Transubstantiation "vs" Real Presence

[SPH1]

Shibboleth:

but there are some other qualities that must also remain in the Eucharist that transubstantiation conflicts with… (people that have allergic reactions to some of the sugars in breads still have allergic reactions after the transformation – so something of the chemical makeup must remain the same – and I would be willing to guess that if you drank enough of the wine we could see a rise in blood alcohol levels.)

The sacramental presence of Christ remains only so long as the “bread” and “wine” remain. By the time the alcohol hits the blood stream, the “wine” has broken down, is no longer wine, but is straight alcohol. I’d guess the same goes with allergic reaction to sugars in the bread.

 

[1962Missal]

:Tread carefully. You appear to imply that the bread and wine remain after the consecration. That is heresy.:

No, it’s heresy to say that the substance of bread and wine remain. Can you explain in 20 words or less what the Council meant by substance? Do you really think that “substance” is what most of us mean when we talk about a physical object? When I say “that is bread” I mean “that appears to my senses as bread, and if analyzed scientifically one would come to the conclusion that it is bread.” I’m not talking about some metaphysical substance–that isn’t something I generally think about when speaking of physical objects.

In Christ,

Edwin

That’s nice. I am well aware of the difference between substance and accidents. And, no, I don’t especially feel up to defining “substance” in twenty words or less.

I’ll let this stand for me.

Substance

And the previous poster implied that the Body and bread and the Precious Blood and the wine co-exist. That is heresy. The bread and wine cease to exist and only their accidents remain.

You appear to have misunderstood me.

Justin

 

[semperservus]

Thank you, 1962 MISSAL, for your welcome insight and warning regarding the presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. But I affirm my belief that indeed the substance of the bread does not remain after transubstatiation nor does that of the wine, otherwise no transubstantiation would have taken place. And yes, when talking about substance we are not talking here of its definition in the scientific sense, something that can be touched or seen, but on a different plain which the framers of the word “transubstantiation” understand, that substance is what makes something what it is. However, this definition, this frame of mind is unfamilliar to most of our Catholic members unlike those of the past who live and breathe the various philosophical issues. The purpose of philosophy is to expound on the theological questions and make them understandable to human reasoning but in our present time, to stick with this philosophical terminology has brought us to arguments which are hard to continue because the persons concerned are speaking from different points of view. I think that the Church has to find a better term to use of course without sacrificing the theological truth of the Eucharistic Mystery.

 

[JARVET]

The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.

Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

Who believes this and who disagrees with this, and why do you feel the way that you do?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

This original thread is 3yrs old?

 

[O.S.Luke]

I think someone earlier hit upon the difficulty of transubstantiation. You need some in-depth study of philosophy to understand it… and it seems the wrong discipline to use when discussing a sacrament/mysterion. I did my thesis on Real Presence, and what I found out is that there is no easy explanation. It might even be dangerous to offer one, given all that is at stake when it comes to means of grace and sacramental theology.

And, for the record, the Lutheran Church’s official stance is NOT consubstantiation (Luther never used the term). Luther never used the term, and official Lutheran teachings reject outright any philosophical explanations of Christ’s present at the Eucharist or attempts to give it exact meaning. The Eastern Orthodox have headed this direction as well.

Luther’s concept about Real Presence was sacramental union, and he gave the image of an iron put into the fire; both the fire and iron are united, becoming a red-hot iron… yet the fire and the iron still remain.

Catholic theologian Edward Schillebeeckx once coined the term transsignification, which I always thought if we were going to even USE a term to describe what happens to the bread and wine at the Eucharist, caught the essence of what happens. But he came close to being censured by the Catholic Church for his work.

My own Methodist and Anglican background used the term transubstantiation more with anti-Catholic rhetoric than theological conviction. The Eucharistic hymns that Charles Wesley (John’s brother) wrote, however, clearly point to Real Presence. For example:

Come, and partake the Gospel feast;
Be saved from sin; in Jesus rest;
O taste the goodness of your God,
And eat His flesh, and drink His blood!

• Come, Sinners, to the Gospel Feast, 1747

O the depth of love divine, th’unfathomable grace!
Who shall say how bread and wine God into us conveys!
How the bread His flesh imparts, how the wine transmits His blood,
Fills His faithful people’s hearts with all the life of God!
-O the Depth of Love Divine, 1745

Maybe the Holy Mystery of the Eucharist is meant to just be a mystery. The bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Period. No further explanation necessary… or even possible!

 

[FaithofAbraham]

The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.

Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

Who believes this and who disagrees with this, and why do you feel the way that you do?

For me it is just a sign I accept Jesus as Messiah (bread) that brings the New Covenant (wine). All the rest I disregard.

 

[Hesychios]

I think someone earlier hit upon the difficulty of transubstantiation. You need some in-depth study of philosophy to understand it… and it seems the wrong discipline to use when discussing a sacrament/mysterion. I did my thesis on Real Presence, and what I found out is that there is no easy explanation. It might even be dangerous to offer one, given all that is at stake when it comes to means of grace and sacramental theology.

