bring pagans into its religion like was done with their change of the Ten Commandments and the teaching of the immaculate conception? Holy Spirit, Disciple's Guide Therefore, we are of the need to address the texts as hermeneutically sound as possible. Thank you and God bless. St. John makes it a point to tell us that Judas, one of the 12 was going to betray him. Donations Catholicism teaches that faith alone should be exercised in accepting the transubstantiation of the communion bread and wine. Quibbling over form is, in my opinion, quibbling over the hot air of an argumentative semantic; because in the long run the essence and sanctity of personhood is not thwarted from an eschatological perspective. Why should this baffle our senses? Will we be obliged to feign belief in transgenderism?" The Church fathers did not Revelation We know them because of two thingsfirstly, because of commonsense; and secondly, because nowhere else in relation to anything else has He ever said, this is My Body, this is My blood. 2010-2017 SmartTheme. WebCW: neckbeard moment. . These are but the accidents of form and shape wherein the real essence or substance lie. Substantial change means something is no longer what it was before. How to exactly find shift beween two functions? Also, if Jesus is supposed to be a humble person why would he say do this in remembrance of me? "7 Eusebius of Caesarea (died c. 339 AD) on the one hand declares, "We are continually fed with the Savior's body, we continually participate in the lamb's blood," but on the other states that Christians daily commemorate Jesus' sacrifice "with the symbols of his body and saving blood," and that he instructed his disciples to make "the image of his own body," and to employ bread as its symbol.8 The Apostolical Constitutions (compiled c. 380 AD) use words such as "antitypes" and "symbols" to describe the elements, though they speak of communion as the body of Christ and the blood of Christ.9, Other Fathers who mix Real Presence vocabulary with symbolic terms include Cyril of Jerusalem (died 444),10 Gregory of Nazianzus (died 389),11 and Macarius of Egypt (died c. 390 AD).12 Athanasius clearly distinguishes the visible bread and wine from the spiritual nourishment they convey.13 The symbolic language did not point to absent realities, but were accepted as signs of realities which were present but apprehended by faith.14, While St. Augustine (died 430) can be quoted to support various views of the Lord's Supper, he apparently accepted the widespread realism theory of his time,15 though in some passages he clearly describes the Lord's Supper as a spiritual eating and drinking.16. Your email address will not be published. This means that we believe that Christ is fully God and fully man. ): You blockheads! Webreaders to know that the doctrine of eucharistic transubstantiation is an element of faith which finds itself deeply amidst the muddled debate between faith and reason; a real, From the earliest centuries, the Church spoke of the elements used in celebrating the Eucharist as being changed into the body and blood of Christ. 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 wholesubstance 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. Transubstantiation). In recent years I have had an interest in The Revelation of Jesus Christ and the developement of doctrine of the Roman catholic church (RCC). The polylocation of Christs Body and Blood is entirely in accord with the nature of the spiritual body, which can enter through a locked door, yet still be touched. The essence of man shall live on in another body for another day. The new believers from Jewish origins in the First Century will think that it's a Symbolic ideas because this is their thought, because they have the bread and 4 cups in their Jewish Passover, Did any controversy happen between Jews and Christians on this point, no one of disciples writes in letters for Transubstantiation Theology, but we find Paul alone said about the Lord's Supper that we eat the bread and drink the cup, not the body and blood, and if Jesus converted the bread to his body before he broke I ment when he blessed so why the disciples called it breaking bread not breaking body?!. What would this mean? John revealed this to us. All Rights Reserved. Great Prayers Six points which are usually not mentioned in this discussion: 1) The most obvious evidence that Jesus was speaking figuratively about the bread being his flesh, and the wine being the blood of His new covenant, is that while he was holding the bread and the cup, His body -- His flesh and blood -- were physically and literally present in the room, and not as bread and wine. eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's It does not take Christ literally enough (2). A typical Calvinistic formulation of the spiritual presence is found the Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647). Some of us know that the RCC has changed what God has Ordained and my belief is that it may have also changed what was written in the Gospels. Then, of course, we also have the first centuries of Christian history to vouch for the real presence in the form of bread and wine, beginning as early as The Didache , which most scholars place in the mid to late first century, however, the renown, albeit liberal, Anglican scholar Bishop John Robinson argues that it was most probably written in the first generation of Christian history, dating it as early c. 4060 AD. shall live for ever. But whyone and not the other? Don't you see I am using hyperbole as a winnowing rhetorical device to separate the true believers from the unbelieving sycophants and hangers on? This is uniquely held by Roman Catholics but some form of a Real Presence view is held by Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, and some Anglicans. His eternal timelessness is therefore unaffected by the transitory accidents of history or form. Gnostic opponents that "they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of RT @WomensSpaceIre: "I do not believe, for example, in the religious doctrine of transubstantiation, but I do believe that other people have the right to disagree with me." Scrutiny of the words of Jesus shows that Jesus' words were contrary to Catholic interpretation. Christs bodycannot be at more than one place at a time, much less at millions of places across the world every Sunday during Mass. However, since the position of the Early Church Fathers is used by some to support the doctrine of the Real Presence, I've outlined its historical development. Gideon cross; only the manner of offering is different." In reaction to Radbertus' assertion of the corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Berengar (d. 1088) defended Ratramnus openly, but when threatened with trial and excommunication recanted. Enough said. By the mid-eleventh century, transubstantiation was a dogma of the Latin church and was officially accepted in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).18. himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained of sins. Whycant the wine be symbolicof hisdeath if the cup can be symbolic of the wine? The natures can communicate with the Person, but not with each other. Songs of Ascent The Eucharist If it did, we lose our representativeHigh Priest, since we dont have this attribute communicated to our nature. (Hebrews 10:12-14). ).The reason the apostles alone came to Jesus by faith is that the Father has drawn them to Him (John 6:44). christianity Dr. Wilson's Books The bread and wine were said to be "made", "changed into", the body and blood of Christ. We should direct all praise and love and honor towards Himnot towards what other's say is Christ. But, if Jesus is the living bread come down from heaven, as he himself proclaims, where Jesus is, bread is; and if there is no bread after the consecration, then Jesus can't be there, either: "No bread, no Jesus". What was Jesus conveying in referring to the bread and wine as his body and blood, in a figurative way? Does this make them cannibals? 22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, Take; this is my body. 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. This was most acutely defined at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and CaseAnon on Twitter: "CW: neckbeard moment. If you recall The apostle John recorded the first miracle of Jesus Christ which is changing the substance of something into another (e.g. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats (meaning is gnaws) this bread will live forever . Thus, by eating and drinking the bread and wine which are mystically consecrated by the Holy Spirit, we have genuine communion with God through Christ who is himself the bread of life (Jn 6:34, 41). Its interesting that Simon Peter asks the Disciple who Jesus loved, who was reclining on the bosom of the Lord (where else should one put there head to rest) to ask Jesus who it was that was going to betray him and he asks Lord, who is it? say transubstantiation is false doctrine. What however, that "while accepting the equation of the elements with the body and blood, [Tertullian] remains conscious of the sacramental distinction between them. [Luke 22:19-20; 24:39 & Leviticus 7:27] 56 Whoever []. It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.