Transubstantiation: The Eucharist or EUrfalsechrist?

[BuzzardHut]

Transubstantiation is the doctrine that if a validly
ordained Catholic priest consecrates bread and wine,
then Jesus Christ is literally present -- body, blood,
soul, and divinity -- in every crumb of consecrated
bread and every drop of consecrated wine. This is the
official doctrine of the Catholic Church. It is clearly
stated in the "Catechism of the Catholic Church."

Catholics call this "the Eucharist" or "holy communion."
They speak about the "real presence" of Christ in the
bread and wine. Things relating to it are called
"eucharistic." A consecrated communion wafer is called
a "host." Hosts that are left over after Mass are kept in
a tabernacle, (a large, ornate container that can be
locked). When hosts are in the tabernacle, a candle is
lit. This enables Catholics to know that consecrated
hosts are inside, so they can kneel and pray in front of
the tabernacle as a form of eucharistic devotion. The
tabernacle also protects the hosts by making it difficult
to steal them.

There is a special
mass called the "Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament." A
large consecrated host is put in a monstrance. (This
is a large, ornate, metal container, in the basic shape
of a daisy with a stem, plus a base so that it can stand
up.) The monstrance looks like it is made of gold. It
has a circular chamber in the middle which holds a large,
round host. The front of the chamber is glass, so you
can see the host. Visually it looks like golden rays are
coming out of the host.

The priest places the monstrance on the altar for everyone to
worship the host, believing it is Jesus but actually it is the false catholic christ that Paul warns us about.

II Corinthians 11:4 For if anyone comes preaching another Jesus from the one whose preachers we are, or if you have got a different spirit, or a different sort of good news from those which came to you, how well you put up with these things.

Galatians 1:6 I wonder that you are so quickly turning back from the One having called you by the grace of Christ to another gospel,

Galatians 1:7 which is not another; only there are some troubling you, even determined to pervert the gospel of Christ.

Galatians 1:8 But even if we, or an angel out of Heaven, should preach a gospel to you beside the gospel we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Galatians 1:9 As we have said before, and now I say again, If anyone preaches a gospel beside what you received, let him be accursed.

[ann s.]

Amen....Thanks for posting this....Buzz...

[LivnForChrist]

"The priest places the monstrance on the altar for everyone to
worship the host, believing it is Jesus"

Transubstantiation is just another form of idolatry.

[His4ever]

What I'd like to know is why they think Jesus is subject to the words of a Catholic priest and does He even care if they've been validly ordained by the Catholic church? Transubstantiatin is a lie. If anyone says here is Christ or there is Christ, believe them not. It's another false christ in a monstrance or little silver box (secret chambers."

[BuzzardHut]

What I'd like to know is why they think Jesus is subject to the words of a Catholic priest and does He even care if they've been validly ordained by the Catholic church? Transubstantiatin is a lie. If anyone says here is Christ or there is Christ, believe them not. It's another false christ in a monstrance or little silver box (secret chambers."

They believe what their Church doctrines tell them instead of God's Word
Their Church doctrines (Church Alone) even teach them how to misinterpret God's word so they will miss true salvation and miss God's prophecies

[zionist06]

It is amazing how Protestants are ignorant of what the early church fathers taught. y

[mattfivefour]

It is amazing how Protestants are ignorant of what the early church fathers taught. y

Not at all. I am quite conversant with what the church fathers taught. But, more importantly, I am not ignorant of what the Holy Spirit taught.

God's Word is quite clear. When any man of God speaks in perfect accordance with what what the Word says, we are to listen to him. When he speaks in contradiction to that Word, we are to reject that teaching. The Apostle Paul wrote: "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." —Galatians 1:6-9

Since God the Holy Spirit so strongly warns us of this we should ensure we pay heed. We ignore God's warnings to our own mortal peril.

Most of the early church fathers were sincere men. But sometimes they were sincerely wrong ... as are we all at times. And where they are wrong we must not listen to them. I don't care if they're Church Fathers. I don't care if it's the archangel Michael himself! If what they say does not line up perfectly with the Word of God, I will reject their teaching ... as God Himself commands me to do.

Isaiah exclaimed: "To the law and to the testimony! If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20)

We should remember that. And choose our teachers accordingly.

.

[Ort]

The early church fathers all taught of the Rapture. That is fact. (Using this as an example) Other church fathers, who twisted the Scriptures until it was unrecognizable from what Messiah set up, are the ones who are responsible for what the catholic church has become today. A Babylonian based pagan oriented false Gospel. There's just enough of the Truth in there to fool people. But anybody whose knowledge and faith is based in Scripture can see through it. I will pray for discernment for you brother/sister.

