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

[Jipsah]

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.

So you're of the opinion He just didn't explain Himself very well,and thus confused almost everyone.

 

[Erose]

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.

So Jesus in His humanity is not a real physical creature? But that being said, what makes it a Sacrament is you do have the outward signs of the bread and wine (matter), and the words of consecration (form). Because the bread and wine, is being changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, does not take away from this fact that there is still an outward sign. We still see bread and wine, do we not? Is that not an outward sign?

 

[Erose]

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.

This argument doesn't make sense, IMO. After all, that is something (SomeOne) existing in the Sacrament, so no there is no illusion. Illusion implies that there not something there. But there is something (SomeOne) there. So no illusion, and still a Sacrament.

This argument would be like looking at a statue of someone, and saying it is an illusion. It has the properties of a man, in the matter of shape, but is not a man, so it is an illusion. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Erose]

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.

What you said, is a secondary part of the Eucharist. The primary purpose of the Eucharist is not the relationship with the world, but with Jesus Christ. It is communion with Christ and through Christ the rest of His body, the Church. It is a Sacrament because Christ gives to us, and it is a Sacrifice because He is our offering to God.

 

[FireDragon76]

This argument doesn't make sense, IMO. After all, that is something (SomeOne) existing in the Sacrament, so no there is no illusion. Illusion implies that there not something there. But there is something (SomeOne) there. So no illusion, and still a Sacrament.

This argument would be like looking at a statue of someone, and saying it is an illusion. It has the properties of a man, in the matter of shape, but is not a man, so it is an illusion. It doesn't make sense.

The bread and wine become only illusions under Transubstantiation. They have no essential reality. I would argue that is unnecessary speculation, and does violence to the concept of a sacrament.

Also, this doctrine does not seem to dignify matter, as Catholics often claim about their spirituality (somewhat rightly, I would add), quite the opposite- it is seemingly incongruent with a truly incarnational spirituality. It is not in keeping with the religious vision of somebody like St. Francis. So I would say it's a medieval speculation, and nothing more. I don't see why my conscience should be bound by it.

 

[FireDragon76]

What you said, is a secondary part of the Eucharist. The primary purpose of the Eucharist is not the relationship with the world, but with Jesus Christ. It is communion with Christ and through Christ the rest of His body, the Church. It is a Sacrament because Christ gives to us, and it is a Sacrifice because He is our offering to God.

Nowhere does Jesus suggest that is the case in the Gospel, that a group of men should offer him up as a sacrifice for their sins, or the sins of others. Quite the contrary:

"No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it
down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.” - John 10:18

Again, the Roman Catholic tendency is to think this is all about what a priest does with Christ, or to Christ, all working ex opere operatio... instead of letting the sacrament itself draw people to Christ. The point isn't to sacrifice Christ all over again, but to "take and eat" and "take and drink". This is why before the Reformation, hardly anyone actually received communion in churches much of the time, except the priest. And that is an abuse of the sacrament.

 

[Erose]

The bread and wine become only illusions under Transubstantiation. They have no essential reality. I would argue that is unnecessary speculation, and does violence to the concept of a sacrament.

The only way that the incidents have no essential reality, IS IF there is no substance by which they exist. For the bread and wine from your argument to be an illusion, would require the rejection of the existence of the Substance of Christ's Body and Blood, which we do not obviously.

Also, this doctrine does not seem to dignify matter, as Catholics often claim about their spirituality (somewhat rightly, I would add), quite the opposite- it is seemingly incongruent with a truly incarnational spirituality. It is not in keeping with the religious vision of somebody like St. Francis. So I would say it's a medieval speculation, and nothing more. I don't see why my conscience should be bound by it.

In the quote you posted, St. Francis was using flowery language and was not making a theological statement here. So I'm don't think it is a good rabbit hole for you.

 

[FireDragon76]

So Jesus in His humanity is not a real physical creature? But that being said, what makes it a Sacrament is you do have the outward signs of the bread and wine (matter), and the words of consecration (form). Because the bread and wine, is being changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, does not take away from this fact that there is still an outward sign. We still see bread and wine, do we not? Is that not an outward sign?

I don't have a problem with transignification per se (though many Catholics do, apparrently). I object to the notion that the substance of the bread ceases to be bread. The breadiness of the Host is quite real, and not merely an appearance, as anybody with celiac disease would be able to tell you, it matters.

 

[Erose]

Nowhere does Jesus suggest that is the case in the Gospel, that a group of men should offer him up as a sacrifice for their sins, or the sins of others.

There is no doubt that the Eucharist is tied to the Cross, which is what the Church has taught from the get go. The Liturgy is a re-presentation of the Cross, and would not make sense outside of the Cross; and the Cross would not be seen as a Sacrifice without the Eucharist.

Again, the Roman Catholic tendency is to think this is all about what a priest does with Christ, or to Christ... instead of letting the sacrament itself draw people to Christ. The point isn't to sacrifice Christ all over again, but to "take and eat" and "take and drink". This is why before the Reformation, hardly anyone actually received communion in churches much of the time, except the priest. And that is an abuse of the sacrament.

There is a reason why we call priests, priests. But like Xeno said, it is not the power of the priest that is consecrating the Sacrament, but Persona Christi. And the false accusation of the Rebels that we are sacrificing Christ again, is just ridiculous, and just a talking point, that doesn't lead anywhere.

Like I said above: The Cross is not a Sacrifice with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist is not a Sacrifice without the Cross. They are tied together, and cannot be broken, which is what the rebels did, thus devaluing both the Cross and the Sacrament.

