Is Transubstantiation Biblical?

[2 King]

I was told that belief in Transubstatiation is not biblical. People who say so usualy refer to John 6.

what is your opinion on this subject? Feel free to voice your views.

 

[heymikey80]

I think transubstantiation can be argued, pro or con. I don't think it's real, but I wouldn't conclude it's un-Biblical. I think the texts are mistaken for being philosophical/ontological statements, when I consider them covenantal statements. But, can it be argued? It's been argued for nearly 2000 years ....

 

[canadiancatholic]

I think it's entirely biblical. Christ changes his flesh and blood into true food and true drink.To me, his intent is clear.

 

[BigNorsk]

The belief of the real presence by Lutherans and Orthodox is quite biblical. Transubstantiation goes beyond scripture. It explains the biblical real presence using terms and ideas from philosophy, as such, transubstantiation is not biblical.

Marv

 

[2 King]

The belief of the real presence by Lutherans and Orthodox is quite biblical. Transubstantiation goes beyond scripture. It explains the biblical real presence using terms and ideas from philosophy, as such, transubstantiation is not biblical.

Marv

what scripture represents "real presence"?

 

[Anoetos]

Transubstantiation...explains the biblical real presence using terms and ideas from philosophy

Why is this a problem?

Doesn't the Book of Concord contain the Nicene Creed? It uses philosophical language to describe the Trinity (consubstantial, etc.).

But don't worry about that right now, I am just wondering why it's wrong to use a philosophical matrix to express sacramental truths? I can understand this sort of objection from a Calvinist or a Pentecostal but from a Lutheran I find it really puzzling.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I was told that belief in Transubstatiation is not biblical. People who say so usualy refer to John 6.

what is your opinion on this subject? Feel free to voice your views.

IMHO, this new and unique dogma of the CC is abiblical, baseless and unnecessary (to be nice about it, lol).

ABIBLICAL and BASELESS. There is NOTHING in Scripture that remotely states that any elements CHANGE into other elements, NOTHING about ANY "transubstantiation" (the foundational aspect of alchemy - from which the word and concept is taken - lock, stock and barrel). It's PURE, abiblical conjecture and theorizing with NOTHING in Scirpture to support it. The same can be said of the other thing in this unique Catholic dogma - Aristotle's long rejected theory of accidents. This, too, is entirely foreign to ANY texts - including the Eucharist ones. There's NOTHING in the Bible that remotely supports his weird, pre-science theory.

UNNECESSARY. For centuries (and still in the Orthodox and Lutheran communities - as well as for many Anglicans and Methodists), it has been enough to affirm what Jesus said and Paul penned. The meaning of is is is. Christ IS (the word deals with BEING, not alchemy) present. Yes, there is mystery here - but for some 1,000 years for Catholics (and still for many noncatholics), it was enough to embrace what Jesus said and Paul penned. There is no need to try to compel pagan, secular concepts - long ago forgotten and rejected - to try to explain away the mystery (causing textual problems in the process). It's just not needed. This 16th century dogmatization of alchemy and Aristotle does NOTHING to support Real Presence and simply serves to make for textual difficulties and now means the RCC must proclaim as a matter of highest importance and certainty ideas long ago debunked, rejected and forgotten. Why couldn't the RCC leave WELL ENOUGH alone (the reason is likely its desire to anathmatize Luther)? This does NOTHING to support Real Presence and only serves to muddle things, create textual problems and dogmatize ideas no one believes anymore and the Bible never, ever taught (vis-a-vis the Eucharist or anything else).


If I was feeling less evangelical and kind, I'd be more frank in my opinion of this dogma.

NOW, all that said, IF the RCC had left all this where those medieval western Catholic "Scholastics" who invented it, as just A theory about HOW Real Presence might happen, then none of us here would have ever heard of it. This theoretical imposition of alchemy's central point of Transubstantiation and Aristotle's weird theory of accidents would have disappeared right along with alchemy and "accidents." But it (alone) made it DOGMA in 1551.




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I think it's entirely biblical. Christ changes his flesh and blood into true food and true drink

Quote me a Eucharistic text that so much as even mentions "change." IF you can.
And IF you can, quote the Scripture that says this "change" is alchemy's transubstantiation.
Then, IF you can, quote me where it says that after the consecration, we have Aristotlian accidents.




.

 

[mont974x4]

No, it is unbiblical. The bread remains bread and the wine remains wine. There is no such change and there is no need for such change.

 

[Trento]

The belief of the real presence by Lutherans and Orthodox is quite biblical. Transubstantiation goes beyond scripture. It explains the biblical real presence using terms and ideas from philosophy, as such, transubstantiation is not biblical.

Marv

Protestant Patristic scholar come to this conclusion.

Philip Schaff wrote about the Ante-Nicene patristic period:

In general, this period, . . . was already very strongly inclined toward the doctrine of transubstantiation, and toward the Greek and Roman sacrifice of the mass, which are inseparable in so far as a real sacrifice requires the real presence of the victim . . .

The realistic and mystic view is represented by several fathers and the early liturgies, whose testimony we shall further cite below. They speak in enthusiastic and extravagant terms of the sacrament and sacrifice of the altar. They teach a real presence of the body and blood of Christ, which is included in the very idea of a real sacrifice, and they see in the mystical union of it with the sensible elements a sort of repetition of the incarnation of the Logos. With the act of consecration a change accordingly takes place in the elements, . . ."

(History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, A.D. 311-600, rev. 5th ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rep. 1974, orig. 1910, 492-495)​

Schaff continues in his next section:

The Catholic church, both Greek and Latin, sees in the Eucharist not only a sacramentum, in which God communicates a grace to believers, but at the same time, and in fact mainly, a sacrificium, in which believers really offer to God that which is represented by the sensible elements. For this view also the church fathers laid the foundation, and it must be conceded they stand in general far more on the Greek and Roman Catholic than on the Protestant side of this question."

(§ 96. "The Sacrifice of the Eucharist")

​

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Protestant Patristic scholar come to this conclusion.

Philip Schaff wrote about the Ante-Nicene patristic period:

In general, this period, . . . was already very strongly inclined toward the doctrine of transubstantiation, and toward the Greek and Roman sacrifice of the mass, which are inseparable in so far as a real sacrifice requires the real presence of the victim . . .

The realistic and mystic view is represented by several fathers and the early liturgies, whose testimony we shall further cite below. They speak in enthusiastic and extravagant terms of the sacrament and sacrifice of the altar. They teach a real presence of the body and blood of Christ, which is included in the very idea of a real sacrifice, and they see in the mystical union of it with the sensible elements a sort of repetition of the incarnation of the Logos. With the act of consecration a change accordingly takes place in the elements, . . ."

(History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, A.D. 311-600, rev. 5th ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rep. 1974, orig. 1910, 492-495)
​

Schaff continues in his next section:

The Catholic church, both Greek and Latin, sees in the Eucharist not only a sacramentum, in which God communicates a grace to believers, but at the same time, and in fact mainly, a sacrificium, in which believers really offer to God that which is represented by the sensible elements. For this view also the church fathers laid the foundation, and it must be conceded they stand in general far more on the Greek and Roman Catholic than on the Protestant side of this question."

(§ 96. "The Sacrifice of the Eucharist")

​

This thread isn't about the doctrine of Real Presence. It's about the new, unique Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation. It may be that this indidivual you love to quote didn't know the difference between these two doctrines, and that many Protestants embrace and teach Real Presence, I don't know how ignorant he was on this, but you and I and most do know that Real Presence and Transubstantiation are two different doctrines and that while Real Presence is widely held and has been for many centuries, Transubstantion is a late CC invention and embraced only by one denomination (and as dogma since 1551). Let's stick to the discussion of the unique Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation, as the opening post and title require.




.

 

[Trento]

The belief of the real presence by Lutherans and Orthodox is quite biblical. Transubstantiation goes beyond scripture. It explains the biblical real presence using terms and ideas from philosophy, as such, transubstantiation is not biblical.

Marv

From the book Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism (1972) by the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Aksum, Methodios Fouyas --

"Roman and Orthodox teach that by the words spoken in the Holy Eucharist the species of bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, so that although these species have the outward qualities of bread and wine, essentially they are the Body and Blood of Christ." (Fouyas, page 187, footnote refers to Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat 22; John of Damascus, De Fide Orth 4:13; John Chrysostom, Hom 82:4 in Matt as well as the Council of Trent, Session 13)
​

After quoting an Anglican writer who said "Orthodox theologians do not adhere to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation..." Fouyas responds:

"This is not quite accurate, because the Orthodox Church does not reject the word 'Transubstantiation,' but it does not attach to it the materialistic meaning which is given by the Latins. The Orthodox Church uses the word 'Transubstantiation' not to define the MANNER in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and the Blood of the Lord, but only to insist on the FACT that the Bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very Body of the Lord and the wine the very Blood of the Lord. In this sense it is interpreted by St. John of Damascus [Holy and Immaculate Mysteries, Cap 13:7]." (Fouyas, page 188-189, footnote refers also to the Orthodox Councils of Jerusalem [1672] and of Constantinople [1727] -- see above)
​