Even as Paul was preaching, which is either 3-4 years after the Damascus road incident, or 14 years (doesn't really matter) wrote: "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the Gospel of Christ. BUT EVEN IF WE OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN SHOULD PREACH A GOSPEL OTHER THAN THE ONE WE PREACHED TO YOU, LET HIM BE ETERNALLY CONDEMNED! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" Galatians 1:6-9.

You may argue that he was speaking of Gnosticism, and that may be the truth. But the crux of the message is that ANYBODY who perverts, twists, distorts, or otherwise changes the Gospel of Messiah is eternally condemned! That goes for transubstantiation, Mary as perpetual virgin, mary's bodily assumption into heaven, popery, etc. All of it.

I have spoken, via boards, with extreme catholics who believe that little kids have taken communion and that actual flesh and blood have fallen from their mouths! They have written this and they believe it. To be fair, not all of them there stated they believed it. But enough of them did. If they believe, and they are not the only ones, then you can't say "protestants have it all wrong." SOMEBODY is teaching them these things, right? They just didn't come to the conclusion on their own.

These same people also believe that ONLY catholics go to heaven, that Sola Scriptura is for fools. For the life of me I cannot understand why! they believe in Purgatory. That is patently un-Scriptural. "It is appointed unto man once to die, then the judgment." Before Messiah came bodily to earth, when a person who believed in the coming Messiah died, they went to Paradise. This was not heaven, as Messiah hadn't yet died and rose again, thereby freeing us from our sins. God couldn't have these still-sinful people in His Presence. Likewise, when Messiah gave the story (which many believe to be a true story, not a parable, as real names were used here and it's the only time it was done that way), evil people went to Sheol, or Gehenna, or Hades. A place of fire and pain. The rich man went to hell, and Lazarus went to Abraham's bosom, ie. Paradise. There is no place where one can pay for their sins, to be "purified" so that they can go to heaven. If there is, then Christ died for nothing and He was an inadequate sacrifice! God forbid!

They (the people I used to converse with) also believe in the bodily assumption of Mary, her perpetual virginhood, and that we can pray to her to make intercession for us to Jesus, because after all, a man listens to his mom, right? This is in direct conflict with "there is only one mediator between God and man. That is the Man Christ Jesus." How can anybody take this clear, concise and direct verse and add so much nonsense to it, that somehow Mary becomes co-redemptrix, that Jesus will listen to her but not to us?

Babylonian pagan mystery religion started by Simon Magus, the man whom Peter rebuked for trying to buy the gift of healing of the Holy Spirit, with money. Acts 8:9-24

You may think me to be harsh, or angry, but as MattFiveFour said it is with a righteous anger. It makes me angry that people are being led down the primrose path by false teachers. I pray you see the Truth. :prayer

[BuzzardHut]

It is amazing how Protestants are ignorant of what the early church fathers taught. y

You will have to expand on your thoughts

[RickyV]

The early church fathers all taught of the Rapture. That is fact. (Using this as an example) Other church fathers, who twisted the Scriptures until it was unrecognizable from what Messiah set up, are the ones who are responsible for what the catholic church has become today. A Babylonian based pagan oriented false Gospel. There's just enough of the Truth in there to fool people. But anybody whose knowledge and faith is based in Scripture can see through it. I will pray for discernment for you brother/sister.

Even as Paul was preaching, which is either 3-4 years after the Damascus road incident, or 14 years (doesn't really matter) wrote: "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the Gospel of Christ. BUT EVEN IF WE OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN SHOULD PREACH A GOSPEL OTHER THAN THE ONE WE PREACHED TO YOU, LET HIM BE ETERNALLY CONDEMNED! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" Galatians 1:6-9.

You may argue that he was speaking of Gnosticism, and that may be the truth. But the crux of the message is that ANYBODY who perverts, twists, distorts, or otherwise changes the Gospel of Messiah is eternally condemned! That goes for transubstantiation, Mary as perpetual virgin, mary's bodily assumption into heaven, popery, etc. All of it.

I have spoken, via boards, with extreme catholics who believe that little kids have taken communion and that actual flesh and blood have fallen from their mouths! They have written this and they believe it. To be fair, not all of them there stated they believed it. But enough of them did. If they believe, and they are not the only ones, then you can't say "protestants have it all wrong." SOMEBODY is teaching them these things, right? They just didn't come to the conclusion on their own.

