click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Five Reasons I Reject the Doctrine of Transubstantiation
by C Michael PattonMarch 8th, 2013
164 Comments
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.
Similar Posts:
- Quick Thought On Transubstantiation
- Why I Don’t Buy the Roman Catholic Interpretation of John 6 in Defense of Transubstantiation
- Why did He let them walk away: John 6 and transubstantiation
- Do Catholics Deny Chalcedon in their View of Mass?
- Essentials and Non-Essentials: How to Choose Your Battles Carefully
164 Comments
Like or Dislike:
2
The Christ who can multiply bread and turn water to wine cannot make Himself freely available all around the world?
Like or Dislike:
1
Lutheran perspective holds that He IS present everywhere IN ALL ASPECTS. He is not chained to a throne in heaven, because He is not ONLY fully human, He is also fully divine, and the attributes of that divinity do apply to the entirety of His being. The way you describe Him DOES make Him a demigod.
Like or Dislike:
2
We all hold that his person is present everywhere (or better, theologically, everywhere is in his immediate presence–this avoiding pantheism). It is his nature we are dealing with. He cannot be our High Preist representative if his humanity has become “divinized.”
Like or Dislike:
3
Gary, I am not sure about this as it has the effect of separating is flesh with his spirit. If the whole of Christ is miraculously made present in millions of places, we have, IMO, both nestorianism and Gnosticism together. Christ is but one peron with one body which was miraculously created by the Holy Spirit. To created through a fiat miracle whole Christ’s all over the place undermines the incarnation through Mary. Making bread is one thing, making a person is a bit different. Could he? Of course. But would he? Not unless we undermine many essential elements of the incarnation. Good question though. I think it shows you are thinking deeply about this.
Like or Dislike:
0
You see, what I am saying is that the tunes of communication present at Chalcedon still apply post resurrection. Otherwise he can’t represent is now. His human nature is still unmolested by his divine nature. Of course sometime, I beleive, some Lutherans redefine the communicatio idiomatum post resurrection (as do some Catholics), but I think this undermines the necessity of the pioneership of Christ. He is forever our representative. Post resurrection, his divine nature could communicate with his person, not his human nature.
Like or Dislike:
0
Here is a post (with charts!) in which I speak only of this issue.
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/02/why-didnt-christ-know-the-time-of-his-coming/
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
The link you are speaking of is missing from your last comment. I read it already, being a regular on this site, but for those folks who missed it the first time around perhaps you could give a specific link to it. Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thx
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
Guess we must have crossed posts, which due to the timing can certainly happen. So no problem. Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0
And then there is the obvious… it doesn’t look, smell, taste like blood.
I imagine there is a sophisticated explanation, but it seems too much like when we patronize a child giving a magic show. ‘Wow look, Billy made a dollar out of nothing!’
Like or Dislike:
2
I’m not certain that your Zwinglian perspective DOES see Christ as present everywhere. His omnipresence is compromised by your view of His humanity. Once He took a body, in your view, He became limited in terms of time and space. You can SAY that you believe HE is present, but in reality, it is just a legal fiction to you. If He CANNOT be present – REALLY present – in the Bread and Wine because of His human nature, He cannot be present anywhere else for that same reason. You thus require a different person – the Holy Spirit, to be REALLY present in all the places that the Bible talks about Christ being present. Thus, Christ isn’t really with us always, as He promised, but only figuratively.
By the way, yes, I DO believe that Jesus REALLY IS the Door, because He said so. He REALLY IS the True Vine, because He said so, and He REALLY IS the Good Shepherd, just as I REALLY AM a sheep, because He said so. Now, does that mean that HE is made of wood? No, but it DOES mean that He does, in that statement, what a door does, and He does, in that statement, what a good shepherd does, etc.
Like or Dislike:
0
Surely we cannot get to the depth of this Roman Catholic doctrine of so-called Transubstantiation in one blog, but I agree that this doctrine, and really dogma is central, in Catholic theology and in the life of Catholicism. However, perhaps it is more historical to see Transubstantiation from the classic Council of Trent, which defined it as “a singular and wondrous conversion of the total substance of bread into the body and of the total substance of wine into the blood of Christ, the external appearances only remaining unchanged.” And along with this are the most certain laborious scholastic thinking & thought with or using Aristotelian logic. Which btw, should not negate all Aristotelian thinking!
I am myself somewhere between both Luther’s doctrine and Calvin’s here, but yes, I was raised Irish Roman Catholic, and early educated there. But I am long gone in support of any bit of “transubstantiation”! And I don’t see myself Luther supporting it, note Luther himself did not even speak of the later idea of Consubstantiation! ‘Real Presence’, ‘in, above & around’ the elements, yes. And btw, we should also bring in here Augustine’s Eucharist view. Which I would place myself closer to Luther’s, and most certainly no use of “transubstantiation”. ‘Sacraments (Augustine says) have a similitude to the things they signify, and bear their names.’ Yes, for Luther and the Lutheran, the “communication idiomatum” is an ontologically real communication, though since the biblical God is “simplex” or so-called simple/real to the Text itself, and therefore without “accidents, yet He/God has attributes, such as immensity or ubiquity, and surely eternity. Sorry to get somewhat scholastic myself, but I see some aspects of scholastic thought in the Jewish Hellenism, and certainly the Greco-Roman of a St. Paul, and thus the NT Letters.
Anyway, this is a most important subject and topic!
Like or Dislike:
0
Btw, I would agree with CMP, that the Resurrection and the Ascended Christ..on the Throne of God and Glory, is the central place of any sacrificial centre, for there Christ is now the Mediator (seated, Heb. 1: 3), in “Sessions” for the People of God and the Church of God! And any Sacrament that looses this, simply looses the reality of Christ, now in the Glory!
Like or Dislike:
3
Here are a few thoughts on the issue:
1. My Roman Catholic theologian friend would say that it is a major misunderstanding to understand substance in a physical or chemical sense; that instead it must be understood in a philosophical sense as “the true essence of something”. Our modern understanding of substance as meaning physical or chemical substance is, in this context, called “the accidentals” (and that answers comment #10 above, doesn’t look or smell like flesh or blood).
2. Today’s official ecumenical contacts of the Roman Catholic Church would indicate that the Church does not consider this “anathema” pronounced by Trent to be still valid today (if it ever was).
3. As far as I can tell, the Eastern Orthodox churches accept the hypostatic union. It is the “Oriental Orthodox” churches, also known as monophysites, who historically do not (hence their name), although that may be changing.
4. I personally tend to think that Christ is really present in the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper, in some special way; I believe that is (a) required by the strong language Paul uses in 1Cor in talking about abusive practices, and (b) supported by the pretty unanimous consensus of the early church on the subject. However I also think that we — all of us — have a tendency to want to define and pin down what is essentially a mystery, and that leads to the proliferation of theological terms claiming to describe HOW Christ is present in the Supper, and to controversies and discussions which do not glorify God or extend His Kingdom.
Like or Dislike:
1
@Wolf Paul,
As an Anglican, I would agree that the “presence” of Christ in the Eucharist, is more than todays so-called Zwinglian position. And sadly the Reformed churches have missed the real Calvin here certainly! Note as I said, I am close to Luther here somewhat, but not so much “Lutheranism”, especially todays, that is just too close to Rome on the Eucharist! Perhaps a look at the history of the Mercersburg Theology would be helpful here, as too John Williamson Nevin’s book: The Mystical Presence, etc. surely a “Calvinistic” view and position of the Holy Eucharist!
I was at one time very close to the EO, and with the nastiness of modern Anglicanism, I thought about moving there, but in the end the EO miss badly both the Pauline doctrine of Imputation and also Adoption. Not to mention some other things. But generally their Christology and Trinitarian doctrine are ok. Also we need to see more of the Pauline idea of mystery or the “Musterion”, which is surely more of God’s Revelation, than just “hiddenness”.
So its Reformed Anglicanism for me, noting the Irish Articles 1615.
Like or Dislike:
1
Wolf (and Michael): actually, the Oriental orthodox (Coptics, Ethiopians, Armenians) do accept the hypostatic union–or did back in the days of the Chalcedonian schism. (They may have gone farther by contrast to the central orthodox since then.) The point of contention is more subtle than that; they stress the subordination of the humanity of Christ in the two natures. The central orthodox (and the Church of the East, the Nestorians–a lot of “east” titles to confuse things
) worried that the OriOs were thereby denying the humanity of Christ by making it of no practical effect. (And the Nestorians worried that the Central Orthodox were doing the same thing by not sharply distinguishing the two natures enough. Whereas the Orientals worried that the Nestorians and the Centrals were distinguishing the two natures two much introducing a schism between them, which the Centrals also worried about in regard to the Nestorians, even though Nestorius himself thought he was in agreement with the Pope–or rather vice versa. Nestorius wasn’t the most diplomatic person ever to live. {wry g})
Anyway, as someone who leans on the rejection side of agnostic for the RCC doctrine of transsubtantiation, I do acknowledge they have more positive scriptural rationales for it than merely appeal to John 6 and the Last Supper wording. Rationales strong enough that I’m only leaning on the rejection side of agnostic. {lopsided g} I was surprised at how much scriptural and Jewish religious history was behind it, when I started looking into it more closely a couple of years ago. It’s strong enough that I now expect they’re getting something right that my Southern Baptist culture has inadvertently thrown out, although I haven’t figured out yet what version of real presence adds up best. I do see serious problems with trans-sub, but it avoids some serious problems with alternatives, too.
Like or Dislike:
0
Those who accept it: I would be interested on a response, especially to 2-5.
Like or Dislike:
0
Even tho I doubt I will get the time to read them unless it comes soon.
Like or Dislike:
0
We Lutherans do believe that the Lord Jesus is truly present in the bread and the wine of the Supper…and in the water of Baptism, when the Word is attached to these elements. “This IS my body. This IS my blood.”
But what we don’t claim to know (contrary to the transubstantiationalists) is exactly ‘how’ He is present.
For us, it is enough to trust, by faith, that He is there…for us…in what He commanded us to do.
Like or Dislike:
2
Speaking as someone who doesn’t accept it (yet), but who’s pretty sympathetic toward it:
#2.) Christ’s atonement is the action of God to save sinners and so operates at right angles to all history (so to speak) omnipresently with God. Thus it affects the past as well as the future; and can be offered by God before the historical event of the Passion as well as after. (This has strong connections to the bread of the presence offered by God in the tabernacle/temple, too, before Christ was even born.) No one anywhere denies that Christ could truly forgive sins during His prior years of ministry, do they?–but this also involves atoning sinners to God.
#3.) The pouring of the cup may be the covenant, but Christ doesn’t say the cup is the blood. (If it comes to that, neither the cup nor the blood is holy, nor anything else at all including the saints, except insofar as Christ sanctifies it.) Also, the scriptural indications elsewhere aren’t about the cup, but about the body/blood/bread/wine. The cup isn’t Christ, the body and blood are. The cup, somewhat like the cross, is a mediant tool to deliver the self-sacrificial love of Christ and His covenantal intentions toward and with us. Similarly, the divided sacrificial animals YHWH bodily walks between in making covenant with Abraham in Genesis aren’t what is important: they aren’t the covenant, nor the self-sacrifice of God by which we exist (and much moreso by which we have eonian life in cooperation with God).
#4.) The lack of reporting the form in GosJohn doesn’t obviate the importance of “munching” on the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, without which we have no life. It may however indicate that the ritual per se is not important in itself.
#5.) Jesus’ body was transformed in the bodily resurrection, to something substantially different than the flesh and blood He had (and that we have), with different properties. Everyone acknowledges this; our salvation does not depend on Him keeping moral flesh.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Jason Pratt: Yes, the long history of the Orthodox does get messy on the two-natures of Christ! But generally they are all seen as orthodox. We can also note that the so-called Hypostatic Union, i.e. the union of the divine and human natures in the person of Jesus Christ, was the doctrine that was somewhat brought together by Cyril of Alexandria.
The Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and Church of the East, etc. have sometimes used the term “transubstantiation” (metousiosis); however, terms such as “divine mystery”, “trans-elementation” (μεταστοιχείωσις metastoicheiosis), “re-ordination” (μεταρρύθμισις metarrhythmisis), or simply “change” (μεταβολή) are more common among them and they consider the change from bread and wine to flesh and blood a “Mystery”. The latter in reality must be seen however only in the Pauline sense, at least to my mind! Again, we all should look closely at Augustine here, his Eucharistic doctrine is simply not really a “transubstantiation” in the classic and historical sense! I like Peter Martyr Vermigli’s statement: “We say with Augustine that the sacramental symbols are visible words.”
Like or Dislike:
0
And as to #20, we simply must have biblical exegesis, before we get to dogmatic theology! This is always simply problematic for the High Church positions, and generally I would not place “Luther” here myself!
Also, Christ really is still “Incarnate”, though glorified as risen & ascended!
Like or Dislike:
1
#2 addendum .1: God doesn’t have to be first convinced to save us from our sins, in a progression of natural history, before He will act to do so: the Son is not atoning the Father to us, but atoning us to God (in and as all three Persons).
(Admittedly the RCCs, in their Arminianistic soteriology, tend to undermine this notion in various ways, but Calvinists (and Universalists) should appreciate the coherency there. {g!} Also, it fits the grammar of how the NT uses the term we translate “atone”; also, a bit more debatably, how the NT uses the term we translate “propitiate”. We are the objects of the action of atonement and even of propitiation; God, whether the Person of the Father or of the Son, is the doer of the action.)
#2 addendum .2: the Son’s self-sacrifice is an eternal action of fair-togetherness with the Father, of which the Son’s self-sacrifice to atone sinners is a special mode, as is the Son’s self-sacrifice for any not-God entities to exist at all. The whole Incarnation, not only the Passion, is an enaction of this self-sacrifice as well. Temporality doesn’t restrict the action of the Son’s self-sacrifice (on the contrary, natural time can only exist because of the Son’s eternal action of loving and gracious self-sacrifice!), it only provides a created framework for modal expressions of that self-sacrifice.
(Admittedly, RCCs in the past have leaned too hard on the spatio-temporal restrictions of the self-sacrifice of Christ, but they seem to be easing off this in the past century or so. RCC mystical tradition of the saints has, on the other hand, often emphasized the transcendent immanence, so to speak, of the living self-sacrificial action of the Son and then connected this to the transfiguration of the Mass. I would expect Von Balthasar has a ton to say about this, for example.)
Like or Dislike:
0
I have learned, as a Lutheran seminarian, to accept that some things aren’t explained, and leave them at that. Thus, I accept the Real Presence, even if I don’t know the process of His being present. do not accept the RCC teaching, of course, else I would BE Roman Catholic, right?
Like or Dislike:
1
Fr. Robert, yes the Three Great Easterns tend not to bother with the details of what happens in the Mass; and I might agree that’s the best approach for now! {g}
Still, a lot of the debate has come about due to practical questions, such as whether we should be concerned if someone throws the Host into the sewer gutters; or what if mice eat it; or as Michael brings up, what about excrement?
I’m sympathetic to those concerns, too, out of practical respect for what is deemed so important.
Fr. Robert, “Also, Christ really is still “Incarnate”, though glorified as risen & ascended!”
True, but He isn’t incarnate in mortal flesh and blood anymore, these having been transformed, thus also having their properties transformed. That’s much of the point of St. Paul’s reply to the detractor among the Corinthians, who was reducing the resurrection to something like the modern mockery of “zombie Jesus” (not because the detractor thought that, but because he thought the doctrine passed on by Paul involved that and so must be mistaken).
Thus also our body and blood shall be taken up and transformed, putting on and swallowed up by immortality, seeing as how flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
Consequently, whatever status of the body of Christ now, the fact that it isn’t the same flesh and blood as ours anymore is not a soteriological problem. It would be a problem if Christ had not Incarnated with our current flesh and blood, or if Christ had simply replaced the mortal flesh and blood rather than contiguously transforming it.
As for exegetics, the RCCs actually have quite a lot of those, and from a historical standpoint I can see how the broad High Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence came from holding to and applying various scriptural testimonies. So if they’re wrong, it isn’t because they started with doctrine in a presuppositionalistic fashion.
Like or Dislike:
0
This might be of interest for some here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sacrament_of_the_Body_and_Blood_of_Christ%E2%80%94Against_the_Fanatics
Again, I am somewhere in-between Luther and Calvin myself on the Eucharist presence. And is there anything higher than “spirit and truth”? As our Lord said: “God is Spirit (spirit), and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4: 24)
Like or Dislike:
0
@Jason: Indeed Luther’s position is about as far as I can or could go now, both biblically and theologically on the Eucharist. Note, I was raised Irish Roman Catholic in Dublin (1950′s). And I even spent some time (few years) with a group of English Benedictines in my mid 20′s (after my “first” tour as an RMC..Royal Marine Commando, (I will be 64 later this year). And yes, I still read many things “RC”! I have read Ratzinger since the 90′s.
Btw, have you read Augustine on the Sacraments? Note, we cannot leave out Baptism here either! – As our Lutheran friend (theoldadam) has reminded us! Just a friendly point!
Like or Dislike:
0
@Fr.Robert, no, only a smattering of Augustine on the sacraments, not much more than what I’ve read in this thread I expect.
Of course I wouldn’t leave baptism out of the sacraments. (Or marriage for that matter.
) But I’m not familiar enough with RCC writing yet to opine on how they’d connect the two in ways that address the debate on the Real Presence. (I’m a bit worried I’ve gone beyond what they’d dogmatically affirm already in my attempt to make a provisional answer for them…)
I could take a stab at how the sacrament of baptism involves our participation in the sacrificial filial cooperation of Christ, keeping in mind that the baptism of spirit (even/and fire) is the reality which the baptism of water naturally represents (or embodies?); thus connecting to the cooperation of the Mass by that route. But I might still be going off track of the post topic by doing so.
I’m convinced in any case that the fundamentally eternal self-sacrificial action of the Son in the intrinsic self-existence of the Trinity, which we’re called and empowered to participate in (subordinately and derivatively of course), is the root reality that the sacraments modally enact or embody (not sure of the terminology there).
I’m not talking about the Persons being modalistic, of course.
Like or Dislike:
3
1. Literalism. That’s an argument Michael, but it’s hardly an argument in favor of your position. It’s merely a mitigating factor against the opposing argument. You can’t deny all literalism in the bible.
2. Can OT saints get atonement from Christ? If so, what is the issue? Can’t his atonement work backwards for them too?
3. I don’t think this is a case of the cup being symbolic per se. If I’m handing out beers and I say “do you want a cup?”, its not exactly symbolism at work. It’s more like the shorthand of language.
4. You seem to be confusing the issue of transubstantiation with some related doctrines about the importance of partaking, which are issues that should be taken on their own merits. Nevertheless, John being written later ignores a lot of stuff in the rest of the NT material, because I think he assumes it is already known. My goodness, if we rejected what is not in John, how many “essential” doctrines even in your own framework would go missing? In any case, this is not an argument for your position, just a mitigating factor against the opposing position.
5. This seems an odd argument for someone arguing AGAINST tradition. You assume Chalcedon is true, and then argue from there.
Actually, scientifically speaking, even atheists believe Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. This is because the atoms from people’s bodies are frequently replaced, and get distributed and mixed all around the world. Mathematically there are probably atoms of his body in the Eucharist. I realise this is not the same thing, but I think it makes the point that this supposed devastating argument is really quite nonsense.
Like or Dislike:
1
What these arguments are meant to do is show how the arguments which say that one must take the “this IS my body” literally are both inconsistent and unnecessary. I don’t need to repeat the arguments as they are sufficiently stated in the op.
However, once one realizes the inconsistencies in interpretation and the poor exegesis involved (IMO), at the very least, one should have serious second thoughts about excommunicating people from the church for non-compliance.
Concerning the book of John. At the very least we have to admit that John at least THOUGHT that his message alone was enough (as there were “many other things he could have said), even if some may think he was wrong. The point is increadibly strong that the did not even mention the Lord’s table that night.
Again, at the very least, even if somehow we could justify reading a real physical presence into these passages, how in the world could we think damn people to hell for non-belief here? And how can we justify . . . Too much to say. One bite at a time. (Though I can’t really hang with these comments.
Good discussion though. Just remember what Trent says about those who don’t hold to this. Do you really want to defend Roman Catholic dogma here?
Like or Dislike:
2
a response to your #4:
The fathers and saints and history of the Church have attested to the Real Presence….including even the reformers. So, if you are going to argue with 1500 years of Christian thought, your argument better be more sophisticated than the book of John not being explicit. We in the 21st century are not the first intelligent, insightful, or spirit-filled people to read it. Now, I’m not particularly accusing you of it, but it sure seems many Christians today think they have some monopoly on Biblical interpretation and are unwilling to trust the intelligence and wisdom of the first Christians, who had the apostles’ words “ringing in their ears”, and who loved Jesus enough to endure martyrdom. I think we shouldn’t be so quick to think we have John all figured out. We are, after all, the culture that has warnings printed on buckets about how to not drown in them.
So, you think you, while separating yourself from Christian tradition, can interpret the book of John? I think you have underestimated him!
Yes, John doesn’t give the Last Supper narrative. He also doesn’t relate the infancy narratives, or the parables. His is a different kind of Gospel. (I don’t need to tell you that.) Notice he calls the miracles *signs*. They point to other realities beyond themselves. John doesn’t mention the Eucharist explicitly, because Christians already know. The other Gospels have covered it. He uses the FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND as a sign to point to the mystery and give further insight. Notice its placement. Maybe I can write a comment on that later.
But think about the mindsets of our culture and his. We are used to explicit, straightforward directions, biographies, news reports, etc. They were used to storytelling and religious connections. In John’s day, they could pick up on things that are harder for us.
John did NOT ignore the Eucharist.
Like or Dislike:
0
The Eastern Orthodox Church’s doctrine of the change in the bread and wine is very close to the Roman Catholic Church’s, though it’s the Holy Spirit, not the priest’s words, that changes them after/during the epiklēsis. From the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom:
Priest (in a low voice): Once again we offer to You this spiritual worship without the shedding of blood, and we ask, pray, and entreat You: send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here presented.
Priest: And make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ.
Amen.
Priest: And that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Your Christ.
Amen.
Priest: Changing them by Your Holy Spirit. Amen. Amen. Amen.
Like or Dislike:
1
Irene,
You must understand first that sola Scriptura is a doctrine that says that Scripture is the ultimate trump card. So if Scripture is not clear or is against this (which I think it is), then it is the norm that norms which is not normed. If you have been around this blog long enough (or been to the Credo House—the only Coffee Shop in the world devoted to historic theology!) you would know how much I see Church history as an authority, it just does not have ultimate trumping power. The Pharisees had in their tradition for many many years that spitting on the ground on Sunday was a violation of the sabbath as it could lead to plowing. Christ came in an over turned many of their traditions. Therefore, we need to be careful. Just because many people have believed something does not make it so. It has to be tested by the Scriptures. If John was written that people may have eternal life and he does not include the Lord’s table, this is incredibly substantial.
But more importantly, it is not really presence that I am arguing against. It is the real PHYSICAL presence which (and don’t miss this) must be believed in order to keep from being anathematized. This is uniquely a Roman Catholic dogma and it is this which all the arguments push back on.
And your statement about John is telling, simply showing the difference in our traditions with respect to the Bible (although Roman Catholics have incredible confessions about the Scriptures). John’s Gospel was the second most distributed Gospel in the early church. Most people did not have even one Gospel. Even today, it is distributed alone. Many times this is all they would have. Now this is unremarkable until you put yourself in the mind of John through his own world. He could have written many other things, he says. He does not say, “but you have the other Gospels, epistles, and traditions, therefore, I did not write these things. He says, “These have been written that you may have life.” One does not even have to read between the lines to see that John though his message was sufficient. But this cannot be if Rome is right and that a right practice and belief in the Mass is essential. So I would not downplay this Gospel. It was widely distributed in the early church for a reason.
To say that he does not tell about the Last supper because Christians already know is not just speculation, but it must be wrong. He wrote this to people “so that by believing you might have life in his name.” He did not see himself as writing to those who were already Christians in order to edify this with an appendix version to what they already knew. He wrote to people so that they may believe and have eternal life.
At the very least, you should have no problem recognizing the strength of this argument, even if you do not agree.
Now, I know Roman Dogma enough to know that much has changed with regard to what it means to be anathmatized. I know that invincible ignorance now protects me. But this, to me, is historic revisionism and cannot apply to the details of this conversation as I am not really too worries about Rome’s view of my eternal destiny. I know that they view me as kosher now, even when I don’t believe or practice the Mass the way they do. Phew!
. But again, that is beside the point of this theological post.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
At what point did I (the Christian universalist, of all people) ever defend the Council of Trent’s anathema?!
Still, they hit that anathema so hard because of the insistence of Christ regarding munching and drinking His flesh and blood. As I noted, John’s omission of the ritual scene at the Last Supper may have been an indication that the ritual isn’t necessary for eonian life, but he wouldn’t have included that (unique) scene from just after the Feeding of the 5000 unless he thought that was important to believe — which in fact Jesus also says.
As for exegesis, the Roman Catholic Church has a good bit more of it than the couple of points you mentioned in your article. I’ve found Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist by Brant Pitre a good introduction. I still think he pushes things a bit far in a couple of places, but I respected and understood the RCC rationales a lot more after reading it.
Like or Dislike:
0
I never understood why transubstaniation was necessary, if he is to be taken literally. The bread is his body, but he said he already was made of bread (I am the bread of life). Therefore, no transformation us necessary.
Like or Dislike:
0
>2. … 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.
Michael, surely you prove far too much here. God is not subject to the strictures of time. Are you prepared to deny the efficacy of Christ’s atonement for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
Like or Dislike:
0
Richard, this would simply be theological gymnastics attempting to find harmony for something that is not only exegetically unnecessary, but impossible. Of course if this was taught elsewhere we might be able to force such conclusions, but, as I have shown, I find every reason to reject the Roman Catholic understanding of Trans and the abiding anathemas for its denial.
Like or Dislike:
0
1. Eating is used metaphorically. Jeremiah “ate” God’s word (Jeremiah 15:16). In John it refers to the “believing” in the living Word of God (John 6:47). When the Spirit baptizes us into the body of Christ we “drink” of Him (1 Corinthians 12:13).
2. “It is the LORD’S Passover” (Exodus 12:11) – It represents the LORD’S Passover.
Like or Dislike:
0
I have yet to find an exegetical commentator who comes to these conclusions, even about John 6, liberal or conservative. One must overlay their pre concluded position to make this work IMO.
The strongest argument for real presence come not from the bible but from history. But even then, the Catholic dogma does not find a comfortable home.
Again, it is not simply a real presence I am talking about. It is transubstantiation and the anathema that abides on any who don’t agree with Rome on this. That is where the divide is the greatest.
Like or Dislike:
0
“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.”
You respond.
“Michael, surely you prove far too much here. God is not subject to the strictures of time. Are you prepared to deny the efficacy of Christ’s atonement for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?”
This is not the same in any sense to me. One is substantial, the other is non-substantial. One says that the substantial atonement had taken place even before it did. The other says that God passed over “in forbearance” (Rom 3) the sins previously committed. The atonement can’t be made effectual without the event. When Christ said “This is my body” this shows he was not being literal since the substantial atonement was not yet a reality. .
Like or Dislike:
1
Michael,
still on your number 4:
Here’s a distinction I think you’re missing. Christian history/church fathers teach a certain doctrine, and you say the Bible teaches an opposing doctrine; you are then saying Scripture trumps tradition. But here’s my point– it’s not Scripture vs. Tradition. In reality, it’s *your* interpretation of Scripture vs. *the fathers’* interpretation of Scripture. In reality, Scripture is supreme on both sides. The only difference is which *interpretation* you subscribe to.
So applied to the issue of the Eucharist in the Gospel of John—
You say it’s not in there. The fathers saw it there, not because tradition trumped Scripture, but because that’s what they believed Scripture said.
Also, it wasn’t just I am the Bread of Life, it was the feeding of the 5,000. I haven’t read up again to “tune-up” my understanding, but you’re the professional. I’m sure you can read up on it more effectively than I could articulate it here. 12 extra baskets, Jesus provides bread for our Sabbath, etc.
Like or Dislike:
1
Irene,
Do you accept everything the Fathers said? (And, yes, this is a set up).
Like I said, very sincere Jewish Fathers believe that one is not to spit in the dirt on the Sabbath. Christ spent much of his time correcting bad tradition. Are you saying that tradition cannot go bad.
But more importantly, Transubstantiation an the dogma of anathema certainly is an interpretation of history and, IMO, one that has to be read into history. Real presence is historically present. Transubstantiation and excommunication for non-belief, not there. So keeping focus here, I don’t find the RC doctrine in either tradition or Scripture.
So. . . Yes, there will be many times that tradition goes astray. The regula fide becomes corrupted and added to. What starts as a short Apostle’s creed turns into fundamentalistic catachisms filled with curses for people who miss church, take birth control, do not believe in transubstantiation, and a thousand other things. I see the Protestant burden to glory in the simplicity of grace and offer freedom and mystery to those things that are not so clear.
Can you beleive in transubstantiation. Sure, no real harm to me. But when the Church says that all have to or they are outside the church where there is no salvation or that hard working pastors who slave for Christ are declared to pastor illegitimate churches (as the pope said) then lines are crossed. Serious lines.
Like or Dislike:
0
Irene,
Quick question (and take this in a very non-threatening spirit as there isn’t much one can say that will Hirt me too bad): since I don’t believe in Transubstantiation in the Roman Catholic sense, am I anathema?
Like or Dislike:
0
Are you anathema?
Honestly, I can’t give you an answer that is reliably representative of the Catholic Church.
Other than this–that the Church cannot condemn any individual person to hell. (Or determine that they are condemned). Not judas, not Nero, not Hitler. It’s not within her authority. Morality and doctrine, yes. Final judgement of the heart, no.
If it were up to me, I’d say you were in (; because you are trying to follow God……anyway, with a humble spirit, an inquisitive mind, and all the access to history and theology you have, I could imagine you eventually becoming Catholic. (:
Like or Dislike:
0
Actually, while I have a respect for the Catholic Church, the more Protestant I become. That is almost word for word what justo Gonzalez said to me a few weeks ago when he was at Credo. I tend to agree.
However, all you are prevented from doing is definitively pronouncing someone to heaven or hell. You certainly can express your fallible belief. Trent says that if I deny transubstantiation, I am anathema. Is that true? Am I anathema if I sent transubstantiation?
Like or Dislike:
0
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm
“Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity…. In passing this sentence, the pontiff is vested in amice, stole, and a violet cope, wearing his mitre, and assisted by twelve priests clad in their surplices and holding lighted candles. He takes his seat in front of the altar or in some other suitable place, amid pronounces the formula of anathema which ends with these words: “Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N– himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.” Whereupon all the assistants respond: “Fiat, fiat, fiat.” The pontiff and the twelve priests then cast to the ground the lighted candles they have been carrying, and notice is sent in writing to the priests and neighboring bishops of the name of the one who has been excommunicated and the cause of his excommunication, in order that they may have no communication with him. Although he is delivered to Satan and his angels, he can still, and is even bound to repent.”
Like or Dislike:
0
In the words of Butthead . . . “Excommunication sucks . . . Ahhh hu hu hu hu”
Bevis: “no it doesn’t Butthead. There is fire, fire, fire, fire. Burned at the stake.”
Butthead: “Oh yeah. Excommunication rules!”
Like or Dislike:
0
newadvent.org has ecclesiastical approbation in the form of the Nihil Obstat and imprimatur declaring the content to be, in short, authorized by the Roman Catholic Church. Here is the one for the page on “anathema”. As you guessed. I’ve been through this.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Like or Dislike:
0
Easy, fellas. First, “imprimatur” and “nihil obstat” don’t mean that such and such material is declared to be infallibly true, or even true in the normal sense of the word. It specifically means that the writing contains nothing which contradicts the official declarations of the church. There’s a difference.
Second, here is a blip from Catholic Answers that puts the term anathema in context. So, Michael, your answer is no, you cannot be anathematized. If you were a) Catholic and b)teaching no transubstantiation, then theoretically you could be excommunicated. But just look at Catholic politicians to see how often that is actually practiced.
But this [damned as a heretic] is not what the term means. In Catholic documents the term refers to a kind of excommunication. By the time of the Council of Trent (which Chick faults for using it), it referred to an excommunication done with a special ceremony. Thus when Trent says things like “If anyone says . . . let him be anathema,” it means that the person can be excommunicated with the ceremony. It also did not apply to Protestants since they were not part of the Catholic Church. Only someone who is part of the Catholic Church can be excommunicated from it.
The purpose of excommunication is not to damn a person but to bring him to repentance—the same principle Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 Corinthians 2:5—10.
Further, though ordinary excommunication still exists, the ceremonial form of excommunication (anathema) does not exist. The 1983 Code of Canon Law ended the penalty. Thus, while one can still be excommunicated for holding beliefs against the Catholic faith, one cannot be anathematized.
Like or Dislike:
0
Irene,
Thanks for your answers here. I have several dear Catholic friends that I value, and who who believe in His saving grace.
I think the worst thing we can do is to doubt that they are saved too, despite our Protestant disagreemenst with some of their beliefs. Not every Catholic, I know at least, believes in what has been outlined in this post.
Like or Dislike:
0
Irene,
Please understand the rather awkward position you put us in. First you point us away from something that has the imprimatur and nihil obstat telling us that it does not necessarily contain a correct interpretation. Then you point us to Catholic Answers video that does not even have a imprimatur and nihil obstat. Then you further offer your interpretation which contains neither as well. All the while believing that the Catholic Church is necessary to keep interpretations straight, especially about big matters. This always comes back to the age old question Who has the authority to interpret the church? Why are there so many interpretations?
Of course that is tongue-in-cheek and simply shows how living authorities don’t solve much as we all eventually return to our own interpretations. I have had this discussion for years with some good Catholic friends, never coming to any conclusions since we can’t call up the Pope or call a council to figure this out.
What it means to anathematize is one of those things. No dogma, only variously accepted doctrines that are hard to interpret and do not carry infallibility.
And it is not as if this is a minor question.
However, what you say is right from one Catholic school of thought. The ironic thing in this school is that it is actually easier to make it to heaven by remaining a Protestant than it is by becoming Catholic! Why, because we remain invincibly ignorant outside the faith. This means that if we were Catholic and denied Transubstantiation, we are in trouble as anathemas are more likely. But if we are Protestant and denied Transubstantiation, we are good since we can’t be held guilty for something we are either ignorant of or unconvinced of.
Finally, Trent was part of the Counter-Reformation. It would not have been convened had it not been for Protestants, so I will have to disagree with you pretty strongly here . . . the anathemas were for Protestants. Besides that, there is the school of thought that any Catholic who denies any Catholic doctrine (i.e. cafeteria Catholics) is by definition, Protestant.
But here we go again, interpreting the Church that is very difficult to interpret. All we can really do is offer our best opinion until a ordinary or extraordinary means of dogma is produced about these specific questions.
Until then, I will have to stick with the history of the issues, rather than what I see so many doing in following the historical revisionism of the Church. Back then, excommunication was not just a slap on the wrist. It was a ticket to hell. Just ask Frederick II and follow his crusade (pardon the pun) through this issue. Outside the church there is no salvation tied in very closely with excommunication and anathemas.
Having said that, I am glad that, from my perspective, you hold to the revisionist side of things. As MBaker said, I like you believing that I can make it to heaven even in my wrong doctrine. I agree with her that Catholics will to. Catholics and Protestants are both saved the same way in my theology: calling on God through Jesus to have mercy on them. Perfect theology, for the most part, optional.
Like or Dislike:
0
not sure I understand all the subtlely, don’t need to-
EVERY minute, the Lord is my portion, my reward…
The LORD is my portion,” says my soul, “Therefore I have hope in Him.” Lam 3:24 “
Whom have I in heaven but You? And besides You, I desire nothing on earth. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever. Ps 73: 25-26
Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. John 14:23
Like or Dislike:
0
When I was a Catholic, I believed in transubstantiation.
It was what I was taught.
But then I learned about faith. Not walking by sight…but trusting even against what I see. That’s when I became a con-substantiationist.
He is in, under, and with the bread and the wine. How? Who knows. God knows.
Like or Dislike:
0
” First you point us away from something that has the imprimatur and nihil obstat telling us that it does not necessarily contain a correct interpretation.”
I wasn’t trying to lessen or contradict anything in that Catholic Encyclopedia article Greg posted. I was just tweaking his informal definition. Often, people will point out an imprimatur and say, “See? See, here? This means that this is official church teaching!” That is not technically true.
” Then you point us to Catholic Answers video that does not even have a imprimatur and nihil obstat. ”
I pasted part of a tract about Jack Chick. Those types of things don’t typically have an imprimatur. It isn’t necessary to have an imprimatur for a piece of writing to be true and in line with the Catholic faith. Catholic Answers is a reputable group and gave a concise answer to your anathema question. I’ll have to root around for a modern piece on the anathema question with an imprimatur, if that’s what you are looking for.
You don’t seem to accept the Catholic Answers explanation. And your reason is that there are multiple answers floating around and that the Church is confusing?
It doesn’t make sense to say the reason for one answer being wrong is that other answers exist.
Anathema and excommunication fall under Canon Law. The imprimatur date on Greg’s article is 1907. The Church now has the 1983 code of canon law. Before that was the 1917 code. What was before that I’m not sure. So the excommunication ceremony described in Greg’s article is from an outdated code of canon law.
