Is the "Real Presence" [catholic Holy Communion" Really REAL?

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,381
5,253
✟817,020.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Got it now, Roman Catholics and Orthodox believe the bread and wine are actually gone, and replaced with flesh and blood of Jesus?

The others believe the bread and wine stay, but contains the actual presence of flesh and blood of Jesus?
No, we know it is there; we don't know how. As Luther said, "it is what it is".
 
Upvote 0

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,381
5,253
✟817,020.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
My study finds that Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Methodist, Lutherns, all believe the "Actual Body And Blood" are present in the sacrament.

The various denominations have changed the name of their sacrament process, however its appears to be the same concept and belief.

"Transubstantiation" "Real Presence"?

Same thing, different names.

Wikipedia: Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist


Catholics give adoration to Christ, whom they believe to be really present, in body and blood, soul and divinity, in sacramental bread whose reality has been changed into that of his body.
The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a term used in Christian theology to express the doctrine that Jesus is really or substantially present in the Eucharist, not merely symbolically or metaphorically.

There are a number of different views in the understanding of the meaning of the term "reality" in this context among contemporary Christian confessions which accept it, including the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Church of the East, Lutheranism, Anglicanism and Methodism.[1][2] These differences correspond to literal or figurative interpretations of Christ's Words of Institution, as well as questions related to the concept of realism in the context of the Platonic substance and accident. Efforts at mutual understanding of the range of beliefs by these Churches led in the 1980s to consultations on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry through the World Council of Churches.

By contrast, the doctrine is rejected by Anabaptists.
In Lutheranism, adoration like in the photo above is most rare out side of the context of the Mass; but at least in Churches where this is practiced, Lutherans know that the real presence is accepted and held.

This is emotional for us because we all see clearly that denying this doctrine is viewed as s heretical and grievous error.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Got it now, Roman Catholics and Orthodox believe the bread and wine are actually gone, and replaced with flesh and blood of Jesus?

The others believe the bread and wine stay, but contains the actual presence of flesh and blood of Jesus?
There's actually a gradation of belief. Lutherans believe what you described; Anglicans believe there is the presence of Christ but only in a spiritual manner, Reformed and Presbyterians believe that we are mystically transported to heaven to be his presence, and then we have the Anabaptists. That's roughly it.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Truth7t7
Upvote 0

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,381
5,253
✟817,020.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
There's actually a gradation of belief. Lutherans believe what you described; Anglicans believe there is the presence of Christ but only in a spiritual manner, Reformed and Presbyterians believe that we are mystically transported to heaven to be his presence, and then we have the Anabaptists. That's roughly it.

Some Anglicans do hold Transubstantiation; hence adoration chapels in their Churches; others the Methodist view of spiritual presence; most somewhere in between (At least in Canada).
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Some Anglicans do hold Transubstantiation; hence adoration chapels in their Churches; others the Methodist view of spiritual presence; most somewhere in between (At least in Canada).
A very few Anglicans of the Anglo-Catholic persuasion do, although Transubstantiation has long been considered one of the several Roman Catholic beliefs that even they draw the line against.

When it comes to explaining "what Anglicans believe,"about all that can be done is to convey the official and normative Anglican position which rejects Transubstantiation--just as we would say, if asked, that Catholics DO accept Transubstantiation even though a majority of the Catholics in the USA, according to a published study, don't believe it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,434
11,980
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,694.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
1.
Athenagoras (133-190) says it is unlawful to partake of the flesh of men.

"But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable."
(Athenagoras, On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8)

2.
Augustine (354-430) says the elements are a resemblance of the actual body and blood. "Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? "

Augustine said regarding John 6:63 says Christ said not to eat the body or blood which you see, referring to Christ saying to the disciples. "But He instructed them, and saith unto them, 'It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.'

Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth." (Augustine, Expositions on the Psalms, 99:8).

Augustine says Christ's words in John 6 about his body and blood are figurative.
This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."--(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24).

