Transubstantiation?

[mercygate]

exactly!!! that is where I’m going, why do RC’s still use this word? why not drop it and start using the term Real Presence again?

At this point in history, that probably would be workable – at least on the practical level for most people. I believe at the time this was worked out, however, there were competing theologies and actual heresies that posed sacramental and even Christological problems. In the East, they never had to fight that battle, so they never had to wrangle through the details.

Can you tell that I am out of my depth here?

 

[bilop]

see my response to rwoehmke, St. Thomas is the one who started trying to explain it using accidents etc.

Catholic still use the word because the change of substance (transsubstantiation), caused by the prayers of the priest is a crucial doctrine.

It is necessary to emphasize that and how the change occurs. Otherwise we could easily fall into the heresy of consubstantiation (the belief that the Real Presence just happens, not due to the priest’s actions).

There are non-Catholics/Orthodox who believe in the Real Presence, but have a fundamentally different idea of how it occurs. That’s why the theology of transubstantiation is critical.

God Bless

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Just clearing something up here. The Orthodox do believe that the bread and wine is fully changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. They just don’t use the word “transubstantiation”. However, their belief in the Eucharist is the same as the Catholic one.

Consubstantiation, which is what (most) Lutherans believe in means that, as mercygate said, Christ is present along with the bread and wine, which remain. That is not what the Orthodox believe, however.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[VociMike]

Just clearing something up here. The Orthodox do believe that the bread and wine is fully changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. They just don’t use the word “transubstantiation”. However, their belief in the Eucharist is the same as the Catholic one.

Consubstantiation, which is what (most) Lutherans believe in means that, as mercygate said, Christ is present along with the bread and wine, which remain. That is not what the Orthodox believe, however.

Yes, this was my clear understanding as well. If you point to the consecrated elements and ask an Eastern Orthodox if there is now bread and wine present, he or she will say “no”.

 

[FCEGM]

for example Christ is both Human and Divine

In an article on Transubstantiation by Msgr. Robert Sokolowski in and issue of “Homiletics and Pastoral Review” (Winter, 1997) he makes these points in this regard:

“. . . it is the very material and bodily quality of the Incarnation that calls for Transubstantiation in the Eucharist. If Christ is to be present in the sacrament, he must be present in his divine and human natures, in his soul and body. And if his body is to be present, the bread cannot be. The one thing cannot be two material substances, both bread and a human body, not even the glorified human body of Christ. If it is the one it cannot be the other. The two bodily natures exclude one another, and it is the bodily presence of Christ that is specifically emphasized in the words of consecration. The body of Christ is not with the bread but takes the place of the bread in the change we call Transubstantiation. If we deny this change, we deny the bodily presence of the glorified Christ, and hence we deny the presence of Christ. Without Transubstantiation the sacramental presence of Christ would not occur.”

. . .Protestants who do not believe in the Real Presence view the bread and wine used in the Eucharist to be given additional meaning in the same way. Once the bread and wine is consecrated, the bread takes on the additional meaning of being Christ’s body, and the wine takes on the additional meaning of being Christ’s blood. The bread and wine don’t literally change but instead take on a higher meaning within the context of the sacrament. Once the Eucharist is consumed and the sacrament is complete, the bread and wine lose the additional meanings they had during the ceremony and become simply bread and wine again… . ."

So in the Protestant approach it would be the community giving meaning to what has occurred, rather than Christ Himself. IOW: “We are doing this to remember Christ and we give this memorial the meaning of His presence among us, which meaning is no longer present when the service is finished” rather than, “Christ accomplishes this personally in the person of the priest, giving Himself without quarter eternally.”

 

[Church_Militant]

CM
Maybe I am closer to the Lutherans I don’t know exactly what they believe, my own tradition says they are only symbols I tend to believe they are more so, I’m working from the assumption that some version of real presence is true.
I’m not trying to argue only to have a discussion here so take it easy.

Sorry about that. It just seems like in at least one previous discussion you kinda ignored what I offered and so I had some doubt.

So…Did you read the article? It’s essentially a Bible study on this very topic and I sought to be as thorough as possible.

It is my own belief and assertion that the scriptures teach the Real Presence and that historic Christian teachings show that the ECF also believed this.

I also address the idea that it is symbolic, which I completely reject as unscriptural and unhistorical.

So, if you have read it, what do you come away with?

 

[mark_a]

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.

