Some object to Transubstantiation; but what do the objectors think it means?

[Xeno.of.athens]

Some object to Transubstantiation; but what do the objectors think it means?

Here's a chance to expound on the theme, explain its alleged errors, offer your own definition of the word, and establish the credibility of your stance. Have at it.

 

[FireDragon76]

I object to it because the doctrine states that the bread and wine cease to exist, and are instead replaced only with an appearance of bread and wine. This abolishes the nature of a sacrament, because the nature of a sacrament involves real physical creatures participating as signs with what they represent.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

This abolishes the nature of a sacrament, because the nature of a sacrament involves real physical creatures participating as signs with what they represent.

I am not sure what this means; please explain it.

 

[FireDragon76]

I am not sure what this means; please explain it.

If the bread and wine only appears as such, but have no real existence of their own, then it isn't a sacrament, but an illusion. It also potentially says alot about Christology, implying that Christ's humanity was an illusion also.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

If the bread and wine only appears as such, but have no real existence of their own, then it isn't a sacrament, but an illusion. It also potentially says alot about Christology, implying that Christ's humanity was an illusion also.

Are you asserting that the bread and wine must remain bread and wine and not become the body and blood of the Lord in order for the Eucharist to be a sacrament?

 

[FireDragon76]

Are you asserting that the bread and wine must remain bread and wine and not become the body and blood of the Lord in order for the Eucharist to be a sacrament?

You are asking for a definitive answer to something that I believe is not answerable in the given terms.

All I know is when the pastor hands me the Host, and she says "The body of Christ: the Bread of Heaven", I say "Amen".

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You are asking for a definitive answer to something that I believe is not answerable in the given terms.

All I know is when the pastor hands me the Host, and she says "The body of Christ: the Bread of Heaven", I say "Amen".

A shared experience, I hear "The body of Christ" and reply "amen", and then I hear "the blood of Christ" and say amen again.

 

[FireDragon76]

A shared experience, I hear "The body of Christ" and reply "amen", and then I hear "the blood of Christ" and say amen again.

The problem I have with the traditional Roman Catholic explanation on the sacrament is that it puts too much emphasis on what the priest does on the altar to the bread and wine, and not enough emphasis on the totality of the experience. The point isn't so much the change in the bread and wine, but to change people, and by extension to change our relationship to each other and the wider world.

 

[disciple Clint]

Some object to Transubstantiation; but what do the objectors think it means?

Here's a chance to expound on the theme, explain its alleged errors, offer your own definition of the word, and establish the credibility of your stance. Have at it.

I believe that when Jesus spoke those words they were symbolic, He was still right there in front of all the others, they could clearly see that. He was initiating a custom of remembrance very much like the symbolic pass over remembrance that they were all accustomed to celebrating.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The problem I have with the traditional Roman Catholic explanation on the sacrament is that it puts too much emphasis on what the priest does on the altar to the bread and wine, and not enough emphasis on the totality of the experience. The point isn't so much the change in the bread and wine, but to change people, and by extension to change our relationship to each other and the wider world.

It isn't the priest doing it though; the change is effected by the Holy Spirit, and the priest acts in the person of Christ - meaning he is Christ as far as the Eucharist is concerned and his words are repetition of Christ's words at the last supper.

 

[Valletta]

The problem I have with the traditional Roman Catholic explanation on the sacrament is that it puts too much emphasis on what the priest does on the altar to the bread and wine, and not enough emphasis on the totality of the experience. The point isn't so much the change in the bread and wine, but to change people, and by extension to change our relationship to each other and the wider world.

ARTICLE 3
THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
1322 The holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation. Those who have been raised to the dignity of the royal priesthood by Baptism and configured more deeply to Christ by Confirmation participate with the whole community in the Lord's own sacrifice by means of the Eucharist.
1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.'"135
I. THE EUCHARIST - SOURCE AND SUMMIT OF ECCLESIAL LIFE
1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life."136 "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch."137
1325 "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God's action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit."138
1326 Finally, by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all.139
1327 In brief, the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith: "Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking."140

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 2 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 3

www.scborromeo.org

That's just the first section of the Catechism
m on the Eucharist, I disagree, I don't think too much emphasis is put on the priest.

 

[ozso]

Some object to Transubstantiation; but what do the objectors think it means?

Here's a chance to expound on the theme, explain its alleged errors, offer your own definition of the word, and establish the credibility of your stance. Have at it.

They think the bread and wine symbolize Christ's flesh and blood.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

They think the bread and wine symbolize Christ's flesh and blood.