3.
Clement of Alexandria (150-215) says the comunion wine is called wine.
"In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, 'Take, drink: this is my blood'--the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word 'shed for many, for the remission of sins'--the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, 'I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.'" (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2:2).

Clement of Alexandria also said the bread and wine were symbols, metaphor. "Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: 'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle."--(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1:6).

4.Eusebius (263-339) Eusebius says the Communion is 'only the bread and wine,' "And the fulfilment of the oracle is truly wondrous, to one who recognizes how our Saviour Jesus the Christ of God even now performs through His ministers even today sacrifices after the manner of Melchizedek's. For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood." (Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3)

Eusebius says the bread and wine are symbol's of Christ's Body.
"The words, 'His eyes are cheerful from wine, and his teeth white as milk,' again I think secretly reveal the mysteries of the new Covenant of our Saviour. 'His eyes are cheerful from wine,' seems to me to shew the gladness of the mystic wine which He gave to His disciples, when He said, 'Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.' And, 'His teeth are white as milk,' shew the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, 'And his teeth are white as milk.' This also another prophet has recorded, where he says, 'Sacrifice and offering hast thou not required, but a body hast thou prepared for me.'" (Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1)5

Origen (185-254) says the Bread is bread. He says nothing of a spiritual change. "Now, if 'everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,' even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that 'every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.'" (Origen, On Matthew, 11:14)

6. Tertullian (155-220)
says the communion bread represents Christ's body. "Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children; nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the 'beggarly elements' of the Creator." (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 1:14)

Tertullian refers to the communion supper as spiritual words.
"He says, it is true, that 'the flesh profiteth nothing;' but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, 'It is the spirit that quickeneth;' and then added, 'The flesh profiteth nothing,'--meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: 'The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.' In a like sense He had previously said: 'He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.' Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before the passage in hand, He had declared His flesh to be 'the bread which cometh down from heaven,' impressing on His hearers constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling."--(Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 37)

7.
Theodoret (393-457) says the elements remain as bread and wine.
"For even after the consecration the mystic symbols [of the eucharist] are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before." (Theodoret, Dialogues, 2)

8.
Theophilus of Antioch (d. 185?) of Antioch denies that Christians eat human flesh. "Nor indeed was there any necessity for my refuting these, except that I see you still in dubiety about the word of the truth. For though yourself prudent, you endure fools gladly. Otherwise you would not have been moved by senseless men to yield yourself to empty words, and to give credit to the prevalent rumor wherewith godless lips falsely accuse us, who are worshippers of God, and are called Christians, alleging that the wives of us all are held in common and made promiscuous use of; and that we even commit incest with our own sisters, and, what is most impious and barbarous of all, that we eat human flesh." (Theophilus to Autolycus, 3:4)
Never mind, I see this originates with Matt Slick at CARM. If I have the time I will look up the quotes and put them in context, which I am quite confident you haven't done.
You still haven't addressed the fact that Polycarp and Ignatius who were discipled by the Apostle John, and Irenaeus who was discipled by Polycarp, held to the real presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the Eucharist.
 
Upvote 0

Truth7t7

Newbie
Dec 20, 2012
5,033
1,290
✟81,343.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Never mind, I see this originates with Matt Slick at CARM. If I have the time I will look up the quotes and put them in context, which I am quite confident you haven't done.
You still haven't addressed the fact that Polycarp and Ignatius who were discipled by the Apostle John, and Irenaeus who was discipled by Polycarp, held to the real presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the Eucharist.
You continue to claim these ECF'S taught that actual flesh and blood were in the sacrament, false!

Post your citations?

Stop the false claims.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Never mind, I see this originates with Matt Slick at CARM. If I have the time I will look up the quotes and put them in context, which I am quite confident you haven't done.
You still haven't addressed the fact that Polycarp and Ignatius who were discipled by the Apostle John, and Irenaeus who was discipled by Polycarp, held to the real presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the Eucharist.

Thats right. That is exactly what all of you do. Make a statement, no context, no validation but when that same thing is done to you.........

