Scriptural Support for Transubstantiation

[jjkadavil]

This term is a technical, theological/philosophical term which unites the Latin Church in the doctrine of the Real Presence.

This is the sad part of western theology. Theory of transubstantiation is extreme intellectualisation. That can only exist intellectually. That means we cannot bring an atheist or materialist to faith with this theory because we cannot show an example of it.
When I receive the bread and wine in the sacrament of Holy Eucharist I believe Jesus becomes present in me. This is an act of God which we call mystery and eastern churches always show that humility not to do reasoning of divine mysteries. Same way western theology says ‘transubstantiation’ takes place when a particular prayer is recited. Eastern churches do not do that. It happens in the sacrament of Holy Eucharist, that’s all we say.

On the other hand, you do not properly grasp the Orthodox view of the Real Presence or what it means by symbolic.

His presence is not something to be intellectually grasped. It is a belief and I do believe He becomes present in me, becomes the food for my soul, medicine to cure my sins, the coal that purifies me as it does gold, and lot more.

From the OCA website: “The Orthodox Church denies the doctrine that the Body and the Blood of the eucharist are merely intellectual or psychological symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood.”

Yes. This is not mere psychological symbols or those symbols that brings the awareness of Jesus in us. In the sacrament of Eucharist Jesus comes to us and be present in us.

"In the Orthodox view, all of reality—the world and man himself—is real to the extent that it is symbolical and mystical, to the extent that reality itself must reveal and manifest God to us.

This means the bread and wine are really the body and blood of Jesus to the extend they symbolically and mysteriously represent His body and blood. Where western theology (philosophy) says bread becomes Jesus real body. Limiting infinite body in a finite thing. With this theory western philosophers also have to explain what if we leave transubstantiated bread for disintegrating without consuming? (Can happen in the event of a theft or natural calamity). What happens to Jesus who became present in that bread as result of the substance of its matter got transubstantiated? Also disintegration is a gradual process. It does not lose its properties like turning off light. Then does Jesus leave the bread gradually as it disintegrates. Why should we do too much intellectual work in God actions and say it is mystery when asked to explain it?

Thus, the eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God’s true and genuine presence and manifestation to us in Christ."

This means the importance of bread is only as a symbol for the manifestation this mystery in the way which is understandable to the finite human beings and also in consistence with traditions.

When I said orthodox churches believe the bread and wine represent the body and blood of Christ you said I don’t understand their doctrine properly. I quote their official website here. “The Eucharist is believed to represent the Body and Blood of Christ. But we do not accept the ‘transubstatiation’ of the Roman Catholic Church, whereby the bread and wine transmuted into the very Body and Blood of Christ. Leavened bread and wine are used in the Eucharist and given to the believers as the sacred Body and Blood.” From jacobitesyrianchurch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=60.
Thank you

 

[adrift]

But He definitely meant “This represents my body”. His body is made of flesh and blood. How can someone take his own body in hand? The bread He hold is not part of His body. It represents His body.

How can a virgin conceive? How can a person be brought back to life after being dead four days? How can a crowd of a thousand be feed with only a fish and some bread?

 

[jjkadavil]

How can a virgin conceive? How can a person be brought back to life after being dead four days? How can a crowd of a thousand be feed with only a fish and some bread?

I would like just to say that these are mysterious acts of God.
I do not want to find out what biological process happened in Mary, I don’t want to find out how Lazar’s damaged cells restored, I do not want to find out how thousands of bread came out from five breads. If we were supposed to know that it would have been told to us by Jesus through his disciples or it would have been explained in the Bible. But we saw all these with our eyes and we know all these happened and that’s how He satisfied our finite intellect.
Does it mean that we can make up something abstract which is empirically unverifiable in our mind and attribute to God’s activity? “Representation” here does not mean that this bread is a symbol that only makes an awareness of Jesus in our mind. Representation here means Jesus’s mystical presence is manifested in the sacrament of Eucharist and when we symbolically eat the bread Jesus comes to us and dwells in us just as bread nourishes our physical body.
As you might want to say, if God want to do transubstantiation He can. Nothing is impossible to Him. But I would rather like to believe that He always respects our limitedness in understanding things. He used the symbol of bread as analogy. What food does to our body, same Holy Eucharist does to our soul. Any further complications are man made.
If you say transubstantiation, in which the substance of the bread which has perishable matter becomes Jesus, happens, what will happen to Him when the bread loses its physical properties? Jesus meant this bread to be eaten during the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist. That’s where the practice of monstrance celebration is questioned by eastern churches.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

jjkadavil:

This is the sad part of western theology. Theory of transubstantiation is extreme intellectualisation. That can only exist intellectually.

