Incarnation and Transubstantiation

[ltravis]

I am not a real scholar or apologist, but isn’t the Eucharist what binds us together as community with Christ as part of his body? The way I see it, in the incarnation, God became man so he could, through his suffering and death, offer himself as a perfect (divine) sacrifice of atonement as a human for humanity. However, there has always been a methodology to God’s relationship with humanity, and an important aspect of it was the way to offer sacrifice. In the old covenant, the sacrifice was effected by offering something valuable: life (such as of a lamb) to God, and the community shared in the offering by partaking of the sacrificed animal. That was the formula, and it still held when the perfect redeeming sacrifice of Christ was made on the cross. His life had to be sacrificed, and the community has to share in it by partaking of his body (the sacrificed Lamb of God). It is kind of a two part connection. God had to be man to atone on behalf of man - and part of the atonement involved man sharing by eating of the flesh. Thus the incarnation and Eucharist are not parallels so much as they are two vital aspects of the same paschal mystery.

Am I on track here? I am trying to refine my understanding myself.

LT

 

[rtconstant]

Interesting post Truthstalker. I’ve wondered about this myself. One of the things that caused my conversion to Catholicism was a revelation about the Eucharist, The Incarnation and The Blessed Virgin Mary.

To me yes the Eucharist and The Incarnation are linked. What I see is that Mary sacrificed her body (as bread) and her blood (as wine) to become the elements which the Holy Spirit transubstantiated into Our Lord Jesus Christ. So that like the bread and wine Jesus became truly man and yet through the power of the Holy Spirit was something more He was God.

Mary made a finite offering of her elements so that God could make an infinite offering of Himself. So in my mind all of these things are irrevocably linked. This outlook pretty much changed my entire view of world, Jesus, Mary and the Church. So to me viewing one incorrectly would throw off the view of the other. If you see what I mean?

 

[Randy_Carson]

An intriguing perspective, but not compelling. Protestants don’t believe that Jesus fully joined with his creation for only 33 years. The incarnation is when God became Man. Jesus remains this very day both fully God and fully man, physically sitting at the right hand of the father in heaven now. Once joined with man at the incarnation, Jesus has never ceased being fully man and fully God. (Although he was separated from the Father when crucified as he took on our sins, the Father looked away, and Jesus cried out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). When Jesus left his disciples and ascended into heaven, he promised: (i) that he would return and (ii) that he would send us a comforter, the Holy Sprit who would be with us. None of this diminishes Jesus’ continued status as both God and man.

I fail to see a logical nexus between the incarnation and transubstantiation. If it is true that to err in the understanding of one is to necessarily err in the other, then you need to show how the Protestant understanding of the incarnation, not the Eucharist, is in error.

rr1213-

I was intrigued by your comments, so I posted them on another apologetics website. I received the following response from Dr. Art Sippo, a noted Catholic Apologist:

"This highlights one of the problems with the theory of Penal Substitution. It makes it appear that Jesus accomplished his work apart from the Father. In reality, the Trinity accomplished the work of salvation in full cooperation with each other. Jesus was never separated from either the Father or the Holy Spirit.

“I have understood Jesus’ quotation of Psalm 22 to be his existential appreciation of what it must feel like for a human being to suffer unjustly. When that happens to any of us, we may feel like we are alone, but in reallity, God is with us just as he was with Jesus. Just as God never abandons us, He would never abandon His Son.”
I hope this helps.

 

[rr1213]

Interesting post Truthstalker. I’ve wondered about this myself. One of the things that caused my conversion to Catholicism was a revelation about the Eucharist, The Incarnation and The Blessed Virgin Mary.

To me yes the Eucharist and The Incarnation are linked. What I see is that Mary sacrificed her body (as bread) and her blood (as wine) to become the elements which the Holy Spirit transubstantiated into Our Lord Jesus Christ. So that like the bread and wine Jesus became truly man and yet through the power of the Holy Spirit was something more He was God.

Mary made a finite offering of her elements so that God could make an infinite offering of Himself. So in my mind all of these things are irrevocably linked. This outlook pretty much changed my entire view of world, Jesus, Mary and the Church. So to me viewing one incorrectly would throw off the view of the other. If you see what I mean?

A sacrifice by Mary? Bread as Mary’s body and wine as Mary’s blood? Please tell me that I’ve misunderstood your post.

 

[rr1213]

rr1213-

I was intrigued by your comments, so I posted them on another apologetics website. I received the following response from Dr. Art Sippo, a noted Catholic Apologist:

"This highlights one of the problems with the theory of Penal Substitution. It makes it appear that Jesus accomplished his work apart from the Father. In reality, the Trinity accomplished the work of salvation in full cooperation with each other. Jesus was never separated from either the Father or the Holy Spirit.

