Transubstantiation. What is it?

[Augustin56]

Catholics want to believe that if they eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus that they will become like Jesus. One of the great heresies of Catholicism. They are practicing spiritual cannibalism.

Robert, please. If you are going to explain what Catholics believe, research it first to find out.

Here are a couple of articles that can heal your misunderstanding:

Is Receiving the Eucharist Cannibalism? | Catholic Answers

Catholics believe the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Jesus. Does this mean receiving the Eucharist is akin to cannibalism? Click here.

www.catholic.com

Are Catholics Cannibals?

Miriam-Webster defines cannibalism as: 1. The usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being.2. The eating of the flesh of an animal by another anim...

www.catholic.com

 

[Tulipbee]

RedFan, there was but one Church until 1054 A.D., when the Orthodox splintered off. It was called Catholic. (The "Roman" part was a polemic added way late in the game by Anglicans in the 16th or 17th century). Nowhere do we see the Church called the Orthodox Church. But we do see, in history, that it is called the Catholic Church.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of Antioch, ordained by St. Peter (yes, that St. Peter), was captured by the Romans. While they were transporting him to be martyred for the faith, he wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans somewhere around 107-110 A.D., referring to the "Catholic Church," not in such a manner as if he were coining the term, but in such a manner in which he fully expected the Smyrnaeans to understand what he was talking about. In other words, the term "Catholic Church" was already well-known and being used.

It says in paragraph 8, "Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

See the entire letter here: https://www.orderofstignatius.org/files/Letters/Ignatius_to_Smyrnaeans.pdf

BTW, here's a good video that explains the split in 1054 A.D.:

Your historical perspective on the use of the term "Catholic Church" is accurate. Early Christian writings, such as the letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans, provide evidence that the term "Catholic Church" was already in use in the early 2nd century. St. Ignatius, having been ordained by St. Peter and having a direct connection to the apostolic era, employed the term without explaining it, suggesting that it was a familiar designation for the Christian community.

The term "Catholic" is derived from the Greek word "katholikos," meaning "universal" or "according to the whole." In the context of the early Christian Church, it conveyed the idea of the Church's universality and unity. The use of this term reflects the understanding that the Church was not confined to a specific locality but was a universal and united body of believers.

While historical developments and theological disagreements later led to the split between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1054, the early usage of the term "Catholic Church" is a reminder of the ancient understanding of the Church's universality and continuity.

 

[Robert Pate]

Robert, please. If you are going to explain what Catholics believe, research it first to find out.

Here are a couple of articles that can heal your misunderstanding:

Is Receiving the Eucharist Cannibalism? | Catholic Answers

Catholics believe the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Jesus. Does this mean receiving the Eucharist is akin to cannibalism? Click here.

www.catholic.com

Are Catholics Cannibals?

Miriam-Webster defines cannibalism as: 1. The usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being.2. The eating of the flesh of an animal by another anim...

www.catholic.com

Your references are all written by Catholics. What good is that? I would accept Bible references, but you never quote the Bible. You have replaced Christ and the Bible with Catholicism. This is known as "Departing from the faith". You have embraced a religion that is not even in the Bible.

 

[RedFan]

RedFan, there was but one Church until 1054 A.D., when the Orthodox splintered off. It was called Catholic. (The "Roman" part was a polemic added way late in the game by Anglicans in the 16th or 17th century). Nowhere do we see the Church called the Orthodox Church. But we do see, in history, that it is called the Catholic Church.

I agree with you 100%. And I haven't suggested otherwise. My point was simply that the Catholic Church in the first several centuries ought not be equated with what we now call the Roman Catholic Church, because there was nothing essentially "Roman" about it.

 

[RedFan]

The term "Catholic" is derived from the Greek word "katholikos," meaning "universal" or "according to the whole." In the context of the early Christian Church, it conveyed the idea of the Church's universality and unity. The use of this term reflects the understanding that the Church was not confined to a specific locality but was a universal and united body of believers.

While historical developments and theological disagreements later led to the split between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1054, the early usage of the term "Catholic Church" is a reminder of the ancient understanding of the Church's universality and continuity.

Agreed. And both the Greek-speaking eastern sees and Latin-speaking western sees share that universality and continuity. Stated another way, the Eastern Orthodox Church of 1054 was not a splinter group breaking off from a Roman Church that encompassed the whole of Catholic Church up until that time. It traced its own roots to original first century Christianity the same way Rome did.