And, for the record, the Lutheran Church’s official stance is NOT consubstantiation (Luther never used the term). Luther never used the term, and official Lutheran teachings reject outright any philosophical explanations of Christ’s present at the Eucharist or attempts to give it exact meaning. The Eastern Orthodox have headed this direction as well.

Luther’s concept about Real Presence was sacramental union, and he gave the image of an iron put into the fire; both the fire and iron are united, becoming a red-hot iron… yet the fire and the iron still remain.

Catholic theologian Edward Schillebeeckx once coined the term transsignification, which I always thought if we were going to even USE a term to describe what happens to the bread and wine at the Eucharist, caught the essence of what happens. But he came close to being censured by the Catholic Church for his work.

My own Methodist and Anglican background used the term transubstantiation more with anti-Catholic rhetoric than theological conviction. The Eucharistic hymns that Charles Wesley (John’s brother) wrote, however, clearly point to Real Presence. For example:

Maybe the Holy Mystery of the Eucharist is meant to just be a mystery. The bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Period. No further explanation necessary… or even possible!

Good post, and nicely informative.

Just to make things a bit more clear, the Orthodox church is not headed in any direction. It is just where it has been.

We do not subscribe to the Roman Catholic distinctions between transubstantiation and the others. Some of these terms might work in a conversation and none of them really suffice.

We don’t split mysteries with atom smashers.

 

[JARVET]

Good post, and nicely informative.

Just to make things a bit more clear, the Orthodox church is not headed in any direction. It is just where it has been.

We do not subscribe to the Roman Catholic distinctions between transubstantiation and the others. Some of these terms might work in a conversation and none of them really suffice.

We don’t split mysteries with atom smashers.

what do Orthodox believe?

 

[bpbasilphx]

**
The key seems to be that, with the uniquely Catholic belief of Transubstantiation, there is absolutely no substance of bread nor wine left, merely the FORM.**

The word you’re looking for here is not “FORM” but “ACCIDENTS”–that which can be perceived by the senses, weighed, measured, and such–as opposed to the SUBSTANCE–that invisible undetctable property that makes a thing what it is.

Keep in mind that “substance” and “accidents” are used in a technical philosophical sense NOT used in ordinarly speech.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Keep in mind that “substance” and “accidents” are used in a technical philosophical sense NOT used in ordinarly speech.

Which is why I think transubstantiation is not a helpful term at all when it comes to the Real Presence - ordinary speech is not going to handle substance and accidents in an Aristotelian and Thomistic context.

99.66% of people in the world don’t have a clue about a philosophical explanation of the Eucharist - that’s what Transubstantiation basically is. Trying to explain the mystery, in my opinion, takes away from the mystery.

It’s the Body & Blood of Christ - the Mystery of Faith, a Holy Mystery. Christ is really present. Why not leave it at that? Any man-made explanation is at best inadequate anyway, and possibly blasphemous!

O+

 

[Hesychios]

what do Orthodox believe?

We believe that Our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ is really and truly present in the Holy Eucharist.

He told us so.

That’s it.

 

[Mickey]

Trying to explain the mystery, in my opinion, takes away from the mystery.

It’s the Body & Blood of Christ - the Mystery of Faith, a Holy Mystery. Christ is really present. Why not leave it at that? Any man-made explanation is at best inadequate anyway, and possibly blasphemous!

O+

Amen.

 

[JimG]

I think the only reason for trying to “explain” the real presence, is that it becomes necessary if someone gives an explanation that is inherently in conflict with doctrine, that is, in conflict with what has always been believed about the Eucharist.

For example, should some theologian say, well, ‘it is only a symbolic presence’, or ‘it is a spiritual presence only’ or some other formulation which contradicts Christ’s words: This IS my body, then the Church must clarify that that is not what we believe.

Just because people have never learned the philosophical meanings of substance and accident doesn’t mean that we can’t use them to describe what happens.

For example, if Christ is present “in and with” the elements, that is not transubstantiation, and it implies that if one were to break the Eucharistic host, one is also breaking Jesus. But we don’t believe that. We believe that Jesus is present “under” the appearances, not “within” them. When the host is broken, Jesus remains whole and entire.

 

[JonNC]

I have also heard a Lutheran explain, and this seems pretty strange, that Christ exists because of the BELIEF of the people in the congregation in the Real Presence. So there seemingly is no sacrament involved there, to them, it’s some sort of mystical expeirence that makes God dependent upon their own faith. This person could have been misstating his church’s views, but it shows how convuluted people can get over “real”.

This person was misstating the Lutheran view.

"We hold that the bread and the wine in the supper are the true body and blood of Christ and that these are given and recieved not only by godly but also by wicked Christians"

Smalcald, Part III Article 6

It is Christ’s institution and command, not the belief or disbelief of any individual receiving or administering the sacrament.

