The first transubstantiation

[Angainor]

Hello Stone Cold,

I didn’t find your post to harsh. You said what you meant, that’s cool.
Stone Cold:

Then you make Christ a liar.

Christ says in John 3:13, "And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven."

I don’t know about the original Greek, but my NIV bible says “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven - the Son of Man.”
Stone Cold:

You don’t believe in the incarnation, that the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, took our human nature by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

To be honest, I have never before heard that belief in the incarnation requires the belief that Jesus was omnipresent. I always thought it was obvious that Jesus was only in one spot at a time (while on Earth).

What exactly would that be like?: the boy Jesus in the temple and everywhere else.

 

[mtr01]

Genesis315:

This is wrong. At the Last Supper Christ was also physically present in the Eucharist. He said “This is my Body.” He did not say “This will be my body after the resurrection.”

Awful’s explanation is actually my understanding as well, since we partake of Christ’s glorified body sacramentally in the Eucharist. Since his glorified body is not constrained by time and space like his natural body, it is not an issue for it to be present at the Last Supper.

To me, it’s the same concept as the Immaculate Conception. Christ’s redemptive Sacrifice on Calvary was applied to Mary outside of time.

 

[Stone_Cold]

I’m glad you didn’t find my post too harsh Angainor because I meant no malice by it. I bluntly stated my opinion.

My translation of John 3:13 comes from the Douay-Rheims Bible. I found the King James Bible online and its translation is similar:

13: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvJohn.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=3&division=div1

Jesus is omnipresent as God. Yes, Jesus was in the temple as a boy and everywhere else. It’s a mystery, which is why Catholics refer to the mystery of the incarnation. Our minds cannot comprehend how one person can possess two natures.

Jesus makes Himself sacramentally present in the Holy Eucharist. He is not present in the Holy Eucharist as he was in the flesh, just as He is not present in the flesh as He is in His divinity.

Jesus made Himself present on the road to Emmaus at the same time He walked through a locked door and appeared to the Apostles after the resurrection. Jesus is no longer restricted to the laws of nature because He has passed from death to life.

You may be thinking that yes, Jesus did appear in more than one place after the resurrection, but the Last Supper is clearly before the resurrection.

Luke 22:19-20 says:

19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. 20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. (Douay-Rheims version)

Here is the commentary on this passage in the Douay-Rheims Bible:

19 “Do this for a commemoration of me”… This sacrifice and sacrament is to be continued in the church, to the end of the world, to shew forth the death of Christ, until he cometh. But this commemoration, or remembrance, is by no means inconsistent with the real presence of his body and blood, under these sacramental veils, which represent his death; on the contrary, it is the manner that he himself hath commanded, of commemorating and celebrating his death, by offering in sacrifice, and receiving in the sacrament, that body and blood by which we were redeemed.

The Last Supper not only commemorates the death of the Lord, but His Resurrection and Ascension, since without the Resurrection Christ’s death is in vain.

This is what we pray in the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) of the Mass:

Wherefore, O Lord, we, Thy servants, as also Thy holy people, calling to mind the blessed passion of the same Christ, Thy Son, our
Lord, His resurrection from the grave, and His glorious ascension into heaven, offer up to Thy most excellent majesty of Thine own gifts bestowed upon us, a victim which is pure, a victim which is stainless, the holy bread of life everlasting, and the chalice of eternal salvation.

We believe the Holy Eucharist is the risen Christ who will never die again. We are keeping Christ’s command to eat His body and drink His blood.

Peace

 

[philipbenedict]

John 6:50 Jesus is the living bread come down from heaven. Jesus said this sometime before the Last Supper. The food He offered during the Last Supper was His body and blood.

 

[Genesis315]

mtr01:

Awful’s explanation is actually my understanding as well, since we partake of Christ’s glorified body sacramentally in the Eucharist. Since his glorified body is not constrained by time and space like his natural body, it is not an issue for it to be present at the Last Supper.

To me, it’s the same concept as the Immaculate Conception. Christ’s redemptive Sacrifice on Calvary was applied to Mary outside of time.

Oh I see. I thought he was implying that it was not possible until after the resurrection. The way you put it makes more sense. Where does this explanation come from? I’ve never heard it before.

