.
Let's very carefully look at the Eucharistic texts, noting carefully the words - what Jesus said and Paul penned, and equally what they did not.
Matthew 26:26-29
26. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27. Then he took the cup (wine), gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
29. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (wine) from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."
First Corinthians 11:23-29
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night 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, after supper he took the cup (wine), saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
29. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
Now, lets look at three Eucharistic doctrines:
REAL PRESENCE: Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, some Anglicans and Methodist
Real Presence is:
1. Real Presence accepts the words of Jesus and Paul. Nothing added, nothing substracted.
2. Real Presence accepts that the meaning of is is is. This means that we receive Christ - quite literally, physically. When my pastor gives me the host, his exact words are: "Josiah, this IS the Body of Christ."
Real Presence is NOT..
1. Real Presence is not a dogmatic denial of the words "bread" and "wine" AFTER the consecration as if we must take a "half real/half symbolic" interpretation of the text. It simply regards such as moot. The point of Real Presense is the presence of CHRIST. It's not called, "The Denial of What Paul Wrote" because that's not what it is, it is the AFFIRMATION of what he penned, that CHRIST is present.
2. Real Presence is not a theory about anything or explanation regarding anything. It simply embraces EXACTLY and LITERALLY what Jesus said and Paul penned.
3. Real Presence doesn't teach or deny any "change." That word never appears in any Eucharistic text. Rather, it embraces what it IS - because that does appear in the texts and seems significant. "IS" means is - it has to do be BEING. If I say, This car is a Toyota, that doesn't imply that it was once a cow but the atoms were re-arranged so that now it is a Toyota. Accepting, "This is a Toyota" means we accept this is a Toyota.
Now, without a doubt, the faith and conviction raises some questions. But Real Presence has always regarded all this to be MYSTERY. How it happens, Why it happens, exactly What happens - it doesn't matter. We believe because Jesus said and Paul so penned by inspiration. That's good enough for the Orthodox and Lutherans, as well as many Anglicans and Methodist. And was for the RCC until 1551 when the RCC alone dogmatized a second view about the Eucharist, one that this thread has powerfully revealed has absolutely no biblical confirmation.
Orthodox, Lutherans and some Anglicans and Methodist embrace Real Presense. The Catholic Church does too but it has been entirely buried under it's own unique new secondary dogma, that of Transubstantiation, so much so that many Catholics I've found don't even know what Real Presence is, only the new unique RCC second dogma.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION: Catholic Church, dogmatically since 1551
This is another Eucharistic dogma of The Catholic Church (alone).
The Mystery of Real Presense does raise some questions (unanswered by Scripture or the ECF). All regarded these as just that - questions (and entirely moot ones at that), until western Catholic "Scholasticism" arose in the middle ages. It was focused on combining Christian thought with secular ideas - in the hopes of making Christianity more intellectual and even more to explain away some of its mysteries. It eventually came up with several theories about the Eucharist. One of these was "Transubstantiation."
Although no one claims there's any biblical confirmation of this, and while all admit it lacks any ecumenical or historic embrace, it should be noted that there are a FEW snippets from RCC "Fathers" that speak of "change." But, while Orthodox, Lutherans and others are comfortable with that word, it doesn't imply any transubstantiation.
"Transubstantiation" is a very precise, technical term from alchemy. It is the term for alchemy. You'll recall from high school chemistry class that alchemy was the dream that, via incantions and the use of chemicals and herbs, fundamental substance (we'll call such elements) may be transformed from one to entirely others (lead to gold was the typical objective). These western, medieval, Catholic "Scholastics" theorized that the Consecration is an alchemic transubstantiation.
This, however, caused a bit of a problem because in alchemy, the transubstantiated substance normally would have the properties of the NEW substance, and one of the "questions" of Real Presense is why it still has the properties of bread and wine. Here these western, medival Catholic theorists turned to another pop idea of the day: Accidents. This came hook, line and sinker from Aristotle. He theorized that substance could have properties (he called them "accidents" - it's a very precise term for his theory) that are entirely unrelated to the substance. Sometimes called "ghost physics," the one part of his theory of "accidents" seemed especially useful to these medieval Catholic theorists. He stated that properties of one thing could CONTINUE after the actual causative substannce ceased. His example was lightening. Seeing the connection between lightening and thunder, but knowing nothing of wave physics, he taught that the SOUND of lightening continues long after the lightening ceased to exist: this is an "accident." This, then , is what we have in the Eucharist: ACCIDENTS of bread and wine (since, in transubstantiation, bread and wine no longer exist in any real physics sense - it was transubstantiated). No one claims that this has any biblical confirmation or that the RCC "father" referenced Aristotle's Accidents - even as pure theoretical pious opinion.
