Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Transubstantiation: Catholics

Apparently asking for some clarification on another question means I'm a troll even though I in no way shape or form said what my beliefs in regards to this are. LOL.

But anyway, can any Catholics explain this to me in more detail with scripture and all? Is transubstantiation supported by more than one passage in the Bible? I found an argument against it while doing some research to better understand and I'll post it in the first few responses to see if there are answers to the points it raises.

 
Anonymous

Asked by Anonymous at 7:40 PM on Sep. 8, 2009 in Religion & Beliefs

This question is closed.
Answers (59)
  • An athiest on this site once said that if Jesus is God and God is all knowing so Christ new not only of His death and His resurrection then Christians couldn't claim that God died for them since He rose from the dead. At best they could claim He had a bad weekend for them. And if one views Christ's sacrifice as the anti-Catholic anon. appears to view it - that it's only about the event of Christ's death - then maybe that point makes sense. But again, Catholics understand that Christ's sacrifice is eternal and everlasting - it exists beyond time. That's what Holy Communion is - the celebration of this eternal and everlasting sacrifice. It's how Catholics really understand Christ being the one mediator between us and God - he doesn't "re-medediate" for us - it is continual and everlasting. And the crucifix at Mass reminds us of that too - God's love for us is never-ending.
    eringobrough

    Answer by eringobrough at 11:57 AM on Sep. 9, 2009


  • Roman Catholics interpret this passage literally, and apply its message to the Lord’s Supper, which they title the “Eucharist” or “Mass.” Those who reject the idea of transubstantiation interpret Jesus’ words in John 6:53-57 figuratively or symbolically. How can we know which interpretation is correct? Thankfully, Jesus made it exceedingly obvious what He meant. John 6:63 declares, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” Jesus specifically stated that His words are “spirit.” Jesus was using physical concepts, eating and drinking, to teach spiritual truth. Just as consuming physical food and drink sustains our physical bodies,
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 7:40 PM on Sep. 8, 2009

  • so are our spiritual lives saved and built up by spiritually receiving Him, by grace through faith. Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully and completely receiving Him in our lives.

    The Scriptures declare that the Lord's Supper is a memorial to the body and blood of Christ (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25), not the actual consumption of His physical body and blood. When Jesus was speaking in John chapter 6, Jesus had not yet had the Last Supper with His disciples, in which He instituted the Lord’s Supper. To read the Lord’s Supper / Christian Communion back into John chapter 6 is unwarranted. For a more complete discussion of these issues, please read our article on the Holy Eucharist.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 7:41 PM on Sep. 8, 2009

  • The most serious reason transubstantiation should be rejected is because it is viewed by the Roman Catholic Church as a "re-sacrifice" of Jesus Christ for our sins, or as a “re-offering / re-presentation” of His sacrifice. This is directly in contradiction to what Scripture says, that Jesus died "once for all" and does not need to be sacrificed again (Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18). Hebrews 7:27 declares, "Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself."
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 7:41 PM on Sep. 8, 2009

  • I grew up Catholic, went to Catholic school until I graduated high school. The stuff in Anon :41 was never anywhere in the VICINITY of what we thought about receiving Communion. It was NOT any kind of a "re-sacrifice" - it was receiving the medicine of Christ's Body just like He gave it to His disciples at the Last Supper : "This is My Body ... This is My BLood ... do this in remembrance of Me"
    Simple.
    An ordained priest had the "power" to ask Christ to come into the Mass and pour His healing power into the Eucharist to be given to the congretation. That was one of the main things conferred on a man when he was ordained priest.
    waldorfmom

    Answer by waldorfmom at 7:50 PM on Sep. 8, 2009

  • I didn't think that was accurate waldorfmom. At least I have never heard that Catholics believe that's what they are doing.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 7:52 PM on Sep. 8, 2009

  • waldorf, I have found that individual parishes often have their own interpretations that they think makes more sense or what they're comfortable with. I once heard a priest tell someone that confession was "therapy" and he was just hearing people's problems to help them feel better; it might be true, it might make sense but that's not the official doctine of the church about confession. What you explained is not the official Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 7:57 PM on Sep. 8, 2009

  • First of all Catholic is universal so any independent interpretations of the church may not be the true teaching of the church.

    2nd, you are have having a hard time with the word sacrifice. That meaning is not killing over and over again. Take it to a simpler notch
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 8:00 PM on Sep. 8, 2009

  • Christ identifies himself as the Eucharist when he said repeatedly, "I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This bread which comes down from heaven, that man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from Heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh" (john 6:48-51) He again repeats this in John 6: 55-57 (not in those exact words) but repeateadly Jesus says he IS THE BREAD OF LIFE.. Many of his followers refused to accept this and they left him. When he asks Peter if he would leave, Peter asks Jesus "to where would I go". When Jesus spoke figeratively he was quick to set people right with his stories, but not ONCE did he change his wording or say he was speaking in parables. when He spoke of eating his flesh. He meant this LITERALLY! (cont)
    ArmyWifeMomof3

    Answer by ArmyWifeMomof3 at 8:06 PM on Sep. 8, 2009

  • Jesus was to be the ultimate sacrifice to his Father. He was fulfilling the OT. no longer would animals have to be sacrificed and eaten as God had asked the Hebrews to do so that they would always remember that they were to no longer worship the Gods of the Egyptians, which they had begun to do. Just as the Hebrews ate of the sacrificed animals, so do we eat of the ultimate sacrifice of God. Is it the ACTUAL flesh if Christ, yes... but it is the essence of Christ. He fills the Eucharist, He IS the Eucahrist. If Jesus was not clear and thought the people had mistaken what he said, he would have reiterated what he said in a different way. Look to his parables and how speaks in figuative language to help his followers understand. He does not do this when he speaks of himself and eating of his flesh.
    ArmyWifeMomof3

    Answer by ArmyWifeMomof3 at 8:11 PM on Sep. 8, 2009