Hello,

Just a few points-

We believe:

• the bread and wine are changed into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus
• that Mary is the mother of God
• that abortion and contraception are contrary to love, family, and God’s plan for humanity
• that marriage, holy orders and that reconciliation with God are sacraments
• that human remains are sacred
  Some others believe:
• the bread and wine are only symbolic
• that Mary was a “vessel”
• that abortion is unfortunate but sometimes necessary; and abortificient contraception (birth control pills) is just peachy
• that there are no “sacrements”
• that we can scatter and disrespect human remains
  Can you see the pattern here?

 

[JimG]

The key word in thinking about Transubstantiation is not “is” but rather “this.” What is “this” that IS “my Body?” It is the substance [underlying identity or “thingness”] of what the Lord (or the Priest) is holding in his hand. So the attributes of “breadness” and “wineness” are not changed but the ontological essence is changed.

(Is that a tautology?)

No, it is not a tautology. It is exactly right that it is the “attributes” or appearances of the elements that do not change, but the ontological essence does.

(But I have to point out, that neither ‘ontological essence’ nor ‘substance’ means ‘the stuff that we can see and touch.’ That would be the ‘appearances.’)

 

[JTBT]

Sorry about that. It just seems like in at least one previous discussion you kinda ignored what I offered and so I had some doubt.

So…Did you read the article? It’s essentially a Bible study on this very topic and I sought to be as thorough as possible.

It is my own belief and assertion that the scriptures teach the Real Presence and that historic Christian teachings show that the ECF also believed this.

I also address the idea that it is symbolic, which I completely reject as unscriptural and unhistorical.

So, if you have read it, what do you come away with?

sorry if I seemed to ignore you on that other Thread; I thought we were actually starting getting somewhere, but I kind of got a hit from all angles on that topic, kind of felt like I was in a “bull ring” but I was trying to address everyone. I did look at your article, It was a Bible study, I have read those passages before, which is why I can see why you believe what you believe.

but my point in this Thread was really to ask why the term Transubstantiation is still used now that we have a different understanding of meta physics?

 

[JTBT]

Hello,

Just a few points-

We believe:

• the bread and wine are changed into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus
• that Mary is the mother of God
• that abortion and contraception are contrary to love, family, and God’s plan for humanity
• that marriage, holy orders and that reconciliation with God are sacraments
• that human remains are sacred
  Some others believe:
• the bread and wine are only symbolic
• that Mary was a “vessel”
• that abortion is unfortunate but sometimes necessary; and abortificient contraception (birth control pills) is just peachy
• that there are no “sacrements”
• that we can scatter and disrespect human remains
  Can you see the pattern here?

THIS ADDED NOTHING TO THE CONVERSATION.

 

[Rolltide]

I work as a professional historian, and I made a very long post with sources about this a few weeks ago. Try reading my other thread on the Real Presence, posts 8-16 (it would take forever to repost it here):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3854198#post3854198

 

[CentralFLJames]

…
Some have a more Catholic reverence for the elements, but my local Lutheran church tosses the bread to the birds.

Hmmm, this might be a tacit recognition of having invalid apostolic priestly holy orders necessary to effect the sacrament taken together with a novel post-reformation reinterpretation of Ecclesiastes 11:1 by a member who owns a carwashing business.

Ecclesiastes 11:1
Cast thy bread upon the running waters: for after a long time thou shalt find it again.

James

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi JTBT,

I hope this thread continues and the conversation proves fruitful.

my point in this Thread was really to ask why the term Transubstantiation is still used now that we have a different understanding of meta physics?

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

 

[Church_Militant]

sorry if I seemed to ignore you on that other Thread; I thought we were actually starting getting somewhere, but I kind of got a hit from all angles on that topic, kind of felt like I was in a “bull ring” but I was trying to address everyone. I did look at your article, It was a Bible study, I have read those passages before, which is why I can see why you believe what you believe.

Excellent. Thank you!

but my point in this Thread was really to ask why the term Transubstantiation is still used now that we have a different understanding of meta physics?

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:

 

[Church_Militant]

I work as a professional historian, and I made a very long post with sources about this a few weeks ago. Try reading my other thread on the Real Presence, posts 8-16 (it would take forever to repost it here):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3854198#post3854198

Wow! That is REALLY good. Well done!

 

[Church_Militant]

Hmmm, this might be a tacit recognition of having invalid apostolic priestly holy orders necessary to effect the sacrament taken together with a novel post-reformation reinterpretation of Ecclesiastes 11:1 by a member who owns a carwashing business.

Ecclesiastes 11:1
Cast thy bread upon the running waters: for after a long time thou shalt find it again.

