Transubstantiation Questions

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I will give two thoughts. First, when Christ says “the words I have spoken to you” are spirit and life, it should be interpreted in light of what the words were that he just spoke to them, viz., that he would give his flesh for them to eat. If these words are life, it follows that the Eucharist, in which he offers his flesh, is life. Second, you are dissatisfied that Christ’s reply is evasive of the question of how he will give his flesh to eat. Consider that according to the Church, Christ gave us the Eucharist by his words, “This is my body.” His words (spirit and life) made lifeless bread his living and life-giving flesh. Perhaps this verse is an obscure reference to that.

 

[mdcpensive1]

I will give two thoughts. First, when Christ says “the words I have spoken to you” are spirit and life, it should be interpreted in light of what the words were that he just spoke to them, viz., that he would give his flesh for them to eat. If these words are life, it follows that the Eucharist, in which he offers his flesh, is life. Second, you are dissatisfied that Christ’s reply is evasive of the question of how he will give his flesh to eat. Consider that according to the Church, Christ gave us the Eucharist by his words, “This is my body.” His words (spirit and life) made lifeless bread his living and life-giving flesh. Perhaps this verse is an obscure reference to that.

Excellent point worth remembering. Thanks for sharing.

 

[DavidFilmer]

He is answering the disciples who are asking how they can eat His flesh.

Right, because they are interpreting Our Lord’s words in an earthly manner - which would equate to cannibalism (and, indeed, pagans accused the early Church of this offense based on their own mis-understanding of Eucharist).

But what does it mean to say that those words are spirit and life? How does this answer their question?

Because his words are spiritual and life-giving. Eucharist nourishes our spirit far more than our bodies, and gives us spiritual life.

 

[Rich]

John 6:48-51 clearly indicates that Jesus is offering his flesh, which is reinforced in verses 53 - 58. John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus’s flesh. In Paul’s 1 Cor 11:27-29, he clearly didn’t think he could eat the bread/drink the cup in an unworthy manner if he didn’t believe he is partaking in Jesus body and blood. If what you said in John “flesh is of no avail” is true, then Paul must have been a very misguided fellow. Remember that Paul’s epistles are very early writings, earlier than the John’s Gospel. So at a very stage, this is already a firm belief about the Eucharist, not a late invention.

The Holy Spirit is the best linguist ever. It violates all grammar rules to change subject matter in this statement without introducing the new subject name. Jesus was talking about His flesh. God is spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom.

 

[Thorns]

Agreed; but, if I understand the case you’re making, it’s that, if the apostles misunderstood Jesus in John 6, why do we think we understand him now? This is the hypothetical I’m raising here: if Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus at that point in time, you’re suggesting that we misunderstand Him now. That logic just doesn’t hold.

Nobody uses Nicodemus’ misunderstanding as proof of Jesus’ literalness like they do with John 6 though. It is confusing to use a misinterpretation as proof to say this is what Jesus meant, when we have a better understanding now to know that it isn’t the case, like you said.

Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus about being born again. We have a better understanding now to know that Nicodemus was wrong.

likewise

The disciples in John 6 misunderstood Jesus about eating his flesh literally. We should have a better understanding now to know that they were wrong.

Why does the Church teach that the bread and wine are literally the Flesh & Blood when it appears that not even Christ was being literal? And why do we use John 6 as proof of Jesus’ literalness when we both agree that He wasn’t being literal (gnawing bones etc.)?

 

[Gorgias]

Why does the Church teach that the bread and wine are literally the Flesh & Blood when it appears that not even Christ was being literal? And why do we use John 6 as proof of Jesus’ literalness when we both agree that He wasn’t being literal (gnawing bones etc.)?

I think I would assert that Jesus was being literal; after all, it has been the belief of the Church since its beginning that the Eucharist is literally the Body and Blood (, Soul and Divinity) of Jesus Christ. The issue you raise here, however, is a different one: is the Eucharist the physical flesh and physical blood of Jesus? That, I hope you can see, is a completely different question.

