Transubstantiation?

[mercygate]

No place in Bible Scripture does the word: Transubstantiation exist. Jesus certainly did not use it…He said, do this in rememberance of Me.
He did not say crucify me every time you have communion…if you think it becomes the 'real’body and blood the you have put Christ back on the cross, through death and burrial, and life again.
The word and the interpretation of what Jesus said is of the church traditions.
And where anyone gets the idea that the apostles believe this I have not a clue. For if they been taught this by Jesus they would have taught it that way in scripture because it would have been God breathed. They would not have been giving us the truth of God’s word if they left it out.

RED HERRING! The OP is a respectful inquirer who has certainly heard all of these shopworn canards in her Baptist experience. Please at least start from where the OP has begun and for the purpose of discussion set aside these absurd and oft-refuted misrepresentations of Catholic teaching.

 

[fellowChristian]

Bethlehem is where Jesus was born.

It is Hebrew it means “house of bread”

Where did Mary place the baby Jesus?

In a manger.

What does manger mean?

“To Chew”

What do we put in a manger?

Something to eat.

What did Jesus say in John 6?

51"I am the **living bread **that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."

He will live forever?

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

How do we abide in Jesus?

56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

So Jesus is born in a place that means “House of Bread” and layed in a manger where food is placed and He calls Himself “the living bread”.

What do you do with bread?

Jesus said eat the flesh of the Son of Man, Not eat the flesh and understand.

 

[JTBT]

Hi JTBT,
I hope this thread continues and the conversation proves fruitful.
Could you elaborate on the different understanding of metaphysics you are referring to? Maybe that can help push the conversation in the right direction.
Thanks,
VC

Excellent. Thank you! I don’t understand what you mean by “metaphysics” as that term (to me) has more to do with magic or secularism than Christian miracles like the Eucharist.
Are Christian miracles considered metaphysical events in your theology? :ehh:

no CM we do not consider miracles metaphysical but the term Transubstantiation is linked to metaphysics because of the way the term was arrived at; so in a way your theology does.
see rwoehmke post he hit the nail on the head.
This may give you a deeper understanding of WHY Protestants reject Transubstantiation, because as you said metaphysics has more to do with magic or secularism than Christian miracles.
I think this is a good example of what can happen when we try to hard to get heaven into our head (butchered GK quote)

as far as Real Presence… well I’m thinking on it, in my opinion a strong Biblical is made

Some of the apostles, particularly John and Mathew were involved in writing their Gospels, if not directly, at least indirectly. John 6 teaches “This IS my body” "This IS my blood.

St. Paul teaches this in one of his epistles. The very early writers, called The Church Fathers taught this. As centuries passed, it has been taught in every age. In about the 11th Century St. Thomas, using the meta-physics of Aristotle explained the Mystery that had been taught for at least a millenium and called the change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ transsubstantiation; a new word trying to explain, what had been held as fact for centuries and which has continued to be held by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to this very day.

A lot of our modern doubt occurs because the notion of substance in modern science is quite different from the notion of substance in the meta-physics of St. Thomas. I am no great shakes as a meta-physician so perhaps someone else can go from here.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Excellent. Thank you! I don’t understand what you mean by “metaphysics” as that term (to me) has more to do with magic or secularism than Christian miracles like the Eucharist.

Are Christian miracles considered metaphysical events in your theology? :ehh:

CM,

I think, too, that it might be useful to explore what JTBT meant by a different understanding of metaphysics.

As far as metaphysics itself goes, sometimes the popular usage refers to magic/occultism/spiritism tomfoolery, but the classical and academic use of the word refers to the fundamental principles of reality.

So, metaphysics, classically understood, is of utmost importance – and definitely must play a part in our understanding of the Eucharist, or God, or miracles, etc.

The underlying principles of reality that one ascribes to determines, in a certain sense, the rest of the conversation. For instance, materialists (a *very *common ideology these days) ascribe to a metaphysics that posits that all reality is composed only of matter and energy variously arranged. Thus - there are no “minds”, no souls, no angels, etc.