You are not making any sense. How else can an idea exist? The idea is expressed in Theological language which is symbolic, just like musical notation on a printed page symbolizes a tune or a symphony. When someone reads the notes, or understands the words, the correct idea (doctrine) is conveyed to the Church’s members.

It’s not enough to just make fuzzy references to express a Divine Doctrine. It will open the door to countless heresies. The idea must be expressed in a way that conveys the Orthodox Doctrine. Just as I had to go to the OCA website to get the CORRECT understanding of the Orthodox Church’s terminology of Symbolism. If I had used the common understanding of symbolism than I would NOT have understood what the OCA was saying. You see? Theological terminology must be understood before the theology can be understood.

However, the OCA categorically states that the bread and wine at Eucharist are NOT mere symbols of the Body and Blood of Jesus in the usual understanding.

The Western Doctrine of Transubstantiation was developed over HUNDREDS of years beginning right about the time of the great Schism. That doctrine was defined in that way to combat the HERESIES that were then being spread about Europe regarding the Eucharist. The fact that the Eastern Church was no longer a part of this battle is why the definition seems strange to (some in) the Eastern Church. The Eastern Church MUST REMEMBER, that any heresy has to be dealt with in the terms in which that heresy was being spread. The West’s doctrine of Transubstantiation overcame those heresies, and they remained a part of our heritage.

It is very INSENSITIVE and BOORISH for you to style the Church’s Theology as “sad” and “extreme intellectualisation.” The Church does NOT REQUIRE the ordinary laity to understand the ins and outs of Transubstantiation, other than to realize that the TRUE BODY AND BLOOD of JESUS is PRESENT under the appearance of Bread and Wine. The Eastern Church has a similar highly intellectual definition to convey the CORRECT understanding of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. If you read the the OCA webpage, you would see it is extremely abstract and intellectual regarding the correct understanding of the Eucharist.

Your own language is so inexact, that I question whether YOU understand the true and correct understanding of the Eucharist as taught by the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[jjkadavil]

You are not making any sense. How else can an idea exist? The idea is expressed in Theological language which is symbolic, just like musical notation on a printed page symbolizes a tune or a symphony. When someone reads the notes, or understands the words, the correct idea (doctrine) is conveyed to the Church’s members.

So you say the theory of transubstantiation is only an idea??? Another example of intellectualisation. The musical symbols what we see with our eyes we hear with our ears later. This actualisation of idea we perceive through our senses and nothing mysterious in it. It is not the case in the Sacraments. Sacraments are symbolisation of divine mysteries. So let us stop expalining these symbols intellectually, as you did in transubstantiation, instead let us see them as mysteries (Eastern church approach). Jesus has given a beautiful symbol of bread which is quite clear for human beings to understand the mystery behind it. Let us stop there; any intellectual explanation beyond it is man-made.

The Western Doctrine of Transubstantiation was developed over HUNDREDS of years beginning right about the time of the great Schism.

Please remember, you are talking so BIG about hundreds of years about a church who has history of thousands of years.

That doctrine was defined in that way to combat the HERESIES that were then being spread about Europe regarding the Eucharist.

Western church defined transubstantiation doctrine to give intellectual explanations to Protestants and also started the monstrance adoration to prove it which indirectly means that we were accepting sacrament of Holy Eucharist is incomplete.

The West’s doctrine of Transubstantiation overcame those heresies, and they remained a part of our heritage.

100 year heritage can show some common sense to understand 2000 year heritage.

It is very INSENSITIVE and BOORISH for you to style the Church’s Theology as “sad” and “extreme intellectualisation.”

Sorry for the wrong wording. I meant I feel sad to see westerner’s intellectualisation on divine mysteries. Sometimes fail to put right words being quite busy at work these days.

The Church does NOT REQUIRE the ordinary laity to understand the ins and outs of Transubstantiation

So do you mean church is something on the top of ordinary laity and ordinary laity not part of it? Church does not require ordinary laity to teach it but she requires her every child to understand it. This type of attitude makes the gap between the laity and clergy of the church. Please understand church is not only the clergy.

The Eastern Church has a similar highly intellectual definition to convey the CORRECT understanding of the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

That is your wrong understanding. If somebody asks Eastern Church how bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus, they would simply say “We don’t know”. Jesus said it is my body and blood. That is more than enough for us. We believe Jesus dwells in us when we symbolically eat His body through bread. Since it is connected with the nature and purpose of the symbol used how can you say it is ‘highly intellectual’?