When Catholics (or any people) are confused, it’s normally because they don’t know the answer. If the Church has not given an official answer, then most likely, it has not made a dogmatic declaration on that matter, in which case Catholics are perfectly free to debate and hold differing opinions (issues such as the length of creation, nuts and bolts of predestination, and various private…
Like or Dislike:
0
…various private revelations.
Like or Dislike:
0
Yeah, I know Catholic theology pretty well. The idea is that a living authority is necessary to keep the unity. I was pointing out the irony of two things: your slight on something that is more official in favor of a video blog and the difficulty in figuring out to understand that darn magisterial living authority. We are all fallible interpreters of some infallible source and we all come to varying conclusions.
Fun stuff.
Like or Dislike:
0
” We are all fallible interpreters of some infallible source and we all come to varying conclusions.”
Maybe so, but some of those infallible sources can talk back and might even excommunicate you! (;
I do appreciate all your knowledge, and I’ve appreciated your comments. (:
Like or Dislike:
0
Wait. You can talk to the Pope???!! You can get an infallible statement from him about this issue? Please call him and let us know what he says!
21 ecumenical councils in 2000 years and three or four infallible statements by the man hardly qualify for “talking back” to us. And once they do finally talk, everyone debates endlessly what they meant (e.g. V2). I love V2 as it, in my interpretation, undoes just about 1/2 of the missteps of Trent. But. . . Interpretations are interpretations.
Like or Dislike:
0
And I definitely appreciate you. All your comments are always so representative of the spirit of this blog. I can’t wait for glory where we sit down are see how much we were both wrong about, but glorify the God-man whom we know truly but not fully.
Like or Dislike:
0
Indeed nice to see/hear “Irene” once again! We can always learn much from this ‘RC’!
Like or Dislike:
0
It’s killin me that I can’t respond to this further now. Jist killin me! =[
Like or Dislike:
0
In my opinion, this subject is a real historical as well as a biblical-theological one. We must do our homework here! This is where the Greco-Roman of St. Paul surely matters, i.e. the “musterion” (Gk.) is Revelation, and not just something “hidden”!
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael: “The ironic thing in this school is that it is actually easier to make it to heaven by remaining a Protestant than it is by becoming Catholic!”
Not necessarily; if Catholic doctrine is true, and the explanation offered by Catholic Answers is true, the only people who can be excommunicated from the Church are people who were already properly inducted into the Church, therefore who are people God will certainly save from their sins eventually.
In effect, the explanation from Catholic Answers means that an anathema hands unrepentant Catholics over to purgatory, not to hell. Protestants may go to purgatory, too, or to hell, depending on various circumstances, but can’t be anathematized and excom’d (because they haven’t been inducted into the fullness of the Church yet).
An particular excom’d Catholic might not make it into heaven as easy as this or that more devout Protestant Christian, but he’s certainly going to get there eventually (per RCC doctrine), whereas a particular Protestant Christian might not.
Thus St. Paul expects the Stepmom-Sleeping Guy from 1 Corinthians to be saved in the Day of the Lord to come eventually even if his flesh is destroyed first by being handed over to Satan; or as another example, Heb 10 involves people who have tasted the good things of the Spirit (and so who demonstrate the intention of the Spirit to save them from sin) being handed over to God for chastising vindication parallel to what God intends for the rebel Jews in Deut 32 (cited by the Hebraist): after they’ve been destroyed in the Day of the Lord to come, until they are neither slave nor free (a euphamism for being killed insofar as it is possible to kill anyone), the rebels will finally learn better, repent and be restored to fellowship with the Lord and with the righteous. Thus God vindicates even His rebel people.
(This fits Christian universalism, too, of course, but could also fit varieties of Calvinistic soteriology.)
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Patton at Parchment and Pen gives a good explanation of Christ’s presence in this post on the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. In refutation of this doctrine, which proclaims that the Eucharist represents the real presence of [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Well, again, besides the fact that the anathemas in question were written at Trent, directly to the Protestant issue, and besides the fact that to be outside the church there is no salvation, and besides the fact that since V2 we are seen as part of the church, just separated bretheren, it is easier, from my studies, to get into heaven as a Protestant since we cannot possibly fit the bill for the mortal sins that send so many Catholics down the tube (disagreement in doctrine, missing Mass without a valid excuse, use of birth control, etc). All of these I do. But I am covered since one qualification is that one has to know and believe it is a mortal sin before they commit it. I never will. So I am cool (literally). But the Catholic (about 75% of whom take birth control or disagree with the Church on the matter) are in mortal sin which kills the grace of God in their soul. So they have to make sure they make it to a preist. I don’t.
So, if Catholicism is true, I am better off being a Protestant.
But, this is not the issue of this thread. Soon, I will write on this issue specifically. I have some really good material on this. I even have some very significant admissions that this is true from Catholic apologists. How do they respond? You will just have to wait and see.
Like or Dislike:
0
I only have second, but it’s like this. Trent was a direct response, as in, would not have happened were it not for the proliferation of the exact reformed theology it was convened to address as Micheal says. To deny that “anathema” meant at Trent what newadvent reports and that it was pointed right at the forehead of the reformers is to simply refuse reality. EVERYBODY knew what that meant then. The aroma of roasting protestants didn’t do much to support this moderated patently false post Vat II view. Honestly? I respect the RCC of Trent far more. I mean that. All this flowery obnoxious arrogant talk of separated brethren is nauseating. I am saved by the eternal election of my Father God in Christ. Adopted into the covenant of Abraham, my believing brother as Paul told the Galatians he was. I have nothing whatever to do with Roman Catholicism. When I go to prayer in the morning, He’s there first. He HAS made me live where once I was dead and the complete overhaul that he has done in me as a man is proof positive to everybody who knows me. He gets all the glory every single day.
Lemme ask Irene ,who seems like a very nice lady BTW. Am I deluding myself with my life that is utterly consumed and defined by Jesus Christ? Is it all a lie? Honest question.
Like or Dislike:
1
Good question Greg. But I get the idea that Irene is a V2 Catholic. So you are neither anathema anymore nor wasting your time. Everyone has changed a bit since the reformation. The biggest difference is that Protestants can admit change (semper reformanda) Catholics (no offense Irene) have to call it “development” without any change in dogma, otherwise they would be Protestant!
Old Cardinal Newman saved their backside with is Development of Christian Doctrine. It allowed them to “change, but not really.” However, this is why I say it is so hard to be Catholic and be a student of Church History. It is one thing to read interesting theological loopholes to get out of the pickle, but when you read—and I mean really read—church history focusing on primary documents, this change but not really idea quickly loses its viability. And wasn’t this the argument of Luther at Worms?
That aside, I love Irene. She seems to be a wonderful lover of our savior.
Like or Dislike:
1
Michael: “You must understand first that sola Scriptura is a doctrine that says that Scripture is the ultimate trump card. So if Scripture is not clear or is against this (which I think it is), then it is the norm that norms which is not normed.”
But Michael…. didn’t we have discussions a while back where you said tradition is supposed to be authoritative? Unless scripture flat out says the traditional position is wrong, you have to accept it, or else rewrite a long history of your position on the value of tradition. Here we are again with your inconsistency, on one hand saying how tradition is an authority, and on the other hand throwing it under the bus even when it is as unanimous as it is on this issue. Give us the unarguable, incontrovertible verse for your position, or else it fails. Or else finally admit that tradition is utterly devoid of authority.
“Do you accept everything the Fathers said? (And, yes, this is a set up).”
But Michael… as far as I see, there is no more certain witness to a doctrine than on this issue. This is not some side issue that one or two random fathers “got wrong”. This is pretty central to a big portion of the fathers, and to historical Christian theology. So all your talk about the authority of tradition is shown to be nonsense. If you want to throw tradition under the bus, be my guest, but be consistent about it. Don’t claim tradition has authority, but then reject it when it is most clear.
Like or Dislike:
0
This is a thoughtful article, thank you. I agree with your conclusions and all your points, except point 3: “It does not take Christ literally enough (2).
In Hebrew literature “cup” was an idiom/metaphor for one’s destiny or future. In this metaphor, it was the contents of the cup which were under scrutiny. (See Psalm 11:6 for a cursed cup, and Psalm 16:5 for a cup of blessing). So, when Jesus speaks of the cup, it seems rather likely that he is using this Hebrew understanding and, even taken “literally” is referring to the contents of the cup.
Again, I agree with your conclusions, but I don’t think point 3 will get you there.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael: {{It is one thing to read interesting theological loopholes to get out of the pickle, but when you read—and I mean really read—church history focusing on primary documents, this change but not really idea quickly loses its viability.}}
Obviously I (currently) agree or else I wouldn’t be (currently) Protestant. But I thought the post was about the interesting theology, not about complaints on the RCC not being consistent about what counts as infallible teaching of faith and morals.
John: {{But Michael…. didn’t we have discussions a while back where you said tradition is supposed to be authoritative? Unless scripture flat out says the traditional position is wrong, you have to accept it, or else rewrite a long history of your position on the value of tradition. [...] [A]s far as I see, there is no more certain witness to a doctrine than on this issue. This is not some side issue that one or two random fathers “got wrong”. This is pretty central to a big portion of the fathers, and to historical Christian theology.}}
Yep, I remember those discussions, too. And it isn’t like the scriptures CLEARLY say transsub is false, or CLEARLY say that some other theory about the Lord’s Supper is clearly true. (By contrast, there is at least a feasible prima facie case that the scriptures clearly teach hopeless punishment of one or another kind.)
I also recall you not long ago writing that where you yourself couldn’t see how the scriptural testimony you accepted added up theologically, you were prepared to accept the doctrines anyway as being something no one could even in principle rationally accept and to even try to understand would be heresy. Why could RCCs not just as validly fall back on the same position (as in fact they historically have on occasion), at least for self-defense on their doctrines if not to accuse you of heresy for using your “human reason” to oppose the mysterious truth of their doctrines?
Like or Dislike:
0
Greg(Tiribulus) asked: ” Am I deluding myself with my life that is utterly consumed and defined by Jesus Christ? Is it all a lie?.”
No, but you are missing out. There is more to receive than what you already have. I used to be a devout Lutheran and thought I was on the right track in my faith. It turned out, it wasn’t so much that I was on the wrong track, but that I was limiting Him.
Here’s my own dumb little analogy. Being a Protestant was like holding a snowcone. You have to be careful how you hold it. Don’t let it melt or drip out the bottom. It was like you had to guard this special thing. You had this special theology of the 3 solas, Always filtering new ideas and methods through them. Like you were a guard for the glory of God! Be careful! Never let anything overshadow God’s Work and His Glory.
But then it was like He dragged me out the door. If the Protestant faith was like a snowcone, the Catholic faith is like being outside in a beautiful snowfall. God didn’t need me to protect his glory. He wanted me to experience his glory. Not crude little shavings of frozen water that fit in a paper cup, but infinite beautiful snowflakes, each one a marvelous perfection. Not a faith I could hold in my hand, but a faith that enveloped me. Not a faith that depended upon me to keep it pure and intact, but a faith that came from far above me. So, now I guess you could say I am making snow angels. And I know God is smiling at me. My snowcone lies abandoned on the ground.
About this separated brethren thing: don’t let it get you too at ease. I had never heard the term “illegitimate churches” Michael referred to earlier in this thread, but I have heard the term “ecclesiastical communities” to refer to Protestant “churches”. Only the Eastern Orthodox, that I am aware of, is referred to as “the other lung of THE CHURCH”.
Like or Dislike:
2
I am not sure what you all are getting at about tradition. Tradition is simply “teaching.” Scripture is written tradition and the interpretation of Scripture is unwritten tradition.
I believe the Scriptures clearly teach that Transubstantiation is wrong just as I do think they teach that papal infallibility, the Marian dogmas, and purgatory are wrong. They are all just absent. Therefore, they cannot be a part of the regula fide guide which the Holy Spirit has tought everywhere always and by all throughout the church. Indeed, they are not. Just step into Irenaeus as you will find this from the beginning. So the regula fide (tradition) stands gaurd over the Scriptures because the Holy Spirit is in the heart of believers leading them to a proper interpretation of the Scriptures when the doctrine is held always, everywhere, and by all. This way, someone cannot come in 2000 years later and say that they have discovered something essential which has never been held.
As well. everyone has authoritative tradition. The one who says that tradition plays no part, only Scripture is a tradition itself! “No creed but the Bible” is a creed!!
Like or Dislike:
3
Is there any way to like my own post? That last one was good!
Like or Dislike:
0
I appreciate the collective scholarship of the comments above. Many of us would spend hours to examine what you have at your fingertips.Yet I wonder if this issue cannot be resolved by one with ordinary skills, by a correct discernment of the scriptures?