 

[Erose]

I don't have a problem with transignification per se (though many Catholics do, apparrently). I object to the notion that the substance of the bread ceases to be bread. The breadiness of the Host is quite real, and not merely an appearance, as anybody with celiac disease would be able to tell you, it matters.

Then you get meatloaf. Bread mixed with Flesh. IMO it is a much greater reach to say that two substances occupy the exact same space.

Some questions for you:

A) IYO, when does the bread and wine become possessed by the Body and Blood of Christ?
B) When does the Body and Blood of Christ cease to be and become just bread and wine again?

 

[FireDragon76]

There is no doubt that the Eucharist is tied to the Cross, which is what the Church has taught from the get go. The Liturgy is a re-presentation of the Cross, and would not make sense outside of the Cross; and the Cross would not be seen as a Sacrifice without the Eucharist.

The flesh and blood offered in the sacrament are not a dead body to placate God's wrath, offered up by a priest to God, but the resurrected flesh and blood of Jesus Christ given as a means of grace.

If the Eucharist were not instituted, Christ's sacrifice would still be a sacrifice, and a means of grace received by faith, through spiritual communion with Christ. I do not necessarily subscribe to a medieval vicarious model of atonement, where Christ dies to placate God's offended justice. I think that's a perspective that is about letting us off the hook too much, and is potentially misguided.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

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.

I understand your objections; in essence you see only bread and only wine so it cannot be the body and blood of Christ - except metaphorically. You accept the evidence of your eyes, nose, and tastebuds, while you reject the evidence of your ears and eyes when Jesus says "This is my body".

 

[FireDragon76]

Then you get meatloaf. Bread mixed with Flesh. IMO it is a much greater reach to say that two substances occupy the exact same space.

I reject impanation.

The substance of Christ doesn't occupy a particular space at all.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

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.

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.

BobRyan, in matters of faith scientific materialism does not make the grade.

 

[FireDragon76]

BobRyan, in matt6ers of faith scientific materialism does not make the grade.

Why, you'ld rather defend the outdated science of Aristotle?

I don't have a problem with Christ and bread existing together in the same sacrament, because ultimately I'm more of a dual-aspect monist or idealist, not a substance dualist.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Why, you'ld rather defend the outdated science of Aristotle?

no.
I prefer to avoid materialism.

 

[Erose]

I reject impanation.

The substance of Christ doesn't occupy a particular space at all.

Okay, so we are getting somewhere here. Do you believe that Christ still has His human body, albeit glorified? For it seems to be the case here, that you do not accept the reality of actual Flesh and Blood being the Eucharist.

 

[Erose]

Why, you'ld rather defend the outdated science of Aristotle?

I don't have a problem with Christ and bread existing together in the same sacrament, because ultimately I'm more of a dual-aspect monist or idealist, not a substance dualist.

Like as been pointed out Aristotelian metaphysics isn't needed to explain the Dogma. Transubstantiation, even the term, predates Aristotle's philosophy's arrival in Europe. So...

 

[FireDragon76]

Okay, so we are getting somewhere here. Do you believe that Christ still has His human body, albeit glorified? For it seems to be the case here, that you do not accept the reality of actual Flesh and Blood being the Eucharist.

Yes to the first question, though I don't believe it necessarily occupies a particular space.

I obviously don't accept a kind of Capernaitic eating (to borrow the term that Lutherans use, we do not eat pieces of Christ, that are consumed as ordinary food would be). But neither would I say that we don't receive Jesus' body and blood in the sacrament.

 

[Philip_B]

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.

236. It is in the Eucharist that all that has been created finds its greatest exaltation. Grace, which tends to manifest itself tangibly, found unsurpassable expression when God himself became man and gave himself as food for his creatures. The Lord, in the culmination of the mystery of the Incarnation, chose to reach our intimate depths through a fragment of matter. He comes not from above, but from within, he comes that we might find him in this world of ours. In the Eucharist, fullness is already achieved; it is the living centre of the universe, the overflowing core of love and of inexhaustible life. Joined to the incarnate Son, present in the Eucharist, the whole cosmos gives thanks to God. Indeed the Eucharist is itself an act of cosmic love: “Yes, cosmic! Because even when it is celebrated on the humble altar of a country church, the Eucharist is always in some way celebrated on the altar of the world”. The Eucharist joins heaven and earth; it embraces and penetrates all creation. The world which came forth from God’s hands returns to him in blessed and undivided adoration: in the bread of the Eucharist, “creation is projected towards divinization, towards the holy wedding feast, towards unification with the Creator himself”. Thus, the Eucharist is also a source of light and motivation for our concerns for the environment, directing us to be stewards of all creation.​

Laudato si - Francis, Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West​

I find what Francis wrote here especially helpful. I have generally struggled with the notion of Transubstantiation as I feel it simply does not go far enough and in some sense, it prioritises the physical over the spiritual. Eastern Christians have a much more nuanced view, which does not need a nailed-down doctrine like Transubstantiation, yet they also don't embrace a mere tokenistic view of the Holy Mystery. There is far more to life than the atomic construction - life is not simply birth copulation and death, it is also ecstasy and joy.

The ancient Celts used to speak of thin places, and borderlands. These were places in the material world where eternity would seep through, places noted for spiritual awareness, and places where time and eternity great one another. I see the Eucharist as a thin place, a table set in this world and the next, and that there is only one table, so even when we pretend in our institutional tribes that we are not in communion, ultimately we are because we all sit and the one table. I see the Holy Eucharist as eschatological.

When Jesus says 'Take; this is my body.' (Mark 14:22) my choices are to take him at his word and accept the mystery - to dismiss it absolutely - or to find some way to intellectualise the proposition and find ways to understand that wasn't what Jesus meant or that it is somehow qualified.