Transubstantiation & The Incarnation

[tgGodsway]

Actually, Gorgias, I find your line of reasoning to be intelligent and on the right track.

How do we determine what is a metaphor and what is not? not to mention Similes and idioms?

On what bases do we decide? These are all issues dealing with the science of interpretation. Not everyone uses the skill of hermeneutics when they read their bibles. But a question like yours rarely comes up unless you are one who scrutinizes the way one makes an interpretation.

No… when Jesus said He was the Son of God, He wasn’t employing a metaphor. But the real questions is, on what bases does one decide? When dealing with figures of speech, there is a general rule of interpretation applied. Here it is: When the plain sense does not make sense, then you are probably in a figure of speech. When Jesus said, “I am the vine…” the plain and literal sense does not make sense, so we can probably conclude He was speaking in a figurative way. If He said, “I am the Son of God…” This should easily be taken at face value.

Secondly, there may be qualifying words in the immediate context that will also point you in the right direction to whether or not you are dealing with a figure of speech.
In general, the N.T. should be read at face-value until, or unless, there is something in the context that steers you into a figure of speech.

When Jesus said, “I am the bread of life He who comes to Me shall never hunger and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.” Jn. 6:35, we apply the rule: Does the plain sense make sense? that he who comes to Jesus will never literally hunger, or literally thirst again? Though that certainly may be possible, but most likely not His intended message. We all know Jesus was speaking in a figure of speech to help us understand spiritual hunger and thirst. Secondly, there is no example of anyone physically and literally “full” from eating. That would be insane.

Later on He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” Okay… Was He literal bread? of course not. We are in a figure of speech. He did come down from heaven, but even that was in a spiritual sense. I don’t think Jesus physically descended upon and found His way into Mary’s belly.

He went on to say in verse 51, "I am the LIVING bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever, and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world. Jn. 6:51.

All of the sudden we are suppose to ignore the rule in interpretation here and believe that if anyone eats of this LIVING bread (literally)=Eucharist, they will live forever. And that literal bread is His flesh, literally. (Is that literally in that very moment?)

Blessings,

 

[tgGodsway]

Question? Why literal here, when we were interpreting everything figuratively in the early part of the narrative? On what bases did we make the switch? Are there qualifying words in the immediate context that demand a literal interpretation? If so, please tell me which one. By the way, there is no mention of the Eucharist, or even an elusion to it in this passage. He eludes to how Israel was fed manna from heaven and they all (literally) ate. But in this chapter all of it was spiritual talk. he ended by saying, "It is the Spirit who gives life, the FLESH profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are SPIRIT and they are life. v63.

 

[BlackFriar]

So can YOU explain what a change in substance, substantially and sacramentally mean?

Are you addressing myself? If so may I suggest using the reply button under my post rather than the generic thread reply button. That way my avatar will appear in your post and this makes things clearer.

Unfortunately, as I hinted previously, it is not possible for a philosophically untrained layperson to understand deep scholastic theological vocab/concepts from scratch in a 5 minute post. It take 5 years to train a scholastic theologian afterall.

You may as well ask if a mathematician can explain the calculus of how to differentiate a 5th order polynomial. It can be explained easily enough but the vocab used would be a foreign language and hence unhelpful.

All we need to know is that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist.
The Orthodox Church, wisely, does not attempt to explain how but simply loves God even more for the mystery.

 

[Elf01]

Why did he not explain himself to the ones who left because they interpreted him as speaking literally if he was not speaking literally?

He even asks the apostles if they want to leave too.

 

[Richca]

I still don’t get what it means by the change in substance and substantially.

It is very helpful here to distinguish between the philosophical concepts of substance and accident to get some idea of what is meant by change of substance and substantially. In regard to the accidents, some understanding of the first accident of material substances which is called quantity is going to be very helpful in understanding what is meant by change of substance and substantially present. The Church teaches that in regards to the bread or host at Mass transubstantiation means that the whole substance of the bread changes into the whole substance of the body of Christ. For the present moment lets focus on what is meant by the whole substance of the body of Christ. The whole substance of the body of Christ involves his entire material body and all its parts, his flesh, bones, nerves, heart, head, etc. (the substantial form also belongs to the substance of a thing and in the case of the human body, the soul is the substantial form of the body) The human body is made out of matter and matter belongs to the substance of a thing. Now the dimensional quantity (height, breadth, and width) of Christ’s body is not what is converted from the dimensions of the bread at the consecration as is evident that after the consecration of the bread the dimensions of the bread remain. Dimensional quantity of a substance is an accident. For example, the substance of bread can be in a little or large slice of bread or a man can be a little or large man. Therefore, the entire substance of the body of Christ, i.e., the entire material body with all its parts, is present in the eucharist but without external dimensions which is an accident. The entire body of Jesus is substantially present under the accidents that remain of the bread after the consecration after the manner of a spirit, i.e., invisible, and without the ‘external’ and visible effect of extrinsic dimensions and other visible qualities and accidents that follow upon dimensive quantity. Think of the entire substance of Christ’s body, i.e., the whole material body with all its parts, as really and truly present in the eucharistic bread but unextended in three dimensional space and not just to a point but outside the order of dimensions all together such as is the nature of a spirit.