“I have understood Jesus’ quotation of Psalm 22 to be his existential appreciation of what it must feel like for a human being to suffer unjustly. When that happens to any of us, we may feel like we are alone, but in reallity, God is with us just as he was with Jesus. Just as God never abandons us, He would never abandon His Son.”
I hope this helps.

Interesting. Still, why would Jesus cry out in anguish to his Father “My God, my God, why have you foresaken me” if he had not been foresaken by the Father? Does the Catholic Church have a dogmatic position on this question? Dr. Sippo’s comments almost sound as if he is separating Jesus’ divine nature from his human nature when we know that they were perfectly one.

 

[Redbandito]

Interesting. Still, why would Jesus cry out in anguish to his Father “My God, my God, why have you foresaken me” if he had not been foresaken by the Father? Does the Catholic Church have a dogmatic position on this question? Dr. Sippo’s comments almost sound as if he is separating Jesus’ divine nature from his human nature when we know that they were perfectly one.

No! Jesus nature’s were united in His person, but the natures remained distinct. scborromeo.org/ccc/para/467.htm

If the two natures were really one, then Christ could not have redeemed us. The heresy you have spoken of is known as Monophysitism. home.att.net/~reinhart/XHSRelEd/Heresy.htm

 

[rr1213]

No! Jesus nature’s were united in His person, but the natures remained distinct. scborromeo.org/ccc/para/467.htm

If the two natures were really one, then Christ could not have redeemed us. The heresy you have spoken of is known as Monophysitism. home.att.net/~reinhart/XHSRelEd/Heresy.htm

Your citation to the CCC says, among other things, that “The Monophysites affirmed that the human nature had ceased to exist as such in Christ when the divine person of God’s Son assumed it.” I’ve never thought that the human nature of Christ ceased to exist. Instead, I believe as stated in the Creed that Christ is both “fully God” and “fully man”, no more or no less. I won’t pretend to be able to discuss intelligently the various differences between Nestorians and Monophysites except in a cursory manner.

 

[rtconstant]

A sacrifice by Mary? Bread as Mary’s body and wine as Mary’s blood? Please tell me that I’ve misunderstood your post.

Perhaps, I’m not sure what you’re taking it as but by the apparent shock I’d say we’re on different pages. Let explain and perhaps that will help?

What I mean is that just like we use literal bread and wine as the elements in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist mary provided the same for our Lord when he was conceived in her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit. Her elements were human, earthly and finite but the power of the Holy Spirit took these elements and made them divine (i.e. Jesus Christ).

This is similar to when the simple and humble objects of bread and wine become the body and blood of Our Lord during Eucharist. I hope that cleared it up, let me know as I’m not really sure where you took offense.

 

[Tiny_Montgomery]

i personally don’t see a *necessary *logical connection, as such, between the incarnation and transubstantiation… although there does seem to be a relationship between the two…

on a different note, i have always thought the doctrine of transubstantiation was simply a matter of taking Christ’s words literally: “This is My Body.”

This: that which He holds in His hands…

note that He does not say “this bread”… rather just “This”…

look at it.

what is “This”? – This which appears to be a piece of bread, which He holds up for their observation.

This is My Body.

understand those words in their literal sense: that’s the doctrine of transubstantiation, in a nutshell.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Interesting post Truthstalker. I’ve wondered about this myself. One of the things that caused my conversion to Catholicism was a revelation about the Eucharist, The Incarnation and The Blessed Virgin Mary.

To me yes the Eucharist and The Incarnation are linked. What I see is that Mary sacrificed her body (as bread) and her blood (as wine) to become the elements which the Holy Spirit transubstantiated into Our Lord Jesus Christ. So that like the bread and wine Jesus became truly man and yet through the power of the Holy Spirit was something more He was God.

Mary made a finite offering of her elements so that God could make an infinite offering of Himself. So in my mind all of these things are irrevocably linked. This outlook pretty much changed my entire view of world, Jesus, Mary and the Church. So to me viewing one incorrectly would throw off the view of the other. If you see what I mean?

Okay, I’m a Catholic and I want clarification on this…just 'cause it sounds squirrelly.

I can see that Jesus flesh and blood were received from Mary right down to his DNA and she sacrificed her own plans for her life when she said “Yes”, and to some extent she sacrificed her flesh and blood in Jesus who was truly her flesh and blood…but you seem to be taking this a bit farther than that. Have I misunderstood?

 

[Redbandito]

Your citation to the CCC says, among other things, that “The Monophysites affirmed that the human nature had ceased to exist as such in Christ when the divine person of God’s Son assumed it.” I’ve never thought that the human nature of Christ ceased to exist. Instead, I believe as stated in the Creed that Christ is both “fully God” and “fully man”, no more or no less. I won’t pretend to be able to discuss intelligently the various differences between Nestorians and Monophysites except in a cursory manner.

That’s cool. What they actually believed is that the divine and human nature blended to make one nature. What the Church teaches is that the two natures remain as distinct natures, while being united in one person. This was necessary for the redemption and atonement. For if Christ was not fully and distinctly man, He could not make an offering for the human race. And if Christ was not fully and distinctly divine, His offering could not be eternal and perfect. Thus, it was necessary to keep both natures distinct, while understanding that the natures did not war with each other, but rather worked in total unity in the one person of Jesus Christ. I hope that makes sense. God bless!

 

[rtconstant]

Okay, I’m a Catholic and I want clarification on this…just 'cause it sounds squirrelly.

I can see that Jesus flesh and blood were received from Mary right down to his DNA and she sacrificed her own plans for her life when she said “Yes”, and to some extent she sacrificed her flesh and blood in Jesus who was truly her flesh and blood…but you seem to be taking this a bit farther than that. Have I misunderstood?

Yeah, I guess I haven’t explained myself well and I apologize for that. To me I’m really at loss for why what I said is offensive. Is there an assumption that bread or wine over steps itself by being used in The Eucharist? I’m saying that by supplying herself to God she could be seen in a symbolic fashion as the bread and wine. Is that really that far out?

As for the sacrifice I think more is being read into that than I’m saying. As you stated her sacrifice was a personal one and I agree.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have read (but not fully grasped) the idea that one big difference between Catholics and Protestants (not all) is that Catholics understand that God uses physical elements - bread, wine, water, oil, etc. - because we are physical creatures. Protestant theology shuns these things largely because of their idea that all of creation is fallen and corrupt.

I could not explain or defend this any further, but I got it from my reading, so I know this POV is “out there”.

 

[John666]

Hi Truthstalker,

I liked your question and sent it on for a friend of mine to reply to. His reply below.

I have this wild thought that I would like to tie down, and it is that the doctrine of transubstantiation is a direct result of the theology of the incarnation: the way God the Son became man is expressed similarly in what happens during the Eucharist, and, correspondingly, how we view what happens in the Eucharist is how we view the doctrine of the incarnation.

This is very true. The Eucharist is the Incarnation of Jesus Christ made present in our midst, and given to be received (again and again) into our own bodies (per John 6:56). Essentially, the mystery works like this: Christ is the Bridegroom and the Church is His Bride --the two sharing a one-Flesh Covenant relationship (see: Ephes 5:25-32). Because the Church is the Bride of Christ, with Whom she shares a one-Flesh Covenant, the Church is therefore also the Body of Christ (per 1 Corinth 12); for Bridegroom and Bride are not two, but one Flesh: one Body. This is why, for example, when Christ appears to Saul (St. Paul) in Acts 9, He does NOT say, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting MY CHURCH?” Rather, He says, “…why are you persecuting ME?” That is the nature of the relationship between Christ the Bridegroom and His Bride, the Church. Well, the Eucharist is the point at which Bridegroom and Bride share a one-Flesh intimacy …just like a husband and wife in intercourse. This is why Jesus chose to give us Himself in the course of a human meal --because the most intimate thing that people can do together in a group is to share a meal with each other. And so, Jesus establishes the one-Flesh Covenant in the course of a meal (His Last Supper …His Eucharist). And, in the Eucharist, Christ gives Himself to us totally and completely (Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity), and we give ourselves (reaffirming our Covenant commitment) to Him. And, in celebrating the Eucharist, the Church is reaffirmed and re-established as the Body of Christ --that is, a mysterious extension of the Lord’s own Incarnation in the world today. This is what Jesus primarily means when He says “I will be with you always, until the end of the age.” The Presence of Christ in the Church is not merely spiritual, but both spiritual and Incarnational --that is, in the consecrated Blessed Sacrament (the Eucharist) and then, by extension and communion, in us, His disciples, provided that we remain in a state of grace --that is, provided that we avoid mortal sin and “remain in Him” (per John 6:56).

One thing to be careful about, however, is not to assume that the Eucharist is exactly the same thing as the Incarnation of Christ --that is, another Incarnation. In the Incarnation, God became man. In the Eucharist, this same Incarnation (that of the God-man) is made present, mysteriously and Sacramentally. But, Christ is NOT incarnated again in the bread and wine. He does not manifest a second (or repeated) incarnation. Rather, the substance (metaphysical nature) of bread and wine are replaced (miraculously) by the metaphysical substance (Personal Presence) of Jesus Christ. This is not a second Incarnation --that is, He Who is fully-God and fully-man DOES NOT likewise become fully-bread and fully-wine. Rather, only the physical appearances (i.e., the perceptible sensual properties) of bread and wine remain (as a sign ordained by God to illustrate that Christ is our nourishment), but their substance (metaphysical nature) no longer remain, and what is there is Christ Himself --that is, the God-man; the one and only Incarnation. This is why Catholics must reject the Lutheran idea of “consubstantiation” --the doctrine that the bread and wine remain and are fully-present in the Eucharist …because it implies a second Incarnation. In receiving the Eucharist, we only receive the one Incarnation of Christ --the SAME Jesus Who died and rose. As St. Ignatius of Antioch said way back in A.D. 107,

“Consider how contrary to God are the minds of the heterodox …the abstain from the Eucharist and from prayers because they do not believe that the Eucharist is the Lord’s Body, the SAME Body that died for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, rose from the dead.”

(continued)

 

[John666]

Hi Truthstalker,

I liked the question and sent this on to a friend of mine who replied below.

I have this wild thought that I would like to tie down, and it is that the doctrine of transubstantiation is a direct result of the theology of the incarnation: the way God the Son became man is expressed similarly in what happens during the Eucharist, and, correspondingly, how we view what happens in the Eucharist is how we view the doctrine of the incarnation.

This is very true. The Eucharist is the Incarnation of Jesus Christ made present in our midst, and given to be received (again and again) into our own bodies (per John 6:56). Essentially, the mystery works like this: Christ is the Bridegroom and the Church is His Bride --the two sharing a one-Flesh Covenant relationship (see: Ephes 5:25-32). Because the Church is the Bride of Christ, with Whom she shares a one-Flesh Covenant, the Church is therefore also the Body of Christ (per 1 Corinth 12); for Bridegroom and Bride are not two, but one Flesh: one Body. This is why, for example, when Christ appears to Saul (St. Paul) in Acts 9, He does NOT say, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting MY CHURCH?” Rather, He says, “…why are you persecuting ME?” That is the nature of the relationship between Christ the Bridegroom and His Bride, the Church. Well, the Eucharist is the point at which Bridegroom and Bride share a one-Flesh intimacy …just like a husband and wife in intercourse. This is why Jesus chose to give us Himself in the course of a human meal --because the most intimate thing that people can do together in a group is to share a meal with each other. And so, Jesus establishes the one-Flesh Covenant in the course of a meal (His Last Supper …His Eucharist). And, in the Eucharist, Christ gives Himself to us totally and completely (Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity), and we give ourselves (reaffirming our Covenant commitment) to Him. And, in celebrating the Eucharist, the Church is reaffirmed and re-established as the Body of Christ --that is, a mysterious extension of the Lord’s own Incarnation in the world today. This is what Jesus primarily means when He says “I will be with you always, until the end of the age.” The Presence of Christ in the Church is not merely spiritual, but both spiritual and Incarnational --that is, in the consecrated Blessed Sacrament (the Eucharist) and then, by extension and communion, in us, His disciples, provided that we remain in a state of grace --that is, provided that we avoid mortal sin and “remain in Him” (per John 6:56).

One thing to be careful about, however, is not to assume that the Eucharist is exactly the same thing as the Incarnation of Christ --that is, another Incarnation. In the Incarnation, God became man. In the Eucharist, this same Incarnation (that of the God-man) is made present, mysteriously and Sacramentally. But, Christ is NOT incarnated again in the bread and wine. He does not manifest a second (or repeated) incarnation. Rather, the substance (metaphysical nature) of bread and wine are replaced (miraculously) by the metaphysical substance (Personal Presence) of Jesus Christ. This is not a second Incarnation --that is, He Who is fully-God and fully-man DOES NOT likewise become fully-bread and fully-wine. Rather, only the physical appearances (i.e., the perceptible sensual properties) of bread and wine remain (as a sign ordained by God to illustrate that Christ is our nourishment), but their substance (metaphysical nature) no longer remain, and what is there is Christ Himself --that is, the God-man; the one and only Incarnation. This is why Catholics must reject the Lutheran idea of “consubstantiation” --the doctrine that the bread and wine remain and are fully-present in the Eucharist …because it implies a second Incarnation. In receiving the Eucharist, we only receive the one Incarnation of Christ --the SAME Jesus Who died and rose. As St. Ignatius of Antioch said way back in A.D. 107,

“Consider how contrary to God are the minds of the heterodox …the abstain from the Eucharist and from prayers because they do not believe that the Eucharist is the Lord’s Body, the SAME Body that died for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, rose from the dead.”

(continued)

 

[John666]

What this would mean is that if you have an incorrect view of one, you view
the other wrongly. If, for example, you believe in consubstantiation or a
purely symbolic Eucharist, it necessarily follows that something is very
wrong with your understanding of the doctrine of the incarnation, and the
converse is also true

BINGO! Protestants in general typically have a very poor appreciaiton of Christ’s Incarnation and what it really means. This is because they tend of have a crypto-Arian view of God, in which God the Father DEMANDS the bloody death of Jesus in order to satisfy His “wrath” (a silly and immature view of what Scripture teaches, contra John 3:16). But, because the Protestants have an immature understanding, whereby the sin of the Crucifixion is demanded by God (rather than by sinful man --God using sinful man’s demand in order to outflank Satan), they basically view the Incarnation of Christ as a mere “means to an end.” For them, Christ took on human nature just so that He could die on the Cross, and for no other purpose. And, because they take this view, Protestantism tends to be a merely spiritual religion with little or no incarnation dimension. However, this is a far cry from the Apostolic Faith (per Ephes 5:25-32), which recognizes that Christ’s Incarnation is more that just a means to an end, but the very essence of the Christian Covenant, in which mankind is both redeemed and elevated to perfection, so as to be adopted into the very same Sonship that Christ Himself enjoys with the Father (Romans 8:15-17) and to actually SHARE IN the Divine nature of the Trinity through this adopted relationship (2 Peter 1:4). This is why Christ is still in the Flesh in Heaven today (a MAN stands in the Presence of the Father --something that never happened before Christ ascended), and this is why our own bodies will rise again on the Last Day. Christianity is not merely a spiritual faith. It is both a spiritual AND an Incarnational (Flesh and Blood) Faith.

Hope this helps,
Joe

 

[Truthstalker]

I think you have to be careful in broadbrushing Protestant theology, and also I would like to focus on the core of the OP - there are some interesting side issues, and I think we are getting somewhere, but let’s keep on track.

Calvin has been accused, at least by Contarini on this forum, of being semi-Nestorian. The preceding post would lead to the conclusion that not only is the Calvinistic understanding of the incarnation faulty, but also his basic understanding of God, which also I have seen critiqued. The problem here again is attacking Protestant theology rather than supporting and explaining Catholic thought - it is interesting to contrast Protestant thought with Catholic, and it can be helpful in understanding the issues, but let’s not get sidetracked.

I find this discussion very interesting.

 

[rtconstant]

Perhaps it would be a good rule to simply discuss the pros or cons of a doctrine itself as opposed to pointing to who does or doesn’t believe in it? After all it is the doctrine that is in question not the people who hold to it. I know I’m guilty of going after the denomination some times and that really does nothing but make someone defensive.

Back to the OP so would it be accurate to say that The Eucharist is a type of Incarnation because of the merits of the original Incarnation. So that while it is alike in a mystical sense it is not the same in substance? Or is it alike in substance as well but only because of the merits of The Incarnation?

 

[tequilamac]

This is not bait. I have epiphanies both towards Protestant belief and towards Catholic. If there is a definite link between the incarnation and transubstantiation, I would like to see it. We all agree, I hope, on the incarnation. This would be a way of bringing us back together. Ut unum sint. .

Our earthly proof is in our saints. Here are a few both long past and modern, physical and verbal evidences.

ewtn.com/padrepio/mystic/stigmata.htm
cin.org/franstig.html
catholicpilgrims.com/lourdes/bb_bernadette_body.htm
carmelite.com/saints/edith1.shtml
carmelite.com/saints/raphael.shtml

 

[Truthstalker]

Perhaps it would be a good rule to simply discuss the pros or cons of a doctrine itself as opposed to pointing to who does or doesn’t believe in it? After all it is the doctrine that is in question not the people who hold to it. I know I’m guilty of going after the denomination some times and that really does nothing but make someone defensive.

Back to the OP so would it be accurate to say that The Eucharist is a type of Incarnation because of the merits of the original Incarnation. So that while it is alike in a mystical sense it is not the same in substance? Or is it alike in substance as well but only because of the merits of The Incarnation?

I’m suspecting a thorough grounding in Aquinas is required to approach this. Concepts like “real” and “symbol” need to be carefully defined. There is a lot here to mull over. Thanks.