Fouyas continues and provides several words used by the Orthodox to describe the change in the elements:

"In the same manner the majority of the Orthodox theologians used, for the idea of Transubstantiation, a Greek term drawn from the teaching of the ancient Greek Fathers; the terms used include Metousiosis, Metabole, Trope, Metapoiesis, etc, or the Slavonic Presushchestvlenie, equivalent of the Greek Metousiosis. The Slavonic word Sushchestvo corresponds not to substantia, but to ousia (essentia)." (Fouyas, page 189)

​

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

the Orthodox Church does not reject the word 'Transubstantiation,' but it does not attach to it the materialistic meaning which is given by the Latins.

That's right. The EO does not embrace the RCC's unique and late dogma of Transubstantiation. It has (RARELY) used the WORD but has never embraced or tought or believed the RCC's dogma. The Catholic Church stands alone on this.

Now, the question of this thread is this: Does the Bible teach this alchemic transubstantiation and Aristotelian accidents of the Eucharist? If you have the Scriptures that do, post them.



.

 

[MrPolo]

There are lots. When Jesus held up the bread and wine that He just blessed (i.e. changed) at the Last Supper, He said "This is my body (blood) which will be given up for you." He did not give up a symbol of Himself on the Cross.

Another one is 1 Cor 10:16 and 1 Cor 11:29 in which Paul teaches us that we must discern the blessed (i.e. after it changes in substance) bread as Jesus' body.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

There are lots. When Jesus held up the bread and wine that He just blessed (i.e. changed) at the Last Supper, He said "This is my body (blood) which will be given up for you." He did not give up a symbol of Himself on the Cross.

Another one is 1 Cor 10:16 and 1 Cor 11:29 in which Paul teaches us that we must discern the blessed (i.e. after it changes in substance) bread as Jesus' body.

Nope. The text says "is" not "underwent an alchemic transubstnatiation with Aristotelian accidents." IS signifies being, not alchemy or "ghost physics."

The Scriptures you direct us to teach Real Presence, but that's not the issue of this thread.






.

 

[RND]

There are lots. When Jesus held up the bread and wine that He just blessed (i.e. changed) at the Last Supper, He said "This is my body (blood) which will be given up for you." He did not give up a symbol of Himself on the Cross.

Does that mean He was eating and drinking Himself? I mean, if He changed the nature and substance of the bread and wine before His death on the cross into Himself that means He was eating and drinking Himself.

Odd theology.

 

[Dark_Lite]

pagan, secular concepts - long ago forgotten and rejected

Since when was Aristotle's metaphysics long forgotten and rejected? Aristotle forms the basis for almost all of metaphysics (the procedure, anyway), and his work continues to have influence on the field of metaphysics to this day.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Since when was Aristotle's metaphysics long forgotten and rejected? Aristotle forms the basis for almost all of metaphysics (the procedure, anyway), and his work continues to have influence on the field of metaphysics to this day.

My degree is in Physics. His concept of "accidents" was once discussed, as ancient, long-ago rejected pre-science. I can assure you, it has NO ROLE or embrace in science today - and I don't think has for many centuries.

The issue is this: Does the BIBLE teach alchemy's "transubstantiation" and Aristotelian "accidents" vis-a-vis the Eucharist? If it does, quote the verses. Otherwise, I think we have the answer to the question.




.




.

 

[wayseer]

Now, the question of this thread is this: Does the Bible teach this alchemic transubstantiation and Aristotelian accidents of the Eucharist?

That is not what this thread is about. That is your interpretation of what this thread is about.

The question - from the thread heading - Is Transubstantiation Biblical?

In Roman Catholic theology, transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις (metousiosis)) means the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ occurring in the Eucharist while all that is accessible to the senses remains as before. (Wikipedia).

To state the obvious, which I have stated elsewhere just recently - despite what anyone might pretend, the wine remains cheap port and the bread undigestible wafer. It would therefore appear that some other 'change' has taken place at the Eucharist.

That 'change' is associated with the words 'We are the body of Christ, His Spirit is with us'. At this point, wether we recognized as much or not, we enter into the presence of the One to 'whom all hearts are open, all desires are known and from whom no secrets are hidden'.

The Eucharist is no voodoo magic. It is the very real presence of God as 'we' become that body.

'This is my body (blood) which will be given up for you.'

Yes - transubstantiation is Biblical - Jesus said so.

 

[mont974x4]

I am in Christ and He is in me. No magic words and no magical changes of elements need to take place for that to be true. It is because of my relationship with Him, not because of the act of taking Communion.