Symbolise but are not his body and his blood, right?
Yet Jesus did say "This is my body" and "this is the cup of the new testament in my blood"
He says "is" rather than "symbolises".

 

[FireDragon76]

ARTICLE 3
THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
1322 The holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation. Those who have been raised to the dignity of the royal priesthood by Baptism and configured more deeply to Christ by Confirmation participate with the whole community in the Lord's own sacrifice by means of the Eucharist.
1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.'"135
I. THE EUCHARIST - SOURCE AND SUMMIT OF ECCLESIAL LIFE
1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life."136 "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch."137
1325 "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God's action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit."138
1326 Finally, by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all.139
1327 In brief, the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith: "Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking."140

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 2 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 3

www.scborromeo.org

That's just the first section of the Catechism
m on the Eucharist, I disagree, I don't think too much emphasis is put on the priest.

That doesn't mention transubstantiation

But besides that, I have little objection. I agree it is an efficacious sign.

 

[FireDragon76]

I believe that when Jesus spoke those words they were symbolic, He was still right there in front of all the others, they could clearly see that. He was initiating a custom of remembrance very much like the symbolic pass over remembrance that they were all accustomed to celebrating.

The rite is different from the Passover, only similar in that it involves food. It bears more resemblance to Jesus' practice of table fellowship, or the symposium of the Greeks.

In the ancient world, eating with someone could have a spiritual significance. That is why so much ink is spilled in the New Testament about Jesus eating with "sinners", and later Paul has to deal alot with who eats with who, and how.

 

[ozso]

Symbolise but are not his body and his blood, right?
Yet Jesus did say "This is my body" and "this is the cup of the new testament in my blood"
He says "is" rather than "symbolises".

That was Martin Luther's argument too.

 

[FireDragon76]

I believe that when Jesus spoke those words they were symbolic, He was still right there in front of all the others, they could clearly see that. He was initiating a custom of remembrance very much like the symbolic pass over remembrance that they were all accustomed to celebrating.

It is more than a symbol, it is an effective sign of God's grace, meaning that it communicates what it represents. This is thoroughly biblical. The memorialist position is not.

"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a communion in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a communion in the body of Christ?" - 1 Corinthians 10:16

A symbol only communicates something by bringing something to mind through human effort within ones imagination or subjectivity. But that would turn the sacrament into a human work, not a means of grace.

 

[BobRyan]

Some object to Transubstantiation; but what do the objectors think it means?

Here's a chance to expound on the theme, explain its alleged errors, offer your own definition of the word, and establish the credibility of your stance. Have at it.

We think it is dark-ages level nonsense about bread turning into human flesh but WITHOUT any change to its appearance and even at the mircoscopic level still remaining as just bread. Some sort of superstition about "carbon atoms" that change from being carbon atoms that form molecules as the foundation of bread - to being carbon atoms of a human body forming those same exact molecules as the foundation of that same bread.

And I see in some publications that a priest defrocked for outright heresy "retains the power" to confect the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ in the Eucharist - as if this is all about confecting and having the power to do something.

What is interesting to me is that the strongest statements that Jesus makes about this topic are in John 6 - where clearly He explains His symbolism which Peter appears to understand - and neither faithul nor faithless followers of Christ - bite Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

It isn't the priest doing it though; the change is effected by the Holy Spirit, and the priest acts in the person of Christ - meaning he is Christ

If he were Christ then it is the priest who would be eaten just then - logically speaking.
If the priest were not the one having the 'power' to confect that body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ then it could not be said of him that he 'retains that power' even if he is excommunicated/defrocked for heresy.

as far as the Eucharist is concerned and his words are repetition of Christ's words at the last supper.

We all quote those words from 1 Cor 11 - but that does not mean that we think the carbon atoms in the bread change to be carbon atoms from some other source - while remaining bread.

 

[FireDragon76]

St. Francis seems to have had something more like a Lutheran doctrine of the sacrament:

O wonderful loftiness and stupendous dignity! O sublime humility! O humble sublimity! The Lord of the universe, God and Son of God, so humbles Himself that for our salvation He hides Himself under an ordinary piece of bread! Brothers, look at the humility of God and pour out your hearts before Him!”

Note the words "ordinary bread".

Modern Roman Catholics have sometimes mangled his words when quoting this letter, but for Francis, who was a mystic who spoke of nature as "brother" and "sister", matter was diaphanous to the divine, and did not require transmutation into something else to communicate God's grace.