Comments on: How many people believe in transubstantiation?

By: truthbea

truthbea — Fri, 22 May 2009 22:48:59 +0000

Anyone but the deluded, those who do not know the word of God can believe that a cracker is the body of Jesus.
The Word of God is the flesh, we are going to "eat" or take our souls in order to have eternal life.
That calls the Eucharist is nothing more than idols, and not once named in Scripture. It is idolatry. We also believe all these things are witchcraft. Nothing of this kind can give us the body of Jesus Christ. His church is his body. The Word of God is their 'blood' to wash us clean.
For the washing of the Word of God.
Jesus told us that only a few will find the narrow path that leads to eternal life.
Those millions are deceived.

By: SpiritRo

SpiritRo — Fri, 22 May 2009 22:48:59 +0000

Yo. And yes, he did say this is my body, not a symbol of my body.
Those who deny the real presence is not different from those who left him when he said "this is a hard teaching"
The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers teachings about Christ's real presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church JND Kelly writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood from the beginning, was in general unquestioningly realist, ie, bread and wine are consecrated to be, and were treated and designated as the Savior of the body and blood "(Early Christian Doctrine, 440).
Early days of the Church, the Fathers referred to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: "Ignatius roundly declares that … [T] he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup of his blood. Clearly the intention of this realism to be taken in the strict sense since it the basis of his argument against the Docetists' denial of the reality of Christ's body …. Irenaeus taught that the bread and wine are really the Lord's body and blood. His testimony is in fact even more impressive, since it produces very incidentally while refuting the Gnostic Docetic and rejection of the true humanity of the Lord "(ibid., 197-98).
"Hippolytus speaks of" the body and blood "through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as" the Lord's body. "The converted pagan, stresses," feeds on the rich body of the Lord, that is, on the Eucharist. "The realism of his theology in light of the argument, based on the intimate relationship of body and soul, which, as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul can be cleansed, so in the Eucharist 'the flesh feeds the body and blood of Christ so that the soul can be filled with God. "It is obvious that his hypothesis is that the Savior of the body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian's attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians claim that communion without doing penance, he declares, "do violence to his body and blood, a most heinous sin against the Lord with his hands and mouth when he refused." After the terrible consequences expatiates to desecrate the sacrament, and the stories that said he understood that confirm the real presence, literally, "(ibid., 211-12).
I think Johnny come lately to just say that "real" Christianity was lost until about 300 years ago thought. I will continue with the early church fathers who were taught by the Apostles.

By: he1idido

he1idido — Fri, 22 May 2009 22:48:59 +0000

I believe that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. All of the Early Church Fathers taught this doctrine. Jesus spoke figuratively in John 6:55-59. She left him and his followers did not attempt to stop them. Indeed, the early leaders of Reform also believes in the true Presence. Fundamentalists claim to take the scriptures literally, ie "the world was created in six, 24 hours a day, but rejects this passage? Sounds like selective reading for me.

By: Catholic Defender

Catholic Defender — Fri, 22 May 2009 22:48:59 +0000

more than 10 times in Scripture the body and blood is spoken of. to put it bluntly, if Jesus said you will be with us forever. " I believe him.
Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Jn 6:35-71 - Eucharist promised
Mt 26:26 ff (Mk 14:22 ff., Lk 22:17 ff.) - Eucharist instituted
1Cor 10:16 - Eucharist = participation in Christ's body and blood
1 Cor 11:23-29 - receiving unworthily the body and blood
Ex 12:8, 46 - paschal lamb should be eaten
Jn 1:29 - Jesus called "Lamb of God"
1 Co 5:7 - Jesus called "paschal lamb that was slaughtered
Jn 4:31-34, Mt 16, 5-12 - Jesus talking symbolically about food
1 Cor 2:14-3:4 - explains what "the flesh" means in Jn 6:63
Psalm 14:4; Is 9:18-20; is 49:26, Mic 3:3; 2SM 23:15-17, Rev 17:6, 16 —
symbolically eat and drink the blood and body = assault
more ..
Matt. 26:26-28; Marcos. 14:22,24, Luke 22, 19-20, 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this is my body and blood. Jesus does not say this is a symbol of my body and blood.
Matt. 26:26, Mark. 14:22, Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "tout Estina to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is really" or "this is really" my body and blood.
1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - "Tout Estina to soma mou." The statement is "this is really" my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without doing so.
Matt. 26:26, Mark. 14:22, Luke 22:19 - to deny 2000 years of age, the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying "this is (not) my body and blood." No However, the Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, there were more than 30 words for "represent", but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic means "Estina" meaning "is".
Matt. 26:28, Mark. 14:24, Luke 22:20 - Jesus' use of "spilled" in reference to his blood also emphasizes the reality of his presence.
Exodus 24:8 - Jesus emphasizes the reality of His actual blood is present through Moses' statement "blood pact".
1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, "the cup of blessing and the bread of those who participate, is it not a participation in Christ's body and blood?" Paul is really wondering why he, the writer divinely inspired, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul's son, of course, rhetorical questions. This is the body and blood. Furthermore, the Greek word "koinonia" describes a real, not token participation in the body and blood.

By: Homicide

Homicide — Fri, 22 May 2009 22:48:59 +0000

Without taking sides, you are wrong on all points.
Can not believe in transubstantiation, which is a philosophical attempt to explain what Catholics actually believe, that Jesus in the Eucharist.
He said "Eat me" of the word and can only be translated as a strong 'taste'. San Jerónimo is only emphatic on this point.
"Amen, amen, I say, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, has no life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drink … "

By: Huh?

Huh? — Fri, 22 May 2009 22:48:59 +0000

More than one billion people, members of the Catholic Church apart from a few hundreds of millions of other Orthodox churches believe in transubstantiation.

By: denise t

denise t — Fri, 22 May 2009 22:48:59 +0000

I think so. Why did you go to church? is the real presence, is your chance to be with Christ. is so impressive.

By: llanolyn

llanolyn — Fri, 22 May 2009 22:48:59 +0000

I think. I'd list all the passages in the Bible that is used as the basis of the doctrine, but I see others have done a good job already.

By: clusium1

clusium1 — Fri, 22 May 2009 22:48:59 +0000

Me, and Our Lord has made very clear in the 4 Gospels that He was the bread and wine His literal body and blood.

By: Jim ((C.A.B.))

Jim ((C.A.B.)) — Fri, 22 May 2009 22:48:59 +0000

Yo.