The only reason you say " Matt Slick at CARM" is because he has stated the truth and facts and you only have one recourse, deny....deny...deny!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Truth7t7
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Never mind, I see this originates with Matt Slick at CARM. If I have the time I will look up the quotes and put them in context, which I am quite confident you haven't done.
You still haven't addressed the fact that Polycarp and Ignatius who were discipled by the Apostle John, and Irenaeus who was discipled by Polycarp, held to the real presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the Eucharist.

CONTEXT????????

The fact that they said it is not enought?

What does the sourse of CARM have to do with it.
Are you suggesting that he somehow changed the quotes stated???

Ridicouse responce my friend!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Truth7t7
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I said it in my previous post, so I commend that to you. In short, everyone but Catholics insists that it remains bread and wine. However...

Hundreds of millions of other Christians believe that the bread and wine are not simply bread and wine symbolizing something or other but that the "elements" have been endowed, in some way or other, with the Real Presence of Christ.

I merely wanted to interject that the "either-or" kind of discussion that implies that there is only Transubstantiation or, at the other extreme, Representationalism, is quite wrong.

I would only say that one extreme, Transubstanciation is actually un-biblical where as the other is what the Bible actuall does say, Representationalism.

The Bible doesn’t say that the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ, but rather that they are symbols of His sacrifice. Just as the Old Testament Passover sacrifice eaten with unleavened bread was a symbol that looked forward to Christ’s sacrifice, the unleavened bread and wine of the New Testament observance look back to Christ’s sacrifice in memorial. It’s important to understand that the New Testament symbols are not themselves a sacrifice, as the Catholic celebration of the mass and Eucharist imagine. Rather, the bread and wine commemorate Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice.
Is Transubstantiation Biblical?
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,434
11,980
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,694.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Thats right. That is exactly what all of you do. Make a statement, no context, no validation but when that same thing is done to you.........
You've been given citations to which you have not responded.
The only reason you say " Matt Slick at CARM" is because he has stated the truth and facts and you only have one recourse, deny....deny...deny!
Is he not the source of what you posted?
 
Upvote 0

Truth7t7

Newbie
Dec 20, 2012
5,033
1,290
✟81,343.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You've been given citations to which you have not responded.

Is he not the source of what you posted?
Post #426 you hung the article below on the wall, not one word claims the ECF taught actual blood and flesh, where are your citations?

Eastern Orthodoxy and the Eucharistic Transmutation
Posted on 12 October 2014by Fr Aidan Kimel
taynaya_vecherya_rublev_tsl_zpsab0980b5.jpg


That the Holy Orthodox Church boldly and steadfastly confesses the Holy Gifts of the Holy Orthodox to be the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, no one can doubt. But satisfactory interpretations of the eucharistic mystery are difficult to find. Somewhat surprisingly Eastern theologians have tended to avoid the topic, Alexander Schmemann being a happy exception. In his monograph “The Eucharistic Dogma,” Sergius Bulgakov briefly reviews the history of Western reflection on the sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He then comments: “Orthodoxy has not yet said its word here” (p. 82). I think it is fair to say that in this monograph Eastern Orthodoxy has spoken a powerful, compelling, and creative word. Even though Bulgakov appears, at various points, to misunderstand both the Roman Catholic and Lutheran positions, “The Eucharistic Dogma” remains one of the most stimulating discussions of the eucharistic transformation that I have come across.

The central problem of Western reflection, asserts Bulgakov, is a materialistic understanding of Christ’s risen body. Since the Middle Ages Western theologians have understood Jesus in his glorified corporeality as occupying space somewhere in heaven. As a result, Western reflection has been trapped in a cosmic immanentism. The ascended body of the Christ is properly understood as supraspatial, supraphysical, supramundane, supracosmic. The employment of the categories of substance and accident to elucidate this spiritual body can only distort our understanding of that which has been so radically transformed through resurrection. The ascension is an elevation to a new quality of existence. In his deified body the Lord enjoys “total mastery over corporeality” (p. 98). The incarnate Son is not locatable in any place, for he in fact transcends all places, is above all places; but in his resurrected state he has the supernatural capacity to make himself present at any time and site of his choosing. He has departed from the material world, but his departure is not an abandonment of the world but rather the means by which he can now enter into new forms of relationship with the world.

