Question to Catholics - Printable Version

Question to Catholics - Printable Version

+- Forums (https://bb.islamsms.com)
+-- Forum: ENGLISH (https://bb.islamsms.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Discussion of Beliefs (https://bb.islamsms.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Question to Catholics (/showthread.php?tid=6808)

Pages: 1 2 3

Question to Catholics - wel_mel_2 - 12-25-2006

Bismillah:

I read the following in the Catholic Catechism and I really need some clarification:

Quote:1357 We carry out this command of the Lord by celebrating the memorial of his sacrifice. In so doing, we offer to the Father what he has himself given us: the gifts of his creation, bread and wine which, by the power of the Holy Spirit and by the words of Christ, have become the body and blood of Christ. Christ is thus really and mysteriously made present.

Quote:1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained. "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."

Quote:1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

Quote:1380 It is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present to his Church in this unique way. Since Christ was about to take his departure from his own in his visible form, he wanted to give us his sacramental presence; since he was about to offer himself on the cross to save us, he wanted us to have the memorial of the love with which he loved us "to the end,"even to the giving of his life. In his Eucharistic presence he remains mysteriously in our midst as the one who loved us and gave himself up for us,and he remains under signs that express and communicate this love:

So, do you really believe that Jesus Christ is actually transformed into the physical appearance of bread and wine? Can you actually worship this “bread-god”? Do you really believe that this piece of bread which was made by human hands can be sacrificed for your sins and then you are granted salvation? 

Also doesn’t the Bible say that:

… we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Hebrews 10: 10-14

And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel. Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner
as ye have seen him go into heaven. Acts 1:9

So how can you believe that he truly, really, and substantially present in the forms of bread and wine?

Salam

Wael.

Question to Catholics - Faith Hope Charity - 12-26-2006

In the name of God - Father Son Holy Spirit.

May the love of God the Father, the grace of His only begotten Son & the indwelling of the Holy Spirit be with you always.

Oh boy! & you thought the Incarnation was a difficult concept to grasp - haha! Wait till you hear this :D

Quote:So, do you really believe that Jesus Christ is actually transformed into the physical appearance of bread and wine?

Nope! We believe that after the words of consecration, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread & wine are transformed into the Body & Blood of Christ. Amen!

Quote:Can you actually worship this “bread-god”?

Catholics don't worship bread!

Quote:Do you really believe that this piece of bread which was made by human hands can be sacrificed for your sins and then you are granted salvation?

LOL! No! Christ's sacrifice on the Cross was sufficient, perfect & complete enough to atone for all sin.

"The Catholic Church does not teach that the sacrifice of the Mass is another sacrifice in addition to Calvary or a re-crucifixion of Christ. Rather, it is a re-presenting of Christ’s original sacrifice, making it present to all Christians in all places and at all times. The sacrifice of Calvary and the sacrifice of the Mass are one and the same sacrifice, only the manner in which they are offered is different" (Defend the Faith).

Quote:So how can you believe that he truly, really, and substantially present in the forms of bread and wine?

"Jesus said to them … 'I am the bread of life ... 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 ... Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him' ... Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, 'This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?' But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, 'Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe'" (St John vv. 35-71).

"Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins'" (St Matt. 26:26; cf. St Mark 14:22; St Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 10:4-21).

"We may admit that the ordinary human body, subject to the laws of nature, cannot be present simultaneously in different places. But here, there is question of no ordinary body but of one united mysteriously to God, the master of nature & its laws. No one knows what such a Body is capable of. Other bodies are subject to the laws of space, but to this Body the laws of space are obedient" (Apologetics & Catholic Doctrine).

Wael, I know this is a lot to take in. I've tried to simplify it as much as possible. Please ask me more questions if necessary. Do you know that the Real Presence is the main doctrine that separates Catholics from Protestants? It's an age old debate, unfortunately :(

"No one", says St Augustine (354-430 AD), "eats this flesh without having first adored it."

On that note... I'm off to Mass :)

God bless.

Faith Hope Charity ... Openness Tolerance Equality

Question to Catholics - AlShamms - 12-26-2006

Peace......

During the mass, priests allegedly claim the bread and wine transforms into the actual and literal body and blood of Jesus Christ:

"The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation." Pg. 347, #1376.

