Transubstantiation vs Pneumatic Presence

[holly_potter]

I wasn’t sure which forum to post this in, Non-Catholic Religions or Apologetics, but I figured since I’m also wanting (name removed by moderator)ut on how to back transubstantiation, I’d post it here

My bf and I really enjoy our theological discussions and debates–we talk about Mary, saints, papal sucession, etc etc etc. It’s all in good spirit, and we both know that we’re not trying to convert the other (making it more of a relax debate). And, it’s strengthening my faith, and he says it’s strengthening his, too.

But we both got into some sort of impasse regarding Eucharistic theology–Catholic and Presbyterian beliefs are similar enough that he and I were trying to get down to some of the very fine theological details and differences. The difference is how to interpret “This is my body, which will be given up for you.”

I’m trying to explain transubstantiation as in, this IS my body, that the bread is his body, but since the author still said “he took the bread and broke it” means that it is really his body, but in outward appearance it is bread. I’m also trying to understand bf’s view of the Eucharist–he’s trying to explain it as “this is my body,” that Jesus is present in it in spirit, not corporally or carnally. But I’m having difficulty figuring out the “spirit” part of it, to be honest, because I take “is” as that it really is his body that is present, not just his spirit.

I would really appreciate both Catholic and Protestant (name removed by moderator)ut on this, if anybody can clarify some of the differences, and explain, please Thanks!

 

[WMM]

I wasn’t sure which forum to post this in, Non-Catholic Religions or Apologetics, but I figured since I’m also wanting (name removed by moderator)ut on how to back transubstantiation, I’d post it here

My bf and I really enjoy our theological discussions and debates–we talk about Mary, saints, papal sucession, etc etc etc. It’s all in good spirit, and we both know that we’re not trying to convert the other (making it more of a relax debate). And, it’s strengthening my faith, and he says it’s strengthening his, too.

But we both got into some sort of impasse regarding Eucharistic theology–Catholic and Presbyterian beliefs are similar enough that he and I were trying to get down to some of the very fine theological details and differences. The difference is how to interpret “This is my body, which will be given up for you.”

I’m trying to explain transubstantiation as in, this IS my body, that the bread is his body, but since the author still said “he took the bread and broke it” means that it is really his body, but in outward appearance it is bread. I’m also trying to understand bf’s view of the Eucharist–he’s trying to explain it as “this is my body,” that Jesus is present in it in spirit, not corporally or carnally. But I’m having difficulty figuring out the “spirit” part of it, to be honest, because I take “is” as that it really is his body that is present, not just his spirit.

I would really appreciate both Catholic and Protestant (name removed by moderator)ut on this, if anybody can clarify some of the differences, and explain, please Thanks!

At the moment of Consecration, the bread, wine and water cease to exist, and by the power of God become the living Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Only the appearance remains of the bread, wine and water.

 

[ConallCernach]

Christ told the crowds that this was His body six times in John chapter six. The crowds left because they didn’t want to believe this. Had Christ been talking to them metaphorically (such as it being His body in spirit) He would have explained to the crowd that He was saying so, just as He did with the other parables (if this were a parable). Yet, Christ does not do this .

Pax

 

[VociMike]

Isn’t God present everywhere spiritually? So how would the Eucharist be any different in that case?

Here’s the view that I find totally convincing. God is no longer just spirit. With the Incarnation he has taken on body, blood and soul as well. We also are creatures of body, blood and soul. So if the Eucharist was to be any different than God’s spiritual presence in us (and in the entire universe) then there must be something more involved. That “more” is that God is now present in a fuller way to us. That fuller way includes his body, blood and soul as well as his divinity, and he shares it not just with our soul but with our body and blood also.

To summarize, through the Real Presence in the Eucharist Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, shares the fullness of himself with the fullness of each of us. Since both he and we are now corporeal beings, he shares his corporeal self with our corporeal selves. That is the Real Presence. It is the inevitable outcome of the Incarnation whereby Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, took uponhimself fully and forever our human nature, which is a corporeal nature as well as a spiritual nature.

 

[ConallCernach]

Isn’t God present everywhere spiritually? So how would the Eucharist be any different in that case?

Here’s the view that I find totally convincing. God is no longer just spirit. With the Incarnation he has taken on body, blood and soul as well. We also are creatures of body, blood and soul. So if the Eucharist was to be any different than God’s spiritual presence in us (and in the entire universe) then there must be something more involved. That “more” is that God is now present in a fuller way to us. That fuller way includes his body, blood and soul as well as his divinity, and he shares it not just with our soul but with our body and blood also.

To summarize, through the Real Presence in the Eucharist Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, shares the fullness of himself with the fullness of each of us. Since both he and we are now corporeal beings, he shares his corporeal self with our corporeal selves. That is the Real Presence. It is the inevitable outcome of the Incarnation whereby Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, took uponhimself fully and forever our human nature, which is a corporeal nature as well as a spiritual nature.

That is an excellent point. Thank you for posting that!

Pax

 

[holly_potter]

Thanks, all, for your insight! It really helped

Just was tricky theology…

 

[FCEGM]

Isn’t God present everywhere spiritually? So how would the Eucharist be any different in that case?

Here’s the view that I find totally convincing. God is no longer just spirit. With the Incarnation he has taken on body, blood and soul as well. We also are creatures of body, blood and soul. So if the Eucharist was to be any different than God’s spiritual presence in us (and in the entire universe) then there must be something more involved. That “more” is that God is now present in a fuller way to us. That fuller way includes his body, blood and soul as well as his divinity, and he shares it not just with our soul but with our body and blood also.

To summarize, through the Real Presence in the Eucharist Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, shares the fullness of himself with the fullness of each of us. Since both he and we are now corporeal beings, he shares his corporeal self with our corporeal selves. That is the Real Presence. It is the inevitable outcome of the Incarnation whereby Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, took uponhimself fully and forever our human nature, which is a corporeal nature as well as a spiritual nature.

A succinct answer, extremely well said. :clapping: