Transubstantiation...Your Take?

[GaryTaylor]

I agree. The question is should it be dogma such that alternative explanations are disallowed?

Sure it should and is why it was affirmed by Pope Paul VI. Due to blatant errors which continued to exist.

The Early Church Fathers were very close to Trans and as early as 400.

"The term transubstantiation is taken from the Latin words trans (change) and substantia (substance). This term was incorporated into the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. However, its antiquity goes back to the early Greek Fathers of the Church who used the word meta-ousiosis. Literally, this means change of one ousia or being—that of bread and wine—into another ousia or being, that of Christ’s living body and blood.

As understood by the Catholic Church, transubstantiation means that the whole substance of bread and wine cease to exist at the consecration at Mass. What we must be very clear about is that it is the whole substance of bread and wine which becomes the whole humanity of Christ. It is not only that the substance of bread and wine becomes the substance of Christ’s body and blood. No. The substance of bread and wine becomes everything which makes Christ Christ.

Normally we speak of the substance of anything as that which makes a thing what it is. With transubstantiation, however, the substance of bread and wine becomes everything which Christ is. After transub-stantiation, the physical properties of bread and wine remain. But the “itness” or “thingness” of bread and wine ceases to exist. What had been the substance of bread and wine now becomes the whole Christ, in the words of the Council of Trent, the totus Christus.

Is Christ, therefore, present in the Holy Eucharist with everything that makes Him who He is? Yes. In other words, it is not just the substance of Christ’s humanity which becomes present on the altar through transubstantiation. It is Jesus Christ whole and entire."

therealpresence.org/archives/Eucharist/Eucharist_023.htm

I don’t see an issue with it.

 

[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.

It is possible that someone here might challenge that.

GKC

 

[SteveVH]

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.

The early Church Fathers never heard the word so its a moot point. It wasn’t around unitl the 11th century, I think. This proves absolutely nothing. They certainly believed in the real presence. It seems that what upsets you is that when the Church defines a dogma or doctrine it leaves no room for other considerations. That is exactly the purpose of defining something; to remove ambiguity so that the faithful know very well what it is they are to believe. We believe that this is not just a function of human reasoning but that a defined dogma or doctrine is the product of the Holy Spirit who leads the Church into all truth, as Christ promised.

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?

Christians should believe in truth, whether it is scientific truth or philisophical truth. What does it matter if we borrow the language of a philosopher that best describes the supernatural event? Do you have a better definition? Better yet, do you even believe in the real presence to begin with and if you do then why are you not Christian?

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.

The Church is always open to truth. The Church is not open to blessing just any idea that surfaces, however. The Church cannot allow error to enter into its doctrines. Either it is lead by the Holy Spirit or it is not. If it is then we can trust its doctrines and teachings. If it is not then I and every other Catholic are fools.

 

[smaneck]

Sure it should and is why it was affirmed by Pope Paul VI. Due to blatant errors which continued to exist.

So one is required to believe not just in Jesus and the Real Presence but in Aristotelian metaphysics as well.

When exactly was Aristotle baptized that Christians should be required to believe in him?

 

[JonNC]

Thanks, Jon. Just to make sure I understand. You then believe that once consecrated, the host remains the body and blood of Christ, is that correct?

I think the correct response is we don’t know, as Christ never speaks to the issue, other than to say that the puropse is to eat and drink for the remission of sins, in remembrance of Him. To that end, it is best to err on the side of caution. The “best” practice, according to the LCMS is consumption of all the consecrated elements at the end of the sacramental act, save that which is used for sick and shut in.

It sounds to me like you follow the same procedure as the Catholic Church concerning the unconsumed hosts and wine.

Somewhat, but generally, and only rarely, is the reliquae placed on display.

Having said that, what is the Lutheran view of Eucharistic adoration?

For most Lutherans, Eucharistic adoration is confined to the sacramental act. Luther himself had no problem with Eucharistic Adoration outside the sacramental act, but opposed Corpus Christi processions.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by IgnatianPhilo
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.

If Luther said it is not bread and wine any more then he was right. At least on that topic.

I think the key word in your fist post, from a Lutheran perspective, is “merely”. Lutherans can and do speak of a change, but not one tied to any metaphysics. What we know is what Christ said, “This [bread] is my body…”

Paul interchangeably speak of bread and body in 1st Corinthians, and Melanchthon confirms in the Apology that it is changed to real flesh. Our senses tell us bread and wine, our faith body and blood (not that the real presence is dependent on our faith).

Jon

 

[CopticChristian]

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.
It is ahistorical to project a medieval European synthesis of Aristotelian philosophy and Christian theology back on the early church fathers.

Smaneck,

Does an explanation change what you are trying to explain?

 

[CopticChristian]

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.
It is ahistorical to project a medieval European synthesis of Aristotelian philosophy and Christian theology back on the early church fathers.

