Another way to explain the doctrine of Transubstantiation

Рет қаралды 40,349

13 жыл бұрын

www.catholic.com/
Catholic Answers Director of Apologetics, Tim Staples, helps a caller refine his analogy to better explain the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation.
Tim Staples is Director of Apologetics and Evangelization here at Catholic Answers, but he was not always Catholic. Tim was raised a Southern Baptist. Although he fell away from the faith of his childhood, Tim came back to faith in Christ during his late teen years through the witness of Christian televangelists. Soon after, Tim joined the Marine Corps. During his four-year tour, he became involved in ministry with various Assemblies of God communities. Immediately after his tour of duty, Tim enrolled in Jimmy Swaggart Bible College and became a youth minister in an Assembly of God community.
During his final year in the Marines, however, Tim met a Marine who really knew his faith and challenged Tim to study Catholicism from Catholic and historical sources. That encounter sparked a two-year search for the truth. Tim was determined to prove Catholicism wrong, but he ended up studying his way to the last place he thought he would ever end up: the Catholic Church!
He converted to Catholicism in 1988 and spent the following six years in formation for the priesthood, earning a degree in philosophy from St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Overbrook, Pennsylvania. He then studied theology on a graduate level at Mount St. Mary's Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland, for two years.
Realizing that his calling was not to the priesthood, Tim left the seminary in 1994 and has been working in Catholic apologetics and evangelization ever since.
Tim Staples has given hundreds of talks all over the country and has helped thousands of people find their way home to the Catholic Church. He brings his extensive knowledge of Scripture into his tapes, books, and talks, helping others to see the strong biblical evidences that support Catholic doctrines. Tim's humorous enthusiasm captivates his audiences, and his unique style has brought him great renown as an engaging speaker.

Пікірлер: 57

@Molly-cd9fx 8 жыл бұрын

see the little flash of light at 4.49

@catholiccom 13 жыл бұрын

@mmgmeerja If you go to our web site (catholic dot com) there is a "Radio" tab near the top of the page. Click on that and you will see a drop-down menu. From there you can find a list of radio stations that broadcast our show. If there is not one in your area, there is also a link to listen to the show live from 3-5 PM PST. The show is also available for free as a podcast. God bless you.

@catholiccom 12 жыл бұрын

@glizag Pope Victor III died at his home in Monte Cassino. That is a matter of historical record.

@fbhzgirl4804 8 жыл бұрын

what about the believes of protestants about eucharist ??

@garybeharrell3972 7 жыл бұрын

Just a thought on the totally human thing. I was viewing an article on the blood of Jesus a while back and they claim they have evidence that the blood of Jesus only had 24 chromosomes. 23 from his mom and 1 from another source?

@catholiccom 13 жыл бұрын

@glizag This is false. The exact cause of death for Pope Victor III is unknown at best. All that is known is that he became ill during a council and left to his home in Monte Cassino where he died.

@IamSaralinka 12 жыл бұрын

@ramatirthadasa Jesus drank wine. The Apostles drank wine. Jesus was even accused of being drunk during his preachings by Roman officials and bystanders. Drinking alcohol is allowed in the Church, in fact, it is promoted as a celebratory drink in the Bible and biologically beneficial for a healthy lifestyle. However, the abuse of alcohol is strictly prohibited in the Church and is considered a large act of sin.

@5355vbxjbj76rvn 12 жыл бұрын

@glizag That argument doesn't work. Transubstantiation does not affect the chemical properties of the Consecrated Host - it affects the identity of (what was) bread. A poisoned Host will not stop being poisoned when it becomes the Body of Christ. The chemistry of the unconsecrated Bread & wine is incidental to the identity of the bread as bread - the identity is what is converted by Transubstantiation; incidentals, such as taste, size, toxicity, are unaffected. So, no hoax.

@Jesus_Christ_is_King12 9 жыл бұрын

The term Transubstantiation was used by the Church to show the reality of Christ's body and Blood being made present at the Eucharistic liturgy. This liturgical gathering has been around since the sub-apostolic age. St. Ignatius of Antioch in AD 110 speaks of the Gnostics not holding the belief of the Universal Church that the Eucharist comprises the body and blood of Christ.

@Mppbeing1991 13 жыл бұрын

Transubstantiation: and the Word became Flesh, first was the Word and the Word is God. Jesus said so "This is my Body.... This is my Blood" He said, this is It, settled.

@tariqhaddad7298 8 жыл бұрын

Follow 2 3. The wedding at Cana in Galilee, we saw the water converted into wine, the Celebrants have felt taste, color and odor, but in the Lord's Supper we do not feel any changes like this, Has the Holy Spirit forgotten to tell us that a miracle was happened in the Lord's Supper and leave it to guess like the wedding in Cana. 4. Lord's Supper was before the crucifixion, if the supper was a real sacrifice, does that mean that Christ slaughtered himself before crucifixion sacrifice!! , did Jesus sllaughtered himslef two times in afew hours?!!, if the Lord's Supper was a real sacrifice so what is the point of re-sacrifice on the cross, especially that of Christ slaughter once and for ever.