 

[Tulipbee]

Agreed. And both the Greek-speaking eastern sees and Latin-speaking western sees share that universality and continuity. Stated another way, the Eastern Orthodox Church of 1054 was not a splinter group breaking off from a Roman Church that encompassed the whole of Catholic Church up until that time. It traced its own roots to original first century Christianity the same way Rome did.

Your observation about the early usage of the term "Catholic Church" as reflecting universality and continuity is accurate. The term, rooted in the Greek "katholikos," indeed conveyed the idea of the Church being universal and united across different linguistic and cultural contexts.

Regarding the later split between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1054, from a Calvinistic perspective, historical developments and theological disagreements are often seen as part of the broader tapestry of Christian history. While acknowledging the historical significance of the split, Calvinism tends to emphasize theological principles such as God's sovereignty in salvation.

If there are specific aspects or details you'd like to explore further within the context of Calvinistic theology or historical developments, feel free to share, and I'm here to assist in navigating these discussions.

Grace and peace

 

[Philip James]

Do you mean the Sheep/Goats?

The sheep/goats is but one example...

here's many more just from the Gospel of Matthew...



For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.



If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you.

But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.


"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.


I tell you, on the day of judgment people will render an account for every careless word they speak.

By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned


Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.


There are of course many more I could post.. but repeated over and over through these is that our actions matter! What we do, what we say... the intentions of our heart..

Merry Christmas!

 

[marks]

The sheep/goats is but one example...

So you did have that in mind. OK. Shall we look at the actual passage together and see if we both agree on what it says?

I'm finding so many Scriptures are referenced or alluded to for some purpose of the writer, but that they aren't really about what they are being used for.

So let's put these things to the test, shall we??

Much love!

 

[marks]

There are of course many more I could post.. but repeated over and over through these is that our actions matter! What we do, what we say... the intentions of our heart..

I agree . . . our actions matter.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Catholics want to believe that if they eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus that they will become like Jesus. One of the great heresies of Catholicism. They are practicing spiritual cannibalism.

I wonder how many Catholics actually believe in transubstantiation?

I just can never get over Jesus' teaching in John 6, and how He made it clear this was a spiritual allegory. How can people miss that?

Much love!

 

[Augustin56]

I agree with you 100%. And I haven't suggested otherwise. My point was simply that the Catholic Church in the first several centuries ought not be equated with what we now call the Roman Catholic Church, because there was nothing essentially "Roman" about it.

Correct. The "Roman" part was started by Anglicans when they broke off from the Church as a polemic. It wasn't really anything other than that. The Church itself is still the original Church founded by Christ. I look at it like a knickname. Like someone named John Smith later becomes known as "Jack" because he picked up a knickname. He's not a different person because of that.

 

[Robert Pate]

I wonder how many Catholics actually believe in transubstantiation?

I just can never get over Jesus' teaching in John 6, and how He made it clear this was a spiritual allegory. How can people miss that?

Much love!

There are a lot of things that Catholics do that are not according to the Bible. The Bible is not their authority, the Catholic church is.

 

[Augustin56]

There are a lot of things that Catholics do that are not according to the Bible. The Bible is not their authority, the Catholic church is.

No Catholic doctrine contradicts anything in Scripture, New or Old Testament...when correctly interpreted.

Ask yourself, why are there so many different-believing Protestant denominations today? (Thousands, literally!) For example, the Baptists say that infant baptism is invalid. Lutherans and Anglicans say it is valid. Yet, all read the same Bible and claim to be led in their interpretation by the same Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit is not the spirit of contradiction or confusion. They can't be all correct.

Anyone who strays from the original interpretation of Scripture that existed long before Protestantism began in the 16th century, is in error, and does not have the Word of God as their guide. They have their own personal interpretation, apart from the teachings of Christ.

So, when you say that "there are a lot of things that Catholics do that are not according to the Bible" you should more honestly say, "there are a lot of things that Catholics do that are not according to the Bible as I personally interpret it." That would be a truthful and honest opinion.

 

[marks]

No Catholic doctrine contradicts anything in Scripture, New or Old Testament...when correctly interpreted.

No.

