Albion
Facilitator
- Dec 8, 2004
- 111,127
- 33,264
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Really sometimes I think that people deny the real presence because it's too hard to understand, so they think it can't be true. They reject it because it's a Mystery outside of human understanding. Yet, it's straight out of the Bible. It puzzles me how evangelicals take everything in the Bible literally, but this.
When the Bible speaks literally, we take it literally. But when it is speaking otherwise, we don't misunderstand that. At the Last Supper Christ was obviously not saying that they were eating the body that sat in front of them, but that this has to be a truth that is allegorical, just like we understand that he didn't mean it--literally--when he said he was a door or a plant. You don't either, I'll bet.
I'll try to explain how I see it though. The crucifixion and the Resurrection were real events, but they affected all of eternity. Not just the future, but the past, as well. During Mass, we are participating in heavenly worship and are spiritually taken back to Calvary. It is in a way a timeless event. The first Mass (the Last Supper) was exactly like this too.
OK
The Apostles were eating and drinking Christ's Body and Blood which would be shed for them on the Cross, in the future.
Quite a stretch, isn't that?
If you want Biblical evidence...remember how in Revelations, it talks about the Lamb, "looking as if it had been slain"? The crucifixion is an event that affected all of eternity.
Yes, but that doesn't make transubstantiation true. Anyway, if it were, it would have been church doctrine long before the 13th century.
I think that in transubstantiation, there is still a "co-existing" of Christ's Body and Blood and the bread and wine in a way, since the bread and wine are still real and not illusions.
Could be, even though taking that position puts you at odds with your church. However, most Catholics don't believe in transubstantiation as the church does, anyway.
The elements are however changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, on some sort of level (which I can't understand yet..) and when we receive the Eucharist, we are receiving Christ into ourselves, in something which was previously just bread. It is no longer bread in essence, although it is on the outside. I guess that is all that I can really say about this... I know that sometimes it might seem like Catholics think they have it all figured out, but the Catholic church also teaches that the Eucharist is a mystery, and well it is probably too advanced for us to understand fully.
"It's a mystery" doesn't cover every departure from scripture, though. If it did, we could all come up with even more bizarre theories and no one could call any of them wrong.
We can receive some knowledge through revelation, but that is about it. We can't really apply logic to the Eucharist, because if we do, we would end up with it being merely symbolic...I think that Zwingli's argument is very logical yet I believe it is false.
But it's also as Biblical as any other, although I also disagree personally with his POV.
Upvote
0