Jesus said that he would send the Comforter (Holy Spirit) after he is gone, indicating that he will not return to earth in bodily form until certain criteria are met, including Israel’s confession, etc. On the other hand, he said that he would always be with us and in us. If he is with us and the HS is within us, there is no necessity for him to manifest in the inanimate bread and wine. I submit that such a thing is a subversion of his person and his divinity.
Like or Dislike:
0
He also said, “This IS my body…this IS my blood.”
And He said, “Whoever does not eat my body and drink my blood, has no life in them.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Greg(Tiribulus) asked: ” Am I deluding myself with my life that is utterly consumed and defined by Jesus Christ? Is it all a lie?.”
Irene says: No, but you are missing out.
I am compelled to charitably beg to differ. I am further compelled to ask you to bring your story of victorious snow angels from the realm of poetic abstract analogy into life where we live it. What does this mean, “I am missing out”? On what exactly? What do you actually have that I don’t? Aside apparently from a cold wet back?
I should have been dead several times before my 20th birthday lying unconscious with a puddle of puke frozen to the side of my face. I was homeless for a year eating garbage out of dumpsters and even AFTER tasting of His grace and love I fell back into unbelieving rebellion and sinned right in His face in full knowledge of what I was doing.(long story) He set me free from all my bondage by His own sovereign faithfulness when I dared not even ask Him. He took me back into His arms when I should have been struck dead and cast headfirst into the lake of fire.
when I go to Him in prayer I KNOW He is there. He speaks to my heart and gives me wisdom when I need it. He has made me a man of unfailing honesty and integrity in dealing with others when in my sin I stole from my own family and lied constantly about everything. He has made me a faithful husband and loving father who would kill and die to protect his family. He is daily building in me a conscience that loves what He loves and hates what He hates.
My bones hurt to please Him and to see others have what I have. He has given me a love for people I don’t even know that is both painful and joyous because I KNOW it comes from Him. It certainly ain’t mine. I could go on and on.
I’m sure you’re a fine lady, but it is abundantly clear you know nothing about what someone like me means when we speak of living for the glory of God. NOTHING.
Please try a little harder this time. What am I missing again?
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael: “You must understand first that sola Scriptura is a doctrine that says that Scripture is the ultimate trump card. So if Scripture is not clear or is against this (which I think it is), then it is the norm that norms which is not normed. ”
But Michael… when does tradition have the authority which you claim it does? If we consider all the possible combinations: scripture clear/unclear tradition clear/unclear, when exactly does tradition have authority? I would have thought the little gap you leave for it would be scripture unclear, tradition clear. If you don’t leave that gap, when does tradition have ANY authority? WHEN? This is the question I keep asking you.
“The Pharisees had in their tradition for many many years that spitting on the ground on Sunday was a violation of the sabbath as it could lead to plowing. Christ came in an over turned many of their traditions.”
Do you actually think these situations are comparable? I don’t think they are, but assuming they are, what possible authority can you leave for tradition with such a negative view of it?
“But more importantly, it is not really presence that I am arguing against. It is the real PHYSICAL presence which (and don’t miss this) must be believed in order to keep from being anathematized. This is uniquely a Roman Catholic dogma and it is this which all the arguments push back on.”
What the RCC anathematises is irrelevant to the truth of this doctrine. And I don’t think this doctrine is uniquely RCC. I know Orthodox don’t think the presence is “spiritual”. I don’t think Lutherans or high Anglicans do either. And “body” and “blood” are distinctively physical attributes of the human being, not spiritual attributes. If you’re going to accept any presence, its the physical that the bible talks of. Why accept spiritual presence?
Like or Dislike:
0
“John’s Gospel was the second most distributed Gospel in the early church. Most people did not have even one Gospel.”
That is irrelevant to sound exegesis. Nobody counts distribution as a means of interpreting an author.
John is very acontextual. Even if you look at chapter 1, it dives into things that are meaningless to the new reader. In the beginning was “the word”. What word? What is that about? You would have no idea if you weren’t a Christian already.
” One does not even have to read between the lines to see that John though his message was sufficient.”
You’re going on again about the RCC’s anathemas. Which are irrelevant to the truth of this doctrine.
BTW, if we’re going to take whatever can be found in each and every gospel account as definitive of the true and essential gospel, I’m not seeing salvation by faith alone in the gospels. Where is it in Matthew? Can you prove it definitively from Matthew in a debate without other books? If not, doesn’t the Protestant reason for being vanish?
Like or Dislike:
0
Actually the Orthodox believe in the real physical presence, they just don’t accept Rome’s definition of it.
When you say that this is irrelevant, you are missing the point of this post. The reason why this particular argument about John is crucial is because Rome’s abiding anathema is one of my main concerns here. It may not be yours, but the post must determine what arguments are relevant.
Concerning the importance of tradition in my spiritual epistemology, I have an extremely high view. But I have written so much on this throught the years I would not know how to begin to express it. The best I can do now (since I unfortunately don’t have the time to engage in my own blog comments much—my engagement as of late has been active, bit this is not the norm), I will have to punt to another very extensive post found here: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/10/evangelicals-we-can-and-we-must-distinguish-between-essentials-and-non-essentials-better/
I hope this helps.
Like or Dislike:
0
““John’s Gospel was the second most distributed Gospel in the early church. Most people did not have even one Gospel.”
That is irrelevant to sound exegesis. Nobody counts distribution as a means of interpreting an author.”
That is quite a definitive statement. You probably ought to ask what relevance this has rather than making such an assertive and dismissive assumption.
This is very relevant so long as you know what I mean. It is used to support the understanding that historically, when we look at distribution and ownership of these books, most people did not have much. They may have had one or two works available to them. Matthew was the most widely distributed. John, when writing, was not writing assuming that people had already heard this Gospel. This is evidenced in his words (“many other things Christ said and did, but these have been written so that you might believe…” It was not a Christian community he was writing to. The distribution of the manuscripts shows how this book was carried (much of the time by itself) as an all inclusive work (a lot like many missionaries do today). This fits a late date and helps to understand and affirm that the purpose of the work was not to append the other Gospels.
This is all part of exegesis. You must look toward everything, even the context of understanding which the people had to which he was writing to. It help understand the assumptions (if any) toward Christ, the Gospel, the church, and, in this case, the Lord’ s table that John expected the people to have.
In short, John’s exclusion of the Lord’s table narrative is very important for one who claims that right practice and a literal belief in this doctrine is essential for one’s salvation.
Again, this is not me alone saying this. It is often thought that John’s Gospel, due to the absence of the Lord’s table, is, in part, a polemic against such abuses in his day. I am not sure that I believe this. But it is incredibly curious that he would leave it out. I don’t even believe in the real presence nor that it is necessary for salvation, and I am uncomfortable having John leave it out! And, had he included it, it adds nothing to the argument. But its exclusion is quite significant in my opinion.
Like or Dislike:
0
And “the word” is the Logos. It is actually a very Greek concept that Christians adopted. John’s use of it is evidence, actually, that he was not writing to Christians. Look up the philosophical context for “logos” and you will see what I mean.
But I am glad you are thinking things through. I would just approach this with questions as it does not seem as though you should or can be so definitive about things you speaking.
Like or Dislike:
0
I never said that the doctrine of salvation by faith alone was essential for salvation.
However, John’s Gospel only mentions faith leading to life. Therefore, John’s Gospel does teach justification by faith alone very clearly. For example, if you were sick and dying and a doctor gave you one bottle of medicine and said that this will heal you, you would not assume that he meant that you were suppose to take two medicines. The absence of any other remedy is a strong argument. In this case, an argument from silence is pretty good.
So, again, John’s lack of inclusion of the Lord’s Supper narrative is deafening.
Like or Dislike:
0
Actually the Orthodox believe in the real physical presence, they just don’t accept Rome’s definition of it.
But in the OP you said:
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
…so shouldn’t you want to refute the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran AND Anglican notions of the Real Presence – not just quibble with Aquinas, Trent, and Transubstantiation?
Do you cut the others slack because they don’t use the word “anathema”?
How is it possible that Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant (high church) all misunderstood (and in pretty much the same way) what was really going on at the Last Supper?
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, you said on a previous comment–
“I have yet to find an exegetical commentator who comes to these conclusions, even about John 6, liberal or conservative. One must overlay their pre concluded position to make this work IMO.”
and then in the thread on rewards in heaven, you said gave an explanation of what an exegetical commentator is–
“But an exegetical commentary is focused on historical-grammatico hermeneutics. In other words, they are commentaries which seek to understand the author’s intent and, often, leave broader theological implications and influences aside. Grammar, historical background, context of the argument, attitude of the writer, literature, and original languages are all important here.”
Would you also call this a historical-critical commentator, or do I misunderstand?
John was writing to a community with a common history and their own traditions. If not established Christians, then at least Jews, right? There are so many allusions to Jewish history.
So why depend on an exegetical commentator for evidence of the Eucharist in John, when the book wasn’t written for them? Wouldn’t it make the most sense to put the most stock in a converted Jewish commentator (if you could find one)?
Why depend on a non-Christian interpretation in order to derive Christian meaning?
You list as a major reason for not believeing in Eucharist the absence of explicit mention in John. You say you don’t see Eucharist in John because exegetical commentators don’t. At the same time, you are dismissing the Christian fathers who did see it. They saw it not just in oral tradition, but there inside the book of John.
For example, what do you think John meant by recording Jesus as Lamb of God?
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
As a Protestant considering Catholicism, I was interested in your #5 objection and what it could mean for transubstantiation.
Since this was a complex objection, I asked Bryan Cross over at the Called to Communion blog his thoughts on it, and he pointed me to a comment he had written about it recently in response to RC Sproul raising the same objection.
So here is that link: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/church-fathers-on-transubstantiation/
It is comment #185.
Michael, it’d be nice to see you post your objections in less-friendly forums and see how they hold up. It’s always more interesting to see equals battle then non-equals.
Like or Dislike:
0
Irene,
I the issue with John has to do primarily with Rome’s claims that it is essential for salvation, not the issue of Transubstantiation. I come to this conclusion on my own, but it is verified by commentators. It is not historical-critical commentator, but historical-grammatico or authorial intent hermeneutics. Historical-critical normally refers to something a bit different, but sometimes this can be splitting hairs.
So, why do we rely on commentators? Because the interpretation of Scripture is our primary source. If we don’t see it in the Scripture when one follows a proper method of hermeneutics, then this is our ultimate authority. One cannot interpret the Bible however they want. One cannot read into the Scriptures their traditions. And theological commentaries on the Scriptures (glosses included) are only concerned with theology (the second step in the theological process. One must first approach the Scriptures on their own term, attempting to understand what they meant then. What they mean to us is irrelevant. The Bible is not a magic book from which we can see what we want. It is not a book confined to a few who tell us what it means. It is a book that is to be studied and authorial intent hermeneutics is the only way to study it with integrity in my opinion.
Jesus as the Lamb of God has to be understood in the historical context in which it was written. It is an allusion to God’s perfect redemptive sacrifice.
Some people believe John was writing to Jews. Some believe to the Greeks. I believe he was a bit more cosmopolitan and we don’t have to make such a choice. Either way, he clearly says that he was writing to people so that they would believe and have life. It goes without saying that these people, in John’s mind, were not already believing or his comment makes no sense.
So, as you can see, it is hard to say that a right belief and practice in the Eucharist is essential for salvation (as Rome says) if John fails to mention it. But this does not even speak of Paul to the Romans who does not mention it. It is clear from the beginning that Paul’s intention is to give the Romans a comprehensive presentation of the Gospel. And, again, the Eucharist is undoubtedly absent from his teaching. He did not see it as important as Rome.
As for the Church Fathers, it is not unlike a lot of undeveloped doctrine. They just took it in the simplest form, which is okay, especially pre-controversy. It is like the atonement. “Christ died for you.” No one really developed what the “for” meant until controversy arose. They just understood it in its simplest form. In the 11th century we see some controversy and development here. When the fathers say “this is his body” I would be careful about reading Transubstantiation into it. It was, in my opinion, but a seed doctrine until the 8th century and an infant until the 12th. All of this to say that while I place a lot of stock in tradition, we must be careful not to anachronistically read our understanding into theirs. As well, we also have to keep in mind that much tradition is wrong.
I ask you again: Do you believe everything that the early church fathers taught (and, yes, this is a setup again!)?
Like or Dislike:
0
Luke, it is just limiting the subject of the Post. And only some Anglicans believe in this. Lutherans have a different scheme and Orthodox don’t like Transubstantiation. Only the Catholics dogmatize that it is essential for salvaion. So, only one thing at a time.
But, yes, there is a lot of slack for those who don’t anathemtize me for not agreeing. They Rupertus Meldenius in his creed, “in essentials unity, in non-essential, liberty…” That is significant for me. If you have read my blog much, this becomes very clear. Hope that makes sense.