 

[adrift]

I would like just to say that these are mysterious acts of God.
I do not want to find out what biological process happened in Mary, I don’t want to find out how Lazar’s damaged cells restored, I do not want to find out how thousands of bread came out from five breads. If we were supposed to know that it would have been told to us by Jesus through his disciples or it would have been explained in the Bible. But we saw all these with our eyes and we know all these happened and that’s how He satisfied our finite intellect.
Does it mean that we can make up something abstract which is empirically unverifiable in our mind and attribute to God’s activity? “Representation” here does not mean that this bread is a symbol that only makes an awareness of Jesus in our mind. Representation here means Jesus’s mystical presence is manifested in the sacrament of Eucharist and when we symbolically eat the bread Jesus comes to us and dwells in us just as bread nourishes our physical body.
As you might want to say, if God want to do transubstantiation He can. Nothing is impossible to Him. But I would rather like to believe that He always respects our limitedness in understanding things. He used the symbol of bread as analogy. What food does to our body, same Holy Eucharist does to our soul. Any further complications are man made.
If you say transubstantiation, in which the substance of the bread which has perishable matter becomes Jesus, happens, what will happen to Him when the bread loses its physical properties? Jesus meant this bread to be eaten during the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist. That’s where the practice of monstrance celebration is questioned by eastern churches.

Do you accept the Trinity? We do not symbolically eat Jesus. You have a misunderstanding of the Eucharist. Mystery cannot be comprehended. It is not something to be grasped by our tiny minds. You would like to believe? It isn’t a matter of what you prefer to believe but what the truth is.

If it is only as you prefer to believe than

26: For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27: Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28: Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29:** For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. **30: That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died

makes no sense.
from the catechism

1331 Holy Communion, because by this sacrament we unite ourselves to Christ, who makes us sharers in his Body and Blood to form a single body.149 We also call it: the holy things (ta hagia; sancta)150 - the first meaning of the phrase “communion of saints” in the Apostles’ Creed - the bread of angels, bread from heaven, medicine of immortality,151 viaticum…

 

[AmbroseSJ]

jjkadavil:

Western church defined transubstantiation doctrine to give intellectual explanations to Protestants

Transubstantiation was first used in fighting the heresies of Berengarius, who was born in the year 999. From Catholic Encyc.:

"The error of Berengarius, as is the case with other heresies was the occasion which favoured and even necessitated, a more explicit presentation, and a more precise formulation of Catholic doctrine about the Holy Eucharist. Some expressions, among those used even by the adversaries of the Berengarian doctrine, were corrected. It was Hildebert of Lavardin, a contemporary of Berengarius if not his pupil, who first used the word transubstantiation. "

You see “Transubstantiation” preceded the Protestants by 500 years.

I meant I feel sad to see westerner’s intellectualisation on divine mysteries.

The Orthodox Church freely recognizes the first 7 ecumenical councils. In those councils you will find MOST of the Church’s MYSTERIES defined in very theological language. What you like to call “westerner’s intellectualisation.” Yet it is NOT Western or Eastern, it is Catholic.

If somebody asks Eastern Church how bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus, they would simply say “We don’t know”.

No, the Eastern Church would say the same thing that the Western Church does: " the Body and Blood of Jesus is truly present under the appearance of bread and wine."

Church does not require ordinary laity to teach it but she requires her every child to understand it.

So why would the Eastern Church say “We don’t know.?” Not only are you contradicting yourself, you are also misrepresenting the Orthodox Church.

 

[jjkadavil]

No, the Eastern Church would say the same thing that the Western Church does: " the Body and Blood of Jesus is truly present under the appearance of bread and wine.So why would the Eastern Church say “We don’t know.?” Not only are you contradicting yourself, you are also misrepresenting the Orthodox Church."

I said beyond this estern churches would say “we don’t know”. But western churches would keep going with matter…substance…etc which is unnecessary. As if they are hesitating to accept that something can be mysterious. Still they are not able to explain the absurdity they create.
If it is the substance of the matter of bread that becomes Jesus please tell me what would be happening to Jesus as the matter of substance disintegrates?

 

[jjkadavil]

Do you accept the Trinity? We do not symbolically eat Jesus. You have a misunderstanding of the Eucharist. Mystery cannot be comprehended. It is not something to be grasped by our tiny minds. You would like to believe? It isn’t a matter of what you prefer to believe but what the truth is.