 

[jimmy]

Angainor:

At the Last Supper, did the Eucharist transubstantiate into the body and blood of Christ? Christ was sitting right there. His body was sitting at the table. His blood was pumping through his veins. When the deciples looked to Jesus, did they look to the bread and wine, or did they look to the Jesus who was speaking to them?

What is harder to believe? The Incarnation, or that Jesus has the ability to make the Eucharist himself?

 

[jimmy]

Angainor:

I would dispute that Jesus was Omnipresent. When Jesus was in the upper room, he was only in the upper room. When he was on the cross, he was only on the cross.

That is how I see it anyway.

Do you dispute that he had the ability to be omnipresent though?

 

[jimmy]

Angainor:

No, actually. At least not while he walked the earth.

I understand that Jesus was divine, and I am not sure what that would be like, but Jesus was also Perfect Man. I do know what it is like to be a man. Human beings are only in one place at a time. If Jesus was in more than one place, I don’t think you could call him Perfect Man.

Why couldn’t you call him perfect man if he could be in two places at one time?

Next, the Eucharist is the body of the ressurected Christ, which is not bound by time. Without the ressurection the Eucharist would be nothing, therefore the Eucharist is one of the products of the ressurection. It can be given previously to the ressurection because God is outside of time. It is done in anticipation of the sacrifice of Christ.

To doubt the ability of Christ to confect the Eucharist is to doubt the omnipotence of God, because it would conclude that God is bound by time or that his power is hindered by Christ’s body.

 

[mtr01]

Genesis315:

Oh I see. I thought he was implying that it was not possible until after the resurrection. The way you put it makes more sense. Where does this explanation come from? I’ve never heard it before.

I had to re-read it again just to make sure as well. As for where the explanation came from…to be honest I’m not quite sure. I did alot of reading when I came back to the Church, and it seems like something I must have picked up then. I’ll see if I can locate a source for you.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Angainor:

At the Last Supper, did the Eucharist transubstantiate into the body and blood of Christ? Christ was sitting right there. His body was sitting at the table. His blood was pumping through his veins. When the deciples looked to Jesus, did they look to the bread and wine, or did they look to the Jesus who was speaking to them?

It is a mystical occurence. When Jesus came back from the dead, he was physically present on earth when the Apostles were celebrating the Eucharist (He hadn’t ascended yet). Even now, Christ is alive physically, and yet the bread and wine transubstantiate to His body and blood. It is called a miracle of faith.

 

[awfulthings9]

mtr01:

I had to re-read it again just to make sure as well. As for where the explanation came from…to be honest I’m not quite sure. I did alot of reading when I came back to the Church, and it seems like something I must have picked up then. I’ll see if I can locate a source for you.

Sorry if my wording was confusing, but no, I didn’t mean to imply (as I think everyone now realizes) that it only is the body and blood of Christ after the resurrection. Rather, that it is, at that moment, the body and blood of Christ because his death and resurrection makes him physically present past, present, and future in the Eucharist, where ever consecration properly takes place (which happens the first time at the last supper). I don’t know where this philosophy came from, or where I picked it up, so I’m sorry I can’t help there.

 

[awfulthings9]

Now, if you don’t mind Angainor, I’d like to turn this around. Scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit will guide us to all truth. With that said, it’s not only the Catholics in here and our church that teaches this, but even the protestant reformers, for the most part believed in transubstantiation. What’s more, for fifteen hundred years before Luther, Christian writing overwhelmingly reflects this belief. Even more, the earliest Christian writings, including people who lived during the apostolic age profess this belief (and surely would have been corrected if they were wrong). I think that the burden of proof here is not on Catholics, but on those who, over one and a half thousand years after Christ, want to believe something contrary. The only way I would have the guts to do something like that is if I could find an explicit statement in Scripture that the almighty, all-knowing, ever-present God could not make himself physically present in the Eucharist AND where Scripture states that he was only speaking metaphorically at the Last Supper. Too often, we Catholics go on the defensive with topics like this, when it should truly be those who are “protesting” who take up the burdon of proof. Let’s take the thread in that direction.

