Jump to content

Transubstantiation


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
158 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 April 2007 - 08:02 PM

Hi everyone. Catholics believe in transubstantiation or the "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist or communion. What is wrong with this belief? Please explain.

#2 Will

Will

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 830 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 22 April 2007 - 08:06 PM

Hi everyone. Catholics believe in transubstantiation or the "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist or communion. What is wrong with this belief? Please explain.



Well, to begin with, we must first discuss the issue of the Crucifixion. Do you believe that Christ's offering on the cross was a once and for all experience, and that the sacrifice for our sins is now complete?

#3 kevinmiller

kevinmiller

    Super Contributor

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,749 posts

Posted 22 April 2007 - 08:06 PM

It isn't Biblical.

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
(I Corinthians 11:26)

#4 Madeline

Madeline

    Child of God

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,198 posts
2
Neutral

Posted 22 April 2007 - 08:10 PM

Hi everyone. Catholics believe in transubstantiation or the "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist or communion. What is wrong with this belief? Please explain.



Science alone refutes the doctrine of transubstantiation! Put it under a microscope and see if the wafer and wine miraculously transforms into the body and blood of Christ. Transubstantiation refuted.

#5 JJJ4given

JJJ4given

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 275 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 22 April 2007 - 09:54 PM

Hi everyone. Catholics believe in transubstantiation or the "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist or communion. What is wrong with this belief? Please explain.



Hebrews 6:6b ...seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

#6 Jerry

Jerry

    Mr. Grizzly

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,290 posts
52
Excellent

Posted 22 April 2007 - 10:55 PM

Baptistgirl, if you can flipflop between doctrines and religions, you truly need to sort out what it means to be saved! Praying that the Lord would open your eyes to the truth.

#7 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 April 2007 - 11:28 AM




Hi everyone. Catholics believe in transubstantiation or the "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist or communion. What is wrong with this belief? Please explain.



Well, to begin with, we must first discuss the issue of the Crucifixion. Do you believe that Christ's offering on the cross was a once and for all experience, and that the sacrifice for our sins is now complete?



Yes, I believe that the crucifixion was a once and for all experience and that the sacrifice for our sins is now complete.



Ok, now, if the sacrifice of Christ was once and for all, what is the purpose of transubstantiation? Why does Christ need to be re-sacrificed as it were at the mass over and over again? Is Christ's sacrifice insufficient? Catholicism teaches that the Catholic Mass(where they practice their so-called Lord's Supper) is a means of salvation. Do you believe this?



Well, if I understand their teaching correctly, they don't teach that Jesus is being re sacrificed but that His sacrifice is continual (transcends time) and is being re-presented to the people. I honestly don't think this teaching makes much sense personally.

#8 Samer

Samer

    Super Contributor

  • Moderators
  • 3,119 posts
2
Neutral

Posted 23 April 2007 - 01:03 AM

Hi everyone. Catholics believe in transubstantiation or the "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist or communion. What is wrong with this belief? Please explain.



Catholics believe in transubstantiation.
Lutherans believe in the "real presence," which is also unbiblical--just partial reformation.

I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
(John 6:48-63)

Jesus is not a walking, talking loaf of bread. Neither is He a walking, talking, wooden door (John 10:9).

I'd quote all of John 6 if not for space considerations. Read it and look at the context. Over and over, they interpret Jesus in one way, and believe not. This is the same way in which the Pharisees murmured when Jesus said He would raise the temple in three days, but was talking about His resurrection, not a physical building. Sometimes Jesus used metaphors and things like that. The great thing is, Jesus interpreted the saying for us in verse 63:

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

He's not talking cannibalism, and the context isn't about the Lord's supper anyway.

#9 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 April 2007 - 02:56 AM


Hi everyone. Catholics believe in transubstantiation or the "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist or communion. What is wrong with this belief? Please explain.



Well, to begin with, we must first discuss the issue of the Crucifixion. Do you believe that Christ's offering on the cross was a once and for all experience, and that the sacrifice for our sins is now complete?



Yes, I believe that the crucifixion was a once and for all experience and that the sacrifice for our sins is now complete.

#10 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 April 2007 - 02:58 AM

Baptistgirl, if you can flipflop between doctrines and religions, you truly need to sort out what it means to be saved! Praying that the Lord would open your eyes to the truth.



I know that I need to stop flip flopping between doctrines and religions. And I know what it means to be saved. I know that I am saved.

#11 Will

Will

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 830 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 23 April 2007 - 07:04 AM



Hi everyone. Catholics believe in transubstantiation or the "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist or communion. What is wrong with this belief? Please explain.



Well, to begin with, we must first discuss the issue of the Crucifixion. Do you believe that Christ's offering on the cross was a once and for all experience, and that the sacrifice for our sins is now complete?



Yes, I believe that the crucifixion was a once and for all experience and that the sacrifice for our sins is now complete.



Ok, now, if the sacrifice of Christ was once and for all, what is the purpose of transubstantiation? Why does Christ need to be re-sacrificed as it were at the mass over and over again? Is Christ's sacrifice insufficient? Catholicism teaches that the Catholic Mass(where they practice their so-called Lord's Supper) is a means of salvation. Do you believe this?

#12 Kitagrl

Kitagrl

    Long Time Member

  • Moderators
  • 15,846 posts
597
Excellent

Posted 23 April 2007 - 07:07 AM

The first Lord's Supper was held when Christ was still alive and had shed no blood. Does that make them cannibals?

