How can you have the Real Presence without Transubstantiation?

[Contarini]

Andreas Hofer:

The reason Protestant groups claim to have the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist seems to be the same reason so many who obviously do not believe in Catholicism style themselves Catholic: they like the sound of it.

This is not true in either case, and it is rude and condescending. I should qualify that–it’s not universally true by any means. That some Protestants use these terms without careful thought is no doubt true.

We believe in the Real Presence because we believe Christ is truly and really present. To say that we shouldn’t use the term would be equivalent to Protestants saying Catholics shouldn’t say they believe we are saved by the grace of God because (say hardline Protestants) you mean something different by it.

Yes, we can argue about how Christ is present. My own view is far closer to Aquinas than to Calvin (principally with regard to Eucharistic adoration), but I can basically accept as orthodox any view of the real Presence that isn’t totally symbolic. However, the point is that to ecumenical Protestants we are arguing about different modes of the same thing, not radically different things. Yes, we should recognize that you don’t see things that way. But the reverse is true as well.

Edwin

 

[DJgang]

Contarini:

This is not true in either case, and it is rude and condescending. I should qualify that–it’s not universally true by any means. That some Protestants use these terms without careful thought is no doubt true.

We believe in the Real Presence because we believe Christ is truly and really present. To say that we shouldn’t use the term would be equivalent to Protestants saying Catholics shouldn’t say they believe we are saved by the grace of God because (say hardline Protestants) you mean something different by it.

Yes, we can argue about how Christ is present. My own view is far closer to Aquinas than to Calvin (principally with regard to Eucharistic adoration), but I can basically accept as orthodox any view of the real Presence that isn’t totally symbolic. However, the point is that to ecumenical Protestants we are arguing about different modes of the same thing, not radically different things. Yes, we should recognize that you don’t see things that way. But the reverse is true as well.

Edwin

Great post Edwin…my fellow Episcopalian brother

 

[StCsDavid]

SPOKENWORD:

So am I relying on Sacred Scriptures. There were witness in the scriptures. The problem is no physical evidence. God Bless

Ah, you’re a physical evidence kind of guy? Certainly the apostles witnessed the last supper when the Eucharist was institued. There have been a couple of instances where a consecrated host turned into flesh, and I believe one instance of the wine turning to blood, but that might creep you out. Before we call out the CSI team, let me ask you if you can give me physical evidence of say…love. We can see the by -product of love…we can see demonstrations of love…we can have feelings of love…but you can’t really give me a tangible piece of love. Yet we both believe it. Additionally, the if you limit your belief system to just the physical world, you’re likely to be deceived. Why is it so hard to believe that Christ would choose a humble way to keep nourishing us with his love through the Eucharist?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Paris Blues:

On the Methodist group, someone told me:

“Methodists do believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We do not believe in transubstantiation, the official Roman Catholic version of how this miracle occurs. Nor do we believe that the Eucharist is a continuing sacrifice, as the
sacrifice for our sins was accomplished once and for
all on the cross. The Eucharist is not just a symbol. This is clearly spelled out in the liturgy of the church and in the
General Conferences acceptance of “This Holy Mystery”
as the official explaination of communion.”

It’s my understanding that the Real Presence in the Eucharist has to be done by Transubstantiation, correct? Therefore, it’s not the Real Presence if it does not have Transubstantiation? Don’t they need a preist to do it as well?

Transubstantiation is a mode of the Presence of Christ - it does not follow that all modes of His Presence are realised as transubstantiation.​

He is Present in His Church and other works in many ways, all of them real presences. But not all are His Presence in the Eucharist. He isn’t confined by it - the mode of His Presence is determined by it. No mode of His Presence limits Him, any more than our expressions of love in letters limit us. They are expressions of us - His works express Him.

BTW - to talk of the Real Presence is not enough: The Presence of the Eucharisticised Christ is not only real, but true & substantial as well. The peculiarly RC doctrine is that He is present substantially - to say only that His Presence is real, is AFAIK a Lutheran formulation - and Lutherans do not believe in transubstantiation, but in consubstantiation.