 

[Mickey]

I think the only reason for trying to “explain” the real presence, is that it becomes necessary if someone gives an explanation that is inherently in conflict with doctrine, that is, in conflict with what has always been believed about the Eucharist.

For example, should some theologian say, well, ‘it is only a symbolic presence’, or ‘it is a spiritual presence only’ or some other formulation which contradicts Christ’s words: This IS my body, then the Church must clarify that that is not what we believe.

It was not necessary. Trying to explain transubstantiation to someone usually confuses them.

It is the Real Presence. It is a great mystery. A scholastic definition diminishes this great mystery!

 

[manualman]

I’m no theologian, but perhaps I can help with the idea of substance and accidents. Take the Mona Lisa, the canvass, the paints, the brush strokes, the colors, the age cracking… What if one were able to precisely replicate absolutely EVERYTHING such that the duplicate was entirely indistinguishable from the original. Would there then be two Mona Lisas? No. There’d be one and a fake. The accidents might be identical, but the copy would not be the Mona Lisa in its very substance.

What if I then took the REAL Mona Lisa and defaced it by scraping off much of the paint? Would the copy then replace the original as the authentic Mona Lisa? After all, now it is the only one that matches the precise historic accounts and photographs of what the Mona Lisa IS. No. I changed the accidents, but that didn’t change the substance of either one. Only one is still the Mona Lisa, even if defaced.

When a man dies, his accidents don’t change instantly at the moment of death. He still has quite a few live cells, his body looks no different, he hasn’t cooled yet… But his soul has gone. The body has changed in substance though not yet in accidents. What lies before me is no longer Uncle Tom, it is just his body.

The Eucharist IS the body of Christ. The accidents haven’t changed, but the substance has. The senses perceive no difference and the most powerful electron microscope won’t see a molecular difference, the accidents of alcohol still affect the mind the same… But in its actual substance, it is no longer bread and wine. It is Jesus.

Frankly, I see no reduction in mystery since it is still only partially comprehensible to the mind, like any good mystery!

 

[Mickey]

I’m no theologian, but perhaps I can help with the idea of substance and accidents. Take the Mona Lisa, the canvass, the paints, the brush strokes, the colors, the age cracking… What if one were able to precisely replicate absolutely EVERYTHING such that the duplicate was entirely indistinguishable from the original. Would there then be two Mona Lisas? No. There’d be one and a fake. The accidents might be identical, but the copy would not be the Mona Lisa in its very substance.

What if I then took the REAL Mona Lisa and defaced it by scraping off much of the paint? Would the copy then replace the original as the authentic Mona Lisa? After all, now it is the only one that matches the precise historic accounts and photographs of what the Mona Lisa IS. No. I changed the accidents, but that didn’t change the substance of either one. Only one is still the Mona Lisa, even if defaced.

When a man dies, his accidents don’t change instantly at the moment of death. He still has quite a few live cells, his body looks no different, he hasn’t cooled yet… But his soul has gone. The body has changed in substance though not yet in accidents. What lies before me is no longer Uncle Tom, it is just his body.

The Eucharist IS the body of Christ. The accidents haven’t changed, but the substance has. The senses perceive no difference and the most powerful electron microscope won’t see a molecular difference, the accidents of alcohol still affect the mind the same… But in its actual substance, it is no longer bread and wine. It is Jesus.

Frankly, I see no reduction in mystery since it is still only partially comprehensible to the mind, like any good mystery!

You see. It took you four paragraphs in an attempt to explain it.
It is much better to say:
The Real Presence is a glorious, holy, and awesome Mystery!

 

[East_and_West]

Good post, and nicely informative.

Just to make things a bit more clear, the Orthodox church is not headed in any direction. It is just where it has been.

We do not subscribe to the Roman Catholic distinctions between transubstantiation and the others. Some of these terms might work in a conversation and none of them really suffice.

We don’t split mysteries with atom smashers.

I have never really understood the Eastern Orthodox objection to transubstantiation. The doctrine really teaches nothing more than the fact that the Stuff becomes Jesus while the appearance and behavior remain that of bread and wine. Is this not what the Eastern Orthodox believe? I think Eastern Objections are nothing more than polemics for the sake of polemics. Anti-Catholicism is strong in the East, even amongst Eastern doctrinal forumlations.

 

[East_and_West]

Which is why I think transubstantiation is not a helpful term at all when it comes to the Real Presence - ordinary speech is not going to handle substance and accidents in an Aristotelian and Thomistic context.

99.66% of people in the world don’t have a clue about a philosophical explanation of the Eucharist - that’s what Transubstantiation basically is. Trying to explain the mystery, in my opinion, takes away from the mystery.

O+

That’s only because people now days are phisophically/theologically dumber than they used to be. Lets not dumb it down but, rather, call everone to a higher standard.