I don’t think JTBT had that type of revolutionary metaphysics in mind when she mentioned a “different understanding” though – because it would contradict all of Christian thought, not just transubstantiation.

Perhaps what she was really getting at is (a somewhat related topic) regarding our different understanding of physics – i.e. atomic theory, string theory, quantum physics, etc. But these things relate to the physical sciences, and do not address (directly) the fundamental principles of reality that apply across the board to everything. Physics only deals with matter and energy, you still need some type of metaphysics – even a erroneous one such as materialism which posits that matter and energy are the only things that exist.

Thoughts?
VC

**edit: **JTBT we just cross posted, and I hadn’t read your post before I posted mine. Can you comment on my post above? Thanks,
VC

 

[JTBT]

No place in Bible Scripture does the word: Transubstantiation exist. Jesus certainly did not use it…He said, do this in rememberance of Me.
He did not say crucify me every time you have communion…if you think it becomes the 'real’body and blood the you have put Christ back on the cross, through death and burrial, and life again.
The word and the interpretation of what Jesus said is of the church traditions.
And where anyone gets the idea that the apostles believe this I have not a clue. For if they been taught this by Jesus they would have taught it that way in scripture because it would have been God breathed. They would not have been giving us the truth of God’s word if they left it out.

I hear you CB, I don’t agree with the word Transubstantiation either because of the philosophy behind it; however,
Real Presence is a different story, a strong Biblical case can be made to support this, the Roman Catholics are not the only ones who believe this, the Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans (I Think) also believe in Real Presence,

 

[chris_molter]

Why do Catholics believe that Bread and Wine Actually change in substance, that is, that they are no longer Bread and Wine?
It seems you can believe in the Real Presences with out the Bread and Wine actually changing into some other substance.

A very good Priest once said (and I’m paraphrasing as best my memory allows):

“Unless you can prostrate yourself before the Eucharist and declare ‘My Lord and my God!’, you don’t believe in the Real Presence.”

That was a really big step in my understanding of Catholic Eucharistic practice (I was still Episcopalian at the time).

 

[mercygate]

no CM we do not consider miracles metaphysical but the term Transubstantiation is linked to metaphysics because of the way the term was arrived at; so in a way your theology does.
see rwoehmke post he hit the nail on the head.
This may give you a deeper understanding of WHY Protestants reject Transubstantiation, because as you said metaphysics has more to do with magic or secularism than Christian miracles.
I think this is a good example of what can happen when we try to hard to get heaven into our head (butchered GK quote)

as far as Real Presence… well I’m thinking on it, in my opinion a strong Biblical is made

Yeah. I’m kinda standing on one foot waiting for clarification of the idea that metaphysics is “secularist” or “magic.” The origin of a metaphysical philosophy in a secular context does not make it not antithetical to Christian theology. I also prefer not to refer to the Real Presence of Christ as a “miracle” since it tends to confuse people when we try to discuss the kinds of miracles we refer to when verifying miracles for canonizing saints. The definition of a miracle for that purpose requires a physical manifestation. We don’t have that with the Eucharist.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Bethlehem is where Jesus was born.

It is Hebrew it means “house of bread”

Where did Mary place the baby Jesus?

In a manger.

What does manger mean?

“To Chew”

What do we put in a manger?

Something to eat.

What did Jesus say in John 6?

51"I am the **living bread **that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."

He will live forever?

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

How do we abide in Jesus?

56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

So Jesus is born in a place that means “House of Bread” and layed in a manger where food is placed and He calls Himself “the living bread”.

What do you do with bread?

