Transubstantiation...Your Take?

[GaryTaylor]

The finality here strikes me, Jesus said; (John 6:53). “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.”

 

[aidanbradypop]

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.

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?

Because their belief is that simply believing in Christ and asking him to be their Lord and Redeemer is all one needs to do. The Lord Supper is simply symbolic to them and they could do without it because it is not a factor in their salvation. This topic was so huge in a small group I attended. Lutherans sided with me and the Evangelicals “prayed” for us.

The finality here strikes me, Jesus said; (John 6:53). “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.”

 

[SteveVH]

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.

Nor do we. We believe it goes throught a Transubstantiation process, which is really not a “process” at all. It happens in the twinking of an eye. The form remains the same. The substance changes.

 

[CopticChristian]

Because their belief is that simply believing in Christ and asking him to be their Lord and Redeemer is all one needs to do. The Lord Supper is simply symbolic to them and they could do without it because it is not a factor in their salvation. This topic was so huge in a small group I attended. Lutherans sided with me and the Evangelicals “prayed” for us.

Pop,

How is that going for the prayer thing…is it working?..hope they continue to pray for you.

 

[SteveVH]

"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.

Very nice.

 

[exnihilo]

I am not aware of any church, other than the Catholic, which accepts the philosophical understanding of transubstantiation as the explanation of what occurs at consecration. I believe some denominations do explicitly reject it as impossible and thus make a positive claim that Aristotelian substance theory is false. It seems to me many or most simply say it is a mystery so we do not know what happens. Many seem to disapprove of trying to define the consecration in terms of a specific metaphysical system.

Personally I find Substance theory interesting and compelling. I find transubstantiation to be credible but my view of consecrated elements would not be effected if transubstantiation is not precisely what occurs.

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

My grandmothers funeral was at a Lutheran (ELCA) chuch. The church had a box on the wall at the front of the church with a red candle on it. I was curious about that so I asked the pastor. He explained the prior pastor was a bit ‘Catholic’ and that he had put that in. But today they use it to keep the unconsecrated bread.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Pop,

How is that going for the prayer thing…is it working?..hope they continue to pray for you.

Well it all depends on what they are praying about for me. If they are praying I become a stronger Catholic, then yes they are working. If they are praying I convert to Evangelicalism, then no they are not working. But hey, I will take any prayers thrown my way. Lord knows I need them.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I am not aware of any church, other than the Catholic, which accepts the philosophical understanding of transubstantiation as the explanation of what occurs at consecration

Little more to it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metousiosis

 

[JonNC]

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.

No, the opposite. I believe, as Christ said, the bread is His body, the wine is His blood.

1 Cor. 10:16

The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord ?

That there is a change, there is no doubt.

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

Theodore of Mopsuestia 428-AD

on Matthew 26:26

"He did not say, “This is a symbol of My Body, and this, of My Blood,” but, "This is My Body and My Blood.

1] Teaching us not look upon the nature of what is set before us, but that it is Transformed

2] by means of Eucharistic action

3] into Flesh and Blood."

 

[JonNC]

Theodore of Mopsuestia 428-AD

on Matthew 26:26

"He did not say, “This is a symbol of My Body, and this, of My Blood,” but, "This is My Body and My Blood.

1] Teaching us not look upon the nature of what is set before us, but that it is Transformed

2] by means of Eucharistic action

3] into Flesh and Blood."

And yet the nature of that transformation is unknown to us, hence the mystery.

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

And yet the nature of that transformation is unknown to us, hence the mystery.

Jon

Mystery of the Church.

“Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, must firmly maintain that in objective reality, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the consecration, so that the adorable Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus from that moment on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine” Pope Paul VI

 

[GKC]

Mystery of the Church.

“Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, must firmly maintain that in objective reality, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the consecration, so that the adorable Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus from that moment on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine” Pope Paul VI

Sounds ok to me.

GKC

 

[draco_cupri]

Pop,

While St. Augustine preceded the notion of Transubstantiation it is clear he would have acknowledged it…based on this.

Exposition on Psalm 99:8:

I would say that part of the significance of the title, “Saint” Augustine, is that he would have acknowledged it based on the Church’s say so, without regard to his personal leanings.

 

[draco_cupri]

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.

Whatever Saint Augustine’s philosophical base, it is impossible that he could both have believed in the Real Presence, and simultaneously held that appearances and reality are the same. The consecrated host does not in fact look like the Resurrected Savior.

 

[draco_cupri]

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.

The doctrine of transubstantiation specifies that it is not merely “not mere” bread and wine — it is not bread and wine at all! The only thing remaining of the bread and wine is the appearance, but it is an appearance unsupported by any substance — the substance is the Body and Blood of Christ, despite appearances.

 

[draco_cupri]

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.

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?

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.

smaneck, Transubstantiation is the word used to denote the process. If you will lay out an alternate metaphysics for me, I will explain it to you in terms of your chosen metaphysics. It is a statement of reality, rather than a view of reality, and thus it is translatable into any particular view.

What do you suggest as a metaphysics?

 

[jwyates]

It becomes for me the body and blood of Jesus. It’s more than symbol… it’s God. I believe; Help my unbelief.

 

[draco_cupri]

I can’t speak on behalf of any denomination - only myself, and I’m a mutt - my dad is Christian (Desciples of Christ) and my mom is Roman Catholic. Transubstantiation is one of those things of most organized religions that leaves me scratching my head thinking, really?

Personally, I have always seen communion as a symbolic act of sharing in the body and blood of Christ. Not once have I ever thought that I was actually eating flesh and drinking blood. I agree there are many mysteries about God and the nature of faith, but I don’t see this as one of them. Frankly, it’s issues like this (among many others like confession and the infallibility of the Pope) that resulted in me choosing not to go through confirmation. If it’s a choice between “Believe what we say or else…” (the implication ranging from not belonging to the church to risking my immortal soul to eternal damnation), I’ll go my own way.

Not all Catholics believe in transubstantiation. I watched on one of my favorite historians/authors, Garry Wills, on The Colbert Report on 2/11/13 dispute the subject, stating that Augustine (a 3rd century Catholic - granted, but a valid respectable source) said it was ridiculous to say that we eat God, that we digest God, and excrete God. Wills went on to say that Christ, at the last supper said, “Eat this bread, it is my body”, he didn’t say “take a chunk out of my arm or tap my blood”. No wonder Wills won the Pulitzer with such wit and wisdom like that…

Offdoodykcrn, do you hold that there is objective truth, or that it is a matter of everyone’s opinion? I prefer to think of Catholic teaching as, “believe this because it is true,” rather than, “believe this or else!” I think it is natural to want to think the truth, whatever that may be.

 

[SteveVH]

Offdoodykcrn, do you hold that there is objective truth, or that it is a matter of everyone’s opinion? I prefer to think of Catholic teaching as, “believe this because it is true,” rather than, “believe this or else!” I think it is natural to want to think the truth, whatever that may be.

And that is exactly what I love about the Catholic Church. It is not afraid of reason or philosophy or metaphysics. It accepts truth wherever truth is found, recognizing whatever truth can be found in all religions and all philosophies. We believe it, as you say, “because its true”.

Great post.