Do you believe in transubstantiation? (and if so, why?)?

Question

So the Priests have been given this order by the Councel of Trent?
Who Catholics must believe were canonical?

Answer 1

No. When Jesus broke the bread and passed the wine ,His flesh was on His body and His blood was in His veins,yet He said "Take ,eat ,this is my body broken for you"...
In John (6 I think) when Jesus is speaking of eating His flesh and drinking his blood,many were offended and walked away. He said "The words I speak on this are Spiritual,the Flesh profits nothing".
So we can see by His own words ,they are spiritual and meant to remember what He did for us. He isn't to die over and over again.He died "Once for all".
He broke matso bread ,He didn't pass out round "Queen of Heaven" hosts.

Answer 2

Yes, I do. Because that's what Jesus taught us. I find it interesting that folks who insist upon interpreting the Bible literally trip all over themselves when the very clear, unambiguous words of the Lord indicate that He is indeed present in the bread and wine (consecrated precisely as He did); this, they declare, is merely symbolic.

They seize upon the translated word "remembrance" as if that explains away all else the Gospels, as well as the epistles of St. Paul, teach about this.

The very early Church -- long before the councils of Trent, Nicea, etc. -- recognized that this was no mere symbolism or memorial, as many writings from that era indicate.

Those who use the odious Chick tracts as the entire basis of their arguments against this are incredibly gullible -- or lazy, I'm not sure which. Even in my Baptist days, I thought the things were rather "out there" and at best to be taken with a large grain (boulder) of salt.

Answer 3

Yes, to be Christian and to doubt Christ's words and teaching would be against the faith.

The Eucharist has offended men from the very beginning of His teaching when Jesus taught at Capernaum that His gift to humanity could only be discerned through the spirit rather than the carnal senses. It was said at that time that it was hard teaching, so hard, in fact, that for the first and only time some of His disciples left Him never to follow again. Those who left were the proto-Protestants as they lacked the spiritual discernment and the will and trust in Jesus to believe His plain words.

(Joh 6:66 DRB) (6:67) After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.

In His teaching, twelve times He said that He was the bread from heaven. Four times He instructed that they would have to eat His flesh and drink His blood as an extended promise of what would come at the Last Supper. There was never a more explicit teaching of our Savior than this teaching yet some do not believe and will call themselves Christian.

The Eucharist as the Scriptures teach make the past present where we as the Church are present at the once for all sacrifice of our Lord. Christ is present in that the elements are fully Christ in a present reality offered to believers as a present gift shared by the whole Church Militant, Suffering and Triumphant.
The Eucharist is the greatest of all the Sacraments as “the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend”. In the Eucharist the body and blood including the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, the whole Christ, is truly, really and substantially contained in the fullest sense.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

The Council of Trent only defined what the Church had always believed as written in Scriptures. The Church has always taught the real presence. St. Paul said in Scriptures in His instructions on receiving the Eucharist that one MUST discern the Body and the Blood to receive or one brings condemnation on oneself. So, of course it is canonical.

Answer 4

Yes, because the evidence of it's truth in the bible is overwhelming.

Jesus instituted the Eucharist on the passover. During the passover, it was clear that the sacraficing the lamb was not good enough. The family had to actually partake in the sacrafice by sprinkling the blood and eating the flesh.

When faced with opposition Jesus never wavered on this point. When he first preached this to a group of followers many of them started to leave because they could not accept what he was saying. If Jesus was speaking symbolically why didn't he say "wait come back! I didn't mean that literally!"

In the parallel gospel of john you have the story of Jesus walking on water. When the apostles see Jesus they say "look it is a ghost" and jesus corrects them by saying "no it is not a ghost, it is I"

There's a ton of more scriptures I could mention but it's been a while since I've studied this topic. Here are some articles that will shed more light.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0501clas.asp

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9307iron.asp

Answer 5

Yes, I believe it.

It's a miracle, instituted by Christ.

We have documentation from 150AD in which a Roman soldier was sent to investigate the accusations of Christians eating flesh...cannibalism. The solider reported that the only thing he witnessed was a gathering in which, scripture was read, some songs were sung, and those in attendance consumed bread. He saw no evidence of cannibalism.

Why would Christians have been accused of eating flesh? It had already gotten around that they were eating the body of Christ. This was already a practice that had been going on for some time in order for a soldier to be dispatched to investigate. This was the Mass. This is what Christ commanded in John 6. That we must eat his body and drink his blood. He says this 6 times in that chapter. Why would our Lord repeat something 6 times if he didn't mean it, and if it wasn't important? Where else does Christ repeat himself that often? No where.

When the Church made it part of dogma, it was because it was already part of what was known to be the truth and practiced throughout the Christian world. Many things we know to be true were handed down from the Apostles...the Eucharist is the main one.

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/eucha4.htm
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/Jan98/transubstantiation.html
http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/eucharist/eucharist_5.htm
http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

Answer 6

I do and I will tell you why, for two reasons:
1) It is Biblical and spoken by Christ himself that the bread and wine are His blood and body, not just a representation of. He clearly stated in the pronouncement during the last supper that He wanted to leave us a physical sign of His presence on earth, in which He stated, "This is my body" and "This is my blood" at no time does He mention that this is a symbol, a copy of and that is more than enough proof for me.
2) To go further though there have been times in history as recent as this past decade in which the body and blood of Christ have been witnessed to be not only present in the form of bread and wine, but have actually been physically bleeding and these miracles are signs of what it should be to each of us.
For these two reasons I believe with all my heart, soul and mind. I dont need the latter to believe, I have always believed, because I feel His presence each time I approach the altar.
To me there is nothing more precious, more beautiful, than God himself leaving us a bit of himself so that we may join the saints, angels and sit at the last supper ourself at each Communion.
God bless and have a great and most blessed day.

Answer 7

Of course it is the Body and Blood of our Lord. There is nothing more explicit in Scripture as transubstantiation. I get a kick out of fundamentalists who claim to take the Bible literally, but yet refuse to believe Jesus' own words. Some of my fundamentalist friends often tell me, "God said, I believe it, and that settles it!" Why do they not believe in Jesus' own words? Why would Paul say that whoever took of the body and blood of our Lord unworthily brought condemnation upon himself if Eucharist was only symbolic? The Early Church Fathers passed on what the Apostles had taught, namely that the Eucharist really and truly is the body and blood of our Lord. Not only that, throughout history, and even today, there are numerous Eucharistic Miracles.

Answer 8

Yes. Many good answers in this thread, but a simple answer is that I believe Jesus. I don't know how he changes bread and wine into his body and blood, but he taught that "my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink" (John 6:55). If anyone thinks this was simply a metaphor, note that many of his disciples stopped following him after this teaching. Would they turn away over a metaphor?

Cheers,
Bruce

Answer 9

Yes, I believe in it for many reasons, but will list only a few.

1. It is all over the scripture in John chapter 6.

2. The earliest Christians believed it.

3. Ignatius of Antioch taught and believed it, yet he was a student, a disciple, of the Apostle John...Yes, the apostle who wrote the book of John, and was the beloved "disciple whom Jesus loved." If you think he would have led anyone astray with false teachings, then you may as well tear out all the books of the Bible which are attributed to him.

Answer 10

Yes.

John 6:32-71
1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29

Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood."

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).

Answer 11

I do. It has a lot to do with the Last Supper message that Christ teaches.
At that day you shall know that I am in my Father, and I in you.
This is not cannibalism, this is spiritual. (John 14:20.)
If someone cannot distinguish things that are spiritual, I cannot do more that point this out.