Why doesn't transubstantiation make the wine kind of salty?

Answer 1

The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists frequently attack this doctrine as "unbiblical," but the Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71).

The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: "Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity" (ibid., 197–98).

"Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally" (ibid., 211–12).

Ignatius of Antioch

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D.
151].

Peace and every blessing!

Answer 2

Dude: Transubstantiation is an erroneous teaching that claims that the wine and the bread literally become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. To eat and drink that would be cannibalism.
Now, if you want salty wine, just add some.
Cheers,
Mr. M on "salty."

Answer 3

The reason why the wine doesn't taste salty is because you do not understand the word transubstantiation!!!

Answer 4

Yes, who would believe this sort of thing?
In the Roman Catholic religion you have to believe that the bread and wine is actually turned into meat and blood. There is no room for doubt. To not believe this is heresy and many people have been burned to death in the past for denying this belief

Answer 5

The "evening Sacrifice" HAS FAILED. Courtesy of fixing the count & type, even Daniel's sacrifice might want to have failed. The historic pre-Mass of the selected human beings stated particular prescripts given by technique of God for his or her evening Sacrifice. Had they replaced God's instructions, their "evening sacrifice" of providing to God their presents for His appeasement --might want to have failed also. as we talk, the Church spoils its "evening Sacrifice" by technique of having performed in simple terms that. The very coronary heart of transubstantiation are the words "for most." yet a "pope" got here alongside and altered the words of Christ on the very second of His replacing bread to body and wine to Blood, There now no longer is a representative providing TO the daddy. it truly is a fraud as we talk, Protestant in all its heresy. The 'evening SACRIFICE" shall fail, wrote Isaiah. Biblical Foundations international, Gerry Matatics, ph.d. in Patristics.

Answer 6

I'd be more worried if the bread started tasting like chicken.

Answer 7

Because the "wine" is symbolic of Christ's sacrifice. It is not literally Jesus.

Answer 8

someone pulled out the dictonary