You writing back to me what I write in my posts and tell I am misunderstanding. When we talk about transubstantiation why do you ask about Trinity? I don’t know the purpose of the quotes you gave.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I said beyond this estern churches would say “we don’t know”. But western churches would keep going with matter…substance…etc which is unnecessary. As if they are hesitating to accept that something can be mysterious. Still they are not able to explain the absurdity they create.
If it is the substance of the matter of bread that becomes Jesus please tell me what would be happening to Jesus as the matter of substance disintegrates?

You should beware of what you say. You are criticizing the Church of Jesus Christ for defending the same doctrines that the Orthodox believe.

I can not imagine going to an Orthodox forum and ridiculing their way of explaining the Eucharist as you are doing here, calling it an absurdity.

I have explained the reasoning for Transubstantiation, and you choose to ignore it.

As for your question, I know that you don’t believe according to the Eastern Orthodox teaching on the Eucharist, because if you did, you would already know the answer to your question.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

When I said orthodox churches believe the bread and wine represent the body and blood of Christ you said I don’t understand their doctrine properly. I quote their official website here. “The Eucharist is believed to represent the Body and Blood of Christ. But we do not accept the ‘transubstatiation’ of the Roman Catholic Church, whereby the bread and wine transmuted into the very Body and Blood of Christ. Leavened bread and wine are used in the Eucharist and given to the believers as the sacred Body and Blood.” From jacobitesyrianchurch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=60.
Thank you

I never heard of Jacobites. Here is what the Synod says which is binding for the Eastern Orthodox who are in communion with Constantinople (Some 300 million). Below is what all the mainstream Orthodox Churches hold. And it is even in there catechism books.

Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem of 1672:

“In the celebration of [the Eucharist] we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present. He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world.”

 

[ProVobis]

Do you mean as opposed to consubstantiation?

All scripture verses say that it IS his body, not that his body is with the bread or that his body is in the bread, it IS the “bread” (in quotes because it only appears as bread).

In the Latin and Greek this is not so. “Hoc” (this, neuter) refers to “corpus” (body, neuter) not “panem” (bread, feminine).

The English “this” is most ambiguous.

Good thing scripture wasn’t written in English.

 

[jjkadavil]

Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem of 1672

Then why does OCA have a different view? Why does Syrian orthodox church do not accept Synod of Jerusalem? “The Syrian Orthodox church accepts only three Ecumenical Synods namely Nicea (A.D.325), Constantinople (A.D. 381) and Ephesus (A. D. 431) as the universal Synods.” Please refer back to post #6. I said about ‘Syrian orthodox church’ The Jacobite church I mentioned is part of Syrian orthodox church in Antioch.
As a catholic I believe, in the sacrament of Eucharist bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. When I eat it He comes to me and dwells in me. I would like to believe that it is a mysterious act which is a complete satisfactory explanation to me.
I don’t want to limit that ‘mystery’ to Aristotle’s philosophy of matter and form. : According to western dogma properties of the matter (bread) becomes His body. Which means when it is happened it’s a totally different thing from the bread with the accidents of bread. Jesus used it within the context of symbolic nature of spiritual meal for our souls and westerners take it beyond that as it does not anymore necessarily represent a spiritual meal. (Eg: using this for monstrance adoration).
If we approach this mystery (transubstantiation) within the parametres of a spiritual meal representation we will not have to explain what happens to the substance (Jesus) when its property ceases to exist. We can easily find its analogical meaning by knowing what food does to our physical body. If this is proved we will start using ‘transubstantiated’ bread only strictly within the sacrament of Holy Eucharist (spiritual meal). And presence of Jesus in the bread when used for exhibiting for monstrance adoration can be questioned.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Then why does OCA have a different view? Why does Syrian orthodox church do not accept Synod of Jerusalem? “The Syrian Orthodox church accepts only three Ecumenical Synods namely Nicea (A.D.325), Constantinople (A.D. 381) and Ephesus (A. D. 431) as the universal Synods.” Please refer back to post #6. I said about ‘Syrian orthodox church’ The Jacobite church I mentioned is part of Syrian orthodox church in Antioch.
As a catholic I believe, in the sacrament of Eucharist bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. When I eat it He comes to me and dwells in me. I would like to believe that it is a mysterious act which is a complete satisfactory explanation to me.
I don’t want to limit that ‘mystery’ to Aristotle’s philosophy of matter and form. : According to western dogma properties of the matter (bread) becomes His body. Which means when it is happened it’s a totally different thing from the bread with the accidents of bread. Jesus used it within the context of symbolic nature of spiritual meal for our souls and westerners take it beyond that as it does not anymore necessarily represent a spiritual meal. (Eg: using this for monstrance adoration).
If we approach this mystery (transubstantiation) within the parametres of a spiritual meal representation we will not have to explain what happens to the substance (Jesus) when its property ceases to exist. We can easily find its analogical meaning by knowing what food does to our physical body. If this is proved we will start using ‘transubstantiated’ bread only strictly within the sacrament of Holy Eucharist (spiritual meal). And presence of Jesus in the bread when used for exhibiting for monstrance adoration can be questioned.

