transubstantiation question

[6glargento]

on “the way of the master radio” evangelical host Todd Friel posed this challenge to transubstantiation believers.

“How could the bread and wine be jesus’ literal body and blood if he had not yet died on the cross and established the new covanent?”

I’ve wondered this myself, how should we answer it?

 

[Todd_Easton]

Jesus could change water into wine and multiply loaves and fishes. Is it so hard to believe that he could likewise change bread and wine into his own flesh and blood?

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

on “the way of the master radio” evangelical host Todd Friel posed this challenge to transubstantiation believers.

“How could the bread and wine be jesus’ literal body and blood if he had not yet died on the cross and established the new covanent?”

I’ve wondered this myself, how should we answer it?

How could it not? Does God have limits? Does he not live outside of time?

 

[LilyM]

on “the way of the master radio” evangelical host Todd Friel posed this challenge to transubstantiation believers.

“How could the bread and wine be jesus’ literal body and blood if he had not yet died on the cross and established the new covanent?”

I’ve wondered this myself, how should we answer it?

The same way Jesus could breathe on the Apostles on Easter and say ‘receive the Holy Spirit’ - which Holy Spirit they ALSO, clearly, received on Pentecost.

 

[VociMike]

on “the way of the master radio” evangelical host Todd Friel posed this challenge to transubstantiation believers.

“How could the bread and wine be jesus’ literal body and blood if he had not yet died on the cross and established the new covanent?”

I’ve wondered this myself, how should we answer it?

Actually, this fits in perfectly with the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. What happened at the Last Supper was the presentation of the unbloody, sacramentally-present sacrifice of Christ (as distinguished from the bloody, physical sacrifice which would happen the next day). It is this unbloody, sacramentally-present sacrifice which is timeless, and which is made present again at every Mass.

Note closely the tense Christ uses. He doesn’t talk about his flesh and blood which will be given, but about his flesh and blood which is given. He is not talking about a sacrifice which will happen in the future, but about a sacrifice which is happening now, an ongoing sacrifice.

As I said, what happened at the Last Supper fits in perfectly with Catholic teaching, and furthermore it confounds Protestant symbol-only, sacrifice-specific-in-time teaching.

 

[mchale]

on “the way of the master radio” evangelical host Todd Friel posed this challenge to transubstantiation believers.

“How could the bread and wine be jesus’ literal body and blood if he had not yet died on the cross and established the new covanent?”

I’ve wondered this myself, how should we answer it?

A couple of thoughts on this.

The first is that Jesus’s sacrifice might have culminated on the cross, but it ultimately began with his conception. Remember, Jesus by becoming man, took on all of man’s sufferings, not just the pain of the cross.

The second is that the Last Supper should not be viewed as an event separate from the Passion. The Last Supper is part of the Passion, and the whole of the Passion is what establishes the new covenant.

The third is that I am always amazed at Evangelicals who also tend to be literal interpreters of the Bible. They have no problem with the idea of a Global Flood (where did all the water go?) or men living to be 900+ years old, but they have problem interpreting literally the words of Jesus and the clear understanding of the early Church as shown by Paul’s writings on the Eucharist. Jesus said “This is my Body”, who are we to deny it.

–
Bill

 

[JimG]

on “the way of the master radio” evangelical host Todd Friel posed this challenge to transubstantiation believers.

“How could the bread and wine be jesus’ literal body and blood if he had not yet died on the cross and established the new covanent?”

I’ve wondered this myself, how should we answer it?

This would be similar to asking, how could Jesus be God the Son, an eternal, always existing being, when he was not born until the year 6 BC?

God acts outside of time. From the divine point of view, there is no difference between, today, yesterday, and tomorrow, between this century and last century and the next century. All times are equally present to him.

The Eucharistic sacrifice is the same as the sacrifice of Calvary. The eternal sacrifice can penetrate both directions of time–forward to us today, backward to the last supper.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

If God created all that is with a single thought, transubstantiation would seem to me to much simpler. God is not subject to the laws of creation. Rather it is the other way around. All things are possible with God. That is how I would answer it.
Deacon Ed B

 

[losh14]

“How could the bread and wine be jesus’ literal body and blood if he had not yet died on the cross and established the new covanent?”

I’ve wondered this myself, how should we answer it?

Relatedly, Jesus tells the “good thief” that “You will be with me this day in Paradise” when Jesus Himself did not ascend to Heaven until three days later.

A Presbyterian theologian buddy of mine pointed out that Jesus is always with His Father in Heaven, which would render Todd Friel’s question moot anyway (because Jesus’ body and blood are always given up for us).

Good question, glad to offer for it.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

A simple answer is that God is not confined with the constraints of time which is his creation. His creation is subject to him, not God to his creation.

 

[RosaryFan]

on “the way of the master radio” evangelical host Todd Friel posed this challenge to transubstantiation believers.

“How could the bread and wine be jesus’ literal body and blood if he had not yet died on the cross and established the new covanent?”

I’ve wondered this myself, how should we answer it?

Very simple. Jesus reached into the future and made His sacrifice present to the apostles at the Last Supper. Much the same way Jesus (through the Priest during Mass) makes His sarifice present for us at Mass. God is not bound by time and space as we humans are.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The body of Christ in the Eucharist is His glorified body, which is not subject to the limits of the natural world, including the limits of time and place. As God, Christ is able to apply the graces of the Crucifixion to all times and places, even to the entire time period prior to the Crucifixion. Thus the Immaculate Conception is a fruit of the Cross (not the other way around).

 

[dawid]

You will find the “Search for the Fourth Cup” by Scott Hahn useful in answering that question.

The Seder meal consists of four cups drunk during stages of the meal - the last one that invokes the covenant was particularly important, but at that point, He said he no would pass over his lips…!

At a point during the crucifiction, He said that He thirsted - He was given wine - the fourth cup - the Covenant was invoked - then He said “It is finished.” and gave up his spirit.

From that summary, we realise that the Last Supper AND the Crucifiction, were indeed The Seder (Covenantal) meal of the New Testament.

Jesus was already the Flesh of the sacrificial Lamb of God.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The body of Christ in the Eucharist is His glorified body, which is not subject to the limits of the natural world, including the limits of time and place.

True now, since Christ has a glorified body, however likely not true then (at the Last Supper). It is more likely (in my opinion) that Christ gave his disciples his mortal, non-glorified body in the Eucharist, as Aquinas holds.

VC

 

[MarcoPolo]

Yeah, that’s very much how a materialist would approach the matter, not a person of faith. If Christ’s work operated only in one direction of time, by that logic, everyone who died prior to 33 A.D. had to go to hell, but we know they didn’t.