@brackishnz 9 жыл бұрын

Can anyone answer why when Jesus used metaphors you take them as metaphors - EXCEPT the ones about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. And by your own admission you cannot taste, smell, see or scientifically analyse the transubstantiation . All of Jesus other miracles could be tested/observed. Why not this one?

@peaveawwii1 9 жыл бұрын

***** . The way to distinguish a metaphor is thru reading scripture the way it was intended and taught by the RCC. It is called Biblical Typology. The NT is concealed in the OT and the OT is revealed in the new. The are dozens of stories in the OT that are prefigurements of the Eucharist. If Jesus says I am a vine or I am a door they are metaphors because there is nothing in the OT to substantiate this claim. Things like numerous rapture theories and once saved always saved doctrines have nothing in the OT to support them. They are based on metaphors and false teachings. Here are a few examples of how the Eucharist is foretold in the OT and fulfilled in the NT. In Genesis, Adam and Eve allowed sin to enter the world by physically eating forbidden fruit from a tree. In Genesis, the High Priest Melchizedek offers bread and wine to God. In Exodus, Moses sealed the Covenant by throwing the blood of sacrificed animals on the people, saying - "Behold the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words." In Exodus, God says that the Bread of the Presence shall be before Him ALWAYS. The Bread of the Presence was Holy Bread consecrated to God with frankincense on top of itAt the Passover, the Israelites were saved from the angel of death by physically eating unleavened bread and the Passover lamb. The blood of the lamb was smeared on their door.The Israelites in the desert were saved by physically eating the bread from heaven (manna), and the flesh of the quails.The crowds that followed Jesus were fed by bread and fish when Jesus multiplied the loaves and the fishes.Jesus changed water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana.At the last supper, Jesus changed bread and wine into his body, blood, soul, and divinity, when he said "This is my body", and "This is my blood of the covenant." Jesus, the Lamb of God, the new High priest AND victim, was killed on a tree (His cross), and commanded us to eat the fruit of this tree (His flesh and blood) in John 6:48-58 in order to have eternal life. After he died, water (representing baptism) and blood (representing the Eucharist) flowed from His body.In metaphors Jesus does not usually repeat himself. When he speaks of the his body being food and his blood being drink he does so 12 times. Note 12 is an important number in scripture. He says this bread is by body 3 times.

@aggieputnam6707 9 жыл бұрын

***** That's a very valid question. Jesus says in John 6 - “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.” Now, that very well could be taken as metaphor. After all, Jesus also said he was a vine and a door, but he is literally neither. However right after the teaching in John 6:60 it says that many of the disciples said, "Lord, this is a hard saying, who can accept it?" Now, if it were a metaphor, would it be a hard saying? It wouldn't. The disciples would have no problem believing that you must metaphorically eat and drink Christ's flesh and blood. But instead, this is the only time disciples leave Jesus over a teaching. Disciples aren't just people that thought Jesus was cool; they were people who had given up their homes, lives, and families to be with Him, and they left Him because of this teaching. Once they do leave, Jesus makes no attempt to clarify that he was not speaking literally, instead He turns to the apostles and says, "Do you want to leave too?" He doesn't back down. It's clear that this situation is different from those that are to be taken as metaphors.

@peaveawwii1 9 жыл бұрын

Aggie Putnam well said

@peaveawwii1 8 жыл бұрын

Agnes Philomena Have you ever read all the comments on these kind of videos. The comments make an excellent case for the Catholic Church. The non Catholics cannot explain what they believe or why they believe it. They just know they hate the Catholics which is an anti Christian message from the very start. Whenever I start telling lies I lash out too., so they really have no clue.

@ryanchan3240 8 жыл бұрын

Read 1 Corinthians 10:16. That's definitely not a metaphor.

@qigong1001 10 жыл бұрын

First, let me say that I'm impressed that you allow different opinions on the comment site. A real believer isn't threatened by differing beliefs. Now...the caller makes a grave error in how science approaches transubstantiation. The question is not "what form is person X". The question is "entity X can CHANGE form". So, ofcourse we never see this. "Miracles" is the same. Its funny how miracles never happen while under scientific scrutiny. I feel its because they don't exist.

@meikilus 12 жыл бұрын

Ha... this is so funny because any bible reading christian knows that the first miracle Jesus performed was the changing of water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana Read John 2:1-10 and u shall surely be enlightened also St.Paul also said in his teachings that wine is good for health reasons, and what does wine contain a percentage of alcohol..... therefore i don't know what book you have been reading definitely not the bible persons can drink but its all about self control in the end

@tariqhaddad7298 8 жыл бұрын

1. Depending on the text of the Lord's Supper we do not find any reference to a miracle, we can not say that there is a miracle from nothing, to say this is my body is just like I am the door, the way, you are the salt, this is the Lamb of God. 2. Christ after he said this is my blood he said about it fruit of the vine, an evidence from the Savior about symbolic speech.

@tariqhaddad7298 8 жыл бұрын

Follow 3 5. Depending on Hebrews 9:15 we see that the New Testament bh blood will be at the death of Christ for the redemption of the old, which means that the New Testament in Luke Cup is a symbol. Jesus said in John 6: 35, 63 eating and drinking are by coming and believing him and the words that say is spirit and life, not the body. 6. Paul said that we eat the bread and drink the cup, not body and blood, and the disciples called the Supper breaking bread not breaking body, according to this theology Christ converted the bread for his body before he broke it, so he broke a real body

@chrisoliverdelacruz5347 7 жыл бұрын

I love the RED FLAG haha

@brucemercerblamelessshamel3104 8 жыл бұрын

Jesus is the God-,man. the reason He is man is He died to save humans. He did not take on the nature of angels. nor did He take on the nature of bread and wine

@allen.in.challengeofficial8749 10 жыл бұрын

On this analogy, the point of similarity is the impossibility of observing the supernatural by natural observation. The problem now is that the doctrine of transubstantiation becomes empirically unfalsifiable, and can only be supernaturally verified. However, I am yet to see such verification. (Not an argument from ignorance) To add to the difficulty, the doctrine of transubstantiation is not present in the first century, so it is not at the core of Christian belief. On this basis, not only is the doctrine empirically unfalsifiable, it is also unnecessary. One can be a Spirit filled Christian without any of these doctrines.

@servantofmary0000 9 жыл бұрын

From the first century it comes from the words of our lord Jesus Christ himself (Luke 22:19-20) and if that is not enough for you then I fear for your soul

@tariqhaddad7298 8 жыл бұрын

1. Does it make sense to say that there is a miracle with no express provision says about it, we have no right to invent a miracle from nothing, to say this is my body is like I am the way, or I am the door is that mean that Jesus is a way or door or a real lamb like John Baptist said this is Lamb of God, when Christ said you are salt of the earth is that mean that we are a real salt. 2. Christ after he said: This is my blood, he said about it fruit of the vine, this is clear evidence for symbolic meaning.

@fespinoza287 12 жыл бұрын

Even if your story is true (site your source), you still misunderstand transubstantiation. Poison obviously isn't wine and therefore CANNOT be consecrated. Even IF, for the sake of argument, the poison was consecrated along with the wine, the substance ("wineness" of the wine) is changed to the Body and Blood of Christ and the accidents (color, smell, taste, effects of poison) would remain, hence the term transubstantiation. w w w (dot) catholic (dot) com/magazine/articles/a-substantial-change

@utopianear700 9 жыл бұрын

Why can the priest drink alcohol? Isn't the bible against it? Example Mark: 14:25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

@patalex7314 9 жыл бұрын

the bible is against drunkeness not drinking, its just like saying the bible is against EATING, HELL NO, the bible is against gluttony.

@utopianear700 9 жыл бұрын

Then what about that passage I shared. What is he referring to at, until the day that I drink......?

@servantofmary0000 9 жыл бұрын

Utopia Near He means he will not himself personally, but we are still to do so for as he said to us "Do 'this' in memory of me"(Luke 22:19)

@shay1886 9 жыл бұрын

Utopia Near Wine was often the choice of drink during Biblical times, as the water was unfit to drink. Also, Jesus's first miracle was turning water into wine for those who were drinking heavily at a wedding feast in Cana. The idea of "no alcohol for anyone, ever" stems from the Puritanical belief that it's of the devil. Scripture tells us in 1 Timothy 5:23, "No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments."

@kimterry1980 7 жыл бұрын

When Jesus spoke of us eating His flesh and drinking His blood, He was referring to those of us who believe upon Him and His Atoning death on the Cross. Through Faith in Jesus Christ and His Work on the Cross, we eat His flesh and Drink His blood Spiritually. "Who His Own Self bear our sins in His Own Body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto Righteousness: by Whose strips we are healed." 1 Peter 2: 24 The idea of "transubstantiation" used to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist was not expressed until Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours termed it in the 11th century. By the end of the 12th century the term was in widespread use.The Fourth Council of the Lateran, which convened beginning November 11, 1215, spoke of the bread and wine as "transubstantiated" into the body and blood of Christ. This transubstantiation false doctrine and many other made up teachings are exactly what inspired the Reformers (who were Priest!) to stand up to the Roman Catholic Church and said, "Hey, wait a minute....we are no longer teaching Christianity

@kimterry1980 7 жыл бұрын

(1:33 through 2:16) Jesus did not appear in another form while He was in the Flesh of a human body. It was only after He had went to the Cross and was raised from the Dead. When He arose from the dead, He was GLORIFIED and not subject to the physical world; likewise through Faith in His Death and Resurrection our bodies shall be GLORIFIED one day. He appeared in different form (Mark 16:12) He also appeared suddenly before the Disciples (Luke 24:36) and vanished (Luke 24:31) His appearing to the Apostle Paul on the road to Damascus was after He had ascended into Heaven! All of these occasions were subsequent to His Resurrection from the Dead. Jesus Christ had fulfilled the Law in the Flesh on the Cross and was Risen having been given all Power in Heaven and Earth by God the Father. All Glory and Praise be to the Lamb of God, the Lord JESUS CHRIST!