How do the “real presence” and “transubstantiation” conflict? Transubstantiation only describes how Christ is present while the form and appearnce of the bread and wine still remain. And the word itself was not even in existence when Augustine lived. Is there something wrong with using philosophical terms when describing things beyond our grasp? I guess I’m missing your point.Excuse me folks, but St. Augustine is talking about the Real Presence, not transsubstantiation. Transsubstantiation is based on a Aristotelian metaphysics and St. Augustine was a Platonist.
I’m with you, but the difference seems to elude so many… I have heard extremes ranging to people relating Transubstantiation to cannibalism.Excuse me folks, but St. Augustine is talking about the Real Presence, not transsubstantiation. Transsubstantiation is based on a Aristotelian metaphysics and St. Augustine was a Platonist.
Like many other posters I don’t see the conflict between the two. That being said, I’m not as well versed in Greek philosophical schools.Excuse me folks, but St. Augustine is talking about the Real Presence, not transsubstantiation. Transsubstantiation is based on a Aristotelian metaphysics and St. Augustine was a Platonist.
Why don’t you explain what seems to be eluding the rest of us? Transubstantiation, obviously, assumes the real presence. One can believe in the real presence without ever hearing the word “transubstantiation”, as did the early Church before the word was coined.I’m with you, but the difference seems to elude so many… I have heard extremes ranging to people relating Transubstantiation to cannibalism.
Where is Garry Wills when I need him?Why don’t you explain what seems to be eluding the rest of us?
Your words seemed to convey the fact that you are very aware of what is eluding the rest of us; “I’m with you, but the difference seems to elude so many…”. Did I misunderstand your words?Where is Garry Wills when I need him?
In no way am I attempting to trump you, or come off as ‘smarter than thou’. You may find the answer here:Your words seemed to convey the fact that you are very aware of what is eluding the rest of us; “I’m with you, but the difference seems to elude so many…”. Did I misunderstand your words?
The doctrine of transsubstantiation does not merely name what is experience or believed but it gives a very specific metaphysical explanation for the experience or belief which excludes other explanations. It presumes a distinction between accidents and substances, something which is found nowhere in St. Augustine’s thought or to my knowledge any of early church fathers.Smaneck,
Excuse me but apples fell from tree long before someone called it gravity. Naming what is experienced or believed does not change the experience or belief.
Real Presence is a what. Transub is a how.I’m with you, but the difference seems to elude so many… I have heard extremes ranging to people relating Transubstantiation to cannibalism.
It is not an issue of transsubstantiation conflicting with the notion of the Real Presence. The issue is that transsubstantiation limits the understanding of the nature of Real Presence to a single metaphysics. One not only has to believe in the Real Presence but in Aristotilean metaphysics as well, and not all the early church fathers did.How do the “real presence” and “transubstantiation” conflict?
Yes, and that is exactly my point. Transsubstantiation represents an attempt to find an Aristotelian explanation for the Real Presence. My question is, why should Christians have to believe in Aristotelian metaphysics?Transubstantiation only describes how Christ is present while the form and appearnce of the bread and wine still remain. And the word itself was not even in existence when Augustine lived.
There is nothing wrong with it as long as the church remains open to other philosophical terms and concepts, recognizing that the doctrine of transsubstantiation represents only one explanation among many.Is there something wrong with using philosophical terms when describing things beyond our grasp? I guess I’m missing your point.
Sure, but do we really now the ‘how’ or is this just speculation?Real Presence is a what. Transub is a how.
GKC
That was Luther’s position.The bread and wine changes and no longer remains merely bread and wine. The exact way or how this is done I do not seek to engage in or know. All I know is that I do not take mere bread and wine.
Depends on whom you ask.Sure, but do we really now the ‘how’ or is this just speculation?
If Luther said it is not bread and wine any more then he was right. At least on that topic.That was Luther’s position.
Let me put it this way. Transsubstantiation presumes the Real Presence. The Real Presence does not presume Transsubstantiation. In other words Transsubstantiation is a subset, one explanation of the Real Presence but other explanations are certainly possible.Like many other posters I don’t see the conflict between the two.
Well, a Platonist might well say it is symbolic but not in the modern sense of the world as being merely figurative. For a Platonist a symbol participates directly in the reality of what it symbolizes.What would the Platonist philosophical belief be in the Real Presence?
I agree. The question is should it be dogma such that alternative explanations are disallowed?Depends on whom you ask.
For me, it’s as noble an effort to suggest how the wheels go around as any I have heard of.
GKC
Actually he didn’t say it was no longer bread and wine. He said the body and blood were really present in the bread and wine.If Luther said it is not bread and wine any more then he was right. At least on that topic.
Not in my opinion. But I am not the right one to ask.I agree. The question is should it be dogma such that alternative explanations are disallowed?