 

[tgGodsway]

There were two groups of people who were not accepting His words: The Pharisees and some disciples. Keep in mind that a disciple was a student. Not all of his students were actual converts, meaning that they accepted Him as the Christ. See Jn. 6:68,69.

But Jesus was not one who explained everything to everyone. He could read their hardened hearts and know who followed Him for all the right reasons and who did not. Peter did, and so did most of the 12. But the fact that Israel was given manna from heaven to literally eat, is telling. The O.T. message was never about literal food. It was always about spiritually feeding on Christ. This was the message of the entire chapter.

The fact that someone came around and decided to make a metaphor into literal speech and then tie it into the Lord’s table, is unfortunate. But it was never about literal food, His words were all spiritual.

 

[Richca]

That is hardly surprising. Its Aristotle, most students take two or three papers before they even start to understand him.

And the Church took his philosophy to an extreme that he would likely have considered fanciful (accidents of bread inhering without a substance to inhere in).

That the accidents of the bread remain without a substance to inhere in is not something that happens according to the laws of nature but it is a miracle performed by the infinite power of God just as transubstantiation is a miracle performed by God. Aristotle was certainly a man with a great and penetrating intellect but without the benefit of divine revelation he made some serious errors concerning God.

 

[Hope1960]

Thanks! Your explanation is a really good one.
And this change is a supernatural event, changed by the Holy Spirit, correct?

 

[Hope1960]

What do you know about the Last Supper and whether Jesus in the first Eucharist was Glorified or non-Glorified?
I’ve read both and the CCC said something in chapter 1323 about “future glory” but I don’t know if I was reading it right.
Fr. Serpa said Jesus wasn’t glorified in the first Eucharist. Ron Conte said He was. St. Thomas Aquinas said or implied He wasn’t. My former priest said He was.

 

[Gmsod]

Correct me if I’m wrong please, but I believe the early church believed the Eucharist is JESUS’ body and blood all the way until the 16th century even though it wasn’t defined until the 10th.

GOD bless!

 

[tgGodsway]

When you say, “… early church” do you mean the apostolic circle of the 1st. and 2nd. century? or someone beyond? If you want to discern the fruit of a matter, you should go to it’s root.

Did the founding framers of the New Testament, including it’s cornerstone, Jesus Christ Himself, teach, preach, explain, expound, and document the view of this thing called transubstantiation? and the literal interpretation of the Lord’s supper? … What does the divine record actually say about these specific details? or does it?

 

[Richca]

Thanks! Your explanation is a really good one.
And this change is a supernatural event, changed by the Holy Spirit, correct?

Yes, transubstantiation is an absolutely supernatural change performed by the power of God alone through the instrumentality of the priest; it is a miracle that only God can do. Transubstantiation is a work of the whole Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but we especially call upon the Holy Spirit such as in the epiclesis before the consecration in the eucharistic prayer in imitation of that which was said to Mary by the angel Gabriel at the incarnation of Jesus “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.”

 

[Richca]

What do you know about the Last Supper and whether Jesus in the first Eucharist was Glorified or non-Glorified?
I’ve read both and the CCC said something in chapter 1323 about “future glory” but I don’t know if I was reading it right.
Fr. Serpa said Jesus wasn’t glorified in the first Eucharist. Ron Conte said He was. St. Thomas Aquinas said or implied He wasn’t. My former priest said He was.

I responded to this in post #48 in response to you. Please refer to that post.

 

[BlackFriar]

The Church actually has not pronounced on the mystery of the Eucharist (it is not considered a miracle per se, though by analogy we do speak of a faith miracle) specifically in terms or Aristotles substance/accidents philosophic model (adapted by Aquinas).
It only speaks of substance (in a wider Greek sense) and appearances.

I am not aware of the errors you speak of re “God” other than he limited his scientific endeavours to terminating at an “Unmoved Mover.” It was Aquinas who identified this being with the Christian God. I dont think Aristotle cared to speak of even the Greek gods with any truly scientific concern.

