Are Catholics the only transubstantiationists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter epower
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
mtr01:
I’ll be honest, I don’t know a whole lot about Lutheran theology, but I would suspect that Luther himself would have been quite familiar with transubstantion since he was a Catholic monk, well after Aquinas’ time. I couldn’t really speak to what was his reason for “altering” this belief into cosubstantiation.
Transubstantiation is a metaphysical construct based on the logical reasoning and scripture.

Luther didn’t like putting human logic on par with scripture (Calvinists do this a lot) and he wasn’t a fan of metaphysical speculation. He prefered to just believe.

Scripture says use bread and wine so we know it is there, scripture it is Jesus’ body and blood, so we know it is there also. End of story–cosubstantiation–they are both there, we should speculate how just accept.

That is the Lutheran line of thinking he saw transubstantiation as a good metaphysical speculation, but a good metaphysical speculation is not equal to scripture.
 
40.png
Psalm89:
Transubstantiation is a metaphysical construct based on the logical reasoning and scripture.

Luther didn’t like putting human logic on par with scripture (Calvinists do this a lot) and he wasn’t a fan of metaphysical speculation. He prefered to just believe.

Scripture says use bread and wine so we know it is there, scripture it is Jesus’ body and blood, so we know it is there also. End of story–cosubstantiation–they are both there, we should speculate how just accept.

That is the Lutheran line of thinking he saw transubstantiation as a good metaphysical speculation, but a good metaphysical speculation is not equal to scripture.
Well, I think the good thing is that at least there is consensus on the Real Presence. Even though we may define it differently we have that, with the Orthodox in common.

And not, to turn this into a debate over the merits of transubstantiation, as I think that would be off topic, but I’ll give my pro- argument from Sacred Scripture:

Remember, at the last supper, Our Lord took the bread, gave thanks, then said “this is my body”, he didn’t say “my body is now present with this bread”
 
another way that I’ve heard it explained(a rough explanation) is: Transubstantiation is the opposite of transformation. In transformation, the appearance of the object is changed, yet its substance is the same. In transubstantiation, the appearance is the same, yet the substance is changed.
 
Question. – The Christ said: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die.”[John 6:50] What is the meaning of this utterance?

Answer. – This bread signifies the heavenly food and divine perfections. So,** “If any man eateth of this bread”** means if any man acquires heavenly bounty, receives the divine light, or partakes of Christ’s perfections, he thereby gains everlasting life.
The blood also signifies the spirit of life and the divine perfections, the lordly splendor and eternal bounty. For all the members of the body gain vital substance from the circulation of the blood.

In the Gospel of St. John, chapter 6, verse 26, it is written: "Ye seek Me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled."

It is evident that the bread of which the disciples ate and were filled was the heavenly bounty; for in verse 33 of the same chapter it is said: **“For the bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.” **It is clear that the body of Christ did not descend from heaven, but it came from the womb of Mary; and that which descended from the heaven of God was the spirit of Christ.

As the Jews thought that Christ spoke of His body, they made objections, for it is said in the 42nd verse of the same chapter: “And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?”

Reflect how clear it is that what Christ meant by the heavenly bread was His spirit, His bounties, His perfections and His teachings; for it is said in the 63rd verse: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing."
Therefore, it is evident that the spirit of Christ is a heavenly grace which descends from heaven; whosoever receives light from that spirit in abundance – that is to say, the heavenly teachings – finds everlasting life. That is why it is said in the 35th verse: “And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to Me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst.”

Notice that “coming to Him” He expresses as eating, and “belief in Him” as drinking. Then it is evident and established that the celestial food is the divine bounties, the spiritual splendors, the heavenly teachings, the universal meaning of Christ. To eat is to draw near to Him, and to drink is to believe in Him. For Christ had an elemental body and a celestial form. The elemental body was crucified, but the heavenly form is living and eternal, and the cause of everlasting life; the first was the human nature, and the second is the divine nature. It is thought by some that the Eucharist is the reality of Christ, and that the Divinity and the Holy Spirit descend into and exist in it. Now when once the Eucharist is taken, after a few moments it is simply disintegrated and entirely transformed. Therefore, how can such a thought be conceived? God forbid! certainly it is an absolute fantasy.(Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 98)
 
There are some Episcopalians who accept Transubstantiation. Others among them accept the concept but not the word, as they see it as being imposed by Rome. Some reject it completely. That is one of the conundrums of Anglicanism, how opposing theologies can be held as equally valid. Many Old Catholics, hold to the doctrine. Even some Protestants believe it. I once heard Paul Crouch or TBN (Protestant TV station) define the real presence as something he believed in, and gave a Catholic interpretation of it except for the word Transubstantiation, and of course he denies Apostolic Succession, and the need for a priest for it to occur.

When I converted, I had no problems with believing that Jesus intended that we receive His body and blood, and not just a holy symbol, or a memorial.

The Eucharist was instituted at the Passover. During the Festival of Passover we celbrate the ritual actions of the Seder (Order of Service) in which the story of the Exodus is told each year. During the Seder we are told that by observing the bare minimum of the service, we are called to Anmensis (Greek for to call to memory) But it is not just to rember in the manner of mentally recalling and event long ago. Anmensis also means to make present again. In the Seder we are reminded that we should not consider that it is something that God did for someone else at another time, but that it is what God has done for us. We are not to consider that God led someone else out of Egypt, but that He leads us out of Egypt. At the Seder we transend time and space and celebrate that we too are part of the Exodus.

In the Eucharist, which cannot really be separated from the Mass, we transend time and space and stand at the cross, even though like at the Seder, the manner we leave Egypt is different, God makes it present to us, and us present to it. So we are with Jesus in the Upper Room, and at the Cross. We are also at the same time with the Glorified Jesus, who cannot suffer death, and who no longer is bound by the laws of physics that we are still bound by. (Therefore he could walk through a closed door, and be really present to anyone anywhere entire and whole.) No longer subject to the grave, He is physically present in the Eucharist, undivisible, even though to our eyes, we only see bread and wine, it is Him.
 
It’s not semantics to say that a clone of you is NOT you, even though it appears exactly like you even on a microscopic level. Dolly the sheep was NOT the same sheep from whom she was cloned, and it would have been a grave logical error to say she was.

In the same way, it is equally important, as a matter of logical clarity, to use the correct terminology in regards the Eucharist.
 
Are Catholics the only religion that believes in transubstantiation?

When I was in high school, my rector taught us that the Episcopalians were the only other Protestants that believed in transubstantiation. On another board, I was informed that Episcopalians believe in consubstantiation. When did this change, or was it always that way?
That’s not true. Transubstantiation is not a universal belief within the Anglican Communion, and even was explicitly condemned in the Thirty Nine Articles. Transubstantiation is a minority view, and consubstantiation is the more common view among Anglo-Catholics.
 
That doesn’t surprise me since the term is Latin. I was, of course, referring to the belief and not the term.
Still not. There are not many EO or OO who would go so far as to say that the bread and wine are essentially eliminated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top