Jesus said eat the flesh of the Son of Man, Not eat the flesh and understand.

fellowChristian I love your simple but extremely effective style that integratively threads scripture and the significance of word meaning to paint an undeniable picture with God’s very God-breathed words using only a minimalist commentary that links it all together using the Socratic method. Bravo - you are a master. :bowdown2:

James

 

[JTBT]

Yeah. I’m kinda standing on one foot waiting for clarification of the idea that metaphysics is “secularist” or “magic.” The origin of a metaphysical philosophy in a secular context does not make it not antithetical to Christian theology. I also prefer not to refer to the Real Presence of Christ as a “miracle” since it tends to confuse people when we try to discuss the kinds of miracles we refer to when verifying miracles for canonizing saints. The definition of a miracle for that purpose requires a physical manifestation. We don’t have that with the Eucharist.

maybe a mystery then… like the EO say

 

[VociMike]

No place in Bible Scripture does the word: Transubstantiation exist.

So…What…? Is this actually supposed to be an argument?

Jesus certainly did not use it…He said, do this in rememberance of Me.

And he said “This is my body”. So we believe it to be his body. Couldn’t be any simpler.

He did not say crucify me every time you have communion…if you think it becomes the 'real’body and blood the you have put Christ back on the cross, through death and burrial, and life again.

Please, please, make the tiniest little effort to find out what the Catholic Church actually teaches, OK? Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think Christ would let himself be re-crucified thousands and thousands of times each day?

The word and the interpretation of what Jesus said is of the church traditions.
And where anyone gets the idea that the apostles believe this I have not a clue. For if they been taught this by Jesus they would have taught it that way in scripture because it would have been God breathed. They would not have been giving us the truth of God’s word if they left it out.

So when Christ says “this is my body” that’s not Christ “teaching it that way” in scripture?

 

[VociMike]

I hear you CB, I don’t agree with the word Transubstantiation either because of the philosophy behind it; however,
Real Presence is a different story, a strong Biblical case can be made to support this, the Roman Catholics are not the only ones who believe this, the Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans (I Think) also believe in Real Presence,

Would you agree at least that the concept of transubstantiation perfectly expresses the words of Christ: “this is my body…this is my blood”?

Further, doesn’t every other explanation of the nature of the Eucharist require one to make additional assumptions about what Christ meant when he said “this is my body…this is my blood”? Assumptions that are not necessary in the transubstantiation explanation?

So why add additional assumptions when they are not necessary?

 

[JTBT]

Would you agree at least that the concept of transubstantiation perfectly expresses the words of Christ: “this is my body…this is my blood”?

No

Further, doesn’t every other explanation of the nature of the Eucharist require one to make additional assumptions about what Christ meant when he said “this is my body…this is my blood”? Assumptions that are not necessary in the transubstantiation explanation?

So why add additional assumptions when they are not necessary?

The term Transubstantiation is the additional assumption, that is my point, it wasn’t used until St. Thomas used it. The term Real Presence does not required any assumptions other that there are things about God that we do not understand.

 

[VociMike]

No

Why not? “Transubstantion” says nothing more than “this ‘bread’ and ‘wine’ you see are really Jesus Christ”, which seems to me to be a perfect expression of “this is my body…this is my blood”.

The term Transubstantiation is the additional assumption, that is my point, it wasn’t used until St. Thomas used it. The term Real Presence does not required any assumptions other that there are things about God that we do not understand.

What is the additional assumption in transubstantiation?

There is certainly an additional assumption in consubstantiation, and in symbolic-only, but I see no additional assumption in transubstantiation. Help me understand.

BTW, the term “real presence” is just another invented term. Why is it somehow more authentic, more accurate? What does it even mean? It is not self-explaining, so it must come with its own explanation. What is that explanation?

 

[mercygate]

No

The term Transubstantiation is the additional assumption, that is my point, it wasn’t used until St. Thomas used it. The term Real Presence does not required any assumptions other that there are things about God that we do not understand.

The term, Transubstantiation, does not exclude mystery. Certainly, as a believer in the hypostatic union and the Trinity, you do not exclude the occasional necessity of pinning down a doctrine that is only implicit in Scripture?

Historically, in the West, it became necessary to explicate this in a way that excluded inauthentic views of the Real Presence. So we get the term “Transubstantiation.” As a rule, the Church avoids defining things that have not become problematic.