This Catechism quote reveals that the Catholic church still adheres to this doctrine which was defined at the Council of Trent:

"At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood." Pg. 336 # 1333

The Catechism even specifies when Christ comes into the eucharist and how long He stays:

"The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ." Pg. 347 #1377

Since Catholicism is teaching members to partake in literal cannibalism, this doctrine requires serious examination. To begin with, we must determine this doctrine's origin. Is it from God, or is it a tradition of men? Catholicism insists it is scriptural, citing the words of Jesus in John 6:

"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." John 6:53-54
Though this one verse does appear to teach cannibalism, if you read the entire passage in context, the meaning becomes clear. Right before making that statement, Jesus said:

"... For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." John 6:33-35
This teaching is consistent with the rest of Scripture. Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not eating His body. The Lord goes on to further clarify:

"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life..." John 6:40
Again, Jesus points out that eternal life comes through believing in Him. When the Lord's disciples murmured at His words, Jesus explained:

"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 6:63
Jesus was talking spiritually, not physically. He was explaining that spiritually, all life comes through faith in Him, not eating His body.

Nowhere else in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism. In fact, God forbids the practice:

"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." Genesis 9:4

"... No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood." Leviticus 17:12

God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden.

The Biblical purpose

Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 shed even more light on this matter:

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." 1 Corinthians 11:23-24
When Jesus said, "Take, eat: this is my body," He was not suggesting that they reach out and begin eating His literal body. To even suggest such is ridiculous. He was speaking spiritually about what He was about to accomplish on the cross.

Notice how that verse ends: "...this do in remembrance of me." Observing the Lord's Supper is a remembrance of Christ's work at Calvary, not a reenactment. The same is true of Christ's blood:

"After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." 1 Corinthians 11:25
Jesus Himself taught the same lesson to his disciples at the Last Supper:

"And he (Jesus) took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." Luke 22:19
So I would have to say that the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation is NOT Biblically sound.

Shamms

Question to Catholics - wel_mel_2 - 12-27-2006

Bismillah:

Thanks for your explanation FHC, although a lot of points still does not make sense to me. (will ask you later more questions dont worry :) )

Quote:So I would have to say that the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation is NOT Biblically sound.

I totally agree with you Shamms.

Salam

Wael

Question to Catholics - Faith Hope Charity - 12-27-2006

May the peace of Christ be with you, AlShamms, Wael, & company.

Thanks for posting!

I couldn't figure out whether you're a Protestant or Muslim until I read your signature :) I don't think it's appropriate for us to discuss our differences on an Islamic forum, however, considering Wael brought up the topic, I'll make an exception :)

Quote:During the mass, priests allegedly claim the bread and wine transforms into the actual and literal body and blood of Jesus Christ:

It is not a claim. The Mass is the sacrificial rite instituted by Christ at the Last Supper.

Quote:Since Catholicism is teaching members to partake in literal cannibalism

Cannibalism = eating dead flesh. Jesus is alive!!! Without going into too much depth... "Since Christ is neither dead nor even maimed, and since He is a Divine Person, the term cannibalism simply does not apply" (CatholicAnswers.com).

Quote:Is it from God, or is it a tradition of men?

It is from God. The Church has celebrated this Divine Mystery since day one & therefore you could also say that it's the living tradition of Christ's 'One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church'. Even the father of Protestantism, Martin Luther, believed in the Real Presence :)

Quote:Though this one verse does appear to teach cannibalism, if you read the entire passage in context, the meaning becomes clear.

AlShamms, I don't mean to have a go at you, your private interpretation, or your beliefs, but are you sure you've read the passgae in its correct context? Do you know what Jesus meant by the preceding verse 6: St John 6:32??? Are you aware of what Jesus was referring to when he mentioned the "manna in the wilderness", e.t.c.?

Quote:Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not eating His body.

But AlShamms, believing in Christ requires belief in EVERYTHING He taught. We can't pick & choose! How many of Jesus' followers walked away from Him after His Bread of Life discourse? Their reaction was... "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?" & Jesus Christ responded by saying, "Truly, truly, I say to you..." not "Symbolically, symbolically, I say to you..." I can understand where you're coming from but as my Scripture teacher, who's a former Protestant Minister, keeps drilling into my head, we cannot give meaning to Scripture (eisegesis), but rather, we must take meaning out of Scripture (exegesis)!

Quote:Nowhere else in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism. In fact, God forbids the practice.
God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden.

No argument from me... I totally agree with you :)

Quote:Jesus was talking spiritually, not physically. He was explaining that spiritually, all life comes through faith in Him, not eating His body.
When Jesus said, "Take, eat: this is my body," He was not suggesting that they reach out and begin eating His literal body. To even suggest such is ridiculous. He was speaking spiritually about what He was about to accomplish on the cross.