These same people also believe that ONLY catholics go to heaven, that Sola Scriptura is for fools. For the life of me I cannot understand why! they believe in Purgatory. That is patently un-Scriptural. "It is appointed unto man once to die, then the judgment." Before Messiah came bodily to earth, when a person who believed in the coming Messiah died, they went to Paradise. This was not heaven, as Messiah hadn't yet died and rose again, thereby freeing us from our sins. God couldn't have these still-sinful people in His Presence. Likewise, when Messiah gave the story (which many believe to be a true story, not a parable, as real names were used here and it's the only time it was done that way), evil people went to Sheol, or Gehenna, or Hades. A place of fire and pain. The rich man went to hell, and Lazarus went to Abraham's bosom, ie. Paradise. There is no place where one can pay for their sins, to be "purified" so that they can go to heaven. If there is, then Christ died for nothing and He was an inadequate sacrifice! God forbid!

They (the people I used to converse with) also believe in the bodily assumption of Mary, her perpetual virginhood, and that we can pray to her to make intercession for us to Jesus, because after all, a man listens to his mom, right? This is in direct conflict with "there is only one mediator between God and man. That is the Man Christ Jesus." How can anybody take this clear, concise and direct verse and add so much nonsense to it, that somehow Mary becomes co-redemptrix, that Jesus will listen to her but not to us?

Babylonian pagan mystery religion started by Simon Magus, the man whom Peter rebuked for trying to buy the gift of healing of the Holy Spirit, with money. Acts 8:9-24

You may think me to be harsh, or angry, but as MattFiveFour said it is with a righteous anger. It makes me angry that people are being led down the primrose path by false teachers. I pray you see the Truth. :prayer

Well said Ort, the time has come where we do need to speak out about the atrocities of the RCC. The Church has keep silent on this issue for far too long. The biggest reason is that most people who have not been born again believe in some manor that the RCC is the true representation of Christianity....even people in the so-called "Protestant" denomination. Notice how many people watch the Pope, and get excited about his visits. When Karol Wojtyla (AKA John Paul II) died look how much media attention that was given from the so called "secular" media.

Jesus Christ was resurrected, to state that you are eating the literal flesh and drinking the literal blood of Jesus Christ is wrong.

[Ort]

Well said Ort, the time has come where we do need to speak out about the atrocities of the RCC. The Church has keep silent on this issue for far too long. The biggest reason is that most people who have not been born again believe in some manor that the RCC is the true representation of Christianity....even people in the so-called "Protestant" denomination. Notice how many people watch the Pope, and get excited about his visits. When Karol Wojtyla (AKA John Paul II) died look how much media attention that was given from the so called "secular" media.

Jesus Christ was resurrected, to state that you are eating the literal flesh and drinking the literal blood of Jesus Christ is wrong.

:iagree Also, in Leviticus 17 it speaks of God forbidding them to eat blood. The life is in the blood. Why the communion would turn to blood, thereby negating what God (who never changes!) said, doesn't make sense. Since Jesus IS God, He wouldn't ever contradict Himself. And, since Christ was sacrificed ONCE and for all times, to say that a piece of bread is Jesus, and He is being crucified all over again, every Sunday around the world is foolishness.
"After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven." Hebrews 1:3. When He sat down, it meant He was finished. It was accomplished. He said those words on the cross "Tetelestai!" or "Paid in full!" It is finished! Nothing more needs to be done, He has done it all (as only He could!).

No, He said to take the bread and drink the wine in remembrance of Him. And that is all.

[mattfivefour]

:iagree Also, in Leviticus 17 it speaks of God forbidding them to eat blood. The life is in the blood. Why the communion would turn to blood, thereby negating what God (who never changes!) said, doesn't make sense. Since Jesus IS God, He wouldn't ever contradict Himself. And, since Christ was sacrificed ONCE and for all times, to say that a piece of bread is Jesus, and He is being crucified all over again, every Sunday around the world is foolishness.
"After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven." Hebrews 1:3. When He sat down, it meant He was finished. It was accomplished. He said those words on the cross "Tetelestai!" or "Paid in full!" It is finished! Nothing more needs to be done, He has done it all (as only He could!).

No, He said to take the bread and drink the wine in remembrance of Him. And that is all.

Absolutely. Good post, Ort.

[god_chick3]

Here is exactly what was said at the last supper...Luke 22:19-20
19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

It does not say this bread and wine is me or becomes me...it said to do this in rememberance of me. It was a symbol of what Jesus was going to do for us on the cross and in infilling of his spirit in us....we do that to remember. We cannot add or take away from what Jesus said and meaning of it.

[Ort]

Here is exactly what was said at the last supper...Luke 22:19-20
19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

It does not say this bread and wine is me or becomes me...it said to do this in rememberance of me. It was a symbol of what Jesus was going to do for us on the cross and in infilling of his spirit in us....we do that to remember. We cannot add or take away from what Jesus said and meaning of it.