Transubstantiation is not “how the RP has to be done” - it’s not a way by which man in his wisdom decides how God will be present in His Church as the Eucharistic Gifts. Man can’t put God under any obligation to him. So, it’s not a mode of consecrating those Gifts. It’s what happens to them because the Consecration happens.

It’s the conversion of what makes bread to be bread, & what makes wine to be wine, into what makes the Blood of Christ and the Body of Christ to be that Blood & that Body. So we eat the reality of the Body, which is concealed by the appearances of what is not His Body, but bread. The reality of the Body is approached through the appearances of bread.

There is no cannibalism here - we have no access to metaphysical realities, whether of Christ or any other, except through our senses. That’s why the Consecrated Host has all the properties of the sort of matter that bread is, without being bread, which it was before the Consecration. That’s why a poisoned Host is not changed from being poisonous by Transubstantiation - it will be as deadly as bread would be; because Transubstantiation affects the reality of what bread is and wine is - not the outward manifestations of what it is. ##

 

[Zooey]

I’m with Contarini on this…I really do understand that the Catholic view of the Real Presence means that you believe that we can’t have it, but, at the same time, you have to remember that your view is not ours.
This whole subject is about a profound mystery. I don’t understand it; none of us really understands it. We can read what the technical definition is, but that is not understanding. (As with the Trinity, we have the words, but even in eternity, the fullest understanding may elude us). We are human. We stand before a profound mystery. That is as far as we can go.
What interests me, is that the Eastern Orthodox view tends in the same direction. (Though they probably don’t think we have the Real Presence, either). Still, they speak of mystery, which is where we are as Methodists.
Admittedly, I am uncomfortable with the way that some of my fellows state these truths. (No one is ever going to convince me that we wouldn’t be better off if we stopped using Charles Wesley’s hymns as a source of theology). Still, neither am I comfortable hearing people tell me that I don’t have what I know I have, when I receive the Sacrament. That is the Lord, really & physically present. It’s not transubstantiation; I don’t claim that. But then, I’m not going to tell you that’s not what you have, either. It’s your doctrine, & God bless you for taking a high view in a world where everything spiritual is increasingly reduced to the lowest common denominator. It’s not my place to stand up here & demand that you agree with me.
I’m not a theologian, God knows; I’m an ordinary layperson, struggling with the mysteries of faith. I make mistakes–we all do–but I know that when I kneel at that altar, I am not having a piece of bread & some grape juice. I’m present in that upper room, with Christ Himself, and in some fashion that I can’t pretend to explain, He gives me His Body & His Blood, & I am part of a mystery beyond words. I suspect, in fact, that it might be–for me at least–unwise if not downright sinful, to even attempt to put that into ordinary human terms. It’s not just a human experience; it’s more, far more.
I partake, & then I fall silent. It’s the best that I can do to preserve the holiness of that moment.
God bless.

 

[VociMike]

SPOKENWORD:

So am I relying on Sacred Scriptures. There were witness in the scriptures. The problem is no physical evidence. God Bless

You mean you won’t believe until you put your hand into His side? Where have we heard that before?

 

[allhers]

Paris Blues:

On the Methodist group, someone told me:

“Methodists do believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We do not believe in transubstantiation, the official Roman Catholic version of how this miracle occurs. Nor do we believe that the Eucharist is a continuing sacrifice, as the
sacrifice for our sins was accomplished once and for
all on the cross. The Eucharist is not just a symbol. This is clearly spelled out in the liturgy of the church and in the
General Conferences acceptance of “This Holy Mystery”
as the official explaination of communion.”

It’s my understanding that the Real Presence in the Eucharist has to be done by Transubstantiation, correct? Therefore, it’s not the Real Presence if it does not have Transubstantiation? Don’t they need a preist to do it as well?

Yes, no Priest, no Jesus
here are some wonderful sites to help you
this one here on their home page on this site we are on:
www.catholic.com/library/sacraments.asp
www.newadvent.org/cathen/e.htm (click on E and look up under Eucharist)
www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchmenu.htm (includes the Encyclical letter of Pope Paul VI on this Most Holy Mystery and on the Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist by Pope John Paul,II
also, the Vatican web site
www.vatican.va search Eucharist, Real Presence, Holy Communion, Sacraments

One other thought, even Thomas said:“My Lord and My God”.
When the Priest elevates the Host at Mass that is what we all ought to say, “My Lord and my God”, and then when He elevates the chalice we ought to be saying, “My Jesus, Mercy.” with a bow of the head. (not out loud, silently, at least that is what I was taught by both Priests and Nuns and my parents and Grandmother ages ago.)

