Is there anything said about "Transubstantiation" in the Christian Greek Scriptures??

Question

Were Jesus` own apostles and other disciples of the first century C.E. scandalously presumptuous toward this Roman Catholik doctrine? Why do we ask this? Because in the twenty-seven books of the "New Testament", the Christian Greek Scriptures, they say nothing about "Transubstantiation" and do not explain the Lord`s supper in that way. Somebody help me to explain this??????

Answer 1

Jesus told the apostles, "my flesh is real [as opposed to symbolic] food; my blood is real [as apposed to symbolic] drink. All those present recognized that He was speaking literally, which is why a great number got up and walked away, saying "this is a hard teaching, who can accept it?". The Apostles and some others accepted what He had said, even though they did not fully understand it. At the Last Supper, Jesus took the bread, blessed it, and told them "THIS IS My Body". Then He took the cup of wine and told them, 'THIS IS my blood". They recognized this immediately as the fulfilment of His earlier literal teaching. This was the real food and real drink He had previously told them about. This became the universal belief of the Christian Church from that moment. This is why Paul wrote that he who receives the consecrated bread and wine unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Answer 2

The doctrine of Transubstantian was accepted by the Council of Trent in the 16th Century. I believe Lateran IV also referred to it.
The Doctrine is based on the what Jesus did at the Last Supper. The Catholic Church has declared the word "Transubstantion as an accurate way of saying what happens in the change of the Bread and Wine into Christ's body and blood. So what Jesus did at the Last Supper is there in the Greek Scriptures. Just like "Trinity" as concept is there, but the word Trinity is not used.
This is where the true tradition of the church comes in. Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is so false.

Answer 3

Transubstantiation is a Patristic concept ("of the Church Fathers") to explain the workings of the Last Supper. It's value in the scriptures is obvious simply because the bread was no longer bread and the wine no longer wine when given through the Christ.

Answer 4

I'm going to give you a somewhat irreverent answer, because the real answers have already been posted, depriving me of a "Best Answer" (if the truth counts, anyway).

As early as 1100 AD, church theologians started working on some way to articulate, in logical and scholarly terms, what Christ was talking about when he assured his friends over dinner one night that the bread was really his flesh, the wine really his blood -or that they would become so when taken in memory of Him. (And, as one respondenmt has noted, the word "memory" or "remembrance" had, in early theological usage, a lot more wallop then just a memory candle burning at your class reunion dinner).

And so, the folks who knuckled down on this as an intellectual concept were trying to come up with a statement that summarized and faithfully reflected what everyone already believed -but didn't know really how to explain the belief. They were also concerned that the church itself was consistent in its teachings world wide. Sort of like making sure the "Walmart Cheer" is done the same way at all the stores.

And, like many things in the Roman Catholic Church and the Department of Motor Vehicles, it took about 200 years to get it done -not until the Fourth Lateran Council in the early 13th century, as a matter of fact, during the papacy of Innocent III.

Innocent's born name was Lothair, having a grim resemblance to super-villains in Batman comics and pre-saging, perhaps, his top seller: "On the Miserable Condition of Man" and his big contribution to evangelisim everywhere, known today as the Fourth Crusade. Anyway, in a rare moment of actually paying attention to religious matters, spawned mainly by restless monks and nuns who had a way of doing their own thing back then, he convened the 4th Lateran Council and instructed the theologians, cardinals and maybe even the catering service to get it right -or ELSE.

And those folks, in 1215, finally articulated and set in stone the doctrine describing what's really going on at the Eucharist. The Executive Summary? Yeah, it changes!

But to my mind, this is about as satisfying as my doctor telling me I have appendictis -yeah, I KNOW that, all you're doing is giving a name that means my appendix is acting up -which I KNOW, already! Matter of fact, most named disorders and diseases are the same way; they just are a name that says, "This body part hurts," or "This body part is broken." Thanks a heap.

Well, religious doctrine is also like that. A name that describes a condition you don't know how to explain. Thanks a heap.

All that said, the Catholic Church, created when Jesus gave Peter the keys, and officially appointing itself as the real deal about 300 years later, has been at this Christian theology business longer than anyone. They also had to deal with some unchurched but pretty bright rulers who DID have some grounding in science -such as it was back then- and an annoying tendency to ask "Why" when given religious instruction. And within the churches own ranks, there were people asking "Why?" and "How?" And so, they wrestled with all those annoying questions, establishing principally three sources of validation for doctrine and faith:

1. The big one: scripture. If its "in there," then there's your answer.

2. Tradition: We've always done it this way, based on what #1 above, and,

3. REASON, which basically takes a logical and intellectual approach to using your noodle to figure out 1 and 2, above.

Obviously, by the time any of this hits the street and becomes the source of arguments at your local bar, it is understood somewhat differently than intended by the people who thought it all up in the first place. And that is why many popular ideas about the Catholic church turn out to be flat wrong if you read the actual doctrine to which the street talk can be traced. BUT, to figure it all out for yourself, you'd have to actually READ those doctrines and teachings -and its more fun and less effort just to point fingers and make stuff up about how wacky those Catholics are.

I hope this helps.

Answer 5

Of all the commandments of Jesus this is probably the most authentically followed today. I taken communion as a small boy in the catholic church and understood exactly what is was. As a protestant I attended many different denominations and found them all true to "Do this in remembrance of me" Where have you been.
It's in your heart and in your faith that you accept The condemnation of the cross and the salvation in the cleansing by his blood.
That's why you do it.
Maybe they felt that you would be able to understand the symbolism with out a lecture on whether it's real meat or not.

Answer 6

It's implied. First of all, Christ was clear:

"This is my Body".

Could He have been more direct?

Secondly, look at the word "anamnesis' in Greek. This is the word we weakly translate in the KJV as "remembrance". It means so much more. In Greek philosophy, from which the term was borrowed and "Christianized" - it's so much more than "a memory" or a "remembering".

It's a calling forth, through space and time, to make "really present" in the here and now.

Take a class or two. You won't sound so foolish when you rant.

Answer 7

It's one of the false claims of the Catholic church. It was one of the many reasons for the reformation starting in the 1540's. See John Calvin and William Farels works.

Answer 8

After Jesus stated, "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" (John 6:51, "the Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?'" (John 6:52). Jesus responded by assuring them that "my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." (John 6:55). Later, He took bread and asserted, "this is my body." (Matthew 26:26)

So it is His body under the appearance of bread.

Answer 9

It is not scriptural. On sharper analysis it does not even explain the dominical statements. It contradicts the true biblical account of Christ's presence. It has no secure patristic backing. It stands or falls with a particular philosophical understanding. It destroys the true nature of a sacrament. and it certainly perverts it's proper use and give rise to dangerous superstitions inimical to evangelical faith.

Answer 10

The whole concept is nothing more than theophagy.