James

My Reformation Theory

 

[CoboltBlue]

No, I’m quite certain that they believe that the Eucharist is no longer bread and wine. At least, that’s what I’ve heard from every EO who I have heard address the question. But they’re reluctant to use the term “transubstantiation”, preferring to refer to it simply as a mystery - not that the two are at odds.

Again, the text is clear. “IS”, not “contains” or “encompasses”.

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.

 

[Church_Militant]

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

True. neither does the word Trinity or incarnation, yet Christians believe in all those.

Jesus certainly did not use it…

Jesus did not speak of abortion, nuclear war, and a host of other things as well.

He said, do this in rememberance of Me.

Okay, that’s fine. Unfortunately you seem to have missed the rest of the scriptural context on this.

He did not say crucify me every time you have communion…

By all means show me any authentic and authoritative Catholic document that teaches that we recrucify Our Lord in the Eucharist.

You can’t because no such exists and that means that this is not a Catholic teaching.

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.

If you think this then you are grossly ignorant of the topic upon which you are attempting to speak out. the link above is a Bible study that may help if you are really interested.

The word and the interpretation of what Jesus said is of the church traditions.

Again, do you have the same issue with the Trinity and the incarnation?

And where anyone gets the idea that the apostles believe this I have not a clue.

Well, I have to grant that you are essentially clueless. How can that be from someone who no doubt will tell me that they get everything that they believe from the Bible.

However, I’ll help you out by supplying some of the actual scriptures where an apostle deals with this. 1st Corinthians 10:[16] The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
[17] Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

and

1st Corinthians 11:[23]For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
[24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
[25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
[26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
[27]Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
[28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
[29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
[30] That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

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.

Thank you for making my case for me.
God bless you.

 

[fellowChristian]

Luke 1:37
“For nothing will be impossible with God.”

“He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water into wine, akin to blood, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood?”
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:4 (c. A.D. 350).

“He did not say, ‘This is the symbol of My Body, and this, of My Blood,’ but, what is set before us, but that it is transformed by means of the Eucharistic action into Flesh and Blood.”
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on Matthew 26:26 (**ante A.D. 428). **

substance **
c.1300, “essential nature,” from O.Fr. substance (12c.),
from Latin. substantia**
(Classical Latin, the Italic language of ancient Rome until about 4c. )
“being, essence, material,” from substans, prp. of substare “stand firm, be under or present,” from sub “up to, under” + stare “to stand,” from PIE base *sta- “to stand” (see stet). A loan-translation of Gk. hypostasis. Sense of “the matter of a study, discourse, etc.” first recorded 1390. Meaning “any kind of corporeal matter” also is first attested 1390.

The “being,essence,material”.

**trans- **
prefix meaning “across, beyond, to go beyond,” from Latin
**(**Classical Latin, the Italic language of ancient Rome until about 4c. )
. trans-, from prep. trans “across, over, beyond,” probably originally prp. of a verb *trare-, meaning "to cross"

Goes “across,beyond”.

**-tion **
suffix forming nouns from verbs, from Latin. -tionem, accusative of noun suffix -tio (gen. -tionis) **forming nouns of condition and action **(the -t- is the Latin pp. stem).

An “action” is taking place.

transubstantiation **
1398, “change of one substance to another,” **from Medieval Latin.
( Latin as written and spoken c.700-c.1500.)
trans(s)ubstantiationem (nom. trans(s)ubstantio), noun of action from trans(s)ubstantiare "to change from one substance into another," from L. trans- “across” + substantiare “to substantiate,” from substania “substance” (see substance). Ecclesiastical sense in reference to the Eucharist first recorded 1533.

side note…

you know even the names of flowers are in Latin too.

Ipomoea purpurea -aka- Morning Glory

Helianthus annuus -aka- Sunflower

Lathyrus odoratus -aka- Sweet Pea

so…

Transubstantiation -aka- The Real Presence

(in Latin, transsubstantiatio)

 

[mercygate]

Hello,

Just a few points-

We believe:

• the bread and wine are changed into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus
• that Mary is the mother of God
• that abortion and contraception are contrary to love, family, and God’s plan for humanity
• that marriage, holy orders and that reconciliation with God are sacraments
• that human remains are sacred
  Some others believe:
• the bread and wine are only symbolic
• that Mary was a “vessel”
• that abortion is unfortunate but sometimes necessary; and abortificient contraception (birth control pills) is just peachy
• that there are no “sacrements”
• that we can scatter and disrespect human remains
  Can you see the pattern here?

Where did this come from? Did you read the thread topic?