 

[Sherlock]

Protestants do not have a valid priesthood (that is, with Apostolic Succession). Catholics and the Orthodox do.

Debating the degree to which some Protestant denominations’ opinions on this are in accordance with Catholics is interesting, but ultimately pointless: they may THINK they have the Real Presence, but without a valid priesthood, all they have is bread and wine, no matter what they may personally feel about that bread and wine. It remains bread and wine, no matter how much they may think it otherwise.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Sherlock:

Protestants do not have a valid priesthood (that is, with Apostolic Succession). Catholics and the Orthodox do.

Debating the degree to which some Protestant denominations’ opinions on this are in accordance with Catholics is interesting, but ultimately pointless: they may THINK they have the Real Presence, but without a valid priesthood, all they have is bread and wine, no matter what they may personally feel about that bread and wine. It remains bread and wine, no matter how much they may think it otherwise.

I agree that a valid priesthood is needed to consecrate the Eucharist (CCC 1411). But besides the bread and wine, some Protestants also have a sincere desire to recieve Jesus in Communion.

I tried to find more information about “spiritual communions” in the Catechism, but I was unable to locate it there. But I thought that Jesus does make Himself and His graces available to those who for some reason desire the Eucharist but can not recieve. (Like the prayer said on EWTN during Masses they broadcast). If anyone knows where to find spiritual communions in the Catechism (or some other legitimate Catholic resource), I’d be interested to see if the sincere desire of Protestants to recieve Jesus might fit into that description.

What would we Catholics think if it was later revealed that a priest who celebrated the Masses we attended wasn’t validly ordained? Would all those “communions” have been in vain, or would the Lord, in His mercy, look upon our sincere desire to recieve Him and make His graces available to us somehow?

 

[Sherlock]

gardenswithkids:

I agree that a valid priesthood is needed to consecrate the Eucharist (CCC 1411). But besides the bread and wine, some Protestants also have a sincere desire to recieve Jesus in Communion.

I tried to find more information about “spiritual communions” in the Catechism, but I was unable to locate it there. But I thought that Jesus does make Himself and His graces available to those who for some reason desire the Eucharist but can not recieve. (Like the prayer said on EWTN during Masses they broadcast). If anyone knows where to find spiritual communions in the Catechism (or some other legitimate Catholic resource), I’d be interested to see if the sincere desire of Protestants to recieve Jesus might fit into that description.

What would we Catholics think if it was later revealed that a priest who celebrated the Masses we attended wasn’t validly ordained? Would all those “communions” have been in vain, or would the Lord, in His mercy, look upon our sincere desire to recieve Him and make His graces available to us somehow?

There’s a key difference: Catholics have the entirely reasonable expectation that their priests ARE validly ordained. The scenario you posit would be extremely rare and unusual, but I think I have heard of it happening—and I think that those who were, for example, married by the invalid “priest” had to be re-married by a real priest. Were they guilty of fornication because they really weren’t married after all? No, of course not, because their intention was to be validly married by a valid priest. That still doesn’t mean that the marriage happened–it only means that they aren’t culpable. Nor would we really be receiving the Real Presence in the Eucharist from an invalidly ordained priest. Would we be culpable for not having really received the Eucharist from such a priest? No, of course not—but wishes and sincere thoughts do not consecrate bread and wine, a priest does. I would guess that graces would have been received in such a scenario, but I don’t see how the person consumed the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus in its unique sacramental presence, when it wasn’t there. I’m not saying that there isn’t a spiritual presence in some sense, and grace no doubt is given in such circumstances, but it is just bread and wine.

