The philosophy is secondary to a simple belief. The discussions can get too clever Matthew 11:25
He son of “ I am who am” says it “IS” him. It “ is” his body.
Not he is “ in it” or “ with it” but it really “ is” Him.
But We know it still looks like bread.
So the doctrine of transubstantiation is just a simple statement of faith based only on what He says. That It can look like something else, therefore appearance is deceiving and therefore appearance is not necessarily the substance that is.
But It is Him, without looking like Him.
That’s all the dogma says.
The first Christians believed it without question. We know that because The romans believed Christians were cannibals , because under torture they said they ate His flesh.
Simple fishermen would not have used later metaphysics to describe it. They would have used a statement of faith: it still looks like bread after blessing, but it is now the body of Jesus himself. That is all transubstantiation says. It just uses big words to say it.
I always had a problem with this as an Anglican.
Nowhere in the bible does it say “ he took the bread , gave the blessing, broke it, and filled it with the Holy Spirit” as He did when He breathed on the apostles.
He took the bread, gave a blessing and the Son of “ I am who IS” said this “ IS” my body. “Is” not “ represents” or “ contains” or is “ joined with”. Just “is”
So methinks theologians get too clever for their own good. They should trust Him more, and trust their own reason less, which is what Matt 11:25 is in essence saying.
I think Eucharistic miracles pull back the curtain of unbelief, so all can see what it really is. God wants us to believe this again. God can choose what it looks like on a case by case basis. It doesn’t change what it is.
I doubt anglicans respect Fatima, but the indifferences and sacriliges against our Lord in the Eucharist are a part of the message.
You care enough to answer
@Paidiske and I thank you for that.
Just so you know, to paraphrase the Coptic Confiteor Ante Communion said by the priest before communicating himself and then the laity, I believe and confess until the last breath that the Eucharist is truly the actual body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, with his flesh and blood being actually and physically present. I also disagree with the Lutherans that it is “in, with and under the species of bread and wine” because I do not believe we can properly say that the body and blood of our Lord, the sacred medicine of immortality, is ever “under” anything else.
I am not sure about the Thomistic theory of transubstantiation, unless the word is simply used, like how you used it, to refer to the water our Lord transformed into wine at the wedding feast in Cana. If we applied Thomistic, Scholastic theology, as found in the Summa and based on the ideas of the Philosopher (Aristotle) and the Commentator (Averroes), what occurred at Cana would be a metamorphosis, since both the substance and the accidents changed. The reason why I disagree with the Thomistic doctrine is that logically, it would exclude the Eucharistic miracles that have happened in your church and the Eastern Orthodox church, and probably other apostolic churches, wherein the perceptual attributes of bread and wine were lifted as if a curtain, and people saw the actual body and blood of our Lord. One Muslim converted to the Eastern Orthodox church after seeing such a miracle, and then received a crown of martyrdom owing to the cruelty of his former coreligionists, who treat apostates worse than Scientology.*
Now, this takes us to this thread. Christians who move between communions, denominations and individual churches are not apostates nor are engaging in apostasy. The treatment of cancer-stricken Hank Haanegraaf by John Macarthur by mostly non-denominational evangelical and reformed commentators, when the former member and his family converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, was shameful. I myself have closely studied the Orthodox and Assyrian church and have not ruled out someday joining. Certainly I agree with their sacramental theology, but interestingly, so did the pastors at the King’s Weigh House in London, which along with Park Street Church in Boston, is one of two Congregational churches I have the highest respect for. One pastor at the King’s Weigh House retired and joined the Roman Catholic Church. That church was extremely high church, in the late 19th century probably more high church than many Anglican churches, due to the abuse of certain laws to persecute Anglo Catholics for using incense or wearing a chasuble. Unfortunately, the decline in the residential population of the “square mile” of the City of London, which became predominantly a business district, forced that church to merge with another Comgregational parish located in a residential district in, I believe, the City of Westminster (one of the two buroughs in Greater London to have the honor of city status), but that church failed, and the Congregational church in England merged with the Presbyterians to form the United Reformed Church, which is a bit sad in my opinion.
Being that Congregationalism is a reformed doctrine, many, perhaps most, members of my congregation believe in the spiritual presence of our Lord in the Eucharist, according to the doctrine of John Calvin. This does not bother me, as it is a traditional aspect of the Congregationalist tradition’s Calvinist roots; what I don’t want is people adhering to Zwinglian or Memorialist interpretations, for reasons Martin Luther made clear when he carved “Hoc est corpus meum” into a table while meeting with Zwingli, among others, in an attempt at unity.
But I think if a Protestant on studying church history decides to join the Church of the East, or the Coptic Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, or Ethiopian Orthodox, or other Oriental Orthodox churches, or the Greek, Russian, Serbian, Romanian, Antiochian and other Eastern Orthodox churches, or the Roman Catholic church, or one of its sui juris Eastern Catholic churcjes, like the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, the Italo-Albanian Greek Catholic Church, the Maronite Catholic Church, or the Syro-Malabar Catholic church, or one of several others, or the Anglican Ordinariate, this is completely fine. Tje reverse is also true. If I were Orthodox and moved to a town with really bad, pop music type liturgical abuse at the local Catholic church, but a high church liturgy at a Continuing Anglican or LCMS/LCC parish, I would go there, despite the Catholic church offering Eucharistic hospitality. And if I were a traditional Catholic used to attending the Tridentine Mass, and was unable to find a local Tridentine mass or a dignfied Novus Ordo, I would join a high church LCMS or continuing Anglican church, or an Orthodox or Assyrian church if one was available. And if I were a member of a Continuing Anglican church and moved to a town with only an Episcopalian church as far as Anglicanism is concerned, and that church was particularly liberal, I would join a Catholic, Orthodox or Assyrian church if one was available.
Fun fact, by the way, probably unknown to many participants in this thread: most converts to the Eastern Orthodox church historically came from the Episcopal Church and other churches in the Anglican communion. Now they seem to be coming from the non-denominational evangelical or reformed megachurches, which is good, as I have serious theological and liturgical issues with megachurches in particular, and most churches which identify as non-denominational (with some exceptions).
*As bad as Scientology and other cults are, particularly the psychological abuse they inflict on people who leave, and cruel, family-dividing practices like disconnection, they are not known for killing people who leave, except for the mass murder-suicide of over 900 people, prompted by Jim Jones drug-intoxicated, insane reaction to several residents of Jonestown seeking assistance in leaving the Jim Jones cult from a member of the House of Representatives who had travelled there to gain info on the camp for worried relatives. I do think other cults would kill apostates if they had the legal and judicial power of Islam, and thus the ability to murder apostates with impunity. There is also some evidence that in the early 18th century, some Freemasons may have literally implemented one of the blood-oaths of Masonic initiation on a member who disclosed Masonic secrets; he was found in a river with his throat cut.