Mate, you're not the first & you won't be the last to fire up these objections. St Thomas Aquinas answered them superbly back in the 13th Century AD: http://www.freewebs.com/jacques7/Summa/Eucharist.doc

Quote:So I would have to say that the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation is NOT Biblically sound.

Error! On what authority do you make such an assertion?

The Bible - Word of Life; The Eucharist - Source of Life; The Mass - Heaven on Earth!

Faith Hope Charity Openness Tolerance Equality

Question to Catholics - AlShamms - 12-27-2006

Peace......

FHC, I don't mind us having this discourse here. I believe it is the perfect place for muslims to see the error with which Catholics practice their faith. That being said, let us continue...

It is taught in Roman dogma that the Mass is the resacrificing of Jesus Christ. The priest officiating the Mass purports to call Christ down from heaven, and the bread and wine used in the ceremony supposedly becomes the literal body and blood of Christ, a process known as "transubstantiation". Thus, the belief is that the "very body and blood" of Christ are present in the sacramental elements. In practice, however, the wine ("blood") is withheld from the laity, and the explanation is forwarded that the body and the blood are concomitant, meaning that both are contained in the bread host, a practice that began in the 12th century due to fear that the "blood of Christ" might be spilled during administration (Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. VI, p.678)....This very act alone shows the unscripturalness of this practice, but let us continue.

Catholic apologists will sometimes calumniate by saying that the Mass is not a direct resacrifice, but rather a re-presentation or return to the sacrifice of Christ, but in practice, the Mass is treated as being a literal continuation of Christ's actual death and sacrifice. As the Catechism itself says about the "re-presentation" argument,

"The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is a memorial and because it applies the fruit.”(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 Edition, paragraph 1366)
"Re-presents" is defined specifically as "making present", hence the belief is in the "real presence" of the body and blood of Christ in the host and wine.

When Jesus was on the cross, He said, “It is finished”, and then bowed His head and gave up the ghost. (John 19:30) That phrase, “it is finished”, is translated from a single Greek word, teleo, which has the meaning of “being finished, completed, discharged completely (as in a debt)”. Ancient papyri receipts for taxes and other debts have been discovered which have this single Greek word scrawled across them - Paid In Full. That is what Jesus did on the cross. He paid our sin debt in full. There is now no longer any need for Him to be sacrificed, and there is no grace that can be obtained by “re-presenting” Him. There is certainly no redemptive value to continually “re-presenting” Him, as He has already paid the debt, risen from the dead, and opened the way into heaven for all who will simply believe and trust in Him alone. The Bible presents Jesus’ work on the cross as being final and permanent in nature. There is simply no need, and no biblical provision, for the continual, repeated sacrifice of the Son of God.

Transubstantiation, as was said earlier, is the dogma which says that the bread and wine, when ingested in the Mass, are supernaturally transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ, which then imparts blessing to the participant. This, however, is unscriptural. Christ commanded to take the Lord's Supper with the words, "...this do in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19) He clearly indicates that the Lord's Supper was a symbolic act to remind us of His sacrifice on the cross, and His future return. Paul reiterates this in I Corinthians 11:26. Neither of them suggest that the Lord's Supper was to be considered the actual, physical body and blood of Christ.

Now, Catholics will point to John 6:48-71 and use this text as support for their contention that the body and blood of Christ were literally meant to be ingested. However, problems arise with this interpretation. First and foremost is that in verse 57 Christ says, "As the Living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." Following the Catholic dogma to its conclusion, this verse can then only be interpreted as saying that Christ lives because He literally partakes of the flesh and blood of the Father (who is a spirit, and has no flesh or blood). If we live only by partaking of Christ's flesh and blood in the Eucharist, then Christ, who lives in the Father as we live in Christ, must live by eating and drinking the Father, a ludicrous notion which even Roman Catholic apologists would be unlikely to defend. Of course, what this verse REALLY means is clear and logical when understood from a symbolic perspective. Just as Christ had life because of His fellowship with the Father (due to their unity in the Godhead), so also do we have life when we are received back into the beloved fellowship of God through Christ. He is the bread of life, Christ is the means by which the spiritual hunger of man is truly fulfilled, and by which our once-dead spirits are given new life. "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace are ye saved)". (Ephesians 2:5)