:iagree Jesus also referred to Himself as "the vine" and a door (I believe). He was also called the Lamb of God. Does that mean He was green, leafy and sinous, or a giant slab of wood, or had four legs and a wooly coat? Nope. It's called allegory.

[Transformed]

I don't know if this is exactly what somebody wants to see in re: to this topic, but here is a Greek word study done in our church regarding the verb "to eat." Take from it what you will:

=====

The Greek language uses nine different words that are translated “to*eat” in the New Testament. In John 6:49-58, two of these words have a very distinct difference in translation.

One very common Greek word is phago, and it means “to eat, devour, consume.” That word is used in John 6:49-53, and 58. The word trogo means “to gnaw, to chew,” and it stresses the slow process. It is used nowhere else in the New Testament, except in John*6:54, and 56-58.

In verse 58, Jesus said, “your fathers did eat (phago) manna, and he that eats (trogo) of this bread shall live forever.” When the Jews ate (phago) manna, it was to satisfy a carnal appetite, but the verb trogo means “to*feed upon.” In these verses, phago is always in the tense that indicates a one-time action, usually in the past. Trogo is always in the present tense, indicating a continual ongoing action. Therefore, when Jesus said “he*who eats this bread will live forever,” it means a continual feeding, something that is to be done on a constant basis to satisfy the spiritual appetite.

The language of Jesus can only have a spiritual meaning as He unfolds Himself as the true manna. In the context of all these verses, since the Lord’s supper was not yet instituted, this “feeding upon” Jesus refers to spiritual eating, not sacramental. As a continuation of verse*27, Jesus Himself is the “food” that endures to eternal life. Food that is eaten and then digested is assimilated so that it becomes a part of the body. Likewise, people must appropriate Christ to have spiritual life by trusting in Him for salvation. John*6:40 makes it clear that faith is the operative word when it comes to appropriating Christ to receive the gift of eternal life.

[mattfivefour]

I don't know if this is exactly what somebody wants to see in re: to this topic, but here is a Greek word study done in our church regarding the verb "to eat." Take from it what you will:

=====

The Greek language uses nine different words that are translated “to*eat” in the New Testament. In John 6:49-58, two of these words have a very distinct difference in translation.

One very common Greek word is phago, and it means “to eat, devour, consume.” That word is used in John 6:49-53, and 58. The word trogo means “to gnaw, to chew,” and it stresses the slow process. It is used nowhere else in the New Testament, except in John*6:54, and 56-58.

In verse 58, Jesus said, “your fathers did eat (phago) manna, and he that eats (trogo) of this bread shall live forever.” When the Jews ate (phago) manna, it was to satisfy a carnal appetite, but the verb trogo means “to*feed upon.” In these verses, phago is always in the tense that indicates a one-time action, usually in the past. Trogo is always in the present tense, indicating a continual ongoing action. Therefore, when Jesus said “he*who eats this bread will live forever,” it means a continual feeding, something that is to be done on a constant basis to satisfy the spiritual appetite.

The language of Jesus can only have a spiritual meaning as He unfolds Himself as the true manna. In the context of all these verses, since the Lord’s supper was not yet instituted, this “feeding upon” Jesus refers to spiritual eating, not sacramental. As a continuation of verse*27, Jesus Himself is the “food” that endures to eternal life. Food that is eaten and then digested is assimilated so that it becomes a part of the body. Likewise, people must appropriate Christ to have spiritual life by trusting in Him for salvation. John*6:40 makes it clear that faith is the operative word when it comes to appropriating Christ to receive the gift of eternal life.

I approach this topic with some hesitation because the difference between phago and trogo is used by the Roman Catholic Church to support its belief in transubstantiation. And there are dozens, if not hundreds, of RCC sites doing that very thing with these two words.

Nevertheless, at first glance, the lesson taught at your church is very appealing to me.

I love the shades of meaning in Greek. Often—as would at first appear here—the differences in Greek words used for a single act (like eating) can convey rich truths. I love the concept that you eat Christ once for salvation, but from then on your walk with Him requires you to slowly chew Him. In other words, as you point out, salvation is a one time thing, but sanctification (or, if you prefer, your walk and growth in Him) is an ongoing process, a slow and deliberate ongoing process at that.

However, we need to deal with the fact that what you were told about it only appearing the four times in John 6 is incorrect.. It also appears in Matthew 24 in reference to the people of Noah's day; and again in John 13, referring to Judas.