 

[jimmy]

mtr01:

Awful’s explanation is actually my understanding as well, since we partake of Christ’s glorified body sacramentally in the Eucharist. Since his glorified body is not constrained by time and space like his natural body, it is not an issue for it to be present at the Last Supper.

To me, it’s the same concept as the Immaculate Conception. Christ’s redemptive Sacrifice on Calvary was applied to Mary outside of time.

I am sorry, I did not see your post before I posted mine.

 

[Genesis315]

mtr01:

I had to re-read it again just to make sure as well. As for where the explanation came from…to be honest I’m not quite sure. I did alot of reading when I came back to the Church, and it seems like something I must have picked up then. I’ll see if I can locate a source for you.

Just to add to your point that Christ’s Body could be glorified before the Resurrection, He was in His glorified state at the Transfiguration too I believe.

 

[Angainor]

jimmy:

Do you dispute that he had the ability to be omnipresent though?

That is a thought-provoking way to ask the question. Are you suggesting that he typically wasn’t “everywhere” but could choose to be? Interesting.

Anyway, yes I happen to think that Jesus (while on earth) lacked the ability to be omnipresent.

My view of Jesus has been described (rather flippantly) as “God in a bod”. While on Earth, the Divine person of Jesus inhabited a human nature, the same way the human person of “me” is currently inhabiting my human nature. That view is very non-Catholic, but it makes sense to me.

 

[Genesis315]

Angainor:

My view of Jesus has been described (rather flippantly) as “God in a bod”. While on Earth, the Divine person of Jesus inhabited a human nature, the same way the human person of “me” is currently inhabiting my human nature. That view is very non-Catholic, but it makes sense to me.

I’m not sure that I follow when you say your human person is inhabiting your human nature. Do you mean your soul is inhabiting your body?

 

[awfulthings9]

Angainor seemed to pass right over my explanation and continue on with discussion as if I hadn’t even explained the ideas in my earlier post. He doesn’t seem to want to answer my challenge, either. Hmmm. I’ve seen this before from some of our “sincere” friends who simply are “seeking clarification”. He’ll ignore any point that doesn’t go with his challenge and harp on points that aren’t quite adequate explanations of the faith, as if he has found a hole in the theology. I hope I’m wrong here, but doubt it.

 

[adnauseum]

You know the standard metre in Paris, the one that defines what a meter is?

Well, is that bar one metre long?

The confusion you feel is due to the fact that you are mixing logical categories.

It’s a nonsensical question.

 

[mkamoski]

Angainor:

At the Last Supper, did the Eucharist transubstantiate into the body and blood of Christ? Christ was sitting right there. His body was sitting at the table. His blood was pumping through his veins. When the deciples looked to Jesus, did they look to the bread and wine, or did they look to the Jesus who was speaking to them?

Ah, I love the easy questions.

Remember that we have the following…

Take this, all of you, and eat it; this is my body which will be given up for you.

…and we also have the following…

Take this, all of you, and drink from it; this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.

…so, it really is pretty simple, isn’t it?

If Christ said “this is my body”, then I am sure that he meant exactly that. And so on.

I really cannot see how that can be read differently.

HTH.

–Mark

 

[Angainor]

awfulthings9:

What’s more, for fifteen hundred years before Luther, Christian writing overwhelmingly reflects this belief. Even more, the earliest Christian writings, including people who lived during the apostolic age profess this belief (and surely would have been corrected if they were wrong).

Part of the reason I “passed over” your comments is because I don’t have much to say about them. I don’t know what writings you are speaking of, and I don’t know what the people who lived back then believed.

awfulthings9:

The only way I would have the guts to do something like that is if I could find an explicit statement in Scripture that the almighty, all-knowing, ever-present God could not make himself physically present in the Eucharist

God cannot do the logically impossible (He cannot make a square circle). It seems odd to me that the bread and wine would be the real presense of Jesus’ body and blood, when Jesus’ body and blood were sitting nearby.

awfulthings9:

AND where Scripture states that he was only speaking metaphorically at the Last Supper.

You mean, other than the fact that Jesus used metaphores all the time? (I am the vine, you are the branches.)