Smack,

According to this, the issue of accidents is not imported, it is substance…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

The Council of Trent in its 13th session ending October 11, 1551, defined transubstantiation as “that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation”.[10] This council officially approved use of the term “transubstantiation” to express the Catholic Church’s teaching on the subject of the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist,[11] with the aim of safeguarding Christ’s presence as a literal truth, while emphasizing the fact that there is no change in the empirical appearances of the bread and wine.[12] It did not however impose the Aristotelian theory of substance and accidents: it spoke only of the species (the appearances), not the philosophical term “accidents”, and the word “substance” was in ecclesiastical use for many centuries before Aristotelian philosophy was adopted in the West,[13] as shown for instance by its use in the Nicene Creed which speaks of Christ having the same “οὐσία” (Greek) or “substantia” (Latin) as the Father.

 

[SteveVH]

I think the correct response is we don’t know, as Christ never speaks to the issue, other than to say that the puropse is to eat and drink for the remission of sins, in remembrance of Him. To that end, it is best to err on the side of caution. The “best” practice, according to the LCMS is consumption of all the consecrated elements at the end of the sacramental act, save that which is used for sick and shut in.

Somewhat, but generally, and only rarely, is the reliquae placed on display.

For most Lutherans, Eucharistic adoration is confined to the sacramental act. Luther himself had no problem with Eucharistic Adoration outside the sacramental act, but opposed Corpus Christi processions.

Jon

Thanks. I appreciate it.

 

[joe370]

JonNC;10350935]The Lutheran Reformers rejected Transubstantiation (and consubstantiation), on the grounds that it tries to explain the mystery of the consecration in a metaphysical/ philosophical Aristotelian construct. Instead, we speak of the real presence in terms of Christ’s words: “This [bread] is my body”, etc. And we further rely on St. Paul’s usage of bread and wine/ body and blood in 1 Corinthians.

Hey Jon. Upon the words of consecration, Christians belonging to the Lutheran Church believe that the bread and wine are both completely (albeit mystically) transformed into Jesus Body and Blood - right? Or, does the LC teach and believe that both Jesus’ Body and Blood, (upon the words of consecration) and mere bread and wine, (which is all that remains visible) - are offered up to the Father?

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon. Upon the words of consecration, Christians belonging to the Lutheran Church believe that the bread and wine are both completely (albeit mystically) transformed into Jesus Body and Blood - right? Or, does the LC teach and believe that both Jesus’ Body and Blood, (upon the words of consecration) and mere bread and wine, (which is all that remains visible) - are offered up to the Father?

Hi Joe,
How are you?

The problem with “transformed” is it implies substance / accidents. Here is what we know: that Christ says the bread and wine ARE His body and blood. Luther indicates that, based on Pauls testimony in 1 Corinthians, there’s no reason to deny the existence of bread and wine. I personally believe there is a danger if this is taken out of context, the context being that the bread and wine are His body and blood. It isn’t a mix, or a third substance. It isn’t even a joint local presence of some sort. We confess that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Joe,
How are you?

The problem with “transformed” is it implies substance / accidents. Here is what we know: that Christ says the bread and wine ARE His body and blood. Luther indicates that, based on Pauls testimony in 1 Corinthians, there’s no reason to deny the existence of bread and wine. I personally believe there is a danger if this is taken out of context, the context being that the bread and wine are His body and blood. It isn’t a mix, or a third substance. It isn’t even a joint local presence of some sort. We confess that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ.

Jon

You believe Christ’s body is bread and his blood is wine? That there is no change in the species? So we do have quite a difference. We no longer refer to concecrated wine as “wine”, but rather the precious blood. Same with the host. It is no longer bread, but Christ’s body (and his soul and divinity as well). Interesting.

 

[PRmerger]

So one is required to believe not just in Jesus and the Real Presence but in Aristotelian metaphysics as well.

When exactly was Aristotle baptized that Christians should be required to believe in him?

All Truth is Catholic truth, smaneck. One need not be Catholic to proclaim it, but if it is in conformity to Truth, then we believe it as Catholics.

 

[PRmerger]

Personally, I like how the Orthodox define things: they profess the Real Presence, but as to how it happens, they say, “We’re good with it being a mystery!”

I agree.

However, if the Church heavy-hitters want to attempt to define how the Real Presence happens, and they’ve provided an explication as to how it happens, it’s above my pay-grade to say, “No, it can’t happen like that.”

 

[benjohnson]

You believe Christ’s body is bread and his blood is wine? That there is no change in the species? .

Lutherans don’t think Christ is some sort of bread-man.

As I understand it, we think “this is his body.” And that’s it. Jesus told us, and that’s all we need to accept the mystery.

What we bring to the alter is bread, and what we receive is Jesus, and while there is a specific time when it is no-longer bread - we don’t think of it going through a transformation process.