The Church doesn’t teach that the Eucharist is the physical presence of Christ. It’s the literal presence of Christ; it’s the sacramental presence of Christ; but the physical elements – that is, the ‘accidents’ (in other words, what can be experienced by the physical senses) remain that of bread and wine. (NB: the bread and wine are transubstantiated – that is, their substance becomes the substance of Christ, such that we can say that they really are Christ; but their accidents (accessible to us through sight, smell, touch, taste) remain the accidents of bread and wine.)

(P.S., cue the howling – this is the point where some will dig in their heels and take offense, being unable or unwilling to differentiate between ‘real’ and ‘physical’… )

So, in answer to your question: Christ was speaking literally, but his listeners assumed (incorrectly) that He was speaking about physical appearances (or, quite reasonably, having no experience to the contrary, assumed that physical appearance must always correspond to substantial reality).

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Christ gave us the Eucharist by his words, “This is my body.” His words (spirit and life) made lifeless bread his living and life-giving flesh. . .

There’s not much else left to say, really.

 

[Thorns]

I think I would assert that Jesus was being literal; after all, it has been the belief of the Church since its beginning that the Eucharist is literally the Body and Blood (, Soul and Divinity) of Jesus Christ. The issue you raise here, however, is a different one: is the Eucharist the physical flesh and physical blood of Jesus? That, I hope you can see, is a completely different question.

The Church doesn’t teach that the Eucharist is the physical presence of Christ. It’s the literal presence of Christ; it’s the sacramental presence of Christ; but the physical elements – that is, the ‘accidents’ (in other words, what can be experienced by the physical senses) remain that of bread and wine. (NB: the bread and wine are transubstantiated – that is, their substance becomes the substance of Christ, such that we can say that they really are Christ; but their accidents (accessible to us through sight, smell, touch, taste) remain the accidents of bread and wine.)

(P.S., cue the howling – this is the point where some will dig in their heels and take offense, being unable or unwilling to differentiate between ‘real’ and ‘physical’… )

So, in answer to your question: Christ was speaking literally, but his listeners assumed (incorrectly) that He was speaking about physical appearances (or, quite reasonably, having no experience to the contrary, assumed that physical appearance must always correspond to substantial reality).

Under this explanation I can wholeheartedly agree.

Things get murky when people begin to say its the physical presence. I have asked if the Eucharist was literally spiritually the Flesh & Blood, but Ive always been corrected that its not just literally spiritually, but literally physically.

How does this explanation of yours though, differ from bread and wine simply containing Christs spirit?

 

[Aloysium]

The Way is a person. The sacraments bring us ever closer to God. The eucharist as the totality of Jesus, is incorporated into us who are body and spirit., and we are transformed. We become Jesus, so to speak.

 

[Gorgias]

Things get murky when people begin to say its the physical presence. I have asked if the Eucharist was literally spiritually the Flesh & Blood, but Ive always been corrected that its not just literally spiritually, but literally physically.

Yep. I got ‘busted’ making this exact assertion in a class on the Eucharist; having been corrected in front of my peers, believe me… I remember the answer that the presence is ‘real’ and ‘literal’ but not ‘physical’ very well.

How does this explanation of yours though, differ from bread and wine simply containing Christs spirit?

I should ask you to clarify what you mean by “containing” and by “Christ’s spirit”. But, it seems to me that you’re asking about (and please tell me if I’m mistaken!) ‘consubstantiation’. During the time in which the Church was wrestling with the issue of the ‘how’ of the Real Presence (after all, the Church always believed that the Eucharist was the Real Presence, so the only real question was “how can we explain what happens in the Eucharist?”), many attempted explanations. Berengarius offered the explanation that the bread and wine continue to exist substantially, but that the substance of Jesus is added to the existing substance of bread and of wine. The Church, in the end, declared Berengarius’ stance heretical. However, later Reformation theologians (including Luther, IIRC) held to Berengarius’ teaching.