#13 Psalms18_28

Psalms18_28

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,506 posts
2
Neutral

Posted 23 April 2007 - 08:11 AM

The problem is that the Lord will always dwell into you. He doesn't comes when you eat the wafer and drink wine and leave your body as soon as you walk out of the church.

#14 Jerry

Jerry

    Mr. Grizzly

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,290 posts
52
Excellent

Posted 23 April 2007 - 11:35 AM

The Catholic church teaches that Jesus is being RE-sacrificed on the altar as a bloodless sacrifice - that contradicts the Bible in two ways: Jesus finished the payment for sin once for all upon the cross and those who offer Him again do not know Him, and blood has always been necessary.

#15 IM4given

IM4given

    10,000 post Club

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,977 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 23 April 2007 - 12:15 PM

The sheer fact that the RCC literally INSISTS that you are eating the REAL flesh of Jesus, and that you are drinking the REAL blood of Jesus - is totally pagan in its origins. Human sacrifices were quite common in pagan ritual and cannibalism was a common practice. They would sacrifice their first born children to what ever deity they chose, then eat them!

Transubstantiation is not merely a "remembrance" of the Lord's Supper as the scriptures teach, but goes on much farther to say that the Bread and the Wine actually BECOME the Body and Blood of Jesus and must be ingested by the worshipper before sins can be forgiven. Their Jesus is worshipped only as the First Born Child who is sacrificed and then eaten at every worship ceremony. Virgin Mary plays a far bigger role in the work of salvation than Jesus, since she is God's mother and rules as Queen of Heaven - she is the RCC intercessor for sins, while her son, the weak little pathetic effeminate long haired pasty complexion girly-man Jesus was the ritual sacrifice for sins. Pass the A1 please!

In the Old testament Jews would eat the lambs that were slain as a sin sacrifice. However when Jesus became the ULTIMATE sacrifice, we did not need to kill lambs any more. He was not ritualistically killed and eaten, either. To even IMPLY that is a pagan idea.

#16 Bakershalfdozen

Bakershalfdozen

    Super Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,872 posts
3
Neutral

Posted 23 April 2007 - 12:19 PM

Yes indeed and if folks will take notice, the only time most Catholics acknowledge Jesus is at Christmas, Easter or Eucharist. They keep Jesus as a baby or a dead sacrifice. They know nothing of Him as Sovereign Lord of the Universe, Risen Coming King, etc. They spend their time praying to Mary and "St. Jude" and "St. Andrew" and all the other "saints".

#17 Jerry

Jerry

    Mr. Grizzly

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,290 posts
52
Excellent

Posted 23 April 2007 - 12:31 PM

Yes indeed and if folks will take notice, the only time most Catholics acknowledge Jesus is at Christmas, Easter or Eucharist. They keep Jesus as a baby or a dead sacrifice. They know nothing of Him as Sovereign Lord of the Universe, Risen Coming King, etc.



Yes, that is sad. Praise the Lord that our Saviour grew up and died for our sins (paying the complete penalty our sins deserved), and that He arose again the third day, victorious over sin, Satan, and death!

#18 pneu-engine

pneu-engine

    Postmeister

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,855 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 23 April 2007 - 01:39 PM

The sheer fact that the RCC literally INSISTS that you are eating the REAL flesh of Jesus, and that you are drinking the REAL blood of Jesus - is totally pagan in its origins. Human sacrifices were quite common in pagan ritual and cannibalism was a common practice. They would sacrifice their first born children to what ever deity they chose, then eat them!

Transubstantiation is not merely a "remembrance" of the Lord's Supper as the scriptures teach, but goes on much farther to say that the Bread and the Wine actually BECOME the Body and Blood of Jesus and must be ingested by the worshipper before sins can be forgiven. Their Jesus is worshipped only as the First Born Child who is sacrificed and then eaten at every worship ceremony. Virgin Mary plays a far bigger role in the work of salvation than Jesus, since she is God's mother and rules as Queen of Heaven - she is the RCC intercessor for sins, while her son, the weak little pathetic effeminate long haired pasty complexion girly-man Jesus was the ritual sacrifice for sins. Pass the A1 please!

In the Old testament Jews would eat the lambs that were slain as a sin sacrifice. However when Jesus became the ULTIMATE sacrifice, we did not need to kill lambs any more. He was not ritualistically killed and eaten, either. To even IMPLY that is a pagan idea.



Proof of this goes all the way back to Babylonianism, of which the RCC is the full embodiment. Way backin Hebrew history wicked kings would embrace the horrible pagan practices of this vicious cult and even sacrifice their own sons and daughters. In 2 Kings we find Manasseh (Hezekiah's son), king of Judah, making his son to pass thru the fire. <<<--(human sacrifice).

#19 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 April 2007 - 05:27 PM

The Catholic church teaches that Jesus is being RE-sacrificed on the altar as a bloodless sacrifice - that contradicts the Bible in two ways: Jesus finished the payment for sin once for all upon the cross and those who offer Him again do not know Him, and blood has always been necessary.



I am not trying to argue but do you have an official Catholic source that states this?

#20 Will

Will

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 830 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 23 April 2007 - 08:13 PM

The Catholic church teaches that Jesus is being RE-sacrificed on the altar as a bloodless sacrifice - that contradicts the Bible in two ways: Jesus finished the payment for sin once for all upon the cross and those who offer Him again do not know Him, and blood has always been necessary.



I don't believe that's the official Catholic teaching Jerry. They see it as a re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice. Not a re-sacrifice. I've just looked it up.




The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500