Bulgakov creatively speculates on the nature of Christ’s ascended body (some might say too speculatively). For our purposes it is sufficient to concentrate on his assertion that the glorified Christ is not an object within the universe. Christ no longer exists on the same ontological plane as the objects of bread and wine that are offered in the Holy Eucharist. Here is the Bulgakovian solution to the Western problematic: because the Son in his sacred humanity now transcends the world, he can identify himself with an object in the world, without compromising the constitution of either. The replacement of creaturely substance, as posited in the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, is unnecessary. In his transcendent existence Christ Jesus can now objectify himself in creaturely reality and at the very same time maintain both the integrity of his supramundane body and the integrity of the finite objects in which he has materialized himself.

In the eucharistic transmutation the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ. This is not, of course, a physical or chemical transformation; for there in fact is no thing or matter in this world for them to become. The transfigured humanity of Christ abides outside of this world. The transmutation does not resolve, abolish, or contradict this difference. If any such physical change were to happen, the transmutation would be annulled and the power of the sacrament undone. But the entire being of the bread and wine, substance and accidents together, is nonetheless converted into Body and Blood. The transmuted elements stop being themselves, Bulgakov says. They now belong to another world, for they have been assimilated to the body of Jesus—yet they do not lose their “thingness” in the world. All of their physical properties remain unchanged:

The whole problem of the theory of transsubstantiatio, which is wholly foreign to the undivided Church, flows not from the difficulty of accepting the transmutation of matter of the world into supratemporal being but from the difficulty of explaining the transformation of one material into another material within the limits of cosmic being. But no transformation at all occurs, and there is no place for a transformation, for only different things of one and the same natural world, not things that belong to different realms of being, can be transformed. Things that belong to different realms of being can only be transmuted the one into the other, while preserving their own mode of being in their own realm. The body of Christ, being manifested in the bread and wine, does not cease being a spiritual body, abiding above this world. And in becoming Christ’s body and blood, which now belong to His supramundane, glorified corporeality, the bread and wine do not lose their being in this world. (pp. 109-110)

Note the distinction Bulgakov here makes between “transformation” and “transmutation”: transformation speaks of natural change that occurs within the created realm; transmutation speaks of metaphysical change that occurs when the divine Son in his glorified body identifies himself with objects of the world.

Thus, the transmutation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ signifies not the tabernacling of the heavenly Christ substantialiter into these accidents, which are then viewed as a kind of unchanging shell, but their direct conversion without any limitation and remainder into the body and blood of Christ—a true transmutation. The fact that the body and blood in their earthly nature remain what they were has no significance here. As such, they have become other than themselves; they no longer have independent existence as things of this world but belong to the body of Jesus, in the same way that the bread and fish that He ate in the presence of his disciples belonged to his body. The Lord, who in His spiritual and glorified body abides at the right hand of God the Father, creates, in the transmutation, a body for Himself from the bread, matter of this world, and animates it with His blood. (p. 115)

Readers of the Fathers will immediately detect the influence of St Gregory Nyssen’s teaching of eucharistic transelementation (see chap. 37 of The Great Catechism).