The point behind the Real presence, where you would probably lock horns with both East and West, is the necessity of Apostolic Succession as the means Our Lord has provided for making the Real Presence “real.”

 

[CentralFLJames]

BTW, the term “real presence” is just another invented term. Why is it somehow more authentic, more accurate? What does it even mean? It is not self-explaining, so it must come with its own explanation. What is that explanation?

Agree. In fact real presence is pathetically weak in differentiating the real presence of “me” in my person from the real presence of “you” in your person from the real presence of God in Jesus.

The term real presence it too ordinary in its “realness” and inability to project the extraordinary nature of presence in a place where it is not normally expected.

The term transubstantiation is simultaneously through convention conveying extraordinary real-presence and is much higher level concept.

James

 

[Verbum_Caro]

maybe a mystery then… like the EO say

JTBT,

I’m feeling like the invisible man here . But I know you have a lot to respond to and think about, so I don’t feel that badly . . . yet.

Here’s the thing – the Eucharist *is *a mystery. But why? In order to say something is a mystery you have to say something about what is happening. So what is happening in the Eucharist that is a mystery?

The Eastern Orthodox agree that it is a mystery, and they also agree on what is happening (i.e. what makes it a mystery) – the bread changes into Christ. They don’t use the word transubstantiation, a word derived from Latin to mean a “change of substance” but they ascribe to the idea the word signifies. Some Orthodox theologians used a different word, from the Greek, metousiois to mean a “change in essence”.

The point is this: if nothing changes in the Eucharist, there is no mystery (and Christ was untruthful). If there is a mystery, something has changed. Transubstantiation describes the change. One need not use the word transubstantiation (but it really is a a good description) but one still has to talk about the change, and what changed, and what remains.

What are your thoughts?

VC****

 

[rwoehmke]

It appears that the term “metaphysics” like the term “substance” in this day of modern science has acquired a new meaning which is more common and well known than the original. Metaphysics started with Aristotle’s method of studying being or existence. Thomas Aquinas borrowed from Aristotle and used similar terminology in his Philosophy which, I believe is still called Thomism or Thomistic Philosophy.

There was a time in recent history, during the mid 20th that every student attending a Catholic College or University was pretty much expected to at minimum take a course introducing the bare bones of Thomas’s philosophical method.

 

[Church_Militant]

no CM we do not consider miracles metaphysical but the term Transubstantiation is linked to metaphysics because of the way the term was arrived at; so in a way your theology does.
see rwoehmke post he hit the nail on the head.
This may give you a deeper understanding of WHY Protestants reject Transubstantiation, because as you said metaphysics has more to do with magic or secularism than Christian miracles.
I think this is a good example of what can happen when we try to hard to get heaven into our head

(butchered GK quote)

as far as Real Presence… well I’m thinking on it, in my opinion a strong Biblical is madeWell, one thing that one might need to keep in mind is that the Catholic Church certainly has used that term in a different context and meaning than the metaphysical sense.

One thing that I always think is that it’s just a term for something that the New Testament teaches happens. I don’t see a reason to drop the term.

 

[po18guy]

Why do Catholics believe that Bread and Wine Actually change in substance, that is, that they are no longer Bread and Wine?
It seems you can believe in the Real Presences with out the Bread and Wine actually changing into some other substance.

You have this exactly backward: Since this belief is commanded by Christ, documented in scripture, and has been practiced, without fail, for 1,975 years, why would you believe something else?

Christ’s peace.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Well, one thing that one might need to keep in mind is that the Catholic Church certainly has used that term in a different context and meaning than the metaphysical sense.

CM, I am slowly becoming completely confused.

The Church has used what term? Transubstantiation?

But, why do you say She uses it in a different context than the metaphysical sense? That is the only context the term makes sense in, since it is a metaphysical concept.

Or, when you say “metaphysical sense” do you mean the magical-mumbo-jumbo that some people in the last 100 years or so call metaphysics?

Help!
VC