Like or Dislike:
0
Okay, for the next few days I am going to be nothing but teaching. I actually teach on Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism tonight and the Lordship Savation Debate.
Then, tomorrow, it is the two Crusades of King Louis (can’t wait). Then it is how to teach (Principles of Biblical Teaching).
After this, I have a two day board meeting.
Please say a pray for me as this starts a long sprint.
Like or Dislike:
1
” Only the Catholics dogmatize that it is essential for salvaion. So, only one thing at a time. ”
This whole post is not “one thing at a time” because it confuses the doctrine with RCC position about its importance. But if you want to get technical, I don’t think RCC says believing it is essential for salvation ( except in so far as RCC says you need to believe everything it says ). But let me ask you this: is the lord’s supper an essential part of the Christian faith? Or is it an optional extra for churches to do. If you say essential, then your own argument about john’s ( supposed ) omission comes crashing on your head just as hard. If you say it’s not essential to Christianity, I’d like to hear your reasoning, and if it allows the rest of the faith to be disposed of too.
Like or Dislike:
1
God’s grace on your teaching schedule, Michael! {g}
Michael: “I believe the Scriptures clearly teach that Transubstantiation is wrong just as I do think they teach that papal infallibility, the Marian dogmas, and purgatory are wrong. They are all just absent. Therefore, they cannot be a part of the regula fide guide which the Holy Spirit has tought everywhere always and by all throughout the church.”
Now that’s just confusion of thought (maybe from being tired). Even if an absent doctrine (or an undeveloped seed doctrine as you later allow transsub to be) cannot be a part of the regular fide guide which the Holy Spirit has taught everywhere always and by all throughout the church, that isn’t the same as scripture teaching clearly against it. Scripture can only clearly teach against it by clearly teaching something else instead: clearly teaching against is a positive action in itself.
And if you thought the scriptures actually did teach clearly against it, you would have cited what the scriptures clearly teach differently on the topic, instead of appealing to what the absence of the doctrine (at least clearly
) in the scriptures mean.
But if the doctrine is a seed doctrine brought out by centuries of reflection on what the scriptures do teach — much like the fully developed trinitarian doctrine set! — then that’s obviously another category again, and not a category to be lightly dismissed.
Like or Dislike:
0
Do I believe everything the church fathers taught?
That’s an impossibility, because they were not unanimous on all points. The canon of Scripture is a good example.
Do good teaching about Catholicism and Orthodoxy! Saint Peter pray for us! (:
Like or Dislike:
0
C Michael Patton says: So, as you can see, it is hard to say that a right belief and practice in the Eucharist is essential for salvation (as Rome says)
Apparently you haven’t been paying attention to our dear friend Irene here who is telling me that my life in Christ is NOT a lie. So according to her I CAN be saved, not only without a belief and participation in the transubstantiated host elements, but also in spite of a total repudiation of Roman Catholicism as whole. I’m still waiting patiently for her to tell me what she has that I don’t though.
Other than that minor oversight, you are doing a bang up job here. Your sitrep with John’s gospel is right on. I also don’t believe Jesus is talking about transubstantiation or even communion at all in the 6th chapter. Haven’t for a long time. Not because I’m anti Catholic, but because I really don’t believe that that’s what’s under discussion there.
Like or Dislike:
0
John, “essential” in what way? It’s essential for ecclesiology, something John was not dealing with. John was dealing with salvation.
Not quite the pickle you thought, eh?
You need to check out the newest post.
Like or Dislike:
0
Quick post before bed.
Like or Dislike:
0
Jason, I did not understand a word you said. (Maybe its because your tired?)
Like or Dislike:
0
So, Irene, you are saying there are some traditions you believe and some you don’t?
How do you test which ones are right and which are wrong? Well, as a good Catholic, you rely on your fallible interpretation of the magisterium. I rely on my fallible interpretation of the Scriptures and other church traditions, with the Scripture being the ultimate source.
Like or Dislike:
0
Greg, I agree. I don’t think that John six has anything to do with the Eucharist either. We just talked about that last week on Theology Unplugged. It certainly would not make any sense to John’s audience if it did.
Like or Dislike:
0
Okay, I really am done. I just love discussing this too much. :/)
Btw: my teaching on Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy was quit a bit of fun. These posts help me to get energized.
Like or Dislike:
0
Greg,
Sproul is no mean theologian. He seems to have a pretty good handle on Roman Catholic docrine and the problem he presents is substantial. Monophysitism (post-resurrection) is the elephant in the room. The fact that Chalcedon did not feel it nedessary to handle this problem is telling that they did not have the same understanding as Rome today. The Aristotilian distinctions don’t do anything as it is not just peices of Christ that are present on countless places, but “the whole of Christ,” not that that makes too much a difference anyway. R
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
You wrote (in response to John’s excellent point in #39 this page 2)–
“John, “essential” in what way? It’s essential for ecclesiology, something John was not dealing with. John was dealing with salvation.”
I think John’s point is still valid because your answer implies that
1)ecclesiology is non-essential to salvation
2)there is a hard line bewteen ecclesiology and salvation
3)the Eucharist only falls under ecclesiology, not under salvation
These three reasons come from the theological lens with which you are viewing John. Through this lens you arrive at your theological conclusion: John doesn’t (you say) mention the Eucharist, so it is nonessential for salvation.
————-
Michael, you also said,
“Well, as a good Catholic, you rely on your fallible interpretation of the magisterium. I rely on my fallible interpretation of the Scriptures and other church traditions, with the Scripture being the ultimate source.”
My fallible interpretation of the magisterium gives me an infallible, alphabetized and spell checked list of the inspired books. Does your fallible interpretation of the Scriptures give you one?
(I’ve always wondered how Protestants can claim to do canonical exegisis, or “read the Scriptures as a whole” as they are so fond of saying, with a fallible canon.)
You can’t seriously tell me there’s no difference between the Magisterium and the Scriptures. In fact, isn’t that what this whole post is about? The Magisterium going beyond the Scriptures?
Like or Dislike:
0
It certainly would not make any sense to John’s audience if it did.
So, John’s audience got it right, but then somehow things ran off the rails such that the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican churches have it all wrong to this day.
Can you pinpoint the time/event when that happened? Was there a time in the very early Church when some Christians will had it right and others had the Catholic view? Shouldn’t there be writings of the early church that address and debunk what became the Catholic misunderstanding?
Like or Dislike:
0
Irene,
Issues of ecclesiology are essential for salvation? Which ones? Church government? Liturgy? How to elect a new pope? Can’t be there as all of these have changed. And it can’t be the Lords supper since John leaves it out
And your fallible interpretation and belief in the church does not really give you an infallible canon since your belief in such is fallible. Again, since we both start with the real possibility that we can both be wrong (you about the church and me about the Bible) each of us has to deal with fallibility. I just take out the middle man. But it is no different. We both have our fallible interpretations and beliefs.
Like or Dislike:
0
The Catholic Church is the only one who says that it is essential to believe and practice right to be saved.
We are all going around and around in circles.
I don’t think anyone has anything else to add that will be new or keep us moving forward.
The OP is clear to me and is strong: the Bible does not teach the Transubstantiation. I have not seen any of the five points answered.
We probably better let this one go as I cannot allow you all to waste time having the same discussion over and over. It has been good though.
Like or Dislike:
0
Excrement.
Argumentum ad absurdum
and
reductio ad absurdum
Disproof of a proposition by showing that it leads to absurd or untenable conclusions.
Theology, logic, Bible doctrine , the words of Paul and the words of Jesus flow off the catholics back faster than water through a sieve.
But what shocks the average catholic back into reality is the simple question:
“Where does the body and blood of Christ go after 12-24 hours?”
Does their wafer god get defecated?
This may seem like shocking, disrespectful and out of bounds. BUT THAT IS THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION ONE CAN COME TO.
ICorinthians 11 gives the proper understanding of the Lords Supper.
1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
And it is no coincidence that Paul says : 1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
The heresy of transubstantiation helps us to see the ABSURDITY of such a doctrine.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Does their wafer god get defecated?”
Catholics have dealt with this question. I forget the official answer, but it ceases to be the body and blood when it is digested, or after 24 hours or something. I forget the details, but this is a really bad argument.
Like or Dislike:
0
Your response is “the really bad arguement”.
We are dealing with the Lord Jesus Christ.
And the best argument that can be proffered is that it ceases to be body and blood (the blood of God manifest in the flesh) or after 24 hours OR SOMETHING!!!!!!
Where is any of this absurdity found in the scriptures?
Sad, deceived, heresy and an offense to the Great God who formed all things.
Like or Dislike:
0
If you ask an obscure question, why must the answer be in the scriptures? The point is, there are possible speculative answers. Your attempt at reductio ad absurdum failed. If there is a possible answer that is not absurd, then your argument fails, because it is not reductio ad absurdum. You’re welcome for the logic lesson.
Like or Dislike:
0
John says: If you ask an obscure question,
But it’s not an obscure question. It is the unavoidable consequence of the central tenet of the RCC’s sacerdotal system of salvation. Here’s another good one. http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=549153 Really folks. God help these people.
Like or Dislike:
0
But Greg, it is not unavoidable that “God gets defecated”, ergo your objection has no weight.
And your question is obscure in that it has no bearing on anything of significance. What happens to it ultimately affects nothing, ergo, it doesn’t matter.
Like or Dislike:
0
Jesus spoke of this duality of our human nature. What goes into a man (through his stomach) passes out into the drain. His point being that what we eat does not defile us, and by extention, sanctify us, either. That comes by Spirit.
Jesus’ words about eating his flesh were not taken well by many who heard him, and yet we find no explanation nor example of its fulfillment except at the Last Supper. The Last Supper was a unique event. What he asked us to do is remember him by reenacting it. His body is in Heaven now, and in fact we as the church are called his body, also.
The apostles made faith, repentence, and public confession the requisites for membership, and baptism after. There is no mention of the Lord’s supper as a requisite for salvation.
Like or Dislike:
0
When the host no longer appears as bread, it is no longer Jesus. This is why there is a 15 minute fast after Communion.
Like or Dislike:
1
“There is no mention of the Lord’s supper as a requisite for salvation.”
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”
It’s all a matter of perspective and interpretation isn’t it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Also, Paul said our Passover lamb has been sacrificed, therefore let us “keep the feast”.
And the first Christians “broke bread” together.
Like or Dislike:
0
Well, something as important as salvation has an authoritative answer, not just a matter of perspective. Jesus mentions being born again and salvation by faith in John 3:16 and many other places. “Whosoever” means everyone, but he never said we all must eat his physical flesh to have life. Paul spoke specifically in 1 Cor. About declaring the Lord’s death by the bread and cup. It is a special ritual we keep in the assembly as communion with him. Yet there is no mention there about the bread physically becoming human flesh. Paul says we are all one body in Christ.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Jesus mentions being born again and salvation by faith in John 3:16 and many other places.”
John 3 also says you must be born of water which has always historically been understood as baptism. Interpretation and perspective again.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Born of water” is understood by many as born of flesh, and that Jesus defines this later in the passage. Paul mentions baptism as baptism into Christ’s death, and being raised to new life in him, so it rather speaks of resurrection and not rebirth.
I think by “a matter of interpretation”, you mean the origin of diverse doctrine and practice?
Yet the Lord’s supper is practiced by all ecclesiastical bodies – we just disagree about its significance. But if there is an absolute truth in the matter then there can be only one answer.
Like or Dislike:
0
Irene says: When the host no longer appears as bread, it is no longer Jesus.
Oh
Like or Dislike:
0
When Jesus lifted up the cup, he said, “This is . . .”, and not, this will become, or this will be now and in the future.
Even so, when we obey his command, his glory is seen over the bread and cup when we lift them up this way. This is why the apostle says that it is no longer an ordinary meal when we lift it up. This we all can agree!
I personally see no reason or evidence that in contemporary times it actually becomes real flesh and blood, neither is it necessary for the Lord’s glory to be seen over it.
Like or Dislike:
0
The bread ceases to appear to be bread as soon as it enters the mouth; does that mean it ceases to be His Body the moment you chew on it (now chew on that!)? It would seem that the connection between the bread and His Body is rather tenuous.
Like or Dislike:
0
As Michael mentions, the RCC teaches both partaking of the elements and acceptance of the doctrine of transubstantiation are required for salvation. And, since the CC teaches a forensic justification that occurs in parallel with the process of sanctification, partaking of the eucharist is viewed as a necessary means of becoming righteous. I have often wondered, though, if Jesus’ teaching in Matt 15:17-20 doesn’t have application here. Just as eating with unwashed hands does not defile the eater it would seem a necessary corollary that nothing we eat can make us righteous (for the same reasons Christ gave – i.e. food passes into the stomach and is expelled). Christ identifies the heart as the source of defilement. It is likewise “with the heart one believes and is justified” (Romans 10:10).