That’s my two-cents worth: if there’s a theologian here who corrects me, I will be happily corrected.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

StCsDavid:

Ah, you’re a physical evidence kind of guy? Certainly the apostles witnessed the last supper when the Eucharist was institued. There have been a couple of instances where a consecrated host turned into flesh, and I believe one instance of the wine turning to blood, but that might creep you out. Before we call out the CSI team, let me ask you if you can give me physical evidence of say…love. We can see the by -product of love…we can see demonstrations of love…we can have feelings of love…but you can’t really give me a tangible piece of love. Yet we both believe it. Additionally, the if you limit your belief system to just the physical world, you’re likely to be deceived. Why is it so hard to believe that Christ would choose a humble way to keep nourishing us with his love through the Eucharist?

Jesus said he had food that we knew nothing about. Thats the food I,m eating. John.4 ;32-34 No one can prove that the Eucharist is eating the flesh of Jesus Christ because it happens supernaturally not physically. God Bless

 

[Catholic_Heart]

I was raised in the Methodist church and NEVER hear about this…As far as I knew, we took communion four times a year to “remember”…I was never taught that Jesus was present in any way in the crackers and grape juice. He was present, as He was always present…with us in a spiritual way whenever “two or three are gathered”…I did not hear or know the term “Eucharist” until I became a Catholic.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Sherlock:

There’s a key difference: Catholics have the entirely reasonable expectation that their priests ARE validly ordained.

…wishes and sincere thoughts do not consecrate bread and wine, a priest does. I would guess that graces would have been received in such a scenario, but I don’t see how the person consumed the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus in its unique sacramental presence, when it wasn’t there. I’m not saying that there isn’t a spiritual presence in some sense, and grace no doubt is given in such circumstances, but it is just bread and wine.
Thanks for responding Sherlock. I didn’t mean to throw this thread off track by posing that situation. I just wanted to put the view of some Protestants that they really are receiving Jesus into a situation that might help Catholics sympathize with them.

It is reasonable for Catholics to expect our priests are validly ordained. But Protestants also believe their ministers are valid, based on what they were taught. If they didn’t believe that, they probably wouldn’t still be Protestant. (If they *did *believe all our Catholic teachings yet refused to join the Catholic Church and remained Protestant, they would place their souls in grave danger. But that is a completely different topic.)

Anyway, I don’t believe that Protestants do have the Sacramental Communions that Catholics have, (and if they only think its some memorial with bread and wine as described above, that’s probably all they get.) But for those Protestants who do believe in the Real Presence, who desire to recieve Jesus in communion, and who say that they experience His presence, I’m still wondering if that meets the Catholic definition of a spiritual communion or not.

 

[Sherlock]

gardenswithkids:

It is reasonable for Catholics to expect our priests are validly ordained. But Protestants also believe their ministers are valid, based on what they were taught. If they didn’t believe that, they probably wouldn’t still be Protestant…
Anyway, I don’t believe that Protestants do have the Sacramental Communions that Catholics have, (and if they only think its some memorial with bread and wine as described above, that’s probably all they get.) But for those Protestants who do believe in the Real Presence, who desire to recieve Jesus in communion, and who say that they experience His presence, I’m still wondering if that meets the Catholic definition of a spiritual communion or not.

It is true that Protestants either think that their ministers are validly ordained (that is, either they think their denomination has valid Holy Orders, or they deny the concept of Holy Orders entirely, in which case the term “valid” doesn’t really apply). However, there is troublesome little thing called objective truth—thinking something doesn’t make it so. Frankly, very few Protestants I know have given it much thought at all…in any case, my point is simply that the fact that people BELIEVE something does not, of itself, make it true. I don’t give the positions of the Catholic Church and of Protestants on this topic equal weight just because people on both sides FEEL equally sure of their position. The argument is decided by looking at what Scrpiture and the Early Church reveal about the authority of the Church, and of the priesthood.

As for “spiritual communion”—I don’t know.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I agree with your point about the existance of objective truth. I never meant to imply that it didn’t exist.

Sherlock:

As for “spiritual communion”—I don’t know.

I did a search on spiritual communion because I wanted to know the answer. A similar question, paired along with Apostolic Succession, was asked and answered a year ago on the “ask and apologist board”. Anyone interested in Father Serpa’s answer can view the thread here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=21330&highlight=spiritual+communion

 

[allhers]

SPOKENWORD:

Jesus said he had food that we knew nothing about. Thats the food I,m eating. John.4 ;32-34 No one can prove that the Eucharist is eating the flesh of Jesus Christ because it happens supernaturally not physically. God Bless

Jesus said otherwise, and He was at the Last Supper, both Sacramentally (supernaturally) and in person (physically). …“unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you.” Jesus said that and He also said…“My flesh is meat indeed.”…and “Take, eat, this is MY BODY”. We simply believe Him.

 

[StCsDavid]

SPOKENWORD:

Jesus said he had food that we knew nothing about. Thats the food I,m eating. John.4 ;32-34 No one can prove that the Eucharist is eating the flesh of Jesus Christ because it happens supernaturally not physically. God Bless

So where in scripture did Christ say he was giving you this hidden stash of food to eat? The passage clearly says His food is to do the will of the one who sent Him. I don’t see anywhere at this point that He is offering you a slice of that pie.

Contrast that with the institution of the Eucharist where He says “this is my body, I give it up for you.” Take a gander at Mt 26 and Mk 14.

Yours in Christ

 

[Holly3278]

I’ve never heard of Methodists believing in the Real Presence. I always thought they believed it was purely symbolic. Oh nevermind, they believe the change is spiritual. Here’s their official position:

archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1341

 

[Zooey]

That actually isn’t the official teaching; it’s a statement from a pamphlet for sale by our publishing house (Cokesbury).
This is the kind of thing I was talking about, when I (above) bemoaned the use of Charles Wesley’s hymns for doctrine? The official teaching of the United Methodist Church is hymn # 332 in the hymnal of 1964/1966. (Yes, I * know*!! That’s why I was bemoaning it!!).
In any case, if you do some googling of “O the Depth of Love Divine” by Charles Wesley, that is the position of the bishops of the UMC. Somebody has tried to :nope: dumb it down in the link that Holly3278 posted, & they have done a bad job of it, too…
Actually, if you look deep enough over in the Non-Catholic Religions forum, or if you PM one of our members here, O.S.Luke, who is a UMC clergyman, he has given a very full explanation of it…

 

[Church_Militant]

You can’t have a valid consecration without being ordained in the line of apostolic succession. Once that is broken…the rest of the point is moot.

If you had a choice of being ordained by a guy who departed from the teachings of the early church or someone who had been ordained in that succession of the apostles, which would you prefer?

From Ecclesia de Eucharistia

1. The Catholic Church’s teaching on the relationship between priestly ministry and the Eucharist and her teaching on the Eucharistic Sacrifice have both been the subject in recent decades of a fruitful dialogue in the area of ecumenism. We must give thanks to the Blessed Trinity for the significant progress and convergence achieved in this regard, which lead us to hope one day for a full sharing of faith. Nonetheless, the observations of the Council concerning the Ecclesial Communities which arose in the West from the sixteenth century onwards and are separated from the Catholic Church remain fully pertinent: “The Ecclesial Communities separated from us lack that fullness of unity with us which should flow from Baptism, and we believe that especially because of the lack of the sacrament of Orders they have not preserved the genuine and total reality of the Eucharistic mystery. Nevertheless, when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and they await his coming in glory”.62

The Catholic faithful, therefore, while respecting the religious convictions of these separated brethren, must refrain from receiving the communion distributed in their celebrations, so as not to condone an ambiguity about the nature of the Eucharist and, consequently, to fail in their duty to bear clear witness to the truth. This would result in slowing the progress being made towards full visible unity. Similarly, it is unthinkable to substitute for Sunday Mass ecumenical celebrations of the word or services of common prayer with Christians from the aforementioned Ecclesial Communities, or even participation in their own liturgical services. Such celebrations and services, however praiseworthy in certain situations, prepare for the goal of full communion, including Eucharistic communion, but they cannot replace it.

The fact that the power of consecrating the Eucharist has been entrusted only to Bishops and priests does not represent any kind of belittlement of the rest of the People of God, for in the communion of the one body of Christ which is the Church this gift redounds to the benefit of all.