The Jacobites are not true Eastern Orthodox. Otherwise they would accept 7 ecumenical councils and that non-ecumenical synod

 

[AmbroseSJ]

jjkadavil:

If we approach this mystery (transubstantiation) within the parametres of a spiritual meal representation we will not have to explain what happens to the substance (Jesus) when its property ceases to exist. We can easily find its analogical meaning by knowing what food does to our physical body. If this is proved we will start using ‘transubstantiated’ bread only strictly within the sacrament of Holy Eucharist (spiritual meal). And presence of Jesus in the bread when used for exhibiting for monstrance adoration can be questioned.

The conclusion you reach in your last sentence does not follow.

Your understanding seems to border on the one held by certain Protestants. They believe as you have said, and therefore they don’t believe the bread itself is the actual Body and Blood of Jesus. Instead they believe that Jesus only comes to them in their reception of the bread (communion), but otherwise the bread is just bread. They likewise do not believe the bread should be worshipped and adored, the way you believe. If pressed on the subject they will affirm that the bread is the “representation” of the Body and Blood of Jesus.

Do you see what happens when you are vague and fuzzy about exactly what you believe? You suddenly realize you are a Protestant!

 

[jjkadavil]

The conclusion you reach in your last sentence does not follow.

Your understanding seems to border on the one held by certain Protestants. They believe as you have said, and therefore they don’t believe the bread itself is the actual Body and Blood of Jesus. Instead they believe that Jesus only comes to them in their reception of the bread (communion), but otherwise the bread is just bread. They likewise do not believe the bread should be worshipped and adored, the way you believe. If pressed on the subject they will affirm that the bread is the “representation” of the Body and Blood of Jesus.

Do you see what happens when you are vague and fuzzy about exactly what you believe? You suddenly realize you are a Protestant!

One thing is sure bread is bread only when it is eaten. Imagine if all of us suddenly forget what for the bread is it is no more bread. (off topic, let that go).

Jesus told us “This is my body, eat from this”. Then what right have you got to keep it for some other purpose (displaying)? What right have you got to use it outside the purpose He meant it to be used? If it was ever kept after mass it was for somebody to eat later. That means it is still used within it’s symbolization. Using it outside its symbolization is questioned by Jesus itself according to His words “Eat it”. He can go out of it if you can’t obey Him. You can’t lock Him in the bread with Aristole’s philosophy of matter and form.

If monstrance adoration was an authentic way of worship it would have been there since the beginning of the church.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

jjkadavil:

If monstrance adoration was an authentic way of worship it would have been there since the beginning of the church.

St. Athanasius’ Doctrine of the Trinity was not there since the beginning of the Church, do you deny the Trinity too?

 

[jjkadavil]

St. Athanasius’ Doctrine of the Trinity was not there since the beginning of the Church, do you deny the Trinity too?

I always talk about the traditional basis of a doctrine. Doctrine of Trinity does have it. Also I’m not denying the doctrine of transubstantiation. What I question is the use of sacramental bread out of it’s symbolisation based on the doctrine of transubstantiation.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

I always talk about the traditional basis of a doctrine. Doctrine of Trinity does have it. Also I’m not denying the doctrine of transubstantiation. What I question is the use of sacramental bread out of it’s symbolisation based on the doctrine of transubstantiation.

That’s simply not true. The funny thing about forums is that your posts are still there to read. I will save you the embarrassment of quoting your own words. Go and re-read your responses in this thread and you will see that you denied Transubstantiation several times. If you don’t believe you have in your heart, then you need to pay more attention to the meanings of the words you use so carelessly.

 

[jjkadavil]

that’s simply not true. The funny thing about forums is that your posts are still there to read. I will save you the embarrassment of quoting your own words. Go and re-read your responses in this thread and you will see that you denied transubstantiation several times. If you don’t believe you have in your heart, then you need to pay more attention to the meanings of the words you use so carelessly.

ohhhhhh…do i have to tell everything each time a-z???
I believe in the mystery of bread and wine becoming jesus’s body and blood (is that what you mean by transubstantiation???). But jesus institued this as a sacramental meal. I dont want to believe anything beyond what he wants me to believe…
Please please please…don’t make repeat this as i am sure you never listen to me