You don't get to do that.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

You can say, No Catholic doctrine contradicts anything in Scripture according to their own interpretations.

Or, I can say, Catholic Doctine contradicts Scripture . . . when correctly interpretted.

The fact is, The Bible is written with words, and words have meanings, so if we follow the meanings of those words, there ya go! Why are there so many different ideas? Not everyone follows the exact teachings of the Bible. Many follow the teachings of their church, even when it is easily seen that the Bible teaches differently.

"But not everyone agrees" is NOT evidence of truth or error. I remain amazed at how often poor logic comes up!

Much love!

 

[marks]

Anyone who strays from the original interpretation of Scripture

Meaning, the first reader was infallible. Hm.

Much love!

 

[Augustin56]

No.

You don't get to do that.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

You can say, No Catholic doctrine contradicts anything in Scripture according to their own interpretations.

Or, I can say, Catholic Doctine contradicts Scripture . . . when correctly interpretted.

The fact is, The Bible is written with words, and words have meanings, so if we follow the meanings of those words, there ya go! Why are there so many different ideas? Not everyone follows the exact teachings of the Bible. Many follow the teachings of their church, even when it is easily seen that the Bible teaches differently.

"But not everyone agrees" is NOT evidence of truth or error. I remain amazed at how often poor logic comes up!

Much love!

Catholic interpretation is not "personal" interpretation. It is in accord with the original teachings of Christ, given to the Apostles, who passed it on to their successors, the bishops, who did likewise for 2000 years now. The Catholic Church has never changed any of the original teachings of Christ. Not one. As a Protestant, you would have to prove that 16 centuries after Christ founded His Church (when Protestantism began), that someone came along and said, "Oh, wait! What was always taught is incorrect! Here's the correct teaching!" Then, you would have to show where the "correct" teaching came from. Did an angel come down? Or Jesus, Himself? Where did this new/corrected doctrine come from that differs from what has been taught since the beginning?

Books are open to interpretation. That's why, for example, in medical school, we don't just hand out text books on surgery and tell the students, read this, then we're going to let you do surgery. They have to have a professor to go over it with them to make sure they properly understand it. Those professors went through the same process, with professors teaching them, and so forth. The Catholic Church can trace its "teachers" back to the Apostles and Christ. Not start 16 centuries later with some misguided soul who thinks he knows better.

 

[Augustin56]

Meaning, the first reader was infallible. Hm.

Much love!

Christ didn't hand out King James bibles and tell the Apostles to run to the nearest Kinko's, make as many copies as possible, then hand them out, telling people, "Read this, and whatever you interpret will be the truth!" That never happened. Jesus created a teaching/preaching Church to spread His truths. (See Matt. 28:20, where He commanded them to teach "all" that He had taught them. He never said "write." The Apostles had Jesus' infallible message and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They passed this on to their successors, the bishops.

 

[marks]

Christ didn't hand out King James bibles and tell the Apostles to run to the nearest Kinko's, make as many copies as possible, then hand them out, telling people, "Read this, and whatever you interpret will be the truth!" That never happened. Jesus created a teaching/preaching Church to spread His truths. (See Matt. 28:20, where He commanded them to teach "all" that He had taught them. He never said "write." The Apostles had Jesus' infallible message and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They passed this on to their successors, the bishops.

Did you miss the point I was making? Or are you avoiding it?

You asserted that unless someone's interpretation was the same oh nevermind.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Catholic interpretation is not "personal" interpretation.

Personally I think that's a big part of why we have the Bible, so we can see for ourselves what God said, and know when someone was teaching something different.

Call it personal, call it whatever you want. Catholic says this, Bible says that, I'm believing the Bible. You say, I don't understand the Bible, but I think it's the other way.

You say, but my church has said this for 2000 years, and whether that is true or not doesn't matter, lies repeated are still lies.

Your best answer to me, all the Catholics here, their very best answer seems to not be, This is where the Bible says that, instead, You just don't understand that even though it says THIS, it actually means THAT, and if you'd only listen to our Pope you'd know that.

My answer is, Here is where the Bible says that, ans that's the words it uses, so that's what it means.

Do you see why I think the way I do?

Much love!

 

[marks]

They passed this on to their successors, the bishops.

Hear Paul's warning . . .

Acts 20:29-30 KJV
29) For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30) Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Much love!