When the risen and glorified Son unites himself to the eucharistic oblations, a mysterious change occurs. The bread and wine continue to be bread and wine (no chemical change is involved); yet in their true reality they are Body and Blood, no longer belonging to this world:

As a result of this transmutation, the bread and wine with all their properties stop being matter of this world, stop belonging to the world, but become the true body and blood of Christ. This transmutation is accomplished through their unification with the Lord’s spiritual and glorified body that ascended from the world but now appears in them on earth. In the capacity of earthly matter, the eucharistic elements remain bread and wine for the world, whereas, in being transmuted, they already belong to the body of Christ, which is found outside and above the world. And the elements are thereby raised to the metacosmic being of this body and manifest in themselves the corporeality of Christ on earth. (p. 124)

The transmutation, therefore, can only be understood as a radical metaphysical change, a true transcensus. In the transmutation the glorified Christ identifies himself with the material objects of bread and wine. Two separate worlds, two separate domains of being are united. Bulgakov describes it as an antinomic miracle—“an identity of things that are different and a differentiation of things that are identical.” Thus we must say both that the consecrated bread and wine truly are the Body and Blood of Christ and that the Body and Blood of Christ are the eucharistized bread and wine.

Bulgakov turns to St Gregory of Nyssa and St John of Damascus for help in understanding the eucharistic transmutation. Both Fathers note that throughout his earthly life the God-man was nourished by eating various kinds of food and drink, which were then assimilated into his body and became his body. Bulgakov describes this as a “natural transubstantiation.” Through the process of eating and physical assimilation, Jesus enters into communion with the world and the world with Jesus. Food and drink become the Lord’s body and blood. Here we see revealed the profound depth of the Incarnation: the eternal Son incorporates himself into the organic universe and becomes part of its cyclical metabolism.

At the Last Supper Jesus short-circuits this process in a miraculous instant. The bread and wine that would have become his body and blood through eating and digestion becomes his Body and Blood outside of his body, independently of the act of consumption. The conclusion of the natural process of assimilation is, as it were, supernaturally projected back to the moment when Jesus speaks the consecrating words. Bread that was destined to become his body becomes his body; wine that was destined to become his blood becomes his blood. The miracle occurs not by a physical change of the elements, not by their physical absorption into Jesus’ body through natural processes, but through a miracle of transmutation. It’s as if Jesus extended his corporeality beyond the determinate body that sat before the disciples. Thus Christ was able to give himself to them as food and drink, thereby uniting them to himself in intimate communion and completing the process of corporal assimilation. And so the disciples ate the Lord’s body and drank his blood and were united to him in his deified body.

Through the descent of the Holy Spirit, this transmutation occurs at every Holy Eucharist, but with one difference: Christ Jesus has been crucified, buried, and raised by God into a new mode of physical existence. His body has been transfigured and eternalized in the triune life of the Godhead. In his glorified body Christ now exists outside of the world, yet he has abandoned neither the world nor his body. He demonstrates his commitment and connection to the world by breaking bread and eating fish with his disciples after his resurrection (Luke 24:30; 24:41-43). He eats the bread and fish not to nourish himself but to demonstrate his corporeal identity with the Crucified. Through the Eucharist the transcendent Lord establishes a new union with the things of this world. Just as he desired at the Last Supper to give himself as food and drink to his disciples, so he accomplishes this same purpose in the Eucharist of the Church, until the recreation of the cosmos and his return in glory.

8q8-fpl-c07-k_zps3871c333.jpg


Christ makes himself present in the Eucharist for communion. He desires to unite the baptized to his spiritual, glorified body, and he effects this end by making “material His body and blood for us in the sacrament.” It is thus necessary for the consecrated elements to retain their natural properties as food and drink because Christ desires to give himself to his people as food and drink:

In this world and for the life of this world, the bread and wine remain bread and wine. Their transmutation is not a physical but a metaphysical transmutation; it transcends this world. This transmutation does not exist for this world, which is why the eucharistic elements retain all the properties of natural matter even after the transmutation. But these elements become Christ’s body and blood immediately, as such, without any transformation. The transmutation here is not a physical transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood through a physico-chemical process. The Catholic transubstantatio wishes to explain why this does not take place, excusing the absence of a miracle of natural transformation. But such an understanding of the transmutation diminishes the sacrament and distorts its meaning. The meaning of the sacrament consists not in the fact that believers eat a particle of the body and blood in its natural form, but in the fact that they take communion of the one, indivisible body and blood of the Lord, being united with Him bodily and therefore spiritually. We could not take communion of the spiritual, glorified body and blood of the Lord if He did not make material His body and blood for us in the sacrament. By eating food in the presence of His disciples, the Lord manifested matter of this world as united with His glorified body, whereas, in the sacrament, He offers Himself to be eaten, uniting Himself with matter of this world. (pp. 110-111)