Like or Dislike:
0
You can create doubt in your own mind by focusing your attention on the digestive process but you still need to explain how your inability to understand and accept Jesus’ teaching in John 6 compares to the writings of the Church Fathers and the history of Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican belief.
If they are all wrong, then there should be centuries of contemporaneous writings of Christians who believe in the Lack of Presence like you do today who would have at the time criticized the Heresy of the Real Presence.
So, let’s see who can find the earliest denunciation of what later came to be called Transubstantiation.
Like or Dislike:
0
” it would seem a necessary corollary that nothing we eat can make us righteous”
Firstly, the Catholic Church does not teach that the Eucharist is simple food. It’s a supernatural help. Why does the book of James say to anoint the sick with oil? Why in the book of acts is someone healed with Paul’s handkerchief? The Eucharist is taught to be a supernatural medicine, just like other supernatural instances of physical instruments of medicine.
Secondly, it’s not taught that it “makes you righteous” like forensic justification. Rather it is a supernatural medicine and help.
Like or Dislike:
0
John is right. It doesn’t “make you righteous”. You should already BE in a state of justification, (sanctifying grace within you), before you receive Jesus. If you are in a state of mortal sin when you receive him, you do yourself great harm.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2013/03/five-reasons-i-reject-the-doctrine-of-transubstantiati… [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
My problem is that when you push hard enough there is no difference between a Real Presence view and a Spiritual Presence view.
You end up getting non-fleshy flesh. You get some attempts at an explanation of how Christ’s body is there without having any attributes of a body being there. And then there seems to be no idea what “body” actually means in the context of the Lord’s Supper.
So why not just hold a Spiritual Presence view?
Like or Dislike:
0
“So why not just hold a Spiritual Presence view?”
So why not just hold a Real Presence view, if they are the same? Why go contrary to the two biggest churches and the historical view? Just to be difficult?
Like or Dislike:
0
John and Irene,
According to the CCC [1393], “Holy Communion separates us from sin,” and “For this reason the Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins.” This sounds to me as though the RCC is teaching the Eucharist is a means of increasing in righteousness. No? Call it a supernatural medicine if you will, but the ailment being treated is sin (i.e. unrighteousness). This teaching of the RCC appears to contradict Jesus’ own teaching in Matt 15:17-20. Righteousness is not obtained by ingesting food, regardless of the substance, just as the ingestion of food does not defile the eater. Jesus is saying the heart is what must be addressed and Paul tells us in Romans 10:10 that the “supernatural medicine” is faith (i.e. a believing heart).
Like or Dislike:
0
Well even as Luther was being condemned at the diet of Worms for justification by faith, Luther was happy to affirm the sacraments as a means of grace. How can it be?
When we are dealing with these terms, people get gridlocked into narrow views. If you look up righteousness in the bible, it covers a lot of ground. On one level, doing good works is righteousness. And on that level there are infinite things I can do to improve my righteousness. Anyone who thinks biblical righteousness can only be forensic imaginary righteousness has biblically got their head in the sand. Do a word study on righteousness.
Like or Dislike:
0
J. Schwartz,
When I say the Eucharist doesn’t “make you righteous”, I mean in the sense that it’s not like getting your ticket to heaven punched. It’s not equivalent to what, in the Protestant view, the “sinner’s prayer” does. As the CCC says in 1395–
“The Eucharist is not ordered to the forgiveness of mortal sins-that is proper to the sacrament of Reconciliation. The Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church.”
If you take the sacrament in a state of unworthiness, you harm yourself, as Paul says in 1 Cor 11. and CCC in 1385-
“Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.”
I think a lot of the misunderstandings and disagreements come from the differences between the Protestant and historic Catholic/Orthodox understandings of what righteousness is. Many Protestants would primarily see it as all or nothing. Light on or light off. Historically, righteousness is more a progression. We become more and more holy, as we become more and more unified with Christ. This unity with Christ is one of the fruits of the Eucharist.
Like or Dislike:
0
“So why not just hold a Real Presence view, if they are the same? Why go contrary to the two biggest churches and the historical view? Just to be difficult?”
Because it doesn’t make any sense. Non-fleshy flesh doesn’t have any meaning. It’s like saying “square circle.”
Like or Dislike:
0
“Because it doesn’t make any sense. Non-fleshy flesh doesn’t have any meaning. It’s like saying “square circle.””
If that’s true that you haven’t been able to make sense of it, why should we believe you that they reduce to the same thing?
And if it has no meaning, why is it filled with meaning for the world’s biggest religion?
Like or Dislike:
0
John says: And if it has no meaning, why is it filled with meaning for the world’s biggest religion?
The very quintessential textbook definition of tautological question begging AND argumentum ad populum all rolled into one.
It has meaning because it does – tautology
I know it has meaning for people because these people see meaning in it – Begging the question
MANY people see meaning in it – argumentum ad populum
I hope you’re not a lawyer. (jist kiddin)
I wish I had more time to participate now, especially with the sophomoric interpretation of John 6 that sees communion there. And the very often, very wrong church fathers as well. Just can’t do it now.
Like or Dislike:
1
Doesn’t make any sense?
You mean like creation out of nothing? Like 3 in 1 and 1 in 3? Like a virgin birth? Like changing water into wine? Like the multiplication of the loaves? Like healing with dirt and spit? Like walking on water?
Like God dying?
Is Scripture really so un-supernatural that the Real Presence can be denied because someone thinks it “makes no sense”?
Can 1500+ years of Christian doctrine be dismissed because someone in 2013 doesn’t understand what they’re talking about?
It can be difficult to put transubstantiation into words. (if This Is My Body isn’t enough for you) It takes some philosophical terms. But the complexity of an explanation, or the possibility that someone cannot or will not believe the explanation, does not make that explanation untrue.
Like or Dislike:
0
Very good Irene, I agree. That’s a bad argument for the reasons you give.
Like or Dislike:
0
Greg,
If one could accept the possibility that Christianity, for the majority of its history, and still today the overwhelming majority of Christendom, teaches the real physical presence in error, then St. Vincent’s canon, which CMP always references, has to be discarded. One would have to say the church went apostate very early on.
Don’t know if you care about St. Vincent’s canon or not.
Seems to me if one allows the possibility that the Holy Spirit could allow the Church to be in error, then one can have no confidence in the church’s teaching today, either.
Like or Dislike:
0
Irene says: If one could accept the possibility that Christianity, for the majority of its history, and still today the overwhelming majority of Christendom, teaches the real physical presence in error,
I do say that.
Irene says: One would have to say the church went apostate very early on.
I would say fell into grievous error while John was still alive. Apostasy, with an always present holy remnant was coming though.
Irene says: Seems to me if one allows the possibility that the Holy Spirit could allow the Church to be in error, then one can have no confidence in the church’s teaching today, either.
This is a BIG subject, but your church’s attempt at a monolithic earthly visible organization as if that could ever be THE bride of Christ was ill conceived from the start, is opposed by scripture and has been a non stop to this day God dishonoring disaster who’s teaching NOBODY EXCEPT God Himself can actually sort out with any degree of consistency and certainty. You’re a nice lady (smart too), but your church is a lie. I truly AM sorry, but it is.
I have a dinner appointment now with some men who also see things this way.
Like or Dislike:
0
Did the always present holy remnant leave any writings? How do you know it existed?
Like or Dislike:
0
“This is a BIG subject, but your church’s attempt at a monolithic earthly visible organization as if that could ever be THE bride of Christ was ill conceived from the start, is opposed by scripture and has been a non stop to this day God dishonoring disaster ”
Depends what you mean by monolithic.
You’re going to have to make SOME attempt to sort the wheat from the chaff, or you have no biblical canon. ALL the ancient church from which you derive your canon believed the real presence. You want to start paying attention to what weird heretical groups believed? Fine, you’ll have to consider their canon too. Maybe Marcion’s canon is to your liking? But if you want to accept the established church, then your objection doesn’t work.
Like or Dislike:
0
As far as CMP’s short list of arguments at the end of his original post, I think I can anticipate his arguments for “issues of anatomy” and “idolatry”, but does anyone know what he means by “practical things concerning Holy Orders”?
Like or Dislike:
0
“You mean like creation out of nothing? Like 3 in 1 and 1 in 3? Like a virgin birth? Like changing water into wine? Like the multiplication of the loaves? Like healing with dirt and spit? Like walking on water?
Like God dying?”
No. When you say Christ’s body is present but the communion elements have no properties of a body, that is incoherent. A miracle isn’t incoherent.
So what’s going on is that people are using the word “body” but filling it with meaning which means “not a body” because they have to define “body” in such a way where there are no physical properties. Roman Catholics use Aristotle. Lutherans say “mystery”. But the basic gist is that you have non-bodily bodies.
Honestly, I would like someone to explain how a Real Presence view is different than a Spiritual Presence in a way that doesn’t boil down to “But we use the word ‘body’ so the elements are the body!”
Like or Dislike:
0
Your discussions from a Roman Catholic are quite comical. The real question is how you “interpret” John 6.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Honestly, I would like someone to explain how a Real Presence view is different than a Spiritual Presence”
I’d like to know how spiritual presence is different to a pure Zwinglian memorial. Christ is spiritually present? So what? What difference does it make? How does it affect me? Cause if it makes no difference, I argue it isn’t different. And under a sola scriptura theory where you don’t accept real presence, under what verse can you justify spiritual presence?
Real Presence differs in that it teaches that the body is real, and therefore DOES something. Remember that handkerchief of Paul’s in Acts that people touched and they were healed? If you owned that handkerchief how would it look different to a regular handkerchief? My guess is it wouldn’t look different at all. Yet it contained within it properties that affect reality and are part of reality, even though they can’t be seen by merely looking at the handkerchief. Whether you accept the reality if the body or not, you ought to at least admit that this aspect: that physical things can have a special holy nature that affects reality, is a biblical world view.
Like or Dislike:
0
Ed B says: Your discussions from a Roman Catholic are quite comical. The real question is how you “interpret” John 6.
This is really not that difficult. It really isn’t, but I’m sorry I have work I have to do. I fix computers from home. I’m not the only one capable of exegeting John 6 or advancing the rest of these arguments either.
Like or Dislike:
0
John 6? What the… I just read it for the first time. You are right. It is so clear now. Everything Rome teaches about this issue right before my eyes. I am enrolling in catechism class tomorrow.
Sorry for being sarcastic, but your comment about comical made me want to be comical.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Got Roman Catholic friends who believe the wafer and the wine actually become the body and blood of Christ? Here are some reasons for rejecting transubstantiation. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Geoff, here are portions of the Baltimore Cat. question 242, with link following if you are interested.
“Substance” literally means that which stands underneath. Underneath what? Underneath the outward appearances or qualities-such as color, taste, figure, smell, etc.-that are perceptible to our senses. Therefore we never see the substance of anything. Of this seat, for instance, I see the color, size, and shape; I feel the hardness, etc.; but I do not see the substance, namely, the wood of which it is made. When the substance of anything is changed, the outward appearances change with it. But not so in the Holy Eucharist; for by a miracle the appearances of bread and wine remain the same after the substance has been changed as they were before. As the substance alone is changed in the Holy Eucharist, and as I cannot see the substance, I cannot see the change….Our Lord changed water into wine….Why, then, could He not change in the same way and by the same power the substance of bread and wine into the substance of His own body and blood? When He changed the water into wine, besides changing the substance, He changed everything else about it; so that it had no longer the appearance of water, but everyone could see that it was wine. But in changing the bread and wine into His body and blood He changes only the substance, and leaves everything else unchanged so that it still looks and tastes like bread and wine; even after the change has taken place and you could not tell by looking at it that it was changed….Now Our Lord, being God, created the world out of nothing; and He could therefore easily change the substance of bread into the substance of flesh.
Since these are snippets, here is the link. Question 245 also contains some relevant explanation.
http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/baltimore/bsacr-e.htm
Like or Dislike:
0
The Gospel of John fails to mention the Eucharist??? John 6:55 “my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” No mincing words here. That’s why Paul says it is such a serious thing to receive unworthily. If it was just symbolic, it wouldn’t be a big deal. And He let them walk away, because they understood what he meant but couldn’t accept it. If he meant symbolically, he would have called them back and clarified.
Like or Dislike:
0
Irene says: Why, then, could He not change in the same way and by the same power the substance of bread and wine into the substance of His own body and blood?
