transubstantiation

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel, what you have written is a rousing and truly Christian exposition on the intent, care, and discipline of the dogma of Transubstantiation. Understood in the light you have given, very few Lutherans could object and some may even applaud.

I appreciate the time you took, and the charity and grace you have shown in steadfastly defending your faith while making a bridge between us.

God bless you and keep you.

Thank you benjohnson; Something about our Marian Popes who always finds a window our blessed Mother leaves open after Peter closed a door (Validity, Apostolic Succession).

Pope Benedict XVI see’s your faith in the real presence through the window, without the door of Validity and Apostolic Succession, preventing faith to grow in the real presence from both views of the open window.

peace be with you

 

[mark_carr]

I was told by one priest an anglo catholic and it covers all the modes of the eucharist. THAT Christ is presence humanity and divinity just like the Catholic belief.We know that Christ is in the eucharist the how is a mystery above all human understanding.That covers transubstantion thur cosubstantiation and any other belief but some like to give it a name.I think thats what the RC believe they just use transubstantiation as a way to teach the real presence.

 

[steido01]

Gabriel, what you have written is a rousing and truly Christian exposition on the intent, care, and discipline of the dogma of Transubstantiation. Understood in the light you have given, very few Lutherans could object and some may even applaud.

I appreciate the time you took, and the charity and grace you have shown in steadfastly defending your faith while making a bridge between us.

God bless you and keep you.

Agreed. Each time that Gabriel posts about Transubstantiation, it sounds less and less naughty. My hope for eventual reunion is rekindled. Thank you, Gabriel.

Inversely, I wonder if orthodox Lutheranism is willing to profess something similar regarding Sacramental Union? It might require a repudiation of two sentences in Smalkald Part III, Article VI; then again, perhaps not. The more I learn about the modern understanding of Transubstantiation, the more I wonder if Smalkald’s objection to the term was based on a misunderstanding of the Roman position by the Reformers (or, rather, a mis-defense of the Roman position by Roman apologists of the time)? Whichever the case, Lutherans and Catholics are so, very, frustratingly close here. I’m not sure that the Reformation, if it happened today, would result in any disagreement on the Real Presence. Would that we had a Benedict XVI back then.

 

[GKC]

I wish someone had knowledge of how that whole thing turned out. Odd situation populated by odd persons, but it still would’ve been informative on how the RCC actually, currently, understands validity in ordinations, consecrations and just how “church” an “ecclesial community” is capable of being. Or not.

As I recall, the group made application for reception to the RCC in 2009. Perhaps it’s still percolating through the system.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I was told by one priest an anglo catholic and it covers all the modes of the eucharist. THAT Christ is presence humanity and divinity just like the Catholic belief.We know that Christ is in the eucharist the how is a mystery above all human understanding.That covers transubstantion thur cosubstantiation and any other belief but some like to give it a name.I think thats what the RC believe they just use transubstantiation as a way to teach the real presence.

And, as I said before, you can find Anglicans who affirm Trent, Session XIII, Canon 1, on the Eucharist.

GKC

 

[SyroMalankara]

As I recall, the group made application for reception to the RCC in 2009. Perhaps it’s still percolating through the system.

GKC

I don’t think so, last message from the Curia was to send their info to the local Ordinariate for review. The local Ordinariate wasn’t in the mood for fringe virtual online-only communities with side-gigs performing quickie weddings.

 

[GKC]

I don’t think so, last message from the Curia was to send their info to the local Ordinariate for review. The local Ordinariate wasn’t in the mood for fringe virtual online-only communities with side-gigs performing quickie weddings.

Wouldn’t surprise me.

GKC

 

[steido01]

I don’t think so, last message from the Curia was to send their info to the local Ordinariate for review. The local Ordinariate wasn’t in the mood for fringe virtual online-only communities with side-gigs performing quickie weddings.

Odd situations, and odd persons. There’s a reason they didn’t belong in the LCMS.

 

[Gorgias]

So it is still bread and wine in the physical sense? Or is it not at all bread or wine anymore in any way? Thanks, I actually don’t quite understand this myself.

What it is – that is, what its essence is – changes. What it looks (and smells, tastes, feels) like – that is, what can be sensed by humans (the ‘accidents’) – remains the same.

So, it is Eucharist, but it has the appearance of bread and wine.

Normally, we don’t separate ‘appearance’ and ‘substance’: what looks like bread is usually always bread. In the miracle of the Eucharist, though, the change in substance only is what we’re dealing with, so we have to be more precise.