Matthew 24:38 "For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark..." Eating = τρώγοντες (TRO-gon-tess)

John 13:18 "I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me." Eateth=τρώγων (TRO-goen)

So why would the Holy Spirit inspire the use of trogo in these two verses? It just doesn't seem to fit with the theory proposed about why Jesus used both φαγω (phago) and τρώγω (trogo) in John 6.

Vines Expository New Testament Words says trogo means "to gnaw, to chew" ... "stressing the slow process; it is used metaphorically of the habit of spiritual feeding upon Christ." And it also talks of the use of phago and trogo in the verses that YOU used.

But then—dealing with the two additonal verses I brought up—it says that trogo was used in Matthew 24 and John 13 as "a witness against pressing into the meaning of the word the sense of munching or gnawing." Now W.E. Vine was a great Greek scholar and I don't have a millionth part of his knowledge. But I do not understand his explanation. How is it "a witness against pressing munching or gnawing" into the meaning of trogo when he just said the definition of trogo is gnawing or chewing??? In other words how can he give a word (trogo) a definition, but then appear to deny that definition?

Does somebody out there "get" it? If so, please help me out with the explanation. I've tried searching online but I seem to get mainly RCC pro-substantiation/pro-eucharistic sites. And my personal library isn't useful either.

If we can explain it (the two "trogo" verses in Matthew 24 and John 13) then we can continue to use the phago/trogo difference to teach that spiritual truth from John 6.

But if we cannot explain the two other trogo uses, then how can we in all conscience use the word to teach that John 6 lesson? To me, a word has to be consistent in its meaning for it to be consistently applied to a specific teaching.



If anybody has an answer, I would LOVE to get it.

[sandy]

matt is it possible that when used in conjunction with another word that
brings the meaning of that particular word?

maybe take a look at the whole of the sentence not just that word?

I dont know...

but I do know that my dad was raised catholic and he was agnostic and said,
thats cannablism. I agree.

Jesus said IN REMEMBERENCE of me. not eat me.

[mattfivefour]

matt is it possible that when used in conjunction with another word that
brings the meaning of that particular word?

maybe take a look at the whole of the sentence not just that word?

I dont know...

but I do know that my dad was raised catholic and he was agnostic and said,
thats cannablism. I agree.

Jesus said IN REMEMBERENCE of me. not eat me.

I have tried to extract the meaning by parsing the entire sentence, sandy. Still no luck. I mean it isn't a question of doctrine here so it isn't that important. It's just that I personally could not teach what appears to be a beautiful truth from John 6 (based on the meanings of phago and trago) unless I can resolve the issue of the only two other uses of trogo in the Bible. For me to use words in a symbolic way to teach, they must be consistent in their symbolism .... not—as it appears here—inconsistent. (But maybe that's me.)

However, I totally, absolutely, 100%, without question, agree with you that the eating of the bread and the drinking of the wine IS in REMEMBRANCE of Him and His sacrifice for us ... a reminder to us that it is by His shed blood and His broken body alone that we have redemption.

[eucharist04]

It is amazing how non-catholics totally misunderstands and misrepresents what the Catholic Church thinks.

[mattfivefour]

It is amazing how non-catholics totally misunderstands and misrepresents what the Catholic Church thinks.

No we don't friend. We understand EXACTLY what the RCC teaches. From the Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent:

"...according to the purpose of the Almighty, the substance of the bread and wine departs in order to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ. Lastly, we have the commune tertium in the unchanged appearances of bread and wine, under which appearances the pre-existent Christ assumes a new, sacramental mode of being, and without which His Body and Blood could not be partaken of by men. That the consequence of Transubstantiation, as a conversion of the total substance, is the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, is the express doctrine of the Church (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii).

From Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan's article "Is The Eucharist Really Christ's Body and Blood?":

Our Catholic teaching that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus, not bread and wine, is clearly taught in the Bible and throughout the 2,000-year tradition of the Church.

How does this change take place? It happens during the eucharistic prayer of the Mass. At that time, the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, as the Church has always taught. Although they still look like bread and wine, they have, by divine power, actually changed into His Body and Blood.

You forget that on this site you are talking to many Roman Catholics who have read the Bible for themselves, rejected the traditions of man as embodied in the RCC, have been saved by faith alone and are now following the teachings of Christ Himself ...not what the "church" says were His teachings.

Speaking of the bread and the wine, Jesus said very clearly: "Do this in memory of me" ("τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν"—Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 The Greek word ἀνάμνησινn (anamnesin) literally means a recollection, a recalling to mind, a remembrance, a memory. The Holy Spirit is not ignorant, He inspired every word of the Bible and He knew EXACTLY what word to use to clearly convey His Truths. And no casuistry (for which the very erudite scholars of the RCC have always been noted) can or will change that. God's Word is inviolable.