This is not the question. God COULD do a vaaaaaast number of things that He nonetheless does not do. Like change hamsters into great danes. What is needed is a compelling reason to believe that he actually did/does a given thing or not. The reasons given by Catholics for this extraordinary proposition are entirely unconvincing to anyone who has not already surrendered their mind to Rome. John 6 is not even weak scriptural evidence unless it is read in a tragically superficial manner. Also, a church history with about 85 or 90% idolatry and false worship is EXACTLY what one would expect if the biblical history of Israel is any typological indication and I most definitely believe it is.
We need to start actually listening when almighty God in human flesh speaks: Matthew 7:
13-“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14-For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
Wherever you see large numbers you ARE NOT seeing the gospel. To embrace the idea that the Jesus of the New Testament would lead through A man in an obscenely opulent palace built on the backs of the poor with a bullet proof car in the garage requires a special brand of deception. The very large one we now see is again, PRECISELY what one would expect IF the scriptures are to be taken seriously. I do.
http://gregnmary.gotdns.com/pix/faith.png
Like or Dislike:
0
What is needed is a compelling reason to believe that he actually did/does a given thing or not.
Besides John 6 and the Last Supper narratives and 1 Cor 11, we’ve got 1) the prefigurement of the Eucharist in the Passover observance (eating the flesh of the sacrifice), 2) Jesus of Nazareth being born in Bethlehem (“house of bread”) and being laid in a manger (feeding trough) and 3) the disciples on the way to Emmaus not recognizing Jesus in his resurrected body but recognizing him “in the breaking of the bread”.
There are others.
Like or Dislike:
0
“The reasons given by Catholics for this extraordinary proposition are entirely unconvincing to anyone who has not already surrendered their mind to Rome. ”
It’s foolish to blame Rome. The Coptic church which broke away in the 400s believes the same thing.
If you want to say every church since that time is idolatrous, that’s great. Now who have you got left to quote as a basis for your biblical canon? Nobody! You’ve got nothing left but your own fancies. Which BTW is your basis for sitting as judge over church history as idolatrous.
Like or Dislike:
0
LUKE1732 says: Besides John 6
Good, ya need to knock that one off. Doesn’t work..
and 1 Cor 11, we’ve got
a splendid text supporting any view imaginable EXCEPT that of the Roman Catholic church. Paul missed a golden opportunity to advance your your view for all time to abuncha Greek Corinthians for whom eating religious food would have had a special meaning if that’s what he was saying. He AND Jesus were saying this REPRESENTS my body. You folks don’t seem to realize that they didn’t have email or telephones then. John was on Patmos and the rest of the apostles were dead. It took weeks for a single communication to get around. It was VERY easy for all kinds of bad teaching to get started, especially as non Jewish leadership spread throughout the church bringing it’s Greek influence with it. One would expect exactly that. One day I may write a book on the theology of “remnant”. There IS a definite divine precedent and principle there. 7000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal out of a northern kingdom of at least several hundred thousand for instance (1 Kings 19).
the prefigurement of the Eucharist in the Passover observance (eating the flesh of the sacrifice),
One thing I find especially grievous about Catholicism is the mundane, un-profound view you folks have of so much of Gospel truth. THIS proves the commanded eating of the protein rich actual flesh and blood of Christ? You really DO NOT understand what happened when the veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom do you?
Jesus of Nazareth being born in Bethlehem (“house of bread”) and being laid in a manger (feeding trough) and 3) the disciples on the way to Emmaus not recognizing Jesus in his resurrected body but recognizing him “in the breaking of the bread”.
Awright, ya jist gotta be kiddin with these ones here. That is pure arbitrary mystical allegory. You’d have to be a Catholic to believe arguments like these. I’m not trying to be mean man. Honest…
Like or Dislike:
0
Greg: I don’t see REPRESENTS in the text, and writing it in ALL CAPS doesn’t make it so. I think good points have been made about the seriousness with which Paul treats the bread and wine. If its just bread and wine, how can it bring judgement on you?
As for the Passover as a prefigurment, did painting their doors with blood DO something to stop the angel of death coming? Or was it just a nice to have symbol, no harm no foul if you forgot to do it when the angel of death came? Once you answer that, you lose.
Like or Dislike:
0
I’ll give ya a little time to get your head outta this noose before I pull that lever. Ya know, it’s not that Catholics are stupid. I mean that. It’s that they are handicapped by terribly deficient theological positions. I need some sleep, but here’s a tip. Always argue your opponents postilions to yourself with all the zeal and jealousy as if they were your own before concluding that you have a refutation. If done soundly it will save you from times like these. Be back tomorrow.
Like or Dislike:
1
“Always argue your opponents postilions to yourself with all the zeal and jealousy as if they were your own before concluding that you have a refutation”
I’m not RC, I’m Orthodox which is catholic. But I’m a convert. Spent years arguing against catholicism, with zeal. Eventually concluded I don’t have a good refutation.
Like or Dislike:
0
Arguing AGAINST something is not the same as arguing FOR it. (read caps as an emphasis in my intonation if we were speaking face to face. THAT’S my intention with them. Not to yell)
I hypothetically adopt an opponents position and argue FOR it with myself as if my life depended on THEIR position being true. I will not touch this keyboard to post a conclusion until I have exhausted all possible lines of argumentation on their behalf. If I/they convince me? I abandon my postilion for theirs. If not? I refute their position the same way I did it with myself. By God’s design and grace and to His glory, I am very good at it. Try that. I will be as gentle as I can, but your passover blood argument above, is, forgive the pun, hemorrhaging badly. I’d prefer for you to figure out why on your own first.
(Man this probably reads so arrogantly and condescendingly. I honestly DO NOT mean it that way)
Like or Dislike:
0
Greg,
I don’t need an entire book on the “remnant”. If you could provide even one reference to something written before A.D. 1500 (from someone you wouldn’t label as a heretic) that agrees with your position on John 6 and refutes the catholic/orthodox position, that would be great.
Like or Dislike:
0
Tertullian by silence. Clement of Alexandria says it’s a metaphor. Eusebius says his flesh and blood are His words, which I actually think is an incomplete view too. Off the top of my head.
The theologians of the first 5 centuries were just as diverse and inconsistent with each other as Rome is today on practically everything. Put your papal helmet on the shelf for a little while and do some unfiltered research. I owe John my next post and I must get some work done.
Like or Dislike:
1
Greg: I had a look at what Tertulllian, Clement and Eusebius say on the subject, and they say a heck of a lot more than it being a metaphor. If they do say that (I didn’t find any such quote), that’s not precluding it being a sacrifice. The catholic view doesn’t mean it is not a rememberance. It just goes way beyond that. These church fathers say the Eucharist is a sacrifice. If you read all the stuff they say it goes WAY beyond anything that any memorial faction Protestant would be caught dead saying. And that’s without going and consulting other church fathers which are even more clear.
Greg, I understand perfectly the weight of arguments in favor of your position, from a sola scriptura viewpoint. If the scriptures existed in a vacuum, your view has a lot of weight. But… What were the scriptures born into? If you say a vacuum then you have a very uncomfortable position of explaining why the world wide church read those scriptures and universally came to a position of real presence at the very earliest date. But if you acknowledge it wasn’t born into a vacuum, but rather it was born into an existing church, established by the apostles, and with a shared understanding of how to interpret it, given by the apostles, then your position is even worse, because the scriptures were born into a church with a pre existing apostolic tradition, which explains the consensus against your view. Either way, your position fails, not because on an intellectual basis it is without merit, but because there are multiple intellectually defensible positions, purely on the basis of the text, but only one of them has a place in the history of the church. That’s why I am orthodox. Not because I don’t understand Protestant arguments and their weight. But precisely because I do understand them, but also I undertand Orthodox arguments. For that matter I understand Jehovah’s Witness arguments, and they have some pretty damned good ones too on various topics.
Like or Dislike:
0
Psssst. (motions come hither with left index finger and right eye closed.) whispering now. i’ll let ya in on a little secret. it ain’t that tough to discern which writings should be granted authority and which shouldn’t. even now at this late date, (except for liberal hacks) nevermind back then. Have you seen the alternatives? it weren’t no magical mystery process requiring hypnotic divine superintendence. no particular visible church was needed
Ok, talking normally again now. The text says what it says. Regardless of what anybody 15 minutes later says that it says. Paul himself warned that even if HE began preaching something other than he already had that HE HIMSELF would be anathema. The occasion was the addition of one single practice. Circumcision. He said of those who would make that one single addition to what already existed at the time of his earliest letter, Galatians, that he hoped they would accidentally castrate themselves, that they were fallen from grace and separated from Christ. One single thing sparked his by far most ferocious recorded warning and rebuke. You don’t wonder even a little what he might say to the VOLUMES of additions since he’s been gone? No?
I regard it as the most sardonic of divine ironies that what WOULD indeed evolve into your church DID in fact give us the very canon that would become her undoing. God has a most exquisite sense of humor.
Like or Dislike:
0
Greg: “it ain’t that tough to discern which writings should be granted authority and which shouldn’t.”
Really. Perhaps you could point to chapter and verse showing the criteria for something to be considered scripture. Then we could see if its hard to discern which writings fulfil it. But since there is no chapter and verse, what you wrote is highly speculative without a physical organisation to lend opinion to it.
“The text says what it says. Regardless of what anybody 15 minutes later says that it says.”
Yeah, it says what it says. “This is my body”. But you don’t accept that. So… its a bit more difficult than that, right?
“Paul himself warned that even if HE began preaching something other than he already had that HE HIMSELF would be anathema.”
Yes, and he’s talking about his orally transmitted gospel. In theory then, what he wrote in his letters should be disregarded if it contradicts his previously given oral gospel. How would you know? By asking the church. No other way to know.
Like or Dislike:
0
I had to change my name to get my posts to show up. Some bug with the site. Michael assured me I have not been banned.
Like or Dislike:
0
I had to change my email address to get my comments to post again.
Like or Dislike:
0
John says: Greg says: “it ain’t that tough to discern which writings should be granted authority and which shouldn’t.”
Really. Perhaps you could point to chapter and verse showing the criteria for something to be considered scripture.
I don’t usually use the “S” word, but since it’s not tied to you as an individual I will. This is a really stoopid argument and Catholics oughta give it up. There were some relativity simple common sense criteria that serious men could follow to determine what was authoritative and what was not Read some of the ones that were rejected and get back to me. Try this: The Gospel of Thomas (114) Simon Peter said to him, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.”Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Whew, wadda chore it must have been rejecting that one. I will try to do John 6 justice for you. Maybe Micheal has some material on that. Friend, it has NOTHING whatever to do with communion at all. Even you might see that if you could just look at things without your Vatican issue goggles on.
John says: Greg says: “Paul himself warned that even if HE began preaching something other than he already had that HE HIMSELF would be anathema.”
Yes, and he’s talking about his orally transmitted gospel. In theory then, what he wrote in his letters should be disregarded if it contradicts his previously given oral gospel. How would you know? By asking the church. No other way to know.
Look man. That’s an argument from hypotheses and one that was never even possible. The point he was making was: “what we are saying and WRITING right now CANNOT BE CONTRADICTED. No matter who else shows up saying some thing else, it CANNOT BE DIFFERENT from this and be true.” Catholicism is. You do the math.
Like or Dislike:
0
Greg, since I’m not Roman Catholic, I have no Vatican issued glasses. So much for that theory.
So… reading between the lines of your example of what is scripture (devoid of any explanation, we’re supposed to just see what you see), what are you saying? That any book with material in it that you can’t accept and/or don’t understand and/or seems weird to you, we can reject?
Firstly, that’s just a negative criteria. That’s not a positive criteria in favour of what we should accept. What about all the early “orthodox” literature? What about the first Epistle of Clement, found in many NT manuscripts? Don’t say he wasn’t an apostle, because neither was James, neither was Jude, neither was Mark, Luke, probably Hebrews, etc.
Secondly, you picked one of the oddest sections in all pseudo-Christian literature as your example. Wow. What about all the other books, many of which were in some circles accepted in the canonical churches?
Thirdly, what is odd in the recognised canon? What about Mark 16 “They will be able to handle snakes with safety, and if they drink anything poisonous, it won’t hurt them.” That’s kinda odd. What about 1 Corinthians 15:29, baptism for the dead. Kinda odd. What about the whole book of Revelation? I mean where does it end?
Fourthly, your criteria seems to set yourself up and judge, jury and executioner of what material you can accept to be in the NT.
–”The point he was making was: “what we are saying and WRITING right now CANNOT BE CONTRADICTED”
(a) That’s not actually what he said. He said disregard anything different to what he previously gave orally prior to the NT being written. You can claim it means the opposite of what he said, but its an empty claim.
(b) It’s all in your interpretation anyway. Depending on what you mean by “Catholic”, if you include belief that was actually universal in the church (not just Rome), who are you to know better than Christendom?
More Comments: