non-Catholic transubstantiatian?

[Wesrock]

From the Catholic perspective, we don’t see it as trying to explain the “how”. We just state what we believe it is. It changed from bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ. The how is a mystery.

 

[JonNC]

From the Catholic perspective, we don’t see it as trying to explain the “how”. We just state what we believe it is. It changed from bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ. The how is a mystery.

Yet even Christ doesn’t say it is changed, per se. He says the bread is His body. Obviously, that involves a change. So, in that sense, I can appreciate the intent of Transubstantiation.

Gabriel of 12 explains Transubstantiation very well here on CAF.

Jon

 

[steido01]

From the Catholic perspective, we don’t see it as trying to explain the “how”. We just state what we believe it is. It changed from bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ. The how is a mystery.

I understand what you mean, and I may be a bit more tolerant of the… academic explanation for Trans. than some Lutherans. And by that, I mean when Trans. is presented as a mere affirmation of the Real Presence, it has some merit. But when its extraneous trappings are presented as necessary requirements of the Real Presence (requirement of a priest in a certain line of succession being gifted with a supernatural power to ‘confect’ the Sacrament) we detract from the miracle that God brings to man and turn this wondrous gift into a work. Because of those added bits, even Lutherans who might otherwise be receptive to the academic explanation reject the term.

 

[Wesrock]

I understand what you mean, and I may be a bit more tolerant of the… academic explanation for Trans. than some Lutherans. And by that, I mean when Trans. is presented as a mere affirmation of the Real Presence, it has some merit. But when its extraneous trappings are presented as necessary requirements of the Real Presence (requirement of a priest in a certain line of succession being gifted with a supernatural power to ‘confect’ the Sacrament) we detract from the miracle that God brings to man and turn this wondrous gift into a work. Because of those added bits, even Lutherans who might otherwise be receptive to the academic explanation reject the term.

Well, if we’re getting into that type of labeling, this stems from a somewhat imperfect understanding of the Church and it’s relation to God and man and Christ’s way of acting through men. I think it goes well beyond the what is meant by the “how” objections that are made by some of our Orthodox brethren, too. I object to characterizations of “extraneous trappings” or labeling anything as a priest’s own “supernatural power.” But really if we continue down this path it’ll be off topic and look a lot like this: :slapfight:

 

[rcwitness]

I wonder how many denominations would consider the fundamental reality of Communion as a “form of Jesus”? I ask because of Mark 16:12

After this he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them.

This is believed to be the event of Luke 24

Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.

The term “form” may be easier to digest (no pun intended), even though Transubstantiation is more defined.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Are there non-Catholic religions that have a doctrine of transubstantiation? (aside from our brethren in the Orthodox Churches)

“Transubstatiation” is a term that can carry baggage in any discussion between different groups of Christians. I assume, however, that you simply wish to know what groups believe that the bread and wine offered during Holy Communion become truly Body and Blood of Christ - regardless of how they believe this occurs or what term they use for the change.

All ancient churches believe in this change, as well as some traditional Protestants. To the best of my knowledge, groups that believe in this doctrine include all or part of the following groups:

• Roman Catholics
• Old Catholics (e.g. PNCC; I am not sure about non-PNCC groups)
• Anglicans/Episcopalians (more traditional members)
• Eastern Orthodox (i.e. Russians, Greeks, Romanians, Antionchians, etc.)
• Old Believers
• Oriental Orthodox (i.e. Copts, Ethiopians, Indians, Syriacs, Armenians)
• Assyrians (from both Assyrian Church of the East and Ancient Church of the East)
• Lutherans

 

[rcwitness]

“Transubstatiation” is a term that can carry baggage in any discussion between different groups of Christians. I assume, however, that you simply wish to know what groups believe that the bread and wine offered during Holy Communion become truly Body and Blood of Christ - regardless of how they believe this occurs or what term they use for the change.

All ancient churches believe in this change, as well as some traditional Protestants. To the best of my knowledge, groups that believe in this doctrine include all or part of the following groups:

• Roman Catholics
• Old Catholics (e.g. PNCC; I am not sure about non-PNCC groups)
• Anglicans/Episcopalians (more traditional members)
• Eastern Orthodox (i.e. Russians, Greeks, Romanians, Antionchians, etc.)
• Old Believers
• Oriental Orthodox (i.e. Copts, Ethiopians, Indians, Syriacs, Armenians)
• Assyrians (from both Assyrian Church of the East and Ancient Church of the East)
• Lutherans

What would be an example of “baggage”?

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

What would be an example of “baggage”?

It is a term that conjures up notions of scholasticism, Aristotelian philosophy, and over-rationalisation. To what extent those associations are warranted is another issue. Fact is that the associations exist, and they often result in the term “transubstantiation” being a roadblock to meaningful discussion at worst, or a source of confusion at best.

 

[rcwitness]

It is a term that conjures up notions of scholasticism, Aristotelian philosophy, and over-rationalisation. To what extent those associations are warranted is another issue. Fact is that the associations exist, and they often result in the term “transubstantiation” being a roadblock to meaningful discussion at worst, or a source of confusion at best.

Thanks. I see the concern. I wonder, though, did the term not rather arise on account of an already growing need for resolve? We’re differing views forming and beginning to cause division? I honestly don’t know the environment leading up to the term first being applied.

 

[Kliska]

I wonder how many denominations would consider the fundamental reality of Communion as a “form of Jesus”? I ask because of Mark 16:12

After this he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them.

This is believed to be the event of Luke 24

Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.

The term “form” may be easier to digest (no pun intended), even though Transubstantiation is more defined.

Just a thought; that probably wouldn’t work either, as Plato and Aristotle had very specific philosophical meanings they attached to the word “Form(s).” Even if we were using it in a modern English sense, it would cause issues since transubstantiation uses Aristotelian concepts already.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Thanks. I see the concern. I wonder, though, did the term not rather arise on account of an already growing need for resolve? We’re differing views forming and beginning to cause division? I honestly don’t know the environment leading up to the term first being applied.

I am not well-versed in the history of the term, but from what I understand, the term was originally just meant to assert that there is truly some real and significant change that occurs for the bread and wine to become Body and Blood of Christ. However, as Aristotelian philosophy became influential in the Medieval West, the understanding of transubstantiation came under its influence. So…under its most general definition, the concept of transubstantiation is rather vague and unobjectionable to many non-Roman Catholics. The issue still remains though that when most hear “transubstantiation” the most general definition is not what comes to mind.

 

[rcwitness]

Just a thought; that probably wouldn’t work either, as Plato and Aristotle had very specific philosophical meanings they attached to the word “Form(s).” Even if we were using it in a modern English sense, it would cause issues since transubstantiation uses Aristotelian concepts already.

I am not as educated in this field (Greek/Plato/Aristotle) as you and others. But maybe the use of “form” is contexted with “He was made know” and “He appeared”. Would some denominations say Jesus “is made known to us” and “appears” to us in the “form” of Eucharistic Communion?

Now, I also realize some would contest that Mark 16:12 is not necessarily speaking of the “breaking bread” aspect of Jesus’ appearance to the two disciples. But would Mark (or the inspired author of this section of Mark) use the phrase “appeared in another form” to mean, simply, "a resurrected appearance? I find it curious that Mark 16:12 phrases the appearance this way. It’s as though He is differentiating this appearance from the others. And the only different aspect of this appearance would seem to be the whole “breaking bread” significance. It seems like such a strong intention of Luke.

 

[steido01]

Well, if we’re getting into that type of labeling, this stems from a somewhat imperfect understanding of the Church and it’s relation to God and man and Christ’s way of acting through men. I think it goes well beyond the what is meant by the “how” objections that are made by some of our Orthodox brethren, too. I object to characterizations of “extraneous trappings” or labeling anything as a priest’s own “supernatural power.” But really if we continue down this path it’ll be off topic and look a lot like this: :slapfight:

Wasn’t my intention to offend; my apologies if I did. I think Zabdi captured my point more clearly.

 

[PJM]

Actually having a doctrine of transubstantiation is quite possible. You may not believe they are capable of actually achieving transubstantiation, but that doesn’t change their belief.

TRUE, that ocoured to me too as I sent it