 

[GaryTaylor]

"It simply means a change of substance. There are only two types of changes, substantial and not-substantial (i.e. accidental). That is to say, if a thing changes, it either changes into another substance (into another thing) or some non-essential feature of it changes. But if a non-essential feature of something changes, we continue to refer to it in the same way. When a man gets a hair cut, we continue calling him a man; but when a log is burnt, we begin calling it a pile of ash.

In some rare cases we do change a name for something after it undergoes an accidental change. But we only do this when the name is associated with the thing accidentally. Thus we no longer call a bachelor a bachelor after he marries (an accidental or relational change). We call him a husband. Yet the name “bachelor” is an accidental term in the first place. He is a man; he is accidentally a bachelor and later becomes accidentally a husband. Throughout the change he is referred to as a man, because that is what we call him in reference to his essence.

Now bread is not called “bread” accidentally but essentially. Therefore the only time it would be proper to call it something else is when it had changed (substantially) into something else. e.g. If we burnt it into a pile of ash, we would call it a pile of ash. We would not call it something other than bread if it only changed accidentally.

But the fathers spoke of the bread differently after the consecration. They referred to it as “the Body” which is compatible only with a substantial change. Therefore, when the fathers spoke of a change in the Eucharist, they were speaking of a substantial change. Since Transubstantiation simply means “substantial change,” they were speaking of what we now call Transubstantiation"

calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/church-fathers-on-transubstantiation/

Above the author quotes St Theodoret of Cyr, though abbreviated. The writing is called “Dialogue between the Beggar and True Believer”. Its worth reading the entire text.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I was talking with a buddy of mine the other day, who is a retired Luthern(ELCA) pastor. His view of Holy Eucharist is very similar to Catholicism, as in the RP, but he is the one that spoke about feeding the left overs to birds and squirrels. I just think that within the Lutheran Church there are many different views of how and what happens to the bread and wine. Would that be a correct statement Jon or another Lutheran? I do believe that like Anglicans, Lutherans are so very close to Catholicism in their beliefs on the Holy Eucharist.

Luther explicitly rejected transubstantiation, believing that the bread and wine remained fully bread and fully wine while also being fully the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Luther instead emphasized the sacramental union (not exactly the consubstantiation, as it is often claimed). Lutherans believe that within the Eucharistic celebration the body and blood of Jesus Christ are objectively present “in, with, and under the forms” of bread and wine (cf. Book of Concord). They place great stress on Jesus’ instructions to “take and eat”, and “take and drink”, holding that this is the proper, divinely ordained use of the sacrament, and, while giving it due reverence, scrupulously avoid any actions that might indicate or lead to superstition or unworthy fear of the sacrament. That idea is much closer than say a Evangelical Fundamentalist that states it is merely a symbolic act.

 

[MartinJordan]

If it is a sacramental union why is it that many of Jesus’ disciples walk away in John 6:66? Wouldn’t it be slightly more acceptable for the disciples to perhaps consider and be able to join in the Last Supper?

MJ

 

[GaryTaylor]

Simple words which seem so clear, This is my Body, This is my Blood.

Matthew: 26:26 “This is My Body.” 26:27 “This is My Blood…” Mark: 14:22 “This is My Body.” 14:24 “This is My Blood…” Luke: 22:19 “This is My Body.” etc.

 

[CopticChristian]

I was talking with a buddy of mine the other day, who is a retired Luthern(ELCA) pastor. His view of Holy Eucharist is very similar to Catholicism, as in the RP, but he is the one that spoke about feeding the left overs to birds and squirrels. I just think that within the Lutheran Church there are many different views of how and what happens to the bread and wine. Would that be a correct statement Jon or another Lutheran? I do believe that like Anglicans, Lutherans are so very close to Catholicism in their beliefs on the Holy Eucharist.

Luther explicitly rejected transubstantiation, believing that the bread and wine remained fully bread and fully wine while also being fully the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Luther instead emphasized the sacramental union (not exactly the consubstantiation, as it is often claimed). Lutherans believe that within the Eucharistic celebration the body and blood of Jesus Christ are objectively present “in, with, and under the forms” of bread and wine (cf. Book of Concord). They place great stress on Jesus’ instructions to “take and eat”, and “take and drink”, holding that this is the proper, divinely ordained use of the sacrament, and, while giving it due reverence, scrupulously avoid any actions that might indicate or lead to superstition or unworthy fear of the sacrament. That idea is much closer than say a Evangelical Fundamentalist that states it is merely a symbolic act.

Pop,

And as you say when considering an Evangelical or Fundamentalist that calls this the Lords Supper or Ordincance and can’t figure out how often to do this fail to see that the entirety of this scenario bears witness to this.

He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

If eating and drinking grape juice and crackers gives you eternal life and if bread and crackers is not the flesh…

Then it does profit nothing unless there is a means to understand this and believe it is flesh/blood filled with the Spirit…

The flesh is a vehicle for the Spirit and the question then remains what is the mechanism for this mystery to occur that bread and wine become flesh and blood…

If some Protestants accept some miracles why not this one that gives eternal life?