Also, in John 6:66 we are told that after His discourse on being the bread of life, many of Jesus' disciples left Him because they took His words literally, and were offended by what appeared on the surface to be ravings. They did not have the discernment to see that Jesus meant His words to be taken symbolically, that He was using symbolism just as He did in all His discourses. They did not understand that the Messiah would come speaking in parables (Psalms 78:2-4), just as Catholicism today doesn't understand the parabolic nature of John 6. In John 6:63, Jesus said, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." Jesus clearly told His disciples that His words were meant to be taken figuratively, that the spiritual understanding, not the physical and literal, was to be had. He was nourishment for their SPIRITS, not their physical BODIES, and His giving of Himself to be their nourishment was likewise spiritual, not physical. Just as Christ obviously was not a physical door, not a wooden plank with a metal doorknob, when He said "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved..." (John 10:9), so also was he speaking figuratively when He spoke of the partaking of His flesh and blood by His followers.

This is the same problem Jehovahs Witnesses run into in their belief that Christ before his human existence was the archangel Michael, taken from the misunderstanding of 1st Thessalonians 4:16.

We see in John 6:65, the verse right prior to the one mentioned above, the reason why some of His disciples did not understand the figurative, symbolic nature of Christ's words in this chapter. "And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." (John 6:65). The reason some of Christ's disciples were unfaithful, believed that He literally meant for them to partake of His flesh and blood, and left Him was because they were unregenerate people who had not faith given them from the Father to truly trust in Christ and rightly believe and understand His words. The same holds true for Catholics today who hold to the literalness of the flesh and blood in the Eucharist.

It is also interesting to note that in Matthew 26:29, AFTER the so-called "consecration of the first Mass", that Jesus refers to the wine as "THIS fruit of the vine". He still considered it to be wine, not His blood. Even if the Roman Church considers the wine to transubstantiate into Christ's blood, Jesus Himself, by the testimony of Scripture, apparently did not.

Also, the eating of blood is expressly forbidden by the Bible. Genesis 9:4 says, "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." This commandment to abstain from blood is from the Noahic dispensation and predates the law given to Moses, and is still binding on believers today. It is reiterated by James during the Jerusalem controversy in Acts 15:20 and 29. Believers are not to partake of blood, and God would not work in a way, such as transubstantiation, which would violate His own Word. To suppose that Christ was commanding His disciples to literally partake of His flesh and blood therefore would make Christ a minister of sin, encouraging His followers to partake of a practice which is contrary to Scripture, which would then make Christ also a sinner. If Christ were then a sinner, He could not serve as the spotless Lamb of God, the sacrifice for sin made in our place, and hence, the whole matter of the shedding of His blood and breaking of His body would be completely moot. Thus, by teaching the literality of the partaking of Christ's blood, Catholicism negates its own dogma when the logical application of Scripture is made.

Seeing as transubstantiation, the central element of the Mass, is not Scriptural, from whence then does it come? The answer is from pagan religious systems whose origins extend back to the antiquity of man's rebellion against His Creator (see Romans 1:21-23), and which gradually evolved over time into forms which, quite often independently, mimic not just the outward appearance but also the central theology of the Mass.

Among the very early Indo-Aryans, transubstantiation was known, whereby the Brahmins taught that rice-cakes which were offered in sacrifice to the gods were substitutes for real human beings, which were then converted into real flesh and blood by the manipulations of the priests. (Sir J.G. Frazer, The Golden Bough, p. 490)

Sumner reported that in many primitive tribes, ceremonies exist in which the participants partake of images of the god made from grain flour, sometimes prepared using human blood kneaded into the dough, which a priest then turns into the god by means of magic formulas.(W.G. Sumner, Folkways, p. 337)

This primitive style of direct incorporation of the power of the various gods into the human existence continued as paganism became more refined. In ancient Mexico, The Aztecs and many other tribes believed in the ceremonial transformation of consecrated bread into the actual flesh and blood of various gods.

Likewise, in Egyptian mythology, a wafer of bread, inscribed with the name or symbology of Osiris, was offered to participants in cultic ceremonies after consecration by the priests of that god.(Encyclopedia of Religions, Vol. II, p. 76)

This last artifice continued into Christian times through the cult of Isis, one of the popular Oriental religious cults which found wide currency across the Roman Empire. In her cult, the mystery of the death of Osiris, and his subsequent rebirth as her son Horus, was celebrated. The flesh of the dead Osiris, then ruler of the underworld, was offered to the worshippers of the mother Isis and her perpetually infant son Horus.