Is there a genuine conflict between Bulgakov’s presentation of the eucharistic presence and the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation? No doubt it depends on which theologian is exegeting the dogma. A definite conflict exists, for example, if Fr Michael Scanlon’s interpretation represents the Catholic position. Scanlon clearly asserts that transubstantiation involves a change in the physical order. Why then do we still see “bread” and “wine” before us after the consecration? Because the appearances of the “bread and wine exist only in the mind (intellect and senses) of the communicant, and, therefore, the reality outside his mind, which he handles and eats, is not physical bread and wine!” Fr Herbert McCabe, on the other hand, rejects interpretations similar to those of Scanlon. He deems them as caricatures of the kind of change intended by the doctrine of transubstantiation. Consider this passage:

What happens, then, when we consecrate is that the body and blood of Christ become present as our food and drink to constitute our sharing in the coming banquet of the Kingdom. This happens not by any change in Christ himself but by a miracle, comparable to creation, in which the whole existence of our bread and wine becomes the existence of Christ. The bread which was present naturally is converted not by any substantial change but by the creative power of God, into the body of Christ which is present not naturally but sacramentally.

I have to believe that Bulgakov and McCabe would have a constructive and interesting conversation on this topic—no doubt they already are.

(This is an edited version of an article that was originally published on my old blog Pontifications on 19 June 2004)


Advertisements
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,381
5,253
✟817,020.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
It is truly unfortunate that they call themselves "Equipping the Saints"; no expression of Christian love towards others (only themselves) only hatred, misinformation and prejudice towards other members of God's Church. CARM.org should not be held up as a Christian organization any more than the Orange Lodge; simply put, I consider them both a cults of hatred.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It is truly unfortunate that they call themselves "Equipping the Saints"; no expression of Christian love towards others (only themselves) only hatred, misinformation and prejudice towards other members of God's Church. CARM.org should not be held up as a Christian organization any more than the Orange Lodge; simply put, I consider them both a cults of hatred.

Then what would you call the Catholic church which has more un-biblical doctrines than a dog has ticks.?

Wax Candles introduced in church 320
Veneration of angels and dead saints 375
The Mass, as a daily celebration, adopted 394
The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term, "Mother of God", as applied to her, originated in the Council of Ephesus 431
Priests began to dress differently from the laity 500
Extreme Unction 526
The doctrine of Purgatory was first established by Gregory the Great
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Truth7t7
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You've been given citations to which you have not responded.

Is he not the source of what you posted?

Yes he was. But in your wildest dreams, do YOU think that he is the only one to say those things??????

I could have picked any number of sources my friend.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I would only say that once extreme, Transubstanciation is actually un-biblical where as the other is what the Bible actuall does say, Representationalism.
I would add, however, that everyone recognizes that memorialist, symbolic nature of the sacrament and the elements themselves. So to say that Representationalism is what the Bible indicates isn't telling us much. The question is whether it is anything more than that as well.

The Bible doesn’t say that the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ, but rather that they are symbols of His sacrifice.
That's what Jesus said, however. If he had said "This is a symbol of my body..." I would of course agree with you. But as we both know, he did not.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Truth7t7

Newbie
Dec 20, 2012
5,033
1,290
✟81,343.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I would add, however, that everyone recognizes that memorialist, symbolic nature of the sacrament and the elements themselves. So to say that Representationalism is what the Bible indicates isn't telling us much. The question is whether it is anything more than that as well.


That's what Jesus said, however. If he had said "This is a symbol of my body..." I would of course agree with you. But as we both know, he did not.
The bible clearly teaches a symbolic representation, as did the early church fathers.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0