In Catholicism, there are TWO dogmas vis-a-vis the Eucharist: Real Presence and Transubstantiation. The later was first suggested in the 9th century and made dogma in 1551 (a bit after Luther's death), some say in order to anathematize Luther on the Eucharist since he did not affirm such. Luther regarded it as abiblical, textually problemmatic and unnecessary.
SYMBOLIC PRESENCE: Many Protestant denominations
Look again at the Eucharistic texts. An important aspect is (with apologies to Bill Clinton), what the meaning of "is" is....
While Real Presence was nearly univeral, there have always been those few with "questions" that made this doctrine problemmatic for them. The mystery was difficult for them to embrace. This became far more common beinging in the 16th century. Some said that Christ CANNOT be present in the Eucharist because He is in heaven and CANNOT be here - physically anyway. To them, "is" cannot mean "is" - it MUST be a metaphor, it must actually mean "symbolize." Metaphor is certainly not unknown in Scripture, the question becomes: is that the case HERE?
But a "symobolic" presence does NOT imply merely a metaphor. Some stress that in the Eucharist, Christ IS "present" but not PHYSICALLY. It's more than in the usual sense of "I am with you always" but not in the sense of "Real Presence."
This view stresses the "Remember me...." concept. They tend to see the Eucharist as an ordinance (something we do for God) rather than as a Sacrament (something God does for us).
MY view:
Symbolic:
I use to hold this view. While I'm always reluntant to not take God at His word, this HAD to be a metaphor. Two things dissuaded me.
1. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING the text above, we read First Corinthians 11:27-30. To me, this makes moot at best and probably problematic for a symbolic view.
2. I came to understand that this veiw, while not entirely unheard of, had very little historic or ecumenical consensus. While it is a POSSIBLE interpretation (and thus I do NOT regard as it "heretical" and respect those who hold this view), it has no historic or ecumenical support.
Transubstantiation:
I learned of this during my Catholic days. For a time, I embraced it, but as I came to understand it, I rejected it, primarily for 4 reasons:
1. It is entirely atextual. The Eucharistic texts say NOTHING of alchemy or Aristotle's accidents. The texts never even mention "change." The words "is" signify being, not alchemy.
2. It is entirely unnecessary. It accomplishes nothing. It only makes Real Presence dependent upon a long ago forgotten and rejected pre-science dream and a theory of Aristotle, long ago rejected in physics. but its unnecessary and accomplishes nothing but problems. It's goal of explaining away the Mystery doesn't work - and suggests that we should accept what Jesus said and Paul penned because Alchemy and Aristotle seem to support it (these Catholic Scholastics theorized).
3. It creates textual difficulties. Paul actually mentions "bread" and "wine" FAR MORE OFTEN after the Consecration than before it. But Transubstantiation requires that we ignore such, and regard such as "Aristotelian accidents." The word "is" in the texts must be deleted and replaced with, "hereby undergoes an alchemic transubstantion" and each time "bread" and "wine" appear in the text, we must insert, "the Aristotelian Accident of...." It requires the same "split" interpretation that symbolic presence does: HALF of the time, the words mean what they are, and HALF of the time they mean something symbolic. MIXED interpretations in a sentence is usually associated with a problematic hermeneutic.
4. This lacks any historic or ecumenical support. It was invented in the 9th century by western Catholic "Scholastics" as just one possible theory to explain away the Mystery.
Real Presence:
I learned of this view in my religion studies as a part of my high school education, largely from Lutheranism. It seems very textual to me, and it has solid historic and ecumenical embrace.
I totally admit it raises questions and IS a "mystery." But, like Christians for the past 2000 years, I lay such aside: along with how God can be three yet one, how Jesus can be both God and man, and a whole lot of other mysteries. I really don't understand exactly WHAT Christ being physically present means in terms of PHYSICS (my college degree is in physics), but it seems to ME - in the light of 1 Corinthians 11:23-30 - this is the correct view, and it has come to be powerfully spiritual and significant to me.
The question of this thread is specific and singular: The biblical confirmation for the unique, new, Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation. Does Scriptures confirm this dogma - or not? THAT is the sole question of this thread. After 37 pages of posts, we're still waiting for our Catholic friends to share a single Scripture. As of yet, none has been offered. Perhaps we all have the answer to the question?
.