The belief in transubstantiation, because of the widespread appearance of this doctrine in pagan societies without any apparent connexion, shows itself to be of very primeval origin, manifesting itself in as widely dispersed venues as Egypt, Mexico, and India. The Egyptian belief likely is what was incorporated into the syncretistic "Christianity" of the late Roman Empire. During the period of the 4th-5th centuries, the growing Roman church compromised with the pagan religions of the Empire in an effort to draw them into its sphere of influence and control. This syncretism, while retaining a veneer of Christian terminology and personage, became throughly paganised in its actual practices, one of which was the introduction of the belief in transubstantiation, as found in the doctrine of the "Real Presence" of Christ's flesh and blood in the host consecrated by priestly ritual. This pagan belief system was relatively slow to be adopted, but it eventually replaced the true worship of the risen Saviour in the bulk of European Christendom.

FHC, you quoted the early church fathers in your defense of transubstantiation, let's see what some who came before Aquinas had to say:

Justin Martyr (110-165 AD)

"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy allusion is made to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks."

Here, Justin states that the bread and the cup were given to Christians for the purpose of remembrance. Not only this, but he also indicates that the remembrance denoted by the bread and wine was that of Christ's being made flesh and suffering for us, not of a presentation of the actual flesh and blood. Thus, Justin is expousing a commemorative view of the Lord's Supper.

Tertullian (145-220 AD)

"Come now, when you read in the words of David, how that 'the Lord reigneth from the tree,' I want to know what you understand by it. Perhaps you think some wooden king of the Jews is meant!--and not Christ, who overcame death by His suffering on the cross, and thence reigned! Now, although death reigned from Adam even to Christ, why may not Christ be said to have reigned from the tree, from His having shut up the kingdom of death by dying upon the tree of His cross? This tree it is which Jeremiah likewise gives you intimation of, when he prophesies to the Jews, who should say, 'Come, let us destroy the tree with the fruit, (the bread) thereof,' that is, His body. For so did God in your own gospel even reveal the sense, when He called His body bread; so that, for the time to come, you may understand that He has given to His body the figure of bread, whose body the prophet of old figuratively turned into bread, the Lord Himself designing to give by and by an interpretation of the mystery."

Here we see Tertullian referring to the body of Christ as a "figure of bread". clearly saying that the identification is not to be taken literally. In this whole passage, Tertullian argues against literalistic interpretations of several passages. One can surmise from his statements about the figurative nature of the bread being the body of Christ that Tertullian would not have held to the "real presence" doctrine. However, lest there be any doubt at this point, Tertullian speaks about this very subject at another point:

"He says, it is true, that 'the flesh profiteth nothing;' but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, 'It is the spirit that quickeneth; 'and then added, 'The flesh profiteth nothing,'-meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: 'The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.' In a like sense He had previously said: 'He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.' Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith."

I apologize for the length of this post, but I believe the information to be useful.

Shamms

Question to Catholics - Curious Christian - 12-27-2006

Quote:So how can you believe that he truly, really, and substantially present in the forms of bread and wine?

My username is "Curious Christian"...but I should change it to "Curious Catholic"...

I am in the midst of adult confirmation into the Catholic Church and will be received this Easter.

The Eucharist is the main reason why I am converting since, as a Protestant, the truth of Christ in the Eucharist was lost.

It is such a massive topic Wel Mel. The Eucharist is the pinnacle of Christian worship. It is forshadowed and prefigured throughout the Old Testament and fullfilled during every mass throughout the world.

If you are trully interested I would read this book:

The Lambs Supper

Not only is this a simply delightful book, but it's also a short book - one that could easily be read in one sitting.

Question to Catholics - Curious Christian - 12-27-2006

Further...shamms...your response is veiled in so much error can't even begin to tackle it.

But...I'll try to take time tonight to take a look at it point by point.

Hint: before you quote the church fathers maybe you should know that both which you quoted believed in transubstansiation.

Quote:Seeing as transubstantiation, the central element of the Mass, is not Scriptural, from whence then does it come?

Wow...what a conclusion to jump to....are you a Protestant?!?!

Question to Catholics - AlShamms - 12-27-2006

Peace.......

Wael didn't make these comments.....I did.

And seeing as how "Protestant" is one who protests the pagan practices of the catholic church then yeah, I am a "protestant".

Shamms

Question to Catholics - Curious Christian - 12-27-2006

Quote:Peace.......

Wael didn't make these comments.....I did.

And seeing as how "Protestant" is one who protests the pagan practices of the catholic church then yeah, I am a "protestant".

Shamms

I used to be a Protestant too but the bible led me to the Catholic Church.

I edited my post realizing that they were your comments not wel mels...