Bible Study My take on transubstantiation

[TonyChanYT]

The term transubstantiation is not in the Scripture. I prefer to adhere to Scripture's wording when it comes to matters of doctrine. I would not bother using the term in the formal doctrinal sense. I would put little weight on it when Catholics use it in an argument. People who tend to generalize often overgeneralize in their doctrine. More precisely, I know this.

By definition, a miracle is an extraordinarily rare event. The Catholic transubstantiation is a miracle. In the Bible, there is no formulaic procedure to produce a miracle, i.e., if you follow this horizontal procedure step by step, then a vertical miracle will happen routinely. The nature of a miracle means that it is not a routine happening. Transubstantiation is a routine miracle. That's an oxymoron.

 

[miamited]

Hi TonyChanYT

Since transubstantiation doesn't ever occur, it is not a miracle. A miracle is something that happens for which man cannot explain because it is done by a being much greater than we are. We tend to cheapen the meaning of miracle by applying it to circumstances that are rare, but do happen.

For example, a person recovers from some deadly cancer and the chances of the medical regimen that they were on only gave a 5% chance of recovery. That's not a miracle. Sure the patient and family feel relieved and it's certainly a great thing that happened for the patient, but it's not a miracle. The whole purpose of the patient going through the medical regimen was in hopes that they would be healed by it.

The idea of transubstantiation is nowhere found as a teaching of the Scriptures. But this is how man is able to explain some amorphous idea that makes the partaking of the simple act of communion found in the Scriptures to do this remembrance of our Savior, as some mystical and spiritual process for which God has some hand in performing a miracle every time someone sits down to practice a communion service which Jesus instituted for us. But it doesn't happen. It's just a myth of which there are a few practiced in the christian faith.

 

[TonyChanYT]

Since transubstantiation doesn't ever occur, it is not a miracle.

I am using the Catholic definition. Are you?

 

[NewLifeInChrist]

Hi TonyChanYT

Since transubstantiation doesn't ever occur, it is not a miracle. A miracle is something that happens for which man cannot explain because it is done by a being much greater than we are. We tend to cheapen the meaning of miracle by applying it to circumstances that are rare, but do happen.

For example, a person recovers from some deadly cancer and the chances of the medical regimen that they were on only gave a 5% chance of recovery. That's not a miracle. Sure the patient and family feel relieved and it's certainly a great thing that happened for the patient, but it's not a miracle. The whole purpose of the patient going through the medical regimen was in hopes that they would be healed by it.

The idea of transubstantiation is nowhere found as a teaching of the Scriptures. But this is how man is able to explain some amorphous idea that makes the partaking of the simple act of communion found in the Scriptures to do this remembrance of our Savior, as some mystical and spiritual process for which God has some hand in performing a miracle every time someone sits down to practice a communion service which Jesus instituted for us. But it doesn't happen. It's just a myth of which there are a few practiced in the Christian faith.

I think you're right. The idea that holy water washes away sins probably has a similar presumption. The same is probably true for thinking priests have the power to forgive sins. And there may be other similar things as well (like salvation being given out by the church).

 

[RandyK]

I agree that a miracle is not predictable by human formula, but only by the revealed word of God. For example, Jesus commissioned his 12 disciples to go out an work miracles for 3.5 years. This was somewhat routine, but was not a formula anybody could pick up and do. Nor was it something that even the 12 Disciples could do following Jersus' death. God's Word commissioned them to work miracles during the earthly ministry of Christ to confirm who he was.

To be clear I'm not a dispensationalist with respect to the idea that miracles ceased with the termination of the 1st generation of apostles and prophets. I believe miracles continue today--again, not by formula, but by revelation of God's word. How and when they occur is subject to God and to the specifics of how He commissions certain individuals to work miracles.

With respect to Transubstantiation, this is called a "miracle," but is actually only an attempt to explain, literally, what Jesus meant by calling the Eucharistic elements his blood and body. If we take these elements of bread and wine as though they are Jesus' body and blood, how can that be explained?

Well, when we get something like this we are immediately informed that we're dealing with a figure of speech, and not a literal statement. The elements are not literally the elements of body and blood, but they only literally *represent* them as figures of speech.

The attempt to make this more mystical is really an attempt to preserve the spiritual meaning of the Eucharist so that when it is practiced it is done with a real sense that we participate in Christ. But we do this all the time, and not just during the Eucharist/Communion. We walk every day in Christ, and not just experience this in the ritual of Communion.

So the Eucharist/Communion is meant to celebrate a spiritual event, but not *be* the mechanism by which that event is experienced. It is a *memorial* of that event so that its spiritual nature if "remembered" and therefore contitnuously practiced--not just during Communion but always.

 

[miamited]

I am using the Catholic definition. Are you?

Didn't know there were two. Maybe you should explain it then so we're all on the same page. What is the Catholic definition?