(Think of it this way: if someone saw you when you were an infant, and not again until you were 50, they might say, “wow… he looks different; is that still him?” to which the answer would be, “of course! that’s still dronald!” On the other hand, when the zombie apocalypse happens, if you’re infected, you’ll still look like you, but will have picked up an overwhelming appetite for brains. If someone pointed to you and asked, “is that dronald?”, then we’d reply “no! it’s a zombie! quick – kill it!” In the former case, we have a change of accidents without a change in substance; but in the latter, there’s a change of substance and not of accidents.)

 

[Faithdancer]

No. Transubstantiation does not depend upon the belief of the one receiving. It depends on the valid ordination of the celebrant as well as the form of the ritual, the matter to be consecrated, and intent of the celebrant.

If the Eucharist is validly consecrated, then Jesus is present regardless of what the recipient believes. If not properly consecrated, then again, it does not matter what the receipient believes - Jesus is not present.

This is why Jesus is not actually present in Anglican and Lutheran communions. They believe otherwise, but 'tain’t so.

In short, transubstantiation is part of a theology of salvation by works, and not by faith alone.

 

[steido01]

In short, transubstantiation is part of a theology of salvation by works, and not by faith alone.

How so? Is this because it requires a priest to ‘confect’ it?

If so, do you hold the same view of the Lutheran understanding of Sacramental Union, since it requires an ordained pastor to administer?

Trying to understand how the Real Presence ever could be construed as defending works- righteousness? It’s Christ coming to us - delivering His Grace through the Sacrament.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In short, transubstantiation is part of a theology of salvation by works, and not by faith alone.

How could transubstantiation be part of a theology that the Catholic Church does not teach?

And now a question or two for you:

Isn’t it curious that the Apostle Paul used the word “faith” and related terms more than 200 times in the New Testament, yet he never once used the phrase “faith alone”?

This seems strange considering how concerned Paul was with passing on the faith accurately and the means to justification would be among the most important truths he would preach. In fact, throughout all of his works, he goes to great lengths to choose his words with precision, so it seems odd that “faith alone” does not appear once in all of his writings.

This is even more surprising given the fact that Paul also used the words “alone” and “only” more than any other New Testament author. Clearly, Paul was well-accustomed to using these powerful qualifiers.

Could it be that the Holy Spirit prevented Paul from ever writing “faith alone” to describe the process of justification? And that same check prevented any of the gospel writers from ascribing “faith alone” to Jesus, either.

In fact, the only time that the Holy Spirit allowed any author to use that infamous phrase is when He inspired James to write, “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

Therefore, for those who propose that Paul taught justification by faith alone, a very haunting question remains: Why didn’t Paul use the specific phrase “faith alone” anywhere in his New Testament writings?

 

[JonNC]

How so? Is this because it requires a priest to ‘confect’ it?

If so, do you hold the same view of the Lutheran understanding of Sacramental Union, since it requires an ordained pastor to administer?

Trying to understand how the Real Presence ever could be construed as defending works- righteousness? It’s Christ coming to us - delivering His Grace through the Sacrament.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Gabriel, what you have written is a rousing and truly Christian exposition on the intent, care, and discipline of the dogma of Transubstantiation. Understood in the light you have given, very few Lutherans could object and some may even applaud.

I appreciate the time you took, and the charity and grace you have shown in steadfastly defending your faith while making a bridge between us.

God bless you and keep you.

Gabriel is THE best poster regarding the Catholic teaching of Transubstantiation!!!

Jon

 

[billcu1]

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3

Might help

Bill

 

[dronald]

What it is – that is, what its essence is – changes. What it looks (and smells, tastes, feels) like – that is, what can be sensed by humans (the ‘accidents’) – remains the same.

So, it is Eucharist, but it has the appearance of bread and wine.

Normally, we don’t separate ‘appearance’ and ‘substance’: what looks like bread is usually always bread. In the miracle of the Eucharist, though, the change in substance only is what we’re dealing with, so we have to be more precise.

(Think of it this way: if someone saw you when you were an infant, and not again until you were 50, they might say, “wow… he looks different; is that still him?” to which the answer would be, “of course! that’s still dronald!” On the other hand, when the zombie apocalypse happens, if you’re infected, you’ll still look like you, but will have picked up an overwhelming appetite for brains. If someone pointed to you and asked, “is that dronald?”, then we’d reply “no! it’s a zombie! quick – kill it!” In the former case, we have a change of accidents without a change in substance; but in the latter, there’s a change of substance and not of accidents.)

So what is it physically?

Like; it looks, tastes, feels like bread/wine. Is it those things at all? I get that Catholics believe it very much looks like what it (was?) but is no longer that. Or am I wrong in that it really truly is still bread and wine but also in a Spiritual sense Jesus Christ Himself?

 

[Gorgias]

So what is it physically?