 

[BlackFriar]

It is not strictly a miracle, it is a mystery.
The word miracle now tends to be reserved for wonders perceived at sense level and hence witnessable by believers and unbelievers alike.

 

[BlackFriar]

It is a teaching yet to be clarified.
You may validly hold either view currently.
We just dont know…like many other trivial matters of faith.

 

[hope]

Jesus said:
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. and I will raise himon the last day. for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Note He said I will give, meaning a future event which occurred at the Last Supper where He gave His Flesh as true food and His Bloos as true drink.
Paul understands that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Jesus.
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
Paul also gives a warning
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.

 

[Gorgias]

When dealing with figures of speech, there is a general rule of interpretation applied. Here it is: When the plain sense does not make sense, then you are probably in a figure of speech.

So… when Jesus said something that was clearly blasphemy, one could say that it “does not make sense according to plain sense”… but the Pharisees and scribes still took “before Abraham was, I AM” as literal speech. Instead of merely saying “you’re not making sense”, they took Jesus at His word and realized that He was saying that He is God. Why, then, are you unwilling to take Jesus at His word when He said, “this is my body”…?

Secondly, there may be qualifying words in the immediate context that will also point you in the right direction to whether or not you are dealing with a figure of speech.

Fair enough. What “qualifying words” do you find in the “immediate context” of the Institution Narrative that point you in the direction of a ‘figure of speech’ interpretation?

In general, the N.T. should be read at face-value until, or unless, there is something in the context that steers you into a figure of speech.

I agree. And, without evidence of something in the context of the Last Supper, then you should read that assertion at face value!

that he who comes to Jesus will never literally hunger, or literally thirst again? Though that certainly may be possible, but most likely not His intended message. We all know Jesus was speaking in a figure of speech to help us understand spiritual hunger and thirst.

Hold on a second!

You’ve just moved the goalposts! A message of “spiritual hunger and thirst” isn’t a ‘figure of speech’ – it’s literal speech about literal spiritual realities!

He did come down from heaven, but even that was in a spiritual sense. I don’t think Jesus physically descended upon and found His way into Mary’s belly.

Wow. So, when Gabriel said that the Holy Spirit would descend upon Mary and she would conceive – physically, really – in her womb… that was just a spiritual figure of speech? You’re straining credibility here…!

And that literal bread is His flesh, literally. (Is that literally in that very moment?)

And then, when his disciples took him literally, and couldn’t handle it, and therefore left Him, Jesus turned to the apostles and asked, “you realize that was a figure of speech, right, guys?” NO… Jesus turned to them and, verifying that the crowd had understood Him properly, asked his apostles, “will you go, too?”

I understand that you don’t want it to be literal. I get it that the tradition you’ve been taught in vigorously asserts “figure of speech”. However, all you have to go on is a couple of interpretative notions (which aren’t found in the Bible, now, are they? ), but nothing that even says that those notions are present in the text we’re examining!

 

[Gorgias]

Did the founding framers of the New Testament, including it’s cornerstone, Jesus Christ Himself, teach, preach, explain, expound, and document the view of this thing called transubstantiation? and the literal interpretation of the Lord’s supper?

The literal interpretation? Yes, they did.

The notion of ‘transubstantiation’? No… after all, ‘transubstantiation’ doesn’t discuss that the Eucharist is Christ’s body; rather, taking it as true, it merely explains how it works. That’s perfectly reasonable – after all, Christ didn’t explain how the Holy Trinity was the Holy Trinity; the Church did that, later, and we continue to confess it as a credal truth. Is that a problem?

What does the divine record actually say about these specific details? or does it?

It does. I’ve already pointed you to 1 Corinthians 11. Look, as well, at 1 Corinthians 10: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the Body of Christ?”

Moreover, throughout the Acts of the Apostles, we see that the first Christians took Christ literally, and participated in the ritual of the “breaking of the bread.”

It’s all there, in black and white… if only you are willing to set aside your man-made traditions and see it written in Scripture.

 

[HarryStotle]

Later on He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” Okay… Was He literal bread? of course not. We are in a figure of speech. He did come down from heaven, but even that was in a spiritual sense. I don’t think Jesus physically descended upon and found His way into Mary’s belly.

He went on to say in verse 51, "I am the LIVING bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever, and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world. Jn. 6:51.

All of the sudden we are suppose to ignore the rule in interpretation here and believe that if anyone eats of this LIVING bread (literally)=Eucharist, they will live forever. And that literal bread is His flesh, literally. (Is that literally in that very moment?)

Blessings,

So why didn’t you quote the entire passage from John?

John 6:53-58

53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.”

I wouldn’t suppose Jesus was being metaphorical or symbolic when he said “for my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink” and again, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”