“What things truly are,” from a philosophical perspective, is not something that can be answered with a physical description. What things are is independent of what their appearance is, per se.

Like; it looks, tastes, feels like bread/wine. Is it those things at all?

No: it still has the appearances of bread and wine, but is no longer bread and wine; rather, it is Christ, in a sacramental way (not in a physical way).

I get that Catholics believe it very much looks like what it (was?) but is no longer that.

Actually, it looks exactly like what it was.

Or am I wrong in that it really truly is still bread and wine but also in a Spiritual sense Jesus Christ Himself?

You are not wrong: it is no longer “truly still bread and wine”. It is truly Christ.

 

[dronald]

“What things truly are,” from a philosophical perspective, is not something that can be answered with a physical description. What things are is independent of what their appearance is, per se.

No: it still has the appearances of bread and wine, but is no longer bread and wine; rather, it is Christ, in a sacramental way (not in a physical way).

Actually, it looks exactly like what it was.

You are not wrong: it is no longer “truly still bread and wine”. It is truly Christ.

But in a physical and very real sense it must actually be bread and wine? As you stated, it would have all of the effects of wine and bread when consumed.

I can also assume that if taken into testing it would have all of the elements of bread and wine? I know Catholics don’t deny this, so in a very real sense it truly is still bread and wine; even if it’s also Jesus in a Spiritual sense?

 

[Gorgias]

But in a physical and very real sense it must actually be bread and wine?

Metaphysically speaking, what’s physical isn’t what’s actually real. Physical characteristics aren’t the thing itself, but are mediated experiences of the thing. When I see ‘bread’, I’m not experiencing the bread, per se, but simply the light waves that have bounced off the bread and into my eyes. My visual experience of the bread is mediated by light waves; it’s not an immediate experience of the bread.

What is real about the bread, though – its substance – is something that I cannot experience with my senses. To put it as Kant did, we’re talking about the difference between what the thing is (its noumena) and what we can experience of it (its phenomena). To Kant, we can never experience the thing itself, but only its phenomena.

Now, to complicate things further… in our experience in this universe, the phenomena of things tends to be more or less stable – or at least, explainable. When we see a loaf of bread on the counter last week, and then see the same phenomena on the counter this week, we think, “oh, that’s that loaf of bread I saw last week!” We presume that the same phenomena imply that the same noumena is what’s causing them. Similarly, when a loaf of bread starts to go bad, we look at the mold and aren’t fooled into thinking that we’re looking at a different ‘thing’ – just that this loaf of bread has taken on different phenomena (it looks green, it feels fuzzy, and it smells and tastes bad). But, although the phenomena have changed, the substance remains the same – we think, “yuck; that’s the loaf of bread that’s been there since Labor Day.” Our whole world would be impossible to comprehend if all things swapped phenomena, such that one day, I’d look at the loaf of bread on the counter and think “mmm… sandwich”, and the next day, I’d look at the loaf of bread and think, “umm… Mom?”

So, what’s commonplace in our experience is to understand the reality (a.k.a., ‘substance’ or ‘noumena’) of things based on their phenomena (i.e., bread always looks like bread, and Mom always looks like Mom). Things, typically, do not undergo substantial change; they undergo accidental change. Mom gets grey hair and wrinkles, but she’s still Mom.

What we say about the Eucharist, then, is that even though our senses tell us that the phenomena of bread and wine are retained, the noumena – that is, the substance – has changed. It is no longer bread and wine that we look at, but Christ. The phenomena are the same, such that, to our senses, all we experience are the things we experience with bread and wine; yet, they are not bread and wine, but have undergone transubstantiation into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

Kinda trippy, but that’s what Catholics believe. It is, in the true sense of the word, a miracle – something that only God could accomplish.

in a very real sense it truly is still bread and wine; even if it’s also Jesus in a Spiritual sense?

No: it’s not Jesus in a ‘spiritual’ sense, it’s Jesus in a ‘real’ sense. In terms of appearances, it appears to be bread & wine; but in terms of metaphysical reality, it’s Christ.

 

[benjohnson]

But in a physical and very real sense it must actually be bread and wine? As you stated, it would have all of the effects of wine and bread when consumed.

Perhaps not necessarily… Let’s ignore the Word for a moment:

Even with our limited understanding of the universe, we could see how a 4-dimential object could exist within a 3-dimential object without changing the 3-dimential object at all.

The proper ‘measure’ of that space time of the intersection of the 3-d and 4-d object would show that the 4-d object would overwhelm the 3-d object much as a block of granite(3-d) would overwhelm a piece of tissue paper (mostly 2-d).

That’s with our limited understanding! I shudder to imagine what God can do!